Pictures of U.S. Navy Boeing EA-18 Growler Electronic Warfare and Destruction of Enemy Surface-to-Air Anti-Aircraft Missile Aircrew - CLOUD9PHOTOGRAPHY

No watermark will show on any sold Cloud 9 print

Important Information About Print Size Availability

If you want to buy a Cloud 9 picture in a size larger than 4x6 inches but the checkout system shows only the 4x6 inch size is available, do not despair. All Cloud 9 images are available in a wide variety of sizes, finishes and material, such as paper prints, canvas prints, metallic prints, metallic prints ready to be hung on a wall without a frame, coffee mugs, magnets, and buttons, etc.

If the checkout system limits you to the 4x6 inch size and you want a larger size please do this: Send Cloud 9's owner, Peter Mancus, an email or call him and tell him what you want to order and he will make the changes necessary so you can order the size you want.

Peter's email address is: pmancus@comcast.net. Peter's telephone number is: (707) 703-9210 [California].

Peter needs to know the Cloud 9 Product Number for what you want to buy. Here are examples: F-106USAF 00072 or Lion 00035.

The reason the checkout might limit you to the 4x6 inch size is because Cloud 9 is transitioning to a major improvement and changes need to be made for some galleries.


A THOUGHT PROVOKING ANALYSIS OF THE USA IN 2016.

What expectations, if any, do you have of the men in the pictures in this gallery arising from their uniforms?



Do you know what those men in these pictures are doing?



I am a 70 years old active photographer who has taken hundreds of thousands of pictures, and, of all the pictures I have taken, my pictures of these men are among my favorites because they resonate in my psyche and my heart because the uniform these men wear connects to my core values and convictions.



Let me explain why I said what I said. I will build up to my key points in chronological order in a way that eventually focuses on the men in these pictures.



When I was 5 years old my father, who was a U.S. Air Force flight medic, was transferred to Oahu, Hawaii in 1951 because of the Korean War. During that war he made 53 round trip flights in 4 engine piston engine airplanes from Hawaii to Japan and then to Korea, to get wounded US and United Nations military personnel, and then from Korea to Japan to Travis AFB in Northern, California, where his patients were transferred, and he would fly back to Oahu for a few days rest before returning to Korea. My father told me he was eager to off load his patients at Travis AFB because he did not want to get too emotionally attached to them. He said his work exacted a toll on him. He told me one man had a bullet cross his brain, diagonally, in a way that did not kill him but made him what he called "a human vegetable" for life, permanently. He also told me one man, who was married with children, had an arm blown off at the shoulder, a leg opposite the missing arm blown off at the hip and his penis was destroyed.



I learned early from my father's stories that "freedom" is not free. Freedom is guaranteed to no one, to no generation, requires hyper-vigilance, vision, courage, devotion to duty, commitment, convictions, a widely shared set of values, good leadership, and a strong, unbreakable bond between what I call "our two great communities": the American civilian community and the American military community. These two communities work best when they trust each other, support each other and are united with an unbreakable fidelity to the secular Supreme Law of the Land, for Americans, namely, the U.S. Constitution, which I believe, for excellent reasons, is among Mankind's greatest achievements and hopes for peace and prosperity and a maximum amount of individual liberty.



When I was around 9 years old I started to think about what work I wanted to do as an adult. My first choice was to become a Roman Catholic priest, until I understood priests are required to take a vow of celibacy.



My second choice was to become a U.S. Navy fighter pilot. I love airplanes, passionately. I love the sea. I love the challenge and the excitement of being a fighter pilot. While being a priest and being a fighter pilot are different [the first is passive and non-violent; the latter is a professional airborne assassin], they share one major common denominator: When done right, they are both what I call "a force for good". I wanted to have a constructive impact on people's lives.



When I was around 13 years old I was told I needed to wear glasses to correct my vision. Thus, my goal to become a U.S. Navy fighter pilot became unrealistic. My dad told me that the U.S. military has so many applicants who want to become pilots with excellent vision without glasses they will not select for pilot training any one who needs glasses.



Since I love airplanes and knew I would not become a fighter pilot I decided I wanted to become an aeronautical engineer, to design advanced airplanes. That dream was shattered when I realized that I lacked good aptitude for high math.



When I was ten years old, while playing with a holahoop, I realized something significant that was simultaneously scary and liberating when I put that toy over my head, lowered it, and stepped out of it: Physically, I was 100% separate from my parents; they could die and I could survive and be alone on my own, but I was also 100% independent of them, and I loved discovering my individuality and independence.



In my middle teens my mother urged me to watch the Perry Mason TV shows because she thought I was well suited to be a good lawyer because I am articulate, analytical, and I like to argue and assert my point of view. To please my mother I watched part of a Perry Mason show. One scene stood out to me, and I loved what I comprehended. Perry Mason and the opposing prosecutor, while putting on their case before a judge, made objections and the judge ruled, theoretically, competently, correctly, and impartially, and the attorneys submitted to the judge's rulings, peacefully, in a logical, methodical, manner. I loved that because my father ran his household like a benign tyrant. His Number One Rule was: There is the right way, the wrong way, the U.S. Air Force way, and the Eugene E. Mancus way, and, in his house, everyone shall obey his rules, no exception, no appeal! I hated his oppression, his yoke. My love of liberty sprang from my distaste for my own father's abuse of his powers as my father. Benign or not, a tyrant is a tyrant, regardless of how good are their intentions. No father is perfect. My father was far from perfect. My father was not like the judge in the Perry Mason show.



I was a studious, diligent, serious, intense student. I knew that education and developing a good marketable skill was my key to self-improvement and upward social-economic advancement in America, "the land of opportunity". I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth and neither of my parents were well connected at any level. I knew the umbilical cord that tied me to my mother when I was born was cut and I was on my own. I did not like that but in other ways I loved being on my own and less dependent on others. For example, in high school I was on the football team and on the wrestling team. I preferred wrestling to football because wrestling was an individual sport.



At my high school graduation, I, along with about 900 graduating seniors, threw our caps into the air. I remember when I did that I said to myself something like, "High school graduation? No big deal. I have 4 years of college and 3 years of law school ahead of me, and then a Bar exam and then the real challenge: Working as a lawyer."



I graduated from college in 1968, earning a BA With Honors in Political Science.



During the early years of the Vietnam War I was stunned to learn that so many of our best military jets were shot down over Vietnam.



In those years I was so patriotic I scotched taped to my bedroom windows, facing out for the public to see, patriotic type pictures.



Soon after I started law school in 1968 I got a notice to report for a U.S. Army draft physical. I was conflicted about that notice. I was patriotic and loyal to the USA but I was also goal oriented, I did not want my formal education to be delayed, and I hated the way the senior national civilian leadership was dictating to the US Armed Forces how to fight that war. While military subjects fascinate me the idea of me committing a homicidal act—killing another human being—regardless of the reason, did not appeal to me. I have never had a lust for human blood.



Soon after I got that notice to report for a draft physical, with misgivings, I asked a U.S. Air Force medical doctor, a specialist in allergies, who supervised nurses who had been giving me anti-allergy shots twice a week for about 2-3 months at Travis AFB before I got that notice, if, in his best medical judgment, there was any legitimate medical reason why I should not be drafted. This USAF doctor told me [paraphrased], "Yes. I have your records from March AFB. You have been getting allergy shots twice a week for four years. You are allergic to a lot of things, especially a variety of vegitation. You would be a serious liability, especially in an infantry unit in the bush. You are what the military calls 'Unfit for world-wide duty.' If you were a rifleman or a truck driver or a clerk exposed to vegetation and other things new to your immune system there is no telling how your body would react. Your eyes would probably easily water up or puff up and you would probably often sneeze loudly. It is doubtful you could accurately aim a rifle or remain quiet in an ambush situation in the jungle. I will write you a letter recommending you be declared '4F'—physically unfit, and explain why."



What that USAF doctor told me made sense but my sense of duty and patriotism bothered me. I used my brain to find a factually legitimate and morally defensible way to avoid the draft, but my conscience bothered me, and it still does.



As I stood in line at the US Army place for the physical I talked to a blue collar type young man who was eager to be drafted. He kept saying he wanted to kill the Viet Cong. He sounded sincere and highly motivated. I wonder what became of him.



After medical checks were done I sat before a low ranking US Army man who told me I passed the entire physical and he asked me if I knew of any reason why I should not be drafted. I handed him the U.S. Air Force doctor's letter, in a sealed envelope. The US Army man read it, kept the letter from the USAF doctor, stamped it and other papers, and handed me one paper. I asked him, "What does this mean?" He told me, "You are 4F. You are lucky. We don't want you. Your doctor is right. You are unfit for world wide duty." I felt conflicted, relief, and guilt.



I am not brave, but I am also not a coward. I just wanted to complete law school and I wanted to avoid being wasted in the Vietnam War.



I completed law school, passed the Bar exam, and worked as a Deputy District Attorney, a criminal prosecutor in Southern California, from 1972 to 1976.



Around 1973 I developed a friendship with a new hire at the DA's office, a retired USAF officer who became a lawyer. This man told me my deep appreciation of US military pilots is misplaced, which shocked me. He told me that during the Vietnam War he was a USAF personnel officer and he was disgusted by how many USAF pilots applied to be removed from flight status after they were assigned to Vietnam. He told me many USAF pilots with real physical problems somehow covered them up and remained on flight status, with the USAF counting on them to be available for combat but when they were given a combat assignment a large percentage bailed, meaning, came up with medical reasons why they should not be assigned to Vietnam. He also said many USAF pilots offered dubious medical reasons for why they should be removed from flight status. He said most pilots will fight to get on and to remain on flight status but cowards or those who were never committed to the mission come up with an excuse to avoid combat.



In the mid-1970's, after I shaved with a razor and nicked myself in a few places, I did some target shooting with a revolver outside, shooting at empty soda pop cans. I repositioned the cans after knocking them down and periodically touched my face, with dirt residue on my finger tips. Within a few minutes of touching my face, near the razor nicks, large areas of my facial skin swelled up—hard, so much so that the skin around my eyes puffed up so I could barely see, even in broad daylight. I could no longer aim or walk safely. After about 20 minutes my wife checked on me because she no longer heard gunfire, which concerned her, because I told her how long I intended to do target shooting. When she saw my face she was stunned. I held her hand as she guided me into the house and a bathroom where I washed my hands and my face. I could barely see myself in the bathroom mirror. The puffed up parts of my facial skin felt like large extremely hard smooth rocks. I had never experienced this. Those hard welts on my face remained for a few hours.



As bad as that was I was, in a way, glad that it happened because it helped to ease my guilt about me using my allergy condition as a medical reason why I should not be drafted during the Vietnam War.



Approximately 1973, when the US ended its involvement in the Vietnam War and North Vietnam was releasing captured American aircrew, I was on a photo tour on the flight line at NAS Miramar. When we were photographing a TOP GUN A-4 attack jet with the name "Randy Cunningham" painted near the canopy, this "Randy Cunningham", walked out and greeted us. Randy, at that time, was the U.S. Armed Forces first "ace" of the Vietnam War, meaning, he shot down at least 5 enemy airplanes in combat—5 confirmed aerial kills.



I shook Randy's hand and told him I admired and respected him for his courage and skill. Randy was modest. He told me he was not a hero, he just did his job and the real heroes were the American POWs who survived the hell hole of being held captive and abused so long by the North Vietnamese.



I asked Randy to please climb up on his plane and point to his name so I could photograph him. He cooperated. I took a good picture of him doing that.



Randy went on to become an elected Republican Congressman. Sadly, he plead guilty to one or more felonies dealing with him allegedly accepting bribes. He was incarcerated, I think, for about 8 years.



If it is true that Randy committed one or more crimes while an elected official that is terrible, but no one can strip him of his heroic skillful accomplishments over North Vietnam. He was the first US ace of that war. It is also my tentative understanding that Randy scored his third, fourth and fifth kills in one mission, within minutes of each other, and he then took a hit from a surface to air missile that caused him to loose hydraulic fluids so Randy flew his fighter inverted for about 150 miles and he and his RIO [Radar Intercept Officer] ejected over the Gulf of Tonkin and were picked up and saved to fight another day.



Approximately 1983 I meet a wonderful man, Lenny Bucko, a U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot who was so good as a pilot he was on loan to the U.S. Navy at NAS Miramar as a world famous TOP GUN "IP"—Instructor Pilot, one of the best of the best.



One day I told Lenny A) how much I admired him for being a TOP GUN IP and B) how I felt a lot of guilt about how I used my allergy condition to avoid being drafted. I will never forget what Lenny told me. Lenny said: 1) Peter, do not put me on a pedestal for being a TOP GUN IP; 2) You, and many other people, are smart enough to do this job; 3) Peter, I could teach you in 20 minutes how to take-off in my jet fighter. It would probably take me 6 months to teach you how to land it. It would probably take me 3-4 years to teach you how to be an effective lethal fighter pilot with a good chance of survival against a competent foe. You are smart enough and highly motivated and so keenly interested in this subject matter, with the right training you could do my job, despite the fact that you wear glasses; 4) Peter, do not feel guilt about avoiding the draft because of your allergies. You took shots for years. Competent U.S. Air Force doctors said you needed those shots and you got them, twice per week, for years, before you got that draft notice. Another U.S. Air Force doctor on his letterhead wrote you a letter explaining to the US Army why you should not be drafted. His reasoning was sound. There is no reason for you to feel guilt; 5) There are many ways to fight for the USA. I, as a pilot, am part of the U.S. Armed Forces. I help to protect our way of life. I am part of your protective shield. You are an attorney—a licensed member of a noble necessary profession. Peter, fight for our country, for the good causes, your way, as a lawyer. Take advantage of the shield I help provide. Live your life, proudly, as a free American, free of guilt. Strive to become a TOP GUN equivalent of a lawyer—a good one, an honest, effective advocate for your clients."



I have done my best to follow Lenny's advice.



Lenny also told me the following about his job: A) Most US Air Force, US Navy, and US Marine Corps fighter and attack pilots are not as good as they think they are and nowhere near as good as they should be; B) Sadly, most would probably not survive their first 10 combat missions; C) The odds are extremely high that every TOP GUN IP would win an aerial engagement with an ordinary US fighter or attack pilot, rather easily, which was intended to be a fact, not him bragging; D) When he takes leave he often goes to Israel to fly with the Israeli Air Force or Scandinavian Air Force pilots; E) In his opinion, Israeli Air Force fighter pilots are probably the most lethal and Scandinavian Air Force pilots are excellent foul weather instrument pilots.



Another TOP GUN Instructor Pilot, a US Navy officer, a contemporary of Lenny's, told me A) he [the Navy guy] never lost a training sortie during the first 10 training missions with any US Navy fleet pilot because he [the Navy guy] was an extremely good pilot, and he was extremely proud of that fact; B) Lenny is a good pilot but nowhere near as good as he is; C) Lenny sometimes looses a training sortie with a fleet pilot during the first 10 training sorties, and that is not good; and D) Lenny is TOP GUN's token Marine, TOP GUN has to have a Marine IP for political reasons, and Lenny's paper work is good.



I told Lenny what the Navy pilot said about himself and Lenny. Lenny told me: A) the Navy pilot is an extremely good pilot, who is also a braggart, who does not understand his job correctly, and is disliked by many of TOP GUN's staff; B) it is true that some times a fleet pilot does defeat Lenny during the first 10 training missions but Lenny likes that fact because to him it means he—Lenny—is an effective teacher and one of his main duties is to teach US Navy fleet fighter pilots what he knows so they can survive and beat a pilot of his skill.



The TOP GUN IP who was critical of Lenny told me he was not surprised that Randy Cunningham became the US's first ace of the Vietnam War because Randy had a reputation in the US Navy fighter community for spending a lot of time honing his "switchology" skill. This TOP GUN pilot told me the public's idea of push button air-to-air missile warfare is wrong because air-to-air missiles are complicated and, to get a kill, you have to be "within parameters" when you fire and that is why mastery of "switchology" is crucial to be successful. For example, one has to be within a certain distance—not too close and not too far; within a certain angle; within a certain time frame to give the missile time to spool up and guide onto the intended target; and one has to be able to do all of this while keeping an eye of the target while pulling hard G's, while avoiding missiles shot at you and staying alert for an enemy fighter trying to shoot you down.



My conversations with US fighter pilots lead me to form this opinion: When it comes to an aerial dogfight, second best is dead last; skill counts; split seconds count; there is no substitute for pilot proficiency, courage and commitment to duty; he who hesitates is likely to die.



Around 1985, U.S. Marine Corps' full colonel, who was the commanding officer of one of the Corps' elite, unique, intellectual think tanks and advance tactics development squadrons, MAWTS-1, at MCAS Yuma, Arizona, told me something I did not from a Marine with his rank and experience. This man told me he is leery of US politicians who are "Hawks", meaning, quick to improvidently send in Marines or to commit the US to an undeclared war. He said US Marines are true national assets, not easily replaced, and they should be used wisely and not wasted on petty tyrants who are like small dogs yapping at the USA's feet. He opined it is best to let the world's petty tyrants yap and save US Marines for serious threats. I agree, 100%.



Approximately 1986 I was escorted by a young California Air National Guard F-4 Phantom II jet fighter RIO [Radar Intercept Officer] at March AFB. This man told me he joined the Guard because he wanted to earn good money to help pay his college expenses and he loved the excitement and pleasure of flying, but, if his unit was assigned to combat, he would find a medical excuse to get out of combat, even if he had to injure himself! He told me that while on duty wearing his uniform and name tag. I lost respect for him. He was an empty suit, a fraud, a coward, an imposter, a leach. I seriously considered reporting him, but I did not. He did not belong in the Guard. He was milking the system to his advantage. He never made a genuine commitment to the Guard, to his unit, to his commanders, to the USA. He had no sense of duty. His duty was to himself alone. The USA would never have been born if General George Washington's command during the American Revolutionary War against the British Crown for American independence was composed of men like that California Air National Guard man.



Approximately 1995 I was escorted by a California ANG F-16 fighter pilot at the Fresno ANG base in Fresno, California. My escort, an extremely nice man and a dear friend, had to use the restroom so I waited for him inside a building. As I waited for my escort a handsome athletic man approached me and told me he hoped I would vote to let him join that fighter squadron as a pilot and he told me what were his credentials: He graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy with a degree in engineering and he had thousands of hours in the F-16, including as a F-16 Aggressor pilot, which means he is one of the best. I told him he was impressive but I was a civilian photographer, not a member of the unit, I had no vote, and I was waiting for my escort. I wished him well and told him if I had a vote I would vote to admit him. After that man left two young men in ANG uniforms came out of the room the first man came out of and I overheard them talking among themselves. Here is an accurate summary of what I heard: "How are you going to vote? I am going to vote against him? Why? He is senior to me in rank. He graduated from the Academy with a degree in engineering. I graduated from Fresno State with a degree in sociology. He is a former Aggressor pilot. He is too good! I want to achieve at least the rank of Lt. Col. He is too much competition. I agree. I, too, will vote against him!"



Wow! When my escort came out of the bathroom I told him about what I heard and I asked him if the two ANG men's attitudes were representative of that squadron's mind set? My friend, a Lt. Col, who had flown F-102s, F-106s, F-4IIs, and the F-16, who I experience to be extremely patriotic and duty minded, told me, "No. I don't think so. I hope not." I told my friend that if I was in that unit I would want to go to combat with the best pilots available, and, from what I know and don't know, I would want the former Aggressor pilot and not the two pilots who are in the squadron. My friend said he understood my reasoning and agreed.



Approximately 1992 I talked to the commanding officer of a U.S. Air Force A-10 tank destroyer squadron. I asked him if he was happy with the amount of pay he got? He said, "Yes". He added [paraphrased], "I do not want an overly generous compensation package. I do not want being a military pilot to be lucrative. I do not want the USAF to attract mercenary personalities, who join up for the money, with no true commitment, with no true sense of duty. I want decent pay but not enough to get rich or even comfortable. I want the pay to be low enough so I know what motivates a person who signs up. I want to know that the people in my command are motivated by an abiding sense of patriotic duty and commitment to the country and will do everything humanly possible to accomplish the mission, despite risks to themselves—including their lives, their wealth, their comfort level." I admire that man. I agree with his reasoning.



After 9/11, U.S. Air Force military police assigned to Nellis AFB near Las Vegas, Nevada, outside the outermost perimeter fence of that base, frequently made contact, in uniform, with myself and civilian photographers who were off base, photographing airplanes taking off and landing at Nellis. These military police men asked to see a government issued picture ID and they told us we could not be where we were taking pictures of the planes, so we had to leave. The oppressive attitude of these military policemen varied, but, regardless of how nicely you are told to leave, the result is the same: It is an abuse of power, in excess of their legitimate jurisdiction, in violation of photographers' rights. Some photographers were intimidated and left. I, and others, showed our government issued ID but refused to leave.



Around that time I read an excellent opinion editorial written by a black senior USAF non-commissioned officer published in Nellis' official base newspaper. This man said that anyone who wears the uniform of the USAF is held to high standards and when anyone sees another person wearing that uniform they are entitled to have reasonable certain expectations as to how every person wearing the USAF uniform will and should conduct themselves; therefore, everyone wearing that uniform must conform to those high standards. That USAF non-commissioned officer is 100% correct.



After months of being harassed by USAF military police leaving Nellis AFB and trying to intimidate me and other civilian photographers to leave I started to tell these policemen, "You are wrong. Leave me alone! You wear the USAF uniform. I am an American citizen. I am entitled to have certain reasonable expectations from you because of the uniform you wear. This is still the USA. You are usurping power in contravention of my rights. The Bill of Rights did not go down with the Twin Towers. I will not let Obsama Bin Laden win here, in Nevada, in the continental USA, outside the fence at Nellis AFB. There is nothing secret about the outside of those planes. Leave me alone! Back off! Go away. Stay on your side of the fence. Obey the U.S. Constitution. Stop asserting authority you do not have!"



Some of these military policemen told me they were following orders. I asked them who issued them the order to leave the base and harass civilian photographers off base. They admitted to me it was a USAF officer on duty with the security police. I told these young military policemen that officer lacked actual authority to give them the order he did, he was wrong, and they were wrong to carry it out because it is an unlawful order.



The young policemen told me they understood and agreed with me but they still had to follow their orders! I told them I rejected their double speak twisted logic, they do not have any duty to obey an unlawful order and they should refuse to do so.



Often, the military cops would threatened to call civilian cops if I did not leave. I always dared them to call civilian cops. No civilian cop ever came as a result; however, sometimes, infrequently, even some civilian cops harassed me and other civilian photographers, exceeding their actual authority.



Civilian and military cops who exceeded their actual authority made latent enemies of me and many civilian photographers.



I discussed this Nellis police harassment of civilian photographers off based with one of the best military Public Affairs Officers I know, Michael Estrada, when he was the No. 1 or No. 2 in Nellis AFB's PAO office [Public Affairs Office]. Michael agreed with me that the Air Force police had no jurisdiction off base and they should stop harassing civilian photographers. The harassment continued for so long I did legal research and found a federal court case with a holding I love which I sent to Mr. Estrada. The holding was something like this: He who initiates a chain of events that results in the violation of a person's rights can be legally held liable in money damages for a violation of the person's rights even if they personally did not directly violate the person's rights. I suggested to Mr. Estrada that he share that case with the base legal officer and all of the officers assigned to Security Police. I do not know if I can take credit for it but soon after I shared that case with Mr. Estrada the Air Force security police harassment of civilian photographers off base stopped and never resumed, at least not to my knowledge.



I have zero tolerance for defecating federal income taxes to liberate oppressed foreign people only to suffer being oppressed at home by well intentioned misguided mislead members of my own Armed Forces. Lenny Bucko urged me to fight for my country in my way. I have done my best to do that, within reason, because I have learned if and when I am extremely rigid, even when I am 100% correct, that is a guaranteed way to make enemies, and, sometimes, if a true vital interest is not involved, it is best to be practical and compromise.



A few years ago, when Michael Estrada was the PAO for Nellis AFB, he told me the FBI agent who did the background check on me recommended to Nellis AFB's Base Commander that I be denied access to the base as a media photographer for a base Open House airshow! Mr. Estrada told me the Base Commander asked the FBI agent why he recommended I not be allowed onto the base. The FBI agent said per the Internet I am a big champion of the Second Amendment and individual gun rights. The Base Commander asked that agent what else he had against me, and the FBI agent said nothing. Mr. Estrada told me the USAF Nellis AFB Base Commander approved me!



I urged Mr. Estrada to please tell the Base Commander, on my behalf, may the good Lord bless him, thank him, and, if he ever needs a meal or a bed he can count on me to provide it.



I also urged Mr. Estrada to please tell the FBI agent this: Peter Mancus says: A) Shame on you!; B) Who in hell are you to use against Mr. Mancus his lawful use of his First Amendment rights in support of his Second Amendment rights?; C) Why, in hell, do you dare to punish Mr. Mancus for acting like a free American citizen who dares to use his rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?; D) You—FBI agent—function as a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution; and E) Mr. Mancus invites you to self-fornicate.



I am not, and I will never be a fighter pilot or an attack pilot but, in many ways I have a fighter pilot's mentality, a lot of self confidence, a daring defiant attitude, a strong will to prevail, and a willingness to engage and to be tenacious, to prevail, against all odds.



Around this time I had a conversation with a cerebral wise photographer friend. I told my friend too many Americans do not have the courage of their convictions and an Indian squaw probably had more practical knowledge, more war fighting and survivable skills than the average current American adult civilian male. My friend told me it was worse than that. He said one major problem with too many Americans is that they not only lack courage but they also lack convictions; therefore, they stand for nothing and they do not know what they believe or should believe or why. He called them "Sheeple"—they are gutless human sheep who are easily mislead who will follow anyone who blows smoke up their ass. I agree.



A few years ago I received a juror summons notice. I wrote a 250 plus page letter to the presiding judge objecting to the summons on two grounds: First, since I am a licensed attorney who has taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution I, as a juror, am unwilling to promise to apply to the case, blindly, whatever a trial judge tells me is "the law" because I no longer have confidence in judges and second, I object to being forced to enter a so called "gun free zone", unarmed, knowing that the California Supreme Court has ruled that government and its agents have no legal duty to protect anyone on government property and if anyone on government property is injured or killed by a criminal act they, and their survivors, have no legal or financial recourse against any government or government agent. Thus, I object to being denied my right of lawful self-defense with a weapon, especially since government, by its twisted laws, dares to strip me of my right to defend myself while also denying any duty to defend me or any liability for failing to defend me, after setting me up for plunder, mayhem, or murder. I personally delivered that letter to the presiding judge's chamber.



A few days letter I saw and heard a court officer giving a copy of my letter to members of the court's staff and Sheriff's Office, and this man called my letter "hate mail", which it was not. First of all, I never mailed it, and second, my letter was an extremely intelligent detailed discussion of the Second Amendment pointing out that the government has shuffled the laws like a card shark shuffles a deck.



A few days later a female Secret Service agent, an attorney, called me. She told me that a copy of my letter to the local judge was sent to them for review on the grounds that I might be a threat to then President Bill Clinton. I asked this woman if she agreed with me that I had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination to refuse to talk to her. She agreed with me. I talked to her anyway. I asked her if she read all of my letter to the judge. She said she did. I asked her what she thought of what I wrote and if she considered me to be a threat to President Clinton. She told me learned a lot by reading my letter, she agreed with a lot of what I wrote, she did not consider me to be a threat to President Clinton, she thought I intelligently used my First Amendment right of Free Speech in support of my Second Amendment right, she understood my logic and my objection to being set up for slaughter exacerbated by government being unwilling to assume any legal duty to protect me and unwilling to assume any liability to me if government failed to protect me after denying me the right and the pragmatic means to protect myself, she called me only because her boss ordered her to call me, and, after talking to me, she was convinced I was not a threat to President Clinton, and, therefore, she would close their file regarding me.



Now, ponder those facts. I wrote an excellent 250 plus page objection letter to the local judge, logically objecting to how government had twisted the laws to my detriment. My letter was pejoratively described as "hate mail" and sent to the Secret Service for follow up investigation.



Government agents have a duty to secure citizen's rights, to uphold those rights, but far too many government agents disrespect citizens and their rights, do not give a damn about citizens' rights, and have an extremely callous disregard for citizens' rights and even their lives.



The Generation of 1776 had convictions and a true bottom line and declared, "Give me liberty or give me death." The Generation of 2016, the Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama generation, declares, "Give me X, Y, and Z for free or I will cry." Nothing, however, is free. Someone somewhere did something to make something and just because the government gives it to you for free does not mean there is no cost. Someone some place paid the cost for everything that is falsely misrepresented to be "free".



In May 2016 I finally did something I long wanted to do: I visited the U.S. military cemetery at Normandy, France, and I looked down on the vast beaches were about 3,000 American military men were killed by Germans in World War II on one day—D-Day, 6 June 1944. At that cemetery I saw a quotation inscribed on a wall attributed to a U.S. Army sergeant. This quotation speaks to me, deeply. I agree with it, 100%. Here is a faithful paraphrase of that quotation: "We can build weapons, and we can buy ammunition, but we cannot buy at any price anywhere a hero or pull a hero off an assembly line." I agree, 100%.



I walked among the 9,000 grave markers at that cemetery and I saw the final resting place of many heroes and patriots who shared a common date of death: 6 June 1944.



I am convinced that if America's Founding Fathers and if those dead combat vets could return to life they would shake us hard and demand to know why in hell did we, the current living Americans, allow the USA to become what it has become, what they did not envision, what they did not fight for or die for.



As of July 2016, I increasingly do not recognize the USA that I was born into. I believe this: A) the odds are increasing that there will be a violent rebellion leading to a snarly revolt throughout the USA within my life time arising from insufferable gross civic malpractice by this nation's misleaders, as approved by far too many judicial officers who, as a group, no longer hold government's agents accountable to the real American Constitutional Rule of Law and instead, too often side with government that has slipped its constitutional collar; B) if "taxation without representation" was insufferable to the colonials of the 1776 generation who rebelled against the British Crown, "taxation with representation" in 2016 is not an improvement; C) far too many of the USA's public servants have morphed into functioning as unaccountable public serpents who shuffle the laws like a card shark shuffles a deck, who make a mockery of "due process of law", who arrogantly dish out only that amount of "process" which they deem citizens, who they abuse and treat as unwashed peasants, are arbitrarily due; D) these public serpents function arbitrarily and "arbitrary" is 100% inconsistent with a meaningful true "due process of law"; E) although I understand Hillary Clinton is entitled to a presumption of innocence, based on what the FBI Director said about her, and what former US Department of Justice lawyers have said about her, Hillary Clinton is an unrepentant, arrogant, self-serving, chronic, liar, the head of her own gang—the "Progressive" wing of the Democratic Party, a major domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution, and she should be imprisoned, tried for treason, and perhaps executed for her mishandling of secret documents, which has given aid and comfort to this nation's enemies; F) the federal government's failure to indict Lying Crooked Rotten Hillary convinces me that massive political corruption has reached the highest levels of the U.S. government, Trump is correct—the system is rigged against "We the People", we now have two systems of laws in the USA, one for ordinary citizens who well connected elites despise and treat as unwashed peasants and one for well connected elites; G) this double standard equals no standard, is arbitrary, is dangerous, is a serious wedge that separates citizens from government, and a house divided against itself will not and cannot stand; H) the world's largest, powerful, and potentially greatest force for good is, for lack of a better term, the wide spread armed American citizen composed of citizens born to liberty who have a true bottom line, who will resort to lethal force to overthrow oppression and to restore the real American Constitutional Rule of Law; I) no graduate of any U.S. military academy, no matter how brilliant with strategy and tactics, will devise a strategy to defeat the American unorganized Militia when it finally musters and asserts control to pull the USA back from self-destruction; J) the "Militia" specified in the U.S. Constitution is the People's army, and, if necessary, it will defeat the U.S. Armed Forces who are foolish enough to try to oppose it; K) the "Spirit of 1776" [DO NOT TREAD ON ME!] thrives behind the breastbone and between the ears of many armed feed up U.S. citizens; L) I prefer the Generation of 1776 whose credo was "Give me liberty or give me death." compared to the Generation of 2016 whose chant is "Give me X, Y, and Z for free . . . or I will cry."; M) when society's institutions and judges and political whores fail citizens, when tyranny becomes "legal", when public serpents cite their usurpations as their "authority" for their usurpations, rebellion becomes a moral duty and a legal right arising from the basic "Law of Necessity"; N) citizens should stop functioning as tourist in their own country; O) good citizenship demands hyper vigilance, courage, and holding public serpents accountable because good citizenship requires far more than merely voting every two or four years; P) it is not good to be well adjusted to and accepting of a dysfunctional society or government or both; and Q) Americans in 2016 live in dicey challenging times and they are the ones most directly responsible for their welfare, their security, their future.



The human brain is materially different from the human mind. The brain is the anatomical organ inside a person's head which he or she uses to think, which is analogous to a computer. The mind is society's value input on a person's brain, which is analogous to the person's operating system for his computer. Unfortunately, many people, perhaps a substantially majority, are seriously flawed in the sense that they do not have a well developed mind, they cannot find two brain cells to bang together, they have no original thought, they are infected with the equivalent of viruses [bias, bad data, horrible experiences, etc.], they lack vision, they lack convictions, they are herd animals, they are sheeple, they are gutless, they are selfish, they do not know where they stand on history's time line or what happened before they were born, and they lack enough "RAM", so, when stressed or challenged, they are quick to "crash".



Some of my heroes, or people I admire, are: A) the American Founding Fathers and the colonial Minute Men who dared to stand up to the British Crown and fire upon British Redcoats who King George sent to "redress" their grievances; B) Winston Churchill; C) Gandhi; D) America's fighter aces; E) British Royal Air Force air crew, especially their Battle of Britain fighter pilots; F) America's Medal of Honor winners; G) General George S. Patton; H) Henry Ford; I) Thomas Edison; J) America's pioneers and mountain men; K) civil rights leaders; L) competent lawyers who represented "the damned" or did anything to promote human dignity; M) politicians who function as statesmen and not as political hacks; N) all government officials who do their best to uphold, enforce, respect, take seriously, and secure individual rights secured by the U.S. Constitution; O) cops who function as peace officers and not as indiscriminate law enforcement officers; P) exceptionally talented and accomplished creative people, such as famous composers, musicians, singers, artists, authors and photographers; Q) anyone who is competent, who has a well honed mind capable of critical thought, who is courageous, and who has integrity; R) anyone who reasons competently from and to the U.S. Constitution and who always functions with fidelity to its commands; S) any so called "little guy" who dared to stand on principle against a misguided, misinformed, mean spirited majority determined to function as an oppressive "group think" tyranny of the majority; and T) the U.S. Army commander during the Battle of the Bulge, who, when asked to surrender by a German general during World War II, responded with one word: "Nuts".



People I loathe and despise include: A) racists; B) incompetents; C) psychopaths and anyone who is ruthless and unscrupulous; D) political whores and hacks; E) liars and BS artists; F) cowards; G) bullies; H) frauds; I) cheats; J) traitors; K) moochers; L) authoritarians; M) badge heavy cops or cops who enforce unconstitutional laws; N) statists, O) so called "progressives"; P) anyone who usurps [abuses] their actual authority and asserts "authority" they do not have; Q) useful idiots for statists and "progressives"; R) tyrants; S) tyrant wannabees; T) elitists and anyone who aspires to be or fancies himself to be an elitist; U) hypocrites; V) "sheeple" [any human being who is easily intimidated, follows anyone, and does not have courage to stand up for what they believe because when it comes to values they are like a bucket with gaping holes]; W) socialists and communists; X) anyone with an exaggerated sense of "entitlement"; Y) champions of "gun control" and other utopian pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams; and Z) all domestic and foreign enemies of the U.S. Constitution, especially domestic enemies because they are the enemy within the gate, home grown, heretics who should know better.



As an accident of birth, I am the holder of what is probably the world's most coveted title: U.S. citizen, and for that I am grateful.



Per my understanding of the correct "American Chain of Command", all U.S. citizens are at the top of the "Chain of Command Pyramid", and the higher an elected or appointed official's position in government is, the lower I position them in the Chain of Command because per the real American Constitutional Rule of Law, each of the following statements is true: A) everything is based on the well informed consent of "We the People" because all political and legal power arises from the well consent of the collective body of ordinary citizens; B) power delegated by "We the People" to government and governments' agents is not power surrendered; C) the governments created by the U.S. Constitution were intended to be limited, servant governments; D) all government officials—elected or appointed—are suppose to function as public servants with fidelity to the U.S. Constitution's commands and never function as public serpents; E) if a government official cannot competently trace his or her legal authority back to an express grant of authority in the U.S. Constitution, their claimed authority does not exist.



I will now throw cerebral thunderbolts at some and express virulent politically incorrect opinions which will infuriate those who disagree. I am willing to function as the fresh turd in the party's punchbowl.



1. The USA, compared to all or most of the world's nations, is, arguably, the best nation and Mankind's greatest hope for prosperity, self-determination, advancement, individual freedom and justice.



2. The USA, when measured by the U.S. Constitution's terms, which expressly declares itself to be "the supreme law of the land", is, arguably, a disaster because of this nation's senior civilian gross mis-leadership with the approval, or silence, of a majority of ordinary US citizens.



3. When measured by the U.S. Constitution's terms, the U.S. Federal Government and most of its senior civilian leadership and many of the U.S. Armed Forces, from the end of World War II to date, too often, function, arguably, as the biggest and most serious threat to Mankind, to the world, to foreigners and to U.S. citizens.



4. When measured by what is legal per the U.S. Constitution, much of what the U.S. Federal Government and its agents does is illegal, which makes the U.S. Federal Government an outlaw gang operating under color of law, usurping power.



5. The USA has more domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution than it does foreign ones and these domestic enemies are more of a threat to individual USA citizen's lives, freedom, and liberty than all of this nation's foreign enemies combined.



6. The American effort to liberate oppressed people around the world is often imprudent and triggers serious unintended consequences.



7. There are compelling reasons why the Founding Fathers wisely vested in Congress and only Congress the power to declare war formally.



8. The last time Congress formally declared war was in December 1941, soon after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.



9. When Congress fails to formally declare war but delegates power to a U.S. President to wage war, with or without the approval of the U.S. Supreme Court and/or the United Nations, the USA is not truly committed to war because when that happens American troops are at war while American civilians are shopping at the mall, which means the USA is a house divided against itself, and an enemy only has to wait for the USA to tire of the war and withdraw.



10. Historically, the USA, from 1945 to date, has not militarily decisively won a war and retained or restored the peace, substantially because there was no official Congressional declaration of war, which means U.S. Armed Forces were committed to war without the full support of a majority of civilians, which places them at an extreme disadvantage.



11. Americans, as a whole, instead of sending US Armed Forces overseas to bring about regime change in foreign countries, would be much better off if they stopped letting American political whores drive a political wedge between Americans, splitting us, dividing us, and, "We the People", combine our political power, with a re-dedicated pledge of serious loyalty to the U.S. Constitution's text and commands, as written, not as twisted by political whores and/or as interpreted away by American judges, under color of law.



12. Politically, the real battle is not between Republicans and Democrats of Conservatives and Liberals. Instead, the real battle is between Constitutionalists [those who want the USA to function with fidelity to the U.S. Constitution's text] and everyone else, the Anti-Constitutionalists, among which, the worse are so called "Progressives", who are not "progressive" because they champion bankrupt utopian and/or statists goals, which are unrealistic pipe dreams, detached from reality, and doom to fail because they are ill conceived and unworkable.



13. The real battle is also between statist secular atheists who do not believe in a Christian God, who champion power centered tightly in government, who want all "rights" to derive from government, not a Creator, who hate the idea of "unalienable rights" from God to Mankind, versus Christian Constitutionalists who believe that a Creator—God—is the ultimate source of Freedom, Rights, and Liberty, who want government and officials to obey the U.S. Constitution's commands.



14. Anti-Constitutionalists tend to be atheistic statist progressives who champion big, unlimited government and Constitutionalists tend to Christian champions of a limited, servant government.



15. Statist secular atheists argue, in effect, "God is dead" because they have a self-serving agenda: If "God is dead", NO GOD EQUALS NO ACCOUNTABILITY, and they do not want to be held accountable by the Bible, the Ten Commandments, the U.S. Constitution, and/or the Bill of Rights.



16. Statist secular atheists have an insatiable demand for power, which makes them dangerous.



17. If "God is dead", there are no absolute values, everything is relative, everyone's opinions and values are equal and not binding on anyone, there is no absolute final binding "authority", and anything and everything goes. Reformulated, if God is dead, no man has an ass good enough to sit on another man's back and ride any man into the ground.



18. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is probably correct if limited to "survival of the fittest" and evolution within species, but, Darwin was wrong in two important ways: First, life, in all forms, especially human life, is not a result of random primordial gases and ooze coming together to form a one cell asexual creature that evolved into more complex life forms; and second, while evolution and improvement within a species is valid there is still no credible evidence of evolution between species, namely, one species evolved enough to become an entirely new species.



19. When one remains faithful to a true "scientific attitude of mind", Darwin's Theory of Evolution remains only an unproven theory, one that is impossible to replicate and prove with controlled variables.



20. Thomas Jefferson, author of the July 4th, 1776 Declaration of Independence and third U.S. President, was 100% correct when he opined that American judges are "zappers" destroying, by their court decisions and rulings, the republic that the Founding Fathers created. Sadly, far too many federal and state judges, for over 200 years, have done their best, under color of law, to sabotage the USA and destroy the constitutional framework and pillars of the government the Founding Fathers gave us.



21. The biggest threats to Americans and their liberty and way of life are not foreigners but domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution, especially these threats—as a generalization: American judges who fudge on the law and who spread a lethal version of pseudo junk law bubonic plague; Progressives—political whores like and including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Gavin Newsome, California's current Lt. Governor; cops who blindly enforce any law—including unconstitutional ones; and members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are unduly compliant with unconstitutional orders by Senior Civilian Authority, especially an order to go to war without a formal Congressional declaration of war when there is ample opportunity for a U.S. President to seek and to obtain a formal Congressional declaration of war.



22. The USA is "great", not because of its awesome military or economic power or size but because of its Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, which separates government's powers from citizens' rights and makes government a limited government, not an all powerful, unlimited, arbitrary, cancerous, ruthless, monstrosity.



23. The USA, the US Federal and State Governments, and the American judiciary have taken so many wrong turns this nation is lost, is dysfunctional, is ineffective, is a farce, is a mere shadow of what it once was, no longer appreciates, wants, or admits the truth, and is far too often willing to lie to distort the truth and to circle the wagons to protect Government and its agents against the U.S. Constitution and "We the People".



24. Far too many American officials are deliberately doing their best to deconstruct the USA and morph it into something it was never intended to be.



25. Arguably, the two main, legitimate, honorable, unique, substantial "claims to fame" and moral leadership of the Free World that the USA can make—or use to be able to make—are these: First, in the USA "no man is above the law" is a reality because in the USA there is "equality"—politically and legally, and second, in the USA, there is a real, meaningful, "Due Process of Law".



26. Sadly, thanks to the American judiciary, secular "Progressives" and their Useful Idiots, and far too many myopic and self-serving gutless unprincipled government officials, in the USA, Americans suffer from highly destructive double legal standards: One for the well connected self-anointed Perfumed Princes and Princesses who are treated by the Establishment as if they are above the law, and one for ordinary Unwashed Peasants.



27. As a result of how government officials have shuffled the laws, in 2016, far too many Americans are treated as if they are above the law and unaccountable, there is no assured reliable true "Due Process of Law', and it is often dangerous to get caught daring to exercise in a peaceful non-violent manner a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.



28. Instead of putting a chain around a statue of Sadam, and pulling him and his statue down from power, Americans would have been better off if we pulled down from power approximately 50,000 Federal and State officials, and those who should be pulled down from power include most U.S. Senators and Congressman, many judges and many senior civilian law enforcement officers.



29. Despite what Progressives and atheistic secular statists claim, there are still compelling extremely wise policy reasons for every bright line command in the U.S. Constitution that limits government's powers and guarantees citizens certain rights.



30. I pride myself that I reason correctly and competently from and to these "go to" rules, these "authorities", which function as my "guiding light" and my core rules: 1) The Golden Rule [Due unto others as you would have them due onto you.]; 2) The Bible's Ten Commandments, and 3) The entire U.S. Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, as written, when correctly construed [interpreted and applied], per established "Rules of Constitutional Construction", not how Progressives and Statists twist the U.S. Constitution beyond recognition.



31. "Power" is the ability to obtain a desired result.



32. Politically and legally there is no absolute assured safe place to put "power". The Founding Fathers knew that. Knowing that, the Founding Fathers formed a government that divided "power" among three branches of government [Executive, Congressional, and Judicial], and they guaranteed ordinary citizens the right to keep and bear unregistered firearms.



33. Government officials are forced to treat an armed person as a "citizen" with rights and are free to treat an unarmed person as a piss ant with no rights.



34. Mao was right and shall always be correct: Power comes out of the barrel of a gun.



35. Precisely because Mao was correct Anti-Constitutionalists, Progressives, Liberal Democrats, Tyrants, Tyrant Wannabes, and their Useful Idiots do their best to marginalize privately owned firearms, their owners, the Second Amendment, and want to ban, outlaw, and confiscate all privately owned firearms because they want to strip armed citizens of the pragmatic means to defeat their utopian policies for wealth re-distribution and constriction or elimination of rights codified in the Bill of Rights.



36. An armed citizen who is bold and audacious and serious about retaining his rights retains pragmatic power to enforce his rights, to force government to honor the deal [the Social Compact between Government, Society and Citizens].



37. If you think the USA still has a meaningful Separation of Powers, that in the USA there is still a meaningful Rule of Law, that in the USA "No man is above the law", that in the USA there is still a meaningful "Due Process of Law", and in the USA all judges are honorable, competent, objective and neutral, you are—sadly—wrong.



38. Briefly, here are some reasons why you are wrong if you still believe those things:



1. "Judicial review" means a court takes an active role in reviewing a law or an official's act and, by its ruling, ensures that other branches of government obey the U.S. Constitution and what other branches of government do is constitutional.



2. "Judicial review" is a legitimate duty and prerogative of American judges.



3. "Judicial supremacy" is a doctrine invented by the U.S. Supreme Court and, per that doctrine, the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and the American people, must obey the Judiciary's judgments and rulings.



4. "Judicial supremacy" is seriously flawed: A) it is not expressly authorized by anything in the U.S. Constitution; B) it destroys the concept of divided power, namely, Americans have a system of "Separation of Power" and three equal branches of government; C) it makes judges, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, the ultimate and final legal and political "authority" in the USA; D) it elevates judges to the near functional equivalent of having power akin to a modern version of the alleged "divine right" of old European kings to rule arbitrarily without accountability to anyone; E) it means Americans replaced the tyrannical rule of one English king with the arbitrary tyrannical rule of 9 U.S. Supreme Court judges.



5. U.S. Supreme Court judges are not "supreme" because they are the smartest or the best but only because they are the "end of the line" in terms of appellate judicial review and in that sense, "final".



6. Many American judicial officers are political hacks who secured a judicial appointment arising from their political activity, not from their superior legal competency or proven integrity, and, once these political hacks become judges they function as judicial activists to bend the law per their bias.



7. Judges are mere mortals who put on their pants or skirts like other mere mortals, and, like all mortal human beings, they have their bias, their values, their agendas, and many are willing to be judicial activists and go far beyond interpreting the law and applying the facts of a dispute to the controlling law and rendering a defensible decision based on the law and the facts of the case;



8. Many American judges are borderline power hungry psychopaths if not full fledged psychopaths who usurp power under color of law;



9. Judges have about 20 ways to cheat when deciding a legal case and most excel at putting a plausibly respectable fig leaf on their rulings to try to cover up how they cheated.



10. Many judges like and dislike certain rights in the Bill of Rights and go out of their way to uphold the rights they like and to marginalize or not uphold the rights they dislike.



11. Many judges are Statists with a proven proclivity to side with Government against a citizen's rights, to expand Government's powers, and far too many judges have been siding with Government for over 200 years, expanding Government's powers while constricting citizens' rights.



12. Many American judges no longer treat the U.S. Constitution as the "Supreme Law of the Land" or even as a "law" or "primary authority", binding on them, and, instead, some, including some U.S. Supreme Court judges openly cite foreign law as "authority" or as a consideration entitled to great weight that they believe is a legitimate consideration for how they determine a case. It is inexplicable, however, how a judge sworn to uphold American law can legitimately consider foreign law as any form of binding "authority".



13. The U.S. Supreme Court invented the "Political Question Doctrine" which is a bogus non-meritorious rationale and excuse for it to refuse to accept a case for judicial determination on the grounds that the case is "political" and not "legal", but, the court's decision to refuse to accept a case so it can exercise judicial review of a challenged government action is itself a political action, not a judicial action, a cop out, and a way for the U.S. Supreme Court to not do its job and for the judges to influence the political and legal outcome by avoiding doing its job, by allowing, by default, the challenged political abuse of power to continue, unchecked, which means, without an effective remedy.



14. The U.S. Supreme Court also invented another ill conceived unconstitutional judicial doctrine which makes a sham of the idea that in the USA "No man is above the law", and this is because the U.S. Supreme Court invented the bogus concept of "Absolute Immunity" for everything all American judges do within their "judicial function" even when it can be proven that a judge acted incompetently, unethically, and/or maliciously!



15. Judges argue they need "absolute immunity", even for their alleged "malicious acts", to protect themselves from non-meritorious lawsuits from a disgruntled losing party, but in the USA, "liability", not "immunity from wrongdoing", is the rule and should be the rule, to avoid chaos, to promote competency, to promote justice, to promote safety, to promote fairness.



16. "Absolute immunity" encourages judges to be sloppy, to cut corners, to usurp, to be malicious.



17. "Absolute immunity" attracts and protects psychopaths but it is dangerous to the Rule of Law and to Liberty and citizens' rights for psychopaths to become judicial officers.



18. "Absolute immunity" and the "Political Question Doctrine" are two, among many, non-meritorious rules that the American judiciary invented to rig the system in favor of government and its agents against the U.S. Constitution and "We the People".



19. "Absolute immunity" makes a sham of the First Amendment's Right to Petition government for a redress of grievances.



20. Since the U.S. Constitution codifies a Right to Petition for redress of grievances and since no right in that document should be reduced to a sham, it is axiomatic that "absolute immunity" is a bogus, dangerous, unconstitutional usurpation that must be purged from American Constitutional Rule of Law because no American government official should enjoy absolute immunity for anything, should never be above the law and immune from accountability, and the Right to Petition must be effective because, if it is not, the only remedy is a resort to self-help remedies, including the resort to arms and a violent resolution of a dispute.



21. To exacerbate, U.S. Supreme Court judges have ruled that they are not bound by any Canon of Judicial Ethics!



22. To exacerbate more, when Congress passed a law that said that "any person" who violates person's rights under color of law, they are liable to that person for money damages, the U.S. Supreme Court, without any evidence to support their self-serving opinion, arbitrarily re-wrote that law, in effect, by ruling that Congress must have made a mistake by saying "any person", without carving out an exception for judges; therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court invented an exception for judges to make it easier for judges to violate a person's rights without being held liable! But, judges have no legitimate power to make law. Nevertheless, Congress and no U.S. President have done anything to over rule the U.S. Supreme Court's usurpation and self-serving declaration that Congress made a mistake when it agreed to a proposed law that said "any person".



23. American judicial officers have invented hundreds of procedural rules, such as time limits and page limits and format limits, that must be fully satisfied, before a person can perfect their precious right of appeal, and each of these complicated rules serve as a tripwire to keep an aggrieved citizen from getting appellate review.



24. Many American judges, under color of law, have butchered vital rights codified in the U.S. Bill of Rights, so much so that they, if they were plastic surgeons, would be subject to malpractice liability for the grotesque botched up hideous results they create. For example, given the way many American judges have butchered the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by analogy, what they did, if it were a face lift on a man, here is a graphic representation of what they did to that Amendment, to a figurative man's "face": Instead of merely tightening the sagging wrinkled skin so the Amendment, the "face", is recognizable, they hacked away and the man's belly button is now in the center of his forehead and his penis is where his mouth should be!



25. The U.S. Federal Government's treatment of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, along with the various State Government's treatment of that Amendment, illustrates well how the Federal, State, and Local governments in the USA usurp power and, as a result, forfeit their legitamacy and make a sham out of "Rule of Law" and breed disrespect for the law.



26. The Founding Father's Second Amendment from 1789 reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."



27. Here is a realistic reformulation example of how many domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution who hate the Second Amendment construe [interpret and apply] it: "A government regulated National Guard, being necessary to the security of a free State, the privilege of the people to keep and bear arms, may be infringed to promote the general welfare so government can retain a monopoly on arms, per its absolute discretion."



28. There are, however, serious flaws with this twisted reformulation of the Second Amendment, some of which are: A) There was no National Guard in 1789; B) in 1789 "the Militia" was the ordinary wide spread armed male white American citizenry who kept under their control unregistered firearms owned by them, not registered firearms owned by government kept in an armory; B) the Second says "well regulated", not "government regulated" and "well regulated" means "properly functioning", not "government regulated"; C) it is improper to substitute or add words to promote an agenda or policy choice different from the Founding Father's; D) "right" and "privilege" are materially different and irreconcilable; and E) the Amendment ends with "shall not be infringed." which is an absolute categorical bar to all forms of prior restraint, which makes all "reasonable restrictions" on the codified right to keep and bear arms unconstitutional.



29. "Progressives" hate big chunks of the U.S. Constitution and they want to amend it in improper unconstitutional ways by skipping the formal amendment process.



30. "Progressives" have a common, constant, corrupt, corrosive method that they wage as a cerebral weapon of war to achieve their ill conceived dangerous unconstitutional agenda. I call this method that Progressives use "the 6 P's": 1) they Pervert words to mean something different from what they meant to the Founding Father's generation in 1789, which violates a major rule of Constitutional Construction. For example, they redefine "Militia" as used in the Second Amendment to mean "National Guard"; 2) they Pathologise something that is good, such as the individual right to arms, and claim that that right is bad and dangerous and it must be made subject to more "reasonable restrictions", ignoring the fact that the Second Amendment ends with "shall not be infringed" and once a right is subject to prior restraint it is infringed and is reduced to being a "privilege", which is qualitatively different from "right"; 3) after they Pervert words and Pathologise what was and is healthy, they Publicize their bitch to increase public awareness of the issue they manufacture out of thin air; 4) to gain support they Propagandize and make exaggerated non-meritorious claims that increasingly deviate from the U.S. Constitution's commands; 5) to achieve their goals they Polarize by driving wedges between the American people, pitting one group against another, while claiming they do not do what they do; and 6) they Politicize the damage they did and seek to exploit what they did by doing an end run around the U.S. Constitution's commands.



31. One has to be seriously mentally challenged to embrace most, if not all, of the Progressives' goals and agenda. Here are a few examples of what I mean:



1) since they hate all privately owned firearms and want to ban them and confiscate them so government has a monopoly on firearms [except for criminals], they have made outlandish claims. For example, they have claimed that A) cheap, poorly made "Saturday night special" handguns are the criminals' weapon of choice; B) "assault weapons" are the criminals' weapon of choice; however, all firearms are inanimate objects, made of metal, wood and/or plastic, and the only thing a firearm can do without human intervention is self-destruct via the mechanism of rust. Furthermore, no firearm has ever loaded itself, aimed itself, and pulled its own trigger after forming the intent to commit "an assault"; C) common scoped bolt action hunting rifles have also been marginalized as "sniper rifles"; D) true machine guns are marginalized as "gangster" or "Mafia" weapons or "weapons of war"; and E) big caliber firearms have been banned as possible "anti-airliner" "terrorist weapons".



2) Many Progressives often claim the Second Amendment guarantees only a right to a single shot muzzle loading musket circa the firearm technology of 1789 because the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the progress made in hand held firearms. Per that logic, the First Amendment guarantees "Free Speech" limited to the quill pen and the megaphone and "Freedom of the Press" is limited to a hand cranked printing press; thus, to be consistent, Progressives have no right to TV, radio, the Internet and/or smart phones, and, since airplanes, aircraft carriers, submarines, missiles, unmanned aircraft and satellites, etc., did not exist in 1789 Congress has no authority to authorize money to buy such modern weapons.



3) If the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective" right to arms but not an "individual" right to arms, there is no credible explanation for how a "collective" can have any "right" when each individual person who is part of the "collective" has no right to what the "collective" allegedly has.



4) They claim that the police and fire fighters are "first responders" who respond to a crime scene or public emergency. Wrong! The real "first responders" are, typically, the crime victims who are confronted by the criminal element and are typically forced to respond to the criminal threat unarmed because Progressives have denied them their right to arms and set them up for easy plunder, mayhem and murder.



5) They claim "gun free zones" promote the alleged "general welfare" but criminals seek out "gun free zones" to exploit the advantage they have over unarmed people who were foolish enough to comply with the Progressives' unconstitutional laws. In reality, "gun free zones" are unconstitutional "slaughter zones" or "liberty free zones".



6) Progressives, such as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, are now pandering to gullible naive economically illiterate American citizens by promising them "free" college educations, but, in the real world, some one will get stuck with the bill for that "free" college education, and that someone will be the taxpayer.



7) Progressives who champion same sex marriage love to punish, severely, Christian vendors who do not want to provide services for a same sex couple, out of religious conviction, but, Progressives, zealously seek to punish any one who does not want to association with a same sex couple, which makes a mockery of the vital constitutional Right of Freedom of Association.



8) Progressives typically cannot find two functioning brain cells and bang them together to get a spark, and they cannot count or perceive reality accurately. Instead, they operate in La La Land—a strange world that exists between their ears, detached from reality. For example, Progressives act like this: If they claim a horse has five legs because they count the tail as a leg then the horse has five legs because that is what they claim and they cannot be bothered with the facts that contradict them, including their counting a tail as a leg.



9) Progressives also embrace wealth redistribution, which is pseudo legal robbery under color of law, and they call their theft under color of law "social justice". History proves, however, that socialism works only until they run out of other people's money.



10) Progressives, to get votes, encourage citizens to believe they [citizens] have an "entitlement" to other peoples' money, which reduces government to being a gang operating under color of law.



11) Progressives are not content to subvert only the Second Amendment and to rob Peter to pay Paul under color of law. They have also played fast and loose with the Equal Protection Clause to create and uphold an alleged right to "same sex marriage". However, their reliance on the Equal Protection Clause to justify an alleged right to "same sex marriage" is misplaced. The EPC, properly construed, historically, has been used only to protect extremely similar people who are inherently equal by nature. Logically, it is difficult—if not impossible—to imagine heterosexuals and homosexuals as being "equal" in terms of sexual preference.



12) Progressives cannot find an individual right to firearms despite the stark fact that the Second Amendment codifies that right but they "find" a "right" to same sex marriage, even though that right is not expressly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.



13) Democrats, at their national presidential nominating convention in July 2016, on day one of their convention, claimed the American people have a right to life, liberty and happiness. Their claim is only partly right. What they claim is based on what is stated in the July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence but they perverted what that Declaration states. The second sentence of that Declaration states, " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Democrats in 2016 omitted "the pursuit of". They tweaked that document. In context, Democrats, arguably, now seem to have unwisely assumed an impossible task which is far beyond the legitimate powers or duties of government—namely, the U.S. federal government's "duty" to make all Americans "happy"! That goal is an utopian pipe dream. Furthermore, while the Democrats quoted that Declaration, apparently to exploit citizens' patriotism, the stark truth is the Democrats, by their hatred of the Second Amendment and their incessant advocacy for more and more "gun control", constrict "Liberty" and undermine citizens' rights to "Life" and "Liberty", using the pragmatic means of a loaded firearm under their control, rather than a 911 dispatcher on the other end of a telephone call.



14) Here is a specific example of how judges and Progressive Democrats have devalued Americans' birth rights, the value of U.S. citizenship, and Americans' inalienable right to life and liberty. California has 58 counties. It is my understanding that the Board of Supervisors for all 58 counties have passed local ordinances declaring all county property to be "gun free zones". Thus,if you get a summons for jury duty you, as a summoned citizen, allegedly have a duty to report for jury service on county property, a "gun free zone", without a weapon for self-defense because government officials, sworn to secure your rights, have done the exact opposite. Instead of securing your rights, they, through their unconstitutional "gun free zone" laws, force you to report for jury duty, unarmed and unable to defend yourself. As bad as that is, what they have done is much worse. Believe it or not the California Supreme Court, the highest and final state court in California, has held that even though government can legally require you to report for jury service, unarmed, government also has no duty to protect you from harm and if you are harmed or killed, government and its agents are 100% absolutely immune from liability and you and/or your relatives and survivors and everyone dependent on you has no legal or financial recourse against anyone or any government! In context, the California Supreme Court is a defacto ally of the criminal element and, despite what the Second Amendment states, inexplicably, is unwilling to declare that all county "gun free zones" are unconstitutional and county government cannot have it both ways, namely, cannot strip citizens who have done nothing wrong to forfeit their Second Amendment right to report for jury duty armed and, when government fails to protect citizens government forced to show up, unarmed, government is absolutely immune for failing to protect citizens from harm! When this is how judges and law makers shuffle the laws, why pay taxes? Why should anyone obey them? Who, knowing this, wants to report for jury duty?



15) Believe it or not, even though the Second Amendment, which is part of the secular Supreme Law of the Land, states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", one now deceased [thank God] California Supreme Court judge and four sitting U.S. Supreme Court judges, ruled there is no individual right to a firearm! Inexplicable! Those judges have access to some of the best law libraries in the USA, and, despite that access and their lofty titles, they couldn't find anywhere in any of those law books any legal authority to support a citizen's right to a firearm!



16) When any American judge rules he or she cannot find any controlling legal authority to support an individual right to firearms, if they are sincere, admit their incompetency and should be removed from the bench for that reason.



17) When any American judge rules he or she cannot find any controlling legal authority to support an individual right to firearms, if they are insincere, they should be removed from the bench for being a liar who refuses to apply the law competently because he or she is a judicial activist with an agenda who manifested bad conduct in officer.



18) Believe it or not, a few years ago, a majority of the federal Ninth Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to a single shot muzzle loading musket or a single shot bolt action .22 caliber short rifle, and, since there is no such right, government is free to ban, confiscate, and destroy all privately owned firearms. That court decision was on the books for a few years. However,no government in any of the states subject to the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction tried to confiscate and destroy individually owned firearms. I suppose officials in those jurisdiction understood that any move in that direction would trigger a massive snarly lethal revolt.



19) Ponder the implications and scope of that Ninth Circuit court decision. Per that decision, if a person was an active duty U.S. Marine Corps three star general, well trained in the safe handing and use of small arms, an expert marksman, a fighter ace, a pilot entrusted with a $50 million dollar jet fighter, and the commanding general of a Marine Corps Fighter Wing, responsible for leading thousands of men and women in combat, and responsible for millions, if not a billion or more in budget and/or assets, and responsible for the safe handling of nuclear weapons, per those federal judges, such a true national asset could not be trusted, off duty, with a six shot .38 caliber revolver, to defend his life or her family's life. To exacerbate, those elitist judges singed off on that decision knowing they enjoyed 24/7 armed protection paid for by the US taxpayer, including that hypothetical Marine Corps general. My point is this: The U.S. Constitution and citizens' rights are not safe in the hands of judges. Thomas Jefferson was 100% correct: Judges are "zappers" who constantly undermine the constitutional pillars of our constitutionally limited democratic republic.



20) Ponder this: In May or June 2016, even though the Second Amendment expressly states that ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", the federal Ninth Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee citizens' a right to have a firearm in public! I disagree. The Second Amendment is every citizens' nation wide gun permit, and there is no time-place restriction.



21) Progressives, lawmakers, judges and senior law enforcement officers who hate the Second Amendment, are like an optometrist, who, during your eye exam, tells you the big E faces left when your eyes and brain tell you it faces right! Progressives are wrong, over and over and over. They are deconstructing the USA. They are counter-productive. There is nothing "progressive" about them. They are dangerous. They function as serious threatening domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution. They have slipped their constitutional collar, and they want to pull the levers of government per their unfettered opinions without being hampered by the U.S. Constitution's commands that limit their actual authority.



22) Progressives do not stop at the Second Amendment. Believe it or not, some federal judges have ruled that Congress has the power to impose a 100% confiscatory federal income tax! That means Congress, with the blessings of federal judges, has—arguably—the legal authority to abuse all of us and reduce us to the status of little worker bees, slaves for the government, thanks to public servants who dare to function as public serpents!



23) But it gets worse. Even human life is not sacred and worthy of respect when government enforces the law and circles the wagons to protect government's agents who violate the law. Example: At Ruby Ridge, the F.B.I., inexplicably, changed the "Rules of Engagement", and a Fascist Bully of Intimidation expert marksman, with a scoped rifle, under color of law, placed a well aimed and deliberately fired bullet into the brain of an adult American woman with no criminal record and no charges pending against her who was standing in the door jam of her home, holding one of her children in her arms, and, despite her unalienable right to life, U.S. federal officials allowed that sniper to get away with committing murder under color of law! Since there is no statue of limitations for murder, a U.S. President or a U.S. Attorney General who is serious about upholding the real "Rule of Law" and respect for the law, should file murder charges against that FBI sniper and assign an extremely competent prosecutor to prosecute that charge, to the hilt.



24) The USA in 2016 is ripe with example after example of double standards and gross illogical and illegal deviations from the real American Constitutional Rule of Law. Here are a few examples: A) the USA has numerous so called "sanctuary cities", controlled by Progressives, who, as a practical matter, have seceded from the union, with the blessings, or at least the complicity of, the U.S. Federal Government; B) the F.B.I. Director recently recommended that Hillary Clinton not be indicted for anything arising from how she handled top secret emails in violation of federal law and Secretary of State regulations but a few years ago a F.B.I. agent recommend to the Nellis AFB Base Commander that I be denied media access to Nellis for a base Open House because I have non-violently used my First Amendment free speech rights in support of my Second Amendment rights!



25) A cop in the liberal community of 7,800 people where I live 55 miles north of the Golden Gate told me if he was ordered to go door to door to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding, home owning, taxpayers, if he was respectfully told to leave, without taking any firearms, he would deem those who peacefully resisted him to be "gun nuts", and, if he had to, he would use lethal force to confiscate all firearms because that is his job, his family needs his cop income, he is counting on earning a retirement check, and he can't afford to give his department an excuse to terminate him! I told that cop I was aghast at his mind set and, if he tried to do that, I am supremely confident he would not survive to collect a retirement check because someone would send him to the morgue, prematurely.



26) That cop told me all citizens should always obey what a cop tells them, and, if they disagree, they should take up their disagreement with a judge. When it comes to firearm confiscation, I disagree. When anyone superior to a beat cop orders cops to go door to door to confiscate firearms I no longer trust the judges or anyone in authority above the cops, or the cops who obey an unconstitutional order; hence, I will take it up with the cop, on the spot, including total resistance, including the use of lethal force if necessary. When government officials devalue citizens' rights when they are armed, government officials will devalue citizens even more once they disarm citizens and have made citizens even more vulnerable to their usurpations. Thus, if a cop wants to confiscate firearms he or she had better be prepared to take possession, red hot barrel, first, becomes aimed energized lead will be coming his or her way.



27) A few years ago an attorney I know told me a true story involving himself. This lawyer lives in an up scale Seattle suburb. One day he walked out to retrieve his garbage cans which he saw were tipped over in the middle of the street with garbage loose on the pavement. He suspected a neighbor's delinquent teenage son turned his garbage containers over. As he [the attorney] was in the street beginning to drag his containers back to his property a local cop, patrolling in a police car, ordered him to picked up the garbage. The lawyer ignored the cop and walked back to his home, pulling his empty garbage containers, as he heard the cop get louder and more snarly, barking orders, demanding that he pick up the garbage. The lawyer walked to his car, reached in, and pulled out a commercial made hard wood axe handle without metal on it. When he turned around the cop yelled at him and demanded that he pick up the garbage. The attorney told him, "No!" and demanded the cop leave his property. The cop patted his hand gun, while continuing to order the lawyer to pick up the garbage. The lawyer told the cop: "You, sir, have issued me an unlawful order in excess of your authority. I have no legal duty to obey you. I refuse to obey you. I will not obey you. I am a licensed attorney and a former U.S. Marine Corps Grumman A-6 Intruder all weather attack pilot with over 200 combat missions over North Vietnam. I am not your flunky. You either leave my property now, per my order to you, or you draw your gun. If you draw your gun you better be faster than me because I will crack open your skull and break your arm with this ax handle!" This attorney told me the cop's Adam apple vibrated rapidly, the cop stammered, and sheepishly walked away. I admire and respect what that citizen told that cop. That man manifested courage when he spoke truth to power and, by so doing, manifested his own power when he dared to function as a US citizen, within his rights, armed with an axe handle.



28) I know of ranchers in Northern California who have been snagged in idiotic excessive conflicting government regulation. Example: A rancher kept a large block of salt on a post for his cows to lick, and, as a result of those heavy animals circling around that post for years, their hoofs created an indentation in the soil and rain water collected in those ruts. Government officials told one rancher he had to fill in those ruts to help reduce mosquitoes that breed in standing water but, after he did what he was told to do he was cited by a different part of the same government for destroying an established waterway! Government is out of control and is drunk with power.



29) The IRS has a bizarre regulation, which I think is called something like "Circular 230". Per this IRS rule, before an accountant, a CPA, an Enrolled Agent or an attorney can competently and ethically represent anyone before the IRS or Tax Court, they must satisfy these requirements: A) they have read and mastered the entire 9,000 + page Internal Revenue Code plus thousands of IRS regulations and court cases interpreting that code; B) before they make any argument before the IRS, 1) they must limit their arguments to how the IRS interprets the law [!]; 2) they must be satisfied that, even after they limit their arguments to how the IRS interprets the law, they must believe, with good cause, they have at least a one out of three chance of prevailing; and 3) if they conclude they do not have at least a one out of three chance of prevailing, they cannot competently or ethically make any argument before the IRS and if they violate this rule they are incompetent and unethical! Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the IRS or any part of the Federal Government to set up what amounts to a Bar Association or to determine legal competency or ethical standards for licensed professionals, and, to exacerbate, this IRS regulation conflicts—substantially—with state bar associations which have different standards for competency and ethical behavior, and it is a logical impossibility for a licensed professional to comply with conflicting standards.



If, based on what I have written, you suspect that I prefer Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton, as the next U.S. President, you are correct. I despise Hillary. Cerebrally, I hold her in virulent white hot rage contempt.



I also have serious issues and reservations about Trump. I was flabbergasted when it was discovered that he did not know what the TRIAD is! Amazing. I learned what the TRIAD is about 50 years ago!



Despite my serious reservations about Trump, I support him for several reasons, one of which is this: I think he will do what needs to be done: Some one needs to throw—hard—a well aimed big brick into a hornet's nest, meaning, the status quo, government, the economy, and international relations with allies, shake it up, severely, bring back to the USA meaningful jobs so Americans can be gainfully employed at good paying jobs instead of being dependent on government welfare, revitalize the U.S. Armed Forces, reverse the geriatric aging of U.S. military hardware, and get rid of "absolute immunity" for government officials, including all judicial officers.



When Trump claims the system is rigged against American citizens he is 100% correct.



I suspect Trump is clueless as to how badly the system is rigged against American citizens because, so far, he has not mentioned anything about "absolute immunity" and he has not pledged to do his best to get rid of "absolute immunity".



Everything I said above is intended to put in context what I say next.



On 20 July 2016 I, as a self-employed civilian photographer, was part of an escorted photo tour at NAS Fallon, which is a major U.S. Navy air base 60 miles East of Reno, Nevada. On that day, while on NAS Fallon, I saw something and heard something that, believe it or not, in a nano second, triggered almost everything I wrote above.



While I and the photographer group I was with waited for our U.S. Navy PAO [Public Affairs Officer] escort to make arrangements for a vehicle to take us to the runways so we could photograph Navy airplanes taxing, taking off and landing, I was near a room where air crew kept their flight suits and helmets. The door to that room was open and I could see air crew flight suits and helmets inside that room. Military air crew helmets fascinate me. Many are unique, colorful, have interesting names [Call Signs], art work, bright colors or camouflage colors. They are usually personal to the air crew who wear them. I am certain there is an interesting story behind every "Call Sign" [affectionate pet name, usually one or two syllables, shorter than most real last names.]



I wanted to enter that room to photograph the helmets or stand outside it and photograph the helmets. I did not do so, however. I disciplined myself because I was not authorized to photograph anything inside that room. I did not want to risk the wrath of my escort, an excellent PAO, or any of my fellow photographers, or any Navy person who might challenge me for taking the pictures.



There came a time when our photo escort rejoined us and, as we waited for a driver to bring a transport van to us, to my delight, three uniformed aircrew men came out of that room, and, in front of us, they started to put on their G-suits, which helps to keep blood in their upper body as they pull G's, which makes the blood move away from their brain and to their feet, which could cause a blackout and loss of control of the airplane.



I asked our Navy escort if it was okay for me to photograph these three men. My escort told me to ask the commander.



I asked the commander, one of the three men. The commander smiled an approving smile. The other two men smiled. I started to photograph them.



I was a little surprised that my escort and these three aircrew went along with me photographing them because two of them had their real first and last name on their name tags on their chest and some members of the U.S. military do not want to be photographed with their real names showing because ISIS [radical Muslim terrorists—murders and enemies of the USA and USA Armed Forces] have declared they track down and kill or harm members of the US Armed Forces or their family members or both. I do not want anything bad to happen to these aircrew or their family members. As I took my pictures I knew I would remove their names from their name tags in my digital photo manipulation software.



I photographed these men on a strict not to interfere basis. They were not models subject to my request to take or hold a pose. It appeared they were getting into their flight suits for a scheduled flight, which means they were probably on a time schedule.



As I photographed these men I studied them and how they handled their G-suits, got into it, and tightened it, etc. It was obvious these men knew their equipment. They seemed to be happy, confident, at ease, not worried. Silently, they manifested an air of confidence and contentment arising from their competency, a quality I admire.



As I photographed these men I thought about my life and my decision to pursue becoming a lawyer instead of a U.S. Navy pilot, what Marine Lenny Bucko told me, about the US's problems, about the current presidential campaign, and about my issues with government arising from how I believe government officials usurp power, which I hate.



When the first of these men got done I asked my PAO escort if I could ask one of them a question. My escort gave me the okay.



I approached one of these men, the one wearing the helmet with the word "DADDY" on the protective cloth over his helmet's visor, and I asked DADDY this question [accurate paraphase]: "Sir, I want to ask you a hypothetical question. Assume you have been in the Navy for 19 years and 10 months. You are only 2 months short of being eligible for retirement, eligible to collect a guaranteed retirement check after 20 years of faithful service. You have never been assigned to combat. You are given an option to be assigned to combat but you are warned if you volunteer, the odds are 50-80% you will be killed or captured and severely tortured. Per that hypothetical, what would be your decision and why?"



DADDY, without hesitation or reflection, calmly, with apparent absolute convincing sincerity, without causing any of my bull fecal matter hairs on the back of my neck to twitch, told me the following answer [faithful paraphrase]: "My work is more than a job. It is my calling. It is my duty. If my country needs me for a combat assignment, I would volunteer. The risk of being killed or captured is not a factor. And being so close to retirement is an irrelevant consideration. I am a U.S. Navy pilot. It is my duty. I would volunteer for combat."



I was, and I still am, extremely favorably impressed by what DADDY told me, how he said it, and his reasoning.



I experience DADDY to be a true dedicated, patriotic professional, the epitome of professionalism, with a sincere selfless devotion to duty.



What more could a U.S. President, the Chief of Naval Operations, an Admiral, a Squadron Commander, a fellow pilot, a U.S. citizen, a U.S. taxpayer, ask for beyond what DADDY told me?



Per my core values, DADDY is a credit to himself and to his parents. He is like the stereotypical "John Wayne" heroic, "true blue", character, for real, in the flesh.



DADDY made me feel I stood before a man worthy of extreme respect, a brave man of principle, of deep seated convictions, a true national asset worth more than his weight in gold.



I asked DADDY how did he get his call sign name "DADDY". His voice was low, and I did not hear his answer, so I do not know the history of his call sign. I did hear him say, however, that his DADDY call sign often causes awkward complications when he communicates with senior officers.



I wanted to be respectful of DADDY so I thanked him for his answers, shook his hand, and walked away, appreciative of him and my opportunity to talk to him and to photograph him.



As I walked away from DADDY I knew I had to write this up to put into context why what DADDY told me is important to me.



DADDY is not like the young California Air National Guardsmen F-4 Phantom II RIO who told me he joined the Guard to enjoy flying, earn money to pay for college, and, if his unit was assigned to combat, he would find a medical excuse to avoid combat, even if he had to hurt himself.



DADDY is a true public servant, a dedicated, loyal, committed U.S. Navy pilot.



God knows how much I wish millions of Americans had courage and would do their duty, with conviction and assured steadfastness, like DADDY is willing to do his duty, even at risk to his life and his retirement, in comfort, with a secured paycheck.



Within a few seconds of walking away from DADDY a young female wearing a US Navy uniform approached me. This woman told me she is the Public Affairs Officer for the squadron DADDY is in and she would appreciate it if I forwarded to her my pictures that I took of those three men. I told her, "Sure. Happy to do so. . . . ."



I asked this woman if she heard my question and DADDY's answer. She said "No.", so I told her the facts. She agreed with me that DADDY's answer is professional, and she also said she was a little bit surprised because DADDY is a father with minor age children.



For about 30 minutes I told Fallon's PAO and some photographers in the group about my conversation with DADDY. I was happy to hear the PAO say that my question to DADDY was "excellent", and he agreed that DADDY's answer was superb.



When I checked into a motel room that night I had DADDY on my mind and I shared this story with the motel clerk to get his reaction. This clerk was favorably impressed with how DADDY answered my question.



Here is a complete official squadron Mission Statement for DADDY's assigned squadron: "VAQ-132 WILL PROVIDE DOMINANT AND PERSISTENT AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK TO NAVAL, JOINT AND COALITION FORCES WHEREVER AND WHENEVER CALLED UPON IN ORDER TO DETER AGGRESSION AND CONDUCT DECISIVE COMBAT OPERATION AGAINST THE ENEMY. WAR FIGHTING FIRST, OPERATE FORWARD, BE READY."



Ponder that mission statement. Think carefully. What do you get out of it?



I am not an expert on VAQ-132 or the type of plane used by that squadron, namely, Boeing's EA-18G Growler. However, here is a summary of what I know or believe to be correct: A) The EA-18G is a twin engine supersonic capable two man crew [pilot and EWO (Electronic Warfare Officer)], advanced airborne, aircraft carrier capable, electronic attack aircraft, a variant of Boeing's combat proven F/A-18F Super Hornet jet fighter; B) the EA-18G is an elite, capable, electronic attack aircraft that helps to save friendly aircrew and aircraft by suppressing enemy ground-to-air defenses by electronically jamming enemy radar so enemy weapon systems cannot detect and see on their radar the EA-18G or friendly aircraft in an attack package of airplanes proceeding to a target; C) if enemy radar is jammed their radar guided ground-to-air missiles are, in effect, "blind", and the enemy cannot track or shoot down what they cannot see; D) if I am correct, and I suspect I am, if a Growler crew cannot jam an enemy's radar a Growler crew has weapons they can fire at the enemy to destroy their radar and nearby ground-to-air anti-aircraft guided missile; and E) it the enemy fires one or more guided missiles at a Growler the Growler pilot has to manifest superb flying skills to avoid being hit.



VAQ-132's official nick name is "Scorpion", which is appropriate because they are equipped to "sting" the enemy painfully.



Per VAQ-132's Mission Statement, here is the bottom line: DADDY and all VAQ-132 aircrew have a vital, challenging, serious, complex mission which requires them to maintain well honed assured proficiency and be forward deployed, away from home and family, for months at a time, close to harm or in harm's way, literally, and potentially, often.



VAQ-132's aircrew are active duty. They are a key part of the U.S. Navy's varsity team, among the best of the best. They are the tip of the spear for tactical warfare. They are true national assets worth more than their weight in gold.



It infuriates me that Progressives, many lawmakers, many federal and state judges, and many senior law enforcement officials refuse to acknowledge that DADDY and his wife, and all of DADDY's squadron mates, and their spouses, per how I construe the Second Amendment, which is the only correct construction, have an absolute right to an unregistered privately owned firearm for their self-defense, for their defense of their loved ones, and for their defense of their community, even when those members of the U.S. Armed Forces are off duty and not required by their job to be armed.



DADDY is an EA-18G Growler pilot. He is trusted to fly a jet that probably cost approximately $50 million USD. The US taxpayer and the US Navy probably have approximately $1.5 to $3.0 million USD invested in his training. DADDY is not easily replaced. Pilots like DADDY do not come off an assembly line. DADDY is a true national asset. In many ways, DADDY is, arguably, more important to the USA's national security than the federal judges of the Ninth Circuit who have ruled that no one in the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction has a right to a firearm in a public place.



Cerebrally, those Ninth Circuit judges and all government officials who agree with them or who champion "reasonable restriction" "gun control" make me puke. I invite them to self fornicate.



I am confident if I could engage any of these judges, or any Progressive, including Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, in a formal or informal debate or discussion about anything I said in this document, I would excoriate any them, with ease because the law and the facts and the constitutional text support me, not them, and I know what are the Rules of Constitutional Construction, how to apply them, I do not hold any of them in esteem, and I am audacious enough to treat them with derision and put a spotlight on them, exposing them for the flaws in their cerebral armor and pseudo intellectual junk arguments in contravention of the U.S. Constitution's commands.



If Hillary Clinton is elected the next U.S. President I suspect the odds are high she will make a serious miscalculation regarding more attempted "gun control" and her gross civic malpractice will probably trigger a major armed snarly revolt.



Only a damn fool, a damn domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution, or a damn foreign enemy attempting to occupy the USA would try to disarm the American citizenry.



Do you know a logical test to tell if "the ruler" is good or? Answer: Object to their usurpations. Tell them why you object, why what the leader is doing is illegal and ill advised, and tell them what you want them to do to comply with the law and to respect your rights. Wait to see what the ruler does. If the ruler persists with his or her usurpations, he or she is bad and forfeits his or her legitimacy and is worthy of virulent contempt. If he or she modifies his or her behavior, complies with the U.S. Constitution's commands, respects, upholds, and secures your rights, and treats you with dignity, as a citizen, the leader is good and wise. A good, wise person is amenable to and appreciates correction and recognizes and appreciates wise advice.



I hope what I wrote here makes Progressives and all judges and government officials who hate the Second Amendment squirm. Government officials have a law imposed duty to secure and to uphold citizen's rights, not to dilute them, constrict them, suspend them, or eliminate them.



I also hope what I wrote here helps to build an unbreakable bond between the U.S. Armed Forces and ordinary American civilian citizens, united in deep appreciation for each other, with a renewed commitment to function with steadfast fidelity to the U.S. Constitution's commands, the Constitution's text, as written, not as explained away or perverted by many with an agenda.



All reasonably constituted people can agree that DADDY and people like him are impressive, are worthy of respect, do dangerous work, and are important to this nation's security and way of life. However, while I have no desire to take anything away from DADDY or others similarly situated, in one narrow way, I contend that DADDY's chosen work as a military pilot, even if he was in combat against a first rate dedicated foe, has a relatively easy job!



Here is my reasoning: DADDY has the comfort of knowing what are the Physical Laws of Nature, and he knows they are constant and he can count on them being constant. An American lawyer, walking into a courtroom, does not have to worry about flying over a shark infested ocean and risking a flameout, or having a mid-air collision with an enemy's missile, or being shot down by an enemy pilot, or having to eject over enemy territory and being captured and killed or tortured, and does not have to worry about flying into a mountain at night or in bad weather. An American lawyer, however, especially one who reasons competently to and from the U.S. Constitution, arguably, has to contend with a snarly foe—ones more dangerous than any enemy DADDY might encounter. This is because American lawyers far too often have to contend with American judges who are snarly, devious, and bias riddled, quick to impose unwarranted oppressive sanctions against any lawyer who dares to oppose their usurpations, who challenges how they turn their courtroom into a hostile work place, where the real controlling American Constitutional Rule of Law means nothing to the judge.



DADDY could not do his work well if the Physical Laws of Nature became erratic and unpredictable. Ditto, by analogy, an American lawyer cannot perform well when American judges and law makers shuffle laws like a card shark shuffles a deck and declare the law to be the opposite of what it really is!



Americans in 2016 need to go in a different direction, roll back usurpations, take back their country, and demand that government and its agents obey the U.S. Constitution and secure citizens' rights.



I like the USA's national flag, Old Glory; however, I wish Americans had a different national flag, namely, the colonial rebel's coiled snake "DON'T TREAT ON ME" flag. That flag would serve as an excellent reminder of the USA's roots and as a blunt reminder to government officials who contemplate usurpations.



I loathe homicide. However, when I ponder the cumulative toll of how public serpents in the USA have deconstructed the USA and morphed it into a country I no longer recognize, I agree with a quotation attributed to Napoleon: "Sweet is the smell of my dead rotting enemy."
Powered by SmugMug Log In