Story Comments
Posted by: Pecossam 7 months, 4 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
29%
Pecossam7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Eagle_eye,
Reply
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to CNN's John King:
"The report is not saying veterans are extremists, far from it. What it is saying is returning veterans are targets of right-wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country. We want to do all we can to prevent that."
Really, Janet? "We want to do all we can prevent that." Then I would suggest you tell those you suspect of IGNORING their oaths to NO LONGER run ROUGHSHOD over the Constitution of these United States. For OUR CONSTITUTION is what an enlisted Service Member swears allegiance to FIRST and FOREMOST.
"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;....". The rest then states, ".....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."
Did you get that, Janet? "...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;...."
It is very simple, Janet, even for Socialists/Communists to understand: If one will OBEY and HONOR the Supreme Law of these United States, the CONSTITUTION, then one need not worry about the returning Veterans confusing one for a DOMESTIC ENEMY.. On the other hand, if one is given to Unconstitutional Socialist/Utopian Goals and Actions, and does not give a darn how he (or she) strives for them (INCLUDING running ROUGHSHOD over OUR CONSTITUTION), then one may have BIG PROBLEMS, as most Veterans I know take their oath to the Constitution VERY SERIOUSLY. Do you understand, Janet? I hope I've clarified things for you and assuaged your fears.-
-
Neutral
Pecossam7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
skyking2p,
Reply
And at what point would you consider a government out of control and requiring one who has sworn the Oath of Enlistment to act? Just how many transgressions are required before one is required to uphold their SOLEMN OATH? As the "Declaration of Independence" states:
"....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, IT IS THEIR DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." If such is required of every citizen, how much more for the Soldier and Veteran who has taken the Oath of Enlistment?
Or are you one of those who believe that today's oaths are merely symbolic, all form and no substance? It is evident that most of our public figures hold that sentiment, at least that's the impression they give through their actions, or rather lack of action in some cases.
It would be interesting to know why you, and others, disagree with my comment and have marked it "negative". So I hereby issue a challenge to:
Ciera-Marie, Eagle_Eye, fsev41, hefaa1, and yourself, to state your reasons.
Thank you.
-
-
50%
willottica7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wouldn't the oath they swear force them to support and defend the constitution against those who would maintain standing armies? (i.e. their own superiors)
Reply
So, simply by swearing the oath and joining a standing army, they have demonstrated their willingness to ignore some parts of the constitution and to abrogate their oath.
I'm not saying that makes them dangerous criminals. What I'm saying is that the oath likely doesn't mean a lot vis-a-vis the "defending the constitution" part. A lot of people likely say the words without really understanding the meaning and implications of them.-
Neutral
Pecossam7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
willottica,
Reply
No it would not, because the Military is funded by Congress every two years as provided for in the Constitution. By placing that provision in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers ensured that any concerns about the Military would have to be addressed at least every two years.
-
-
loading ...
simonsez
k9kssrPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (5)
Ciera-Marie
Eagle_Eye
fsev41Submit a Story
Advertisement
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.