View Full Version : snopes.com ultra left wing
Team Sergeant
05-31-2009, 09:21
Sure looks TRUE to me, and snopes.com is posting lies concerning the military and speaking engagements.
I wanted to give ya’ll some disturbing information on our wonderful president. I work with the Catch-A-Dream Foundation (www.catchadream.org) which provides hunting and fishing trips to childen with life-threatening illnesses. It is a great program needless to say. This past weekend we had our annual banquet/fundraiser event in Starkville . As part of the program, we had scheduled Sgt. 1st Class Greg Stube, a highly decorated U.S. Army Green Beret and inspirational speaker who was severely injured while deployed overseas and didn’t have much of a chance for survival. Greg is stationed at Ft. Bragg and received permission from his commanding officer to come speak at our function. Everything was on go until Obama made a policy that NO U.S. SERVICEMAN CAN SPEAK AT ANY FAITH-BASED PUBLIC EVENTS ANYMORE. Needless to say, Greg had to cancel his speaking event with us. Didn’t know if anyone else was aware of this new policy. Wonder what kind of news we all will receive next?
Charlie Stokes
Area Agronomy Agent/County Director
MSU Extension Service
517 Hwy. 145 N. Ste. 1
Aberdeen , MS 39730
“Remember, Freedom Isn’t Free”
All, we need to get in contact with SFC Greg Stube and get the real answer to this article.
In my opinion snopes.com is an ultra left wing website and will go above and beyond to mislead the general public.
It's time to bust snopes.com and show it's real left wing agenda.
snopes.com is dead wrong on this artiicle. They will not allow anyone to copy their works so the URL is below. I doubt the article will be there long as it will show snopes.com is completely wrong and they are in fact lying. You individuals that read that website you should know it's run by two very old farts with internet access and a left wing agenda.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/faithbased.asp
TS
I think these are the pertinent directives/regs coveing this topic.
DOD DIRECTIVE 1344.10. dtd 19 Feb 2008
SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces
It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces (hereafter referred to as “members”) (including members on active duty, members of the Reserve Components not on active duty, members of the National Guard even when in a non-Federal status, and retired members) to carry out the obligations of citizenship. In keeping with the traditional concept that members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity, and that members not on active duty should avoid inferences that their political activities imply or appear to imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement, the following policy shall apply:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf
AR 670-1, dtd 3 Feb 2005
Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia
pp 7-8
1–10. When the wear of the Army uniform is required or prohibited
j. Wearing Army uniforms is prohibited in the following situations:
(1) In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests, or when engaged in off-duty civilian employment.
(2) When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.
(3) When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.
(4) When wearing the uniform would bring discredit upon the Army.
(5) When specifically prohibited by Army regulations.
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The Reaper
05-31-2009, 10:42
I suspect that this is due to enhanced enforcement of existing regulations, and at least in part, to LTG Boykin's speeches to church groups while in uniform.
Further, I think that we may find that this policy has been in effect since the Bush Administration.
Looks a lot like a few other allegations that have been leveled lately.
Keep us posted on what SFC Stube has to say about it.
TR
Team Sergeant
05-31-2009, 11:49
SFC Greg Stube has been giving "public" speeches for a few "years", in full Dress GREENS, snopes.com forgot that or snopes.com forgot to do a google search on SFC Greg Stube, but that would be stupid, well unless you had some sort of left wing agenda.
watch this video and you'll know why "The Community Organizer" and the left wing want SFC Greg Stube to stop giving public speeches......
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=60c_1237083904
In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests, or when engaged in off-duty civilian employment.
When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.
I'm guessing the NRA does not have a "political" agenda.:rolleyes:
snopes.com you are full of crap, lies and deceit.
This has been the Policy and regulations for years..... I have a early 1980's hard copy of the AR and it says the same thing. TR is right that they are looking at it a lot harder since Boykin's speaches......
Ref Obama making any new Policy/Reg changes I have not been able to find any on the books yet.
It boils down to two things with this example:
Military member speaking in Public in Uniform - No he can not if it falls into the parameters for the AR that Richard posted
They were making a True or False ref to prove or disprove this statement "A new federal government policy prohibits U.S. service members from speaking at "faith-based public events""
Nothing is new so it is false as they stated..... If someone takes that example they used as he is being blocked from speaking he is being blocked by a long standing Regulation that has nothing to do with the current or past Bush administrations. Just a bad example for their site from my standpoint.
The core problem is that most Soldiers do not know that this exist and have committed to and done public speeches in Uniform. We tend to forget that when you raise your hand and swear in you lose some of your rights until you get out. That comes with having to have some extra controls over your service members to maintain discipline and keep our military out of Political issues. At times people have turned a bind eye for a long time but I think that they are looking at things a little closer due to some recent issues. LTG Boykin is one of them.
Remember the DOD can have you speak in Uniform but you can not unless they want you to.
Just my 2 cents
Team Sergeant
05-31-2009, 12:20
This has been the Policy and regulations for years..... I have a early 1980's hard copy of the AR and it says the same thing. TR is right that they are looking at it a lot harder since Boykin's speaches......
Ref Obama making any new Policy/Reg changes I have not been able to find any on the books yet.
It boils down to two things with this example:
Military member speaking in Public in Uniform - No he can not if it falls into the parameters for the AR that Richard posted
They were making a True or False ref to prove or disprove this statement "A new federal government policy prohibits U.S. service members from speaking at "faith-based public events""
Nothing is new so it is false as they stated..... If someone takes that example they used as he is being blocked from speaking he is being blocked by a long standing Regulation that has nothing to do with the current or past Bush administrations. Just a bad example for their site from my standpoint.
The core problem is that most Soldiers do not know that this exist and have committed to and done public speeches in Uniform. We tend to forget that when you raise your hand and swear in you lose some of your rights until you get out. That comes with having to have some extra controls over your service members to maintain discipline and keep our military out of Political issues. At times people have turned a bind eye for a long time but I think that they are looking at things a little closer due to some recent issues. LTG Boykin is one of them.
Remember the DOD can have you speak in Uniform but you can not unless they want you to.
Just my 2 cents
I am aware of the policy and I just finished reading it again, funny I cannot find anything against giving a speech in front of a "faith-based" public event in the entire directive.......
The Reaper
05-31-2009, 13:25
If SFC Stube were to go on leave, speak in civvies, and give the standard disclaimer (I am not speaking on behalf of the US government), I doubt that anyone would have cared.
I will look and see if there is a new Executive Order regarding public speaking by the military.
TR
SFC Greg Stube has been giving "public" speeches for a few "years", in full Dress GREENS, snopes.com forgot that or snopes.com forgot to do a google search on SFC Greg Stube, but that would be stupid, well unless you had some sort of left wing agenda.
watch this video and you'll know why "The Community Organizer" and the left wing want SFC Greg Stube to stop giving public speeches......
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=60c_1237083904
In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests, or when engaged in off-duty civilian employment.
When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.
I'm guessing the NRA does not have a "political" agenda.:rolleyes:
snopes.com you are full of crap, lies and deceit.
Definitely. He stands for everything the left absolutely cant stand about America. Great speech.
I am aware of the policy and I just finished reading it again, funny I cannot find anything against giving a speech in front of a "faith-based" public event in the entire directive.......
That term did not even exist back when the regulation was writen.... Plus they would never be that specific.
My Point was they used the SFC Stube as an example and that was a bad choice.
Their post was to prove or disprove the Faith Based Gov directive and There is none...... so their false statement is correct.
Now ref SFC Stube being denied speaking as long as he was not in uniform and on leave the COC should have not denied his right to speak. His NRA speech was great and he did the proper disclaimer at the beginning. Unless the COC gave written permission for wearing the uniform in that speech he was in violation of the reg. I personally have no problem with him wearing it and have for a long time disagreed with the reg but it is the reg.
A lot of Military service members have given speeches in uniform for years but it all depends on the moment and the flavor of COC.
Team Sergeant
05-31-2009, 16:51
Their post was to prove or disprove the Faith Based Gov directive and There is none...... so their false statement is correct.
My guess is that someone told SFC Stube he was "no longer" allowed to give speeches. The premise of the discussion is, IMO, did someone tell/order SFC Stube to cease because he was to speak in front of some faith based public group. And I think we're going to get a yes on that.
We will find out more in a few days.
alfromcolorado
06-01-2009, 18:41
The problem with a lot of this stuff circulating around the internet and on emails is that some one (who varies and it isn't always the person credited with it) takes a few facts and spins it up to be more than it is.
We as Americans have come to thrist after the sensational information vs. the simple facts. It is part of the reason that we are running out of moderates in both parties.
The more polarized our politics become the more stress is put on the fabric of our country.
My guess is that someone told SFC Stube he was "no longer" allowed to give speeches. The premise of the discussion is, IMO, did someone tell/order SFC Stube to cease because he was to speak in front of some faith based public group. And I think we're going to get a yes on that.
We will find out more in a few days.
I will bet someone in this COC got cold feet and said NO...... Hope to find out soon......:munchin
who while speaking wore a clean sharp black suit, white shirt, tie and under the flag pin of his lapel, he had miniture sized Master Para Badge, SF Crest, TAB and CIB.
Sometimes you can present your agenda and still concur with regs.
Besides, General George Washington, while still on active duty was very political and very public.
Andrew Jackson today would still tan your hide on the front lawn of the White House.
who while speaking wore a clean sharp black suit, white shirt, tie and under the flag pin of his lapel, he had miniture sized Master Para Badge, SF Crest, TAB and CIB.
Sometimes you can present your agenda and still concur with regs.
Besides, General George Washington, while still on active duty was very political and very public.
Andrew Jackson today would still tan your hide on the front lawn of the White House.
You are right, Professional appearance is good.
Unfortunately we live in a new era of AR this and AR that. General Washington and our other founding fathers would have thrown a fit at how regulated we have become. Back then you could also say the Pledge and quote the bible with out getting in trouble.
General Washington and our other founding fathers would have thrown a fit at how regulated we have become. Back then you could also say the Pledge and quote the bible with out getting in trouble.
Ahhh...those good ol' days. Just a few points of order to consider.
George and Abe surely didn't have any troubles concerning the Pledge of Allegiance - because it wasn't written until 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy. Bellamy's original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the 8 Sep 1892 issue of the children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's discovery of America, conceived by James B. Upham.
The original Pledge read, "I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
As far as not getting into trouble, even then - and even without mentioning under God which came into vogue amongst groups after 1948 and enacted into law by DDE on 14 Jun 1954 - there were groups who were against the pledge as being idolatrous. And then there's the recorded history of Bible quoting (or often nefarious misquoting) troubles - which goes back far beyond the sometimes turbulent times of the Pledge, George Washington, and this nation.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin