Moveon.org Recruiting Military to Speak Against the War.
I'm afraid to say that the political mudslinging can't get much lower. I thought that the Kerry organization recruiting relatives of fallen military was pretty low....But this new tactic is several layers below pond scum! Now "Moveon.org is trying to recruit active Military to speak out against the war!As an enlisted man/woman or officer you take an Oath. That is a guarantee of your own personal honor, and in so doing you state the following:
(Enlisted Oath)
"I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
(Officers Oath)
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
As far as I am concerned, those at "Moveon.org" or anywhere else who attempt to recruit military personnel to speak out against the war are causing those military personnel to speak against their Oath and their Honor. Whoever causes this to happen, or participates in any manner should be brought up on charges of Treason and punished to the fullest possible extent of the law. A Dishonorable Discharge for the Military participant would relieve them of their oath. The recruiter and the Military participant should be offered life at Levinworth!
Why is a political position so important that it would cause citizens to act this way? Is the coercion worth the objective? How can these people live with themselves or sleep at night?
posted by Tom | 8:23 AM
16 Comments:
How long would you stay employed if you spoke out publically against your employer? There will be those that are weary of being away from home and through their vulnerability will speak out against the President. However, a true American will serve his country wherever without blasphemy. I personally think this election stinks. It is about overturning political parties and Bush whipping. The Dems might have half a chance if they weren't so violent in their attempt to take over. They show all the signs of being passive aggresive. This election scares me.
Last time I checked, we still have freedom of speech in this country, and we don't live in a country like China where you can be mowed down with a tank for demonstrating.
That's exactly what our men and women in uniform are sworn to protect, our FREEDOM. How would we be any different than any country run by a dictator, if we as citizens were not allowed to express our opinions? Our men and women in uniform are no different. They are entitled to their opinions and their FREEDOM of Speech.
Contrary to the BUSH Doctrine, our Founding Fathers set to expressly LIMIT the powers of Government, recognizing that absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we have elections. What are we supposed to do? Go in the voting booth, shut the curtain, and come out and hush-hush not talk about our opinions?
What scares me is the mentality that if you don't support Bush or his miserable failure of a Presidency you are anti-American. THAT is scary.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I tried to correct a couple of typo's and lost the comment. I'll be reposting....
"...we don't live in a country like China where you can be mowed down with a tank for demonstrating."
This must be a reference to the Chinese student standing in fron of the tank in Tianammen Square. Better look that up on Google Images. Nobody got "mowed down". While you're at it try "Kent State Shooting" and see what the National Guard did to US students "Freedom of Speech", or the "Democratic National Convention Student Beatings" and see what the Chicago police did to Freedom of Speech.
Exactly what our Military is charged to defend is the Constitution which contains provisions in addition to Freedom of Speech. I published both the Officer and Enlisted Oaths specifically for that purpose. I perhaps could have published the Constitution, but that is available on the I'net.
When you choose to don the Uniform of our Country, you swear an oath and enter into an agreement in which the UCMJ is the key judicial document. Freedom of speech in the Military is not the same as "civilian life". You know that 1st hand. If an E6 tells you, an E3, to drop and give him 20 you do have a choice...but it is founded on where you are going to be spending the next 30-90 days and what you are going to be doing!
"...our Founding Fathers set to expressly LIMIT the powers of Government, recognizing that absolute power corrupts absolutely." The comment you made regarding "absolute Power" comes from Lord Astron addressing problems with the British Monarcy in about 1900, long after our "Founding Fathers" structured and defined our 3 part system of checks and balances (judicial, legislative and executive branches). Please note that not all of the key positions of our Federal or State government are elected. Sec'y of State, Sec'y of Defense, Attorneys General, etc are appointments.
I quite naturally do not agree with your remark regarding Bush's "miserable failure". I seriously doubt that either you or I would have better served the economy (now at it's highest level)or implemented Social Security Drug Benefits that both you and I enjoy. If you are exercising you "Right of Free Speech", it would be better served by offering a positive direction along with your undefined criticism which, by the way is why I have distanced myself from arm flailing liberals that only serve to create noise without conclusions.
Something else happens when you decide to put on your countries uniform. In addition to the Oath you swear by your own honor, you now accept a check as a signing bonus. That is a contract and in it the Authorities having jusrisdiction have the right to extend your active duty as they see fit. That's part of the deal. And to that I can add that both your Dad and I faced that same opportunity under Kennedy regarding the Bay of Pigs. Plenty of guys were extended, some good friends of mine and some good friends of his in 1962!
As far as the manipulation of the Christian Community is concerned, I really don't understand what you're referring to. I didn't feel any manipulation at the time, perhaps you could expand this subject for me?? I just don't know what "it" was???
I've heard alot of Bush-critics say he manipulated the christians. One of his former advisers wrote a book saying something to that effect but he never gave any examples in the book of "how" the American people were manipulated so the book was a bust. Making the accusation is one thing..alot of people are doing it...but no one has given an example.
We sure have different political opinions, and I just hope you remember your duty to stand behind our next Democratic President. And even in the military you don't give up the right to vote, or your Constitutional Rights.
You make some good points, don't get me wrong, but you are like Jimmie Cochran trying to defend O.J. Simpson. O.J. got off the hook because he had a good lawyer, but he was still guilty as hell!
I understand he "courted" the christians, but since being in office, how has he duped us? How has he specifically turned on the christians? He went after votes....much like others did when women stayed home from voting, or the blacks, or the poor....he targeted a population of voters that didn't turn out. But I don't feel he used my vote to get in until he slams christianity or does something anti-christian. Again, just my opinion.
I am having a problem understanding the Globes position on manipulation. Was it manipulation when Jesse Jackson and his organizations provided transportation only for black voters to register and to vote? If not, then was it manipulation for independent churches to unite and offer the same "service"? Was it manipulation for Clinton to wait for the morning Dick Morris poles before comitting to any position?
I have difficultly when any organization offers assistance only what lies in their agenda. For example, to agree with a liberal or conservative philosopy only for its own sake, then the entire agenda of that philosophy is accepted by its promotion. In the case of present day liberal thought, Roe v. Wade weighs heavily. I cannot support Roe v Wade. Therefore, I cannot support a strickly liberal agenda.
As far as Johnnie (not "Jimmie") Cochran is concerned, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Historical fact is that Marsha Clarke and Gil Garcetti blew it! They didn't do their homework or followup investigations. Had they done their job, Furman would have never taken the stand for the prosecution, and Chris Durden would have known that the glove didn't fit. The Los Angeles D.A. office lost the case...the "Dream Team" didn't win it. That's historical fact and public admission by Durden, Clarke, and Gil Garcetti. Please note that I am not defending O.J. I am only trying to untangle your "facts" against the historical record. You keep referencing places I've been and things that I've seen. I have been past OJ's Rockingham Estate and Nicoles condo on Bundy (front and back).
Suggest you spend a bit more time on research. The I'net is a wonderful source of information.
When the poles reveal weak support in a certain voter segment, politicians all try to garner additional support. They ALL do the same thing. I am sure that messages are tailored for each group, and I find that pretty normal. The message of interest to the Christian community should reflect the candidates position on issues that affect the Christian Community. I doubt that the same message would be appropriate for Coal Minor or Auto workers, or even the Jewish Community. I am specifically interested in what happens after the speech and after the election. I am sure you remember that Clinton stumped on Federal Funded Health Care. He put Hillary in charge and they couldn't make it happen. Similarly, Bush 41 (Daddy Bush) ran on "No New Taxes". Guess what? After he got in office there were new taxes.
I respect candidates who practice what they preach. Bush is prayerful. I respect that.
After the Clinton/Lewinski problem, Clinton counseled with Rev. Jesse Jackson. A short time later, Jackson child out of wedlock became the news. I don't respect Jackson or Clinton because of their permissive moral code.
I'll look more deeply at religionlink.org... I'm not familiar with them or who they are. I did note that under the subject of "staff" there are 12 folks listed and 11 are women. No comment beyond that as I am unfamiliar with all 12.
Regarding Johnnie "if it doesn't fit you must acquit" Cochran, I am sure you remember him from the OJ Simpson trial. He was the black lawyer who took over the defense from Bob Shapiro. A definate showman!
I'm enjoying this discussion. I have to admit I sometimes throw a few logs on the fire to stoke up the bloggerspot, and I don't research as much as I should, I love you guys and respect your opinion but the fact remains that the Republicans DID court the Christian vote, Karl Rove was the brilliant mastermind, and the reason was to give Republicans power to give a free ride to the wealthiest Americans, and sock it to the poor and middle class. Basically in my opinion Republicans are for the rich, and Democrats are for the poor and working class. Government is already corrupt, with wealthy corporations being able to influence legislation that affects us as citizens.
Campaign finance reform and Lobbying Reform....those are the important issues, but you don't hear either side pushing to hard for them....wonder why?
Kim, you got it right. Voting is not a recreation, it is an obligation as a citizen. Regarding Carl Rove "courting" the Christian vote, the "Moral majority" or the "Christian Coalition" has always stood against Roe v Wade. I stand with them, tall and proud! If someone who is pro-life courts the Christian vote it sounds like a natural fit to me. I'm not sure how brilliant that is....
" I have to admit I sometimes throw a few logs on the fire to stoke up the bloggerspot"
Me, too, Rick! It makes for a good debate. :-) Atleast no one can say we beat around the bush here....some of us beat the Bush...LOL...couldn't help that one.
Hillary's been falling over her high heels since Bill was in office to become president. I saw a debate between her and her (senate) opponent last weekend and he said that she could never fulfull her campaign promises for senator of New York because she will be spending the next 2 years wining and dining the big states like California for '08. She didn't deny it. Doesn't this split in political parties smell an aweful lot like time for the antichrist to arrive and bring peace? Anyone who successfully brings peace here and abroad will be a world-wide hero. Peace is becoming a commodoty.
Hillary for President, Bill for V/P, Howard Dean Sec'y of State, James Carville Sec'y of Defense. You heard it here first!!
The left tends to find someone that supports their agenda, often a person that supports 1% of whatever group he or she is from, then puts them on the forefront, claims that they represent the majority of whatever group they are a member of, and then Joe Idiot out there believes it because "if it's on TV or in the News it must be true." It's sneaky, underhanded, and typically leftist. Yes, Rick and Kathy, we have freedom of speech. But it is amazing that when someone on the right says something they are accused of shoving their beliefs down people's throats. When the left says something, it is freedom of speech, and those that disagree are narrow-minded. Seems hypocritical to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home