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 ...
His military carrer is probably toast, and his "punishment" won't be pleasant.
Sad, true, and necessary.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
There is no room for activism in the USMC.
Semper Fi!
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.
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..
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.
Good video catch ... Thank you.
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”.
Your’s is good-to-know information ... Thank you.
I am a member of his page...check it out...
disclaimer is front and center!
https://www.facebook.com/ArmedForcesTeaParty
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?
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
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/
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.
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.