Main Menu

Military Oath Change farce fools Orly

In the article: Usurper Obama want’s military to pledge  allegance to him, not Constitution [now deleted] we see taken seriously a clearly-marked spoof article over at the Jumping in Pools blog.

A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint 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.

Now, The Betrayal is holding it pending investigation after someone clued them in, and Orly commenters are blaming it on the Obots. Well I AM one of the Obots and we would never try something that transparent.

Not only is the article a hoax, I read on the Plains Radio comments that it was created by an Obama supporter, specifically to make people in this movement look like fools! We should know better than to fall for such an obvious ploy.

Orly commenter sees the light?

First a link to Pravda that sent me to a page featuring a mutant puppy, now posting bogus material as fact. More and more I’m questioning the intelligence of whoever’s behind the wheel here. I started coming to this site looking for hard facts and evidence to help convince others of Obama’s illegitimacy for the Presidency, instead I’m finding a lot of unresearched semi-facts culled from blogs and other unsubstantiated sources.

Does this movement want to taken seriously or not? Is it about facts or baseless fear mongering. If this post isn’t taken down or explicitly labeled as what it is “a satire”, I’m going to start looking elsewhere for information and encourage others to do the same.

…and some not…

Please stop using Google search. Evidently, Google has decided to protect Obama by changing the “algorithim” in the search engine. Google has always been in Obama from the very begining. Therefore, their search engine is not reliable just like everything else. Thanks.

, , ,

33 Responses to Military Oath Change farce fools Orly

  1. avatar
    mimi January 30, 2009 at 1:01 am #

    Good job Obots. Keep it up!

  2. avatar
    George Orwell III January 30, 2009 at 3:06 am #


  3. avatar
    bogus info January 30, 2009 at 7:18 am #

    Isn’t theOath of Service codified in the U.S. Code. (The Uniform Code of Military Justice is also codified in the U.S. Code.)??

  4. avatar
    Michele Chang January 30, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    Sup, fools?

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2009 at 9:27 pm #

    That’s right–it’s written into law.


    And there are folks over at Jumping In Pools where the joke started still defending it’s truth! I kid you not.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2009 at 9:29 pm #

    ‘sup, Michele?

  7. avatar
    mimi January 30, 2009 at 9:46 pm #

    whaaaaaasssss upppppppppppp!

  8. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 31, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    Dr. Orly isn’t the only wingnut to get fooled by this. The poodle-brained Therese Daniels is also touting it.

  9. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 4:25 pm #

    “Birds of a feather flock together.”
    This bunch doesn’t care if anything is “factual” or not as long it casts President Obama as the villian, bad guy, evil one, etc., etc.

  10. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 31, 2009 at 9:37 pm #

    Zach Jones also fell for it:

    “Where did you find this? I wrote an article to day that you may find interesting:
    Obama, Oaths of Allegiance, the UCMJ, Unlawful Orders, Joe the Private, and a Call to Protect the Republic

    If your info is correct, it is very troubling and sounding very calculated.”

  11. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 9:47 pm #


    “If your info is correct, it is very troubling and sounding very calculated.”

    It is calculated. They are going to pull every punch to try to get Obama out of office. At some point, those who support Obama are going to have to come out in force. These people are not playing around. I’ve thought this for some time now.

  12. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 9:56 pm #


    Is this what troubles you?

    Just a thought as to a possible starting point for a Court of Inquiry:

    Any person who–
    (1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder…

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the status as Commander and Chief of the Military an appointment conferred upon the person who legitimately holds the Office of the Presidency?

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2009 at 10:13 pm #

    Like my daddy used to say: “Boy, your mouth is going to get you into more trouble.” Unless this is professional disinformation, it is unlikely that the person making this remark originally is or could remain anonymous. Once these guys slip over the line into criminal behavior, they should not expect to slip away unnoticed. Federal prosecutors have no sense of humor.

  14. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    Dr. C.,

    What are you saying?

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    I read “commander in chief” as a power of the president, not a second office. And the commander in chief has always been understood to be a “civilian” and as such not a “member” of the armed forces, and is not the recipient of pay or allowances from the military.

    Further, no Court of Inquiry could be held without a reason, and there is no reason.

  16. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    GeorgetownJD made this statement in a comment on The Right Side Of Life:

    “Suffice it to say, if they assert that the online COLB demonstrates that Obama was born in Honolulu, they have actual, admissible evidence to back it up. They are not required, at this point in the proceedings, to produce it.

    I believe this too.

  17. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 10:32 pm #

    Dr. C., I agree, but that won’t stop these nutcases from trying now will it?

    I’m not following you regarding this statement, please clarify:

    “Unless this is professional disinformation, it is unlikely that the person making this remark originally is or could remain anonymous. Once these guys slip over the line into criminal behavior, they should not expect to slip away unnoticed. Federal prosecutors have no sense of humor.”

  18. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 10:44 pm #

    Dr. C.,

    18 December 2008
    U.S. Military Implements Policies Set by Civilian Leaders
    Scholars discuss civilian, military roles in meeting foreign policy goals

    “Military subordination to civilian authority is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, he said, specifically Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. It establishes civilian power over the military by stipulating that the president (a civilian) “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.”

    “Article 2, Section 2 gives the president (the executive branch) the power to wage war, and the president is the civilian commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces. “

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    A professional could probably make a comment on the Internet anonymously, but an amateur would likely get caught. If what was said was criminal, e.g., inciting desertion, then a “I didn’t mean any harm” defense would hardly impress a Federal prosecutor.

  20. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 10:56 pm #

    Isn’t there something about a lawyer soliciting someone to sue that is unethical conduct? That is exactly what she is doing in that article I just posted. Soliciting parents of young enlisted military to let her represent them in a lawsuit.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2009 at 11:02 pm #

    You’re probably thinking of California Bar Rule 1-400.

    Rule 1-400. Advertising and Solicitation

    (A) For purposes of this rule, “communication” means any message or offer made by or on behalf of a member concerning the availability for professional employment of a member or a law firm directed to any former, present, or prospective client, including but not limited to the following:

    (1) Any use of firm name, trade name, fictitious name, or other professional designation of such member or law firm; or

    2) Any stationery, letterhead, business card, sign, brochure, or other comparable written material describing such member, law firm, or lawyers; or

    (3) Any advertisement (regardless of medium) of such member or law firm directed to the general public or any substantial portion thereof; or

    (4) Any unsolicited correspondence from a member or law firm directed to any person or entity.

    (B) For purposes of this rule, a “solicitation” means any communication:

    (1) Concerning the availability for professional employment of a member or a law firm in which a significant motive is pecuniary gain; and

    (2) Which is;
    (a) delivered in person or by telephone, or

    (b) directed by any means to a person known to the sender to be represented by counsel in a matter which is a subject of the communication.

    (C) A solicitation shall not be made by or on behalf of a member or law firm to a prospective client with whom the member or law firm has no family or prior professional relationship, unless the solicitation is protected from abridgment by the Constitution of the United States or by the Constitution of the State of California. A solicitation to a former or present client in the discharge of a member’s or law firm’s professional duties is not prohibited.

    (D) A communication or a solicitation (as defined herein) shall not:

    (1) Contain any untrue statement; or

    (2) Contain any matter, or present or arrange any matter in a manner or format which is false, deceptive, or which tends to confuse, deceive, or mislead the public; or

    (3) Omit to state any fact necessary to make the statements made, in the light of circumstances under which they are made, not misleading to the public; or

    (4) Fail to indicate clearly, expressly, or by context, that it is a communication or solicitation, as the case may be; or

    (5) Be transmitted in any manner which involves intrusion, coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats, or vexatious or harassing conduct.

    (6) State that a member is a “certified specialist” unless the member holds a current certificate as a specialist issued by the Board of Legal Specialization, or any other entity accredited by the State Bar to designate specialists pursuant to standards adopted by the Board of Governors, and states the complete name of the entity which granted certification.

  22. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 11:08 pm #

    Yes, now I’m asking you, do any of those apply to Orly?

  23. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 11:14 pm #

    Can you imagine Orly in a actual trial? Does “contempt of court” come to mind? Look at what she puts in writing to SCOTUS. Can you imagine what she wouldSAY to them?

  24. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 1, 2009 at 6:19 pm #

    More nonsense from Orly:

    Apparently Orly has been counseling members of the military to disobey orders; she apparently asks those who want to join her lawsuit to sign a consent form stating, “I would be unable to follow any orders given by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, since by doing so I would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing acts of treason.”

    Needless to say, this might be a direct path to a court martial to anyone who is dumb enough to give credence to her “legal” advice.

  25. avatar
    Hitandrun February 1, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    But Doc,
    Could the spoof be prophetic? a glimmer of things to come?

    On the ‘Decline and Fall’ front, as the Republic devolves into a personalizedmobocracy, check this out:

    And I used to pledge allegiance to flag and Republic. How uncool!


  26. avatar
    bogus info February 1, 2009 at 7:34 pm #


    As usual, you “conspiracy kooks” see “boogey men, marxists, communists, socialists, anti-christ”, etc., etc. in something that is innocent and is merely meant to say that they “support Obama” as President of USA. Nothing more.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 1, 2009 at 9:38 pm #

    It’s as prophetic as reading sheep entrails.

  28. avatar
    Burdell February 2, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    At least you got the conspiracy part right. It’s so obvious to anyone with a brain that what was considered “tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theory” is no longer theory, as the Wall Street Journal and others are now reporting on the New World Order. Now the tin-foil-hat wearers are the ones who believe the “official story” coming from the mainstream media. You arrogant Obongoites have contributed to the destruction of this country. Congrats. Of course Bush was no better. Ron Paul for Prez, since we don’t actually have one.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 2, 2009 at 5:09 pm #

    Hi Burdell. Darn, I’m gonna have to add yet another word to the Glossary page, “Obongoites”.

    This web site is about telling the truth, not labeling people. If you have a link to that Wall Street Journal article, feel free to post and we could discuss it (if it fits the Conspiracy Theory topic). This web site is not about politics in general.

  30. avatar
    Hitandrun February 2, 2009 at 5:48 pm #

    Here’s Leo D.’s final word on the subject:

    “I have seen some really sick comments posted recently which encouraged the military to disobey orders. That is wrong. I strongly suggest that all active military step back and refrain in any way from taking advice over the Internet on a matter of this importance. Consult with your attorney or a JAG advocate. This is my final statement on the matter. I pass on having anything to do with military suing over POTUS eligibility. I don’t have the resources to guide such a litigation, nor do I see that any court would ever provide true justice after what I’ve experienced with my case and Cort’s. I have absolutely NO faith in the US legal system. None. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. So I don’t see the point of subjecting our troops to legal harm for a case they will NEVER win in the cult’s courts. The military can deal with any situation in their own court system.”

  31. avatar
    richCares February 3, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    I had two favorite satire sites “The Onion” and “Orly’s Blog”, now you people tell me that Orly is actually serious and not satire, no way, no one can be that dumb!

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2009 at 3:37 pm #

    Satire would make sense, except for the lawsuits she filed which have been verified as real.