Read the Constitution

   "If anyone has earned the right to express their views, it's John McCain." -- Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in an interview with Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press," broadcast Sunday 14 May 2017.

   Basic values are at risk when we enter an era where human rights must be earned.
   Here's a correction to Tillerson's comment: The right of free speech is not one that must be earned. We are all born with that right, and it is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
   In case you haven't read it recently, Mr. Tillerson, the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."
   This echoes the Declaration of Independence, which begins with a list of self-evident truths, that all are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights. The right of free speech is unalienable and to the Founders it was self-evident.
   John McCain's views may carry more weight because of his military experience as a prisoner of war and as a U.S. senator. But his right to express those views is no stronger than any other person.
   A political leader's views surely are of more interest to voters and the general public, but every member of the public has an equal right to express an opposing view.
   The opinions and attitudes of a secretary of state, a president, or anyone else in government are important because these views can influence policy and how government officials treat members of the general public.
   And therein lies a danger. When government officials claim, suggest or even imply that one person has less right to express an opinion than another person or group of persons, the republic faces a danger reminiscent of what George Orwell wrote in his satire, "Animal Farm," in which one of the characters announces, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
   When such an attitude pervades the attitudes of government officials and becomes destructive of the unalienable rights of citizens, "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish" such a government.
   Sound familiar? That's in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, another document that is recommended reading.
   Further, the signers of that document agreed that whenever a government tries to reduce them to subjects of a despot, it is the right and duty of the people to throw off such a government.
   To prove their case, the Founders added a list to the Declaration of Independence detailing some of the abuses they faced.
   Here are a few examples cited then against the head of state, which are relevant today.
   -- Obstruct naturalization of foreigners and refuse to encourage migration. Today, the current president is actively discouraging immigration.
   -- Incite domestic insurrection. "Get him out of here," said the president as a candidate. On another occasion, he said, "Maybe he should be roughed up."
   -- The Founders charged that the ruler at that time "wants judges dependent on his will alone." Compare that to the current president's attacks on judges who rule against him, and his demand that the director of the FBI declare his loyalty to him, rather than to the Constitution and the law.
   When the director refused to declare his personal loyalty but promised honesty instead, the president fired him, in the middle of an FBI probe of possible collusion with a foreign power.
   So is this obstruction of justice, a criminal offense? More evidence is needed, and that is just what the FBI is doing, along with congressional committees and independent journalists.
   The current president now has the opportunity to name a new FBI director, and the question is whether he will appoint someone who will follow the Constitution and the law, or do what the president tells him to do.