The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: rojawe on December 12, 2009, 08:30:29 PM
-
Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?
By Chuck Baldwin
December 11, 2009
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091211.html
According to an obscure report in the European Union Times (EUTimes.net),
"Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US
President Barack Obama has issued an order to his Northern Command's
(USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to 'begin
immediately' increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January
30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war
within the United States before the end of winter.
"According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks 'numerous'
meetings with his war council abut how best to manage the expected implosion
of his Nation's banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the
United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military
Analysts state is a 'last ditch gambit' whose success is 'far from
certain.'"
The EU Times article continues by saying, "To the fears of Obama over the
United States erupting into civil war once the full extent of the rape and
pillaging of these peoples by their banks and government becomes known to
them, grim evidence now shows the likelihood of this occurring much sooner
than later."
The Times story goes on to say that there are "over 220 million American
people armed to the teeth and ready to explode."
The Times article concludes by saying, "Though the coming civil war in the
United States is being virtually ignored by their propaganda media, the same
cannot be said of Russia, where leading Russian political analyst, Professor
Igor Panarin has long warned that the economic turmoil in the United States
has confirmed his long-held view that the US is heading for collapse."
Many of us would be inclined to pooh-pooh such a story, but then there is
this column from Bloomberg.com entitled "Arming Goldman With Pistols Against
Public," written by Alice Schroeder. According to Ms Schroeder:
"'I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,' said a friend, who told
me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker
who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had
told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on
firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist
uprising against the bank."
There is no doubt that the American people have good reason to despise these
international banksters epitomized by Goldman Sachs. Even one of Goldman's
poster-boys, Henry Paulson, US Treasury secretary and former Goldman CEO,
admitted that the American people were fed up. Schroeder quotes Paulson as
saying, during testimony to Congress last summer, "[People] were unhappy
with the big discrepancies in wealth, but they at least believed in the
system and in some form of market-driven capitalism. But if we had a
complete meltdown, it could lead to people questioning the basis of the
system."
Schroeder correctly opines, "There you have it. The bailout was meant to
keep the curtain drawn on the way the rich make money, not from the free
market, but from the lack of one. Goldman Sachs blew its cover when the
firm's revenue from trading reached a record $27 billion in the first nine
months of this year, and a public that was writhing in financial agony
caught on that the profits earned on taxpayer capital were going to pay
employee bonuses."
Schroeder concludes her column by saying, "And if the proles [proletariat:
plebs, working class, peasants] really do appear brandishing pitchforks at
the doors of Park Avenue and the gates of Round Hill Road, you can be sure
that the Goldman guys and their families will be holed up in their safe
rooms with their firearms."
So, do Wall Street and Russian analysts know something that we don't know?
Is this why George W. Bush initiated USNORTHCOM to begin with? Is this why
Barack Obama is beefing up USNORTHCOM? This would help explain the reports
of all those potential detention camps that have been constructed (including
the abandoned military installations that have refurbished security fences,
guard towers, etc., around them). Has the American people's disgust with
these crooks and thieves within the federal government and Wall Street
reached a boiling point?
There is no question that people are angry, and for good reason.
The fraudulent financial policies of the Federal Reserve and its lackeys in
the White House and Congress have literally bankrupted the country. Real
unemployment is most likely over 20%. Taxes (along with costly fees,
regulations, restrictions, penalties, mandates, etc.) at every level are
going through the ceiling. America's jobs have been outsourced. Barack Obama
continues G.W. Bush's irresponsibility, digging America deeper and deeper
into foreign entanglements, at the cost of trillions of dollars and
thousands of lives. The IRS continues to harass and harangue honest
citizens, squeezing them like the proverbial turnip. And now, add the
insanity of a global climate treaty being hammered out in Copenhagen, and a
universal health care bill being rammed through Congress, and the outlook is
even gloomier.
I feel very comfortable in saying that the usurpations of power, the
encroachments upon liberty, and the arrogant tax-and-spend policies
emanating from Washington, D.C., and Wall Street these days are far more
egregious than what George Washington and the boys were enduring in 1775-76
at the hands of the British Crown. There is no doubt in my mind that if
Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Sam Adams were alive today, they would
have given cause for the Goldman Sachs banksters to retreat to their bunkers
years ago!
The fact is, we do need a revolution! But not a revolution of anarchy and
pitchforks. (The history of France should be ample evidence of the futility
of this strategy.) We need a revolution of the individual states: to reclaim
their sovereignty and fight for the liberties of their sovereigns (We the
People). That is exactly what our forefathers did in '76.
America's founding document (the Declaration of Independence) declares that
our states are "free and independent." And so they are. We are not "one
nation" with one all-powerful central government. We are a confederation of
nation-states, united in a voluntary union, with each State reserving to
itself the power and authority of self-determination, and ceding to the
federal government limited, specifically delineated duties and
limitations--limitations that have been totally ignored to the point that,
for all intents and purposes, our once-great constitutional republic has
been thoroughly expunged. Therefore, it is NOW time for the states to stand
up to this meddlesome, every-growing tyranny that is known as Washington,
D.C., and defend the rights and liberties of their citizens!
What Dr. Ed Vieira (an attorney with 4 earned degrees from Harvard, who has
successfully argued cases before the US Supreme Court) wrote a few weeks ago
should serve as a template for every State governor and legislature that
truly cares about liberty. See Ed's column at:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin201.htm
As Vieira says, the states should resurrect their militias. Many--if not
all--states have the legal authority for such entities in their
constitutions. In some states they are called the State Guard. Some plainly
use the word "militia." Whatever they are called, they need to be activated.
And all that is necessary for this to be accomplished is the order of the
governor. It's that simple!
And as Vieira said, states need to adopt an alternative currency--including,
and most especially, gold and silver. In other words, they need to develop
their own private economies, complete with their own banks and exchange
mediums. They also need to reject the multinational agribusiness and develop
their own in-State agricultural and energy businesses.
I would dare say that the first State that determines to follow Vieira's
sagacious counsel (and rumblings of this have already begun in states such
as Alaska, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, New Hampshire, Indiana, Tennessee,
South Carolina, etc.) would have so many liberty-loving patriots flock there
that its economy would explode with prosperity--resulting in a domino effect
of many other states following suit--and the revolution that this country so
desperately needs would indeed take place. Furthermore, such a revolution
would be constitutional, lawful, moral, and, yes, in compliance with the
laws of Nature and of Nature's God.
In the meantime, is Barack Obama really worried about civil war? He might
be. It is my observation that Washington politicians and bureaucrats are the
most paranoid people on the planet. The problem is--as with most
power-hungry Machiavellians--their paranoia often translates into more
oppression and less liberty for the citizenry. And if this is true, it
simply means that the states need to hurry up and do what needs to be done!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
-
Buy ammo.
-
There are a few things I don't agree with, primarily that he places the blame entirely on banks with out ever addressing the socialist infiltration of our Culture.
It is that infiltration that would prevent the success of any peaceful Revolution.
That aside I would say he is probably on the right track.
-
I'd say there is a much better chance of needing these troops to protect our border with Mexico as that country falls into a narcowar or to use the soldiers to help out after terror attacks on us after Israel hits Iran.
These two situations are more likely to happen than states succeeding from the union. There is no way the government will allow any state to "leave" when there are nukes in that state.
-
Congress granted social security bennies to illegal aliens. I'd sooner believe in the Easter Bunny than believe these hacks would defend our border. And since BO is "Talking with Iran", he will protect them from those evil Jews, it's far more likely that he would order US forces to attack Israel.
-
The civil war thing is just tin-foil.
As for Iran, we'll just have to wait and see.
-
If you are so happy wandering blindly along thinking everything is hunky dory why did you even bother commenting ?
-
He asked my opinion. 8)
-
You keep walking around hunky dory we will improve our positions.
-
several valid points and truths in the article, we are pissed off, the banks are raping the people, civil war ? NAH. When the Government and its cronies get so paranoid that they become afraid of the people, thats a red flag to me. How much worse are things than we know ? We are always the last to know.
-
If you are so happy wandering blindly along thinking everything is hunky dory why did you even bother commenting ?
He asked my opinion. 8)
From the Title ; "what do think of this article "
Ok, I have to admit, you got me on that one. ;D
-
LOL! Cool. :)
I love subjects like this and use them as "thinking exercises" so this is what I came up with.
Here's a link from a survivalist forum.
http://www.whenshtf.com/showthread.php?t=23672 (http://www.whenshtf.com/showthread.php?t=23672)
Now these people really don't trust the gov. and some of them are calling this unrealistic. :o
(Please don't think I lump all survival/prepping forums or members into one boat. Like everything else, there are hard-liners, moderates, and soft-liners in this group as well.)
As I stated above, this is just my opinion. If you feel different about it, great! I'd love to hear your thoughts on how this is going to start. What state is going to decide to succeed first? Montana? North Dakota? West Virginia? Which one has the tax base to go it alone? Which one is actively recruiting hundreds if not thousands of its statesmen into service? What state is spending money on food, supplies, and weapons for this battle? What state has the money to do this? (I used to do this when the U.P. of Michigan had a small group of people calling for creating their own state.)
Please show me some solid evidence that this is happening and then I might agree. (I always check the sources to see how slanted they are. You know, that old "lies, damn lies, and statistics" addage again.)
But lets play this along further. Let's say civil war does erupt. State against state. Don't you think a NATO or UN coalition is going to come in and side with the President of the U.S.? With all those nukes out there "at risk" expect the U.N. to come in and help "Secure them " from the "terrorists" that are trying to "overthrow the gov". (And you know that is how the media will spin it.)
With all this happening, China makes its move and sucessfully switches the world monetary standard from the U.S. dollar to the B.R.I.C. currency exchange. Thus makeing China the new superpower of the world. (The U.S. can't have a civil war and expect to stay the reigning power.)
And don't forget Mexico. You know they would exploit this war to their favor. California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico all in Mexico's sights for expansion. (How can they fight mexico when they are bust fighting each other?)
Now I'd like to think the Governers, Senators, and Representatives of our collective states are smart enough to realize this and will work together to keep this country in one piece. :o (I know, I know. Big gamble on that! ;D)
The closest thing we will see to a civil war will be the upcoming election in 2010.
Again. My opinion. ;)
-
The article you are quoting is based on a false premise. It assumes that this one one will be like 1861 - 65, where a States decided to opt out of the Union. In fact it is more likely to be along the lines of the Revolution where a large minority in ALL States take up arms against the regime and band together in centralized locations. (as the New England Patriots converged on Boston, logistics will be handled through battle field pickups, and foraging.
Yes there will be times when nearly naked troops will be starving unless it can be won quickly.
-
The article you are quoting is based on a false premise. It assumes that this one one will be like 1861 - 65, where a States decided to opt out of the Union. In fact it is more likely to be along the lines of the Revolution where a large minority in ALL States take up arms against the regime and band together in centralized locations. (as the New England Patriots converged on Boston, logistics will be handled through battle field pickups, and foraging.
Yes there will be times when nearly naked troops will be starving unless it can be won quickly.
That's OK. I've got plenty of 'body mass' to live off All I need is a time and place to meet!
-
I'm figuring on working off "Stored fat" as well.
What I would expect is irate armed citizens congregating at their state capitals, and dragging out the State legislatures first after the Police or National Guard are sicced on them, and whether or not those groups will resist or join the rebellion will in all cases be a coin toss. After that the Rebels will need to install an interim state government, and organize the forces at hand, first for defense, then to work toward supporting fellow Patriots in surrounding states.
For example, Maine, NH and Vermont would probably fall fairly quickly, once we consolidated our own position we could either move to assist Mass in the (Second ) siege of Boston (actually the Metro area ) or launch a strike into upstate NY to (yet again ) sweep down the Hudson Valley to isolate NYC.
The elimination of those 2 strategic points would free up
Most of the East coast as far west as the Illinois state line, between Canada and Fl. there would only be the tri state Enclave of NJ Del. and ML (including DC).
What I just outlined is exactly the same strategic situation that faced Washington, during the first. revolution.
The three key points East of the Mississippi are Boston, NYC and the Chesapeake bay region. The Key areas West of the Mississippi would be the LA and San Francisco Metro plexes causing West Coast liberalism to collapse while moving to pick off a totally isolated Chicago.
-
Sounds like a plan. Tom let me know when you get to the Hudson Valley....we can meet up for breakfast at Denny's in Middletown.
-
Denny's makes good omelets ;D
-
I'm thinking Grand Slam................ ;D
-
Personally I consider the EU Times to be a spurious source BUT, I remember when Obama was running he gave a speech during which he said he would halt all uranium enrichment and then went on to talk of a civilian security force "at least as large and well funded as the military." That's NKVD equivalent...or, in other Cold War terms..."Interior Troops" so that the military could not overthrow the dictator in a coup. This is Obama's counter coup force.
AND:
A Domestic Police Force as strong and as well funded as the U.S. Army.
I think I have heard this before.
Quote:
The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army under Contract No. W74V8H-06-C-0001.
Quote:
This project investigates the need for a U.S. Stability Police Force, the
major capabilities it would need if created, where in the federal government
it would best be headquartered, and how it should be staffed. In
doing so, it considers options based in the Departments of Defense,
Homeland Security, Justice, and State. The project was conducted
for the U.S. Army’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute
(PKSOI). Its purpose was to make recommendations to PKSOI, the
Army, and the community of rule-of-law researchers, practitioners, and
policymakers on the need for (and characteristics of) a U.S. Stability
Police Force.
This research was conducted within RAND Arroyo Center’s
Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources Program. RAND Arroyo Center,
part of the RAND Corporation, is a federally funded research and
development center sponsored by the United States Army.
The Project Unique Identification Code (PUIC) for the project
that produced this document is ATFCR07234.
The project point of contact is Terrence Kelly, 412-683-2300
X4905, tkelly@rand.org.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG819.pdf
(The following is from another bulletin board and contributor:)
From reading it I was unable to determine when the report was commissioned, so I asked.
Quote:
Mr. Kelly,
I downloaded and read this report.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG819.pdf
I was unable to determine when the report was commissioned. Would you be able to share that information?
Thank you,
The name and address for contact was listed in the report.
Auto reply.
Quote:
I am on travel with limited access to email. If you need help immediately, please contact my colleague Maria Falvo at mfalvo@rand.org, or 412-683-2300 X4906.
TK
_
-
Glad to see some thought put into this.
So, Who's gonna lead it?
-
I'm figuring on working off "Stored fat" as well.
What I would expect is irate armed citizens congregating at their state capitals, and dragging out the State legislatures first after the Police or National Guard are sicced on them, and whether or not those groups will resist or join the rebellion will in all cases be a coin toss. After that the Rebels will need to install an interim state government, and organize the forces at hand, first for defense, then to work toward supporting fellow Patriots in surrounding states.
For example, Maine, NH and Vermont would probably fall fairly quickly, once we consolidated our own position we could either move to assist Mass in the (Second ) siege of Boston (actually the Metro area ) or launch a strike into upstate NY to (yet again ) sweep down the Hudson Valley to isolate NYC.
The elimination of those 2 strategic points would free up
Most of the East coast as far west as the Illinois state line, between Canada and Fl. there would only be the tri state Enclave of NJ Del. and ML (including DC).
What I just outlined is exactly the same strategic situation that faced Washington, during the first. revolution.
The three key points East of the Mississippi are Boston, NYC and the Chesapeake bay region. The Key areas West of the Mississippi would be the LA and San Francisco Metro plexes causing West Coast liberalism to collapse while moving to pick off a totally isolated Chicago.
"Sonny, how many times have I told you, never tell anyone outside the family what you're thinking"
- Don Vito Corleone
8)
-
Not telling any secrets here, just look at where the Socialists cluster, Obama only took cities in the election for starters, secondly, the circumstances that made Boston, NY and the Chesapeake key areas in Washington's day have only intensified since. Those 3 areas contain all the major shipping, rail, highway and air hubs north of Charlotte.
The 2 I picked on the West Coast are the same and contain about 1/2 of the west coasts population.
As to who will lead it, Who knows, hopefully the situation will produce the man. Washington's record was rather spotty before the Revolution but he rose to the occasion.
-
Another "survivalist" disagrees with this idea. (This guy isn't a conspiracy juny who sees black hellicopters at night.)
http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/episode-336-listener-questions-and-feedback-for-12-14-09 (http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/episode-336-listener-questions-and-feedback-for-12-14-09)