Posted on 06/14/2009 9:53:57 AM PDT by Sequoyah101
Is there any grain of truth in this squib I received from a contact? I don't cotton to posting rumor but this is kinda like the attempt to make wounded vets pay for their own medical care.
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 12:06 AM
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 Jo int 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.
We should take a lesson from the NRA on this. What has gun advocacy got to do with it?
This: Since the beginning of the liberal’s holy war against the second amendment, the NRA has counseled supporters to be sure that their arguments, especially in letters to editors, etc., are absolutely factual. Shading the argument to “spin” it will result in a loss of credibility much greater than any short term advantage.
On the other hand, virtually every public pronouncement or statement by any leading group or agency opposing second amendment freedoms is either based on willfully biased data or, if based on factual data, misrepresents the conclusions of the related study. Anti gun groups routinely encourage the use of focus group tested loaded terms, describe semi-auto weapons as “machine guns” etc.
To check the accuracy of this, try to find a SINGLE example of a “study” reported on by “Brady [fill in latest name] group,” VPC (Violence Policy Center) or any other group funded by the Joyce Foundation — that both cites an unbiased study and presents the study’s conclusion(s) honestly.
I would be willing to bet a bottle of very good 12 year old scotch that there is no such example.
OOps, hit “post” too soon. The point is this “oath to the president” thing is probably a hoax. Obama would like that, but it is too clearly analogous to Hitler’s loyalty oath to be believable. As much as Obama parallels Hitler so far, he is too smart to reveal it this clearly, this early.
First, my apologies to all currently serving active duty.
My list above should have startred with:
1. The Armed Services would not participate in such a reswearing.
What would happen if an officer refused such a new twist on the Oath?
“That person would be dealt with by officers who had taken a somewhat different oath.”
I am confident any officers that had taken a different oath would be vastly outnumbered.
Yeah, even Hussein isn’t THIS stupid.
I suspect a hoax too.
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.