Posted on 01/05/2013 1:11:56 PM PST by HogsBreath
The New Year has started with a monstrosity of a budget deal, one that proves that neither political party, Democrats or Republicans, is really serious about controlling the growth of big government. But soap opera dramatics about fiscal "cliffs" and sequestration shouldn’t deflect from where President Obama is really taking this country. Consider this story from the Wall Street Journal a few days before Christmas:
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Another factor - smaller family sizes. People are less willing to let their children go to war when it is a one and only child or only son.
The federal government has bought/is buying something like 1.5 billion HOLLOW POINT bullets. Hollow points are for doing ONE thing: killing people.
It’s not that 0bama is ‘worried’ about civil unrest/war. He’s COUNTING ON it. He has a minigun in an SUV trailing him. 2000 rounds/minute. He has a limo that can take RPGs and chemical. He has a new bunker at the White House. He has new planes and helicopters.
He and Jarrett have ammo’d up. For a reason.
The country will be ripped like Greece with riots and looting. The Civil War will move when the States start to step in —Out of the confusion a neo-nazi group will seize power. He will bring order but at a cost.
with guns like these 
20,000 US MANPADS vs 4 dead Americans (including an ambassador But hey, 'he got what he deserved, even if it wasn't 'optimal.' 
Don't these people look scary bad? You know. Like t e r r o r I s t s? Ask HER Migt have to reinforce the floors, lol.
I’ll stick to 3/4 inch plywood, much cheaper. I’ve bought sheet metal for my shear/bender and it is very expensive - thick plate is much too expensive to do perimeter walls. Good idea of yours for the front door and under the main front windows. Ha-ha, if things got that hot, probably better to bug out to a safer locale. Only have so much ammo and can’t stand the thought of being burned out!
I had a great laugh yesterday at the expense of a young woman who called into Rush crying about her two sets of twins and the extra $138 a paycheck they could not afford for obastardcare. Toughskyshitsky.
Rush calls them low information voters. That is far too charitable. Stupid is more likely.
Life is tough. It’s even tougher when you’re stupid.
I am going to laugh at these fools as long as I can because out situation will soon cease to have any humor in it at all.
Far from adding to people’s standard of living, government is the number one cause of poverty in this country. It forces those who depend on its largesse to live hand to mouth, with no time or money to plan for the future.
I see it a bit differently - the government gives them too much of our money and keeps their standard of living too high to be inducive to finding a way to improve their lot. If we made them literally subsist with no cars, no TV 9excpet maybe a 13" Black and White), no cable, no computer/on-line service, etc., they would be more worried about finding a job (or weeding themselves out by trying to take stuff from others). We don't keep them too low, we keep them too high and comfortable.
Where in the world does a meme like this come from, the movies?
That meme is so un-American, indeed anti-American, I can't believe people infected with it, such as nevergore, truly are American.
Did you go to school in this country, nevergore?
Did you learn any US history, or was your mind corrupted by some other education?
The US military is not going to "revolt and take charge of the government", because, first of all, no military person would issue or follow such illegal orders, and second, the US military already has a seat at the tables of power in Washington, with enough global missions to keep them plenty busy doing their constitutional jobs, much less even imagining "taking charge of the government".
So I'll ask again: where did such an idiotic idea come from?
What movie did you watch, what school teaches such nonsense?
From Wisconsinlady's link to Oath Keepers: "5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union."
Those ten Orders We Will Not Obey are all great stuff, but least we forget, this one in particular needs a some context.
The US Civil War did not begin just because several states "asserted their sovereignty" and "declared the national government to be in violation of the compact..."
Rather, it began because the newly formed government of those states immediately started and formally declared war on the United States, in April and May of 1861.
Before that formal declaration of war, there was no US invasion, no subjugation and indeed, not a single Confederate soldier had been killed directly by combat with the US military.
So, a state's "declaration of sovereignty" and "breech of compact" in and of itself might be entirely constitutional.
But, if these are followed by numerous unlawful acts -- as spelled out in the US Constitution -- of rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasions of Federal property, declarations of war and treason, then the results will be the same as General Washington offered British Cornwallis at Yorktown, Grant offered Lee at Appomattox, and Roosevelt offered the Axis powers in World War II: unconditional surrender.
So don't even think about it.
Behind the scenes there is a massive push to harp on those very words to create hype and ad revenue, right at this very moment they are having strategy meetings on what best products to make pitches for that are correlated to a civil war.
Clothing and fashion?
Subliminal marketing aimed for renaissance Civil War colors?
You get my drift, they are hyping this just so they can create attention spans of viewers and possible ad convinced consumers.
Sad to see you couldn't make your point without personal attack....Obviously you lack confidence in your stated position and believe by denigrating me, you discredit my position and strengthen yours....
The scenario I proposed is obviously only one of many possible outcomes if civil order, rule of law and adherence to the constitution disingrates. Many stars would have to align for that to happen (that was metaphorical).....
The executive branch has convertly waging a "war" against senior conservative officers for several years....forced early retirement, pass-over for promotions etc....
What is the greatest threat to any seated government? Two answers: First, the people (which is the way Americans resolve political differences) or the military (third world).
General human history is the guide.
Oboma and company told us we would have another “civil war” when he reenacted lincolns’ steps during inauguration.
They will have a false flag and white Christians who believe in the Bible and the Constitution will become the enemy of the state.
It is hard to believe it has come to this. The state is prepping for war against the citizens and the citizens are arming themselves to fight back.
Just one problem. The state will not fight fair
"Did you go to school in this country, nevergore? Did you learn any US history, or was your mind corrupted by some other education? "
Sad to see you couldn't make your point without personal attack....Obviously you lack confidence in your stated position and believe by denigrating me, you discredit my position and strengthen yours....
The scenario I proposed is obviously only one of many possible outcomes if civil order, rule of law and adherence to the constitution disingrates. Many stars would have to align for that to happen (that was metaphorical).....
The executive branch has convertly waging a "war" against senior conservative officers for several years....forced early retirement, pass-over for promotions etc....
What is the greatest threat to any seated government? Two answers: First, the people (which is the way Americans resolve political differences) or the military (third world).
General human history is the guide.
I asked questions, which you refuse to answer, right pal?
nevergore: "The executive branch has convertly waging a "war" against senior conservative officers for several years....forced early retirement, pass-over for promotions etc...."
If it is the core of your argument -- that some senior officers get passed over for promotion, and will therefore move to "take control of the government" -- I'd call that pathetic.
From it's beginning the US military has always had a pyramid shape in terms of how many people occupy each rank -- the higher the rank, the fewer people hold it.
What this usually means is that for every three or four at any given rank, only one makes it to the next higher level.
So officers have always been passed over for promotion and forced into early retirement based on the needs of the services, not their own feelings of self-worth.
As for your allegation of the current administration's "war" on conservative officers, most officers are somewhat conservative (though non-political), and so necessarily, most passed by for promotions are conservatives.
And there's simply no possible way to remove some subjectivity from officer evaluations.
Senior officers will evaluate their subordinates at least somewhat according to their own values, and will try to advance those who most closely reflect themselves.
So, if a "don't ask, don't tell" officer achieves the highest ranks, there's a good chance his "don't ask, don't tell" subordinates will advance too.
During the past 32 years, the US military has lived under Republican administrations for 20 years, and Democrats for 12.
One might expect then for more conservative officers to outnumber liberal officers by two-to-one, but I doubt if it's anywhere near that close.
Ten to one is probably a more accurate figure.
Finally, and most important: the essence of American conservatism is law-abiding and dedication to the constitution.
Any serviceman who would abandon such core beliefs is thereby no longer "conservative".
Therefore it is by definition impossible to have a "conservative" coup against the government.
And why would a small group of liberal officers even think of overthrowing this administration?
Again I ask the question: who gave you the crazy idea that "conservative" officers would attempt to destroy the constitution to somehow allegedly "save" it?
Again, you can’t forward your argument without making it personal, “pal”...Haven’t “refused” to answer anything....
The context for the argument is “Civil War”....how could events unfold...a series of “what if’s”
Save the lesson of our officer corp advancement, I’m a vet, been there....
I seem to remember another time our officer corp split and opposed the executive branch...around 1860....
Many of the officer corp were West Point and Naval Academy graduates.....Senior officers of the US Military, loyal with sworn oaths....
If the country descended into chaos, would the military act against the populace? Would they “defect”?
If you are asserting that it couldn’t happen, simply look at our history....
So don’t even think about it.
I wish we DIDN’T have to think about it. Yes, I understand that this might be a set up for a false flag by our own government to drag us into a civil war.
But wouldn’t just that fact alone anger patriots enough to fight to take back the country they knew and loved?
Secession and civil war should be viewed as last resorts - not first options. As much as I believe that reasonable people should weight all considerations and make informed choices, I have some reservations about open public discussions of those options. I do believe that Øbongo and his flying monkeys are hoping for a “Fort Sumter” moment from the right which would give them the justification they lack right now to advance their gun control schemes.
Unfortunately this latest crap from difi and co is just adding testosterone to the mental masturbations from the lost causers.
I've made nothing "personal", merely asked the cogent questions here: where did you get such a lunatic idea, that "conservative" military officers might "revolt and take charge of the government"?
Did your own peabrain dream that up, or did somebody tell you it's a great idea?
And if so, who -- or at least what sort of person would say it?
nevergore: "Haven’t “refused” to answer anything...."
No, you've refused to answer every question.
nevergore: "I seem to remember another time our officer corp split and opposed the executive branch...around 1860...."
Seem to remember? Seem to remember?? You remember nothing, your brain is void of actual historical facts, and so you substitute for real history your lunatic ideas about what might happen in your own wet dreams.
And then you post them here!
In real history, as opposed to your wet dreams, there was never a military coup against the US government.
Rather, elected civilian authorities in various states declared themselves seceded from the Union, then formed their own confederation, then started and declared war on the United States.
At that point, military officers were forced to decide which civilian authority to give their allegiance, so some chose the old Union, others the new Confederacy.
So far as we know, no military officer ever planned to "revolt and take charge of the government", Union or Confederate.
nevergore: "If the country descended into chaos, would the military act against the populace?
Would they 'defect'?"
"Chaos" is not what happened in 1860 and 1861.
Instead there was an orderly process (unlawful, imho, but generally peaceful) to vote on secession and joining the new Confederacy.
The Confederacy then decided to start and formally declare war on the United States, forcing military officers to chose sides.
During that war, both sides did occasionally "act against the populace" of the other side, but where circa 600,000 soldiers died, the number of civilians killed by soldiers was a mere handful, and nearly always accidental.
So, I'll say it again: your problem is that knowing nothing of real American history, you have no clue about realistic future options.
Military officers planning to "revolt and take charge of the government" is not one, period.
I do not like what is going on here as much as you,i do share rgw ideas with all of you. But in response to the upcoming events on what is to happen. Police seem to be more military. As to see why is what this subject is about, how ever simply put that we not understand the entire situation. The world maybe set up for a disaster to cause the civil all along. Think about it, such radical movements in such short notice.
In my opinion, it happen way to fast, doesn’t mean the government is ready though. In fact they are very afraid, to see this all happen in such notice and response. The government is pushing funding’s into more money and more weapons. We will be at war soon. Fighting for the very freedom we founded upon in the beginning our country. I rather be asked a question about what is to do next rather on how i know. So be blunt if your going to insult me in any manner.
FRiend, I see that you are brand new to Free Republic, and seem a little rusty in your use of the English language.
Might I perhaps assume that English is your second language, or possibly you're still young enough to be learning it for the first time?
The civilian perspective: "But in response to the upcoming events on what is to happen.
Police seem to be more military.
As to see why is what this subject is about, how ever simply put that we not understand the entire situation."
If your own local police today seem more military to you, it may be simply because they have been better trained than ever before to respond to levels of violence our country never saw before -- terrorism, gang wars, mental illness and drug related violence, all ratcheting up the daily risks to police officers.
If there's anything sinister, it's what goes on inside the minds of criminals at war with law enforcement.
The civilian perspective: "The world maybe set up for a disaster to cause the civil all along.
Think about it, such radical movements in such short notice."
By "radical movements", are you talking about Islamic terrorists, or just our own home-grown gang-bangers?
Or do you mean political movements like "Occupy Your Street"?
Whichever movement you might mean, not a single one of them is new to the world, or even to the USA.
Islamic terrorists have been around for centuries -- indeed, the very word "assassin" originally meant 8th century "members of the Nizaris, a Muslim group who opposed the Abbasid caliphate with threats of sudden assassination by their secret agents".
And the USA has been battling Muslim terrorists for over 200 years -- since the days of President Jefferson and the Barbary Wars.
If you're talking about today's gang-bangers, perhaps you remember a famous name from 80 years ago -- Al Capone?
In the 1920s and 1930s the country was full of gang-bangers making their livings pretty much the same ways some do today.
If it's Communist-front groups like "Occupy", those have also been around since at least the 1930s, under many different names and with varying degrees of success at infiltrating the levers of government power.
Point is: none of this is brand new, it's all been around more-or-less forever, and we have historically lost some & won some battles with them.
But you are certainly correct in pointing out that we're seeing more of it today than ever before.
The civilian perspective: "The government is pushing funding’s into more money and more weapons.
We will be at war soon.
Fighting for the very freedom we founded upon in the beginning our country."
Don't expect another US Civil War, it won't happen, unless you yourself personally declare war on the United States, in which case you will be individually hunted down and sent to jail.
If you personally get violent, then violence will likely end in your own death, and nobody will mourn or grieve your passing, FRiend, any more than we do those of mass murderers who open fire in schools & movie theaters.
So don't do it.
As for the long-term growth of government, that is an indisputable fact.
For over 100 years now, the US government has steadily, inexorably, grown -- doubling in size, compared to GDP, between 1912 (2.5%) and 1931 (5%), then doubling again by 1940 (10%), and doubling yet again by 1952 (20%) including massive military Cold War spending.
Today's military spending (5%) is only 1/3 the level of 1952 (15%), but non-military spending (from Great Society to Obama-Care) has doubled and doubled again to the point where total government spending today is nearly 40% of GDP -- and still growing.
This at a time when places like Singapore, Hong Kong and China manage with half our tax level, and even Mexico, India and South Korea get by with one third lower tax rates.
Today Russia's taxes are 15% lower than ours!
The US today is rapidly moving into the same category as those European socialist countries, like France, Sweden, Germany and Britain.
And the results here are the same as there: high unemployment and low economic growth rates.
The civilian perspective: "I rather be asked a question about what is to do next rather on how i know.
So be blunt if your going to insult me in any manner."
The reason I asked how nevergore learned it is because what he and now you think you "know" is false and ridiculous.
So it's important to learn where you got these crazy ideas, then maybe I can suggest somewhere to look for something more reasonable.
So I ask yet again: tell us, please, where does it come from?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.