Military Warns Active Duty, Reservists, and Retirees Not To March for Ron Paul on 20 Feb.

[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