Really, idiots? REALLY?

Let’s start with this:

4. POLICY

4.1. General

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

[…]

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.

4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.1. Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1.7.), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement. Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator. (See subparagraph 4.1.1.9.)

4.1.2.2. Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.

4.1.2.3. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. This is distinguished from a letter to the editor as permitted under the conditions noted in subparagraph 4.1.1.6.

4.1.2.5. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

4.1.2.6. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

4.1.2.7. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political club or group or distribute partisan political literature.

4.1.2.8. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee or candidate during a campaign, on an election day, or after an election day during the process of closing out a campaign.

4.1.2.9. Solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for any political cause or candidate.

4.1.2.10. March or ride in a partisan political parade.

4.1.2.11. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on a private vehicle.

4.1.2.12. Display a partisan political sign, poster, banner, or similar device visible to the public at one’s residence on a military installation, even if that residence is part of a privatized housing development.

4.1.2.13. Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls if the effort is organized by or associated with a partisan political party, cause, or candidate.

4.1.2.14. Sell tickets for or otherwise actively promote partisan political dinners and similar fundraising events.

4.1.2.15. Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces, except as a member of a joint Armed Forces color guard at the opening ceremonies of the national conventions of the Republican, Democratic, or other political parties recognized by the Federal Elections Committee or as otherwise authorized by the Secretary concerned.

4.1.2.16. Make a campaign contribution to, or receive or solicit (on one’s own behalf) a campaign contribution from, any other member of the Armed Forces on active duty. Any contributions not prohibited by this subparagraph remain subject to the gift provisions of sections 2635.301-2635.304 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (Reference (f)). See subparagraph 4.1.2.1. for general prohibitions on partisan fundraising activity.

4.1.3. Commissioned officers shall not use contemptuous words as prohibited by section 888 of Reference (b) or participate in activities proscribed by DoD Directives 5200.2 and 1325.6 (References (g) and (h), respectively).

4.1.4. Subject to any other restrictions in law, a member of the Armed Forces not on active duty may take the actions or participate in the activities permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1., and may take the actions and participate in the activities prohibited in subparagraph 4.1.2, provided the member is not in uniform and does not otherwise act in a manner that could reasonably give rise to the inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.

4.1.5. Activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of this Directive. Any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security (in the case of the Coast Guard) or any component of these Departments with a partisan political activity or is otherwise contrary to the spirit and intention of this Directive shall be avoided.

Essentially, this means that members of the U.S. military are not to be doing political activities in uniform!

Why is this a rule? Because campaigning for candidates or political causes in uniform can give the impression that you speak for the military, and not for yourself as an individual. The military should be free of partisan politics. The military should not be partisan in any way. The military is one of the most trusted organizations in the United States, and has consistently been at the top of the “most trusted” list for years.

So what does it do to the perceived objectivity and non-partisanship of the military when two complete douchetards decide to “enthusiastically” promote gun control – a hot-button national issue – on behalf of “the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility” and Obama Organizing for America Action?

Together we successfully met the threshold of 325,000 signatures to send Initiative 594 to the state legislature. If the initiative does not pass the state legislature, the measure will be on the ballot in the 2014 election.

From these thousands of conversations, we know that Washington citizens overwhelmingly support the expansion of background checks. Expanding background checks to all gun sales is important not only in Washington but across the country. Everyone deserves to live in a community where they are not at risk of being a victim of gun violence.

We’re confident that Initiative 594 would be successful in making Washington communities safer. We hope you’ll take action in your neighborhood to prevent gun violence.

How will two Soldiers Dumbasses, who are “enthusiastically” taking photos and asking for petitions with a group that is not only partisan, but still has the Obama logo as its symbol contribute to the alleged “non-partisanship” of the military?

While gathering signatures in Bellevue, Zenda Boss-Hall, and Kathleen Friedman were stopped by two soldiers who enthusiastically asked if they could take petitions with them.

While gathering signatures in Bellevue, Zenda Boss-Hall, and Kathleen Friedman were stopped by two soldiers who enthusiastically asked if they could take petitions with them.

Really, douchetards? REALLY

Regulations exist for a reason. The military is not to be used as a propaganda tool to make political gains on gun control or any other issue.

And frankly, jackwagons, when you took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, it means the ENTIRE Constitution, not just the parts with which you agree!

You are the U.S. military. You do not endorse legislation. You do not campaign. You do not hold petition drives to drum up support for your political views. And you certainly don’t do so in uniform!

The only thing I can see from this photo is that these two dillholes are Army E5s. I hesitate to call them NCOs, because they’re just too bloody stupid to merit that title. But if anyone knows who these morons are, feel free to contact their chain of command.

 

14 responses

  1. What DICKWRINKLES!!!

    And so are the soldiers. But didn’t the DoD open start the slippery slope going with letting a Marine to participate in a gay parade? I could be mistaken, though.

    Like

  2. Once upon a time, and maybe in a galaxy far, far away, if you were going to wear a uniform off-post, it was either Class As or modified Class As. No fatigues, BDUs, ACUs, MREs, or whatever the non-dress outfit is called today.

    Walking around in one’s work uniform does nothing to display pride and professionalism.

    These two yahoos look like unmade beds.

    Like

  3. When I see a soldier in uniform, especially fatigues, the only thing that crosses my mind is that they’re at work; defending me from the evil minions of Obama.

    I don’t know what should be done, but an isolated post, and the duty of burning the shitters for a few months seems appropriate.

    Like

  4. Looks like they’re recruiters, judging by the badges.

    Like

    1. I saw the same thing. They may even be on duty in that mall.

      Like

  5. What good would it do to report them? Look who the CiC is…!! 😦

    Like

  6. “feel free to contact their chain of command”

    I stop by here on a semi-regular basis but have never commented (that I can remember). I assume, b/c you’ve quoted chapter & verse about regulations, that these folks have violated regulation. Your naivety in this post is stunning, given what you write elsewhere. What cloth, exactly, do you think the folks higher up in the chain are cut from? I’d wager the same as these kids.

    Did you not see earlier this week the selfie a young female pfc took of herself hiding in the back of her car so she wouldn’t have to salute the flag? A woman volunteers to join the military. She takes an oath to uphold the constitution,and posts a photo to instagram in which she gradulates herself for hiding in her car, in uniform, to avoid saluting the flag.

    This sort of stuff doesn’t happen among the rank & file– military or not– unless the higher-ups– the folks of experience and supposed moral authority– allow it.

    It took me a while to give up on the notion that our military men & women were our last best hope against the obliteration of the tripartite, co-equal branch system. For too long I’d believed that young men and women who wished to served really did understand the Constitution and that their oath meant something. I now understand that an oath is just a word they can’t define, and enlisting is just a pay check.

    And now I see that dependency on food stamps among the “armed forces” is up. LOL.That don’t even make no sense.

    The chain of command doesn’t give a shit what these kids do.

    (P.S. I know and respect many men and women who took and oath, and served. They are no longer military. To them– and I include you– I give my thanks.)

    Like

    1. These aren’t kids. They’re supposed to be non-commissioned officers, and I still have faith that the majority of our military are decent men and women, who serve honorably and with integrity.

      Yes, I’ve seen the photos of PFC Sheffey. She’s a moron, and she’s being dealt with.

      And yes, it does happen – likely without the knowledge of the chain of command, which is why it needs to be brought to their attention. This is a blatant violation of military regulations, and it needs to be dealt with.

      Like

    2. Dear madam, YOUR naivite is quite amusing. Since you don’t seem to know, let me inform you that the military is made up of actual people, not robots, and sometimes they do things their regs and chain of command doesn’t allow. This MAY be indicitive of a problem higher up, but isn’t PROOF of it. The first General in my chain doesn’t babysit each individual below her/him to ensure no-one goofs off.

      In short, sometimes people do dumb shit, and it usually has nothing to do with the influence of their commanders.

      Like

    3. “It took me a while to give up on the notion that our military men & women were our last best hope against the obliteration of the tripartite, co-equal branch system. For too long I’d believed that young men and women who wished to served really did understand the Constitution and that their oath meant something. I now understand that an oath is just a word they can’t define, and enlisting is just a pay check.”

      Bullshit. You are extrapolating/stereotyping from an insufficient data base. The vast majority of servicepeople of ALL ranks are honorable and dedicated. It’s bullshit like yours that makes us cranky and kills morale.

      “And now I see that dependency on food stamps among the “armed forces” is up. LOL.That don’t even make no sense.”

      How does it “make no sense”? It’s because pay is low for lower ranks, at the same time people are most likely to be starting families, and it’s damn hard to raise young kids and have both parents working when at least one of them is full-time military. Blame CONGRESS, they people YOU elect to set OUR salaries. You ignorant bint.

      “The chain of command doesn’t give a shit what these kids do.”

      The fuck they don’t. That’s why people get punished when they are caught doing stupid things. Which, if you were paying the least bit of attention, instead of being a drama-whore, you would have noticed. Just like has been done for centuries.

      Go away you useless, babbling twit.

      Like

  7. I agree that these to dickwads were in EXACT violation of Army Regs, but it’s POSSIBLE that they were just trying to get laid.

    Like

    1. By THOSE two hags????

      Like

      1. Hey! For some it’s a matter of “any port in a storm.”

        Like

  8. Seems to me these two fuckers need a little wall-to-wall counseling.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: