Military Board Recommends Dismissal for Marine Who Posted Anti-Obama Comments on Facebook
- Posted on April 7, 2012 at 8:50am by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
A military board has recommended Sgt. Gary Stein be dismissed for posting anti-Obama comments and images on Facebook. (AP Photo/Courtesy Gary Stein, File)
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (The Blaze/AP) — Marine Corps officials are seeking additional guidance from the Pentagon regarding service members’ use of social media amid discharge proceedings against a Camp Pendleton sergeant who criticized President Barack Obama on Facebook.
(Related: Marines Against Obama? Cover of Marine Times Leads With Story on Opposition)
Joe Kasper, spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said Friday that Hunter’s office was notified of the plans in a letter from a Marine Corps major general.
Hunter had urged authorities to withdraw discharge proceedings against Sgt. Gary Stein because he said the Pentagon‘s policy limiting service members’ free is ambiguous about the use of social media.
A Marine Corps administrative board concluded after a daylong hearing Thursday at Camp Pendleton that Stein violated the policy when he posted anti-Obama comments and images on Facebook, including allegedly putting the president’s face on a “Jackass” movie poster.
The board recommended that Stein be given an other-than-honorable discharge. That would mean Stein would lose his benefits and would not be allowed on any military base.
The board’s recommendations go to a general who will either accept or deny them. If the general disagrees with the board, the case could go to the secretary of the Navy.
Stein’s lawyers and Hunter and argued that the Pentagon policy is vague and military officials do not understand it.
Stein has said his opinions are his own and he put a disclaimer on his Facebook page saying so. His attorneys argued that service members have a right to voice their opinions as long as they do not appear to be presenting their views as being endorsed by the military.
“If there is anything good to come out of this, it’s the fact that the Marines realize the guidelines need to be updated,” Kasper said Friday. “It’s just too bad it took all of this to get there.”
The Marine Corps has said it decided to take administrative action after Stein declared on Facebook that he would not follow orders from Obama. Stein later clarified that statement saying he would not follow unlawful orders.
The military has had a policy since the Civil War limiting the free speech of service members, including criticism of the commander in chief.
Pentagon directives say military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement.
Hunter told Marine Corps officials in his letter supporting Stein that the policy “is both vague and contradicting in the context of new `social media.’ In fact, nothing in the directive actually mentions social media and what activity is or is not approved for active duty service members.”
He said the policy needs to be updated to reflect “the changing dynamics of social communication” that includes a forum for the interaction between friends, families and acquaintances.
During Stein’s hearing, the prosecutor, Capt. John Torresala, said Stein ignored warnings from his superiors about his postings.
The government submitted screen grabs of Stein’s postings on one Facebook page he created called Armed Forces Tea Party, which the prosecutor said included the image of Obama on the “Jackass” movie poster. Stein also superimposed Obama’s image on a poster for “The Incredibles” movie that he changed to “The Horribles,” the prosecutor said. The Armed Forces Tea Party Facebook page has more than 27,000 “likes,” double the amount it had one month ago.
Image source: Facebook
Torresala also said anti-Obama comments by Stein that were posted on a Facebook page used by Marine meteorologists were prejudicial to good order and discipline, and could have influenced junior Marines.
Stein’s lawyers argued that the nine-year Marine, whose service was to end in four months, was exercising his First Amendment rights.
“We’re truly surprised and disappointed but it was an honor to fight for a hero like Sgt. Stein and every other Marine’s right to speak freely,” Stein’s defense attorney, Marine Capt. James Baehr, said after the hearing that ended close to midnight Thursday.
Stein told board members he loved the Marine Corps and wanted to re-enlist, Baehr said.
Stein said his statement about Obama was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.
In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if it involved detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.
Stein said he was removed from his job at the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego last month and given a desk job with no access to computers.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 706 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 557 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 371 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 363 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 362 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 363 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 371 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 288 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 363 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (203)
EqualJustice
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:48amMaybe he can DELAY his trial until BO is gone? Holder is doing that…
Report Post »mjgma
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:48amI am a believer in free speech, but if you think in the military you can basically say you would not follow a commander‘s order and it’s okay, you would be wrong and even though we might agree with him, you can’t have this in a military structure and no matter how you look at it, folks, it is the military.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:01amYeah..well let’s see if you have the same opinion ifthey declare Martial Law and and you supported them having to obey the foreign Muslim Commander in Chief.
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:05amTell that to the Germans who were hanged for following Hitler’s orders. There is a very clear precedent for NOT following unlawful orders. Obama has systematically destroyed the moral and welfare of the military that I proudly served for twenty years.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:21amI can obviously tell that you have never served in the armed forces. Any order that you are given is subject to question. It is only during boot camp that questioning of an order is deemed punishable and even then, the punishment is only getting worn out on the quarterdeck doing exercises while getting yelled at. In fact, if men do not scrutinize the orders they are given and blindly follow an unlawful or unconstitutional order, then they are betraying their oath and committing a criminal act. We are not a military protecting a monarchy or totalitarian dictator ship. We serve a republic comprised of citizens who all have inalienable rights, including those who serve.
The officers who are attempting to discharge this Marine are disgracing my Corps and they should all receive no respect for their unlawful attempt to rob one of this nation’s guardians from the rights that he works to guarantee for everyone else on a daily basis.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:29amYou nailed it on the head. Order comes first and foremost in the military; and if the chain of command is not respected, order breaks down.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:35amI grew up in the Navy. My father told me on many occasions that by signing up he was the “Property of The United States Navy” . This was not to be taken lightly. He retired in 1973.
Report Post »Whoever your employer is, public or private, you DO NOT have the RIGHT to speak negatively. This can and in most cases will result in termination.
SgtB
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:40am@ Locked, Are you a member of the military? Do you have any first hand experience of being given an unlawful order and having rejected it? Did you save your superior’s @55 by not following their orders? I have. While obedience to LAWFUL orders is paramount, the questioning of whether an order is lawful or not is also of paramount importance. And if an order is determined to be unlawful (such as taking the rights and freedoms from American citizens or going to war without congressional approval) then it should not be followed and the person who rendered the order should be charged.
Furthermore, if one simply blindly follows their commander’s orders and later those orders are deemed to be unlawful, both the commander and all who followed his orders are guilty of criminal actions. A laundry list of WWII war crimes tribunals will easily prove this point to the most closed minded individual.
Lastly, I am sick and tired of people and the military itself trying to limit the free speech of any service member. There should be a rule governing the misrepresentation of the entire service or your command, but there should be no law or rule against exercising one’s own free speech. Sergeant Stein never once claimed that he spoke for his command or for the Corps. There was no misrepresentation and all of his writings were claimed to be his own. To deny him free speech, political as it may be, is unconstitutional and as far as I am concerned, the Constitution trumps the UCMJ.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:51am@SGTB God Bless you Sir.. Thank you for your service..the love of your country and for telling the truth..I wish every one of these citizens had as much honor and intelligence as you..
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:54am@ Stoic One, As far as I can tell, Sgt Stein NEVER spoke an ill word about his employer; the American public. He did however say that he would be their faithful servant and vowed not to follow unlawful orders given by his “superiors”. I think people like you have conflated elected and appointed officials for the sovereign in this nation, and it needs to stop. The American Citizen is the source of all legitimate power in this nation, not government which was created by the American citizenry. You are partly right in that if you speak ill about your employer, you will be subject to dismissal from you job. But at a private place of business, your employer is the man, woman, or shareholders that physically own the business and your rights to free speech are never denied under their employment. They may fire you, but they will never be able to say that you cannot practice free speech. All that they can do is say that they disagree with you and that they choose to end their business relationship with you.
What is happening here is entirely different. The US military is denying that service members have a natural and constitutional right to free speech. I can see how some would be confused because the distinction in this case is rather discreet, but it is there. As a member of the military, you do not serve the Congress or the President. You serve the American people and the Congress and President are more like lower level management than your employer.
Report Post »ThoreauHD
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:14am“Yeah..well let’s see if you have the same opinion ifthey declare Martial Law and and you supported them having to obey the foreign Muslim Commander in Chief.”
ROFL! Right on the nose buddy.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:20am@SGTB
“While obedience to LAWFUL orders is paramount, the questioning of whether an order is lawful or not is also of paramount importance.”
That’s not what this guy did. From the previous Blaze article on the subject:
“Then he declared that he wouldn’t follow orders from the commander in chief, President Barack Obama.”
He later changed it to “unlawful orders,” but his original post was that he wouldn’t follow the president.
I’m curious about your case now. What unlawful order did you disobey, and were you discharged?
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:53amThere’s a reason why the military is under the command of a civilian. If we take that one step farther, every idiot who tells me I don’t understand and should shut up about supporting this guy can kiss my hairy butt cheek.
Report Post »BLAZENewser
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:53amI taught the Oath of Office and the Constitution to Officers in training while serving for 28 years in the Military. I dont know all the issues surrounding this case….but I am going to research it. However, If he was saying that he would not follow an unlawful Order….He is right. As part of the Oath it says we are to defend the Constitution from Enemies both foreign and domestic. So what is a domestic ememy to the Constitution? The officer giving an unlawful order is breaking the Constitution or some lesser law. Would we say the order should be followed if an officer said that a soldier should rape a fellow soldier? I am only using the extreme to demonstrate that there can be unlawful orders. Every Order should be questioned by the individual receiving it. Some are quick to discern that it is lawful…others not so quick. But we are always to follow Lawful orders. If we do not question orders as to their legality…we become like the Nazi’s who tried to say they should not be prosecuted for killing Jews because they were following orders. Nuremberg and Tokyo? Does this scare anyone? Or the My Lai incident of Vietnam could happen. NO we should not follow unlawful orders. It is part of what makes the American Military Great! Educated, Moral and informed soldiers.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:58amSGTB
Report Post »Thank you for that calcification. I did go to his FB page and you are correct.
Also I would like to thank you for your service to our country.
Stoic one
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 12:06pmYes I was guilty of the following:
Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, become confused until there seems to be only a single identity — the differences appear to become lost.[1] In logic, the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one does often produce error or misunderstanding, as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.[2] However, if the distinctions between two concepts appears to be superficial, intentional conflation may be desirable for the sake of conciseness.
Because of the above I never served. I despise a large segment of our federal government because of it’s totalitarian characteristics; Yet I have a deep and abiding respect for our military.
Report Post »fixmfast
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 12:10pmI am of two opinions on this. As much as I hate the fact, that worm IS the President……for now. The whole point of the military is to protect the constitution and civilians. They don’t have the same laws as civilians do either. Military members don’t have the same rights that civilians do, as it should be. They are held to a higher standard. Again, as it should be.
Report Post »However, for his military board to be so PC about the whole thing is ignorant. (It should be said that Marines aren’t held to a higher standard as far as their ASVAB scores go. So it isn‘t a surprise that his board don’t have alot of common sense.) This kid DID state that it is HIS opinion and not the Marines’ . He appropriately voiced it as such. To take away his honorable discharge is disgusting and shows that even the military seems to think in PC.
If martial law is declared I would think that most of the service members would have the common sense not to open fire on civilians orders or no orders.
MyAmericaToo
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 12:34pmIrony…Those who defend our right to free speech are not allowed themselves to speak.
Report Post »Thewayiseeit
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 12:48pmTo say that a person in the military doesn’t share in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution they vow an oath to uphold, with their LIVES, would show total ignorance to the meaning of the constitution. I know many in the armed services, who have little respect for the president, but would none the less, die for any LAWFUL order he would command. To say this Marine does not have the right, is to say none of us have the right. Mr. Obama you show little leadership ability & you have disrespected & placed in harm’s way the very Military that protects this land.
Before judging this Marine, you might try using that same litmus paper on the commander in chief.
I have no issue with that member of the Marines other than his failure to keep his personal issues from creating a public discord on the Military.
Obama,
Report Post »Respect is earned!
That you have not gained the respect of the Military you command, points to YOUR flaws, not theirs!
The Military will not & has no obligation to, follow any “illegal or immoral” order issued by you.
You put them or the Citizens needlessly in harms way & sir, they will protect the United States from you & those socialist shills that you have in the service are well observed & will be easily removed…
The Military has a long history, perhaps while you were “Pretending” to learn Constitutional law that you just failed at, you might have done well to “Pretend” to study American History.
Lt_Scrounge
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 12:59pmMilitary members are taught to NOT follow orders that they believe to be unlawful. The orders that Sgt Stein stated that he would refuse to follow would be considered illegal in that they violate not only the citizens’ Constitutionally protected rights, but also the Posse Comitatus act if given on US territory.
While I understand that many who have never served in the military, or did not serve in a leadership capacity don’t realize that military members are obligated to NOT follow unlawful orders. Following orders blindly is how you end up with atrocities like My Lai, and the Nazi Concentration camps. “I was just following orders” is NOT a valid defense for war crimes trials. If school kids in this country actually got a decent education in history, there wouldn’t be any discussion as to whether what Sgt Stein said was proper or not. For that matter, with a solid grounding in history education, there wouldn’t even be a NEED for Sgt Stein to make those statements. No politician in the country would dare even float the idea of the “Civilian Defense Corps” that’s in th GIVE act, the indefinite detention without due process of the NDAA, or any of a number of provisions of the Obamacare act. If they did, they’d be run out of town on a rail, or brought up on charges of treason.
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 1:19pmI did time in the military, but if anybody thinks I’d do it again, they’re nuts. It’s a complete sham now. You risk your life while the powers that be don’t fight to win. You’d have to be a complete idiot to enlist now. Either that, or you’re the type that requires a government check bi-monthly for the rest of your life.
I’m actually relieved for this marine. He’s not modern-day military material – he’s got an independent mind, obviously quite clever and has a set of stones on him like traditional American males used to have.
Godspeed, young man!
Report Post »georgepatton
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 1:57pmSo if the commander-and -chief is a communist and wants to destroy the constitution (which he swore an oath to preserve and protect ) your ok with that????????????????????????
Report Post »georgepatton
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 2:06pmSo….The commander and chief of the United States of America is destroying the Constitution of our country(an oath he took to“ preserve and protect”) and that’s OK by YOU!!!!!!
Report Post »Did your parents have any children that survived????????????????
ApostolicIlx
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 2:53pmIt’s not that you can refuse an order, but you can refuse an unlawful order. In fact, you are required to refuse to follow an unlawful order. Take it from someone who has had officers court-martial ed for issuing unlawful orders. Or don’t, either way, no skin off my nose.
Report Post »Freedom.Fighter
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 5:11pm- You would think they would worry about questioning and changing the way that the command structure works.
Report Post »- We haven’t had a decisive military victory since 1945. I would say that that is a sign that the way the military operates isn’t working.
- So trying to expand and enforce the very standards that have led us to failure is just brainless – a stereotype that one would think the military would be trying to get itself out of.
bluestatejarhead
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 5:32pmI say you read the quote above the armed forces teaparty logo ! Sounds like a SOLID statement ! The oath has the words “any LAWFUL order”
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 6:33pmWAR CRIMES Trials,,, rejects the Defense that All Orders are Legal & Must be Followed!
Once you place any Officer (even a President) before the Constitution, you are a Traitor to the Republic!
See… you… on the Battle Field!
Report Post »britlynz
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 7:35pmThe UCMJ directs a serviceman NOT to follow unlawful orders.
Report Post »rochesterruler
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 8:21pmI agree and like the poster below . When they give the order to fire on their own citizens .Do they follow that order? Both parties are screwed up but the left is worse.
Report Post »RabidPatriot
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:40pmI am a veteran that served before, during and after 9/11. The structure of the military chain of command cannot be maintained with open dissent against those giving the orders. I am not a fan of President Obama but he has not given any orders that differ much from President Bush. People here have posted foolish comparisons to Hitler and orders to fire on citizens of the U.S. Don’t let your hate for President Obama make you as big of a fool as those idiots that hate President Bush. Their paranoia and anger destroyed their ability to produce reasonable thought. I am starting see lots of that kind of nonsense now with Obama haters.
Report Post »Treaty
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:56pmFirst you have to earn respect, then you can demand it.
Report Post »VanceUppercut
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:08pm@ashestoashes
Again, irrational fear based on something that you imagine will happen.
Report Post »Servant Of YHVH
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:32pmLet’s make it easy and do it right. Reinstate Sgt. Stein and dismiss obama with a dishonorable discharge with about 80 years in the stockade for treason!
Report Post »Patrick Henry II
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:47pmIf a soldier willingly and knowingly follows an unlawful order as described by Sgt. Stein they would be a traitor and could be punishable even up to the penalty of death Sgt. Stein was correct in his statement. I am not sure about him actually saying it in the new media though. However it is a given that you have to uphold the Constitution of the USA; orders be damned
Report Post ».
AmericanFightingMan1
Posted on April 8, 2012 at 12:07amServicemembers are duty bound to disobey unlawful orders. When a servicemember receives an unlawful order, the first response is to ask for clarification. When the order is restated and still perceived to be illegal, the servicemember is to inform the superior that the servicemember believes the order to be illegal and ask for an alternate order that is legal to accomplish the mission. If the order stands and is illegal, the servicemember is duty bound, by law, to disobey. However, if the servicemember is incorrect and the order is legal, the servicemember may be punished by UCMJ.
This is not what SGT Stein got in trouble for. He got in trouble for casting the President in a bad light by posting his image on a Jackass. Ok, I happen to agree with this characterization, but anyone who has served in uniform and has half a brain knows, this is a no go at this station.
It is a UCMJ Article 134 offense to act in this manner. Such acts, bringing discredit on to the Commander in Chief, in turn brings discredit upon the servicemember, his unit and the US military, and it is also detrimental to good order and discipline. The board in this case had no other option. To allow otherwise is to allow mutiny and disorder (ie., anarchy) in the ranks.
That said, I do believe that the POTSU is a marxist, is a muslim, and is out to bring our nation down. We must muster the evidence and be ready at the right time.
Report Post »Free2speakRN
Posted on April 8, 2012 at 10:26amSgtB,
Thank you for everything.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on April 8, 2012 at 5:13pmHere’s the problem: at what point do you draw the line? This is an imposition on free speech and I’m sorry, the military if anyone should have free speech! We‘re the only ones volunteering to put our butts in harm’s way to defend free speech and then we‘re told that we’re not allowed to voice our opinions? That’s a slap in the face!
This dictator is making an example of this honorable Jarhead because he won’t compromise his beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.
Oh, and to the Obomba Admin hacks patrolling this among many sites to see what the enemies (The One’s words, not ours) are saying: eat it! I’m no longer an active or inactive Marine, so please come after me! I beg you!
Report Post »CharlesMartel
Posted on April 8, 2012 at 9:53pmThe worst thing that I have seen reported about what Sgt Stein wrote was that, if he were given an illegal order, he would refuse to obey it.
When I had Basic Training in the Army (back during the Vietnam War, shortly after Lt Calley’s Court Martial) we were told we had a duty to disobey an illegal orders.
Report Post »Buddynoel
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:41amSorry folks, but this is no different than if the sergeant had openly criticized his division colonel or battalion commander. As much as we may not like the putz in charge, military members arent there to foster an open dialogue – a more sensitive and fair workplace. It’s the only way you are going to be assured of victory when you tell someone to run directly at on-going machine gun fire.
Report Post »glashole
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:48amRegardless, the man spoke the truth. Our current POTUS is far more difficult to respect due to his treasonous behavior than a young man who has sworn to uphold and protect the constitution.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:49amYes, we have a 1st amendment, but as a military member, you can not speak ill of the president and elected officials. If he wants a voice, then he can blog without giving away his identity. If he had a facebook page, where just his closest family and freinds were members, he would have been fine. When you start posting stuff that is open forum to your chain of command, then you might just pay a price for you actions. Classic case of alligator mouth overriding a tad pole butt.
I deleted everything I ever posted on facebook a while back, and deleted every single friend
Report Post ». I may be crazy, but it just seems like a very easy way for the powers to be to track a whole lot of info about you. I sometimes wonder if all the stuff I post on the blaze aint going into a folder somewhere?
SgtB
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:32am@ RangerP, I’ll tell you what, you can go ahead and live in fear of your CO. I for one will let any officer know what an unlawful order is or tell them where they can go if they try to issue me an unlawful order. For the most part, officers I have served under have been just a keen on keeping their oath as I am, but there are those who are still racist bigots who don’t believe in inalienable rights and the Constitution and I have told them that they are wrong on occasion.
The hell of it is that our officer corps is being diluted with mindless drones who only care about following orders and gaining rank instead of doing what they swore to do and what is right. I think that in this atmosphere, more service members need to speak out against our broken leadership and especially against our tyrannical “President”. And unless you start to get the idea that I am only against Obama, President Bush has given several orders that should have never been followed. During Katrina, the governor or mayor issued an order that citizens would be “relieved” of their weapons and thousands of people were driven from their homes and their guns were confiscated by police and national guardsmen. Every one of these men I consider a traitor and they should die a traitors death for having acted in taking the rights of a fellow citizen without due process or cause. Oh, and why the hell are we still in Afghanistan? We shouldn’t have ever gone over there in the first place.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:53am@TIMETOEND No we do the wham bam thank you mam..This is an emergency..we are on the fast track to the world financial collapse.. Did you ever stop to think that these 5 government agencies are about total governmental control.. with the liberal Dept of Ed and the EPA..even the Muslim Brotherhood agenda is getting into all of that.. These others have no plans to keep out the Muslim Brotherhood nor do they have any plans to turn this country around.. Did you ever think that our country could be reconstructed with Christian values again and create more and better jobs.. like drug educational programs and getting rid of the subversion used by the Communists..more healthcare workers and inventions.. We could do this ..It takes vision..We are headed down the same path with both parties Time..Open your eyes.. We could be free.. we could be prosperous.. I don’t really know if it matters..I got an email from a doctor this morning saying that the Fukeshima meltdown was much worse than anticipated and that California has something like 540x the radiation as normal and that the nuclear power plants in this country are slated for the same meltdowns.. we are doing a great job at destroying ourselves.. So maybe all this bickering is for naught..
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 12:25pm“As much as we may not like the putz in charge, military members arent there to foster an open dialogue – a more sensitive and fair workplace.”
Whoa there, big guy. I gotta call BS on that statement.
1) Repeal of DADT: What the individual does in the bedroom trumps concerns about cohesiveness. So now instead of soldiers, the subgroup “gay soldier” is openly instituted. I personally don‘t care if you’re gay, but this shows identity politics worming its way into the military.
2) Sensitivity and awareness training: I’ve got plenty of family and friends who serve and tell me how much time is devoted on how to treat people with any number descriptors: Civilian, gay, female, Muslim… the military is hellbent on making the “sensitive” soldier.
3) The handling of a certain major at Ft. Hood, TX. There‘s one word for the approach that allowed for that man’s killing spree: Cowardice…. fear of stepping on a protected class.
4) All the recent accommodations made for atheist and wiccan soldiers. The building of natural shrines, rock concerts… general coddling.
I don‘t see how anyone can say much of our military’s leadership is not sick with political correctness. But I guess your free speech and identity only matters when your a member of a nouveau sacred class.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 12:36pmDifferent rules for different people. We want the sensitive soldier who will tolerate the anomalous behavior of his fellows who are members of a protected class. He or she had better shut the hell up & not the rock the boat… unless he or she is also a (insert PC label here) & soldier second.
1) Repeal of DADT: What the individual does in the bedroom trumps concerns about cohesiveness. So now instead of soldiers, the subgroup “gay soldier” is openly instituted. I personally don‘t care if you’re gay, but this shows identity politics worming its way into the military.
2) Sensitivity and awareness training: I’ve got plenty of family & friends who serve and tell me how much time is devoted on how to treat people with any number of descriptors: Civilian, gay, female, Muslim… the military is hellbent on making the “sensitive” soldier.
3) The handling of a certain major at Ft. Hood, TX. There‘s one word for the approach that allowed for that man’s killing spree: Cowardice…. fear of stepping on a protected class.
4) All the recent accommodations made for atheist and wiccan soldiers. The building of natural shrines, rock concerts… general coddling.
So how is it Manning is a hero and Stein is a disgrace? Oh, that’s right. Manning gets to be shielded by his sexuality. How is it a major with open homicidal ideations gets to remain unchallenged & then act on his words? Oh, that’s right. He was a Muslim & therefore not to be challenged.
Report Post »ApostolicIlx
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 3:04pmI’m calling Bullsh&& Buddy. During all your service, not once did you question the authority or respect of one of the NCO‘s or Officer’s over you? Never, in the history of battle, have 100% of orders been unquestioned by those loyal to the nation. It has nothing to do with the UCMJ and everything to do with the interaction of people. I am 100% certain that if you served, you had at least 1 clown over you that you spoke to somebody else about. That doesn’t rate a dishonorable discharge. Only when it ACTUALLY AFFECTS readiness. and nothing this Marine was saying affected rediness. They have no case.
Report Post »VanceUppercut
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:11pm@glashole
“Our current POTUS is far more difficult to respect due to his treasonous behavior”
Treasonous behavior? You mean like selling missiles to a terrorist, Muslim country so that you can secretly fund death squads in Latin America? Because that’s what Saint Reagan did.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:48pmBullets & Grenades… have no Loyalty nor respect for Rank!
Report Post »AmericanFightingMan1
Posted on April 8, 2012 at 12:35amSGTB, you, my friend, are a great American.
Report Post »CHICAGOTHUGBUCKET
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:38amIronically this Marine gave nine years of his life to defend that which he is not entitled to. The disgrace is the jag trying to take away benifits for this infraction. When the gay liberal progressive generals get in power flogging will be added to the military handbook ( maybe conducted in the nude), then We are doomed.
Report Post »Just another example of the eroding of constitutional principles.
SLOWBIDEN
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:42amI have never been an Obama fan but he is the commander in chief. It is punishable under the UCMJ to speak against the President.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:37am@TIMETOEND You have a stepford wife mentality..But of course I remember you defending the EPA and all of those “government jobs” that have helped to destroy this country..You are against freedom and the Constitution. and against balancing our budget. You are most aligned with Communism. And as for war?
Report Post »Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Hermann Goering.. was a German politician, military leader, and a leading member of the Nazi Party.
progressiveslayer
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:49amASHESTOASHES You‘re right about time2 he’s probably a communist masquerading as a conservative. He claimed he contributed to the deacon Rick‘s campaign and now that Rick will lose he’ll probably contribute to Mitt another big government stooge.I wonder if time2 uses a shoe horn to put on his jackboots every morning.
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:57amASHES. “But of course I remember you defending the EPA and all of those “government jobs” that have helped to destroy this country..”
Lol… is THAT soooo? Hmmmmm…
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:09am@PROGRESSIVE SLAYER ..Most of the people think that they are being conservative because they are being led by the Federal Reserve Rothchild media. But you and I both know there is no difference between the 2 parties..Look at what I found last night..these are the people who are able to think for themselves.
Report Post »http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ron-paul-more-electable-mitt-012100121.html
ashestoashes
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:14am@TIMETOEND Yes that is so..Do you remember asking “what all of those people were going to do without those jobs brainiac?” Yes..the 5 governmental departents like Homeland Security.. at airports.. groping old ladies and babies.. and the Newt Gingrich liberal Dept of Education.. the EPA who are starving the people.etc.. I remeber you as a big government boy..can’t or are too lazy to make it on your own.
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:29amASHES. Ohhhh, is THAT what you were refering to? Okay get it straight this time for the record okay?
If we allowed Ron Paul his way in doing exactly what he wanted during the first year of his Presidency… millions (MILLIONS) of Americans would be put out of work almost immediately and all that their income does for the economy at any given moment.
Now you supposedly very smart economics 101 wizards of Ron Paul summer camp don’t see the ramifications of that… I’m sorry for your lack of common sense.
What is needed is a SLOW steady hand in reversal of the place the left has put us in… not just WHAM BAM THANK YOU MA’AM with millions more out of work.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:37amOkay Marine you have permission to die protecting and defending the constitution but if you criticize the president you’ll be fired.Anyone want to post a UCMJ reg that says it‘s lawful to do to that Marine what they’re going to do don’t bother,the first amendment to the United States constitution trumps any regulation in the UCMJ.
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:58amSLAYER. More“pfft” from the disgruntled Ron Paul supporting, Adam Kokesh “circle jerk” Vets…
Report Post »SLOWBIDEN
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:00amOk I’m going tgo bother anyway. The UCMJ trumps any civilian laws while your are in the Military. Case in point – It used to be Ilegal to have sex with anyone of the same sex in the military. You would be charged under the UCMJ although youbroke no civilian law. Hate to say it but you are wrong.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:06amTIMETOEND I see your agenda now…you are a liberal.. you work for the President..
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:15amASHES. LOL. As you’re not a Conservative (along with the rest of the Ron Paul base jumpers)… I just read your comment as “ignorant.” But you go with that okay? Lmao!
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:25amSLAYER. I’m immune to the histrionics of paranoid Paul supporters and their labels toward us Conservatives. Imagine… a Paul supporter calling Conservatives (and me a progressive)… laughable.
You little subversives are where the right fringe meets the left. You walk hand in hand with Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Lyndon LaRouche, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader… Benedict Arnold.
You portray yourselves as all the founders rolled into one and quite frankly you and that incorrect perception of yourselves is embarrassing. Aren’t you embarrassed? I’m embarrassed for you.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:40amTime2 You call yourself a conservative but contribute money to Rick the deacon Santorum another big government stooge,you wasted money on the deacon now it‘s time to throw some more cash at Mitt he’s for small government to right? LMAO I must admit you are amusing so keep throwing your money at those R‘s who say they’re for small government,keep believing and we’ll be fine.ROFLMAO
You’re a conservative who likes big government,you need drugs but make sure they’re legal.
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:52amSLAYER. Where have I heard THAT before?? Oh yeah… every Ron Paul acolyte on here? Lmao. We‘re just a bunch of BIG GUB’MENT PROGRESSIVES if we support ANYONE who isn’t “Patriot Paul”!! Lmao!
Don’t you vote splitting subversives EVER get tired of posing as Conservatives and bashing the right? Of course you don’t…
and that’s why I am here… to bash the “Ron Paul” left in kind. I enjoy pointing out where ALL the left in this country resides…
Report Post »Longslide7
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:39amART. 88 – CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Report Post »Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct
Gary Stein is a Sgt. Not a Commissioned Officer
ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Obama is the CinC, does that make him a Commissioned Officer in the context of the UCMJ?
ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
Yep, likening the Prez to a jackass is probably contrary to good order and discipline
Bill Rowland
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 2:26pmIf I remember the oath of office (enlisted – and I took it several times) you swore to uphold the constitutionn and to obey (lawful) orders from officers appointed above you. It has been 28 years since I retired (USA MSG) but I would have refused to obey an unlawful order and taken my chances with a court martial.
If you are ordered (as some GIs were in New orleans during Katrina) to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens, you should, as they did refuse. You are violating their constitutional rights and your first duty is to the constitution.
OMG 2012
Report Post »Hutch980
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:33amBash Bush or a republican. That’s ok. Bash obama or a democrat. Be disciplined.
Report Post »glashole
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:52amYep and Obummy ****** on the constitution daily. We need a circular firing squad with O in the middle and all the czars doing the shooting.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:55amYes .. and when did anyone say that you had to follow an order against the country? even given by the “commander in chief” (not caps for a reason) .. I believe that was what he was saying … we better hope and pray that others won’t .. because Obama could very well turn the military to fight against the citizens .. in an instant.
Report Post »netmail
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:32amEducation -Check: Socialist. Military-Check: Socialist/Marxist. In the NEW America, the powers that be have insured that they can defend the indefensible thru indoctrination and intimidation. (as never before) Either Obama is out in 2012 or we are ALL out. What if the military keeps caving in to the left and we end up fearing, instead of respecting them?? Lord have mercy!!
Report Post »CatB
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:57amWe better pray that there are a lot in the military who won’t follow an order against the citizens of the United States …. an UNConstitutional order ..that used to mean something.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:12am@ CATB, Look up the oathkeepers or go to oathkeepers.org
There are a large number of military members who will keep their oaths and who will not follow unconstitutional orders. The ones I would look out for though, are the ones that look like they are from Jamaica, Haiti, or some other foreign nation and are just using military service as a way to gain citizenship faster. In my personal experience, their loyalty is rarely 100% and they did not grow up with our values and Constitution so they are more easily manipulated or prone to giving unlawful orders if through no other reason than ignorance.
Report Post »BuddyBaker
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 12:31pmI was talking to a lifer Marine the other day and point blank asked him “When OB declares Martial Law and suspends the election, which side will the military come down on? Will they really shot American citizens?” His answer was chilling. He said they took an oath to defend the Constitution and by extension the President and government. Isn’t that what they do in 3rd world Latin American countries? And isn’t that what Asad is doing in Syria now? Shooting and killing their citizen that are tired of living under tyranny. I would consider it treasonous to defend an out of control Directorial Tyrant to keep him in power. Buck up folks, we’re in for a long hot violent summer.
Report Post »teddrunk
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:32amNever fear Sgt., during the Revolutionary War, there were many former British soldiers that changed sides and fought against the tyranny of King Obama, er I mean King George.
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:29amThere is another part to this story that is going unreported / overlooked and it reflects poorly on this Marine Sgt’s judgement and the perception of the Tea Party in general. When using social media and expressing your views (especially while in the Military)… you should be careful not to cross the line, nor allow other’s to cross the line under your name as was on his FB page (are you reading Ron Paul? Your Newsletters come to mind, Lol).
Part of this Active Duty Marine NCO’s problem was that he “allowed” and didn’t censor any of the more vile, disparaging and violent comments from “other” posters who contributed to his page. You are ultimately responsible fort hat content as well as your own and it WILL come back and bite you in your 4th point of contact.
I can understand this NCO’s resentment of his current CIC, but you are a Sergeant, an NCO, a representive of your branch of Service and your Country (not to mention a volunteer)… what you do, what you say, and what you allow others to do and say under your name will reflect only upon you… and you will own it….
Report Post »Rayblue
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:50amDidn’t Nidal Malik Hasan say something a while back ? Military sure came down on him like a ton of bricks. Typical pick and choose enforcement of the current administration.
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:57amRAY. While I agree with your premise and understand, we can’t justify bad behavior by pointing to “other” bad behavior as a justification. I do hear ya’ though… believe me I do.
Report Post »cassandra
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:29amWhat about the Ft.Hood Shooter look at what he had on line and the higher ups said nothing because of wanting to be PC I guess because he was a muslim thats OK
Report Post »Vegascelt
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:23amIf the Army Reservist is disciplined for wearing his uniform to a Paul rally, this Marine should be also. Everyone in the military has opinions about the President, whomever is in office. I do find it odd though, that during W’s time, I heard a lot of minorities in uniform complain about him. Nothing was done. One time this was at an official USAF function. Seems the Messiah is a bit more thin-skinned.
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:39amYou are correct. Obama is VERY thin skinned right along with most members in his administration AND the left in genearl. The left is absolutely CLUELESS regarding the Military and what makes most it’s members past and present tick. They generally HATE our Military and those in it due to their differing ideology, and will not hesitate to throw it and them under a bus. We in the Military (and Vets)… always need to keep that in mind… always… and temper our anger and opinion.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:03amPersonally, I find it offensive that a military member cannot show up at a campaign stop for a presidential candidate but the sitting President can have an entire division ordered up for his campaign stops and he consistently has military members surrounding him to make it appear as though they are on his side. It is a hypocritical system that needs to be shut down. So long as Obama is on the campaign trail ( which is his entire term from all I can tell) he should never be seen on camera with any military member near him. This includes the Commandant and every other head of an armed force.
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:16amSGTB. Personally, I find it offensive that a military member cannot show up at a campaign stop for a presidential candidate but the sitting President can have an entire division ordered up for his campaign stops and he consistently has military members surrounding him to make it appear as though they are on his side.
I agree that the Military should not be used merely as props for a President in campaign mode. But as CIC he can assemble the troops any time he desires and for whatever purpose, It is his perogative AS CIC to do that.
I also agree that a member on Active Duty/Reserves/Guard should NOT be shilling for a Presidential candidate, or anyone else running for political office… i.e., Ron Paul’s tattoo necked Cpl in the wrong, along with Ron Paul himself knowing better as a formr Officer in the Air Force… both were wrong. Both need to be better educated in leadership if their going to be in charge of something other than themselves…
Report Post »cloudsofwar
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:19amstein lost his case. Obama will want to make an example out of him to keep the rest in line. remember it’s Obamas military now. with Obamas military leaders in place.
Report Post »Wakeup Maggie
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:18amApparently truth is not valued any longer in our society. I think he deserves a medal
Report Post »VanceUppercut
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:21pm@Wakeup Maggie
Truth is valued, just not stupidity.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:15amI thought this was a free country with free protected speech? Does this mean that only liberals are allowed in the military? Are Muslims held to this same standard? Were any Liberals dismissed under the Bush administration as we know there were a lot of criticisms there? Stay tuned for the answers to these and more questions.
Report Post »ORGintent
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 12:10pmWhen you take the oath during induction your civil rights are placed in abeyance. You are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The military is not a democracy. You do not possess the right to do what you want, go where you want, or say what you want. Unless the solider, marine, sailor, or airman is asked to perform and unlawful order, he is bound to obey and is held accountable to military law by the UCMJ. It’s not a matter open to discussion.
Report Post »dlivelli
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:15amHe did not do anything wrong….sorry….obama is what he is. In my opinion he is a commi who should be tried for treason. So somebody in the armed services has to stay silent….how would we ever find out about traitors……maybe more people need to speak out about obama!
Report Post »VanceUppercut
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:20pm@dlivelli
He trash-mouthed his boss (Commander-in-Chief). Now he’s losing his job. Simple, really.
Report Post »LizB
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:12amNo, not the enemy. When you sign on the dotted line, you are military 24/7. Whether he likes it or not, Obama is his Commander-in-Chief. Other-than-honorable discharge is a bit harsh, perhaps administrative discharge would be better or Captain’s Mast. I’m not speaking from the left, as I am middle … I’m speaking as a retired service member after 23 years of service.
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:24am“I’m not speaking from the left, as I am middle ”
We have someone in the white house who has publicly stated his intentions to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”. If you’re in the “middle”, which half of our constitution do you think we should do away with and what part of our founding principles should we “transform”?
Report Post »kevin542
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:11amMean while back in Vega GSA partys away spending big bucks and there is yet to be a firing.Every one of those low lifes should be fired.
Report Post »VanceUppercut
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:18pm@kevin542
Uh, three people have lost their jobs because of that. Do your homework.
Report Post »blue_collar_man
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:08amTip of the iceberg. Where is SSG Bales? Nobel Peace prize anyone? Is anyone paying attention?
Report Post »Thighmaster
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:06amIf the military can‘t speak out against the President then the President shouldn’t be allowed to use them as background props in his propaganda speeches…
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:08amI agree. Every time he and his wife are seen with a military member is an abuse of their power.
Report Post »VanceUppercut
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:15pm“the President shouldn’t be allowed to use them as background props in his propaganda speeches”
You mean like that draft dodger George “mission accomplished” Bush did?
Report Post »Slowman101
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:05amWhat a shame. The Marines dropped the ball on this one!
Report Post »65Mustang
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:04amI realize there is a code of conduct but to be dismissed for speaking the truth….Obama, the dictator, is winning the war. I think the young Marine deserves a Medal of Honor.
Report Post »VanceUppercut
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:14pm@65Mustang
You need to look up the definition of the word “dictator”.
Report Post »Mapache
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 8:59amOnce you put on the uniform, you limit your ability to speak out. If he wanted to become a public figure and enter the national political debate he should have hung up his uniform and then engaged in his public demonstrations. In spite of his many difficulties, George Washington did not speak publicly about his difficulties or criticized them. It is important that our military not only is but also APPEARS apolitical and subservient to civilian command. That separates us from the lower forms of government. Sgt. Stein knew the rules and regulations….actions have consequences.
Report Post »ORGintent
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 8:57amYou violate the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and you are held accountable. This is not a left-right thing. It wasn’t a bright move on Sgt. Stein’s part to post his criticisms of the Commander-in-Chief on Facebook.
Report Post »Apple Bite
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:05amMilitary personnel always have an opinion about the “Commander in Chief”. When I was in, they didn’t hold a very good opinion about Clinton. Same for Bush in some circles. Obama is and shouldn’t be any different. Obama is weak as a leader, and any active duty member that’s worth their salt, won’t favor weakness when it comes to being led. Weakness via leadership can get you killed in a matter of seconds.
It’s high time the Military take control back and resort to common sense again. A sensitive leader with Liberal-Progressive leanings, who demands everyone to kowtow to him when he speaks, can only lead to bad things happening.
Report Post »Tipdog
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:32am@ORGintent, please point to and quote the exact article of the UCMJ that he is in violation of.
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 9:40amAPPLE. You salute the “rank not the man. Obama (like it or not IS the CIC and top in the Chain-of-Command). Any Officer or NCO “worth their salt” should have the good common sense to hold their tongue or control their typing finger in mixed company… eh? FB and social media IS mixed company. The operative word is… mixed company.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 11:25amUnder the UCMJ,
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Sergeant Stein is an NCO, a non-commissioned officer. He is not subject to this article.
889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
The President is not a Commissioned officer and so this article is useless in the case against Sgt. Stein.
894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who–
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
If Obama gives an unconstitutional order, then this article cannot be used against Sgt. Stein and this is the kind of order he said he wouldn
Report Post »ORGintent
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 12:04pmI was critical of President Carter when I served in the Air Force. What I did not do was call attention to myself by publishing my criticisms. The President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief, is part of the chain of command. Public criticisms of a superior officer are expressly forbidden according to article 88 of the UCMJ. There is also precedent in articles 89, 91, 133 and 134. If Sgt. Stein was at the local watering hole with a few soldiers and he criticized the President to his buddies, it’s no harm no foul. Publishing his criticisms for all to read is why he’s being disciplined.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 12:19pmThose who think that the UCMJ does not apply to this soldier is sorely mistaken. The Commander in Chief is the highest officer of the military services. He is there ultimate boss. Having said this, I think he should not lose his 1st Amendment rights just because he joined the service. If he was threatening harm then I would say Court Martial. To kick him out would send the message that our military is a dictatorship by Obama and he can’t handle criticism.
Report Post »CharlesMartel
Posted on April 8, 2012 at 10:21pmThey were intent on making an example of him. The commander could have simply denied him any reenlistment.
Why wasn’t there at least one Article 15 first?
If they had a court martial like that discharge hearing, it would get thrown out on appeal. The whole case smells of “undue command influence”.
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 8:55amI think he should be awarded the Medal of Honor for bravery under “fire”.
Report Post »possom
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 8:54amThe enemy is here and their running the show!
Report Post »VanceUppercut
Posted on April 7, 2012 at 10:12pm@possom
Report Post »Their and they’re. There’s a difference.