Skip to main content

The Declaration of Independence 2.0: A Liberal Rewrite for the Modern Age

 By Matthew Hayward


This is what a rewrite of the Declaration of Independence might look like if the progressive left in American gets there way:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of ethics entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of Humankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths as self-evident that all individuals are created equal and have inherent worth and dignity and that among their unalienable rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among individuals, 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 individuals 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 effect their Safety and Happiness.


Prudence will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. Accordingly, all experience shows that individuals are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But 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 and to provide new guards for their future security.


Such has been the patient sufferance of these individuals, and such is now the necessity that constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present government is a history of repeated microaggressions and oppressions, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these individuals. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.


They have refused to acknowledge the inherent worth and dignity of certain groups, including but not limited to people of color, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals.


They have failed to provide trigger warnings or safe spaces for individuals who have experienced trauma or face mental health challenges, thereby limiting their ability to access education and participate fully in society.


They have neglected to prioritize sustainability and have engaged in practices that harm the environment, putting future generations at risk.


They have perpetuated a system of inequality and inequity, denying certain groups access to opportunities, resources, and basic human rights.


They have failed to uphold the principles of social justice, allowing systemic discrimination and oppression to continue unchecked.


In every stage of these oppressions, individuals have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: their repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government whose character is thus marked by every act that may define a Tyranny is unfit to rule a free people.


We, therefore, the representatives of these individuals, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the ethical principles of our collective humanity for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these United States, solemnly publish and declare, that these individuals are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the former government, and that all political connection between them and the State is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the collective human conscience, we mutually pledge to each other our lives.







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...