“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed

by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness…
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a
design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such Government” (Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776).

Daniel J. Neumann, on February 10, 2009, at Pennsylvania State for Higher Education
Shippensburg University:

Declaration of Grievances
While certainly not similar in worth, value, or content, the Declaration of
Independence, as well as the Bill of Rights in the American Constitution, provides the
basis for my personal grievances against the current administration and law as of the
date this letter was written. I begin with a two-part question: What, exactly, did the
forefathers mean when they secured our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness; at what point can the government deny you these rights?
Life, as I define it, amounts to the time any human enjoys before death. Being
incarcerated, therefore, degrades not only the quality but the very essence of life itself
because an (American) authoritarian penalizes criminals by forcing time to be spent in
one restricted manner. A prisoner, similarly, may not seek out what gives his or her joy.
Liberty, out of all three basic human rights, remains the most difficult to explain, yet
enjoys the throne, the focal point, the heart of my grievances. Simplified, the best
example of liberty lost is a man imprisoned by his government; the ability to make
decisions for oneself, conversely, demonstrates liberty gained. According to
Dictionary.com, however, liberty means “freedom from arbitrary or despotic
government” and “freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction,
hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according
to choice.” Thus, liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness complement each other in the
way that liberty protects our life and pursuit of happiness from being taken or
demeaned by the Government.
Our American government, of course, never monopolized the destroying or
damaging of these rights. The most common offenders of an American’s liberties
continue to be fellow Americans. The government, as a regulatory entity, then protects
us from criminals who deprive us from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
minimizing, in theory, any rights surrendered to these ends. The Patriot Act, for
example, humbled American’s rights to privacy, due process, and freedom of
expression for the sake of security, eavesdropping on telephone conversations without
warrant.
The media, being controlled by a corporate oligopoly (as with all profitable
industries in today’s global economy), serve their best interests by frightening their
consumer-base (to motivate viewers to return for more news) just as it benefits from
separating voters into Republicans and Democrats (to promote patronage and conflict,
respectively). Our media terrorizes the people of America to the same extent the enemy,
Al Qaeda, did during 9/11—just with less transparency.
What does this spiral of fear materialize? An uninformed, divided, and
controlled citizenry. As the impartation of thought in America relies on mediums such
as newspaper, television, and the internet, those owning the tools for disseminating
information affects the delivery of content. Since mass communication evolved into a
hugely profitable business, less entrepreneurs can climb the Capitalistic Ladder high
enough to diversify the pool of thoughts. No competition between these super
companies translates to a single, complacent informant. The temptation of the Media is
to out-source research to wire services (such as Associated Press or Reuters), while
syndicating recycled content owned by the parent corporation. This means less human
rights coverage or government oversight, and more reality television or punditry. To
use a cliché to illustrate the implications of the consolidation of media ownership, our
watch dog has been domesticated from a dynamic adversary to the government (as our
hypothetical fourth-branch) to a machine denying all social obligations to the public. My
first grievance, therefore, concerns the Supreme Court reenacting Anti-Trust
investigations to break up industry ownership into smaller units.
How did government authorities manage to pass a seatbelt law? After all, under
a Libertarian view, the state may not impede on one’s choices unless they interfere with
another’s rights. By the same token, the Federal government has no constitutional basis
for its Drug War. Consider the (fictional) illicit substance Expletus: This substance,
affecting an intense level of happiness, causes immediate physical dependence and will
likely lead to heart attack. What rationale exists for the government to prohibit its use?
If the ban of Expletus was due to the side-effect of pleasure, then the Drug War violates
the Declaration of Independence by unjustifiably deterring one from pursuing
happiness. If Expletus may not be possessed because of potential physical harm to the
user, then the Drug War tramples on the idea of liberty. For what crime is truly
committed if the criminal is also the victim? The notion that the government must be
our moral compass contradicts the idea of Habeas Corpus—not as in the instance of
“enemy combatants” in Guantanamo Bay, but in the sense that drug prohibition has
already been deemed unconstitutional with the repeal of the Volstead Act, yet detained
individuals for Expletus possession cannot contest the law. The user of Expletus has only
harmed the user (himself/herself). Therefore, which body gets punishment and which
gets restitution in a non-violent, possession drug offense?
Totalitarian governments abolish many such “self-inflicted crimes” in order to
maintain power, using the Press to propagate their legitimacy. Politically, the job of
oppressor becomes easier when the goal is reached indirectly within a population
riddled with panic. Consider the British East India Company during Gandhi’s protests.
If you were a government, how would you respond without compromising the illusion
of freedom? Instead of banning free speech, one may choose to outlaw fasting on the
premise of malnutrition or mass-sitting for disease control. Since the Press abandoned
an adversary relationship with the government, it would be hard to imagine anyone
figuring out the injustice of the law—let alone mounting any sort of organized revolt.
 My final grievance calls for an end to the unconstitutional Drug War, especially
in regards to Cannabis. If not for the Constitution’s integrity, legalization would fix our
economic crisis. Some experts (including Popular Mechanics) estimate that the fiber-
growing variant, Industrial Hemp (which contains so little THC content, it would
require smoking a telephone-pole-sized cigarette to become intoxicated), would
overturn the trade deficit if made legal. The DEA persists to override state laws to
punish AIDs and cancer patients, as well as war veterans, seeking properly prescribed
treatment. First-time, non-violent, drug offenders suffer in jail, while being submerged
in criminal culture. Children, fed “Reefer Madness” and D.A.R.E. pamphlets, grow to
demonize those responsibly using cannabis as a healthier alternative to alcohol or
tobacco—including their peers and parents. All this unnecessary enforcement wastes
money, when America could tax, regulate its use and potency, and allow the private
sector to latch on to the more efficient ethanol fuel and paper pulp of Hemp fibers.
When do we allow Hearst’s fascist legacy to end? When do we stop punishing our
citizenry for profit? The Supreme Court, again, must decide.

Signed,