Anon opines on military leadership
From this video it is clear that the US Military ("we" per Panetta) controlled little by the rule of law defined in the US Constitution and much by Treaties in place. But what does that mean?
Congress has no seat at the table in decisions to invade other territories.
POTUS's place at the table seems to have limited influence.
United Nations (Soros) and "Allies" do have a seat at the table their permission is required to invade other nations.
So then, the big question is IS POTUS COMMANDER IN CHIEF? At best an undermined coc. At worst, an actor in a charade.
Now let's look back at narrative we received - 'the military is the only way'. Is it the only way because this new approach would be somehow the new necessary or is it the only way because the military are already in charge, in full control? Are our elected officials stripped of all power because of voided contracts?
Then when we use the word 'military' of course we know that it is too broad a brush. There's more nuance than that. For example, some of the apparent military is CIA. But nevermind.
DJT's behavior indicated his first priority was to influence & persuade. This behavior was not limited to voters like our normal politician, but was directed strongly to the law enforcement and the military. This behavior suggest that he needed to earn influence over the US military, which fits the narrative that his role as commander in chief was EARNED rather than GRANTED.
We also saw that 46 did not receive the traditional 21 cannon salute given to a president. And keep in mind that the 21 cannon salute was developed as a means for ports to say to incoming maritime vessels 'we do not intend to kill you'. So we have another piece that POTUS is not CoC of the military.
Anons et al tend to like the idea that 46 is not CoC of the US military, but this leads to a problem. Treason. If the US military were to undermine the authority of their CoC, this would be treason unless POTUS HAS NOT BEEN COMMANDER IN CHIEF FOR DECADES
For a better understanding of the rule of law governing the US military, Anons might dig into existing international treaties, previous treaties, and especially treaties abandoned during 45's time in office.
It's clear that the US Military has done it's own thing for decades, and there is no reason to logically conclude that they are suddenly following the orders of this president, 46.
The bigger question that remains is - If the contract of the US Constitution has been breached, how can that be remedied? Do we need to dissolve the United States to reunite?
45 may not have ever been Commander in Chief, but he isInfluence in ChiefandDealmaker in Chief
But the biggest question is - Will American's ask that God's will be done, and that God's kingdom comes? As for this Anon, I do.