Does the Military Consider Biden Their Commander-In-Chief?

Legendary comedian Will Rogers often said, "All I know is what I read in the papers." Well, all I know is what I read on Twitter.

Things have come to a pretty pass when we have to rely on Twitter to kinda' sorta' dope out whether the United States Military considers Whoever-is-Posing-as-Joe-Biden to be their Commander-in-Chief...or not.

Six days after the events of January 6th, a document supposedly signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff circulated on social media stating they considered Biden to be the lawful President-elect and next Commander-in-Chief.

But it was undated and signed in blue ink. That's why vets on Twitter instantly cried, "B$!"

Nevertheless, the Pentagon began briefing the incoming Biden Administration on national security matters. They even planted a couple of whoppers, just to test Biden. Sure enough, the data was leaked to China within 30 minutes of the briefing. Well! That was the end of Biden's Pentagon briefings!

To add insult to injury, the whole world witnessed the National Guard casually turn their backs to Joe's Fake Inaugural procession as well as the wrong 21-gun salute and lack of proper garb during the Fake Inauguration Charade. Without the military uttering a word, their message came through loud and clear: Not our true Commander-in-Chief.

But according to a recent article from Real Raw News, some of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were loyal to Biden and did consider him to be their real Commander-in-Chief...until last week when he nonchalantly asked for an increase of US military in the Middle East merely to protect the Rumaila oil field.

"When Chief of Staff of the Army General James C. McConville asked Biden why he looked to unnecessarily endanger American lives," wrote Michael Baxter for Real Raw News, "and why he cared about the oil, Biden purportedly told him to 'follow orders, and mind your own business.' "

Baxter goes on to write, "Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday, who opposed Biden’s Feb 26 unprovoked air strike on Syria, asked how many soldiers Biden needed to guard the oil reserve. In response, Biden reportedly shrugged his shoulders and tossed out a random number—50,000."

"The figure shocked not only many of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but also Donald Trump when Gen. Berger relayed the meeting details to him," Baxter writes. "Gen. Berger told Trump an argument broke out...Berger, McConville, and Gilday said they stand with Trump and said they would submit resignation letters before sending their men back overseas without a valid reason."

Baxter goes on to say, "Biden considered firing those who supported Trump, but changed his mind for fear of political fallout, as firing one, two, or three, meant firing all, and he instead reprimanded them with warning: ‘Ultimately, you’re all replaceable, just not at this moment.' ”

All of this news, if true, is trending in the right direction. To me it indicates that, whatever commanders / branches of our armed forces may have been leaning towards Biden will be much more open to considering the mountains of evidence of voter fraud.

But in the absence of any direct, concrete information, I've spent hours painstakingly combing through all of the U. S. military's blue-checkmarked Twitter accounts, trying to dope out where their allegiance lies, using this set of criteria.

According to The Verge, @PresElectBiden was changed to @POTUS while all of President Trump's tweets sent under @POTUS from 2017-2020 were archived under @POTUS45.

This means that to follow Mr. Biden, Mrs. Biden and their White House, the Social Media Managers for the Military would've had to make a conscious choice to actively do so. The follows did not rollover in Twitter.

That's why I find it so telling that many of them do not follow the new Administration, as you can see from the spreadsheet below.

But they did and still are following the (now archived) account for President and Mrs. Trump and their White House. That was their pattern...follow WH, POTUS and FLOTUS...a pattern they broke for Biden.

Even more encouraging is that 100% of our Armed Forces either ignored President's Day altogether on Twitter or acknowledged the holiday in a generic way, focusing on Washington and Lincoln. Not one of them...not one!!!... mentioned Biden by name nor tagged @POTUS in any of their President's Day tweets. That includes the Secret Service!

Personally, I find that mighty encouraging. Remember how President Trump was swarmed with love on February 15th!?! Biden must've been gnashing his porcelain veneers that day!

Here are the only military tweets that acknowledged February 15th as President's Day at all. Some of the Military's Twitter accounts simply went silent for that entire day.

Yes, ever civilian avenue for righting the wrong of November 3rd must be exhausted.

Yes, the military must conduct their own investigation and make their own decision, yea or nay, on outside interference in our election.

But judging exclusively by Twitter, I have high hopes our military will do the honorable and just thing for our Republic and bring back our beloved and very-much-missed President Trump!

Rollo:
GS? GS-what? Where? Aren’t you aware that GS-types are famous for their laziness, inefficiencies, abuse of the bureaucratic process and people, and support of the democratic agenda. Largest union in the US? Federal government employee union.

Wife served but no mention of rank or position (junior enlisted, perhaps). REMF.

You have a cynical opinion of servicemen and you convey your distain for them. Chief’s, colonels, whatever, as you rise more and more responsibilities rest on your shoulder, and if you end up doing the DC shuffle, wars are fought daily there over budgets to ensure they get their fair share of funds necessary to train and equip their men.

Since you like to quote people, then; “Gold is good in its place, but living, brave patriotic men are better than gold.” (Abraham Lincoln). Sadly, based on your posts, I’d not place you among patriotic men.

So, better men than you daily risk much more than a GS guy getting a paper cut, yet you insult them.

Reference Eisenhower (you should read source documents and internal memos regarding his speech). You must know the subject, you must know the issues, you must know what he actually was thinking.

From someone that served a career then over 10-yrs working in the defense industry: “The business of foreign military sales provides a critical foundation to US National Security Strategy/Policy. Without a robust foreign military sales program (FMS), the US would be denied significant access and influence tools and the US defense industry would be at risk, thereby threatening US national security. A detailed examination and understanding of foreign military sales processes and motivations are necessary to fully comprehend why the US engages in foreign military sales. From this understanding specific benefits to US political interests, military capability and industry can be identified as primary motivators shaping arms sales.

The international arms trade via government-run foreign military sales (FMS) is not well understood. FMS is oft-times misrepresented in popular media, in agenda-driven reporting/monitoring organizations and ignorant people who have not studied the issue. Consequently, many people are unaware of the driving forces behind FMS and usually associate FMS with unrealistic but entertaining fantasy or simply object to such activities altogether. The subject is further confused by a myriad of Executive Branch FMS bureaucratic processes, laws, regulations, as well as Congress. President Eisenhower’s 1961 (often taken out of context) “military industrial complex” speech contributes to an enduring negative view of the defense industry. Indeed, President Eisenhower’s speech is cited as a warning about the defense industry and its growing influence among the “councils of government.” However, in context, President Eisenhower acknowledged the need for a robust defense industry and called on informed citizenry and politicos to “recognize the imperative need for this development.” The “development” referred to a healthy defense industry, in other words, we no longer could just open a factory and start to manufacture massive amounts of arms quickly during a crisis. Consequently, far from condemning the defense industry, he was recognizing its vital role in advancing US political, economic and military goals.

He also warned about academia and their growing influence and reliance on government funds.

Have a nice day, hope your world view gets better.

Cheers, and we are over, but I guess you MUST have the last word, the immature ones always do. So, have at it because I don’t know you and your opinions are of no consequence to me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.