Also, check out Sean Parnell’s gripping firsthand account of these warriors in the book Outlaw Platoon! It’s out on paperback, but I highly recommend you get the hard cover. You won’t be able to put it down.

Sommers is a member of the Army band who is currently facing Article 15 punishment for expressing his personal opinion about current events and politicians. Like most Soldiers, MSG Sommers has opinions about the state of our country and the reasons it is in disarray. But, MSG Sommers isn’t a military blogger so what does that have to do anything?

The pinnacle of military blogs was about the 2006-2008 time period. Troops were encouraged to share their Army stories and talk about their life. In fact, prior to about 2009, Army leadership understood that not every story will be a glowing account of how great military service is. “People will always have something bad to say, but we take the good with the bad and trust the truth will come out. Sometimes it’s not pretty, but we’ve learned that most of the time it is,” said then-LTC Kevin Arata.

And he was right. The majority of stories coming from bloggers were positive because the military was a great place to be. We loved serving our country and believed in the things for which we were fighting.

However, in 2009, something changed. Leaders stopped supporting troops if they were critical in their blogs of anything. It got to the point – at least for me – where the Army wanted to literally censor what I could and couldn’t say. I had to run my blog posts through legal and public affairs channels before I could post them. Anything critical was immediately denied. Writing about military life became harder than actually living it.

Since 2009, the number of active duty troops that blogged openly plummeted. It wasn’t because we didn’t have anything to write about. It was because leaders at all levels began coming down on bloggers. There was a feeling of impending doom as if suddenly everything had to smell like roses or it shouldn’t be published. Many military bloggers, like myself, morphed into talking about current events.

Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 was a baseline document that recognized the rights of troops to have opinions on political topics. It recognizes that troops may “express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.” It also expressly states that it’s okay to “display a political bumper sticker on the member’s private vehicle.” In other words, we didn’t sign away our rights guaranteed under the First Amendment just because we volunteered to wear the uniform. AR 600-20, Army Command Policy, spells this out almost verbatim for Soldiers.

While the military was once heavily in favor of protecting the right of its military members to express its opinions, it now seeks to silence them completely. Troops can’t write about military life or express political opinions about politicians and issues. The tide has turned and people like Master Sergeant Nathan Sommers are paying the price for the politically correct atmosphere that is plaguing our military today.

In my daily Army Times news rollup, I saw an article titled “Odierno to leaders: We have lost Soldiers’ trust.” I thought, “wow, we’re starting to admit that leaders have lost touch with the troops.” The article focused on sexual assaults, which are out of control in our Army, but I was saddened that it didn’t touch on other issues that have caused troops to lose trust in their leadership.

I remember a day when the Army would punish those that screwed up and would openly support those that were wronged. 15 years ago, if I were treated the way the Temple Police Department treated me on March 16, there would be Army leaders standing up for me. Instead, troops are automatically vilified before even getting a day in court and subjected to half-assed investigations that are slanted towards a pre-determined outcome. And career Soldiers who have had a successful career are exposed to these biases and treated to sanctioned oppression as in the case of Sommers.

Army documents obtained by Fox News indicate Sommers was told that his actions bordered on being disrespectful to President Obama and the “slightest inference of disrespect towards superiors can have a demoralizing effect on the unit.”

“You should strive to express your opinion while being aware of the overall ramifications of your statements,” the Army noted.

Sommers’ troubles began last April when he was told to remove pro-Republican, anti-Obama bumper stickers that were on his privately owned car.

The stickers read: “Political Dissent is NOT Racism,” “NOBAMA,” NOPE2012” and “The Road to Bankruptcy is Paved with Ass-Fault.” That sticker included the image of a donkey.

His superior officer told the solider that the bumper stickers were creating “unnecessary workplace tension.”

“The types of stickers on your car were creating an atmosphere detrimental to morale and were creating unnecessary workplace tension,” the officer wrote in an Army document obtained by Fox News. “A Soldier must balance their personal feelings with the mission of the U.S. Army. Even the slightest inference of disrespect towards superiors can have a demoralizing effect on the unit.”

Attorney Wells said once he got involved, the military backed off of filing a formal reprimand.

About 18 months ago, I was formally counseled for discussing politically sensitive topics on my Facebook page. After being censored, I was again counseled for using this photo as my profile image.

It’s gotten so bad that leaders are actually sending out emails openly restricting troops’ rights to express their opinions on issues of national importance on their personal Facebook pages and blogs.

Soldiers using social media should avoid comments on gun control, Democrats, President Barack Obama or personal opinions about state and federal government, according to an email sent to an Alabama National Guard member and covered on the Military Times blog Outside the Wire.

The email was sent from a first sergeant to a member of the Alabama National Guard in January but only recently forwarded to Military Times. With the subject line “Social Networking,” the email offers what it says are dos for posting (saying happy birthday to a friend, for example) and don’ts (political commentary of just about any type.)

Where have all the milblogs gone? They’ve been banned and any dissenting thought censored. It’s a sad day when troops are denied the rights that they are currently fighting and dying to protect. You can talk about gay marriage – as long as you support it. You can talk about President Obama – as long as you praise him. You can talk about the NSA collection of millions of innocent Americans’ phone records in violation of the 4th Amendment – actually, no you can’t.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any government agency or military unit.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

Every government body in this country – from the federal government to local school boards – operates at the whim of the people. In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers rightly noted that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This consent does not extend to those who are elected to the offices in which they serve. It extends to every single government agency, department, and service. And, yes, it even extends to the police forces.

Last weekend, a group from Dallas – DontComply.com – organized the Come and Take It Temple rally. The event was attended by as many as 420 people at its height and averaged about 275, not counting the police officers. Most attendees were armed with openly carried rifles or shotguns, which is legal in Texas. The event was designed to draw attention to the fact that it isn’t against the law to openly carry these firearms so long as it’s not done “in a manner calculated to cause alarm.” Court precedent shows that this section of the Disorderly Conduct statute in the Texas Penal Code refers to pointing at or threatening people with the firearm. Mere possession of a weapon does NOT constitute “a manner calculated to cause alarm.”

The event highlighted what I think has become a major rift in trust between the police and the community they service. According to Cpl. Chris Wilcox, the Temple Police Department only had 44 officers dedicated to the rally. He went on to justify that number as the same used for the annual Bloomin’ Temple Festival. BUZZ!! Wrong! I’ve been to the Bloomin’ Temple Festival and I’ve NEVER seen the kind of police presence there that I saw on June 1st. Maybe there were 44 officers dedicated to a single block, but to try and get away with saying only 44 officers were used is not just a lie, but a grossly disrespectful way of speaking to the community.

I have sources within the PD that told me every officer was called into duty on June 1st, the day of the rally. The police department also had the SWAT or tactical team on standby all geared up for the duration of the event. There were snipes, spotters, and photographers on the roofs of the police station and downtown federal building. There were officers on foot, on bikes, in marked cars, and in unmarked cars. There were also plain-clothed cops, detectives and agents they sprinkled into the group (they were easy to pick out). And in addition to the police officers, agents from the BATFE and FBI were on hand to monitor our peaceful demonstration as well (I personally recognized one FBI agent).

Police officers, along with federal agents, lined the roof of the Temple Police Department building.

George Washington once said that “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” The Temple Police Department was in full force that day. For a city that our previous mayor called “pro-gun” I found it the height of hypocrisy that so many police officers were on hand to control the masses of peaceful gun owners. I’ve been to open carry rallies in Austin that didn’t have that many police officers on hand. It was just really embarrassing and I’m highly disappointed in our city and police leadership for wasting so many resources that day.

After the event, I got to wondering why the police department has become so anti-gun so I submitted an open records request for the Temple Police Department General Orders Manual (GOM). The GOM is equivalent to what we in the military call an SOP (standard operating procedures). Last week, I finally got a copy of it and finished reading through it on Friday. What I found was quite shocking.

The first thing that jumped out at me was the “Philosophy of the Temple Police Department.” According to the document, “the basic goal of the Temple Police Department is to protect life, property and to preserve the peace in a manner consistent with the freedoms secured by the Constitution.” [emphasis mine] It continues to say that “knowledge of the law and the ability to understand those ideals the law is designed to accomplish is the cornerstone of law enforcement. Compassion and discretion will play an important role within the philosophy of a law enforcement officer.”

Officer Steve Ermis and Sergeant Thomas Menix must not have read this chapter of their manual. When Officer Ermis stopped my son and I on the side of the road back on March 16 while we were hiking down largely empty country roads, the first thing he did grab my weapon – my property – without asking. I remained calm as he asked me what we were doing and why I was carrying a rifle. I even remained calm when he tried to take my personal property without asking or warning. But, when I asked him why he was disarming me he immediately stomped down on my foot, aimed his service pistol at my head, and threw me into the hood of his patrol unit. That’s when I got heated and turned my camera on.

Nothing in that encounter seemed consistent with the “freedoms secured by the Constitution.” Perhaps the authors of the GOM were only referring to the Constitution before amendments were attached. For the rest of this post, it’s important to watch my video again. This video comprises the every second of recording my son and I got on the road that day. It is not edited in any way either at the beginning, anywhere in the middle, or at the end.

According to the Temple Police Departments GOM, there are three kinds of duty-related contacts between officers and citizens: interviews, stops, and arrests.

Interviews are what officers use to engage the community “in order to gain a more thorough knowledge, and become an integral part of, their assigned districts and community.” These are important and necessary elements to gaining the public trust and confidence. If the only contact a police force has with the community is when they are affecting an arrest or writing a ticket, they separate themselves from those they are tasked to serve. Officers are encouraged to engage the public in a “conversational and not confrontational” manner when conducting these interviews. The manual makes clear that interviews are not stops or arrests and that citizens have the right to “fail to respond to the officer, refuse to identify himself, and walk away from the officer.” There is no requirement for someone to speak to an officer if they are not accused of a crime or a potential witness to a crime.

I hear all the time that had I just done what I was told I would never have been arrested and would have been on my way in five minutes. My critics say that since I didn’t satisfactorily answer the officer’s questions, he had every right to think I was up to something. However, that isn’t what the GOM says: “Negative inferences shall not be made based on a citizen’s refusal to cooperate in the interview.”

I’m sure there are some saying that since they were responding to a call for service the interaction can’t be considered an interview. It was a stop. Really? From the GOM:

Stops are “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment. An officer may stop and question a person when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in past, present or future criminal activity. [emphasis not mine]

The question then becomes, what is reasonable suspicion? In State of Texas v Hernandez, the court found that “the officer in light of his experience and general knowledge had specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts would reasonably warrant the intrusion on the freedom of the person stopped for further investigation” is what constitutes reasonable suspicion. Officer Ermis is a 25-year veteran of police work in the State of Texas. He is also co-founder of Deuce Tactical, a small gun store and instructor of CHL licenses. So, it’s rational to say that the officer had a working knowledge of Texas laws regarding firearms.

As the officer approached me from behind, it was obvious that I wasn’t engaged in illegal activity and, as there were no calls of crimes in the area, there was no reason to believe I had done anything illegal. In order for the officer to effect a legal stop, “the totality of the circumstances – the whole picture – must be taken into account. Based on that whole picture the detaining officer must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity.” This is a quote directly from the GOM of Supreme Court caselaw U.S. v Cortez. IT’S IN THE MANUAL! It even goes on to say that the officer “must be aware of specific suspicious conduct or circumstances to justify the stop.”

There is nothing suspicious about walking through the country with a rifle or shotgun. I even spoke to a guy at the Come and Take It Temple rally that lived on the road on which I was arrested. He said he instantly recognized where I was arrested because he lived 3/4 of a mile down the road. He found it odd that the officer did what he did because he frequently walks down that same road WITH A RIFLE and never had any problems. He even told me the only rifles he has are ARs, just like mine. He also confirmed the presence of feral hogs and coyotes in the area. So, a man walking with his son in that particular area of the country where I was stopped was not out of the ordinary, suspicious, or even curious.

At one point in the video, Sergeant Menix tells me that I’m required to identify myself and provide my CHL. The GOM says “officers should be familiar with Penal Code Section 38.02. A person is not required to identify himself unless he is under arrest.” Government Code Section 411.205 says “if a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license…and the license holder’s handgun license.” Let me be clear about this: AT NO TIME WAS I ASKED FOR IDENTIFICATION UNTIL I WAS ALREADY IN HANDCUFFS. And since I wasn’t under arrest, according to PC Section 38.02, I didn’t have to provide identification. If I don’t have to provide identification, I don’t have to display my CHL. Granted, I would have provided ID and CHL if it were asked of me, but I was not asked.

Finally, if the officer had made a legal stop, he was required to release me as soon as I “eliminate the officer’s reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement.” This would have happened the minute the officer asked me what we were doing and I told him we were hiking. This would have been evident by the hiking boots, cambelback and water containers we had with us that morning.

As I was trying to explain to the officers that they can’t just drive around disarming people with guns unless they were doing something threatening, Officer Ermis strikingly suggested, “Oh, I felt threatened.” The fact the officer exited his vehicle and approached me without his gun drawn aside, this statement is laughable on its face. The General Orders Manual states, “reasonable suspicion for a valid frisk is more than a vague hunch and less than probable cause…An officer who conducts a frisk must be prepared to articulate the specific factors which gave him ‘reasonable suspicion’ that he was in danger.” This statement summarizes the SCOTUS opinion in Terry v Ohio. The manual further clarifies, “a mere statement that the officer feared for his safety is not sufficient.” [emphasis not mine]

At the point where the officer placed me in handcuffs, I was technically “under arrest.” The GOM cautions officers, “in order to arrest, there must exist facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable, cautious and prudent person to believe a crime has been committed. This is most frequently called ‘probable cause’”. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure defines “arrest” this way: “A person is arrested when he has been actually placed under restraint or taken into custody by an officer or person executing a warrant of arrest, or by an officer or person arresting without a warrant.” [emphasis mine]

To bring everything back full circle, the moment I was placed in handcuffs I was legally under arrest. However, in order to effect an arrest, there must be probable cause. In order to have probable cause, there must be “facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable, cautious and prudent person to believe a crime has been committed.” In order for those facts and circumstances to be present, there should have been a crime. What was that crime?

“An officer must be faithful to his oath of office, the principles of ethical police service and the objectives of the Department…The public demands that the integrity of its law enforcement employees be above reproach, and the dishonesty of a single employee may impair public confidence and cast suspicion upon the entire Department…An employee must scrupulously avoid any conduct which might compromise the integrity of himself, his fellow employees or the Department.”

This was taken directly out of the Code of Conduct in Chapter 301 of the Temple Police Department GOM. The following is part of an affidavit for probable cause that was submitted and sworn by Officer Steve Ermis in reference to my arrest. It was sent to me by a watchdog group that obtained it through the Open Records Act. It may be difficult to read, so I’ll transcribe it below.

I wrote about the dishonesty of the TPD over a month ago. At the time, I was surprised that I would still be facing false charges over a month later. Now, another month and a half has gone by and it appears that these dishonest officers are still donning the uniform they have already soiled with their false oaths and fraudulent reports.

Ermis’ report states that “as Officer Ermis approached the subject the subject began to become angry and irate and yelling that he had broken no law and officer was not going to take his gun.” He goes on to accuse me of “moving his hands around rapidly and in front of his chest area where the loaded rifle was. As officer Ermis reached to control the loaded rifle the subject at this point started physically trying to pull back from Officer Ermis attempting to keep officer Ermis from taking the rifle or physically maintaining control of the subject.”

This is an abject, unadulterated lie. “The public demands that the integrity of its law enforcement employees be above reproach.”

What boggles my mind is that I was there when I was arrested. Officer Ermis was there when he arrested me. Yet, this write up couldn’t be further from the truth and reality of what happened that day. I’m actually a little surprised that the County keeps moving forward with this case in spite of having watched (I assume) the evidence. I’m sure that the daschcam footage shows what really happened to me that day. I’m sure it shows that there was no “yelling that I had broken no law.” It shows that I wasn’t moving my hands rapidly in front my chest – or anywhere for that matter. I know that it will show that when officer Ermis grabbed my rifle, my hands remained calmly at my side and that there was no “skirmish,” as CPL Chris Wilcox reported to the Temple Daily Telegram.

And yet, this charade continues to cost me legal fees and the citizens of Bell County tax dollars. And who knows who else is in jail or now has a record because some TPD officers have lost their way and forgotten their Code of Ethics. Let me remind them:

As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice.

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession…law enforcement.

The fact that Chief of Police Gary Smith allows these officers to wear the uniform is reason enough that he needs to go. The fact that leaders between him and Officer Ermis cover for these lies highlights that our City Council must immediately do a cleaning of the house. There is a trust deficit in this city between the citizens and our police department. Notice I said “our police department” and not “the police department.” When officers consciously go out of their way and forget they are charged “to protect the innocent against deception” and instead actively engage in that deception, I would argue that those officers have lost their authority to act under the color of authority.

I am going to preface this review with a bit of personal information so you can understand the impact of the book upon me. I am not a big person on history, battles, things of that nature. It’s not that I don’t know the basics, it’s just that there are some people who are fascinated by historical context, hallmark moments, amazing men or women who have an impact on the world. I am not one of those people. You may think I’m shallow, but it’s more that I prefer to live in the present, while acknowledging the past without delving too deeply into the details, if that makes sense.

Having said that, I was offered the opportunity to review “American Gun,” by Chris Kyle with William Doyle, and I was a little cautious about accepting the offer. I hate having free review copies sent to me if it turns out that I don’t have a lot of interest in the subject. It seems shady to do that (especially if I quit reading and never complete a review) and so I wasn’t sure if this is something I would read. I was so wrong.

“American Gun” is so easy, fun, and enlightening!!

Chris Kyle weaves the history of America and the history of guns seemlessly, and if you know any southern style storytellers, you will completely appreciate his mixing of casual commentary and historical information. He has funny anecdotes of key figures, such as Abraham Lincoln.

Another time, Lincoln showed up at a target practice for the 2nd U.S. Sharpshooters, one of the few specialized Union marksmen units. He borrowed a rifle from one of the surprised soldiers in Company F and scored three good shots as the men whooped and hollered. A witness reported that Lincoln “handled the rifle like a veteran marksman, in a highly succesful manner, to the great delight of the many soldiers and civilians surrounding.”

“Boys,” said the President to the cheering troops, “this reminds me of old-time shooting!” Now, that’s a commander in chief any combat vet would be proud to serve.

And in another section, about the Colt Peacemaker, Kyle shares:

Probably just as important on the frontier and range, the weapon could take a beatin’ and still kick ass. “Sometimes a bad horse would blow up and send my Colt doing fart-knockers across the prairie,” said one old-time cowboy from Montana. “I’d just blow the dust off of it and shove it back in the holster. It was the only handgun you could trust that way.”

As he goes through the 10 guns that he believes had a major impact on American history, Kyle ties in each weapon’s history to the next weapon, going into the history of the arms makers, writing about how the weapon came about and how it was introduced to the public, usually through timely use in battles and word of mouth on the merits of the gun.

He analyzes different battles or uses of the guns and the effects. From the Revolutionary War to the Wild West, from Vietnam to Iraq, he gives us stories and uses of the weapons, including other, similar guns that appeared concurrently. Kyle’s writing style and “voice,” as it were, are so familiar to people who have ever been around military men. The admiration, the occasional “badass” thrown in, the humor…they are all very much a part of this book and I loved it.

This book is well worth your money and time. I was so worried that I would be bored or overwhelmed at too many tiny details but this book is the opposite. It is exciting and funny and has so much information that is interesting. I recommend it highly to anyone who has interests in either firearms or history. The book releases tomorrow, 6/4/2013, so get thee to a bookstore or buy it online at one of the major online book outlets. You won’t be disappointed, I promise.

As a footnote, I am terribly saddened that this man, who was not only a superb military man, patriot, husband, father, and writer was lost to senseless violence, his writing voice is also now lost to America. RIP Chris Kyle, thank you for a great final work of art.

Two weeks ago, the judge that was supposed to hear my case, John Mischtian, recused himself suddenly and a judge from Houston was brought in. Because of this, we assumed that the timeline of our trial could potentially be moved to as early as next week. We are not ready to defend our case next week and asked for the continuance. Had Judge Mischtian not recused himself, we would have expected a case date around mid- to late-August.

There are a lot of weird things happening in this case that confuse the heck out of me. First of all, the prosecutor, Mark Danford, asked for and received a gag order on the dashcam footage. This is odd considering this is a Class B misdemeanor case. The county and city of Temple is claiming that release of the footage would open up witnesses to potential intimidation. The problem is that there aren’t any witnesses. The only people on the scene when I was arrested were me, my son, and the officers. Since neither my son, my wife, nor I object to the release of the footage, the only other “witnesses” were the officers.

The fact is that the county and city of Temple don’t want the dashcam footage released because it’s extremely damaging to the integrity and reputation of the department. They’ve invested themselves in blatant lies about what happened that day. TPD officers have been going around Temple defaming me and seeding potential jurors with misinformation about the case. I know this because I’ve had numerous people (including TPD officers) tell me so.

For those that haven’t been following my case, here’s a quick primer about the lies that TPD has been telling and the truth to back it up. I have said all along that I didn’t escalate the situation and it’s obvious that the dashcam footage could only serve to support that. After all, I was there on the side of the road. I don’t need a dashcam to tell me what happened, but I think the people are entitled to know what probable cause was used to violate my civil rights when I was falsely arrested on March 16, 2013, while hiking with my son.

I’ve already written about some of this, but I wanted to provide another summary.

Police claim: TPD “approached Grisham and told him to set down the loaded rifle that was slung across his chest so the two could talk.”
Truth: Officer Steve Ermis never asked me to set down my rifle. He never told me to set down my rifle. He never insinuated that I set down my rifle. At no time, did Ermis make any indication that I was to put my rifle down. In fact, as Ermis approached me upon first contact the only thing he told me was “don’t you be touching it,” referring to my rifle. This was in response to me asking him how his day was as he exited the vehicle. Hardly the greeting of a hostile individual. I had also immediately placed my hands to my side, away from the weapon, when he got out of his vehicle to put him at ease. Again, not exactly the actions of a hostile person.

Police claim: I “became very irate and angry and yelled at the officer he was not going to take his gun.”
Truth: I didn’t become angry and irate until the officer drew his pistol on me and slammed his foot down on mine after trying to steal my firearm without notice. He then immediately threw me onto the hood of the car in spite of me not touching my rifle and having my hands in the air. By the way, he pointed his loaded pistol into the back of my head as he violently escalated the situation. I was very calm and responded evenly to his questions prior to him trying to remove my weapon from me without a warrant or probable cause that I had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. I was even calm when he grabbed my weapon. Again, I didn’t get “very irate and angry” until he pointed his pistol at my head.

Police claim: “Instead of talking to Grisham first, the officer decided to disarm him.”
Truth: The problem with this is that Officer Ermis DID talk to me. He asked me what we were doing, as he immediately picked up my firearm without asking and began to look at it. He then asked me if there was any reason I was carrying my rifle. Because carrying a rifle openly in Texas is not a crime, I responded, “because I can.” It was a stupid question. Do they stop motorists driving the speed limit and demand to know why they’re obeying the law? Do they harass people having a picnic in the park and ask them why they aren’t eating at home? No. You don’t have to explain why you’re engaging in a legal activity. After I answered that question, Ermis got this smug “I’ll show you” look on his face and said, “Oh, yeah?” at which point he began removing my rifle without notice, cause, warrant, probable cause, or indication of any kind.

The City of Temple and the Temple Police Department are spreading the lie that I escalated the situation. This is why they CANNOT afford to release the dashcam footage. I can’t discuss what was in there other than to say what I know because I was there. I know what happened. The officer knows what happened. The dashcam footage would clear up any confusion about whether or not I was combative and “very irate and angry” upon initial encounter. The officer lied on his sworn affidavit and the police department lied to the citizens of Temple.

How can anyone feel safe knowing that instead of disciplining an officer that exceeded his authority, they circled the wagon of a lie and doubled down on it? How many people are in jail right now or have a record because an officer lied on his sworn affidavit and arrest report?

There is something incredibly moving about the uniform beauty and reverent silence of our national cemeteries. The endless flow of granite and grass where etched in stone the names of heroes live on forever. Adorned with flag and flowers, the sacred and hallowed ground inters America’s courageous sons and daughters of liberty, those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the cause and defense of freedom. No greater act of love or noble act of selflessness is represented in these memorials of tribute to patriots past.

What began shortly after the Civil War as Decoration Day—a day to adorn the graves and honor the dead of the Confederate and Union Armies—became more inclusive in the 20th century as “Memorial Day” to honor the fallen from every conflict.

America owes a debt of gratitude to all those who have answered her call to arms, those who have donned the uniform and willingly given everything in her defense. May this Memorial Day remind us all, that freedom isn’t free and that its blessings, enjoyed by all, were paid for with the blood of heroes.

One of their most important programs is the Valour-IT program. We need your help over the next week to make this successful. It means emailing to your friends and family. Sharing on your social media sites. And, most importantly, it means sending a few bucks their way.

I had the privilege of handing a laptop to a Wounded Warrior last year. I have seen firsthand the fruits of these labors and I ask that you show your support to it. Here is the program in a nutshell.

May 23rd we will begin a week long kick off to our 2013 Project Valour IT fundraiser. We do this fundraiser annually, but this time we’ve been invited to take part in the craigconnects Veterans Challenge! That means we could win an additional $35,000 for Soldiers’ Angels! But we can’t do it alone, and we’ve set the bar pretty high. Our goal is to raise a total of $100,000 dollars for technology for our Wounded, and here is how you can help:

Between the dates of May 23rd to July 3rd come visit us on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest OR be looking for a special email from us (Soldiers’ Angels). We will release a link where you can visit to donate ANY amount, in support of our 2013 Project Valour IT fundraiser. Now here’s the catch, it HAS to be donated between these dates, and it HAS to be donated at the link given. IF you follow those steps, and share with your friends, your co-workers, your family members and we raise an incredible amount of money Soldiers’ Angels could win the Grand Prize of $50,000.00. Which will help us immensely in continuing our mission of supporting our Troops!

If you’re feeling extra warm and fuzzy, and would like to help us in raising even MORE money for Project Valour IT, follow us on Facebook and be watching for print outs that you can post around the office or share with your neighbors. You could even begin a pool at the office and have a friendly little competition amongst co-workers to see who can raise the most for our Wounded! Think of all the fun you could have with us, and at the same time you can contribute to a meaningful cause, and make a real difference in the lives of others.

The good news is, we’re giving you plenty of time to rally your troops! Every amount that you can give, or that you can inspire others to give will help us to support our Wounded. Talk to your friends, or your coworkers and see if you can begin a pool! Save it up and pledge it to us from May 23rd to July 3rd and you may even help us win that $50,000 more! Be watching our Facebook page and our website for the link on where to go to make your donation. We have a page all set up and ready to go, but again we can’t start till May 23rd!! So talk to your Carpool, or your office friends, your book club and your neighbors and let’s raise $150,000 for our Wounded Veterans!

Now here’s the details about Project Valour IT, and why it’s so important that we accomplish the goal ahead:

Project Valour IT is an important program; it contributes to the health and rehabilitation of our Wounded Veterans. We can offer our severely Wounded a lifeline to their support system with a voice activated laptop; we can inspire movement with a gaming system, or promote independence with a GPS system. There are so many ways that technology can enhance the rehabilitation process for a Wounded Vet but of course we need your help to continue that support.

Here’s the link where you can help: http://www.crowdrise.com/soldiersangels-vc

Again, please share to everyone you know and help a great charity.

America’s servicemen and servicewomen will now have more information about their federal education loans, special benefits available to them, and their repayment options with the release of a new brochure announced today.

“We know that our servicemen and women are faced with an abundance of challenges and transitions while deployed and upon returning to civilian life,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “With Memorial Day approaching, we want to redouble our efforts to ease their transition and provide them with educational opportunities, resources, and the ongoing support they have earned. This easy-to-read brochure is a small but important way to help – it outlines what service members need to know to manage their student loans and maximize their benefits.”

The brochure, entitled For Members of the U.S. Armed Services: What You Need to Know About Your Federal Student Loan Benefits, was developed by the Department and the four Title IV Student Loan Servicers: FedLoan Servicing, Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Nelnet Education Loan Servicing and Sallie Mae Department of Education Loan Services.

The free brochure is divided into three parts: the first section describes the special benefits and repayment options available to service members; the second section offers helpful tips for active duty or deployed service members; and the third lists useful student loan resources. Some of the tips are:

· Establishing online access to student loan accounts to review and make payments online;

· Exploring repayment plans based on income, which could qualify borrowers for low or zero payment and possible loan forgiveness;

· Signing up for automatic payments to help keep loans current; and

· Placing an active duty alert on credit reports to reduce the risk of identity theft.

Consumers can access the brochure at http://StudentAid.gov/resources#military-loan-benefits

So, if programs aren’t working why do you think this is happening? Leadership. Leadership at the NCO and officer level needs to better at knowing their troops. This is where we are failing. We are great at getting our troops to attend briefings and classes on how to keep a bullet from your brain, but we are failing at what will truly prevent suicides in my opinion.

Over the past 12 years of war, we have lost this art of leadership – what can be called garrison leadership. That means visiting troops where they live and knowing their hobbies. This doesn’t mean forcing them to fill out a piece paper, but actually caring enough to know them that knowledge of this information comes naturally through daily conversation.

The Army released suicide data today for the month of April 2013. During April, among active-duty soldiers, there were 11 potential suicides: one has been confirmed as a suicide and 10 remain under investigation. For March 2013, the Army reported 10 potential suicides among active-duty soldiers; six have been confirmed as suicides and four are under investigation. For 2013, there have been 52 potential active-duty suicides: 22 have been confirmed as suicides and 30 remain under investigation. Updated active-duty suicide numbers for 2012: 184 (159 have been confirmed as suicides and 25 remain under investigation).

During April 2013, among reserve component soldiers who were not on active duty, there were 16 potential suicides (13 Army National Guard and three Army Reserve): none have been confirmed as suicides and 16 remain under investigation. For March 2013, among that same group, the Army reported 12 potential suicides; however, subsequent to the report, another case was added bringing March’s total to 13 (nine Army National Guard and four Army Reserve): none have been confirmed as suicides and 13 cases remain under investigation. For 2013, there have been 57 potential not on active duty suicides (36 Army National Guard and 21 Army Reserve): 21 have been confirmed as suicides and 36 remain under investigation. Updated not on active duty suicide numbers for 2012: 140 (93 Army National Guard and 47 Army Reserve); 138 have been confirmed as suicides and two remain under investigation.

Soldiers and families in need of crisis assistance can contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Trained consultants are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year and can be contacted by dialing 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or by visiting their website at http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org.

Army leaders can access current health promotion guidance in newly revised Army Regulation 600-63 (Health Promotion) at: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_63.pdf and Army Pamphlet 600-24 (Health Promotion, Risk Reduction and Suicide Prevention) at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/p600_24.pdf.

The Army’s comprehensive list of Suicide Prevention Program information is located at http://www.preventsuicide.army.mil.

Suicide prevention training resources for Army families can be accessed at http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/suicide/training_sub.asp?sub_cat=20 (requires Army Knowledge Online access to download materials).

Information about Military OneSource is located at http://www.militaryonesource.com or by dialing the toll-free number 1-800-342-9647 for those residing in the continental United States. Overseas personnel should refer to the Military OneSource website for dialing instructions for their specific location.

Information about the Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program is located at http://www.army.mil/csf/ .

The Defense Center for Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury (DCoE) Outreach Center can be contacted at 1-866-966-1020, via electronic mail at Resources@DCoEOutreach.org and at http://www.dcoe.health.mil.

The website for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention is http://www.afsp.org/ and the Suicide Prevention Resource Council site is found at http://www.sprc.org/index.asp.