• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’

spiritof76

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
106
Location
Pahrump, Nevada, USA
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.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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".
 

cREbralFIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
378
Location
, ,
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.
 

old dog

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
396
Location
, ,
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.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
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.
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
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.
 

hp-hobo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Manchester State Forest, SC
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.
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
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.
 

MyTitsItch

Banned
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
8
Location
, ,
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.
 

Carnivore

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
970
Location
ParkHills, Missouri, USA
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?
 

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
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.
 
Top