Obama’s Joint Chiefs Chairman Pleads with Troops Not to Join Anti-Government Revolution if Hillary Steals Election
They know the fix is in and what will come. For a revolution in America to be successful, it needs the military to back the people over the corrupt President, as was the case in Egypt. And they know this, and the prospect terrifies them. His language isn’t overly blunt, inartful or ham-fisted, but his message is clear.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford wrote a Medium blog post Monday to remain committed to its military oath amid the 2016 election.
What we must collectively guard against is allowing our institution to become politicized, or even perceived as being politicized, by how we conduct ourselves during engagements with the media, the public, or in open or social forums,” Dunford reminded troops.
Dunford further urged service members that the military must remain committed to the chain of command structure until the next administration comes in, and that the military should not undermine its credibility in the interim with the next president. “I have a duty to protect the integrity and political neutrality of our military profession,” he continued.
H/T – PatDollard
Support the Trump Movement and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.
Things sure have changed since I swore to the oath to protect and defend the US constitution from all enemies,both foreign and domestic.Having said that,it sure looks like the general is hedging his bets that the beast will win by hook or crook.He’s also a day late and a dollar short on the ‘politicizing’ of our military.He has his job because he was selected by obama.He already broke the faith with us,and his oath.For shame general,for shame.
Agreed!
The way I read into this; he’s telling all the armed services to get ready to do battle with American citizens all for the likes of Hillary Clinton….I pray they have more sense.
they dont need change…” “
Another traitor against the American public.
@Iohchief has it 100% right. “I have a duty to protect the integrity and political neutrality of our military profession,” – No General, that is MOT what your oath says. However (as a senior military officer myself, who retired rather than signing the secret 0bama loyalty oath, wherein the officer agrees to follow orders to fire upon U.S. citizens,) I can assure all that it is the 0bama oath he is quoting, not his constitutional oath.
“NOT.” vs. “MOT”!
There will be a revolution, there must be!
Donald Trump is offering our nation a revolution at the ballot box, but if this fails the revolution will take place in the streets; and it will be the tens of millions of well-armed, patriotic, common sense Americans who will prevail in that conflict.
Both are domestic
Don’t let him fool you. Your oat is to protect and defend the constitution of America. You have the support of millions of Veterans behind you.
There is proof she and the dems including Obama are rigging the election…What happens to cheaters when they win a race..They get eliminated, and the prize gets taken away, and goes to the real winner..
The so-called chain of command for an officer begins with the Constitution. There is no mention of the president. Basically an officer does not have to obey the president. An officer can resign their commission in the example of not agreeing with the war. Oh, and mutinies can and do happen. I was in one.
Wrong! The President mist certainly IS mentioned in the Chain of Command! He’s at the very top as Commander in Chief! In the Officer’s oath the President is not directly mentioned, however, by the Constitution, he’s still Commander in Chief, thus at the top of the COC, so an officer, sworn to defend the Constitution, as sworn to follow the orders of the President and officers appointed over him. The thing NOT mentioned but tried and upheld in courts is the fact the orders must be LAWFUL orders. If we were to breakdown into anarchy and martial law, I’m pretty sure you’d see summary executions begin to take place at a rapid pace, thus renereding lawful orders a moot point.
As for an officer resigning his or her commission, there are conditions that have to be met fist and THEN the resignation can still be denied. Simply disagreeing with orders is NOT sufficient grounds for an officer being allowed to resign. In fact, even if their obligations have been met, the military can refuse to allow them to resign and force them to continue to serve. A recent example was in the war in Iraq, when hundreds of officers resigned at the end of their obligations but were refused and involuntarily extended duets manpower shortages in their fields. It’s happened before and will happen again.
As for our military being used against our citizens, simply look at history in the paSt 100 years, when MacArthur (and Eisenhower as his Aide), massacred WWI veterans in Washington, DC who were unarmed and peacefully camped near the Capital protesting the fact they’d never went properly paid. They were simply slaughtered, on orders of the President, by MacArthur and company!
An “officer” actually has a “duty” to disobey an “unlawful” or “unconstitutional” order, no matter who it comes from, even if the president of the United States of America. And the President, while a commander in chief of the armed services, can non the less make illegal, unlawful, or unconstitutional commands or orders. An order to violate citizens’ individual rights and freedoms, including violations of the 4th amendment and 14th amendment (rights to due process and trial by jury) are examples of such constutional violation orders that must be disobeyed, by law and by the oath taken by an officer. So no sir, I will not execute this person, is the correct decision of an officer. Aldo, no sir, I shall not conduct a search and seizure of this person or his property in his possession, without a lawfully obtained warrant from an impartial magistrate or judge – is the proper decision by an office with respect to a citizen. A civil war would necessarily have to be conducted with a whole different set of rules of engagement. House to house would be severely limited, and if ordered, generally, then the constitution has been suspended (abrogated) by the chain of command, and thus it is the officers’ duty to mutiny and protect citizens from the government forces.
If we took that serious, we would believe Americans were wrong to have a Revolution. It’s happened before and can happen again.
That’s right, men!
Just do as you’re told!
Don’t question authority!
Even if that authority is traitorous!
Welcome to tyranny!
That is, if you let it happen.
General Dunford needs to read about the People Power revolution in the Philippines (which was the only US Territory/Commonwealth to ever become an independent republic, and had a constitution nearly identical to that of the US until the president, Ferdinand Marcos, hyped up a straw-man communist uprising as an excuse to declare martial law and install himself as a dictator and de facto king), after world public opinion forced Marcos to hold a “snap election” in 1986, in which he was opposed by the widow of the opposition leader whom Marcos had blatantly had assassinated. After several international observers and election workers walked out in protest over blatant ballot stuffing (“voter fraud” is the more fashionable term nowadays) by the Marcos regime) the people took to the streets in a general strike. General Dunford needs to specifically look up what the Armed Forces of the Philippines was ordered to do, look up General Fabian Ver, the Armed Forces Chief of Staff, and General Fidel Ramos, the Deputy Chief of Staff.
Then he needs to think real hard about which of those generals he wants to be.
@Mad Tom: I feel that at some time you and I must have served together somewhere! Anyway, I feel I know you or at least would be proud if I did. Semper Fi and UHTBL! ` “Smokey Steve”, USMC (Ret.), FDNY (Ret.) Never relieved of the oath that (I’m sure) YOU and I took many years ago.
Isn’t it better for him to simply state that the elections must be held in a free, fair and open manner ?
I do not think Dunford would have wrote this unless he expected our forces to act in a way inconsistent with those instructions. In other words he thinks there will be a coup attempt if the election goes the wrong way. Does that mean we may have military backing in taking the country back and trying the criminals?
Any thoughts on this assessment?
I don’t believe our American soldiers will turn on us. We’re talking about their families, friends, and neighbors. But I do believe Obama will unload the entirety of UN forces on this country. So, it’ll still be a civil war. We already have a massive buildup of UN tanks and armed vehicles strategically placed all around the nation. Plus all the Fema camps just waiting for the masses of US citizens.
What UN equipment? The UN does not have any. If anything has been moving its been the repositioning of US military assets within the US.