Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Everett Historical /

“Thank you for joining me in honoring our history, our traditions, and the institutions of the U.S. Armed Forces by upholding the principle of political neutrality.”  (Bold mine)

With these words General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (principal military advisor to the President of the United States) entered an unprecedented pre-election blog posted on October 24, 2016.

His thanks may be premature.  Here are the words he opened with:

“…as our country again prepares for a peaceful transfer of power to a new administration…”

What’s going on here?  Why is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs talking about a peaceful transfer of power?  When in the last 150 years have we not had a peaceful transfer of power?  Does he think there might not be a peaceful transfer of power?

Maybe the General is worried that our military will not tolerate an election stolen by Hillary Clinton.  Or the people will not tolerate it.  Here are some additional excerpts from his post.  He reminds our forces:

“Every service member swears “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”  (Italics in original)

He then goes on

“… we must recognize that we have one Commander in Chief, and until authority is transferred on January 20, 2017, the Joint Force must remain clearly focused on and responsive to the existing National Command Authority.”

“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.”

“To that end, I have a duty to protect the integrity and political neutrality of our military profession.”

We must have “a peaceful transfer of power,” and “one Commander in Chief until authority is transferred.”  We must be “responsive to the existing National Command Authority.”  We must maintain “political neutrality.”   All in all this sounds to me like he’s pleading with the military to not revolt at the outcome of the upcoming presidential election, or to join an insurrection in progress.

This is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs!

If this is his concern, reminding the troops that: “Every service member swears “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States” is poor salesmanship, and a tactical error.

The Constitution prohibits a lying, thieving, traitor becoming President. (Peace.  I’m not going to put you through the Wikileaks emails, the Project Veritas videos, nor the trail of the dead)

The General’s real worry is, or should be, that the troops will remember their oath to defend the Constitution.  This would leave the General and his boss out twisting in the wind.

Even in these days of decline there is a danger that some people may honor their oaths. Here are the oaths concerned:

The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):

“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.”

The Oath of Office (for officers):

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army 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.”

These oaths are nothing but bad news for would-be election thieves, especially traitorous ones.  Not only are enemies both foreign and domestic to be guarded against, but God is invoked to support fulfilling the oath.

You will notice that these oaths say nothing about “preserving the political neutrality of the Armed Forces.”  This is a tradition, and a good one – up to a point.  But if Hillary Clinton attempts to take the office of President, the point will have been passed.  It will be time to execute the prime directive and defend the Constitution.  (I wonder if the FBI reopening the Clinton email investigation is a ploy to freeze the military for now.)

The US Uniform Code of Military Justice requires that illegal orders be disobeyed.  This principle was established internationally at the Nuremberg Trials where “I was only following orders” was not accepted as a defense for NAZI war criminals.

At the beginning of his second term Obama purged the Armed Forces of officers he was able to identify as being unwilling to fire on American citizens.  (see SARTRE, iPatriot, 8/8/16)  They were removed for a time such as this.  But there may be closet patriot officers still in the military (as Obama and the General obviously believe.  When it comes right down to it, even General Dunford may be other than we assume; he did remind the troops of their oath to defend the Constitution.)

But the real danger to Clinton and Obama and their entire cabal is with the enlisted men and women.  Obama has treated them like dirt at every opportunity.  Just from personal conversations, I believe that many or most of them realize what’s going on; the destruction of the United States military and the nation.  With leadership, they may not allow this to happen.  Would they fire on their countrymen to make horrible Hillary Clinton their Commander in Chief?  Some, yes; most, I doubt it.

I believe there are many people that a Clinton victory would leave in the same psychological condition as the resisters at Bundy ranch:  there is no place left to back up. It’s resist or perish.  Listen to the people at any Trump rally.  A Clinton presidency will not be accepted.

The military intervening to thwart a blatantly illegal election outcome need not result in an actual conflict.  Just strongly suggesting a revote under honest supervision would hopefully solve the problem.

Unless of course Obama calls for UN back-up. There are treaty provisions for doing this (see Military Times 5/11/16 – which are also there for a time such as this) in which case there will be big trouble. Good men did not stand down in Benghazi.  I cannot believe the entire US military would comply with another order to stand down in the face of UN “peacekeepers.”

As a Christian I pray for an honest election (if Hillary makes it to election) and peace.  But we should be prepared for the opposite; a scary thought made all the more real by General Dunford’s blog.


iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?