previous post next post  

Time to defend President Obama

Update: Snopes has the story

Okay, it popped up in comments yesterday - this bit of drivel that some poltroon is bruiting about:
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 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.
 

Someone is trying to tie President Obama to Hitlerian personal loyalty oaths? I assume it was intended as satire aimed at those Hollywood clowns pledging their allegiance to the President (though they'd be appalled to pledge to the flag...)  If  this is true, it would represent a a constitutional crisis of significant scope.

And I simply didn't, and don't, believe it.  While no media bigs came to me asking, like Matt, I went out to the sources I have, and got at least one printable (if unattributable) response...
Well I can't give you an official answer cause it doesn't warrant an answer officially otherwise we'll have to repond to every little comment. Understand it may be going viral but it is so far from reality that it could only come from a 22 year old student in Middleburg, NY.
 
That response mirrors (in less scatalogical terms) the other responses I got.  As I fully expected. 

President Obama is many things, and will no doubt do many things that will annoy me.  But this isn't one of them.  This is bogus, and good lord, people, generating bogus carp like this to slander the President just makes you look *stupid* and makes it easier for serious people who might otherwise be supportive brush you off like a flake of dandruff.

This rant isn't aimed at those of you who brought the subject up in the comments - it's aimed at the originator of this tripe.

25 Comments


This has to be satire.

But you know what they say, "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense".
 
It may be bogus. BUT Obama has done and promised enough Hitlerian (I like that word) things already that's it's no major leap of the imagination to think he'll do this as well.

Time will tell, and we can only hope the military will refuse en-masse to go along with something like this (as it directly contradicts the oaths they've already taken to swear allegiance to a president who's openly opposed to the constitution if nothing else) when and if he does try it.
 

It is interesting that all during the Bush time, not one time did this question or statement even come up.  You would have thought it would have since Bush=hitler as we read and heard so many times during those years from the other side.  Now, we have the other side in power and this statement comes into existence, Very interesting.  Since the other side is a lot more equal and prone to lean towards these doctrines and ideals, along with the ethics, of the National Socialist Party then ever before in United States history. I would not put it past this curent administration if they get the chance to implement it.  Plus I am reading and hearing of bringing back the draft, so that will be interesting also.
  Heltau

 
For laughs and giggles, if it 'was' true, then the military would leave by attrition; if they want to swear a loyalty oath to the office of the President, they can, and those who don't will get out.  If Obama were a power-hungry megalomaniac, he has enough smarts that he wouldn't do this all at once, but carefully and thoughtfully while he prepares to be declared President-for-Life.  While I think P.O. is many things, I seriously doubt that he would ever get this blatant.  That said, in the words of Mad-Eye Moody, 'Constant Vigilance!'
 
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/01/oaths-changing.html

Matty says it's false, through unnamed sources in high places.

If, however, it WAS true... I'm guessing there would be such a huge outcry that it would never go through or else we'd have a much smaller military.
 
I think if it was true we'd have a much smaller White House rather than a smaller Military - after all, they all swore to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies both external and internal.

But fortunately while I can see him wanting something like this (and who, if sufficiently power-hungry to seek such high office wouldn't?)  I can't see him trying it.
 
Sigh. No one clicks through the links, do they? Geez, I referenced and linked Matt in the post!

Heh.  I shouldn't even bother touching anything Matt has touched.  Feh.
 
I shouldn't even bother touching anything Matt has touched. Feh.

At least you get comments on your posts...  *sniff*
 
I mentioned Matt's post in comments yesterday, but no one noticed that either.
 
This is nonsense on stilts. That said, the fact that it even came up AND some people thought it plausible enough to be at least momentarily spooked was enough to get my lips to curl into an ever-so-slight smile.

Face it, folks, when you get religious icons to The One at San Francisco art fairs, black teenagers doing a paramilitary close order drill Mau Mau impression on YouTube and Joy Behar saying Barry is, "too perfect for mockery" with a straight face, why would we be THAT surprised? It was only a matter of time before a joke like this was pulled...and I daresay it won't be the last.

...and I still don't believe Nancy Pelosi said she was going to confiscate our 401(k)s to raise the living standards of illegal aliens...OK?
 
AFSis, I referenced the comments to that the post yesterday in the post today, but I didn't have anything to say on it until I got responses from the people I sent the queries to, which is why I didn't say anything in the comments yesterday.  This was something best addressed in a post, vice kept in the comments.  It's exactly the sort of thing an Obama-supporter or leftwing moonbat will at some point toss in our face, and we should be able to say we didn't defend it, and in fact condemned it for the silly agitprop that it is.  

Argghhh!
 
Hasn't the officers oath changed over time?  I don't believe the claims in the article are accurate. 
 
1.The military oath of office hasn't changed, at lest in the last century.

2. You may recall that, among other things, officers swear to ~ "obey the orders of the officers apppinted over me"~ which obvously include the president. The change would seem pointless. It is also prescribed by statue, so changing the oath would require full congressional action. I can't see any senator or congressman interested in taking on that firestorm.
 
I agree, Dad.  This post is as much to inoculate against moonbats as it is to counter the calumny.
 
It's already debunked over at blackfive. That said, if that had been true, shortest presidency ever ? Kinda sad in a egoistic way to since I plan to someday immigrate to the US and am thouroughly displeased by notions of the country getting more euro style policies. And a lefty president removed over something like would have squashed that specter probably long enough for the euro zone to fall apart.
 
Excellent points on the actual content of an officer's oath.  I'd like to point out that the authority of officers is derived directly from the office of the President of the United States.  They are direct representatives of that office. 

That's why they are saluted.  They represent the President.  There is no need for a personal "blood oath." 

That being said, I agree that this is needless agitation and hysterical tripe, meant to appeal to the hysterical.  Hysteria is the last thing that we need right now.  Insanity is the inability or refusal to perceive, accept and abide in the truth.   This is obvious insanity, meant to appeal to the insane. 

What is needed now is reasoned responses to reality, not responses to hallucinations.  

Thanks for going on the record, John.  You're right; someday someone would point out that no one capped on the crazies.  
 
I read your links, first. As I understand our System of Government, all authority actually comes from the US Constitution. "Old Blue", I believe you are quite correct when you say, "There is no need for a 'personal blood oath. '"Old Blue" and "The Armorer", if you'll permit, I'm going to write  what I believe. I don't want to put words in either of your mouths. But on the other hand I don't think you'll have a problem with my views. The term "Personal Blood Oath" has multiple roots. The first being on the squad level, I have no problem with this view. There is a second view would  as having shown this action as having a loyalty or allegiance to royalty. As I understand it, this would be a breach of the US Constitution. I do not hold to the idea of My Country, Right or Wrong. I don't believe this man is that stupid enough to do such a thing.  Until proven otherwise, this man is still The President of the Unites States. All of us must wait to see how the future will judge this man's Presidency.

John, it appears that you are writing a petition asking  us to give this man a chance. I'm not saying you want us to agree with him on everything with him, but still give him a chance. If so, you have an electronic signature from me. Until he proves otherwise, he has my support. This man is a mere mortal, like the rest of us.
 
I figured it for a spoof resulting from the Gitmo presiding judge's decision to adhere to the law rather than comply with the administration's instructions to halt procedings regarding 21 of the detainees.

For more enlightenment on the subject, Cassie's got a post (gee, wotta surprise, eh?)...
 

Um, well, it *is* my nature to give the guy a chance, but that isn't really the thrust of what I was after, Grumpy.

I was saying something that is a variation of the Castle Commenting Rulez: Attack the message, not the messenger.

If the President is doing something you think is wrong, or just wrong-headed, it is the right of the citizen, and duty of the loyal opposition, to say so, and offer your alternatives.  Attack the message all you want.

But.

Don't make stuff up.  This is made up, whether as satire, or as agitprop.  It plays to people's fears and predjudices about the man.  But it's still just made up. 

I know from 5 years of playing in this sandbox, that things like this end up getting tossed in our collective faces by lefties (as they should, we toss stuff in theirs) when we let it go by unchallenged, which people, fairly or not, construe as tacit acceptance.

So, it's out there in public that I think this is bovine excreta.

 
THIS time it was a joke or hoax, but what about next time?
As said, given what He and His followers are doing already, it doesn't seem so farfetched they'd do this as well.
After all, the German military was ordered to swear allegiance to Hitler personally rather than to their country in the 1930s, something that wasn't the norm there either before (or after WW2).
So there is historical precedent of these things, and that was done by people with a rather similar modus operandi to what Obama has portrayed so far.

One can only hope He doesn't go on and stage a Reichstag fire in the Capitol...
 
It is satire. This story went viral yesterday...and let's face it folks...there are alot of constitutionalists that would not be surprised at this...the fact that it couldn't possibly made public was a red flag...if oit were, the consequences would be incredibly dire.
The original post is http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/01/military-to-pledge-oath-to-obama-not.html

I saw this on site that I normally have the utmost faith in...but after tracking it back...I realized it had been tagged as satire by the original poster....
Infuriated at being hoodwinked by this doesn't even come close to describing it.

 

.......and to Obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me.............

Right out of the Oath of Enlistment, sworn by yours truly on 5 occasions.

An old CPO told me once, a long time ago, you serve the Office, not the man.

I think it is a stunt, but with BHO's track record and those of his minions, who knows anymore.
were I on Active Service and faced with an oath to the man, I'd be getting myself a 214 and a ticket home.

 
Folks, this is one more lame attempt to rile us up over stoopid stuff.  Anyone who suffered through the eight years of darkness AKA the Clinton Administration will recognize the genuine power plays when they arrive (and they will arrive).

Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes...
 
What is interesting here is that someone came up with the story, basing it on enough facts like the names of individuals to give it an air of legitimacy. So is this the beginning of a campaign to to get the members of the loyal oppostion to discredit themselves/their blogs, hoping it would be posted without checking? Good on ya for checking the facts!!
 
I never thought I would see  Black Panthers  with billy clubs standing outside voting stations in America and nothing being done about it. I never thought I would see  a confirmed tax cheat in charge of the treasury department. Nothing in Washington would suprise me anymore and  "The One"  told us all what he was going to do when he got in Office tax the the folks that was making money and give it to the folks that think they don't have to work for a living. He said he was going cut all the bad guys loose from gitmo. stop all are info gathering from the ragheads and make us a weaker nation in the process. He told everyone......... and they voted for him anyway, So they can live with him. I will just hunker down here in the blue ridge mtns.  in my Spanky bunker with my Guns, canned beans, Canned peaches,  and shine. I will be just fine.

                                                                                                             Spanky