Thread: A NEW Oath?

Came across this on my WWW travels... It is disgusting!

Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution
Published: Jan 29, 2009
Author: Michele Chang
Post Date: 2009-01-29 10:38:14

Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition.

A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.

"The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself." the spokesman said, "At no time in American history, not even in the Civil War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution."

The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far.

"Technically, we can't talk about it before it becomes official policy." the spokesman continued. "However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass."

Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.
"The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib."

"We expect a lot of flak over this," ! the clas sified memo continues. "But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control."

The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within two years.

My email back to the news exec was that, while I thought it completely false and satirical (all pledges from Demi Moore to President Obama aside), I would look into it. Using a few of the B5 authors' contacts, we have been able to receive verbal confirmation from sources that this is completely FALSE. We will post official responses from General Cartwright's office if/when we receive them.

There you have it.

Blackfive.net defends the Obama Administration from slander. Next up, pigs in flight over the ice flows in the gulf of Mexico.

~Blackfive

Update: For the curious, the "news story" has been popping up at other blogs and email, not just the one linked. We wanted to keep it from going viral.

I apologize for any parietal heart attacks or strokes this may have caused.

Update 2: Just six months ago, I posted this photo:

"...defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies..."


U.S. Army Sgt. Daryl Williams takes the oath of enlistment from his hospital bed at the 86th Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad, Iraq, July 9, 2008. Williams is assigned to the Scout/Sniper Platoon, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Combined Arms Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Multi-National Division – Baghdad. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Zachary Mott.

We fight for each other. We defend the Constitution. We swear fealty to no man, but to an ideal. That all men are free. Freedom is worth fighting for. Freedom is worth dying for. Swearing an oath to a man is not freedom, but the exact opposite.

Perhaps that is why this story got legs (from a civilian perspective) in the first place. Some part of civilian America is not understanding their own military.

Quite frankly, if this would happen, it would nullify all enlistment contracts, there would be a mass exodus, and most likely, there would be revolt with Chuck Z in the lead tank heading down Pennsylvania Avenue...after all, the military men and women study our history and our enemies more than our civilians do (of course). It's been pointed out that swearing an oath to the country's leader is something from the Hitler play book. No, it's not. Certainly, Hitler used the tactic, but so did every tyrant the world has seen. And it's been used by every tyrant that the United States of America has put down - the latest being Saddam. There will be others.

Therefore, this is why the story got legs (from a military perspective) because everyone higher up in the military that we talk to about this is in utter disbelief that the rest of America would even consider it possible. They are incredulous. Which is why it is taking us some time to get an official response.

This is another urban legend about Obama and is not true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/oath.asp

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barack ... y_oath.htm

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

This is another urban legend about Obama and is not true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/oath.asp

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barack ... y_oath.htm

Betsy, with all due respect, Snopes has been clearly in the tank for Obama, and any Obama discussions on Snopes should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Double check any true/false reports out of Snopes.

For example, Barbara will not view the birth certificate legal issue openly and honestly. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Let's stop and ask - why WOULD this be true? Would this be the tactic of a brand new controversial president, with so much else on his plate? With so many questions already raised? And, if Obama really is a citizen, how can it be said that Snopes is "in the tank" for him if what they are saying about him happens to be true?

I really think that conservatives need to stop and think about a comeback strategy. Instead, I keep reading wnd and newswithviews and I see name-calling and outrageous rumor-spreading.

And, if this latest rumor is true, how come World Net Daily even backed away from the story?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=87548

The original source of this story is known, where it is labeled as a spoof.
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009 ... a-not.html

Furthermore, insulting me personally is a violation of ALIPAC rules.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Let's stop and ask - why WOULD this be true? Would this be the tactic of a brand new controversial president, with so much else on his plate? With so many questions already raised? And, if Obama really is a citizen, how can it be said that Snopes is "in the tank" for him if what they are saying about him happens to be true?

I really think that conservatives need to stop and think about a comeback strategy. Instead, I keep reading wnd and newswithviews and I see name-calling and outrageous rumor-spreading.

And, if this latest rumor is true, how come World Net Daily even backed away from the story?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=87548

The original source of this story is known, where it is labeled as a spoof.
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009 ... a-not.html

Furthermore, insulting me personally is a violation of ALIPAC rules.

Betsy, I was suggesting that you challenge Snopes reports because I have found their reporting biased.

I did NOT insult you. That comment from you is a distraction and is blatantly false.

Also note that I was not commenting on this story which appears to be easily challenged for authenticity.

I understand how upset and alarmed conservative people are about the election, but they need to figure out why they lost so heavily and reframe their message. And come up with better candidates.

The biggest mystery to me and many others is why so many good and solid people have kept voting for politicians who represent fatcat bankers and businessmen who mean nothing but harm to our middle class. Surely an electorate of this size could have flushed out better candidates, but they were hard to find. Main Street, not Wall Street, is the source of America's greatness and goodness. But there are lots of empty storefronts and blight on America's Main Street now.

If Obama's faction stumbles, that would provide an opening for conservatives, but only if they are ready. Instead, I hear them calling Obama names, insulting the people who voted for him, and coming up with insulting theories as to why. People who voted for him did not want a third term for Bush, which McCain made them wonder about. They are not, by and large, mentally ill (contrary to an article published in WND), they did not vote for ice cream, they are not communists. How do the conservatives hope to win back the electorate if they keep insulting them?

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

This is another urban legend about Obama and is not true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/oath.asp

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barack ... y_oath.htm

Betsy, with all due respect, Snopes has been clearly in the tank for Obama, and any Obama discussions on Snopes should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Double check any true/false reports out of Snopes.

For example, Barbara will not view the birth certificate legal issue openly and honestly. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Good catch Betsy, here is what the lead paragraph by the author says:

NOTE: This article is, in fact, a satire piece. While you're here, read other articles, like Obama going on the quarter, how he's genetically superior, and how he took down Blago. And you can also check out Joe's Babe of the Week, which comes out every Friday. And become a fan and return and tell your friends. Word up.

Now I am going to stick my opinion where I am sure you will think it does not belong.

You were right about this being an urban legend, but I also think that HighlanderJuan was right about SNOPES. ALIPAC does not have a rule against disagreeing with other members. I read both posts carefully and HighlanderJuan did not insult you, he merely disagreed with you. There are not two people on ANY SITE who will agree with each other 100% of the time. We all have the right to our opinions. If you feel that this is an attack, by all means, report me.

You may be right, Snopes can be very PC and I think that they default in that favor in the absence of anything else.

Originally Posted by cayla99

I read both posts carefully and HighlanderJuan did not insult you, he merely disagreed with you.

Thanks, Cayla. I didn't even disagree with Betsy. I also didn't offer an opinion about the story's veracity. I merely suggested Betsy challenge Snopes as a source because they are in the tank for Obama.

The story does appear subject to challenge, but Snopes can't be relied on as a supporting source unless it's information has been separately verified.

IMHO.

If even WND is backing away, that's a powerful sign as to me they seem a little excitable if it's anything against liberals. The fact that they have to back down because they went with it at all somewhat bothers me.

The only thing that is going to save this country, IMO, is if ordinary Americans can get back to making and doing things. For far too long we've been buying and hiring foreign, and where has that gotten us? What does it matter how cheap the shirts are at Wal Mart once your income falls to zero?

I'm reading where some economists are saying, this is not as big as the Great Depression - it's bigger.