# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Military Warns Active Duty, Reservists, and Retirees Not To March for Ron Paul on 20 Feb.

## Anti Federalist

*Military Warns Active Duty, Reservists, and Retirees Not To March for Ron Paul*

Posted by Karen Kwiatkowski on February 17, 2012 08:23 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/105961.html

Adam Kokesh has a copy of a letter sent by the Navy's legal beagles warning all of us not to attend the Veterans for Ron Paul March in DC on February 20th. I'm attending this march, and I expect many of us will be represented there. The military requires us to take an oath to defend and support the Constitution, but God forbid we be seen actually supporting the one presidential candidate who lives by that code, and honestly believes in that oath. Of course, Adam correctly thanked the Pentagon for helping to get the word out about the rally  and they didn't mention the after-party, but it sounds magnificent.





> Original Message
> From: Weger, Joel A CIV OGC, Ethics [mailto:joel.weger@NAVY.MIL]
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:17
> To: ETHICS@LISTSERV.LAW.NAVY.MIL
> Subject: [ETHICS] Partisan Political March
> Importance: High
> 
> It has come to our attention that a partisan political march targeting
> military personnel is being organized for February 20, 2012. See link
> ...


http://www.adamvstheman.com/blog/us-...aul-supporters

----------


## AFPVet

Active Duty and Reservists can be punished for violating the UCMJ (Article 92) and DoD Directives; while Retired personnel can have their pensions under review. Perhaps this should only include veterans who are not contractually bound by the UCMJ under IRR.

----------


## satchelmcqueen

bump for $#@!ing insane.

----------


## ryanmkeisling

Can anyone now deny that the government is in collusion against Ron Paul?  Why else would the DOD be so worried about this march?  There is not a republican in the white house and these people are just marching for a peaceful purpose, to show the military's solidarity for Ron Paul, why is that a threat?

----------


## kmalm585

To be honest, I'd be worried if the Military just went along with this. It's makes sense to me that the Military can not be seen as picking/choosing one political figure over another. It can set a bad precedent and be viewed as a Military Coup of sorts. I'm fine with this and if you want to march, make sure you are able to and not in uniform.

----------


## Ranger29860

Figures a civilian would make an email like that without actually reading the DOD directive. 

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...df/134410p.pdf

AND I QUOTE !

"It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces (hereafter referred to as 
members) (including members on active duty, members of the Reserve Components not on 
active duty, members of the National Guard even when in a non-Federal status, and retired 
members) to carry out the obligations of citizenship.  In keeping with the traditional concept that 
members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity, and that members not on 
active duty should avoid inferences that their political activities imply or appear to imply official 
sponsorship, approval, or endorsement, the following policy shall apply: "

Key words to look at here . "Encourage" , "concept" , "Should" , "should Avoid"

All this is is a general guide on what a soldier can do to stay clear away from the breaking the rule line.

You can tell its a complete joke because if you take all of it the way that guy did you would not beable to go to a ron paul rally if you have ever served in the military or even any government job.

----------


## phill4paul

LOL. Silly fellows. The military taught me the life lesson "I will not work for those I would not hire."

----------


## Anti Federalist

> LOL. Silly fellows. The military taught me the life lesson "I will not work for those I would not hire."


*N*ever *A*gain *V*olunteer *Y*ourself.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

Military should realize they defend real Americans, the US Constitution, and our land... NOT a bunch of Banker/Corporate appointed puppets that mascarade as so-called leaders or the facade of an honest governmental system. Those political sociopaths, keep the fascist machine going while they are allowed to enrich themselves and their families/friends through robbery of the American taxpayers.

It's become a bunch of hoodlums with incredible financial backing and propaganda to control the people's defenders.

----------


## evadmurd

GI = government issue = government property = screwed

----------


## Anti Federalist

A man in the military can't exercise his right to free speech and support a political candidate of his choice.

But it's perfectly OK to that same man to be used like this:







> Can anyone now deny that the government is in collusion against Ron Paul?  Why else would the DOD be so worried about this march?  There is not a republican in the white house and these people are just marching for a peaceful purpose, to show the military's solidarity for Ron Paul, why is that a threat?

----------


## AFPVet

> A man in the military can't exercise his right to free speech and support a political candidate of his choice.
> 
> But it's perfectly OK to that same man to be used like this:


Yeah... it isn't right. The military is a hierarchy and officers can create orders which cover anything they want. If it's not against the UCMJ, they can make it so by Article 92. It sucks... I am glad that I am no longer contractually bound by the UCMJ and not drawing any pensions.

----------


## SCOTUSman

How can you guys complain when people willfully and voluntarily sign a contract. Nobody forced them to join or sign. Libertarians believe in contracts.

----------


## phill4paul

> *N*ever *A*gain *V*olunteer *Y*ourself.


  double-down.

----------


## phill4paul

> How can you guys complain when people willfully and voluntarily sign a contract. Nobody forced them to join or sign. Libertarians believe in contracts.


   I'm a vet. I received a quite abbreviated copy of the UCMJ AFTER I signed the papers. Nobody forced me to join. Or sign. I was not provided the full contract terms prior to signing. At least in the '80's. I don't know what they do now.

----------


## Squid

The amount of military hate in this thread is disgusting.

----------


## Ranger29860

> I'm a vet. I received a quite abbreviated copy of the UCMJ AFTER I signed the papers. Nobody forced me to join. Or sign. I was not provided the full contract terms prior to signing. At least in the '80's. I don't know what they do now.


LOL I never saw anything UCMJ until after basic.

----------


## Ranger29860

> The amount of military hate in this thread is disgusting.


What? Where?

----------


## AFPVet

> I'm a vet. I received a quite abbreviated copy of the UCMJ AFTER I signed the papers. Nobody forced me to join. Or sign. I was not provided the full contract terms prior to signing. At least in the '80's. I don't know what they do now.


I was young and trusted my government back then. They gave you documents to read and sign on multiple forms. I knew what I was signing up for though.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The amount of military hate in this thread is disgusting.


Wut?

----------


## phill4paul

> Wut?


 double down................

----------


## SCOTUSman

> I'm a vet. I received a quite abbreviated copy of the UCMJ AFTER I signed the papers. Nobody forced me to join. Or sign. I was not provided the full contract terms prior to signing. At least in the '80's. I don't know what they do now.


When you sign it says you agree to the UCMJ. They don't need to provide you with a copy of the whole thing. It says you agree to the UCMJ. Period. You agree to comply with it, whether you read the whole UCMJ or not...it still applies.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Military should realize they defend real Americans, the US Constitution, and our land... NOT a bunch of Banker/Corporate appointed puppets that mascarade as so-called leaders or the facade of an honest governmental system. Those political sociopaths, keep the fascist machine going while they are allowed to enrich themselves and their families/friends through robbery of the American taxpayers.
> 
> It's become a bunch of hoodlums with incredible financial backing and propaganda to control the people's defenders.


honest government?  That's an oxymoron.

----------


## phill4paul

> I was young and trusted my government back then. They gave you documents to read and sign on multiple forms. I knew what I was signing up for though.


  Don't know when you got in. I was early '80's. I came from a military family and THOUGHT that I knew what I was signing up for.

----------


## AFPVet

> Don't know when you got in. I was early '80's. I came from a military family and THOUGHT that I knew what I was signing up for.


Well, I actually expected the worst and got it lol. I enlisted in the USAF on April 2nd, 2002.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> A man in the military can't exercise his right to free speech and support a political candidate of his choice.
> 
> But it's perfectly OK to that same man to be used like this:


This is CRAZY, EVERY citizen should have these rights, may be more marches like this will change things, may be how they changed the draft, this will change too - the duty of a person in uniform is to his/her country & hence s/he MUST be able to say or do what is essential for the sake of his/her country!

----------


## RickyJ

There is no way someone that loves this nation is going to let this stop them for marching for Ron Paul whether they are active duty or not. They don't get paid enough to follow unconstitutional orders!

----------


## Knightskye

> Can anyone now deny that the government is in collusion against Ron Paul?  Why else would the DOD be so worried about this march?  There is not a republican in the white house and these people are just marching for a peaceful purpose, to show the military's solidarity for Ron Paul, why is that a threat?


It's not about Ron Paul, it's about the prospect of active duty soldiers marching in the nation's capitol wearing fatigues, in support of a presidential candidate.

----------


## phill4paul

> When you sign it says you agree to the UCMJ. They don't need to provide you with a copy of the whole thing. It says you agree to the UCMJ. Period. You agree to comply with it, whether you read the whole UCMJ or not...it still applies.


  I can't disagree. You a recruiter or sumtin'?

----------


## JJ2

This is tyrannical.

They can't even march in plain clothes?!?!

They should just dare them to make mass arrests.

----------


## Justinfrom1776

Hopefully the numbers that show up for this event are just overwhelming and they can't do anything about it.

----------


## JasonM

> Can anyone now deny that the government is in collusion against Ron Paul?  Why else would the DOD be so worried about this march?  There is not a republican in the white house and these people are just marching for a peaceful purpose, to show the military's solidarity for Ron Paul, why is that a threat?


It's not personal against Ron Paul. They would say the same thing if it was a veteran's march for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. Political activism by contractually bound veterans is highly regulated and abridged. It's even illegal for commanders to tell troops to vote democrat or republican, even if the vast majority tend to be republican. All they can do is encourage folks to vote (a tall order since most troops fall within the under age 45 category that is the worst about not voting).

So, don't get your conspiracy panties up in a bunch. This is standard procedure. What would be disturbing is if they only SELECTIVELY tried to enforce this rule. THEN something fishy is going on.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

OH really?

Maybe they can send a letter to the commander and chief stating that he is breaking the @$G@$G@$ CONSTITUTION.

----------


## BigByrd47119

> OH really?
> 
> Maybe they can send a letter to the commander and chief stating that he is breaking the @$G@$G@$ CONSTITUTION.


QFT!

Hard to bitc* about someone breaking this code when the POTUS is using the very Constitution they have sworn to protect as toilet paper. That portion of the code is defunct anyway, I can go down to the local military surplus store and buy a uniform and march for Dr. Paul, does that mean I have broken the code even if I have never had anything to do with the military?

John Locke would suggest that because free speech is a "god-given right" that it cannot be granted to us by any other. In addition to this, he would argue it cannot be taken away from us by any other either, to include our government and even ourselves. Ergo, the contract is defunct because it states that you will give up something which you cannot actually give up.

"Now, go protect the Constitution, just don't expect it to protect you."

That seems fair...

----------


## nasaal

People are reading way too much into this.  People were told not to march for Obama, same with Mccain last election.  It is the way it is.  If you don't like it, then read your contract before you join.  When soldiers do interviews, they are prepped on what to say and how to say it.  This is not surprising, and it is not directed to be against Paul.  People here just assume everyone is against Paul personally and anyone who supports them.  Are there people against Ron Paul?  Yea, the Media and the GOP for example.  The military isn't one of those groups who target him.  Let it go.

----------


## SCOTUSman

When you join the military, you are explicitly and willingly signing over liberties for the job. It isn't a violation of the Constitution. The congress has FULL CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to regulate the armies and the navies.....Perfectly constitutional. Don't like it. You know what you are signing up for when you join the military. It says you must comply with the UCMJ and are under its rules, laws and regulations. A contract. I guarantee you if someone constitutionally challenged this it would either not even be heard by the Supreme Court or the regulation would be upheld 9-0. People seriously don't have a great understanding of the Constitution. Captain mast would be unconstitutional too by people's logic here. Nearly everything the military does to its enlistees and officers would be unconstitutional. All those regulations, but that would be a horribly incorrect interpretation.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So, don't get your conspiracy panties up in a bunch. This is standard procedure. What would be disturbing is if they only SELECTIVELY tried to enforce this rule. THEN something fishy is going on.


I think I made the point by posting that Bush pic.

If that isn't "selective" I don't know what is.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> People are reading way too much into this.  People were told not to march for Obama, same with Mccain last election.  It is the way it is.  If you don't like it, then read your contract before you join.  When soldiers do interviews, they are prepped on what to say and how to say it.  This is not surprising, and it is not directed to be against Paul.  People here just assume everyone is against Paul personally and anyone who supports them.  Are there people against Ron Paul?  Yea, the Media and the GOP for example.  The military isn't one of those groups who target him.  Let it go.


I completely agree with you expect you don't really get a chance to read the full contract and the military may change the contract at anytime.  But yeah, it seems like some of the people complaining just weren't in the military and don't understand.

The title of this thread is perhaps, misleading.

----------


## SCOTUSman

> I think I made the point by posting that Bush pic.
> 
> If that isn't "selective" I don't know what is.


What? That has nothing to do with the matter at hand. That is the Commander in Chief giving a speech in front of troops/sailors. That has happened for a long, long time. The troops/sailors are not campaigning, wearing campaign material, associating themselves with a candidate. Sitting behind the President during the speech is not a UCMJ violation. They would do this for any candidate.

----------


## abruzz0

Suck it, Weger, you piece of 1st amendment stomping commissariat filth

----------


## abruzz0

MARCH ON KOKESH!!!!!!!!

----------


## KevinYeaux

Not seeing that this march is going to help much... I know a lot of servicemen, including my dad (retired Army) who were not pleased at the Paul campaign's stunt involving the serviceman IN UNIFORM at their Iowa victory party. 

The only part I think is weird is the requirement, which I didn't know about, that active duty can't be involved at all. That I disagree with. But I see no issue with the DoD saying no one can attend in uniform.

----------


## JasonM

> I think I made the point by posting that Bush pic.
> 
> If that isn't "selective" I don't know what is.


Bush is not campaigning on behalf of anybody here and this is NOT a political rally for any other candidate (plus he's a "civilian" not bound by the UCMJ). Also he's the commander in chief, which means he can change the DoD regs any which way he likes through executive order or get a general to re-write it. 

Don't twist my words. I was talking about active duty campaigning for specific candidates.

----------


## row333au

In a democratic republic country even military personnel and their community with active duty status (along with non-active, reserves and to some extent retired) have rights and privileges that even the military authorities and command must observe and cannot violate such as oath to the constitution, constitutional rights, human rights and sovereignty rights over military jurisdiction. This is where the military organizations going through due process that it can qualify and adhere to satisfy those rights by having protocols and procedures where at the same time respects the chain of commands.

So if a soldier (or group of soldiers) has an issue they are allowed and open to take actions (jag, military courts, etch) when its done within those rules in order to keep the code of conducts intact while their duty to each other as a corp.

Any military who served knows this well (usually common under belligerent or disputes), and it also depends on the strength of how its encourage or discourage by the top brass (even how embedded they are with politicians and lobbyist - see Pentagon and Government administration structure) in terms of how autocratic or dictatorial the high management of the collectively military are going to be.

----------


## Diurdi

That e-mail is completely fine.

People should not wear the uniform and endorse a specific candidate, as while wearing it you represent the military. The military does not endorse any candidates and neither should people that represent it.

The question if active duty military should be allowed to participate in these marches in civilian clothes is up for debate though.

----------


## cheapseats

> Active Duty and Reservists can be punished for violating the UCMJ (Article 92) and DoD Directives; while Retired personnel can have their pensions under review. Perhaps this should only include veterans who are not contractually bound by the UCMJ under IRR.



This is my understanding.

----------


## cheapseats

> To be honest, I'd be worried if the Military just went along with this. It's makes sense to me that the Military can not be seen as picking/choosing one political figure over another. It can set a bad precedent and be viewed as a Military Coup of sorts.



Active Duty marching FOR someone who is trying to unseat the Commander-in-Chief . . . in other words, effectively marching AGAINST the presiding Commander-in-Chief . . . yes, it can be interpreted as quite a bit worse than "picking political figures".

Separately from revolutions and coups, political marching/rallying/demonstrating in defiance of directive AGAINST display of political preference is clear INSUBORDINATION.

----------


## cheapseats

> A man in the military can't exercise his right to free speech and support a political candidate of his choice.


The Military is NOT a democracy.






> But it's perfectly OK to that same man to be used like this:



Is George Bush despicable?  In my book, yes.

Was MISSION ACCOMPLISHED bull$#@!?  Yes.

Was the invasion of Iraq bogus?  I think so.

Is is "perfectly okay" for the Commander-in-Chief to address Troops?  Yes. 

For the presiding Commander-in-Chief to pose in in front of Troops for his OWN Kodak Moment is not "perfectly moral", but it IS perfectly common.

----------


## donnay

> It's not personal against Ron Paul. They would say the same thing if it was a veteran's march for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. Political activism by contractually bound veterans is highly regulated and abridged. It's even illegal for commanders to tell troops to vote democrat or republican, even if the vast majority tend to be republican. All they can do is encourage folks to vote (a tall order since most troops fall within the under age 45 category that is the worst about not voting).
> 
> So, don't get your conspiracy panties up in a bunch. This is standard procedure. What would be disturbing is if they only SELECTIVELY tried to enforce this rule. THEN something fishy is going on.


My conspiracy panties are in a bunch because we are told time and time again that the military is fighting for our freedom.  So it's okay for people to think they are fighting for our freedom on some foreign battle field, illegally, but not okay, domestically, fight for our freedoms as per the First amendment?



"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).

"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 and domestic*, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation 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.)


Well I support our troops 150% by marching in DC (The District of Criminals), they are actively fighting for our freedom domestically where it should be!!  What this proves to me is the Pentagon doesn't really support the troops, it's all an illusion!

----------


## cheapseats

> Can anyone now deny that the government is in collusion against Ron Paul?



It is much easier for Ostriches to deny collusion against a Ron Paul candidacy when Ron Paul Supporters interpret policies existent BEFORE Ron Paul's candidacy as concerted efforts against Ron Paul.






> Why else would the DOD be so worried about this march?


I'M not in the Department of Defense and I'M worried about this march.

Why?  Because Military have NOT defied and are NOT defying Military Protocol in order to defend CIVILIAN Demonstrators who are being manhandled and even brutalized by the OTHER uniforms theoretically devoted to and restrained by our Constitution.

----------


## cheapseats

> How can you guys complain when people willfully and voluntarily sign a contract. Nobody forced them to join or sign. Libertarians believe in contracts.



Yep.  Rules 'n Regulations R Us.  

Active Duty would be constrained politically even if they'd been DRAFTED.

But they WEREN'T drafted.

----------


## cheapseats

> The amount of military hate in this thread is disgusting.



Kindly delineate "military hate" evidenced in this thread . . . I DARE ya.

----------


## anewvoice

> Yep.  Rules 'n Regulations R Us.  
> 
> Active Duty would be constrained politically even if they'd been DRAFTED.
> 
> But they WEREN'T drafted.


Thought provoking.  Freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege and as such is not something that can be taken away from you or infringed.  My understanding of the points from this thread regarding the military contract is that by enlisting voluntarily you are also voluntarily infringing your own rights which makes it an individual decision requiring then individual accountability for said decision.

Okay.

Now let's say the draft is instituted and I am forced into said contract.  At this point then there is a srtong argument to be made that I have not voluntarily agreed to anything and my rights are mine, not to be infringed by anyone else, government or military.

This is a theoretical exercise of course but I would see a Constitutional issue in a draft situation.

----------


## cheapseats

> I was young and trusted my government back then.


I lately had a Ron Paul Supporter accuse me of wanting to KILL BROWN BABIES FOR OIL, if I vote for anyone but Ron Paul.  Turns out he, not I, fell for TRANSPARENT Iraq hype and he, not I, ENLISTED.  The dude who got HOODWINKED, the dude who DID kill people for oil, had the chutzpah to level at me what he thought was a most damning insult.  He called me a . . . CAREER CIVILIAN.

I wear it with pride.





> They gave you documents to read and sign on multiple forms. I knew what I was signing up for though.



People do and DON'T know what all they sign up for, when affixing signatures on pages and pages of THIS IS ALL ABOUT YOU TOWING LINES FOR OUR GREATER GOOD legal-eze.

What CHOICE, but agree to the terms, WHATEVER they are . . . if one wants the loan, the job, the internet service, the driver's license, the software license.

Even when it IS a seller's market for Labor, military personnel must play by a different set of sticks.

And this is NOT a seller's market for Labor.

----------


## cheapseats

> Freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege and as such is not something that can be taken away from you or infringed.


THEORETICALLY.

Blowing yer head off WILL effectively take away your "right" to Free Speech.

Locking you away indefinitely in solitary confinement effectively takes away your "right" to Free Speech.






> Now let's say . . . theoretical exercise of course but I would see a Constitutional issue in a draft situation.


This march is imminent, yes?

It is not the time for Constitutional hypotheticals.

It is time to decide whether Active Duty actively demonstrating in presidential politics might be an ironic incident of SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER.

----------


## parocks

> Not seeing that this march is going to help much... I know a lot of servicemen, including my dad (retired Army) who were not pleased at the Paul campaign's stunt involving the serviceman IN UNIFORM at their Iowa victory party. 
> 
> The only part I think is weird is the requirement, which I didn't know about, that active duty can't be involved at all. That I disagree with. But I see no issue with the DoD saying no one can attend in uniform.


It combines getting people "not pleased" with Paul with a waste of time, money and everything else. Is Zak Carter involved?  Elections are boring.  Let's do marches instead</s>

----------


## Svenskar_för_Ron_Paul

Wasn't GWB Commander if Chief at that time for the picture?

----------


## wstrucke

speaking of which -- what happened to the poor fellow who was interviewed on CNN during the Iowa caucuses in full uniform?

----------


## vechorik

I'm a Viet Nam vet and didn't like the sound of this march in the first place. I voiced my opinion when it was being contemplated.

What is the purpose of this march? To gain votes for Ron Paul, or to make Adam more visible to the media?
If anyone is arrested, I hope it's Adam for conspiring to break the law. Make an example of him and leave the soldiers alone.
This will definitely LOSE votes for Dr. Paul when the media finishes with it.
I'm a RP supporter and I don't like Adam's insanity one damn bit --because Dr. Paul will be blamed for it and it accomplishes nothing good.

----------


## azxd

> I'm a Viet Nam vet and didn't like the sound of this march in the first place. I voiced my opinion when it was being contemplated.
> 
> What is the purpose of this march? To gain votes for Ron Paul, or to make Adam more visible to the media?
> If anyone is arrested, I hope it's Adam for conspiring to break the law. Make an example of him and leave the soldiers alone.
> *This will definitely LOSE votes for Dr. Paul when the media finishes with it.*
> I'm a RP supporter and I don't like Adam's insanity one damn bit --because Dr. Paul will be blamed for it and it accomplishes nothing good.


That's how I see it, also.

To those who see nothing wrong with this ... Remove Paul from the situation, and ask yourself how you would feel to wake up, turn on the TV, and hear the media telling you about a military force attempting to storm the Whitehouse.
Guns or not, that's what people will say.

The MSM has been marginalizing Paul and his supporters for years.
Do you really think they will miss this opportunity to totally destroy his support base ?

----------


## cheapseats

> MARCH ON KOKESH!!!!!!!!



Adam Kokesh is already OUT of the Military . . . some controversy attending the discharge, if memory serves.

When Adam Kokesh gets arrested, it goes on YouTube not only as whatever statement about whichever principle, but ALSO in furtherance of a CAREER in Activism.

That is an UNCOMMON turn of events for a Veteran, is it not?

For Active Duty charting their own course, how fares Bradley Manning?

When ANTI WAR folk and Ron Paul Supporters in particular chant BRING THE TROOPS HOME, is anyone imagining that all those Troops remain EMPLOYED as Soldiers?  Drone EFFICIENCIES "alone" pave the way for FEWER Troops.

If I am at the top of the Military Food Chain, I am thinking GIVE ME MORE WAR OR GIVE ME PINK SLIPS.

----------


## vechorik

> Adam Kokesh is already OUT of the Military . . ...


Adam can be charged -- just like conspiracy to create a riot, just like conspiracy to break any law. Adam is the instigator and should bear most of the blame for whatever happens. I already blame him for damaging RP's reputation with this march. I blame him for leading patriotic soldiers into a worthless cause when those same people could be doing something constructive with their time.

----------


## Crystallas

If it wasn't for serving in the military myself, I would never have known the extent of corruption. I'm the kind of person who believes what I see more than what I hear, so I am glad I served for that purpose, on the front lines. Those of you who are anti-military, should recognize this fact, because we are the ones that are able to provide you factual information that counters the MSM and government far more effectively.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What? That has nothing to do with the matter at hand. That is the Commander in Chief giving a speech in front of troops/sailors. That has happened for a long, long time. The troops/sailors are not campaigning, wearing campaign material, associating themselves with a candidate. Sitting behind the President during the speech is not a UCMJ violation. They would do this for any candidate.


You're seriously going to sit there and try to tell me that the "Mission Accomplished" event was *not* a staged, political event?

Oh well.

----------


## cheapseats

> If it wasn't for serving in the military myself, I would never have known the extent of corruption. I'm the kind of person who believes what I see more than what I hear, so I am glad I served for that purpose, on the front lines. *Those of you who are anti-military*, should recognize this fact, because we are the ones that are able to provide you factual information that counters the MSM and government far more effectively.



ANTI WAR is not the same thing as Anti Military.

ANTI CORRUPTION is not the same thing as SELECTIVELY defying directives.

----------


## azxd

> You're seriously going to sit there and try to tell me that the "Mission Accomplished" event was *not* a staged, political event?
> 
> Oh well.


It was, but has no relevance to this thread, because the troops behind the POTUS did not plan and stage the event, nor did they voluntarily swim to the ship for the opportunity to be in a photo.

----------


## KMX

I say who cares what they do as long as they are not hurting anyone phisically or stealing. Leave people alone and let them do what they feel like as long as they are not hurting anyone or stealing. Is that not Ron Paul's message? Freedom! I have read a bunch on this forum. I think some still need to "wake" up a bit. Stop being worried about what other people are doing and worry about yourself.

----------


## cheapseats

> Adam can be charged -- just like conspiracy to create a riot, just like conspiracy to break any law. Adam is the instigator and should bear most of the blame for whatever happens. I already blame him for damaging RP's reputation with this march. I blame him for *leading patriotic soldiers into a worthless cause* when those same people could be doing something constructive with their time.



The Cause = The Cause, far from worthless.

But encouraging Active Duty to march on the nation's capitol in support of a challenger to the Commander-in-Chief is WORSE than worthless.  It is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, with any downside falling disproportionately ON TROOPS.

----------


## cheapseats

> I say who cares what they do as long as they are not hurting anyone phisically or stealing. Leave people alone and let them do what they feel like as long as they are not hurting anyone or stealing.



got Peter, Paul & Mary?

Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya.

----------


## Corey

You guys are never radical enough for me 

There shouldn't be a standing army, just an armed populace.
There, problem solved.

----------


## cheapseats

> You guys are never radical enough for me 
> 
> There shouldn't be a standing army, just an armed populace.
> There, problem solved.



A lotta things that "shouldn't be" nevertheless ARE.

Kumbaya.

----------


## Corey

> A lotta things that "shouldn't be" nevertheless ARE.
> 
> Kumbaya.


I hope kumbaya is your name or something, because calling me a pacifist hippie is silly, neo-con, FOX news watching, nonsense.  Anyway, thanks for setting me straight, I didn't realize this was the "end of history" and "best of all possible worlds"  I'll just shut up now

----------


## cheapseats

> I hope kumbaya is your name or something, because calling me a pacifist hippie is silly, neo-con, FOX news watching, nonsense.


Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya = COME BY HERE, MY LORD, COME BY HERE. 

In a perfect world...






> Anyway, thanks for setting me straight,


Knee-jerk sarcasm.






> I didn't realize this was the "end of history" and "best of all possible worlds"  I'll just shut up now


HYPERBOLIC knee-jerk sarcasm.

NOWHERE is where I suggest #EndTimes.

ON THE CONTRARY, I suggest that there are real-world, real-time implications AND ramifications to Active Duty marching on DC...and that the NEGATIVE consequences outweigh POSSIBLE POSITIVE consequences for BOTH Ron Paul AND Troops...and, further, that there are on-the-books ramifications that can-therefore-conservatively-presume-they-will befall Troops.

WITHOUT casting stones at anyone in particular, I trust you will concede that Officials are NOT the only ones who would put Troops in harm's way to further OTHER "worth it" agendas?

----------


## donnay

> The Military is NOT a democracy.




But Bush used the military to force democracy on places that didn't want it!!

----------


## cheapseats

> But Bush used the military to force democracy on places that didn't want it!!



Whoever slapped LIFE'S A BEACH, AND THEN YOU DIE on a t-shirt didn't pull that sentiment randomly out of a hat.

----------


## donnay

> Whoever slapped LIFE'S A BEACH, AND THEN YOU DIE on a t-shirt didn't pull that sentiment randomly out of a hat.


Then you must be all for the U.S. government being the world's police eh?  

The U.S. has no business in other countries affairs--period.  The military is cannon fodder for the elites!!  Our military has a right to speak out, regardless, of what you or others may think--stick that in your hat.  The Military code is unconstitutional plan and simple.  

How do people seriously go around pretending that the military is out fighting for our freedoms?  Good God, so many people are screwed with that thinking!

----------


## LibertasPraesidium

This makes no sense, my boss has seen my facebook page, and has said nothing of a violation.  Even though it is very obvious I support a specific candidate.  And am suggested not to.  Also, on my facebook it even says I am in the ARNG.  (national guard).

Either way I see a restriction of speech as the same as any restriction on speech, wrong.  (Active duty personnel is different because they serve in an official capacity) and getting entangled within politics while active can push people to be insubordinate.  

I believe the case of my facebook being a private collection of my thoughts over the course of time, and is such an expression of myself, who I am, what I believe.  If at anytime in our history save for the initial revolution to become our country it has ever been more needed for American's citizens to speak out, that time is NOW.  And no amount of rules and regulations can prevent that speech.  They may limit it, but the intent of the Constitution was to allow all members a voice in this democratic republic.  Those voices have been stifled, wrapped and nested within miles of regulations, so much so that if one person say something and another feels victimized over it, the victim can sue and win.  Politically correct does not exist as a tool to help free speech but to stifle it.  

Two things one has to consider when taking action that could be in violation of any laws or regulations:

First, is the consequence worth it?
Second, Is there a better way to say the same thing, in a different way that would not lead to said consequences?

If The first answer is yes, and the second no.  (due to viability of the message or speech gaining traction) Then do it but know what your rights are and how to defend them.   

"4.3.1.2. Include or permit the inclusion of their current or former specific military duty, title, or position, or photographs in military uniform, when displayed with other non-military biographical details. Any such military information must be accompanied by a prominent and clearly displayed disclaimer that neither the military information nor photographs imply endorsement by the Department of Defense or their particular Military Department (or the Department of Homeland Security for members of the Coast Guard); e.g., “John Doe is a member of the Army National Guard. Use of his military rank, job titles, and photographs in uniform does not imply endorsement by the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.”


As far as what Mr. Kokesh does, it is ultimately his choice, and if the laws of this country, and attempts to change said laws via representation has gone to no avail, then is there no further option than highlighting support of a candidate via a rally, or a message? That war is still killing and killing is still wrong?  How does this constitute a problem with rallying members of an organization/ or ex-members to show solidarity within a specific group, and only that group that is present and not implying that the remaining portions of those groups feel the same way.  Are we to disclaimer all speech in case it may get misinterpreted? Is this Freedom?

Conspiracy to culminate a revolution is going to be illegal, before the Revolution is successful.

----------


## Corey

> Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya = COME BY HERE, MY LORD, COME BY HERE. 
> 
> In a perfect world...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knee-jerk sarcasm.
> ...


I don't operate solely based on the fear of some undefined "consequences".  Sorry, no sale...  You will not simply state whether you agree or disagree with my principled position, because to do so takes moral courage.  You know, the reason Ron Paul is known, and loved.  You'd much rather wax unpoetically about the shadowy and vague consequences of ......

----------


## Crystallas

> ANTI WAR is not the same thing as Anti Military.
> 
> ANTI CORRUPTION is not the same thing as SELECTIVELY defying directives.


Yeah, just like being combative on a message board is the ironic method of choice for those who are anti-war. I know you quoted me, but my post wasn't aimed at you. Just a FYI.

----------


## cheapseats

> Whoever slapped LIFE'S A BEACH, AND THEN YOU DIE on a t-shirt didn't pull that sentiment randomly out of a hat.






> Then you must be all for the U.S. government being the world's police eh?



If A, then C?

----------


## cheapseats

> Then you must be all for the U.S. government being the world's police eh?


Provide evidence indicating such, or as stand as an idle spewer of crap like YOUR MOTHER WEARS ARMY BOOTS.






> The U.S. has no business in other countries affairs--period.  The military is cannon fodder for the elites!!


Agreed.

What has that to do with defying directive AGAINST assembly in political demonstration, particularly when NOT breaking ranks to defend Civilians from "official" abuses? 






> Our military has a right to speak out, regardless, of what you or others may think--stick that in your hat.


Check the Operating Instructions. 






> The Military code is unconstitutional plan and simple.


And that statement shall be made, by Military, via public rally in favor of an opposing Commander in Chief?






> How do people seriously go around pretending that the military is out fighting for our freedoms?  Good God, so many people are screwed with that thinking!


Certainly I do not go around so pretending.

Nor do I go around pretending that NOT laying down arms in unjust wars but, rather, demonstrating for a particular Opposition Candidate constitutes TAKING IT TO THE MAN on the war-4-profit thing.  Again, PARTICULARLY, insofar as Troops have NOT broken ranks to defend Civilians against unconstitutionality and other abuses.

----------


## tnvoter

not even in a V mask?  Not under the premise that you're promoting yourself as Active Duty... it's true.

----------


## devil21

Has anyone been able to confirm that this is real?  Ive posted it elsewhere and questions about the authenticity have been raised.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

Perhaps a veteran money bomb is in order? =P... If veterans and active duty are prevented, discouraged, or threatened to not support a future commander in chief, then there are other ways to show support. It's not like they are talking bad about the current commander in chief. 

I hope thousands show up. Safety in numbers and more media attention if high ups try to start something.

----------


## idiom

It would be very interesting if the first mass arrests of this movement were of soldiers for civil disobedience.

At some point peaceful protesting ends up in a lot of us going to jail. The only way this backfires is if the media can spin it as a birther movement. Otherwise you have hundreds or thousands of military personnel being imprisoned for supporting Ron Paul and the Constitution.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Wouldn't be the first time.

Soldiers have been raising hell about getting the short end of the stick from this government, almost since it started.

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




> It would be very interesting if the *first mass arrests of this movement were of soldiers for civil disobedience.
> *
> At some point peaceful protesting ends up in a lot of us going to jail. The only way this backfires is if the media can spin it as a birther movement. Otherwise you have hundreds or thousands of military personnel being imprisoned for supporting Ron Paul and the Constitution.

----------


## SCOTUSman

I like how a lot of people here claim to be constitutionalists and the like, but completely ignore Article I, Section 8, Clause 14.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I like how a lot of people here claim to be constitutionalists and the like, but completely ignore Article I, Section 8, Clause 14.


Only goes to prove, as if any more proof was needed, that the Anti Federalists were right all along, in that there is almost unlimited "wiggle room" in the Constitution to tyrannize people.

Just because somebody has the authority to make a law or regulation, does not make it just.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Only goes to prove, as if any more proof was needed, that the Anti Federalists were right all along, in that there is almost unlimited "wiggle room" in the Constitution to tyrannize people.*
> *
> Just because somebody has the authority to make a law or regulation, does not make it just*.


FTW! 




> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.


 dammit! I needz moar rep powerz!

----------


## SCOTUSman

> Only goes to prove, as if any more proof was needed, that the Anti Federalists were right all along, in that there is almost unlimited "wiggle room" in the Constitution to tyrannize people.
> 
> Just because somebody has the authority to make a law or regulation, does not make it just.


Wrong. People are making a *CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT*. Therefore the basis you go off is the CONSTITUTION. Not a normative approach or argument, but a legal one as it is. A positivist one. Therefore based off the Constitution. It is constitutional. Now if you want to make the normative argument you are making, that is fine. However, everyone claiming unconstitutional is wrong. Read the Constitution. Don't mix up Constitutional law arguments versus normative legal arguments. 

Also the anti-federalists lost out, whether you like it or not. The federalists (Madison, Hamilton and Jay) made their arguments and won out in the end.

Because now the argument has switched to ignore the Constitution.

----------


## idiom

> Wrong. People are making a *CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT*. Therefore the basis you go off is the CONSTITUTION. Not a normative approach or argument, but a legal one as it is. A positivist one. Therefore based off the Constitution. It is constitutional. Now if you want to make the normative argument you are making, that is fine. However, everyone claiming unconstitutional is wrong. Read the Constitution. Don't mix up Constitutional law arguments versus normative legal arguments. 
> 
> Also the anti-federalists lost out, whether you like it or not. The federalists (Madison, Hamilton and Jay) made their arguments and won out in the end.
> 
> Because now the argument has switched to ignore the Constitution.


The Constitution also makes it clear that citizens have the right to protest, publicly gather and seek redress of grievances. The ability to make regulations doesn't mean those regulations can remove other constitutional protections.

----------


## SaulPaulinsky

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...df/134410p.pdf

Yes, it is true. The DoD prohibits it for people on active duty. People not on active duty have a lot more leeway. But here's the directive, for anyone that requires it.

----------


## SCOTUSman

> The Constitution also makes it clear that citizens have the right to protest, publicly gather and seek redress of grievances. The ability to make regulations doesn't mean those regulations can remove other constitutional protections.


Yes. True. Of course. But this is APART of the constitution. You can regulate the military. Period. There about hundreds of other regulations that the government couldn't impose on a regular citizen. The regulations meet rational basis standards for what the goal is. Plus again. Voluntarism. You are agreeing to these terms. Seriously personal responsibility, contracts, etc. doesn't seem to apply here.  And I'll bet my right hand these regulations would be upheld 9-0 by SCOTUS, if they even heard the case. So long as the regulations are reasonable and tied to what the goals of the military are. They can't say you can talk never because there is no rational basis for it.

You cannot ignore Article I, Section 8.

----------


## Cigaboo

It sounds like there are two conflicting rules that service men must obey: protecting the constitution and not vocally supporting a specific political candidate.  Seeing as Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that will obey the constitution, logically it is necessary to support him to protect the constitution.  So I think it comes down to - which of those two rules is most important for you to obey?

----------


## Fredom101

> bump for $#@!ing insane.


This. Bump.

----------


## RickyJ

> Hopefully the numbers that show up for this event are just overwhelming and they can't do anything about it.


Fear is all these swine have. Show them you have no fear of them and laugh in their faces in mass protest and they will cower in the corner. You can't win a revolution by obeying the enemy's rules.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD



----------


## DerailingDaTrain

I hope they do it anyway.

----------


## libertarian4321

> That e-mail is completely fine.
> 
> People should not wear the uniform and endorse a specific candidate, as while wearing it you represent the military. The military does not endorse any candidates and neither should people that represent it.
> 
> The question if active duty military should be allowed to participate in these marches in civilian clothes is up for debate though.


Yup, we already knew all of this.

Active Duty folks should be cautious, because they could be prosecuted.  Though it's unlikely that they will send MPs or Cops to check on people.  The bigger risk is that you are seen on CNN (assuming the media bothers to cover it) and your commander sees you participating.

----------


## libertarian4321

> *Military Warns Active Duty, Reservists, and Retirees Not To March for Ron Paul*


The letter clearly does NOT say what the title indicates.

It says ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY should not march (which is true).

It says that Reservists and Retirees can march, as long as they don't indicate that they are representing the military- no big deal- as long as they don't wear their uniform, they will be fine.

All other veterans (this is probably the largest group, btw) are free to march with no restrictions.  

The letter says essentially the same thing that I said in the thread when Adam first mentioned the march- it's not some sort of "anti- Ron Paul" campaign, it's just stating military rules.

----------


## libertarian4321

> Can anyone now deny that the government is in collusion against Ron Paul?  Why else would the DOD be so worried about this march?  There is not a republican in the white house and these people are just marching for a peaceful purpose, to show the military's solidarity for Ron Paul, why is that a threat?


Because it's military personnel are limited in what they can do politically (see my previous post), just as they are limited in many other ways.  This is something all military people are aware of (or should be aware of, at least).

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Also the anti-federalists lost out, whether you like it or not. The federalists (Madison, Hamilton and Jay) made their arguments and won out in the end.


I am well aware of that fact, much to my sadness.

Doesn't mean that they did not turn out to be right, after all.

----------


## donnay

> And that statement shall be made, by Military, via public rally in favor of an opposing Commander in Chief?


Isn't it made public, that more military personnel support Ron Paul than any other candidate?  Doesn't that show opposing the Commander-in-Chief?






> Check the Operating Instructions.




The men and women in the military aren't inanimate objects, they are U.S. citizens and they, too, have unalienable rights just like the rest of us.  After all we are told over and over again, they are fighting for our freedom, correct?  So they fight for our freedom in some foreign land and yet at home their freedoms get taken away?  Of course if you tell a lie big enough and long enough people will believe it...so the quote goes.  



Article I, Section 8 says the Congress shall regulate the Army and Navy and militias.  It does not say they can dictate or take away any of their unalienable rights.  Unalienable rights are rights that cannot be bartered, contracted or taken away.  They have a right to peaceably assemble, _to petition the government for a redress of grievances._ 

And it Artilce I, Section 8 says:
"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."




Military code, is not the supreme law of the land.  A code is not a law, it is the color of law:

"Color" means "An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facia or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance, a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. See also colorable." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, on page 240.

"Colorable" means "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit feigned, having the appearance of truth." Windle v. Flinn, 196 Or. 654, 251 P.2d 136, 146.

"Color of Law" means "The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under 'color of law.'" Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188.



_"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."_

    "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
    May 7, 1918

----------


## MJU1983

> Can anyone now deny that the government is in collusion against Ron Paul?  Why else would the DOD be so worried about this march?  There is not a republican in the white house and these people are just marching for a peaceful purpose, to show the military's solidarity for Ron Paul, why is that a threat?


I thought that at first but I think they are more concerned about the appearance of a coup.  Gallup approval for Congress/President isn't that good, but approval for the military is like 80 or 90%.

----------


## phill4paul

O.K. So. Active duty and Retirees are warned off of a protest about our government policies. However, Active duty military are allowed to appear in a movie that promotes the current regimes policies. Um-Hmmmmm..

Act of Valor

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


  An unprecedented blend of real-life heroism and original filmmaking, Act of Valor stars a group of active-duty U.S. Navy SEALs in a film like no other in Hollywood's history. A fictionalized account of real life Navy SEAL operations, Act of Valor features a gripping story that takes audiences on an adrenaline-fueled, edge-of-their-seat journey. *When a mission to recover a kidnapped CIA operative unexpectedly results in the discovery of an imminent, terrifying global threat, an elite team of highly trained Navy SEALs must immediately embark on a heart-stopping secret operation, the outcome of which will determine the fate of us all.* Act of Valor combines stunning combat sequences, up-to-the-minute battlefield technology, and heart-pumping emotion for the ultimate action adventure film-showcasing the skills, training and tenacity of the greatest action heroes of them all: *real Navy SEALs*

----------


## Danke

You can contract rights away, which is what happens when you sign up.

----------


## donnay

> You can contract rights away, which is what happens when you sign up.


“A free people claims their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as a gift from their chief magistrate.”
~Thomas Jefferson

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523.

This Unalienable Right gives all individuals the liberty to voluntarily enter into contract with any other individual or group of individuals, so long as there is agreement as to the terms of the contract by all parties involved, and *so long as the contractual agreement does not violate another individual’s Unalienable Rights.*

----------


## Danke

> “A free people claims their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as a gift from their chief magistrate.”
> ~Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523.
> 
> This Unalienable Right gives all individuals the liberty to voluntarily enter into contract with any other individual or group of individuals, so long as there is agreement as to the terms of the contract by all parties involved, and *so long as the contractual agreement does not violate another individual’s Unalienable Rights.*


The soldier is contractually promising not to engage in certain activities, I don't see this as transferring or selling something to someone else to use (in this case a previous right).

Voluntary (job) vs. involuntary servitude (slavery).

----------


## Travlyr

> I am well aware of that fact, much to my sadness.
> 
> Doesn't mean that they did not turn out to right, after all.


It also doesn't mean that we can't still defeat the Federalists ... or at least amend the Constitution to include explicitly what the Feds can not do.

----------


## osan

> *Military Warns Active Duty, Reservists, and Retirees Not To March for Ron Paul*
> 
> Posted by Karen Kwiatkowski on February 17, 2012 08:23 PM
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/105961.html
> 
> Adam Kokesh has a copy of a letter sent by the Navy's legal beagles warning all of us not to attend the Veterans for Ron Paul March in DC on February 20th. I'm attending this march, and I expect many of us will be represented there. The military requires us to take an oath to defend and support the Constitution, but God forbid we be seen actually supporting the one presidential candidate who lives by that code, and honestly believes in that oath. Of course, Adam correctly thanked the Pentagon for helping to get the word out about the rally — and they didn't mention the after-party, but it sounds magnificent.
> 
> 
> ...


What a load of nonsense.  Individual support of a candidate by military personnel does not imply official armed-services support for that candidate.  DoD is clearly trying to squelch support for a candidate whose presidency they fear will spoil their pathetic little party.

I recommend the people go in uniform with their faces obscured.  What will DoD do, stop and search them?  I'd go in uniform and be certain to spray paint my middle fingers dayglo orange, to be proudly displayed for those foul traitors whose contempt for us all is without fathom.

The time to stand and be counted is not _coming_.  It is here and now.  It is every day.  Time to get that through people's heads and time for those heads to pop out of their respective sphincters.  The time is upon us to defiantly tell the man to step off.  Time to draw the bright line in the sand that says "no further".  All this, or bend over and dare not utter a peep when something very large, very dry, and very thorny gets rammed in a place never intended for such things.

If you choose liberty then you must be prepared to show it, stand for it, be counted to it, and accept the consequences.  I repeat what bears repetition: each and every breathing soul in these United States _will_ make the choice between freedom and slavery.  The only question remaining is whether they will choose as men or as cowards waiting idly on the sidelines to see who wins the day.  Such people as the latter I will not elevate by calling them my fellows.  They are as nothing to me and if ever push comes to shove I will waste no effort defending them but will much rather gain some small satisfaction if I find they have met ill and ignominious fates for they deserve nothing better than this.

Those who would thwart freedom out of their good intentions are no better than those who do so out of malice.  It is up to us to stop them lest we otherwise resign many generations of our posterity to slavery and oppression.  If that seems acceptable to you for any reason whatsoever, then by all means do absolutely nothing.  

Otherwise, cut the $#@! and stand tall, come what may.  It is _this_ they fear more than anything when done in vast numbers, done bravely, and done in resolute defiance of that which is _objectively wrong_.  Put up or shut up.  $#@! or get off the damned pot.  Time is up.

----------


## flightlesskiwi

> Otherwise, cut the $#@! and stand tall, come what may.  It is _this_ they fear more than anything when done in vast numbers, done bravely, and done in resolute defiance of that which is _objectively wrong_.  Put up or shut up.  $#@! or get off the damned pot.  Time is up.

----------


## Matthew Zak

> The letter clearly does NOT say what the title indicates.
> 
> It says ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY should not march (which is true).
> 
> It says that Reservists and Retirees can march, as long as they don't indicate that they are representing the military- no big deal- as long as they don't wear their uniform, they will be fine.
> 
> All other veterans (this is probably the largest group, btw) are free to march with no restrictions.  
> 
> The letter says essentially the same thing that I said in the thread when Adam first mentioned the march- it's not some sort of "anti- Ron Paul" campaign, it's just stating military rules.


That's just like gutting the audit the fed bill and then saying, "Sure, now that you can't audit the fed, go ahead and "audit" the fed."

This isn't about coloring between the lines, it's about splashing paint all over them to expose the state.

----------


## Anti Federalist

nvm

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

I think people might be missing a point. None of this discussion holds any weight, when the government doesn't also participate on their end of the deal to honor their Oath to Office, Protect the Constitution, etc.

I see no legal obligation to stand down from the Rally, while the Government simultaneously contradicts it themselves. Regardless of any signature, service, etc.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

It's sleeting on top of freezing rain here in NC.  Travel is going to be problematic.  

What time is this thing going down?  If I have to leave before noon it may be a no-go.

----------


## sirachman

removed

----------


## phill4paul

> It's sleeting on top of freezing rain here in NC.  Travel is going to be problematic.  
> 
> What time is this thing going down?  If I have to leave before noon it may be a no-go.


  Shouldn't have to worry too much Glen. It came through fast, about 1 hr, west of you and left behind a third of an inch.

----------


## JJ2

> I like how a lot of people here claim to be constitutionalists and the like, but completely ignore Article I, Section 8, Clause 14.


How does that give the authority to strip them of their First Amendment rights? Would it also be fine to require that they all become Mormons? Or to legislate that they can't participate in the Mormon religion?

----------


## bunklocoempire

> A man in the military can't exercise his right to free speech and support a political candidate of his choice.
> 
> But it's perfectly OK to that same man to be used like this:


My beef as well.  Note how W. Douche isn't in a uniform so all is well and legal...

Consistant should be consistant.  GRRRRRRRRRRRR

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Shouldn't have to worry too much Glen. It came through fast, about 1 hr, west of you and left behind a third of an inch.


It says 4.5 hours roughly.  I'd have to leave around 6AM and I still don't know where to park 

I'm gonna try for it, dunno if I'm gonna make it though.

----------


## phill4paul

> It says 4.5 hours roughly.  I'd have to leave around 6AM and I still don't know where to park 
> 
> I'm gonna try for it, dunno if I'm gonna make it though.


  I honestly hope you can. I would if finances could afford.

----------


## digitaldean

I predict someone from the other 3 camps sending people to say something stupid. The news will pick it up and bash Paul but I hope all goes well.

----------


## phill4paul

> I predict someone from the other 3 camps sending people to say something stupid. The news will pick it up and bash Paul but I hope all goes well.


  Let 'em 'say something stupid' is right. America loves the troops. The news won't pick it up unless there is an altercation. Cameras and audio. Cameras and audio.

----------


## nobody's_hero

The memo mentions it's a partisan rally? lol. 

It runs deeper than partisanship, and that TRULY FRIGHTENS the establishment.

----------


## nobody's_hero

I reread some of the posts in this thread and I think you guys are getting caught up on the "rights" of the military.

They don't have any rights. 

They have duties. 

So play along with the DoD on this one, and turn it around. 

They don't have the _right_ to speak out. They have a* DUTY* to speak out.

----------


## kathy88

Washington's Birthday: Sunny, with a high near 48. North wind between 8 and 13 mph. 

If you can get up there Gunny the weather in DC looks just fine!

----------

