Army to GI who praised Dr Paul On National TV : "TEN-HUT"

[Contumacious]

Soldier in Trouble for Praising Ron Paul on National TV

.

 

[uptownlivin90]

The Department of Defense policy does not prevent soldiers from advocating for a political candidate, but active duty troops wearing a uniform are expected to avoid activities that “imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.” Thorsen is not active duty.

Uhh? So...??? LOL

 

[paulitician]

Sounds like Big Brother and his Military Industrial Complex are getting nervous. Ron Paul receives more campaign donations from our Military than any other Candidate does. So i can see why they're getting nervous.

 

[Contumacious]

The Department of Defense policy does not prevent soldiers from advocating for a political candidate, but active duty troops wearing a uniform are expected to avoid activities that “imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.” Thorsen is not active duty.

Uhh? So...??? LOL

before it was abolished the 1st Amendment used to read:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[WatertheTree]

Soldier in Trouble for Praising Ron Paul on National TV

.

Us or them people. Freedom or Fascism. You decide.

 

[del]

The Department of Defense policy does not prevent soldiers from advocating for a political candidate, but active duty troops wearing a uniform are expected to avoid activities that “imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.” Thorsen is not active duty.

Uhh? So...??? LOL

before it was abolished the 1st Amendment used to read:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and if the 1st amendment applied to the military you'd have a point.


fail

 

[WatertheTree]

Uhh? So...??? LOL

before it was abolished the 1st Amendment used to read:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and if the 1st amendment applied to the military you'd have a point.


fail

Every free country that descended into tyranny did so through a perversion of law. They used the law to enslave the people when the law was written to enslave the government. Can you honestly say that if this was support for Obama, or any candidate that supports the status quo and the military industrial complex that he would still be in trouble?

I do not think so.

 

[del]

before it was abolished the 1st Amendment used to read:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and if the 1st amendment applied to the military you'd have a point.


fail

Every free country that descended into tyranny did so through a perversion of law. They used the law to enslave the people when the law was written to enslave the government. Can you honestly say that if this was support for Obama, or any candidate that supports the status quo and the military industrial complex that he would still be in trouble?

I do not think so.

thinking doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

and, yes, he'd be in trouble no matter who he supported.

 

[occupied]

Barring military personnel from overtly participating in campaigning is long standing and has a very good reason if you stop for a couple of minutes and think about the fate of other countries who allowed their military to meddle in civilian politics.

 

[Contumacious]

Sounds like Big Brother and his Military Industrial Complex are getting nervous. Ron Paul receives more campaign donations from our Military than any other Candidate does. So i can see why they're getting nervous.

I wonder how much longer before the Mossad orders Dr Ron Paul - the enemy of the state - assassinated.

.

 

[del]

Sounds like Big Brother and his Military Industrial Complex are getting nervous. Ron Paul receives more campaign donations from our Military than any other Candidate does. So i can see why they're getting nervous.

I wonder how much longer before the Mossad orders Dr Ron Paul - the enemy of the state - assassinated.

.

yeah, he's a real threat

 

[Contumacious]

Soldier in Trouble for Praising Ron Paul on National TV

.

Us or them people. Freedom or Fascism. You decide.

In 1935 one FDR adopted FASCISM as our socioeconomic system

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp

.

 

[skipper]

Barring military personnel from overtly participating in campaigning is long standing and has a very good reason if you stop for a couple of minutes and think about the fate of other countries who allowed their military to meddle in civilian politics.

Coup d'état comes to mind.

 

[geauxtohell]

Soldier in Trouble for Praising Ron Paul on National TV

.

No. He's in trouble for violating the UCMJ which prohibits attending political events in uniform. If he'd have been out of uniform, it would be a non-issue.

Some of you Paulbots are painfully stupid.

http://www.stripes.com/news/soldier...:+starsandstripes/general+(Stars+and+Stripes)

 

[dadsgm]

The regulation underwhich the soldier has been charged has been in effect since at least 1962 when I first entered service. He knows better and if he says he did not he is a fool a lier or both. I do not care how mant tours he has served in Iraq or Afganistan he is a soldier and does not get to choose which regulations he wishes to obey. If he was in my unit he would receive an Art 15 and I would push for a reduction in grade . His performance is un-professional and a detriment to the soldiers of the unit and the Army.
The Sergeant Major

 

[WorldWatcher]

Soldier in Trouble for Praising Ron Paul on National TV

.

From the article...

But the Army is now investigating whether a 28-year old reservist breached military protocol

It's not "protocol" is Army regulations on the wearing of the uniform during political events. Which means it is not a violation of "protocol" its a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice contained in United States Code Title 10 for failure to obey an order or regulation.

The Department of Defense policy does not prevent soldiers from advocating for a political candidate, but active duty troops wearing a uniform are expected to avoid activities that “imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.”

True, it does however have regulations about such activity while in uniform.

Thorsen is not active duty.

As noted above, the individual is a reservist, as such he is a member of the military - even when not in an active status - and therefore still subject to applicable regulations on time, manner, and wear of military uniforms.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

before it was abolished the 1st Amendment used to read:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

His 1st Amendment rights are intact, he is not being investigated (nor will future punishment of adjudicated under the military system) for his speech, any investigation or punishment will be strictly on the matter of his violation of orders.

If he had attended in civilian clothes there would be no investigation and not possibility of punishment - which shows it is not the speech that is the problem.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Barring military personnel from overtly participating in campaigning is long standing and has a very good reason if you stop for a couple of minutes and think about the fate of other countries who allowed their military to meddle in civilian politics.

Military personnel are not prevented from overtly participating in campaigning for a candidate while off duty and out of uniform.


>>>>

 

[whitehall]

Who is this guy? The left wing media ideolized a dozen "Soldiers" who didn't make the grade after a simple check. The media hints that "Cpl Thorsen" is not on active duty but he is currently facing another tour in Afghanistan". Which is it?

 

[Zoom]

Sounds like Big Brother and his Military Industrial Complex are getting nervous. Ron Paul receives more campaign donations from our Military than any other Candidate does. So i can see why they're getting nervous.

He gets more than any other REPUBLICAN candidate.