Inspiring Letter

This is a more personal post, but I have been inspired, and thus, would like to share my inspiration with you.

I am a very patriotic American.  My father served his country proudly as a U.S. Marine for over 20 years.  My grandfather on my Mother's side also enlisted in the Navy at the end of WWII.  I currently work for a Government Contractor managing contracts that support the military overseas in conflict areas. Within my less immediate family and close friendships I have known even more to serve this nation proudly.

I have a lot to say on this topic, and the topic of the letter below, but for now, I will just let the letter speak for me.

"Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can’t figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

” We’re no longer a Christian nation”
” America is arrogant”

– (Your wife even
announced to the world,” America is mean-spirited. ” Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I’d say shame on the both of you, but I don’t think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That’s not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle…

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes"

I checked the validity of this letter on Snopes.  Here is the link: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/haroldestes.asp 

The one BIG thing that bothers me about the SSM Protests...

This week I have been paying attention to the protests at SCOTUS about the cases on Prop 8 and DOMA. There have been a lot of people gathering on both sides, and I have been amazed by the relative civility of the protests.  Among the protesters we have:

The Good

(Civil protesters, respectful signs)

The Bad

(Over the top, and we're walking a fine line on being offensive)

The Ugly

(      )

Yeah, I left "The Ugly" blank because... there are really no words.  We can always rely on the Westboro Baptist Church to truly disgust humanity.  So, other than the obvious disappointment in that... I bring you to my point, the biggest thing that has bothered me about the SSM protests at SCOTUS this week:

Seeing the power the American People can have, and knowing how rarely we wield it.

Both sides have really had some amazing turnouts, and I am amazed and proud of everyone going out on both sides to participate in the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (and doing so with civility).  I am truly proud to be an American.

But it makes me wonder why we don't use our power more?  For example, with the budget talks beginning soon in congress?

If you read my earlier post "DOMA & SCOTUS", I cited, in a tangent (how uncharacteristic of me) that each American owes over $53K in federal debt.... Considering the median HOUSEHOLD income (which means it's even lower per person) is only $50K (2), that is a scary thought.  So, if my household (which consists of my boyfriend and myself) is the avg, we have a joint income of $50K, but we owe $106K as a household... and that's not including our personal debt (mortgage and student loans...).  

I don't know how closely you follow our national debt, but it has climbed to these levels (approaching $17T) pretty recently.  It has been almost FOUR YEARS since the Senate passed a budget.  In fact, Obama's budget proposal was rejected by a Democrat controlled Senate when ZERO Senators voted for it.  I'm sorry, but if not even a single soul from your own party votes for your budget, you are not trying your hardest.  Since we haven't had a budget since 2009, it has been us, the American people, who have suffered the most.

Under Bush, the debt went up about $4.9T in his 8 years as president.  When he left office, the debt was just over $9T.  So, since Bush left office a little over four years ago, the debt has increased well over $6T.  The debt is also over 100% of GDP.  Not to mention, every year under Obama has had a deficit over $1T.  (3) I would venture to say that there are many factors out there (a conversation for another post), but it is no coincidence that we our debt has climbed this drastically in the years we have no federal budget. 

So as I sit at my desk at work, sneaking onto news sites (and twitter) to get my news fix, I think, what if we used our power more often?  I look at these people, so active in their beliefs, and I wonder what if they came together?  All I can say is- Mind Blown.

As it is said, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".  There is no stronger bond than that forged over a common enemy, and my fellow Americans, this day we all have a common enemy: the incompetence in Washington that has failed us.

1. All Pictures courtesy of: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/prop-8-supreme-court_n_2952583.html?utm_hp_ref=politics#slide=2271363

2. http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/12/news/economy/median-income-poverty/index.html

3. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

DOMA & SCOTUS: Update #1

"So yes, marriage is a Constitutionally protected right,"

This was a statement I made in my previous post "DOMA & SCOTUS" that I would like to clarify, as I do not make substantive changes to my posts.  I will make a grammatical or spelling correction, but I do not want to change the meaning of the original post.

So, in my haste to write a piece on SSM and get to bed at a decent hour (the latter was a failure) I happened to make a statement that does not reflect my understanding of the issue, at the point shown above.

I do not believe that marriage, on its own, is Constitutionally protected.  SSM is Constitutionally protected because discrimination is unconstitutional.  SSM, and marriage at all, is not guaranteed by the Constitution.  The issue arises with the government benefits associated with marriage, and that these benefits cannot be denied certain groups while allowed to others.  The Constitutional issue is not marriage, but discrimination and equality.

This brings me to the next piece in my update.  It had been brought to my attention that a better Libertarian argument would be to take government out of marriage altogether.  I understand the point, but would like to bring about a rational issue for government intervention (as an unfortunate necessity).

If the government were to remove itself from marriage altogether, there would be no marriage equality, because marriage would have no legal standing.  The Constitution guarantees we are all "Equal Under the Law", and the law only.  Therefore, a Church could choose to uphold a marriage or not, because they have religious freedom, and marriage would be nothing more than a celebration of love.

Now, if the government had zero involvement in marriage, that would mean all of the marriage benefits apportioned by the government would disappear, making the heterosexual married couples angry, and the homosexual married/ marriage pursuing couples angry as well.   There would be insurance issues, joint-tax return problems, etc. The overwhelming majority of Americans would not support this measure, and, after all, despite a growing federal government, we are still a Republic.

Unless, the government did remove itself from Marriage, let that be a solely religious thing, and replace it with "Civil Unions" or something of the like, that was purely a legal thing.  Then, churches could choose to perform marriage ceremonies for whoever, and those would not have any sway on the legal benefits guaranteed, then couples would go to the courthouse and get a Civil Union License that would guarantee all the same benefits.  So, heterosexual couples and homosexual couples would hold the same legal standing, and choose whether or not they even wanted a marriage ceremony.  The religious side keeps the "sanctity of marriage" while same-sex couples still get the legal benefits guaranteed by the Constitution... Would be a fine compromise, if I do say so myself.

Wouldn't it be nice if it were that easy?

DOMA & SCOTUS

The "talk of the town" this week is all about same-sex marriage.  This week, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS for my twitter users) will be reviewing cases for Proposition 8 and DOMA.  Just a quick re-cap:  Proposition 8 is the State's Constitutional amendment in California that overturned the legalization of same-sex marriage by popular vote (1).  This amendment was recently overturned in a district court, and has now been appealed to the Supreme Court.  Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) recognized the definition of marriage as a man and woman for Federal purposes.  Basically, same-sex couples don't have federal marriage benefits under DOMA.

As the title of my blog suggests, I am a moderate Libertarian (and I am still certain that 90% of the people I tell this to actually have no clue what "Libertarian" means... but I digress) and this is one issue I see completely eye-to-eye with the Libertarian Party on(I am relatively moderate, so sometimes I just cannot get completely on-board).  So, I'm guessing a fair percentage of you still have no clue where that leaves me standing...  The curse of independent thinking and belonging to a party that received just shy of 1% of the popular vote in the 2012 Presidential Election (which was actually quite a turnout! Go Gary!).

I support the legalization of Same-Sex Marriage.

Make no mistake, I would, by no means, consider myself an "activist" for marriage equality.  Unfortunately for my fellow gay Americans, the majority of my political attention is focused on a debt approaching $17T, a Democratic Party that, seemingly, has no plans to curb spending, and the growing popularity of a socialist/ "Welfare State" culture in America.  Let's just say, the economy and the dissipation of a capitalistic society are 1,2, and 3-10 on my political "agenda".

None-the-less, I support "gay marriage".  

I am an advocate of the Constitution, and I believe that banning SSM is unconstitutional.  I believe that the Founding Fathers intentionally left the Constitution vague in most areas because they wanted the civil liberties to be broadly guaranteed.  The Constitution guarantees these rights to all citizens, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.  The government has already grown out of control in a way it was never intended to.  Our Founding Fathers spent many a debate questioning how strong the Federal Government should be, lest it become tyrannical.  They supported limited government, enough to ensure the safety and protection of its people, but not invasive.  (Although this is an issue for another day, I thought it did merit a brief mention in this debate).  And this is what I love about the Libertarian Party: the lack of hypocrisy.

Democrat ideals want the government to intervene economically, but "butt-out" socially.  Meanwhile, Republicans want the government to intervene socially but not economically.  Libertarians just want the government to "butt-out" altogether.  Why?  Because the Constitution tells us that the rights that were explicitly written have been divided as intended, and that all other rights are reserved for the people.  So, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly weigh-in, it belongs to us, not the politicians.  

I don't want to go too much more in depth, because I have attached a short, reader-friendly joint argument from the Cato Institute and the Constitutional Accountability Center (2) which relatively easily sums up my view in a no-nonsense way.  And it isn't loaded with legal jargon...

However, Dear Republicans, think about it this way: a loss in the Supreme Court this week, could potentially help with a win for you in 2016.  IMO, Republicans have a much stronger economic recovery platform (more push for a balanced budget), but they lose it on social issues, and many Americans prioritize these social issues over economic ones.  If the Supreme Court declares banning SSM Unconstitutional, then this would be a mute point in Presidential Elections, and one less thing people have to focus on instead of the economy... maybe them Americans with care about the fact that each American currently owes more in national debt than each Greek did when their economy collapsed (yes, you owe over $53K as you read this).   This is just one of the issues that the Republican Party may have to bargain on to gain favor with the American Public (yet again, another post for another day).

So yes, marriage is a Constitutionally protected right, but I want to temper your expectations that SCOTUS may not rule so broadly, meaning SSM could be legalized in CA without being legalized nation-wide, and that they could overturn DOMA and recognize marriages conducted in States, without forcing all States to recognize SSM.  As Justice Kennedy seems to have suggested today, they could dismiss Proposition 8.  There are a lot of ways this could go, and as SCOTUS rules narrowly more traditionally, there is no guarantee that SSM will be legalized nation-wide.  If you want more sources on the possible outcomes, let me know and I will pull some sources :)

No matter which way SCOTUS rules, the government needs to maintain religious freedom. Just as people have the right to marriage and non-discrimination from the law, people also have the same right to religious freedom, whether or not they recognize SSM and other social issues.  I think that in the crusade for equality, some people lose sight of the rights held by those on the other side of the yellow tape...

This is not about acceptance of others' choices, it is about respect for others' rights.  

So, as events unfold this week, stay tuned for some more updates

1. http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm

2. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/constitutional-case-marriage-equality

Understanding Gun Control and the Second Amendment

            To start off, let me say, I am not a gun enthusiast.  I do not own a gun, have not really thought about owning a gun, and likely will not (at least not anytime soon).  I am a moderate (very moderate) libertarian.  I pretty often find myself straddling the line on nearly every important political issue (social or economic).  I only tell you this so you can understand the frame of mind that this is written in.  Writing is bias (yes, this definitely includes the news), because it is written the way the author sees the world. Perception is reality.

Gun control has been a hot topic, especially on social media, thanks to Obama’s proposals Wednesday. My opinion: the majority of statements around Gun Control seem to be missing the issue completely.  Yes, I am saying Gun Control is not entirely about Gun Control.

That being said, based on the statements I read on mass media about this exact topic, I don’t believe most people understand the issue in its entirety.  There is a sense of tunnel-vision, seeing the world in black and white, and it misses some key issues.  The answer isn’t simple, because the two major factions don’t ask the same questions.

This is entering into some fundamentals of American politics and the main two parties, but I will try to keep it brief.  A fundamental difference is the view of where responsibility/power should lie.  American Liberalism tends to view responsibility as lying with the government, while American Conservatism tends to see the people as those who should hold the power.  This translates generally to most of the party views on issues, but there are inconsistencies; gun control is not one.

What does this mean in terms of gun control?  For Liberals, the government has an obligation to protect the people, hence the increase in gun control.  This supports the liberal mindset, which leans towards a larger government.  However, for the ideological conservative who opposes large government, this is an impediment on his (or her) freedoms.

The 2^nd amendment, was not written so that Joe Schmoe could go hunting on Saturday, although there is nothing wrong with that.  The amendment was written by a group of men who had experienced tyranny, who had fought for their freedom against an unjust government, and believed the people should have a right and a way to rebel against unjust governments.  The first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, were written to protect the rights of the people against such unjust governments.  The right to “bear arms”, simply put, allows the people the ability to rebel against a government that becomes tyrannical. A tyrannical government infringes upon those rights guaranteed in the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.

To a conservative, this is a “double-whammy”.  The government is trying to stop them from being able to protect themselves against an unjust government, while increasing its power.  The federal powers have grown immensely since America’s founding.  While America is nowhere near a dictatorship, to most conservatives, this is an issue of State Rights, and the growing power of the Central government at the cost of the States. 

What about the reality of gun control?  I proffer the example of illegal drugs.  Despite the many laws in place that ban these substances and the over $1 trillion spent since the “War on Drugs” began, they are still relatively prevalent in the United States.  My first point:  criminals don’t have a track record for following the law… hence, the fact that they are criminals.
                I recently watched a video testimony of a woman who lost her parents to a gun homicide.  She tells her story, how she watched her father get shot, and tries searching for her own gun in defense.  To her horror, she remembers that she had left her gun in the car because it was illegal for her to carry a concealed weapon (I believe she is in Texas). In a moment of opportunity, she fled, but her mother did not.  She found out after the incident that her mother did not make it.  (You can watch this video here: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151312030446726 )

As a law abiding citizen, she didn’t carry her gun.  And the majority of law abiding citizens probably wouldn’t have. Her point is the criminals are still going to carry guns.  She even blames lawmakers for leaving her unable to protect herself. 

America currently holds the #1 spot for gun ownership, with over 88 guns per 100 people. This is a lot, especially when you factor in that the #2 country has less than 55 guns per 100 people. (1) But please understand, this does not mean 88% of Americans own a gun, because many people who own guns own multiple guns.  Nevertheless, America holds the 28^th position for gun-related deaths, and according to the CDC, there are only 3.6 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people.(2)

                Despite an actually low level of gun-related homicides, there has been an increase of gun related incidents in schools.  According to the American BAR Association, it rose from 1 incident per year in 1992, to 5 in 1998 (4).   While this information is disappointingly outdated, this is a major cause for concern. 

            So, the data shows that guns do not cause violence.  And, if someone were planning to commit a violent act, such as the guy in China who injured 23 school-children on a stabbing spree(3), they will find a way.  My main concern with increased gun control is that these proposals will give us a false sense that we have solved the problem.  

            Dear Washington Liberals, what is your plan for the potential black market that would be created from stringent gun control laws?  We share a border with Mexico, a country whose drug cartels use guns heavily, and seem to have little problem smuggling over large amounts of cocaine across the border.  I doubt they would find dealing guns much more difficult.  This is why the issue behind the violence needs to be addressed, there will always be violent alternatives.

            Do I want a government to spend $500 million on gun control reforms,  that I believe are simple “band-aid” solutions, when their inability to pass a budget (going on 4 years in April, 2013) has resulted in unprecedented spending landing our economy in over $16 trillion debt? 

          

            Now I agree with the majority of the proposals made by Pres. Obama. (See item  5 for a list from NY Times). His Executive Orders aimed to address mental health do not seem sufficient for me.  Also, the idea of limiting a magazine that can be reloaded in under 5 seconds seems to pretty useless, but I’m sure others would sleep better. 
            If you were to walk away with two main points, take these:  1. Guns do not cause violence, so gun control does not address the issue of violence, rather it addresses a medium through which violence is committed.  2. With the increasing power of the Central Government, is this an issue for the Central Government (especially the President alone to deal with Executive Orders), or is this an issue best handled closer to the people on a State level?

Sources: 

(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

(2) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

(3)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/china-school-attack-video_n_2329511.html

(4) http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/guns_in_schools.html 

(5) http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html