Support or tolerate.

Good luck getting any of our elected officials to raise that point *and in those terms*. I’m not aware of any who have, but I could be wrong about that.

Agreed that is the consequence of speaking out by military personnel on active duty. Which doesn’t neccessarily make what they’ve said incorrect. And if correct, as is the case with Lt. Col. Lohmeier, then those officers who support the Marxist takeover of the military are guilty of treason. Starting with Sec. Def. Austin.

Billy Mitchell: Crusader for Air Power by Alfred F. Hurley (2006)

Mitchell’s argument with the US Military’s civilian administrators and upper echelons was over strategy and tactics. 25 years later, WWII proved him entirely correct in his views.

It can be argued that from the standpoint of defending the Constitution, any totalitarian ideology is a strategic and potentially mortal threat to the survival of Constitutional governance. In which case, anyone in the military whose actions do not support vehement opposition to a totalitarian ideology is guilty of treason.

The Commander of the Space Force, in firmly opposing the Marxist takeover of the military is simply doing his duty, as his oath to the U.S. Constitution requires.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that his motivation wasn’t self-aggrandizement, apparently the Lt. Col. thought that unlikely…

“As Army Chief of Staff, Taylor was an outspoken critic of the Eisenhower administration’s “New Look” defense policy, which he viewed as dangerously overreliant on nuclear arms and neglectful of conventional forces; Taylor also criticized the inadequacies of the Joint Chiefs of Staff system. Frustrated with the administration’s failure to heed his arguments, Taylor retired from active service in July 1959. He campaigned publicly against the “New Look,” culminating in the publication in January 1960 of a highly-critical book, The Uncertain Trumpet.”

Retired shortly before publishing his book. Recalled to active duty by JFK in 1961.

One thing that sort of confirms my notion about people choosing not to consume media that doesn’t regularly confirm their biases is the post Trump cratering of CNNs ratings. As most of us I’m sure know, during the Trump era CNN was riding high, even regularly beating FNC in the ratings. They were pretty much the official 24/7-365 Orange Man Bad channel. And a subset of consumers obviously loved it. They were addicted to hating Trump. They would gleefully tune in to hear literally anything negative about Trump. It really didn’t matter if it was actually true or not. And CNN was more than happy to oblige. And obviously with Trump gone, that audience has vanished.

This highlights some unfortunate things about human nature, how we can sometimes become addicted to hating a person or a group, and become more willing to ignore obvious truths in favor of lies that are more in line with our world view. I’d like to pretend that we on the right aren’t susceptible to such behavior, but I know that’s not quite true all the time.

So unfortunately, not only are many if the news media not punished for telling a lie, often times they’re rewarded.

That’s a fair question and it requires a comprehensive answer.

Yes, technically the Col. did violate that provision of the law. Technically because he simply wrote a book outlining his objections, rather than publicizing it through the media.

Conservative media’s attention to him is a result of his firing, rather than to his expressed observations. Had the military ignored him, odds are his book would have remained the equivalent of a small stone thrown into a big lake.

Firstly, only an officer at his rank or above will have an in depth knowledge of exactly what is being implemented from above and be familiar with the mind set of those at the top, including the current political climate directing the military’s top echelons.

We all have a fairly good take on what is going on but not the in depth knowledge that an officer at that level possesses.

Ideally, a very recently retired officer would have written that book.

All this said, does a serving officer, sworn to uphold the Constitution have an obligation to speak out when they observe a coordinated series of attacks upon it with a clear intention to overturn it and use the transformed military to impose tyranny upon his country?

If not, at some point, such officers, NCOs and troops will face a choice; betray their oaths and support tyranny or resort to armed revolt.

That’s because while it only takes one side to conduct a war, it takes two sides to reach a lasting peace.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/05/19/bidens-please-clap-speech-was-actually-ripped-off-from-reagan-but-it-fell-flat-n383351

Basically, he stole a joke from Reagan, changed the lead-in from complimentary to derogatory, and mangled the punch-line.
And his delivery was atrocious.

Bonus: videos of the original Reagan clip, and Johnny Carson on Biden’s plagiarism in 1987 (that the Democrats kept this failure in office for another quarter century says all you need to know about their ethics as a Party).