PDA

View Full Version : Soldier Who Read Conservative Books Now Faces Charges



Agravan
06-12-2013, 12:16 AM
Soldier Who Read Conservative Books Now Faces Charges

By Todd Starnes (http://twitter.com/toddstarnes)
A member of the U.S. Army Band who said he was reprimanded for having anti-Obama bumper stickers on his personal car, serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at a party and reading books written by conservative authors like Sean Hannity is now facing Article 15 charges – which cropped up shortly after he went public with his complaints.

Master Sgt. Nathan Sommers, a decorated soloist with the Army Band, is being charged under a federal law that permits commanding officers to conduct non-judicial proceedings for minor offenses.
Sommers is accused of giving a superior officer the wrong date for a doctor’s appointment. He’s also accused of failing to carry out an order. In order to comply with that order, Sommers would have had to disclose private information about his autistic son’s medical records.
The charges were handed down one day after Sommers told Fox News that he was facing discrimination and persecution because of his conservative political and religious beliefs.
“The timing does seem strange,” retired Navy Commander John Bennett Wells told Fox News. “It’s suspicious. No matter what’s happening it looks like a graduated attempt to build a case against him on some really ridiculous charges.
Wells is representing the 25-year veteran who, until last summer, had a spotless record.
The Military District of Washington disputed allegations that Sommers had been reprimanded or disciplined.
“The Soldier is not, and never has been, ‘facing retribution and punishment from the military for having anti-Obama bumper stickers on his car, reading books written by conservative authors like Mark Levin and David Limbaugh, and serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at his promotion party,’” Public Affairs Director Michelle Roberts told Fox News in a written statement.
However, Wells said that’s simply not true – and he said he’s got official Army documents to support his claims.
The MDW spokesman was either uninformed or was being disingenuous,” he said. “The counseling form clearly stated that he was being reminded of his limited ability to disagree with the President’s policies and implied that displaying the bumper stickers could lead to prosecution under the Hatch Act.”
He said the counseling form also reprimanded Sommers for tweeting about the Chick-fil-A party.
“The counseling form in itself is firm corroboration of the statements made by MSG Sommers to Fox News,” he said. “It also gives rise to the question of why the Army was data mining a soldier’s private tweets.”
Sommers’ troubles started last year when he was confronted about having pro-Republican and anti-Obama bumper stickers on his personal vehicle.
The stickers read: “Political Dissent is NOT Racism,” “NOBAMA,” NOPE2012” and “The Road to Bankruptcy is Paved with Ass-Fault.” That sticker included the image of a donkey.
His superior officer told the solider that the bumper stickers were creating “unnecessary workplace tension.”
“The types of stickers on your car were creating an atmosphere detrimental to morale and were creating unnecessary workplace tension,” the officer wrote in an Army document obtained by Fox News. “A Soldier must balance their personal feelings with the mission of the U.S. Army. Even the slightest inference of disrespect towards superiors can have a demoralizing effect on the unit.”
Sommers also came under fire for reading the works of Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and David Limbaugh. Last summer he was reading Limbaugh’s “The Great Destroyer” backstage at a concert when a superior officer told him that he was causing “unit disruption” and was offending other soldiers.
“I wasn’t read aloud,” Sommers told Fox News. “I was just reading privately to myself. I was told they were frowning on that and they warned me that I should not be reading literature like that backstage because it was offensive.”
Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity expressed dismay at the book censorship.
“What a sad day for American when an American hero can have his personal freedoms ripped away – when that very military he works for is on the frontlines defending those very freedoms for every United States citizen,” Hannity told Fox News. “What’s next – book burning? Government approved reading lists? State run media outlets? Can military members read Obama’s books?”
But the incident that led to an official investigation of Sommers came late last summer when he served Chick-fil-A sandwiches at his promotion party.
His promotion coincided with a controversy surrounding Chick-fil-A. The company’s president told a reporter that he was “guilty as charged” when it came to supporting traditional marriage. Gay rights activists pounced- calling for a boycott of the Christian-owned company. And some Democratic officials vowed to block Chick-fil-A from opening restaurants in their cities.
In response to that, Fox News Channel host Mike Huckabee launched a national Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day to rally support for the restaurant chain.
“I was inspired by Gov. Huckabee’s appreciation day,” Sommers told Fox News. “And since I wasn’t able to participate in the event, I decided to serve Chick-fil-A at my promotion party.”
It’s a long-standing tradition within the U.S. Army Band for promoted soldiers to host a party for their fellow troops. So the soldier decided to have Chick-fil-A cater the meal.
“My family likes Chick-fil-A and we like what they stand for,” he said. “I can make a statement and at least express a religious point of view at my promotion party – theoretically without any fear of reprisal.”
The soldier also tweeted about the party: “In honor of DADT repeal, and Obama/Holder’s refusal to enforce DOMA act, I’m serving Chick-fil-A at my MSG promo reception for Army today.”
He also tweeted to radio host Mark Levin: “@Marklevinshow ‘luv ya, Mark! Fellow Virginian & MSG, Army. Being promoted today, serving Chick-fil-A @ reception in honor of DADT repeal.”
Both tweets were cited in an official military document.
“As a Soldier you must be cognizant of the fact that your statements can be perceived by the general public and other service members to be of a nature bordering on disrespect to the President of the United States,” the document stated.
Sommers said he paid for the party with personal money, not government funds.
“I had no idea a Chick-fil-A sandwich would get me in trouble,” he said.
He was later summoned by a superior officer, who the soldier said is openly gay, and was told that unidentified individuals were offended by the tweets and some considered them to be racist.
Sommers was reprimanded, threatened with judicial action and given a bad efficiency report. An investigation was also launched.
“It’s an obvious attempt to set him up and force him out of the military,” Wells said. “They recently did an NCO evaluation that effectively torpedoed his chance at promotion and he could be forced out of the Army.”
Attorney Wells believes Sommers is being discriminated against not only because of his Christian faith, but also because of his objections to homosexuality.
“There’s no question about it,” Wells told Fox News. “Because he is religious, because he feels that homosexual conduct is wrong for religious reasons, he is basically being persecuted.”
During the course of their investigation, the military unearthed a tweet from 2010 that included a derogatory word for homosexuals. The soldier admitted that he had retweeted someone else’s original tweet.
“Lordy, Lordy, it’s faggot Tuesday. The lefty loons and Obamabots are out in full force,” the retweet read.
The soldier was hauled in to explain himself before a superior officer.
“He explained to me that homosexual Soldiers were now afraid of me,” Sommers said. “He showed me a letter from an Army Band colleague that demanded that I publicly apologize (to) the band for my statements and that I should be removed from positions of leadership and influence.”
Sommers admitted the retweet was a case of bad judgment on his part, but he said he believes that a group of homosexual soldiers are on a witch hunt and they were “attempting to dig up any negative information they could in order to silence me or ruin my career.”
Wells said there are a number of homosexuals serving in the Army Band and he believes they are ganging up on Sommers because of his religious beliefs.
Last Spring Sommers raised concerns after the US Army Chorus had been invited to perform with the Turtle Creek Chorale, one of the nation’s largest gay men’s choruses.
Sommers said he witnessed an “inappropriate sexual advance between one of the members of the chorale” and a member of the US Army Chorus involving a slap on a soldier’s backside.
“The rehearsal also featured sexual innuendo and banter which made me feel particularly uncomfortable, and a situation where a 10-year-old boy, who was asked to sing a solo with the Turtle Creek Chorale, was subjected to inappropriate, lewd behavior from the Chorale in the presence of the Army Chorus,” he said.
Wells said he witnessed similar behavior on an Army base involving two men exchanging affectionate words.
“When I was in the military any kind of public display of affection on a military installation would have been discouraged and frowned upon,” Wells said. “Now, it’s blatant. I’m not sure heterosexuals can do that.”
Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin told Fox News it appears the Army is trying to send a message to not only Sommers but others in his unit.

MORE: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/soldier-who-read-conservative-books-now-faces-charges.html/print/

Private Pickle
06-12-2013, 12:39 AM
I wonder what grade Article 15 he is facing.

patrickt
06-12-2013, 08:32 AM
When I was in the military I was told I would face an Article 15 hearing. I said I would reject it and demand a court martial. They could not possibly court martial me on what they'd cooked up and the whole matter was dropped.

CRUE CAB
06-12-2013, 08:44 AM
Bottom line is service members serve at the pleasure of the president. No disrespect real or precieved will be tolerated.

Private Pickle
06-12-2013, 09:44 AM
Bottom line is service members serve at the pleasure of the president. No disrespect real or precieved will be tolerated.

Errr...they serve at the pleasure of the People protected by the Constitution... The President, while Commander in Chief, was elected by the people and whose power is beholden to the Constitution.

patrickt
06-12-2013, 10:41 AM
Bottom line is service members serve at the pleasure of the president. No disrespect real or precieved will be tolerated.

And, if that is true and they wish to discharge him from the military they are free to do so. Are they free to officially punish him for their perceptions? I don't think so.

For the bumper sticker on his personal car, I think they're free to forbid it on base and nothing more.

For the private party, unless it was held on base it's none of their business.

Thank god he didn't serve any of the food liberals consider racist.

Micketto
06-12-2013, 12:07 PM
Bottom line is service members serve at the pleasure of the president. No disrespect real or precieved will be tolerated.

Then I'm sure they will just let him pack his stuff and leave, since he is not allowed to disagree with the Prez... or eat Chik-Fil-A (how dare he!) ?

No ??

Why doesn't the left appreciate these men that step up and VOLUNTARILY serve our country ?



If he refuses and forces a "real" hearing... they will drop it. All it will do is make the administration look more stupid, and less tolerant, than it already is.

Cigar
06-12-2013, 12:13 PM
Then I'm sure they will just let him pack his stuff and leave, since he is not allowed to disagree with the Prez... or eat Chik-Fil-A (how dare he!) ?

No ??

Why doesn't the left appreciate these men that step up and VOLUNTARILY serve our country ?



If he refuses and forces a "real" hearing... they will drop it. All it will do is make the administration look more stupid, and less tolerant, than it already is.

Why don't you support these exact same people when they return?

Then you call them takers.

Agravan
06-12-2013, 01:37 PM
Why don't you support these exact same people when they return?

Then you call them takers.
Typical. The same lefty geniuses that are unable to distinguish between "legal" and "illegal" immigration are unable to tell the difference between deadbeats (those that REFUSE to work or contribute) and veterans, those that have returned from a war with either physical or mental wounds to collect benefits they have EARNED. As well as old people that are collecting benefits they CONTRIBUTED to.
But hey, whatever adds to their propaganda. "By any means necessary." Right, cigar?

Cigar
06-12-2013, 02:07 PM
Typical. The same lefty geniuses that are unable to distinguish between "legal" and "illegal" immigration are unable to tell the difference between deadbeats (those that REFUSE to work or contribute) and veterans, those that have returned from a war with either physical or mental wounds to collect benefits they have EARNED. As well as old people that are collecting benefits they CONTRIBUTED to.
But hey, whatever adds to their propaganda. "By any means necessary." Right, cigar?

Ok ... so let me get this straight ... when Mitt-Loser was spouting off about "TAKERS", he was referring to 47% of the population that ... in yours and Mitt's words; "REFUSE" to Work ... really? Those 47% REFUSE to work or contribute; are you really going to stick with that argument?

Great plan ... but I can tell how it comes out. :grin:

Agravan
06-12-2013, 02:12 PM
Ok ... so let me get this straight ... when Mitt-Loser was spouting off about "TAKERS", he was referring to 47% of the population that ... in yours and Mitt's words; "REFUSE" to Work ... really? Those 47% REFUSE to work or contribute; are you really going to stick with that argument?

Great plan ... but I can tell how it comes out. :grin:
tell you what, why don't you tell us who he was talking about then, since you're in the know.

Cigar
06-12-2013, 02:23 PM
tell you what, why don't you tell us who he was talking about then, since you're in the know.

All I know is 47% of the population is a lot ...

I'm sure more than Mitt thought he was insulting once he got a chance to look at the numbers who voted against him the day after the Election. .

nic34
06-12-2013, 02:45 PM
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/non-payers-by-state.jpeg (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/where-do-the-47-percent-live/non-payers-by-state/)

Of the states with the lowest non-payment rates, only three–Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska–are clearly in Romney’s column. These are also the states with the lowest population. On the other hand, eight of the ten states with the highest non-payment rates are solidly Republican. The exceptions are New Mexico and Florida. In short, Romney’s geographic base is in states where large numbers of households pay no net federal income tax.

Of course, it’s possible that all or most of these “lucky duckies” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_duckies) are voting for Obama. But it’s more likely that Romney shares the delusion that the freeloaders and looters are concentrated in the Northern, coastal cities that Democratic dominate. Actually, the states they call home are the heart of his electoral strategy.

:laugh:

jillian
06-12-2013, 02:59 PM
Of the states with the lowest non-payment rates, only three–Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska–are clearly in Romney’s column. These are also the states with the lowest population. On the other hand, eight of the ten states with the highest non-payment rates are solidly Republican. The exceptions are New Mexico and Florida. In short, Romney’s geographic base is in states where large numbers of households pay no net federal income tax.

Of course, it’s possible that all or most of these “lucky duckies” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_duckies) are voting for Obama. But it’s more likely that Romney shares the delusion that the freeloaders and looters are concentrated in the Northern, coastal cities that Democratic dominate. Actually, the states they call home are the heart of his electoral strategy.

:laugh:

if that delusion were correct, then the red states would be paying more into the system than they take from the feds. that isn't the case.

the blue states are the donor states that the red states freeload off of and pay more into the federal govt than they take.

Mister D
06-12-2013, 03:25 PM
if that delusion were correct, then the red states would be paying more into the system than they take from the feds. that isn't the case.

the blue states are the donor states that the red states freeload off of and pay more into the federal govt than they take.

The red states typically have a lot more blacks proportionally and thus substantially more poverty they otherwise would not have. Moreover, those blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

Mister D
06-12-2013, 03:27 PM
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/non-payers-by-state.jpeg (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/where-do-the-47-percent-live/non-payers-by-state/)

Of the states with the lowest non-payment rates, only three–Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska–are clearly in Romney’s column. These are also the states with the lowest population. On the other hand, eight of the ten states with the highest non-payment rates are solidly Republican. The exceptions are New Mexico and Florida. In short, Romney’s geographic base is in states where large numbers of households pay no net federal income tax.

Of course, it’s possible that all or most of these “lucky duckies” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_duckies) are voting for Obama. But it’s more likely that Romney shares the delusion that the freeloaders and looters are concentrated in the Northern, coastal cities that Democratic dominate. Actually, the states they call home are the heart of his electoral strategy.

:laugh:

If Louisiana, for example, sent all its blacks to Arizona what do you think would happen? :afro:

Agravan
06-12-2013, 03:33 PM
If Louisiana, for example, sent all its blacks to Arizona what do you think would happen? :afro:Arizona would declare war on Louisiana?http://serve.mysmiley.net/fighting/fighting0061.gif
:smiley_ROFLMAO:

Mister D
06-12-2013, 03:35 PM
Arizona would declare war on Louisiana?http://serve.mysmiley.net/fighting/fighting0061.gif
:smiley_ROFLMAO:

lol

CRUE CAB
06-13-2013, 02:25 PM
Errr...they serve at the pleasure of the People protected by the Constitution... The President, while Commander in Chief, was elected by the people and whose power is beholden to the Constitution.
And all senior miltary will follow the presidents directive. Meaning the orders coming from your superior may very well be coming from the commander in chief. Like him or not.
When did you think the military was a democracy?

CRUE CAB
06-13-2013, 02:28 PM
Then I'm sure they will just let him pack his stuff and leave, since he is not allowed to disagree with the Prez... or eat Chik-Fil-A (how dare he!) ?

No ??

Why doesn't the left appreciate these men that step up and VOLUNTARILY serve our country ?



If he refuses and forces a "real" hearing... they will drop it. All it will do is make the administration look more stupid, and less tolerant, than it already is.
Maybe he will and maybe they will. But his up ward mobility is stopped. He has set himself apart in a uniform service.
He will be treated like a pariah untill they can get rid of him.

nic34
06-13-2013, 03:47 PM
The red states typically have a lot more blacks proportionally

Got a source?

How many live in NY, New Eng., ILL, Cal., Wash, OH, PA, IN......?

Mister D
06-13-2013, 04:35 PM
Got a source?

How many live in NY, New Eng., ILL, Cal., Wash, OH, PA, IN......?

Seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population