TexasCHLforum.com

RottenApple

RoyGBiv wrote:And what about silencing members of the military to aide a cover-up of, say, the incompetence of the CinC?

First of all, we are talking about political speech, not cover-ups. These are two completely separate issues.

Second, they have the Military Whistleblower Protection Act of 1988 to cover them.

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act, Title 10 U.S.C. 1034, as amended, prohibits interference with a military member’s right to make protected communications to members of Congress; Inspectors General; members of DoD audit, inspection, investigation or law enforcement organizations; and other persons or organizations (including the chain of command) designated by regulation or administrative procedures. A protected communication is any lawful communication to a Member of Congress or an IG, as well as any communication made to a person or organization designated under competent regulations to receive such communications, which a member of the Armed Services reasonably believes reports a violation of law or regulation (including sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination, mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or other resources, abuse of authority, or a substantial or specific danger to public health or safety.

So if they report the situation properly, they are covered.

RottenApple

RoyGBiv wrote:Apparently you need to be retired to speak your mind.

I have no problem with that. Active duty military members should be apolitical in their public speech as they are expected to serve the American People as a whole. They can, of course, vote the way their conscience dictates, and political discussions among their friends, family, and co-workers should be encouraged.

RottenApple

RoyGBiv wrote:Let's not forget that the "DoD Plan" was crafted under direction of the Obama administration.
Just because the "Plan" comes from the DoD does not make it apolitical.

Granted. But from things I've read in the past (and 21 years as an Air Force Brat), the DoD usually (<-- Key word) makes their plans and proposals with the benefit of the military in mind and not with political considerations. That being said, it is not unusual for such plans to be modified, denied, or replaced by politicians and/or political appointees for the benefit of politics instead of the military.

RottenApple

Jim Beaux wrote:I believe I read that the Center for American Progress is a George Soros organization.

That may be true (and it wouldn't surprise me in the least). However, according to the article linked:

In calling for less spending on military pay raises, the report basically endorses a plan proposed, but not yet executed, by the Defense Department.

So this "progressive" (read: LIBERAL) "think" (read: FEEL-GOOD) tank is merely endorsing a plan that DoD is already considering.

To be honest, I don't have much of a problem with making regular military pay more comparable to their civilian counterparts. However, I would hope/expect that there would be combat pay and/or bonuses for successful combat missions as well as survivor benefits for those heroes who give all.

RottenApple

The Annoyed Man wrote:Top Florida democrat says Christians want Jews to die: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anti-ch ... tic-chair/

Hmmmm. In a way, he's right. Kinda. Most Christians believe that Jews are required to convert and believe in Jesus in order to go to Heaven and that those who don't will go someplace a bit warmer. In Hebrew culture, converting to a different religion has traditionally been seen as the "death" of the Jew who converted.

Somehow though, I don't think he's talking about it in that sense.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 5 matches

Re: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

Re: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

Re: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

Re: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

Re: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney