Talking about such is not necessarily advocacy thereof. Nor are those who mention such things necessarily "birthers". It would be folly NOT to discuss all possibilities, and an armed insurrection on US soil could result from a number of things--from failure of the economy and the currency, to vicious acts carried out under color of law by the government (including 'rounding up those nasty right winged terrorist birthers--which is one reason why I resent the conspicuous misrepresentation), to military intervention in Arizona in the event actions by that state go past some strange federal line despite Federal law being ignored by the Federal Government. Obama himself was the one calling for civillian security forces as well armed as the US military, an extra-Constitutional private army.
In the event Obama is not qualified under the Constitution (bear with me, here), who removes him? He cannot be impeached under those circumstances, because he is not president, all other nonsense nonwithstanding. (Note the conditions applied to the previous sentence and do me the basic courtesy of not wuoting that out of context, please.)
There are a great number of comments which could be taken out of contest, often made conditionally, which paint a far different picture of this forum in toto and its posters when assembled to provide a Morris Dees' viewpoint of the forum. You have cherry picked a very few remarks and pulled them from discussions often quite hypothetical in nature and posted them here as ordinary coments which most often, they were not.
At any rate, IF the ballot box fails, what then do you propose? The time to share knowledge which could be branded as subversive with a stroke of a pen, to speculate on what might occur is not after someone has siezed power, but before, in case that does happen.
Contingency planning is prudent, even the Pentagon has scenarios in place, gamed out, for the most arcane of possibilities. That does not mean generals run out to the NYT with howls about the US War Plans against Great Britain (which doubtless exist, just in case).
In the event Obama is not qualified under the Constitution (bear with me, here), who removes him? He cannot be impeached under those circumstances, because he is not president, all other nonsense nonwithstanding. (Note the conditions applied to the previous sentence and do me the basic courtesy of not wuoting that out of context, please.)
I'm not "quoting it out" -- but what you (and some others) miss here -- is that the "very mechanism" that is used for "determining legally" whether that is true (and for a President) -- is -- the Impeachment process.
The Impeachment process is that mechanism by which one legally determines that a person is not legally qualified. That's what the process is for... you see.
In other words, you cannot "legally predetermine" that a person is not legally qualified to be President, by merely "saying so". You have to have that "legal adjudicaton" of that fact, before it becomes "legally binding"...
To say it another way... let's say that you and two others were standing there and you witnessed a guy shoot a person in cold blood. Now, you "know it" because you saw it. However, that person is not legally determined to have committed the crime -- until a jury of his peers "says so" by the legal due process.
Now, in the meantime, you may say, "I know the guy is guilty, because I stood there and watched him shoot that person in cold blood, along with two others with me who saw the exact same thing!"
And so you did... you saw it and you know it. But, the guy is not considered to have committed the crime and have been determined to be legally responsible for it under our judicial system -- until -- that legal determination is made.
So no matter how much you say he is a criminal -- he's not until the system and a jury of his peers says so.
It's the same thing with Obama, and the Impeachment process.
I don't know if they do or not. But they did, between the World Wars, the first of which we fought *with* the British (and of course again in the second), but we had war plans to fight them. It was called "War Plan Red, with a Crimson sub plan for Canada).