I’m saying that it doesn’t have to come to shooting. Communists only resort to shooting during the “normalization” phase. And that doesn’t usually come until the avenues for resistance have already been mostly closed off through covert operations that don’t appear to be illegal.
That’s what I think Podesta is talking about. He’s not going to tell soldiers to shoot. The country’s not quite ready for that yet. First he’s got to demoralize the military - which is being done right now as the elements of Article 92 are being written out of courts-martial proceedings and as soldiers are being trained to look only at the lawfulness of their particular specific orders.
I once gave a variation of this example, which was not well-received at all by the people arguing against Lakin: Soldier A is ordered to move the prisoners to the “shower” area. Soldier B is ordered to turn on the “shower”. Soldier C is told to remove the dead bodies from the “shower” area. What soldier’s individual orders were unlawful? Whch orders could be disobeyed and on what justification?
The military’s answers to those questions determine exactly what Obama can do through our military. What I hear the military “experts” saying does not reassure me in the slightest. They apparently have not learned at all from WWII. The minute regulations are so Lilliputian that a soldier is never allowed to see the big picture and evaluate the net result of him following his individual, “lawful” orders.
Another approach that Podesta/Obama/Soros can have is to incite the public to rebellion/resistance. And if we the people ever resort to shooting/rebellion, whoever is POTUS can call in the military to put down the rebellion.
I asked a military friend of mine whether SCOTUS was evading the eligibility issue because they feared riots and he said no, riots wouldn’t be a problem. He said in the bigger cities where the riots would occur, the military could be called into a martial law scenario and establish order in no time.
It was a comfort at the time he said that, but it also made me realize that if a soldier’s friends and relatives just happen to be on the wrong side of a “riot” - like maybe resistance to the TSA stuff or whatever unconstitutional move Obama makes next - soldiers will not even have time to think about who they are suppressing.
In that event, all bets would be off, unless each soldier had already planned out ahead of time what they would do if called to quash a rebellion in the area where they knew they had friends and loved ones. But how would that be different than the Shiite forces deciding which areas of Baghdad they will refuse to really patrol? See what a mess we’d be in?
This is why the bigger issue of a Constitutional president and the ability of the people to hold their government to the rule of law and the Constitution is so vital. If we ever reach this level of confrontation the nation will be sunk. I’m afriad we’re getting there faster than any of us thought possible even just a year ago.
“I asked a military friend of mine whether SCOTUS was evading the eligibility issue because they feared riots and he said no, riots wouldn’t be a problem.”
Just curious....did your military friend have any explanation for why he thought SCOTUS was evading the eligibility question?