Obama’s Commissars

Saturday, October 26, AD 2013

Obama Commissar

 

 

In the old Soviet Union the regular officers and troops of the Red Army tended to despise the political officers, commissars, who enforced political orthodoxy, interfered with military operations, and who would inform on them in a heartbeat if they got a step out of line politically.  Remember the good old days when Americans would have laughed at the idea that such a symbol of a totalitarian state could ever infest their military?

 

 

Don’t donate to the tea party or to evangelical Christian groups —  that was  the message soldiers at a pre-deployment briefing at Fort  Hood  said they received from a counter-intelligence agent who headed up the  meeting.

If you do, you could face punishment — that was the other half of the  message, as reported by Fox News.

The briefing was Oct. 17, and about a half-hour of it was devoted to   discussion about how perceived radical groups — like tea party  organizations  and the Christian-based American  Family Association — were  “tearing the country apart,” one unnamed soldier  said, to Fox News.

Among the remarks the agent allegedly made: Military members who  donate to  these groups would be subject to discipline under the Uniform  Code of Military  Justice, the soldier reported.

Liberty Institute has stepped in to investigate. Michael  Berry, one  of the nonprofit’s attorneys, said he has been advising the  soldier  about his options — but that in the meanwhile, he said the American   public should be on guard.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Obama’s Commissars

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION | God & Caesar
  • Treason, especially in times of war as in Iraq and Afghanistan; the Tea Party and Evangelical Christian groups are being accused of treason for being inclusive and employing diversity, but mostly for opposing the imposition of totalitarianism.

    Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  • Ironic isn’t it Jonathan, and a classic case of projection, that the civil rights violations that leftists claimed a right wing government in this country would engage in, are actually being implemented by the most left-wing administration in our nation’s history.

  • Did I forget to mention FREEDOM? You see how this administation is undercutting the citizens’ freedom by dividing the enlisted man’s patriotism into Obamaism. Anything or thought against Obama becomes treason against the state= Obama IS the state. Not so. America is the state constituted by each and every sovereign person. The military’s patriotism is for America. The military man retains his citizenship even while he submits to orders for defense of the country. This demoralizing decree endangers all persons’ freedom by imposing tyranny and an abuse of command.

  • In France, the army was called « la grande muette » because the Third and fourth Republics were determined to keep them out of politics, even denying them the vote.

    Well, speak they did in 1958. Paras of the Légion étrangère from Algeria landed in Corsica and the garrison of Rambouillet parked their tanks in the Luxembourg Gardens. A man walked out of the Bourse and blew his brains out, only for his body to be trampled underfoot by the crowd of frenzied brokers trying to get into the building. General de Gaulle came to Paris and told the cabinet that France had no further use for their services. (Exciting times for a 13 year old schoolboy visiting relatives in Paris)

  • “tearing the country apart.”

    Sounds like that unnamed soldier has had his dose of (clockwork orange.)

    These news items should help sceptics wipe the sand out of their eyes and wake up to the reality. The only one tearing the country apart is a virus pretending to be president. Small “p” intentional.

    This is another wake up call.

  • The wretched business is that the opposition will hold inconclusive congressional hearings, the administration will stonewall, and the public will not react (and, of course, partisan Democrats fancy this sort of behavior is perfectly legitimate, as is using the tax collectors to harass the opposition).

  • Fr Kepaun was a Catholic priest in the Korean War who was recently posthumously given a Medal of Honor. I watched the ceremony on TV and noticed that the Chaplain summed his prayer with “in your holy Name” instead of the usual reference to praying in the Name of Jesus or to Jesus Christ Our Lord. No mention of Jesus even where it is customary in Catholic prayers.

  • This morning, as I began to drive across a bridge, I saw black spray painted ‘graffiti’ on a concrete border where there haven’t been any such creations previously. With surprisingly neat, almost two foot block letters “destroy the tea party” was written, revealing the extent of influence that exists. I wonder whether this is a reaction to yesterday’s 5:00 local news blurb about the November 1st reduction of amounts to the usda plastic cards.

    Sadly and ironically, the same people controlling money flow to ‘loyal’ voters are not ever going reveal to them political motives or the bailing and waste flow to the other end of the social order.

  • Withholding death benefits for KIAs, closing open air war memorials, subjecting active duty to ridicule via changes to uniforms and PFT requirments, branding veterans/The Tea Party/Christian organizations as terrorists, banning the Mass and the sacraments on base, trying the enemy in civilian vice military courts, using tax money for abortions, lowering the purchasing age for the morning after pill, targeting of groups by the IRS, etc….is alarming. These are overt what about covert actions? Sure I understand that some of the above only lasted a few days or are proposals (for now), but it’s the continuous onslaught of this stuff that’s a harbinger for even worse things to come. Erosion and destruction of our democracy, law, American morals/values and institutions that have long been respected and protect and stabilize our country’s society are the objectives of this administration.
    What I don’t get is why the attack on the military seems to be increasing the closer we get to election day? Maybe they are not worried because it’s a given that absentee ballots will be “lost” in the mail or worse yet, our troops in theater and elsewhere overseas won’t vote for fear of reprisals because the Australian ballots won’t be secret.
    I’m keeping my voter registration in a city a 100 miles away so that I can vote the pro abortion, liberal politicians out of office and elect decent ones in. Also I’ve checked with the board of elections in my deceased parents’ county and have received in writing that there names have been taken off the roles.

  • Forbidding or discouraging active duty service personnel from joining political activist groups, or participating in political demonstrations, is not a new policy. My husband, a Navy veteran of the first Gulf War, remembers being warned against participation in ANY kind of public political rally, march or sign-carrying demonstration under threat of disciplinary action. This was under the Reagan and Bush Sr. administration).

    I’m not entirely sure whether extending the prohibition to monetary donations, however, is really a new policy or simply a new interpretation/application of existing policy. If it is selectively enforced — i.e. donations to Tea Party groups are punished while donations to liberal groups are not — or if it is applied to donations by spouses or relatives of an active duty service member (thereby restricting THEIR right of free speech), or if intrusive measures are taken to uncover prohibited donations, we definitely have a problem.

  • Please excuse the puncuation and other typos.

  • Elaine, you did read the account? Unless this is misreported, it was sectarian and applied to political and religious groups.

    By the way, admirers of Ron Paul rummaged through the FEC database and contended that he was the choice of those listing a military occupation in 2007 and 2008. Do not recall stories of intelligence officers lecturing troops about that.

  • The rules regarding allowable political activity in the military:

    “4.1. General

    4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

    4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

    4.1.1.2. Promote and encourage others to exercise their voting franchise, if such promotion does not constitute use of their official authority or influence to interfere with the outcome of any election.

    4.1.1.3. Join a partisan or nonpartisan political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform, subject to the restrictions of subparagraph 4.1.2.4. (See DoD Instruction 1334.1 (Reference (c).)

    4.1.1.4. Serve as an election official, if such service is not as a representative of a partisan political party, does not interfere with the performance of military duties, is performed when not in uniform, and the Secretary concerned has given prior approval. The Secretary concerned may NOT delegate the authority to grant or deny such permission.

    4.1.1.5. Sign a petition for a specific legislative action or a petition to place a candidate’s name on an official election ballot, if the signing does not obligate the member to engage in partisan political activity and is done as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

    4.1.1.6. Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member’s personal views on public issues or political candidates, if such action is not part of an organized letter-writing campaign or a solicitation of votes for or against a political party or partisan political cause or candidate. If the letter identifies the member as on active duty (or if the member is otherwise reasonably identifiable as a member of the Armed Forces), the letter should clearly state that the views expressed are those of the individual only and not those of the Department of Defense (or Department of Homeland Security for members of the Coast Guard).

    4.1.1.7. Make monetary contributions to a political organization, party, or committee favoring a particular candidate or slate of candidates, subject to the limitations under section 441a of title 2, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (d)); section 607 of title 18, U.S.C. (Reference (e)); and other applicable law.

    4.1.1.8. Display a political bumper sticker on the member’s private vehicle.

    4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

    4.1.1.10. Participate fully in the Federal Voting Assistance Program.”

    http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/ethics_regulation/1344-10.html

    All of this is beside the point since the commissar, I mean the counter-intelligence (and how) agent, was specifically viewing the tea party and evangelical Christian groups as a threat to the country. The agent’s claim that military members would be punished if they contributed to evangelical groups clearly was a first amendment violation.

  • It would seem that certain elements of the political establishment intend to declare Christians as subversives, excepting, of course, those Christians who adhere to the ethos of the establishment.

    Christians had better wise up, and speak up, or these elites will eventually get their way.

  • “The agent’s claim that military members would be punished if they contributed to evangelical groups clearly was a first amendment violation.”

    I seem to remember that the U.S. Supreme Court declared money contributions to a political party or candidate as free speech. The military, out of uniform on their own time, are free citizens. The government does not own the GIs.

  • While everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, five years of accumulated evidence is too much to ignore. Unfortunately, the establishment media has ignored most of it so we send these stories around like little candles to illuminate the darkness in the small corners of our acquaintance. Fears of a second Obama term are unalleviated. Saint Paul says, “Be angry but do not sin”. We understand that to mean there is a righteous anger and a reasonable and just response to things inimical to a just and free society. Not to be angry over injustice is a sin of omission.

  • Good God fearing men forced to see their tax dollars used for P.P. Used for the killing, no the Murder of an innocent fetus. God help us All. This is righteous anger and our prayers to God while we few kneel in front of planned promiscuous…rather planned parenthood, will be heard. God will not be mocked forever.
    Ash cloth would be a good purchase for the govt.! Much more useful than billions of rounds of ammo.

  • Are the billions of rounds of ammo horded against the day when sufficient numbers of the God-Fearing find the criteria of an Augustinian Just War of Rebellion met?

  • 56 million fetus question Mr. Walsh.

    The hoarding of ammo might be a moot point. A cosmic burp from the sun? Fire from Heaven?

    A loving God He is, and as the drowning souls cried out to be forgiven…the same souls who hour before we’re laughing at Noah

  • ….now found themselves begging for Gods mercy.

    ( accidentally hit send key a moment ago.)

    Thank God God is the Judge.
    We will suffer.
    He will separate the goats and we trust in Him. Ammo will not stop God.

Are You Now, Or Have You Even Been, a Christian?

Thursday, May 2, AD 2013

Some of us wondered last year what the Obama administration would do once it no longer had to face the voters.  One thing it is doing is to allow “Mikey” Weinstein to set policy in the military regarding the treatment of Christians.  Who is “Mikey” Weinstein?  A former Air Force officer and attorney he founded a group called Military Religious Freedom Foundation that exists to battle the influence of Christians in the military and alleged discrimination against non-Christians.   Weinstein has made a career out of bashing Christians in the military and using the threat of litigation to bludgeon those who oppose him.  Get a taste of the tactics of the man here.   To demonstrate how over the top this joker is, this is from a post he wrote at Huffington Post on April 13:

Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces. Oh my, my, my, how “Papa’s got a brand new bag.”

What’s Papa’s new tactic? You’re gonna just love this! These days, when ANYone attempts to bravely stand up against virulent religious oppression, these monstrosities cry out alligator tears in overflowing torrents and scream that it is, in fact, THEY who are the dispossessed, bereft and oppressed. C’mon, really, you pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers? It would be like the utter folly of 1960’s-era southern bigots howling like stuck pigs in protest that Rosa Parks’ civil rights activism is “abusing” them by destroying and disenfranchising their rights to sit in the front seat of buses in Montgomery, Alabama. Please, I beseech you! Let us call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters.

In any sane administration this obvious anti-Christian bigot would not have anything to do with setting official policy, but we are not governed by a sane administration:

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Are You Now, Or Have You Even Been, a Christian?

  • I get it that this President hates people of faith. I never bought the “closet Muslim” allegation. All evidence pointed to Candidate Obama being a man of no faith in an higher power. It does not surprise me that the freedom to do whatever he wants, as long as he doesn ‘t awaken Congress to its constitutional duties, causes the President and his lackeys to behave in awful ways.

    What I don’t get is the military going like sheep led to the slaughter.

    Isn’t it still true that the non-coms set the tone? Navy Chiefs were this untouchable core of professionals who seemed to thwart every stupid act of their superiors and keep the ship on an even keel.

    Is this still true bit the loudmouths get the press? I sure hope so. I’d hate to think even they had been bludgeoned by a Leftish bunch of God-hating thugs.

  • “..a national security threat.” Honestly?
    This Weinstein fellow is nuts. When an actual national security threat is taking place it will be found to have originated from skunks that hate God fearing men. Say Weinstein.

  • Every person in the military is an adult. There are no minor un-informed children in the military. If an adult person wishes to opt out of a conversation about Faith, he is free to do so. He is also free to consider and parse what he hears and sees and learns. He has this ability of his rational soul. An adult person can reason. If the person is in the military, it is reasonable to expect that he is capable of rational thought and can choose his way among the many different choices he faces. Religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. God and Faith may not be removed from creation or the military. Our Constitution says so.
    As far as soul rape, this can only happen to a minor, uniformed un-emancipated child. The charge of treason is for those who repudiate our founding principles.

  • Obama cannot afford to have God around, God gives us FREEDOM.

    @David Spaulding: “thug” was the face of Weinstein. The brown shirts are coming.

  • Pingback: Jason Collins - Big Pulpit
  • Another perfect “setup” by our Emperor who will ignore this idiot allowing him to spew his venom randomly and never be brought to task for having appointed him.
    He is a master at having others do his dirty work under the cover of media inattention to the obvious damage to our society or the desired divisiveness among the people. He loves chaos, confusion, and turmoil which will require new laws and/or regulations that can call on government to further intrude into our lives.

  • but Bill Sr. wait….

    Please don’t forget to include the throngs of twits that bow down to this “joker” and gave him another four years to plague our nation with his viruses. After all he did have help.

    2016 seems so distant.

  • @philip: What good will 2016 do? Seriously, no Republican right now looks like they could win. Even if they did, they’ve just spent the past couple of weeks showing how “tough” they are by loudly insisting that we trash our whole judicial system AND torture a man without even the scant justification that he might know something useful. Even if they don’t persecute Christians, they’re setting up a thugocracy that will surely be turned against us.

  • I assume he’s referring to the Boston Bomber. I have not heard a single conservative advocate torturing the man, although I’m sure you can find one on twitter here or there. But facts rarely get in the way of a good rant.

  • Howard.

    Excuse me sir, what torture-what man are you referring to? And by the time 2016 comes around my poor guess is that the hole oblunder dug U.S. into will be filling in with past supporters of o-care-less healthplan.

    Just a guess.

  • Lawyer question for those of you in that particular venue:

    1) Given that the 1st Amendment contains not only the “Establishment Clause” preventing a state-declared religion, but also the “Free Exercise Clause” preventing the government from stopping religious expression…do not these same guarantees apply to our servicemen? I know that there are some limits, such as free speech prohibitions against the Commander in Chief, but how would this work out for a chaplain? This reminds me of this particular issue, where individual Marines (not the fort) built a memorial. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/12/marines-fight-to-protect-crosses-at-camp-pendleton-as-atheist-groups-seek/

    2) Could it be argued that atheism/”freedom from religion”-types, who argue that religion has no business being in the same room as anything with respect to the government are, in fact, promoting a belief system? Further, when they do so and get governmental cooperation in their efforts, that this results in a state-established religion of atheism? I call atheism a religion because atheism cannot be viewed as the “absence of belief” in the same way as you can say that “darkness is the absence of light”. Atheism is as much an act of faith because it claims to be a rational, evidence-based system and yet also claims a universal declaration that is not based on any empirical evidence. A more concise, though less elegant, way of saying that might be “any system which requires the logical proof of a negative and has no concrete evidence is an act of faith.”

    I’ve spoken with a personal friend who’s a lawyer as well as one who’s affiliated with Alliance Defending Freedom, and the latter suggested that an Establishment case is different for the burden of legal fees than a Free Exercise case…I’ve never known how to follow up on that or how to see what kind of legal scholarship needs to be undertaken to turn this tide.

  • “but also the “Free Exercise Clause” preventing the government from stopping religious expression…do not these same guarantees apply to our servicemen?”

    Yes.

    “I know that there are some limits, such as free speech prohibitions against the Commander in Chief, but how would this work out for a chaplain?”

    A very murky area since the courts have usually been reluctant to get involved with the management of the military. I can easily see however a conflict between free exercise and the authority of the Executive over military chaplains getting to the Supreme Court in the next few years.

    “are, in fact, promoting a belief system?”

    Most certainly, especially since the case law tends to take a rather expansive view of what constitutes a religion.

    “Atheism is as much an act of faith because it claims to be a rational, evidence-based system and yet also claims a universal declaration that is not based on any empirical evidence. A more concise, though less elegant, way of saying that might be “any system which requires the logical proof of a negative and has no concrete evidence is an act of faith.”

    Well put. Atheism is as much a religion as any theistic religion. Atheists have been inconsistant in this area. On the internet most atheists, usually the ones filled with an evangelical zeal that would put most street preachers to shame, loudly proclaiming that atheism is not a religion. However, in court atheists often have claimed that atheism is a religion and therefore entitled to First Amendment protections.

  • I am a Catholic in the military and I have to say that my religion has always been respected. The repeal of DADT had basically no practical effect on me, for instance. There are some worries about the chaplains, tho’.

    That being said, where did they get they get this guy!? And what are they getting at, appointing an atheist to a religious freedom thing? It makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. I think that this guy could use to have a couple of chats with a therapist, or something. He seems quite unhinged.

    They need to be VERY clear about what constitutes “proselytizing.” Is it a charge that can be levelled against anyone who has a conversation involving religion, or does it involve distributing pamphlets? People need to realize that when people are asking questions about religion, it’s the duty of a Christian with even a modicum of piety to follow up on them. I’d also like to know what a “fundamentalist Christian” is. Is it a Christian more orthodox than the President? Does having a southern accent make you more likely to be one? (I am beginning to suspect that a lot of this has to do with regionalist bigotry, and less than we think with religion per se. That’s the sense I get from some atheists I know, at any rate. Incidentally, I don’t have much of a southern accent.)

    I honestly don’t think that the gov’t can really force service members to ascribe to to the present administration’s ideology, precisely because that ideology is inimical to the principles of military service, and to some extent to the existence of government, period. Consider that quote from Anthony Kennedy about everyone having an absolute right to define reality however they like. Obvious, if anyone REALLY believed that, that person would have to consider laws immoral, since they impose a certain view of reality on someone. Also, consider the prevailing ideologies of our foreign enemies, Iran and North Korea in particular. Is it really politically advisable to alienate Christians when our chief enemies are Muslim or atheist officially? NO. If the people currently in power really have the guts to alienate Christian service members in this situation, I might have to grudgingly admire them for sticking so firmly to their false principles.

  • …we are not governed by a sane administration…
    Donald R. McClarey

    Alas, so true. How did Catholics vote in the last election? The last 10 presidential elections?

    All evidence pointed to Candidate Obama being a man of no faith in an higher power.
    David Spaulding

    Alas, that is also true. How did so many Catholics fail to see that in 2008?

    Many of the bretheren are weak. Who can strengthen them?

  • Thank you for your service, John H. Graney.

    My son, John, is also serving.

    St. John 15:18-25: “The world hated me (Jesus) . . . before it hated you.”

    St. Matthew 5:10: “Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

  • Here is the Defense Department’s response to the conservative outcries in the Internet on Weinstein’s meeting with the Air Force Judge Advocate General:

    http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119931

    My question is this: why even meet with a person like Weinstein if he has no credence, for in so meeting with him he is given credence? This is the same sort of thing that the US NRC does with anti-nuclear propagandist like Annie Gundersen, RFK Jr., and others: meet with them, then issue a statement proclaiming how the activists don’t speak for the Commission, and follow that up by tightening regulations so much that the technology becomes uneconomic. Watch and see now how the Air Force will tighten up in like manner religious expression by Evangelical and orthodox Catholic Christians while Muslims and sodomy-supporting Episcopalians get a free pass. This is an old tactic that the left has successfully used to stymie the use of nuclear energy in this country, and they are using it now against the far more important issue of freedom of Christian religious expression.