Comments on: Insight of a Sergeant Major http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/ in all matter of opinion, our adversaries are insane. Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:43:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Charles M. Prignano, Major, USAF, Retired http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/comment-page-1/#comment-737876 Charles M. Prignano, Major, USAF, Retired Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:41:51 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/#comment-737876 Sergeant Major Pendry, I hope this reaches you and all the other veterans out there. We - you, I and the other vets - took an oath: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Oath of Office (for military enlisted members. Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against <strong>all enemies, foreign and domestic</strong>; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."   The Oath of Office (for military officers. DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army/Navy/Marine Corps/Air Force/Coast Guard of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against <strong>all enemies, foreign or domestic</strong>, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx My question is quite simple: Are we in violation of our oath and in dereliction of our duty? Charles M. Prignano Major, USAF, Retired Sergeant Major Pendry,
I hope this reaches you and all the other veterans out there.
We – you, I and the other vets – took an oath: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Oath of Office (for military enlisted members. Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
 
The Oath of Office (for military officers. DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army/Navy/Marine Corps/Air Force/Coast Guard of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx My question is quite simple:
Are we in violation of our oath and in dereliction of our duty?
Charles M. Prignano
Major, USAF, Retired

]]> By: MSgt Merrill Vaughan, USAF (Ret) http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/comment-page-1/#comment-736581 MSgt Merrill Vaughan, USAF (Ret) Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:36:12 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/#comment-736581 Sgt Major, You are right on with your words. I only wish i had seen this long time back.  Thank you for speaking out against those that try to damage not only our faithful military but famlies as well. Wel Done, Sgt Major, You are right on with your words. I only wish i had seen this long time back.  Thank you for speaking out against those that try to damage not only our faithful military but famlies as well.

Wel Done,

]]> By: Robert http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/comment-page-1/#comment-250110 Robert Tue, 19 Sep 2006 07:14:55 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/#comment-250110 There are many, many more links. I don't wish to fill up RV with all of them. A Google search will list them. Theft of nuclear secrets did happen over more than one admin. But Klinton, with his known chicom finance links, had more than his share. Plus his special hands-on approval. He definitely deserves the "K". <em>That's</em> my point. There are many, many more links. I don’t wish to fill up RV with all of them. A Google search will list them.

Theft of nuclear secrets did happen over more than one admin. But Klinton, with his known chicom finance links, had more than his share. Plus his special hands-on approval.

He definitely deserves the “K”. That’s my point.

]]> By: Chuck Wolber http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/comment-page-1/#comment-250107 Chuck Wolber Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:56:54 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/#comment-250107 Robert, I'm sure you're a nice guy, but you didn't do yourself any favors by citing that article and opening up the "COX Report" can of worms. The COX report has never been fully declassified. Your article is at best circular reasoning begging the "questions" raised by the article you cite. Further, the author of this article conveniently omits critical facts, such as the fact that the accused researcher (Wen Ho Lee) who'd had his clearance revoked was later found completely innocent. Let's keep on going shall we :smile: The COX report is generally considered overstated, but what is not in dispute is that the theft of nuclear secrets happend <b>over several decades</b>. According to my math, there were more republican administrations over those "several decades" than democrat. Are you giving a pass to the Reagan and Bush administrations when you cite such an article? I'll remind you that the COX report was chaired by a majority of Republicans... Plenty more fodder in there, but I do need to get to bed. ..Chuck.. Robert, I’m sure you’re a nice guy, but you didn’t do yourself any favors by citing that article and opening up the “COX Report” can of worms.

The COX report has never been fully declassified. Your article is at best circular reasoning begging the “questions” raised by the article you cite.

Further, the author of this article conveniently omits critical facts, such as the fact that the accused researcher (Wen Ho Lee) who’d had his clearance revoked was later found completely innocent.

Let’s keep on going shall we :smile:

The COX report is generally considered overstated, but what is not in dispute is that the theft of nuclear secrets happend over several decades. According to my math, there were more republican administrations over those “several decades” than democrat. Are you giving a pass to the Reagan and Bush administrations when you cite such an article? I’ll remind you that the COX report was chaired by a majority of Republicans…

Plenty more fodder in there, but I do need to get to bed.

..Chuck..

]]> By: Robert http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/comment-page-1/#comment-250065 Robert Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:49:09 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/#comment-250065 By the way, SAR Pendry's statement nails it: 100% CORRECT. By the way, SAR Pendry’s statement nails it: 100% CORRECT.

]]> By: Robert http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/comment-page-1/#comment-250064 Robert Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:46:34 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/#comment-250064 Sorry to have to burst the bubble for Klinton legacy types. Klinton's legacy is in the toilet, and falling fast. Sorry to have to burst the bubble for Klinton legacy types. Klinton’s legacy is in the toilet, and falling fast.

]]> By: Robert http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/comment-page-1/#comment-250063 Robert Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:45:16 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/#comment-250063 <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf021098.htm" rel="nofollow">And if the Klinton supporters need more info, here's an article written by Bob Woodward, no friend of the Right:</a> It is about the Klinton connections to Chinese intelligence. And if the Klinton supporters need more info, here’s an article written by Bob Woodward, no friend of the Right:

It is about the Klinton connections to Chinese intelligence.

]]> By: Robert http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/comment-page-1/#comment-250057 Robert Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:20:40 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/#comment-250057 The "K" in Klinton isn't just cute. It's quite serious, and it is in honor of a special part of his legacy: When an American company tried to transfer missile guidance technology to the Chinese, the State Dept. blocked the transfer. Klinton stepped in at the request of the company and personally overrode the State Dept. and allowed the transfer to go through. As a result, the Chinese now have a much better means of targetting our cities with their ICBMs. Isn't that wonderful? Yaaaahhh! THANKS, Mr. Klinton! <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199907/ai_n8866062" rel="nofollow">Here's a link to an article detailing the Klinton China connection</a> Klinton had been financed by the Chinese since his early Arkansas days. So there you go, the quick lesson on why the K in "Klinton. The “K” in Klinton isn’t just cute. It’s quite serious, and it is in honor of a special part of his legacy: When an American company tried to transfer missile guidance technology to the Chinese, the State Dept. blocked the transfer. Klinton stepped in at the request of the company and personally overrode the State Dept. and allowed the transfer to go through.

As a result, the Chinese now have a much better means of targetting our cities with their ICBMs. Isn’t that wonderful? Yaaaahhh! THANKS, Mr. Klinton!

Here’s a link to an article detailing the Klinton China connection

Klinton had been financed by the Chinese since his early Arkansas days. So there you go, the quick lesson on why the K in “Klinton.

]]> By: Chuck Wolber http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/comment-page-1/#comment-250053 Chuck Wolber Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:03:56 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/#comment-250053 Man I wish I had the time to research and rebut this properly. I'm surprised he didn't throw in the cute little "K"linton. But I digress... I suppose the missle attack Clinton initiated on the AL Qaeda Sudanese chemical plant wasn't enough to cancel out some BS hyperbole about Somalia. ..Chuck.. Man I wish I had the time to research and rebut this properly.

I’m surprised he didn’t throw in the cute little “K”linton. But I digress… I suppose the missle attack Clinton initiated on the AL Qaeda Sudanese chemical plant wasn’t enough to cancel out some BS hyperbole about Somalia.

..Chuck..

]]> By: shiloh http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/comment-page-1/#comment-249858 shiloh Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:28:43 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2006/09/15/insight-of-a-sergeant-major/#comment-249858 insights from an objective individual with no partisan axe to grind. who could ask for a better review? insights from an objective individual with no partisan axe to grind. who could ask for a better review?

]]>