Americans still embrace the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. Or do they?

Just in time for America’s Independence Day holiday, Rasmussen has released its analysis of a poll examining the attitudes of Americans regarding the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence is one of the two crucial founding documents of the US – the other, of course, being the Constitution. The Constitution is the technical document outlining the structure and powers of the national government. The Declaration establishes the rational foundation for the very existence of this country.

Rasmussen’s strategy – and I’m not sure that this was the best idea – was to take various famous phrases from the document, and ask: “Do you agree with this?” The answers were recorded without any sure knowledge of what the respondent thought the phrase meant.

The response that jumped out to me was the one asking respondents’ opinion of this part of the Declaration:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The pollsters shortened this to “Governments derive their only just powers from the consent of the governed”. This paraphrase actually skirts around Jefferson’s profound assertion that the purpose of government is to secure the God-given rights of the people. But that’s the subject of another post, another time. The paraphrase was fair enough, because it adequately portrayed the other profound assertion in this statement.

So, what did the respondents think of the paraphrase?

56% Agree

25% Disagree

19% Not sure

Modern America has a shallow understanding of the phrase “consent of the governed”. Does it mean that, as long as most of the people are okay with it, the government can do whatever it pleases?

I would argue that this is what most people believe. In fact, this is the very essence of democracy: the will of the people legitimizes the actions of the government.

But America was not established as a democracy. It was established as a constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, there are boundaries to the “consent of the governed”.

Under our Constitution, the government is supposed to be constrained, regardless of the will of the people. Just because a majority of the people consent to (or even demand) some action of the government, such consent does not necessarily legitimize the action.

The many unconstitutional actions of the Obama administration, done to wide acclaim, should serve to abundantly illustrate the problem. President Obama does not recognize any meaningful boundaries on his powers to transform America in his image.

What about the 25% who disagree? I wish that Rasmussen could have asked some followup questions to find out what these respondents were thinking. For example, some might have been thinking of the biblical notion (found, for example, in Romans 13:1) that governments derive their just powers from God Himself. We’ll never know for sure if this is why they disagreed.

As for the 19%… who are these people? 1 in 5 people have no idea what makes a government legitimate? Are these the fabled “moderate” voters, who refuse to be pinned down on the important issues of the day?

Whatever. I wish more people would put more thought into what constitutes legitimate government, and that they would follow their reasoning through to its logical conclusion.

Despite the responses to this and other questions in the poll, I disagree with Rasmussen’s conclusion that Americans “still embrace ideals from the Declaration of Independence”.

How can they embrace what they do not comprehend?

The Honduran army PREVENTED a coup, but don’t hold your breath waiting for Obama to admit it

If a coup is defined as an illegal seizure of power, then the Honduran army didn’t stage a coup this past weekend, it prevented one. Every action taken to stop President Zelaya from proceeding with his illegal referendum was done in accordance with the Honduran constitution.

Read this WSJ article from Monday for some background information.

Zelaya was looking to remove the constitutional limits on his retention of power (following in the footsteps of his buddy Hugo Chavez), but the national Congress refused to call an election to put the constitutional amendment to a vote by the people.

Despite the fact that only the legislature could call such an election, Zelaya determined to move forward anyway. The president even whipped up a mob to storm the military installation where the ballots (printed by Venezuela) were stored.

The Supreme Court and the Attorney General – completely within the boundaries of their constitutional power – ordered Zelaya to stand down, but he refused.

It was because of Zelaya’s criminal actions that he was arrested on Sunday morning by troops acting on the orders of the Supreme Court – again, all within the boundaries of their constitutional power.

In light of the foregoing facts, it would be absurd to accuse the military of staging a coup, but the Obama administration has joined the chorus of those making just such an accusation.

I am not at all surprised that Obama would take the side of those who despise the rule of law. His administration has been doing that very thing in our country over the past 5+ months.

UPDATE: The WaPo opines that the Obama administration should continue to push for Zelaya's reinstatement, but adds that the administration should also be bold enough to confront the antidemocratic forces spreading like a cancer throughout Latin America (in Venezuela and Nicaragua, for example) that emboldened Zelaya in the first place.

WaPo seems to imply that confronting the Marxists would be out of character for Obama, and with that sentiment I heartily agree.

(Map credit: geology.com)

Romney redux?

Just five months into the Obama administration, and National Review has already resumed beating the drums for Mitt Romney.

Rich Lowry today:

If Republicans want a presidential candidate who lives clean and whose family hasn't been involved in tabloid scandals, it might soon be Mitt Romney by process of elimination.

Lowry appears to be lumping Sarah Palin in with those who should be disqualified because of ‘tabloid scandals’. It apparently doesn’t matter that virtually all of the so-called scandals are the result of a concerted, ongoing smear campaign by Democrat operatives (silently cheered on by some of her potential opponents).

The Palin family’s one “legitimate” scandal, daughter Bristol’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy, has been handled by the family in a way that has left Sarah’s popularity largely intact within the conservative base. Again, it’s the left’s unrelenting smear campaign that is keeping this in the news at all.

As for Romney…

He talked a good talk in the 2008 primaries, but I had trouble reconciling his campaign rhetoric with one inescapable truth:

This is a man who was acceptable to the majority of voters in Massachusetts, one of our country’s most left-leaning states.

My 2008 favorite (Fred Thompson) was eliminated early in the primary season, and I was prepared to reluctantly pull the lever for Romney as the next best candidate, but the nagging doubts stayed my hand. I ended up voting for Fred anyway, since he was still on the ballot. I might have supported Romney in the general election, but in the primaries I couldn’t get past the impression that he was coming across as an opportunist.

Regardless… Romney still has a lot to prove in order to earn my vote (assuming he runs again). If Palin runs – without being bloodied too much by the smear campaigns – Mitt can pretty much forget about my vote in the primary.

UPDATE: Well, at least John McCain appears to be accepting the inevitable:

John McCain, unwitting propagandist for the Obama administration

It looks like Sen. John McCain has provided President Obama with a soundbite to use in his 2012 reelection campaign.  AP, June 22:

Sen. John McCain says his opponent in last year's presidential campaign, Barack Obama, has "done well" in his first five months in the White House.

The Arizona Republican says that using a legislative scorecard to judge the presidency so far, Obama has achieved all his legislative goals.

McCain appears to have based his assessment on the technical fact that Obama has accomplished his major legislative goals.  He does not appear to be endorsing those legislative accomplishments.

If that is the case, the senator would have “done well” to have chosen his words a little more carefully.   The Obama administration and its state-run media will downplay the context of his remark, and will play it as an endorsement of Obama’s policies.

How could they pass up a gift like this?

Allied forces gear up for defeat in Afghanistan

Sorry about the provocative title, but there’s no other way to interpret the new rules of engagement for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.  AP, June 22:

The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday.

The order would be one of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect Afghan civilians in battle. American commanders say such deaths hurt their mission because they turn average Afghans against the government and U.S. and NATO forces.

Is it really that hard to understand that the militants are going to seize this irresistible opportunity to start using civilians as human shields as they continue their offensives?

What are we going to do?  Beg them to come out in the open so we can fight them?

This new policy is insane.

I truly feel sorry for soldiers who are having to serve in Obama’s Army.

The U.S. Census, enabler of the nanny state

As the Obama administration gears up for next year’s census, we are reminded how far this decennial ritual has drifted from its constitutional roots.

Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution indicates that the exclusive purpose of the census was to provide an accurate headcount of the citizens of each state, for the purpose of apportioning Representatives and direct taxes.

The 16th amendment severed the relationship between the headcount and direct taxes, so the remaining sole legitimate purpose of the U.S. Census is to determine how many representatives each state gets.

Accordingly, the only legitimate questi0n on the census form should be: How many people live in your household?

In recent decades, the census form had grown into a monster, “asking” that households provide information that reached into the farthest corners of their personal lives.

Why would the federal government want to know all of this? Because virtually every unconstitutional action in which it engages depends on this knowledge.

This time around, most of the intrusive demographic questions has been pulled out of the census form, instead asking only for the following: name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, relationship and housing tenure. While this is much better than before, it still violates the original intent of the census. This is why U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann has vowed to return her family’s form with only the headcount filled in.

This doesn’t mean that the government has lost its appetite for the data that was removed from the census, though – instead, that data will be collected through the annual American Community Survey. As you can see from the official sample of the 2009 Survey, respondents are asked to pretty much bare all.

By separating this data collection from the census, the government can now claim that the census is no longer politicized. Smart move on their part. They still get what they want, and they disarm their critics at the same time.

Armed with its ACS data, updated yearly instead of every ten years (and with much less fanfare than accompanies the census), the nanny state is well-equipped to carry on.

Standing up to tyranny: The courage of the Iranian protesters

Iran's Ayatollah Khamanei has drawn a line in the sand, warning that possibly violent consequences will come if election protests continue on Saturday (AP via Breitbart):

Iran's supreme leader sought Friday to end the deepening crisis over disputed elections with one decisive speech—declaring the vote will almost certainly stand and sternly warning opposition leaders to end street protests or be held responsible for any "bloodshed and chaos" to come.

But a first sign of possible resistance came shortly after nightfall in Tehran. Cries of "Death to the dictator!" and "Allahu akbar"—"God is great"—rang from rooftops in what's become a nightly ritual of opposition unity.

The sharp line drawn by Iran's most powerful figure, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is a gambit that pushes Iran's opposition to a pivotal moment: either back down or risk a crushing response from police and the forces at Khamenei's disposal—the powerful Revolutionary Guard and their volunteer citizen militia, the Basiji.

An Iranian blogger writes about how she is preparing for Saturday’s showdown between protesters and their government (translated by niacInsight):

3:09 pm: One of our readers requested that we translate the following blog post: “Tomorrow is a big day, may I get killed tomorrow!” (http://balatarin.com/permlink/2009/6/19/1625688)

“I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It’s worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I’m two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children…”

I hope and pray that the people of Iran will look back on these events as the dawn of freedom and prosperity for their nation.

Voters know they’re in an abusive relationship, but they just can’t quit Obama

President Obama’s approval ratings remain high, even as more and more of the electorate are starting to chafe under the crushing burden the president is placing on them and their posterity.

NY Daily News reports today:

[According to a new Wall Street Journal/CBS News poll] Nearly seven in 10 Americans said they had concerns about the federal government's intervention in the economy, including the administration's decision to take an ownership stake in General Motors and the limits set by the White House on executive compensation.

Obama and Congress should worry more about keeping the deficit down, 58% of the respondents said. A majority disapproved of Obama's decision to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll revealed 60% of Americans believe the Obama administration has failed to develop a clear plan for dealing with the budget deficit.

A majority, 52%, said the government should not spend money to stimulate the economy and should focus instead on reducing the deficit.

According to the poll, fewer than half of the country approves of Obama's handling of health care or the crisis facing the nation's auto industry. Obama received positive reviews for his handling of foreign policy and the threat of terrorism.

For all these bad reviews of Obama’s policies, the WSJ/CBS poll still shows his overall job approval rating as 56%.

In other words, the voters have Battered Wife Syndrome: Apart from the daily beatings, my husband is not a bad person!

PETA: Beyond parody

President Obama swats a fly, and if we can believe the media, everyone is in awe of the skill with which he dispatched the pest.  It’s certainly the most significant thing going on in the world this week.

Well, not everyone is in awe.  The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is complaining that Obama was wrong to murder the fly, because the fly is, you know, just a tiny animal, and it’s not ethical to kill animals (unless, of course, PETA itself carries out the death sentence).

AP reports that PETA wants Obama to set the example for us by practicing humane catch-and-release for this most maligned of pests:

The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.

PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.

"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."

Defending our country comes in at #8 (right after fair-trade coffee)

US Naval Academy professor Bruce Fleming reports that, in the Age of Obama, our military is descending ever deeper into the morass of political correctness (emphasis added):

The Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead announced in Annapolis recently that "diversity is the number one priority" at the Naval Academy.

The Naval Academy superintendent, Vice Adm. Jeffrey Fowler, echoed him. Everyone understands that "diversity" here means nonwhite skins.

Fowler insisted recently that we needed to have Annapolis graduates who "looked like" the Fleet, where enlisted people are about 42 percent nonwhite, largely African American and Hispanic.