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 Communication

Viewpoint Discrimination: Forgetting What Makes Us Free?

Isn’t the difference of opinion the very thing that built this country?

We weren’t founded on sameness—but on dissent. The thirteen colonies didn’t rise up because they agreed with the power, but because they dared to question it. That impulse—audacious, messy, courageous—is what the First Amendment was written to protect. And yet, here we are again, toying with the dangerous idea that some speech is more tolerable than others. That some viewpoints belong, and others must be silenced and erased.

Shouldn’t that make us uncomfortable?

When tax-funded public institutions—schools, libraries, boards—begin removing books because someone doesn’t like what they say, that’s not preservation of order. That’s viewpoint discrimination. It’s not protecting children. It’s insulating and cuddling weak ideologies. And it’s a blade that ultimately cuts both ways.

You may cheer today when a book you dislike is banned. But what happens tomorrow, when the next board turns its gaze toward the ones you cherish? What makes you think your shelves won’t be next?

We have been here before. In the 1950s, it was Communists. In the 1930s, it was Jews, dissidents, and “degenerates.” Ideas were labeled threats. Libraries were sanitized. People fell silent. Is that the direction we want to revisit?

And what of free speech? Have we forgotten that the First Amendment isn’t just the right to speak, but the right to receive, to read, to explore—especially the uncomfortable truths?

A candidate who once shouted from podiums about the sanctity of the First Amendment, to get elected, now wields it like a partisan tool—defending it when it serves him, abandoning it when it doesn’t, and threatening retaliation, retribution, revoking citizenship, and deportation. Isn’t that the ultimate hypocrisy? To claim allegiance to liberty, but only on your terms, isn’t democracy; it is authoritarianism.

Let’s ask plainly: If a public school or library removes a book about a Muslim child exploring faith, or an LGBTQ teen navigating identity, or a historical critique of systemic injustice—while allowing others that affirm dominant religious or political norms—can that possibly be considered neutral? Can it promote learning diversity and inclusion, or only foster selfish isolation and the illusion of greatness?

And if the government—through policy, threat, or performance—signals what speech is safe and what is not, can we still call ourselves a free people?

Pluralism is not about liking every voice. It’s about letting them speak. It’s about understanding that in a nation where taxes are paid by atheists and Baptists, Muslims, Mormons, and immigrants, the public square must be open to all—or none.

If one religion is given space in a publicly funded institution, then all must be. If one ideology is allowed to teach, then all must have a place at the table. If one set of values is protected, then all must be. Or else what we are protecting is not freedom—but control.

So, we must ask ourselves: Do we still believe in a country where debate is encouraged, not silenced? Where a library or a school is a place of discovery, not conformity? Where the power of ideas—not the fear of them—leads us? Because if not, then we are no longer the land of the free—we are simply the land of the approved, bowing to fragile egos. We, and the world, have been there before and rejected viewpoint discrimination; we can, have, and must do better.

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