Former US Marine drill instructor turned actor R. Lee Ermey recently appeared at a Toys for Tots/USO benefit, and he quickly emptied the clip on the socialist Hope & Change experiment.

I changed the start code to skip some of the intro so as to get right to the good stuff, but you can hit “replay” to see the whole thing:

Brace for possible lefty outrage, because Ermey does commercials for Geico, and Geico a while back crap-canned their libnut voiceover guy, apparently because of Tea Party backlash. I can see the emails to Geico already: “Why is it a firing offense to badmouth the right but not the left?”

If that happens, here’s a suggested reply from Geico: “Because the right spends more on insurance and Ermey knows a dozen ways to kill us with a pencil eraser, that’s why — ya jackwagon!”

Comments

30 Responses to “Full Metal Teleprompter: R. Lee Ermey Unloads on Obama”

  1. SignPainterGuy on December 29th, 2010 11:57 pm

    Seriously, I was expecting R. Lee to call Obama a "jack-wagon" !

    My fave R. Lee Ermey moments were the cemetery scenes in "The Frighteners" !

  2. cdl on December 29th, 2010 11:57 pm

    "I know you're stupid Pyle, but do you expect me to believe you don't know right from left."

  3. Doug on December 30th, 2010 12:03 am

    And of course this classic:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAakWsFAzbA

  4. SignPainterGuy on December 30th, 2010 12:15 am

    Sgt. Carter to Gomer ?

  5. SignPainterGuy on December 30th, 2010 12:37 am

    He really pulled it off ! He must have known a real DI ! ;-)

    Sooooooo intense !

  6. OK_Loyalist on December 30th, 2010 12:51 am

    Oh how I love it !

    Unfortunately, there stands a chance R. Lee terminated his GEICO advertising career with this. For those that aren't aware, "GEICO is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc." http://www.geico.com/about/corporate/history/

    Has anyone ever wondered why someone like the likes of Warren Buffett would like the ilk of Obowmao and his agenda? Here is an eyeopener … http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/warren_buf

  7. SignPainterGuy on December 30th, 2010 1:36 am

    Thanks for the eye opener, OK, now I need eye wash !

    But I still like R. Lee !

  8. Mike S. on December 30th, 2010 2:09 am

    Once a gunny, always a gunny. Oo-rah!

  9. Clu Seatoe on December 30th, 2010 1:23 pm

    In military parlance this is what’s known as sedition and is a hanging offence. It is an attempt to encourage or insight the military ranks against their commander.

    As much as I agree with him, I detest its happening in or to the military by active or retired personnel, and he should know better. If he didn’t know better at the time I hope he does now. It may be acceptable now flaunt ones homosexual perversion in the military but like it or not ones political bend, while in the military, is DADT.

  10. Mike S. on December 30th, 2010 2:27 pm

    Get a grip…and a clue.

  11. SignPainterGuy on December 30th, 2010 2:34 pm

    I`d say this is a case of "it`s wrong to do it", but given the nature of this administration and the socialist direction were`re heading in, it would be even wronger NOT to do it !

  12. cdl on December 30th, 2010 3:07 pm

    Gunnery Sgt. Hartman, Senior Drill Instructer to Private Leonard Lawrence affectionately known as Private Pyle.

    Full Metal Jacket

    "Now lean forward and choke yourself."

  13. Marshall_Will on December 30th, 2010 3:11 pm

    Mike S,

    At least 'technically' ( Clu is absolutely right! ) Article 94 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice clearly states!: "with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority"

    Here's why I doubt it will matter? Lee rec'd a medical disharge. He was wounded in Nam after 11 yrs. in the Marines. He's often joked that his mil. 'pension' "is almost enough to cover Christmas!"

    Given he's an in demand charcter-actor w/ his own SHOW ( I doubt he gives a rip about the $123 a month he was getting from the VA? ) He may have felt that he'd seen about -enough- of "numb-nutts" in action. It would take a mil. lawyer to sort it all out but as someone who's med. retired, I think he can say whatever he wants. The Base C.O where he 'said' it at, that's a different matter!

  14. SignPainterGuy on December 30th, 2010 3:16 pm

    Aaaaah yes ! An FMJ rental is in my future ! Thanks for the update !

  15. SignPainterGuy on December 30th, 2010 3:19 pm

    Doug, my reply to Mike S. is lost !

  16. SignPainterGuy on December 30th, 2010 3:33 pm

    Thanks Doug !

  17. Doug on December 30th, 2010 3:34 pm

    For some reason, about 10% of comments end up in "moderate" mode even if they don't have any "language" in them. Can't figure out why yet.

  18. SignPainterGuy on December 30th, 2010 4:02 pm

    No foul language or even guns, musta been the two pocket knives I always carry that got me "randomly" selected for a moderate pat-down !

  19. Mike S. on December 30th, 2010 10:23 pm

    Okay SPG, to the front of the "body cavity search" line for you…:)

  20. Mike S. on December 30th, 2010 10:28 pm

    SPG and M_W,

    I'm sticking to my guns on this one (so to speak). R. Lee wasn't saying "now you guys need to go to Washington and take over". He was just calling the C-in-C a socialist, which we all know is true. Hey, I had Nixon and Carter as two of my C-in-C's during my 11 1/2 years of active duty. You think I didn't badmouth them (especially Carter) after I got out?

  21. SignPainterGuy on December 30th, 2010 11:43 pm

    Ooh, ooh ! Can I go thru the full nekkid body scanner turned up to HIGH after they`re done feeling and probing ?! I want my money`s worth !

  22. Clu Seatoe on December 31st, 2010 1:39 am

    Your missing the point.

    According to the UCMJ the fact of why the seditious speech was made is not an aspect of the matter, nor does it enter into this charge.

    Also, if one goes to military trial for sedition, whether the words used in the seditious speech are true or not is irrelevant. It can be a complete fabrication and still be seditious speech.

    The charge is against the fact of the speech and the intent of the speech, not the truthfulness of what was said.

    I’m sure in this case the charge is lacking intent, but one must always be careful as a military man speaking to a military audience, and about the sitting POTUS, the long-tentacled Mao Tse-bama.

  23. OK_Loyalist on December 31st, 2010 2:38 am

    Since he is no longer a member of the Corps your charge is moot on what he says about the jug eared Marxist.

  24. SignPainterGuy on December 31st, 2010 2:07 pm

    Gunny Ermey swore to defend the constitution and this nation from enemies from within and without as did all our congress-critters and the pres and vp ! R. Lee realizes that this administration IS the enemy of this nation and believes it is his duty to call for the move toward socialism to be stopped ! As do I !! I applaud Gunny Ermey`s call to action, regardless of any UCMJ rule against it !

  25. Doug on December 31st, 2010 2:18 pm

    A serious question: If it's not good for current or former military to speak out against the Commander in Chief, at what point does that no longer apply? In other words, what would POTUS have to do to get the military to break silence and for it not to be a bad thing, as Clu says?

    Not that the world needs any more Hitler references, but there were members of Hitler's army who tried to get rid of him. I doubt any of us would say they were wrong for attempting to do so.

    So the question is, where's the line where military members criticizing their leader goes from being wrong, to right?

  26. SignPainterGuy on December 31st, 2010 3:34 pm

    You`re readin` my mind !

    Your MM`s place post on the perky one`s call for an islamic tv sit-com is great as always and the comments and possible sit-com names are hillarious, too!

    "Archie Mutallab" came to mind ! "Home Un-Improvement", you wouldn`t have to change anything but the characters, Tim`s always blowing sh*t up ! "The Fatwa Is Right" might be a good game show ! "Name That Bomb" ?!

  27. Mike S. on December 31st, 2010 4:59 pm

    Doug, not only does POTUS take an oath to defend the Constitution, but so do all members of the Armed Forces. I would say that if POTUS is circumventing the Constitution, it becomes not only acceptable, but a DUTY for military personnel to take note of it and to critcize it.

  28. OK_Loyalist on December 31st, 2010 6:25 pm

    I'm with you on this

  29. SignPainterGuy on December 31st, 2010 7:54 pm

    ECHO, Echo, echo !

    We are in agreement, -reement, -eement !

  30. TheresaM on January 2nd, 2011 8:49 am

    At least you acknowledge the double-standard before embracing it wholly.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.