Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek Michigan
    Posts
    1,269

    Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?

    This may explain why so many general officers have been booted under the Chairman-In-Chief. Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?
    By Selwyn Duke
    What kind of leader wants a military more loyal to himself than to the rule of law?
    And why?
    These are two questions to ponder when considering the strange happenings in the armed forces since Barack Obama took office.
    Let's start with a hypothetical. Let's say you were a hard-left-wing commander in chief who wanted the military firmly in your corner. You'd certainly note that our armed forces have been a bastion of conservatism and Christian faith, and you'd know that its members generally weren't very fond of you. So how would you go about changing this?
    Some years ago I met a very young, all-American looking white fellow who had just exited the military. His reason was that he hadn't been advanced the way he believed he should have been, and he wasn't going to remain in the armed forces if it provided no future. Now, one interpretation here is that he was a millennial with an inflated opinion of himself (he didn't strike me that way, though). Yet there is another interpretation.
    The Obama administration has given affirmative action in the military a dose of steroids, promoting minorities and women -- and, I believe, homosexuals and lesbians -- at the expense of white men. By the way, is this yet another reason why Obama wanted homosexuals to be able to serve openly? After all, you can't target them for special treatment if you don't know who they are.
    But the point is this: if I were that hypothetical hard-left-wing leader, I'd know that one way to change the military's political climate is the same way you do it in the nation at large.
    Demographic manipulation.
    White men generally vote Republican, white military men even more so, and white military men who are practicing Christians, well, that's a recipe for a left-behind left. Minorities, women, atheists and the LGBT* crowd, however, are reliable liberal constituencies. So what would I do if I were that hard leftist?
    I'd create a military climate friendly toward groups that are my constituencies and hostile toward those that aren't.
    And I'd do more than subordinate white men to other groups in the promotion process. I'd clamp down on Christian expression -- which had often been robust in the military -- and punish servicemen who transgressed against my separation-of-church-and-everything policy. I'd let the world know that as far as homosexuality goes, the armed services are open for monkey business. I'd also force military personnel to be politically correct not just about sexuality, but also Islam, so that they were confronted with the choice of saying things they don't believe or career damage. After all, good people might rather leave the service than live a lie. And I'd issue instructional materials characterizing traditionalists as a threat, so that the low-information servicemen may believe it and the more savvy would feel further alienated.
    The goal here is to create a situation in which traditionalists will be encouraged to leave the military or not enlist in the first place. Of course, this method can't bleed out all the red-blooded, but it can shift the balance. It can ensure a few things:
    • The number of leftist fellow travelers in the armed forces will be as great as possible.
    • As many of the rest as possible will be apolitical, mind-numbed types who wouldn't question unconstitutional orders.
    • The remaining traditionalists would be outnumbered by the first two groups and in a don't ask-don't tell predicament. And having been denied promotions, they'd have little institutional power.
    At the same time that I was transforming the body, I'd also have to gain control of the head. To this end I would look to replace as many generals as possible with those I believed would do my bidding. For once I owned the military head, body and soul, I could really dream that impossible dream.
    Anyway, that's what I would do were I that hypothetical hard-left-wing leader.
    Incidentally, they're all things Barack Obama has already done.
    As for the generals, note that the two-star general who oversaw our arsenal of intercontinental missiles, Major General Michael Carey, was just fired, becoming "the latest in a string of recent high-profile firings of top U.S. generals," as Reuters puts it. Talk-show-host Michael Savage discussed this on his Friday program and was very suspicious about the Air Force's reluctance to provide a reason for canning the man who oversaw our nuclear weapons -- the service only said that the general was terminated for undisclosed "personal misbehavior." As for me, I'll just repeat my opening questions:
    What kind of leader wants a military more loyal to himself than to the rule of law?
    And why?
    Whatever your conclusions, there is of course a mundane explanation for all of this. Leftists truly believe in their insane diversity dogma and quite reflexively try to socially re-engineer whatever they can sink their claws into, be they universities, neighborhoods, businesses or even the entities charged with protecting their compassionate selves. And in this age of increasing corruption and decadence, it wouldn't be surprising to find generals transgressing against military code. Yet given that Barack Obama is a shadowy figure with a penchant for hiding his past (college records, etc.); that he has had avowed communists in his administration (Van Jones, Anita Dunn); that he seemed to belong to Chicago's socialist New Party in the 1990s; and that, according to former Occidental College acquaintance and ex-Marxist John Drew, Obama was a flat-out "Marxist Leninist" who believed in old-style communist revolution, well, one's imagination can conjure up some interesting scenarios.
    The only question is, is it at all possible that Obama's imagination conjures up the same ones
    Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia...Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by dcselby1 View Post
    This may explain why so many general officers have been booted under the Chairman-In-Chief. Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?
    By Selwyn Duke
    What kind of leader wants a military more loyal to himself than to the rule of law?
    And why?
    These are two questions to ponder when considering the strange happenings in the armed forces since Barack Obama took office.
    Let's start with a hypothetical. Let's say you were a hard-left-wing commander in chief who wanted the military firmly in your corner. You'd certainly note that our armed forces have been a bastion of conservatism and Christian faith, and you'd know that its members generally weren't very fond of you. So how would you go about changing this?
    Some years ago I met a very young, all-American looking white fellow who had just exited the military. His reason was that he hadn't been advanced the way he believed he should have been, and he wasn't going to remain in the armed forces if it provided no future. Now, one interpretation here is that he was a millennial with an inflated opinion of himself (he didn't strike me that way, though). Yet there is another interpretation.
    The Obama administration has given affirmative action in the military a dose of steroids, promoting minorities and women -- and, I believe, homosexuals and lesbians -- at the expense of white men. By the way, is this yet another reason why Obama wanted homosexuals to be able to serve openly? After all, you can't target them for special treatment if you don't know who they are.
    But the point is this: if I were that hypothetical hard-left-wing leader, I'd know that one way to change the military's political climate is the same way you do it in the nation at large.
    Demographic manipulation.
    White men generally vote Republican, white military men even more so, and white military men who are practicing Christians, well, that's a recipe for a left-behind left. Minorities, women, atheists and the LGBT* crowd, however, are reliable liberal constituencies. So what would I do if I were that hard leftist?
    I'd create a military climate friendly toward groups that are my constituencies and hostile toward those that aren't.
    And I'd do more than subordinate white men to other groups in the promotion process. I'd clamp down on Christian expression -- which had often been robust in the military -- and punish servicemen who transgressed against my separation-of-church-and-everything policy. I'd let the world know that as far as homosexuality goes, the armed services are open for monkey business. I'd also force military personnel to be politically correct not just about sexuality, but also Islam, so that they were confronted with the choice of saying things they don't believe or career damage. After all, good people might rather leave the service than live a lie. And I'd issue instructional materials characterizing traditionalists as a threat, so that the low-information servicemen may believe it and the more savvy would feel further alienated.
    The goal here is to create a situation in which traditionalists will be encouraged to leave the military or not enlist in the first place. Of course, this method can't bleed out all the red-blooded, but it can shift the balance. It can ensure a few things:
    • The number of leftist fellow travelers in the armed forces will be as great as possible.
    • As many of the rest as possible will be apolitical, mind-numbed types who wouldn't question unconstitutional orders.
    • The remaining traditionalists would be outnumbered by the first two groups and in a don't ask-don't tell predicament. And having been denied promotions, they'd have little institutional power.
    At the same time that I was transforming the body, I'd also have to gain control of the head. To this end I would look to replace as many generals as possible with those I believed would do my bidding. For once I owned the military head, body and soul, I could really dream that impossible dream.
    Anyway, that's what I would do were I that hypothetical hard-left-wing leader.
    Incidentally, they're all things Barack Obama has already done.
    As for the generals, note that the two-star general who oversaw our arsenal of intercontinental missiles, Major General Michael Carey, was just fired, becoming "the latest in a string of recent high-profile firings of top U.S. generals," as Reuters puts it. Talk-show-host Michael Savage discussed this on his Friday program and was very suspicious about the Air Force's reluctance to provide a reason for canning the man who oversaw our nuclear weapons -- the service only said that the general was terminated for undisclosed "personal misbehavior." As for me, I'll just repeat my opening questions:
    What kind of leader wants a military more loyal to himself than to the rule of law?
    And why?
    Whatever your conclusions, there is of course a mundane explanation for all of this. Leftists truly believe in their insane diversity dogma and quite reflexively try to socially re-engineer whatever they can sink their claws into, be they universities, neighborhoods, businesses or even the entities charged with protecting their compassionate selves. And in this age of increasing corruption and decadence, it wouldn't be surprising to find generals transgressing against military code. Yet given that Barack Obama is a shadowy figure with a penchant for hiding his past (college records, etc.); that he has had avowed communists in his administration (Van Jones, Anita Dunn); that he seemed to belong to Chicago's socialist New Party in the 1990s; and that, according to former Occidental College acquaintance and ex-Marxist John Drew, Obama was a flat-out "Marxist Leninist" who believed in old-style communist revolution, well, one's imagination can conjure up some interesting scenarios.
    The only question is, is it at all possible that Obama's imagination conjures up the same ones
    Your post is right on the money. I have been thinking along these lines for some time only not with the martial law part. I have one grand kid in the service and a few that wish to enter and I am dead set against it. I shall forward your posts, in an anonymous format, without your info to my family members.
    I fear a renewal of the draft and hostilities in some place and then an internal collapse but I am old and hopefully wrong, it has been known to happen.

    I belive Obama is neither e devout Muslim nor Christian. He is pro-infanticide/abortion/baby killing, and pro homosexual. Both faiths are against these. He is chameleon.
    "Undocumented Second Amendment Supporter, fighting against suppression of mandatory background checks."

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Real World
    Posts
    7,800
    Quote Originally Posted by NotTwoShure View Post
    I fear a renewal of the draft and hostilities in some place and then an internal collapse

    I belive Obama is neither e devout Muslim nor Christian. He is pro-infanticide/abortion/baby killing, and pro homosexual. Both faiths are against these. He is chameleon.
    With such a diverse military (Gay,Lesbian, anti-christian) I believe the draft will have to be reinstated simply to retain a quota and there will still be an internal collapse. As Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State in the administration of US President Richard Nixon, said openly upon the election of Barack Obama as the US president in 2008 that Obama had been groomed to be the ARCHITECT to lead us into a "New World Order". That being true and knowing that God sets up rulers and God takes them down, it's easy to understand the reason for the political and economic condition of the United States of America. With that kind of purpose as a backdrop for the national events of our time- economic decline, extremely risen national debt, declining military strength, and lack of high level political and governmental intent to change the direction the nation is being led, Obama certainly isn't a "Chameleon". He's simply a PAWN in God's plan concerning America in This Last Generation. I say again, "there's no big secret here, just a lot of willfully ignorant people".


    "The Further A Society Drifts From The Truth The More It Will Hate Those Who Speak It".
    ~ George Orwell ~
    It Is Appointed Onto Man Once To Die, And After That To Face Judgement

  5. #4
    Guess we know how these guys answered the litmus test about ordering troops to fire on US citizens. They flunked and were expelled.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    I always get a laugh when folks who don't know jack about the military try to tell the rest of us how things work there. There is no affirmative action in the military, and certainly not tied to promotions. WorldNetDaily is about as credible a source on this issue as Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a credible source on the effectiveness of gun control. And there never was a government test for which military commanders were willing to fire on citizens. That was debunked long ago.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  7. #6
    Rhino answer me this, can you ever remember this amount of high ranking military being removed from command in this short of period of time and for items that are so minimal at that?
    There might not be affirmative action in the military, per say like what they are using in the various collages in the States, but you can bet your A$$, if these officers don't toe the line and conform to what ever the winds are blowing, their fitness reports will take a big hit and with that, their chances for both promotion and receiving orders that would assist them in advancement is non existent, the same goes for the enlisted ranks in regards to evaluations, if you rock the boat, they'll make dammed sure your boat doesn't get underway towards a future in the military service.
    The main thing I worry about is the large number of foreign troops that are being brought into the United States. There was a government finding from Home Land security that would allow some of them to oversee the security at sporting events, now that’s scary and what about the hardware that they are bring with them?
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    Rhino answer me this, can you ever remember this amount of high ranking military being removed from command in this short of period of time and for items that are so minimal at that?
    Sorry for the delay. I've been very busy and this is the first time I noticed you were asking me questions. First, yes, I remember several times when groups of senior officers lost their jobs. But what you're pointing out here isn't a political purge, nor is there any evidence that it's even unprecedented. Almost all of those people have been caught doing something wrong. They weren't singled out for a political viewpoint or oppositional ideology, and no one has ever indicated that they have in any way evidenced such positions. For all we know they could all be ardent Obama supporters.
    .
    There might not be affirmative action in the military, per say like what they are using in the various collages in the States, but you can bet your A$$, if these officers don't toe the line and conform to what ever the winds are blowing, their fitness reports will take a big hit and with that, their chances for both promotion and receiving orders that would assist them in advancement is non existent, the same goes for the enlisted ranks in regards to evaluations, if you rock the boat, they'll make dammed sure your boat doesn't get underway towards a future in the military service.
    You actually almost have the right idea here, but you've missed the final conclusion. Lower ranking promotions, both officer and enlisted, are extremely metric centered, i.e. they don't rely on subjective measures that would make them subject to the kind of interference that you suggest. That means they can't really be biased in the way you fear due to their structure. Senior enlisted and officer promotions become more subjective and start to rely more heavily on evaluations by other people. Those evaluations do exactly what you said, at least in part. They measure how well a promotee 'toes the line' and conforms to requirements or standards. Where you miss the mark is how the lines and requirements are set. They aren't in any way determined by which way the wind is blowing at the time. The US military has arguably the most fair promotion systems in the world. A military member not only knows exactly what he or she needs to get promoted, they know how to reach those milestones and they know what their measures of progress are. The standards cannot be changed without the entire military being aware of them. That's the entire nature of the system. It's the most open and fair promotion system I've ever seen. It isn't perfect though, and no system ever will be. There will always be a subjective element that is a matter of personal interpretation, so obviously there will sometimes be differences, but even those can be challenged if the military member so desires.
    .
    Take a look at the original post again. The author cites a military member who ended his service because he didn't advance as far or fast as he thought he should. The entire premise the author then makes is that there are only two possible conclusions, that the military member had an overinflated ego or there was an affirmative action system for minorities and women, and maybe homosexuals and lesbians, in the military now. Really? Those are the only two possibilities? It can't be possible that with almost a million and a half military members that some might perform better than some others? That can't be possible? I don't understand how authors can make such ridiculous remarks without readers realizing how truly nonsensical they are.
    .
    And by the way, I was one of those people that got to a certain rank and wasn't going any further. That didn't really bother me because it wasn't the system that caused it. I messed up my knee and had to come off flying status. That moved me to a unit where I had politically correct bosses that wanted me to be that way too, and I refused to (office politics, not 'politics'). Besides, higher rank meant more office politics anyway, and I preferred being where the work got done. I had 64 fantastic military members who worked for me and they kicked butt when it came to getting things done, partly because I never let the office politics from on high to roll through me and down to them. I considered that worth the sacrifice. It's not like they were going to pay me lots of money anyway.
    .
    The main thing I worry about is the large number of foreign troops that are being brought into the United States. There was a government finding from Home Land security that would allow some of them to oversee the security at sporting events, now that’s scary and what about the hardware that they are bring with them?
    That was debunked too.
    .
    You do highlight one interesting point though, and the use of the term "millennial" in the article hints at it as well. If such incidents are on the rise it wouldn't surprise me very much. Although I'm retired, my jobs and proximity keep me in contact with the military and it's quite obvious that discipline isn't what it used to be. Things are tolerated now that never would have been tolerated in my day, and that has fostered a more carefree attitude on the part of military members that has made them more willing to experiment with the limits of proper behavior. As a result, problems with unprofessional and 'un-military-like' behavior have definitely increased. The kinds of things I've seen with senior officers in the news lately have been exactly those kinds of issues, so I can't say that I'm all that surprised. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised. To be fair though, when I joined the military, the 'old timers' of that day and age thought we new military members were too pampered and undisciplined too, so there is an argument to be made about relativity I guess. But these current issues are behavior and conduct issues, not political issues. I wouldn't put it past the current administration to WANT to do something like this, but the military promotion system is far too open and public for them to get away with it, at least at any level lower than the high staff positions at the Pentagon.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast