That "Rally" At Fort Bragg

Here's an interesting take from Military.com:

It was supposed to be a routine appearance, a visit from the commander in chief to rally the troops, boost morale and celebrate the Army's 250th-birthday week, which culminates with a Washington, D.C., parade slated for Saturday.

Instead, what unfolded Tuesday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, bore little resemblance to the customary visit from a president and defense secretary. There, President Donald Trump unleashed a speech laced with partisan invective, goading jeers from a crowd of soldiers positioned behind his podium -- blurring the long-standing and sacrosanct line between the military and partisan politics.

As Trump viciously attacked his perceived political foes, he whipped up boos from the gathered troops directed at California leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom -- amid the president's controversial move to deploy the National Guard and Marines against protesters in Los Angeles -- as well as former President Joe Biden and the press. The soldiers roared with laughter and applauded Trump's diatribe in a shocking and rare public display of troops taking part in naked political partisanship.

Yea. But isn't this against the rules? Active duty personnel participating in an overtly political event?

Seems like it is. From a DOD FAQ on the subject: 

Q1. What rules and regulations govern political activities by members of the Armed
Forces?

A1. Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 1344.10 lays out the rules and policy concerning political activities by members of the Armed Forces.

Q2. What is DoD policy regarding participation in political activity by members of the
Armed Forces?

A2. It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces to carry out the obligations of citizenship such as voting. However, active duty members are specifically prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity, and all members of the Armed Forces should always avoid actions that could reasonably be perceived as implying DoD sponsorship, approval, or endorsement of partisan political activity.

And if there is any doubt, let's look go back to the article:

"We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again," he proclaimed to soldiers, adding that Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass are "incompetent" and falsely said they're aiding "insurrectionists" while goading troops into booing them.

"I bet none of those soldiers booing even know the mayor's name or could identify them in a lineup; they're nonexistent in the chain of command," an 82nd Airborne noncommissioned officer told Military.com. "So, any opinion they could possibly have can only be attributed to expressing a political view while in uniform."

And: 

Internal 82nd Airborne Division communications reviewed by Military.com reveal a tightly orchestrated effort to curate the optics of Trump's recent visit, including handpicking soldiers for the audience based on political leanings and physical appearance. The troops ultimately selected to be behind Trump and visible to the cameras were almost exclusively male.

One unit-level message bluntly said "no fat soldiers."

"If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don't want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out," another note to troops said.

They were screened for their political beliefs. And they expressed those beliefs while in uniform.

But hey, look what I found when they asked the Pentagon for a comment:

"Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media," Sean Parnell, a top Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement to Military.com. "Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers." 

That's right. That's our old buddy Sean Parnell.

In that blogpost I found this at The Washington Post:

[Sean] Parnell is in a tough primary battle for the nomination for an open seat in the U.S. Senate, a race crucial to Republicans’ hopes to take back the chamber.

A few years ago, the former Army captain was ordered by law enforcement to leave his home and give up his guns. He is in the process of a divorce as he runs for the Senate, and we’ve learned that Parnell’s wife had called 911 in relation to a domestic dispute and filed two protection-from-abuse orders against him that were lifted after a few days.

That's the guy who Pete Hegseth chose to be Pentagon Spokesman.

Oh, the joys of having an old blog... 

 

 

Deep Shit

Republicans and the Right have always claimed to be in favor of "small government." Their biggest argument for the Second Amendment of our Constitution has been that people need their guns in case government gets out of hand. And yet, we see that they have absolutely no problem with the President of the United States sending in not only the National Guard against a state's governor's wishes, but actual Marines into a state to stop protests by citizens. Protests, mind you, that only cover a few square blocks and that the police of that city were handling and did not request or need help dealing with.

Moreover, not a few, have expressed the desire for troops to actually kill the protesters. They actually revel in the thought of this. 

I have to say that I'm not surprised at this. Most now look back in horror at the shootings at Kent State. However, I was in 5th grade when Kent State happened and was going to school in Westmoreland County, which if you don't know, is in what is called The T in Pennsylvania, which is a red part of the state. I remember when we discussed the shootings in class, I was horrified to find out that the majority of my classmates expressed the belief that if the students were shot then they must have been doing something wrong. I am sure they got this from what they had heard their parents saying. 

In other words, not much has changed in their attitudes. 

But, we have to realize that a whole lot has changed in our political environment. 

For example, if Trump did a Watergate now, would he even be impeached over it? Trump's list of crimes as president make Nixon look like a novice in comparison. 

And now, we know that we couldn't, say, count on The Washington Post to hold him to account, nor much of the other mainstream media. Oh sure, there might be some headlines for a day or two, but there would be five or six other scandals that would quickly take its place. 

Worse still, perhaps the majority of Americans don't even trust the media anymore. And, Nixon did not have a Fox News pumping out propaganda in his favor on a 24/7 basis. He also didn't have media which were completely cowered by his threats.

And that I believe is Trump's biggest sin: Convincing the American public that they can't believe objective facts. Facts don't exist anymore. Anything can be "fake news." 

Vaccines? They're poison. Immigrants? There's 20 million of them who came into this country in the past four years and they're all murderers and rapists and gang members. A president who can sell meme coins and accept a $200 million golden airplane from a foreign country? This has nothing to do with grift.

We also now have social media and AI. Social media provides a place for the worst ideas to fester and amplify and for people to gather. We didn't have the richest man in the world egging it all on back then and algorithms pushing it all further. We didn't have AI providing even the most design and visually challenged Joe Schmo a way to create endless visually appealing propaganda. Propaganda that apparently the average person can't even tell is not real. We didn't even have endless video and photographs at everyone's fingertips where they can push visuals from years ago claiming that it happened today.

And on top of this, Nixon did not have a Supreme Court who said that anything he did while President was basically legal.

We are in deep shit, people.

All I know is that everyone who still cares about democracy must fight back in any way that they can. 

Protest? Yes! Call and write your representatives? Yes! Document the lies on social media? Yes! Hold the media to account? Yes! Talk to your friends and relatives? Yes! Use your privilege to stand up for those who can't? Yes, yes, yes!

Do whatever is in your power. Do whatever you can or we will be lost forever.

Um...No Kings

From The New York Times:

President Trump said on Tuesday that protesters who assembled during a military parade he planned in Washington on Saturday for the Army’s 250th birthday would be met with “very big force” — a dark warning that made no distinction between peaceful demonstrations and violent confrontations.

In remarks from the Oval Office before he left for North Carolina, where he was scheduled to participate in events at Fort Bragg related to the anniversary, Mr. Trump boasted about the “amazing day” he planned before saying that any demonstrators would be dealt with harshly.

“For those people that want to protest, they’re going to be met with very big force,” Mr. Trump said. “And I haven’t even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.” [Emphasis added.]

And from The Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [Emphasis added.]

No Kings. 

Feel free to join. 

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

I was going to ask you about President Trump's plan to commandeer the Army's 250th birthday celebration to spend millions on a birthday parade for himself but other events took over.

Instead, this is about his commandeering the California National Guard in Los Angeles. 

This morning, The New York Times reported: 

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California accused President Trump on Sunday of fomenting trouble in Los Angeles by calling in the National Guard. “Local law enforcement didn’t need help,” Newsom said in a post on X, formerly Twitter. “Trump sent troops anyway — to manufacture chaos and violence,” Newsom said. “Now things are destabilized and we need to send in more law enforcement just to clean up Trump’s mess.”

Elsewhere, there was this analysis from the Times:

It is the fight President Trump had been waiting for, a showdown with a top political rival in a deep blue state over an issue core to his political agenda.

In bypassing the authority of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a Democrat, to call in the National Guard to quell protests in the Los Angeles area over his administration’s efforts to deport more migrants, Mr. Trump is now pushing the boundaries of presidential authority and stoking criticism that he is inflaming the situation for political gain.

Local and state authorities had not sought help in dealing with the scattered protests that erupted after an immigration raid on Friday in the garment district. But Mr. Trump and his top aides leaned into the confrontation with California leaders on Sunday, portraying the demonstrations as an existential threat to the country — setting in motion an aggressive federal response that in turn sparked new protests across the city.

California Governor Gavin Newsom issued this statement: 

In case you missed it, last night, President Trump – disregarding Governor Newsom – federalized California National Guard troops in Los Angeles at a time when there were no unmet law enforcement needs. In fact, local law enforcement efforts successfully de-escalated the situation in Los Angeles County prior to any of Trump’s commandeered troops being deployed on the ground. {Emphases added.]

And this from the guy who refused to immediately call for the National Guard to help out law enforcement on January 6, 2021.

So my question: Were the President's actions appropriate or was it an opportunity to forward his political agenda?

Last time I checked the First Amendment was still in place - and of course anyone breaking the law must be held accountable in order to protect the rule of law.

On the other hand, Trump pardoned all those convicted for attacking the Capitol on January 6.

Your thoughts? 

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll publish your response here. In full. 

Plus Ça Change - And So On

Well, this happened this week:

Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said in a since-deleted social media post on Friday it was “deeply troubling” that a Sikh man, whom she initially misidentified as Muslim, led a prayer on the floor of the House.

Miller wrote on X that the man, Giani Surinder Singh, “should never have been allowed” to lead the prayer and called for Congress to uphold the “truth” that “America was founded as a Christian nation.”

Miller’s original post incorrectly identified Singh as Muslim. She subsequently corrected the post before deleting it entirely.

Singh was invited to lead the prayer, a regular tradition ahead of House sessions being called to order, by Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.).

And:

Haris Tarin, vice president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, condemned Miller’s “Islamaphobia” and called on her to apologize while pushing back on Miller’s belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation.

“We were intentionally founded as a nation of all faiths,” Tarin told POLITICO. “Apparently she must have forgotten about the First Amendment in this country.”

And so on.

This sounded familiar to I took a dive into this blogs archives and found this:

The AP reported that today, the first time, a Hindu clergyman gave the opening prayer in the US Senate.

Rajan Zed, from the Indian Association of Northern Nevada, was obviously not a Christian and some Christians in the gallery were obviously not happy about that. 

Some details I reported then: 

Before he had a chance to speak, a Christian in the gallery piously intoned:

Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight!

According to TPMCafe:

Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), serving as the presiding officer for the morning, immediately ordered them taken away — though they continued to yell at the Hindu cleric as they were headed out the door, shouting out phrases such as, "No Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "There's only one true God!"

You can hear the protestor continue:

This is an abomination! We shall have no other Gods before You. You are the one true God.

Check the date on my blog post: 07/12/2007. (My God! Have I been blogging for that long?)

That's 17 years, 10 months and a little over 3 weeks ago. That's the age of one unruly High School junior.

As I blogged back then:

Maybe Hitchens is right: Religion Poisons Everything. Or maybe this is closer:

Americans United for Separation of Church and Stat's Executive Director Barry W. Lynn said that the protest "shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."

See? There's a reason for the separation of Church and State. 

See? 

[Note: All the links from my 2007 blogpost are broken. It was a long time ago.]

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

I'd like to turn, again, to AG Pam Bondi - given that you voted to confirm her as head of the Justice Department.

The Miami Herald is reporting: 

During her Senate confirmation hearing for U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi tip-toed around whether she would stand up to President Donald Trump’s pressure on the Justice Department, promising only in a broad sense that “politics has to be taken out of this system.” 

Since her confirmation in February, Bondi has earned the praise of conservative Republicans for loyally following Trump’s agenda while drawing the wrath of critics on the Democratic spectrum who say she has politicized the Justice Department on issues ranging from illegal immigration to public corruption. 

Now, a liberal- and moderate-leaning coalition of about 70 law professors, attorneys and former Florida Supreme Court justices is attacking Bondi’s record in an ethics complaint filed on Thursday with the Florida Bar. They accuse Bondi of violating her ethical duties as U.S. Attorney General, saying she has committed “serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.”

Specifically:

According to the Florida Bar complaint, Bondi’s “principal ethical violation arises from her perversion of the concept of ‘zealous advocacy’ into an overriding campaign, individually and through Messrs. Blanche, Bove and Martin, to coerce and intimidate the lawyers they supervise into violating their ethical obligations.” 

In each of the three examples, Bondi and her senior team “ordered Department lawyers to do things those lawyers were ethically forbidden from doing, under threat of suspension or termination—or fired them for not having done so,” the complaint says.

In her confirmation hearings, The Herald adds, Bondi also refused "to say that Trump lost the 2020 election."

And yet you voted to confirm her.

Any comments on any of this?  Do you think AG Pam Bondi is guilty of any of the ethics violations outlined in that complaint?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post whatever response I get from Senator Fetterman

OF COURSE They Do This During Pride Month

From The New York Times:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the Navy to review the names of vessels honoring prominent civil rights leaders, including Harvey Milk, who was one of the country’s first openly gay elected officials and a Navy veteran.

News of Mr. Hegseth’s decision, reported earlier by Military.com, comes just days into Pride Month, which celebrates the contributions of luminaries in the L.G.B.T.Q. community.

Of course it was. 

This is what Military.com had to say:

A defense official confirmed that the Navy was making preparations to strip the ship of its name but noted that Navy Secretary John Phelan was ordered to do so by Hegseth. The official also said that the timing of the announcement -- occurring during Pride month -- was intentional.

Of course it was.  

CBS reported Tuesday that the Navy is also considering renaming other John Lewis-class oilers including the USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and USNS Harriet Tubman. Both Marshall and Ginsburg were Supreme Court justices, and Tubman was a Black abolitionist who helped slaves escape the South via the Underground Railroad. 

Of course they're considering it. Of course.

CBS reported some background on what makes Harvey Milk such an important story:

Harvey Milk, the political trailblazer, emerged in the 1970s as one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States. After years of activism, he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, where he quickly became a national symbol of LGBTQ+ political empowerment. His life was cut short in 1978 when he was assassinated in City Hall, alongside Mayor George Moscone. 

The USNS Harvey Milk was christened in 2021 and represented a significant step toward inclusivity within the armed forces. 

Before he emerged as one of the most visible advocates for gay rights in American history, Milk served in the U.S. Navy. From 1952 to 1954, he held posts as an operations and dive officer aboard two submarine rescue ships — the USS Chanticleer and the USS Kittiwake — both active during the Korean War, according to the U.S. National Archives. 

But his sexual orientation carried profound consequences as Milk came under scrutiny. In December 1954, Milk, who was then a lieutenant junior grade, was facing a court martial for participating in a "homosexual act" a year earlier. 

Instead of facing trial, Milk was drummed out of the U.S. military, like so many other gay service members of his era. In January 1954, he resigned his commission and accepted an "Other Than Honorable" discharge. In 2021, the Navy approached Milk's nephew, Stuart Milk, to see if he wanted his uncle's discharge upgraded, according to NPR. Stuart decided against it as a reminder that not everyone was treated with honor. 

So of course they did this during Pride Month 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

The New York Times reported recently that:

President Trump shared an outlandish conspiracy theory on social media on Saturday night saying former President Joseph R. Biden had been “executed in 2020” and replaced by a robotic clone, the latest example of the president amplifying dark, false material to his millions of followers.

Do you really think that Donald Trump believes that former President Biden was executed 5 or so years ago and replaced by a robotic clone? Setting that troubling question aside for a moment let me as you, Senator McCormick, do you think that it's true? Or do you think the President is lying to the American People?

If you do not believe it's true (and I sincerely hope you do not), when will you be publicly correcting President Trump on his latest outlandish conspiracy theory?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post whatever I receive from the Senator here.