Loyalty oaths are now a good thing

| February 23, 2021

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 (100)

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.

    • Mason says:

      True. Like the pledge of allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner, people know the words but not the meaning.

  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.

    • penguinman000 says:

      Yeah, I had to vomit after I read that article. I’m so glad I’m retired.

    • AW1Ed says:

      It’s a proposal only, at least so far.

      • rgr769 says:

        Well, betcha it will be endorsed by the new SECDEF.

        You should highlight Kurt Schlicter’s recent article about what all this SJW horseshit is doing to our military. His advice to his own children, despite his family’s three generation of service, is to never serve in our military under these D-rat regimes, considering what damage they have wrought, since Clinton.

        • E4 Mafia '83-'87 says:

          While I know the SECDEF has the needed credentials, he is a “diversity” hire in my book and I blame that on The Left. Camel-toe Harris is the VP simply because she’s a dark-skinned woman. Same with that um-ah-um-ah Press Secretary and the rest of the Biden Cabinet. They made it clear form Day 1, that necessary skills are far down the list of requirements for the job.

    • NHSparky says:

      So glad my DD-214 blanket protects me from all that bullshit.

    • SteeleyI says:

      This is a bit misleading. The pledge was specific to the members of Task Force One Navy, which was stood up to TF1N set out to analyze and evaluate issues in our society and military that detract from Navy readiness.

      The Pledge was not intended to be or proposed as a replacement for the oath of enlistment, or even as some sort of creed for all sailors.

      The report is here, the TF1N Pledge is on page 10:

      https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/26/2002570959/-1/-1/1/TASK%20FORCE%20ONE%20NAVY%20FINAL%20REPORT.PDF

      • NHSparky says:

        Why is ANY sort of oath other than the Enlistment/Commissioning Oath required or even considered?

        How Soviet-esque, or smacking of McCarthyism.

        Not needed, not wanted. Weak sauce.

  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:

      ^THIS^

      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:

                    No, I’ve seen sarcasm, and that wasn’t it. That was an oft repeated racist trope used to make confederate apologists feel better about the enslavement of human beings.

                    Still, I see what you tried to do there and you are getting close.

                    Don’t worry, you’ll get the hang of it one of these days.

                • Quartermaster says:

                  It was sarcasm dude. Grow up.

    • 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:

                https://genzconservative.com/dwight-eisenhower-on-robert-e-lee/

                • 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!!

              • SteeleyI says:

                I appreciate the compliment, but I’m just a regular guy.

                Also, it’s SteeleyI- not sure how you got Oliveoyl out of that, but I’m sure it was an honest mistake.

            • SteeleyI says:

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

              So, is it a stupid idea or not? What were you referring to?

          • 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.

            • steeleyI says:

              Actually, yes, I did. True, I did have other things on the training schedule, like readiness, but you know, command is all about managing competing priorities, and no one pays to see someone juggle one ball.

  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.
        AW1

        • SFC D says:

          The Masons in the military are a not-do-subtle shadow chain of command, anyone that’s been in a while has seen it. This ain’t Shriners in their cute hats and hi-carts.

        • Ret_25X says:

          Well Stephan, if you believe that the Masons do not operate as a secretive gang who do what they want when they want, how they want, you are happily ignorant.

          And yes, Masons are involved in violence aimed at the destruction of the US. They also call themselves BLM.

          Time to wake up and smell the reality.

          It smells like napalm.

          • David says:

            Uh… the Masons were known as excluding blacks for decades (or longer), to the point where blacks wanting to become Masons had to joing Prince Hall lodges (the Masonic equivalent of separate-but-almost-equal.) BLM? Please provide sources?

      • 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?

    • Only Army Mom says:

      ^This^. I’ve been wondering how many leading and supporting these reminders of Oaths taken aren’t meaning something very different than the political class intends.

  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?

            • steeleyI says:

              It’s pretty clear how you see things, but the legal process, to include the courts, state legislatures, and Congress certified the election. That’s kind of the end of it.

              Simply saying what you think to be true does not make it true, or legal, and it won’t overturn the results of the process.

          • 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:

                Not sure if this is directed at me or TOW, but I will answer. Not entirely sure, but I will assume you are asking who decides elections.

                Bottom line, not the military. The people, ultimately, but the courts litigate allegations of fraud, and the state legislatures and Congress certify the votes and the electoral slates.

                What Criteria? Again, not established by the military. There is a very clear process laid out in the constitution, and that process was followed in the 2020 election.

                What are the predictable consequences of my preferred answers? Interesting phrasing- these aren’t my ‘preferred’ answers, these are the clear, legal, and non-controversial answers. Regardless, the consequences are the consequences of elections. Sometimes your preferred side loses. It has happened to roughly half the country in the last several elections, in fact.

                …if the other political side says exactly that? I think you are asking if I would feel the same if my candidate didn’t win. Of course, you don’t know who I voted for, but yes, I feel the same way when my candidate doesn’t win. We don’t elect a king or dictator, we elect a guy that will run the executive branch of the government. Thus the importance of the military taking an oath to the constitution, not to an individual.

                • Poetrooper says:

                  “There is a very clear process laid out in the constitution, and that process was followed in the 2020 election.”

                  But that is not true: Democrat officials in several states altered voting policies procedures without legislative action which is clearly required by the Constitution.

                  By the way, you being a colonel and so almighty smarter than us, should know that the Constitution that you swore an oath to on your many promotions, is supposed to be capitalized.

                  And FWIW, I’m not being a grammar Nazi, just a former NCO who thinks a colonel should show the Constitution proper respect when referring to it.

                  • Poetrooper says:

                    “policies and procedures”

                  • steeleyI says:

                    You are correct; I will capitalize Constitution from now on, but I will point out that my entire response here has been about respecting the Constitution.

                    However, the nation did follow the Constitutional process. The four states that changed their electoral process went through their own legal process, which was held up (or at least not overturned) by the Supreme Court.

                    Their election results were certified by their legislatures, and again by Congress. That is the Constitutional process.

                    Not liking the outcome does not make it illegitimate, and the remedy for an undesirable outcome is to follow the Constitutional process to get a new president.

                    • Poetrooper says:

                      “The four states that changed their electoral process went through their own legal process, which was held up (or at least not overturned) by the Supreme Court.”

                      Incorrect.

                      The Democrat state governments made the changes through executive processes not legislative as the Constitution provides.

                      Nor did the Supreme court uphold or overturn anything–they simply refused to hear the cases– for whatever arcane reasons.

      • 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?

          • SteeleyI says:

            First, you have to establish that the election was blatantly fraudulent, and therefore the constitution was subverted.

            You clearly believe it was, but you can’t simply declare it so and have everyone accept that. On the contrary, state and federal courts considered and discarded the allegations of fraud, the states certified their elections and electoral slates, and Congress certified and counted those votes.

            Had President Trump ordered the military to interfere with that process it would have clearly been an unlawful order.

            Biden was sworn in as president by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Neither of us have to like it, but it happened.

    • 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.

      • steeleyI says:

        I think that is included in the concept of ‘the meaning and legal implications of the oath’, but yes, I agree.

        That’s kind of the point- to ensure they aren’t swearing to defend a piece of paper.

  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.”
    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/oath-ike-barinholtz-s-dark-comedy-shows-why-america-so-ncna919931

    • 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.

  17. Roger in Republic says:

    And all ended by one statement by Maj De COVERLY. “Give me eats!”

  18. MarineDad61 says:

    Late to the game here, but…
    Since we’re on the topic of OATH,
    and since I predict a certain organization to exploit this news…

    Has anyone here ever been approached for recruitment
    by a member of the OATH KEEPERS?

    How did you respond?

    It happened to me, twice.
    The individuals who approached me were unimpressive,
    has/had issues (criminal and moral), and really only did more to label themselves with their attitude, claims, and recruitment pitch.

    I’ll be curious to see how the local Oath Keepers
    play their cards throughout 2021.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers

    • MarineDad61 says:

      From Wikipedia….
      [The group says its bylaws prevent potential members
      from joining if they have a history of bigotry]

      But, the ByLaws say nothing about existing members?
      Ha!

      • Poetrooper says:

        Marine Dad, I don’t know anything about the Oath Keepers, but one thing I do know:

        NEVER, EVER rely on Wikipedia for unbiased information on ANYTHING political.

        They’re a great basic source for topics other than politics but they lean WAAAAY left in the political spectrum. Note in the article you linked to who they cite as sources for information on the Oath Keepers: the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, two hard-left organizations with a history of hysterical exaggeration.

        Note that while the Wikipedia article uses terms such as far right, extremist, militant and frightening to describe Oath Keepers, it tellingly fails to accurately identify the organizations it quotes as far left.

        I use Wikipedia daily to research a wide variety of topics, but NEVER for objective political information.

        • MarineDad61 says:

          Poetrooper,
          Of course. Instead of WikiPedia, or any news source,
          I could have linked up the Oath Keepers website itself,
          but….

          (Paste from website main page)
          We are back.
          While some of our pictures are missing,
          they will be refreshed in the coming weeks.
          Our members chat will be next to come online.
          We also will be posting our recent comms here as well.
          Stay the course and do not buy into the rhetoric that is being spewed about us.

          HELP STOP YOUR EMAIL FROM BEING BLOCKED
          Our volunteer tech team is working hard to restore all the functionality we lost when we were deplatformed by the radical left a month ago,
          but they need your help.
          Our mailing list provider deplatformed us right after our website was taken off line.
          (End Paste)

          Get the picture?
          So, here it is.
          https://oathkeepers.org/

        • MarineDad61 says:

          ByLaws. Section 8. Membership.
          Like SFC D suggests below…
          Specification – Excellent in theory.
          Implementation – Not so excellent in practice.
          https://oathkeepers.org/bylaws/#article-viii

          • timactual says:

            “Implementation – Not so excellent in practice.”

            Sort of like the oath lawyers take. Or Congressmen. Or police officers. Or….

        • timactual says:

          And reading the list of “Antigovernment activities” listed by Wiki produces such horrors as ” Later in 2016, Stewart Rhodes called on members to visit polling places incognito to “hunt down” and document suspected voter fraud.” That sure caused me some sleepless nights.

    • SFC D says:

      “Oathkeepers” sounds like a good idea, a group that stands for their oath even after leaving the service. Very noble. However comma dot dot dot, and there’s always a however, it rapidly goes to shit in practice.

  19. Docduracoat says:

    As a civilian, I find this conversation fascinating.
    It is plain that the political situation United States is so bad that it can only end with either secession of the liberal coastal areas, or a second American Civil War.
    The left l wants to change to the entire country in a way that the conservatives will fight.
    The only institutions the left does not control is the military and the police.
    Hence they are starting defund the police and military loyalty oaths.
    Most in the military will likely be on the conservative side.
    Social Justice Warriors and gang members will likely take the Democrat side.
    Let’s hope it never comes to a shooting war, but I do not see how it can be avoided, unless the left is allowed to secede.
    And why would they when they now have all the levers of power.

    • MarineDad61 says:

      Docduracoat,
      Blue states love that federal pie.
      And that pork.
      Therefore, no blue state would ever secede,
      and give up the free eats, like the pork pie.

    • steeleyI says:

      First, the only oaths being administered are the existing oaths of enlistment and the officer’s oath of office, both of which are to the Constitution, not to a person, and have been in existence for centuries.

      There is no ‘loyalty oath’ to Joe Biden, the current administration, or a particular party. This is not new, it is not controversial, and it is the way the United States military has operated for centuries. We don’t take oaths to people, we take oaths to uphold Constitutional duties. Anyone telling you different is uninformed.

      To your point about Civil War: You should pray and do everything in your power to avoid one. A second Civil War would not look anything like the first, although it would be far worse for the nation and the world. If you think the nation you love is in trouble now, a civil war will destroy it completely- this country would devolve very quickly into a Hobbesian nightmare.

      Some would say we are already there, with the violence and riots over the summer and the riot in D.C. Those people should have a look at Iraq and Syria. We had a year of violence, but we didn’t have ‘detonate an IED in the market’ or ‘fire a volley of 120mm rockets into the next neighborhood’ levels of indiscriminate violence, which only comes when you give the psychopaths among us a ‘righteous’ justification for indiscriminate killing.

      It wouldn’t be the coastal states seceding from the rest of the country, Blue v Red, it would be an every changing list of individual militia groups using terrorist tactics to gain control of specific population centers or economic nodes. It would probably also quickly bleed over into religion, which would make it even worse, because you would then have ‘Red’ Catholics fighting ‘Red’ Protestants, etc, etc, etc.

      No state, blue or red, would ever secede, but if they did they could not support their troops for more than a few days, perhaps a week or so, in combat operations. No ammo, no fuel, no Army. So, the troops would pick a militia and fight for their individual beliefs.

      The United States as you know it would end and never come back. There won’t be a winner or loser, just periods of violence varying in intensity, mainly targeted at civilians.

      Without the US keeping the global commons open and free, China and Russia would expand. I think Western Europe would stay intact, but most of the Pacific would be under the Chinese influence, which means it would not be long until the West coast of the US was under Chinese control.

      The Canadians would keep us safe from the North, but of course we would not be able to maintain any level of sovereignty to the South, which means our enemies would be able to bring in any sorts of weapons, advisors, etc., to keep the war going in their favor. It’s not really important what side they pick, their goal would be to ensure the US never regains its position as the essential nation.

      So, while I agree that things are bad, I hope and pray