It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SATIRE: Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I'm trying to verify this blog... can anyone else find any information on any of these statements?


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.


Link to Blog

(mod edit: changed the title to reflect the information that the blog is a satire)

[edit on 29-1-2009 by Byrd]




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NoPhobos
 



I seriously doubt that this sort of thing would stand up to Congressional or Public scrutiny. Can you imagine if GWB had tried this? All the BDS types heads would've exploded.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Yes, I doubt that it would too.

I am still trying to find another source of the original article. Ron Paul's site has a link to a forum, that links back to the original blog.

Several others sites are picking up on it now, but I haven't found the original yet.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
If this is true.... amazing!

"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."



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
This is prima facie absurd.

No indication Obama wants to do this.
Every indication it would raise a perfect firestorm of protest, from everybody.

Nonsense in bits.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
BS.

The oath already binds the oath-taker to obey the orders of the President.

This is drivel. Don't get upset or pay attention to it. It's bunkum.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
The oath already binds the oath-taker to obey the orders of the President.


Yes, it does require officers to obey the office, but enlisted have a different oath.

This is probably bunk, but I still can't find an original source. Several people have posted source questions to the bloggers, and they are listed as "watching" the blog.

The key to the article is that the oath to the constitution is going to be removed if this policy is enacted. It is at least worthy to follow until the source can be identified.

From what I have seen so far, I wouldn't put this kind of action completely out of the realm of possibilities, anyway.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
If you look at the bottom of this blog post by this guy, he lists it as 'satire'.

So he's made this up. And other posts too, mostly about Obama, things like "america scouts" and other baloney.

In fact, I wonder how AFP would react to knowing that he's making up articles supposedly by their reporters, and using their names to pretend legitimacy and labeling it 'satire' in order to try and cover his ass.

THIS is real disinformation. THIS man is the very sort of thing that so many of you accuse people here on ATS of being.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jadette
If you look at the bottom of this blog post by this guy, he lists it as 'satire'.
So he's made this up.


I didn't catch that. He tagged the blog with Barack Obama, Constitution, Defense Department, Defense Secretary, military, oath, politics, President Obama, Robert Gates, AND "SATIRE" at the end.

Then he sits back and watches all the comments, and giggles to himself.

Thanks for seeing that. I'll point it out on the other board where I saw it.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
It's satire. It's not true. However, if it were true then these people would be getting a head jump on 'oath to Obama' time ...




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The problem with this is, there will be some mentally unstable individual who will miss the part that this was written as a satire , take it for complete truth, and in their twisted thinking step out in anger and do something completely off the wall.

Did I vote for Obama? No, but I think there are too many half truth, twisted speculations and out right lies being circulated in regard to this man, that could lead to some unstable mind taking matters into their own hands.

I personally think everyone should completely verify anything they post before letting something out for everyone to read, when there is no truth in it whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jadette
 


So, are you enjoying the 'flip side'?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Thats funny, even if it were true, you can't sell your soul to the devil if you have already sold it to another person. No i'm not calling obama the antichrist or anything of that calibur of ignorance.

The military pledge to the higher powers, ones that don't abide to the constitution, this is what i think. Our troops on our own soil since oct 1, katrina, urban excercises, confiscation of fire arms.. the list goes on. Doesn't sound like all of them are soldiers of the constitution to me.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NoPhobos
 


My husband brought home a copy of the notice. Dateline is
CONSERVATIVE NEWS AND REPORTING (CNR), News for the Rest of Us; author noted as Michele Chang. I did not find the CNR Web site and located a number of Michele Changs, some of which seem to be re the same person.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
This has to be a hoax. It boggles the imagination that anyone in the Obama administration could seriously float such a divisive and explosive proposal. I served almost 30 years of active military duty and believe that most now serving or comtemplating serving would find this repulsive. Were I still in an active status I would flatly refuse to susbscribe to such trash.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join