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

Skip to comments.

Marines discharge sergeant for Facebook posts
Associated Press ^ | April 25, 2012

Posted on 04/25/2012 11:34:36 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY

SAN DIEGO (AP) - The Marine Corps said Wednesday it has decided to discharge a sergeant for criticizing President Barack Obama on Facebook.

The Corps said Sgt. Gary Stein will be given an other-than-honorable discharge for violating Pentagon policy limiting speech of service members.

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


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: garystein
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-95 last
To: RWB Patriot

“Meanwhile, Nidal Malik Hasan, a man who was willing to kill his fellow soldiers over his beliefs, is still receiving pay and benefits from the military.”

Apt perspective.

Hell, they won’t even refer to his as a terrorist.

LOL


51 posted on 04/25/2012 3:18:16 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
I find it laughable and capricious.

Lots of things are. Defining what is and isn't detrimental to 'good order and discipline' will never be a sergeant's job. Ignoring 'counseling' for an apparently capricious reason is the reason this guy got bounced. He got what he wanted, and will likely get the OTH upgraded to a general but for a good while he'll be screwed. The Corps isn't a debating society.

52 posted on 04/25/2012 3:19:57 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: xone

Capricious use of UCMJ has nothing to do with the USMC being a debating society.

Disobeying lawful orders and creating disorder in the military are serious issues.

Expressing displeasure with the President through a silly rant, really isn’t a serious matter.


53 posted on 04/25/2012 3:27:57 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
creating disorder in the military are serious issues.

Again, who determines what defines creating disorder. The individual? And when counselled?

54 posted on 04/25/2012 3:30:56 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
Look the guy went the administrative route instead of facing a court marshal (a good move in my opinion) and essentially accepted a plea deal.
You or I could argue on about it but the guy accepted the administrative deal offered him no doubt because he belatedly realized he screwed up. Them's the breaks...
55 posted on 04/25/2012 3:41:37 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

In an earlier article I read that some of his posts were made from a government computer. He was told to stop and continued. That in itself is disobeying a lawful order.

Not very smart.


56 posted on 04/25/2012 3:41:56 PM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xone

“Again, who determines what defines creating disorder. The individual? And when counselled? “

Capricious boot lickers looking to climb the JAG and Officer Ladder by playing the Politically Correct New Gay Military and Marine Corps game??

...same people who decided NOT to prosecute and boot blatant homosexuals flouting their gayness and causing military disorder??


57 posted on 04/25/2012 3:47:58 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
Capricious boot lickers looking to climb the JAG and Officer Ladder by playing the Politically Correct New Gay Military and Marine Corps game?? ...same people who decided NOT to prosecute and boot blatant homosexuals flouting their gayness and causing military disorder??

There you go, makes the actions even dumber.

58 posted on 04/25/2012 4:02:57 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: All

You guys have your opinions and I have mine.

My frustration is more with what was a great military that could keep enemies at bay and protect security interests, and what it appears to be turning in to.

Seriously, this is bread and circus stuff.

Meanwhile, we have a Pentagon of gumshoes REMF cheese-eating ass kissers... that are willing to sit by and acquiesce to Obama’s pansy ass Rules of Engagement, that is getting our guys killed and maimed, while we leave a smallish core behind in both Iraq and Afghanistan...that can hardly deter attacks let alone mount serious offensive operations.

A Pentagon and Officer Corps that won’t call Hassan a terrorist, but sell out their fellow military members and attribute Islamist Terrorism to “workplace stress and random violence”.

We are being distracted with this circus while our military is being sacrificed with a BullShit Queensbury ruse.

My last post on this deflection. Respectfully, out.


59 posted on 04/25/2012 4:03:38 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

The dishonorable thing is to lie.

So far nobody has ever told me any way that the officer’s oath makes one iota of difference. It’s just a lie, and everybody in the military knows it.

I don’t like that. I don’t like my nephews having to LIE in order to be in what is supposedly an honorable position.

If they’re going to tell our guys to STFU when an enemy is threatening the Constitution, then they shouldn’t make them take the stinkin’ oath. Because that’s what it is, if it can never actually be carried out. It’s just a way to make it seem like it’s an honorable position, when all it can ever be is “yes-man”.

The people in the military who should have checked Obama out and found that his records are not in order and he is not qualified to be CINC (and brought that fact to Congress so they could impeach and/or the courts so they could declare Joe Biden the acting CINC) AS FULFILLMENT OF THEIR OATHS.... are the people that Lt Col Terry Lakin appealed to for answers in the proper manner, but they are too afraid of losing their lifetime rank if they make waves. They were yes-men who betrayed everybody below them in the chain of command who counted on them to have a way to keep their oaths.

THEY are the people who have brought dishonor on the US military and on themselves.

If anybody was as concerned about the honor of the men who have positions of high responsibility as they are about the honor of the peons, maybe this country would be in a heckuva better situation right now.

Maybe this guy should have kept his mouth shut. It’s not like it’s a free country or anything, or like the guidelines that were put out regarding political speech for military personnel actually mean anything, or the oaths that have been taken mean anything.

I guess I’m a little more ready to forgive somebody who mistakenly believes that this is America than I am for the people ensuring that it’s not.

This issue is too close to home for me. I’m going to leave the discussion before I say something I regret. Good-bye.


60 posted on 04/25/2012 4:11:10 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party, who was good friends with Bill Clinton, was killed shortly before the DNC Convention in 2008 - and the Hillary folks have said it was to scare off Bill and Hillary from bringing up Obama’s ineligibility, which they had been planning on doing.

Here’s a link to an article: http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/hillary-supporters-untold-obama-horror-stories/

Also if you look up articles about Bettina Viviano, she’s spoken about the Obama/Soros crimes that top dems told her about. She says she personally heard Bill Clinton say that Obama is ineligible. She also says that Soros met with both Hillary and Obama to see if they were on board with his plans to destroy the US economy; Hillary wasn’t but Obama was.

There is a video from the Heritage Foundation and there’s also an article with the American Legion (IIRC) which get into the content by a guy who has written a book about economic terrorism; he was enlisted to write white papers about it for the DOD (?). One of his sources said that several years before 2008 Muslims in northern Africa (?) had told him about economic terrorism that was going to be done against the US.

I should find links and come back and post them, to make sure I’m not butchering the details here. But the Hillary supporters have come out with information that fills in some of the holes. The Clintons had planned to bring up Obama’s eligibility but were scared off when Bill’s good friend was killed. Soros had been planning to attack the US economy, as had Muslims - which supports my contention that Soros is heading up a communist-Islamist alliance.

That whole scenario fits what Obama told the Egyptian ambassador about being a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda (which includes the destruction of the US and Israel, as well as the institution of worldwide sharia). It also makes sense out of Ghadaffi saying that he hoped Obama wasn’t so insecure that he would give up on what he was supposed to do, or would forget his Muslim faith.

I’m sort of rambling now, but what’s come out from the Hillary supporters and from this economic terrorism expert - as well as a Freeper’s remembrance of reading that the Sept 2008 run on the bank began in Asia (before the website was scrubbed hours later) - really have me thinking that I’m on target with the communist-Islamist alliance theory, and the run on the bank being done by that alliance to install Obama - AND that the threat of another run on the bank was the real threat that got Roger Ailes to threaten his on-air personalities if they reported on Obama’s eligibility.

Gotta go get my daughter from church. I’ll be back.


61 posted on 04/25/2012 5:28:27 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
The people in the military who should have checked Obama out and found that his records are not in order and he is not qualified to be CINC (and brought that fact to Congress so they could impeach and/or the courts so they could declare Joe Biden the acting CINC) AS FULFILLMENT OF THEIR OATHS

people in the military who should have checked Obama out

And whom may that be? The Constitution puts the military under civilian leadership. A revolt outside of that system is a revolt against the Constitution as well. Put the blame where it belongs, on the political side of our system, on the loser Rats and the spineless leadership of the GOP. Count the Governors and the Secretaries of State who failed in their duties to ensure candidates are qualified. Elections have consequences.

So far nobody has ever told me any way that the officer’s oath makes one iota of difference.

Since you haven't taken that oath, you wouldn't understand. This situation was foreseen by the Founders, as citizens we have let the corrupt and inept rule over us. As one who has taken that oath it isn't a lie, yet part of the Constitution is the political system. When it fails then there is the cartridge box. To continue to rail against the vast majority of honorable men past and present who serve does a monstrous disservice to them and to yourself. The sytem has worked for over 200 years, God willing it will continue. This isn't the first bunch of dickheads in office, nor unfortunately will it be the last. Just the most familiar in the here and now. What you have espoused would be no different then what you despise.

62 posted on 04/25/2012 5:29:39 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: xone

Lt Col Lakin went to his superior officers, which should have led straight up the chain of command to the Sec Def. He also went to the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who blew everything off.

One of the lawsuits was so that a reservist would know who he owed his service to - Obama, or Biden. That’s a very valid question, since it makes the difference between whether we had 30,000 guys over in Afghanistan or not - since Obama would authorize the surge and Biden would not. What kind of crackpot system wouldn’t answer the question of who the legitimate authority actually is? What chain of command would allow that question to go unanswered? It shouldn’t have been the reservist who sued to get an answer; it should have been the Secretary of Defense, dang it! How the heck does Gates get off thinking he can screw his whole chain of command like that?!

It was never a political question. It was a judicial question. Lakin went the right route to have it answered by the proper authorities. The proper route for him would be to query the chain of command and then the SecDef (or the Armed Services Committee) would file a lawsuit (obviously with standing) so that SCOTUS could give the lawful, Constitutional answer to an administrative issue within the US military - which the military would then follow. This was not a revolt. This was how the system was supposed to work. But it didn’t because the chain of command totally blew off their oaths. They left Lakin hanging, and then when his conscience wouldn’t allow him to obey what he believed to be unlawful orders, they hung him out to dry.

But the Bible says that to whom much is given, much is expected. It’s not the Lakins and Steins who should be figuring this out - as you say. It should be Robert Gates and the head of the Armed Services Committee who should have been pushing for answers and it should have been SCOTUS who gave the answers. It is sickening that the only people who took their oaths seriously were the people who had no authority to actually fulfill them.

I’m so sick of the courageous, earnest ones taking the hits while the lily-livered, mealy-mouthed liars (who never meant their oath and were rewarded with high positions because their honor never got in the way of the a$$-kissing they needed to do) piddle over “Screw Obama” by some low-rank Marine.

They are tithing a tenth of dill and cumin and totally ignoring justice, truth, and honor. Straining out the gnats and happily swallowing the camel that everybody in the world was warning them about, jumping up and down so they couldn’t be ignored (but were anyway).

That is criminal negligence. The lawyer for Lakin, at the end of it all, basically said we should be asking why Lakin couldn’t get ANYBODY in the chain of command to give him an answer to a CRITICAL national (and world) security question.

I am not railing against the “vast majority of honorable men past and present”. I am defending them, saying that it is a gross injustice to force them to take an oath and then provide them no way to keep it. If the chain of command IS the “domestic enemy” then it is the lower rungs of that chain who are screwed because there is no way they can ever feel good about the oath they took and how they responded to the domestic enemy they took orders from.

And I’m not talking about somebody just not liking their superior or the orders they are given. I’m talking about a genuine enemy combatant. There is ever-increasing evidence that Obama is a foreigner who was planted in the White House as a puppet by George Soros and an alliance of world communists and Islamists hell-bent on destroying this country.

A puppet who, a year into his presidency, felt the need to tell the Egyptian ambassador that the Muslim world should be patient with him; he had to get Obamacare passed first and then he would go to work on the Muslim agenda, which he supports because he was and still is a Muslim. The Muslim agenda includes the destruction of the US and Israel. Obama was chosen over Hillary because Soros had met with both during the primary and only Obama would agree to Soros’ plan to destroy the US economy.

Do you get that? Obama agreed with Soros to destroy the US economy. We are talking about an enemy combatant in the White House. No joke, no exaggeration. Just sheer reality, which is visible to anybody who is looking. This isn’t snicker-conspiracy type stuff. This is somebody who INTENDS TO DESTROY US.

The DOJ is currently doing everything in their power to ensure that 4 allied forces - all enemies of America - can do as they please and surround every city in this country: Hezbollah coming up from Venezuela (flown in on direct flights from Iran), the Muslim Brotherhood (which is associated with CAIR and a whole slew of people in the Obama Administration and has called for an Arab Spring in the US), the Mexican drug cartels (who the DOJ is arming), and the New Black Panthers (who are fomenting threats and racial turmoil in our cities while law enforcement refuses to do anything about it).

All it will take is a spark to set this whole forest on fire. Black riots, economic collapse (perhaps by another run on the bank like in Sept 2008), or an EMP attack by Iran using a North Korean nuke launched from Venezuela are all scenarios that could happen any day Obama/Soros wants it - and when any of those happens, every state capitol and DC could be overrun with Hezbollah sleeper operatives in hours - while our troops are sitting ducks being shot at over in Afghanistan.

I don’t want to haggle over Stein. Maybe he was OK; maybe not. But what he said - Screw Obama - was primarily wrong because it was said by him when it should have been said by Sec Def Robert Gates, the head of the Armed Services Committee, and SCOTUS - AFTER going through due process and finding out what a lowly county sheriff in Arizona was able to find out without much trouble at all: that Obama is a fake who has committed crimes to get into office.


63 posted on 04/25/2012 6:30:49 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Thought you were gone. I said it before, and I'll say it again Larkin was either a coward or stupid. He was used by the incompetent attorney for the birthers and deserved what he received.

Folks that use the military attempting to further their politics are either fools or stupid.

64 posted on 04/25/2012 6:41:11 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I guess you missed this from me: I don't like or support the current occupant of the White House. I don't believe he is eligible, and know that he is the worst trainwreck for a president that we have ever had.

What kind of crackpot system wouldn’t answer the question of who the legitimate authority actually is?

The one we are currently operating under, and have the ability to change in November of this year.

It was never a political question.

Every person you mentioned is a political appointee. Of course it is political. Was it right, or fair, no. Was it constitutional, yes. Elections have consequences. The military's role in choosing the CIC ends at the ballot box constitutionally.

saying that it is a gross injustice to force them to take an oath and then provide them no way to keep it.

The oath is voluntary no one is forced to take it.

All it will take is a spark to set this whole forest on fire. Black riots, economic collapse (perhaps by another run on the bank like in Sept 2008), or an EMP attack by Iran using a North Korean nuke launched from Venezuela are all scenarios that could happen any day Obama/Soros wants it - and when any of those happens, every state capitol and DC could be overrun with Hezbollah sleeper operatives in hours - while our troops are sitting ducks being shot at over in Afghanistan.

All possible, but then the rules have changed. Everything you outlined is possible with any President just more likely with 0. Elections have consequences. Like willing or unwitting political appointees as you discussed. It doesn't change the fact that we are currently operating under the Constitution. Does it suck, oh yeah. But these ARE political issues, not military ones. Those come later, as the Founders intended.

65 posted on 04/25/2012 7:13:44 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: spel_grammer_an_punct_polise

Yes, but I still think that Copy 4 of his DD214 will not have “honorable” in the line labled “Character of Service.”


66 posted on 04/25/2012 7:28:04 PM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xone

The problem is that politics have trumped the oaths. By even taking the oath, Obama was violating it - knowing that he intended to undo the Constitution he swore to uphold and had actually made plans to destroy the US economy.

It’s not supposed to be that way though. And when military officers take an oath to protect and defend the US Constituion from enemies foreign and domestic, it’s got to be understood that domestic enemies very likely would include those within the military itself. So how does the military provide for accountability for the powerful people in the military?

Our whole system is built on the foundation that fallen human nature is drawn to power, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the answer to deal with corruption is to make sure that those who know there is corruption have the means to get rid of that corruption. What that means is that the low people on the totem pole have the power to hold accountable the POWERFUL people - the ones who are most likely to be corrupted.

So how does the military implement that? Who holds the SecDef accountable, and how? It can’t ever come down to the powerful people; there always has to be a way for the little people to hold the powerful accountable, because it is assumed that the powerful people will all be corrupt unless there is a real way for the little people to zap them. So who can zap the SecDef? Who can zap the people that Lakin went to, who totally ignored their oaths and the serious questions raised?

How do the little people zap SCOTUS if they are corrupt - for instance, when 2 justices refuse to recuse themselves from a conference for a case where their very jobs are the issue?

See, xone, I’m beginning to think that elections don’t really change anything, because the people in powerful positions have no reason to fear we the people. Soros has the media threatened. That we know for a fact. Unless 50+% of the public suddenly gets all their information from alternative media on the internet, that fact alone means that a majority of voters are as compliant as if they’d been given a date-rape drug. There is no reason for anybody in DC to fear us. Add to that the fact that most electronic voting systems are owned by a big Obama donor, and the old Soviet adage comes into play: It’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes...

The military doesn’t choose the CIC, but they have a responsibility to know who the Constitutional CIC is, because the UCMJ requires orders to be given by the lawfully-authorized chain of command, in order to be lawful. The Constitution requires that if the President-elect has not qualified by Jan 20th, the VP-elect is to “act as President” - which includes the job as CIC, and the CIC is the only one authorized to order the use of force (for instance) in the War on Terror. So this isn’t a political issue; it is a LEGAL issue - and one of paramount importance because every order the SecDef sends down the chain of command is unlawful if not properly authorized according to the Constitution.

What do you mean when you say the military issues come later, as the Constitution intended?


67 posted on 04/25/2012 7:42:40 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Here’s a link to the FR thread about the Heritage Foundation video: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2871569/posts I’d really like to transcribe that speech, if I still had my transcription pedal.

Here’s a link to an article from the American Legion, about the same thing: http://www.legion.org/magazine/162503/message-no-one-wanted-hear

Here is a long article about what Bettina said (along with some other stuff about Obama at the 2008 DNC Convention - bizarre stuff - and what happened to the guy who observed it): http://www.politijim.com/2012/03/did-obama-assassinate-clinton-delegates.html


68 posted on 04/25/2012 8:10:59 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
So this isn’t a political issue;

It is political, do you think legal issues occur in a void? Witness the Zimmerman case, the NBP cases.

So how does the military provide for accountability for the powerful people in the military?

Through the UCMJ and the lawful oversight of the Congress and the Executive branch.

What that means is that the low people on the totem pole have the power to hold accountable the POWERFUL people - the ones who are most likely to be corrupted.

In America, by elections.

Who holds the SecDef accountable, and how?

By electing someone for President who isn't a waste of skin.

How do the little people zap SCOTUS if they are corrupt

Through their elected reps in Congress.

See, xone, I’m beginning to think that elections don’t really change anything

That's obvious, but we are a constitutional Republic, if we can keep it. Your solution is unconstitutional

The Constitution requires that if the President-elect has not qualified by Jan 20th, the VP-elect is to “act as President” -

0bama hadn't qualified? Been a pretty good secret for 3 1/2 years.

and one of paramount importance because every order the SecDef sends down the chain of command is unlawful if not properly authorized according to the Constitution.

Has 0bama been found not qualified? No. Do you and I think he isn't, yes. The next question is: So what? What is your constitutional remedy for those of us that think that way? Mine is November.

What do you mean when you say the military issues come later, as the Constitution intended?

I misspoke: the Declaration of Independence

69 posted on 04/25/2012 8:29:57 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Discharge but with Administrative, maybe a general. OTH is really bad. No decent job at all.

Bull cheet.

70 posted on 04/25/2012 8:33:59 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ops33

Yes, that’s true but he can always request a copy after six months. Maybe the copy would show “Honorable”.


71 posted on 04/25/2012 11:08:28 PM PDT by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
"What happened to the military folks who criticized Joe Bite-Me"

If you recall, General McChrystal got the boot. He basically took the fall for everyone because he was in charge. I don't know how many of the other guys got forced out. They are the "small fries" we don't hear about. The ones that didn't get forced out, their careers are most likely over. They've reached terminal rank.
72 posted on 04/26/2012 4:20:31 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

I agree. The only thing that surprises me in this affair is that he got an OTH. That seems harsh given what’s happened in the past when Generals have spoken out. This seems to be a case of RHIP. When you’re a General and have 35 years in, your forced into retirement. When you’re a lowly sergeant, you get squashed. I would hope the appeals board would upgrade his discharge, however I’ve heard that they do not upgrade as many of the appeals as we might think.


73 posted on 04/26/2012 4:23:29 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ops33
"He was told to stop and continued. That in itself is disobeying a lawful order."

Might be why he's getting an OTH, instead of a General under Honorable conditions.
74 posted on 04/26/2012 4:24:51 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

OK his Oath of Enlistment for starters:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


75 posted on 04/26/2012 4:30:42 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
"9 years and he was still a Sergeant. That in and of itself was reason enough to RIF that pogue."

A.A., I'm not sure what his MOS was, but in the grunts it's hard to make rank. I didn't make staff until after 10 years and I'm sure there are plenty of 9 year sergeants in the grunts. On the other hand, some MOS's I remember it was easy to make rank. I remember the guys in intel (0200 field) were Sergeants after 4 years and staff after about 7 years.
76 posted on 04/26/2012 4:50:08 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: spel_grammer_an_punct_polise

I’m not sure. I suspect that with sufficient appeals his character of service will be upgraded. From what I understand, except for this lapse of good judgement concerning his postings on the President, his oveall service in the Marines was good.


77 posted on 04/26/2012 5:29:36 AM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: spel_grammer_an_punct_polise

I suspect he has several years ahead of appeals and requests for change to his military record. All in all, not worth it.


78 posted on 04/26/2012 5:31:48 AM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: xone

When I say this isn’t political I am speaking in very technical terms. The courts, including the court-martial, have said that this is a political issue, which means that it is an issue that is specifically assigned in the Constitution to a branch other than the judicial branch. It is not. Charles Kerchner had his case filed before Obama ever took office - shortly before noon on Jan 20, 2009 when the presidential term was Constitutionally to begin, IIRC. That was a “controversy arising from the Constitution” that the Third Article specifically gives to the judiciary to resolve.

It is crazy for us to think that the Secretaries of State for the states are Constitutional scholars who have the authority to interpret the US Constitution in a manner that is binding on the entire country. The courts refused to do their Constitutional duty because they claimed they had nothing that technically qualified as a “case” (because they denied standing to EVERYBODY - it is nobody’s friggin’ business whether we have a usurper in our White House since this isn’t government of the people, by the people, and for the people). Never mind that the Third Article also refers to “controversies” being handled by the judiciary, which would include more general questions that apply to the whole citizenry and not just people who have particularized injury.

The courts betrayed the US Constitution and this country. And the military people and Armed SErvices Committee - as well as every Congress-critter - who could have filed a case that clearly had “standing”. The people we voted in to protect us AS THEY SWORE TO DO broke their oaths and the Constitution.

I am not suggesting a military coup. I don’t know what you think I am suggesting. In this thread I’m pretty much just saying that if the troops want to use their free speech to speak against the foreign enemy combatant in the White House that none of the military brass had the balls to keep their oath over, that’s supposed to be a guaranteed right in this country.

Barack Obama has never qualified to serve as President. The guy’s BC in Hawaii - if he even has one and if the HDOH and OIP have been truthful in their initial UIPA responses - is amended and thus not legally probative. Hawaii statutes say that the probative value of amended and late BC’s must be determined by the judicial or administrative person or body to which they are presented. IOW, that BC has NO LEGAL VALUE until it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. It has not yet been legally determined what this guy’s age is, where he was born, or who his parents are - all of which factor into Presidential eligibility. He may be eligible or he may not, but what we can know for sure is that by Jan 20, 2009 even his age had never been legally determined. He can’t have qualified if he doesn’t even HAVE a legal age. If he has a legal age it is based on some BC besides a Hawaii one, and that would disqualify him on the basis of foreign birth.

My solution is to throw the SOB in jail for the crimes of fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice, extortion, and treason (if foreigners can commit treason).

Trouble is, those are federal crimes and we’ve got a domestic enemy combatant as AG.

Congress could impeach them both but then we’ve got a mixture of enemy combatants and political vermin in Congress and a media they all fawn over that has been illegally threatened into lying.

IOW, all our systems are hostage, which is about as unconstitutional as we could possibly get. And isn’t going to change any time soon unless we the people can somehow create a truthful media that turns the majority of the public away from the hostage and/or treasonous media they currently listen to.

Those are the means I’m working with. I’m working with law enforcement and working to expose the hostage/treasonous media and replace it with truthful public information. I also wasted a bunch of time this week trying to engage with the political process but once again the money of Romney and the treasonous media are too much to fight; I’ll vote and go through the motions of democracy just like the whole system goes through the motions, but without a truthful media and voting system with integrity the political process is only going to give us more of the same crap that put us where we are.

You asked if I talk about this to my nephews. Never. I’ll let them carry on with ignorance as their plausible deniability. Which is exactly what the military people who despise Lakin would have had him do.


79 posted on 04/26/2012 6:22:56 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
. In this thread I’m pretty much just saying that if the troops want to use their free speech to speak against the foreign enemy combatant in the White House that none of the military brass had the balls to keep their oath over, that’s supposed to be a guaranteed right in this country.

And herein lies the problem, because of the relationship of the troops to their elected leaders. You can use your 'free speech rights' as a troop; when someone in authority counsels you if you don't desist, you are no longer a troop. There is a limit on free speech when someone else determines what speech is prejudicial to 'good order and discipline'. It must be that way. As a result of the need for order and discipline, military members will have to have their free speech rights limited in order for them to do their mission. They are no longer free agents, they are members of a team. If they desire the guaranteed right, they must leave the service.

I am not suggesting a military coup. I don’t know what you think I am suggesting.

You are when you suggest that a military officer by his own determination act against an elected leader to remove him from office as an enemy.

80 posted on 04/26/2012 8:35:35 AM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: xone

I have never suggested that a military officer make his own determination. That’s my whole point. The role of the military is to get legal clarification of the situation through the Constitutional processes.

They refused to do that. The military leadership refused to do that. So did the civilian leadership. None of the Constitutional processes have been used as required by both the Constitution and the oaths that were taken by both military and civilian leaders.

Obama has no legally-determined age. He clearly failed the 20th Amendment’s requirement to “act as President”. But the people who swore to defend and protect the US Constitution have refused to even follow the protocols prescribed by the Constitution - as I noted in my previous post referring to the Third Article’s use of the word “controversies”. This is a miscarriage of the 20th Amendment, the Third Article, and the due process and equal protections clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Now there is evidence that Obama engaged in election fraud AT THE VERY LEAST. That’s a federal felony. Furthermore, since the Selective Service apparently had to forge a draft registration form for him he must not have a genuine draft registration so it has been illegal for him to hold ANY public office for all these years.

IOW, we have judicial, criminal, and administrative indications that he cannot lawfully act as President. Staring us all in the face. I have merely suggested that due process be done. If it was, this guy would be in jail rather than in the White House. And every officer in the US has to know this already; there’s no excuse if they don’t. The Emperor is naked.

If the military knew that one of their civilian contractors was guilty of crimes and failed to meet the credentials to be given the contract, what would the military do?

And that’s not even going into the whole issue of Obama agreeing with Soros to destroy the US economy, or Obama’s ties to both communists and Islamists who have sworn to destroy America - or his promise to the Egyptian ambassador to work on the Muslim agenda once he got Obamacare passed. Don’t forget that the Muslim agenda is the destruction of the US and Israel (which makes him an enemy of the US) and the institution of worldwide sharia - including in the US (which makes him an enemy of the US Constitution).

If he was put out of office for not registering for the draft it would be a little bit like Al Capone being jailed for tax evasion. Obama has a LOT more crime he could be tried for on the eligibility issue alone - including fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice, extortion (though that was most probably done by somebody else on his behalf), libel, and treason. But if we had even the smallest bit of administrative integrity he’d be eliminated from acting as POTUS because of the missing draft registration, before any of the real meat of his crimes against America even had to be brought up.

I’m not suggesting anything radical. I’m just suggesting we have the bare minimum of the rule of law. Apparently that’s too much to ask. We can have a major stink over the national security implications of Secret Service and military guys bringing whores into their rooms but not one peep out of the whole country bringing a communist-Islamist whore into our White House. And those who say anything against that whore or why we are paying him to rape the country are vilified.

Maybe Stein is guilty of a sin of commission. But not nearly as guilty as everybody else is of the sin of OMISSION. One of the confessional prayers in my church is, “We have sinned against You in thought, word, and deed - by what we have done and by what we have left undone...”

The sins/crimes of omission far, far outweigh any sin/crime of commission that Stein committed. That’s what I’m saying.

Sure, Stein should shut up if he was told to. My understanding is that until he talked about Obama’s eligibility he was told he was fine. If that’s the case, then somebody needs to explain why it’s fine to criticize the CIC on other things but all of a sudden not OK when you point out what everybody already knows about him - which is critical to the lawfulness of all combat orders given in the military. IOW, why is it OK to b!tch about gossipy type things but forbidden to talk about the legal issues that really matter? Somebody needs to explain that to us all.


81 posted on 04/26/2012 9:25:26 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

What was his officer’s oath?


82 posted on 04/26/2012 9:26:21 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Uh, PSST he was ENLISTED! You need to GET A CLUE on how the US Military works!


83 posted on 04/26/2012 9:32:44 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Obedience to the President and superior officers is conditional - they must be obeyed or disobeyed according to the regulations and the UCMJ. The UCMJ requires orders to be given by people lawfully authorized to give them. War powers are given to Congress, which delegated them to the CIC and the SecDef acting under the authority of the CIC.

The Constitution doesn’t allow the CIC to ACT as President if he has “failed to qualify”. It only allows the VP/VP-elect to do so in that case.

So even the oath of enlistment requires disobedience to Barack Obama if the Constitution only authorizes Joe Biden to act as President. And that is a question only made more valid over time, as we see documentation of Obama’s election fraud and the fact that he had to use two forgeries rather than a genuine HI BC for some reason. SCOTUS refuses to answer that question - basically holding the whole Constitutional process hostage. Holding every enlisted man and woman hostage.


84 posted on 04/26/2012 9:35:00 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Oh by the way do YOU have a DD-214?


85 posted on 04/26/2012 9:40:19 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

If DD-214 is a draft registration I don’t have one because females are exempt. If it’s not, then you’ll have to explain what that is so I can answer you.


86 posted on 04/26/2012 9:43:32 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Fellow Vets and/or US Military Retirees IGNORE this person, she is CLUELESS on Military Matters.


87 posted on 04/26/2012 9:45:40 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Orly is that you?


88 posted on 04/26/2012 9:52:04 AM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD_Form_214


89 posted on 04/26/2012 9:56:10 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

I have never served in the US military. Nor have I ever claimed that I did.


90 posted on 04/26/2012 10:05:29 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

We can tell.


91 posted on 04/26/2012 10:08:24 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
The role of the military is to get legal clarification of the situation through the Constitutional processes.

No the military's job is to fight. It isn't intended to be a political organ.

My understanding is that until he talked about Obama’s eligibility he was told he was fine.

As a self-identified military guy he wasn't fine. Using a gov't computer wasn't fine. Continuing after being counseled wasn't fine despite the sea lawyer's advice.

I have merely suggested that due process be done. If it was, this guy would be in jail rather than in the White House.

But it wasn't, I wish it had been, I wish I was taller. What is your remedy?

I have never suggested that a military officer make his own determination.

Of course you have, those military guys that went to court and got smushed did just that, to no effect. It isn't an approach that can work.

we have judicial, criminal, and administrative indications that he cannot lawfully act as President

And yet no proof that can meet the bar set for such determinations.

92 posted on 04/26/2012 10:17:29 AM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

I looked at your profile and see that you share a belief that the War on Terror is a critical issue, and that you despise both political parties. I bet we agree on a lot more things than we disagree on.

How do you feel about the CIC telling the Muslim world to be patient with him while he gets Obamacare passed and then he will go to work on the Muslim agenda? (The agenda all sects of Islam agree on is the destruction of the US and Israel and the institution of worldwide sharia)

How do you feel about George Soros meeting with both Hillary and Obama and only Obama agreeing with Soros’ plan to destroy the US economy?

How do you feel about the US border being left wide open to
Hezbollah(flown in on direct flights from Iran to Venezuela) and their allies:

1) the Mexican drug cartels (which have patterned their strategy on the Daniel Perle beheading and are allied with Hezbollah to smuggle them into the US - and which are being armed by the US government with untrackable guns),

2) the Muslim Brotherhood (which are the foundational organization for CAIR, who has lots of influence and position in the Obama Administration), and

3) the New Black Panthers (which are allied to both Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, are fomenting racial hatred and violence in cities in response to Trayvon, are covered legally by Eric Holder who refuses to prosecute them for crimes, and subscribe to the same Sub-Saharan Supremacy that Obama and Bill Ayers forced inner-city Chicago teachers to be trained in through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge)?

We can disagree on methods to fix this mess. To be honest, I’m not sure there is any way for this mess to be fixed at this point. The systems are all hostage. I was just discussing with somebody on another thread the opportunity for vote fraud; he was entering data for the NY primary on Tuesday and said there are no checks and no way to audit that what is entered is in any way related to what the voters actually chose on their ballots.

So how do you propose we fix this mess?


93 posted on 04/26/2012 10:19:13 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: xone

The proof is available. What isn’t available is a system that will allow the proof to even matter.

We’ve already got two judges in ballot challenges who have given basically “judge’s knowledge” as the basis for ruling that Obama is eligible to be on state ballots, ruling for Obama even though absolutely no evidence was ever presented for his age, residency, current US citizenship, place of birth, or parentage - all of which are necessary to establish Presidential eligibility.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t like these sharia rulings. They spit on due process.

The military’s job is to fight when properly authorized. No?

My remedy is what I’m working on: law enforcement and informing the public. Both are taken hostage to a certain point.

The only real law enforcement being done in this country at this point is at the state and local levels, which means that only state and local crimes can be tried. To get the feds involved while Eric Holder is the fox guarding the henhouse, Congress would have to authorize an independent investigation. Their souls are dead; they will never do that.

At this point the public is too busy making ends meet to listen to anything beyond the 1-minute-on-the-hour “news” from the hostage media - and I mean that literally; Mike Zullo and Doug Hagman have both spoken to the witnesses and Hagman has other material evidence corroborating their claims that on-air personalities were threatened if they reported on Obama’s eligibility, and now there is evidence also that Glenn Beck left Fox because he was doing too much to expose Obama/Soros’ lawless connections to both communists and Islamists - which didn’t go over well with one of the Fox Bd of Directors members who has a financial stake with Soros - so Fox wouldn’t protect Beck’s lower staffers from the death threats being constantly made.

And at this point even if people were informed well enough to vote against Obama, what matters is who counts the votes, and as I just mentioned to somebody else, the electronic voting systems are not being audited; there is nothing to stop widespread election fraud.

I also believe, as I mentioned before, that the US is vulnerable to attacks that would signal US’s Arab Spring to begin with Hezbollah operatives taking over all state capitols and DC - and that if any of the polling suggested that Obama wouldn’t win an election, they would use any of those 3 events (or possibly others, that I’m not going to talk about) to trigger the final communist-Islamist coup. Our troops are being shot at in Afghanistan; they’re not here.

So basically the solution it will probably come down to is the guns that people like you and me have, and our willingness to use them against Hezbollah operatives. Fear of those guns may be what has kept Obama/Soros from initiating the final coup already.

So Constitutional answers? I don’t think the Constitution provides for the situation we’re in, except through the 2nd Amendment. Which is what the Trayvon Martin case is working to undo.

What’s your solution?


94 posted on 04/26/2012 10:38:29 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

Policy not too long ago was that if wou weren’t selected for Staff after eight years you were RIFd, regardless of MOS. Stein is an IT puke with plenty of time on his hands to take MCI courses out the wazoo to pad his cutting score. I’ll bet that a look at his fitreps would tell quite a story. He’s a s***bird plain and simple.


95 posted on 04/26/2012 5:34:02 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-95 last

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