Stolen Valor, Tarnishing the Sacrifice

New American Prophet ^ | January 26, 2025 | Bradlee Dean

[Rev M. Bresciani]

When an individual poses wearing government-sanctioned medals, uniforms, or decorations that they are not entitled to wear, they degrade the honor and sacrifices of those rightly wearing the uniform. How much more concerning is it that those who are not genuine Christians claim to be so?

[JonPreston]

ping

[Uncle Miltie]

This TRAITOR needs to be called back into service, busted to private, court martialed for TREASON, convicted, hung at the entrance to the Pentagon on CNN Live, and left to be picked apart by the birds as an example to all others in the building and country:

"Stolen Valor" indeed!

[TangoLimaSierra]

Didn’t hurt Da Nang Dick Blumenthal any.

[KrisKrinkle]

More to what I see as your point, I believe there are those who falsely “claim to be Christ’s” and “bear fruit to the devil” for their own un-Christian purposes, but there are also those whose “claim to be Christ’s” is valid in accord with their belief and understanding, but their belief and understanding are wrong. In the case of stolen military valor, those “falsely claiming to have served in the military or received military decorations or medals” know the claim is false.

[adorno]

Did you have a point to make by pinging me to this discussion?

Are you insinuating that I’m guilty of stolen valor? If so, you deserve to be banned from FR, because I’m ready to prove to the moderators that I did indeed serve in Vietnam with the Marines. Worse than stolen valor is denigrating the service of those who did risk their lives for their country.

So, what’s the purpose of your ping to me?

[Blurb2350]

Alas, thoroughly modern Milley will never suffer the traitor’s traditional punishment, but — if it’s any consolation — his official portrait was taken down just ten days after it was unveiled. This has got to be a particularly nasty slap in the face for a perfumed prince.

[JonPreston]

what’s the purpose of your ping to me?

During our last conversation you went into depth about Jane Fonda and the left. If you bothered to read the article you'd see where this subject matter is appropriate.

[bigbob]

Dick Blumenthal.

[adorno]

During our last conversation you went into depth about Jane Fonda and the left. If you bothered to read the article you'd see where this subject matter is appropriate.

I read the article, and there's nothing in it that appears to involve anything we're had conversations about.

But, you have repeatedly questioned my military service and even accused me of stolen valor.

This is the only part that even remotely resembles anything that matters when it comes to our discussions:

Stolen valor is the act of falsely claiming to have served in the military or received military decorations or medals.

And that's the only thing I can think of as the reason you pinged me to this article. IOW, you seem to be accusing me of stolen valor again, thru an article that serves your purpose.

BTW, I question the validity of an article that equated stolen valor with the religious examples mentioned in the article. It should not be done. Two completely different events in life being used for religious verbal accusations. Should not be done and should not be used together to create some sort of validity to the religious argument.

[JonPreston]

I’m sorry you’re mad, but you are completely wrong. It’s Sunday, take the rest of the day off and enjoy something more relaxing.

[adorno]

I’m sorry you’re mad, but you are completely wrong.

I don't get mad. I just question the reasons you felt the need to ping me on a discussion about 'stolen valor'. Your previous history on the matter betrays you.

[T.B. Yoits]

I see comments about recalling individuals such as former General Milley back to active duty but as a military retiree, he's already subject to military law:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10945

The Supreme Court has not yet specifically ruled on the military status of retired servicemembers, though it has approvingly noted that they remain part of the Armed Forces and subject to the UCMJ. Federal appellate courts (e.g., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces [CAAF]), however, have consistently held that military retirees possess a military status that makes them subject to military law. In finding such status, courts have highlighted several connections between retired servicemembers and the military: they can be recalled to active duty and, accordingly, serve as a potential source of supplementary personnel; they are entitled to receive special pay and other benefits from the military, which are viewed, at least in part, as retainer conferrals; and they have the right to wear their uniforms and be referred to according to their rank (in certain circumstances).

The U.S. Court of Military Appeals (now the CAAF) articulated a widely adopted position in 1958 in United States v. Hooper: [Those] on the retired list are not mere pensioners in any sense of the word. They form a vital segment of our national defense for their experience and mature judgment are relied upon heavily in times of emergency. The salaries they receive are not solely recompense for past services, but a means devised by Congress to assure their availability and preparedness in future contingencies. This preparedness depends as much upon their continued responsiveness to discipline as upon their continued state of physical health. Certainly, one who is authorized to wear the uniform of his country, to use the title of his grade, who is looked upon as a model of the military way of life, and who receives a salary to assure his availability, is a part of the land or naval forces.

[Larry Lucido]

Kind of like claiming to be a “new American prophet” when you aren’t, and then using bandwidth paid for by contributing FReepers to pimp your own blog?