Posted in Current Events, Political

Guardrails Against the Authoritarianism Storm

Columns supporting our Constitutional Liberties

Article first published in the Bend Bulletin 9/27/25

The Bill of Rights was not a mere document, but a product of the founders’ deep suspicion of concentrated power. They had witnessed the crushing of liberties under a monarchy and feared that even a republican government might someday drift toward authoritarianism. The First Amendment enshrines freedoms of mind and voice; the Second Amendment ensures the citizenry will never be entirely powerless should those freedoms come under assault. This foresight of the founders enlightens us about the historical context of the Bill of Rights, giving us a deeper understanding of our constitutional rights.

History was their teacher. British suppression of colonial assemblies, censorship of dissenting press, and the Intolerable Acts were enforced not with argument but with troops. The Revolution began not at a printing press, but when local militias clashed with regular soldiers at Lexington and Concord (1775) to resist the seizure of their weapons. It was this combination—ideas in pamphlets like Common Sense (1776) and the willingness to defend them—that secured independence.

James Madison (Federalist 46) envisioned an armed citizenry as the ultimate check on federal overreach, noting that “the advantage of being armed” would deter encroachments on liberty. Alexander Hamilton (Federalist 29), though skeptical of full-time militias, conceded that a people capable of bearing arms would make any tyranny costly. Later commentators, such as St. George Tucker (1803), referred to the Second Amendment as the “true palladium of liberty,” a final barrier against usurpation (Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries).

The framers did not celebrate rebellion, and neither should we. They built a republic designed to settle disputes through institutions—legislatures, courts, and elections—not through insurrection. The Second Amendment was less an invitation to revolt than a final constitutional guardrail, a reminder to government that the people remain sovereign. It was meant to make authoritarian control—whether through censorship, suppression of dissent, or militarized governance—impractical.

“The Second defends the First,” captures part of this truth but misses the deeper genius of the American design. Our first line of defense for free expression is institutional: the separation of powers, judicial independence, and a free press that is able to hold the government accountable. An armed citizenry is the last resort, the failsafe that ensures no regime can permanently silence the governed, providing a sense of security about our rights.

Even in polarized times, the resilience of this framework is remarkable. Courts still strike down attempts at censorship, legislators still debate fiercely, and citizens continue to speak, publish, assemble, and worship according to their conscience. With some legislators seeming to yield to the mob or bend a knee for their own political survival, our Constitution has withstood civil war, economic depression, McCarthyism, and demagoguery precisely because its protections are layered—legal, institutional, and cultural. The greatest defense of liberty is not fear of armed resistance but the enduring resolve of citizens who insist on their right to speak and be heard. When we do not defend the first, we risk the second, the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the nineteenth. When we defend free speech, preserve checks and balances, and reject authoritarian shortcuts and fragile egos—whether from the left or the right—we prove that the American experiment remains not only viable but vital. This reiteration of the importance of defending free speech should empower you and make you feel responsible for upholding your rights, instilling a sense of duty and empowerment in you. # NeverFearTheDream # Stand for Truth # Stand with Pride # Stand with Spine

For Every Problem...A Solution...
Lap Around the Sun: Daily Steps Forward
Joy in Alzheimer’s: My Mom’s Brave Walk into Dementia’s Abyss

Posted in Political

Due Process…..

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or in any way destroyed, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” — Magna Carta, 1215 (Clause 39)

Our nation’s history is a testament to the struggle against arbitrary rule. The great-grandfathers of our Founding Fathers experienced the terror of being forcibly removed from their homes and imprisoned under the whims of King John. Four centuries later, England again endured authoritarian rule during the reign of Charles I, who’s infamous “Star Chamber” court was notorious for arbitrary decisions and the absence of due process. His absolutism led to civil war, the rise of Parliamentarian power, and, eventually, his execution. This historical context is crucial to understanding the risks of eroding due process.

Today, we risk repeating history. The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is eroding, replaced by guilt by association.

Our Founders—and the generations before and after them—fought for Due Process: the simple but powerful idea that no one should be punished solely for their beliefs, associations, or background. Yes, every group has bad actors, and they must be held accountable. But not everyone in that group deserves blanket suspicion or punishment.

Many people flee violence in their countries—or even in our neighborhoods—because they were coerced into associations they didn’t choose. These individuals deserve to be judged by their actions today, not by the group they once belonged to. Not every gang member is a felon—but if we apply collective guilt to some groups, shouldn’t we apply it to others? To organizations with histories of abuse? To law enforcement agencies where some officers have abused their authority? Or what about political protests? Some individuals turned otherwise peaceful movements—like Black Lives Matter or the January 6th rally—into scenes of violence. However, the majority who showed up did so to express their beliefs, not to break the law. Likewise, social media platforms have hosted harmful or hateful content, but they’ve also become places of education, connection, and free speech. Do we judge the entire protest or platform by the actions and posting of its ‘worst’ participants?

Most of us are, or have been, part of groups where some members acted in ways we reject. We shouldn’t be punished for their choices.

This country is built on the foundation of individual rights, not collective guilt. When we lose sight of this, we don’t just lose due process—we lose the very essence of liberty. This is when we start down the path of political purges and authoritarianism, as seen in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China. Our republic was designed to prevent exactly that, and it’s up to each of us to defend our individual rights.

If someone has committed a crime, let them be arrested, tried, and convicted—individually and fairly by a jury. But mass detentions, deportations, or punishments without due process undermine the very freedoms that protect all of us.

These rights are not just for someone else’s protection-they are for your protection too. It’s time to stand up, speak up, and defend them. Your voice matters, and your actions can make a difference in preserving the due process and individual rights that are the cornerstone of our society. Speak up—Stand up—Defend it –Or Lose it and maybe yourself.

NeverFearTheDream simplebender.com @simplebender.bsky.social Mundus sine ceasaribus