[RealJustme]

Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say President Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was with Delta Force and later Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”


Boykin said the future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, since colonels who would be generals also are being relieved of duty, if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

A recent Department of Defense document released to CNN reports that Obama has personally purged some 197 high ranking officers in the past five years, most with no reason given, since they serve at the President's discretion. The one thing the 197 officers had in common was their military records indicated they were registered Republican voters. Boykin pointed out that the officers appointed to replace them were often very junior officers not prepared for the jobs other than being Obama supporters.

[Clownkicker]

RealTool is so used to swilling down propaganda he doesn't even recognize it as such any longer.

"...and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND."

Calling Congress' failure to pass a funding bill "the Obama sequester” is your first tip off of coming propaganda, RealTool.
Congress got us into the sequester by refusing to pass a funding measure, not Obama.
Now if Obama had vetoed a budget sent to him, then yes, it would be an Obama sequester, but he didn't.
You have to learn to recognize when your handlers are manipulating you, you poor clueless bastard.

"Boykin said the future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, since colonels who would be generals also are being relieved of duty, if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist."

The entire military is a socialist organization.
To pretend that a socialist organization doesn't like 'socialists' is idiotic.
But beyond that, your propaganda piece only attempts to leave some vague impression that the military thinks such things when it was only unnamed "critics" brought up for no reason who think it.

You reactionaries have been pretending you want to cut expenses by the government for decades.
Now, because you refuse to provide money to pay the salaries of unneeded personnel, you want to blame the guy (whom you refused to provide those funds) for living within the budget you have funded.
You can't have it both ways.
You want to cut government spending? You have to cut unneeded personnel.
As always, you want to cut taxes and you want your "across the board" cuts but you don't like the results of your bad policy.
That's why liberals warn you about this stuff every time you're voting for bad policy.

[RealJustme]

You want to cut government spending? You have to cut unneeded personnel.

Finally something me and clown agree on. We both agree that continuing to grow the Government and start new agencies must be stopped. There should be no such thing as a non essential public employee, terminate them all so they can find jobs in the private sector because every one of them are essential or they don't exist.

[johnforbes]

At EPA, over 90 percent of employees were categorized as non-essential during the recent slowdown.

Ergo, fire the non-essential ones.

Dept of Interior, Education, Transportation, Labor...many of these depts do nothing of any real importance to America.

[RealJustme]

At EPA, over 90 percent of employees were categorized as non-essential during the recent slowdown.

Imagine a private company not receiving tax money having 90% non-essential workers, the would burn through their start up capital in 3 months or less then go belly up. Boards made up of citizens should be appointed to go through every Government agency and review every position to determine if the position is really essential. If an agency can't make a case tax payers are getting a good return of service for their tax money the positions should be eliminated.

I assure you, those boards would identify 10's of thousands positions that really don't do anything but draw checks. In many cases Government Agency heads hire people just to elevate their positions to higher pay grades...the more people they lead the more money they get. After all it all free money and there is no expectation for return on tax payer investment.

[elklindo69]

At EPA, over 90 percent of employees were categorized as non-essential during the recent slowdown.

Imagine a private company not receiving tax money having 90% non-essential workers, the would burn through their start up capital in 3 months or less then go belly up. Boards made up of citizens should be appointed to go through every Government agency and review every position to determine if the position is really essential. If an agency can't make a case tax payers are getting a good return of service for their tax money the positions should be eliminated.

I assure you, those boards would identify 10's of thousands positions that really don't do anything but draw checks. In many cases Government Agency heads hire people just to elevate their positions to higher pay grades...the more people they lead the more money they get. After all it all free money and there is no expectation for return on tax payer investment.

The term "non essential" is something that gets spun by the right wing so it meets their ideological screed. In a manufacturing firm, the only "essential" workers are production and quality.

IT, HR, finance and all other support staff are considered "non essential."

[johnforbes]

I'm not in the Right Wing, nor did I post a screed.

Nor was I citing a screed.

What I did was use the very categorization of the federal department.

Everybody knows that huge chunks of the govt are arguably nice to have, but essential for nothing. There are deputy, and assistant, and associate positions all over the govt which are total wastes of public money.

Even DoD has chaplains, psychologists, spindoctors -- all sorts of non-essential people.

Educ, Transportation, Labor, EPA...these agencies are loaded with non-essential people eating up public monies.