Obama’s Hitler Oath?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Obama’s Hitler Oath?

  1. #1

    Obama’s Hitler Oath?

    Obama’s Hitler Oath?

    Kurt Nimmo
    Prison Planet
    Friday, January 30, 2009

    Under the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, German Wehrmacht officers and soldiers as well as civil servants pledged personal loyalty to the Führer, not the German constitution. It appears Obama has taken a page from Hitler’s authoritarian playbook, according to Michele Chang. “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,” Chang writes.

    Chang’s assertion is not corroborated by the corporate media and other news sources.

    The claim falls on the heels of Obama’s supposed flub of the oath of office, as explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, which begins by saying the president shall take the oath “before he enter on the execution of his office.” Chief Justice John Roberts misplaced the word “faithfully.” In a technical sense, Obama did not take the oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution, a fact widely dismissed by scholars and the corporate media. On the following day, Obama retook the oath in the privacy of the White House, sans not only the presence of television cameras, but a bible as well.

    “What appears to be the authentic inauguration took place in a basement, and was an elite rather than a populist rite, with just nine witnesses,” writes Michael Hoffman. “It occurred in former President Franklin Roosevelt’s secretive, war-era ‘map room.’ Before FDR, under presidents from Chester Arthur through Wilson and Coolidge, it was reputedly used to play the game of billiards.”

    “We believe the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday,” White House Counsel Greg Craig said in a statement. “But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time.”


    If Obama did indeed instruct the Pentagon to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, this would be in keeping with earlier unconstitutional usurpations, most notably the issuance of executive orders, memorandums, proclamations, regulations and other flexing of presidential power. Executive orders are not mentioned in the Constitution. “Executive orders issued by the Bush administration have sparked fear in the minds of many Americans (professors, academics, and non-academics) who have reason to believe such executive orders could be used to make Bush a de facto dictator since many of these orders allow Bush to side-step the other branches of government and make autocratic laws,” explains Dahlia Lithwick.

    In keeping with this tradition, Obama plans to issue his own spate of executive orders. “Some of the first executive orders will no doubt be pleasing to some of Barack Obama’s feminist supporters and will anger pro life supporters. Barack Obama will lift the restrictions on foreign aid to abortions that were imposed by President George W. Bush. Obama will also lift restrictions for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research,” writes Mark Whittington of Associated Content. It is expected Obama will also issue an executive order to reverse Bush’s opening of offshore areas and certain land areas such as Utah to oil exploration.

    “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,” Michele Chang claims White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated in a classified memo. “We expect a lot of flak over this. But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control.”

    Again, there is no independent corroboration on the existence of this classified memo. However, the tenor of the alleged memo does not come as a surprise in the wake of previous systematic unconstitutional actions, in particular Bush’s issuance of Executive Order 12919 allowing the president to declare martial law, Executive Order 12656, Executive Order 11921, Executive Order 13074, and a subsequent amendment to EO 12656. Add to these executive orders and others the John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2006, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, also known as PDD51, and you have the framework for martial law and a military dictatorship.

    Obama’s version of the Wehrmacht oath, if indeed true, would be required not to eliminate the “old harbingers of hate,” but establish fidelity on the part of the military to a bankster imposed dictator, especially after martial law is declared.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. I have a bridge for sale in Lake Havasu city, cheap!

    I figure if you are gullible enough to post something like this then you would be gullible enough to buy a slightly used bridge in Arizona!

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by rockwerks View Post
    I have a bridge for sale in Lake Havasu city, cheap!

    I figure if you are gullible enough to post something like this then you would be gullible enough to buy a slightly used bridge in Arizona!
    I figure if you are gullible enough to believe that Obama would not do something like this or worse then I have two to sell you. I put nothing past him.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #4
    wolfhunter Guest
    Obama is the Messiah. He will fix what's wrong with the U.S. Just because his proposed tactics didn't work for FDR, doesn't mean they won't work for BHO. Afterall, BHO can turn water into Kool-Aid for the masses.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    Obama is the Messiah. He will fix what's wrong with the U.S. Just because his proposed tactics didn't work for FDR, doesn't mean they won't work for BHO. Afterall, BHO can turn water into Kool-Aid for the masses.
    He is by no means the messiah but hes also not the devil. He is a man who got voted into office because the economy is in the tank. Will his stimulus package work? well probably not since much of the money is for social program boost rather than economic issues. And we already know the personal and family rebates that we tried under Bush wont help either (which is the majority of the plan) People will see over the next couple of months his true nature, The best we can do is post the truth, Posting moronic stuff such as the first post in this thread is what makes Republicans look stupid and outdated.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437
    **** Cheney and Addington were eaten up with this "supremacy of presidential authority in wartime" crap - and now look what they've delivered to us. That's exactly the type of attitude that plagues the GOP - abandon conservative principles in favor of following a short-term, shallow policy agenda that can't possibly be good in the long run. Continually assure everyone that things are just going to go splendidly.

    When things go badly, shrug and blame it on the opposition, or chastise supporters for not trying hard enough. Then go and re-elect the same party leader in a major swing state, where the state GOP organization totally botched everything and handed a bucket of votes to Obama. Woo-hoo.
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098

    I googled this!

    OMG! There are a lot of sites carrying this article. If this is true, we are in for a world of crap. If this is not true we need to help find a way to stop it. We cannot let this happen in our nation. I may be retired but the oath doesn't quit until you die. It is sworn before GOD! It is the most important thing a soldier/sailor/airman/marine can ever utter!

    This is what the oath currently is...


    The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

    "I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

    "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
    Last edited by festus; 01-30-2009 at 11:35 PM.
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  9. #8
    Well I checked it out on snopes and at least according to them it is false. If it did come to pass it still would not surprise me. As I said I would put nothing past him. The dangers he poses to our constitution are far greater than many want to believe. He is not just another bad choice for President. He is the most Marxist President ever elected.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  10. Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    Well I checked it out on snopes and at least according to them it is false. If it did come to pass it still would not surprise me. As I said I would put nothing past him. The dangers he poses to our constitution are far greater than many want to believe. He is not just another bad choice for President. He is the most Marxist President ever elected.
    Gee its amazing what a little ACTUAL research does huh? It amazes me how many of you guys believe even the most moronic stuff you read on the net. LOL That bridge is still for sale!

  11. #10
    wolfhunter Guest
    Found this by the folks at Black Five: BLACKFIVE: Bust Their Chops Archives

    Oaths Changing from a Pledge to the Constitution to a Pledge to President Obama?
    Posted By Blackfive
    Was asked by someone in one of the big media outfits to look into this:

    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 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.

    My email back to the news exec was that, while I thought it completely false and satirical (all pledges from Demi Moore to President Obama aside), I would look into it. Using a few of the B5 authors' contacts, we have been able to receive verbal confirmation from sources that this is completely FALSE. We will post official responses from General Cartwright's office if/when we receive them.

    There you have it.

    Blackfive.net defends the Obama Administration from slander. Next up, pigs in flight over the ice flows in the gulf of Mexico.

    ~Blackfive

    Update: For the curious, the "news story" has been popping up at other blogs and email, not just the one linked. We wanted to keep it from going viral.

    I apologize for any parietal heart attacks or strokes this may have caused.

    Update 2: Just six months ago, I posted this photo:

    "...defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies..."


    U.S. Army Sgt. Daryl Williams takes the oath of enlistment from his hospital bed at the 86th Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad, Iraq, July 9, 2008. Williams is assigned to the Scout/Sniper Platoon, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Combined Arms Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Multi-National Division – Baghdad. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Zachary Mott.

    We fight for each other. We defend the Constitution. We swear fealty to no man, but to an ideal. That all men are free. Freedom is worth fighting for. Freedom is worth dying for. Swearing an oath to a man is not freedom, but the exact opposite.

    Perhaps that is why this story got legs (from a civilian perspective) in the first place. Some part of civilian America is not understanding their own military.

    Quite frankly, if this would happen, it would nullify all enlistment contracts, there would be a mass exodus, and most likely, there would be revolt with Chuck Z in the lead tank heading down Pennsylvania Avenue...after all, the military men and women study our history and our enemies more than our civilians do (of course). It's been pointed out that swearing an oath to the country's leader is something from the Hitler play book. No, it's not. Certainly, Hitler used the tactic, but so did every tyrant the world has seen. And it's been used by every tyrant that the United States of America has put down - the latest being Saddam. There will be others.

    Therefore, this is why the story got legs (from a military perspective) because everyone higher up in the military that we talk to about this is in utter disbelief that the rest of America would even consider it possible. They are incredulous. Which is why it is taking us some time to get an official response.

    January 29, 2009 • Permalink • Comments (33) • TrackBack (2)
    Categories and Tags: Bust Their Chops • Technorati Links
    Technorati Tags:


    Subscribe to this feed • Email this • Add to del.icio.us • Digg This! • Share on Facebook • Stumble It! • Save to del.icio.us • Technorati Links


    The Deserter's Tale - Milbloggers deconstruct Joshua Key's

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast