Troops enlisted to cheer Obama spendulus plan?

By Michelle Malkin  •  February 9, 2009 01:22 PM

Did you notice the applauding troops placed strategically behind President Obama during his Generational Theft Act rally in Elkhart this afternoon?

(You can watch the whole thing here.)

So did many readers. Cory D. e-mails:

Why are there soldiers in uniforms cheering on Obama at his rally in IN?!?

Cory D.
OIF I and III veteran

Steve Gill asks: “Isn’t it inappropriate to use them in uniform for a political purpose?”

Only if you’re a Republican.

And remember: Crusading for a trillion-dollar pork plan isn’t “political.”

It’s patriotic.

As for me…


MakeStickers.com

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

  1. Obama Trolling For Sob Stories « Jane Q. Republican
  2. The Snooper Report
  3. Troops enlisted to cheer Obama spendulus plan? — But As For Me
  4. Michelle Malkin » Stop the Stimulus protest in Ft. Myers, FL tomorrow
  5. Stop the Stimulus protest in Ft. Myers, FL tomorrow « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity

Trackback URL

Comments


  1. #615963
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:27 pm, Jet Jaguar said:

    At least we’ll know on which side they’ll be fighting should things get to that point.

  2. #615965
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:28 pm, wescam said:

    They’re there becuase he’s their boss.

    Often, when away from bases and you see soldiers, they are reservists, national guard members or recruiters. (The ACUs rule out ROTC Cadets).

    All it takes is a few soldiers showing up, a handler offers them a seat “up front” and you’ve got a prop — intended or not.

  3. #615968
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:29 pm, Jeff2161 said:

    Applauding POTUS….I guess they were probably told to applaud or get RIF’ed.
    :shock:

  4. #615969
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm, pueblo1032 said:

    A lotta B***S on this trip!!! Anyone know what ELKHART IN is famous for??? How about RV capital of the US… They now have the highest unemployment rate in the US… What party has done the most to KILL RV sales in the US??? How about the DEMS… I’ll bet these BOZOs voted DEM in the last election… Just a guess…

  5. #615970
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm, nail49 said:

    When women wanted the right to fly combat aircraft (but, conveniently, not the responsibility to sign up for the draft) they were allowed by the Clinton Adminstration to go to Capitol Hill and lobby in their uniforms.

    Wearing one’s uniform to any political event, be it lobbying, a political rally, or a rally supporting the Commander in Chief’s (CIC) political agenda is strictly forbidden.

    It is OK to appear at a speech given by the CIC while wearing a uniform, but that would be an official military function, NOT a political one.

    Whoever the commander of these soldiers is needs to counsel and punish them accordingly. At the same time, that same commander needs some counseling and a little “Captain’s Mast” (i.e., punishment) as well.

  6. #615974
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:31 pm, sims said:

    Just heard Rush say what I wanted to say: The Dems are the ones who are against SUVs (Indiana the capital of the SUV manufacturers), the Dems are against gas guzzling cars. How ironic! He’s got them both ways: “We’ve helped America see how sinful the SUV is and now we will help you become dependent upon government largesse.”

  7. #615975
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:31 pm, Fuller said:

    Using the uniform for political gain is hitting below the belt. – I dislike this Marxist more each day.

  8. #615979
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:34 pm, Send_Me said:

    From AR 600–20 (18 March 2008), Para. 5-3:

    a. Obligations as a citizen. Soldiers are expected to carry out their obligations as citizens. However, while on active duty, Soldiers (including full-time National Guard) are prohibited in certain cases from engaging in certain political
    activities. The following principles apply:
    (1) A Soldier on active duty may—
    (a) Register, vote, and express his or her personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a
    representative of the Army.
    (b) Make monetary contributions to a political organization.
    (c) Attend partisan and nonpartisan political meetings or rallies as a spectator when not in uniform.

  9. #615981
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:35 pm, Jeff2161 said:

    Well, if you rent an apartment now but, buy an RV; That should qualify for the $15000 tax credit on primary residence, right ?

  10. #615982
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:35 pm, nail49 said:

    Fuller added to what I posted earlier. Perhaps these soldiers were innocent “targets of opportunity” used by the CIC as “props.”

    He and his staff should know better, and somebody likely does, they are just trying to show broad-based support for their programs.

    I can bet there will quickly be a message from the five-sided puzzle palace about wearing your uniform to such an event.

  11. #615983
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:36 pm, zyzzyg said:

    This topic has been discussed before, links to USMCJ have been provided, and we are here again.

    If those soldiers did not know the rules, then the Obama advance people should know the rules.

    Bad form.

  12. #615984
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:37 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Elkhart, Indiana? My Motor Coach was made there. With Obama’s and the Gorites war on RVs I do imagine that Elkhart is hurting.Bill Clinton’s Luxury Tax almost killed the Motor Coach and leisure boat market throwing thousands of honest Americans out of work.

    Liberals may have a heart–but it is hard towards their own base. Some troll jump in here and tell me how I can run that motor coach and boat on solar/wind power. I would have a hard time getting it through a 20′ tunnel with a sixty foot windmill/sail.

    But Presidents do enjoy Troop backgrounds on non military issues–makes them look patriotic I suppose.

  13. #615987
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:37 pm, Jeff2161 said:

    Hmmm. if the primary residence credit applies then, the tax credit for purchasing a vehicle applies too. Bonus.

  14. #615989
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:38 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    There is no depth that the left will not stoop to in order to sell their crap sandwiches. It’s that simple.

  15. #615994
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pm, jbh45 said:

    Hold on….oh, no I am mistaken. For a second there when BO was speaking I could’ve sworn the audience was waving little red books and singning “Barak Obama gonna save ‘da world…”.

    sarcoff/

  16. #615999
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:46 pm, CantCureStupid said:

    Those soldiers are not out of order… PBHO is their (and my) Commander in Chief, and their presence violates no regulation (and may well have been ordered, or at least encouraged, to attend).

    They obviously missed the memo regarding massive DOD spending cuts, though.

  17. #616002
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm, PBoilermaker said:

    If those soldiers did not know the rules

    Not a valid excuse. These personnel were out of line.

    They can attend political events, but only in civilian clothes, not their military uniforms.

  18. #616003
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pm, lottadawg said:

    This president should absolutely ashamed. Something that seems to not be present in the liberals I know. This is the guy that campaigned with white people in the background and the black people in the loft seats. It has to be a liberal thing. Remember 1st lady hilebeast used a uniformed aid to circulate with snack trays. Cause he didn’t have anything else to do.

  19. #616005
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pm, nail49 said:

    CantCureStupid: Don’t get Stuck on Stupid! Uniforms at a political event are NOT allowed.

    Either the soldiers haven’t been informed (they most certainly will now) and/or the Administration coaxed them up there.

    In either case, it should NOT happen. Ref. post #8…

  20. #616006
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pm, Send_Me said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:46 pm, CantCureStupid said:
    Those soldiers are not out of order…their presence violates no regulation…

    See above.

  21. #616008
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:57 pm, frostrt said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm, PBoilermaker said:
    If those soldiers did not know the rules
    Not a valid excuse. These personnel were out of line.

    They can attend political events, but only in civilian clothes, not their military uniforms.

    ————————————–

    Makes sense to me. Having uniformed military there smacks too much of “agree with what is being said, or else”. Also, there is too much implication that those individuals speak for their branch of the military because they happen to belong to it.

  22. #616009
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pm, sonofdy said:

    Makes sense to me. Having uniformed military there smacks too much of “agree with what is being said, or else”. Also, there is too much implication that those individuals speak for their branch of the military because they happen to belong to it.

    Exactly why the regulation was written. 10-1 nothing happens to these troops.

  23. #616012
    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:59 pm, CantCureStupid said:

    nail49…. he’s their boss, and I’ll bet that they were at least encouraged to attend. If you want to have a go at PBHO, be my guest. If those soldiers were not there on their own time and for their own purposes, then they are NOT WRONG.

  24. #616013
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:00 pm, Right By-The-Sea said:

    Hey, Barry…Kentucky isn’t too far from Elkhart, IN. Lots of folks have died there during the aftermath of that ice storm, property has been damaged…but you haven’t been to KY to visit those people, yet. I guess the people of KY don’t matter…they’re not the right color to warrant your Presidential attention. Who cares if a bunch of white “rednecks” suffer? They probably didn’t vote for you, anyway, and it doesn’t make for good photo ops with the LSM.

    Heckuva job, Barry! :mad:

  25. #616017
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:02 pm, PKAmmoTroop said:
  26. #616021
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm, txvet2 said:

    I think pretty much every GI in the country who voted for Obama is behind him on the stage.

  27. #616025
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:06 pm, Snooper said:

    I watched that entire travesty and my flu got worse. Since when is the rape of America “patriotic”? Oh. Wait. Stalin would be proud. My bad.

  28. #616028
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:06 pm, txvet2 said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:00 pm, Right By-The-Sea said:

    Heckuva job, there Barry! Seriously though, I think the people of Kentucky have the great good sense to want the Feds to stay far away. With the help of volunteer crews from as far away as Texas, they’re digging their own way out, without the strings of gummint aid.

  29. #616029
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:08 pm, MNUSMCDavid said:

    Can’t curestupid
    you are sooooo wrong, a Commander can’t order a trooper to disobey directives. You never, ever wear your uniform to a political function unless it was one where your unit, en masse, is being the focus of a ceremony. What about this don’t you see as opportunistic… you can’t even wear a VFW uniform to same. Those who do are in violation.

  30. #616032
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:08 pm, CO of Fort Housewife said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:59 pm, CantCureStupid said:
    If those soldiers were not there on their own time and for their own purposes, then they are NOT WRONG.

    No one is saying they are wrong for being there, the question is if they are wrong for being there IN UNIFORM.

    For a hint, see post #8.

  31. #616034
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm, frostrt said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pm, sonofdy said:
    Makes sense to me. Having uniformed military there smacks too much of “agree with what is being said, or else”. Also, there is too much implication that those individuals speak for their branch of the military because they happen to belong to it.
    Exactly why the regulation was written. 10-1 nothing happens to these troops.

    ————————————–

    Don’t know how severe their punishment for something like this would be anyway, but I’m afraid you’re right. Too much fear of complaints that the military guys’ “rights” were being violated, even though they would have not been in any trouble for attending this in their civilian clothes.

  32. #616037
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:13 pm, Cosmo said:

    Don’t forget, Obama has 98% of Hollywood on his side. Finding actors to portray any variety of roles is one of the easiest thing that our Spender-in-Chief can do. Yes he can!

    As for these soldiers, I mock only their support of a leader who doesn’t believe in their purpose, not in their service.

  33. #616039
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm, Right By-The-Sea said:

    txvet2 said:

    Heckuva job, there Barry! Seriously though, I think the people of Kentucky have the great good sense to want the Feds to stay far away. With the help of volunteer crews from as far away as Texas, they’re digging their own way out, without the strings of gummint aid.

    I agree, txvet2. I was just sarcastically pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left/LSM/Duh!1 when it comes to the suffering of anyone who isn’t a “minority.”

    The people of Kentucky are wonderful folks. I lived in Louisville for seven years, until I was forced to relocate to the People’s Republic of Mexifornia. Beautiful state, Kentucky. :-)

  34. #616042
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm, Cosmo said:

    P.S. Cory D. Rocks! Thank you for your double-duty service!!!

  35. #616043
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm, sonofdy said:

    Did you hear about the web site where you can report to the whitehouse on waste in the bill and how it will tell you how many jobs it has created in your area???

  36. #616044
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:16 pm, RaccoonBrat said:

    You can stop talking about what the rules are! When have our political masters ever cared about the rules or the U.S. Constitution? The answer is they don’t unless it can be used to keep the peons in line. On top of that they could care less what we think. They pass these MOAB packages and try to ram immigration non-reform up our a$$ even when we email, petition, and phone them in overwhelming numbers. Our voices no longer count.

  37. #616046
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:17 pm, sonofdy said:

    Don’t know how severe their punishment for something like this would be anyway, but I’m afraid you’re right. Too much fear of complaints that the military guys’ “rights” were being violated, even though they would have not been in any trouble for attending this in their civilian clothes.

    Article 15. No way this would go to an artilce 32.

  38. #616047
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pm, nail49 said:

    he’s their boss

    CantCureStupid: Although not to the same extent, this argument holds as much water as common Japanese and Germans soldiers in WWII. They stated they were following the orders of their superiors. But, their superiors were giving illegitimate orders.

    If the Commander in Chief tells you to stand behind him while wearing your uniform at a political rally, you should 1) be ashamed for being there in the first place while in uniform and 2) politely decline while getting the heck out of there!

    Granted, there may be no more promotions in your future, but you would be doing the right thing.

    Oh, I forgot, the Dems are never about doing the right thing, just what is right for them.

    No sarc to turn off…

  39. #616055
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:23 pm, CantCureStupid said:

    Well, perhaps I’m confused by the difference between actively campaigning for a political candidate in uniform and attending an event at which your Commander in Chief is speaking in uniform. I could be mistaken.

  40. #616059
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pm, frostrt said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:23 pm, CantCureStupid said:
    Well, perhaps I’m confused by the difference between actively campaigning for a political candidate in uniform and attending an event at which your Commander in Chief is speaking in uniform. I could be mistaken.

    ————————————-

    I think the point is, they are apparently violating military regulation (see Snodfy’s posts, etc.) by attending a political event in uniform. Whether you agree or not, there is a rule against that.

  41. #616064
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:32 pm, Paul Revere said:

    Maybe they needed some color behind him, kindah like they needed some white behind him during the primaries.

  42. #616071
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:39 pm, sonofdy said:

    Well, perhaps I’m confused by the difference between actively campaigning for a political candidate in uniform and attending an event at which your Commander in Chief is speaking in uniform. I could be mistaken.

    Its a grey area legaly, which is why they shouldn’t be there unless ordered to by the cinc. In which case it is a legal order.

  43. #616074
    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:51 pm, nhpatriot said:

    My husband is active duty Air Force and I know that has told me in the past that they are not allowed to wear their uniform to political functions (like supporting a candidate). They can get in a lot of trouble for doing so. I know he’s the commander in chief, but this isn’t like he’s addressing just members of the service, he’s selling a bill (of goods!), so it seems inappropriate if nothing else.

  44. #616086
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:00 pm, Insomniac said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm, sonofdy said:
    Did you hear about the web site where you can report to the whitehouse on waste in the bill and how it will tell you how many jobs it has created in your area???

    No. What’s the punchline?

  45. #616094
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pm, twofoot said:

    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:jgRosTFEQOEJ:www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf+Department+of+Defense+Directive+1344.10+(DoDD+1344.10)&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

    We always understood we were not to go to any kind of political event in our uniform. I even took it so far as to not talk about the Commander in Chief while I was home on leave and in civvies.

    Not because I liked the scumbag, but because people knew I was a Marine. That was enough for me to not want to present a negative image of my Corps as an organization filled with malcontents.

    When you put on the uniform, it is with certain understandings. Foremost among those is that while you serve a “democracy”, you give up certain rights. One of those is the right to come and go as you see fit, dressed as you see fit.

    In addition, you have an obligation to present yourself in a manner that will not besmirch your chosen branch of service, or the military in general. Wearing your uniform to a politcal rally when you are not a member of the color guard certainly qualifies.

    Speaking of, I understand they are Army, but the new practice of wearing cammies everywhere you go annoys me. The only time we were allowed to wear cammies in public was for short trips. In and out of a gas station, atm, etc. If we were going to be in public for anything beyond that, we were in-minimum-our service “Charlies”.

  46. #616109
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:10 pm, twofoot said:

    Hmm, after looking at it, that link may not work, sorry.

    The short of it is, if you want to read what the DoD has to say about it, do a google search on DoD directive 1344.10.

  47. #616113
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

    Our troops pay for America’s political freedom everyday and all you people can do is complain about that – if any of you had souls you would feel shame.

  48. #616114
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, wren said:

    If Preisdent Obama really wanted to help the people of Elkhart who are unemployed, he would allow drilling for oil in Alaska and other major oil fields around the country.

    Just announcing a policy that we will begin using our country’s own natural resources would immediately lower the price for oil and other energy which would make the RV’s that had previously been made in Elkhart more affordable.

    The reason that the RV companies closed is that gas prices were too high for people to be able to afford to use an RV.

  49. #616121
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, frostrt said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, Ilovemycountry said:
    Our troops pay for America’s political freedom everyday and all you people can do is complain about that – if any of you had souls you would feel shame.

    ———————————–

    “If any of us had souls”?

    I know dramatics are what people with your political views specialize in, but please, spare me.

    It apparently escaped you that it is a violation of military policy to attend political events in uniform. Surely you, of all people, do not believe our military is “above the law”, be it our country’s law or their own rules.

  50. #616122
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, catmman said:

    Military personnel are not allowed to attend partisan political rallies in uniform – regardless whether the POTUS is there or not.

    someone else posted the reference earlier, but someone said this was OK since Obama is the CiC.

    Wrong.

    had this beena rally at a military base where the Presiednt was visiting them, then no foul.

    But the sole purpose of this “townhall” was for Obama to push his economics – his partisan economics. The waer of military uniforms to such a rally is a no go!

  51. #616125
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:19 pm, catmman said:

    Speaking of, I understand they are Army, but the new practice of wearing cammies everywhere you go annoys me. The only time we were allowed to wear cammies in public was for short trips. In and out of a gas station, atm, etc. If we were going to be in public for anything beyond that, we were in-minimum-our service “Charlies”.

    Dittos.

    Unless you are on base/post, if you are attending a rally/event you are supposed to wear your service (blue shirt uniform for AF) uniform, not your ABU/DCU/BDU.

  52. #616127
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:22 pm, ammo john said:

    I’d gladly take an Article 15 than to be used as an Obama TOOL for propaganda purposes!

  53. #616138
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:32 pm, twofoot said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, Ilovemycountry said:
    Our troops pay for America’s political freedom everyday and all you people can do is complain about that – if any of you had souls you would feel shame.

    Yawn!!! Are you ever going to add anything intelligent to a conversation?

  54. #616147
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:40 pm, WestCoastCoconut said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pm, twofoot said:

    and

    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:19 pm, catmman said:

    I agree! No uniforms at a political speech. Unless the CINC is addressing you on board your base/post.

    Sempre Fi!

  55. #616151
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:40 pm, frostrt said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:32 pm, twofoot said:
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, Ilovemycountry said:
    Our troops pay for America’s political freedom everyday and all you people can do is complain about that – if any of you had souls you would feel shame.
    Yawn!!! Are you ever going to add anything intelligent to a conversation?

    ————————————–

    ILMC is the ultimate “swoop and poop” artist. I think from now on I’ll just wipe it off and move on – no point in trying to have a logical discussion.

  56. #616158
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:44 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    Ughhhh. And to think I rooted for the Kent State National Guard and that I used to be one of those ‘jack-booted thugs’…..

    Its not going to be pretty if I have to go all Francis Marion or Red Dawn one day. Im getting too old for this ##$@$%@#^#&#$&#$%!@%#@$^%#%@^&#$%

  57. #616165
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:49 pm, twofoot said:

    Its not going to be pretty if I have to go all Francis Marion or Red Dawn one day. Im getting too old for this ##$@$%@#^#&#$&#$%!@%#@$^%#%@^&#$%

    Funny, I have had the unexplainable urge to watch Red Dawn again next time I am home.

  58. #616168
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, frostrt said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:49 pm, twofoot said:
    Its not going to be pretty if I have to go all Francis Marion or Red Dawn one day. Im getting too old for this ##$@$%@#^#&#$&#$%!@%#@$^%#%@^&#$%
    Funny, I have had the unexplainable urge to watch Red Dawn again next time I am home.

    ————————————–

    Also known as The Movie Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey Were In Together Before Dirty Dancing.

    :)

    WOLVERINES!

  59. #616179
    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pm, scituate_tgr said:

    Yes, well, the assumption when looking at the tape is that these are “real” military personnel …. vs ACORN plants.

  60. #616181
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

    Our troops pay for America’s political freedom everyday and all you people can do is complain about that – if any of you had souls you would feel shame.

    hmmm, show me your dd214 and I’ll show you mine. lol

    I think a lot of us on her have earned the right to say what we want above and beyond the basic constitutional rights.

    As the saying goes, a bitching soldier is a happy soldier. (you dont have to worry unless the bitching stops… and then you had better hope you have the pin in your hand so you can get it back in place in about two seconds)

  61. #616183
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Wearing one’s uniform to any political event, be it lobbying, a political rally, or a rally supporting the Commander in Chief’s (CIC) political agenda is strictly forbidden.

    Unless you are busy North Koreanizing the US…
    You people must be really old to remember America as a nation of laws…

  62. #616188
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Ilovemycountry said:
    Our troops

    Just for the record – were you ever one of “Our troops”? Many here were, yet here you are lecturing them…

  63. #616198
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm, leepro said:

    ’scuse me, but…

    ANYBODY, ANYWHERE can buy military fatigues EVERYWHERE!!!

    Like…
    HERE…
    HERE…
    HERE…

    …and a gazillion other places open to the general public!

    PresB0 makes me sick to my stomach. He is a liar and an master manipulator of the First Order.

    :mad:

  64. #616203
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pm, rplatt said:

    Excuse me while I throw up in my mouth. He had a couple of low grade enlisted people that probably got a day off for showing up at his rally. This guy makes a $3.00 bill look authentic.

  65. #616204
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    I’ve been teaching my daughter the amendments to the constitution in laymans terms. (so in brief…)

    The 1st amendment…. you have the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want.

    The 5th amendment…. then again, you also have the right to shut the f@!# up

    So we joke ‘Please fully utilize your right to the 5th amendment – before I need enforce it for you. And it would be best if I dont have to lay the 2nd amendment out on the table’

  66. #616213
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:17 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Ilovemycountry said:
    Our troops

    Just for the record – were you ever one of “Our troops”? Many here were, yet here you are lecturing them…

    Ill show you my dd214 if you show me yours(ILMC) … :lol:

  67. #616214
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pm, leepro said:

    Uh oh.

    Looks like my comment got whacked…

    Is there a new rule forbidding calling an elected official a liar (the worst part of my comment)?

    The rest of my comment showed multiple places where military fatigues can be purchased by virtually ANYBODY! Surely there’s nothing wrong with that! Right?

  68. #616215
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pm, txvet2 said:

    I hate to point this out to you, but he’s the CinC, whether we (or they) like it or not. They’d be up there in clown suits if they were so ordered.

  69. #616227
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:23 pm, txvet2 said:

    Speaking of, I understand they are Army, but the new practice of wearing cammies everywhere you go annoys me.

    Couldn’t agree more. Looks sloppy and unprofessional.

  70. #616232
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:27 pm, txvet2 said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

    Our troops pay for America’s political freedom everyday and all you people can do is complain about that – if any of you had souls you would feel shame.

    I’d tend to believe that almost every commenter on this thread has military experience, most of them with warzone time. I’d also tend to believe that the closest you’ve been to a uniform is shoving past a female GI to beat her to a seat on the subway.

  71. #616236
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:29 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pm, leepro said:

    Uh oh. Looks like my comment got whacked…

    it may have been a ‘blip’. I lost a comment too, which is going to look funny with my other entries, if my original comment shows back up later

  72. #616247
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pm, frostrt said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pm, txvet2 said:
    I hate to point this out to you, but he’s the CinC, whether we (or they) like it or not. They’d be up there in clown suits if they were so ordered.

    ————————————–

    So, if it is against military policy to attend a political event in uniform, but they are directly ordered by the President (whoever that may be) to do so, the order trumps the military policy?

    Just trying to make sure I’m clear on what the rules are.

    Let me add, I wonder about any President who orders military in uniform to attend a speech. What does he need it for, security? He has his own Secret Service detail.

  73. #616248
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pm, rplatt said:

    This guy makes a $3.00 $3 trillion bill look authentic.

    Fixed that for you

  74. #616259
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:36 pm, nail49 said:

    They’d be up there in clown suits if they were so ordered.

    txvet: Note my earlier posting (#38). If a commander (Commander in Chief or not) gives an illegal order, you are duty bound NOT to comply.

    BTW, the only clown on stage was the one at the microphone…

  75. #616274
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:40 pm, nail49 said:

    the order trumps the military policy?

    frostrt: It isn’t policy, it is regulations. The President is the Commander in Chief, but that doesn’t allow him/her to override the regulations.

    Besides, this could be another “slippery slope” which would allow any President to order the troops to fall out and rally for his cause.

    Kinda like they do in North Korea, Iran, and other “worker’s paradises” that have departed from the world stage.

  76. #616285
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:44 pm, frostrt said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:40 pm, nail49 said:
    the order trumps the military policy?
    frostrt: It isn’t policy, it is regulations. The President is the Commander in Chief, but that doesn’t allow him/her to override the regulations.

    Besides, this could be another “slippery slope” which would allow any President to order the troops to fall out and rally for his cause.

    Kinda like they do in North Korea, Iran, and other “worker’s paradises” that have departed from the world stage.

    ————————————–

    Thanks. That’s pretty much what I thought, but Txvet2 seemed to think they would’ve had to be there in uniform if ordered by President Obama to be there in uniform.

  77. #616286
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:45 pm, leepro said:

    I said @#65:

    Uh oh. Looks like my comment got whacked…

    #69 RabbidSquirrel said:

    it may have been a ‘blip’. I lost a comment too…

    OK. So I’ll try again…

    A few links where ANYbody can buy military fatigues/camo:
    Here
    Here
    Here

    …and many more here!

  78. #616297
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:49 pm, Andy said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:27 pm, txvet2 said:

    +1

  79. #616300
    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm, leepro said:

    Happened again…!

    Are we not supposed to post URLs any more, or what?

  80. #616330
    On February 9th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, sonofdy said:

    Ilovemycountry said: SSG SONOFDY SAYS DROP AND GIVE ME 50 FOUR COUNT PUSHUPS!!!!!!

    IN CADENCE!!!!

    1,2,3 – 1
    1,2,3 – 1
    1,2,3 – 1
    1,2,3 – 1
    1,2,3 – 1
    1,2,3 – 1
    1,2,3 – 1

    YOU BETTER GET IT RIGHT!!!

  81. #616333
    On February 9th, 2009 at 5:08 pm, FirstSkirt said:

    Gad, I’m old. When Ronald Reagan visited our AF base a lot of years ago, there were so many people who wanted to meet him, many were turned away for space and security reasons. No need to coerce anyone to show up–we loved him and he sincerely loved the troops.

  82. #616334
    On February 9th, 2009 at 5:08 pm, sonofdy said:

    The CINC can order troops to attend any meeting he wants. He just can’t order them to like it. My guess is these troops came on thier own and now need to be carefull of some sort of legal action against them.

  83. #616358
    On February 9th, 2009 at 5:28 pm, Kevin K. said:

    FirstSkirt said: (#80)

    …When Ronald Reagan visited our AF base a lot of years ago, there were so many people who wanted to meet him, many were turned away for space and security reasons. No need to coerce anyone to show up–we loved him and he sincerely loved the troops.

    Well, not only did he love the troops, but had been an Army officer in WWII. (Okay, mostly making training movies, but he was rather nearsighted, so he couldn’t have fought anyway.)

    And I miss him terribly.

    To the uniform question: I understand that servicemen are NOT to attend anything of a partisan political nature in uniform, with the probable exception of a color guard. We are also supposed to refuse illegal orders.

    I also wish that the Army wore their office uniforms (Class As and Bs) more. The ACUs are supposed to be a field uniform.

  84. #616392
    On February 9th, 2009 at 5:59 pm, leepro said:

    Wow.

    Whacked comment now here (#63). All following re-numbered.

    Re-post gone (as it should be, since first showed up)…

    Thanks, Michelle!

    :mrgreen:

  85. #616428
    On February 9th, 2009 at 6:35 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:23 pm, txvet2 said:

    Speaking of, I understand they are Army, but the new practice of wearing cammies everywhere you go annoys me.

    Couldn’t agree more. Looks sloppy and unprofessional.

    To some extant I agree, but if they are in a travel status, wearing the BDU is the right way to go.

    If I see a military member anywhere in their uniform, I go out of my way to pay for their meal, help them in any way if they need it, or just shake their hand and thank them for keeping my family safe.

    It’s the least I can do for them, particularly given the crap they have had thrown at them for the past 8 years.

  86. #616432
    On February 9th, 2009 at 6:39 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

    Our troops pay for America’s political freedom everyday and all you people can do is complain about that – if any of you had souls you would feel shame.

    I was in the Army. Did you ever serve commie-boy?

    They broke the rules, plain and simple. Even someone as dumb as you should be able to understand the UCMJ.

  87. #616434
    On February 9th, 2009 at 6:40 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pm, frostrt said:

    Let me add, I wonder about any President who orders military in uniform to attend a speech. What does he need it for, security? He has his own Secret Service detail.

    Do you not remember Clinton retaking the White House lawn when he was proclaiming victory in Somalia and pulling soldiers out of there?

    It happened before Blackhawk Down. It was the most disgusting misuse of soldiers I have ever seen.

    Bubba was playing politics saying the effort in Somalia was stabilizing, and he was bringing soldiers home.

    He had about 8-10 soldiers in DCU’s lined up behind him, and they all marched forward to the podium where Bubba made his speech.

    I never saw anything like that before or since.

    Shortly after, Blackhawk Down happens, likely because Bubba had already pulled most if not all of the armor out of Somalia.

  88. #616436
    On February 9th, 2009 at 6:42 pm, Republicanvet said:

    Edited to add:

    It was quite some time after Blackhawk Down that I read Mark Bowden’s news articles about the incident. It was the first I had heard our soldiers had been in such a lengthy firefight there. The media covered it as if it was a 10 minute fight.

    It was even more shocking to read Bowden’s account when his book came out.

  89. #617856
    On February 10th, 2009 at 5:34 pm, OregonGrapeVine said:

    On February 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, Ilovemycountry said:
    Our troops pay for America’s political freedom everyday and all you people can do is complain about that – if any of you had souls you would feel shame.

    And if you had any street smarts you would leave the room, and leave the discussion of serious issues to the adults. Stoned, stupid and being a full time troll is no way to go through life.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Stimulus Jobs Inflation Index

October 30, 2009 10:50 AM by Michelle Malkin

67 Comments | 5 Trackbacks

Stimulus efficiency success story of the day

October 28, 2009 11:32 AM by Michelle Malkin

22 Comments | 2 Trackbacks

Wealth redistribution watch: Cash for carts

October 19, 2009 02:22 PM by Michelle Malkin

28 Comments | 2 Trackbacks

Cell phone bans for thee, but not for wife of Arnie

October 13, 2009 07:00 PM by Michelle Malkin

36 Comments | 0 Trackbacks

Repeat offender.

Put this on an Olympic scorecard: 9.8

October 2, 2009 09:57 AM by Michelle Malkin

41 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

The National Endowment for Obama

September 22, 2009 03:48 PM by Michelle Malkin

51 Comments | 2 Trackbacks


Categories: Double standards, fiscal stimulus



Legal Insurrection

» NY Times Names Names

American Thinker

» The true cost of ObamaCare

HotAir GreenRoom