Wake up...

---

...AND WATCH OUT FOLKS! THIS IS THE SAME THING HITLER REQUIRED OF HIS TROOPS! Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution http://www. resistnet. com/profiles/blog/list January 29, 2009 at 2:00pm "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.

This is so gonna start one of those 'grrr' topics. How and ever...You left big gaps in the link thor! So it was unlink'able (another imaginary verb) http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blog/list I was about to join, because I thought that there was something you wanted us to read there...but I stopped myself.*Are you sure this is true? I thought it was just a make-believe airy-fairy story? Wasn't it a part of the inaugral pledge to uphold the Constitution? But even if it was, that doesn't mean that having the military swear to the president isn't in line with the Constitution. Right? Wrong?*The Constitution is hardly going to be ''phased out'' within two years! It's what keeps the country standing, in a way. It may be updated, but not completely scrapped.

You'll find the story in http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/01/military-to-pledge-oath-to-obama-not.htmlThe last tag at the end of the story is "satire".I'm afraid the conservative bloggers have made fools of themselves again.

it's called "history"you should read it some day as opposed to swallowing rhetoricit's called "truth"you should.... never mind, you make it all up on your own anyway

Well Thor you undoubtedly found this on the internet. Therefore it obviously must be true.

(This is satire, since you don't seem to recognize it.)

When you read form the second reply all the way to mine, does it feel like a kick in the nuts with each new post?

Originally Posted By: GrvtykllrWhen you read form the second reply all the way to mine, does it feel like a kick in the nuts with each new post? Nah...just a sick feeling in the bottom of the stomach. The kind you get when you see your kid eat poison without you being able to stop him.We are on our way to a socialist nation, whether you or others want to bury your heads in the sand about it or not. It'll be interesting to see the changes Obama makes behind the scenes...the changes the liberal media will never report. After four years time (assuming we can all still afford internet connections then), we'll have this conversation again.

My wife works for the ISP, I have high speed, faster than cable or DLS and beats the dog shit out of Hughes sat, as well as my home phone, and 50 hours per month of long distance in US and Canada for free. I will be able to afford it.I do not agree with all aspects of socialized systems, but some of it is good.Tell me why you think that you should be able to get the best health care only if you can afford it? The constitution guarantees us all to be treated equal, if you have a million in the bank and I have 2 dollars to my name, we both need a kidney transplant, why should you get to have one because you can pay and I shouldnt because I cant?Read it all Thor. Did you know that its ILLEGAL to collect taxes when we are not at war?We still to this day are not at war, its a conflict, that is the official name, not war. yet we all still pay taxes, if we do not, we get to go to federal fuck me in the ass prison. Since we all pay them, should we not get something in return?If you can work and choose not to, then fuck ya, you have to contribute to the system, but if your working and trying and paying your taxes, then why the fuck should yo be held back from medical treatments ? Why do US citizens pay more for the same drugs manufactured at the same plants by the same country and developers than our Canadian counter parts? how the fuck is it right that we pay more than they do? One product, one price. I do think we can both agree that welfare is a crock of shit.Its a great idea, but its broken, its a hand up to get you on your feet, to help you start making it on your own when your down. People take advantage of that and make it a way of life, those cocksuckers I have issues with. A girl who is uneducated and a single mother, trying to better herself and get some school and get off welfare and make a life for herself and child? I have no issues with her eating and having a safe place to stay for a while, no problem with her going to school and learning a trade and a way to pay her own way, all on the ticket my taxes pay for. The cow that gets on and says fuck work! Ill work the system! thats the bitch I got a problem with, spend 20 years on it pumping out kids to get a increase in benefits! those fucking bastards are who need to live in the streets and freeze and starve.

You must have missed my chart in the other thread. Anyway, I agree with certain socially-based ideas too...including equal medical help for all. But the problem is they never work because somebody always ends up at the top screwing over the rest of us. In the Soviet Union, they had a larger percent of the countries GNP tied up in the black market than any other country...16%. And they're supposed to be all for one and one for all??? It just never works out because, as I said, the guys at the top make sure they get better than everyone else. But the biggest problem is that Socialism is, more often than not, a smokescreen for a totalitarian regime...a means to an end. Look at both Hitler and Stalin and see where they fall on that chart in the other thread. They both brought the power into the government and screwed over who they wanted, when they wanted. Contrast that to America which is supposed to be "by the people, for the people" (not by the rich, for themselves). How would you like to live under one of those clowns like Hitler or Stalin? We might just find out...though it's going to happen more slowly. The problem is that things aren't bad enough yet where the public is willing to let some shmoe with a bag full of empty promises take all the power he wants to...not yet. If things start getting really bad in this country (much worse than they are now)...look out for some clown disguised as a "good guy" grabbing all the power, with the blessing of the public. He'll be ushering in a new age alright.

I agree with your take on welfare...I'm just leary of any guy who wants to bring on socialism. History has shown that it never works, and most always end up with some totalitarian regime in place who rakes their people over the coals. The government has to maintain some controls or industry will run amuk and destroy the resources of this planet, for one. But the move towards Socialism is a signal that those in control are seeking more power than the really need to do their job effectively, and nothing more.

I do not see it as bringing on socialism. I see it as taking certain aspects of socialism, that work and adding it to our own system.Socialism never works, it always ends up being communism in the end.communism is a grand idea, a fantastic and fair plan.then its put to use, someone takes control, and fucking BAM is all his power and the people get shit on. The idea is sound, the practice is shit.BTW...that is exactly what bush did. people begged to have rights stripped int eh name of protection from terrorist. the patriot act set this country back more than any law or bill or idea since the constitution came to be.

you still think Hitler was a socialist... fascinatingafter he declared war on socialists, did he punch himself in the eye every morning?also, don't confuse public health with communism. Communits & facists are both disfunctional extrams. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative can work. It's a funny little idea called "balance"Also, try to remember that what America considers to be liberal is still pretty damn conservative compared to much of the rest of the world. Obama would be a Progressive Conservative in Canada

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedyou still think Hitler was a socialist... While not how he ended, that's exactly how he started out. And it is beginnings we are speaking of.

if that's the case then we should be worried about Catholic choir boys because they all turn into genocidal maniacs

Originally Posted By: unsupervised

if that's the case then we should be worried about Catholic choir boys because they all turn into genocidal maniacs

Your analogy holds no water...holy or otherwise. :wink:
_________________________________________________________________

Some of Obama's recent "choices":

David Ogden for Deputy Attorney General
Hearing Date: Today, Feb. 5

Pornography and Obscenity: Ogden has extensively represented Playboy, Penthouse and other pornography businesses on numerous occasions and even argued to force the government to use tax dollars to publish portions of Playboy in Braille at the Library of Congress. He also served as legal counsel opposing the Children's Internet Protection Act and the Child Protection Obscenity and Enforcement Act, which requires pornographers to verify "performers" are not children.

Anti-Life Record: Ogden has a record of supporting an almost unlimited right to abortion, providing legal counsel for groups like Planned Parenthood, National Organization for Women and People for the American Way. He argued that "abortion rarely causes or exacerbates psychological or emotional problems," opposed parental notification for 14-year-olds, and called spousal notification a "burden" that "cannot be justified."

Pro-homosexuality activism: Ogden served as counsel of record for a legal brief that said homosexuality "is a normal form of human sexuality" and has called traditional marriage a "social prejudice."

Thomas Perrelli for Associate Attorney General
Hearing Date: Feb. 10

Thomas Perrelli's nomination for the number-three post at the Department of Justice is raising concerns because he argued on behalf of Michael Schiavo' s right to withhold food and water from his disabled wife Terri Schiavo, which resulted in her death. Perrelli was lauded by pro-euthanasia activists for his efforts.

Dawn Johnsen for Office of Legal Counsel
Hearing Date: Pending

Dawn Johnsen is former legal director for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and an ACLU fellow. NARAL is one of the most left-wing, pro-abortion, polarizing groups in the nation. Throughout her career, Johnsen has been an open advocate of the abortion-rights lobby and is further evidence that Obama is politicizing the Justice Department.

I really am surprised, thor. Do you really think that sides in a legal case with which you disagree should not have access to legal counsel? Or that legal counsel that represent them should be forbidden from high office?

Originally Posted By: IneligibleI really am surprised, thor. Do you really think that sides in a legal case with which you disagree should not have access to legal counsel? Or that legal counsel that represent them should be forbidden from high office? I made no such implication...you did. All I imply here is that Obama has made it clear as to what he truly believes in (and could not if he were a Christian as he claims to be). If you really expect me to believe Obama has done this out of concern for those you speak of (and not his own political agenda), I'll be the one who's surprised...right before I laugh.

uhhh where is the secret part? I knew about BO supporting those issues before I voted for him, and as to thsoe he did not announce support for.... The guy was a lawyer, he takes on cases, so what?There is an attorney here in Utah I was listening to the other day, someone asked him about defending drunks and murders and rapists.His reply was they deserve a lawyer that defends them, they are guaranteed it, and thats what I do for a living. Its more important to police the police than to let an accused ggo with out representation.Its a complex issue, Im far to laxy to go into at the moment, but I voted for BO, Id vote for him again and unless he does some drastic bullshit in the next four years Ill vote for him again.

"Its more important to police the police..."I'm sure the founders of this country would be maybe amazed and certainly disappointed with how many people here either have forgotten that or don't believe it.

Scotty.....I agree!Chance.....I've got your back!

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: IneligibleI really am surprised, thor. Do you really think that sides in a legal case with which you disagree should not have access to legal counsel? Or that legal counsel that represent them should be forbidden from high office? I made no such implication...you did. All I imply here is that Obama has made it clear as to what he truly believes in (and could not if he were a Christian as he claims to be). If you really expect me to believe Obama has done this out of concern for those you speak of (and not his own political agenda), I'll be the one who's surprised...right before I laugh. Yes Thor, you are always masterful at implying all sorts of things.3 points: 1. How would it a bad thing for a politician to "make it clear what he truly believes in?"You are way out of sync with the vast majority of the American public if you disapprove of that idea. A general sense of disgust with years on end of presidential dishonesty probably has a hell of a lot to do with why Obama was elected in the first place. 2. A concern for an issue or constituency and a political agenda need not necessarily be antinomial as you seem to imply. I'll certainly grant that is often the case, and almost always the case with Republicans regarding certain specific issues. But sometimes a concern over something can be the reason a person runs for office. 3. Stating what cases some appointees have been involved in is in itself meaningless without some factual information about these cases and what specific issues were involved. I could explain that further if you'd like, but here's the more important point: These "social conservative" issues are the last thing on most peoples' minds right now. (Personally I most sincerely hope that social conservatives keep relentlessly pushing them, because it can only lead to the further demise and marginalization of the republican/conservative party.) When the entire economy is in shambles, millions are losing their jobs, people are losing homes all over the country, more and more people are without health care, two wars are in session, etc., etc., etc., etc. people worry a hell of a lot less about abortion, pornography, who is the "true" Christian or not and the like. Increasingly people are worried about hanging on and not ending up penniless and living on the street. So by all means keep posting your internet rumors and talking about everything but the realities that are affecting people's lives right now. From a political viewpoint I wholeheartedly encourage it.