But even he said this:
I don't think a condemnation of any sort of act should happen until it's thought out. For instance, with Kaepernick, a pretty good group of people immediately thought he was disrespecting the military. It had nothing to do with his protest. In fact, he was able to do what he did because of what the military does for us.Countless others have said something similar: We should be grateful to the military who gave us the freedom to disrespect the National Anthem and the Flag,
By implication: the military has protected our First Amendment freedoms.
I must have missed it in history class, so I will ask:
Actually, most of America's wars have been fought on foreign soil against nations that had neither the desire nor the ability of conquering us, let alone censoring us.
And the reality is that the military has not protected the First Amendment. That's because the threat to it does not come from foreign "enemies."
Think of other provisions of the Bill of Rights...
It's not foreign enemies who've undermined the Second Amendment with thousands of federal, state, and local weapons laws; American politicians passed them.
It's not foreign enemies who've engaged in warrantless searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment: the Defense Department's own NSA does that.
It's not foreign enemies who use asset forfeiture laws to take our property without due process, in violation of the Fifth Amendment; our own police does.
It's not foreign enemies who detain terror suspects indefinitely, in violation of the Sixth Amendment; the military itself does that.
It's not foreign enemies who've inflicted cruel and unusual punishments such as lengthy sentences for drug offenses; Congress passed such laws.
The only clear and present danger to the Bill of Rights is our very own "government" that the military serves.
Do you really think the military can or will protect the First Amendment?