Posted on 10/26/2013 6:22:28 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
That is more than fine sentiment. It runs to the very soil from which honor takes seed.
However, we face three more years of this national nightmare called soetoro, or hussein or whoever he claims to be. The damage done to just our military so far I adjudge to be tremendous. Even now I doubt our military’s ability to fight an even minor war victoriously. This will only deteriorate further under our so-called republican Congress who are themselves predominantly a congregation of cowards and Traitors. In the face of this our subjugation to islamism and communism seems even now essentially complete.
Need I go on?
I agree that there are threats to all of US society by this administration. The Academies are last bastions of honor, ethics. There is no reason to attack the Academies for their remaining true to this concept of honor when those they have been created to serve have abandoned it, I.e. congress, and many of those today under the US Constitution.
How are the academies the last bastion if they’re run by the obama pc military? For at least three more years from the commandants downward to the TACs upward will the rot proceed. An eternity.
I do not consider homosexuality an honorable lifestyle. The founders of all of the academies Honor Code systems would have regarded it the same way.
"We will not lie, cheat nor steal, nor tolerate those among us who do."
All of the service academies are now in violation of their own Honor Codes.
I can personally assure you the last Supt at USAFA was not a “perfumed prince”. A classmate and friend. My two sons represent recent grads. Both have buried classmates and friends and are fighting honorably for this Country. As the Academies exist they are last bastions that treasure the concept of honor. I would agree with you that they are under attack for doing so. There has been a lack of leadership before in the military, at high levels of the military. It has prevailed in no small measure due to a new crop of Academy grads that saw the folly of the immediate leadership. As far as the Air Force today the AF Chief of Staff, another USAFA ‘76er is one of the best leaders this Nation could have. I cannot say that about the Chairman of the JCS
And I hate to seem alarmist. But even those in recent groups of graduates will be weeded out at least over these next three years, identified as probable problems, their commissions unrenewed.
And as earlier, how can these institutions possibly violate their own Honor Codes but carry on as if nothing has changed?
In reading the Constitution—and the Debate on the Constitution—and the Manuel for Courts Martial(MCM),1994 edition.
I note the Second Article of the US Constitution records the Oath required of the President before entering into the duties of that Office. “so help me God” is not included. The phrase seems added by General George Washington to the Oath he was administered,when elected. Setting the standard. The Library of America -Debate on the Constitution parts 1 and 2 ,Bernard Bailyn editor—includes the reasonable letter by Dr.Benjamin Rush who noted that Oaths can be/have been violated by friends and enemies alike. — The MCM 1994 suggests the Oath administered contains the phrase “so help me God!” the Affirmation excludes that phrase. Elliots Debates Vol.3 of the Virginia Convention notes from Friday Jun 27,1788 article 14 speaks of “an Oath or affirmation of a person religiously scrupulous of taking an Oath.” I can only conclude that the Constitution as supreme Law of the land declares an Oath (or Affirmation) is required. The two are distinct. but serve the same purpose. If a man,woman,or ? does not believe in God, or is “religiously scrupulous “ against an Oath acknowledging Mans duty to God
The framers included a provision that they could choose either the Oath (or the after thought - the Affirmation) It would be folly to require a man swear by that which he disbelieves. The resolution of this tempest in a teapot is not to diminish the Oath by excluding what General Washington added( the acknowledgment of mans being subject to God) Nor is the answer to eliminate the solemn Oath altogether.But to allow the Cadet choose to acknowledge God or to not so do. One need Not do that which is repugnant and attempt to level all religion,or make it a matter of policy to hold all in utter indifference—which Justice Joseph Story published would have caused “universal disapprobation ,if not universal indignation. The enemy
( Weinstein and his wailers )misrepresent Article VI by suggesting an Oath including “So Help me God!” constitutes a “religious test” and thereby violates the Constitution.
else General Washington and others would not have noted the distinction between the Oath and the (affirmation) The MCM 1994 edition notes the distinction. So the AP and all others ought be more clear and report the truth. And if any take an Oath , (or Affirmation) then violate the Constitution or fai to honor that Oath ( or affirmation) the ruling authority ought Impeach. And the people ought insist on such .Like one included in the Debate on the Constitution — “I (too) consider the Oath a sacred thing.” My Military experience and my life experience affirm what Dr.Rush suggested... The Oath is only as good—or as sincere as the individual administered /taking the Oath.
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.