[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

....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? So
according to you I am somehow not living up to my oath because I
"allow" anarchists to plan "protests"? Exactly how, imbecile? LOL!

Here, let's have you read it:

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.)

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

[Clyde Slick]

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


Here, let's have you read it:

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.)

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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

No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to.

"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;"

I will support, defend and bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States. Period. Nothing to do with
government is stated. And that is, BTW, intentional. The enlisted
version (the first one) simply states (if you are referring to the
part about the President of the United States) they swear that they
will follow the orders of the military chain of command.

Here, let's have you read it:

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.)

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm-

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 21:23, "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

No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to.


"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 will obey the orders of the President of the
United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, "

that is an oath, and its an oath to the government,
to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you
That 'is' the governmnet.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 9:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 15 Sep, 21:23, "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

No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to.

"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 will obey the orders of the President of the
United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, "

that is an oath, and its an oath to the government,

Nope.

to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you
That 'is' the governmnet.

No, Clyde, as I said that is an oath to follow the orders of the
military chain of command. The President in CinC. And that's the
enlisted version of the oath. Look at the officer's version. Do you
see anything missing? (Hint: it's what you just quoted.)

Don't believe me? Don't believe the quotes I provided in the other
post? Look it up then. You're wrong and you're chasing your tail.
You've hung around 2pid too long. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 23:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 15, 9:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 15 Sep, 21:23, "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

No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to.

"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 will obey the orders of the President of the
United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, "

that is an oath, and its an oath to the government,

Nope.

to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you
That 'is' the governmnet.

No, Clyde, as I said that is an oath to follow the orders of the
military chain of command. The President in CinC. And that's the
enlisted version of the oath. Look at the officer's version. Do you
see anything missing? (Hint: it's what you just quoted.)

Don't believe me? Don't believe the quotes I provided in the other
post? Look it up then. You're wrong and you're chasing your tail.
You've hung around 2pid too long. LoL.- Ascunde citatul -


I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it.
The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives
its powers
through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to
the legally constituted government, you therefore do
not have allegiance to the Constitution, you
are just thumbiing your nose at it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[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.

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 23:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
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.- Ascunde citatul -



The Constitution is the authority of
the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
and their powers. Allegiance to the
Constitution is allegiance to the government.
The basic purpose of the Constitution is
to organize and empower our government.
Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
that is, primarily, our government.

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 23:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
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.-

the Constitution empowers the government, if you have no allegiance to
the
government of the US, you have no allegieance to'the Constitution that
empowered it, you are
just thumbing your nose at it. By refusing
allegiance to the government, you are saying the Constitution is
worthless in its main purpiose, which is to give power and legitamicy
to the government.
I really don't care whether or not you'have allegiance to the
government,
but just don't honk on about having allegiamne to'the Constitutiion,
you don't.


I don't throw off my allegiance when we have a President I might
not happen to like, say, such as Clinton. During Clinton's
tenure, I was still allegiant to the government and to
his Presidency. I didn't have to like him, or his policies,
but I was allegiant to the government that he was President of.