Reflecting on My Aggressive Internet Behavior Due to Recent Criticism

As my three readers will know, I have for some time been accused, and especially recently, of being aggressive in my Internet activity.  Tony Carr, and a long time admirer of mine posting anonymously, have called into question my brutal honesty (they don't characterize it as honesty of course).  Tony wrote in the comments section the other day:

But as Anonymous points out, your vibe isn't debate or disagreement. Your vibe is hate. You are loose with serious words, which undercuts your whole shtick as a guy who is all about the seriousness of words. You slap labels on people cheaply, you reason inductively, and you disrespect and trash others by default.

What my "anonymous" follower certainly knows (he used the name "John Richards" back in the day and even contacted my mother-in-law at one point in his online tomfoolery), and as perhaps Tony knows as well, is that one of my "targets" was a fellow from Bainbridge Island where I had a run in with a politician and his leftist mob of Antifa nut jobs.  Like my recent two-ship of critics, the bone of contention back then was, drum roll please, my speech and saying things that somebody else didn't like.  Now, oddly enough, in those days I was running an experiment on civility given the critiques of my style in the military.  I used to call it "Ben Franklin'ing" in discussions with the wife.  Since these were our neighbors on a small island and I was no longer speaking to military folks, I tried to be as civil as I could be while still explaining to my neighbors my view that Clarence Moriwaki was unfit for a certain public position.  My civil post explaining this was well received in the Bainbridge Island Open Community Facebook group, garnered many likes and a good conversation.  It appeared to be local democracy in action.

And then a friend of Moriwaki's and an admin of the group, Houston Wade, deleted the thread in its entirety and banned me.  Turns out, what a shocker, that it doesn't actually matter how you state your opinion when your opinion is not allowed by those in power.

I was then banned from all the local groups.  Most would simply shrug it off and go about their day, especially if they aren't passionate about the subject.  Democracy requires a vibrant bunch, and such vibrancy is tough to find these days.  But I wanted to not be silenced, so I had to create alternative means of joining the conversation.  Doing so, however, putting in all that extra effort to have your voice heard, opens you up to all the crazy claims of "obsession" and being a "stalker" and such when it comes to criticizing public folks with power.  But at the heart, it's really about wanting to be able to express your view in a nation that requires spirited debate and holding power accountable to be healthy.  But our digital age has made fascism and controlling conversation all too easy and it takes a great deal of work to make alternative inroads in such a situation.  And our nation is far from healthy.

The end result is the appearance of the free speech required for an informed citizenry.  After all, people are talking.  But it's only some people.  You don't see the people who are not allowed to talk.  Some of the truly crazy people will be allowed from the "other side" because their participation actually helps those in power.  But civil and yet accurate conversation is a threat and will not be tolerated.  Given that most people increasingly don't operate in that manner, it's easy for them to not realize how curated and controlled the discussion truly is because they don't face censorship in the same way.

So as I sought to do an end around against the machine that controlled speech about public matters in my neighborhood, I had to be far more persistent and more creative.  While I remained civil, I flooded all avenues in my attempt to be heard.  Civility isn't required, but I was doing a test.  Given the results, I actually think trying to be polite isn't helpful, it's too easily mistaken for weakness and timidity and only encourages bad actors.  I have also discovered a link between those who critique my communication "style" and those who attempt to silence me.  But perhaps I'm wrong about my communication style?  Maybe my attempts are "ineffective" not because of the fascism that grows every day in our nation but rather because of how I say things?  That's what my critics have precisely told me recently.

Tony Carr and Mr. Anonymous think I am the reason for my "ineffective" rhetoric, and I only ran that one experiment, so perhaps I'm still wrong about the value of my communications?  Maybe there is a more effective way to speak truth to power, or to expose people in government doing wrong?  Maybe, as Tony says, it's not about what I say but how I say it?

Then again, as Charlie Kirk demonstrates, perhaps it's truly dangerous to be effective with words  Perhaps so many courageous men and women from the Civil Rights era who peacefully demonstrated and spoke and who ended up dead might disagree about communication style?  Maybe when dealing with power-hungry people of low character who will stop at nothing to silence others, could it be there is no way to be polite enough to keep them from vilification and demonization and violence against you?

Let's consider it an open question as I continue to reflect on the criticism of my communication style.

My anonymous follower was sure to like posts from Clarence Moriwaki (as did Dan Tarleton who even gave him money in his effort to silence my speech) and I spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money on social media getting the word out about this vile politician (who was a public relations guy and media manipulator for his political masters) and the digital mob he had assembled.  Moriwaki's close friend, and right hand man in this effort against me, was the guy I previously mentioned, Houston Wade.  Houston Wade was truly despicable in a crowd of the truly despicable.  He showed up to court to support his politician friend against me and was very active online spreading the most awful lies about your humble blogger.  Their lies included the words of Tony Carr and his words even made it into court documents used against me.  Imagine that.  Houston Wade was central in the digital campaign to demonize me in my own community and to the broader audience online.

I have spent more time on Houston Wade than anybody else since those days.  It's not even close.  Sorry Brandon.

I have been active online and off trying to address the threat Houston Wade posed to the local community, and to his marks online, by using my harsh words and my inability to build consensus.  StopClarenceMoriwaki.Com was one such avenue that my anonymous follower is very familiar with.  I was so active, so extraordinarily dedicated to exposing Wade, that of course I have been routinely charged with being cRaZy and all the rest.  Who makes multiple videos about an individual like that?  Who makes all those memes?  Holy God, who makes an online video game about his subject?!  Beyond how abnormal such efforts are, who has the time?  Who makes a website like HoustonWadeLies.Com?  Why are you so obsessed with pointing out so-called character deficiencies and dangers with some guy you got in a spat with years ago???

I have persistently accused Houston Wade of intense projection, staggering dishonesty, a willingness to lie, advocating violence, warned of his obsession with mixing sexuality and violence in his imagery, using homosexuality as an insult despite claiming to be ultra "woke," and documented his frequent celebrations of death for anybody he disagreed with politically who met their demise.  Houston Wade regularly mocked me online when his politician friend was using the courts against me, telling me how I was going to go to prison and there receive the unwanted male attention that so many prison movies have made infamous.  I was also attacked by his supporters and mob members mercilessly.  Death threats, multiple false police reports claiming I had broken into homes, and the most vile defamatory comments were made about me online.  My mother's online obituary featured a comment, falsely asserting it was from me, which described incredible indecency between a mother and son.  On her obituary just after she passed away.  I was alerted to that post by my grieving father.  Houston Wade regularly made false comments online about her death.

As in any contest for a worthy cause, there will be wounds and scars, even in digital combat and the contest of words.  At least if you pick up a worthy cause.  If you pick your battles, which is to say you actually pick battles.  Nothing worth doing is easy.  Or popular.  Except criticizing the man who is in the ring taking the blows, that's easy enough and popular.

After I beat Clarence Moriwaki (a current Bainbridge Island City Council member) in court, badly, I was involved in efforts concerning Houston Wade behind the scenes as well as online.  I was quick to report on his loss in court for defaming a neighbor in the absolute worst way, and broadcasting his bankruptcy that resulted, to his audience of potential victims.  Wade brought me up in his court proceedings regularly in his many irrelevancies.  He blamed me for some of his woes in court documents and testimony.  I won't say that he was incorrect, but it didn't convince any of his judges.  Be that as it may or may not be, I tried to reach any of his potential victims to let them know the character of the person they were dealing with and I enjoyed a large amount of success much to his dismay.  Houston spent considerable time banning and censoring me from any community, starting with the "Bainbridge Island Open Community" Facebook group, and then reporting my posts in other areas, doing the thing that all frauds and liars do who smart from my accurate words.  He was unsuccessful, however, and soon I no longer had to inform folks about him as there was an army of people doing it who had seen the information I provided.  In his podcast, he made it very clear how my ceaseless efforts caused him real torment.  

In the video above, in addition to demonstrating the real pain I caused him, Houston Wade also makes the false claim that I am friends with child molesters (a claim that has him nearly one million dollars in debt after a court ruling and led to him declaring bankruptcy) and talks about my obsession with him and begs his audience to block me.  I would recommend readers watch this video before continuing to read below to really understand the full force of agony my words have caused some individuals.  The video shows the real, purposeful, pain on Wade's face as a result of my efforts.  At 13:27 Wade discusses his stalker (referring to me) and says:

It is exhausting, the thing is I know I'm not alone, because I know he has dozens of victims, so we all talk with each other and share and treasure each other's support because this guy is unending, he'll make websites about you, he'll make videos about you...

He's right.  So many of my critics, excuse me, my "victims" who have suffered the "harassment" and the brunt of my harsh words, have communicated with Houston Wade in their shared effort to retaliate against me.  It goes well beyond an Internet slap fight.  But we'll leave that for another day.

As far as words go, it's really extreme stuff.  I admit it.  My words have been issued not just harshly, and truthfully, but also with the hope of causing pain by exposing the character of my subject.  Does that make me a monster?  Is there a difference between wanting to cause pain with the truth, rather than through lies, or am I the asshole and curmudgeon and prick that Tony Carr says I am because of how I conduct myself with words online regardless of the accuracy he credits me with?  Who spends so much time "attacking" another person online, anyway?  Trolls do from what I'm told.  And "stalkers" of course.  Houston Wade refers to me regularly as his "stalker" for expressing views about him he doesn't approve of, and doing it so frequently.  His Twitter account lists his location as "in Rick Rynearson's head" yet his podcast's "winged rhino" flying animation makes it very clear that I am front and center inside his.  And that was purposeful, the OODA Loop applied to our new digital landscape.  But the question remains, who does that?  Is there something wrong with me spending this much time "obsessing" over somebody online?  Is this the vibe of hate that Tony Carr referenced?  Am I the "serial stalker" who moves from target to target that Houston claims that I am?  So many people take issue with my aggressive speech...

So, I chose to do some reflection, to ponder the recent criticism of my online activity... and I have decided that I will likely cease my intense online activity against Houston Wade.  It's a start, after all, right?

I won't be ceasing because there is any real merit to these criticisms of my speech, of course, but rather because Houston Wade has just been arrested and charged for trying to do things to an eleven year old that shouldn't be imagined let alone attempted.  Be forewarned when reading the details of the charging document I just linked, it's not a pleasant read.  And we all know some folks who really don't like words when they're not pleasant.  Six years ago I tried to warn people about Houston Wade's mental/sexual state, but given the censorship and control of information, not many likely saw that explicit warning.  Censors hate the truth.  And some, really really hate it...

Cheers.

Seth Hettena's Credibility Destroyed Like a Venezuelan Boat

My three readers might remember that a few weeks ago, Seth Hettena wrote an article about my refusal of an unlawful order over on his Substack, "The After-Action Report."  When he contacted me with his list of questions, I declined to cooperate because I didn't trust him or most in his chosen profession.  I got lucky and his article ended up being fair reporting.  But my instincts about him turned out to be exactly correct.

A few weeks later he published a different article entitled, "Weekend Read: JSOC Once Taught the Rules.  Now It Breaks Them."  The article featured a scathing critique of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) through the lens of a guy who was part of JSOC, a guy named Brandon Bryant.  The problem?  Brandon Bryant has never been a part of JSOC.  Further, Brandon Bryant is a severely mentally ill mythomaniac with a well documented history of repeatedly lying in his many media professions about his short time in the military, and his even shorter time in the drone program.  I have spent considerable time over the years documenting the lies told by Bryant and he is, without question, a mythomaniac with a far far greater than average propensity for lying.

When I pointed out that Bryant was never a member of JSOC, Hettena did a stealth edit of the first line of his article and changed his line to say "supported JSOC."  His article originally stated:

He also similarly changed a section of his article which originally stated:

Seth didn't reply to my comment to point out he had changed his article based on it, as he has done on other articles to other commenters, but twelve hours after he had made the edit he finally published his "moderator note" shown at the top of this blog post.  He published that note only after I had already pointed out his silent edit.  For at least twelve hours, my comments he used to slightly improve his article were no issue and not deleted, and even got a like from somebody in his audience.  But even after his stealth edit, he left multiple other false comments in the article where Bryant wove his untruthful narrative that he was a part of JSOC and had "JSOC instructors."  So I commented again and pointed out these sections.  One would think such corrections would be valuable given Seth's article title doesn't even make sense.  JSOC once taught the rules?  To who?  Definitely not to Brandon Bryant.

But Seth apparently didn't find those comments valuable.  Rather, Seth deleted all my comments and blocked me from his Substack.  He characterized my comments as a "personal attack."  I took screenshots of the comments which I'll share here and would encourage my three readers to take a look at the changes he did not make to his article, where the thrust of his writing remains a smear against JSOC through utilizing the fantasies of a well documented fraud who pretends he was part of that organization.

The first comment, shown below, is the one that prompted Seth to stealth edit his article.  It has since been deleted but the unhinged replies to it from Brandon Bryant have been left up:

It should be noted that not only is calling somebody "a dishonorable man and a loser" not a personal attack in the mind of Seth Hettena (who moderates objectively and not to remove accurate criticisms that better inform his readers, wink, wink), but also that the 3rd Special Operations Squadron has never been a part of JSOC and a person is not simply "read in to" that organization, while in a wholly different organization no less.  That's simply not how it works.

An investigative reporter who claims he is a "veteran national security reporter covering intelligence and special operations," one would think, would be aware of the organization chart available on Wikipedia that shows AFSOC (which the 3rd SOS falls under) is separate from JSOC.  None of this is classified information and anybody familiar with the SOF community should recognize this fact.

Source: Wikipedia, the go-to resource for real investigative journalists

This second comment above was also deleted by Seth as a "personal attack."  Perhaps pointing out his failure to investigate was what he was referring to although his moderator note claims he is just looking out for his audience and his source rather than trying to protect his own thin skin.  Seems a valid criticism to me and his stealth edit of his article seems to suggest he agrees with me.

The comment above was also deleted despite no personal attack being made, unless Seth thinks suggesting he could have reported better is somehow an attack and he wasn't being truthful in his moderator note, being more interested in silencing criticism of his reporting than catering to the soft sensibilities of his audience and the source of his reporting.

I shared with Seth a video he should have investigated prior to his article, and which I imagine he likely was already aware of before he crafted his garbage article, given that he shared a video from my YouTube channel when he was researching me.  It stands to reason he would have seen "Brandon Bryant the Documentary: Drones and Deceptions" on my channel but if he did, it certainly didn't trigger any kind of journalistic ethics.  Of course given his demonstrated research inadequacy, it's also possible Seth failed to find the video on my channel or on this blog despite spending time on both.  But Bryant's claim that I'm a slanderer, of course, has not been removed.

My video shows very clearly why any journalist worth their salt would never demean their credibility by using Brandon Bryant as a source. 

My instincts about Seth Hettena turned out to be correct.  He is a shit reporter with no interest in the truth.  He deletes comments that criticize and correct his staggeringly-bad reporting, and the subject of his reporting, and then labels such corrections (that he partially utilizes to try to fix his dead-on-arrival article no less) as "personal attacks" while leaving up actual personal attacks.  What an embarrassing showing.

Seth's article is about as much of a failure as it would have been had he written an article in 2010 interviewing Bernie Madoff for investment strategy.  Just writing the article demonstrates a lack of even the most cursory amount of research.  He didn't even know the basics of the SOF org chart to challenge the ridiculous claims from his source, and then based the very title of his trash article upon them??  It seems to me such a showing should lead an "investigative reporter" to perhaps investigate a different line of work.

It's not just the lies from the article that irritate me.  It's not just that I'm confident the "conversations" Bryant reports in this article never happened and that he just made stuff up to assist Seth with his agenda, it's actually much worse than that.  Beyond the lies is yet another instance of an unprincipled journalist using a severely mentally ill individual who cries daily about his depression and loneliness and the fact that nobody loves him, to say things like a trained circus seal, in exchange for some attention.  What kind of humane individual does that?  Why not have him do a little dance for you too while you and your buddies get a chuckle?

Bryant has had hordes of such individuals, calling themselves reporters and journalists, use him for clicks or for whatever their agenda, knowing that he'll say whatever it is they want him to say.  One problem, however, is that when they do so they exacerbate his mental illness, they inflate the myth in his head that keeps him from being able to confront reality and to get along in the real world.  Bryant's inability to distinguish between reality and fiction is only made worse when he reads his lies put into print where they start to look true.  This is a huge disservice to someone with the mental health challenges that Bryant faces.  Seth can just send an email and perhaps ignore the details of the life of his "source" but did he even research it?  Did he even care?

Put another way, imagine if Seth was cycling over a bridge and spotted a homeless guy muttering to himself "I can fly like a bird, I can fly like a bird."  What if Seth then decided to interview the guy for a story and published "Man Can Fly Like a Bird!" on his Substack.  Imagine the clicks!  But would that raise any journalistic ethics issues?  Seth could say, "Well, I just reported what my source told me."  Sure, but do you think that source reading your article perhaps reinforced something that was obviously not true?  Do you think the crews below cleaning up brain matter off the concrete might have thought you should have a done a bit more research first?  There is no excuse for these predator "journalists" chasing clicks and damaging sources while misleading their audiences with falsities.  Just a disgusting showing by Seth Hettena all around on this one.

And, for full transparency, here is all correspondence I have ever had with Seth Hettena (consisting of emails as I declined to have a phone conversation with him).  I don't intend to have any more correspondence with this subpar "journalist."

Hi Mr. Rynearson, 

I'm a journalist who covers military and intelligence issues for Rolling Stone and my Substack newsletter, The After-Action Report.

I'm reporting a story for my Substack regarding the current debate in Washington, triggered by Democrats who say US forces should not follow unlawful orders. I saw on your blog that you consider the strikes on suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific to be unlawful orders. 

Given that you actually faced such a decision, I thought it would be helpful to get a fuller perspective on this debate. 

• What grounds make the boat strikes unlawful, in your view? Do they once again violate the Fifth Amendment? And does the absence of congressionally authorized war powers also weigh against these being lawful orders? 
• What were the consequences of your refusal to follow orders? It appears from your blog and YouTube channel that the Air Force tried to discharge you but ultimately allowed you to retire with benefits and a security clearance. Is there a reason the Air Force did not make an example of you?
• Do you see a straight line from the Awlaki strike to the current strikes on suspected traffickers?
• As you know, the Justice Department issued a legal opinion blessing the Awlaki drone operation as lawful. Were you aware of Barron's legal opinion at the time you made your decision, and if so, why did it not persuade you to take part in the operation?
• Media reporting indicates that there is another Justice Department opinion regarding the boat strikes, which goes further, arguing that the troops involved cannot be prosecuted. Do you think troops should rely on such an opinion? Would such an assurance have affected your decision not to follow the order in the Awlaki operation?
• You wrote on your blog that the Obama administration's use of American military assets to target American citizens for assassination outside war zones without due process was "an act of treason." Does that same logic apply to the Trump administration's boat strikes that target non-citizens? Are they treasonous as well? 
• From an operational standpoint, what key safeguards should be in place before authorizing a strike (whether against a citizen or non-citizen)?
• Are there lessons from your refusal of the 2011 order that you believe policymakers today are ignoring or misapplying?

• 
  
• Hope to speak with you soon, or feel free to respond by email. 

Sincerely, 

Seth Hettena

Mobile/Signal: [redacted]

Alternate email: [redacted]

https://linktr.ee/seth_hettena

Thanks for reaching out, Seth.

First, you've made an assumption about the identity of the American citizen I was tasked with assassinating.  I have never named that individual and there were multiple American citizens targeted and killed unlawfully under the Obama administration.  The identity of the now deceased individual is not classified, but I believe it detracts from the conversation to name him.  All that matters is that he was an American citizen, outside a war zone who presented no imminent threat.

Second, I've written about the order on my blog and there supplied official documents about my resignation.  I've also posted quite a lot about the recent strikes under my name on Facebook recently and publicly.

Finally, if you know Glenn Greenwald and you can have him email me and vouch for your objectivity, I'll answer your questions.  Otherwise I have to defer you to my public contributions.  Good luck with your story, it's important.  I hope you do it right.

- R

Hey there, 

Thanks for getting back to me. I only know Glenn Greenwald from his work, so I guess I'll stick with the public statements. 

I take your point about you not naming the American citizen you were tasked with assassinating, and I'll make that clear in the story. 

Is there a photo of you from your AF days that I can use with your permission? 

Seth 

I appreciate the obvious effort you've put into this with your detailed questions.  And I am sorry to say I don't trust journalists and their agendas which are too frequently not concerned with being as truthful as they can be.  If I gave you an image with my permission and you chose to do the story including me in it, it would show my image and some label about me giving permission for it to be used, giving the impression to the reader that I sanctioned whatever it is that you chose to write.  But I don't know what you're going to write.

I imagine this won't be agreeable to you, but if you provide me the article before you publish it, and I think it's fair, I'll provide a photo and permission to use it.

If you're one of the rare journalists, my apologies in advance for making it harder for you to do vitally needed work.

- Rick

OK, I guess I'll figure something else out. 

All the best, 

Seth 

This is you, right, and not some other Richard Rynearson? 

https://valor.militarytimes.com/recipient/recipient-43254/

Seth, apologies for not being able to assist you with your article.  I wish you the best and hope that what you produce is honest.  Good luck.

Here's what I published: https://theiceman.substack.com/p/trump-says-urging-troops-to-refuse?r=9q8t0

Have a good day 

Seth

Seith, it's a well done article.  And thank you. If you still want a picture for it, you can use any of these if you wish.  I don't have many good pics in uniform.

Nice work.

- Rick

Hey thanks. I'd still welcome a conversation with you. This issue isn't going away anytime soon. 

Case in point: 

https://x.com/DeptofWar/status/1992999267967905905?s=20

Seth

Since you edited your article to clarify, just a small thing, I think the caption under my photo should be "Center For Individual Rights."

Ok will fix. Thanks. 

Fixed. 

Right on.  Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry spelled out the choice that will soon be the only remaining choice for citizens in the face of their completely off the rails government.  That choice will be to live free and die, or to live as a slave.  There will be no other options.

The technological tyranny that is being implemented will make liberty along with life an impossibility.  The comfort enjoyed by libertarians and independent thinkers who can exercise their right to free speech to criticize a lawless government has been the ability to blend in with 300 million other Americans and the infeasibility of visiting Waco, Texas upon every person who dare exercise their rights as free people.  But that will change and, despite all the talk of economics driving the massive push for so-called AI and data centers, the real impetus is about granular control of individuals at a reasonable cost.  Staggering tools of tyranny have been erected so powerful that the Great Enlightenment will be extinguished with a button push and a firmware update.

Already today we see the massive police state, the United States Postal Service tasked with monitoring the social media posts of Americans, tax money forced from pockets into companies like Palantir, and free speech and privacy focused companies and individuals ransacked and targeted by western governments.  Free speech and privacy are no longer permitted in the United States.  Even today we see tactical units raiding homes in the middle of the night for alleged infractions the size of a parking ticket and read about the corpses left in the wake and, of course, headlines are currently filled with people being executed upon suspicion of selling an unapproved product to willing customers.  Words continue to be equated with threats and violence no matter if coming from the pretend-left or the pretend-right and the American people celebrate their loss of liberty.

While Americans have long known the tracking devices, that they adorn with stickers and pay each month to carry, spy on their conversations and track their locations,  a network of Flock cameras continues to grow to track their every move even further.  Innocent Americans are put on lists due to travel habits and local law enforcement is tasked with making up a reason to seize, search, and interrogate them.  For Americans today, simply traveling outside your own home subjects you to the whim of federal government introducing armed thugs into your life for reasons you cannot know and cannot prevent.  Perhaps for expressing the wrong view on social media, for criticizing the government you fund, or for angering a local politician.  And when that armored thug carrying multiple tools of violence seizes you in your flip flops at a time and place of their choosing, you have no legal recourse.  No reason will be offered for the order for you to exit your vehicle and the Supreme Court requires you to exit for the safety of the guy with the weapons.  No dash camera or truth of events will result in justice in a court of law, no monetary or other punishment will visit the state thug.  The courts have already ruled you have no rights outside the confinement of parchment, and agents of the state are legally immune even when violating the law.  Your only recourse will be to demand your liberty and defend your rights, and face the full measure of tyranny as a result from a justice system and courts tasked with preserving them.  But everything is inverted in the tyranny we find ourselves in today.

That's how it goes for unfree people who live in an unfree nation as we do.

Seventeen Seventy-Six has been patched over the air with Twenty Twenty-Five and there is no changing the reality that humanity has known for the entirety of its history outside of the miraculous and brief opportunity provided in America which was mocked, sullied and ultimately squandered.  There is nothing left for true Americans but to suffer.  Those who have been comfortable living off the radar and playing the numbers will soon see that comfort removed one data center at a time.  The link between voicing unapproved opinions online and a direct confrontation with a state thug will become all too obvious.

And those few remaining American voices, picked off one by one with little effort, will have their calamity cheered by lessers offering the usual house-slave professions: "the side of the road is no time for legal arguments" and "he was right, but he wasn't persuasive" and "rights are not absolute" and "your rights end at my safety."

I'm glad my brief stint in public service is over.  I am glad I refused to bring children into this world to suffer the people who live here and what they have created.  And I am glad to be old as I await my turn on the train knowing full well the destination while surrounded by the oblivious-stupid still admiring the view out the window.

Give me liberty or give me death.

Blast From the Past -- Tony Carr Calls Me a "Raging Prick"

He's right in his characterization of my lack of social skills when dealing with public servants who are failing at a critical junction in the nation's history, and who are engaged in the profession of conflict where we blow people into pieces and watch their arms and legs fly in separate directions, set people on fire, and instead of protractors and calculators, we have nuclear warheads that can decimate entire cities.  That being the background, Tony is correct that when criticizing my failing peers, doing so in a way that makes them comfortable and feel good about themselves isn't always, shall we say, a priority of mine.  Tony also got some other things right about me in his recent LinkedIn article that people may want to check out.

I don't have LinkedIn since resumes are not really my thing, unsurprisingly I'm sure, but somebody I know stopped by to share the comments from his article with me.  Depressing as expected.  Much too accommodating for fascism masquerading as intellectual debate and absent the kind of responses such views deserve.  Even now, even in this context, Tony sets a polite and cordial seat positioned at the table for those who hate our nation to its core, carefully going over the guest list to ensure nobody is uncomfortable while they call for outright tyranny with their tea and crumpets; a polite pseudo-academic center of gravity that has been exploited and that has led us to this day, but much more importantly, is leading us to a nightmare that will finally be undeniable to all.

Tony, now fittingly a long time resident of Europe and a dual citizen, how poetic, of King George's Britain (I sincerely hope we get a law passed outlawing dual citizenship so Tony can choose the United Kingdom where they routinely arrest hundreds of people for non-approved innocuous social media posts and are more suited to his tastes) makes a good host for this infernal dinner party given that he has maintained that no rights in our Constitution are inviolate and he believes any constitutional right can be violated so long as a majority wants to do so.  No constitutional amendment required, just mob rule, the very thing our Constitution rejected and restrained.  Those are Tony's actual beliefs and, his latest words notwithstanding, he has much more in common with those who issue unlawful orders than he does with those who refuse them.  His words may change with the ebb and flow of elections and narratives, but at his core, Tony Carr does not believe Americans have rights; he believes Americans have privileges that can be revoked at majority will.  These days he doesn't like the majority's political choice and what has followed from the current mob's fervor (nor do I), so he trots out my name for his thinly-veiled political hackery.

For all Tony's faults cataloged on this blog over the years, providing a place for discussion of important matters when it comes to public service wasn't one of them (even though he banned me from those discussions).  And then when one of his audience asked him why he was writing about me over on his JQP Facebook page and yet not allowing me to participate in the discussion, he repeatedly lied that he had not banned me.  Tony Carr writes real purty, but he has the key characteristic of all bad actors.  Insecurity that leads to dishonesty.  And, of course, he projects his character failures on others who hold a mirror up to him and reveal the phony that he is.  Like he projected here, ascribing dishonesty to me despite the thrust of his criticism being that I'm too honest, similar to how he has written he doesn't respect me and never could, yet in his latest article he begins by declaring his respect for me.  Somehow I become "one of the most dishonest" people he's ever encountered just a few hours after he tells his audience that we're not friends, or pals, but that he respects me.  Why would you respect one of the most dishonest people you've ever encountered?  Maybe he'll show the receipts for his claim that I'm dishonest, I certainly have a collection of my own, but he won't because his claim is just projection.  Dishonesty is not a characteristic of mine.  I inspire all kinds of emotional turmoil in poor Tony and he'll say the damndest things, and then the opposite.

Side note, Brian was the guy who sat CQ in my blog post about our Field Training camp experience, the most formative experience of my entire military career.

Tony likes to talk about truth, free speech, debate and having a thick skin, but like any politician those are just talking points for him rather than actual values.  He has to control the "debate."  Control of information is the first step to ensuring truth doesn't rear its inconvenient head and spill his fine British tea all over his perfectly fashionable white tablecloth.  Truth is fine, even useful for tyrants and oligarchs and propagandists, but only when it's controlled, otherwise, well, things get messy and truth has a habit of escaping its cage.

Such control of speech has turned the Internet from its promise of citizens discussing important matters, and using harsh words rather than soft bullets to build consensus and solve problems in our Republic, into the greatest tool of tyranny, propaganda, and mind control known to mankind.  Just ask free speech champion Elon Musk about that.  When I criticized a sitting member of Congress (who Tony Carr has unsurprisingly lavished praise upon), Elon banned my decade old account that had somehow survived those on the so-called-left operating the platform.  Dozens of appeals later didn't matter.  Because Elon knows, like any politician or Information Pimp, that most people are morons (and he loves to employ hypocrites who say one thing and do another) and that you can simply claim values you don't have and then take actions that are the opposite with little criticism.  Like Tony, he uses words that are useful even when he doesn't actually believe them.  Information is just a whore you send out to turn tricks.

Wise Americans, few that they are, realize words are easy.  Action is all that actually matters.  But if you can't even get words right, before you do your wrongful action and show yourself a hypocrite, you're a non-starter.

All this is just to say, Tony Carr was claiming to value free speech and debate while banning voices like mine, and showing he doesn't actually hold the values he professes, before it was still not cool.

Despite the highly censored landscape of today, Tony shares some truth in his article that we can all agree on (well, with a few caveats):

Alas, it jaded him. He's viscerally hostile to anyone he estimates to be morally lacking, whether he's ever met them or not. Especially USAF officers, hailing as they do from an obedience culture that adores deference and promotes those who ask the fewest questions.

He flames, trolls, and harasses hapless path-crossers for the sin of having their own opinions, unwittingly commanding mental compliance he knows is wrong. Rick enjoys conflict. He doesn’t observe rhetorical limits. He enjoys helping others acclimate to the discomfort he enjoys.

The first caveat is that I don't care about a public servant's personal morality.  They're free to be vegan and think eating meat is bad, put "He/Him" pronouns in their bio like Tony does and think that's a societal good, or believe whatever they wish in their personal lives.  However, as a military officer, they must be personally amoral, set aside their personal views, and act in accordance with the law and uphold their oath to support the Constitution.  It is the law that matters as a public servant given our law is the distilled collective morality of our nation and is the only thing that should be driving a public servant's actions.  As a military officer what you think is right or wrong doesn't matter, you must act as the nation has instructed you based on what it thinks is right and wrong as codified into law.  If public service is too much for you, go work for Amazon.

The second caveat is that me not agreeing with somebody and directly telling them as much without asking them if they want one lump or two, is not me commanding mental compliance.  I have no such power.  However, if that option were available to me, I would most certainly exercise it when it comes to military officers and all other public servants.  Get your thoughts correct, this isn't Burger King (no offense to the monarchy where Tony is a citizen), you don't get to have it your way, think and act correctly when you do your job, anything less is unacceptable.  While creativity and debate is valuable for how to best execute the mission, the basics of public service and our Constitutional limitations, our primary purpose spelled out in regulation ("to support the Constitution"), our law and our oath, aren't up for debate; it's not an academic circle jerk where you get to play cutesy with words to get the result you personally want (that just coincidentally meshes with your political affiliation), at least not in a sane healthy America, but of course we don't live there.

Last caveat, my refusal of an unlawful order in 2011 did not produce my correct thinking or make me jaded.  My correct thinking produced correct action, that's why since at least 2009 on this blog and long before that unlawful mission, I had been beating the drum on the importance of the oath of office and knowing the Constitution in order to fulfill the obligations of public service correctly.  Well before the unlawful mission, I was ordered by Lt Col Richard Nesmith, my squadron commander when I was teaching Undergraduate Pilot Training, to stop talking about the Constitution with student pilots (I asked for the order in writing, he refused, so I figured he changed his mind on his order).  I knew of the importance of faithful public service and dedicated energy into trying to mentor younger officers to understand the gravity of their executive positions well before I was put into the hot seat myself.  If you don't think correctly, you will most certainly not act correctly should you find yourself in a similar situation.  Check the tapes.

But all these years later, the fact remains that Tony Carr is nothing more than words he doesn't actually believe and can't quite get right.  So of course a guy who exists only in words would continue to be fascinated by me and seek to write about my words-made-action.  That's the closest a guy like Tony can get to actually being the ideal he imperfectly pretends to be on paper.  It's a love/hate thing I encounter from beta males who read too many books on knights and heroes slaying dragons, who then latch on to me while hating my toxic masculinity or my narcissism or whatever limp-wristed term they apply to me to express how they hate how I make them feel about themselves while frustratingly admiring me.  Maybe if Tony can one day get words right, he'll be better suited to actually embody them in deed and won't feel so insecure.  Deeds not words.

And, Tony, I had to share the image up top.  It's one of my favorites and, after all, I'm a raging prick.  But at least I didn't share the one making fun of the fact that, while you were a student at Harvard Law School no less, you thought you zinged me while only demonstrating you didn't know that Thomas Jefferson wasn't an author of the Constitution.  Of course, who would expect a British citizen to know our history?

Oh, and for those who want to stop by and share your view that I'm a "total asshole" while collecting a like from Tony, you can do that on his Substack where he posts a similar article.

Hey Prosuper, Never Miss An Opportunity to STFU

Just one of many idiots over at the Digital Clown Show fumbling to defend the legally indefensible.  It's noticeable he doesn't talk about the War Powers Resolution and not surprisingly, never quotes any of the laws he lists (but hasn't read) to show how they support murdering Venezuelan boat operators.  He also is confused as to what is "liberal" having apparently missed the whole conversation that conservatives want to conserve the recognition of our laws and rights and restrain government.  But he's a moron who hasn't thought about anything of the things he brings up.

But with an officer like Brabus to lead him, what would we expect?  Brabus has now walked back his assertion that the strikes don't come even "remotely close" to crossing a legal line, to now being made aware of the War Powers Resolution, mischaracterizing it, and claiming it's now a "grey area."  It wasn't remotely close the day before, but now it's a gray area because Brabus-the-Brainiac thinks drugs being smuggled into the United States is what they meant when they wrote about unilateral POTUS action in response to an attack on the United States or its military.  Just like any idiot leftist blue-haired nut job, Brabus demonstrates no integrity and an oh-so-clever ability to twist words ("what is a woman?") to get the result he wants, without any concern for how utterly stupid he looks doing it.

But anyway, we're talking about Prosuper's vomiting a list of laws he doesn't understand and hasn't tried to understand, none of which do what he claims.  He put no effort into his assertion without evidence, so I won't do much more.  Note that even the treaty from the United Nations doesn't do what he says, and the United States never ratified that treaty anyway so it's not even legally binding.

10 USC 124

10 USC 522

10 USC 526

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) -- Not Legally Binding on the U.S.

So Prosuper, don't miss an opportunity to STFU.  Seriously, you fucking moron.

Idiocracy Meets Stripes - the Dumbification of the Military Officer Corps

 

This blog is nothing, as its three readers will attest, if not a long prediction of a turnkey tyranny due to an incompetent and unprincipled military officer class.  Leave it to the Digital Clown Show to provide evidence as usual.  Idiot military officers plus social media does not disappoint.

Brabus, a military officer and pilot, in a profession of lethality, educated by the American taxpayer and sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, doesn't think the strikes on Venezuelan boats even come close to a legal red line.

Wow, breathtaking incompetence from a guy who doesn't know the first thing about his job.

Even those without his college education might go, "hmm, using the military to kill people for crimes seems kind of new.  I wonder why we just started doing that?"

They might wonder why suspected criminals, more than a thousand miles away, are suddenly being vaporized without evidence being presented to anybody, instead of the Coast Guard rolling up on them and arresting them, searching the vessels, photographing evidence and putting criminals on trial.  Since simply blowing them up is apparently not even close to any legal line, why didn't we do that all along?

History buffs might remember how the U.S. military went into Panama, and lost American service members during the operation, to arrest Manuel Noriega for suspected drug smuggling and then gave him a trial and imprisoned him.  Why didn't the military simply kill him from the air as the current administration is doing?  Why spend all that money and sacrifice American service member lives for Operation Just Cause when Brabus-the-Braniac would have offered up Operation Just Cuz instead?

Even slightly educated people know one reason is because in the civilized world, post Enlightenment, we in the western world have generally had this feeling that Brabus lacks that, "well, we should be able to prove somebody has committed a crime before we punish them for it, instead of just killing whoever we want willy nilly."  It's kind of one of those things we from America have prided ourselves on that separates us from countries like North Korea or China or from the rule of King George (Brabus, that was the guy who ran Great Britain when we broke away and set up a system that included jury trials, don't spill your juice cup).  And, strangely, until recently it has been widely understood in the United States that crimes like drug smuggling don't come with the death penalty.  But apparently that common more is out the window as well despite the U.S. government's well known history of trafficking drugs and even getting American communities hooked on them (CIA, I'm looking at you).

Educated military officers (not to be confused with Brabus who simply checked a box without learning a thing) who swore to support the Constitution should be able to enunciate this line of thinking more clearly and point out that our supreme law requires "due process of law" before "life, liberty, or property" can be taken from folks.  There are exceptions for war, of course, and Brabus would no doubt claim we're in a war (because he's a moron as cartoonish in real life as he is in his avatar).

Somebody from Brabus' intel shop should sit him down and show him some flash cards.  "Brabus, I'll show you an image, and you tell me if the thing I show you is a war thing, or not a war thing" and then give him a treat when he gets it right.  Show him a flash card showing a tank.  I think he'd get that one right.  Show him a card with a MIG-29 and he'd probably get that one right, too.  But show him a card with a school bus, or an unarmed, unmarked, boat flying no flag and operated by men not in uniform and he might struggle.

Fear not.  Our Founders set up a system of rules and regulations for dipshits like Brabus.  All he has to do is know the rules and follow them and everything is good.  Then he can know if we're at war or not.

And in so doing, Brabus would discover that we are not at war with Venezuela or with Venezuelan boat operators.  How do we know this?  We know this because our Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress and Congress has not declared war against suspected drug smugglers down south.  "But we haven't declared a war in forever," Brabus might proudly opine, and he'd be correct.  That's because in addition to giving Congress the power to declare war in Article 1 of our Constitution, it also gives Congress the power to make "all laws necessary and proper" for bringing into execution (hint, execution is an important word here) all powers granted to any part of the federal government.  That means that if the Constitution grants a power to the President, Congress can still dictate how that power will be executed.  Or they could pass a law on how to execute their own power and that's precisely what they did with the War Powers Resolution which dictates when the Commander in Chief can execute war powers.  And that law gives three conditions, 1) after Congress declares war, 2) after Congress authorizes war, and 3) if the United States or its armed forces are attacked, the POTUS is permitted to engage in war for up to sixty days with some caveats.

None of those three requirements are met with suspected drug smugglers.  So Brabus is right, this doesn't come close to the red line of legality.  It blows way the fuck past it.  There is zero question that the strikes on these boats are illegal.  None.

But given that our officer corps is filled with absolute incompetent morons like Brabus, our law and our oaths to support that supreme law have become meaningless.  And America is a lawless rogue nation as a result.  And Brabus is perfectly fine with that because he's never actually known America, let alone served her, and so he certainly doesn't care about her being destroyed from the inside.

You Coward Drone Pilots Need to Refuse These Unlawful Orders

It shouldn't need to be said.  Striking civilians in an undeclared/unauthorized pseudo-war about fucking drugs?  Are you shitting me?  What's next, drone strikes on people for their tax-evasion-terrorist ties without due process?  Jay-walker-terrorists being napalmed?  Get a fucking grip.  This discussion is as completely retarded as men being allowed in women's bathrooms, it's the same level of stupidity but with even more dire consequences.  There is no excuse for this un-American position being touted on social media.  It's not a left/right issue, it's a people being manipulated by the Internet issue and you need to snap the fuck out of it.  Particularly you military officers.

Break, break.  This video from THIRTEEN YEARS AGO distills what is happening right now.  Not because this particular POTUS is particularly bad (yet) or because of all the leftist lunacy and calling everybody Hitler (which really does make you tired of such comparisons, doesn't it, almost like a psychological shaping operation) but because it explains why so many among us today "don't do politics on Facebook" and choose to remain silent publicly, only talking about trivial matters to their neighbors and friends and countrymen while their nation is conquered and destroyed on their watch right in front of their eyes.  I have posted this video for more than a decade on this blog and it's well worth your time.

Learn the law that you should already know about your job, you spineless cowards who participated in these missions (and then do your country a solid for the first time in your life and resign).  But don't think this is one of those intellectual issues that requires a degree and a lot of study, it really only takes about ten minutes to know your profession if you can tear yourself away from the NFL game and its Drag Queen Story Hour half time show, or whatever the flavor of the week is, that you're so against with your professed opinions (but not your action).

It's pretty basic stuff.  We arrest criminals for their crimes and give them their day in court where a JURY decides their fate after evidence ("oh, you mean maybe politicians lied and those people weren't giving voluntary customers drugs???").  You don't just kill them because some politician tells you to (whether it's Donald Trump, or his twin, Mark Kelly, who won't name a specific unlawful order in all his media appearances because he doesn't actually care about unlawful orders, he's just playing his part in the puppet show).

Fuck Trump and fuck Kelly.

Don't let these political pieces of shit factor into your obligation and oath before the American people.  And don't factor your own convenience into your obligations of public service!  If you know you don't have what it takes for such a difficult job, then go get a job on the outside!

Don't be like Dave Blair.  Demonstrate your love of America by your actions when it's hard, not by your made up bullshit words and professions about the Constitution for a military journal, followed by your failure shielded by some dark shipping container and secrecy.  Maybe nobody will ever know your coward name and you'll get promoted, but YOU will know you're a worthless un-American pussy.  And others will too.  Eagle or stars on your shoulder ain't shit compared to innocent lives taken, duty shirked and the once greatest nation to ever exist being extinguished... by worthless people like you charged with defending it, funded by a single mom who works at Waffle House and who struggles to make ends meet instead of playing grab ass at the golf course on the public dime, and who expects you to defend her family's freedom with the money forced from her insufficient bank account.

If you can't do that, get the fuck out!  The slippery slope argument is tired and you're going to be seeing trains headed toward camps here soon.  Some of you clowns will be driving them.

If you bastards can't figure it out very quickly (having failed to figure it out already as you should have), I sincerely pray there is a reckoning, and you get the due process required for your treason and your cowardice and for the suffering that you inflict upon struggling Americans who can't depend on you to get it right with your tax-paid education and training and your six figure salary.

Seth Hettena Writes About Me Refusing an Unlawful Order in "The After-Action Report"

Trump Says Urging Troops to Refuse Illegal Orders Is “Sedition.” This Air Force Officer Once Did Just That. by Seth Hettena

In 2011, Air Force Maj. Richard Rynearson refused a drone strike he believed was unconstitutional in a real-world test of the debate now consuming Washington.

Read on Substack

I have been contacted a handful of times by reporters wanting to talk about the mission I refused.  I have declined them all.  Despite my lack of cooperation, Seth Hettena went ahead and crafted an article about the unlawful order anyway.

His article is well done and fair.  It's always a pleasant surprise to see a journalist take their job seriously given how vital the profession is to the health of our nation.

Edit: despite writing a fair article about me, Seth Hettena's writing should not be trusted.

You can follow Seth on Twitter and read his article here:

https://theiceman.substack.com/p/trump-says-urging-troops-to-refuse

As our criminal Department of Defense (so incompetent today that it can't even remember its own name) tries to intimidate military officers and retirees (and I have no doubt it will make good on its threats at some point), service members have got to do a gut check.  Refusing unlawful orders is mandatory, it's an obligation, it's not debatable no matter what the domestic enemies of our Constitution might say.  If you can't do it, get out of uniform now because your departure from the service would actually be the best thing you could do for your nation.

Senator Kelly, while a hypocrite who doesn't actually care about the Constitution (simply raising it for his political ambitions) and a threat to our nation as much as the current administration, is nonetheless correct when he says military members must refuse unlawful orders.  Things have gotten very bad in the nation, but they have been bad for a long time, and being a faithful public servant will never be easier than it is today (which is hard).  But there will soon come a day when exercising free speech will be far more difficult than it is today.  Just ask Sophie Scholl about unchecked power.  Then factor in our technology.  While you might feel safe speaking truth and exercising your God given right to free speech to challenge tyranny because you don't have a platform and therefore aren't threat enough to the tyrants, there will come a day when simply having a non-state approved viewpoint will be handled with extreme prejudice.  Use your voice now, be ready for the worst.  Truth is treason in an empire of lies, and it may well cost you everything.  Like it did for Charlie Kirk.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT:

The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations…

— Department of War 🇺🇸 (@DeptofWar) November 24, 2025

Years After My Lawsuit the Border Patrol Surveils All American Drivers With Cameras

 

Fifteen years ago I sued Border Patrol agents for violating my rights by stopping me without suspicion of a crime and detaining me for half an hour.  Fortunately I refused to exit my vehicle so I was spared them destroying my property as they had done previously.  I'm a slow learner.  I burned about six figures of my own money trying to defend the Constitution in court by hoping the architects of the police state I had encountered would admit what they had created was unconstitutional.  The entire judiciary declined to hold themselves accountable with the exception of a single appellate judge who got it right but was in the minority.  Like I said, I'm a slow learner.  During all of this, lots of mouth-breathing boot lickers I knew held the position, "well, I never have a problem with them because I worship them and bow and scrape and don't care about the Constitution I'm paid to support."  But it turns out they have a problem with them now whether they know it or not.

The fascist organization within the Department of Homeland Security has expanded.  Here is what it is currently doing.

1.  Without a warrant or suspicion of a crime, tracks and logs the driving patterns of all Americans through cameras across the nation (the border was never really their thing as the flood of illegals has demonstrated, their real target has always been the American people themselves)

2.  Decides if an American's "patterns of life" are "suspicious."  If the term "patterns of life" sounds familiar to my three readers, it's the same thing we looked for when surveilling the enemy overseas.  So if you are driving to a new place instead of going from your residence to work, you might be flagged by the Border Patrol as "suspicious."  Don't let the fact that this warrantless surveillance violates the Constitution bother you, and don't lose too much sleep over you simply going to a new place raising "suspicion" since it's actually an improvement for the Border Patrol that there is *some* level of suspicion (that level being a moronic level for the average Border Patrol agent) given they've been operating checkpoints in the nation for decades and seizing people absent any suspicion at all.

3.  They then pass you as a target to local law enforcement so that sheriffs like those in the Bexar County Sheriffs Department in Texas, can whore themselves out to the federal government, remove the benefits of federalism, and advance the cause of tyranny at their local level.  Despite all the claims of sheriffs being of the people and a check on federal government, they're just lap dogs to the federal government carrying out unlawful operations because the federal government thinks their vehicular travel is suspicious.

4.  The local law enforcement then uses WhatsApp or Signal (to avoid FOIA law and transparency and keep their conversations from becoming known) to come up with a made up reason (a lie) for stopping you.  As in the case of the innocent American video above, they chose "weaving inside your lane" -- always a go to made up reason to violate the Constitution; the driver above had dash camera footage showing he didn't weave inside his lane but the boot-lickers will tell you the road is no place to argue the Constitution, you should instead wait for court after paying tons of money to then lose even when the court agrees with you, because of qualified immunity.

5.  The local law enforcement then stops you and can order you out of your vehicle and cuff you, thanks to the un-American ruling in Pennsylvania v. Mimms where the court says the safety of cops in bulletproof vests and armor and loaded with weapons is more important than a mere American citizen who pays their bills who is simply driving to the store in a t-shirt and flip flops.

6.  Then Border Patrol arrives with a specially trained dog (trained to alert when it knows its handler wants it to alert to give the pretext to search your car).  The Supreme Court consistently allows these dogs to provide "probable cause" for searches despite knowing the dog doesn't sniff for any particular offense (is it people, legal or not, hidden in the vehicles or is it drugs -- or a large amount of cash that government can steal using asset forfeiture without even charging for a crime?).  No matter, the dog knows what its handler wants and dutifully obeys much like a boot-licker.

7.  With the fake dog alert, the agents then rip your car apart looking for a reason to throw you in prison, or looking for large amount of cash to steal without charging you for a crime, and they're not gentle so expect damage as the guy in the video above suffered.

8.  After an hour or so of them not finding anything and destroying your vehicle, they tell you to have a good day and you get to collect your property strewn along the roadway, put it back in your vehicle and go about your way.

9.  You spend a ton of your own money to sue (unless your case gets picked up by one of the few remaining gems of America, the Institute for Justice) and then your case gets dismissed because the judges say "you're right, your rights and our supreme law was violated by the government actors, but you still lose because they have qualified immunity, good day to you."  And nothing changes except for the amount of savings in your bank account.

This is the absolute, crystalline, pure un-American police state that we live in.  It has gotten worse because most Americans do not value their constitutional rights and it is now at the point where even boot-lickers will be targeted and not escape the full dose.  Your bowing and scraping and subjugating yourself before your "bro" won't work in this situation.

Enjoy what your cowardice and hatred for America has produced for you and your children, Bryan T. Gray.  When the next Biden implements the next lockdown and you complain on Facebook (now that you're suddenly into rights and no longer in uniform and charged with supporting them) make sure you have a good laugh with the cops who pull you over for weaving inside your lane.