do yall think this is true?

[Dexter]

   Secretary
> > of Defense Robert Gatesis
> > 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 Jo int 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.
> >
> > CAN
> > YOU BELIEVE THIS CRAP!!! WHAT'S NEXT...IS HE GOING TO
> > ASK THE ALLEGIANCE OF ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS & SET
> > HIMSELF UP AS GOD TO BE WORSHIPPED??? (No, Just
> > "President for Life"!!!)
> > THIS
> > FRAUD &
> > TRAITOR TO THE UNITED STATES & IT'S
> > CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED!!!!
> >
> > IF
> > YOU'RE AS OUTRAGED BY THIS AS I AM...PASS IT ON SO
> > OTHERS KNOW WHAT THIS SNEAKY FRAUD IS UP TO BEHIND
> > CLOSED DOORS!

[muleman]

I dont know if its true but reading it makes me ill

[cantexduck]

fake.

[mradel]

Dexter if it is true all our freedoms as Americans are gone.It makes me sick but I don't think Americans will stand for it

[sam]

where did ypu get this from

[Dexter]

my momma sent it to me,,,

 i know if half of the things go through that we know about we Amercans are screwed, i am more and more think  that TEXAS needs to send the white house a finger and get out while the getting is good
         jmo
     Dexter
these are the scariest times i have ever seen in my 48 yrs,, but what do we expect from a man named hussain barrack obama
 again these are my view and feelings

[WAARHEID]

I don't think having an Arab name is what makes him scary. There are people in this country whose grandparents were European Christians who are just as scary - or scarier - than Barack Obama.

Part of the human condition is that it longs for freedom and liberty. Arabs (and non-Arab Muslims) are just as human as anyone else. They want freedom. The current events in Iran demonstrate this rather well.

The problem is that another part of the human condition is corruption. It is said that absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Examples of this abound in the Arab world, but they also abound right here in the U.S., where there is no shortage of political corruption... in both major parties.

Barack Obama is a narcissistic and corrupt ideologue; that is the problem. He ardently believes in "economic justice" which is simply a euphemism for the socialist redistribution of wealth, by force. He and a complicit (or even cooperative) congress are operating outside of the confines of their constitutional authority and nationalizing the financial, manufacturing, and healthcare sectors of our economy. He has been corrupted "community organizations" and labor unions.

I doubt this story is legitimate, but it has the ring of truth because to most observant people it has become clear that a president who selects Supreme Court justice nominees based on their "empathy" and not on their commitment to the constitution and the rule of law, obviously has no regard for the constitution anyway. But if it is true this would be a game changer, and beyond scary. A change in the oath from constitutional allegiance to presidential allegiance would be another hallmark of a corrupt and dangerous executive, because it would instantly transform the soldier from a member of a national fighting force, into a well equipped thug in the president’s private army. The potential for despotism would increase exponentially.

After 9/11 we were supposed to internalize the reality that regardless of religion or ethnicity, we are all Americans. We should be united by the spirit and principles of liberty. I wouldn't care is his name was "John Smith". He is a "Progressive Fascist". That is why he is a danger to the future of the republic.

[TrueBlueLacys]

That was a satirical story posted on a humor blog in February. And yes, these are the reactions it was satirizing, right wingers that don't research the "stories," just forward on anything that sounds bad. How ironic that people are now using it as the type of fear mongering forward it was intended to make fun of.

[Circle C]

Julie,

    Be fair...It's not just the right wingers that "don't research the "stories," just forward on anything that sounds bad...."  The lefties do their share too.

[TrueBlueLacys]

True, but lefties don't to forward it through email, they just spread the word at indie rock concerts and then satirize the satire with a satirical chapbook to hand out at coffee shops

But honestly, as someone with lots of friends on the right and lots of friends on the left, I can tell you who 99% of my ridiculous political forwards come from, and it's not the Obama supporters. Everyone is entitled to their own political opinion, that is why America is a great country, I just wish they would refrain from filling my inbox with junk unless they research it first. Not that this is my inbox, but obviously it strikes a familiar nerve

[Circle C]

I just wish they would refrain from filling my inbox with junk unless they research it first.

I agree.   I set up an email filter on the people that consistently fwd emails to me. Keeps my inbox nice and neat.

[WAARHEID]

That was a satirical story posted on a humor blog in February. And yes, these are the reactions it was satirizing, right wingers that don't research the "stories," just forward on anything that sounds bad. How ironic that people are now using it as the type of fear mongering forward it was intended to make fun of.

Left wingers are equally accomplished knee-jerk reactionaries and grandstanders.

We need to stop operating in the left-vs.-right paradigm. The founding fathers gave us a construct which was very close to anarchy… this is why the Articles of Confederation failed. The confederate union of colonies failed, but was replaced with a constitutional republic which was only ever so slightly more oriented towards restrictive governance, and the vast majority of that was to be the prerogative of the states to prevail upon themselves at the state level.

If we look at the trajectory our government has taken since that 1787 meeting in Philadelphia, not in terms or left-vs.-right, but in terms of constitutional-limitation-vs.-totalitarianism, we would see that those on the left and the right have both been singing different verses of the same song. The only substantive difference is that along the way the Republicans have rallied support around the idea of fiscal responsibility and war mongering, while the Democrats have rallied support around the idea of correcting socio-economic “injustices”. But they are different sides of the same coin… they have both been moving the country slowly but surely towards larger, more invasive and pervasive federal government.

Any of us who keep working dogs and/or livestock (to say nothing of firearms) should be painfully aware of the intrusions of government in our personal lives and personal freedoms that the founding father were trying to avoid when creating the original framework.

Distracting ourselves from with tail-chasing left/right bickering is what allows the largely unnoticed erosion of the freedoms the revolutionaries and founders fought for in the first place.

[mradel]

People put so much on the president but you also better watch the congress and the people we are voting in to office

[Russ]

That was a satirical story posted on a humor blog in February. And yes, these are the reactions it was satirizing, right wingers that don't research the "stories," just forward on anything that sounds bad. How ironic that people are now using it as the type of fear mongering forward it was intended to make fun of.

Yea sounds like what the Libs were doing for the 8 years before