Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution

[5711-Marine]

WTF? OVER.

Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution

Conservative News and Reporting
"News for the Rest of Us"
Michele Chang

Secretary of 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 classified 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.

[Kimba]

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

He's got a lot of nerve. He should look in the mirror if he wants to someone looking for attention and control. Another erosion of the Constitution.

IF this is changed, what would be the consequences of our military personal refusing to say the bastardized oath?

[jahwarrior72]

sources? you posted without a link; so far, all i've found is the same unsubstantiated story. i know my Google powers aren't that weak.

[Kenshin]

It's listed on Ron pauls sight and it seems that is flying across the internet on various sources. It needs to go to fox or one of the other main stream media. If this is the case revolution isn't that far off... If it happens. It is going to be a very bad thing.

Edit : After doing more searches I can't find any MSM references on it.

[Paradigm]

As much as I think Obama is one of the most arrogant jerks on the planet, this story really sets off my "red flag" alert.

[jahwarrior72]

Originally Posted by Kenshin

It's listed on Ron pauls sight and it seems that is flying across the internet on various sources. It needs to go to fox or one of the other main stream media. If this is the case revolution isn't that far off... If it happens. It is going to be a very bad thing.

Edit : After doing more searches I can't find any MSM references on it.

this is big enough of a deal to make the mainstream media, if true. so far, all it adds up to is paranoia.

[imperialism2024]

Assuming that the rumor is true, which is a big assumption...

Is it that much of a surprise? The last time our military fought a true "war" was 1945. Since then, they have been mercenaries carrying out the "police actions" of the executive branch. Unless they refused to take part in such endeavors, our soldiers have been unknowingly pledged to the office of the president for a long time. In other words, protecting the Constitution would involve protecting our own borders, not running around the world spreading various flavors of "democracy".

Changing the wording from "Constitution" to "office of the president" would be nothing more than a formality.

[AlbinoRhino]

Originally Posted by Paradigm

As much as I think Obama is one of the most arrogant jerks on the planet, this story really sets off my "red flag" alert.

Would that be this red flag?



or this one?

[phillyd2]

This is going to sound harsh so I do apologize in advance but I can think of no way else to put it. If any of you guys even remotely believes that anything even close to this would ever even be seriously considered, let alone done then you are about as stupid as stupid can get. Actually, we will need to come up with a new word because stupid does not even begin to cover it.

[Philbert]

/zombies too