Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marine says he faces discharge over Obama comments
CNN ^ | 22 March 2012 | Michael Pearson

Posted on 03/22/2012 10:57:01 AM PDT by OldNavyVet

A politically active Marine who has questioned President Barack Obama's authority said Thursday that he is facing administrative discharge proceedings over his comments.

Sgt. Gary Stein, who founded the Armed Forces Tea Party, said his commanding officer at Camp Pendleton near San Diego has accused him of violating a catch-all military justice provision against conduct endangering "good order and discipline."

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: discharge; marine; obama
This Marine faces court-martial action over his public comments about Obama. The Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't allow ordinary civilian behavior.

His military carrer is probably toast, and his "punishment" won't be pleasant.

1 posted on 03/22/2012 10:57:10 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Sad, true, and necessary.


2 posted on 03/22/2012 11:02:11 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1157 of America's ObamaVacation from reality [Heroes aren't made, Frank, they're cornered...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

“Stein came under scrutiny from Marine officials after saying he would not obey Obama’s orders.”

If true, yeah he is out. Unwise. Someone should have taught him to play poker.


3 posted on 03/22/2012 11:02:55 AM PDT by Psalm 144 ("I think we ought to listen to Alinsky." - Governor G. Romney, father of Bishop Willard M. Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

I don’t know what the military code is for bashing the CIC. I can imagine the reaction here if it were a liberal marine bashing President Bush would be rather severe.


4 posted on 03/22/2012 11:02:55 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility (Obama 2012: Dozens of MSNBC viewers can't be wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

This is happening because Petraeus and the other cowards in the military and congress refused to call the fraud out on his ineligibility.


5 posted on 03/22/2012 11:16:21 AM PDT by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
This is happening because Petraeus and the other cowards in the military and congress refused to call the fraud out on his ineligibility.

Your statement ... better worded...

This is happening because the cowards in congress refused to call the fraud out on his ineligibility.

6 posted on 03/22/2012 11:24:28 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

As bad as it sounds, the president is still Commander & chief, like it or not. The officer was fully aware, or should have been aware, that disobeying the rules applies equally to all enlisted men. Use an alias if your that discontented, but don’t think that you can fight the status-quo, you will always loose.


7 posted on 03/22/2012 11:24:42 AM PDT by Joshua Marcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
If you're gonna be an activist, expect to pay the consequences.

There is no room for activism in the USMC.

Semper Fi!

8 posted on 03/22/2012 11:27:16 AM PDT by sonofagun (Some think my cynicism grows with age. I like to think of it as wisdom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
From the article

Among the prohibited activities are publishing partisan political articles or serving in an official capacity with a partisan political club.

Stein has said that has carefully followed the Defense Department directive. He said Thursday that his unit has known about his off-duty activities since he joined the outfit eight months ago.

He also said a similar investigation two years ago found that he had done nothing wrong and officers at the time told him he could continue running the site so long as it carried a disclaimer.

If the last paragraph is true then it will be interesting.

9 posted on 03/22/2012 11:30:00 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

I thought it’s “against all enemies...foreign and DOMESTIC”

Odumbo is a domestic enemy born in a foreign land, I’d think the entire military is liable for hypocrisy as well. Stein followed his oath to the letter..


10 posted on 03/22/2012 11:32:49 AM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Demoralization- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_Iz3VjoHXLA


11 posted on 03/22/2012 11:34:25 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

I have not seen his Facebook page or anything which he has posted, but of what I have read, he originally stated that he would not follow Obama’s orders. Then he clarified his statement that he would not follow “unlawful” orders - which is what the UCMJ requires.

The fact that he is a Marine and speaks badly of the CIC is NOT - I repeat - NOT illegal!

What is NOT allowed is that you are not allowed to imply that the Marine Corps nor the government is in agreement or behind with your positions and you cannot be in uniform to protest, etc... But, otherwise, you are COMPLETELY within your rights to voice your opinion of the President and any other person in an Administration!

You do not give UP your rights, you simply have to work within the rules which are setup to ensure that military personnel are not DIRECTLY negatively subverting the Presidents orders.

I spent ten years in the Marine Corps and we spoke often of the good and the bad of Presidents, Secretaries of Defense and other “civilian leaders” and that was on base, in uniform! Had we went off base, in uniform and started lambasting the President, then yes, we might have had a problem, but voicing you opinion and telling people you are a Marine is not in and of itself - ILLEGAL or wrong!

Look to the numerous ACTIVE DUTY personnel who voiced their complaints and problems with the LBJ and Nixon Administrations of Vietnam! If anything, the soldiers during the Vietnam era WERE directly violating the UCMJ, but they were not discharged for their outbursts!

Stating your opinion publicly while being in the Marine Corps is NOT inherently against the UCMJ! For the Marine Corps to state otherwise is to subvert the 1st Amendment rights of the men fighting for the Constitution, in which the 1st Amendment is listed! Just my two cents.


12 posted on 03/22/2012 11:43:51 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Good video catch ... Thank you.


13 posted on 03/22/2012 11:52:38 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

He clarified that he was talking about unlawful orders - such as Obama sending combat troops to Syria without authorization from Congress (as required by both the Constitution and War Powers Act).

How can they get rid of an officer for saying he won’t follow unlawful orders, when it’s actually in the codes that officers MUST refuse to follow unlawful orders?

I think what’s going on here is that this guy’s leaders don’t want anybody knowing that THEY broke their oaths by following unlawful orders.

Judge Lind claimed in Lakin’s court-martial verdict that the lawfulness of combat orders has nothing to do with whether a Constitutionally-authorized Commander-in-Chief has decided to use combat force.

Somebody correct me if I’m mistaken, but doesn’t the Constitution give CONGRESS the power to provide for the common defense of the country, to declare war, to provide for the creation, maintenance, and discipline of both army and navy, etc? (Seven of the 18 paragraphs in Article I, Secton 8 give the authority for the non-maintenance decisions regarding the military to be provided for by CONGRESS)

And didn’t Congress provide for these things in the War Powers Act? Does the War Powers Act allow the CINC to send combat forces wherever he wants, to invade countries without any Congressional authorization or oversight? If so then why did Congress pass the Authorization to Use Force in the War on Terrorism (which Obama claims doesn’t exist any more) - which specifically says that the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF is authorized to decide to use force?

If the Authorization to Use Force is claimed as the lawful authorization for combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, (potentially) Syria, etc, then the Commander-in-Chief is the CRUX of the legality of the whole operation. Without a Constitutionally-acting Commander-in-Chief there is nobody but Congress who has the authority to decide to use force.

If anybody disagrees with this, then tell me whether Leon Panetta, acting on his own, could lawfully decide to invade Iran. If so, what is the legal authorization for that?

And if Joe Biden is the only person the 20th Amendment of the Constitution authorizes to act as Commander-in-Chief, then all the decisions to use force since Jan 20, 2009 have been made by SecDef’s acting on their own - since Joe Biden has not decided to use force and the acting CINC is the CRUX of the legality of the decision to use force.

These are critical questions, and if it is unlawful for officers to even DISCUSS these things, then I would be very fearful if I was teaching any military courses regarding the chain of command... if mere DISCUSSION of the issue of lawfulness is considered dangerous to “good order”.


14 posted on 03/22/2012 11:54:24 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

Your’s is good-to-know information ... Thank you.


15 posted on 03/22/2012 11:56:46 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

I am a member of his page...check it out...
disclaimer is front and center!

https://www.facebook.com/ArmedForcesTeaParty


16 posted on 03/22/2012 11:57:45 AM PDT by OL Hickory (Jesus and the American soldier-1 died for your soul/1 died for your freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

Retired Maj Gen Paul Vallely has stated publicly that Obama is not Constitutionally eligible. Since he’s an officer, would this claim against Stein mean that Vallely should be court-martialed too? Or is it different when an officer is retired?


17 posted on 03/22/2012 12:01:27 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Wasn’t it Facebook that got him in trouble?

Here’s the DOD Directive that he’s subject to:

SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf


18 posted on 03/22/2012 12:05:40 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

The Marine Corps’ social media guidance refers Marines back to DoD Directive 1344.10. In short, you are barred from doing online what you can’t do in person. Sgt. Gary Stein, a meteorologist with 1st Intelligence Battalion at Camp Pendleton, Calif., was warned by superiors in the spring that his work to launch the “Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots” group on Facebook came close to violating DoD political speech guidelines.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/10/marine-election-rules-100910w/


19 posted on 03/22/2012 12:11:17 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

My computer wouldn’t let me scroll that far down in the article. Maybe I’m just too impatient.

In any event, two major changes have happened between now and 8 months ago when his unit had no problem with what he was doing.

A law enforcement body has found probable cause for forgery and fraud regarding Obama’s birth certificate and draft registration - and the non-existence of a draft registration for Obama would disqualify him holding any federal office from an ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT, right here, right now with no court or Congressional action necessary.

And Panetta (or was it another DOD guy? My memory is so bad) told Congress that the military would not even consult Congress in deciding whether to invade Syria. They would do what the UN told them to do, and screw the Constitution and War Powers Act.

Two very, very serious events which REALLY, REALLY shine a light on the lawlessness of the person Stein accurately labels an enemy combatant.

Is there anybody in the military who wants to publicly say that these are piddly issues?

There’s a reason that what was OK 8 months ago is being clamped down on, not just on the Catholic Church, in the media, by the EPA, by the Dept of Injustice, AND NOW THE MILITARY TOO. It’s because right now these issues are more pertinent and apparent to the public than they were 8 months ago, and they reveal the LAWLESSNESS of the foreign enemy combatant in the White House.


20 posted on 03/22/2012 12:12:07 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

“Came close to violating” means “did not violate”.

What changed between then and now?


21 posted on 03/22/2012 12:14:45 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

After reading the DOD Directive, I must say that there are MANY contradictory provisions throughout the entire document.

It states many places that you are NOT allowed to participate with “partisan political parties.” However, you are allowed to have political bumper stickers and make political statements. Many bumper stickers are against the sitting President. Heck, I had a bumper sticker that stated “Impeach President Clinton, and her husband!” and I had many complaints, but I was never told that I couldn’t have it!

More importantly, “close to violating” and “violating” are too EXTREMELY different positions in which to bring charges and ruin a mans military career!


22 posted on 03/22/2012 12:25:09 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
What changed between then and now?

Beats me, I guess he pissed somebody off.

23 posted on 03/22/2012 12:26:17 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility

Article 88, UCMJ deals with “Contempt Toward Officials” and specifically includes the President, but one of the elements is that the accused is a commissioned officer, which this marine isn’t.

“Stupid on Station” comes to mind.

Colonel, USAFR


24 posted on 03/22/2012 12:28:46 PM PDT by jagusafr ("Write in Palin and prepare for war...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

Art 88, UCMJ prohibits contempt of officials, including the Prez, but applies only to commissioned officers.


25 posted on 03/22/2012 12:34:36 PM PDT by jagusafr ("Write in Palin and prepare for war...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

The professional thing to do in such circumstances is to resign, if that’s possible at that point in your service, or honestly admit you’ll have to accept the consequences; and live with them. History will prove this individual as either brave or misguided and over-zealous for his beliefs.


26 posted on 03/22/2012 12:37:22 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

I know, and understand the difference - “technically” Commissioned Officers are specifically “commissioned” with the approval of the President. So, having contempt or such with the CIC could be detrimental to the completion of ones duties.

It is like when someone is promoted to a Staff-NCO position, they are given this position by Congress - if I remember the wording on the certificates.


27 posted on 03/22/2012 12:39:36 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

I suspect it has something to do with DOD claims to Congress that they don’t even have to consult with Congress before invading Syria.

And that it has to do with Sheriff Joe Arpaio initiating a criminal investigation after his posse found probable cause for forgery and fraud on Obama’s birth certificate and draft registration.

If all Obama has on file at the Selective Service Administration is a forged draft registration, then Obama cannot hold federal office, period. He would not be STATUTORILY QUALIFIED. And would not have been statutorily qualified since Jan 20, 2009 - which is pertinent because the 20th Amendment says that if the President-elect has “failed to qualify” by noon on Jan 20th then the VP elect must “act as President until a President shall have qualified”. IOW, he’s never been qualified EVEN STATUTORILY, not even considering the Second Article requirement for age, residency, and natural born citizenship - which are all in question since what Obama presented to the public is forged and we have no idea which item(s) may have been altered. Three items potentially impact Constitutional eligibility: age, birth place, and parents.

Serious stuff. We’re not talking about amateur, anonymous internet posters. We’re talking about a law enforcement body and a lawful criminal investigation.

And we’re talking about a military leadership which is claiming that Congress is IRRELEVANT to the matters the Constitution (Article 1, section 8) puts under the authority of Congress. Serious, serious stuff. This is messing with all the checks and balances, separation of powers, and rule of law that makes America what we’ve always been. This is RADICAL TRANSFORMATION through extra-legal (unlawful) means. This is everything the officers’ oath is about.


28 posted on 03/22/2012 12:39:41 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

Enlisted personnel who diss the POTUS get nailed under the catchall Article 134 UCMJ.

For officers, yes, it’s Article 88 UCMJ “contempt toward [elected] officials”, and it got used during the Clinton years. I reentered active service in 1994 as a warrant officer and almost as soon as I joined my new unit the commander warned me, “Chief, I know you’re a Vietnam vet but be careful what you say about Pres. Clinton; someone may be listening and you could be court-martialed under Article 88.”

I looked up the history of Art. 88. It dates back to 1867 and was aimed at Union Army general officers seeking to run for the office of President by denigrating the incumbent (and Andrew Johnson was a rich target).

In this case, refusing to obey the lawful orders of the CIC is making a bad bet. To merely badmouth Clinton as a draft dodger usually wasn’t punished unless it was a general officer doing the badmouthing.


29 posted on 03/22/2012 12:46:56 PM PDT by elcid1970 ("Deport all Muslims. Nuke Mecca now. Death to Islam means freedom for all mankind.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Wuli; jagusafr

How does resigning fulfill the oath to defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic?

Then again, what does the military allow its officers to do, in order to keep that oath that they require these officers to make to defend against DOMESTIC ENEMIES? If they require the oath but make illegal any attempts to keep the oath, isn’t that actually entrapment?

Are there protections for whistle-blowers - even somebody whistle-blowing against an unlawful Commander-in-Chief? If so, then why didn’t the military protect Lt Col Lakin and follow up on the questions he raised about potential wrong-doing and/or crimes by either Obama himself or (if the CINC is exempt from military investigation because he’s civilian) the SecDef?

Lakin’s second lawyer did what he had to do to try to get Lakin off easier (after ret Maj Gen Vallely and others advised Lakin to drop the eligibility issue because the military and courts are too corrupted to give a right ruling), but said we should all be asking why the military people that Lakin appealed to for follow-up didn’t follow up. The buck has to stop somewhere. Who knew what, and when? That’s what we need to know, and people like Stein are (whether intentionally or unintentionally) raising a question that, if left unanswered by the military chain of command since becoming aware of the questions, makes them vulnerable to charges of treason if it turns out that Obama DID commit fraud.

At this point, who in the military leadership could genuinely claim that they are not aware that a law enforcement body has found probable cause for forgery and fraud for both Obama’s birth certificate and his draft registration? The latter of which, if true, would disqualify Obama from being POTUS on STATUTORY grounds, without any legal interpretation necessary.


30 posted on 03/22/2012 12:53:20 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

HE never said he would refuse to obey lawful orders. He said he would refuse to obey UNLAWFUL orders.

Show me where disobeying unlawful orders is forbidden in the military’s codes or rules. I’ve been told that it is a LEGAL OBLIGATION.

And show me where insisting on following the Constitution is “contempt”.


31 posted on 03/22/2012 12:56:51 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970; jagusafr

We’ve got lots of active military right here on Free Republic. When they speak against Obama and/or his policies are they violating either Article 88 or Article 134?

That would be an awfully important thing for some of our people to know.


32 posted on 03/22/2012 1:00:00 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“Contemptuous words” is what the Article prohibits. I’ve done a bunch of courts martial as both prosecutor and defense counsel and never had one of these. Disagreeing with a policy is not contempt. Disagreeing with an action of the CinC is not contempt. Calling the CinC an arrogant pr*ck probably is, even if it’s true.

Colonel, USAFR


33 posted on 03/22/2012 1:40:53 PM PDT by jagusafr ("Write in Palin and prepare for war...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The draft card thing really shakes my chain. I was drafted in 1966. If Obama phonied up his draft card or someone did it for him and he actually never even registered, then he’s not fit to walk among us, much less be CIC.


34 posted on 03/22/2012 1:49:56 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

“He is also accused of violating a Department of Defense policy limiting the political activities of service members.”

Gen Alexander Haig

Haig served as White House Chief of Staff, while still retaining his Army commission, during the height of theWatergate affair from May 1973 until September 1974,

Alexander Haig retired as a four-star general from the Army in 1979

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Haig


35 posted on 03/22/2012 2:51:50 PM PDT by DUMBGRUNT (The best is the enemy of the good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Resigning says because of ".............................." I can no longer carry out my oath of office under the present ".................".

Resignation with cause IS the professional's statement against their superior(s).

Afterward, as an ex-military, they can then do all the gathering of opposition to "................" they cannot officially, publicly do in uniform.

"Are there protections for whistle-blowers - even somebody whistle-blowing against an unlawful Commander-in-Chief?"

First, the claims have to be made through the chain of commmand - this guy's were made publicly, via FB and, instead of accepting whatever evidence there is behind the claims his commanders saw his Facebook activity as falling under the prohibited activities of "publishing partisan political articles or serving in an official capacity with a partisan political club". But otherwise, yes, when done "inside" through the Chain of Command, including the use of the offices of the Inspectors General, there are "wistleblower" processes. However, meanwhile, and unless proven otherwise, a legal order is still a legal order.

In any case, the unit/command officer has to (a) accept some degree of credibility to the claim and "endorse" the claim forwarding it to the next highest command, barring that, (b) agree that an appeal to the next highest command is permitted under the regulations, and forward it withour an emdorsement or with a request the appeal be denied.

In cases involving money, as with military hardware purchases and testing, mere corruption can stymie a wistleblower.

In this case it is insufficient that the claimant believes the claims to be true or that given the nature of the claims that he believes he is also "defending the Constitution" as required by his oath. It would not even be enough that his commanders accept his sincerity, they must also believe the same reasons, as he does, for why he is making the claim, and they must think his nethod of making his claim is within the methods permitted by the regs (which they think he violated in this case).

"If so, then why didn’t the military protect Lt Col Lakin and follow up on the questions he raised about potential wrong-doing and/or crimes by either Obama himself or (if the CINC is exempt from military investigation because he’s civilian) the SecDef?"

I can only guess that either (a) an insufficient line in the chain of command believed Lakin's claims had sufficient evidence behind them, or (b) certain commanders, for whatever reason(s) didn't want to "rock the boat" or possibly some combination of the two.

36 posted on 03/22/2012 3:59:30 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
The man has done nothing wrong, except for openly stating his obligations as a citizen, and supporting, in public, the oath he took on entering the military.

It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces (hereafter referred to as “members”) (including members on active duty, members of the Reserve Components not on active duty, members of the National Guard even when in a non-Federal status, and retired members) to carry out the obligations of citizenship.

--DOD Directive 1344.10

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

4.1.1.2. Promote and encourage others to exercise their voting franchise, if such promotion does not constitute use of their official authority or influence to interfere with the outcome of any election.

4.1.1.3. Join a partisan or nonpartisan political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform, subject to the restrictions of subparagraph 4.1.2.4. (See DoD Instruction 1334.1 (Reference (c).)

4.1.1.4. Serve as an election official, if such service is not as a representative of a partisan political party, does not interfere with the performance of military duties, is performed when not in uniform, and the Secretary concerned has given prior approval. The Secretary concerned may NOT delegate the authority to grant or deny such permission.

4.1.1.5. Sign a petition for a specific legislative action or a petition to place a candidate’s name on an official election ballot, if the signing does not obligate the member to engage in partisan political activity and is done as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

4.1.1.6. Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member’s personal views on public issues or political candidates, if such action is not part of an organized letter-writing campaign or a solicitation of votes for or against a political party or partisan political cause or candidate. If the letter identifies the member as on active duty (or if the member is otherwise reasonably identifiable as a member of the Armed Forces), the letter should clearly state that the views expressed are those of the individual only and not those of the Department of Defense (or Department of Homeland Security for members of the Coast Guard).

4.1.1.7. Make monetary contributions to a political organization, party, or committee favoring a particular candidate or slate of candidates, subject to the limitations under section 441a of title 2, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (d)); section 607 of title 18, U.S.C. (Reference (e)); and other applicable law.

4.1.1.8. Display a political bumper sticker on the member’s private vehicle.

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

4.1.1.10. Participate fully in the Federal Voting Assistance Program.


37 posted on 03/22/2012 4:08:43 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofagun

Wow.

Restating in public, the oath he took to the American people when he joined the military is becoming an activist?

I guess that’s why you see so little support for Constitutional government these days, no one wants to be called an activist.


38 posted on 03/22/2012 4:12:21 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

I bet if the military court-martialed all the guys who have called Obama an arrogant pr*ck we wouldn’t have anybody left.

Sure makes it seem like what this guy is saying is true - that they are trying to make an example out of him.

It’s not enough that Obama is counseling our wounded warriors to just die and not burden their families with the hassles of recovery.

Not enough that he’s bleeding out our blood, money, and ammunition by sending our twice-wounded warriors to a theater he’s already said we’re not trying to win - where the ROE allow them to be nothing but sitting targets.

Not enough that he’s doing nothing to make sure that our deployed soldiers’ votes are counted.

Not enough that he’s bowing to our enemies or that he told the Egyptian ambassador that he was and still is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda (which seems to be the destruction of the US and Israel, and the institution of worldwide sharia).

Not enough that he is the puppet of George Soros who has said he fears that America will win “the war on terror” - and if what Bettina (can’t remember her last name) has said on radio is correct, Soros said he intended to destroy the US, asked Hillary and Obama both whether they were willing, and Obama said yes.

Not enough that he let a decorated military surgeon (who went through the chain of command to try to get answers to ease his conscience on whether he could lawfully go into combat) sit in jail for 6 months and lose his savings and livelihood, rather than Obama simply showing somebody a legitimate birth certificate with nothing “embarrassing” on it at all - even though he was willing to do that (albeit with a forged BC) to satisfy the idle curiosity of Donald Trump.

Not enough that he himself has apparently never signed up for the draft.

Not enough that his SecDef made our own soldiers disarm in a combat zone before he would meet with them.

Not enough that he’s reducing the military’s size at the same time as saying that women have to serve in combat because we don’t have enough soldiers.

Not enough that WAlter Reed tried to keep family members from being able to bring Bibles or religious reading materials for their wounded loved ones.

Not enough that he’s making military members pay more for healthcare at the same time that he argues that every woman has a RIGHT to free abortions and contraceptives on the dime of even people who believe that to be wrong or murder.

None of that is enough. He also has to make sure that the good little boys and girls that he has screwed with every action he’s ever made also smile and call him “Sir” on their own private time, while he and George Soros carry out their plans to destroy the country these troops have pledged EVERYTHING to defend.

These men can’t say it so I’ll say it: Obama is a foreign enemy combatant in the White House and he is not worthy to lick the latrines clean behind these guys.


39 posted on 03/22/2012 4:52:17 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Obama is not fit to lick the latrines clean behind you, Stein, or anybody who has served honorably.

My dad was also drafted. Front lines in Korea. Married his sweetheart right before he had to leave. She spent a week thinking he was dead because a report on the radio gave the wrong unit number. They both went through hell and back just because the country called his number and he was faithful enough to go.

My dad has little of his physical strength left, but he’s got more integrity in one eyelash than Obama has in his body and his wife’s body put together.


40 posted on 03/22/2012 4:58:52 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Whoever thought there wasn’t enough evidence was dead wrong. And now a law enforcement body is conducting a criminal investigation regarding the same records that these military higher-ups said was no problem.

If a “Lakin” right now asks the chain of command to investigate and put their conscience at ease, what excuse will that chain of command give, given that law enforcement is conducting a criminal investigation over the same issue? They gonna say that Sheriff Joe just isn’t credible?

At what point does the failure to investigate problems become criminal negligence? Everybody wanted to know who knew about Abu Ghraib and when, and somebody’s head had to roll from that. Well, whose head is going to roll when Sheriff Joe finds out that Obama is guilty of fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice, and treason? These people in the chain of command better start thinking clearly.


41 posted on 03/22/2012 5:05:32 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“HE never said he would refuse to obey lawful orders. He said he would refuse to obey UNLAWFUL orders. Show me where disobeying unlawful orders is forbidden in the military’s codes or rules. I’ve been told that it is a LEGAL OBLIGATION. And show me where insisting on following the Constitution is “contempt”.

Understood. But where is the line officially drawn between lawful and unlawful orders? In a long, drawn out process involving the military justice system and the service member’s chain of command. That’s bottom line.

Look way, way back at the Lt. Calley trial for the My Lai massacre. Look at the trial over the same incident of the Huey helicopter pilot who literally interposed his aircraft between the Americal GI’s and the villagers in an effort to stop the same massacre. And, if you’re privileged to be a Vietnam vet like me who only retired a year ago from the Army JAG system (not a lawyer), then you get to see how both those individuals and their courts-martial are regarded by the Army legal community today.

Not a pretty sight, I promise you.


42 posted on 03/22/2012 6:04:12 PM PDT by elcid1970 ("Deport all Muslims. Nuke Mecca now. Death to Islam means freedom for all mankind.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

In other words, a coup d’etat is not possible in this country even when the POTUS is a bloody tyrant.


43 posted on 03/22/2012 6:08:13 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

My hat’s off to your Dad, God Bless him.


44 posted on 03/22/2012 6:27:13 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
His military carrer is probably toast,

After 8 years he is only a Sergeant. That's reason enough to RIF him.

45 posted on 03/22/2012 7:00:55 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

I’m not familiar with those courts-martial. What should I learn from them?

When our soldiers are trained about lawful v unlawful orders, what are they told? I realize there are sticky situations where it’s hard to know. I would hope that the UCMJ would give a soldier in good standing the benefit of the doubt when considering convicting somebody for following their conscience. Especially if they have tried to get answers in advance and nobody will give them.

What was argued here was that as long as you’re not told to do something criminal you’re supposed to obey and ask questions later.

But I’ve presented the scenario where the commander tells Soldier A to attach gas to the showerhead, Soldier B to gather the prisoners to the shower, Soldier C to turn on the shower, and Soldier D to move the bodies in the shower out for burial. That’s the lilliputian way of accomplishing a criminal deed - by assigning different individuals a portion that is not by itself criminal so they each have to obey - like handbells that each play just their note without being allowed to care what the whole melody ends up as.

That’s the argument that was used for Lakin. He was just supposed to get on the plane and that’s not criminal...

But I know that unlawful orders include those that are given by somebody not authorized to make that level of a decision. I’ve used the example of Lakin’s brigade commander telling him to bomb Iran. What should Lakin (or you, if it was you) do if your brigade commander told you to go bomb Iran and you knew that the only person who can authorize that is the CINC and the CINC did not authorize it? Obey first and ask questions later?

That’s exactly the same scenario as Stein is contemplating, only in this case it is Congress who has the authority to decide whether we can do combat operations in Syria for no other reason than to oust the leader of a sovereign nation who is cracking down on internal protesters. That doesn’t fit into the Authorization to Use Force that was passed following the 9-11 attacks. And the military leadership has said they don’t need authorization from Congress.

Seems to me that the question is a worthy one and should be answered BEFORE Obama and the DOD play “chicken” with the men who have to decide whether the combat order is lawful or not.

So why is it wrong for Stein to bring up the question before push comes to shove? You can bet your bottom dollar he’s not the only one who thinks combat orders like that would violate both the War Powers Act and the US Constitution.

This alleged POTUS will keep doing whatever he darn well pleases until somebody draws a line in the sand. And if nobody does, then there’s no way to know what is “lawful” because we HAVE no law.


46 posted on 03/22/2012 7:45:25 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
After 8 years he is only a Sergeant

A Marine Sergeant, at the E-5 level, is a non-commissioned officer, meaning that he (or she) is fit to lead in combat and ... with or without further advancement, a damn good Marine.

47 posted on 03/22/2012 7:45:26 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Yes. God bless him. And God bless you too. I hope He is blessing you richly.

He blessed my dad with 12 kids and a faithful wife, lots of hard work but dignity and respect from all of us. If I could be a hundredth of what he’s been I’ll consider myself doing well.


48 posted on 03/23/2012 12:16:26 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson