| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/30/2009 4:11:27 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Bogus. |
Posted on 01/30/2009 3:24:23 AM PST by Salgak
This popped up in my email today. It SOUNDS bogus, but with the current administration, you never know:
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 too 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.
Saw it yesterday here on FR. It was pulled because of no link. This one is probably headed for the ether too.
Trial Balloon????
It sounds so outrageous - but like everything else - the idea will worm its way into consciousness, consideration and then.........voila!!!!!
It will become *lobster legislation*..... heat it up one degree at a time...until its done.
I doubt that it’s true, but I did read here the other day that Barry was apparently surprised to find that the military is not directly under his control.
I also read a truly chilling post where someone went to his child’s school and found that they now had to say the Pledge facing a television screen with a picture of Obama (standing in front of some flags) staring out of it. Now where did the school get that TV image to broadcast during the pledge, hmmm? So while I doubt that the military oath is true, there are a lot of moves to make the President the focus of the country in a way that has never happened before.
It’s been posted before. Got pulled. Seems like bad satire or a hoax.
“...the classifed memo...”
I’d hit the delete button and send the memo to junk mail.
Say Spam Sam.
I stick with my original comment, put it in your junk file and delete it.
http://www.google.com/search?&rls=en&q=%22Conservative+News+and+Reporting%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Really? LOL - what a totalitarian, egotistic little creep he is.
This smacks of BS. Mind you, I have no doubt that Odumbo would try such a thing if he thought he could get away with it, but I’m sure his handlers would tell him that if he tried he’d be out on his ass in 24 hours, thanks to a military coup.
In any event, don’t think that would happen, just like Clinton a lot of the military does not like Obama... Most of my brothers in arms would bail if such a requirement was placed on them.
I was in during the Clinton years and they threatened us with discharge if we spoke out publicly against him or any sitting member of congress!...
Probable BS. I remember all kinds of rumors of this sort flying around during the Clinton years, the lesson I took from it was verify, verify, verify.
typical email hoax
Can’t speak for the truthfulness of the subject matter, but it’s well written for a hoax.
One of my friends was in the Navy during the Klinton Regime. He never said one nasty thing about The President, or Bill Clinton.
"The Nameless One", however, was the subject some really spicy invective ...
I was outraged and then saw “hoax” in the keywords. I can’t think of any who would go for it. I don’t think my son would. If he does, he would have to choose, break the oath or shoot his mother.
I don’t believe this for an instant. An interesting footnote, though: One of Hitler’s very first acts once in power was to have the military swear allegiance to him, not to Germany.
If true, that would be pretty bold for just his second week in office. Maybe in another month or two....
We have quite enough to be pissed off at Obama about. We don’t need this sort unverified crap making noise.
While this is most likely a hoax, I will point out what no one else has pointed out - Hitler demanded the same thing of the Wehrmacht’s officers (anybody see Valkyrie?).
This story has been debunked; Blackfive has details on its debunking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.