[Originally published July 4, 2007]

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.

-- Preamble to the Declaration of Independence

That line will be widely quoted across this land today, in parks and bandstands, on radio and in newsprint, from California to the New York islands, in countless big-city parades and from a myriad of small-town gazebos.

The more serious-minded of these proclaimers will go on to read the entire text of the Declaration which began the idea of the United States of America. It's an interesting text to read, and if you haven't read it since Junior High, I certainly encourage you to do so. There are obvious parallels in the deprivations of King George III which may sound uncomfortably apt today, for various reasons.

For instance, in the list of grievances: "He [King George] has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither..."

Funny, but I didn't hear many Republicans quoting that line during the recent immigration debate.

There are always those who point out the politically incorrect bits, too: "[King George] has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

That part gets edited out of a lot of small-town ceremonies, and also winds up on the cutting room floor of a lot of big-city newspapers.

But I write today not to quibble with or otherwise criticize what was writ more than two centuries ago, but instead to shine a brilliant spotlight on the fundamental and far-ranging statement which begins the preamble. Because -- today of all days -- it bears understanding by all who call America home.

In 1921, the incomparable H.L. Mencken decided the text needed updating, so he wrote "The Declaration of Independence in American," which is just as funny today as when he wrote it (although the politically incorrect slurs and other rough language are from another era, so the easily-offended should be warned). He translated the relevant text above into the following:

"All we got to say on this proposition is this: first, you and me is as good as anybody else, and maybe a damn sight better; second, nobody ain't got no right to take away none of our rights; third, every man has got a right to live, to come and go as he pleases, and to have a good time however he likes, so long as he don't interfere with nobody else."

Well put, for 1921. While I admit I am tempted to follow in Mencken's footprints and rewrite the entire document into modern American vernacular, that'll just have to wait for another year. Because increasing understanding of the bedrock sentence in the entire document is more important.

We hold these truths to be self evident...

The following ideas are so blindingly obvious to any thinking individual that they simply cannot be contradicted. There is no argument against the following statements which has any meaning at all. They are statements of truth and fact with which no intelligent person can argue. The following things we say are not only true but indeed are so axiomatic that they require no proof whatsoever, and rather stand alone as solid pillars of linguistic granite requiring no external support.

...that all men are created equal...

All humans are born of woman and enter into this world in pain. We are all children of "Nature and Nature's God," equal in value and equal in importance. The law and the government must see all humans equally and treat them all equally, since this is Nature's intent.

[OK, admittedly, that's not what it meant when it was written. When it was written, it meant "...all men are created equal... except for slaves (of course)... and Indians (of course)... and women (of course, that's why we said "men")... and any men who didn't own property -- who may have been created equal, but we're certainly not giving them the right to vote..." But I freely translate the Founding Fathers into what the phrase should have meant when written, and is indeed slowly coming to mean in today's America.]

...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...

That when they are born, each human has certain rights which cannot be separated from them. Governments cannot take these rights away, and the individuals themselves cannot sell, barter, or give away these rights. They are the birthright of every citizen, and remain with that citizen until arriving on Death's door. These rights may be usurped by tyrannical governments, but the possession of these rights is still each human's divine gift. A government may take away your freedom -- but not your inherent right to be free, since that is a possession which simply cannot be taken from you by anyone.

...that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Among these rights (not only these we're going to mention, mind you, but just among the many which are every human's true birthright) are the ability to live free, the ability to freely live, and the ability to pursue happiness in whatever method you choose that does not infringe on another's rights. This could mean acquiring property, this could mean pursuing the profession of your choice, this could mean running for public office. However you define happiness, it's your inherent right to chase your dream, and the government cannot take this fundamental right away from you.

The entire sentence's keystone is the word "unalienable," defined as: "non-transferable." Today, it's considered archaic and bad English, but it was perfectly acceptable in 1776. Some even translate the word into its modernly acceptable spelling, "inalienable," which is just a semantic travesty. While the two words are essentially interchangeable in meaning, some things simply should not be edited -- ever -- and the founding document of our country would seem to fit that category, in my humble opinion.

The Oxford English Dictionary lists both words as synonyms, and cites usages of both back to the 1600s. Some, even today, argue that the words are not interchangeable, and that "unalienable" means something that you are not allowed to sell (like liberty -- you cannot sell yourself into slavery, as it is illegal to do so) -- something, in other words, that is your birthright and cannot ever be surrendered or taken from you. The flip side to this argument is that "inalienable" should be defined as something which cannot be surrendered or taken from you without your consent. I reject such hair-splitting as etymological foolishness. The Founding Fathers knew what they were talking about, and they were talking about natural rights which each possess and which cannot be removed from you, ever, by anyone.

If proof of this is necessary, the Virginia Constitution's Bill of Rights, which is seen by many as a "first draft" to our own Constitution (from June of 1776), begins with Section 1:

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

That meaning is crystal-clear, even if it does use more words to describe the same concept.

The wonderful thing about the Fourth of July is... well, OK... number one has to be the fireworks. It's hard to top the bombs bursting in air, and the rockets' red glare and the concomitant "Ooohs" and "Aaahs."

Seriously, though, the wonderful thing about the Fourth is that although it is a summer holiday, unlike Memorial Day there is simply no guilt factor about enjoying yourself. Every Memorial Day, a certain contingent of Americans gets indignant opinion articles published in newspapers across the country (or in letters to the editor, if they don't have enough influence) which grumble about how: "This day is for the soldiers, not for mattress sales and barbeques. Show our veterans some respect, put a flag on a military grave," and all the rest of that refrain. Problem is, they're right. If they weren't right, the rest of us wouldn't feel guilty at what they have to say -- they would simply be ignored.

Labor Day, our other bookend summer holiday, has no guilt attached to it whatsoever. I guess the decline of unions in America... oh, heck, that's not really it... it's because union members love to hold and attend fantastic picnics on Labor Day as much as the next guy. They are the next guy, in fact -- standing there just beside you.

But the glorious Fourth is all about what a cool idea America was in the first place, and how we of all nations came up with the idea first. It is a day even a tree-hugging liberal in San Francisco can fly an American flag proudly -- with no militaristic overtones taken by her tree-hugging liberal neighbors, it should be noted -- since it is a day to celebrate what the ideal of America is. And that's something every American holds deeply in their own heart, and can celebrate in a very personal way -- even while enjoying the public celebrations.

So go ahead this Independence Day. Have a hot dog. Jump in some water somewhere. Watch a parade. Drink a beer. Drink two! Watch some fireworks.

The Founding Fathers not only would have approved of the concept of you having a great July 4th, they founded the whole damn country just so you could exercise your natural right to do so. You would be letting them down, in essence, by not doing so.

And that's something we all truly can celebrate together. Because it's not just celebrating your right as an American to have a happy Fourth, it's actually celebrating your birthright as a human being to be happy.

So go out there and pursue some Happiness today!

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Here we sit, on the eve of (or, more correctly, the day after) our nation's birthday. I've pointed out in years past that the whole "fourth of July" discrete date is nothing short of a myth. We celebrate a fiction. Our nation's birthday is a lie. One might almost call it "fake news."

Continue Reading »

That's a doozy of a subheading, but we felt it was completely appropriate this week. It is a direct quote, from conservative (and "Never Trump") commentator Ana Navarro. During an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Navarro responded to Trump's recent tweetstorm attacking Mika Brzezinski by calling on Republicans to say to Trump (either on television or personally) the following: "Listen, you crazy, lunatic, 70-year-old man-baby, stop it. You are now the president of United States, the commander-in-chief and you need to stop acting like a mean girl because we just won't take it." We've saved her entire rant for the talking points, because it is indeed worth reading in full; but because it was the most forceful pushback on Trump we heard all week, we thought it deserved headline status. Tell us what you really think, Ana!

Of course, she wasn't the only conservative to chime in on Trump's petulance. Charles Krauthammer pulled no punches in his response either: "Presidents don't talk like this. They never have. This is what it sounds like when you're living in a banana republic. This is how Hugo Chávez would talk about his opponents. This is how the worst dictator, Duterte in the Philippines, would talk about opponents." When a Fox News contributor meekly pointed out that at least Trump wasn't "sending military guards to go shut down" the press, Krauthammer fired back: "When you defend the president of the United States by pointing out that he hasn't sent the tanks out in the streets to shut down the media, you've reached a fairly low level of defense."

Continue Reading »

When will they ever learn? Once again, Donald Trump has almost completely hijacked the American news media for the day, by viciously attacking two media personalities on Twitter. The rest of the media then obligingly chased after this shiny, shiny object almost to the exclusion of all else. Again. We're all caught in this neverending cycle, it seems.

There are ways to break out of this cycle -- such as the media treating it as so boring it is barely worth mentioning. "Trump tweeted some offensive and idiotic stuff again this morning. In other news..." or perhaps: "The president is once again acting like a petulant 6-year-old on Twitter, much to every American's dismay. Now let's take a look at the weather...."

Instead, Trump's tweets are the lead story. They are splashed word-for-word on every screen and read by every anchor in full. Reactions from the insulted parties are reported. Politicians on both sides of the aisle weigh in. White House toadies defend the indefensible, once again. Pundits utter bon mots. And much of the news cycle of the day is thus consumed.

Continue Reading »

Up until now, congressional Democrats have been smart to merely stand on the sidelines and watch Republicans flail on their "repeal and replace Obamacare" efforts. This follows the sound political theory of: "When your opponent is digging his own grave, don't interrupt him." But at some point in the near future, Democrats are going to have to offer up their own better ideas for what to do next on healthcare. There are already many pushing for single-payer or (as Bernie Sanders likes to call it) "Medicare for all." This, however, is quite likely a bridge too far -- even within the Democratic Party. Instead of such a radical change, Democrats would do much better to rally around a more transitional idea that was jettisoned during the drafting of the Obamacare law: the public option.

The biggest political selling point about this is that a public option would be just that -- optional. Call it "Medicare for all, if that's what you want," perhaps. Or rebrand it entirely as something like "Medichoice," to take its place alongside Medicare and Medicaid. By doing so, Democrats could avoid a tsunami of Republican negative ads which screamed: "Washington bureaucrats are going to force you into their plan!" But unlike universal single-payer, Medichoice might actually have a prayer of garnering Republican votes and passing this Congress.

Continue Reading »

The Supreme Court just issued a ruling on Donald Trump's Muslim ban, and it is something of a political Rorschach test, because how you see it really depends on how you see politics in general. Trump, for instance, is claiming he won a total and sweeping victory. But so can the actual plaintiffs in the case -- the people who sued the Trump administration over the ban. The reason both sides can claim victory is that the ruling was issued on specific legal grounds, not political grounds. And legally, there was something for everyone, in a sort of a grand mishmash of an outcome.

Continue Reading »

The next few days are going to be pretty frantic in the Senate. The Congressional Budget Office just released its scoring of the Republican "repeal and replace" healthcare bill, and the numbers are almost as dismal as the House version's. But will it matter? At this point, it's impossible to really predict, as the entire political world waits to see what senators like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have to say about it.

My best guess is that one of two things will happen. Either the bill fails because at least five or six Republicans declare their opposition, or the entire thing will pass with blinding speed and be signed by Donald Trump, probably on Independence Day.

Continue Reading »

Every so often, we have a certain reaction to a bit of political news. We then fully expect at least a few other political commentators to have the same reaction, only to be surprised when it seems that nobody else read things the way we did. This is precisely where we find ourselves over President Donald Trump's recent tweets, where he supposedly put the issue to rest of whether secret audio recordings were ever made in his White House. Everybody seems to be buying his spin, and nobody questioned the obvious loophole he left himself. Because if you read what he wrote and take it at face value (not reading more into it than he actually says), Trump still has not answered the question of whether such tapes exist or not. Not even close.

Continue Reading »

In the aftermath of this week's special House election in Georgia, the question has arisen whether Nancy Pelosi should continue to hold the House Minority Leader position, heading into the 2018 midterm elections. It's a valid question, since Republican Karen Handel seemed almost to be running against Pelosi herself, if you saw any of her campaign ads or literature. Her entire strategy seemed to be to link neophyte politician Jon Ossoff with Pelosi -- and not in a good way. It's impossible to tell how much this contributed to Ossoff's loss, but if the answer to that question turns out to be "four percent of the vote or more," then demonizing Pelosi would have been the difference between his winning and losing. So is it time for Nancy to go?

I for one am extremely reluctant to come to that conclusion, but I can certainly see why others are pushing Pelosi to step down. Pelosi is one of the top three Democrats right now, along with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez. Both Perez and Schumer are far less recognized by the general public, which is mostly due to them being fairly new in their leadership jobs. Harry Reid didn't step down until he declined to run in last year's election, and Perez has only led the D.N.C. for a few months. In comparison, Pelosi has been leading the House Democrats since the 2006 midterm elections. That difference has meant that she is currently much more nationally-known, so a good case could be made for her being the "face of the Democratic Party" right now.

Continue Reading »

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is about to make a big legislative throw of the dice tomorrow, when he (finally) unveils the super-secret Senate Republican healthcare bill not only to the public, but also to the rest of his own caucus. It's a pretty big gamble for McConnell, since he has no way of knowing if he's got the votes to pass it or not. Either way -- whether successful or not -- McConnell says the effort will be over by the Independence Day holiday. Either they pass the bill, or the Senate will just move on to other agenda items.

McConnell has taken the drafting of the bill entirely upon himself, at this point. He hasn't yet gotten his own caucus to agree on any coherent plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. Please remember, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed a full seven years ago. In all that time, Republicans have never gotten behind a single replacement plan, so it's not all that surprising they can't manage to do so now. A group of 13 Republican senators was supposed to come up with a draft bill this year, but even this small a group could not agree on what to put in it. So McConnell just took over the process entirely. Senator Mike Lee -- one of those 13 senators -- just posted a video complaining that even he had no idea what will be in tomorrow's bill. So at this point, whatever is released tomorrow will have to logically be called "McConnellcare." His will be the only fingerprints on it, so it seems fitting.

Continue Reading »