You can't handel the truth's

The Truth Will Make You Free

Archive for the category “Veterans”

Peace

The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must

suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.

Douglas MacArthur

Philippians _4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

Colossians _3:15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

Romans_5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Psalms_4:8 I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety.

Psalms_120:6 My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace.

Psalms_120:7 I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.

Isaiah_48:22There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked.

Advertisements

Society Is Crumbling Right In Front Of Our Eyes And Banning Guns Won’t Help

What in the world is happening to America?  I have written many articles about how society is crumbling right in front of our eyes, but now it is getting to the point where people are going to be afraid to go to school or go shopping at the mall.  Just consider what has happened over the past week.  Adam Lanza savagely murdered 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  42-year-old Marcus Gurrola threatened to shoot innocent shoppers and fired off more than 50 rounds in the parking lot of Fashion Island Mall in Newport Beach, California.  After police apprehended him, he told them that he “was unhappy with life”.  Earlier in the week, a crazy man wearing a hockey mask and armed with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire on the second floor of a mall in Happy Valley, Oregon.  He killed two people and injured a third.  On Saturday morning, a lone gunman walked into a hospital in Alabama and opened fire.  He killed one police officer and two hospital employees before being gunned down by another police officer.  So have we now reached the point where every school, every mall and every hospital is going to need armed security?  How will society function efficiently if everyone is constantly worried about mass murderers?

In response to the horrible tragedy in Connecticut, many in the mainstream media are suggesting that much stricter gun laws are the obvious solution.

After all, if we get rid of all the guns these crazy people won’t be able to commit these kinds of crimes, right?

Unfortunately, that is not how it works.  The criminals don’t obey gun control laws.  Banning guns will just take them out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens that just want to protect their own families.

Adam Lanza didn’t let the strict gun control laws up in Connecticut stop him from what he wanted to do.  Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and Adam Lanza broke at least three of them.

However, if there had been some armed security officers or some armed teachers at that school, they may have had a chance to protect those dear little children from being brutally gunned down.

If gun control was really the solution to our problems, then cities that have implemented strict gun control laws should be some of the safest in the entire country.

But sadly, just the opposite is true.

For example, Chicago has very strict gun laws.  But 10 people were shot in the city of Chicago on Friday alone.  Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city“, and the murder rate in Chicago is about 25 percent higher than it was last year.

So has gun control turned Chicago into a utopia?

Of course not.

And it won’t solve our problems on a national level either.

You can find more statistics about the futility of gun control right here.

Well, how would things be if we did just the opposite and everyone had a gun?

Would gun crime go through the roof?

That is what liberals were warning of when the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun.  But instead of disaster, the results turned out to be very impressive

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

When criminals know that everyone has guns, they are much less likely to try something.  And often armed citizens are able to prevent potential mass murderers from doing more damage.  You can find several examples of this right here.

But of course most of our politicians are not interested in common sense.  Instead, they are obsessed with the idea that gun control will make our country “safe” again.

Senator Diane Feinstein says that she is ready to introduce a strict gun control bill in January that will “ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession” of many types of firearms.

Will such a law keep the criminals from getting guns?

No way.  Just look at what is happening with the cartels down in Mexico.  The criminals are always able to get guns.

If our “leaders” were really interested in stopping these mass murders, they would take a look at the role that mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs play in these incidents.  If you look at the mass murders that have occurred over the past several decades, in the vast majority of them the murderer had been using mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs

The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has raised concerns about severe acts of violence as side effects of anti-psychotic and antidepressant drugs not only on individuals but on society as well.

Just a month ago PRWeb described drug induced violence as “medicine’s best kept secret.” 

And the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHRI) is calling for a federal investigation on its web page which links no less than 14 mass killings to the use of psychiatric drugs such as Prozac and Paxil.

And guess what?

According to the Washington Post, one neighbor says that Adam Lanza was “on medication”.

But will our politicians ever consider a law against such drugs?

Of course not.  The big corporations that produce those drugs give mountains of money to the campaign funds of our politicians.

So the focus of the debate will remain on guns.

And a lot of liberals would have us believe that our society could be transformed into some type of “utopia” if we could just get rid of all the guns.

Unfortunately, that is simply not true.  Our society is in an advanced state of moral decay, and this moral decay is manifesting in our society in thousands of different ways.  The corruption runs from the highest levels of society all the way down to the lowest.

For those that believe that gun control would somehow “fix America”, I have some questions for you…

Down in Texas, one set of parents kept their 10-year-old son locked in a bedroom and only fed him bread and water for months.  Eventually he died of starvation and they dumped his body in a creek.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

A pastor in north Texas was recently assaulted by an enraged man who beat him to death with an electric guitar.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

Police up in New Jersey say that a man kept his girlfriend padlocked in a bedroom for most of the last 10 years.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

A 31-year-old man up in Canada was found guilty of raping an 8-year-old girl, breaking 16 of her bones and smashing her in the face with a hammer.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

According to the FBI, a New York City police officer is being accused of “planning the kidnap, rape, torture and cannibilization of a number of women”.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

A Secret Service officer that had been assigned to protect Joe Biden’s residence has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

Over in Texas, a very sick 29-year-old man stabbed his girlfriend to death and then burned his one-year-old baby alive because she had gone to court and filed for child support.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

Over in Utah, a 21-year-old man is accused of stabbing his grandmother 111 times and then removing her organs with a knife.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

There are more than 3 million reports of child abuse in the United States every single year.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

An average of five children die as a result of child abuse in the United States every single day.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

The United States has the highest child abuse death rate on the entire globe.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

It is estimated that 500,000 Americans that will be born this year will be sexually abused before they turn 18.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

In the United States today, it is estimated that one out of every four girls is sexually abused before they become adults.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

If there was a way to take all of the guns away from all of the criminals, I would be all in favor of it.  Unfortunately, no government on the planet has been able to do that.

Instead, we have seen that criminals thrive whenever gun bans are instituted and the guns are taken away from law-abiding citizens.

But the bottom line is that our social decay will not be solved either by more guns or less guns.

Our social decay is the result of decades of bad decisions.  We have pushed morality out of our schools, out of government and out of almost every aspect of public life.  Now we are experiencing the bitter fruit of those decisions.

And this is not a problem that our government is going to be able to fix.  Violent crime increased by 18 percent in 2011, and this is just the beginning.

As our economy gets even worse, the rot and decay that have been eating away the foundations of America are going to become even more evident.  The number of Americans living in poverty grows with each passing day, and millions upon millions of people are becoming very desperate.

Desperate people do desperate things, and crime, rioting and looting are going to become commonplace in the United States in the years ahead.

So you can pretend that the government is going to be able to keep our society from crumbling all you want, but that is not going to help you when a gang of desperate criminals has invaded your home and is attacking your family.

We definitely should mourn for the victims in Connecticut.  It was a horrible national tragedy.

But this is just the beginning.  The fabric of our society is coming apart at the seams.  The feeling of safety and security that we all used to take for granted has been shattered, and the streets of America are going to steadily become much more dangerous.

I hope that you are ready.

Christianity and gun owners in the crosshairs: Chilling tactic exposed

Doug Hagmann  Thursday, August 16, 2012

If you are an outspoken Christian in America, you need to be concerned. If you are an outspoken Christian in America who happens to be a gun owner, you need to be very concerned.  And if you are a Christian gun owner who disagrees with the Progressive anti-Christian agenda in America and have a platform to inform others, you better believe that you are under intense scrutiny. Sound like paranoid propaganda? Read on.

It’s one thing to say that there is a war against Christianity and an active agenda to disarm Americans, but it’s another thing altogether to watch it unfold, up close and personal.  And yet another to actually document an insidious but effective tactic that is presently being used to silence and disarm Christians right here in America. In this report, I will expose a new tactic being used by the atheistic communist supporters of the Obama regime to silence Christian critics and to disarm them at the same time.

I might have never known about this had it not been for our nightly radio program, the Hagmann & Hagmann Report. In fact, our show played a minor role in the events that transpired. Jason Ergoff, a 28-year old web designer and graphics artist from Scranton, Pennsylvania, called in to our show last week to comment on current events, including how Christianity seems to be under attack in America and across the globe. From the statements made by the CEO of Chick Fil-A regarding traditional families as defined by the Bible to the resurgence of attacks on Christians across the Middle East as a result of the “Arab Spring,” we conversed about how Christians are in the crosshairs now more than any other time in recent history. We talked about Barack Hussein Obama’s role in what seems to be overt antagonism toward Christianity and Biblical principles. Mr. Ergoff’s input to our show was a rational and welcome discourse about the events we see unfolding.

Mr. Ergoff called our program before and has always been articulate and well informed. His call last week was equally articulate and without unnecessary emotion or hype, just like his previous calls. He made his points in a very well-reasoned, rational and non-threatening manner and said nothing with which we could disagree.

Through our dialogue that included off air correspondence, we were delighted to learn that Mr. Egroff himself is hosting his own weekly radio program called Revelation News Radio, a show that provides his analysis of current events through the prism of the Holy Bible. As he is just getting started, he did a few shows leading up his weekly slot, including a show on August 7, 2012, a day after he called our program as a guest. After his call to our program, we moved on, and our program concluded without incident. This is when events began to get very interesting, and go very wrong for Mr. Egroff.

Monitoring the watchmen

As Mr. Egroff was seated at his computer preparing to listen to our program that began at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 8, 2012, he received a telephone call from a man who identified himself as “Officer Steve” from the city of Scranton Police Department, who told Jason that he was calling just to check on him, to see if he was “alright.” Jason, who never heard of “Officer Steve,” or really understood the nature of the call, responded that he was fine and had no problems where he might need the police. He was taken off guard by the call and became uneasy, especially since the officer was elusive in providing a legitimate reason for the call.

While our broadcast was playing on Jason’s computer, he received another telephone call from a “restricted” number. It was “Officer Steve” again, although this time he was calling from the front porch of Mr. Ergoff’s house. The officer reintroduced himself, and asked Jason to turn on the porch light and step outside as he wanted to speak to him. Knowing that he had done nothing wrong, Jason complied with the officer’s request. As he stepped onto the porch, “Officer Steve” was there to meet him, accompanied by another law enforcement officer.

I should note that Jason Ergoff is not stupid or naive, and sensed that had he not complied with the officer’s request, things might have gotten ugly. “It was a matter of choosing my battles,” he told me, but he was still not quite ready for what happened next.

The officer told Jason that the Scranton Police Department received a telephone call from a “friend” living in New York City who claimed to be concerned about Jason’s mental health. This friend works as a physical therapy assistant at a large New York City hospital.  It is important to note his “friend’s” professional position is well outside of the mental health practice.

According to the officer, Jason’s friend contacted his department, and claimed that he was “worried” about him, citing his recent talk about the Bible in general, Biblical prophecy in particular, and the role of the Obama regime in the larger picture detailed by prophecy. This “friend” has been listening to Jason’s calls to The Hagmann & Hagmann Report as well as Jason’s own recently started BTR radio show.

Additionally, Jason’s friend knew that he owns a couple of guns, none that are of much monetary value or the type people intent on doing harm would possess. Despite this, his friend expressed concern that Jason could possibly use the weapons in some nefarious manner. Based on Jason’s own admission, he rarely uses the guns to target practice and has little attachment to them. During my interview with Jason, he said that he did not care if he had a gun or not, they are simply not that important to him.

“You need to come with us”

The officer told Jason that he had to go with them based on a mental health complaint that originated solely from his friend, the physical therapist assistant in New York, who claimed that he was worried for Jason’s safety. At this point, Jason was under the control of the officers, and was not permitted to be alone as he entered his house to shut things down for the trip he was about to take.

The officers took Jason to the local hospital psychiatric ward for “evaluation.” For the next 18 hours, he was subjected to some of the most humiliating searches, probes, and questions by hospital personnel. Questions included those specific to his religious faith and what he thought about the government and Obama. Questions that were structured in such a manner that regardless of the answer, they would result in portraying him as a dangerous, gun-owning Christian zealot. All as a result of Jason expressing his non-violent, well reasoned, and articulate views on our show as well as his own. All ostensibly from the concern of one “friend” from another state and well over 100 miles away.

Jason Ergoff was indeed evaluated by two medical health professionals. Despite the manner in which Mr. Ergoff was picked-up, detained, probed, prodded and interviewed (some might call it an interrogation), he remained calm and did his best to comply. He believed that the medical professionals would find him in good mental health and realize that this was all a mistake. He could then use his experience to help others.

Christianity: the medical diagnosis of psychosis

Jason was indeed released after about 20 hours of evaluation. He was given his belt and shoelaces back, and all of his personal belongings taken from him upon admission. He was released without fanfare, without apology, and without explanation. But with little additional interaction, Jason was now labeled with the medical diagnosis of “psychosis” and urged to take medication that he states he does not need and does not want. Additionally, Jason was released under the condition that he gets rid of any and all firearms he owns and report to a crisis counseling center upon discharge.

This gets a bit more interesting when Jason, who felt it best to accommodate the evaluating doctors, reported to the crisis counseling center as instructed. Mr. Ergoff furnished the handful of paperwork to the crisis center worker who spent a few minutes looking over the documents. After a lengthy pause, she looked at Jason and made the following chilling observation as if it was a matter of routine: “So, you’re here because of your religious beliefs.” As Jason tells it, this was not a question, but a statement of fact.

As a career investigator, I’ve been exposed to people with mental health issues, and interviewed many. I know that it’s easy to be fooled, and that a person might appear normal, say the correct things, but then turn out to be a complete lunatic. I’ll admit that in Jason’s case, I expected to find just that scenario. I conducted a lengthy interview with Jason, asked him some very personal questions, and demanded to see documentation related to this incident. I was not about to get fooled by Jason or anyone else. To his credit, Mr. Ergoff complied with my every request and provided me with the hospital documentation I requested.

Watching the watchers who are watching the ‘watchmen’

After spending two days of constant research and investigation into his case alone, I must report here that there is something very wrong about this case, and it’s not Jason Ergoff. Despite the diagnosis of “psychosis,” he was permitted to keep his guns, at least for now. As for his “friend” who was so worried about his welfare, I’ve got his “number.” You see, one thing I did not tell Mr. Ergoff is that I was able to learn the identity of the man who turned him in as a threat to himself and society. I’ve tracked his IP addresses and his online activity. My investigation found that this is no ordinary case of someone being concerned about a friend’s welfare, but part of a larger agenda to silence the Christian conservatives and critics of this administration. I am holding that information and documentation closely, as I feel that Jason and perhaps others might need it when they come for his guns or even him once again.

By the way, the concerned friend showed just where his concern actually lies, and it certainly does not appear to be with Jason. That was clearly illustrated in a 3:00 a.m. phone call made to Jason by his friend, where he screamed at Jason for daring to mention the incident on our program, sans names, of course.

Lest you think this is an isolated case, I have since heard from five-(5) other individuals in different parts of the U.S. that this has happened to within the last thirty-(30) days. It appears the war against freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, openly professing one’s belief in God and the right to bear arms is now sufficient to earn you a medical diagnosis of “psychosis.”

Christian gun owners of America, be forewarne

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta: I Answer To The New World Order, Not America

Senator Sessions: “We spend our time worrying about the UN, the Arab League, NATO, and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States.”

 

Pentagon Launches Desperate Damage Control Over Shocking Panetta Testimony 
The United States has ceded control of its affairs to international bureaucrats

Paul Joseph Watson 
Infowars.com 
Thursday, March 8, 2012 

Alex Jones: “This represents absolute 100 per cent proof that the military industrial complex which runs the United States is under the control of foreign central banks who are imposing a military dictatorship.” 

The Pentagon is engaging in damage control after shocking testimony yesterday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a Senate Armed Services Committee congressional hearing during which it was confirmed that the U.S. government is now completely beholden to international power structures and that the legislative branch is a worthless relic.

The Great Awakening

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

RT
February 29, 2012

 

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.

And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.

United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.”

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.

 

Veterans for Ron Paul DC March Feb 20 2012

Leaked Email: Military Top Brass Warn Troops Off March For Ron Paul

“High importance” message  distributed by Senior Navy official

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
February 17, 2012

Ron Paul served

An email leaked by multiple active duty personnel shows that the military has issued a warning to troops encouraging them not to take part in the upcoming Veterans for Ron Paul 2012 march in Washington on Monday.

The email, posted to the group’s facebook event page and sent to organiser Adam Kokesh by several unconfirmed sources, lays out several directives on participation in political events by active and non active duty military.

Referring to the event as a “partisan political march”, the insinuation is clear – any active duty personnel, whether in uniform or not, and any reservists marching in uniform or otherwise deemed to be endorsing Ron Paul, could be reprimanded.

The email, apparently sent by Joel A. Weger, Senior Attorney at the Office of the Assistant General Counsel (Ethics) in the Department of the Navy, was sent on high importance and warns recipients “You may wish to advise your command regarding this particular event because of the apparent solicitation of active duty personnel”.

The full email is below:

—–Original Message—–
From: Weger, Joel A CIV OGC, Ethics [mailto:joel.weger@NAVY.MIL]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:17
To: ETHICS@LISTSERV.LAW.NAVY.MIL
Subject: [ETHICS] Partisan Political March

Importance: High

It has come to our attention that a partisan political march targeting
military personnel is being organized for February 20, 2012. See link
below:

http://www.facebook.com/events/192677970828185/?ref=notif&notif_t=event_invite

As a reminder, active duty personnel are prohibited by DoD Directive 1344.10
paragraph 4.1.2.10 from marching in a partisan political parade regardless
of whether they are in uniform or civilian clothes. Reservists not on
active duty and retirees may not march in uniform pursuant to paragraph
4.1.4. Reservists not on active duty and retirees may march in civilian
clothes provided that they do not otherwise act in a manner that could
reasonably give rise to the inference or appearance of official sponsorship,
approval, or endorsement.

The directive is a lawful general regulation. Violations of paragraphs 4.1.
through 4.5. of the Directive by persons subject to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice are punishable under Article 92, “Failure to Obey Order or
Regulation.”

In addition, DODI 1334.01, paragraph 3.1.2 prohibits the wearing of the
uniform by members of the armed forces (including retired members and
members of reserve components) during or in connection with political
activities.

You may wish to advise your command regarding this particular event because
of the apparent solicitation of active duty personnel.

Joel A. Weger
Senior Attorney
Department of the Navy
Office of the Assistant General Counsel (Ethics)
703.614.XXXX

Adam Kokesh, co-founder of Veterans for Ron Paul 2012 and himself an Iraq war veteran, responded to the email by thanking the Navy for inadvertently promoting the event.

Watch the video:

The directives cited in the email were recently highlighted when it was revealed that someone within the military had taken exception to Reserve Corporal Jesse Thorsen’s endorsement of Ron Paul during the Congressman’s post-Iowa caucuses rally.

After mysteriously being cut short during a CNN interview, Thorsen, who has served two tours in Afghanistan and was due to head back for a third, was invited on to the stage by Paul himself to address Paul’s cheering supporters.

Thorsen, while not currently on active duty, duly received threats of reprimand for appearing in uniform with Paul.

As has been repeatedly noted, Ron Paul is the presidential choice of the troops. Paul has received more campaign donations from active duty military personnel than any other presidential candidate, including Barack Obama.

To date, Paul has collected $95,567 from individuals who listed their occupation as one of the branches of the US military or US Department of Defense.

 

Donor Obama Romney Gingrich Paul Santorum
National Guard $1,262 $0 $0 $4,068 $0
US Air Force $9,785 $4,400 $4,400 $23,736 $0
US Army $15,600 $3,500 $250 $24,503 $250
US Coast Guard $6,002 $0 $0 $3,716 $0
US Dept of Defense $27,613 $2,150 $0 $9,527 $0
US Marine Corps $1,700 $250 $0 $7,662 $0
US Military $200 $0 $0 $2,083 $0
US Navy $10,454 $3,000 $250 $20,272 $500
TOTAL $72,616 $13,300 $4,900 $95,567 $750

——————————————————————

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

 

How You Ended The War

CNN Pulls the Plug on Live Feed of Soldier Talking About Voting for Ron Paul

CNN
Wednesday, January 4, 2012

The soldier starts explaining how pre-emptive war is the greatest danger and the feed is cut.

 

 

Post Navigation