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 ...
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. That’s 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.
Good
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 don’t 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.
How about making your time wasting posts to someone else.
Remember that lots of FReepers have Armageddon fantasies. They like the idea of holing up in their compound and living off the land and occasionally stopping their idyllic life to shoo away some itinerant liberals that come begging for help.
LOL ... yes, that's true...
But, in the interest of "full disclosure" here... I must say that I believe in "Armageddon" too -- but the one I believe in -- is the one that the Bible says is going to happen, and just before the return of Jesus, the Messiah of Israel to this earth to set up His world-wide rule over all nations.
Some FReepers do think that's a "fantasy" unfortunately. I don't, but just doing the "full disclosure" thing here ... :-)
Refusal to take "the easy way" and do things by rule of law, is what separates us from the 3rd world banana republics.
Yes, indeed... many seem to be quick to turn us into a "third world banana republic" all right ... :-) or else they say, we must violate the Constitution in order to save it.
Now, as a previous poster said - if the ballot box is eliminated, then all bets are off.
I think there are some few instances of where that can happen legitimately and voting can be delayed, but not put off indefinitely. One example is what our government is preparing for, and that is a massive attack by WMD, perpetrated either by a nation or a group of terrorists who manage to get a hold of it.
Now..., I'm not talking about what our response would be to those who would do such a thing, but merely saying that it would probably result in martial law for a while and then the suspension of some rights under the Constitution for a time, and might result in the delay of some elections for a while, if we are still in "chaos" from such an attack.
In that case, I wouldn't be "for an armed revolution" against our government if they were responding the best that they could from such an attack from the outside.
Are we talking about an American Pinochet?
Oh, and if the Military is “bound by law” from defying President/Congress, what should happen if, say, Jews were to be legally excluded from the rights of citizens?
That _WAS_ how they did it in Germany. {Though they first started by planting the idea in the medical community about ‘undesirables’ which included the mentally retard; IOW, the first steps are devaluing the human life [think abortion] and then “arbitrary comparative valuation” of human life: ie the Nazi’s Aryan > European > Asian > African > Jew.}
Circular reasoning, isn’t it? that link refers to your post.
It's not circular reasoning when other FReepers are saying what I'm referring to... :-)
LOL, so you are a nut case calling for a military dictatorship to replace free elections in America.
It sure saves time when you just speak plainly and honestly.
I still don’t know why you insist on me being the one to bother with your ravings, can’t you confess, or rage to one of the non military veterans around here?
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.)
I'm not "quoting it out" -- but what you (and some others) miss here -- is that the "very mechanism" that is used for "determining legally" whether that is true (and for a President) -- is -- the Impeachment process.
The Impeachment process is that mechanism by which one legally determines that a person is not legally qualified. That's what the process is for... you see.
In other words, you cannot "legally predetermine" that a person is not legally qualified to be President, by merely "saying so". You have to have that "legal adjudicaton" of that fact, before it becomes "legally binding"...
To say it another way... let's say that you and two others were standing there and you witnessed a guy shoot a person in cold blood. Now, you "know it" because you saw it. However, that person is not legally determined to have committed the crime -- until a jury of his peers "says so" by the legal due process.
Now, in the meantime, you may say, "I know the guy is guilty, because I stood there and watched him shoot that person in cold blood, along with two others with me who saw the exact same thing!"
And so you did... you saw it and you know it. But, the guy is not considered to have committed the crime and have been determined to be legally responsible for it under our judicial system -- until -- that legal determination is made.
So no matter how much you say he is a criminal -- he's not until the system and a jury of his peers says so.
It's the same thing with Obama, and the Impeachment process.
Thats the scary part, there is a limited window of time before elections in which they can manipulate. (crisis)
from, marxist utopia
You say Marxists are running our government, Armageddon’s ready to break out in the Middle East; the economy’s set to collapse; Europe’s ready to implode, and America’s primed to detonate? Is that what’s bothering you, Bunky?
Yeah, well, take a number and get in line.
Like Rip Van Winkle awaked from a hundred-year-doze, patriotic Americans are awakening to the lies we’ve been fed, and the dire straits we are in.
Patriots are questioning not only the veracity of the Lame Stream Media (LSM), our politicians, and religious leaders, but also fundamental “institutions,” such as the Fed, the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the UN, the 14th Amendment, income tax, and government itself. link
There are no sacred cows anymore. Nothing, and no one, is immune from cynical scrutiny these days. Certainly not the POTUS who has spent close to $2 million hiding his past from “we the people.”
There is one situation I can imagine where the military would step in and relieve the President of command that that’s if the United States is attacked in a major way (nuclear, widespread biological, widespread chemical, etc.) and the President refuses to retaliate or defend the country. Other than that, I think that the vast majority of Americans, both inside and outside of the military, will wait for the system to work to remove the Obama from office via election.
>LOL, so you are a nut case calling for a military dictatorship to replace free elections in America.
Umm, you misunderstand; it was a question. Let me restate/rephrase it:
What would you advise if the government were to exclude legally and/or politically a group of people based on some feature such as: religion, prior military service, political-stance, or ‘genetic-heritage’?
{ Legal abridgment of rights is actually rather routine, consider: people being denied 2nd amendment rights for mere allegations of ‘domestic abuse,’ people having their property seized by the police because “it could have been used in a crime”/”it could have been bought with drug-money” (oft before trial), and the recent up-surge in invasive SWAT home-invasions, the USSC’s ruling that the Constitution’s prohibition on Ex Post Facto Law applies only to criminal law... not things like making felons unable to buy arms, even if they served their time, and retroactive tax laws “perfectly legal.”}
>It sure saves time when you just speak plainly and honestly.
There was a misunderstanding in our communications, see above.
>I still don’t know why you insist on me being the one to bother with your ravings, can’t you confess, or rage to one of the non military veterans around here?
What ravings?
Oh, and I _AM_ a veteran... here’s my view/analysis on things concerning the military [or at least the oath]:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATyjMtQJe7iWZHY2OTh0bV8yNWM3YjM1Y2M5&hl=en
I’m not interested in joining in some long discussion with you, I don’t know what led you to believe that I am interested in what you think.
See post 166.
If you are looking for a chat buddy, then look for someone that wants to chat with you, I’m not that guy.
Certainly, there are no absolutes. For instance, didn't NYC delay its mayoral race (4 weeks? 6?) after 9-11? I'll add the caveat that it would take a pretty serious event to delay elections on a national scale. Big diff between a city not electing a mayor, and the country not choosing its leaders.
My thinking was armed insurrection based on suspension of the ballot box over something trumped up, or "Because Obama Can". At that point, all bets are off, IMHO.
And, I think FReepers fantasize about a secular Armageddon - think breakdown of rule of law, the country's infrastructure gets broken, no distribution of goods and services, and so on. Biblical Armageddon is a whole 'nother topic. :-)
“Sorry but a military coup would make america like the third world. It´s still a democratic republic!”
If this is a Democratic Republic, why does the government ignore the people? It doesn’t seem to fit the Democratic Republic definition any more.
“Better to go through the democratic (small “d”) process and watch these Marxists be repudiated by the people who originally elected them.”
- - - if that’s possible with massive Democrat voter fraud and a packed court.
“We are supposed to be the advocates of the Constitution and Rule of Law”
We are, but Obama’s regime honors neither one. They are outlaws.
Wow! If that isn't enough what is?
If this is a Democratic Republic, why does the government ignore the people?
The question of the day! It seems to me that everything we have done so far..attending peaceful rallies; emailing, writing, calling, faxing our reps; none of it is working. The health care monstrosity was passed when we the people did NOT want it. WHY are they not listening? And HOW do we stop this, when all efforts thus far have failed? I am very, very scared right now..for my children, for my family and friends, and for my country. I have begun to feel hopeless..what we have done so far has been to no avail. Those that run the country right now are doing whatever they want..they don’t give one whit what we the people think! Doesn’t anyone else believe that the elections in November will be rigged to keep these people in power? Why wouldn’t they do that..they have done everything else against our wishes!
If this is a Democratic Republic, why does the government ignore the people? It doesn’t seem to fit the Democratic Republic definition any more.
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.
Well, I can see what you mean about that.
If that was the case, then when I start laughing about it online (as I do many times) -- then I would expect them to start laughing too... but they get mad and start to call me a troll and try to get me banned instead.
If they were just joking around, then they really take that joke to extremes with me, in trying to get me banned in the process ... LOL ...
I agree with everything you said except that I’m not scared to death. Though I’m a Patriotic American, this isn’t really my home. Jesus said he’s preparing a place for me, and if they kill me for being a Christian, I’ll be only the 137,000,000th one (or thereabouts).
Please join me. He’ll welcome you, too.
I, too, am a proud recipient of the terms “Liberal” and “Troll”. It’s kind of an initiation rite. You really belong after that.
I agree with everything you said except that I’m not scared to death. Though I’m a Patriotic American, this isn’t really my home. Jesus said he’s preparing a place for me, and if they kill me for being a Christian, I’ll be only the 137,000,000th one (or thereabouts).
A big AMEN! -- to that ...
I would say more but then I might get mushy ... :-)
Food for thought.
Maranatha!
gnip
The vote first, and then the gun if necessary to preserve the Republic.
How do we have him on the ropes? The press is nonexistent. He is getting every thing he wants.
Hmmm...The Republic was dissolved many decades ago.
IAC, there is no such thing as a "democratic" republic. This was the reason the Founders frowned on such a possibility because of historical failure rates and created a Constitutional Republic.
Unfortunately, beginning with T.Roosevelt, the Republic was gradually dissolved until by the late 1960's it no longer existed.
We have now arrived at the endgame that has been inevitable for every time democratic government has been tried since Adam & Eve. We are now staring into the abyss that many have warned about. As Ronald Reagan prophesied in 1964, we are entering a thousand years of the darkest tyranny.
Even with clean sweeps of all the marxist scum in 2010 and 2012, it will be only a temporary slowing of the Nation's headlong plummet. There isn't time, at this juncture, to flush the government school system and the morons who commit their offspring to those asylums. It took 5 decades for the Fabians to fully indoctrinate several generations of the government's children thereby creating the mindless moronic 60-70% of the population. We don't have several generations to undo the damage.
If we had paid attention in the 1960's and 70's, there would have been a reasonable possibility fo reestablishing the Republic.
By jove I think I've got it!
Yes it is, one where only a "Natural Born Citizen" can be the head of the executive branch and commander of the military. Should it be proven in a court of law, perhaps a military one, that BO is not eligible, and thus not President, all bets are off. Then, if he could not be persuaded to step down, the military *might* escort him out of the Peoples House, and help Joe, the plagerist, Biden move in.
Ooops, sorry. “I’ve” should be “you’ve”.
Yes it is, one where only a “Natural Born Citizen” can be the head of the executive branch and commander of the military. Should it be proven in a court of law, perhaps a military one, that BO is not eligible, and thus not President, all bets are off. Then, if he could not be persuaded to step down, the military *might* escort him out of the Peoples House, and help Joe, the plagerist, Biden move in
I'm sure there will be.
Then again there are elections and there are other elections. The old Soviet Union had them regularly.
Exactly.
Obama will be politically castrated by November 4th.
Why give the liberals any incentive to rally to his cause? Really? After all the supposed momentum, this crap is going to bubble to the top of both the media and, unfortunately, some of the tea party people.
Don’t give it. Play the hand straight and the elections in November will handle things. Don’t overplay the cards which have been dealt, it can and will backfire....
I don't know if they do or not. But they did, between the World Wars, the first of which we fought *with* the British (and of course again in the second), but we had war plans to fight them. It was called "War Plan Red, with a Crimson sub plan for Canada).
Obama is dong that?
Really?
November - really? Obama will simply wield a different pen for each veto, executive order, regulation, etc. He isn't going to let anything get in the way of his agenda.
I do? Point that out here, which is where the Constitution specifies the impeachment power and how it may be used.
Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So how does this allow Congress to remove someone who is not and never was eligible?
Eligibility is specified in Article II section 1, and determing what that, or other part of the Constitution means, is generally considered to be the function of the Courts.
Article III, Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
What they're really saying is, "I feel threatened when you don't agree with 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.