Skip to comments.Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention
Posted on 05/19/2010 11:22:07 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
(Excerpt) Read more at talkingpointsmemo.com ...
Have you ever gotten into any discussions with people that said differently?
If you don’t support the premise of the thread then I don’t know what you are trying to take up with me.
What was it in my post 42 that you are disagreeing with?
Nope, but you sure are trying to hijack this thread with your anti-"birther" nonsense.
There are those in that group who have said that the military should remove Obama from office. That's not my idea, but those who have said that. Others have said that the military should refuse to follow his orders, and others have said that he is "not really the President" -- so they don't have to follow his orders.
I'm just repeating what has been posted by others on those threads. And that fits exactly in with the idea that is presented here.
What I'm saying is that there is a significant group on Free Republic -- who indeed -- do think that the military should intervene in order to "restore the Constitution" and our government. And that's just a fact of the matter, from the many posts that I've seen.
I don't agree with that faction of Free Republic, but that faction is there, without a doubt.
To take extrapolations of situations which may not come about out of context as if "birthers" were advocating a military coup is disingenious at best, and leaves a foul trail of quotable allegations against this forum and its members, crafted by you.
You'll note that this thread is talking precisely about that topic of military intervention. And others are talking about "Armed Revolution"...
I'm saying that our form of government is that we change things by the ballot box, but there are those who are advocating that if we can't change things by the ballot box, that we resort to the ammo box ... instead.
What I'm saying is that you keep working at the "ballot box" until you have the majority on your side to effect those changes which are needed.
No matter how much you might want to deny it, you can see by that other thread I listed (just a recent thread too) -- there are many talking about a total collapse of civilization here in this country and/or "armed revolution" and/or having the military remove a President "who really isn't the President" and one that "they do not have to follow orders from" ...
I don't go along with that, but there are those who do ...
I still maintain that we do things according to how it's been outlined in the Constitution, and remove a President from office (if necessary) by the Impeachment process or remove the President from office by voting him out of office.
Sandy, did you forget to take your medication again this morning?
Check that one out...
All you have to do to verify that is simply read the threads on it ... it's all there ...
Have you ever gotten into any discussions with people that said differently?
I take it you're saying "said differently in that they don't advocate armed revolution but the ballot box, as we should be doing it..."
And if that's it ... yes... fortunately -- and for one example of it -- right here on this thread -- which is encouraging that people still are for that ... and upholding our true and time-tested methodology for changing government.
Let’s face it, Americans have become too fat and lazy to do the hard work of running a country. It isn’t going to change either, at least not until a bunch of other things change first. Much as I hate to think about it, I believe we will have to sustain massive loss of life due to either enemy action or natural disaster before the remainder of people wake up and start to pull themselves out of their rut.
Few people remember that American politics was fairly evenly divided at the end of the 1930s. It took a sneak attack on our navy to get us pulling together against the axis powers. It worked then and it’ll work again. We just need a common enemy that both parties can recognize. Right now we have such an enemy but Zero and his minions are doing everything they can to smooth over forty years of attacks as simply “misunderstandings.”
I don’t know what’s going to happen but I categorically refuse to dismiss any possibility with “it can’t happen here.” It can.
As with any administration, there are supporters and detractors; however, we take oaths to uphold the constitution, not the chief executive. That’s what makes us a nation of laws, not of men.
Whack (sound of ball being deftly lobbed back into the other court).
DU was posting a similar theory about Bush in both 2004 and 2008.
I'm sure you're right. I think I heard some FReepers referring to that one, too ... :-)
It seems to come around just about every President by the side who doesn't like him (and we have good reasons for not wanting Obama in there, for sure...).
I did hear it about Clinton, you mention it about Bush and now we're hearing it about Obama. I would imagine we will hear it again about the next President that is elected, too ...
The more likely scenario is a ganging up by the Congress and SC invoking military support for a removal from office.
It all depends on the circumstances. If the marxists push it too far, not only will numerous Americans decide to act, I believe that the military will have their own internal issues to deal with if push comes to shove, and once that actually happens the military will likely be compelled to choose sides.
As with any administration, there are supporters and detractors; however, we take oaths to uphold the constitution, not the chief executive. Thats what makes us a nation of laws, not of men.
Exactly so! And glad to hear that, about being a nation of laws and not of men. That's a saying that has been around, in this country for a long time.
Many people confuse that idea and supporting the idea of being a nation of laws and not of men -- to be "support for Obama". I would try to make sure that one understands that one can support that idea and not be a supporter, in the least, of Obama.
>What was it in my post 42 that you are disagreeing with?
Your assumption that the American people determine election outcomes... I’m not sure that is, strictly speaking, true; as the examples I presented indicate a disturbing corruption and malfeasance.
Notice the article was first published in September 2009.
I used to go over to a liberal website back then and post stuff like “Bush will never allow us to vote him out of office, voting is a waste of our time” much like the Mark Levin joke. I had to be careful because some voters were so crazy they got banned.
When I read really extreme stuff here I always wonder if the freeper is just unstable, or just a plant with a good sense of humor.
Talking about such is not necessarily advocacy thereof. Nor are those who mention such things necessarily "birthers". It would be folly NOT to discuss all possibilities, and an armed insurrection on US soil could result from a number of things--from failure of the economy and the currency, to vicious acts carried out under color of law by the government (including 'rounding up those nasty right winged terrorist birthers--which is one reason why I resent the conspicuous misrepresentation), to military intervention in Arizona in the event actions by that state go past some strange federal line despite Federal law being ignored by the Federal Government. Obama himself was the one calling for civillian security forces as well armed as the US military, an extra-Constitutional private army.
In the event Obama is not qualified under the Constitution (bear with me, here), who removes him? He cannot be impeached under those circumstances, because he is not president, all other nonsense nonwithstanding. (Note the conditions applied to the previous sentence and do me the basic courtesy of not wuoting that out of context, please.)
There are a great number of comments which could be taken out of contest, often made conditionally, which paint a far different picture of this forum in toto and its posters when assembled to provide a Morris Dees' viewpoint of the forum. You have cherry picked a very few remarks and pulled them from discussions often quite hypothetical in nature and posted them here as ordinary coments which most often, they were not.
At any rate, IF the ballot box fails, what then do you propose? The time to share knowledge which could be branded as subversive with a stroke of a pen, to speculate on what might occur is not after someone has siezed power, but before, in case that does happen.
Contingency planning is prudent, even the Pentagon has scenarios in place, gamed out, for the most arcane of possibilities. That does not mean generals run out to the NYT with howls about the US War Plans against Great Britain (which doubtless exist, just in case).
Here is the post.
“So American voters dont decide elections now, the army does?
Is this the call now, end free elections, and fight for control of military power?”
I’m interested in this stupid thread topic, I’m not interested in getting into the bottomless discussion of the imperfections of elections.
Indeed; but if your premise is incorrect any following conclusions are also incorrect.
Circular reasoning, isn’t it? that link refers to your post.
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.