Fw: Article 92 of the UCMJ

Subject: Article 92 of the UCMJ

It is time for a reversal of government policy. No more kissing……...

She needs to find another line of employment.  Didn't want to stand or salute for the National Anthem.  Babbled some nonsense about the song not representing her.

Navy Sailor Refuses To Stand For National Anthem – IMMEDIATELY Regrets It


A former Navy intelligence specialist recently took a page out of Colin Kaepernick’s playbook and refused to stand for the national anthem during morning colors. However, she quickly learned she’d made a huge mistake…

Conservative Tribune reported that Petty Officer 2nd Class Janaye Ervin was stripped of her security clearance and assigned to menial labor for a few days before she was forced to leave the Navy for disrespecting our country so blatantly.

It all started on September 19, when Ervin refused to stand for the anthem when she was on reserve duty at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii. TheInternational Business Times reported that Ervin claimed she was trying to make a statement about blacks being persecuted in the United States by doing this.

“I just didn’t want to stand at that moment,” Ervin said. “I can’t stand for this song knowing that the song isn’t for me, being black. The song doesn’t represent me at all. To be honest, I never really thought about the flag my entire life, I had no reason to. It’s just a flag.”

The next day, Ervin’s superiors read her her rights and gave her a warning about potentially compromising her security clearance, which she needed for both her military and civilian job. One day after that, she was stripped of her security clearance and escorted out of the secure area where she was working.

Ervin is now claiming that she was never told which order she was violating, but this is clearly a lie since she violated the 10th general order for sentries, which is taught in Navy boot camp. All members of the Navy are forced to memorize all 11 general orders in bootcamp, and they are aware that violating any one of them is subject to Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and is subject to whatever punishment is decided by court-martial.

On September 21, Ervin took to Facebook to publicly whine about how “unfair” this has been for her.

“The Navy has decided to punish me for defending the Constitution and has taken away my equipment I need to do my Naval job,” she wrote, according toPopularMilitary.com.

Hey, Janaye, the Navy did not take ANYTHING from you – you forfeited your own job when you knowingly violated a general order.


CharlieE said...

I love the way that every member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders is an expert on everything having to do with the military.

Of course, if any of these clowns actually respected our country, they'd quit voting for the people who keep trying to defund everything that keeps it running smoothly.

delagar said...

If RWD had followed the links and read the source material, he would have found that the original story is much more interesting than the one he presents.

But yes, I know. Expecting RWD to read the sources. LOL.

ferschitz said...

I thought that being a USA citizen - whether enlisted in the Military or not - meant that we had all sorts of Freedumbs. Isn't that why the dirty muzlinz is all mad at us? For all of our Freedumbs??

Yet when this woman chose to exercise her constitutional rights, RWD is all up in arms and wants to court martial her. Some rightwingers responding to those linked articles want her killed... simply for not staning for the national anthem.

Huh. Some freedumbs. Color me utterly unsurprised.

Anonymous said...

"Ervin is now claiming that she was never told which order she was violating, but this is clearly a lie since she violated the 10th general order for sentries"

She wasn't on sentry duty.

blaney said...

Nothing this woman did put anyone in any kind of danger, nor did it present some kind of secruity breach. Given that, one assumes that the Military is pretty hide-bound and rule-based, so I would assume that doing something like this might result in consequences.

I think it's overkill, myself, but I'm not RWD who's dutifully propagandized to freak out over every possible perceived infraction on the part of the lazy lousy Blahs. Their politicians, OTOH, can pretty much do whatever they please, including robbing RWD (and the rest of us) blind.

Randall Delgado said...

She wanted her 15 minutes of fame and got it. This crap is getting a little old.

I don't care if you are purple.....you stand.


delagar said...

"I don't care if you are purple..."

Yes, but people aren't purple. When purple people become citizens of the USA and have their rights regularly violated by the police and our justice system, we can discuss their right to protest in the manner they see fit.

Meanwhile, the citizens of this country do have a right to protest. That's one of those rights that are inalienable.

Granted, however, this particular citizen was a member of the military. When you join the military, you (temporarily) surrender some of your civil rights and liberties.

That fact has nothing to do with whether this particular citizen was purple or not, however.

Anonymous said...

Purple, Black, whatever, she's a disgrace to our proud men and women in uniform.

Go do your "potesting" in civilian clothes, woman.

Anonymous said...


Randall Delgado said...

1st amendment rights apply to government vis-a-vis the individual/citizen. This member of the US Armed Forced protested in the work place. 1st amendment rights are not protected in the workplace.

delagar said...

Or while a citizen is a member of the military, which I noted.

But this was not the point you made. Your point, oddly enough, had to do with the color of the protester's skin.

As I stated, I don't see what the color of the protester's skin -- purple or otherwise -- has to do with her First Amendment Rights.

Randall Delgado said...

I do believe that most of these silly "protesters" that had been refusing to stand during our National Anthem were African-Americans.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Dunno. It seems that way to me.

delagar said...

What does their race have to do with their First Amendment Rights, "Randall"?

That's the question on the table.

Anonymous said...

Oh, the "Conservative Tribune reported", did they?

Too bad they didn't report that there was a Navy inquiry where the Navy backed down, agreed there were discrepancies, and granted Petty Officer Ervin her request for - an HONORABLE discharge. She left the Navy last December.

Odd they keep missing those details, no?

Creative Commons License
MyRightWingDad.net is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.