Inauguration Day 2017

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
- Mark Twain

President Barack Obama takes the Oath of Office January 20th, 2009.
Photo credit: Master Sgt. Cecilio Ricardo, U.S. Air Force

In 2008, I was mad that Barack Obama had won the election. As a conservative independent, there was a lot to not like. I criticized him heavily throughout his presidency and ultimately his legacy will be one of failure on the international stage, the domestic stage, and in the Democrat party itself.

Economically, President Obama oversaw some success where financial stability is concerned, but job creation hasn’t been enough to grow the labor force. While unemployment went down throughout President Obama’s term, the labor force participation rate has plunged to the lowest point since the 1970s. The largest number of people leaving the workforce has been men between the ages of 25 and 50 years old with minorities being hit the hardest. Even harder hit were teens and college graduates trying to get into the work force.

Where foreign policy is concerned, the pullout of the Middle East was mishandled so badly that American forces have never fully left and resulted in the advent of the Islamic State. The Arab uprisings overthrew governments that were friendly to the US and made the Middle East more unstable. The “deal” made with Iran was broken by Iran the day it went into effect and Iran is even more dangerous now than they were a decade ago. Several Muslim states that were stable or struggling are now failed states. The only country that was actually punished was also the only country that is an actual democracy—Israel.

Politically, Barack Obama promised bipartisanship and transparency and delivered on neither. The day Barack Obama and the Democrat controlled congress got to work on the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), Republicans were shut out of the debates and discussions and the only explanation given was “The Republicans haven’t offered any alternative” (a lie), and “elections have consequences,” both quotes eloquently delivered by then Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Also, the debates and discussions regarding the ACA were promised by candidate Obama to be televised on C-SPAN and that also never happened. During Barack Obama’s tenure as President, the actions of the Democrats led by the President have resulted in the loss of more than 1,000 elected seats to Republicans, many of which were in once Democrat strongholds.

Some may criticize his social agenda, but frankly that was the only place Barack Obama had any success. My criticism of President Obama where his social agenda is concerned is not on philosophical grounds even though I disagree with much of his social philosophies and the agenda he put forth. My problem was with his execution of his agenda. His constant rush to judgment assigning race and police brutality as the number one reason for these acts and automatically assuming one party was guilty, even after they were found not guilty in a court of law. His regard for law enforcement was unPresidential. His constant rush to judgment was well received by social justice advocates and young people who like gossip, but usually displayed a supreme lack of maturity for a man who was elected to lead the country.

President Obama’s politicization of every police action covered by the national media served to increase strife, division, and to rip open the scars of racism that were well on their way to healing.

Of course, President Obama wasn’t alone in this. Certainly not. He had advisors who had to agree with the statements he was making. He had a complicit media who fanned the flames of unrest so they could get better ratings. He had community leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who were the chief promoters and purveyors of the lies being fed to the country by the media acting as judge, jury, and executioner. They, and people like them bear just as much of the blame if not more.

So, I am not going to miss President Obama as President of the United States. I do think that sometimes it is better to keep the devil you know than accept the devil you don’t. However, the President only gets two terms and that’s fine by me. Regardless of what anyone may think of the electoral college, I do think it is the best method for choosing our President. Even though I wasn’t going to be happy with Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump as President, I will continue to support the electoral college.

Obama Family Portrait
Photo credit: ABC

I didn’t always criticize Barack Obama. Sometimes, I actually supported and defended him. I’m not an Obama apologist, but when he did the right thing and he was attacked by the right because it was the politically expedient thing to do, I defended him. I can’t think of a bunch of times where I defended the President against his critics, but I did do so to the general annoyance of many of my conservative friends. I defended his right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to replace Antonin Scalia, even though I felt any choice the President made would be a disaster in the long run. I defended the Obamas' choice to remain in Washington, D.C. after Barack Obama’s presidency so that their daughters could finish school there. I also defended Barack Obama’s choice of residence in the Kalorama neighborhood since it is an area widely chosen by D.C. power players and it’s nice and safe neighborhood.

I’ve also made a point to defend the President’s daughters. Malia and Sasha have been in the public eye for a long time and they will continue to be, likely for the rest of their lives. They are 18 and 15 respectively. They have been in the public eye since the Democrat convention of 2004 when Malia was 6 and Sasha was 3. The limelight has only gotten brighter since their father became a candidate for the presidency in 2007. The Obama girls had no choice in this, as far as I know and frankly, I don’t care. When I see them criticized for acting like teenagers and doing stupid teenager stuff, I think, “Why can’t we just let them be kids?” If they break the law, which they haven’t, let law enforcement deal with it. If they misbehave, they have parents and most conservatives I know don’t want their kids raised by the village and don’t want to be dictated to, but feel it’s just fine to dictate to the former President and his wife how to raise theirs.

The last thing I want to say about President Obama is that while I disagreed with him, often vehemently on points of policy, philosophy, and leadership style, the last of which I think he bungled badly on a regular basis, I do think that Barack Obama is a good man. That may come as a shock, especially for the things I criticized him for and the way I have criticized him. One of Barack Obama’s major problems throughout his life, and I dare say most of us have this same problem, is that he lives in a philosophical echo chamber where he doesn’t hear many opinions that differ from his own. I think that many of the people he was surrounded by during his tenure in office were obsequious and were in too much awe of his celebrity to question him. When Barack Obama could have benefitted from some disagreement with his handling of certain issues, he was instead met by a barrage of yesses from yes-men and yes-women. So, when he politicized events that shouldn’t have been politicized, I attribute that not to his being a bad person, but to inexperience and not having anyone criticize him in his inner circle.

With the end of the Presidency of Barack Obama and his start of a new life, I wish him and his family the best in the future. If I ever have the opportunity to meet him, I would gladly shake his hand with a smile. If he decides to hold any post-presidency beer summits, I’ll crack a brew with the man and drink to his health.

President Donald J. Trump takes the Oath of Office, January 20th, 2017.
Photo credit: Andrew Harrer, Bloomberg News

Now, Donald Trump is President.

I don’t like it. I’m not happy about it. I have been often criticized for my criticism of the new President during the campaign and I’ve been told to suck it up. Unlike progressive liberals, I’m not going to cry about it. I’m not going to stamp my feet and request a safe space. I’m also not going to be happy about it for a while. If Trump doesn’t change a lot of things about his personality, politics, philosophy, leadership style, and the list could go on, I don’t think I will ever be happy with President Trump. I don’t remember any of my conservative friends being happy that Barack Obama was president, ever. I only have one friend that I know of who has crossed lines from being a Republican to a Democrat because of Trump. I haven’t been registered as a Republican for almost two decades, but I doubt I will ever agree philosophically with Democrats. That’s a bridge to far for me. The point is that none of my Republican friends, even the one that converted to being a Democrat were ever happy with Barack Obama being President. How, then, can you ask a person who did not support Donald Trump to suddenly be happy about him being President? I’m sorry for the friends I will probably lose for this, but that’s just good old fashioned hypocrisy.

Let me make it clear, though. I am going to give Donald Trump a chance. I like some of his cabinet choices, not all, and I like Mike Pense. I have a lot of concerns about many of Donald Trump’s policy positions and do believe that he is frankly in the wrong on many of them. I wrote an assessment of President Trump in August of 2015 and most of what I wrote still stands. Although, some areas I would grade him lower and some areas I would grade him higher, but his final score of C+ remains.

What you can expect from me over the next four to eight years is objectivity. At the beginning of Barack Obama’s Presidency, I was not completely objective. I tended to run to the echo chamber of the right, but as time went on, especially after he was reelected, I made a point of being objective about pretty much everything. I’m not perfect, I’m going to get it wrong—heck, I got Trump being elected wrong!—but I am going to give Trump a chance. When I disagree with him on something, I’m not just going to say, “I disagree,” I am going to say, “I disagree and here is why.” I will do the same thing if I agree with him. I am honestly pessimistic about a Trump presidency, but yes, I am going to give him a chance.

Something else I will say and it’s something I said on November 9^th, Donald Trump is my President. I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my President. I don’t like him, but he’s my President. I may not support his every decision, but he’s my President. Finally, until President Donald J. Trump is removed from office, voted out of office, or completes two terms as President, Donald Trump is my President.

So, Mr. President, congratulations on your successful campaign, your election and now your inauguration. I stand ready to serve my country under your leadership. I will support you and defend you when you are right and I will criticize you, hopefully constructively, when you are wrong. I wish you all the best in your new career as president. I hope you do well, not just for your place in the history books, but for the sake of the American people and all future generations.

Flag Desecration and the Freedom of Speech

Boy Scouts retiring an American flag

The flag of the United States is a powerful symbol. It has been a symbol of military might as it has led countless troops into battle and is now worn on the combat uniforms of American service personnel. The flag was a symbol of victory when it was raised over Iwo Jima on February 25^th, 1945. The American flag served as a symbol of unity during the Civil Rights Era when it flew in Civil Rights Marches, most famously by the lectern in front of the Lincoln Memorial when Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous “I have a dream” speech. It has been a symbol of scientific progress as when it was raised on the moon July 21^st, 1969. It serves as a symbol of patriotic pride when flown on Independence Day and other patriotic celebrations. A flag draped over the coffin of a serviceman or woman signifies sacrifice.

Americans rendering honors during the
performance of the National Anthem.

Because of its symbolic significance, the American flag evokes strong emotions from most Americans. When they see the flag, they take pride, and render proper honors, placing their hand over their heart, or rendering a salute if they’re veterans when hearing the National Anthem, watching it pass in parade, or when it is being lowered ceremoniously.

Occasionally, people stand with their arms at their sides or perhaps won’t stand at all, even if they’re able to. Perhaps it is because they have never been taught proper flag etiquette and don’t know they’re supposed to render honors. In many cases, not rendering proper honors to the flag is a form of protest. For these people, though they may love America, the flag is not a positive symbol.

Children on an Air Force base improperly
rendering honors during evening colors.

While these people love the ideals of America, they do not feel that America has lived up to its ideals. The flag, rather than representing America’s achievements represents America’s failures. Failing to render proper honors certainly makes a statement, but unless someone with celebrity status fails to honor the flag, such protests go unnoticed or are ignored.

Often people protest the government in public demonstrations with pickets, shouting slogans, and making speeches. Articles, essays, and books are published criticizing America and its government. Making speeches, writing articles, and petitioning the government sometimes doesn’t make much of an impact if any. To show their displeasure, to make their point, or to just get attention, people occasionally desecrate or even burn the American flag.

Some react strongly to the desecration of the American flag starting counter-protests or even becoming violent. Incidents of flag desecration are historically rare. From 1777 to 1989 there were only 45 recorded cases of flag burning, most of which happened in the 1960s during the Vietnam conflict (Reasons). In spite of flag desecration being so rare, federal, state, and local governments have passed laws on numerous occasions to protect the American flag from desecration. The first of these laws was a federal law called the Uniform Flag Act passed in 1917. Most state and local governments patterned their laws after the 1917 law (State). The language of the Uniform Flag Act is still part of federal law in Title 18, United States Code § 700.

During the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam Conflict during the 1960s, the incidence of flag desecration increased resulting in Congress passing the Flag Protection Act of 1968 (Timeline). Most of the cases regarding flag desecration that came before the Supreme Court were in regards to people either speaking disrespectfully about the flag (Street v. New York), the flag being worn as a piece of clothing (Smith v. Goguen), or physically altering the appearance of the flag without actually damaging it (Spence v. Washington). In each case, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of the lower courts on first amendment grounds. Flag burning did not come before the court until 1989 (Texas v. Johnson).

In 1984, during the Republican National Convention being held in Dallas, Texas, Gregory Johnson burned a stolen flag in front of the Dallas City Hall as part of an organized protest. He was arrested for violating a Texas law which prohibited the desecration of a venerated object. Johnson was fined $2,000 and sentenced to a year in prison. The case was appealed several times. It was upheld by the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on First Amendment Grounds. The State of Texas then appealed to the Supreme Court and the case was heard in 1989 (Texas v. Johnson).

The Supreme Court struck down Texas’ law in a 5 to 4 decision that saw staunch Constitutional conservative and Reagan appointee, Antonin Scalia, along with two other known conservatives, Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, and Anthony Kennedy another Reagan appointee joining the majority. Because of the strong conservative presence on the court at the time (6-3), the decision came as a surprise to many (Lubet). Congress responded immediately with the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Supreme Court overturned this law as well in 1990 when it heard the case, United States v. Eichman, in a 5 to 4 decision that mirrored the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. Johnson (U.S. v. Eichman).

(Carrol)

With flag protection laws overturned, politicians have tried many times to pass differing legislation and even a constitutional amendment. Some polls indicate that a majority of Americans support a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration, each attempt has failed in congress (Carroll). Considering the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s interpretation going back more than a century, it seems like this should be a settled issue and yet, there still seems to be a great deal of confusion and debate. This also isn’t a right/left, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat issue with neatly divided lines. While conservatives typically are in favor of protecting the flag, as demonstrated above, conservatives on the Supreme Court were instrumental in overturning flag protection laws on first amendment grounds. In 2005, Utah Republican Senator, Robert Bennett introduced the Flag Protection Act of 2005. While it was unsurprising that a Republican introduced the Flag Protection Act, what many found very surprising was that it had four Democrat cosponsors, three of whom are well known progressive liberals—Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Mark Pryor (United States).

In order to really understand if banning flag desecration is appropriate or even necessary, the arguments in favor of protecting the flag must be taken into consideration. Some of the main arguments in defense of protecting the flag can be found in the Congressional findings listed in the Flag Protection Act of 2005, but others will be considered as well.

The Congressional findings make four arguments in favor of the Flag Protection Act: 1.) The flag of the United States is a symbol of the nation and its values, 2.) The Bill of Rights should not be amended to restrict freedom of speech, 3.) abuse of the flag causes distress to some people and such actions can amount to fighting words, and 4.) destruction of the flag can be used to incite violence instead of just making a political statement (United States).

(@realDonaldTrump)

Many of these points can be conceded, but also countered with further information that favor flag desecration as protected free speech. First, the flag does represent the United States as well as the “republic for which it stands” as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance. The definition of the American republic is laid out in the Constitution of the United States which includes the Bill of Rights and the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech and, as the Supreme Court has found time and again, freedom of expression which included disrespectful language about, disrespectful use of, and defacing and destruction of the American flag (What). The American flag represents the freedom of its own destruction as a form of protest and expression. Second, the Bill of Rights should not be amended and yet, that is exactly what the Flag Protection Act, the Flag Desecration Amendment, and similar legislation seeks to do.

Law professor and self-described liberal, Steven Lubet claims in his essay, Banning the Desecration of the American Flag Would Not Be Censorship, that the Flag Desecration Amendment “… would not limit freedom of speech very much at all. No words or beliefs would be prohibited, no opinions would be suppressed.” This is another point that must be conceded. However, he goes on to point out:

“The classic ‘slippery slope’ argument, a staple of liberal analysis, posits that small restrictions may lead to bigger ones. But in this case, that is not true. It is tremendously difficult to amend the Constitution—requiring a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states—so it is extremely unlikely that the flag amendment will be quickly followed by others.”

The problem with this line of thinking is that the Constitution doesn’t need to be amended for freedom of speech and expression to be abridged. History has shown that all it takes is complicity between the three branches of government to abridge first amendment rights. In 1798, Congress passed, President John Adams signed, and the Supreme Court upheld the Alien and Sedition Acts. These laws prohibited any criticism of the government whether that criticism was spoken, written, or implied. This was only seven years after the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution! Three of the laws were repealed under Thomas Jefferson’s administration, but the fourth, the Alien Enemies Act remained in effect and was used by President Woodrow Wilson as a justification to silence protest against entering World War I as well as jailing political opponents and journalists who criticized him in the media. The administration of President Franklin Roosevelt also refernced the Alien Enemies Act to justify the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent as well as deporting American citizens of Japanese, German, and Italian descent during World War II. If all those things can be done without an amendment to the Constitution, then an amendment that is frankly injurious the first amendment would be the gateway drug to fascism.

Third, the Flag Protection legislation seeks to prevent acts that “amount to ‘fighting words’” or can be considered an incitement to violence. The term “fighting words” as used by politicians stems from a 1942 Supreme Court Case, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire where a man was arrested for verbally assaulting a Jehovah’s Witness who was street preaching. While the Supreme Court upheld the arrest, the Supreme Court has narrowed the meaning of the terminology and courts tend to use the term “incitement” instead. It is hard to imagine an instance where simply desecrating the flag would incite violence unless the flag desecrator or their opponent had already used inciting language. In that case, there are already laws that can be used to curb such acts and there is no need to abridge the freedom of speech.

Lubet also argues in his essay that banning flag desecration would actually give such acts more weight. If a person is willing to go to jail as part of their speech or expression, that makes the message all the more powerful. Again, that is certainly true, but there are rights we now take for granted that were once oppressively regulated. John Bunyan, author of the Christian allegorical classic, Pilgrim’s Progress, spent 12 years in jail for preaching the gospel without a license from the Church of England (Deal v.). Many Colonial printing presses were run underground because a license from the crown was required. Colonial printers caught printing without a license were arrested and jailed, and their presses were confiscated or destroyed (Petersen 10-12). Thanks to the first amendment, both practices are now protected under the first amendment. If we’re going to ban flag desecration, why not require preachers and printers to get special government permission? That’s working really well in China.

Freedom cannot survive when the government can ban expression with which it disagrees. America was built on speech and expression that was offensive to the government. Colonial Americans wrote speeches against the King of England and his agents in the colonies, they operated underground (illegal) printing presses in protest of stamp taxes, they burned the King in Effigy all of which were illegal. Making offensive activities illegal doesn’t prevent them from occurring. Sometimes, making certain activities illegal makes them more thrilling. One only needs to consider the disastrous effects of the Prohibition Era ushered in by the eighteenth amendment or the violent and ineffective war on drugs. Drugs and alcohol actually have negative health effects, but what negative side effect is there to desecrating the flag? People get angry, some special snowflakes get their feelings hurt, and even more rarely the flag desecrator is assaulted. Flag desecration would become the ultimate victimless crime, but a crime nevertheless. With America’s out of control debt, homelessness, unemployment, the threat of terrorism, and a slew of other issues, the matter of flag desecration pales in comparison. Government officials and politicians need to focus on what is truly important before they consider abridging freedom of expression.

Works Cited

Carroll, Joseph. “Public Support for Constitutional Amendment on Flag Burning.” Gallup. Gallup 2006. Accessed 29 Nov. 2016, www.gallup.com/poll/23524/public-support-constitutional-amendment-flag-burning.aspx.

Deal, William S. “Introduction.” John Bunyan: The Tinker of Bedford, Good News Publishers 1977.

Lubet, Steven. “Banning the Desecration of the American Flag Would Not Be Censorship.” Censorship 2007, Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.

Petersen, Christine. “Permission to Print.” The Printer, Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2011.

@realDonaldTrump. “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” Twitter, 29 Nov. 2016, 3:55a.m., twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944.

“Reasons to Oppose the Flag Desecration Amendment.” American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU 2016. Accessed 25 Nov 2016, www.aclu.org/other/reasons-oppose-flag-desecration-amendment.

 “State flag-protection laws.” First Amendment Center. First Amendment Center 2002. Accessed 25 Nov 2016, www.firstamendmentcenter.org/state-flag-protection-laws.

Supreme Court. Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire. 9 Mar. 1942.

Supreme Court. Sidney Street v. State of New York. 21 Apr. 1969.

Supreme Court. Smith v. Goguen. 25 Mar. 1974.

Supreme Court. Spence v. Washington. 25 June 1974.

Supreme Court. Texas v. Gregory Lee Johnson. 21 June 1989.

Supreme Court. United States v. Shawn Eichman et al. 11 June 1990.

“Timeline of Flag Desecration Issues.” ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association 1999-2016. Accessed 25 Nov 2016, www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/desecration.htm.

United States Cong. Senate. Senate Judiciary Committee. Flag Protection Act of 2005. 109th Cong. United States Congress. Accessed 26 Nov. 2016, www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/1911/actions.

“What Does Free Speech Mean?” United States Courts. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Accessed 26 Nov. 2016. www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources.

The Concerning Case of Esteban Santiago

I'm not making a judgment call about Esteban Santiago's crime, but as I get more information about his background and this case, I'm going to ask more questions and pose new theories. This isn't an attempt to try him in the court of public opinion, but to get people talking, asking questions and get people out of whatever echo chamber they might be stuck in. I want answers and if people have them, give them to me. I will not bite off, hook, line, and sinker, on the media narrative from the far left, left, right, far right, alt-right, or whatever.

One of the first things released about Esteban Santiago is that he had been directed to get psychological treatment because he told the FBI that he was "hearing voices" that were forcing him to watch ISIS recruitment videos and fight for ISIS. His family also said he was under treatment for mental health disorders. My hypothesis, based on the psychological history revealed is that he may have suffered from some kind of mental or brain trauma. He could be suffering from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, though it’s pretty late for him to be developing symptoms. He could be suffering from PTSD from his time in Iraq. Because there are indications he is experiencing hallucinations along with PTSD-like symptoms, I suspect that one of possibility is brain damage from mefloquine poisoning which is used to inoculate many deploying service personnel from malaria. These are things that should be looked at and from all indications, it will be.

Law enforcement has also not ruled out terrorism. The main reason why terrorism has not been ruled out is because in situations like this, it never is. There is also his contact with the FBI last year. Some media outlets have provided some evidence that he may have expressed interest in Islam up to a decade ago and may even have converted, going by the name Aashiq Hammad. The problem with the evidence is that it is based on some easily manipulated circumstantial evidence from MySpace and hotmail from ten years ago. Is the information interesting? Yes. Does it prove him guilty of Islamic fundamental extremism or self-radicalization? Not hardly. Even though Esteban Santiago's brother is one of his contacts on MySpace, both Esteban and Santiago are fairly common names in the Spanish speaking world, so it could be a case of mistaken identity. On the other hand, one of the many reasons why MySpace lost out to Facebook is because it was too easy to hack and still is, so it could be trolls manipulating the public.

I'm not discounting the MySpace/hotmail evidence, I'm simply saying that there are problems with it that will take computer experts to solve and determine if it is good evidence or not.

I said before, that if Esteban Santiago is found psychologically unfit to stand trial and his actions can be traced to his mental health problems, then I want him to be hospitalized and to get the treatment he needs. It could be that he has been faking his psychological symptoms as part of his planning for this attack, so if he is found to be psychologically fit and had complete understanding of his actions, then I hope he gets the death penalty.

All this still leaves some questions.

There was a domestic violence case pending against Esteban Santiago along with a restraining order. The restraining order alone is enough to prevent him from legally having access to firearms. It is clear, however, that at some point he legally purchased a firearm. I am opposed to firearm databases, so I don’t expect anybody to know that he had a pistol in his possession. The problem is that the FBI took his pistol away when he came to them with his story about hearing voices. When he went to get treatment, the FBI returned the pistol to him. WHAT?!

This also undoes my theory that the firearm was a straw purchase… maybe.

It should also be pointed out that Santiago was already under investigation for domestic violence and had an active restraining order at the time he went to the FBI. If the FBI had done a simple court records check, they would have seen that and hopefully would have known that Esteban Santiago could not legally be in possession of a firearm. So the first question is how and why did the FBI drop the ball so badly?

On the day of Esteban Santiago’s flight from Alaska to Florida, he not only still had the pending domestic violence case pending, but he had also violated the restraining order against him. When he went to the airport, he checked a bag with his properly stored pistol in it. I haven’t flown since 2010, but my wife and my kids all have and every time we go, all checked bags are screened by the TSA. Is there no database of people who are under investigation or have cases pending that prohibit them from having possession of firearms? I mean, even if the firearm is legally owned, I would think the TSA would run a final check before letting a person check a weapon. The Department of Homeland Security officially sucks at the very thing it is supposed to be doing and the Transportation Security Administration has now officially not prevented a single act of terror.

Along with the failure of the FBI, the TSA, and the local law enforcement agencies in Alaska, if it is determined that Esteban Santiago was suffering from some kind of service connected psychological/brain trauma or began to manifest a psychological disorder while he was on active duty, then the Alaska National Guard as will the DoD because the various ANG components are joint activities with the DoD. That’s a pretty big ball to drop.

All of this goes to show that the government cannot protect you. There are laws on the books at the Federal and Alaska local level that prohibit Esteban Santiago from having a firearm and he slipped through the cracks. Because it is legal to transport firearms by checking them when you travel within the United States, many states allow some form of legal carry in airports prior to going through security check-points. That means that in some states, such as my home state of Arizona, that a person can legally go to the airport while carrying a firearm as long as they aren’t traveling. In Florida and in my current state of residence, Virginia, it is illegal to carry a firearm into an airport unless you’re a law enforcement officer, special conservator of the peace on contract site, or licensed armed security on contract site. What that ultimately means is that Esteban Santiago was a wolf let loose in a sheep pen.

I’m not an advocate of people who have never shot a firearm responding to such a situation because the death toll would likely have been higher. However, as a second amendment advocate, I do believe people should arm themselves and train themselves so that they can confidently and ably respond to situations like this. I can point to case after case of a bad guy pulling a gun and getting a couple shots off then a good guy pulls a gun and neutralizes the threat by either disabling or killing the subject, or by distracting the subject so others can retreat to safety.

I can also point to studies done by criminologists who have shown that just the idea that a firearm may be present is a deterrent to crime. If the guy is a mentally disturbed, mentally disabled or a radical, it wouldn’t have made a difference, but if he was lucid during the events that led up to the attack, he could very well have thought twice about the attack if he knew firearms were possibly present. More security or law enforcement presence is the immediate but expensive fix to the problem, but Florida needs to take a closer look at their firearms restrictions for airports. The current laws did not prevent a crime from being committed, it only prevented law abiding citizens from having the right to defend themselves with an equal level of force.

Finally, I will not participate in the racist, Islamophobic narrative that lumps all Muslims and too often, Arabs of all religious affiliations into a single group of people out to destroy the West. I spent too much time in the Middle East and know too many Muslims that I know better. I disagree with Islam from a theological and historical perspective and if someone wants to have that debate I am more than ready and willing, but I will not vilify a whole group of people based on the actions of a minority. In America, radical fundamentalism truly does represent a minority of Islam—a fringe minority.

I am well aware of the statistics regarding the average Muslim beliefs in foreign countries where the enforcement of Sharia are concerned and those things need to be addressed in the countries where it is a problem. Where foreign governments aren’t willing to deal with extremism or are extremists themselves, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. then the international community should encourage the rest of the Muslim world to take the lead in fixing those problems and leading the coalitions against terror groups. If we had taken that approach with Iraq or even Iran back in the 50s, we probably wouldn’t have the problems we have today. Frankly, America needs to promote energy independence in any way it can so we can cut ties with the Middle East altogether, especially Saudi Arabia.

Race Relations and Reconciliation in America

I couldn't come up with a catchy headline for this post, so I had my daughter read it and she couldn't come up with one either. She did say that I'll probably be called names and be subject to some harsh criticism from both sides of this subject. That's probably true, but I don't care. I try to be objective in my criticism, but no matter how I try, I can't make everyone happy. Case in point, I have heavily criticized Donald Trump since way before he announced his candidacy and continue to criticize him to this day. In spite of that, a Hillary Clinton supporting friend of mine unfriended me recently because my continued criticism of Clinton proved that I was just too pro-Trump for her to be friends with me. I literally laughed out loud.

So, beware. I'm going to offend somebody. I'm not trying to, but it can't be helped.

Here goes.

In case you have been living under a rock the past couple of days, an outrageous, despicable, evil, racist, hate crime was committed earlier this week. While the media has been portraying the perpetrators of this crime as just teenagers, they were all adults. Three of them are 18 and the fourth is 24. Adults. The man they victimized was also an adult teenager, 18 years of age, but he is also mentally disabled which, in my mind, magnifies the evil of the act committed.

Thankfully, all of the people involved with the attack have been arrested and hopefully will be brought to justice.

While the story is a couple of days old, the reaction to the video and the news is what I find bothersome. Don Lemon of CNN claimed that this was not an evil act, but rather, the people who perpetrated this act were not raised properly at home. It may be that they didn’t receive a proper upbringing, but that doesn’t relieve them of their conscience which is why the United States justice system will try them for their crimes, not their parents and how they were raised.

Chicago Police Department Commander, Kevin Duffin said that “Kids make stupid decisions,” when asked if the behavior of the perpetrators would be a hate crime. I agree kids do make stupid decisions, but most teenage stupid decisions don’t result in crimes being committed. Even in the stupidest teenager, conscience takes over before a crime is committed. Remember Brock Turner? Did he make a stupid decision? No he committed a crime and was found guilty, but the judge made a stupid decision and let him walk with 12 weeks’ time served and probation when 14 years was recommended.

Let’s review: Brock Turner is a criminal and his judge was stupid. These four adults committed a criminal act and I just hope they don’t get a stupid judge or jury.

I am bothered by many on the right who say that there is no outcry about this event. There are no hashtags, there isn’t wall-to-wall media coverage, and where is the outcry from the black community calling for justice? The same people who are saying there are no hashtags also haven’t created and promoted any. The media may not be covering this wall-to-wall, but if you Google “Chicago hate crime,” you will find page after page of media coverage, news, videos, images, and on and on. I can’t speak for the black community, but the person who made me aware of this crime was a black friend of mine on Facebook. President Obama spoke out about this crime calling the act “despicable” and a “hate crime.” His words, not mine. I don’t need Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson to say anything when the most prominent figure in black America calls this crime despicable and a hate crime. So, why manufacture more anger?

Another reaction to this event and the reason I chose to write on this subject is an article from an alt-right source which referred to this attack as being perpetrated by “#BlackLivesMatter Supporters.” Calling these people Black Lives Matter supporters bothers me. This is nothing more than an attempt to delegitimize some very real concerns that black people have in modern America. This is the very same thing that the leftist (and unfortunately much of it mainstream) media does when they point out that most white supremacists supported Trump for president. To defend Trump against these claims by accurately portraying Trump supporters as a diverse group of people and then to lump all black people together based on the actions of a fringe minority is, at best, hypocrisy, but more than likely, it is just racism raising its ugly head.

I will admit openly to being wary of the leadership of the Black Lives Matter organization. They are openly Marxist, have called for violent revolution, and have made absolutely ridiculous demands on the country. I will also say that the media, both left and right have sensationalized the so-called Black Lives Matter protests, which may have started out as protests, but a small group of ignoramuses and anarchists turn these peaceful protests into riots where private property is looted and burned. Let me emphasize that they are a small group—a fringe minority at best.

I have many black friends. Like the average black demographic, the majority of my black friends are Democrats, but because of the circles in which I travel, I’m pretty sure that there are quite a few more conservatives in my circle of friends than the average five percent across the black demographic. Most of my black friends, including some of the conservatives, are also supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement. None of them has promoted violence against whites, a violent overthrow of the United States, nor have they been involved in burning and looting private property.

It may be that my black friends are the exception to the rule, but I don’t think so. The majority of black Americans who support Black Lives Matter do not support the wanton destruction of property inflicted by a few idiots. Black people in the United States have some real grievances and some of that is due to white people in the United States glossing over our own history, not just white history, but American history.

I’m not saying that white people should go around apologizing to black people for slavery nor should the government do so. Bernie Sanders said that America never apologized for slavery, but I hope he was just trying to win some political points because otherwise, he displays a very dangerous ignorance of history. American politicians, including some who were slave owners have been apologizing for slavery since before the founding of the country and continued to do so long after slavery had ended.

I’m not saying that white people should go around apologizing to black people for segregation and Jim Crow, nor should the government do so. The apology for these horrible crimes against black America was made by voting for politicians who passed the various Civil Rights Acts which are still encoded in federal law and remain as a stark reminder that there was a time in America when one group of humans degraded and enslaved another group because of the color of their skin and what we know now to be a genetic difference so small that a black man and a white man have more in common genetically than they do with their own female relatives.

I’m not saying that there ought to be reparations for America’s past because many citizens of the United States, including most white people do not even have slave owning ancestors. The majority of white people living today were not even conceived when segregation and Jim Crow were a reality in America. So, I’m certainly not telling white people to be guilty for something the majority of us had no part in, but I am saying we need to be honest about the history of this country including slavery and the Southern Confederacy.

I hope it was clear from my first paragraph that I am also not saying that black people can’t be racist. They can be and that was evident earlier this week. However, for most black Americans, racism is a reality they deal with on nearly a daily basis if not every day. While slavery is only history and segregation is a distant memory for the older generation of black Americans, racism and racial stereotypes about black Americans still persist in America and the headline I referenced above perpetuates the stereotypes as well as racism.

If we are going to have real racial reconciliation, it is important for people to end the stereotypes. End the stereotypes of police who are all a bunch of racist white guys out hunting for black kids to shoot. End the stereotypes of Black Lives Matter supporters as nothing more than a bunch of whiny thugs who want to steal anything they can get their hands on and destroy everything else. End the stereotypes of all white people being racists. End the stereotype of all black people being lazy and entitled, just wanting free stuff.

The list could go on.

The way reconciliation happens is we step out of our comfort zone and out of our echo chamber and into acquaintanceships, friendships, and eventually relationships with people who look different and think differently than we do. There is a documentary that came out just last month called Accidental Courtesy: Daryl Davis about a black man who makes it a point to befriend members of the Ku Klux Klan. His belief is that many racists are the way they are because they have never personally met black people and gotten to know them. This is often true wherever you find any kind of animosity and was true in this case. Daryl Davis has converted, if you will, hundreds of former Klan members from racism to tolerance.

Every problem won’t be solved over night, but they won’t be solved at all if we can’t reach across the aisle and get to know people different from us. What we usually find when we open the doors of communication with people who think differently from us is that “those people,” whether they are black, Asian, Muslim, Christian, atheist, Democrats or Republicans, aren’t our opposition or even our opposites. They want the same things we do. They want to live their lives in peace, to raise their children in safe neighborhoods, to have a chance at prosperity, and enjoy life. They may disagree with us as to the means, but there will never be compromise as long as we look at people who are different from us as the opposition. There will never be reconciliation as long as we allow anyone to perpetuate stereotypes.

I’m an advocate of free speech, even speech that offends me. I am an advocate for people of all philosophies to have the freedom to spout their ideas in any forum they would like to. However, my free speech advocacy also comes with the caveat that others will have the freedom to rebut, critique, and debunk those ideas they find offensive. I will try to be constructive in my criticism, but sometimes, stupid is just stupid and there’s no other way to say it.

By the way, I figured out a title. Maybe not catchy, but at least I have a title now.