You know, keep this up the military might just walk off the job. Compare retirement and reenlistment rates to a time before this corrupt regime took office... I bet more are retiring and and fewer are reenlisting. This is just another way to gut the military.
I admit that most of our military is too classy and full of honor to leave their post. But as a 20-year veteran of the USAF, I can honestly say that this kind of crap does take its toll on moral. When our military keeps getting pooped on by their "bosses", they eventually crap out.
The US military is just another trendly liberal circle-jerk, well-suited for video game warfare. Won't get their pink jumpers dirty.
The military is in a downward spiral. First the repeal of dont' ask don' tell. Then they are trying to get women into the Infantry and Armor. What society in the history of the world has sent their mothers and daughters willingly into the fight??? Not oh hey your supply convoy got attacked so defend yourself, but hey woman go kill those men. Your job is to kill, period. And now this. When are they going to start removing the Chaplin Corps from the military. The generals need to wake up and stand on some principles. Long gone are they generals such as Patton, MacArthur and Eisenhower. Now we have generals that bow to any political whim. The flag rank should be the best because you can stand for your principles the most. What are they going to do make you retire at 1, 2, 3, or 4-star rank?? Oh what a sad day. I would turn in my paperwork in heart-beat and say oh well, guess I'll be getting general officer retirement pay. The military is being put into a bad place these days.
Okay, so we're sending our military men and women in harm's way where they can be potentially killed in so many ways: IEDs, mobs, snipers, etc. Rule # 1: Don't mess with their holy books and, by the way Rule #2: Don't put any military logos on your own Bible. The Bible can bring so much comfort and peace at any time, but especially when in a hostile environment so why not let our military personnel have their Bibles even if it has a logo? I don't get it, I really don't.
pilot, the ANA showed up late for patrol, high on weed, hash. ran under fire and just as big a danger in a firefight with their crossfire on our troops. the usa has trained armed forces that can get crap done -if it were not for washington bullcheese about "rules of engagement." thanks for flying a 5 million dollar bulls eye AP67
Yeah, it's another situation our troops have been put in where it's almost impossible to tell who are allies and who are the enemy. I hate it when our troops are fired up by our Afghan or Iraqi "allies." That's when I feel we should bring all our troops home and let those folks sort out their own problems.
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:43 PM
Subject: [trscoop] Re: Military logos no longer allowed on troop bibles
Landscaper59 wrote, in response to Army_Pilot1967:
pilot, the ANA showed up late for patrol, high on weed, hash. ran under fire and just as big a danger in a firefight with their crossfire on our troops. the usa has trained armed forces that can get crap done -if it were not for washington bullcheese about "rules of engagement." thanks for flying a 5 million dollar bulls eye AP67 Link to comment
It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion...Obama
Damn right we do.
Dying in the dirt,choking on your own blood,gasping for that last breath of air, fighting for your country.
Take away the two things that had significance to your very being.God and service.
as a squad leader at 21, my son loaded many a fellow marine into a medevac chopper under fire. these a-holes didn't do it, don't have the stones to do it. their american flag at their house means nothing.
mail your loved one a bible imprinted with their branch of service and a bottle of jack daniels to afghanistan. piss off the liberals and the taliban with one package. father of a usmc 2/6 back from marjah, afgh.
I was so outraged about this, I had to look up this group who was threatening to sue. Seems to me, they are against Christianity and refer to them as the "religious right". I'll post the wiki link below, but here's a taste of "their accomplishments"
"In April 2010, the Foundation successfully demanded the cancellation of evangelical preacher Franklin Graham’s scheduled participation in the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer event, thereby severing the affiliation between the Pentagon event and Shirley Dobson's (wife of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson) exclusively evangelical conservative Christian National Day of Prayer Task Force, and making this event inclusive of all religions."
So my question is - Who is defending our military personnel's right to practice their religion? Who does it hurt if our patriots want to have a military logo on their Bible? I would love to know how our military folks feel about this.
It's always these minority groups that make the loudest noise. And unfortunately the majority has been listening to them.
I remember when Franklin Graham was DIS invited. What a pathetic display of bowing to a godless minority. I share your anger Maxine. Who IS going to defend our soldiers against this? Do non military have any right to raise a voice in this issue?
The troops should do it anyway. Let the administration start kicking troops out. When the government loses support, and eventually control of their own troops, the "leadership" is doomed.
A logo doesn't mean direct endorsement. I have T-Shirts, rings, necklaces, etc with Marine Corps logo on it. I know it wasn't all "endorsed". It is a service to those who serve to have their logo on a product. The logo is for the service men and women who want a logo on their bible just like they want one on a T-shirt or even a blanket or pillow.
I just read the Pentagon is having a Gay Pride event. Would asking our young Americans to boycott enlistment until this stops be too destructive? Tempting though...
remember that congress(if we actually had anyone in congress who new the Constitution)
can simply pass a bill limiting the court system from getting involved in this matter thus leaving it up to the individual branches to do what they will as far as military logos are concerned...these groups who attack our religious freedoms are nothing but Satanic front groups bent on our total destruction nothing less...for they know if they destroy our belief system they destroy us as a nation...they are traitors nothing more nothing less...they use religion and religious terminology to sneak into our Churches and Christian gatherings to destroy us..and until we understand this we will continue to lose every battle...
"TRAITOR AT THE GATE"
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague." - Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator - 106-43 B.C
Let me see if I have this straight. The statists find Military logos on bibles to be offensive, controversial, and an implied violation of the first amendment's freedom of religion.
However, in the name of "sexual education" and health, it is perfectly acceptable to graphically describe sex acts including sodomy to 5TH GRADERS. According to these statist "educators", anyone offended by this are religious zealots equivalent to the Taliban, and by not supporting this kind of indoctrination, don't care about the "health" of their children.
How far we have fallen.
maybe everyone in government needs to be sent this......
The Separation of Church and State
David Barton - 01/2001
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
The election of Jefferson – America's first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.
Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. 
However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for "the free exercise of religion":
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 
In short, the inclusion of protection for the "free exercise of religion" in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone's religious practice caused him to "work ill to his neighbor."
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 
Jefferson's reference to "natural rights" invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase "natural rights" communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.
By definition, "natural rights" included "that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain."  That is, "natural rights" incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their "natural rights" they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.
So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence" of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded:
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) 
That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state":
[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 
With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government "to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor."
That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.
Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were "subversive of good order" and were "overt acts against peace." However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in "the Books of the Law and the Gospel" – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
Therefore, if Jefferson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson's Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.
For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States" (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.
One further note should be made about the now infamous "separation" dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
In summary, the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. (Return)
2. Id. (Return)
3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179. (Return)
4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. (Return)
5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. (Return)
6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808. (Return)
7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790. (Return)
8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800. (Return)
9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. (Return)
10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207. (Return)
11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237. (Return)
12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878). (Return)
13. Reynolds at 163. (Return)
I like the KelTec PMR-30. 30 rounds of .22WMR in a full-size SA with a Picatinny rail & FO sights standard, all for under $400. With 2 extra mags that's 90 rounds, and if you're quick with the mag swaps, you can get them all downrange in 20-25 seconds.
A simple work around is to produce a set of each of the military branches seal and inclose them as a sticker sheet and the service member can affix it as they see fit.
Work-arounds would just allow it to continue, instead of fighting such a knee-jerk reaction to a mere threat. Who the hell dares to make changes of this magnitude because of a threat? Regardless of who or what it comes from. And these are the 'leaders' of the Military?
Another slap in the face to the military soldiers of faith who fight to uphold the Constitution that these anti-faith morons hide behind to push their ungodly agenda!
"The Military Religious Freedom Foundation threatened to sue, claiming that allowing the logos to be placed on Bibles violates the Constitution." Who the heck are they?
If a military person wants a Bible, what difference does it make if there is a military logo on it. This is just absurd. Next thing you know they will ban Bibles. How about we just leave it up the the military person whether or not they would like one with a logo?
They are going to 'ban' Bibles...it's only a matter of time.
My Bible tells me that the 'only way to be saved is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ'. Now THAT IS NOT a 'policically correct' statment and after all, we now live in a 'policically correct world'... and to a Muslum, a Buddist, a Satanist, an Athiest and any number of other 'religions'....you CANNOT say that.
The end of all things as we now know it is soon to take place, and the final events will be rapid ones. And if you DON'T believe in Jesus Christ, you WILL BE LOST!
A person's Constitutional rights and guarantees do not vanish when they enlist. I promise you, this will not stand, but we, most definitely, will. So will our fighting men and women. They will stand tall and strong. Even, and especially our infirmed, battle-scarred warriors, no longer in physical military action, no longer able to stand, but who rise nonetheless, in spirit, with the rest of us. Those bearing the marks of life-sacrificing service.
Yes, this wrankles my wrinkles, but I will not incite violence of any kind save at the ballot box. We will persist and prevail there. That's where we shall have our victory. It's but the start of "a long, hard slog".
At what point do you say no more and take up arms as our founding fathers once did? Or do we just continue to protest to a non existant media and vote in fraudeluant elections until we no longer have any rights left, with no 2nd amendment to take our liberties back?
What a shame. It's a disgrace how far this country has run from her Christian roots, and more of a disgrace at the church leaders of the past few decades, who have allowed minority groups to take away freedom of religion for so many, especially our military who continue to fight for all rights. Pathetic.
I now see Obama's 'October Surprise'. He will sign an Executive Order that prohibits any Christian from voting in the elections, citing seperation of Church and State. His reasoning? If you mark the ballot, then you are mixing your religious beliefs with the State business of elections. That, of course, could never be allowed, or so he would think.
Four short years ago, this type of thinking would have been considered purely ridiculous. Even though much of my thought is considered that anyway, we see that it's now not beyond the realm of possibility.
It won't stand, of course, because we will not allow this to happen, even if he attempts it. We will stop it one way or the other, whether it be with ballots or bullets. If he wants to draw out the warrior in all of us, well then so be it. There are many things that are worth fighting for and Obama doesn't even realize what he has stirred in all of us by slowly trying to take them away.
When our miltary leaders can burn Bibles so as not to "offend" our enemy, it's no longer surprising that they would remove their logos from the Scriptures. :-(
I think he does sir. He wants us to riot and commence the violence, he has made every effort and then some to do just that, which he will quash, suspend habeas corpus, and suspend the bill of rights as he declares a state of emergency. We must be the patient faithful people we have been and voice our opinions in writing, with our votes, and with the way we raise our children. So help us God.
You just have to wonder how a military logo on a Christian Bible hurts the non-believers? Is the military paying for it?
I prefer this...
AMERICANS for Religious Freedom threatened to countersue advising that NOT allowing logos to be placed on Bibles violates the Constitution.
So there! Now someone who has a clue needs to make that happen.
The Liberal ASSAULT on Freedom of Speech and Religion goes on. The November election is looking more and more like it's going to be only step 1 of a long journey back to where we belong.
I'm especially fond of my "Army Bible". In addition to the Scriptures it has Biblical quotes from great Spartans of the past. You mean to tell me that the PC police have banned that US Army logo on my Bible? Man, how low we have sunk in just 5 short years. This sorry ass administration has done more damage in the short time it has been in office than Dhimi Carter and Billy Bob Klinton combined. I hope God takes them all to the woodshed real soon.