Anti Obama Marines.

[BlueShoe]

There has been some speculation about the possibility of Barack Obama declaring martial law or assuming near dictatorial powers. He almost surely has assumed and taken for granted that the Armed Forces would support such action and blindly follow orders in suppressing any uprisings or civil disorders. Perhaps he should not have. It is a historical fact that in any large scale uprising or unheaval the armed forces will splinter and disolve into factions. Have always known that there is widespread dislike of Obama among our military forces, but the story at the link surprised even myself. Marines outspokenly stating that they will not obey Obama if he gives unlawful orders, and reminding of the oath that every service member swears to; defend against enemies both foreign and domestic. If these sentiments are common in the Corp, surely they are also widespread in the other four branches of our forces. Worth while reading the comments after the article, most are pro, a few are anti. Is the sergeant advocating mutiny, exercising free speech, or expounding on Constitutional law?
www.militarytimes.com/blogs/battle-rattle/2012/03/19/behind-the-cover-anti-obama-marines/ (http://www.militarytimes.com/blogs/battle-rattle/2012/03/19/behind-the-cover-anti-obama-marines/)

[johnhannibalsmith]

The Marine Corps on Wednesday notified a sergeant who has been openly critical of President Barack Obama that he is violating Pentagon policy barring troops from political activities and that he faces dismissal.

Camp Pendleton Marine Sgt. Gary Stein started a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party to encourage fellow service members to exercise their free speech rights. He declared a few weeks ago that he would not follow the unlawful orders of the commander in chief. Stein also criticized Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for his comments on Syria.


http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-marine-critical-obama-faces-charge-012104515.html

[Let's Roll]

There is a like minded group out there called "Oath Keepers", been around for 3 years already...

http://www.lvrj.com/news/oath-keepers-pledges-to-prevent-dictatorship-in-united-states-64690232.html

Interesting comments below the article.

[cj's dad]

According to the article, of the 792 active-duty troops and mobilized reservists who responded to this year's Military Times Poll, 44 percent said that they disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job as commander in chief.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/marine-times-investigates-anti-obama-marines/438681

[lsbets]

According to the article, of the 792 active-duty troops and mobilized reservists who responded to this year's Military Times Poll, 44 percent said that they disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job as commander in chief.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/marine-times-investigates-anti-obama-marines/438681

There is a difference between not approving of the President's job performance and saying you won't follow his orders. There are some circumstances where an order would be obviously wrong. In that case it is the service members obligation to disregard the order. But when I have seen these oath keeper guys, they are not talking about those situations. They are talking about them getting to decide which orders to follow and which ones not to. No organization, let along no military, can function that way. As far as I am concerned membership in the oath keepers should be grounds for UCMJ action, just as gang membership is. There's a saying in the military - we are here to defend democracy, not practice it.

[cj's dad]

The link I posted didn't mention the "oath keepers".

I think it is significant that of 794 who responded to the Marine Times poll, 349 felt his "performance" as CIC was unfavorable.

[lsbets]

The link I posted didn't mention the "oath keepers".

I think it is significant that of 794 who responded to the Marine Times poll, 349 felt his "performance" as CIC was unfavorable.

I know it didn't, they were mentioned earlier in this thread. I was pointing out the difference between not approving of his job performance and what they do.

[FantasticDan]

There has been some speculation about the possibility of Barack Obama declaring martial law or assuming near dictatorial powers. Most right-thinking, not-at-all-batshit-crazy Americans already see this as an inevitability, and all that remains now is speculation that when it comes time to make the glorious announcement, Obama might choose to wear a red dress, and one of these Grand-Poobah style helmets..

http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/fiction/fraternities/flintstones.jpg

[BlueShoe]

Most right-thinking, not-at-all-batshit-crazy Americans already see this as an inevitability, and all that remains now is speculation that when it comes time to make the glorious announcement, Obama might choose to wear a red dress, and one of these Grand-Poobah style helmets..

Not a dress, but red is certainly the correct color. No, he should obtain an old Soviet uniform, circa 1980's. To match his ideology and new position, the uniform of a Red Army field marshall of that era would be most appropriate, don't you think?

[boxcar]

There is a difference between not approving of the President's job performance and saying you won't follow his orders. There are some circumstances where an order would be obviously wrong. In that case it is the service members obligation to disregard the order. But when I have seen these oath keeper guys, they are not talking about those situations. They are talking about them getting to decide which orders to follow and which ones not to. No organization, let along no military, can function that way. As far as I am concerned membership in the oath keepers should be grounds for UCMJ action, just as gang membership is. There's a saying in the military - we are here to defend democracy, not practice it.

Yes, LS, here to defend democracy against enemies from within and without. When the government is the domestic enemy, what's a girl to do? Or for that matter her boyfriend in the USMC? ;)

Boxcar

[FantasticDan]

Not a dress, but red is certainly the correct color. No, he should obtain an old Soviet uniform, circa 1980's. To match his ideology and new position, the uniform of a Red Army field marshall of that era would be most appropriate, don't you think?Hmm, not bad, but the speculation is still saying a dress.. maybe a compromise?

http://filmmusic.ru/images/Command_Conquer_Red_Alert_3.jpg

[Tom]

Germany has a savior in 1933.
He was a sure fire fix to re-build Germany.

How'd that work out for them?

[PaceAdvantage]

Most right-thinking, not-at-all-batshit-crazy Americans already see this as an inevitability, and all that remains now is speculation that when it comes time to make the glorious announcement, Obama might choose to wear a red dress, and one of these Grand-Poobah style helmets..

http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/fiction/fraternities/flintstones.jpgI know exactly how you feel. I felt the same when some left-leaners on here kept telling us that GWB was going to turn the USA into a theocracy,... :lol:

[boxcar]

I know exactly how you feel. I felt the same when some left-leaners on here kept telling us that GWB was going to turn the USA into a theocracy,... :lol:

The Dems' Kool-Aid induced delusions about Bush's "theocracy" is one thing, but when we have left wing radicals on record as wanting to bring down the economic system, and Soros a self-proclaimed god, who has a history of doing just that in other countries, is behind them and Obama supports these leftwing nutjobs -- then that's something else entirely. And then for good measure toss into this mix that this is one lawless regime -- well, what great recipe for a national disaster!

Boxcar

[canleakid]

An officers worst nightmare "dissension amongst the ranks" cannot and will not be tolerated ever!!!!!!!!!!. :ThmbUp:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/06/11050149-military-board-tea-party-marine-who-slammed-obama-on-facebook-should-be-dismissed

[GameTheory]

We were *supposed* to get a "false flag" (is that the term?) event late in the Bush term that would allow him and/or Cheney to take power indefinitely. There were lots of people *positive* that it would happen.

The fact that there are large groups of people that believe such nonsense (even if only for a short-time, because the predicted events do not occur) worries me more than any particular occupant of the White House.

[rastajenk]

I heard that kind of stuff at the end of Clinton's tenure as well, on Art Bell or some similar repository of black helicopter-and-railroad yard internment camps in Indianapolis conspiracy theories. I'd guess it's been going on longer than that.

[PaceAdvantage]

I heard that kind of stuff at the end of Clinton's tenure as well, Being a bit of a conspiracy buff myself, I remember reading all sorts of websites in the late 90s that were talking about exactly that...it's been around for a long time...