My Year in Books

   As a voracious reader, I measure my year in books. Also, by political happenings, because I'm involved in politics. I started a Goodreads account late in 2017, so this is the first time I can track my reading throughout an entire year.

January

    In January, I reread the Dragonkeeper Chronicles, the inspiration for my all-time favorite series ever, Ilyon Chronicles. I really missed the characters (namely Bardon the Amazing), so it was nice to be able to come back to them. I finished rereading A Wrinkle in Time so I could review it before the new movie that I didn't want to watch came out. I reread The Lost Stories (Rangers Apprentice) and By Darkness Hid, because I really love both of those stories (though The Lost Stories is not my favorite Rangers Apprentice). I read Wonder for the first time, and loved it. I also read The Poison Kiss, a couple of Star Wars books, the last three Series of Unfortunate Events books, four books about biological warfare (for writing research, obviously), an indie published zombie book, and October, which is very impactful and unforgettable. 

Book of the Month: October.

February

   I read twenty books in January. In February, I read two. That's right, two. And one of them doesn't even count, because it was a drawing book. I checked out How to Draw Incredible Ocean Animals so I could draw an otter for a logo of a book review blog I'm probably not going to keep up. Also, I read Auggie and Me. It was good, but I have no idea why it took up the entire month. I really enjoyed Julian's chapter, and how he wasn't being mean to Auggie because he hated him, but because he was scared of him. 

Book of the Month, by default: Auggie and Me.

March

   I returned to my voracious book devouring in March. I read my first Beverly Cleary YA book, and I don't know why I waited so long. Her YA books are even more amazing than the Ramona and Henry Huggins books. I finished a longer book about biological warfare (I told you, writing research) and read an Andrew Clements book about kids who just want to sit and read all day (#me) and it was amazing. Almost all the books he mentioned were longtime friends of mine. Great book. I read an okay Shannon Hale book. Also, I read the last five Betsy-Tacy books, though I'm fairly sure I read those in February and just shelved them in March, which would explain why Goodreads says I only read two books in February. I read Lysbeth: A Tale of the Dutch (and was rooting for Adrien the entire time), the entire Moonlighters series because I got the first and third ones for my birthday, and reread Exiles. Because it's a comfort read of mine.

Book of the Month: Exiles. Because Exiles. 😍😍😍😍😍😍

April

   In April, I finished a lot of school books. Advanced math (of which I will have no more until college algebra), physics, an incredibly dumb book about Christopher Columbus, Man, Economy, and State, Desiring God, The Normal Christian Life, Human Action, Much Ado About Nothing (It really is about nothing; it was the most boring Shakespeare play I've read), Standish of Standish, Monezuma's Daughter (of which I read half in one day), The Fifth of March, The Real Benjamin Franklin, and Voyager's Tales, from which book I remember almost nothing except some Muslim government official paid one guy quite a bit in gold to stand by him all day and occasionally hold his cloak. I want a job as easy as that. On the fun side of things, I finished rereading the Blood of Kings trilogy, reread The Royal Ranger and didn't hate it so much this time (but I will never forgive John Flanagan for killing her), and reread a sweet short story collection about two people falling in love. I read the entire Maze Runner trilogy, accidentally stumbling into another zombie book. I keep doing that, which is weird, because I don't really like zombie fiction. The series was honestly pretty disappointing. My favorite book was the prequel with none of the main characters in it. I also read If I Live (another good Terri Blackstock book), a bunch of picture books, and reread Mary Ware in Texas and A Captain's Heart (or at least most of it). 

Book of the Month: Montezuma's Daughter. Because "Heart to heart, though far apart" doesn't really count if you've been chosen as a sacrificial victim by a bunch of Aztecs. Also, Henry Rider Haggard does the whole "Native-American-culture-being-destroyed-by-outsiders-as-witnessed-by-the-European-adopted-into-the-tribe" story line better than most people.

May

   Once upon a time, an innocent young reader picked up the book The Kestrel from the library and read it, unaware that it was the second book in a trilogy. Needless, to say, I was hopelessly confused, even after reading the first and third books. I later bought the first and third books at a library book sale (but frustratingly, they didn't sell their copy of The Kestrel. If they had, my whole set could have matched), but for the longest time could not find the second. Last year, I finally got it, and, for the first time, read the whole series in order, which happened in May. It makes so much more sense now! I also read a couple of books for a research paper about British soldiers during the American Revolution, another amazing Beverly Cleary YA book, and a picture book and a Lois Lowry book I bought at a library book sale. At the very end of the month, I reread Cinder and Scarlet because I bought Cinder at a library book sale and I love Kai. I read the books where Nanny McPhee came from, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (which would have been so mysterious if everybody on planet Earth didn't know the big plot twist), The Summer of Broken Things, The Penderwicks at Last (Baffrey forever!), and Dagger's Sleep. Dagger's Sleep was so good. It's basically a genderbent Sleeping Beauty in a fantasy world with a Native American feel. So cool. Even though I totally shipped the wrong ship with this one, I enjoyed it anyway. It's so beautiful. And I want more Alexander. Also, I started reading War and Peace this month because I made a New Year's resolution to myself to read it over the summer. 

Book of the Month: Dagger's Sleep. This isn't the cover I read it with, but I love this one so much more.

June

   I started out this month reading Cress and Winter (my poor Wolf baby 😢😢😢😢), and War and Peace, of course. I read the second Elsie book and a picture book, listened to The Penderwicks at Point Moutte (poor Jeffrey), and listened to an audio drama of The Fellowship of the Ring. AND TOM BOMBADIL WAS CUT OUT AGAIN!!! WHY DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING???? Also, it was really weird for Ian Holm to play Frodo. My sister brought home The War That Saved My Life, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The Bottle Imp was a very interesting short story by Robert Louis Stevenson. My mom made me read When God Writes Your Love Story and it was great. And I beta-read Bitter Winter and it was amazing.

Book of the Month: Bitter Winter. Because Ilyon. And Jace is my baby.

July
   I read some really good books this month, and one REALLY awful one. You know, the kind where the more you think about it, the more you hate it? It wasn't even remotely scientifically plausible, or written well, but it was still horrific and will haunt me forever. It's supposed to turn people against abortion (how? abortion is illegal in the world of this book), but all it really accomplishes is scaring people away from organ donation. Seriously? The underlying message of this book? "Organ donation is creepy because if you give someone a kidney they'll share your soul." Um, what? Enough about Unwind, though. I read the sequel to The War That Saved My Life (so good), On the Far Side of the Mountain (kind of lame, and I hated the stupid decision of letting Frightful go free. She's lived all her life as a pet! She'll die on her own), Clifford's First Autumn (don't ask why, I don't remember), and reread To Kill a Mockingbird out loud with my family. To Kill a Mockingbird is so good, and not actually about racism or Tom Robinson or his trial. It's about Scout Finch growing up and about Boo Radley. And it's amazing. I beta-read Lacy, which is really good even though it didn't have Jace in it. Here's my full review, if you want to read it. I reread The Lightning Thief and Old Yeller, then read the sequel Savage Sam for the first time, in which Travis get tortured by Indians! Also, I was still reading War and Peace, obviously. My grandpa told me this month I'd be thirty before I finished it, but he was proven wrong. Not this month, though. It is over a thousand pages, after all. I'm no Charlie Brown.
Book of the Month: To Kill a Mockingbird, because it's amazing. Honorary mention of Lacy, because Ilyon.

August
   School started back, so I read several books because of that this month. Are You Liberal, Conservative, or Confused? (confused; labels can mean anything nowadays), The Second Treatise of Government (though I would have read that one for fun), The Children of the New Forest (gotta love classism), and Savior or Servant? Putting Government in its Place (disappointingly, the book never delivers on the title). I reread The Destiny of a Galaxy, The Arm of a Starfish (I love Adam Eddington), and Tarzan of the Apes (more classism and some racism, but I love the book anyway). We read My Side of the Mountain as a family, and it wasn't as big a hit as To Kill a Mockingbird. I had read the book myself a while ago, but the rest of my family hadn't. I read The Official SAT Guide 2018 (riveting, I know), The Worth of a King (which I beta-read most of), Orphan's Song (I finally finished it! I'd been meaning to read it for years), Love Defined (Dear non-fiction authors: please stop asking me to do activities at the end of each chapter; it's not going to happen), The Unexpected Life of Oliver Cromwell Pitts (which I did not know was part of at least a duology until I reached the end and it was a ciffhanger), A Little House of their Own (what can I say? I've never cared for the Caroline series), The Player King (I love books that bring back into memory obscure history stories I forgot), and The Battle of Hackham Heath. Yes, this was the first time I read it. I was avoiding it, afraid it would be boring, but the rest of my family suddenly got into Ranger's Apprentice for the first time, so when my sister brought it home from the library, I couldn't not read it. It wasn't as boring as I thought it would be, and I love spending time with Halt, Crowley, Duncan, Abelard, and baby Gilan.
Book of the Month: The Battle of Hackham Heath. Because Halt and Crowley. 'Nuff said.

September
   School books: Planned Chaos (snorezilla), The Real Thomas Jefferson (I relate to this guy: when he heard his house burned down, he immediately asked if his books were okay; sadly, they weren't), The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World, a.k.a. when people finally stopped building theocracies, and The Real George Washington. I admire that man so much. He single-handedly saved America. Don't believe me? Just imagine what would have happened if he had taken up Alexander Hamilton's offer to lead the army against Congress and become king of America. The Red Fox Clan came out this month, and I'm glad John Flanagan's writing is getting better again, though we need more Will and Horace together. Sheesh. I reread From the Dark to the Dawn again, because I can't get enough of good stories about Ancient Rome. I read Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker and The Empire Strikes Back (don't judge). Wow, George Lucas is such a terrible writer! I can definitely see where the idea to put Leia in a metal bikini came from. Yeesh. But, it still being Star Wars, I enjoyed it nevertheless, especially the references to backstory that so clearly and obviously changed when George wrote the prequels. Also, Luke's nickname being "Wormy" never gets old. And I finished War and Peace! If you're wondering, yes, it's a novel, and yes, it's worth it. The story is all about the characters, though Tolstoy can philosophize a bit too much. I wasn't very happy that a certain character died, but it led to a better relationship than the current one, so I'm happy. Also, legitimizing illegitimate sons of nobility so they can inherit titles is a wonderful idea which I think certain authors should bestow on certain beloved characters.
Book of the Month: War and Peace. It's really good and it's really worth it.

October
   School books: The Social Contract (yikes), The Articles of Confederation (double yikes; not for the same reason, though, just...no wonder the country almost fell apart under these!), Walden (OHMYGOSH, why does this book exist? Read my review here), Liberty of Conscience, Common Sense (wow), Christian View of Men and Things (doesn't exactly deliver on the title, but I really enjoy philosophy, so I liked this book), The 5000 Year Leap, and Silas Marner. The part on the back cover doesn't happen until near the end. I really think it needs a new description. I read a lot of picture books, because my dad brought home a big box of free ones from his work and I read through them to decide if I wanted them. Also, my sister brought home Cat & Mouse: A Delicious Tale from the library just so we could see how bizarre it was. And it is bizarre. It's the strangest book I've ever read. Perhaps Jill and Eustace should have started craving Puddleglum after seeing Marshwiggle in the giant cookbook? And why call it a "delicious" tale? Is the prospect of eating your friends delicious? So weird. I finished Martin Chuzzlewit, which I'd been working on for a while. I didn't appreciate how he portrayed Americans, but other than that, it was a pretty good book. David Copperfield is still my favorite Dickens book, though. Also, we finished reading The Education of Little Tree as a family. It was certainly an interesting book.
Book of the Month: Cat & Mouse. Not because I liked it --I would never read this to a little kid-- but because it's just so bizarre it's ridiculously memorable. It's worth a read just to laugh and shake your head at. Also, Martin Chuzzlewit, because it was actually pretty good.

November
   School books: The Making of America, a wonderfully informative book about the US Constitution, Uncle Tom's Cabin, a good book that sadly furthers certain stereotypes, Democracy in America, a book that makes my eyes bleed because while de Tocqueville has great things to say, it's REPUBLICANISM, not DEMOCRACY, for crying out loud, and In the Valley, a riveting book about a Dutch New Yorker in the middle of the Revolution who is unfortunately somewhat racist. I read three Fancy Nancy books because I bought them from Goodwill, a picture book my sister bought about a fox traveling to Noah's Ark. I also read Bitter Winter again (an ARC this time), and Decree, the unexpected Christmas present from Tricia Mingerink, a.k.a., The Lost Stories of Acktar. IT WAS SO GOOD! I missed Leith and them so much, and love seeing their future. (Read my full review here.) And I'm beyond pleased there's going to be a sixth and seventh book to the series.
Book of the Month: Decree, because it was absolutely fantabulous and I can't pick Bitter Winter twice.

December
   School books: On Liberty, The Discovery of Freedom (amazing book), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life (what can I say? I like long titles), and The Federalist Papers. Also, the Anti-Federalist Papers, but I didn't add that one to Goodreads. I started research on Poland for a paper I'm writing, and read Poland and Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1945-1953 for that. I read Lacy again (ARC), read From the Mouth of Elijah (and started planning out a scathing review that I unfortunately have to finish the series to write), and Precisely Terminated, a really good book that the rude library people neglected to buy the sequels to. Don't they realize they're there so poor students don't have to buy good books? I reread Children of Exile and Children of Refuge so I wasn't totally lost when I read Children of Jubilee, which was fantastic, by the way. I received some free books I won in July, among them After, yet another zombie fiction I stumbled into. I really enjoyed this one, especially as this one was set in a fantasy world, so there's an excuse why they're not calling them zombies. Another one was Cora and the Nurse Dragon, a delightful children's book about raising dragons. I read Reflection, Part of Your World, A Whole New World, and As Old As Time, all part of the Twisted Tales series about AU plot threads in Disney movies. I really liked Reflection and Part of Your World, but hated A Whole New World (read my review here). As Old As Time was okay. I read The Girl With 500 Middle Names, which means I have only two more Haddix books to read before I've read them all. I read A Christmas Carol, as I do every Christmas season. It's a great way to spend Christmas Eve. I got Wonder for Christmas, so I read it again. After that, I read The Mysterious Benedict Society, because I had to read it since I just got it, and Mary Poppins, because we watched Saving Mr. Banks and Mary Poppins. The last book of 2018 was Tales of Ever After, another free book. It was a short story collection of fairy tale adaptations and very enjoyable.
Book of the Month: Precisely Terminated. The worst/best dystopian I've read. Panem's got nothing on this. At least Katniss has sunlight.

   And that's it! I could always have written my year in politics instead, but that would be stressful, not fun. Even more stressful is the new year in politics. The presidential campaign has begun, after all. Bookswise, I don't know. I hope to read many good books, and not suffer another Unwind. Ugh. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everybody!

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 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.