The Empire Strikes Back: US Ranger Corps, Etc.

[FW]

^Yep.

Voice, If you are/were a member, you are living in the past.  CAP is not the organization you think it is or was.  

It isn't the "dead weight" holding members back.  It's people who continually attempt to mold CAP into their own image.  

If you have problems with the Board of Governors, go to your congressman.  

The Air Force controlls 4 members of the BoG.  Let them influence the other 7.

From my perspective, I see no misconduct on the part of the BoG.  I see no integrity loss and I make no excuses.  I'm just stating the way it is.  

In the last 9 months, CAP has undergone some very positive changes.  Some are readily apparent, some will take time to gel.  In any event, we move forward and will secede in our efforts.  As I stated in my previous post;  I will remain focused on my little corner of the universe.  

[BillB]

The government appears not to have control of "United States something". For example. United States Olympic Committee, or United States Steel.

[ColonelJack]

There is an established procedure for the removal of the National Commander, it was not followed.

The established procedure of which you speak is in regulations.  But the former National Commander was removed by the Board of Governors, established by Congress and answerable only to them -- not to the membership of CAP nor the Air Force.  They made the call that Mr. Pineda had to go; the way things are set up, it's not the privilege of the rank-and-file to question it.  Salute and execute, you know.

Will the Air Force PLEASE step in and get this house in order!?!

Why?  What is so seriously out of whack that you think Big Brother Blue needs to apply the Board of Education to CAP?  Because the BoG did their jobs? 

Seems like somebody needs a reality check.

Jack

[isuhawkeye]

Will the Air Force PLEASE step in and get this house in order!?!

Not ten years ago we had a full scale FBI raid with Air Force, and congressional intervention. 

How many times does the Air force have to bail CAP out of its own messes

[mikeylikey]

Is someone allowed to incorporate an organization with the words "United States something something" in the name without the permission of the United States government? Doesn't this create the image of a federal agency? Doesn't the logo, mission, and uniform create the same misconception?

I think the government will shut this experiment down as soon as it finds out about this. USAF and the DOD would be prudent to do so since the said person was charged with cheating on a USAF exam.

USAF and DOD have nothing to do with his group.  In fact, I can start a group called the "US Air Force Boys Club" and get away with it.  Now....if he wants to wear Army Uniforms, all he has to do is make sure there are no "federal monikers" on said uniform and they can't do anything about it.  Look at the American Cadet Alliance.   

[CAPSGT]

Will the Air Force PLEASE step in and get this house in order!?!

Not ten years ago we had a full scale FBI raid with Air Force, and congressional intervention. 

And that is the reason we have the BoG to begin with!

Also, I see this discussion heading down in flames quickly som I'm going to step in before Mike hits that lock button I know he's itching to hit.  

From the Membership Code of Conduct:

Members will not attempt to circumvent the profanity filter.  There is a filter in place which attempts to prevent the most objectionable words from being posted on the site.  Any extensive use of blocked words or attempts to circumvent the filter with alternate spellings, characters, or by other means is not acceptable.
 
Members will not engage in libel, slander, name-calling, or personal attacks.  Members will not post any hateful material about any person, unit, or organization.  There is a line between leadership examples and scenarios, or having constructive discussions about problems without naming names, and attacking others outright.  Personal threats are also strictly prohibited.

Members violating the code of conduct may be subject to any number of sanctions, including but not limited to: warnings, temporary suspension of posting privileges or account, temporary restrictions from certain forums, public admonition, alteration of post count and/or user rank, account deletion, and permanant ban from the discussion boards. 

Members are solely responsible for the content of their own posts and hereby release the discussion board, its administrators, moderators, staff, superiors, subordinates, affiliates, officers, employees, workers, family members, executors, and other associated persons from any liability and hold them harmless from any claim or demand, regardless.

[mikeylikey]

Will the Air Force PLEASE step in and get this house in order!?!

Not ten years ago we had a full scale FBI raid with Air Force, and congressional intervention. 

And that is the reason we have the BoG to begin with!

Also, I see this discussion heading down in flames quickly som I'm going to step in before Mike hits that lock button I know he's itching to hit.  

From the Membership Code of Conduct:

Members will not attempt to circumvent the profanity filter.  There is a filter in place which attempts to prevent the most objectionable words from being posted on the site.  Any extensive use of blocked words or attempts to circumvent the filter with alternate spellings, characters, or by other means is not acceptable.
 
Members will not engage in libel, slander, name-calling, or personal attacks.  Members will not post any hateful material about any person, unit, or organization.  There is a line between leadership examples and scenarios, or having constructive discussions about problems without naming names, and attacking others outright.  Personal threats are also strictly prohibited.

Members violating the code of conduct may be subject to any number of sanctions, including but not limited to: warnings, temporary suspension of posting privileges or account, temporary restrictions from certain forums, public admonition, alteration of post count and/or user rank, account deletion, and permanant ban from the discussion boards. 

Members are solely responsible for the content of their own posts and hereby release the discussion board, its administrators, moderators, staff, superiors, subordinates, affiliates, officers, employees, workers, family members, executors, and other associated persons from any liability and hold them harmless from any claim or demand, regardless.

Are you trying to say there was no FBI raid, and the poster made that comment up?  Cause I do believe it did happen. 

Also, what post offends you specifically, be nice to know which one so we don't reference it or make a similar post.   

[isuhawkeye]

I'm not sure what this is all about.  Did my post offend someone, or did I say something inappropriate?

[mikeylikey]

^ I don't think so.......I was also confused. 

[CAPSGT]

Sorry, I was trying to make one post as opposed to 2 completely separate posts.  Yes, the FBI raid happened and that is why we have the BoG to begin with.

As for my referencing the MCOC I'm not going to name names or cite posts, but intentionally adding a couple letters to prevent the profanity filters from triggering is a no no.  It's there for a reason.  Also, remember that if you are going to fully accuse somebody of something (without qualifying it with something like "allegedly") you should have something to back your statements up.

A lot has been discussed since I last logged in yesterday and I just wanted to offer a friendly reminder to everyone before this one gets too ugly and gets locked.....again

[mikeylikey]

^ Gotcha 

[Ricochet13]

Guys

Tony Pineda is gone!!! Let it go!!

Ditto.  :clap:  Lot's of other things and issues that need working on.

[JoeTomasone]

Is someone allowed to incorporate an organization with the words "United States something something" in the name without the permission of the United States government? Doesn't this create the image of a federal agency? Doesn't the logo, mission, and uniform create the same misconception?

Yes, they are, and yes, it can cause confusion based on the name.   Here in Tampa there is a "United States Cleaners" and a "United States Adjusters".  I've received mail from the "United States Tax Service" (or something similar) offering to do my taxes, and I've seen several other government-sounding companies sending mail marked "OFFICIAL USE ONLY" -- a ploy to get you to open it instead of tossing it.   

I think the government will shut this experiment down as soon as it finds out about this. USAF and the DoD would be prudent to do so since the said person was charged with cheating on a USAF exam.

Unless there is already a "U.S. Ranger Corps" that exists as a legitimate government entity, I don't see what grounds they have to do anything about it.    It's a private corporation that is apparently not violating any U.S. law. 

I've seen similar things happen in the Amateur Radio Emergency Service where disenfranchised members go out and create a similarly-purposed group with an official-sounding name, then contact the "customers" and offer their competing services.    In most cases, this isn't an issue since the customer simply states that they already have such a service from ARES and don't need another, but it does cause confusion and lots of phone calls.   

But aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?   We don't know what the goal of this new organization is.  It might be completely complimentary to CAP instead of competitive.    It might have a very local focus instead of a National one.   We don't even have any real information that Mr. Pineda has made himself a Lt. General, and yet we're all posting here as if this was all verified fact. 

[0]

I think the government will shut this experiment down as soon as it finds out about this. USAF and the DoD would be prudent to do so since the said person was charged with cheating on a USAF exam.

Unless there is already a "U.S. Ranger Corps" that exists as a legitimate government entity, I don't see what grounds they have to do anything about it.    It's a private corporation that is apparently not violating any U.S. law. 

I've seen similar things happen in the Amateur Radio Emergency Service where disenfranchised members go out and create a similarly-purposed group with an official-sounding name, then contact the "customers" and offer their competing services.    In most cases, this isn't an issue since the customer simply states that they already have such a service from ARES and don't need another, but it does cause confusion and lots of phone calls.   

But aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?   We don't know what the goal of this new organization is.  It might be completely complimentary to CAP instead of competitive.    It might have a very local focus instead of a National one.   We don't even have any real information that Mr. Pineda has made himself a Lt. General, and yet we're all posting here as if this was all verified fact. 

Well the issue why they could get all over He Who Must Not be Named is if his uniforms are in any way similiar to the Army as has been previously stated.  So if he's taking current Army Uniform and making his own version if you will the Department of the Army can be all over him. 

[mikeylikey]

^No.  As long as there is no Army or federal insignia on the uniform, groups are allowed to use the Army Uniform for their own endeavors.

You can take the Army Dress Green Uniform, and remove the "US" cutouts, and Army buttons, and use the uniform for whatever you want. 

I again make reference to the American Cadet Alliance.  Their uniforms are so very close to an Actual Army uniform it is distgusting.  From five feet away you can not tell the difference between one of their Officers and an Army Officer.  That is why I always find it so funny the AF throws a hissy fit when it comes to the AF-style CAP uniform. 

[0]

But you have to admit from the experience we've had in our program he will try and make it look as like the Army as possible.  Espeically the cutouts, I mean he doesn't want to be confused for the as yet to be formed "Brazilian Ranger Corps". 

[mikeylikey]

^ Nice.....and you are most likely right! 

[The Voice of Reason]

It's amusing that this organization touts its ethics and core values and whatnot, yet:

1). If Pineda was a little goofy, why was he able to make it to the top in the first place?
2). Pineda was removed as the direct result of a complaint by a person who was kicked out of the program and who was upset that Pineda wouldn't stop the IG investigation against him.

Yes, swift action must be taken to keep our Air Force brothers happy, but in a case of that magnitude, special care must be taken to ensure that every action taken was strictly in accordance with the regulations, that way there is no quesition of fairness or due process later.

I also found it interesting that when the status quo was challenged, the discussion turned from the issues at hand to personal attacks.

No, I am not the bored college kid from whenever.  I became aware of this forum for the first time when I heard about the US Ranger Corps, googled it, and the results lead me here.  As of the time I click on "Post", this will be my 3rd message ever posted under this or any name.

I was not present when he was removed but I've read the relevant parts of the constitution and bylaws and I know the procedures for removal of the National commander were ignored.


For clarification:

Despite its many many problems, I love this organization and I want to see it achieve its full potential.

I am not pro-Pineda per se, I just think the situation was handled very badly on all sides, and to maintain integrity corrective action must be taken.

With his law enforcement background, Pineda may have brought an attitude that he has a "right to be in charge" with him that may have rubbed people the wrong way (don't know, never met him).  Either way, even if his name were cleared completely, he is damaged goods now.

In my opinion, much of the discussion on this forum about this subject has been in poor taste and bad judgement.

I think the USRC is silly, will amount to nothing and is not a threat to this organization.  I also believe that if he wants to give it a go, let him.  There's nothing he can do to threaten this organization so why worry?

I am disappointed by the overall level of maturity displayed on this forum.

[mikeylikey]

I am disappointed by the overall level of maturity displayed on this forum.

[Pylon]

It's amusing that this organization touts its ethics and core values and whatnot, yet:

1). If Pineda was a little goofy, why was he able to make it to the top in the first place?
2). Pineda was removed as the direct result of a complaint by a person who was kicked out of the program and who was upset that Pineda wouldn't stop the IG investigation against him.

We're still talking about this?  I realize you're new to CAPTalk, but literally this subject matter has been beaten to death in this discussion community here with thousands of posts.  Pretty much all of us have moved beyond the Pineda fiasco.

Yes, swift action must be taken to keep our Air Force brothers happy, but in a case of that magnitude, special care must be taken to ensure that every action taken was strictly in accordance with the regulations, that way there is no quesition of fairness or due process later.

The BoG is not bound by CAP regulations, thus they did not need to be followed.  There was no impropriety, nor the appearance of it.  The BoG was within their powers and rights to do what they did.  The BoG is responsible directly to Congress and was empowered by Congress to do pretty much anything needed with CAP. 

If the United States Congress said in their official capacity "Civil Air Patrol, you need to do this."  CAP members can't reply to Congress and say "Well, wait, we have a regulation we made ourselves that says we can't do that!"  Uhh... right. 

I also found it interesting that when the status quo was challenged, the discussion turned from the issues at hand to personal attacks.

I am disappointed by the overall level of maturity displayed on this forum.

You're not the only disappointed one.

I think the USRC is silly, will amount to nothing and is not a threat to this organization.  I also believe that if he wants to give it a go, let him.  There's nothing he can do to threaten this organization so why worry?

So why are we still discussing it?  The horse is long dead, beaten beyond recognition and yet people are still handing out clubs to the crowd.  Why?