Skip to comments.Are Congress and Obama Deliberately Inciting a New US Civil War?
Posted on 03/20/2009 2:19:14 PM PDT by LoneStarC
click here to read article
I’m “old enough to qualify for the Senior discount at Denny’s”, and I’ve never killed anyone, under any circumstances.
I’d really like to keep it that way.
I certainly don't feel free now, as a white male I have been targeted my whole life with AA, PC and onerous taxation. I have had it!!!!! Every bit of it unconstitutional.
There is a sense of dread out here that civil unrest is headed our way.
Will “firing a shot in anger” solve the problem or be a Pyrrhic victory?
Probably the latter, unfortunately.
“Firing a shot in anger” is more likely, at this point, to rerun 1789 or 1917 than 1776.
I have claimed no desire to fire at anything, the question was do I feel free.
The choice of firing shots or living as in my current state dictates, the jury is still out on that.
Relying on the “Civilian Security Force” would be suicidal in a Civil War scenario. About the only thing they could count on would be that the CSF would fight to the death, knowing what was waiting for them if they lost or were taken prisoner. The CSF wouldn’t have the training, morale, and equipment advantages that make insurgent encounters with our troops so incredibly one-sided.
If they really want this, they’d need a significant buy-in from the Armed Forces to win.
The present Democrat actions at the moment of economic crisis are:
1. Massive application of bandaids to self inflicted economic wounds
2. Damn the torpedo full speed ahead reckless attack with eurosocialist dreams.
The later will not happen because the calamity of the former will prevent.
The blind failure will result in the self destruction of American cities as the congregation of feral urbanites burn them down
Why isnt the real question will the military revolt when faced with armed citizens and orders from Obama to kill them?
Hmmm... I thought that’s what I said...
“um not exactly:
I, (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.”
What comment are you responding to?
I made more than 1 on this thread.
It would be helpful within the confines of proper debate to at least do me the favor of a cut and paste.
Nevertheless, at the risk of anticipating your dissent, the UCMJ does provide for NOT following illegal/unconstitutional orders. . . FYI. . .
No, I don’t know the specific code, but I am aware of basic common sense.
As you should note in your quote, the affirmation to the Constitution comes first, not second, to allegiance to the CoC.
In the same spirit of the placement of the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
“according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice” . . . meaning his/her superiors are subject to the Constitution as well. This portion pertains to those that issue orders.
First you said what the oath was which you were wrong about now you are quoting the UCMJ.
Initially, I was referencing to the fact that it is the codified law of the US Declaration of Independence where our inalienable rights are duly guaranteed by God and are eternal.
It clearly restrains those that are granted temporary stewardship over the the Republic.
It is within our unchallenged purview if they perform that task in an illicit manner, that we have the not just the right, but in fact a duty, to disband and abolish the unconstitutional entity into something that falls into the realm of Constitutional principle.
My initial response was referring to where the UCMJ derives it’s authority to allow for dissension in the ranks.
I was just kicking the argument upstairs, so to speak.
“At first glance this seems a little off-the-wall, but the fact remains that the atrocities against freedom in Obama’s first two months exceed anything done by King george in the decade before 1776.”
You could probably technically say the same thing about the Washington administration. In instituting a federal government, we brought into being a body capable of much more than the King, thousands of miles away, couldn’t practically accomplish.
“they are just useful idiots in the plans of Obama and whoever is controlling him.”
Why does there have to be a conspiracy? Can’t they just be idiots? If you listen closely enough, undistracted by there glowing intentions, they tell us exactly what they’re going to do. If there is a hidden plan, I can’t imagine it being more sinister than the up-front plan. Or if it is, I can’t imagine it working very well. They have a difficult enough job of completing even the simplest of the tasks they set themselves in newspaper headlines.
“is it ever possible for members of the federal government to be the ‘enemies’ against whom the USAF is to protect the People?”
Yeah, that’s a mutiny. Happened in Russia during WWI. Didn’t end well. Bu8t let’s not write it off altogether.
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.