He is incorrect on the point of revolution in this country.
It will start with the military, most revolutions do. More and more and increasing in size Tea Parties will take place. At some point the fascists with ever increasing amount of repression. And as is written above the entrance at the DOJ in DC, “Repression breeds violence”.
Obama at some point will have troops or tugs fire into the crowd. If troops my guess is they will refuse the order. If that happens then the government collapses.
If he gets the troops or tugs to fire on us then the next protests will include armed protesters. Like the sign said at the Tea Party in DC, “attn congress, this time we came unarmed”.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “When the people fear the government you have tyranny, when the government fears the people you have liberty.”
The author has clearly not thought through potential political, economic, media, and tactical minefields for Washington politicians under these various scenarios.
I regard war as an evil thing. No good has ever come from any war. That does not mean that things might not have been worse if the war was not fought, only that things would definitely have been better if there had been no war.
In those statements I see, most generously, incompatibility and, least generous, contradiction.
However, the reason your argument is fatally flawed is that you would be assisting Obama with your plan. Until everyone grasps that the goal of this administration is to destroy this country and then have them rebuild it on the ashes with their remaining in power for perpetuity, they will continually fall for the misdirection and sleight of hand employed by these Communists.
Are you tired of seventy plus years of Unintended Consequences? Aren't you beginning to see that those disastrous consequences were intended after all? Look at every policy of this administration. What is the likely outcome? Disaster, right!! Unintended? Naiveté? No! It is well planned and definitely intended!
Why help them with your plan? They are itching for a reason to declare martial law as it is.
“That does not mean that things might not have been worse if the war was not fought, only that things would definitely have been better if there had been no war.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I wonder what the above sentence was supposed to have meant. As written it appears totally contradictory.
“perhaps even marshal law.”
Perhaps the author would benefit from learning to spell martial law, and why it’s spelled that way.
My reading sort of ground to a halt at “marshal” law ...