Marines discharge sergeant for Facebook posts

Associated Press ^ | April 25, 2012

[Free ThinkerNY]

SAN DIEGO (AP) - The Marine Corps said Wednesday it has decided to discharge a sergeant for criticizing President Barack Obama on Facebook.

The Corps said Sgt. Gary Stein will be given an other-than-honorable discharge for violating Pentagon policy limiting speech of service members.

[butterdezillion]

The chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party, who was good friends with Bill Clinton, was killed shortly before the DNC Convention in 2008 - and the Hillary folks have said it was to scare off Bill and Hillary from bringing up Obama’s ineligibility, which they had been planning on doing.

Here’s a link to an article: http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/hillary-supporters-untold-obama-horror-stories/

Also if you look up articles about Bettina Viviano, she’s spoken about the Obama/Soros crimes that top dems told her about. She says she personally heard Bill Clinton say that Obama is ineligible. She also says that Soros met with both Hillary and Obama to see if they were on board with his plans to destroy the US economy; Hillary wasn’t but Obama was.

There is a video from the Heritage Foundation and there’s also an article with the American Legion (IIRC) which get into the content by a guy who has written a book about economic terrorism; he was enlisted to write white papers about it for the DOD (?). One of his sources said that several years before 2008 Muslims in northern Africa (?) had told him about economic terrorism that was going to be done against the US.

I should find links and come back and post them, to make sure I’m not butchering the details here. But the Hillary supporters have come out with information that fills in some of the holes. The Clintons had planned to bring up Obama’s eligibility but were scared off when Bill’s good friend was killed. Soros had been planning to attack the US economy, as had Muslims - which supports my contention that Soros is heading up a communist-Islamist alliance.

That whole scenario fits what Obama told the Egyptian ambassador about being a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda (which includes the destruction of the US and Israel, as well as the institution of worldwide sharia). It also makes sense out of Ghadaffi saying that he hoped Obama wasn’t so insecure that he would give up on what he was supposed to do, or would forget his Muslim faith.

I’m sort of rambling now, but what’s come out from the Hillary supporters and from this economic terrorism expert - as well as a Freeper’s remembrance of reading that the Sept 2008 run on the bank began in Asia (before the website was scrubbed hours later) - really have me thinking that I’m on target with the communist-Islamist alliance theory, and the run on the bank being done by that alliance to install Obama - AND that the threat of another run on the bank was the real threat that got Roger Ailes to threaten his on-air personalities if they reported on Obama’s eligibility.

Gotta go get my daughter from church. I’ll be back.

[xone]

The people in the military who should have checked Obama out and found that his records are not in order and he is not qualified to be CINC (and brought that fact to Congress so they could impeach and/or the courts so they could declare Joe Biden the acting CINC) AS FULFILLMENT OF THEIR OATHS

people in the military who should have checked Obama out

And whom may that be? The Constitution puts the military under civilian leadership. A revolt outside of that system is a revolt against the Constitution as well. Put the blame where it belongs, on the political side of our system, on the loser Rats and the spineless leadership of the GOP. Count the Governors and the Secretaries of State who failed in their duties to ensure candidates are qualified. Elections have consequences.

So far nobody has ever told me any way that the officer’s oath makes one iota of difference.

Since you haven't taken that oath, you wouldn't understand. This situation was foreseen by the Founders, as citizens we have let the corrupt and inept rule over us. As one who has taken that oath it isn't a lie, yet part of the Constitution is the political system. When it fails then there is the cartridge box. To continue to rail against the vast majority of honorable men past and present who serve does a monstrous disservice to them and to yourself. The sytem has worked for over 200 years, God willing it will continue. This isn't the first bunch of dickheads in office, nor unfortunately will it be the last. Just the most familiar in the here and now. What you have espoused would be no different then what you despise.

[butterdezillion]

Lt Col Lakin went to his superior officers, which should have led straight up the chain of command to the Sec Def. He also went to the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who blew everything off.

One of the lawsuits was so that a reservist would know who he owed his service to - Obama, or Biden. That’s a very valid question, since it makes the difference between whether we had 30,000 guys over in Afghanistan or not - since Obama would authorize the surge and Biden would not. What kind of crackpot system wouldn’t answer the question of who the legitimate authority actually is? What chain of command would allow that question to go unanswered? It shouldn’t have been the reservist who sued to get an answer; it should have been the Secretary of Defense, dang it! How the heck does Gates get off thinking he can screw his whole chain of command like that?!

It was never a political question. It was a judicial question. Lakin went the right route to have it answered by the proper authorities. The proper route for him would be to query the chain of command and then the SecDef (or the Armed Services Committee) would file a lawsuit (obviously with standing) so that SCOTUS could give the lawful, Constitutional answer to an administrative issue within the US military - which the military would then follow. This was not a revolt. This was how the system was supposed to work. But it didn’t because the chain of command totally blew off their oaths. They left Lakin hanging, and then when his conscience wouldn’t allow him to obey what he believed to be unlawful orders, they hung him out to dry.

But the Bible says that to whom much is given, much is expected. It’s not the Lakins and Steins who should be figuring this out - as you say. It should be Robert Gates and the head of the Armed Services Committee who should have been pushing for answers and it should have been SCOTUS who gave the answers. It is sickening that the only people who took their oaths seriously were the people who had no authority to actually fulfill them.

I’m so sick of the courageous, earnest ones taking the hits while the lily-livered, mealy-mouthed liars (who never meant their oath and were rewarded with high positions because their honor never got in the way of the a$$-kissing they needed to do) piddle over “Screw Obama” by some low-rank Marine.

They are tithing a tenth of dill and cumin and totally ignoring justice, truth, and honor. Straining out the gnats and happily swallowing the camel that everybody in the world was warning them about, jumping up and down so they couldn’t be ignored (but were anyway).

That is criminal negligence. The lawyer for Lakin, at the end of it all, basically said we should be asking why Lakin couldn’t get ANYBODY in the chain of command to give him an answer to a CRITICAL national (and world) security question.

I am not railing against the “vast majority of honorable men past and present”. I am defending them, saying that it is a gross injustice to force them to take an oath and then provide them no way to keep it. If the chain of command IS the “domestic enemy” then it is the lower rungs of that chain who are screwed because there is no way they can ever feel good about the oath they took and how they responded to the domestic enemy they took orders from.

And I’m not talking about somebody just not liking their superior or the orders they are given. I’m talking about a genuine enemy combatant. There is ever-increasing evidence that Obama is a foreigner who was planted in the White House as a puppet by George Soros and an alliance of world communists and Islamists hell-bent on destroying this country.

A puppet who, a year into his presidency, felt the need to tell the Egyptian ambassador that the Muslim world should be patient with him; he had to get Obamacare passed first and then he would go to work on the Muslim agenda, which he supports because he was and still is a Muslim. The Muslim agenda includes the destruction of the US and Israel. Obama was chosen over Hillary because Soros had met with both during the primary and only Obama would agree to Soros’ plan to destroy the US economy.

Do you get that? Obama agreed with Soros to destroy the US economy. We are talking about an enemy combatant in the White House. No joke, no exaggeration. Just sheer reality, which is visible to anybody who is looking. This isn’t snicker-conspiracy type stuff. This is somebody who INTENDS TO DESTROY US.

The DOJ is currently doing everything in their power to ensure that 4 allied forces - all enemies of America - can do as they please and surround every city in this country: Hezbollah coming up from Venezuela (flown in on direct flights from Iran), the Muslim Brotherhood (which is associated with CAIR and a whole slew of people in the Obama Administration and has called for an Arab Spring in the US), the Mexican drug cartels (who the DOJ is arming), and the New Black Panthers (who are fomenting threats and racial turmoil in our cities while law enforcement refuses to do anything about it).

All it will take is a spark to set this whole forest on fire. Black riots, economic collapse (perhaps by another run on the bank like in Sept 2008), or an EMP attack by Iran using a North Korean nuke launched from Venezuela are all scenarios that could happen any day Obama/Soros wants it - and when any of those happens, every state capitol and DC could be overrun with Hezbollah sleeper operatives in hours - while our troops are sitting ducks being shot at over in Afghanistan.

I don’t want to haggle over Stein. Maybe he was OK; maybe not. But what he said - Screw Obama - was primarily wrong because it was said by him when it should have been said by Sec Def Robert Gates, the head of the Armed Services Committee, and SCOTUS - AFTER going through due process and finding out what a lowly county sheriff in Arizona was able to find out without much trouble at all: that Obama is a fake who has committed crimes to get into office.

[montanajoe]

Thought you were gone. I said it before, and I'll say it again Larkin was either a coward or stupid. He was used by the incompetent attorney for the birthers and deserved what he received.

Folks that use the military attempting to further their politics are either fools or stupid.

[xone]

I guess you missed this from me: I don't like or support the current occupant of the White House. I don't believe he is eligible, and know that he is the worst trainwreck for a president that we have ever had.

What kind of crackpot system wouldn’t answer the question of who the legitimate authority actually is?

The one we are currently operating under, and have the ability to change in November of this year.

It was never a political question.

Every person you mentioned is a political appointee. Of course it is political. Was it right, or fair, no. Was it constitutional, yes. Elections have consequences. The military's role in choosing the CIC ends at the ballot box constitutionally.

saying that it is a gross injustice to force them to take an oath and then provide them no way to keep it.

The oath is voluntary no one is forced to take it.

All it will take is a spark to set this whole forest on fire. Black riots, economic collapse (perhaps by another run on the bank like in Sept 2008), or an EMP attack by Iran using a North Korean nuke launched from Venezuela are all scenarios that could happen any day Obama/Soros wants it - and when any of those happens, every state capitol and DC could be overrun with Hezbollah sleeper operatives in hours - while our troops are sitting ducks being shot at over in Afghanistan.

All possible, but then the rules have changed. Everything you outlined is possible with any President just more likely with 0. Elections have consequences. Like willing or unwitting political appointees as you discussed. It doesn't change the fact that we are currently operating under the Constitution. Does it suck, oh yeah. But these ARE political issues, not military ones. Those come later, as the Founders intended.

[ops33]

Yes, but I still think that Copy 4 of his DD214 will not have “honorable” in the line labled “Character of Service.”

[butterdezillion]

The problem is that politics have trumped the oaths. By even taking the oath, Obama was violating it - knowing that he intended to undo the Constitution he swore to uphold and had actually made plans to destroy the US economy.

It’s not supposed to be that way though. And when military officers take an oath to protect and defend the US Constituion from enemies foreign and domestic, it’s got to be understood that domestic enemies very likely would include those within the military itself. So how does the military provide for accountability for the powerful people in the military?

Our whole system is built on the foundation that fallen human nature is drawn to power, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the answer to deal with corruption is to make sure that those who know there is corruption have the means to get rid of that corruption. What that means is that the low people on the totem pole have the power to hold accountable the POWERFUL people - the ones who are most likely to be corrupted.

So how does the military implement that? Who holds the SecDef accountable, and how? It can’t ever come down to the powerful people; there always has to be a way for the little people to hold the powerful accountable, because it is assumed that the powerful people will all be corrupt unless there is a real way for the little people to zap them. So who can zap the SecDef? Who can zap the people that Lakin went to, who totally ignored their oaths and the serious questions raised?

How do the little people zap SCOTUS if they are corrupt - for instance, when 2 justices refuse to recuse themselves from a conference for a case where their very jobs are the issue?

See, xone, I’m beginning to think that elections don’t really change anything, because the people in powerful positions have no reason to fear we the people. Soros has the media threatened. That we know for a fact. Unless 50+% of the public suddenly gets all their information from alternative media on the internet, that fact alone means that a majority of voters are as compliant as if they’d been given a date-rape drug. There is no reason for anybody in DC to fear us. Add to that the fact that most electronic voting systems are owned by a big Obama donor, and the old Soviet adage comes into play: It’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes...

The military doesn’t choose the CIC, but they have a responsibility to know who the Constitutional CIC is, because the UCMJ requires orders to be given by the lawfully-authorized chain of command, in order to be lawful. The Constitution requires that if the President-elect has not qualified by Jan 20th, the VP-elect is to “act as President” - which includes the job as CIC, and the CIC is the only one authorized to order the use of force (for instance) in the War on Terror. So this isn’t a political issue; it is a LEGAL issue - and one of paramount importance because every order the SecDef sends down the chain of command is unlawful if not properly authorized according to the Constitution.

What do you mean when you say the military issues come later, as the Constitution intended?

[butterdezillion]

Here’s a link to the FR thread about the Heritage Foundation video: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2871569/posts I’d really like to transcribe that speech, if I still had my transcription pedal.

Here’s a link to an article from the American Legion, about the same thing: http://www.legion.org/magazine/162503/message-no-one-wanted-hear

Here is a long article about what Bettina said (along with some other stuff about Obama at the 2008 DNC Convention - bizarre stuff - and what happened to the guy who observed it): http://www.politijim.com/2012/03/did-obama-assassinate-clinton-delegates.html

[xone]

So this isn’t a political issue;

It is political, do you think legal issues occur in a void? Witness the Zimmerman case, the NBP cases.

So how does the military provide for accountability for the powerful people in the military?

Through the UCMJ and the lawful oversight of the Congress and the Executive branch.

What that means is that the low people on the totem pole have the power to hold accountable the POWERFUL people - the ones who are most likely to be corrupted.

In America, by elections.

Who holds the SecDef accountable, and how?

By electing someone for President who isn't a waste of skin.

How do the little people zap SCOTUS if they are corrupt

Through their elected reps in Congress.

See, xone, I’m beginning to think that elections don’t really change anything

That's obvious, but we are a constitutional Republic, if we can keep it. Your solution is unconstitutional

The Constitution requires that if the President-elect has not qualified by Jan 20th, the VP-elect is to “act as President” -

0bama hadn't qualified? Been a pretty good secret for 3 1/2 years.

and one of paramount importance because every order the SecDef sends down the chain of command is unlawful if not properly authorized according to the Constitution.

Has 0bama been found not qualified? No. Do you and I think he isn't, yes. The next question is: So what? What is your constitutional remedy for those of us that think that way? Mine is November.

What do you mean when you say the military issues come later, as the Constitution intended?

I misspoke: the Declaration of Independence

[dragnet2]

Discharge but with Administrative, maybe a general. OTH is really bad. No decent job at all.

Bull cheet.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

Yes, that’s true but he can always request a copy after six months. Maybe the copy would show “Honorable”.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"What happened to the military folks who criticized Joe Bite-Me"

If you recall, General McChrystal got the boot. He basically took the fall for everyone because he was in charge. I don't know how many of the other guys got forced out. They are the "small fries" we don't hear about. The ones that didn't get forced out, their careers are most likely over. They've reached terminal rank.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I agree. The only thing that surprises me in this affair is that he got an OTH. That seems harsh given what’s happened in the past when Generals have spoken out. This seems to be a case of RHIP. When you’re a General and have 35 years in, your forced into retirement. When you’re a lowly sergeant, you get squashed. I would hope the appeals board would upgrade his discharge, however I’ve heard that they do not upgrade as many of the appeals as we might think.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"He was told to stop and continued. That in itself is disobeying a lawful order."

Might be why he's getting an OTH, instead of a General under Honorable conditions.

[US Navy Vet]

OK his Oath of Enlistment for starters:
I, (NAME), 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.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"9 years and he was still a Sergeant. That in and of itself was reason enough to RIF that pogue."

A.A., I'm not sure what his MOS was, but in the grunts it's hard to make rank. I didn't make staff until after 10 years and I'm sure there are plenty of 9 year sergeants in the grunts. On the other hand, some MOS's I remember it was easy to make rank. I remember the guys in intel (0200 field) were Sergeants after 4 years and staff after about 7 years.

[ops33]

I’m not sure. I suspect that with sufficient appeals his character of service will be upgraded. From what I understand, except for this lapse of good judgement concerning his postings on the President, his oveall service in the Marines was good.

[ops33]

I suspect he has several years ahead of appeals and requests for change to his military record. All in all, not worth it.

[butterdezillion]

When I say this isn’t political I am speaking in very technical terms. The courts, including the court-martial, have said that this is a political issue, which means that it is an issue that is specifically assigned in the Constitution to a branch other than the judicial branch. It is not. Charles Kerchner had his case filed before Obama ever took office - shortly before noon on Jan 20, 2009 when the presidential term was Constitutionally to begin, IIRC. That was a “controversy arising from the Constitution” that the Third Article specifically gives to the judiciary to resolve.

It is crazy for us to think that the Secretaries of State for the states are Constitutional scholars who have the authority to interpret the US Constitution in a manner that is binding on the entire country. The courts refused to do their Constitutional duty because they claimed they had nothing that technically qualified as a “case” (because they denied standing to EVERYBODY - it is nobody’s friggin’ business whether we have a usurper in our White House since this isn’t government of the people, by the people, and for the people). Never mind that the Third Article also refers to “controversies” being handled by the judiciary, which would include more general questions that apply to the whole citizenry and not just people who have particularized injury.

The courts betrayed the US Constitution and this country. And the military people and Armed SErvices Committee - as well as every Congress-critter - who could have filed a case that clearly had “standing”. The people we voted in to protect us AS THEY SWORE TO DO broke their oaths and the Constitution.

I am not suggesting a military coup. I don’t know what you think I am suggesting. In this thread I’m pretty much just saying that if the troops want to use their free speech to speak against the foreign enemy combatant in the White House that none of the military brass had the balls to keep their oath over, that’s supposed to be a guaranteed right in this country.

Barack Obama has never qualified to serve as President. The guy’s BC in Hawaii - if he even has one and if the HDOH and OIP have been truthful in their initial UIPA responses - is amended and thus not legally probative. Hawaii statutes say that the probative value of amended and late BC’s must be determined by the judicial or administrative person or body to which they are presented. IOW, that BC has NO LEGAL VALUE until it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. It has not yet been legally determined what this guy’s age is, where he was born, or who his parents are - all of which factor into Presidential eligibility. He may be eligible or he may not, but what we can know for sure is that by Jan 20, 2009 even his age had never been legally determined. He can’t have qualified if he doesn’t even HAVE a legal age. If he has a legal age it is based on some BC besides a Hawaii one, and that would disqualify him on the basis of foreign birth.

My solution is to throw the SOB in jail for the crimes of fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice, extortion, and treason (if foreigners can commit treason).

Trouble is, those are federal crimes and we’ve got a domestic enemy combatant as AG.

Congress could impeach them both but then we’ve got a mixture of enemy combatants and political vermin in Congress and a media they all fawn over that has been illegally threatened into lying.

IOW, all our systems are hostage, which is about as unconstitutional as we could possibly get. And isn’t going to change any time soon unless we the people can somehow create a truthful media that turns the majority of the public away from the hostage and/or treasonous media they currently listen to.

Those are the means I’m working with. I’m working with law enforcement and working to expose the hostage/treasonous media and replace it with truthful public information. I also wasted a bunch of time this week trying to engage with the political process but once again the money of Romney and the treasonous media are too much to fight; I’ll vote and go through the motions of democracy just like the whole system goes through the motions, but without a truthful media and voting system with integrity the political process is only going to give us more of the same crap that put us where we are.

You asked if I talk about this to my nephews. Never. I’ll let them carry on with ignorance as their plausible deniability. Which is exactly what the military people who despise Lakin would have had him do.

[xone]

. In this thread I’m pretty much just saying that if the troops want to use their free speech to speak against the foreign enemy combatant in the White House that none of the military brass had the balls to keep their oath over, that’s supposed to be a guaranteed right in this country.

And herein lies the problem, because of the relationship of the troops to their elected leaders. You can use your 'free speech rights' as a troop; when someone in authority counsels you if you don't desist, you are no longer a troop. There is a limit on free speech when someone else determines what speech is prejudicial to 'good order and discipline'. It must be that way. As a result of the need for order and discipline, military members will have to have their free speech rights limited in order for them to do their mission. They are no longer free agents, they are members of a team. If they desire the guaranteed right, they must leave the service.

I am not suggesting a military coup. I don’t know what you think I am suggesting.

You are when you suggest that a military officer by his own determination act against an elected leader to remove him from office as an enemy.