Not good .. Obama and administration trying to change military oath to President and NOT the Consitutition!

[Jesse S.]

Conservative News and Reporting
"News for the Rest of Us"
Michele Chang

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 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 clas sified 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.

[WTPUSA]

Military Officer's Oath Is Increasingly to Protect The Constitution
By Rick Erickson
December 30, 2003

On December 13, 1991, Medal of Honor recipient and Officer Candidate School Commanding Officer, Colonel Wesley Fox, administered to me and 184 others the following oath:


I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


Not until years later, after being entrusted with the leadership of Marine infantrymen, did I truly understand the significance of my oath and corresponding officership. As I came to learn and understand, the oath applied in and out of uniform, including on-duty and off-duty exploits against anyone within or without who would challenge and distort our Constitution, its promotion of liberty and its basis in moral and just causes.

The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle-class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service. Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military.

Thankfully, officer resistance ultimately prevailed and, with the election of George W. Bush in 2000, everything returned to order for service people. Between 1992 and 2000, neither the officer's oath nor the Constitution's language changed to accommodate popular politics. Activists, however, were quick to identify the government branch now most aligned with liberal causes - the courts. Blanketing pre-positioned left-wing judges with civilian, civil rights cases, the activist agenda was to transcend rulings from their judges to coerce service people into following judicial orders over constitutional ones. The end was to corrupt the military's separate body of law specifically drafted to be more exacting of morality and discipline.

For example, even though service people overwhelmingly do not want to serve with declaring homosexuals, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) already has it in the works to rewrite the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in a way that advances homosexual conduct like the State of Texas was forced to do so in Lawrence v. Texas. Hoping to persuade that citizens of military and civilian society have the same purpose, the ACLU wants service people to replace their age-old Code with something much more decadent and much less regimented.

Of late, and upon the inexorable lie that the Constitution's authors meant to accommodate atheists, the ACLU directed the Marine Corps' Commandant to "nip this in the bud immediately" after a photo of uniformed Marines bowing their heads in prayer for the president went highly publicized. Anticipate that, as with its gamble on other fronts, the ACLU will petition our courts until they find a judge to force upon officers a different oath - one that excludes "So help me God" as its salutation. In the end, the ACLU wants the military to mirror popular civilian culture, but devastatingly gone with the UCMJ will be combat cohesion, moral duty and decisive action on the battlefield.

To be sure, groups like the ACLU are domestic enemies of the United States. They deliberately distort the Constitution to promote their radical agendas. Worst of all, no court shows signs of abating this destructive influence in our civil or military law. Consequently, it is well with the officer's oath to support and defend the Constitution's foundation in order that no enemy directly or indirectly undoes the Constitution's intended language to such an extreme that officers will have nothing left worthy of their pledge or of their armed service.

[WTPUSA]

I don't know. I am looking for information now.

Federal law requires everyone who enlists or re-enlists in the Armed Forces of the United States to take the enlistment oath. The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces is administered by any commissioned officer to any person enlisting or re-enlisting for a term of service into any branch of the military. The officer asks the person, or persons, to raise their right hand and repeat the oath after him. The oath is traditionally performed in front of the United States Flag and other flags, such as the state flag, military branch flag, and unit guidon may be present.

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

In the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

Guide Note: There has been some controversy about whether the phrase "So help me God" is mandatory. I have seen officers allow enlistees to omit these words, if they choose, according to their religious preference and beliefs. While federal law does not appear to make any part of the oath optional (see Title 10, Section 502 of the United States Code), military regulations often do. For example, the Army enlistment regulation (see Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 6-18) makes the portion "So help me God" optional.

History of the Oath of Enlistment

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men of the Continental Army.

The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read:


I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army.

The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read:


I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.

The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The next section of that chapter specified that "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established."

The 1789 enlistment oath was changed in 1960 by amendment to Title 10, with the amendment (and current wording) becoming effective in 1962.

Much of the above information courtesy of the Army's Center for Military History

[Jeff]

I cant find back up on this story..I cannot seem to find a credible source if this is true.

[WTPUSA]

Oh My. This is disturbing.