In 1926, Langston Hughes wrote a poem titled "I, too" asserting that the American identity includes everyone in this country. I want to respectfully acknowledge all the people who both identify as an American, among other identities, and openly discuss the outstanding harms that the U.S. has spread all throughout the world. For these people, July 4th is a special day for them and their communities, and symbolizes a commitment to be stewards of a shared nation and shape it into a place of justice, healing, learning, and prosperity for everyone. While I don't feel the same, it's important to establish that many self-identified American patriots and I have a similar goal: to stop the US from perpetuating mass violence and injustice. Whether the US can still exist as a sovereign nation upon fulfillment of that goal is a discussion that can be held at a much later time.
This morning, July 4, 2026, the Patriot Front marched past Union Station in Washington, D.C. A photo of several members of the group riding the publicly-funded D.C. Metro circulated on Twitter. They were exercising their right to freedom of expression as established by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits the U.S. federal and state governments from making laws that abridge free exercise of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and petition. While there are constantly new situations where this amendment has to be applied among conflicting interests, overall the First Amendment is arguably the most popular law in the U.S. Constitution. I'm making great use of my First Amendment rights in running this website and openly condemning the Patriot Front's parade of Confederate flags through Washington D.C. In terms of the law, I won't advocate for their arrest purely for displaying such flags, but I will point out that those Confederate flags symbolize a "nation" that insisted that First Amendment rights should not equally apply to all people on this land.
Laws are the foundation on which an economic society runs. That's not to say that's the ideal state of humankind, it's just an explanation for how humans have been able to cooperate and develop society to this level of prosperity over time. "Cooperate" is the key word here; where there's no cooperation, there can only be coercion—violence. Most people would rather hand a piece of green paper to another person in exchange for food than threaten to incapacitate another person for food. The latter system of exchange is commonly referred to as "barbarism," characteristic of a society lacking in any sophistication and, notably, a society that didn't survive changing conditions of the world. That last part is for anyone who believes that cruelty and violence look good on a nation.
Over the past decade of rapid growth of digital media, there are many people who have supported a policy at one time and opposed it at another time. A notable example is the fan base of Charlie Kirk, who had been staunch supporters of Kirk's First Amendment rights, and then moved to cancel Jimmy Kimmel Live! in 2025 based on disagreement with Kimmel's comments related to Kirk's death (even while Kimmel condemned violence). Did they change their minds about the First Amendment over time? No. The difference is whose speech the First Amendment protects. Same for the rest of the Constitution. Gun rights lobby organizations, most of whom are conservative, experienced a schism when a federal prosecutor said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was justified in killing Alex Pretti because he carried a gun. The same people who justified Pretti's killing also justified the same ICE squad forcibly entering people's homes without judge-signed warrants, but condemned the FBI when they searched Trump's Mar-a-Lago in 2022 with such a warrant.
So who is worthy of rights under the U.S. Constitution? To whom does the "We" in "We the People of the United States" refer? And my favorite question, in the event of an unfortunate crisis in the U.S., why should any other nation let an American enter without putting them on a 10-year waiting list first? (Yeah, yeah, hopefully that never happens, lol.) While I've been highlighting the current federal administration and it's far-right supporters as having a restricted definition of "We," there are many other state and local government entities that seem to loathe the Constitution as it applies to members of the public and characterize the federal government, anytime it enforces the Constitution, as an overbearing intrusive entity.
In August 2024, the City of Raytown, Missouri, conducted a raid on my own property—and only my property—to enforce their "tall grass and weeds" ordinance, criminalizing any vegetation that is "taller than 8 inches and generally considered undesirable." When I mentioned how their actions might violate federal law, a code officer remarked, "Yeah, the government gets in our way a lot." When I pointed to a voluntary brush and pop-up camper in my neighbor's yard, the code officer pretended he didn't see it. However, when a squirrel ran by, he pointed and said, "I think I saw a rat." (There is much more to this story, and I'm sure others have similar experiences. Feel free to share your stories with me; my email is in my bio.)
There is an exceptionally thick pall over the U.S. during its semiquincentennial. While there's much political tension here and abroad, which has been temporarily ignored for a single holiday in any other year, this thick cloud is far too obvious: those who boast American patriotism the most are the ones who respect the Constitution the least.