The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Obligation to Defend the Constitution of the United States  (Read 1970 times)


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Obligation to Defend the Constitution of the United States
« on: July 11, 2009, 12:45:55 pm »

Sorry if this is the wrong forum.

July 11, 2009

Obligation to Defend the Constitution of the United States

When I obtained my commission in the U.S. Army, I swore the following oath: "I, James L. Boyland,  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.)


The Vice President of the United States, Senators, Representatives, and other government officers swear an almost identical oath.


Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires the president of the United States to swear the following oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


When the Constitution is thought to be a "living document", these oaths present a dilemma. How is one to know what next year's "living document" will say, or what it will say in ten years? This dilemma is illustrated by the current administration's plans to prosecute government employees for past actions, in the light of this week's interpretation of the "living document".


The concept of the Constitution being a "living document" renders the document our Founding Fathers labored so hard to produce worthless. If we accept the "living document" definition, then the Constitutional Republic established on September 17, 1787 has been weakened and is at risk of being destroyed. Some courts have already weakened or voided provisions of the Constitution by issuing rulings without constitutional authority. Likewise, the Congress has also passed laws that violate provisions of the Constitution. We, the people, have allowed this to happen by not demanding that our elected representatives adhere to the Constitution or utilize the amendment process it provides.


On the 233rd anniversary of the signing of The Declaration of Independence, our Constitutional Republic is facing a serious crises, perhaps the most serious in our history. We have elected a Congress and a president who collectively: think in global terms; appear to believe international law should be equal to or trump U.S. law; worry about the rights of terrorists by providing them legal remedies not afforded them under the Geneva Convention; are willing to place our military in harms way in the name of political correctness; and, who either did not understand, or worse, have chosen to ignore the oath they took.


Our Congress has passed laws, upheld by the courts, that allow seizing private property without compensation, a practice forbidden by our Constitution. Our president has reduced the Department of Defense budget for weapons to defend our homeland against our enemies, while our enemies are building weapons to attack us.


North Korea is not only working in conjunction with Iran (both countries in Bush's axis of evil) to perfect N. Korea’s first ICBM and enable it to reach America’s west coast; but the two are apparently collaborating on nuclear weapons development. Obama's response to these obvious threats has been to reduce to the budget for missile defense and for advanced nuclear detection devices to be deployed at ports. Yet, the media and our State Department wonder what emboldens North Korea and Iran! Whom will they blame if we loose part of Hawaii or Alaska to a nuclear attack?


America’s aging fighter aircraft are nearing the end of their life cycles. Russia is developing a new class of fighters capable of outperforming the F-15, F-16, and F-18. The administration’s answer to this threat was to cancel production of the F-22A under the premise that the future F-35 Lightning II fighters will be sufficient to defend the country.


By canceling production of the F-22A, our president and secretary of defense have failed to uphold their oath. Approximately 187 F-22As will be produced by the end of 2010, when original projections called for 243 aircraft to provided moderate protection. Obama says not to worry, the F-35 is the answer. Is it?  The F-22A production was cut, because its cost increased. What will happen when the F-35 cost increases—cost that will inevitably increase, because the coming wave of inflation brought on by Obama’s bailouts and stimulus packages will force devaluation of the dollar and drive up material costs?


The war in Iraq has worn-out military equipment that must be replaced, yet no plans exist to do so.


In Afghanistan, the tempo of military operations is expected to increase, and so will the body count and equipment loses. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, announced the new rules of engagement (ROE) designed to reduce civilian fatalities. McChrystal’s orders seem to reflect the Obama administration concerns that our actions may cause regional civilian anger against the U.S. military. It is apparent that the Obama administration places a higher value on reducing civilian fatalities than the lives of American soldiers. The new ROEs are designed to reduce the use of bombs, missiles and other heavy weaponry in populated areas. U.S. forces are now required to disengage and leave the area—to the terrorists—if fired upon from a house or building where civilians may be present.


There is no way to win an engagement, must less a war, with these ROEs. The purpose of war is victory. If Obama does not seek victory, and is willing to sacrifice our men and women, then it is time to bring our military home. We will need them here, for surely the enemy, who perceives us to be weak, is coming.


The Korean war ended in a ceasefire on July 27, 1953. There was an armistice signed by North Korea, China and the UN, but not South Korea. A peace treaty between the two Koreas was signed in 2007. Kim Jong-Il announced the government would no longer honor the North-South armistice signed at the end of the Korean War.


North Korea tested a second nuclear device and hints it is preparing to detonate a third one. In response to the nuclear and ICBM missile tests, the UN passed another of its meaningless sanctions. The latest resolution allows UN. member states to inspect North Korean vessels if they have "reasonable grounds" to believe that its cargo contains banned weapons or materials. But it must first get the consent of the nation whose flag the ship is flying - in this case, North Korea. Does anyone think North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jung-Il, know as “Dear Leader” will give such consent?


Now ask yourself—Do you feel safer now than you did seven years ago?


Would Islamic radicals (al-Qaeda or the Taliban) use Pakistan’s nuclear weapons if they could? Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, provided an answer in an interview with Al Jazeera television, "God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans."


By failing to uphold his oath to defend all the provisions of our Constitution, as penned by our Founding Fathers, Obama and his Congressional cohorts are weakening America’s defenses and rapidly driving America toward European socialism. Our enemies can’t help but see us as weak when Obama’s administration shows more interest in prosecuting members of the previous administration than eliminating terrorists. We have an attorney general who thinks he is “General of the Armies”, and we have a neophyte president who some think is a god.


On MSNBC, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said of the president: "In a way, Obama's [is] standing above the country, above – above the world. He's sort of God." Speaking of President Ronald Reagan, Thomas said he was "all about America" (and) Obama is 'We are above that now. We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial.' "


Huh? Liberals, who do not want the word "God" mentioned, now think Barack Hussein Obama is a God! America does not need a president who is “above that now”—above the Constitution; and, America certainly does not need a "God" president. What we do need is another true patriot who is “all about America”—a patriot like Ronald Reagan.


Are we going to let liberals destroy our Constitutional Republic? I say NO.

If our children and grandchildren are to have a bright future, we must take back our country and return to the values of our Founding Fathers. Let us begin by demanding that Congress and the president adhere to Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America, and the oath that they took, or demand that they be summarily impeached for failure to do so under provisions of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.


  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 123
  • 3rd Herd
Re: Obligation to Defend the Constitution of the United States
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2009, 08:31:53 am »

Nice read.  I cut and pasted your version to print as the web site had no printer friendly version. :tinfoil:
Pages: [1]   Go Up