How do you feel about veterans or Soldiers criticizing our President?

The US Supreme Court has upheld a soldiers freedom of speech as long as that speech does not violate UMCJ. <br><br>Now this is where things are getting catchy. Our first duty is to support and defend the Constitution of the US, then to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over military members. Well many feel that the current administration has violated the Constitution of the US and has over stepped it's autority and is continuing to do so. <br><br>Now I am no lawyer, but I do have some common sense. If I receive a order that goes against the Constitution of the US or to try and enforce any military action that could jeopardize the US Constitution and the American people then I would have to disobey that order and suffer the consequence for my actions.<br><br>I have served under 5 Presidents and have never had to disobey a order, but I have seen things that I did not agree with under all 5 Presidents. I have voiced my concerns in the proper settings over the years, mostly to get feed back from fellow service members on what they see and feel. A concern about policy can be spoken in the proper setting but heed crossing the line.<br>

<p style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.5em; text-decoration: inherit; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 18px;">The meaning of Article 88 "If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.</p><p style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.5em; text-decoration: inherit; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 18px;">Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial."</p><p style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.5em; text-decoration: inherit; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 18px;"><br></p><p style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.5em; text-decoration: inherit; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 18px;">This is a political discussion, therefore Article 88 does not apply.&nbsp;</p><p style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.5em; text-decoration: inherit; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 18px;"><br></p>

I find it sad in this day and age that military personal think that once you take the uniform off at night that you are not held to the same standards as when you are wearing it. It does not matter if you like the president or not, it does not matter if you agree with him or not. He is your commander in chief and regardless of how you personally feel as a soldier it is your responsibility to show the proper respect in uniform or out. After you retire or get out you can say what you want, but when you are in, the respect is given. This especially holds true to leaders. As leaders we have a responsibility to lead by example, if we freely talk bad about our leaders, what keeps a enlisted from bad mouthing you or disrespecting you? When I was in I had a SFC I did not like, but no matter how much I did not like him, the respect went to him and his rank, because at the end of the day, respect is something that is given to receive and is earned, and if you dont understand that, if you think military rules only apply when others are watching or you are wearing your uniform, than you should not be a leader.

You have no freedom until you E.T.S. You gave that up. Follow&nbsp;lawful order and respect your NCO, Commanding Officers&nbsp;and Chiefs.&nbsp;

Unlawful orders coming from anyone are still unlawful. &nbsp;You are held accountable for that. &nbsp;<br>The office of the President and CIC of the Military does not entitle any person with the right to order anyone to do unconstitutional things, plain and simple. &nbsp;<br>My problem is this. &nbsp;The current CIC has stripped many of the General Staff of their positions, he has now installed newer Generals. &nbsp;<div>Also, I am not sure who called the stand down order on helping in Benghazi, but an in theater General was immediately relieved of his command when he stated he was going to do a rescue of an AMBASSADOR of the United States and those trying to protect him. &nbsp;Why is this being swept under the rug? &nbsp;What was going on that those who gave the order to stand down do not want the public to know about? &nbsp;Gunrunning?</div><div>I am sorry if I am offending people here, but if there were an R behind our current Presidents name, we would know, for the news media would have wanted every juicy detail. &nbsp;But they are deathly silent in this case.<br>I believe, if the leadership of the House were more interested in justice than they are at the berating of the media, there would have been impeachment hearings on Benghazi, politicizing of the IRS, and the enemies list.</div>

When a Soldier is still on active duty, they did keep their opinions to themselves. &nbsp;As a retiree, I'm a private citizen and I will fully exercise my right to free speech.

Simple fact of the matter-we cannot do anything about it. Its up to us to leave to the legislators to deal with their actions in whatever way the public intends to wield that power, and might I add, power that no single individual should have, including the CiC. In the end, his is answerable to the people of the United States. He is in there because the masses are appealed to him, and in the same fashion he was instated into the Oval Office, he can be forced out by legislative processes. Do I hold faith that this would occur?<div><br></div><div>Not at all-for the following reasons-</div><div>I know I will hit a touchy subject here but have some fortitude and understand that I am not racist. I have a Latina stepmother, a German father, an Irish biological mother, and some of my best friends are gay, black, Oriental, and insert label here.</div><div><br></div><div>No legislator in office wants the claim of being the person to impeach the first black President. I know its a underlying issue here, but it seriously is a guiding factor that a lot of people have admitted to on television.</div><div><br></div><div>Secondly-even with a House majority vote to move forward on Impeachment proceedings, it is left up to the Senate to take the President to trial. As we all well know, the Senate is a Democrat stronghold, so unless the Conservative movement takes control of the Senate in the midterms this year, its a dead movement.</div><div><br></div><div>Third-and touching on the heart of the debate here, we are all entitled to respectful thoughts and opinions. I make my best attempt to give someone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, and you can take that at its meaning based on current events. Regardless of my thoughts and opinions-my personal beliefs are kept close at hand with those I trust.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>Our place of duty resides at just that, the workplace. Politics, religion, and philosphical thought should be left at the door and picked up on the way out, because there is no need for it when you are trying to focus on fixing a component on an aircraft, or wiring a switch so the Battlenet can be set up, or doing a headspace and timing on an M2. Regardless of your thoughts of our CiC, leave them at the door. Respect the Office, and respect the choices of the American people. Like or it not, he is here to stay until 2016.&nbsp;</div>

Though provoking questions indeed, Specialist! &nbsp;Social media is not only helping to connect the world at a rapid pace, it can also be a weapon of defragmenting us all at the same time! &nbsp;It is more wise, in my opinion, to be very selective in comments, blogs, posts, etc. &nbsp;regarding POTUS and several other elected/appointed leaders at the highest level of our nation's government. &nbsp;Believe it or not, it could have a direct impact on you personally and professionally. &nbsp;Also, discussion of pay, politics, and religion in public forum is never a good idea. &nbsp;I understand everyone has their own opinions, frustrations, not to mention reactions to the media, etc., however it may be in our best interest to remain loyal with a winning attitude when the rest of the world has their doubts and insecurities about our CIC. &nbsp;Misery loves company, let the general public project their negativity if they feel so compelled or inclined to do so. &nbsp;<div><br></div><div>So much depends on reputation---guard it with your life---Robert Greene<br><div><br></div></div>

CSM Colin P,&nbsp; I hope you are not alluding to deniers as people who do not agree with the Global Warming Issue.&nbsp;&nbsp; I get tired of unprofessional people pretending to be scientists.&nbsp;&nbsp;

I think everybody should re-read the question at hand.&nbsp; People are
reading way to far into it.&nbsp; This question has no opinion or takes sides
of anyone or any topic, SPC Buck has tried to explain that.&nbsp; If this topic offends you that much then move on, its not difficult.<br><br>The Constitution is what it is, and should not be disregarded by anyone not even the C in C / Congress, etc.&nbsp; Yes maybe amended to keep up with the times, but then amendments need to be changed as well, but the original Constitution should never change.&nbsp; I cherish my right to bear arms and for freedom of speech.&nbsp; If someone steps foot on my property to take my guns away, well, I'm not sure if I can legally say how I feel about that.&nbsp; New classes, being in the Army, are mandatory or you don't go to NCOES
and you don't get promoted, one goes over the constitution, so every
Army enlisted Soldier should know their constitutional rights.<br><br>Now those of you who criticize Bush JR and praise Obama, who is taking our retirement away? and not stopping congress, while congress turns around and gives themselves a pay raise, that's where our budget cuts going.&nbsp; Bush never tried to take away our second amendment or cut our pensions, or cut military benefits of those currently serving, he was pro military, he wanted to give us more.&nbsp; you want to talk about our debt, Obama at least doubled what Bush got us into.&nbsp; Bush had a plan to get us out the last couple years he was in, it WAS working, until the current took over.<br><br>I think that every law should just be thrown out and start over, rebuild everything, making new laws and regulations from ground up.&nbsp; I think that would solve some of our issues.<br>