How Pride Changed the World

    Pride is the downfall of humanity. It can be found everywhere, in every man. Even those who are humble are often, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, proud of their humility. But the unlikeliest of outcomes can emerge from the pride of a few men. 

   Way back in 1763, life was good in the American colonies. The people had formed militias, marched alongside their British brethren, and defeated the French. A new land was open for settlement and opportunities, and that was all thanks to their British domination. They were proud to be British subjects. They were happy.

   Others were not so happy. Fighting wars is expensive, and the British government had dug themselves into a money hole. No matter, they thought. We'll just raise taxes. The colonists in America will surely be glad to help finance the war we fought and won for them. 

   And they were right. The American colonists would have been perfectly happy to comply and give them everything they asked for. But a simple, ordinary event turned into a world-changing one. Something that should have been easy and barely a mark on the history books turned into the revolution that would rock the world. What happened?

   See, the colonists in America all saw themselves as normal British subjects with the rights of British subjects, just as if they were living in England. They had set up their own governments and legislatures akin to Parliament that were recognized by the crown as the only legitimate government for the colonies. After all, it was impossible because of the distance to ever have Parliament govern the colonies. And those governments were happy to do the crown's bidding just as Parliament was. All the king had to do was ask for a tax, and the governments would levy a tax. They had never denied a request for a tax before and they had no plans to change now.

   However, a certain pride had overtaken many in England, especially in the government. The colonists in America weren't seen anymore as equals, but as second-class, inferior to the people and government in England, unable to govern themselves properly, and bound to obey the government of Great Britain in all things. They didn't see the colonists as deserving of the English rights protected by the Magna Charta and the Glorious Revolution and so valued by all British subjects. They were simply servants, akin to the people living in the Caribbean or India or any other British colony.

   So the British government didn't ask the colonies to levy taxes to help pay for the war. They simply levied a tax themselves. The infamous Stamp Act of 1765 was this tax. And the colonists were furious. They were a people with a rich history of peaceful rebellion and restraint on government. They had certain prized rights that their ancestors had defied kings to ensure. They weren't going to take an incursion on their rights lightly. The colonists formed a congress made up of representatives from their legislatures that wrote up a petition politely telling the king that Parliament had no jurisdiction over them and could he please reign in the excesses and power grab of Parliament? Less politely, the colonists made the lives of Stamp Act collectors so miserable no one wanted the job, and Parliament was forced to repeal the Stamp Act.

   The incident could have ended there. But pride reared its ugly head and set the course of history on a different path. While repealing the Stamp Act, the members of Parliament declared that they did indeed have all authority to do whatever they wanted to the colonists. They told the colonists that they were indeed represented in Parliament, but virtually. In the same way as children, women, criminals, and the mentally insane weren't competent enough to elect their own representatives, but still represented by the members of Parliament, so too were the colonists.

   Naturally, the colonists didn't take such an insult well at all. They didn't appreciate suddenly becoming second-class citizens when they'd been equals to mainland British subjects for so long. So when the Townshend Acts were passed, they were completely ignored. And the path had been set. The British government would not budge in treating the colonists like the second-class citizens they believed them to be, and the colonists would not let themselves be abused without a fight. British pride and superiority had destroyed the amicable relationship of the British and the American colonists.

   And the rest? Well, it's history.

America, Spread Your Golden Wings...

   Once upon a time, there was a massive empire. They had just fought a hard war against one of their greatest enemies with the extensive help of thirteen of their most loyal colonies. The people in these colonies had bled and died, as they had been on the front lines of much of the war's fighting. When the time came to pay for the war, the legislatures of these colonies were ready to write laws on new taxes as soon as the crown asked them to. After all, they were English citizens, and all taxes on them had to be levied by their representative body, as guaranteed by the Magna Charta and the English Bill of Rights. They were ready and willing to pony up according to well-established laws and traditions. Whenever the king wanted to levy a new tax on the colonies, he asked the colonial legislatures to pass one, and they always complied.

   However, the king did not ask the colonial legislatures to levy a tax. Instead, the English Parliament voted on a tax on the American colonies. This angered the colonists. They had no representatives in the English Parliament. Furthermore, it would be incredibly impractical to ever have American representatives in the English Parliament, as London is so far from the shores of the New World. Parliament had no power to levy taxes on them. Since Parliament had no power to levy taxes on the thirteen colonies, the "taxes" were not obligatory or legally binding. So, the colonists simply refused to pay them, sending advocates all the while to England to remind them that the English Parliament had no power over them.

   Parliament, however, thought their overseas subjects were nuts. The colonists weren't English citizens, but a second class of subjects in thralldoms, and of course they had the power to levy taxes on them. A few MPs were on the side of the colonists, but they were outshouted and outvoted. More and more taxes were levied on the thirteen colonies.

   The colonists took more and more drastic action to avoid or outright refuse the taxes. They were English citizens, after all, and from the time of King John to the Glorious Revolution, they were never ones to surrender their freedoms quietly. Even more, they had lived for several generations in a harsh wilderness, alone except for their God and their ingenuity. After years of independence and self-reliance, they weren't going to bow down now. When the Stamp Act was passed, colonists burned anything with the king's stamp on it. Parliament repealed it, but in their repeal stated that they had full power to do whatever they wanted to the colonies.

   Parliament had gone too far. All they had had to do was ask them to tax themselves and they would have done it. This posturing was absolutely ridiculous. Whisperings of war and even more drastic action were being passed around in the most radical circles. And when British soldiers were sent to Boston to try and enforce the supposed laws, the angry colonists started drilling in militias from snowy Massachusetts and New Hampshire to humid Georgia.

   A radical group went a little too far protesting the tea tax. All the colonies thought it might be a good idea to pay reparations for the thousands of pounds in damage. However, the furious British Parliament decided to shut down the colony in which the offense was committed, shut down their largest source of revenue, and starve the inhabitants to make them suffer.

   The colonies arose in outrage. They banded together to help their sister colony in her time of need, holding hands and becoming one for the first time ever. Even more people joined the militia. The British Army attempted to shut down colonial legislatures. They completely ignored them, instead meeting in local taverns. The colonies skirted the army and ignored Parliament, hoping the king would see the oppression and stand against the illegality. Offense after offense by Parliament and the army piled up. Until one day, it all became too much. The fatal straw had come.

   General Gage sent his troops to destroy the store of ammunition and gunpowder in Concord, Massachusetts. The local militia got wind of the plan and stood in their way with their guns, hoping to deter them without firing. But British soldiers got too eager and charged the men at Lexington. Somebody fired, then everybody fired, and eight men died. The militia swore they hadn't begun the fight, but they would finish it. They couldn't stop the British from their mission, but they hid behind fences, trees, and barns, shooting at the soldiers until they were terrified and running for Boston. For a year, they fought hard, losing battles with an army they refused to call the King's Army, for surely the king they had been loyal to for so long couldn't condone this.

   The colonial legislatures the army had tried to disband voted to send representatives to a congress of all the colonies, the First Continental Congress. This congress sent pleas to the king in hopes that this war could be ended when it had barely begun, in hopes that only Parliament was the problem. Their hopes were dashed in the spring of 1776. The colonists were forced to acknowledge the fact that King George III was behind all the machinations and oppression of Parliament.

   This knowledge rocked the colonies. In the spring of '76, spurred on by this knowledge, a new identity began to emerge. The colonists were seeing themselves not as British, but as Americans. And an idea that had been tossed around for a while by the Continental Army's new commander-in-chief began to be talked about by everyone.

   Through prayer and a miracle, on July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress formed the United States of America, the thirteen colonies collectively declaring independence from Great Britain. On July 4, they told the world exactly why.

   The war had just begun. Five long years of hard fighting followed. Without prayer and praise and the Hand of God, the Revolutionary War would not have been won. After another two years of sporadic fighting and tense negotiation, a treaty was signed between the United States of America and Great Britain, ending the war.

   And the rest? Well, it's history.

   

   Happy Independence Day, fellow defiant rebels! Today, let's celebrate our amazing country and her glorious birth. Remember, rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Let freedom ring!

The Truth About Secession

   Secession. This subject tends to come around every once in a while, generally any time a state is especially mad at the federal government. It meets with varying degrees of approval depending on the person and the state proposing secession (I know we're all secretly hoping California will secede from the Union so we don't have to deal with them again). Most states have probably proposed secession at one time or another, Texas being among the most frequent. In the most recent posts about Texas secession, amidst the Texas pride that of course they can make it on their own and be super successful are the commentators shooting down the idea with the words "Of course they don't have any more right to secede than any other state does." By which they were trying to imply that they couldn't secede.

   The general populace seems to agree that states aren't allowed to secede from the Union, and whenever you try to ask them why, they say, "Well, it doesn't say they can in the Constitution." In fact, the general populace seems to agree that the US Constitution bans secession. Here, I'd like to examine the arguments against secession and determine whether or not they are valid.

Argument #1: This issue has already been decided by the Civil War. That's why the North fought the South.

   This is one of the weakest arguments. If you examine source documents, for quite a few months after the Southern states proposed secession, everyone in the North was in favor of their power to do so, and indeed, wished them well. Virginia didn't even consider seceding until the Federal government grossly violated the Constitution by sending armed troops to invade their state, an action expressly prohibited in the US Constitution. True, the Supreme Court decided that the South's secession had been "definitely and forever overthrown" by the Civil War, but outcomes forced by military action are a far cry from actions examined by a court and declared unconstitutional. The British Empire tried to forcibly keep many of their colonies from leaving, and yet nobody doubts the validity of the United States or India as nations. Military actions cannot decide legal precedents. Also, many scholars claim that the Civil War was fought over slavery or the Morril Tariff, so universally deciding that this issue has been decided by the Civil War is impossible. 

Argument #2: The Articles of Confederation ban secession, and they weren't actually expressly repealed, so they're still in effect.

   We all know the story of the US Constitution. They got up a convention to fix the Articles of Confederation, but ended up replacing it completely, the key word here being replace. No, the words, "The Articles of Confederation are hereby repealed" are not in the US Constitution. But that doesn't mean they weren't repealed in it. Indeed, the Constitution does repeal the Articles of Confederation: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". The Articles of Confederation are not laws, nor are they a treaty, and therefore are not counted as the supreme Law of the Land according to this clause. Whatever the Articles of Confederation meant by "perpetual Union" is irrelevant since they are not legally binding today.

Argument #3: Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution states that "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation", thereby banning secession.

   Abraham Lincoln used this argument to claim the government of the Confederate States of America was invalid. If the Southern states had entered into this confederation without seceding, indeed he would have been right. But this clause only applies to states actually in the Union, and the Southern states did not consider themselves part of the United States of America once they had voted for secession. The validity of Abraham Lincoln's argument about the CSA's government hinges upon whether the states were truly not part of the Union anymore. This question cannot be decided by this clause.

Argument #4: The Fourteenth Amendment implicitly bans secession.

   This is the hardest to refute since words can "imply" anything, and implications tend to be a matter of opinion. This being said, the only reference to states in the Fourteenth Amendment is to ban states already in the Union from denying their civilians freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution or supporting laws and does not touch on the actions of states as collective entities.

Argument #5: Six former Confederate states banned secession in their state constitutions.

   Those state constitutions were made under duress and could easily be considered voidable. Also, state constitutions are very easily amended. Furthermore, this is a ban on a state level, not a federal level, and cannot be enforced or viewed as such. Several states also have official religions and languages, which the federal government is banned from doing. 

Argument #6: The Pledge of Allegiance states that the United States is "one nation, indivisible." The word "indivisible" means cannot be divided, and so secession is banned by the Pledge of Allegiance.

   This is about the worst argument of the bunch. The Pledge of Allegiance is not legally binding and simply exists to inspire patriotism. It is considered by Congress to be a national symbol, on the level of the National Anthem and the bald eagle. 

   So secession is nowhere expressly or implicitly banned. But are arguments for the legality of secession simply arguments from silence? Not quite. I submit two pieces of evidence: one from the Declaration of Independence and one from the US Constitution.

   "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,....it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

   "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

   I could submit further arguments, such as the fact that Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York ratified the US Constitution solely on the condition of explicitly retaining the right to secede, and the US government acknowledging that also acknowledges the power of any state to secede. However, I believe that this is enough. Secession is nowhere banned by the US Constitution, so, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, that power is reserved to the States, or to the people. This isn't even a radical idea. Ireland seceded. Scotland has full power to, but voted not to. Britain is leaving the EU. Puerto Rico has the power to become an independent country, they just keep voting against it. The United States seceded from the UK. Our states only became states by voting to accept the US Constitution (which is why Delaware is the first state). All a state would have to do to secede would be to vote in its state legislature to reject it. This isn't actually a hard issue and it shouldn't be. 

   So, if California really wants to leave the Union (pretty please?) or Texas sincerely thinks they can make it on their own, go ahead. They have the power and the right to leave the Union. It's how our nation was founded, after all.

The Robin Hood Problem

   Everyone knows the story of Robin Hood, the man who stole from the rich to give to the poor, or, if you're more familiar with the tale, the man who stole tax money back from the government when they were oppressing the people. This story is romanticized all over the world, in many forms. Nottingham and Sherwood Forest are popular tourist destinations. Many, many children grow up with Robin Hood as their hero. And most people don't think too much about it. They love Robin Hood, they're familiar with the tales, and they move on with their day.

   Robin Hood, if he ever existed, is said to have had his heyday during the reign of King Richard while he was off fighting in one of the Crusades and his brother, Prince John, had taken the throne. Now, I've always wondered why so many people like Robin Hood so much, and I think a lot of it boils down to one thing. In the adaptations we've seen and read, whether the main antagonist is the Sheriff of Nottingham or Prince John himself, the bad guy is always the government. The hero out sticking up for the people and fighting the evil government is a picture that will always resonate with people. But one day I was reading history about the Middle Ages, in a section dealing with England specifically, and something stuck out to me.

   Most people probably don't know the end of the Robin Hood story. In short, it is this: King Richard I, the Lionheart, returned to England from the Crusades, appeasing the people angry at Prince John. King Richard I died without an heir and the throne passed to his brother John, who was just as awful as ever. Eventually, the people couldn't take his oppression anymore and forced him to sign a treaty or charter protecting the rights of the people of England. This treaty was called the Magna Carta, and without it, America wouldn't be a free country today. But most people don't know about that.

   To the average person, the Magna Carta is just a name they know from history or social studies. But Robin Hood...they've probably seen multiple movies about him, and, even if he isn't their childhood hero, will remember him with feeling as the man who "stole from the rich to give to the poor." Honestly, this somewhat disturbs me. But why?

   What Robin Hood did for the freedom of the people of England was really nothing. He fought the government, but in the end, it didn't affect what happened to the people. To them, it looked and felt like he was helping them. But Robin Hood's actions did nothing to keep the government from sending out their tax men. His actions did nothing to stop John's oppressive acts when he became king or even to set the people in mind for a rebellion. If they had, I suppose we would be more assured of his existence. 

   What did help the people of England was the Magna Carta, not set in motion by the people near Nottinghamshire, all fired up by the actions of Robin Hood, but by the nobility all over England sick of King John I misusing them. The Magna Carta set up Parliament, protected the rights of the people to not be taxed without their consent (sound familiar? This provision in the Magna Carta was one of the foundations of the American colonies' arguments with England), protected the people from unlawful search and seizure, guaranteed them a trial by their peers in their own county, demanded that the people be compensated when the government exercised imminent domain, set up uniform weights and measures throughout the country, and many other things, quite a few of which set the foundation for the birth of America and would be written into our own Constitution. So why is Robin Hood a romanticized legend and the Magna Carta is just a boring event in history?

   This phenomenon is not relegated to Robin Hood and Merrie Olde England. It is common in today's politics as well. There are people in the state and federal legislatures that appear to be doing a lot for freedom, but, even though their hearts are often in the right place, they are doing nothing good at all and sometimes even hurt the situation. And yet they are the ones praised and remembered, and the ones who are actually protecting the rights of the people are forgotten, relegated to a boring part of history, or even mocked and reviled for supposedly destroying the very things they are protecting. So often we praise the ones whose fighting is doing no good and revile the ones who are quietly and peacefully working for freedom. We encourage our people in the government to be more like Robin Hood and less like the people who wrote the Magna Carta. This has caused the ineffectiveness in our government that is infuriating the people.

   There was a man who is passed away now known as John Doe. He was in the state legislature. He had very decided opinions and hated oppressive government, but he wasn't very respected in the state legislature. Why? He voted no on every bill. Every. Single. One. True, there was something not so great in all the bills, but he refused to vote for any of them. He was loved and is very fondly remembered today, but he didn't do much to advance freedom in our state. He appeared to do a lot of good, but was truly ineffectual.

   In all our life, whether in politics or out of it, let's strive to not be a Robin Hood or a John Doe. To choose to fight in a way that will make a difference instead of a way that will just appear to make a difference, and to not crucify those in our government that aren't fighting a battle over everything and voting no on every bill. Let's try to understand that it is the Peters of Winchester and the Williams of Coventry that make a difference and not the Robin Hoods; the John Adams and Thomas Jeffersons and members of the Continental Congress and not the riotous Sons of Liberty. And in doing so, we will truly change the world.

The Great Rights Illusion Part Two

   I apologize for the delay in getting this post up.
   Read Part One here.

   Where do rights come from?

   We have established that rights are permanent gifts given to everyone equally at their creation, unable to be transferred, denied, sold, or taken. But who gives us these rights?

   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....  (emphasis added)

   Rights are given to men by the Creator, God Almighty. This very fact has the potential to change lives. But why?

   I'm sure you've heard of civil rights, political rights, legal rights, and those such things. Well, those things as we know them don't actually exist. See, according to the definitions of these words, their existence often hinges on the government. Many people, government officials especially, talk about "giving" or "taking away" our civil rights. But, as we have seen, rights come, not from government, but from God. No government can give rights or take them away. They cannot deny us our rights or transfer them to another. What does this mean?
   One of the hottest topics in today's culture is the government "taking away" our right to keep and bear arms. Putting aside for a moment all the debates over whether that is a right and what "keep and bear arms" actually means, let's examine this debate in the light of our new knowledge.
   The government does not give us our rights and cannot take them away. No one can take them away. This means that even should a government declare it illegal to ever own a weapon, every man still has an absolute right to keep and bear arms, and even should the government send troops to take those weapons away, men have every right to stand up and fight them. In fact, that was how our country was founded (look up the battles at Lexington and Concord in 1775 and learn more about them).
   Freedom of speech is one of the most hated rights by governments. Almost no other right has been the center of more attacks and laws. However, since our rights come from our Creator and not our government, we always have and always will have the right to speak our minds. Even should they arrest us, put us in jail, or kill us for exercising our right, our right it will remain. No government can tell you to shut up.
   Clearly, this is radical, even dangerous thinking. Yes, there is a reason the American Declaration of Independence has been banned in many countries all over the world. But if we can break through the Great Rights Illusion, we can become so much more than what we are now. If we embrace what we've been given by God and refuse to let anyone lie to us about it, we will do what Americans have done since the beginning of our country, what we are known for.
   We will change the world.

The Great Rights Illusion Part One

   One of the most fundamental things in this country is rights. Millions of protestors use them as a rallying cry, thousands of lawsuits are won by way of invoking them, we even have a Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Rights are everyone's favorite thing to talk about these days: women's rights, gay rights, Hispanic rights, millennial rights, and all the other hot topics of today. Rights are one of the most important things in today's world, and one of the most misunderstood.

   The word rights is thrown around almost willy-nilly. If you attend any protest in the United States of America, you are almost certain to hear at least one person screaming about their rights. Two of the biggest topics today are women's rights and LGBT rights. But most people that talk about rights don't actually understand what they are or where they come from.

   

   What are rights?

    Our most familiar association with the word "rights" is from the most-quoted part of the Declaration of Independence: "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...." This phrase holds the key to the answers of both questions, what rights are, and where they come from.

   Rights can also be referred to as the state of nature or freedom. This is the natural condition of man and his relationship with his Creator. According to John Locke, "The state of nature gives every man authority to execute punishment for violation of God's natural law." He also said, "Men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

   Rights are natural liberties men are born with. They are also equal among all men.

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

 Furthermore God said, Let us make man in our image according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the beasts, and over all the earth, and over everything that creepeth and moveth on the earth.

Thus God created the man in his image: in the image of God created he him: he created them male and female. --Genesis 1:26-27

 All men are created equal and all power and jurisdiction is granted to each man equally by God. --John Locke

   Rights are "endowed" to us. Not given, not provided, endowed. This word is closely related to the word "dowry." A dowry is a gift given from a father to his daughter at her marriage. Dowries were a permanent gift, transferred directly to the recipient, intended only for the recipient, and unable to be denied. Rights are indeed endowed upon us. They are our dowry.

   Rights are also unalienable (or inalienable), a word most little kids stumble over and few understand. However, the Founding Fathers chose this word very carefully. It was related to the word "alienate," which was a legal term meant to describe transfer or sale of ownership of property. If an object was alienable, that meant it was able to be transferred. An object that is unalienable is unable to be sold or transferred. 

   This means that our rights are permanent gifts given to everyone equally at their creation, unable to be transferred, denied, sold, or taken. Come back next week to find out where our rights come from and why it's so important!

   Many thanks to Congressman Barry Loudermilk for providing the resources used in this blog post and for instructing me about rights.

Is Hate Speech Protected by the First Amendment?

   "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." It's one of the things we all grew up hearing and disagreeing with. Let's face it, we all know words can do much more damage than sticks and stones. This is the reason most of the protests nowadays have something to do with hate speech. (If you are unfamiliar with this term, this means anything considered offensive, racist, sexist, etc.) People everywhere are crying out that the government shut down people promoting hate speech. They want government entities and private companies to refuse to allow scheduled protesters to come to their campuses and other spots because they'll be promoting hate speech. And everyone everywhere says that it's not protected by the Constitution.
   It sounds good on paper. But the truth is quite a bit different and somewhat harder to hear.
   The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

   It's clean and simple. What people have to say is protected by the Constitution. Period. People may say things that are hateful, things that are rude and mean and arrogant and wrong, but even if we don't like it, it's not the government's place to tell them to shut up. Unless someone is threatening your life, purposefully slandering your reputation, or spreading secrets they swore to protect, the government cannot and should not prosecute them.
   It's a hard truth to learn. It's not easy to hear things you disagree with. It's not easy to be lied about, cursed at, insulted, or offended. But if we turn to the government to start regulating the things we don't like, the things that make us uncomfortable, and the things that hurt us, we will be falling down a slippery slope that we may have to fight a war to get back up. Once we allow the government to start regulating speech, even speech considered hate speech, all the government has to do to suppress freedom of speech and the press is to throw people's words under the umbrella of hate speech and then everyone can be shut up.

   I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death the right to say it.

   This idea, put so cogently by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, a biographer of Voltaire, perfectly demonstrates the attitude of free speech. It was hard for me to get behind at first, but I value freedom so much I eventually took it to heart. Honestly, what the KKK has to say makes me want to vomit. Fascist and anti-fascist groups alike make me want to scream. But no matter what I think of what they have to say, if anyone tries to shut them up with the law, I will fight that person to my last breath. If we call on the government to solve our problems, we will eventually find them controlling our lives.
   Instead of screaming at the government to ban the KKK and kick out the neo-Nazis from their planned protests, why don't we try peacefully spreading the truth instead? When somebody says something that offends us or makes us mad, when someone blatantly lies, instead of screaming at them or wailing that hate speech isn't supported by the First Amendment, why don't we try to calmly confront the liars with the truth or just simply walk away?
   Frankly, saying "hate speech isn't protected by the First Amendment" is a threat to our freedom. Because eventually, the legislators will believe it and they will act on it. They will pass laws prohibiting hate speech and they will enforce them. It will start out innocent, but it won't stay that way. Pretty soon, innocent people will be thrown in jail simply for speaking their minds. It could be me. It could be you.
   Freedom of speech is one of the most precious things we possess in our country. None of us want that to go away. So next time someone says something that offends you, something ignorant or prejudiced or just plain mean, instead of screaming at the government to shut them up or responding in kind to the ignorance and the hate, try taking a deep breath, respecting their (wrong) opinion, and spreading the truth.

The True Enemies of the American People

   The year 2016 will long be remembered around America as one of the worst years most of us have ever experienced. Terror attacks were rising on the extreme, celebrities were dying it seemed every other week, and our nation was caught in the throes of an election that ripped our nation apart. The last threads of unity left hanging in our country were snapped as Republicans and Democrats first tore themselves apart in vicious primaries, then tore each other apart in an even more vicious general election. Violence rose everywhere political candidates went, hate was spewed on every political post that showed up on Facebook, and people on both sides lived in such a constant state of anger that they threw around death threats like confetti.

   The election has ended, but the fighting has just gotten worse. People on both sides have worked themselves into a frenzy. The left bemoans everything the current government does as causing the deaths of millions, and the right pounces on anything the government does, tears it to pieces, and calls the entire government promise-breaking traitors if they can find even a smidgen of something to criticize. People on both sides are intent on destroying anyone they see as opposition without pause or regrets. They are unable to speak civilly to someone that does not hold their views. It should not have been a surprise when the rabid fighting that has been going on unchecked finally pushed an unstable man to do the unthinkable and try to murder congressmen and senators gathering to practice for a charity baseball game. This country and this people have come to a breaking point, and if we don't find a way to unify, we may destroy ourselves in a civil war more bloody than the one that erupted in 1861.

   Hate. Anger. Viciousness. Violence. These are the things that define our country today, when before we were known for our love, our compassion, and our unity. We are not the United States of America anymore, but the Divided States of America. People all around the nation seem to have forgotten how to disagree civilly, how to have different worldviews and still be friends, how to love and care and put aside our differences for what really matters.
   Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could not have been more different. They had completely opposing beliefs and ideological systems. They disagreed on nearly everything that mattered. And yet they were still best friends for many years before Justice Scalia succumbed to a heart attack in February of 2016. Most Americans today couldn't even fathom how two people so different could be such good friends, and I couldn't either until not long ago.
   During former President Obama's very last State of the Union address, I had a flash of realization. Despite our incredibly differing views on everything imaginable, we were still working towards the same goal: a better, safer, freer America. Contrary to what I had believed, most people on the left are not consciously trying to destroy the country we all love. I realized we all do love America, no matter our political beliefs. We all are trying to make her a better nation, though we have different views on how that can be accomplished. I realized these people are not my enemies. We are all Americans, united in purpose and truth...or we should be.
   So who are our enemies?
   Barack Obama is not our enemy. Donald Trump is not our enemy. Neither is Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, George W. Bush, Ted Cruz, or the media on both sides of the aisle. Hate is our enemy. Fear is our enemy. Aggression and violence are our enemies. Criticism, anger, and suspicion are our enemies. Ignorance is our enemy. Lies are our enemy.
   But people are not our enemies. We need to stop all the hatred and the anger and the lies. We need to stop accusing the other side of trying to kill people and of being the devil's seed. We need to stop assuming the people in the government are out for themselves and are always trying to hurt the American people. We need to stop jumping to conclusions, and threatening violence, and losing friends to arguments over our beliefs. We can disagree and still be friends. We have a lot more in common with the people on the other side than we think. People on the other side are truly trying to do the right thing. It does not make them our enemy when they are opposed to what we are doing.
   We can still disagree with the people around us. Indeed, disagreements, if conducted civilly and in a friendly manner, can be very healthy for a nation of laws and purpose. But the fighting, the hatred, the ignorance, the anger, is poisoning our country and may lead to her death. It needs to stop and it needs to stop now, on both sides of the aisle, in every state, in every political and ideological group, in every religion and belief system, in every city and town, everywhere across the entire nation.
   Please reach out to those around you who disagree with you and reassure them you are their friends, that you stand with them, and that though you may disagree on many things, you still love them and recognize you are still working towards a better America.
   In the 1960's, people talked about spreading love, not hate. True love is putting aside our differences and standing united, working towards our common goals, and finding our common ground with each other. Let's put aside our division and hatred and become a united nation once more.