Seven Months and Change Until My Retirement Ceremony Debrief

Knock on wood, of course.  My list of high powered enemies is long, so there is no counting chickens in my case.  The knife fight in the phone booth continues.

Initially, I wasn't going to have a retirement ceremony, but somehow it just seemed wrong to not do so.  My career has been far too extraordinary and courageously American to just go quietly into the night.  So I explored the option.  Of course some do not agree, and they have a special invite to attend my ceremony should it occur.

I shot-in-the-dark asked a big name person that I respect if they would be my presiding officer.  To my surprise, they eagerly agreed to do so even knowing my controversial history.  That sealed the deal for me.  I'm going to have a ceremony.

My ceremony, if it ultimately happens, will include all opinions.  I don't want to end my career with a false rose-colored plastic event, when I have tried to spend my career telling the truth.  I'm not doing this for a gold watch.  And to paint my career, a publicly funded entity, as something without controversy would be disingenuous.  My career has been anything other than lacking conflict and those who might think my career is less than stellar deserve, and are invited, to show up and speak their minds.

This isn't a challenge or a line in the sand.  Show up and speak your mind.

Spears are welcomed.  Think of it as a career debrief where thick skins are required.  This isn't about fluff.  This is a debrief.  It's professional and all are expected to be adults in the profession of arms.  This is about letting the taxpayer know what went right and what went wrong in their investment in me, and it's about encouraging other airmen to learn from any of my mistakes as well as from any of my successes.

Let's honor the tradition of the debrief.

I will be sending out personal invites to those who have expressed the most disdain for your humble blogger along with those who I consider my comrades.  Of course even they disagree with me on one thing or another so that alone should make the debrief interesting.

Tony Carr will certainly get an invite.  If history is a guide, I do not expect him to show up.  Or if he does, he will show up then quickly run away while covering his tracks to make it appear he was never in the room.  Should that happen, I'll post a screenshot.

For those who don't get a personal invite, if you want to show up to the potential ceremony, contact me.  If you disagree with PYB online or me in person and if you have the courage to show up and face a retort, you are invited to do so.  Otherwise, feel free to email me any comments whether supportive or not, and I will put them up on the projector so that your voice is heard (and so that you don't have to face any response in person).

For those who show up with something to say, there will be a microphone waiting for you.  Whether supportive or otherwise.  For those who do not wish to show up in person but want to add their remarks, the email is WingedRyno@gmail.com.

It should be an interesting and valuable debrief after a mission bravely flown.  I will go out on a limb and suggest that nobody can doubt the courage of the mission.  Whether rounds were on target or not, remains to be seen from the debrief.  I'm going to wager my rounds were mostly dead on, fire for effect, direct.  The debrief, however, has yet to be conducted.

Again those who disagree with me are welcomed to show up and say that my shots were trashed, and they are sincerely invited to do so.  In fact, I highly encourage them to show up.  It will make for a better experience and discussion.

This blog post should be plenty of notice.  If you have something to say, you're invited to say it.  After my burden is complete, it will be rare that I speak of my service again let alone discuss it.

Again, knock on wood.  Faithful public service ain't no chump game, and the game ain't over.

BDA -- Target Destroyed: Liars in Uniform Successfully Destroyed my Career

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul. 

- William Ernest Henley

So, as they say, I've got good news and bad news.  Which would you like first?  Well, since this is my blog I'm going to give you the bad news first.

The bad news (although old news) is that my military career was destroyed by liars in uniform.  Worse, events yesterday in federal court have confirmed that there will be no rescue operation.  Play the bugle, my career has been morted and buried.

The TLDR/BLUF is that I am happy and proud to have sacrificed my career and finances to defend the Constitution of the United States against domestic enemies.  This Veterans Day I can assure you that I have seen others sacrifice a whole lot more.  By that I mean, I have witnessed far braver men sacrifice their lives.

Here is how my career's obituary reads:

Back in 2009, two Public Affairs officials, 1Lt Courtney Kippenberger and TSgt Joel Langton, destroyed my career with a bald faced lie that was eagerly scooped up by the wing commander, then Colonel Jeffrey McDaniels, who used the lie as a reason to give me a career-destroying Letter of Reprimand (LOR).  Kippenberger worked directly for McDaniels and sent him a false report making false claims against a superior officer.  I emailed Langton but he did not respond to my request for him to correct the record (as if he should require such a request to correct a lie).  Langton retired and went on to be the civilian chief of Public Affairs in that same office.  I subsequently filed a retaliation complaint against Col McDaniels and others with the Inspector General (IG), but as expected, the IG found that its bosses had done nothing wrong.

How did Public Affairs lie?  Well, Public Affairs said that I lied to them about the existence of the blog that you are reading right now, in a conversation we had on the first of October.  What they did not know, however, was that I was audio recording that conversation.  The audio conversation (which you can listen to in the video above) proves that the second charge of the LOR I received from Colonel Jeffrey McDaniels was absolutely false.  Ironically, Col McDaniels accused me of lying when it was actually a member of his staff, 1Lt Kippenberger (who I did not know and had never met outside that conversation), who blatantly lied in her memo to him.  He didn't seek to investigate this matter and instead just took the word of his low ranking staff member and blindsided an experienced field grade officer with her false claims.  Of course having formed a solid idea of the quality of Col Jeffrey McDaniels' character, I had anticipated such a move, which is why I covertly audio recorded my meeting with his dishonest staff members.  To call them a den of vipers is to be unfair to snakes.

Again, the audio proof that they lied is in the video above.  I told Colonel McDaniels that his Public Affairs office had lied, but it fell on deaf ears.

More recently, hours ago in fact, any chance I would have to undo this damage to my career evaporated in federal court. 

Just yesterday I lost my very expensive civil suit, Rynearson v. Richter, against a lying cop, Edwin Richter of the San Antonio Police Department, during a jury trial in federal district court.  That arrest, purportedly for failing to signal a lane change, formed the first charge in the two-charge LOR I was given by Colonel McDaniels.  I told him that the cop was lying, but my explanation yet again was a waste of breath.  The charge of failing to signal a lane change was dismissed in court, but the LOR had already been issued since innocent-until-proven guilty was apparently not a concept that Colonel McDaniels had much use for.

I provided the audio evidence from the video above to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) and informed them that the charge from the lying cop had been dismissed in court and that I was suing the lying cop, but the AFBCMR declined to remove the LOR from my records.  The IG was also given the audio evidence, and yet they found no wrongdoing.

My civil suit against the lying cop in federal court took more than five years and a staggering amount of my personal finances.

I lost the suit yesterday despite the fact that the judge and jury were both excellent.  

As an aside, Judge Xavier Rodriguez is of the opinion that Air Force medals are handed out like candy (I have to agree with him).  The judge is a Harvard graduate who did ROTC at MIT before commissioning in the Army.  When the defense wanted to bar me from talking about my medals because it made me look like, in the defense lawyer's words, "a superstar," the judge ruled that I could discuss them despite them being handed out like candy in the Air Force.  When I was on the stand, however, I passed on the opportunity to bring them up, although I was admittedly very tempted to testify, "I have many medals and they're hard to get, they're not handed out like candy like they are in the Army."  It was a missed opportunity on my part.

The judge also kept Col McDaniels' fabricated LOR from being used against me during the trial.  While that prohibited me from demonstrating the effect the unlawful arrest had on my career, it also kept Col McDaniel's false words, accusing me of being a liar and lacking integrity, out of the court proceeding.  Had my talented lawyer not kept out McDaniel's false charge that I was deceptive and a liar, that false accusation would have crushed my testimony from the get go.  Sadly, I would not have been able to introduce the audio in the video above to clear my name and to prove the untruthfulness of Colonel Jeffrey McDaniels' words.

As I watched Richter comfortably lie through his teeth on the stand after swearing an oath, and as I pondered the false claims of McDaniels that were nearly used against me in court, it dawned on me just how disadvantaged those who tell the truth are.

Fortunately, the federal judge was very fair throughout the trial.  What impressed me the most about him, was when he ruled against me over an administrative matter and stated that he agreed with my lawyers, but that he was bound by the rulings of the Fifth Circuit whether he liked it or not so he had to rule against us on the point.  Understanding the rule of law, and complying with the law even when disagreeing with the law is professionalism and it's essential for our nation.  Had officer Edwin Richter been of like mind, I would have never been in this judge's court room.

The jury also did a great job.  They were fair and reasonable.  During jury selection some people were dismissed because they were outraged that a person could be arrested simply for failing to signal a lane change and they admitted they would be unable to decide a verdict with that as law because the law was wrong.  Several said they had no idea that was the law and one said it made his blood pressure rise.  Several were dismissed for saying they would tend to believe a cop's testimony more than the testimony of a non-cop.  Several were dismissed for saying they would be biased in favor of an Air Force officer.  One was dismissed for saying he would be biased because his wife was in the army and had benefited from close air support assets while in country.  One potential juror was dismissed after saying my combat record and service was significant.  It was interesting to see the jury selection.

The jury that was finally selected from the pool was very good.  I am of the opinion that my version of events was more believable than the lying cop's version of events, but it wasn't greatly more believable.  I had told several people prior to the trial that I would find against myself had I been on the jury.  This is true even though I think my recounting of events (which just happens to be true) was more credible than the "I encountered a jack in the box with license and insurance in his hands who refused to give them to me while auto-repeating a single phrase" story told by the lying cop.

The reason is because in a word versus word civil trial, the burden of proof that a plaintiff like myself must show is a preponderance of evidence.  In other words, a plaintiff must show that his or her version of events is at least 1% more likely than the version presented by the defense.  In a case like mine limited to one person's version against another person's version, a jury should find the testimony between the two parties to be a 50/50 proposition.  They don't know who is telling the truth, it could be either.  Therefore the plaintiff does not meet the burden of proof of 51%.  Had I been on the jury, even if I tended to believe one side more than the other, without further evidence I would have ruled the same way.  In this case the defendant was a lying cop.  For the next jury the defendant may be an honest cop facing a lying plaintiff.  The jury did the right thing.  They cannot be expected to divine the truth with a crystal ball, when they are not presented with sufficient evidence and are only provided finger pointing.  As an aside, this is why it's so important that we require our law enforcement to wear body cameras and why we should be sure to be recording ourselves as, for strange reason, the cameras of cops often tend to "malfunction."

The jury's decision was justified even though, in the end, they found for an oath breaking liar in uniform.  Their finding contrasts with the unjustified decision of two Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' judges who had the truth of events presented to them in a video recording, thanks to the lesson learned from this unlawful arrest, and yet still found for law breaking law enforcement.  Despite learning my lesson from this lying cop, my remaining civil suit against the Border Patrol is at the steps of our Supreme Court of the United States, but has a very statistically low chance of being heard.  Accordingly, I have to wonder how important truth and the law really is, in our third branch of government.

The rough court transcript, to include the jury selection, testimony and the fabricated arrest report provided to the jury can be found here.

Some might wonder why I took on this incredibly expensive legal fight, if all this time I would have ruled against myself had I been on the jury.  The answer is, I had to fight this fight because my oath compelled me to do so.  It was my professional obligation.  The Constitution was violated in my backyard, in my area of responsibility, in my own life and so I had to act.  I am paid well to defend our freedom and I swore before God and America that I would defend the Constitution against domestic enemies, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion, with true faith and allegiance.  That is what I swore to do.  There was no caveat allowing me to not do so when doing so would be inconvenient and costly.  I didn't have a choice in the matter because I am a professional paid to defend American freedom.  Unlike officer Richter, I took my obligation seriously.

I am greatly looking forward to no longer having to shoulder the burden of my commission in the coming months, when I leave the office my oath governs, and when I can finally prioritize the well being of myself and my family over the well being of Americans who pay my bills and require me to protect them.  But that day is not yet here.

The only thing I regret about the trial this past few days, was my testimony on why I was pursuing this case.  Many in the jury thought (as expressed in voir dire) that this arrest was indicative of something you should just accept and move on with your life about.  So during testimony I tried to explain why I had to fight this battle.

I expressed how important our Constitution is, how precious our liberty, and how we stand on the shoulders of giants whose sacrifices have made our nation a more perfect union.  Greats like Dr. King and the Freedom Riders and thousands more who faced police with batons and dogs and fire hoses simply for exercising, and therefore defending, their rights.  I mentioned our service members who have fallen defending our freedom and how the tyranny displayed by officer Edwin Richter was a betrayal to such service members who gave everything so that we could be a free people.  I got emotional when I expressed how I had witnessed Americans shot and killed in the most courageous actions to defend our nation and how I have for years reflected on the death of one man in particular, who I watched give his life overseas as he went through a doorway knowing what was on the other side.  I tried to explain that for years I have asked myself what his sacrifice was for and have tried to emulate his courage when I am faced with an inconvenient opportunity to defend America here at home.  I tried to explain all this to the jury but I fear I did a poor job.  I got very emotional which is not something I like to do and certainly not in public.

The lying cop's lawyer, a nice man who was simply giving his client the best defense that he could, used my testimony to paint me as a crazy man to support his client's dishonest account of encountering a jack-in-the-box driver with license and insurance in his hand who refused to have a conversation and was on auto-repeat simply repeating "you're violating my constitutional rights, you're violating my constitutional rights" over and over from the very beginning until he was arrested.  He mentioned how my language in my testimony was similar to the account told by the lying cop, by which he meant that my testimony included the word "constitution."  Sadly, today, if you show any appreciation for the Constitution, you are suspect of being a crazy man capable of such a bizarre display during a traffic stop.  Those who value our rule of law are demonized as nutty "constitutionalists" even in comedy skits, and ironically their respect for our rule of law is used against them, through unfair and dishonest caricature, even in our court system.

The real lesson here is that all of this could have been so much different had I simply took the iPhone sitting on my passenger seat and started recording audio.  But it just sat there.  I was naive in those days.  I didn't think such a blatant disregard for my rights could just occur out of nowhere.  I certainly didn't think a career bicycle cop, using the lunch break patrol car to purportedly drive to a burger joint that was only a three minute bike ride away and within the very same area he bicycle patrolled, would lie that he just had to interrupt his thirty minute lunch break in order to pull me over for failing to signal a lane change, and then lie that he had no choice but to arrest the crazy constitutionalist he encountered.

But at least I learned that there are liars in uniform and that their lies must be guarded against.  Weeks after this unlawful arrest, that lesson came in handy when 1Lt Courtney Kippenberger lied about my conversation with Public Affairs.  Unfortunately, due to the lies from officer Edwin Richter which were quickly utilized by Colonel Jeffrey McDaniels, my ability to prove the lies told by Public Affairs was not enough to keep the fabricated Letter of Reprimand (LOR) from destroying my promotion opportunity.  My career was destroyed and I was not promoted.

On a positive note, at least I narrowly avoided being separated from the military just five years short of retirement, after a commander from my combat community removed the LOR from my record the day before the continuation board.  That very same board kicked out 157 majors like myself with fifteen years of wartime service.  Had Col McDaniels' fabricated LOR remained in my record, I would have been number 158 without a doubt.  So, the lies from liars in uniform could have cost me much more than they did, and even then I would have happily paid that cost because I believe public service requires courage and sacrifice and I firmly believe that upholding my oath of office to defend our freedom is worth more than a paycheck.

So what is the good news, you might ask?

Well, my understanding is that the liar in uniform, 1Lt Courtney Kippenberger, separated from the Air Force not long after her lies.  The liar in uniform, officer Edwin Richter, also retired and will no longer have a badge to bolster his insecurity and to use while taking out his many failings and frustrations on innocent Americans.  I heard a rumor that my civil suit had something to do with his decision to retire.

And the officer who eagerly destroyed my career with a fabricated LOR built from the liars in uniform above and who was the subject of a retaliation IG complaint, Brigadier General Jeffrey McDaniels, retired just days ago.  He was on the potential witness list during the trial yesterday but did not appear.  It's too bad.  I would have liked to have congratulated America on his retirement with him personally.  He is apparently now the VP of a company called Leidos.  McDaniels' ability to manufacture facts, and his position as VP in the company, reminds me of my master's thesis, The Smartest Guys in the Room and the Best of the Best.  I have no doubt McDaniels read that thesis.  I also have no doubt that I will be sure to keep Leidos as far from my stock portfolio as humanly possible.

These are all positive developments for our nation to include the jury's responsible decision.  This particular battle is over and I am glad to finally put it behind me so that I have more room for the next one should the need arise.  I personally hope such a need does not arise, but it's not about me.  Yet.  Professionally, however, I'm ready to rumble at the drop of a hat.  I am extremely proud to have sacrificed my career and my finances for my country.  I went through a doorway knowing what was on the other side, but it was a doorway of inconvenience rather than a doorway of death. I've been there when greater men and their loved ones sacrificed a whole helluva lot more and I will not betray their sacrifice.

Happy Veterans Day to all great Americans who take their oaths of office seriously, who realize that fighting for American freedom is worth the inconvenience to do so, and who are proud of the scars they display earned by truly protecting and serving our nation, while liars in uniform only serve themselves at the expense of our country.

Icon A5 Made First Delivery

Imagine this beauty towed behind a Class A Motorhome.  Now that would be a great way to experience our nation's history and magnificence.

Airlines -- Be Cautious of Who You Hire

Like Bell Biv DeVoe says, "Don't trust an ATP and a smile..."  I can hardly point to a peer of mine in the Air Force that I would personally hire as a private employer.  There are a few, but they are a very few.

Most are of the go-along-to-get-along, what's in it for me, variety and sadly lack the most basic morality.  Sure, they meet the standard test when it comes to participation in your fantasy football league.  You know, they like football and they like the ladies, and beer, and they want to fit in and they can tell a joke from time to time.  But that whole Constitution thing they swore to support and defend is just so confusing when they don't read it...

Take for example this guy I used to fly with who was little more than the cute smile from the poison lyrics above.  He's a recent hire by a major airline, but he also thinks it is okay for armored men with guns to use violence against teenager girls.

That's not hyperbole.

He thinks the young girl in the video above deserved what she got from the same cop who arrested a military soldier in uniform for playing music too loud in a parking lot.  Never mind that the cop was fired, this guy thinks the display of power against the youngster was perfectly acceptable.  And if you disagree with that, you're just anti-authority, some kind of crazy anarchist or something.

 

We can all have our opinions.  But this individual defriended me after I shared the opinion above, and since he's still a public servant for the next little bit, I figured this would be something worth sharing.  I hate it when worthwhile conversations come to an abrupt end by those who feel ill equipped to have them.  Perhaps Clint Schulz will change his mind and respond here.

Airlines should be careful about the quality they are hiring.  It probably won't matter, flying for the airlines is certainly not public service.  But if I were a young girl traveling on Southwest, I'd be extra careful this pilot doesn't have an air marshal violently throw me off the plane for not being respectful enough.  You don't want to be deemed unruly if he's at the front of the jet.

"If I were you I'd take precautions..."

Edward Snowden is an Exceptional American Hero

We just need to be reminded.  Regularly.  General Michael Hayden (ret) represents fascism and the destruction of the United States of America, from the immoral inner rot produced by insecurity and cowardice.  It's a rot of the mind and spirit and it's un-American.

Ed Snowden, on the other hand, represents courage and true American values that can cleanse and resurrect our nation.

Snowden should be brought home to a hero's welcome.  Like yesterday.

ETA:  For the same tired fascists who like to fling the term "treason" at Ed Snowden (while demonstrating they don't take their oaths seriously because they are unaware what the word means), take a gander at our Constitution and educate yourself.  We do have traitors among us, that is for certain.  Eddie Snowden ain't one of them.

These fascists will, as they so often do, tell us to trust them because they know "secrets."  Which is strange.  Our government leaks secrets on a regular basis when it thinks it benefits them.  And leveraging a blow against Snowden would certainly be in their interests after he pulled their pants down and publicly spanked them.  So why hasn't the government leaked these secrets to the press along with the daily batch of other secrets?

I'm not so sure the "we have secrets you just don't that prove that we are right" excuse is gonna fly this time.  Nice try though, fellas.

George Takei and the Cast of Allegiance Deliver Powerfully on Broadway

The wife and I were fortunate to attend an "in previews" showing of the new musical, Allegiance, from George Takei.  While nobody would accuse me of being a theater groupie, I had a real desire to see and support this event for several reasons.  A U.S. president sending in the American military to deprive life, liberty, and property of American citizens is a particularly resonating issue for me.  As Takei makes clear in the video above, this dark time where all three branches of the federal government made war on innocent Americans is a very prescient topic.  This is American history that Americans need to understand, and if recent events are any indication, it would appear that Americans have to date failed to learn this important lesson.

I attended the show with no real expectations, other than to experience an important look into our national past.  Allegiance the performance, however, blew me away.  The power of the musical to humanize and impart this real American experience was overwhelming and incredibly emotional, and yet it was still able to brilliantly express hope and even humor at times.  The character development was far richer and deeper than I would have anticipated.  Issues like what it means to be a man in our nation, the relationship between father and son, and the play between duty and dissent were on full and vibrant display.

Allegiance phenomenally demonstrated the tension within the imprisoned community, and perhaps of most value, in my opinion, was its presentation of the irony between assimilation into America's society as compared to the actual American assimilation into America's values.  The two characters, Sammy and Frankie, personified this struggle as it compared the experiences of one young man who joined the military and even accused those who dissented as committing treason, and the experience of Frankie who refused to join the military while Americans were imprisoned without due process, and who took a principled stand for America's founding principles and rule of law.

I expected merely an important history lesson, but instead the cast of Allegiance provided a powerful experience.

Mr. Takei's Broadway musical is an incredible personal accomplishment and a real service to our nation.  I highly recommend this performance to all, but most especially to those of us in the military who must learn from the experiences of our neighbors of the past, if we are to truly defend freedom in America.

And You Thought Disarming Americans Couldn't Happen?

Well, it did happen.  Now let's explore how and why.  We must prepare our minds to consider this.  We all have a strong psychological desire to deny a frightening reality that we feel powerless to change.  So to prepare our minds, we should simply consider this one fact honestly.

That fact is that we live under a government that assassinates Americans without charge or trial.  And the enlightened American population whatever their political professions, by and large, could not care less.

Drink that in.  Prepare your mental state by fully considering this fact.  Don't worry about the daily NSA violations, or whistle blowers reporting government illegality being forced to hide overseas, and don't concern yourself with unlawful wars and collusion between corrupt politicians and Wall Street and pay no attention to the rise of police killing innocent Americans and their dogs or the fact that America has the largest number of its people imprisoned in the world.  Don't even bother with the fact that the federal government passed a law allowing our military to arrest us here in the United States, without charge or trial, and hold us indefinitely in prison without us seeing a court room or a jury of peers.

Don't even worry, after you answer the question "did they really do what he said they did above?" -- about the fact that our judiciary, all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, said that our military imprisoning Americans in America without charge or trial, forever, is perfectly lawful.  Don't worry yourself now, that all three branches of our federal government did that, with politicians and judges from all political parties. 

Clear all of this from your mind, and simply consider the single fact that the government claims the right to, and actually does, assassinate Americans without charge or trial.  Just think about that one little thing.  You will have to try harder than the average German did in the 1930s to come to terms with the developing reality, and to force yourself out of your comfort zone like they were unable to do.  It is scary, and only the honest and the courageous can do it.  If you can, keep reading.

Once you have come to terms with the fact your government believes it can kill you without charge or trial, then it shouldn't be too difficult to understand that our federal government does in fact want to disarm you and render you completely vulnerable to criminals of any stripe (it has a particular stripe in mind, you can be sure).  It's not just political speeches and it's not just your liberal friends and their silly attempts at arguments and their child-like disdain for history.  Power always has a desire to disarm those it wishes to rule.  Always.

Yesterday, the federal body known as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which brings fascism to America with a New York City accent and a latte, rather than the straw hat and BBQ of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals), upheld unconstitutional lower court findings from Connecticut and New York, and itself ruled that:

We hold that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment...

The court attempted to throw the people a public relations bone, however, when it found that Connecticut's banning of the non-semi-automatic Remington 7615 was a violation of the Second Amendment.  Because, apparently, the Second Amendment did not say that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" but rather, almost exactly like the side of the barn in Animal Farm, it must have actually said that the right of the people to keep and bear non-semi-automatic arms shall not be infringed.  If you are scratching your head because you thought it said something different just the other day, you must remember that the pigs know best.  And they have made it clear that weapons that make people less effective as a militia to defend against a tyrannical federal government (like one that assassinates Americans without charge or trial, for example), are perfectly okay but that's it.  An increasingly militarized police state with automatic weapons and stingrays and drones is fine.  You having a semi-automatic weapon?  Whoah now, Sparky, think of the children!

The court offered up this gem describing its "analysis," stating:

Guided by the teachings of the Supreme Court, our own jurisprudence, and the examples provided by our sister circuits, we adopt a two‐step analytical framework, determining first whether the regulated weapons fall within the protections of the Second Amendment and then deciding and applying the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.

Let's put to one side the fact that this court used the phrase "guided by the teachings of the Supreme Court" as if this were less an analytical exercise, and more a mystical one conducted under a Bodhi Tree.  What the court here said is that, based on the view of government, the government court decides what our Constitution means.  No need to reference the Constitution itself, especially when the myth that courts decide what the Constitution means for us to internalize into our own understanding (rather than court findings being limited by it), is a myth so widely accepted today.  It would be no different than me trying to figure out what my wife "meant" by her note that said, "please unload the dishwasher when you get home and fix the garage door" by calling and considering the opinions of my buddies who want me to join them at the bar right after work.  If my goal was to join my buddies at the bar, why would I want to try to decipher the clear text of the note when I could get my pals' expert and lofty opinions?  I could even type up a reply to the wife in a cute font with several footnotes, to make it look official and objective.

The effort of government to disarm Americans is real.  Any person who thinks powerful people are going to make public statements about disarming Americans, and then not take real measures to do so, are ignorant of basic psychology and history.  One might be tempted to think, they can't do that!, because of our Constitution and the amendment process and the fact that a majority of Americans do not support gun confiscation.  But such a viewpoint makes an assumption.  It assumes that government cares about our law.

Let me assure you that it does not.  It is difficult to believe that any person living in the modern world could come to a different conclusion.  Remember this government assassinates Americans without charge or trial and is perfectly fine with it.  It tells us that it's legal and then laughs at how incredibly stupid we are to believe it.  How can an even mildly intelligent person think they have any rights before government, when that government claims the power to snuff out their very existence and the existence of their children and loved ones, without so much as a charge or trial or a verdict from a jury of peers?  It's an impossible conclusion for any rational person who refuses to let fear of a traumatic reality cloud their reasoning.

The most we can hope for from this government is that it will take the time to have an unprincipled government lawyer provide a legal "argument" stating that red is green, and that green is red, to offer to a nation that is willfully color blind and will believe what they are told out of fear, rather than as a result of reason.  Our nation is ruled by fear.

Still, it is quite a feat to be so blind today.  Leaving aside the history of our nation's birth, and even forgetting the oddly unfashionable discussion of 1940s Germany and Italy and modern western democracy "legally" giving way to outright fascism, even recent history should make it clear that government intends and desires to disarm the populace.

The federal government murdered a man's son and his wife in front of their daughter, because he sold a shot gun that the government had infringed the right of Americans to keep.  The federal government also burned more than seventy men, women, and children alive, because it thought a private residence might have automatic weapons which it had forbid Americans to keep and bear.  If neither of those relatively recent events make our reality crystal clear enough, then consider that recently Americans were violently disarmed during a life and death crisis at their most vulnerable, and while that same government was murdering their neighbors several miles away.  Even more recent events in Colorado, which blurred the lines between state and federal jurisdiction, have made it undeniable that it is a top priority of the government to disarm the American people.  This government has no respect for the rights of Americans, and it is intent on leveraging the useful idiots you know, bolstered by its tax funded power, to make you as defenseless and vulnerable as it pleases.

There is no happy ending to this story.  But I wish the Americans of Connecticut and New York godspeed, as they defend themselves from the lawless tyranny cloaked in a robe and executed by a government gun, that they find themselves facing.  My heart goes out to them.  I have no doubt, in clear divide and conquer fashion, that they will not be the last Americans to have their constitutional right to defend themselves from criminals and tyrants violated through government violence.

Ironically, the genius and necessity of the Second Amendment can only now be made more clear, if the Supreme Court refuses to overturn this fascist decision by fascist judges in perhaps the most un-American portion of our nation.  We will see.  I am not hopeful.  This is a test of legitimacy and the stakes are extremely high for our nation.

Meanwhile, stay tuned for our domestic enemies in America to make the same coy argument that their intellectual twin, and our previous foreign enemy, in Germany made back in the 1940s.  "I just took over that country, it's not like I'm trying to take over the whole continent or the whole world!  Just an AR-15, not all weapons, what?  Stop being so paranoid and appease me...."

When you live in a nation where the government follows no law, and the populace lacks concern for its constitutional rights, it doesn't take a genius to see that what is happening is very bad.  Not cute coffee shop conversation bad, not entertaining-discussion-one-view-among-several including your "tin foil" buddy's bad, but something really bad.

I can't believe how many Americans have died to defend the constitutional liberty of this nation, for it to devolve so rapidly into what it is now.  Anti-America, a once free nation.

What a blood-soaked tragedy.

Years Late and Billions of Dollars Short - Yet a Positive Development

Let's hope Congress does its job, and reins in the executive branch.  Hopefully this requested investigation into the policy of drone assassination bears fruit, as regards American citizens.  Our Fifth Amendment has been utterly destroyed by remote control and with it any claim our nation had to being free.

Legitimacy

The Fifth Circuit lost legitimacy in my experience, and there are many who think they've not had it for some time now.  I really hope the Supreme Court corrects them.  It would be so very disheartening to see an entire branch of government fail a very simple test, after so much effort and personal sacrifice to right a clear wrong.

Embarassing When Europe Values Our Constitution More Than We Do

At least regarding our Fourth Amendment and digital privacy.  While the top European court protects our digital houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure, this is what is happening in America...

Edward Snowden is an American hero and should be invited back to the U.S. for a hero's welcome.