[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed. Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus. In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Air Force action 'entirely inappropriate' Source: One News Now URL Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/national- ... -action-entirely-inappropriate Published: Feb 13, 2015 Author: Chad Groening Post Date: 2015-02-13 14:42:54 by redleghunter Ping List: *Military or Vets Affairs*     Subscribe to *Military or Vets Affairs* Keywords: None Views: 7899 Comments: 34 A conservative military watchdog says it was completely inappropriate for an Air Force commander to allow the display of a hybrid flag that advances the radical LGBT political agenda on base. Writing for The Blaze, former Senior Airman Brian Kolfage accounts that he was driving through Davis Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson when he saw an American flag with rainbow stripes, instead of red and white stripes, flying high on a two-story house. Kolfage complained to base officials that that flag violates a section of Title 4 that states the American flag "shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." But several days after his complaint, the installation commander ruled that the flag does not violate federal law and can remain flying. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), thinks the decision was made to accommodate a political agenda. "This was exhibitionism of a political point of view. It was entirely inappropriate," she exclaims. "Other forms of political expression on a military base also are ruled out, so for the Air Force to make an exception for the sake of a flag that is the hybrid of the American flag -- and the LGBT flag is inappropriate itself -- but to allow that display on a military base, the Air Force authorities who made that decision should be held accountable, because they are the ones who are out of line here." Donnelly concludes that this incident is a consequence of Barack Obama's imposition of LGBT law on the American military. Subscribe to *Military or Vets Affairs* Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25. #3. To: redleghunter (#0) [Article] Kolfage complained to base officials that that flag violates a section of Title 4 that states the American flag "shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." But several days after his complaint, the installation commander ruled that the flag does not violate federal law and can remain flying. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), thinks the decision was made to accommodate a political agenda. Senior Airman Kolfage and CMR President Donnelly are wrong and the installation commander did what the law required. The First Amendment protects unpopular forms of expression, including this one. The complainants reliance on Title 4 for enforcement action is unfounded. https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30243.pdf Congressional Research Service Report for Congress The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to Display and Associated Questions Updated April 14, 2008 John R. Luckey Legislative Attorney American Law Division Order Code RL30243 Excerpt from introductory summary, unnumbered page This report presents, verbatim, the United States “Flag Code” as found in Title 4 of the United States Code and the section of Title 36 which designates the Star- Spangled Banner as the national anthem and provides instructions on how to display the flag during its rendition. The “Flag Code” includes instruction and rules on such topics as the pledge of allegiance, display and use of the flag by civilians, time and occasions for display, position and manner of display, and how to show respect for the flag. The “Code” also grants to the President the authority to modify the rules governing the flag. Excerpt at 1: [footnotes omitted, emphasis added] On the national level the Federal Flag Code provides uniform guidelines for the display of and respect shown to the flag. In addition to the Code, Congress has by statute designated the national anthem and set out the proper conduct during its presentation. The Code is designed “for the use of such civilian groups or organizations as may not be required to conform with regulations promulgated by one or more executive departments” of the federal government. Thus, the Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include enforcement provisions; rather the Code functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups. Excerpt at 2: [footnotes omitted, emphasis added] In addition to the Flag Code, a separate provision contained in the Federal Criminal Code established criminal penalties for certain treatment of the flag. Prior to 1989, this provision provided criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag. In response to the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson (which held that anti-desecration statutes are unconstitutional if aimed at suppressing one type of expression), Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to provide criminal penalties for certain acts which violate the physical integrity of the flag. This law imposed a fine and/or up to one year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor, or trampling upon any flag of the United States. In 1990, however, the Supreme Court held that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional as applied to a burning of the flag in a public protest. nolu chan  posted on  2015-02-13   17:08:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: nolu chan, redleghunter (#3) Senior Airman Kolfage and CMR President Donnelly are wrong and the installation commander did what the law required. The First Amendment protects unpopular forms of expression, including this one. The complainants reliance on Title 4 for enforcement action is unfounded. Weren't you in the military at one time? You should know things are different on base than out in the sillyvilian world. CZ82  posted on  2015-02-13   17:35:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: CZ82, redleghunter (#6) Weren't you in the military at one time? You should know things are different on base than out in the sillyvilian world. You will have to show me where the Constitution does not apply on base. The station commander cannot enforce a law that does not exist. The military can be sued in federal court; the named defendant would be the Secretary of the Navy. Yes, I was in the military. 20 years active duty. nolu chan, USN, Ret. nolu chan  posted on  2015-02-13   18:07:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: nolu chan, Liberator, CZ82, GarySpFc (#8) There are things Service members cannot do. One is to promote publicly a political party, movement or slogan. The Army has this covered in Army Regulation 600–20 Command Policy. I'm sure the AF has an equivalent regulation. What happened in this case is the base commander condoned one side of a heated political debate before SCOTUS. Please see "o" below. B–3. Examples of prohibited political activities According to the statutory restrictions in 10 USC 973(b) and the policies established in section d of DODD 1344.10 and implemented in chapter 5 of this regulation, a Soldier on AD will not— a. 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. b. Be a candidate for civil office in Federal, state, or local Government, except as authorized in this regulation, or engage in public or organized soliciting of others to become partisan candidates for nomination or election to civil office. c. Participate in partisan political management or campaigns or make public speeches in the course thereof. d. Make a campaign contribution to another member of the Armed Forces or to a civilian officer or employee of the United States for promoting a political objective or cause. e. Solicit or receive a campaign contribution from another member of the Armed Forces or from a civilian officer or employee of the United States for promoting a political objective or cause. f. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the Soldier that solicit votes for or against a partisan political party or candidate. g. Serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club. h. Speak before a partisan political gathering of any kind for promoting a partisan political party or candidate. i. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate of a partisan political party or candidate. j. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political group, or distribute partisan political literature. k. Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 USC 888. l. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee during a campaign or on an election day. m. Solicit or otherwise engage in fund raising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for a partisan political cause or candidate. n. March or ride in a partisan political parade. o. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on the top or side of a private vehicle. p. 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 or candidate. q. Sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and similar fund-raising events. r. Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces… redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-13   22:40:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 25. #32. To: redleghunter, Liberator, CZ82, GarySpFc (#25) [redleghunter #25] There are things Service members cannot do. One is to promote publicly a political party, movement or slogan. The Army has this covered in Army Regulation 600–20 Command Policy. I'm sure the AF has an equivalent regulation. What happened in this case is the base commander condoned one side of a heated political debate before SCOTUS. Please see "o" below. The cited "o" is: o. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on the top or side of a private vehicle. Yes, there are things that service members cannot do. Supporting diversity is not a political argument. All branches of the military have instructions mandatorily implementing diversity. The flag in question is not a political sign, banner, or poster, and it is not on the top or side of a private vehicle. I take the flag in question to be a diversity flag. Your opinion may vary, but I have no idea what else it might be. If you consider it a political flag, please identify the political party or candidate it is identified with. In this specific instance, it appears that a flag was hung in base housing, or perhaps a military operated, on base rental unit. I have not seen that this was done by a military member, but it may have been done by a member. It may have been done by a civilian spouse. It may be at a rental unit occupied by a civilian. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Parker v. Levy (1974), has expressly held that military members do have First Amendment rights and that those rights are not infringed, much less extinguished, by Articles 133 or 134. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/733/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) 417 U.S. 733 Held: 1. Articles 133 and 134 are not unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 417 U. S. 752-757. Page 417 U. S. 734 (a) Each article has been construed by the United States Court of Military Appeals or by other military authorities, such as the Manual for Courts-Martial, so as to limit its scope, thus narrowing the very broad reach of the literal language of the articles, and at the same time supplying considerable specificity by way of examples of the conduct that they cover. Pp. 417 U. S. 752-755. (b) The articles are not subject to being condemned for specifying no standard of conduct at all, but are of the type of statutes which, “by their terms or as authoritatively construed, apply without question to certain activities, but whose application to other behavior is uncertain,” Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566, 415 U.S. 578. Pp. 417 U. S. 755-756. (c) Because of the factors differentiating military from civilian society, Congress is permitted to legislate with greater breadth and flexibility when prescribing rules for the former than when prescribing rules for the latter, and the proper standard of review for a vagueness challenge to Code articles is the standard that applies to criminal statutes regulating economic affairs, and that standard was met here, since appellee could have had no reasonable doubt that his statements urging Negro enlisted men not to go to Vietnam if ordered to do so was both “unbecoming an officer and gentleman” and “to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces,” in violation of Arts. 133 and 134, respectively. Pp. 417 U. S. 756-757. 417 U. S. 734 2. Nor are Arts. 133 and 134 facially invalid because of overbreadth. Pp. 417 U. S.757-761. (a) Doctrines of First Amendment overbreadth asserted in support of challenges to imprecise language like that contained in Arts. 133 and 134 are not exempt from the operation of the principles that, while military personnel are not excluded from First Amendment protection, the fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it. Pp. 417 U. S. 758-759. (b) There is a wide range of conduct to which Arts. 133 and 134 may be applied without infringing the First Amendment, and while there may be marginal applications in which First Amendment values would be infringed, this is insufficient to invalidate either article at appellee’s behest. His conduct in publicly urging enlisted personnel to refuse to obey orders which might send them into combat was unprotected under the most expansive notions of the First Amendment, and Arts. 133 and 134. Personnel in on base housing or rental units have a reasonable expectation of privacy. They are treated differently than barracks dwellers. In view of military instructions mandating diversity as a military necessity, I fail to see how one can transgress military policy by expressing support of the official policy. www.180fw.ang.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120820-005.pdf Air Force Instruction 1-1, 7 August 2012, Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards 1.8. Diversity. Diversity is a military necessity. Air Force capabilities and warfighting skills are enhanced by diversity among its personnel. At its core, such diversity provides our Total Force an aggregation of strengths, perspectives, and capabilities that transcends individual contributions. Air Force personnel who work in a diverse environment learn to maximize individual strengths and to combine individual abilities and perspectives for the good of the mission. Our ability to attract a larger, highly talented, diverse pool of applicants for service with the Air Force, both military and civilian, and develop and retain our current personnel will impact our future Total Force. Diversity is about strengthening our force and ensuring our long-term viability to support our mission to fly, fight, and win…in air, space, and cyberspace. (AFPD 36-70, Diversity). www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/diversity/afpd-36-70-diversity.pdf Air Force Policy Directive 36-70, 13 October 2010, Personnel, Diversity 2. Air Force Diversity Policy 2.1. The Air Force will develop and maintain comprehensive diversity initiatives to enhance the all volunteer Total Force, to include active duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilians. 2.2. The initiatives will: 2.2.1. Ensure all qualified personnel are welcome in America’s Air Force. 2.2.2. Educate and train all personnel on the importance of diversity, including mutual respect, thus promoting an Air Force culture that values inclusion of all personnel in the Total Force and views diversity and inclusion throughout the workforce as a force multiplier in accomplishing the mission of the Air Force. 2.2.3. Ensure that all personnel in the Total Force understand they are valued and have the opportunity to achieve their full potential while contributing to the mission of the Air Force. 2.2.4. Establish effective diversity training, mentoring, and professional development that provide the tools for personnel to navigate career progression. 2.2.5. Provide cultural awareness training to enhance organizational capabilities. 2.2.6. Assess and report progress on these initiatives. www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_20.pdf I'm sure you know AR-600-20 is a 140 page book, but it is at the link. AR-600-20, Army Command Policy At 26: c. Command authority. Commanders have the authority to prohibit military personnel from engaging in or participating in any other activities that the commander determines will adversely affect good order and discipline or morale within the command. This includes, but is not limited to, the authority to order the removal of symbols, flags, posters, or other displays from barracks, to place areas or activities off-limits (see AR 190–24), or to order Soldiers not to participate in those activities that are contrary to good order and discipline or morale of the unit or pose a threat to health, safety, and security of military personnel or a military installation. Base housing is not a barracks. Nor would the diversity flag seem to be adverse to good order and discipline or morale, unless one finds the official Army and other service instructions on diversity to be prejudicial to good order and discipline or morale. I assess the situation as being very highly unlikely to impossible that the base commander acted without first consulting the JAG corps. Continuing from AR-600-20: At 55: 6–3. Responsibilities a. The DCS, G–1 will— At 56: (9) Assist the DEOMI with the conduct of the Senior Executive Diversity Awareness Training Seminar. At page 60 6–4. The Army’s Equal Opportunity Advisor of the Year Award The EO Advisor of the Year Award recognizes the most outstanding EOA, for achievements in support of EO. [...] (8) Created opportunities that supported and contributed to the advancement of our understanding and valuing diversity. At 66: c. Generally, Senior Executive Diversity Awareness Training will cover— (1) Planning and resourcing the implementation of the Army’s EO program. (2) Creating positive command climates that promote fair and equal treatment and that create opportunities for all Soldiers, civilians, and Family members. (3) Contemporary issues in EO and the prevention and eradication of sexual harassment. Of possible general interest: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/const-rights-mil-pers.pdf 57 page pdf 88th Congress 1st Session COMMITTEE PRINT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL SUMMARY-REPORT OF HEARINGS BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE PURSUANT TO S. Res. 58 88th Congress, 1st Session Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 22-819 WASHINGTON : 1963 http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/hearings_1962.pdf 966 page pdf CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE PURSUANT TO EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL FEBRUARY 20 AND 21 AND MARCH 1, 2, 6, 9, AND 12, 1962 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1962 nolu chan  posted on  2015-02-14 20:46:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: redleghunter (#25) From Kirtland AFB Housing Regulations. http://www.kirtlandfamilyhousing.com/document/rules-regulations 3.8 Exterior Decorations: Residents may install seasonal decorative items such as Christmas decorations, provided they are in “good taste” for display in a family community and do not cause any permanent structural damage to the Resident’s dwelling. All holiday type decorations must be removed within two weeks following the holiday. Residents are not allowed on roofs and no decorations are allowed above the eave of the first floor roof. And no mention of any other kind of decorations so you must assume they aren't allowed at any other time of the year. Last time I checked a Diversity flag wasn't considered a holiday decoration. CZ82  posted on  2015-02-15 08:40:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 25. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com