[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 9:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 15 Sep, 21:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the
Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a
public library?

Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for
imprisonment?

And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's
or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government?

Not true, read what you quoted below
it is to BOTH

Cheney Misstates Military Oath

David R. Henderson
Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me
note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his
West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West
Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the
United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated:

"On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right
hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your
vow, that is the business you're in."

Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in
the U.S. Army take:

"I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S.
Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such
appointment and 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; 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."

Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow
to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they
don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former
student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor,
isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the
United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes,
it is interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/

And a note from the far right-wing whackos:

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.

[i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of
anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the
damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't
even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you
couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing
whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service."
Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!]

http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml

No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution.

that 'is' the United States.

Quibbling noted. It is not an oath to defend the US. It is not an oath
to defend the government or the people of the US. It *is* an oath to
defend the Constitution of the US.

The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
based on.