Why is it that some issues that widely were considered to be no-brainers when George W. Bush was “president” now widely are considered to be question marks, gray area, under President Barack Obama?
Case in point: The Associated Press reports that a 24-year-old sergeant in the Marine Corps took down but then put back up his Facebook page, titled “Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots”* — which, as its title indicates, contains views opposing President Barack Obama. And that he apparently did so as the result of pressure from his military superior or superiors.
The American Civil Liberties Union has asserted that the sergeant has his right to free speech, the AP reports. I tend to agree with the ACLU on most matters — even the ACLU’s defense of the Ku Klux Klan’s free-speech rights — but it seems to me that if any member of the U.S. military had publicly identified himself or herself with a “movement” that existed primarily to oppose “President” George W. Bush**, he or she would have been disciplined — perhaps even discharged. And that virtually no one (except, perhaps, the KKK-defending ACLU…) would have defended his “free-speech right” to be openly, publicly defiant against his commander in chief.
Talking Points Memo reports that the young-dumb-and-full-of-cum sergeant put out a press release misspelling Barack Obama’s name (why am I not surprised?), and that in the press release, the sergeant stated:
Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots in no way supports a military uprising or anything to that subject, further more we recognize Barak [sic]Obama as the Command-in-Chief and we do not support disobeying orders that are lawful with Constitution, and will continue to follow orders given to us…. We do understand that there is a time and place for expression and the military work place is not one of them.
[J]ust because we have volunteered to serve our country in a camouflage uniform we do not strip away our rights as Americans to express our opinion on the polices of the current or future administrations.
Hmmm. Except that the “tea party” “movement” is vehemently and virulently against President Barack Obama and that President Obama is the commander in chief.
We are to trust the word of the “tea party” “patriots” in the U.S. military that they won’t commit treason? Especially when, apparently, whether or not they commit treason depends upon whether they view an order given to them by their commander in chief as constitutional or unconstitutional?
Who, exactly, is going to determine such constitutionality for them? Constitutional law expert Glenn Beck or someone else from FOX “News”? Constitutional law expert Sarah Palin-Quayle? Or some other “tea party” leader?
Homosexuals in the military are a threat?
No, it’s dipshits like the “Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots” that are the largest internal threat to the U.S. military right now. And they’re not just a Facebook page — they’re listed on teapartypatriots.org as well as being a branch of the “tea party” “movement.”
Yes, members of the U.S. military are allowed to hold whatever opinions they wish to hold. But strong opinions often lead to strong actions.
I, for one, do not feel safe with right-wing members of the U.S. military being active members of a “movement” whose primary goal is to oppose the “tyranny” of President Obama.
Obama is not a “tyrant” because one disagrees with his policies. Obama is the democratically elected president of the United States of America — and he was elected by 53 percent of the American voters, a higher percentage than George W. Bush received in the 2000 or the 2004 presidential election. (The 50.7 percent that Bush received in 2004 was even higher than the less than 50 percent that he received in 2000.)
I just don’t take these armed-and-dangerous wingnuts on their word that they won’t instigate a “military uprising.” And why is the founder of the group even bringing up the possibility of a “military uprising”?
This is scary — I hope that these Benedict Arnolds who call themselves “patriots” are rooted out before they commit treason. We’re fools if we just wait for their “military uprising” to happen.
P.S. Personally, I like the Facebook group called “Tea Parties Are for Little Girls.” It uses this as its avatar:
*I have found a Facebook group of this name, but it apparently was established by another individual, not by the sergeant.
**The so-called “birthers” question the legitimacy of President Barack Obama on completely erroneous grounds. However, there were very good grounds to assert that George W. Bush’s presidency was wholly illegitimate — and unconstitutional. What if a contingent of the U.S. military believed that his illegitimacy as president meant that Bush was not their legitimate commander in chief? What if they thus refused to, say, participate in the unelected Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust — and, one might argue, unconstitutional — invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq in March 2003?