Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution???
By Arkie69
@Arkie69 (2156)
United States
May 13, 2009 8:16pm CST
I got this in an Email. You might should read it.
Art
******************************************************************
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.
CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS CRAP!!! WHAT'S NEXT...IS HE GOING TO ASK THE
ALLEGIANCE OF ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS & SET HIMSELF UP AS GOD TO BE
WORSHIPPED???
THIS FRAUD & TRAITOR TO THE UNITED STATES & IT'S CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE
IMPEACHED!!!!
IF YOU'RE AS OUTRAGED BY THIS AS I AM...PASS IT ON SO OTHERS KNOW WHAT
THIS SNEAKY FRAUD IS UP TO BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
2 people like this
5 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
14 May 09
Here's a little something.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/loyalty_oath.htm
"The actual author, a New York college student named Matthew Avitabile, published the piece on his blog, Jumping in Pools, on January 28, 2009. It was tagged as "satire," a detail that fell by the wayside as the text made its way from blog to blog and inbox to inbox in the days that followed.
"Michele Chang is me," Avitabile confirmed in response to an email query. "So, yes, it's fake, and it always has been."
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
14 May 09
It is probably not true. However even if it is not, it does not mean it might not happen. The danger is not that it will happen or not. The danger is that many people, the Obamamites might welcome it. I suppose because this is a rumor and not true, the writer was being sarcastic in saying that as things stand, Obama is the type of person who would welcome the military to pledge to him rather then to the Constitution. In other words, he was giving a warning that this might happen and should have said so on his blog or where he had the article.
@connierebel (1557)
• United States
14 May 09
It could very well happen in the future. I wouldn't put it past Obama to do such a thing. He seems to be following in the footsteps pf other tyrants like Hitler.
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
14 May 09
You always need to research emails that make claims like this. I was almost duped by one I received recently, by my mother no less, which claimed that the U.K. had removed all references to the Holocaust from it's curriculum. It came with a very graphic power point presentation of a collection of photos taken by allied troops at the concentration camps and appeared, on the face of it, to be legit. Turns out it was not and this email has also been circulating around the web for a long time as well.
@AngryKittyMSV (4317)
• United States
14 May 09
There was an actual news story about how one UK school actually DID remove references to the holocaust, but they got a lot of heat for it and I think they may have been forced to put it back. I'll see if I can find the story.
@AngryKittyMSV (4317)
• United States
14 May 09
Here is what I found, the "grain of truth" that took on a life of it's own n urban legend:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article1600686.ece
From The Times
April 2, 2007
Schools drop Holocaust lessons to avoid offence
Alexandra Frean
Teachers are dropping controversial subjects such as the Holocaust and the Crusades from history lessons because they do not want to cause offence to children from certain races or religions, a report claims.
A lack of factual knowledge among some teachers, particularly in primary schools, is also leading to “shallow” lessons on emotive and difficult subjects, according to the study by the Historical Association.
The report, produced with funding from the Department for Education, said that where teachers and staff avoided emotive and controversial history, their motives were generally well intentioned.
“Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes. In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship,” it concluded.
However, it was concerned that this could lead to divisions within school, and that it might also put pupils off history.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
14 May 09
I have heard rumors about this. But they can't prove it. Or at least I have never seen any proof of this. Can you post some links of where you got this information.
1 person likes this