Posted on Apr 17, 2018
Do you believe it is ok for active service members to degrade the POTUS on RP?
50.1K
1.21K
507
243
243
0
I have seen where many veterans have been making degrading remarks about the President of the United States. However, I also have seen threads where actively serving members, verified by RP, are making disparaging remarks.
Is this thought of as a safe space where military justice does not matter?
Is this thought of as a place where military members think they can exercise their first amendment rights?
Is this thought of as a safe space where military justice does not matter?
Is this thought of as a place where military members think they can exercise their first amendment rights?
Posted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
1st Amendment
Office of the President (POTUS) 1st Amendment
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 254
145
145
0
You have a choice. You can either serve actively or be politically active. The two simply cannot be allowed to mix
(145)
(0)
SGT Tim. Wilson
SFC (Join to see) Question, even though it is a little late, what happens when Trump properties/facilities are used by foreign government's at his recommendation, as has been suggested?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SGT Tim. Wilson - On face value, I think such acts likely violate the emoluments clause (Constitution, Art I, Sec 9, Para 8) but ultimately that is something the courts would need to rule upon if standing and jurisdiction can ever be established for a qualified case to actually be brought before them.
So far, private groups have all been ruled to lack standing to go after the President. Recently the courts have basically ruled that only Congress can take action against presidential wrongdoing. “As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant’s conduct unlawfully infringes on that power,” the judge wrote. “If Congress determines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant’s conduct. As such, this case presents a non-justiciable political question.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/21/judge-dismisses-suits-emoluments-312610
Some argue that such acts would only violate the emoluments clause if there was a clear quid pro quo or bribery scenario. (i.e. Stay at a Trump property or I won't meet with you. I'll decide in your favor after you book enough stays at Trump properties.) Additionally, given the SCOTUS 2016 McDonnell decision that now just about requires a smoking gun as evidence, I doubt it could be proven. That SCOTUS decision set a new standard for official-bribery cases that is so absurdly narrow that it will likely be almost impossible to convict any but the most bumbling politicians of the crime.
So far, private groups have all been ruled to lack standing to go after the President. Recently the courts have basically ruled that only Congress can take action against presidential wrongdoing. “As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant’s conduct unlawfully infringes on that power,” the judge wrote. “If Congress determines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant’s conduct. As such, this case presents a non-justiciable political question.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/21/judge-dismisses-suits-emoluments-312610
Some argue that such acts would only violate the emoluments clause if there was a clear quid pro quo or bribery scenario. (i.e. Stay at a Trump property or I won't meet with you. I'll decide in your favor after you book enough stays at Trump properties.) Additionally, given the SCOTUS 2016 McDonnell decision that now just about requires a smoking gun as evidence, I doubt it could be proven. That SCOTUS decision set a new standard for official-bribery cases that is so absurdly narrow that it will likely be almost impossible to convict any but the most bumbling politicians of the crime.
Judge dismisses suits claiming Trump violated emoluments clause
A federal court says challengers lack standing, but also declares the issue is best left to Congress.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - Sir, SGT Wilson's post motivated me to revisit this thread and I ran across one of your posts. You asserted: "Candidate Nixon was the first Presidential Candidate to disclose his tax returns in 1960. ... What does happen, is that every candidate for president selected by one of the major parties automatically has his last seven years or returns audited. Since no charges were brought, he did nothing wrong."
Please read this 2005 article to see how wrong your assertion is that "Since no charges were brought, he did nothing wrong." Nixon passed several Presidential audits in private but Nixon had to pay an additional $465,000 in taxes after the public got a hold of his tax returns and was fraught with fear that he would be charged with fraud, thereby imposing a 50% civil fraud penalty (roughly an additional $232,500): http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument
[] Presidential Candidate Eisenhower disclosed a few key elements of his tax history in 1952, but not complete tax returns. To my knowledge, Candidate Eisenhower was the first to release tax data; not Nixon. However, as Eisenhower's VP candidate, Senator Nixon, divulged detailed information about his family's finances after he got into trouble for a secret campaign fund. I was unable to find any reference to Candidate Nixon releasing tax information in 1960. Do you have a reference you can cite?
[] In 1967, Presidential Candidate George Romney released a dozen years of his returns to Look magazine. Candidate Nixon declined to release his tax returns, but he did allow a writer to inspect photocopies of his hand written tax returns. The LA Times questioned some of Nixon's tax claims, but nothing came of it and the issue faded in the general election, as Candidate Hubert Humphrey refused to release his tax returns.
[] President Nixon did not initially turn over his returns voluntarily. Two years of Nixon's returns (1970 and 1971) were leaked by someone in the IRS in Oct 1973.
() The leaked returns prompted Nixon to make his famous "I am not a crook" speech on 17 Nov 1973 and led to the voluntarily release his tax returns for 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972. That disclosure of tax returns was the first made by a *sitting* president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C1pVWsCuwI&feature=youtu.be&t=31
() The leaked returns proved pivotal in Nixon's resignation. Although the IRS had "audited" Nixon's tax returns and (as you say) "no charges were brought", under the light of public scrutiny numerous irregularities were obvious. Once the leaked returns were reviewed by tax professionals publicly, Nixon's tax evasion was obvious and the IRS was forced to act. Tax fraud is something ordinary American's can personally relate with and his attempt to cover up his financial data fed the broader Watergate scandal. Democrats raised the possibility that Nixon's tax evasion could lead to his impeachment. (which could result in the 50% civil fraud penalty Nixon feared)
[] On 20 Apr 1976, with the presidential election campaign beginning, President Ford voluntarily disclosed a summary of his 1975 tax return information and initiated the tradition all presidential candidates followed for 40-years until Trump.
[] In spite of all his earlier promises over the years and public criticism of others, Trump has refused to voluntarily disclose his tax returns publicly and Trump is fighting subpoenas for the private review of his tax returns at both the state and federal levels. Trump's companies have been involved in over 100 tax disputes, and on "at least three dozen" occasions NY had tax liens against Trump properties for nonpayment of taxes. In July 2019, a career IRS official filed a whistleblower complaint that a political appointee in the at least one Treasury Dept had inappropriately interfered in the audit process for Trump and Pence. The NY Times reports the Trump family participated in tax schemes during the 1990s to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents. ProPublica reports that Trump businesses made themselves appear more profitable to lenders and less profitable to tax officials in the 2010s. Trump's companies have also been fined in court for improper/illegal financial dealings and Trump's own lawyer has said the books are cooked. There is also so much smoke circling the topic of Trump's taxes that I can't help but think there are several fires burning within those tax documents he is so desperately trying to keep hidden.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-trump-tower-tax-records-reveal-new-inconsistencies
https://www.tampabay.com/news/nationworld/trump-engaged-in-suspect-tax-schemes-as-he-reaped-riches-from-his-father-20181003/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FI45BfSefE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCcO2hQ-g10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g02AolqRago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYcvF8o5GXE
https://www.ais-cpa.com/tax-fraud-by-the-numbers-the-trump-timeline/
Please read this 2005 article to see how wrong your assertion is that "Since no charges were brought, he did nothing wrong." Nixon passed several Presidential audits in private but Nixon had to pay an additional $465,000 in taxes after the public got a hold of his tax returns and was fraught with fear that he would be charged with fraud, thereby imposing a 50% civil fraud penalty (roughly an additional $232,500): http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument
[] Presidential Candidate Eisenhower disclosed a few key elements of his tax history in 1952, but not complete tax returns. To my knowledge, Candidate Eisenhower was the first to release tax data; not Nixon. However, as Eisenhower's VP candidate, Senator Nixon, divulged detailed information about his family's finances after he got into trouble for a secret campaign fund. I was unable to find any reference to Candidate Nixon releasing tax information in 1960. Do you have a reference you can cite?
[] In 1967, Presidential Candidate George Romney released a dozen years of his returns to Look magazine. Candidate Nixon declined to release his tax returns, but he did allow a writer to inspect photocopies of his hand written tax returns. The LA Times questioned some of Nixon's tax claims, but nothing came of it and the issue faded in the general election, as Candidate Hubert Humphrey refused to release his tax returns.
[] President Nixon did not initially turn over his returns voluntarily. Two years of Nixon's returns (1970 and 1971) were leaked by someone in the IRS in Oct 1973.
() The leaked returns prompted Nixon to make his famous "I am not a crook" speech on 17 Nov 1973 and led to the voluntarily release his tax returns for 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972. That disclosure of tax returns was the first made by a *sitting* president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C1pVWsCuwI&feature=youtu.be&t=31
() The leaked returns proved pivotal in Nixon's resignation. Although the IRS had "audited" Nixon's tax returns and (as you say) "no charges were brought", under the light of public scrutiny numerous irregularities were obvious. Once the leaked returns were reviewed by tax professionals publicly, Nixon's tax evasion was obvious and the IRS was forced to act. Tax fraud is something ordinary American's can personally relate with and his attempt to cover up his financial data fed the broader Watergate scandal. Democrats raised the possibility that Nixon's tax evasion could lead to his impeachment. (which could result in the 50% civil fraud penalty Nixon feared)
[] On 20 Apr 1976, with the presidential election campaign beginning, President Ford voluntarily disclosed a summary of his 1975 tax return information and initiated the tradition all presidential candidates followed for 40-years until Trump.
[] In spite of all his earlier promises over the years and public criticism of others, Trump has refused to voluntarily disclose his tax returns publicly and Trump is fighting subpoenas for the private review of his tax returns at both the state and federal levels. Trump's companies have been involved in over 100 tax disputes, and on "at least three dozen" occasions NY had tax liens against Trump properties for nonpayment of taxes. In July 2019, a career IRS official filed a whistleblower complaint that a political appointee in the at least one Treasury Dept had inappropriately interfered in the audit process for Trump and Pence. The NY Times reports the Trump family participated in tax schemes during the 1990s to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents. ProPublica reports that Trump businesses made themselves appear more profitable to lenders and less profitable to tax officials in the 2010s. Trump's companies have also been fined in court for improper/illegal financial dealings and Trump's own lawyer has said the books are cooked. There is also so much smoke circling the topic of Trump's taxes that I can't help but think there are several fires burning within those tax documents he is so desperately trying to keep hidden.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-trump-tower-tax-records-reveal-new-inconsistencies
https://www.tampabay.com/news/nationworld/trump-engaged-in-suspect-tax-schemes-as-he-reaped-riches-from-his-father-20181003/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FI45BfSefE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCcO2hQ-g10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g02AolqRago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYcvF8o5GXE
https://www.ais-cpa.com/tax-fraud-by-the-numbers-the-trump-timeline/
President Nixon's Troublesome Tax Returns (Copyright, 2005, Tax Analysts)
William D. Samson is the Roddy-Garner Professor of Accounting in the Culverhouse School of Accountancy at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - Excerpts from the article
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument
The "...practice of public disclosure by presidents of their tax return information has increased public confidence and helped restore trust in government. Also, it has helped allay fears that only fools are paying their share of taxes and that the smart and the powerful are cheating. Publicity that presidents pay large amounts of income tax and are as burdened as most citizens, has increased confidence in the self-assessment system. As in other situations, public scrutiny has certainly dampened inclinations of presidents to cheat on their tax returns. Thus, since 1976, presidents seem to have lived up to the trust of the public that they pay taxes as do other citizens. Indeed, presidents have been role models during the last 20 years. It is arguable whether presidents would have lived up to the expectations of their leadership roles in tax if the practice of public disclosure of the presidents' tax returns had not evolved. At a minimum, without that revelation, presidents would not be able to serve as tax role models, even when paying large amounts of tax, because the public would be unaware of their voluntary compliance with the tax system."
"Certainly, revelation that those leaders are complying and paying taxes, and a great deal of tax at that, will convince more citizens that the self-assessment system does work and that they are not being made fools for paying their shares of tax voluntarily."
"Finally, disclosure and scrutiny certainly are inducements for a leader to live up to the responsibilities of his role and office. Again the record of presidents shows that, without disclosure, even presidents do not act as they should; with disclosure, presidents become role models. As the Justice Department press release about its conviction of a prominent Massachusetts legislator, the former state house speaker stated: "Truthful compliance with the tax laws is a basic duty of all citizens. This is especially important when the taxpayer is a public official. Scheming to beat the IRS cheats every honest taxpayer." (Hartigan, August 19, 1996, The Wall Street Journal.)" http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument
The "...practice of public disclosure by presidents of their tax return information has increased public confidence and helped restore trust in government. Also, it has helped allay fears that only fools are paying their share of taxes and that the smart and the powerful are cheating. Publicity that presidents pay large amounts of income tax and are as burdened as most citizens, has increased confidence in the self-assessment system. As in other situations, public scrutiny has certainly dampened inclinations of presidents to cheat on their tax returns. Thus, since 1976, presidents seem to have lived up to the trust of the public that they pay taxes as do other citizens. Indeed, presidents have been role models during the last 20 years. It is arguable whether presidents would have lived up to the expectations of their leadership roles in tax if the practice of public disclosure of the presidents' tax returns had not evolved. At a minimum, without that revelation, presidents would not be able to serve as tax role models, even when paying large amounts of tax, because the public would be unaware of their voluntary compliance with the tax system."
"Certainly, revelation that those leaders are complying and paying taxes, and a great deal of tax at that, will convince more citizens that the self-assessment system does work and that they are not being made fools for paying their shares of tax voluntarily."
"Finally, disclosure and scrutiny certainly are inducements for a leader to live up to the responsibilities of his role and office. Again the record of presidents shows that, without disclosure, even presidents do not act as they should; with disclosure, presidents become role models. As the Justice Department press release about its conviction of a prominent Massachusetts legislator, the former state house speaker stated: "Truthful compliance with the tax laws is a basic duty of all citizens. This is especially important when the taxpayer is a public official. Scheming to beat the IRS cheats every honest taxpayer." (Hartigan, August 19, 1996, The Wall Street Journal.)" http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument
President Nixon's Troublesome Tax Returns (Copyright, 2005, Tax Analysts)
William D. Samson is the Roddy-Garner Professor of Accounting in the Culverhouse School of Accountancy at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.
(0)
(0)
87
87
0
I don't approve of "safe spaces." I do not think of RP as a place where active duty members can violate the UCMJ. Article 88 only applies to commissioned officers. There is not one of us, active duty or not, who has that power to grant exemption from the UCMJ. It is not difficult to discuss political decisions without being contemptuous of a government official. If someone cannot disagree with or criticize in a cool, calm, collected, professional manner, it might be best to wait and comment on another day.
(87)
(0)
CPL Perry Trowbridge
PO2 David Dunlap I think that anything said about the POTUS should be respectful and use tact as we were all trained to.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - MAJ Bell - I'd really be interested in why you are "happy with" most anything that this President is doing, but that's a conversation for another time that can't really happen on this forum. Merry Christmas!
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SPC Mike Davis - You assert that "Once someone receives a honorable discharge the UCMJ has no authority over a constitutionally protected citizen." While this may be true for many individuals, it is not true for all individuals. For example, all retirees receiving retirement pay are subject to the UCMJ regardless of their discharge date. Additionally, since all enlistments are essentially a minimum of 8-years (i.e. 6 years active duty + 2 years IRR), even when a Soldier is honorably discharged after their 4- or 6-year commitment, they are still subject to the UCMJ until their 8-years are over.
(0)
(0)
72
72
0
IMHO.......the veterans on here have all earned the right to speak their piece and let the chips fall where they may. Those on active duty though, should be careful with their political remarks if there is any chance they could face a disciplinary action. When I was on active duty, back in the stone age, we didn't have social media.......so we didn't face issues like this. To be safe, might be better to save the political commentary until after you leave active service. That said......I love hearing what active members are thinking......it's a whole different perspective.
(72)
(0)
Maj John Bell
COL (Join to see) - Highlights.
_Good thing. Standing up to our trading "partners." They have been violating the letter and spirit of our trade agreements for a long time. (Example: I cannot sell my dairy products into Canada. Canada imposes a complicated tariff and fee schedule that requires a wholesaler to pay a 270% "tariff" on dairy products.)
_Good thing. The employment numbers are better they have been in years, in almost every measure kept by the Bureau of Labor. That matches anecdotal information that I see on the ground in my own community, where the majority of households had two underemployed earners earning subsistence levels.
*I run a farm, with a significant part of my retail business discounted 25% to families on government subsistence. About 30% of those customers are no longer on government assistance.
*Local households that have put off purchasing replacements for major appliances and automobiles now have the income and confidence in long-term to buy.
*People are making need repairs and upgrades to their homes, that they have put off since the last half of the G.W. Bus administration.
_Good thing. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are to well qualified jurists who lean more toward "strict constructionalism" and black letter law, than judicial activism.
_Good thing. We now have a President who is serious about gaining control of the southern Border, illegal entry, and unlawful residency. [Before I am labeled a xenophobic white nationalist... My mother was a legal immigrant from Mexico.] I just hope we get some legislators that are equally serious, soon. Although, I think a wall is merely symbolic. I favor draconian criminal penalties and confiscatory civil penalties for anyone who knowingly aids illegal entry , unlawful residency, or offers employment to illegal immigrants and unlawful residents; or fails to exercise due diligence in facilitating their on-going illegal or unlawful status, and employment.
_Good thing. Reasoned Environmental deregulation is a good thing. The EPA and BLM have taken quite a few "Bridges too far."
_Good thing. "Right to Try" was a good piece of healthcare deregulation.
_Good thing. Moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was a good thing. The previous President's all said it was good an necessary, but lacked the intestinal fortitude and the commitment to an ally to actually follow through.
_Good thing. ISIS is no where near as loud and large as they were, back when they were "junior varsity."
_Good thing. NATO has been put on notice, put more budgetary skin in the game or we'll take our ball and go home.
_Good thing. Standing up to our trading "partners." They have been violating the letter and spirit of our trade agreements for a long time. (Example: I cannot sell my dairy products into Canada. Canada imposes a complicated tariff and fee schedule that requires a wholesaler to pay a 270% "tariff" on dairy products.)
_Good thing. The employment numbers are better they have been in years, in almost every measure kept by the Bureau of Labor. That matches anecdotal information that I see on the ground in my own community, where the majority of households had two underemployed earners earning subsistence levels.
*I run a farm, with a significant part of my retail business discounted 25% to families on government subsistence. About 30% of those customers are no longer on government assistance.
*Local households that have put off purchasing replacements for major appliances and automobiles now have the income and confidence in long-term to buy.
*People are making need repairs and upgrades to their homes, that they have put off since the last half of the G.W. Bus administration.
_Good thing. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are to well qualified jurists who lean more toward "strict constructionalism" and black letter law, than judicial activism.
_Good thing. We now have a President who is serious about gaining control of the southern Border, illegal entry, and unlawful residency. [Before I am labeled a xenophobic white nationalist... My mother was a legal immigrant from Mexico.] I just hope we get some legislators that are equally serious, soon. Although, I think a wall is merely symbolic. I favor draconian criminal penalties and confiscatory civil penalties for anyone who knowingly aids illegal entry , unlawful residency, or offers employment to illegal immigrants and unlawful residents; or fails to exercise due diligence in facilitating their on-going illegal or unlawful status, and employment.
_Good thing. Reasoned Environmental deregulation is a good thing. The EPA and BLM have taken quite a few "Bridges too far."
_Good thing. "Right to Try" was a good piece of healthcare deregulation.
_Good thing. Moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was a good thing. The previous President's all said it was good an necessary, but lacked the intestinal fortitude and the commitment to an ally to actually follow through.
_Good thing. ISIS is no where near as loud and large as they were, back when they were "junior varsity."
_Good thing. NATO has been put on notice, put more budgetary skin in the game or we'll take our ball and go home.
(0)
(0)
SFC Louis Willhauck, MSM, JSCM, and ARCOM
TSgt Gary McPherson - I had to take pause on this one too a little bit, but I think it means Rally Point.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SFC Tom Jones
Well I joined in 1976 and it was made very clear to us that he was the commander in chief and it was our duty to follow his orders like them or not. Also there have been a few POTUS that I didn't like or voted for, but I gave the respect to the office that he was holding. Also I have found out that the ones who complain are the ones who are trying to cause a conflict, what I did was sit them down and we would have a debate about what they didn't like that help a lot. RP to me is a place where active duty and some of old farts can learn from what others have been through and I am a firm believer that you are never to old to learn something new each and every day of your life.
(0)
(0)
38
38
0
No. I held my tongue when the last POTUS was in office, those that don’t like the current POTUS should do the same.
(38)
(0)
TSgt Gary McPherson
Question,Really why bad mouth a sitting president?Disagree but call him names and get down right nasty serves what purpose?Just look at the HATE flying around today.No matter what he does he is wrong.Funny thing is most do not know all he has down.Mush is not reported in the bias media.The media is basically the sole source of what goes on and we all know how they report news. The man IS THE CIC and like it or not the boss.Disagree is fine but to lower one's self to spout Hate and wallow in the mud slinging is not right.I may not like the president but I want no part in giving this country a black eye but showing HATE.I'm retired military and will not lower myself to bad mouth him.What good does it do to call him nasty names?.Our last president I did not like at all and I have stated (with respect to that office) my displeasure in him..He like this one was duly voted in and we should respect that fact..I hold the so called MEDIA at fault for much of the Haste as they just throw gas on the fire and step back and watch..We as former/retired military should be above the mud slinging and hate.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Gary McPherson
SMSgt Thor Merich - You know I served 26 plus years in the USMC and USAF.Retired USAF.I'm no 80 years old it still irks me to no end to see the hate that is going on today.It is destroying this country.Hate for Trump.Hate for police and military.Protest everywhere for anything.I'm also a retired cop and it is so sad to see the hate posted toward them,So many are being murdered.What is really sad is how the media sources are keeping the hate alive.Unfit people being elected to congress that have no business being there spreading hate.What has happened to out once great country?I thank God I'm 80 and will not be around too much longer to see the fall of this country. People have lost their self respect and the respect for their country
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
The ONLY reason I spoke out against the previous POTUS is because he was a usurping FRAUD wholly unqualified to hold the office to which he was appointed. When an elected official is allowed to skip the vetting process and when the senior Democratic House member modifies her endorsement to remove the words “constitutionally qualified,” it doesn’t take a genius to smell the impropriety. The American voters were defrauded and the DNC has a lot of explaining to do. President Obama is EXACTLY why our Founding Fathers included the requirement for POTUS to be natural born. Our courts have been stacked with crooked activist justices who threw out every single case against Obama on technical and procedural grounds. Not once did they ever rule Obama eligible.
Note the difference in the oaths we swear as enlisted and as officers... The difference is subtle but very important.
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):
"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."
The Oath of Office (for officers):
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
Officers do not promise to obey the orders of POTUS; they promise to well and faithfully discharge their duties and when you have reason to question orders from POTUS because you suspect they are improper you have an inherent responsibility to call attention to the discrepancy and to NOT follow orders you see as detrimental to the Constitution and future well-being of our country. With every cell in my body I know Obama has issues related to his background and eligibility that the Democrats kept hidden from the public.
I spoke out back in 2007 and 2008 and was blocked for awhile and called unprofessional for doing exactly what I swore an oath to do — protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC!
History has absolved new. Independent forensics labs have proven that the documents Obama used to establish his eligibility [albeit 4 years AFTER THE FACT!!!] were manufactured on a computer with human intervention. I independently checked the documents and arrived at the same conclusion. That Congress was given the documents and failed to do anything with them is a testament to just how deep the corruption runs in our government.
Were it not for Obama’s corruption and plague of scandals, America would have never even given a candidate like Trump serious consideration, but he was the best the GOP had to offer and the alternative was Hillary, who rightly belongs in jail for numerous crimes that she has not been convicted of because Congress doesn’t have the moral courage to do the right thing for fear that their dirty little secrets will be exposed.
America is in a fight for the future of our country and many of you have been conditioned to accept Progressive Democratic Socialism, which is still Socialism dressed up with a fancier name and for those of you who know your history, Socialism is just a short transitional step to Communism, which leads to tyranny and the loss of freedom.
When I was on Active Duty, I kept my mouth shut. Now that I am retired, I have an obligation to speak out — even though I am still subject to the UCMJ. I am not subject to following the orders of POTUS as he is no longer my Commander in Chief.
Note the difference in the oaths we swear as enlisted and as officers... The difference is subtle but very important.
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):
"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."
The Oath of Office (for officers):
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
Officers do not promise to obey the orders of POTUS; they promise to well and faithfully discharge their duties and when you have reason to question orders from POTUS because you suspect they are improper you have an inherent responsibility to call attention to the discrepancy and to NOT follow orders you see as detrimental to the Constitution and future well-being of our country. With every cell in my body I know Obama has issues related to his background and eligibility that the Democrats kept hidden from the public.
I spoke out back in 2007 and 2008 and was blocked for awhile and called unprofessional for doing exactly what I swore an oath to do — protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC!
History has absolved new. Independent forensics labs have proven that the documents Obama used to establish his eligibility [albeit 4 years AFTER THE FACT!!!] were manufactured on a computer with human intervention. I independently checked the documents and arrived at the same conclusion. That Congress was given the documents and failed to do anything with them is a testament to just how deep the corruption runs in our government.
Were it not for Obama’s corruption and plague of scandals, America would have never even given a candidate like Trump serious consideration, but he was the best the GOP had to offer and the alternative was Hillary, who rightly belongs in jail for numerous crimes that she has not been convicted of because Congress doesn’t have the moral courage to do the right thing for fear that their dirty little secrets will be exposed.
America is in a fight for the future of our country and many of you have been conditioned to accept Progressive Democratic Socialism, which is still Socialism dressed up with a fancier name and for those of you who know your history, Socialism is just a short transitional step to Communism, which leads to tyranny and the loss of freedom.
When I was on Active Duty, I kept my mouth shut. Now that I am retired, I have an obligation to speak out — even though I am still subject to the UCMJ. I am not subject to following the orders of POTUS as he is no longer my Commander in Chief.
(0)
(0)
26
26
0
Nope...not even former service members. If you look in to the period of the Obama administration, most of us were very careful on what we said about POTUS and his henchmen. Mostly it was out of respect and reverence to the Office of the President but I think is because most of us live by our oath of commission and service values where we do not want to bring discredit or embarrassment to our service. Maybe I am "old school" but even though I (as a conservative) disagree with the Obama policies and some actions, I tried to show respect to the office. As to the current POTUS and his administration, I feel that they have not received the respect they are due. If I see anyone degrading President Trump on RP, rest assured I will call them out, vote down their post and then file a complaint to the system operators. We need to stay true to the values that make the American military the force of peace and decency it has become known for. LTC Stephen F. SSG (Join to see)
(26)
(0)
SP5 Jeannie Carle
THANK YOU! One of the things I was taught as a PVT was --- you may not like the PERSON, but you WILL respect the rank. Period. No discussion. That was brought up because someone refused to salute an Officer they didn't personally like. When that uniform was on - you saluted the RANK.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Joseph Fast
I personally don't see a problem with former service members. I grew very poor and went to a majority black school. It was the most violent racist school I ever went to. When he started the extremely racist program that encouraged schools to not hold black people accountable for their actions, while having zero tolerance for all other people (punishment even if didn't start it or ran away), it needed to be criticized. I couldn't really say anything while I was in. That being said, most complaints against Trump aren't exactly rooted in reality, they are pretty much like the complaint about Obama making a Marine hold an umbrella. They are literally stretching looking for anything to complain about. Cured cancer? Too many white people were part of the program and he did it to snub black people. Didn't cure aids? Snubbing everyone. Gave in to your demands, no he didn't, still racist. It's pretty out of hand.
I had a little trouble calling people out for being ridiculous about what they complained about the last POTUS. Often he didn't do anything wrong, but when he was wrong, I let it go (respect the rank doesn't mean I have to defend even when wrong). Current POTUS though, damn. He could end poverty and people would claim it was because he is racist. I can't even tell if something is true without research at this point.
I had a little trouble calling people out for being ridiculous about what they complained about the last POTUS. Often he didn't do anything wrong, but when he was wrong, I let it go (respect the rank doesn't mean I have to defend even when wrong). Current POTUS though, damn. He could end poverty and people would claim it was because he is racist. I can't even tell if something is true without research at this point.
(2)
(0)
26
26
0
No. I don't think it's cool, or wise. Especially for those still serving.
(26)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
In addition, I am a firm believer that we give up some of our rights when we sign the dotted line. We still need to act like professionals on this site, period.
(16)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Please check the UCMJ. Officers are restricted from bad mouthing government officials but similar restrictions are not found for enlisted personnel. However, we all know that there are certain catch-all UCMJ articles that can be used against enlisted personnel when they become unprofessional in expressing their opinion about government officials.
(0)
(0)
26
26
0
DOD Policy
“In an example of how social media can cause trouble for military personnel, a Marine was recently discharged from the Corps because he posted critical and derogatory comments about the president on Facebook. The site failed to indicate that the views being expressed were not the views of the Marine Corps or the Department of Defense. He had previously been warned by the Marine Corps that such sites were a violation of military policy, but he did not heed the warning”.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/http://www.army.mil/article-amp/84850/you_posted_what_on_facebook
“In an example of how social media can cause trouble for military personnel, a Marine was recently discharged from the Corps because he posted critical and derogatory comments about the president on Facebook. The site failed to indicate that the views being expressed were not the views of the Marine Corps or the Department of Defense. He had previously been warned by the Marine Corps that such sites were a violation of military policy, but he did not heed the warning”.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/http://www.army.mil/article-amp/84850/you_posted_what_on_facebook
With the 2012 Presidential election less than 90 days away, there are a number of things Soldiers and government employees need to keep in mind when it comes to being in military or government service and being involved in political activity.
(26)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
GySgt (Join to see) I’m done beating a dead horse. As stated earlier, enlisteds are not held to the same standards as Commissioned Officers. I posted an Army article that addressed what ca happened. This is my final post on this OP, I know for a fact that if an officer uses defamatory language and is reported to the branch IG or DODIG, action will be taken. Here is a detailed explanation of the applicable UCMJ articles.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/07-1999.pdf
https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/07-1999.pdf
&:AÉÁíatKéÁÉ dæAÈ èy6ãx ÃÌbà RL`v["pfêW/\2«¡«~õäüþ}+Ï1;µeÇÞS«ço;:yB*GÃIõÒ;ö)µOÆiÐan+l}@@e0 §}VÙ endstream endobj 1972 0 obj 787 endobj 1942 0 obj /ProcSet 1970 0 R /Contents 1968 0 R /Thumb 256 0 R /MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /CropBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /Rotate 0 endobj 1943 0 obj endobj 1944 0 obj endobj 1945 0 obj endobj 1946 0 obj endobj 1947 0 obj endobj 1948 0 obj endobj 1949 0 obj endobj 1950 0 obj endobj 1951 0 obj endobj 1952 0...
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MCPO Roger Collins - An interesting retreat from your earlier posts. "Nearly every one of us" down to only currently serving commissioned officers. You posted an Army article all right, but it was hardly a "reference". We're discussing disparaging remarks about POTUS violating the UCMJ and that article is about improper political activities violating the Hatch Act. You also introduce the article with the words "DOD Policy" when the Hatch Act is federal law. I'd be interested to learn more about those DODOIG guidelines you're going with because they don't seem to be predominately posted on their website. http://www.dodig.mil/
The official site of the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
SFC (Join to see) Come back once you have been verified and completed more than your supposed promotional status with zero dates, no photo, no name = troll. Enjoy a good debate, hate trolls.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
troll: to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
: to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts
: a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll
So which post do you feel is inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or disruptive? Does that mean you will not be providing those DoDOIG guidelines?
You being a retiree, how would my rank matter in this discussion? If I was going to fake a rank, why claim only E7? Couldn't I just click E9 or O5 if I was going to fake it? Would my comments be less true if I had clicked E1? Or is this just an attempt to divert attention and change the subject?
: to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts
: a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll
So which post do you feel is inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or disruptive? Does that mean you will not be providing those DoDOIG guidelines?
You being a retiree, how would my rank matter in this discussion? If I was going to fake a rank, why claim only E7? Couldn't I just click E9 or O5 if I was going to fake it? Would my comments be less true if I had clicked E1? Or is this just an attempt to divert attention and change the subject?
a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore inhabiting caves or hills… See the full definition
(0)
(0)
21
21
0
20
20
0
I do not think it is OK for RallyPoint members to insult the POTUS or make degrading comments about the President of the United States COL (Join to see). Criticizing advocated policy is OK but insulting the POTUS is not.
FYI COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. LTC Orlando Illi LTC (Join to see) LTC Ivan Raiklin, Esq. Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Capt Seid Waddell Capt Jeff S. CPT Jack Durish MSG Dan Walther MSgt Robert C Aldi SFC Stephen King MSgt Danny Hope SGT Gregory Lawritson Cpl Craig Marton SP5 Mark Kuzinski SGT (Join to see) Maj Marty Hogan
FYI COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. LTC Orlando Illi LTC (Join to see) LTC Ivan Raiklin, Esq. Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Capt Seid Waddell Capt Jeff S. CPT Jack Durish MSG Dan Walther MSgt Robert C Aldi SFC Stephen King MSgt Danny Hope SGT Gregory Lawritson Cpl Craig Marton SP5 Mark Kuzinski SGT (Join to see) Maj Marty Hogan
(20)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
If you are on active duty insulting any current POTUS is not okay by UCMJ SSgt Jim White After you leave the service of this nation then you can say whatever you want unless it starts a riot :-)
(2)
(0)
20
20
0
I would like to think that I am very tame when critiquing our Commander in Chiefs past and present, While I am retired I will never just full nuclear in my comments. I would pretty much say on line that I would say in person, what can I say I am an A-hole that lacks tact and any sense of self preservation. One thing I will never stand for or do is promote or agree with ANYONE talking about physical injury or death of a POTUS regardless of how I feel about them.
(20)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Yeap. I pretty much disregard comments about the POTUS. But start talking crap about the First Lady or underage kids and l can get very un-gentleman like.
(3)
(0)
1SG Dennis Hicks
COL (Join to see) - Sir please don't go there, first ladies that step into the ring get assorted smart ass, tasteless and insensitive comments from me, I am on my 3rd marriage and I need the feel good points.
(3)
(0)
1SG Dennis Hicks
COL (Join to see) - It didn't say all Sir many first ladies actual acted like ladies and she is one of them. If Slick Willie had become a first lady I would have destroyed him.
(8)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google