Kneeling

People have been bombarding me with my opinion on NFL players kneeling during the national anthem. My response, expectedly, left both sides of the debate unhappy.

My first issue is that I am being hunted down to be asked at all. I don't know about everyone, but I didn't join the military to be some special class of citizen that needs to be babied constantly. My opinion on this is no more important than any American's opinion. I would beware anyone telling you that this or that is demeaning to veterans. Not that it doesn't happen. One that comes to mind is the woman who pictured herself yelling at Arlington Cemetary. That is disrespecting the military. That woman also paid dearly for that error in judgment. Case closed in my opinion. I wish her no ill will.

But when it is a point of patriotism, that affects me no more than it does any other citizen. "But I had friends who came home under that flag!" says the angry Facebook veterans. "I have sacrificed more!". So have I. But I am not taking their sacrifice to make everything about me. I lost friends, those men were lost to their wives, their children, their parents, and much more. We lost them as a country, not just me or just veterans.

Also, the reasons we were supposed to be out there was to protect those very rights that these NFL players were expressing. If you are going to fight to defend those rights, then use your status as a veteran to suppress them when you get home, I don't know what exactly you were fighting for. Don't think the US is the first country in the world to use our veterans as a means to suppress the rights of their people. This was a critical element that our founding fathers were against.

Now to piss off the other side. I am not a fan of the kneeling. Not because my feelings are hurt, or because I think forced patriotism is a sign of a healthy country. But because I believe in the goal the NFL players are striving toward, and I think this is taking them further and further from it.

To be clear, I do think that our country has serious problems with race relations, and those problems are more serious than just a cab not picking someone up or people crossing the street to walk. It's issues that suppress a large segment of our population, causes them grief and suffering, and can easily lead to their death. Even from a selfish viewpoint, millions upon millions of Americans before trampled upon effects all of us, even if we aren't the ones with boots on our backs.

"So you think cops hate black people and are just looking for excuses to murder them?!?"

No. I think police officers are incredible people with very difficult jobs that many of us could not handle. I think your average officer wakes up every morning wanting to go out, do their job which is keeping us safe, and go home to their family at the end of their shift. I also think they are critical elements of our society.

But, as one of my First Sergeants used to say, there are dirtbags in every group. He called it the rule of 10%s. 10% of the military is dirtbags who need to be found and thrown out, 10% are the heroes that will save the day, and 80% are the average joes that need to be lead. I'm a Marine, and I guarantee if you ask me or any other Marine, we can tell you stories of dirtbags who should have never been in uniform and never put behind a rifle. Marines who were idiots. Marines who were racists. Marines who needed to be thrown out. That realization doesn't mean I hate Marines. Not at all. That's just being honest. I got to be one of the detainee guards who escorted The Pendleton 8 out of Iraq. I sure as hell don't feel bad about that.

That is where I am sitting with police officers. The vast majority of them are awesome people. But there is scum that needs to be thrown out, and it terrifies me when they not only aren't but when wagons get circled for officers who don't deserve the backup. It's because the police are such important and essential parts of our government and our life that we have to hold them to the highest standards. Not low standards because the job is difficult.

Which brings me back to why I am not a fan of the kneeling. When I discuss the issue of US police with people, including people who are completely against my position, the best way I bring them around to understand is changing the issue from a civil rights issue, to a government overreach issue. These are American citizens being killed by government officials, and we need to do something to curb that.

But in brief, I think that kneeling of NFL players isn't the best method to further their goals. But I think it would be wrong of me as a fellow American to ignore my neighbor's plights because they didn't bring it up to me in a manner I felt comfortable with. I also think it's ridiculous that the kneeling is being portrayed as insulting to veterans. I have asked many, many people, and I can't find a single instance in American history where kneeling before something is insulting. Many, many examples of the opposite though. Beyond that, nothing about the flag or National Anthem should mean any more to me as a veteran than any American civilian. I think our founding fathers would be disgusted by the government using veterans as a shield to suppress civilians' speech.

Stranger Danger

One thing I have noticed about parenting is the balance between teaching my children what I think will make them happiest, with what I think will keep them safest. There is a cost for security, both financially, socially, and mentally. But the benefits are there too.

A subject that comes to mind is the current fear of "Stranger Danger" in the US and perhaps much of the world. It isn't mysterious where it came from. There have been very public cases of children being hurt or taken by a stranger, and all of us grieve for those kids and parents and hate to imagine ourselves in their shoes.

It is also a balance between the rarity of the crime and the severity of them. I can list statistics all day long that the vast majority of abductions is committed by friends and family. Most of those by noncustodial parents. The out of tens of millions of kids in the US, the number abducted by strangers can be counted in the double digits. That isn't the feeling you get when the news has a new story every day and your phone has Amber alerts going off. But even if it is rare, the terror of it happening to your child puts you on guard.

My question is how much is the cost of that security. Back when I lived in Tennessee I remember a local debate over a shooting of an old man. The short story is the old man had Alzheimer's and got lost while walking his dog late at night. He knocked on a door while lost, and the occupant snuck around the back of the house and shot the old man to death. His story was he felt fearful that it was a home invasion and protected himself and his family. Could it have been a home invasion? I don't have any statistics on how many murders were committed by senior citizens with the family dog in tow, but I guess it's a possibility.

What does it cost my kids to live their lives believing everyone they meet is a criminal until further notice? As a parent I want my kids to be safe, but how much am I damaging their lives and damaging their future communities if all of us teach our kids to live that way? I don't believe that security comes for free. We pay in our own way, possibly by alienating people that could have been our friends or depriving my children of social interactions that could have been healthy for them.

On the flip side of the coin, I have had great experiences with strangers stepping forward to take care of my children. When my son snuck out of school to try and walk home from school alone and found out the hard way he has his father's sense of direction, strangers stopped him, comforted him, and contacted the police to get him back to us. When my son used his sister as an outboard motor to pull him on his skate shoes and fell and busted his face, it was the local mothers who we had never met before who stopped and dressed his wounds and took care of him, their immediate action calming down both of my kids and were critical of him healing up just fine and leaving no scars.

What I really want to do is teach them that the vast, vast majority of people are kind people who are dealing with their own lives just like they are. That just about everyone will lend a hand if asked, and just about everyone has knowledge or virtues to pass to them if they are just willing to learn from them. Even the people who are cruel or mean are usually just kind people who have been damaged throughout their life and are responding in ways that aren't healthy for them.

Not that I want them to be open to abuse. There have been times in my life where I have known generally good people who I've had to remove from my life because they were too damaged to help, and either were damaging my own life, or we just did not want to see them continue to damage their own. That doesn't make them evil or criminals.

But then again, I have to balance those wants with the horror of how extreme that me being wrong is. I really don't want to be the one on the news telling people that the reason my kid trusted that person was that I wanted to protect how future communities interacted. Or consoling my wife with how rare these things are, we just got unlucky. This is one of those many times as a parent the answer isn't clear or easy. I think my best shot is teaching my kids honestly about this and letting them make the decisions of how to interact with the world on their own. I just have to have faith in their intelligence over my wants and hopes, and see where it takes me. Maybe not the best solution, but an honest one.

Thank you for opposing the president.

Three days after the events of the Charlottesville Nazi rally and I was numb.  I was not shocked or surprised or confused.  Just numb, which is weird because I knew all of this was quite likely.  It makes everything make sense.  Why Trump would support a country that actively halts the rights of its minority groups and has an authoritarian leader.  Why he could not immediately disavow David Duke on the campaign trail.  Why he was so comfortable attacking a Muslim family of a fallen military veteran.  Why he pushes for a trans ban, Muslim ban, and policies that are constantly regressive in all aspects:  Trump's ideology lines up with that of the white supremacy movement.

Now some might notice I did not call him a Nazi.  I won't because despite everything he has said and done he still gets the benefit of the doubt.  He is still an American and the American president.  He still get's the respect of being elected.  It is at a time when punching Nazis and getting them fired would be the easiest to do that we must resist these urges.  Due process does not hold as an ideology if at our lowest it does not hold.

That being understood, what we can do is assess the event that has already transpired and make sense of what got us here.  From there, we do what our enemy can't and won't do.  We strive to be better. So let us examine the actions of our president when his first major national crisis arose.

On Saturday, August 12th of 2017, when a Nazi rally attended by people with shields, body armor and weapons held under the conservative banner went awry the president did not condemn Nazism by name.  This was so apparent prominent sources of white supremacy media repeatedly said it was good he did not do so.  In fact, after 2 days of continued pressure from politicians and the media, when he finally came around to condemning it he was pressured by CNN reporters to respond as to why the delay and his response was to condemn them right then and there.  This is not a confusing or ambiguous moment.  We are all adults here.  The president was uncomfortable.

And we know we cannot take his word.  This is a man who literally lied about getting a call from the Boy Scouts.  There is a rhythm of poetic justice here.  He lied about the size of his inauguration crowd.  He lied about Mexico paying for the wall.  He still won't show his taxes.  There is an investigation currently dogging him and his entire campaign.  A campaign which was constantly criticized for its dubious morality.  The trail is so obvious I already feel silly for putting these thoughts in this order this late in the game.  But I had to be absolutely certain.  These are not accusations that should be made lightly.  It should be very hard and definite to say a man might side with any kind of supremacy.  We are now at that point because of all these proof line up.  President Donald Trump appears to side with white supremacy.

So before we start the long, difficult and brutal road ahead we must pause like all the wise must.  We must gather our will and courage for the people we will clash with.  The president, unknowingly or knowingly, shot the blatant first volley in the war against American principles.  Presidents are men whose power and past require us to value their omissions just as seriously as their inclusions and admissions and all of his now clearly lean pro-white supremacy.  We know that Fox News will continue to carry his banner with very few criticisms.  We know some conservatives who are not racist will side with him just because they still believe the Democrats would be worst, despite all evidence to the clear contrary.  Some will even know all this to be true but have too much of their pride wrapped up in supporting the wrong side of history, unable to suppress their ego enough to do the right thing.  This is quite normal in historical context.  That is how you get a group of people to intentionally put an entire group of people into gas chambers and ovens and still walk away feeling morally superior.

Before we do this a lot of gratitude is in order.  To Americans that are still peacefully fighting for unity.  To Americans going against their better, selfish interests for the greater ideal of compassion and community.  To conservatives who see the wrong and condemn their own brothers and sisters for this immoral stance.  For people engaging their neighbors and friends in the incredibly important daily conversation to reinforce why we hold American ideals high.  To those that challenge pathos with logos and ethos.  Thank you.  None of this would be possible if not for you holding true and strong in your local community.  We are doing very well.  We still have a long way to go but I have nothing but faith in the system the forefathers implemented.  Even at this low end, we have managed to stave off violence and bloodshed on a grander scale.  Many have done much worst for much less.  But we do not hold ourselves to basic standards.  We hold ourselves to the ideal of freedom, equality, liberty, and justice for all.  As long as we fight for those ideals then we are the best Americans we can be.  Failure is a possibility but never an option.  Oorah.

They better act like Americans!

This is an interesting situation where I disagree with at least the motivations of an idea, but I have a solution that will not only work for my ideals, but the ideals I disagree with. A fun instance where the solution to both of our opposing problems is solved the same way.

The one I am talking about is the idea that if someone moves to the US, they should act like Americans.

Now, off the bat, I can see the appeal of this and I understand that there are a lot of people who this seems like common sense. I mean, if you go into someone else's home, you abide by their standards. Why should moving to another country be different?

But here are my issues. First, which Americans are they supposed to act like? Americans are wildly varied, not only because of the sheer size of the US means that there are very distant locations that are still in the same country. A walk from California to Maine leaves you in the same country the entire time. That same walk east from Israel would take you through Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and into Tibet. Imagine how varied all of those cultures are in that same distance. But like any country, Americans vary even in the same locations. Which one of these Americans should they act like?

Also, I don't want immigrants to give up their culture just to move here. Anything that is "American" was brought over by the various cultures and coopted by us. Our culture was built brick by brick by the immigrants that came here. That isn't ancient history either, we are still doing it. Anyone had a sushi burrito yet? I am no food historian, but I would bet good money that started here and I appreciate it. I had a Pakistani burger not too long ago, and I know the people who invented it. Guess what everyone, it was a white guy and his Pakistani wife. Who'd have guessed? How many good things in America would we not have if we didn't allow immigrants to express themselves? How different would the America we know and love be?

My last issue with the above statement is being an American is about doing what you want with your life. That is why we love this country, that is why immigrants come to us. It's unamerican to force a fellow American to bend to suit you. 

But let's say you entirely disagree with me. You think if immigrants want to build a life here, they should ditch their baggage and become Americans. I've even heard that statement made by immigrants. One man I was talking to about why he didn't teach his kids his and his wife's native language. He said that they came here to be Americans and if he wanted to still be Chinese he would have stayed in China. He and his wife both refused to speak Chinese to each other and only did on occasions when they talked to family members who couldn't speak English. That is a powerful statement and one I certainly didn't argue with at the time.

So what is the magical solution that appeases both sets of people? Convert those immigrants yourself. Let me explain before people start building re-education centers.

Converting people unwillingly is ridiculously difficult. Have you ever tried to show a teenager why their boy/girlfriend is terrible for them? Any point you make is going to make them cling tighter to each other, and put them in the position of "it's us against the world!!!!". If there is anything all of us humans are not short of, it's ego. You put most people in that position and they are going to fight tooth and nail. You are going to lose that battle, or the costs are going to be too high.

Here's how you defeat them and convert them to Americans: Treat them like fellow Americans.

I am at an interesting position that seems to be getting a lot more common. I have a Pakistani wife (my in-laws were the burger inventors). I also have an African brother and his Mexican wife. So from my seat, I can see the inner workings of three different kinds of immigrant families. And you know what? America is winning. 

A big issue for some of the older generations of those families is their kids being "Americanized". My argument the whole time has been, "yeah, big damn surprise". Of course, when you bring your young children to another country or have kids in that other country, those kids are going to adopt the traits of their only known country. You came to America for a reason, and those kids aren't choosing whether or not to adopt the local culture, they are being forged by it. They are as much a part of it as you were when you were built by your culture.

The proof is in the pudding. Those families are all "Americanizing". The kids are intermarrying with other American races. They are adopting American mannerisms, American clothing, American music, the works. Whether they wanted to, or their parents wanted them to, they were becoming every bit as American as someone whose family has been here for generations.

So what can you do as Americans on both sides of the issue? Be these immigrants' neighbors. Invite them over for dinner, and join a dinner with them*. Take them out to the ball game. Take the most exotic immigrant you know, put some fireworks and a lighter in their hands on Fourth of July, and they'll be Americans before the last M80 goes off and the police break everything up. Many times I have taken immigrants and their kids out shooting and camping and riding dirt bikes. All American fun and they loved it.

You don't convert people to your culture by force. You convert them by dragging them along with you and making them feel like they already belong to your culture. Just be aware, they won't be the only ones changing.


*Beware fellow white people. That food is likely going to be very spicy. Take necessary precautions. 

In defense of empathy.

I have a fear about the worth of our words.  Now before I go down this path it should be clear I have no diploma or specialized education in this area.  If there is any reason for my appreciation of words I would guess that my mother being an English teacher would be the genesis of this respect.  This does extend to grammar and all its written and vocal requirements but though I do appreciate phrasing and such things what I really enjoy is just words.

Now as in all things of admiration that one is not directly involved in, you do at the minimum a cursory job of learning the gist of it and as in most things that people try to do for the first time with an audience, I am bound to screw it up a little. But I say all this not as a cop-out, but as a petition for your patience to understand my point.

Back to the subject of words, this philosophy has led me to a simple concept that everyone assumes but no one seems to encourage.  Words mean things for a reason.  Seems obvious I know, but let me give you an example.  The comedian Doug Stanhope in one of his more recent specials said a brilliant joke about the differently abled.  Something along the lines of nomenclature had changed several times and each time it was to adjust a negative perception that people had associated with it.

First, retarded was a professional name for this challenge.  Then mentally disabled, then mentally challenged, and now differently abled.  His point was we should stick with one because no matter which nomenclature we used humanity would still make the implicit connotation that it meant an individual with specific difficulties and would use this in jest to their buddies that they were differently abled and this for some reason would lower the person's status or dignity or whatever.  I think this is a brilliant example of the power of words.  One can take a word and use its meaning as a weapon to drag others into a mentality that can help or harm another.  That's some intense stuff right there.

But I fear too many are toying around with this power in a dangerous way.  They are using it to make complex points blaze because of instant gratification.  This is a concept that is difficult to convey but i will try.  I remember for years during the Bush presidency I heard people refer to him and/or Cheney as Nazis or devils.  I thought those were pretty fucking harsh criticism for a job you and I could never understand, but I also saw the appeal for the use.  A quick tool to convey all of your shock and foreboding that does not require a long explanation for the nuances of opinion that fuel your anger.  When that was not enough, we use our last ditch strategy at dragging social situations in our favor, lying.

If we just pause for a second we might notice that the danger is when we get real Nazi situations (like a political leader who can galvanize crowds into a negative violent frenzy with his words.  Who calls the nation's press that disagrees with him fake and holds his nation on an exaggerated standard of supremacy.  A nation that is powerful enough to challenge the world) and we can no longer use it to demonstrate the danger because we diluted its meaning by including either a lesser perceived villain for a quick social advantage of some sort.

Now we are in a predicament.  Since people usually comprehend things in their bias, you now have at least a group of people you are challenging who see only the attack and not the reasoning and this is why it benefits us to have succinct points using the right words.  Now as living things we already have our guard up just for basic survival on the day to day no matter how minimal the danger. But complexities like intentional misinformation and inaccurate explanation just makes things worse.  So a lot of people will react hostile with a stranger rather than cordial, just as a preemptive strike to deter or even take advantage before the other does.  This is before you add people in the mix that do all this for an intentional benefit.

Now imagine we do the opposite.  We promote a message of kindness and tolerance even when our gut tells us otherwise.  A message that says: "We will give you the benefit of the doubt up to a clear point but even at that point we will not kill you.  You knowing this can attempt to use that fact against me, and if I lose you automatically lose your life".

Yeah, as I said not an expert.  It's not graceful, catchy, clever and there's that tricky I give my life as far as I can while defending myself to stop you but don't plan on taking yours.  The statement itself can even be taken as an open challenge to show you that your philosophy will fail the first time your life is threatened, but I actually think failure is perfectly acceptable.  In fact, we absolutely get why failure seems so obvious.  We don't want to die.  All we ask is that you try it to the best of your ability.  We will work to make sure we are as healthy physically and mentally as we can be so if you try to take advantage of us we are as prepared to take you down without killing you (that's our motivation to stay healthy in mind and body).  We understand that to feed the mind some might need belief so they can keep their drive.  Some might need routine.  Some might even just want to be left to consume and we will work at it as a whole, even if you do not want to.  We will even reduce our level of living for your sloth and benefit if need be.  We will take it as an added challenge to our intellect and will push through because improvement of our offspring is a challenge we should proudly accept.

That sounds like a crazy statement until you pause and wonder if we actually know the percentage of humanity that is lazy.  Just looking objectively it wouldn't be far fetched to say most of the planet is gainfully engage or/and employed in one way or another.  So why are we so confident if we bet on humanity we will end up in a Wall-e type of future?  Some of the most common things you hear from top athletes and celebrities in football, basketball, soccer,  politics, entertainment adult and otherwise are that they are just happy to do the thing they love.  I can't count the number of times I've heard a UFC fighter say "I couldn't imagine doing anything else for a living" in a victory after months of intense training, dieting, and concentration.  Everybody knows one of the hardest things a human can do is diet and exercise and that is why we prize the physical characteristics so much.  We will buy pills and equipment or hire individuals to help us do something we could just do with repetitious bodyweight exercises we can get online for free.  Do we just assume given the opportunity those guys would just stay at home?  They could have worked at McDonald's or even worse, much higher paying and more respectable options but that appealed to them so little they chose to get hit in the face.  That is a person that loves that life.

So I actually think if we bet the opposite way we actually have a real chance at saving humanity.  Because we are already betting the other way and have been for a while.  We see that it will always end in massive conflict and loss of life because it is designed to defend by attacking.  There is always bound to be a misread threat or an itchy trigger finger and any veteran has seen at least one or two of those.  So let's give defending by defending a try.  I think with a little curiosity you might notice it has more of a chance than it looks like on the surface (or at the very least that humanity just based on what we have already achieved is something worth betting on).  I guess this was a really long way to say that as crazy as it sounds i think the hippies had it right.  All we do need is love.

No Kids Allowed

The movie Logan is going to make your life better in the future. Hear me out.

When we laugh about the regulations of TV shows back in the 60s, such as I Dream of Jeannie not being allowed to show Jeannie's bellybutton on screen, we fail to realize that those regulations are still having their effect today. So many production companies want to make a movie for adults, but also hit that coveted PG-13 rating so that more people can buy tickets! Our movies and entertainment get dumbed down and de-intensified so that it can hit the magical PG-13 rating. Especially movies that normally are directed towards kids, like comic book movies such as Logan.

Is it so much to ask for movies made just for the 76% of the country that is adults? Of course rated R movies have already been out, but the big budget films are rarely rated R. The extremely costly movies always seem to be PG-13 movies, because those investors want to hit the biggest possible market. But I think starting with Deadpool, and confirmed by Logan, we might start seeing big budget rated R movies made just for adults. Sure, having a PG-13 rating opens up to more customers, but catering specifically to adults works wonders.

I don't think this movement is solely in Hollywood either. I'm starting to see a number of restaurants and other venues that are banning kids and are getting slammed by happy customers. I remember seeing an incident in Tennessee where this awful woman got kicked out of a nice restaurant because she decided to bring in McDonalds for her kid and threw a fit with the managers when they told her to get it the hell out of there. She started making social media posts about how the restaurant was NOT kid friendly, and the community responded by filling the place up with reservations.

Now, before I get slammed for hating kids or some crap, that isn't the point. I have kids. I take them with me to restaurants all the time. But if a venue doesn't allow kids, guess what? I don't take my damn kids there. I am not a fan of how everything continues to get dumbed down just to accommodate everyone's children. There are places that is not appropriate for your kids. I understand that is a downer at times, but it's just a part of life. Not every movie, every restaurant, every form of entertainment has to be kid friendly too. "But that means I can't go out if I can't find a babysitter!!!". You're exactly right. That's part of being a parent, you have to make sacrifices for your kids at times. Get used to it.

Just like that restaurant, I am betting on production companies realizing that catering to adults, while losing you some children's tickets, will make up for it in spades by more adults getting to go out and enjoy adult movies. Imagine Avengers with an R rating. Instead of us having to believe that Captain American, who has been killing Nazis since the elevators were still ran by people is ALSO against cursing, we can hear him in all his foul mouthed, military glory. Getting to actually experience these characters make hard decisions that wouldn't be understandable to a 12 year old. Or go through pain that only adults can comprehend.

I'm excited for this change. Disney will keep pumping out movies for kids and Ice Cube will continue starring in family pictures, so I think the children will be just fine. The only change is the biggest age demographic in the US finally starts getting catered to.

Land of The Free, BECAUSE We Are The Home of The Brave

I am going to go ahead and run off the assumption that anyone reading my blog already knows about the Executive Order Trump signed just a few days ago. The country erupted into debate about it and about what it actually entailed. Even White House Chief of Staff seemed to not understand exactly what the order entailed and was forced to reverse himself. So us as citizens are going to have a tough time.

Now, to cut through the lies being told on the Trump side, and on the anti-Trump side fairly quickly. First, no, this isn't a "Muslim ban". The ban applies only to certain countries, which both Republican and Democrats have agreed on (at separate times) are hotbeds of dangerous activities. You'll see a lot of posts showing that none of these countries' nationals have ever committed terrorist acts on US civilians, which is true. You'll also see people pointing out that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not on that list despite being huge state sponsors of terrorism. While it's easy to point out The Trump Org has business in a lot of these hotbed countries that he didn't list, it wasn't just him that has routinely ignored those countries. Saudi Arabia is probably one of the worst offenders but the US has ignored their acts for decades, likely because of our huge oil interests in the area. Not just Trump, but a bipartisan blindness of their crimes.

Now, things that point toward it being a "Muslim ban" is it is specified in those orders that people of minority religions will be given priority to skip the ban. Of course, since they are all Muslim majority countries, that effectively tells Muslims they will be in the back of the line. If made a law preferring minority religions in the US, you can be damn sure Christians would quickly (and correctly) point out that law is harassment against them. That part of the order is one that could possibly be unConstitutional. Possibly. An argument for that line is those minority religions are the ones in the most danger, which while I don't have sources to prove that, sounds likely.

Another thing you'll hear is "But, but, but, Obama did it in 2011 and you guys didn't complain". This is garbage. Obama's order did not specify religions and did not affect people who were already legally allowed to travel to the US, such as dual nationals, visa holders, and green card holders. The two orders are worlds apart, and being pissed about one and not the other doesn't make anyone a hypocrite. Though while Obama didn't write a ban like Trump's, he did murder many, many innocent Muslims with drone strikes and bombings, which I'd say is worse. Of course, Trump's first raid as a president killed many innocent Muslims, including women and children. So it doesn't look like Trump is going to stop Obama's civilian killing legacy.

Is Trump's EO unConstitutional? Listen ladies and gentlemen, that question cannot be answered by some idiot in a Facebook comment section, or some idiot on a Reddit post, or some idiot that is paying $12/month to have his own blog to bitch in (yours truly). That question is going to have to be hashed out in court by teams of lawyers and likely decided by Supreme Court Justices. I know people want an answer now, but no one can give you one. And likely even after the SC decides we'll still have people hotly debating it.

But beyond the legality of the order that we're not qualified to decide, how do I feel about the order? Well, that comes in parts. First, I know more than most Trump supporters how dangerous this terrorism we are fighting is. I've seen the people murdered over it. I've spoken to the people who have been brutally tortured and disfigured by it and seen their scars. I've seen children rigged with bombs and I've gotten to clean pieces of little girl off the side of our Humvee after an attack. I've left friends behind in Iraq, and brought back friends whose lives were ruined by their injuries and PTSD. This is serious stuff people, and the thought of it making it to our country and my wife and my kids having to see it too horrifies me. I understand the people who want to prevent something like that, and are willing to go to lengths, even unpopular ones, to prevent it.

I didn't just see horror out there however. I also saw courage of not only my fellow soldiers, but of the Muslims living in conditions few people can understand. Being caught aiding American forces to clear out the remnants of Saddam's regime could easily get you and your family executed in terrifying ways, but they still did it. We were trained by Iraqis who could show the the bullet wounds or the torture scars that it had cost them to aid US troops, but they still came out with us and did it. And one of their biggest awards for doing so? Being allowed to come to the US and be Americans along with us. People, I'm an American by chance of birth as likely are most of you. Can you imagine how few of us would be Americans if we had to be shot at, tortured, and your family killed to make it? And by the way, those Muslims who have been aiding our troops like they aided me are banned by this new EO. Men and women who have risked their lives for months or years got to learn that the US was not good on it's promises. And our troops get to have an even more difficult time recruiting more people to help now that their word has been proven to mean nothing.

This also ignores the fact that it is really easy to point out the Muslim terrorist groups who hate us, but we all seem to ignore that those same terrorist groups hate other Muslims. ISIS and al Qaeda murder far, far more Muslims than any other group and Muslims are the ones killing and forcing back the most ISIS members and al Qaeda members by far also. Muslims are the single biggest allies in our fight against Islamic terrorism, and it isn't surprising. Who do you think would be the people most pissed about someone bastardizing their religion? Who would be the people most affected by someone turning their country into a warzone? We see it on TV, these people live it.

This isn't the first time we have had that issue in The US. Back in WWII, we denied entry to thousands upon thousands of Jews because we saw them as Germans that could possibly attack us from inside. Thousands died as a result of our inability to differentiate between our allies and our enemies. It was a permanent black eye in our history and one we were and are rightfully embarrassed and ashamed for.

Lastly, my issue with the EO is I see it as a power grab by our government, and I am really sensitive to this. Just months ago when I would complain about EOs and government overreach I had Conservatives on my side agreeing with me and demanding executive powers be curtailed and Liberals telling me it has to be this way because of our do nothing Congress. Now when I make the same complaints, it's Liberals on my side demanding the same things and Conservatives shouting us down as unpatriotic. People, take notice of how limited our founding fathers made these powers even though it was practically assured that they would be the first ones to hold them. They did that because they knew they would not always be the people holding those powers, and they would have to limit them in the very real chance that someone would have them that they didn't agree with. Since 9/11, the powers of our government has increased by leaps and bounds because we fail to look very far into the future. Sure, Trump might be your guy and you trust him with all the powers we can give, but what happens if he isn't re elected in 2020 and it is someone you hate as president. Those powers don't vanish with Trump, they get moved to the next president. Still comfortable with it?

If Islamic terrorism's goals is to fundamentally change our country, they are succeeding at an unprecedented rate. One of the most basic rules of warfare is to not do what your enemy wants you to do, and us Americans have forgotten that. Of course ISIS wants us and the rest of the world to ban Muslims. Not only does that entrap people in their strongholds, allowing them to have more money, more people to terrorize and abuse, and more children to indoctrinate and recruit.

Does that mean I think we should throw our doors open and take everyone that asks? No, but I do think considering how little Islamic terrorism (and virtually none by these refugees) we have in the US that our existing vetting process is capable and successful. But could this Muslim ban prevent an act, or could a more serious one do that job even better? Possibly, but I bet us all giving up our Fourth Amendment rights would also make us "safer". How many criminals have been able to abuse aspects of our Constitution to complete their heinous acts? How many obviously guilty people have walked free because of the sheer amount of rights afforded to them? How many cops and prosecutors have had valid evidence thrown out because how it was attained was against the 4th Amendment?

In order for everyone to have these rights, we have to subject ourselves to a certain amount of danger. Which is why I like a slight change to a famous American quote. We are the land of the free BECAUSE we are the home of the brave. Because without bravery, we cannot have these freedoms we enjoy and that makes our country what it is. Be brave Americans. Don't give in to the people who scare you into giving up your rights and fundamentally changing your country for a bit of possible safety. Don't allow Germany, Sweden, Canada, and various other countries show us up in their bravery.