Good post and I agree there is no way of knowing if this info is true. But lets take a hypothetical situation that is unmistakeably unconstitutional. For instance let's say the pres attempted to subject the US to international rule, such as the UN which would now function as the supreme law of the land. Even if the majority of Congress and even if the population backed the president, I would think that it is the duty of the military to remove him.
Would you support a militairy coup in the US?
- Thread starter Debaser82
- Start date
Good post and I agree there is no way of knowing if this info is true. But lets take a hypothetical situation that is unmistakeably unconstitutional. For instance let's say the pres attempted to subject the US to international rule, such as the UN which would now function as the supreme law of the land. Even if the majority of Congress and even if the population backed the president, I would think that it is the duty of the military to remove him.
Indeed. However overt mistakes of that magnitude are unlikely.
Smaller agreements will likely transpire over time that effectively do the same thing. (The anecdotal "frog in hot water")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
We were in a little danger at the "Climate Change Summit" in Copenhagen.
The problem is that "little by little" our freedoms and national sovereignty are eroded.
Who is minding the store to blow the trumpet of warning
when one of those small lines is crossed?
Which small change is finally too far?
Personally I believe that JFK saw the danger, signed an executive order to
remove the strangle hold of the FED and began to print US money again. (Silver Certificates)
However he ended up dead. And the day after ... those printing presses stopped for good.
The below video is the best one I have seen on the "corporate DC take-over" topic.
It is very hard to swallow and likely will cause people to react.
However it has "real information" ... and actually connects many dots.
<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-4315024059102108031&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>
We have plans and plans of plans for everything. The Military is sworned to uphold against foreign and domestic. This falls under the domestic aspects.
And the millions of people who voted for the President
I'm no fan of Bush,But I wouldn't hesitate for 1 second to fight any group that tried to take him out of office by non legal means
I doubt very many would have voted for him if they had been told the truth by the media. Besides, how can the military upholding its constitutional duty be non legal?
Obama still has over a 50 % approval rating,that means a lot of Americans still support him
Isn't 50% a little high? More like 44%?
I voted yes but I was under the impression that this is theoretically, not as in right now. Seriously though Obama has spoken of a civilian security force "just as well armed, and just as well funded as the military". That scenario = revolution for me. The Constitution addresses the National Guard, there is only one reason why anyone would want a civilian security force.