Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Melanie Morgan threatens Jon Soltz with Violence

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 12:37 AM
Original message
Melanie Morgan threatens Jon Soltz with Violence
Crossposted from Dailykos

Topping Keith Olbermann's Worst Person Totem Poll for the second time in a week - KSFO Radio Host Melanie Morgan continues her attack on Votevots.org Chairman Jon Soltz.

Watch Video

The worst part isn't that, as Keith points out again and I diaried earlier this week, she's completely wrong about reservists being able to participate in politics - she threatens Soltz.

Morgan: Jon Soltz is still a hypocritical cockroach. He needs to be stomped on and neutralized before he and his ilk can silence military support for the mission in Iraq.

I'm just asking but, exactly how many different ways do you know of to "neutralize a cockroach"? How many ways do you stop someone from speaking out politically? Think about it for a second and what do you come up with?

Yeah, I thought so.

And just what does the Dod have to say about Morgan accusations about Soltz's political activity? (Via Media Matters)

Today, Epstein said two sets of rules help protect the integrity of the political process: a DoD directive for active-duty service members and the Hatch Act for federal civilians. These rules keep the military out of partisan politics and ensure that the workplace remains politically neutral, he said.

That's not to imply that military members and civilian employees can't participate in politics. Epstein said DoD encourages both groups to register to vote and vote as they choose, and to urge others to vote. Both groups can sign nominating petitions for candidates and express their personal opinions about candidates and issues but only if they don't do so as representatives of the armed forces. Also, all federal employees can make contributions to political organizations or candidates.

Beyond that, the list of dos and don'ts differs widely, depending on whether the employee is an active-duty service member, a rank-and-file Civil Service employee, a political appointee or member of the career Senior Executive Service, Epstein said.

Capt. Jon Soltz is not currently on active duty, he's in the reserves and as such these rules and limitations don't apply to him.

You wanna talk about political hypocracy?

Where was Morgan when it was revealed that Lorita Doan at the GSA was violating the Hatch Act and using her position to participate in so blatant partisanship for the Republican party that the Inspector General recommended that she be fired?

Where was Morgan when Tim Griffin was illegally caging the votes of African-American Soldiers in Iraq as a member of the RNC?

Where was Morgan when Monica Goodling and Brad Schlozman admitted under oath to illegally administering political litmus tests to DOJ employees?

If active duty members of the military can't appear at political rallies in uniform then how do you explain this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or...

The fact is that there loopholes in the uniform/politics rule besides the fact that it is largely directed at active duty members of the military it says that uniforms http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf">are prohibited ...

(2) When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.

Obviously since the President consider himself to be a "competant authority" - hey, quick snickering - he can have uniformed active duty officers appear anytime and anywhere he feels like, even at a completely political event like when he declared Mission Accomlished four years ago.

But that's the kind of ridiculous double-standard we've grown to expect from Repubs isn't it?

In recent days Dailykos has taken flack for random comments about gassing Joe Lieberman even though the comment clearly wasn't meant to be taken literally and had nothing to do with Jews or the Holocaust and it was heavily criticized and troll-rated by other commenters long before O'Reilly got wind of it, it has been used repeatedly to argue that DKos is a "Hate Site."

Meanwhile as Jon Stewart pointed out, it has become common practice to accuse critics of the war of being traitors.

So let's really talk about Hate Speech, ok?

Guess what Melanie free speech really isn't absolute, and you've just stepped into the deep end since there is something that limits it called the Fighting Words Doctrine.

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Though that decision has been subsequently narrowed it still stands.

Any reasonable person would (and many here already have) vehemently oppose physical threats against Joe Lieberman for his political views - but just what do you say about someone who says that one of our veterans should be stomped like a cockroach!??

What would she say about the active duty soldiers who just spoke out in the New York Times about the Surge?

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. <...>

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Would she follow Ann Coulter's lead and suggest he should be fragged?

Would she suggest that this soldier should be added to the kind of hit list that right-wing extremists have put out against doctors they disagree with?

The identities of three of the seven doctors murdered in the past 10 years were listed on websites; there have been a further 17 attempted murders. Many such doctors now wear disguises and bullet-proof vests, live in fortified houses and vary their journeys to work.

One of those websites happened to belong to one of the right-wings recent media darlings - Randall Terry - but I certainly didn't see Morgan or Hannity distance themselves from him, did you?

Would Morgan similarly agree with real hate groups who gloated when a left-wing Judge was murdered?

"Well, I for one hope this was the work of some 'lone wolf' targeting those who aid or support or have connections with someone involved in acting against our race, or someone who has acted against those -- like Matt Hale -- who have stood up for our race."

The message concludes, "Let's hope it's only the beginning."

How about the actions of rabid right-wing anti-abortionist Eric Robert Rudolph who bombed the Atlanta Olympics, killed two people and injured 110?

Is this the kind of "Coachroach Stomping" you were talking about Melanie?

You know what these people are? They're Terrorists!

They use fear, intimidation, the threat of violence and actual violence to influence the coarse of political events.

If you have a disagreement with Soltz or VoteVets you and everyone else has every right to express that disagreement, no matter how fact-challenged it might be, but to talk of "silencing him" is crossing the line. IMO Those are Fighting Words.

Suggesting that he should watch his mouth or he might get hurt - is Terrorism. It's what was done to Salman Rushdie for daring to write his book The Satanic Versus - it's what was done to Keith Olbermann when some nutball sent him fake Anthrax - it's what was done to left-wing talk show host Alan Berg when he was murdered in 1984 for "talking too much" by a group of neo-nazi's who called themselves "The Order" in emulation of a group described in the infamous racist right-wing novel The Turner Diaries. A book, which not so coincidentally was Timothy McVeigh's favorite and which he too emulated faithfully in Oklahoma City.

Do you, Melanie, have fans that are this wacked-out? Would any of them really follow your lead and start to do some cockroach stomping with some mouthy liberal war protester? I don't know, but that's exactly the point - no one does, yet - and this is why endorsing violence isn't protected by the First Amendment.

If you agree with and endorse these types of actions (as your own comments and actions would tend to indicate) you - Melanie Morgan - are a Terrorist. You are inciting violence against American citizens.

And if you continue to use Fighting Words like these, you can expect that many of us will be Fighting Right Back by shining your hypocracy under a heat lamp!

Count on it.

Vyan

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Zookeeper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R. Good post, Vyan! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. There's errors in what this post contains.
First, it is possible to use squishing a cockroach as a metaphor without it being a threat of actual violence, as opposed to public humiliation to *neutralize* the "threat".

Second of all, being a reservist is a far cry from being completely retired. Even though cases against reservists for wearing the uniform while doing political activity have generally been settled out of a courtroom or with discharges that aren't unduly prejudicial, commissioned officers are lawfully required not to demean the civilian leadership including the commander in chief. (This is for highly obvious reasons.)

Third, when the President gives a speech to soldiers in a military setting, he is giving a speech to soldiers. He is not conducting a rally for a political party; he is conducting a rally for the President of the United States. Yes, damn right it is using the troops, but it's not the same as showing up as the only uniformed officer at a GOP fundraiser. And under the law, that makes a difference. Maybe in a perfect world it shouldn't but, you're arguing that the laws about campaigning in uniform simply don't apply to reservists; that would be in error.

Whether the votevets.org guy has done anything wrong, I personally have not the slightest clue, but I would imagine the main issue is elementarily simple: an active duty soldier is inherently a spokesman for the military, whereas Jon Soltz, reservist, is a spokesman for himself and the organization he heads, as a citizen, not as a representative of the Army. That makes all the difference in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Well....
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 02:16 AM by Vyan
First, it is possible to use squishing a cockroach as a metaphor without it being a threat of actual violence, as opposed to public humiliation to *neutralize* the "threat".


Oh, I'm sure it theoritically possible but exactly what condition said cockroach would be in post squish is probably not going to ge very comfortable no matter how it's accomplished.

You also have to take into account that this isn't the first time this person has made this type of inflamatory leading comment.

Morgan on Nancy Pelosi:

"We've got a bull's-eye painted on her big, wide laughing eyes,"


Simply a rhetorical statment? Maybe and maybe not. If it wasn't meant literally, she should no problem saying so - don't you think? Yeah, well - she hasn't.

Second of all, being a reservist is a far cry from being completely retired. Even though cases against reservists for wearing the uniform while doing political activity have generally been settled out of a courtroom or with discharges that aren't unduly prejudicial, commissioned officers are lawfully required not to demean the civilian leadership including the commander in chief. (This is for highly obvious reasons.)


That's true, but that doesn't belay anything I've said here. In fact, I've covered the issue of reservists being punished for wearing their uniforms at political rallies in previous posts. It has been handled internal to the military and Jon Soltz has been someone who specifically warned another reservist not to do it at Yearlykos.

Third, when the President gives a speech to soldiers in a military setting, he is giving a speech to soldiers. He is not conducting a rally for a political party; he is conducting a rally for the President of the United States.


Oh he's not a partisan when he's giving these speaches? What about when he stated in 2006 that ...

"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."


The fact is that the President, whether Democrat or Republican, is the functional head of their particular party. As I've stated in the diary he does have a loophole to use in using Troops for partisan purpose, and few President in the last century have exploited this too less effect than George W. Bush, but so is there a loophole for use of uniforms in pictures. Morgan's claim that Soltz is a "hypocrit" when reservist and Republican U.S. Congressman Stephen Buyer also features pictures of himself in uniform in his congressional website - is completely without merit.



Whether the votevets.org guy has done anything wrong, I personally have not the slightest clue, but I would imagine the main issue is elementarily simple: an active duty soldier is inherently a spokesman for the military, whereas Jon Soltz, reservist, is a spokesman for himself and the organization he heads, as a citizen, not as a representative of the Army. That makes all the difference in the world.


I've been on this issue since it broke, I've been to Pajamas Media and debated with them directly, I've communicated with the Vice Chairman of Votevets - I'm pretty confident that Soltz is completely in the clear.

Essentially you are correct on this point, an active duty soldier is a spokesperson for the military - Soltz is primarily a spokesmans for himself, and the other veterans he represents. It can not be argued that the President hasn't repeatedly used the military a if they were his own voice, while Morgan says...

Jon Soltz is this individual who says that he -- tells everybody he has the absolute moral authority to denounce the war in Iraq because he's an Iraqi war veteran.


So I supposed we should ignore the advice of people who've actually served in Iraq for those who've simply been on the dog and pony tours?

I think not.

Vyan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Thanks for the considerate reply. I strongly agree with the side you're on.
Re: the issue of presidents using soldiers, yes, presidents are partisan, but the er.. when you get down to it, the troops don't have much choice if presidents are committed strongly enough to putting them in such positions. The troops just aren't at liberty to choose to put themselves in that position above and beyond the positions the President chooses to place them in. Bush seems particularly crass about it. It just has - perhaps sadly - nothing to do with the way the law on politics in uniform is applied everywhere else.

And it is hideous and offensive to the principle of free speech for this Morgan person to argue against Soltz having moral authority to denounce the war because he's a war veteran. Being a war veteran isn't one of the things that disqualifies people from having freedom of political speech. Or put another way, it disqualifies people from having the freedom to denounce Republicans only - going after Democrats is fine. Sickening attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. isn't she the twit who stuck her fingers in her ears and sang
LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU to randi rhodes on a little tv debate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. No, that was Janet Parshall
Same species, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. oh, that's right. i always think it was this morgan bitch. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. Off to the greatest!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. Those photographs of personnel in uniform aren't fairly captioned as "appearing at rallies"
Those kids were FORCED to attend a speech by the Commander in Chief. They likely were inspected before they were forced to attend, too.

That wasn't a rally. That was a mandated muster. Big difference.

Don't allow them to frame the debate--this stupid fool of a woman is just WRONG. Every time she pipes up, pipe back "HEY STUPID--You're WRONG!!! You're so STUUUPID you don't even know the rules!! You're PROUD of your STUPIDITY!!!" Or words to that effect.

Two responses to her shit... ONE: STUPID. TWO: WRONG. Game, set, match.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Fair Point
for them it was a Muster, for the President it was Gravy.

Vyan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
18. Mandated or not...Bushed used it as a rally. makes nodiff in law if one ordered and one not
the result is the same...in uniform... at rally ( and don't say no choice they had to do it..., soldiers can refuse to break the law anytime they want. Technical I know but they aren't made to do it under the point of a gun just like they don't have to carry signs). They use when it's to their advantage and ignore it when it's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RadiDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 05:09 AM
Response to Original message
11. K&R! Melanie is maybe even more hateful than Anthrax Annie Coulter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patriot Abroad Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. no way!
not possible. Ann has worked hard for her special position at the bottom of the cess pit. But it is safe to say Melanie is moving down the ladder . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
13. How did Morgan get from
Gestapo radio to the corporate media where she has a larger audience? She should be, along with Ku Klux Kolter, made the face and voice of Republican ignorance. As for fighting back: I like the Mike Tyson approach, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." Not that I'm advocating violence, but make them hire body guards and continue looking over their shoulders whenever they leave the house. These people need to be purged from our environment and shipped off to............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turner Ashby Donating Member (140 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. If you hit her in the mouth
it would just be hitting one giant collagen marshmallow.

One thing, Soltz cannot be a gentleman with Ms. Morgan. He needs to take her on like a soldier. These woman take advantage of manners. BTW, I'm female.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. she does have one disgusting set
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onewholaughsatfools Donating Member (301 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
16. vyan, great post
thanks for you time and energy........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
17. Excellent post. Exactly what I was thinking...and feeling. She's lost her mind in hate.
She incites hatred and violence and encourages people to do her violent bidding. She should be banned from the airways put in an asylum. She is very sick and needs help. People were screaming "if we had only known, or paid attention, we could have done something about the Virginia Tech. shootings"...well here it is loud and clear and on public radio and we are just supposed to sit back and watch until someone gets hurt. Melanie Morgan is advocating violence, she's not just criticizing or disagreeing, she is advocating violence, inciting it on the public airways. She's lost her mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC