Hate, Violence and the 1st Amendment

As a lawyer, I feel it is my duty to help people understand the law. It is clear to me that recent events around the country reveal that most people misunderstand what the 1st Amendment actually protects and what it doesn't. I'd like to provide clarity on this matter.

What The 1st Amendment Says 

The First Amendment reads as follows: 

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.

This means that you you can practice/not practice whatever religion/philosophy you want, say almost anything you want, including disagreeing with the government publicly without going to jail, publish or write almost anything you want, and you can can have a peaceful protest.

Hate Speech Is Protected Speech Under the 1st Amendment

First of all, hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. This fundamental and basic Constitutional principle was recently reaffirmed in the Supreme Court case, Matal v. Tam. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the following about offensive speech:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, and agreed with the majority on the topic of offensive speech:

 A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

 The 1st Amendment Protects All Unpopular Speech...Including Yours!

Believe it or not, the 1st Amendment is designed to protect most forms of speech with a few narrow exceptions where it is not protected. Hate speech or offensive speech is not one of the exceptions to the 1st Amendment.

The 1st Amendment has been used to protect the speech of a wide variety of people and organizations such as the KKK, Communists, students, minors, members of the press, civil rights leaders, individuals who burn the American flag, pornography, strippers, people and individuals who engage in commerce, political campain donations, and technology like the internet and television. That is just a brief list but it covers much more than what I have just listed.

As you can see, the 1st Amendment protects all of us because we are all have different views, opinons, and ideas that we are free to express without fear of government censorship or oppression. In other words, the 1st Amendment protects a wide variety of thought and speech. That includes speech we may not like or find harmful, offensive or distasteful.  The right to free speech isn't just to protect speech we do like but it is there to protect the speech we don't like. 

Which goes back to my original point that the 1st Amendment protects all of us since most people have an unpopular or controversial opinions, views or thoughts that we want to share with others or the public. Thus, 1st Amendment protects all of us when we want to say something that is unpopular or controversial. If we try to take speech away from others because we don't like what they say, that doesn't occur without diminishing our own right to speech. To take away speech from one group, is to take speech away from all groups. 

Kathrine Mangu Ward, writing for Reason.com wrote about the potential consequnces of eliminating speech we don't like:

"But if fascists are to lose their free speech rights, someone must take them. And if you believe, as many of the counter-protesters do, that the white nationalists and their brethren were emboldened by the presence of a man in the White House who sees them as part of his coalition, then why on God's good green earth would you want to turn around and hand that very man the right to censor anyone whom he labels fascists? Because I can tell you right now, the list of folks that Trump and the restive-but-still-Republican Congress would like to silence sure won't look like the list those sign-wavers have in mind.

The people wielding "No Free Speech for Fascists" placards might as well be holding up signs saying "No Free Speech for Muslims." And in fact, many on the right have been making just that argument against the ACLU for years now, arguing that exceptions to our free speech principles should be made to curtail extreme speech by Muslim religious figures or activists in the name of security, or even (in the stupidest variant of the idea) that the ACLU is part of a radical Islamic conspiracy. But if the justification for restrictions on the speech of one man is violence committed by another, there can be no end to list of people who may be silenced in the name of order."

The 1st Amendment Was Used To Protect the KKK, Nazis and White Supremacists

When it comes to neo-Nazis, the right to promote their twisted thinking goes back to the 1977 case Nationalist Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. These Nazis wanted to stage a march through a community that was predominantly Jewish. Naturally, the citizens of that community were angry, offended and outraged. However, the Supreme Court upheld the the Socialist's right to march through the community and that the community could not block this activity even if was offensive.

The 1st Amendment Doesn't Protect, Justify or Defend The Use of Violence Against Those Who Utter Hate Speech or Offensive Speech 

As an attorney, I am uncomfortable with the growing acceptance othat violence is ok towards people with views that other people may find objectionable. 

There are many who justify violence against people who traffic in hate or offensive speech because they are allegedly engaging  in what they call “verbal violence,” and therefore argue that physical violence is sometimes justified in order to stop such verbal violence. In other words, words you don’t like deserve to be fought physically.

Under the 1st Amendment, the only effective counter to free speech - hateful or not - is more speech. This concept has been affirmed by our Founding Fathers, politicians and Surpreme Court cases. Otherwise, any attempt to use violence to supress speech that some people find objectionable is always met with more violence; and nothing meets and defeats violence but more violence. 

Once society accepts violence as a method of curbing speech people find offensive, where do you draw the line on which groups of people is ok to hit and which groups of people are not ok to hit based on their beliefs or speech?

Additionally, people will come up with their own justifications for violence against others. They will argue that "if X can engage in violence against Y becuase X finds their Y's offensive, why can't C hit D because C finds D's language hateful?" This line of thinking will lead to more violence, not less. This line of thinking is dangerous for all of us, especially minorities.

Moreover, who will decide which speech is not offensive and which ones are offensive? Will it be the party currently in power? What happens if the positions of power changes from one party to another? Will the new ruling power dictate new "speech" codes and use it as a club to hammer their opponents?

Violence and Free Speech In Charlottesville

What happened in Charlottesville was terrible. Horrible. And Predictable. 

Predictable because of the growing accceptbility over the false idea that offensive speech opens the door for people to take a swing at the speaker who uttered bad speech. 

Now, before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I am not defending these Nazis or what they said. I am not defending what Antifa did or said. I just personally and professionally (as a lawyer) don't like the idea that it is ok to punch people because they have unpopular views. However, what I will defend is people's right to utter bad speech...even if I find it 100% intolerable.

I find that both sides were wrong engaging in violence towards one another. I know that I am not in the minority on this. I think there is a significant segment of America who are 100% against the Nazis and White Supremacists but who are also not thrilled with Antifa and BLM either. I think that is a valid, fair and reasonable position to hold.

Recently Trump held a press conference and during the Q and A portion of the press conference, Trump said both the Nazis and Antifa were at fault for the violence but then tried to defend the Nazi protesters. Trump was both right AND wrong here. He's right that both groups are to blame for the violence. But he was absolutely, completely, utterly WRONG for defending the Nazi protesters at that press conference. If Trump's press conference yesterday wasn't cause for outrage and action, I don't know what would be. White supremacy, Nazism, racism, anti-Semitism, bigotry, and hatred should not be defended or rationalized by ANY US American president. It was not ok for Trump to defend the "Alt Right."

But Trump was right in the sense that both the Nazis and Antifa were wrong to engage in violence against one another. 

Blaire White has stated the following on Twitter:
 

The statement "Nazis are bad" is not diminished in any way by following it with "and so is Antifa".

— Blaire White (@MsBlaireWhite) August 16, 2017

https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/status/897639342201503744
Many people are furious because they argue that Trump and others are engaging in a false moral equivalency between Nazis and Antifa. They demand that people only condemn the Nazis and not Antifa.

In the Charlottesville situation, it isn't about moral equivalency. It's about holding people accountable. You cannot praise one form of violence and denounce another.

If you think one side is more culpable than the other, let me remind you that both the Charlottesville Chief of Police and the Virginia ACLU have openly said that both (Nazis & Antifa) group were both there to brawl and both are to blame. The people who live in Charlottesville felt that both sides were to blame and they didn't want either side coming into their town.

Currently, there is no room for discussion, nuance or thought on the discussion of violence between the Nazis and Antifa. Many people demand that you must either choose to oppose the Nazis or not and people will pressume that you support them. Based on those demands, we have a "either you are against us or for us" mentality and that no other opinion will be tolerated. It is not possible in this current climate to openly say you think both sides suck.

We should all be asking ourselves: Is there any room in our national discourse for those group of people who don't like either side and feel that both are bad for very different reasons?

Moreover, no one is saying that the Nazis and Antifa were equally bad at Charlottesville. Just because one group is bad, it doesn't mean there can't be more than one group that is bad. They can be bad for different reasons and not on the same level or equivalency. Thus, one can say that both groups are bad. But they are not equally bad. Nazis are evil. Supporting Nazism or racism is just straight up evil. Antifa are thugs. The worst Antifa has done is engage in vandalism, arson, assault & battery on cops, reporters & racists. 

The tactics of both the Nazis and Antifa are equivalent since they both brought weapons into Charlottesville to do battle against one another. What is NOT equivalent is the idealogies of Antifa and the Nazis. They clearly have a difference of opinon on the issue of race in America.

Again, what is important here is that we are holding the people who engage in violence accountable. You cannot praise one form of violence and denounce another.

Let me be clear: The Nazi and White Supremacists are EVIL. There is no dispute about that. But let's not kid ourselves into believing that Antifa are angels.  Before Antifa,  Leftist violence has been happening for a long time ever since the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. They were principally opposed to Capitalism but with the concept of intersectionality, they're also in support of Leftist/Marxist issues. That was on full display with Occupy Wall Street. All of this occured before Trump came into office. Some people would describe them as the "Alt Left."

With the election of Donald Trump, Antifa was born allegedly to fight facism and racism by using facist tactics and goals. On the day of Trump's inaguration, they rioted, looted, damaged property, broke windows and torched cars. They have also suppressed the speech of conservative speakers and authors by egaging in the same behavior of rioting, looting, vandalism, arson, assault & battery against those who defended the 1st Amendment right of these speakers to share their views on college campuses across the nation. They have also been protesting against the police and physically assualting them with sticks, rocks, water balloons filled with paint and defacing police cars.

Just because many people are not supportive or impressed with Antifa folks, doesn't mean people should stop fighitng the Nazis. The fight against these racists must go on within the boundaries of the Constitution and federal, state and local laws. Oppose them by all legal means. But assaulting them is not one of them and not justified. These Nazis have a right to speech. But they can't choose the consequences of such speech.

At the same time, we can't let Antifa's violence off the hook just because we don't agree with the racism and bigotry from the other side. 

The police in Charlottesville did a poor job of managing the situation between the Nazis and Antifa. It is up to the police to defend free speech by providing security and they failed to do that. The police claimed that they were outgunned but that later turned out to be false. The police claimed that the situation was too dangerous for them to get in the middle of. That claim is false because what are the taxpayer's paying for when tax dollars are being given to the police if not to fight crime and get into dangerous situations!? Later, it was discovered that a standown order had been given and that is why the police didn't jump in. 

That is why the argument that violence is justified against harmful speech is dangerous. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of anarchy. The police allowed anarchy to rear its ugly head for a brief moment before they finally jumped in and started arresting people. As a lawyer, I simply ask: do people really want to live in a society without law and order? We saw what society could look like without police, law and order....and it was scary.

Conclusion

If society is to improve and get better, we need to allow people who can stand up be open in their opinions even if it s different, contrary, or controversial. We need to get back to the idea that people are free to say things that we don't like or is offensive.

If you want to curb prejudice, racism, bigotry, sexism, punching people won't do it. But speech will. You will have to talk to them and engage with them, serve them, feed them and hopefully they will turn from their bigoted views. 

We also need to wean ourselves off our addiction to outrage and return back to sanity. People are too easily offended, angry, or put off these days and it doesn't help bring people together and reduce negative feelings and violence. 

Also, we need to return to civic education and teach people about the Constitution because too many people are misguided on how the 1st Amendment works and what speech and behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable under the Constitution. 

Finally, Ben Shapiro is right. We need to be firm in condemning violence. He offers his solution to the violence that happened in Charlottesville:

Here's the moral solution, as always: Condemn violence and evil wherever it occurs. The racist philosophy of the alt-right is evil. The violence of the alt-right is evil. The communist philosophy of Antifa is evil. So is the violence of Antifa. If we are to survive as a republic, we must call out Nazis but not punch them; we must stop providing cover to anarchists and communists who seek to hide behind self-proclaimed righteousness to participate in violence. Otherwise, we won't be an honest or a free society.

Glenn Beck: Did You Ever Really Lose Your Voice?

Although Glenn Beck has asked a very important question that I have never thought about. If today was the last day you had a voice, what would you say? I began to think about the question and I realized a few important things.

Glenn Beck relies on a narrow definition of the word "voice." He uses it as using your vocal chords to express your thoughts, feelings and ideas. And based on that, it can be a scary thing if you are not able to talk. It also might prompt people to begin to reconsider their words and the effect it has on other people and how they might choose their words more carefully.

Like Glenn Beck, I make a living communicating. I am an attorney. I use my words to defend clients in court or to help them resolve their legal problems. I write memorandums, briefs, letters and other documents for my clients. I understand how important words are and how powerful our voices can be.

I am also an individual with a profound hearing loss. Not only can I communicate by talking but I use my hands to speak. I learned American Sign Language (ASL) when I was in high school. I use ASL to speak with my Deaf clients or to talk with my friends.

Because of my hearing loss and my profession, You might not be able to speak, but you will never lose your voice. EVER. You might lose the ability to speak as a result of some medical condition. You might have your voice restricted, suppressed or silenced by a repressive government.  Someone could physically prevent you from speaking by putting duct tape over your mouth or throwing you in prison. 

How you feel, think and see the world can never be suppressed. The Soviet Government is a good example of this. No matter how much they tried to control people's speech, the good people found a way to make their voices heard. An underground movement known as Samizdat was formed in which people wrote letters, poems, articles and essays expressing their views. With all the might that the former USSR had, it  couldn't suppress speech. 

As a result, our 1st Amendment right can never be taken away. It will always be there. You might not be able to speak, but you will never lose your voice. The 1st Amendment takes a broad view of speech. It protects all forms of communication. But our voices doesn't have to be made by sound or put down on paper.  That's the cool thing about American Sign Language.  Your voice is also found in your hands, eyes, and body. That is what makes ASL beautiful and awesome.What is in your heart or in your mind can be expressed through your body. Even ASL is protected under the 1st Amendment. 

So Glenn, you might lose your ability to talk, but you will never lose your voice. I recommend that you learn American Sign Language. You are a passionate man with lots of things to say. However, I suggest you expand the way you use your voice to include American Sign Language. You will never see the world the same again and how you express yourself and your ideas will never be the same. 

I know you might not be able to talk, but you will always have your voice.

How Do Mormons Feel About The U.S. Constitution?

The United States Constitution is the single most important document in America. It has historical, philosophical, legal and political significance. Moreover, there is no document like this in the world. As a result, it has evoked many different responses from people all over the world ranging from the positive to the negative. Some people look to the Constitution with nothing but respect and admiration while others look on it with scorn and disgust. 

Many people wonder what the LDS perspective is towards the U.S. Constitution since Mormons were not always treated well in American history and were denied the protections it promised in the document. Although the LDS faith was not in existence when the Constitution was drafted, Mormons are well known for their patriotic dedication to the Constitution and the founding fathers: 

Latter-day Saints have long been regarded by people outside their faith as among the most patriotic citizens of the nations in which they reside. Nowhere does this perception exist more strongly than in the United States of America. Yale University humanities professor Harold Bloom is typical of non-Mormon intellectuals and academics in his description of Latter-day Saints as the "most American" of all religions (The American Religion, Simon & Schuster, 1992). During the 20th and 21st Centuries Latter-day Saints have typically been over-represented among U.S. Senators, Representatives and Governors.

And yet, there were no Latter-day Saints among America's "Founding Fathers." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded on 6 April 1830, a full 54 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and 43 years after the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There were Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers, Dutch Reformed, Lutherans, Huguenots, Methodists and even a Unitarian and a few Catholics among the nation's Founding Fathers... but there were no Mormons.

Nor did the Founding Fathers have the opportunity to join the Church when it was finally organized in 1830. All but one of the Founding Fathers had died by then. Charles Carroll of Maryland was the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence to pass away: on 14 November 1832. He was a 93-year-old Catholic living in Baltimore, Maryland at the time the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, and he died before Latter-day Saint missionaries went to his city.

Suffice it say, Latter-day Saints did not have an opportunity to participate in the founding events of the new nation, and the Founding Fathers never had the opportunity to become Latter-day Saints. (How the Founding Fathers would have viewed the Saints is another question altogether. Over 90% of the Founding Fathers remained faithfully within the denominations of their birth throughout their lifetime and never converted religiously.)

Despite the fact that the religion was not in existence when the Constitution was created, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints think highly of the founding fathers and the Constitution.

Latter-day Saints today regard the Founding Fathers as among the most important, most ethical individuals in history. They believe that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are divinely intended documents which were "inspired" (although not the revealed Word of God in the same sense as the New Testament and other scriptures). 

Why do Mormons revere the Constitution? It can be traced back to Joseph Smith. If he were alive today, he would be considered a strong conservative and most likely be labeled a T.E.A. patriot due to his love for the U.S. Constitution. As a result for his love and devotion to the U.S. Constitution, the Prophet outlined the Church's belief regarding governments and laws in general and it become part of LDS scriptures in D&C 134.

However, Joseph Smith and subsequent LDS Church leaders have taught that the U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document which is a concept that is rarely taught at any educational level including law schools:

The idea of an inspired Constitution is rare in contemporary public discourse and wholly absent from contemporary constitutional and historical scholarship. Seeking to discern the hand of divinity in America's beginnings, however, was once common not only in popular rhetoric but also among eminent nineteenth-century historians such as George Bancroft. Perhaps even more important is the repeated acknowledgment of divine aid by America's founding fathers. Notably, George Washington frequently expressed gratitude to God for felicitous circumstances surrounding the rise of the United States and chose the occasion of his first inaugural address to recognize the providential character of the framing of the Constitution:

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men, more than the People of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past [blessings] seem to presage [W. Allen, ed., George Washington: A Collection, p. 461. Indianapolis, Ind., 1988].

LDS teaching and revelation are in harmony with this self-understanding of the founding generation. Latter-day Saints believe that the Lord established the Constitution, not by communicating specific measures through oracles, but by raising up and inspiring wise men to this purpose (see D&C 101:80). This emphasis on the extraordinary character of the American founders—and perhaps, more generally, on the founding generation as a whole—accords with assessments by contemporaries, as well as by later students of the period. Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, described the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as "an assembly of demigods." More than forty years later, Alexis de Tocqueville, the noted French observer of American society, included the American people as a whole in his praise of the founding:

That which is new in the history of societies is to see a great people, warned by its lawgivers that the wheels of government are stopping, turn its attention on itself without haste or fear, sound the depth of the ill, and then wait for two years to find the remedy at leisure, and then finally, when the remedy has been indicated, submit to it voluntarily without its costing humanity a single tear or drop of blood [Vol. 1, p. 113].

This understanding of the divine inspiration of the Constitution as mediated through the human wisdom of the founders and the founding generation invites the inference that new needs and circumstances might require the continued exercise of inspired human wisdom by statesmen and citizens alike. LDS leaders have taught that the Constitution is not to be considered perfect and complete in every detail (as evidenced most clearly by its accommodation with slavery, contrary to modern scripture; e.g., D&C 101:79) but as subject to development and adaptation. It was part of the wisdom of the founders to forbear from attempting to decide too much; they therefore provided constitutional means for constitutional amendment. President Brigham Young explained that the Constitution "is a progressive—a gradual work"; the founders "laid the foundation, and it was for after generations to rear the superstructure upon it" (JD 7:13-15).

While Mormons believe it to be a divinely inspired document, they do not believe that it is a perfect document. Joseph Smith himself stated that the Constitution was imperfect. Not only do Mormons believe the Constitution to be imperfect, but it is not be given the same kind of respect and reverence scriptures get. Dallin H. Oaks, a well known LDS lawyer and one of the leaders of the LDS Church explained that the U.S Constitution is not to be considered the same as scripture: 

Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the president.

Rex E. Lee, another well known LDS Lawyer and prominent Constitutional scholar explained that while the U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document, it is not a divine document like scriptures are:

That is, from the general label "divinely inspired ," some assume that the Constitution is tantamount to scripture, and therefore perfect in every respect, reflecting in every provision and every sentence the will of our Heavenly Father, just as is true of the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants. That view cannot withstand analysis. Our Constitution has some provisions that are not only not divine, they are positively repulsive. The classic example is contained in Article V, which guaranteed as a matter of constitutional right that the slave trade would continue through at least the year 1808. There are other provisions that are not as offensive as the slavery guarantee, but they were quite clearly bad policy, and certainly were not divinely inspired in the same sense as are the scriptures. Moreover, regarding the Constitution as tantamount to scripture is difficult to square with the fact that our republic has functioned very well, probably even better, after at least one of its original provisions (requiring United States senators to be elected by their respective state legislatures rather than by the people at large) was amended out of existence by the Seventeenth Amendment.  

As an attorney and as someone who enjoys politics, I am aware of the different perspectives that people have towards the Constitution. Some people view it as a perfect and infallible document while others believe it to be a very flawed, unfair, and incomplete document. I believe that Mormons have a unique, pragmatic, patriotic yet realistic view of the U.S. Constitution and that this document is significant in LDS theology. What is even more interesting is that despite how Mormons were treated in early American history, we have always kept a positive view of the Constitution. 

I hope this short little blog will be helpful as voters continue to learn about Mitt Romney. I believe what I have outlined here reflects Mitt Romney's beliefs about the Constitution since it reflects the majority of the LDS perspective towards that document. Moreover, Mitt Romney has a legal background since he obtained his law degree and business degree from Harvard. 

The 53% of America Are Responding To The 99% Protesters

The Blaze had an article up that I want to repost in its entirety. Read it below: 

Meet The 53%. Who are they?  The term 53% refers to the people who are actually paying taxes for themselves and the rest of the country.

The 53% is a group of responsible young people organizing across the country. However, this group is not camping out in parks around the country and demanding the entire capitalist system be destroyed. These men and women have jobs (most of them work at more than one job in order to make ends meet), but they are talking about attending the Minneapolis Occupy Wall St. protest scheduled for today – Friday, October 7th.

Here’s a statement from their web page;

So, like, when you’re, like, community organizing for solidarity and stuff, it’s totally cool to have this little hashtaggy thingy when you’re on twitter, so other people, like, totally know what you’re talking about and stuff. So if you’re, like, totally gonna spread the word about being one of the 53% of people who actually, like, pay taxes in America and don’t just, like, hang out protesting stuff all day… like, here’s the hashtaggy thingy. See you at the protest!   #iamthe53

Filmmaker Mike Wilson (the man who gave us “Michael Moore Hates America“) maintains the page. We spoke with Wilson this morning and he explained that the 53% tumblr page came from his brain and the clever minds of his pals, Erick Erickson of Red State and Josh Trevino.

Reports out of Minneapolis say that a protest is expected today in front of the Government Plaza in downtown Minneapolis. The movement states they are going to try and reclaim and rename this area “The People’s Plaza.” Members of the 53% have mentioned that they will be in attendance to offer a counter opinion to the protest.

As we were talking, Wilson explained that he was loading up his camera and headed to the Minneapolis protest to capture it on video. The Blaze will link to Wilson’s coverage as it comes in.

Mike Wilson told us the group was in the very early stages of organizing, but it is happening online – mostly because they have jobs, families, and a sense of personal responsibility. And the 53% have responded to the people alleging to represent 99% of the country. Based on these photo messages, the 99% is patently wrong in their claim.

While the 99% protesters are angry at the 1% of Americans who have accumulated a lot of wealth through their own hard work, they forget about the 53% Americans (which includes the 1%) who pay taxes that pays for the government services that the 47% of Americans enjoy yet pay no taxes for. 

If there is any unfairness or inequality, its the fact that 47% feel that they have no obligation to pay taxes and feel that they are entitled to the benefits that the government provides that is paid for by the majority of people. 

What's worse is that they want more government services despite the fact that we can't afford it. And they want the 53% to pay more taxes to somehow cover up for the debt that is accumulating at the local, state and federal level. Not only that, but they want an increase in government control in every aspect of our lives and that the 53% happily accept the burden of more taxes in exchange for a reduction in our personal freedoms. 

The colonialist protested against England because they were getting taxed without having any voice in Parliament. Thus, the famous rallying cry, "no taxation without representation" helped launch the American Revolution. Yet, the "99% protesters" want representation without taxation. However, The 99% is really the 45% of America who do not pay taxes. Yet, they expect their demands to be heard and granted. 

This is unacceptable. It it is a perversion of the American way of governance.

The 53% expressed their anger and disgust in our government who have mismanaged the taxpayer's money to such an extent that we are massively in debt. That's what the TEA party was all about.

However, we need to make our voices heard again to remind the 45% that they do not represent America. Instead of occupying a plaza or park, lets liberate it this November 12th. 

Obama Decides When ObamaCare Will Die: Will It Be Sooner or Later?

One way or another, ObamaCare will end in 2012. ObamaCare could be undone by a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. It might be terminated with a new Republican president like Mitt Romney who has declared that he will repeal ObamaCare by issuing an executive order that will instruct the Secretary of Health and Human services to grant a waiver to all 50 states. The United States Supreme Court might declare ObamaCare unconstitutional which would effectively end the program. 

All three scenarios are possible. However, the most realistic scenario is that ObamaCare goes before the Supreme Court. The sweetest thing about this scenario is that President Obama and the lawyers working for his administration gets to decide whether his health care plan goes before the Supreme Court this fall or or sometime in 2012 or 2013: 

Obama administration lawyers face a decision by Monday that carries a high political risk and will probably determine whether the Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of the health care law before next year's presidential election.

The Justice Department could ask the full U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to reconsider a 2-1 decision in August that declared the law's mandate that all Americans must have health insurance unconstitutional. But seeking the full court review could take weeks, or even months, and probably push back a Supreme Court ruling until 2013.

Or government lawyers could opt to skip the full review in the lower court and appeal directly to the Supreme Court this fall. That in turn will probably lead to a constitutional ruling on President Obama's healthcare law by next summer.

Under the appeals court's rules, the Justice Department must notify the 11th Circuit by Monday whether it will seek a full court review. In recent weeks, lawyers on both sides of the case have been speculating on whether Obama's legal team is eager to get the healthcare dispute before the Supreme Court soon, even if it means risking an embarrassing defeat for the president as he seeks reelection.

"Everyone is waiting to see what they do Monday," said Karen Harned, a lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business. "For the Supreme Court, this is only a question of when they will decide it. And we are hoping it will be decided in the next term."

Whatever Obama decides to do, it comes with a strong political risk or reward: 

The fate of Obama's healthcare overhaul figures to be at the center of next year's presidential race. Republicans have been running on a promise to "repeal Obamacare." If the Supreme Court were to strike down Obama's signature law as an unconstitutional overreach by the president and a Democratic Congress, it could deal a damaging blow to the president's campaign for reelection.

However, if the justices were to uphold the law as a reasonable regulation of the nation's health insurance market, their decision would give a powerful endorsement to Obama's crusade for healthcare reform just when he most needs it. A pro-Obama ruling by the court would also badly undercut claims by "tea party" activists who contend federal regulation of healthcare is outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution.

ObamaCare will most likely be ruled as unconstitutional by 5-4 vote and it will be a crushing blow to Obama and his chances of being reelected. 

However, if the Supreme Court does uphold ObamaCare, the law will still be unconstitutional. Just because the Supreme Court says it is doesn't necessarily make it so. There have been plenty of Supreme Court cases that have been held not to be in violation of the Constitution despite the fact that it was and still is. Many of these cases were later overturned and some of them still have yet to be overturned. 

Regardless, I think Americans have many reasons to be excited for 2012. However, if we want to defeat Obama and roll back his progressive agenda, we are going to have to work real hard to unseat the Democrats in Congress and the White House.  

Time Magazine Is Wrong About The Constitution

Time magazine's main article, One Document, Under Siege which created quite an uproar among conservatives because the main thrust of the article was that the Constitution is a document that is no longer relevant because of changes in technology and culture and that it is an obstacle to political, social and economic progress. 

Almost every line in the article is absolutely wrong. here are just too many things that I would like to refute in the article. However, there is one claim in the article that I cannot restrain myself from blasting to pieces. Richard Stengel, the author of this article, asserts the reason that the Constitution remains the most powerful document in the world is because the American people love liberty and freedom:

A constitution in and of itself guarantees nothing. Bolshevik Russia had a constitution, as did Nazi Germany. Cuba and Libya have constitutions. A constitution must embody something that is in the hearts of the people. In the midst of World War II, the great judge Learned Hand gave a speech in New York City's Central Park that came to be known as "The Spirit of Liberty." It was a dark time, with freedom and liberty under threat in Europe. Hand noted that we are Americans by choice, not birth. That we are Americans precisely because we seek liberty and freedom — not only freedom from oppression but freedom of speech and belief and action. "What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty?" he asked. "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." 

While Americans do love liberty and freedom, that is not the reason why the U.S. Constitution remains the most powerful document in the world. In Timothy R.Clark's  Desert News article, What My Grandma Taught Me About The Constitution, points out that rampant corruption, which is how most societies operated throughout human history, prevents liberty and freedom from occurring:

The United States Constitution is perhaps America’s most important export. It has influenced the chartering documents of many nations, beginning with France and Poland in the 1780s. But the long-term results are not so good. Although a stack of constitutions has been erected after the American model, corrupt leaders almost always chew up and spit out the ink and paper of high ideals. Most attempts to imitate or reproduce the world's most important charter, penned by the then 31-year-old James Madison, have been dead on arrival.

Why? Because most societies are endemically corrupt. Like a cancer, corruption influences, alters or stops basic processes such as commerce, capital flows, the expansion and delivery of education and the making of public policy. It shuts down civil society.

Timothy Clark goes on to point out that the Constitution is only as good as its leaders and citizens: 

At root, civil society is based on preconditions of ethical leadership and public virtue. We believe in the rule of law, but the rule of law is only enforceable through the unenforceable support of private citizens — a line of defense that is easily swept aside when corruption becomes endemic.

A constitution is nothing but a set of institutional arrangements. Yes, there is genius in the arrangements of the U.S. Constitution. But they don’t hold themselves up. We do. It’s the character of the citizens. It is the unapologetic support of Judeo-Christian values. It’s equal emphasis on both rights and responsibility.

In his inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said, “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?”

In other words, society depends on the integrity of each and every individual. John Adams famously explained that the Constitution was made for a society that promoted and cherished the integrity of the individual:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Foreign Policy Magazine, in writing about the collapse of the Soviet Union, explains that the real reason the communist country fell in 1989 was because everyone was tired of the corruption that was rampant in society. They wanted a more moral society. Gorbachev's Prime Minster made the shocking admission that Soviet Union was not great because because it relied on corruption to maintain power: 

To Gorbachev's prime minister Nikolai Ryzhkov, the "moral [nravstennoe] state of the society" in 1985 was its "most terrifying" feature:

[We] stole from ourselves, took and gave bribes, lied in the reports, in newspapers, from high podiums, wallowed in our lies, hung medals on one another. And all of this -- from top to bottom and from bottom to top.

Although the Soviet Union fell many years ago, Russia is still struggling to figure out how to make freedom and liberty work. Many Arab nations are now  trying to figure out how to make freedom and liberty work in the Middle East. Why are they struggling to make freedom work in their own lands?
The reason why they are struggling is because they assume that freedom comes when you eliminate corruption in the nation's economic, social, and political institutions by revising the policies, programs of the various institutions or even rewriting the Constitution to mirror the American constitution. In other words, they think that if they make the institutions good and moral, freedom will come.  

However, the Founding Fathers wisely realized that it was the other way around. If you make the people moral, virtuous and religious, then the public and private institutions of society will be morally good and in turn, it will create a free, democratic and good nation.

I fear that we are in danger of falling for the same erroneous assumption  that freedom comes if we only can make the institutions of society good. When you look back in history of how governments used oppression and corruption to keep the state going, America is the exception to the rule. That is the idea of American exceptionalism.

In the end, The United States Constitution matters, not because we love liberty and freedom, but that liberty and freedom comes only if the individuals themselves remain good and virtuous.