The cover says it:
The accompanying review gives us more:
Sgt. Gary Stein might be saying things about President Obama that a lot of Marines think, but some are saying he took it too far.
Stein has come under fire for stating on Facebook that he wouldn’t follow certain orders given by his commander-in-chief. And Marines say Stein’s not alone in his disapproval. More anti-Obama talk is being heard in the workplace and new Military Times poll data shows declining approval among military service members for the president’s job as commander-in-chief.
The Marine Corps depends on its chain of command structure, especially in a time of war. Some Marines say Stein and other vocal Marines like him are undermining that system.
See this week’s issue for a breakdown on what is happening, what it means for the chain of command and what Marine’s are saying about it.
We’re told some of the reasons why:
The article cites hot button issues such as repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” relaxing restrictions of women in combat, and steep budget cuts, behind the disapproval numbers.
And what did I say would happen three years ago?
Messiah-in-Chief Barack Obama? Will Conservative Soldiers Stay In?
This is just idle speculation, but I wonder how many professional warriors would leave the military rather than take their orders from Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama?
Here are the poll numbers representing active duty military personnel:
If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you vote?
Total: 68% for McCain; 23% for ObamaEnlisted Personnel:
68% for McCain; 24% for ObamaOfficers
70% for McCain; 22% for ObamaWhich of the candidates would do a better job as president handling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
74% for McCain; 19% for ObamaWhich of the candidates would do a better job as president handling military personnel issues, such as pay and benefits?
73% for McCain; 18% for ObamaWhich of the candidates would do a better job as president handling Defense Department issues, such as weapons purchases, the size of the armed forces and national security strategy?
77% for McCain; 15% for ObamaAnd here’s a link to the corresponding story in the Army Times.
I was a soldier, too. If a Barack Obama suddenly became my Commander-in-Chief, I would have realized the war is over, and America lost. I wouldn’t fight for the radical infanticide/abortion agenda, the radical gay rights agenda, or any other radical liberal agenda. I signed up to fight for the United States of America; not God Damn America. And I’d figure it’s about time that liberals sent their children off to die screaming in the mud for their new Peoples’ Socialist Republic under their new Messiah-in-Chief. Hell, instead of protesting military recruitment, these once-traitorous vermin (under the previous gone-but-not-forgotten United States of America) can quit protesting military recruiting stations and start actually signing up in them. That’s right, liberals; instead of bombing recruiting stations like Obama’s terrorist pal William Ayers you can go and start signing up to sacrifice your blood and guts for your new country.
Geez, I wonder if you’d stop bitching about how evil American soldiers were fighting terrorists all over the world if you actually had to do all the fighting yourselves? Heck, it’s possible it might even start to occur to you that a place like Guantanamo Bay is a better idea than releasing terrorists who will immediately start trying to kill you again the moment they get back to their old stomping grounds.
Heck, I’ve got an even better idea. Liberals have thought excluding gays from the military was so danged unfair and discriminatory. Why don’t we “swing the other way,” and have a “Gay All The Way!” military? Maybe – in the name of tolerance – you might allow a few token heterosexuals in as long as they don’t reveal that politically incorrect sexual orientation of theirs. It’s time to gear up for battle, Rump Rangers; you’re going to need to feed a lot of red meat into the grinder once the world’s dictators realize that the President of God Damn America is an appeasing weakling. You can use those superior compromising skills of yours to deal with Iran unleashing terrorist hell once your Messiah-President does nothing while Iranian President Ahmadinejad develops nuclear weapons so they can launch terrorism-by-proxy strikes on us with impunity.
The new God Damn America could augment its “Gay All The Way!” status with women who believe that being excluded from being able to do anything a man can do is discriminatory. They can start walking sustained patrols while carrying a hundred pounds of extra weight in 110 degree heat, and be the ones who try to keep all their body parts intact while running and dodging with fifty pound combat loads. Good luck with that, girls. The guys carry that; surely you can do it too. And don’t worry; you won’t have any heterosexual males around who would let that insulting and patronizing chivalry of theirs get in the way of your NOW-feminist-style equality. You’ll get the chance to develop that upper body strength of yours digging your own fighting positions out of the rock hard clay.
There’s already an upside: in the United States military, combat readiness has always been hampered by pregnancies that could run as high as 30%. The God Damn America military could drop that down to zero.
And the fighting men of the “Gay All The Way!” God Damn America Army could finally put an end to that tired old cliché about there not being in atheists in fox holes.
All I know is this: I look at the numbers of the conservatives serving in the military, and I can’t help but wonder – and even hope – that those conservatives start leaving the army of the nation that wants to start pissing on their basic values in droves. Let the liberals start doing the fighting. Conservatives have done most of the fighting; liberals have done most of the bitching. Maybe we conservatives could start bitching about how evil liberals are for trying to protect the country for a change.
With all due respect, as you look at what is happening with Obama’s planned-to-fail escalation of Afghanistan – because a timetable for withdrawal was never anything ever than a timetable to defeat – and as you look at our armed forces beginning to literally fall apart under the worst commander-in-chief in American history, just where exactly was I wrong three years ago? I was completely right about the military disaster we would see; I was completely right about Obama’s failure to do one damned thing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and preventing the Armageddon the Bible said we would have; and I was right about soldiers becoming increasingly pissed off at this godawful miserable failure who is sticking his feet up on the Oval Office desk. Just as I was right that the forcibly-homosexualized military would not go over well.
As a soldier who served with soldiers and led soldiers, I believed – and continue to believe – that I understand the military mindset. And it continues to viscerally offend me what this smiling sack of cockroach feces has done.
Personally, I would have left as soon as possible after Obama became my CiC rather than watch him systematically destroy something that I loved. But as I observed at the time, where are these warriors to go given the fact that Obama has given us a wrecked economy that will never create anywhere near the jobs we need as long as his depraved policies are in effect?
And maybe mine was the coward’s way out, because I would have just slunk away and cut and ran from my Army. And these NCOs who are standing their ground and trying to defy an immoral system that is breaking down all around them are the real heroes.
Tags: anti-Obama, Anti-Obama Marines, commander-in-chief, homosexuals, Marines
Start Thinking Right 
March 22, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Each day he sounds more like Carl Marx.would follow Marx into battle?
March 22, 2012 at 1:47 pm
George massaua,
There are two differences between Karl Marx and Barack Obama:
1) Karl Marx actually had a few original ideas, whereas Obama has never had a single thought that Karl Marx hadn’t expressed first.
2) Barack Obama is far more arrogant than Karl Marx ever was.
Other than that, can’t think of a single difference.
March 22, 2012 at 3:40 pm
I’m not too concerned about Karl Marx, he was a theorist. I would be more concerned of another Lenin, who took what Karl Marx wrote and contorted it into something ugly. Anyone who’s ever read the Communist Manifesto should see the plight of people coming to a solution where that plight would be destroyed. What Lenin and Mao did to their countries, by going Commie, butchered what Karl Marx’s original vision of Communism was supposed to be.
Interestingly, I would follow Karl Marx into combat, or any other philosopher who had the balls to call people out on their own bull [deleted by moderator for profanity].
Everything that was happening when Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto is happening today, it never disappeared, or stopped, people just because more pussy whipped by political correctness, ignorant, and apathetic.
March 23, 2012 at 10:08 am
oliverqueenathewatchtower,
You make a very good point that you would follow Marx into combat simply because it is long past time that we actually had a “philosopher who had the balls to call people out on their own bull [deleted by moderator for profanity].”
I once had a professor (a philosopher, fwiw) who visited Auschwitz. He was deeply moved by one overarching realization: that “ideas have consequences.” And that the ivory tower eggheads who had been poisoning German culture – and in effect Nazifying it long before Hitler came to power – were ultimately responsible for creating the worldview and the climate that led to the Holocaust.
You’re right, of course, none of those eggheads picked up a rifle and shouted “Follow me!” in a bayonet charge.
But I would go a little farther and point out that Marx had something in common with these other “theorists” in that he too came up with an idea that was inherently poisonous, toxic and evil. There was simply no way for communism to go “right.” Communism was godless and depraved from the very start. And Marx was very much a part of what went wrong: because “ideas have consequences.”
One of the interesting things about communism (and I mean right out of Marx’s mind) is how you motivate workers to work without any of the pay increases and increased wages and benefits that a capitalist system provides.
Why should I work harder under communism? For that matter, why should I work at all?
Marx never had a “theory” to actually deal with that element of human nature – that part of us that does what is best for ourselves and will not continue to work harder and harder simply out of pure alturism for “the state.”
Stalin and Lenin were inevitable. Because they came up with the means to “make the communist system work”: if you didn’t work and work sufficiently hard, they declared you indolent and sent you to a gulag where you would of course be forcibly worked to death.
Marx didn’t say work the lazy to death; but his system guaranteed that such a “final solution” be necessary.
And you are right: it IS happening today. Because we have the same sort of depraved “progressives” who are “fundamentally transforming” our system today that we had with Marx and Lenin and Stalin. And one of the powerful engines is political correctness.
Being politically correct is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by redefining it. Early Marxists designed their game plan long ago and continue to execute it today — and now liberals are picking up the same tactic: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.
Mark Levin writes powerfully about this in his new book Ameritopia talking about how we transform from a society of individual liberty to a statist society of government power and control.
March 24, 2012 at 4:40 pm
I think that what Marx did was create a theory based on a romanticized image of human nature. Many psychologists have and philosophers over the last thousand years have attempted to tackle the concept of human nature. I don’t think that you’re giving Marx enough credit. His idea of state need not have god, or anything, and to call it toxic really undermines the purpose of the Communist Manifesto.
Another quarrel that I have with your response is that you are attempting to place blame on Marx for what Lenin did. Yes, idea’s have consequences. The word consequences however is a neutral term. The word simply means “results of something.” You’re using it in a negative instance however, and that’s also wrong. Marx, much like many other individuals such as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and even Buddha, critized their environments, built philosophies around those injustices, and further set upon courses. Their ideas had “consequences.” Your argument would suggest that I should blame Jesus, ultimately, for the terrorist bombings of 9/11. You might find this to be outrageous, but here’s the pathway to this argument: Islamic terrorists attacked the United States in part because of a perceived Christian standing, therefore if it wasn’t for Jesus, we wouldn’t have been attacked because people wouldn’t have followed his [i]ideas[i]. Problem with this, Jesus had nothing to do with it, and contrary to much thought, neither did Muhammad. Most radicals, and fundamentalists, and others contort documents be it the law, or religious text to create a new perception of something else. That’s what Lenin did. To call Leninist Russia “communist” is really doing an injustice to what Marx forsaw as the Communist state. Lenin broke integral and fundamental aspects to how Communism was supposed to sprout – naturally. Leninist Communism will always fail because of the nature for which it was thrown into existence.
To say that Marxist Communism is built to fail is really a conjectural statement on your part because you don’t know that it would fail, or succeed. There are many microcosms in society for which “communism” works very well. If you look at American Indians, typical Hispanic families, and even the Jewish community, there are aspects of the community which mirror the concept of Communism and Socialism. They are not absolute however, and function very well. While many people give credit to this idea of Communism to Marx, the idea was well in practice long before Marx existed.
Lastly, as far as blaming progressives and liberals go, I agree with you only in small form. Blaming one side has never actually solved a problem, or lead to a resolution. Fact is, conservatives, republicans, democrats, liberals, progressives, reactionaries, and independents are all to blame for this mess. To blame progressives for this idea of “political correctness” really does injustice to the grand scheme of things. Cultures change through time, this has been proven with evidence of civilizations dating back some 10,000 years ago. Idea’s shift back and forth. Homosexuality, Abortion, Marriage Rights of Women, Women’s Rights, Diversity Issues, Slavery, etc., have all existed in some form for thousands and thousands of years with differing acceptances. To assume that it’s “depraved progressives” is just a tactical move on your part to deny justice to those progressives who aren’t trying to uphold the status quo, but change it. The status quo is political correctness. Your use of this tactic also attempts to place another group above another when in fact, they are just as guilty for upholding the status quo. In many cases, if it weren’t for a progressive, or a liberal, many people wouldn’t have the rights that they have today. The largest problem with your statement is that while you blame progressives for creating and maintaining political correctness, you propagate it with your own use of words. Look up the words: progressives, liberal, conservative, reactionary. Then I implore you to apply those objective definitions to people. The founding fathers were progressives by virtue of their actions, and conservatives for things that mattered. We have people who are reactionaries because sometimes we must take a step back in order to take two steps forward. Being progressive, conservative, liberal, etc., should not be an umbrella term for someone with a set of ideas because everyone with an opinion is, to some degree, all three of those terms.
July 17, 2012 at 11:30 pm
What in the hell did Bush do, start two unfunded wars based on lies, get elected, I mean selected , by the supreme court. then selected by voting machines owned by corporations. You say that you do not want to fight for socialism o really, Did it ever consider that your working for a bunch of oil companies. Has any one took the time to tell you that corporate power that controls the government is fascism. Now our biggest military threat is another fascist country China which was once communism. That we made wealthy by giving our jobs away. This is a perfect example of capitalist destroying itself for short term gain.
Ayn Rand the self proclaimed anti christian is the hero of the modern day conservative movement gave the meaning to the saying that greed is good died of cancer and wound up getting help from our socialist medicare. This is example of the hypocrisy of the right.
How far will the right wing anti worker agenda go on before we wind up as the laughing stock of the world. and the lowest rated industrial nation to live in. The answer is they do not care because the fascist corporations that buy corporate politicians off or internationalist.
July 18, 2012 at 11:29 am
Fascist fighter,
I’d kind of like to watch you being a “fascist fighter” – as it would involve your punching your own face unconscious.
I block liars, so I will be blocking you.
Bush as president had NO authority to in any way take anything off budget without congressional approval. CONGRESS controls spending. What follows below will document that DEMOCRATS did not want to have to have the Iraq War spending openly showing up on the budget because 1) they did not want their liberal members to have to vote for Iraq War funding but 2) they did not want independents and the very few patriotic Democrats to vote against them because Democrats refused to support the troops in time of war. It was YOUR people who did that, not Bush. And second, EVERY PENNY of the Iraq War showed up on the debt. So your “unfunded” assertion is simply a lie, and I block liars.
I will simply replay a previous comment in which I refuted the notion that Bush’s wars were “unfunded” or that “Bush didn’t pay for his wars” or that “Bush’s wars were taken off budget” or even that they were ever really “Bush’s wars” to begin with:
You are an absolute dumbass on every level. Worse, you are a bad person who willingly believes and tries to spread lies.
That’s one. Second, you dumbass, do you really believe that Adolf Hilter, Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Eichmann, Reinhard Heydrich, Heinrich Himmler, etc. were oil executives??? Are you that freaking stupid??? The notion that these evil fascists were CEOs who took over the government is one that only incredibly stupid people have ever even thought of. It is breathtakingly stupid. In fact, NONE of those men was a top business leader of any kind prior to their taking over the government AND IMPOSING FASCISM ON THE CORPORATIONS.
There have always been and there always will be corporations that will fall in line with fascists. We saw American corporations fall in line with FDR and his New Deal because FDR let these “crony capitalists” write the rules in a way that destroyed their smaller competitors. THAT was fascist. But we are also seeing naked fascism right now from your messiah Obama.
Again, all I have to do is copy and paste to show you what a true fascist and what true crony capitlaist fascism looks like:
That’s what fascism looks like, you dumbass.
In closing, your very own words point out which side the fascists come from. You say:
Let’s see, you evil cockroach: what does NAZI stand for???
Now get the hell off my blog, you Nazi liar.