Loyalty to the Constitution emphasized at Military Academies
The Military Academy does not just offer classes that merges with political correctness. In one class offered at West Point, American Politics (SS202), Major Joe Amoroso emphasized the importance of the oath to the U.S. Constitution. The class emphasized that this is where loyalty should be, not towards a specific individual or office, but to the U.S. Constitution. The class also emphasized the apolitical, nonpartisan, nature of the US military.
From The Military Times:
They encounter an array of classes on the Constitution and, in some cases, the history of the civilian-military relationship. Each graduate who is commissioned takes multiple oaths at school and during their service. Milley emphasized the significance of the oaths in his retirement address last fall, appearing to take aim at Trump.
“We don’t take an oath to a king or a queen or to a tyrant or a dictator. And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator,” he said.
At the Air Force Academy, the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol was a top subject of discussion in the Civil-Military Relations class when junior and senior-year cadets began the spring semester the next day.
The coincidental timing “brought introspection about their oath as future officers,” said the instructor, Marybeth Ulrich. One result was a cadet-driven initiative, the Oath Project.
“Instigation of potential uprising or any issues on Capitol Hill creates immediate concern for the military and for the larger public as a whole. So we were very aware of the events as they were unfolding,” said 1st Lt. Darrell Miller, now stationed with the Space Force at Buckley Space Force Base near Denver, and one of the 13 students in the class who started the project.
Dozens of former and active duty military members have been charged in the Jan. 6 assault, an attempt to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election that Democrat Biden won over Republican Trump. A recent Defense Department inspector general report showed that dozens of military members were suspected of extremist activities that included conspiring to overthrow the government, though the number represents a tiny fraction of the more than 2 million U.S. service members.
The Military Times has additional information here.
Category: Military issues
Bullshit…
1/6 was a ‘Honeypot’ operation orchestrated by 3-letter agencies coordinated with the Speaker’s Office (her daughter’s cameras were rolling to capture the event) and lead by Ray “Tomorrow, we gotta into the Capital, into the Capital” Epps and others. 400 million guns in this country and the most dangerous weapon any protestor had was a Grand Poohbah Water Buffalo Lodge hat.
I’m curious is to how they “teach” the Summer of Love 2020? Scores murdered, whole cities blocks looted and burned, government buildings besieged, Democratic politicians bailing out rioters and encouraging more action, laptops found and then 51 Intel Chiefs lying at its authenticity? Our leaders of tomorrow need to know the truth.
Inquiring minds want to know…
Agreed, but it’s the Narrative. Trump’s a bad man, and Biden was the Hope for Change 2.0 our country needed at the time. I steered well clear of DC during that time, though I did manage to bluff my way through a checkpoint and drive right past the fenced off and heavily guarded Capitol Building a week or so later, when I missed a turn while driving into work.
Fortunately, I had a coworker offer to swap working in DC JOC for the Inauguration itself, so I got to spend that morning in the A-JOC on a VA installation.
The cops being beat with the hockey stick would probably disagree with you about the hat. But I am willing to put it on the line to prove my point.
I challenge you to a duel at dawn. You will be armed with a buffalo hat and me with a hockey stick. Meet at the Capitol steps. Do you accept?
You mean one of the many cops killed on JAN 6?
Here’s one of those “killed” cops… Directing the “insurrectionists” after the time he got hit on the head and killed.
Tell me about it. I don’t recall any police being killed.
Sarcasm. Look it up.
Manager’s Special this week on Sarcasm Recognition Software, buy one get one. Be sure to use Promotion Code Spandex for a 13% discount.
Never heard of sarcasm where does it come from?
God.
But seriously, folks, I consider humor, and its close relative sarcasm, to be gifts from God, to be used and enjoyed wherever and whenever possible.
Life is too serious to be taken seriously.
Some consider it a blessing, some call it a curse. I yam who I yam.
Read Progda, it is still reporting six officers were killed in the “insurrection,” which was worse than Dec.7, 1941 and 9/11, as it was a “greater threat to our democracy.”
Even at my advanced age I am still amazed by peoples’ insistence on taking everything literally.
Especially around this mob.
Biden is still talking about him going to five police funerals from the insurrection. So, it must be true.
Did he check his watch?
Of a stroke on the sh*tter the next day?
The media showed you the cops being attacked by the protesters. What they didn’t show was what happened before that scene. The cops instigated it, and even committed police brutality. The protesters were trying to fight the cops away from the protesters that were down and being subject to police brutality. They wanted to render aid to those downed protesters.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1726343345654394976
Boyland died from a meth overdose. She got a few times because she got between hockey stick guy and the cops.
That’s not relevant given the fact that she was being beaten despite the fact that she was already down and no longer in position to even be perceived as a threat. The image shows her not being a threat, but still being beaten. This proves shady conduct among the Capitol Police.
That wasn’t what I saw in the video. What I saw was hockey stick guy trying to hit the cop with the hockey stick and cop fighting back with his night stick Hi up in the air.
In order to believe that she was being targeted, You would also have to believe that the cop thought it was okay to get hit with the hockey stick. He would then prefer to get hit with the hockey stick so that he could keep hitting woman, somehow, not sure how, because she was laying on the ground and his stick was up high. And be completely oblivious to being beat with the hockey stick.
I’m having trouble suspending disbelief fuhrer. Help it makes sense. I don’t know whether to believe my own lying eyes or you.
5JC: That wasn’t what I saw in the video. What I saw was hockey stick guy trying to hit the cop with the hockey stick and cop fighting back with his night stick Hi up in the air.
The propaganda sources that you follow only wanted you to see the protesters attacking the cops. They didn’t want you to see what happened BEFORE the attack. The fact that you didn’t see what happened BEFORE the attack, compared to those of us who saw videos and images of what happened BEFORE the attack, does not change the fact that what I showed above occurred.
5JC: In order to believe that she was being targeted, You would also have to believe that the cop thought it was okay to get hit with the hockey stick.
This is a strawman argument. These are two different events. One event focuses on the attack on the protester, another event focuses on the attack on the cop. I believe what these images and video show, and I also believe the witnesses who’ve made statements corroborating what those images show.
5JC: He would then prefer to get hit with the hockey stick so that he could keep hitting woman, somehow, not sure how, because she was laying on the ground and his stick was up high. And be completely oblivious to being beat with the hockey stick.
The image shows a female cop hitting the protester. What I explained above was that the cops instigated the event. Eyewitness accounts state that the cops utilized excessive force, then attacked the down protesters, which spurred the other protesters to come in to the rescue.
Pay attention… Focus…
5JC: I’m having trouble suspending disbelief fuhrer. Help it makes sense. I don’t know whether to believe my own lying eyes or you.
What is going on is that you’re driven purely by ego, and this ego is preventing you from seeing the facts that I’m presenting. My argument is based on fact, reason, and logic. You believe what your ego wants you to believe.
I mean this is the nicest possible way. But how f****** stupid are you?
First off that isn’t a strawman argument. I’m not sure you even know the definition of one is. I was looking at the totality of circumstances. I think you were approaching it from a political angle, certainly your snide comments indicate that. These are not two separate events they are all the same event that took place in about the space of about 5 seconds.
Secondly you have no clue what news sources I follow. Therefore you don’t know what you’re talking about. Like literally you don’t know what you are talking about, at all. I mean I don’t want to call you stupid again; but there it is. Maybe you can share insights on my bathroom habits as well? Which you also have no clue about. Maybe my favorite drink or meal? I’m going to say you have no clue. Making up lies to support an argument is a terrible way to go through life. Stop doing that.
Like I said; I saw what I saw. If anybody’s brain washed here, it’s you. Your argument is not based on logic it’s based on lies and fever dreams unless you have some kind of special power that the rest of us just don’t have.
Response to 5JC, January 21, 2024, Part 1A 5JC: I mean this is the nicest possible way. As long as you persist in arguing with me, we are in a state of hostility. There is nothing you could do to present anything “in the nicest possible way.” 5JC: But how f****** stupid are you? Again, what part of the statement, that I do not engage in these arguments unless two conditions are simultaneously met did you not understand? 1. That I have extensive knowledge of the topic being argued gained either from first-hand experience and/or exhaustive study of the topic… 2. That those who disagree with me, who argue with me, have little to no command of the argument topic…. Both conditions have been met in our argument just as they have been met in the 20 years I have been debating online. Meaning, the stupidity is not on my end but on yours. Your argument clearly misses the mark and it painfully shows that you have absolutely no idea what you are trying to argue. You are arguing what you think the argument is but isn’t. You have anger issues, ego issues, and control issues, as evident by your responses to me. It is that narcissism that is driving you to insinuate that I am “stupid” for refusing to believe any other nonsense that you are peddling. You should be asking yourself that question, the stupidity is clearly on your end. Not mine. 5JC: First off that isn’t a strawman argument. False. You are advancing a strawman argument. The original post includes a link to an article that insinuated that there was an attempt to overthrow the government, to interrupt the government, to interfere with the government, etc. To showcase that nonsense, the media shows images of police officers being attacked. To counter that argument, one has to prove that the attacks had nothing to do with attempting to interfere with the government but related to the actions of the police prior to that event. THAT is the argument. Arguing whether the hockey stick is deadlier or not, or… Read more »
Response to 5JC, January 21, 2024, Part 2A 5JC: These are not two separate events they are all the same event that took place in about the space of about 5 seconds. WRONG! These are two separate events in the same area. In one event, Capitol police fired tear gas right in the middle of the crowd. Naturally, causing many of them to run straight to the police officers to escape what was fired into the crowd. The other incident involved the police officers firing tear gas, or some kind of gas, that forced protesters out of one of the entrances. Enough was sprayed to cause the floor to be slippery, causing the protesters to stumble on each other and then to fall. The police officers commenced police brutality against those who fell down. This provoked the other protesters into rushing in to assist those who were being subjected to police brutality. 5JC: Secondly you have no clue what news sources I follow. First, I don’t need to know what news sources you use given that you’ve consistently been colossally incorrect. You argue exactly like the flat earthers that I have argued against on GAB, who insist that the earth is flat. You also argue exactly like the leftists I have argued against over the past 20 years, with your erroneous insinuation that your information sources are providing you with “accurate” information. Second, I conduct an exhaustive search of first tiered information sources to get my news. I don’t go off what journalists say about an event, I go straight to the source. When it comes to this very topic, the countless videos I’ve seen on conservative sites showing what happened before the scene involving the hockey stick attack, as well as the scenes where protesters were rushing the police officers, as well as other scenes that day, which speak volumes against what you are trying to argue. 5JC: Therefore you don’t know what you’re talking about. This is a perfect example of what a strawman argument is. I know exactly what I’m talking about. When the first tiered information… Read more »
Response to 5JC, January 21, 2024, Part 3A 5JC: Making up lies to support an argument is a terrible way to go through life. Stop doing that. [SELF PROJECTION] Do as you preach. Quit accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing. My arguments are based on fact, reason, and logic. I will not be advancing an argument that is not based on those three. My argument is that the protesters were provoked. You have done absolutely nothing to argue against that fact. All you’ve done was talk about a hockey stick, and then advanced one strawman argument after another. What you said about me in your response is a perfect example of making lies to support a nonsense argument. Speaking of “terrible way to go through life.” Above, I talked about how you have anger issues, anger issues, and control issues. these three have influenced your conduct on this thread to include your acting without thinking. You tend to rush into situations without thinking your actions through, without even thinking about whether your argument is “valid” or not. People like you on Facebook that I have argued against fall under one of three main categories: failures in life, near failures in life, or people who have “ho hum” life accomplishments. I would not be surprised if you fell under one of these categories. None of the successful people that I know, nor anybody that I know of who is semi-successful, have argued with me. In situations where things could turn into an argument, they tend to recognize the validity of my argument and they stop attempting to argue further. It is the failures in life, near failures in life, or those with ho hum life accomplishments, the persist with arguing with me using an erroneous argument like what you’re doing here. I would not be surprised that in the real world, people associate you with creating a hostile work for social environment. I would not be surprised if you have a harder time than the next person asking for pay raises, asking for promotions whether vertical or lateral,… Read more »
Yes, Boyland died from a meth overdose just as much as Sicknick died from being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher right?
Also
“Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Francisco Diaz told them that the “results of the autopsy were not clear-cut” and that the only thing that they could “all agree upon” as a cause of death was Ms. Boyland’s prescription of Adderall.”
I just tried to leave a long reply to this but when I tried to use a formatting command it submitted before I was done editing. It’s in moderation right now, if it appears, it won’t be complete.
The gist was this:
Boyland did NOT die from a meth overdose. That’s fake news.
The medical examiner found amphetamines in her system, but she was on the prescription drug Adderall, which is an amphetamine based medication.
“Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Francisco Diaz told [Boyland’s family] that the ‘results of the autopsy were not clear-cut’ and that the only thing that they could ‘all agree upon’ as a cause of death was Ms. Boyland’s prescription of Adderall.”
The official cause of death was accidental resulting from “amphetamine toxicity” from her prescription for Adderall, but even they admit that the conclusion wasn’t 100%…or even close to that. It sure was 100% convenient though, wasn’t it?
Interestingly, I can not find a single outlet that has published the actual levels of amphetamines in her blood at autopsy. I’d be interested to see how high her levels were as compared to other people prescribed Adderall…because, let’s just say, I’m a bit suspicious, considering the “confusion” about the cause of death of Brian Sicknick from the same medical examiner’s office.
Except, one of the ME’s admitted there were no bruises on Sicknick’s body to counter the evidence of two stokes in his brain.
I’ve been arguing against the left for over 20 years. One of the things that I noticed was that young conservatives are arguing a talking point advanced by the left in the 2000s, and in contradiction to what the right argued during the same period. I warned people on “patriots.win” to not be surprised if young conservatives, 20 years from now, argue that there was “no” election fraud and that Trump “tried to overthrow democracy”.
This image shows what they’re already publishing:
Ja wohl, Mein Fuhrer! I will tow the line of righteousness regardless of the truth! Continue spreading the lies of justice and freedom!
To prove the innocence of the hockey stick I will find you today and take a video of me hitting you with it repeatedly to show the world that you laugh at its potency!
As for our glorious freedom fighters who did absolutely nothing wrong, and absolutely did not assault police, but instead were involved in a playful round of S&M, and totally did not break windows and climb into the Capitol building, their sacrifices will not be forgotten! We shall overcome!
As opposed to mostly peaceful, Summer of love?
That’s different. That was in support of the holy martyr, St. Floyd of Fentanyl.
AKA The Landlord, don’t look.
All hail his sainted inebriation!
5JC: Ja wohl, Mein Fuhrer! I will tow the line of righteousness regardless of the truth! Continue spreading the lies of justice and freedom! Except, this is not what is happening. I don’t argue a topic, or talk about it, unless I have knowledge on the topic based either on experience or extensive reading/study. The narrative in the above image, as presented by the left, is propaganda. I could attest to that not just based on the mountains of evidence pointing to widespread election fraud… Recognized by some Venezuelans that night as something similar to what happened back in Venezuela… As well as an actual PSYOP outlook on what constitutes propaganda. You’ve pushed that propaganda. In PSYOP land, your argument is what we would call an example of an impact indicator. 5JC: To prove the innocence of the hockey stick I will find you today and take a video of me hitting you with it repeatedly to show the world that you laugh at its potency! This is a strawman argument. The picture that I showed above is from a video showing that a police officer beat a person down despite the fact that they were already subdued. Had the roles been reversed, and the officer doing the beating was white, and the person being beaten was black, a completely different narrative would’ve emerged from this. Again, the protestors were provoked. In the link that I showed above, the cops fired into the crowd. When what is released is uncomfortable enough for people to get away from, and you fire right in the middle of the crowd, what do you think would happen? The crowd’s escape path is going to generally be “radial.” If they are escaping in all directions, a part of the crowd is going to rush into the police officers that fired into the crowd. Cut this part out, and only show the crowd rushing into the officers and PRESTO, propaganda saying that the crowd went “crazy” and rushed towards the officers. 5JC: As for our glorious freedom fighters who did absolutely nothing wrong, and absolutely did… Read more »
Nothing I have written is untrue.
It’s not untrue. It’s not complete, either. You ain’t Paul Harvey.
That is strangely ironic because that is EXACTLY what I was saying. I also accused HT3 of lying. I’m still waiting on a response from HT3, to see if there acceptance of my duel. If I don’t hear back soon I’ll have to move it to another day. Normally with a duel you have to accept right away. Although running away is a perfectly acceptable cowardly way. Manning up and admitting being wrong is much tougher. But also acceptable.
Then I was accused of not being right wing enough. Which is a very strange thing to accuse somebody of.
We appear to live in a dystopian time.
The truth no longer has any relevance to anyone. The fact checkers don’t know their facts. The media makes up lies when they don’t have enough provided to them by their various masters. All that matters is pushing the rock in their direction.
“….Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity….”
The Ministry of Truth and the Thought Police will be coming for you, 5JC.
When you use sarcasm to point out the holes in their truth they will beat you harder.
5JC: Nothing I have written is untrue.
False. Your statements, in contradiction to what I stated, are arguably false. You refuse to look at the link that I posted, and you refuse to take that link and the images that I showed to connect the dots.
You’re cherry-picking data just to keep advancing an invalid argument. If what you said was valid, I wouldn’t be able to take your argument apart like what I’m doing here.
Again, I don’t argue a position unless I have fact, reason, and logic on my side. For me to engage in argument, I have to have extensive knowledge of the topic compared to the weak or lack of knowledge of those who disagree with me. Both of these conditions have been met here.
As above, and holy strawman Batman, if you have to bring Venezuela into this what the hell?
Also you completely missed the point, because my entire point (would you completely missed) was that a hockey stick is a lethal weapon. I was more than willing to demonstrate that on you.
“my entire point (would you completely missed) was that a hockey stick is a lethal weapon.”
Michael Mann et al. agree 150%
5JC: Also you completely missed the point,
Nope, I didn’t miss your point. I was dead center mass in addressing what you were arguing. Don’t interpret my disagreement with you as “missing the point.”
5JC: because my entire point
Your entire point was a straw man to the argument on whether there was police brutality or not. We were not arguing on whether the hockey stick was deadly or not, but on the propaganda being pushed that the protesters initiated an unprovoked attack on the police officers. It wasn’t, the protesters were provoked, then the cops took action that required protesters, as reasonable people, to attempt to save other people from brutality.
5JC: (would you completely missed)
Wrong. I didn’t miss your point, I was dead center mass in addressing your point as well. Your point was a straw man argument.
5JC: was that a hockey stick is a lethal weapon. I was more than willing to demonstrate that on you.
Again, the argument is about whether the protesters staged an insurrection, and initiated an unprovoked attack, or not. The argument is not on whether the weapons the protesters used were deadly or not.
My argument, addressing the main argument, was that this was not an unprovoked attack on the part of the protesters, but something instigated the the cops, and caused by the actions of the cops.
Any other argument point that you present, that does not address the argument as I laid it out here, is a straw-man argument.
The cold hard reality is that you’re wrong, and you have a hard time admitting it. Again, I don’t argue unless two things are simultaneously met:
1. I have extensive knowledge on the topic gained from first hand experience/reading knowledge…
2. Those that I argue against have little to no knowledge of what they are talking about.
Both of these conditions have been met with us as it had been met in my arguments against others over the past 20 years.
5JC: As above, and holy strawman Batman, if you have to bring Venezuela into this what the hell?
WRONG! Not a strawman argument, but a valid argument. My argument above, every point that I advanced, is valid and relevant to our argument. When people who came from Venezuela report seeing the same things happening back in November 2020 that they saw back in Venezuela, a critical thinking person would realize that the argument, that election fraud occurred, is valid.
You do understand sarcasm!
(insert smiley face here)
HT3, “bullshit” was my first thought after reading this article. Obama admin’s selection of flag officer’s put an end to that. Exhibit A: Gen. Milley and the rest of the Pentagon crowd.
“51 Intel Chiefs lying at its authenticity”.
Technically… they stated their “expert opinion”, didn’t state it as “fact”. Fulfilled their propaganda duties and fed the approved narrative. Wasn’t “technically” a lie. Weasel words from politically approved “experts” intended to fool the masses. Phony cocksuckers.
Except, the MSM stated their opinion was proven fact, like they all had access to some secret intelligence that the laptop’s content was faked by the Russians.
The MSM was just the next step in the disinformation process. The best lies in the world are worthless if they’re not disseminated.
Don’t they!
I’m waiting for my turn. I never voted for Trump and teleworked 40+ miles south of the Capitol three years ago, but my physical work address was less than 2.5 miles from the Capitol. Given that, I type enough nonsense on these and other pages that I’m surprised the FIB hasn’t come a-knockin’.
We swear an oath to our Consitution, and part of the reason I didn’t vote while in uniform was because I didn’t want to commit to any potential future boss. In 2008, when Emperor Obama the First won out, this proved a wise idea, at least in my mind. I didn’t vote for or against him but definitely didn’t like the fact he was my CinC.
Those who were on the grounds of the Capitol on January 6th had every right to be there, and seemed to be both peaceful and mostly welcomed by police/security. Any off-limits areas should have been strictly marked and secured. It seems like it was chaos, though, and anyone serving in uniform (there have been both military and First Responders charged with various crimes) at the time should have stayed far, far away from that.
But, that’s my personal opinion. Make of it what you will, but I kept my political opinions to myself while serving the government under the supervision of elected and appointed officials.
These loyalty oaths popped up in 2002. A small percentage of people who had reenlisted over the years, said that they had never renewed their oath. I had never personally re-enlisted But I had realistic a bunch of soldiers over the years and giving them oaths.
They were looking for ways to get out of the military because they didn’t want to go fight. It was really kind of pathetic. So we did mass loyalty oaths. After the Fort Hood shooting they popped up again.
“These loyalty oaths popped up in 2002. A small percentage of people who had reenlisted over the years, said that they had never renewed their oath.”
I’m calling bullshit on that. I’m gonna need proof of Soldier’s re-enlisting without renewing their oath. I’m already waiting on a list from Commissar, so waiting for this is no big deal.
I reupped on deployment in 05, no oath, butt I got $12k tax free.
Not sure what these “loyalty oaths” you are referring to are. Certainly the oath for reenlistment hasn’t changed. As for the oath of office for commissioned officers: as far as I’ve seen, the army tradition is that it is renewed at every promotion, and that’s what I’ve seen (and done) since 1994, without change to the verbiage.
The only oath I took was upon my Regular Army commissioning, Promotion to 1LT, no oath; promotion to CPT, no oath.
That is because you had a commission.
Yes, by act of Congress. I still have a copy of the bill listing me along with hundreds of other RA officers. I never heard of any officer retaking the oath upon promotion. That was my point. But then I was a full fledged civilian by 1994.
I never went to West point, but my understanding is that cadets are enlisted while they are there? And then receive commission when they graduate?
They do. But they must take the oath on entry because they are active duty as cadets. ROTC cadets back in my day did not recite the oath. I don’t recall reciting it my junior year when I was enrolled in the reserves as an E1 or E2. All RA officers and reserve officers must take the oath when commissioned.
Evidently the theory is that an officer is commissioned once, therefore only needs to swear an oath once, whereas enlistments end and the oath expires with it, therefore a new oath is required with a new enlistment.
That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it.
My oath never expires.
I believe you are correct. When I resigned my RA commission to leave active duty, I was recommissioned as a reserve officer, at my option. But no one administered the oath. Perhaps, I signed something containing the oath.
It’s not exactly a requirement, but I’ve known CSM’s that would have Soldiers retake (recite en mass would be more correct) the oath upon advancement to the NCO Corps.
Commissioned officers take the oath of office, administered on a form DD71. It’s a bit different but swears to defend the constitution, etc. All will do it at least once. My experience has been that many do it with each promotion. It’s at the discretion of the officer who is doing the promotion to re-administer it.
Same here. I took my initial oath in 2001, restated it a few weeks later to ship out, reupped in 2004, twice in 2007, and then went Indef in 2011. I don’t recall taking the oath of reenlistment for NCO promotions but did have an NCO Induction in 2005-ish that reinforced my commitment to the Army and the Nation.
“Loyalty oaths” were very likely a unit thing conjured up by the omnipresent Good Idea Fairy. We are a Volunteer Army (and Sister Services) nowadays and can’t be forced to blindingly swear allegiance to any given entity outside of the laws upon which our Nation was founded. With that said, officers–particularly senior field grades–can be exceedingly political in nature and get that Good Idea Fairy mindset. Run it by Legal and if that aspiring MAJ or LTC is looking for an additional paygrade, they’ll give the “okay”, so the good LTC, COL, or MG can make it a “unit policy” that all members of the unit give and oath of loyalty to the unit, the Army, and their leadership.
For the 5.6 years I was an AD officer, I didn’t vote either. Although, I was overseas for about three of them. I was also taught that Army officers were supposed to be apolitical.
I’m curious where milley found the part of the Constitution that allows the Military chief to call the main protagonist and warn them of an impending attack on them.
It’s under AR 200-Milleyisafuckstick.
My man!
(BIG smiley face)
Ashli Babbit was unavailable for comment.
Kongress Klown Kritters need to be reminded that they, too, are supposed to swear an Oath to the Constitution. Or is that no longer a thing?
It’s a thing, but they’re very selective about what parts they swore to uphold. They view the Bill of Rights as a negotiable list.
I still have a large stack of “Pocket Constitutions” on the shelf
next to me. Bought a few hundred back in the Trump days and
handed them out to people. Most people thanked me, many
declined the offer and a few people were openly angered by it.
Trump 2024 or it’s all over for the Constitution.
Loyalty to the Constitution. Should be the first class required at any military academy. Taken on a pass/fail basis.
Should be the first class (and repeated) in all public schools.
We had a Sunday morning cartoon that used to cover stuff like that.
If a cadet is prepared to take the oath of office at the end of four years and doesn’t understand what it means, the institution has failed.
Two thoughts. First, in all my years of service, the oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States…” never changed. It was a steady constant each time I enlisted, reenlisted and commissioned. Second, the moment shit started getting broken at the Capital, it was time to beat feet out of there. I can give a little slack up to that point, but I watched it live as people tried to beat down doors and fight police to force entry. That’s a clear wrong for me.
Of course I was drafted, but this is the oath I took:
I, Draftee, 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; 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.
And, of course, the First Sergeant made us all carry a copy of the Armed Forces Code of Conduct in the top right pocket our fatigue jackets. I hear Ronald Reagan watered it down some.
Article I
I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
Article II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist.
Article III
If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
Article IV
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will support them in every way.
Article V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
Article VI
I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America
Wasn’t so much “watered down”, as rendered gender neutral:
I am an American fighting in the forces that guard my country and our way of life,
I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the
members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every
effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special
favors from the enemy.
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no
information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades.
If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those
appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
Should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank,
service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of
my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies.
I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions,
and dedicated to the principles which made my country free.
I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
Folks should have a drink.
Cooler heads prevail in an argument such as this has become….
Just an observation.