The Military Oath of the USA by maryh10000

103 thoughts on “The Military Oath of the USA by maryh10000”

1. Great article. It would be nice to quote the actual words of the oath.

   I’m reminded of the naturalization oath I took, different in detail but comparable in intent. One of the more interesting phrases from that one is “I forever renounce any allegiance to any foreign prince or potentate”. I wonder if that’s still in the current version. I’ve seen some disturbing indications that “dual citizenship” is no longer considered a strange aberration.

   1. Different oaths for officers and enlisted. https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/swearing-in-for-military-service.html

      1. Different in detail, but not in intent, which is support for the Constitution. And be aware that “orders” implies legal orders; if even the President gives an illegal order (“Shoot those unarmed POWs”, for example, or “Open fire on those peaceful demonstrators”), it’s a violation of the oath to obey it, although proving it was illegal might be a bit dicey.

   2. Joe Potato is beholden to a bunch of foreign potentates. Half of the Congresscritters are loyal to nothing beyond their own bank accounts. 0bama and Biden’s ventriloquists have installed political officers in our military high command.
      ———————————
      Today, every child in America is born $91,000 in debt.

   3. The US hasn’t bothered with forbidding dual citizenship in ages.

      The only time they’ll actually make you choose is if you’re in a foreign country and doing thing that make the foreign countries leaders complain to the US diplomats.

      1. I renounced all foreign allegiance. I mailed back the passport. This is my country. I have no other.

      2. That is not absolutely true. If you you are applying for clearance dual citizenship seems to be an a priori exclusion. This can be a real nuisance some countries (e.g Republic of China) do not remove your citizenship when you become a US Citizen. Most Taiwanese do NOT know this and having naturalized and apply for clearance assume their ROC citizenship is gone. The investigation inevitably notes this and that it was not disclosed and so it is immediately suspicious. Apparently to remove your ROC citizenship you must actually appear in person before a a magistrate in Taiwan so its a royal pain in the ass. I saw it happen at least twice.

         1. OK, this is a gray area. My father was a naturalized US citizen (French origin), but his naturalization took effect around 1953, when I was about 7 or 8. As a result, France considered me a French citizen, even though I was born here (in DC; shut up), as was my mother. In fact, I was told that if I went to France after I was 18 I could be drafted into the French army (True? Dunno, and I never felt it necessary to check,). The US didn’t consider me to have any citizenship but US, so I had no problem getting a Secret or TS clearance.

            1. It may be with Taiwan/ROC being in sort of a diplomatic limbo due to our recognition of Red China there may be other issues. Definitely saw 2 separate cases of folks with Interim Secret clearances pulled until they sorted out the issue. And yes I think if you went to France they MIGHT have tried to draft you. In a similar situation a friend of mine and his Dad had to bolt out of Greece Near the start of a Greek/Turkey Cypress bout as grandad was a Greek citizen and living in Greece (that’s who they were visiting), they ended up scooting into then Yugoslavia to avoid conscription.

               1. Ouch; the idea of going into Yugoslavia, even before the breakup, to be safe… 😦

                  As I said, it’s a gray area, and subject to the laws of the country involved. And the Taiwan/PRC issue is just a bit…complicated.

                  1. Question. A Twain/ROC refugee, becomes a US citizen. Or even a child of one, born in the US. Critical aspect is US citizen. Needs clearance at whatever level. If they are aware of the complication and put it in disclosure, does that affect possibility of being granted the clearance? What surprises me is once notified of the possibility, why can’t the individual send a certified letter renouncing citizenship of the country? It isn’t that country’s recognition of dual citizenship, it is the individuals and the US, or should be. I know “should be” and “is” are worlds apart … But still.

                     1. “Should be” and “is” are indeed worlds apart. My take on that would be, how can loyalty, irrespective of declarations, be guaranteed? It can’t of course, regardless of certified letters or anything else; spies lie; it’s their trade. Allowing a possibly disloyal individual (due to origin in a nation such as the PRC) access to sensitive information is potentially bad or even catastrophic; even a child raised by such a problematic citizen is less trustworthy due to influence from a possibly disloyal parent. The default for issuing security clearances, especially high-level ones, is, and probably should be, “No”. Probably that’s not “fair” to the majority of such cases, but there it is.

                        1. When is life “Fair”?

                           1. Never, which is why I put it in quotes.

                     2. Remember how the War of 1812 got started? The other country is sovereign and doesn’t have to listen.

            2. I don’t think the Portuguese still consider me a citizen. I DID mail back the passport and was informed that should I wish to become a citizen again, I’d have to apply and wait a year (which I think means 5 in Portuguese bureaucrat.) It really means nothing to me.

            3. One case I read about in Dutch newspapers some years ago: the Moroccan government has the notion that if you were ever a citizen, you remain so until you die. Renouncing your citizenship has no meaning in their eyes. This caused problems for Moroccan emigrants who were naturalized in, say, Holland. That made them liable to the Dutch draft, but even though they renounced their Moroccan citizenship, the Moroccan government did not honor that and would try to draft them into their army as well.
               In other words, while most countries understand that citizenship is something you may renounce, not all do.

   4. “I, (STATE YOUR NAME), 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.”

      Mary has it right. If you can’t trust your leaders, you don’t belong in the military. It got to the point where I didn’t trust anything the Clintons did, I couldn’t trust my OIC, or my Commander. So I put in my paperwork and hung up my uniform.

      But that oath, that oath still stands. Nobody has ever absolved me of it.
      And yes, I too recognized that the Constitution comes before the President the officers, the piles of regulations, and the UCMJ.

      1. The Oathkeepers were about all this – reminding veterans and law enforcement, that they had sworn an oath in obedience to the Constitution, and had the absolute right to disregard orders which were not in accordance with that oath.
         It purely amazes me now how that simple understanding and reminder has morphed through the miracle of our modern propaganda outlets, into the next thing to being a Nazi-KKK-Far-Right-Extremist.

         1. If you support the Constitution, by libtard definition you are a Nazi-KKK-Far-Right-Extremist. I wear that with pride, and reject the associated characterizations. Screw them and the equines upon which they entered.

            1. Nah.
               But I believe it does make me a USAian of sorts.

2. YES!

3. Amen.

4. I took the oath too, in the US Army, in the early ’70s. And during the Tea Party movement days, I (and others) joined an organization called OathKeepers, composed of those of us who noticed that the oath we took didn’t have an expiration date, and that we felt ourselves honor-bound to abide by that oath unless we formally renounced it. The OathKeepers were vilified as fascist, alt-right, and every aspersion the left could think of for us, which meant zippo to any of us.

   So far as I can tell, OathKeepers as an organization is defunct (its website, oathkeepers.org, doesn’t resolve, which tells me the administrative state has gotten it cancelled). But again, that means zippo to those of us who consider the oath still in operation.

   For those who aren’t familiar, here is the oath of enlistment we (and everyone ever in the military) swore:

   (For enlisted) “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; 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.”

   (For officers) “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

   1. You may notice in the above oaths that the enlisted swear to obey the orders of the President and those officers they report to, but officers do not, swearing instead to well and faithfully discharge the duties of their offices…

      1. But even for the enlisted, the Constitution comes first.

         1. Correct! The PRIMARY duty of ANYONE who swears an oath as part of the US Government (Officer/enlisted or civilian [appointed or elected]) is to the Constitution. I only wish more of those taking these oaths would take the time to actually READ it — especially our dullards in Congress!

            I spent 26 years in the Air Force, mostly overseas. We have the best system of government ever devised by man, one that functions well even defiled as it is by current “law”. Not an OathKeeper, but definitely a fellow traveler.

            1. TPTB really don’t want the people to think very strongly about the Constitution. They’re afraid they might start thinking they know more about it than they should.

      2. But, er, yeah, I was an officer.

      3. And including the phrase “according to regulation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice”. So if the officer is giving orders in contravention to regulations, the UCMJ, or the Constitution, such orders are unlawful and not liable to be obeyed.

         1. Correct. Proving the unlawfulness, OTOH, can get problematic. In the end it’s a matter of ethics, which is why it’s a mystery to most Congresscritters.

            1. Whoof, yes, and I’ve even heard of medical officers that tried to write people up for not following “orders” and thus saving their family member’s lives….

               1. Ouch (I seem to be using that a lot lately…). I won’t ask for details, but that sounds like a potential court martial offense. For the med officer, not his target, assuming I interpreted that correctly as “by not following orders they saved their family member’s life”, and that it didn’t happen in active combat, where the rules are different (and more draconian).

                  1. Oh, I’ll give one anyways– Sasebo, about 2002, guy took his wife in with “severe pain” and was told she was hysterical and it was just normal bleeding pains.

                     He took her out on town, paid out of pocket, and she didn’t die of the tubal pregnancy hemorrhaging.

                     Folks who know a bit about female medical, YES, she was gushing blood when he took her in.

                     They are so insanely lucky that she survived….

                     1. My only possible initial response to that is “Holy CRAP!”. I suspect the “doctor” (quotes maliciously intentional) was also extremely lucky; if I’d been the husband in that scenario and my wife died due to medical incompetence that “doctor” wouldn’t have outlived the wife by more than a very few days; screw charges.

                        Sheesh…

                        1. I very seriously think that the best result out of Trump’s time may be that malpractice can be applied against military doctors, now.

                           And that is WHILE admiring the results from the judges he did his bleepin job and appointed.

                           1. I wasn’t aware it couldn’t be in the past; thanks. I’d assume battlefield operations are treated differently?

                           2. No idea.

   2. Oathkeeper’s website was shut down in January ’21; you can find Buzzfeed stories foaming about them, as well as some mildly amusing “debunked conspiracy stories” that have turned out to be completely true.

   3. A Key word is missing in that oath…”I will obey the LAWFUL orders” if the orders are not lawful and violate the constitution, then they should not be followed!

      1. “In accordance with UCMJ”. The concept is baked in. Constitution first, then the law, then orders. Might want to go read the whole thing.

      2. IIRC, my oath included ‘lawful’. But that was 40(cough) years ago, so memory may be a little fuzzy. Still, “observe, protect, and defend the Constitution, etc.) still rings true and has yet to expire.

         1. Mine also included “officers lawfully appointed over me” I’ve got a brother in law who just got out and verifies that that’s intact in his side of things. Most countries think we’re weird because we lowly enlisted, actually can and will tell people with VERY shiny collars “no sir, I cannot do that, and it is not legal for you to try and make me.”

            1. And weird doesn’t even cover the half of it. “Insane” might be a better term, for some of the reactions I’m aware of.

            2. “That’s great. Can I get that order in writing, sir?”

               Makes all kinds of stuff evaporate. ^.^

               1. Also “Wonderful, if you make the list you should have no trouble adding yourself to it, ma’am. Until then. You’re not on the list.”

                  1. “Sir, if you’re not authorized to receive that information, I can’t give it to you. Yes sir, I know you’re an officer, but I still can’t give you that information. Yes sir, my commander is. . .”

                     BTDT.

5. I agree with this completely. The Constitution defines the United States of America, and the only truly un-American acts are renouncing or violating it. One may think that it needs to be changed, but with or without changes it defines our government. Many people, including a lot of our politicians, have forgotten that. It’s worth reminding them of it, if for no other reason than to point out that the Constitution is the only thing that creates the office that they hold. No Constitution, no office; no office, no power; no power, no reason for us to pay attention to what they say.

   Over the past century or so, we’ve gotten a long way from the government that the Constitution allows. It’s time to return to that government.

   1. As Chesterton observed, we’re founded on a creed, ‘which is both the broadest and narrowest thing in the world’…
      After much poking, whittled it down to a short quote:

      America invites all men to become citizens; but it implies the dogma that there is such a thing as citizenship. Only, so far as its primary ideal is concerned, its exclusiveness is religious because it is not racial. The missionary can condemn a cannibal, precisely because he cannot condemn a Sandwich Islander. And in something of the same spirit the American may exclude a polygamist, precisely because he cannot exclude a Turk.

      https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27250/27250-h/27250-h.htm
      Honestly, just go to What is America? and read from there, he’s hard to quote but great to read. 😀

      1. I will mildly note that, per Jerry Pournelle, the actual reason for the questionnaire is the bit at the bottom saying, “I swear under penalty of perjury,” so you can be nailed for perjury even if the question is not about a crime, or is about one out of our jurisdiction.

         1. Which, as “hey, can I come visit,” is a perfectly reasonable consideration.

            1. In a nation with an actual legal system, yes. In a nation where Scooter Libby goes to jail for having a different recollection than a reporter who’s a partisan in front of a jury whose foreman is on tape saying “we wanted to get Cheney, but Scooter Libby would do”, not so much.

               I don’t care if they are asking about the weather, “5th Amendment and I want a lawyer” is all they should ever get.

               1. Your desire for “an actual legal system” would be much more persuasive if not for your record of thinking any result you have heard about and dislike is invalid, regardless of inconvenient little facts; when shoehorned nearly a century backwards into the context of a tourist visa discussing the American creed, it’s well into category of being a bore.

6. “I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; 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 the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God”

   Yes, the oath requires follow orders, ”

   The UCMJ notes follow lawful orders.

   The follow lawful orders area is, however quite gray leaving military personnel in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t area. The 1932 Bonus Army clearing, for example, presents a lot of questions about lawful orders.

   MacArthur burning the camp in Anacostia violated a presidential order. Right or wrong, lawful or unlawful?

   Driving a crowd of veterans protesting for bonuses promised them from Washington with tanks, cavalry and tear gas. Right or wrong, lawful or unlawful?

   My own take on it, when I thought about it after taking the oath , was yep, follow orders period, unless violating said order violated the Constitution or morality to a point where it became a hill I was willing to die on and I do mean willing to die. Glad I’m not playing soldier today and deciding where that hill is.

   1. We’re it easy to figure these questions, philosophers would not still be breaking their hearts and heads over them.

7. From your lips to our children’s ears!

8. I swore a similar oath when I entered into Federal Civil Service.
   One small yet very important nit. In the military you are obligated to carry out to the best of your ability every legal order you are issued.
   It’s not part of the oath, but is understood that you are also obligated to refuse any orders which you believe to be illegal and report such commands up the chain as far as necessary.
   There were these international meetings back in the late 1940s in Nuremburg Germany that made it extremely clear that “I was just following orders” would never again be an acceptable defense against illegal actions.

   1. Me too. When I got to go to Army Management Staff College, the first thing the class did was swear it again.

   2. Do the non-DOD sections of the civil service have to swear it? I’ve always wondered.

      1. All the law enforcement types that I can think of do; I can’t see Forest Service doing it, though.

         1. Can’t see Forest Service doing it

            ……………
            Would agree of the really truly seasonal temp employees (not that there are many, if any of these anymore), or the clerical staff. But these days field staff of both the USFS, BLM (tree kind), or Park Service, are also sworn law enforcement, even if very limited jurisdiction. They’ve had to. That or illegally pack on the job out in the wilderness field. Latter started happening in late ’70s, I saw that; open secret on both districts I worked at. But I was out of the field portion after college, and then changed careers; so only have rumors to go on.

            1. The guns that aren’t there so you don’t vanish when you find the pot grows that are also not there are definitely A Thing.

               1. guns that aren’t there so you don’t vanish when you find the pot grows that are also not there are definitely A Thing

                  ………………….
                  Witnessed that too. Well the results anyway. Large crew that year. Long trek in to where the proposed landing along the not yet flagged proposed road. I was toward the 1/3 end of the 20 person line. Suddenly, everyone was coming back along the trek. Both supervisors in the front had their, until then concealed, hand guns visible. The third pulled his. Crew double timed it back to the rigs. Sale was pulled off the to do list for the season. Technically we were told until law enforcement got it shutdown and the appropriate clear out and clean out of traps and environmental hazards were completed, but never saw that area again. Same year crew ran into the rattlesnake unit, and the black bears were “unusually active”. Crew only saw one black bear that season, but that is 100% more than any bears I have ever seen outside of national park. It was an interesting 5 months (season I worked mid-June to mid-December). The next year the crew was 6 people, and that included the 3 crew “permanent” supervisors.

      2. Can only speak for myself and those who signed on at the same time to NASA Civil Service. An HR representative administered the oath to as I recall eight of us standing in a hallway immediately after we signed the paperwork accepting employment.

         1. Census Bureau too, and we were just short-term enumerators. Administering the oath was the first thing our instructor did after introducing herself. Only then did we begin our training.

9. I took both oaths, enlisted and officer.
   This post is spot on perfect.

   1. You’re a Mustang?

      1. There are a few of us around here.

      2. What’s that WeeFree?

         1. A “mustang” is an Officer with prior Enlisted service.

            1. Thanks. I finally looked it up this morning because I felt like a lazy a$$.
               So, yes, I am a Mustang.

10. The people tearing down the Constitution don’t seem to realize that without it they lose all authority over us and protection from us. I hope they get wisdom soon.

11. Bill put it best

12. I, too, served in the USAF. I was possibly closer to the point of the spear; but am thankful I never “went to the circus to see the elephant,” as some describe shooting wars. My Squadron sat on alert with bombers loaded with “special weapons.” About every 3rd week. There was always a chance something could have “gone sideways” very fast…

    Agatha Christie, in 1970: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhYqhWVcmtI

13. There are also many variations on an oath of office used in government services at local, county and state levels too. One major feather of most if not all it to also protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Many out there who never did any federal or military service have also sworn such oaths and still believe.

14. Thank you.

15. Entered active duty, USMC, 3 September 1968, honorably discharged 1 September 1972. Saw combat in SE Asia. My enlistment ended long ago. The oath remains in effect. All you folks out there that took an equivalent oath, meant it, and still keep it are my brothers and sisters. It is our blood that waters the Tree of Liberty. Likely hard times ahead, but we will keep this great hope for mankind alive.

16. The Oath of Office (for officers): “I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Navy of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

    Note- NO expiration date…

17. Matt Bracken , career Navy Seal and author , emphasizes the phrase “all enemies foreign and domestic “….Very on point these days…

    1. Another point is the military are trained more for violent, lethal responses to threats. We are not law enforcement. We are not investigators or detectives. Only a fool would want us taking out “domestic enemies”. Unfortunately, just about everyone in this Administration qualifies for the “fool” label; and most qualify as domestic enemies of the Constitution.

18. My uncles,and father who all served, most in combat, gave me good but cautionary advice before I enlisted.

    Years later there were occasions when I was asked for advice from either youngsters or their parents about joining the military. I gave them the same advice I was given.

    “You may lose your life in valor or more likely due to abject stupidity of others in a foreign war. And you may see your brother or a neighbor at the other end of the gun sights. Wouldn’t you rather go to trade school?”

    Most of my cousins were smarter than I, listened and chose trade school.

    1. Mostly due to abject stupidity. Politically motivated Rules of Engagement have killed an awful lot of military members; and for less reason than training accidents.

19. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    For me, the “We” in that refers to Americans, not just the Continental Congress. Jefferson wasn’t just speaking for a few dozen politicians, he was defining a nation. Americans look at that and say “Well, duh” while non-Americans either laugh, recoil in horror, or respond “Yes, but…”

    1. Same. You know that.

    2. It’s interesting, because it’s literally laying out some basic principles of “natural law,” which were not super-new. The bit about the removal of consent was a tad newer, but it wasn’t new; and various Italian city-states had already done a lot of switching forms of government on a fairly regular basis (I’m looking at you, Siena), and some of their forms of government were fairly eccentric (“Let’s start a religion club, let’s everybody join up, and then let’s run the city as a club activity!” Yup, medieval commune cities run by Catholic religious sodalities founded to do joint good works).

       But Americans are the ones who came right out and said it, and have kept saying it, as various philosophies have come out and gone away. I don’t know if that’s geekiness or practicality.

20. Re: forms of government — The official proclamation in Scotland was done by the Scottish members of the college of heralds. Heralds and pursuivants, actually doing herald things. Very cool. Not my form of government, thankfully, but a lot of instructive law stuff going on there.

21. That is all indeed! I swear to protect and defend the Constitution. If you don’t support the Constitution, you are free to leave. There are many others who will take your place. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out Woodrow Wilson.

22. “ 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

    The oath that I freely took in 1972 upon becoming a 2nd Lieutenant in the USAF is a timeless pledge. Men and women of honor did not view this commitment as conditional but solemn and enduring.

    The revisionists will seek to pervert historical accounts. Politicians will seek to exploit divisions. Radicals will seek to invent and impose new orders. ONLY IF WE LET THEM1

23. I agree with your sentiment. However, you are deeply wrong in one aspect.
    The United States is a military corporation which duty is to defend the country, formed as a constitutional republic, called the united states of America.
    The later operates on principles of Anglo-Saxon Common Law, and recognizes inalienable rights to the people living there. ASCL is a form of restitutive law.
    The United States is a corporation. It’s citizens have no rights, only privileges. The legal system is based on Roman-type law, a system based on punitive law. A person is not a man (generic gender). A man HAS/POSSESSES a person. A person is a legal “fiction”, a legal “entity”, like a token used in the game of monopoly to be able to play the game. The game being played by the U.S. is called “commerce”.
    This stems from the rule that corporations – limited liability entities – are forbidden to interact with flesh and blood men, because corporations have no real skin in the game.

    Thus, corporations can only interact with people via the “token”, i.e. via the person.

    This distinction is extremely important as it is, with the help of legal treachery or confounding, the conceptual base used to legitimize the abuse the State perpertrates on most individuals most of the time (all based in Roman-type law). Thus, they can tax (steal) you, coerce you, etc. Roman law is the broader category under which falls Maritime Law, Contract Law, UCC, International Law, AND Martial Law.

    As a Canadian, I am not sufficiently clear about this point: is there such a thing as a “Constitution of the United STates” different than the Constitution of the united states of America ?
    Any “constitution” of the corporation United States would simply be the letters of incorporations.
    The sacred Constitution of the united states of America is a document protecting The People against government and corporatism.

    I suspect there is no such thing as a genuine “constitution” (in the sense of the one of the Republic) of the corporation United States…

    Finally, I want to thank you for your service to the constitution of the republic of the united states of America.

    1. And now we have heard from the REAL lunatic fringe.
       Thorazine, ladies and gentlemen, should be on tap every day for some people.
       If I had to guess? Schizophrenia. But it could be paranoia, too, and not the reasonable kind of paranoia from living in clownworld.

    2. Moo.

    3. Well, that is a verbal vomit of assumption started as undeniable fact without supporting evidence, extrapolation of that assumption beyond reason across millennia, and conclusive Unified Theory of Everything offered as gospel truth to justify hatred of a bogeyman effigy.
       Dip your cup back into the Buzzword Bingo punch bowl, dude. You spilled some in your first helping.

    4. The correct capitalization is “the united States of America”.

       And your post reminds me that I want to sew a gold fringe onto my flag, just to mess with SovCits like yourself.

    5. The United States is a corporation. It’s citizens have no rights, only privileges.

       :skims down a bit to see if that assertion has any hint of support:

       :roundfiles:

    6. In the words of Conor McGregor, “Who da fook is this guy? Who the fook cares?”

       This SovCit nonsense spewing doofus makes less sense than terrorist assholes driving planes into buildings. And they’re all the same when it comes to the quality of their moral principles- vapid, narcissistic, self-aggrandizing buffoons.

    7. Corporations are entities of the state. If the united states is a corporation, under what government was it incorporated? Great Britain?

       1. (Much more likely: Cloud Cuckoo Land.)

       2. Right?
          Meth. It HAS to be meth.

          1. That’s more post-meth, the “snorting pixie stix” level of brain death.

             1. Hey now. Our cat (Weirdly Pixel) liked snorting (Okay, eating) pixie sticks and he was FAR more coherent.

                1. Different species, different vices.

    8. Allow me to thank you for this comment.

       I was on a quest for the most idiotic nonsense I could possibly read today, and you provided it.

       Well done, good sir.

       Wait…

       …
       …
       …
       …
       He’s serious? This isn’t a joke?

       Well, now it’s even more hilarious.

24. Reblogged this on Calculus of Decay .

Comments are closed.