Loyalty oaths are now a good thing

| February 23, 2021 | 71 Comments

A few years back there were rumors that President Trump was requiring loyalty oaths. The media and the left were clutching pearls at the rumors (never confirmed, as most of the negative press regarding Trump was). Now with O’Biden running the show, loyalty oaths are back in vogue.

ninja sends word from Stars and Stripes about the Navy’s plan;

The Navy will require its sailors to reaffirm their oaths to the Constitution during daylong unit stand-downs ordered by the defense secretary to address extremism, including white supremacy.

Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. John Nowell Jr. ordered the renewed oaths Sunday in a message to the fleet detailing the Navy’s plans for the stand-downs that each service must complete before April 2. Both military and civilian personnel are required to participate.

“As public servants, we took an oath to the Constitution and we will not tolerate those who participate in actions that go against the fundamental principles of the oath we share, particularly actions associated with extremist or dissident ideologies,” Nowell said in the message.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Feb. 3 told each service branch to conduct 24-hour operational pauses to address extremism. His order followed the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump that included more than two dozen military veterans and at least one current service member, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told reporters at the time.

In a video message Friday, Austin encouraged service members in all branches to “revisit the oath that you took” when they joined the military.

“Read those words again; consider what they really mean,” he said. “And think about the promise that you made to yourselves and to your teammates and to your fellow citizens.”

The Pentagon does not know how many service members are involved in extremist activity, Kirby said at a press briefing Monday in Washington. Collecting that kind of information is difficult, he said.

The defense secretary, Kirby said, “very much would like to have a better sense of the data. We need to have a better understanding of how broad and deep the problem is.”

Some commands have already held their stand-downs, Kirby said. Others are waiting on training materials being prepared by the Pentagon.

During the Navy’s stand-downs, commands must discuss the oath’s meaning, “including what we protect (Freedom of Speech/Assembly) and the limits on these rights for service members,” according to Nowell’s message. Personnel must also review prohibited activities, including “political activity and social media dos and don’ts.”

More at the source. All this for the nearly non-existent boogie man of “white supremacy” and “extremism” in the ranks.

Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Biden, Big Pentagon, ninja, Politics

Comments (71)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. penguinman000 says:

    Personally I think PME for the oath’s you take as a service member are a good thing. I used to force it on my minions.

    Lots of the younger troops, and junior officers, have a very poor grasp of the oaths they took.

  2. rgr769 says:

    Any of you squids and airdales read the new sailor’s oath promulgated by big Blue? The one where sailors pledge to further fight white supremacy and support “intersectionality” al la critical race theory.

  3. Jay says:

    Much like ALL the safety stand down, BITS, annual training…it’ll be a bunch of bored service members sitting there, dicking off on their phones waiting for breaks, chow, and to be released for the day. QUALITY TRAINING

  4. OWB says:

    When will those ordering such things be required to refresh their own oaths? Or do they do that privately so that the rest of us are not privy to their allegiance?

    • KoB says:


      Now that they have gotten rid of Orange.Man.Bad they can reveal their true target. White.Man.Bad!

      I’m waiting on the newest revised history books showing a full Regiment of Confederate Soldiers, marching into deepest, darkest Africa; flying their Saint Andrews Cross Battle Flag. Where upon they enslaved ALL of the people, marching them in chains back to the Blockade Runner Ships. /s/

      • pookysgirl, WC wife says:

        Well, you got some of the plot for “Sahara” right, but it looks like you should watch it again!

      • SteeleyI says:

        Interesting take on the topic, although the indisputable fact is that the Confederate Army, led by the traitor Robert E. Lee, fought to keep those people enslaved, killing hundreds of thousands of U.S. Soldiers in the process.

        You are probably going to answer with something about states rights, and that is correct if what you mean is the right to keep human beings as chattel slaves. Read the constitution of the CSA, the articles of secession of the various states, or even the words of Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee.

        • SFC D says:

          Did you have something productive to add, or are you just here to stir shit up?

          • SteeleyI says:

            KoB’s post was productive in your book?

            I thought his was more of a shit stirring comment than anything I said.

            • The Dead Man says:

              Well, his was a bleak joke about the steady destruction of history in the name of feefees. Your post was a poor attempt to get a coveted ‘got’cha’ moment to run to your Blue Checkmarks with some manufactured 2 minutes of hate.

              • SteeleyI says:

                No, jokes are funny. I’ve seen them before.

                His historically ignorant comment was a poor attempt to avoid the real issue here, which is that a bunch of morons, veterans among them, stormed the capital last month, necessitating the reminders about oaths- like the one R.E. Lee violated.

                • SFC D says:

                  I’m pretty sure he knew his comment was historically incorrect, and was something most open-minded adults see as “sarcasm”. Your mileage may vary. The real issue is the Navy’s consideration of a new oath. No one questions the need for service members to be firmly reminded of the commitment they made when they swore to support and defend the constitution. The problem arises when that oath gets wrapped up with swearing loyalty to a president. That’s not how this works, not under any president.

    • SteeleyI says:

      Officers repeat their oath of office at every promotion. Enlisted personal repeat their oath at every reenlistment.

      • OWB says:

        So you think that military folks came up with this stupid idea on their own?

        Sure they did. Uh-huh.

        A better bet might be that it came from very near where whoever concocted the plan to build a fence around the Capitol and keep guardsmen there indefinitely.

        • Blaster says:

          I have not! Is that my fault that any oath was not read to me at promotion? I would have swore again my original oath at every promotion, but it never happened!

          • SteeleyI says:

            Enlisted promotion or officer promotion? Some units will have enlisted personnel repeat the oath as part of a promotion, but it is not required- only for reenlistment.

            If you are an officer and did not repeat the oath of office upon promotion your commander should be fired.

        • SteeleyI says:

          Once again, every enlisted person repeats their oath upon reenlistment, and every officer repeats it upon promotion (which, for officers, is actually a reappointment in the new grade).

          I, for one, had the oath memorized, and talked to my Soldiers about every component of it every time I reenlisted a Soldier or promoted an officer. That is a pretty common practice in my experience.

          I would explain why a commissioned officer had to administer the oath, why the flag was always present, and what the words of the oath meant.

          I do the same thing with Boy Scouts when they recite the Scout Oath and Law, by the way.

          I am not sure why you think that reminding military members of their oath and reinforcing its meaning is a bad thing.

          • OWB says:

            “I am not sure why you think that reminding military members of their oath and reinforcing its meaning is a bad thing.”

            Remind us, please, where anyone here said such a thought. The opposite has been expressed several times.

            Oh, right. You are either projecting or simply making stuff up. Again. Making assumptions based upon your own prejudices appears to be one of your greater skills.

            • SFC D says:

              OWB, you’ve forgotten that Oliveoyl is smarter than the rest of us. Once you accept that, all will be well.

              • KoB says:

                Spot on SFC D. I generally ignore his self centered, egotistical azz. Calls himself a leader of troops as an officer? Took an Act of Congress to make him an officer, but he is no gentleman. And I wouldn’t follow him to a free BBQ. Gut rid of one spapos seagull and damned if another don’t show up…again.

                In re of R.E. Lee, I’ll just leave this here:


                • The Other Whitey says:

                  Ike’s opinion carries more weight than most. He was well-informed, well-educated, and substantially less removed from the Civi War than us; the war was still within living memory in his lifetime, and he no doubt was personally acquainted with quite a few veterans thereof.

                  Knowing what I know of history, I cannot call Robert E. Lee a traitor. He was a man who was thrust into an impossible position in 1860-61, which only got worse as the secession crisis escalated. He was loyal to the United States, to Virginia, to his neighbors, friends, and family. Those loyalties were flush with eachother most of his life, and then were suddenly in conflict. He was forced to choose between evils, and he chose that which he believed to be the lesser of them. Calling him a traitor is far too easy for somebody who’s never been asked by the country he loves to make war on his own home and family, especially not when those rebellious neighbors and kin genuinely believe themselves aggrieved and are following what they believe is their only recourse. Lee’s situation was one with no right answer, but plenty of wrong ones. I thank Almighty God that I haven’t (yet) been put to such a test.

              • OWB says:

                Oh, I haven’t forgotten – just refuse to feed the delusions. Thanks for the back-up, though. And the reminder.

                Reread a couple of my recent posts and found them to be entirely too reminiscent of the arrogant prick. Shheshh! We can’t have that!!

          • timactual says:

            Did you ever explain to your soldiers just what was in that constitution they swore to defend? My guess is no. Not enough time in the training schedule. Too many rocks left to paint.

  5. SgtM says:

    When will they address all the black street gang tags all over the middle East, after we showed up.

    • Ret_25X says:

      this will never happen. The single greatest problems I faced in the army were abject ignorance of duty and gang affiliation.

      and yes, I include Masons in that.

      • Sparks says:

        “The single greatest problems I faced in the army were abject ignorance of duty and gang affiliation.”

        You nailed that Brother. It was true in the late ’60s and ’70s in my Army and Air Force times. That was when “Race relations” hit the USAF as a mandatory training requirement. Always led by a Black E-5 who was known in his unit as the biggest shirker and profiler in the shop.

      • Stephan G says:

        You are ignorant about the Masons being a gang. They aren’t subverting or causing violence anywhere. They support the Constitution of the United States and always give to charity especially the Shriners Hospitals.

        Name edited to protect PII.

      • Green Thumb says:

        Sorry about the report.

        My bad.

        But as to the Mason’s? Word.

        A select, racist and less-than-inclusive “group” if I ever saw one.

        And they could wear the ring uniform…..

    • Sparks says:

      At least they left “So help me God” in there. I figured He would have been the first one tossed.

    • timactual says:

      All Bullshit.

      All that crap about defending the Constitution and not one word from that Constitution, not even a mention in the references. Quite understandable, of course, especially when they get to the 9th and 10th Amendments. Very embarrassing for the big-government left-wing types. The tenth, especially.

      “Amendment X
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

      Sure looks like “States’ Rights” to me.

  6. The Other Whitey says:

    Given the information that has come out regarding subversion of the Constitution by those currently in power, I wonder if they have thought through what will happen if the troops decide to fulfill their oaths?

  7. Messkit says:

    I recall watching the anti-suicide video starring Terry Bradshaw so many times, I wanted to kill myself…

  8. MustangCryppie says:

    The clowns in DC know they’re wrong and they sense they are on thin ice.

    That’s why they want to get the guys and gals with the guns under control.

    This just shows how much fear the progs are feeling.

  9. ChipNASA says:

    We don’t need loyalty oaths…..

  10. SteeleyI says:

    There is a world of difference between a loyalty oath to an individual and the oath to the constitution that every American service member and federal employee takes.

    If Donald Trump did in fact demand a loyalty oath to him as a person, that is a problem. Not only is it un-American, it would also be a violation of the oath of office or enlistment oath taken by all military personnel and even federal employees, who swear an oath to the constitution. Any uniformed service member that swore an oath to Donald Trump would be committing treason.

    The oaths the military takes now were updated in 1959 for officers and 1960 for enlisted members. The last major revision was following the War of Rebellion, when it was softened a bit to take out some of the specific anti-Confederate language that was introduced to the oath in 1862.

    Regardless of personal feelings, military members are bound to obey the lawful orders of the president of the United States and the officers appointed over them. It’s that simple. Educating service members on the meaning and legal implications of the oath is a good thing.

    • Poetrooper says:

      But what if the president is a corrupt, self-serving, treasonous sellout to a foreign power?

      It’s not quite as simple as you depict…

      • The Other Whitey says:

        And to top it all off, was not legitimately elected and therefore no order from him/her is legal. That’s a bit of a conundrum, ain’t it?

        • steeleyI says:

          No, it’s pretty clear that the military is not the arbitrator of elections. The Congress of the United States went through the constitutional process of certifying the electoral college votes previously certified by each state, and therefore the election of Joe Biden.

          In fact, had the president ordered federal troops to stop or impede the process in some way, it would clearly be an unlawful order and military leadership would have refused.

          None of this is controversial, edgy, woke, or new. The oath of office for commissioned officers and the oath of enlistment has, for well over a hundred years, explicitly laid out loyalty to the constitution and a duty to obey the lawful orders of the president as passed down through the chain of command.

          Everyone on this thread took the oath when they enlisted or were commissioned, repeated it when they reenlisted (or when officers were promoted), and even signed a copy of the oath at that time as part of the process.

          • USMC Steve says:

            Or if he is illigimate and didn’t win the office? Like the one in there now is?

          • The Other Whitey says:

            If the president was not legitimately elected and came to power via fraud, subterfuge, and subversion, then that president is by definition a domestic enemy of the Constitution. As such, no order they give can be considered lawful. There’s no dancing your way around that.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              Fair questions: Who decides? What criteria? And what are the predictable consequences of your preferred answers? And all of those again if the other political side says exactly that?

              Think real long and hard on that, please.

      • SteeleyI says:

        It really is that simple. Regardless of a Soldier’s personal feelings about the president’s corruption or treason (sadly, self-service is not a crime), they are duty bound to obey lawful orders and disregard unlawful orders.

        This is why the oath is to the constitution, not the man. Understanding the oath and its legal implications is a pre-condition for that.

        Corruption and treason are crimes and impeachable offenses, and there are constitutional methods for dealing with them that have nothing to do with military service.

        • The Other Whitey says:

          So your position is that it doesn’t matter that the election was blatantly fraudulent and the Constitution subverted. The oath requires you to (among other things) protect the Constitution against domestic enemies, but you have to follow the orders of those domestic enemies—which are by definition unlawful—because they’re in charge now, because “the military is not the arbiter of elections.”

          By that logic, the oath is meaningless, and this is all just a big circle-jerk.

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:

            Does your answer/method also apply to the other side making the same claim, say in 2016?

            Please ponder that carefully before you start demanding the Armed Forces become the kingmaker.

            Who decides and how?

    • timactual says:

      ” Educating service members on the meaning and legal implications of the oath is a good thing.”

      Educating them on what exactly they are swearing to defend would be an even better thing. Merely swearing to defend and protect a piece of paper can be dangerous, particularly if you don’t read the fine print.

  11. Slow Joe says:

    I was gonna say something smart, funny, and brilliant, but I forgot what it was.

  12. USMC Steve says:

    Doing this would not be a good thing for the current illegitimate regime in power. Because almost everything they do is against the Constitution, and they are enemies of the domestic variety. I bet this gets stopped if the Senile Socialist hears about it. Or if his handlers do.

  13. NEC338x says:

    To think, just three years ago the Hollywood elites where making critically acclaimed movies about how terrible loyalty oaths and authoritarian politics were. Public displays of dissent and holding opposing political opinions were good and noble.

    “This is, unfortunately, a fantasy. But it’s a fantasy that, inadvertently, shows why America has had so much trouble recognizing and responding to Trump and the rise of authoritarianism.”

    • OWB says:

      Could be wrong, but I do believe that was the point of the OP. Reminded me that the first time I heard about “loyalty oaths,” was around 2009, give or take. They were denied to exist. Then, after 2016, they became a thing and to be greatly feared, according to the left. Now we have whatever it is in this incarnation. But it’s supposed to be good this time around.

      Yeah, well, whatever.

  14. SFC D says:

    Here’s all the pledge you need:
    “I, state your name, pledge to do my job to the utmost of my ability and treat my fellow human beings with respect”.

    Could’ve saved the Navy a metric shit-ton of money.

  15. timactual says:

    1) Issue each recruit a copy of the Constitution
    2) Put it on the training schedule
    3) Written tests on the contents.
    4) Make knowledge of the Constitution part of every promotion board.

  16. Dennis - not chevy says:

    In Catch 22, loyalty oaths had to be signed until they didn’t have to be signed. Joseph Heller was a prophet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *