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.
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).