Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pahrump, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’

    Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM
    By: John L. Perry

    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:
    • Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
    • Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
    • They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
    • They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
    • They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
    • They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
    • They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
    • They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

    So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

    Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

    Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

    What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

    Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

    Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.

    Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

    Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

    Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

    Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

    In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

    John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pahrump, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    The above article was removed from NewsMax.com shortly after it was published.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post


  4. #4
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770

    Post imported post

    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    SFCRetired wrote:
    I do not get where enlisted people swear to obey the President. Every time, every single time, I took the oath, it was to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic..

    The oath for officers and enlisted is not different. Both swear to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over them.
    The key phrase. If an order was issue by the president to military personnel to begin the process of aiding the confiscation of privately owned firearms and the military began to carry it out, they would be following an illegal order which was also issued illegally.

    I have posed this question a several military officers and they have concurred with this.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I think the author's bubble is a little off-center. You can't have a non-violent military intervention. Its a contradiction in terms.

    And who the heck says such a junta would be so graceful and enamored of democracy that they would use him as a figure-head?

    The safe bet would be to assume a military take-over would have no faith in a democratic republic and would keep power for years.

    It takes an awful lot of courage for senior military to do what he is proposing. Or, audacity. Characteristics present in ambitious men, too.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I think the author's bubble is a little off-center. You can't have a non-violent military intervention. Its a contradiction in terms.

    And who the heck says such a junta would be so graceful and enamored of democracy that they would use him as a figure-head?

    The safe bet would be to assume a military take-over would have no faith in a democratic republic and would keep power for years.

    It takes an awful lot of courage for senior military to do what he is proposing. Or, audacity. Characteristics present in ambitious men, too.
    I agree that he's a little off-center but that being said, I've always thought the military will have something to do with it if that unfortunate time ever comes. I don't think they would be the instigators though. In my mind, the citizens would start it and I truly think that after a time the military would back them instead of the government.

    The south had enough clout to raise a military against theunion in the civil war. Imagine if there wasn't a territorial division. If citizens from all over the country got together it would happen differently. Maybe I'm dreaming and it would just be "the coasts v. flyover country".


    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    Actually, you can.

    Since Major Cook SUCCESSFULLY challenged his orders to deploy to the A-Stan on the basis that Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, all it would take is a significant percentage of personnel making the same challenge. Either the military can revoke the order to remove standing or they can court martial the challenger. In the latter case, the person refusing that order would then get subpoena power for the long form birth certificate.

    If Obama loses control of the military, his presidency is over. The Boy King could EASILY solve this problem: release the birth certificate. Since he refuses to do so, there must be something on that certificate that he does not want us to see.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    Dude no military coup could be good EVER! Besides I don't really think Obama is the problem.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    That such a spectre could be raised is illustrative of the damage Obama and his czars (read Politburo) have done to the American psyche.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County VA, ,
    Posts
    207

    Post imported post

    cREbralFIX wrote:
    Actually, you can.

    Since Major Cook SUCCESSFULLY challenged his orders to deploy to the A-Stan
    Did that guy get a dishonorable for conduct unbecoming, for pulling that media stunt? I hope so.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    LOL. As if Obama's the first CiC to mismanage at best, abuse at worst, the military.

    Iraq and Afghanistan appeared to be perpetual suicide missions from the start. At best, they are training for a new generation on how to stay alive in guerrilla warfare, and try to win over disparate (and sometimes sociopath) elements while nation (re)building.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    cREbralFIX wrote:
    If Obama loses control of the military, his presidency is over. The Boy King could EASILY solve this problem: release the birth certificate. Since he refuses to do so, there must be something on that certificate that he does not want us to see.
    Not necessarily. Something to keep in mind... there may be nothing wrong with the long form and it shows he's perfectly legit. But...

    If that is true, then one *MUST* look at the why behind the actions of NOT showing it. What does Obama / Democrats have to gain from not showing it even if it does prove legitimacy?

    It's always wise to assume a person's (or group's) actions are taken from a position of self-interest / perceived benefit.

    You must look at what is said along with what is specifically NOT said (aka: reading between the lines). Otherwise, you are drinking the koolaid despite your best efforts.

  14. #14
    Regular Member hp-hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    SFCRetired wrote:
    I do not get where enlisted people swear to obey the President. Every time, every single time, I took the oath, it was to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic..

    The oath for officers and enlisted is not different. Both swear to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over them.
    Really? I mean are you absolutely sure? Were you really ever in the military? I think not.

    I served 23+ years in the United States Air Force and retired as an E8. That means I enlisted and then reenlisted more than a few times. The is the Oath of Enlistment;

    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.

    If you didn't swear to obey the orders of the President, you were never really enlisted.

    Here is the United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office which is taken by officers;

    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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    Oh look! It is different. And officers don't swear to obey the orders of the President. Me thinks you should make sure you know what it is you speak of before firing up that keyboard. You know, better to remain silent and all.

    The oaths for the Guard and Reserve are slightly different, mainly in that they mention the state, but the enlisted oath still mentions the President.

    Have a nice day.
    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    When I asked why the officer oath was different (back when I was active duty), I was told it is because the officers act with executive authority. In other words, they were agents of the President of the United States.

    They, like enlisted still have to obey the President & their respective chains of command due to UCMJ and other military regulations. It's just not included in their oath.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    spiritof76 wrote:
    Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’

    Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM
    By: John L. Perry

    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.

    Unrealitic? It's beyond unrealistic. This groupfalls more and more off its rocker every day.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ParkHills, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    Abolutely nothing is this world is unrealistic, or impossible! If you can imagine it, it can be done. or have you lived long enough yet to have seen the changes in this technological mess we live in?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Carnivore wrote:
    Abolutely nothing is this world is unrealistic, or impossible! If you can imagine it, it can be done. or have you lived long enough yet to have seen the changes in this technological mess we live in?
    Unrealistic =/= impossible. Nothing is impossible, most things are unlikely/unrealistic.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ParkHills, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    Come out of the fog Man look around, this is the year 2009 if you can dream it, it can be done!!

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Carnivore wrote:
    Come out of the fog Man look around, this is the year 2009 if you can dream it, it can be done!!
    "Si se puede!"

  21. #21
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770

    Post imported post

    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  22. #22
    Regular Member hp-hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    SFCRetired wrote:
    Yeah, I was in the United States Army for twenty-one years. I served from 1961 to 1991 and included Regular Army, National Guard, and Active Reserve in my service.

    I do not appreciate someone of your ilk questioning my service. I was on duty when the Berlin Wall went up and I was still on duty when it came down. When I went on alert, it usually meant a minimum of two weeks out in the field, sleeping in a tent. From what I saw of the Air Force, a alert meant they had to work twelve hour shifts. At least that is what I saw at Bitburg and Spangdahlem Air Bases in Germany.
    Thank you for your service to our country. I'm sure it was honorable. If you'd like to compare resumes,time spentin the field living in the dirt or any other facet of our careers, I can assure you you'll lose. But I digress.

    Here is something that truly disturbs me. Why is it that you can take the time respond to the part of my post that hurt your precious feelings, but not the bulk of it thatset straightyour incorrect information? Never mind. That question was rhetorical.

    You have a great day.



    P.S. Only the United States Army is the United States Army. If you spent time in the Guard and Reserve, then you were in the Guard and/or Reserve. They are not the same. But then"someone of your ilk"should have already known that.

    P.P.S. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about and willing to uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution should check out and join this group;

    http://oathkeepers.ning.com/

    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

  23. #23
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Wangmuf wrote:
    cREbralFIX wrote:
    Actually, you can.

    Since Major Cook SUCCESSFULLY challenged his orders to deploy to the A-Stan
    Did that guy get a dishonorable for conduct unbecoming, for pulling that media stunt? I hope so.
    Last I remember, as he was gaining a little ground in the courts, somebody rescinded his orders,thus, the court action ceased. Wonder who had an interest in seeing the problem "GO AWAY"?
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    This is ridiculous. There's not gonna be a coup. Get real.

    I certainly dislike Obama, he is indeed a statist and a socialist and a corrupt Chicago machine pol, but I don't understand all the fantasizing about all the bad things this guy's gonna do to us. He doesn't look to me to be any worse than Carter or Clinton, and the world didn't end with those clowns.

    Where was all the outrage when Bush was setting up concentration camps and tapping your phones and ignoring the 4th Ammendment and setting up a "Homeland" security department? Or does this only concern us when Democrats do it?

    Or maybe you thought that when you were supporting Bush that no Democrat was ever going to get his hands on all that nifty power Bush was giving the office of president?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •