Saturday, January 31, 2009

Hoax Alert: Barack Obama NOT Changing The Military Oath From A Constitutional Oath To A Presidential Oath


I found a rather disturbing story posted on Hal Turner's blog on January 30th, 2009. Turner reported that President Barack Obama was contemplating changing the oath taken by members of the U.S. military. Supposedly, Obama was intending to require them to swear an oath of personal loyalty to him directly, rather than to the Constitution. This, of course, would tear a page directly out of Adolf Hitler's book.

Here's the post in full, published on Turner's blog (and picked up by a boatload of other blogs as well). Turner seemed to be a bit skeptical:

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 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.


After investigation, I discovered that this story has been firmly rebutted on the Blackfive website. Blackfive states that they got verbal confirmation from reliable sources that Obama is NOT contemplating such a change. Blackfive also reports that their contacts higher up in the military were in utter disbelief that the rest of America would even consider such a thing possible. If Blackfive gets an official response from someone in the chain of command, they will post it on their site.

What would happen if Obama were to issue such a directive? For one thing, it could conceivably nullify all enlistment contracts. There also could be a significant exodus of personnel. Or possibly, even the unthinkable could happen (I'll leave it to your imagination).

The people who started this rumour are the same type of fruitcakes who insist the moon landing was faked, or that WTC was brought down by "particle beam weapons", or that diversity is our strength.

3 comments:

Ted said...

The Joint Chiefs of Staff HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl UNTIL OBAMA OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

Aristotle said...

Ted,

I can't stand Obama, but I disagree with what you're saying here. Obama is FUNCTIONING as the President of the United States, and you can't say that everything has to stand still and none of his orders are to be obeyed because he hasn't "proven" his eligibility. The government has to function, and it can't function if there is no chief executive. This isn't holy Orders in the Church we're talking about... there can be such a thing as "de facto" governance. I too think he was silly not to provide his birth certificate, although I personally believe that he was probably born in Hawaii. Whatever the case there, however, he is the President until such time as it can be shown that he was ineligible, and then it would be in the hands of the courts to decide how the Constitution would apply.

jj solari said...

we're heading towards a military coup. america as we know it is over.