Barack Obama's Civilian Army

http://www.glennbeck.com/ ^ | August 28, 2009 - 1:01 ET | Glenn Beck

[Travis McGee]

You got it.

[Travis McGee]

You’re on it.

[I got the rope]

Please add me to your list

[Joe Brower]

I don't have to tell you, Trav, that when a society is continually simmering like ours is in the present day, there is no way of knowing or predicting what will serve as the spark, or when/where it will be.

All one can do is make ready, stay frosty.

[Travis McGee]

It’s just a matter of when and where. Personally, I think it’ll be a Reichstag Shooting, like the stadium massacre in my first novel. The statists really do need to defang that pesky 2nd amd.

[Nebr FAL owner]

Actually it would be constitutional as part of the “unorganized militia “ the problem for Obama is whether his organization can find a officer in overall command who would basically tell them to remain in barracks or face charges of mutinee.

[LTCJ]

Do you honestly think that if Gettysburg Day 2 had gone the other way and the army of Northern Virginia had marched on Washington they would not have "Removed" Lincoln? Take a look at the percentage of active duty West Pointers who went rebel, it is over 50%.

I have to respectfully disagree with your analysis. There was never any intent by the South to overthrow the Federal government or remove Lincoln. The idea of moving on Washington was intended to force a peace and recognition of the Confederacy. And as for the officer corps, those "going south" did so to their own states not the Confederate Army. The labels "Civil War" or "War of the Rebellion" stuck as a consequence of the outcome of the war, not because they were accurate.

If, God forbid, things should now develop into armed conflict to restore the national government, it would be the USA's first true civil war. And development of a "civilian security force" would mark the Crossing of the Rubicon in the minds of most of those I served with, I believe.

[GonzoGOP]

The idea of moving on Washington was intended to force a peace and recognition of the Confederacy

And that is the important phrase. How do you force recognition without the threat of force? In other words you recognize the Confederacy or we remove your administration and replace it with something that will recognize the Confederacy. The removal of the Lincoln administration was not a primary aim of the Confederacy. However, given the opportunity they would have done it in order to achieve their primary aim. Remember a Confederates headed by John W Booth did attempt to remove the Lincoln administration as a last attempt to gain Confederate independence. Although the group only succeeded in eliminating Lincoln himself.

[MrB]

I’ve pondered the question, regarding a possible CWII, or RWII,

that a number of states could secede and simply go into a defensive posture - ignoring and thwarting all federal dictates within the states’ boarders,

and defending themselves from federal action,

but never taking any forceful action against the fedgov or the remaining states.

What would you think would happen if such were the policy of the seceded states?

[GonzoGOP]

What would you think would happen if such were the policy of the seceded states?

Depends on the states in question, and what ordinance they capture on the way out. They need to have some way of stopping Obama from simply rushing them with the military that remains in federal control, and his CDF. A few nukes will do that nicely. The airfoce and navy nukes are too mobile to fall in to rebel hands unless the military was in in the break away from the beginning. But the ICBMs in Oklahoma, Nebraska and Montana would be almost impossible to transport away. And by their very design they are hard to knock out with a conventional strike. Nothing says "don't tread on me!" like an brace of armed LGM-30s pointed at LA, New York and DC.

Baring WMD the rebels need a combination of factors. An armed population, from which to draw their guerrilla forces. Something they can sell, they will need to buy guns and more importantly friends in other countries. Lots of space, so they can trade ground for time. And Military bases from which they can capture the weapons to begin the fight in the first place.

Geography is also important. If they have access to Canada or a good port they can survive by trading with the rest of the world. If they can be cut off then it is just a matter of time before Obama brings them back under control.

States that could pull it off.
1) The mountain states, especially Montana. Nukes and impassible terrain make them a good candidate. Also rugged individualism is alive and well there.

2) Texas, lots of space to trade for time. Sell oil to get weapons brought in through Mexico. Has a tradition of being an independent country at one time and rebelling once already.

California, all the requirements, but they won't go for ideological reasons.

Hawaii: Probably the best chance of any state to pull it off. Far away from everyone else. Has been an independent country once, there are still people alive who remember not being part of the US. Lots of military equipment to be looted in the opening day. Japan and China would benefit big from an indipendent Hawaii so might limit what Obama could do about it. Probably won't go for ideological reasons.

Alaska: Second only to Hawaii in chances to pull of rebellion. Has gold and oil to trade for whatever they need. Closer to Russia and Canada than they are to the US. If they can somehow close their ports, (Russian/Japanese/Chinese fleet pays a courtesy call to newly independent Anchorage) there is no way for lower 48 forces to deploy there without the consent of another country. Can you see Obama trying to get permission from the Canadians to move several divisions across their territory to go suppress people who only want to be left alone. Besides, some of those hills aren't even mapped. How are you going to dig the rebels out of them.

[MrB]

My question was more general...

So you’re saying that you think the fedgov would militarily invade a state or states that told them “you’ve got no juice here”.
Even if said states offered no threat nor acted in any threatening way.

[GonzoGOP]

So you’re saying that you think the fedgov would militarily invade a state or states that told them “you’ve got no juice here”.

1) Obama's personality does not appear to be one that can let insults pass without repercussion.

2) States that are resource rich cannot be allowed to exit the country as he needs to loot them to pay his bills. One reason that Hawaii has the best chance of a break away is because Obama could afford to let Hawaii's tourist dollars go. The oil fields of Texas and Alaska not so much.

3) Most importantly of all historic precedent. What did Washington (Pennsylvania) and Lincoln (South Carolina) do when states tried to break away? Doesn't every president want to be like Washington and Lincoln, I mean except for the Ford's Theater thing. Sure Washington put down the whiskey rebellion without firing a shot. But he still mustered the army and sent it into the state in question.

Obama will go full bore Sherman on anybody who dares to oppose him. Unless that is they have some way to dissuade him from doing so.

[MrB]

Funny about the resources thing.

This bunch has pretty much forbidden the use of the resources of the USA.

They’d probably act in order to PREVENT the break-away states from using those resources.

[GonzoGOP]

Funny about the resources thing.
This bunch has pretty much forbidden the use of the resources of the USA.

Note that they have not forbidden them outright, they have forbidden them unless they get a big cut. Carbon credits for the oil industry. Fees to have some green group under their control certify that the coal mine is cleaned up properly. And the EPA needs to get their cut. They have never said you can't have fossil fuels, you just have to pay Al Gore & Co for the privilege of using them. The nuclear industry screws up their global warming scam so they are not allowed to participate, but if they could skim money from it believe me nuclear power would be back big time. But if Texas and Alaska were to break away and start selling their oil without all those taxes on it, well that just won't do. And could you imagine what would happen if Wyoming broke away and started to sell Powder River coal without paying their carbon credits? Who would pay for the carbon taxed coal from Southern Illinois and West Virginia. Their senators would not be pleased.