I actually hope Obama does try to remain in power. I think the US reaction would be so negative, no progressive would survive the backlash. Elizabeth Warren and Hillary would be done, and ObamaCare would be overhauled.

Exactly - and Rickover is a good example of an exception. I agree also about the US military backing the Constitution.

At every reenlistment or Officer Promotion the Oath of Office is recited again, and in it we all swear to "Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic." Before I administered the oath at a recent officer promotion I made the not to subtle point about it being hard to tell exactly who those domestic enemies might be.

Mike Mullen was the Bush/Obama transitional Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and was CNO (O10) prior. Next Chairman will likely going to be the present CNO as well. Both four stars before Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I suspect there are others. Is that what you mean about being an O10 before being appointed.

Adm Rickover is a great example of a four star promoted and protected by Congress, not driven the executive branch. Only when that protection waned and SecDef/SecNav disagree with Rickover, did Reagan decide it was time for a change.

Besides, It will take a whole lot more than 20 four stars to get the US military to back Obama against the Constitution and a majority of the US people (who I assert will not support him staying in office).

Who do you think makes the recommendations? In the 50 + years I've been affiliated with the military, I have learned the for the most part congress rubber stamps the administration's proposed promotion list. Yes it could refuse someone a promotion, but I've never even heard of that happening. The administration gets its 'suggested' promotion list from the military itself via recommendation boards - a system that works reasonably well for ranks below the flag ranks. While there are still recommendation boards for flag rank officers, politics plays a much greater part. While General Daniel "Chappie" James is a personal hero to me, and one of the finest officers ever to hold the 4 star rank (IMO), he was not selected for Brigadier General until the USAF decided it wanted a black General to command the AFB in Lybia to deal with Muammar Gaddafi. (this is according to his biography.) My point is that for good or bad, promotions at that level are driven by politics. There can be 20 four star officers equally qualified to be the next Chief of Staff and the job will go to the officer the Commander in Chief likes the best. And having the job of Chief of Staff is rarely (never in my memory) a promotion as that job is filled from among those already holding the four star rank.

Hello JoleneMartens1982,
I don't think he can pull it off. There are too many tyrants in the wings ready to pull the strings of the next puppet. It is to their benefit to keep the charade of a government for and by the people going. If by some chance we get an honest person of integrity that truly respects our Constitution and founding principles in the White House in the next election he or she better wear bullet proof underwear.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Officers promotions are an act of congress not an executive power. Not there with you.

He'll become the leader of the UN...haha...

You have put into words what I could not.

There would be hell to pay if this presidential creature tried that crap. I think those in control; (money is only a medium of exchange) would try a new puppet...I agree with you in that extent. I am concerned with the big picture here; 1) we have more than a consensus, 2) Can we as a people come together and overwhelmingly over power the cheating that is prevalent in the NWO Kakistocracys' attempts to take over the world. I ask only because I see many rifts in the plans of mice but not of men and by nature, would at least Hope for the best...but not blindly so.

In any compromise between freedom & tyranny, it is only tyranny that advances, however light that “tyranny” may be considered to be at the moment.

There is something I have to learn from the group. My personal philosophy is and incentive based model of human nature. For me it works well to predict people's actions, governmental actions, even picking stocks that fall into the consumer cycle. What I don't understand about the uber rich or Bilderberg's or whoever "they are" that pull the strings is why?

the rich, want to be richer. I make that assumption because of where they are and the life momentum that got them there. What is the incentive for them to rule over a world full of needy non productive people? It seems to me a productive population would produce more of what the wealthy are motivated by.

I understand there may be a group of folks that yearn for power. The trouble with that assumption is where is the world wide group that yearns to be ruled over by a tyrant(s)? Each city, state, local, and federal government in the world would have to surrender their sovereignty to the rulers of the 1 world order. I can't see that happening. The former USSR came as close to 1 world government as anyone and ultimately found our that the Slavs and Ukrainians preferred to be independent. Even Putin's recent moves don't change the sentiment on the ground. In America we can't even agree on which states should have medical pot, let alone all of us sign up to be ruled over by some UN envoy.

So, if there is no election and I don't get to see President Rand Paul appoint Judge Anthony Napoletano to the Supreme court, what indication is there that all of USA's sheople will follow along? The government would need two troopers (or more) at every door to sustain a Nationwide Marshall law. They can't do that. It seems more likely the dense coastal areas would long for the government largess, and the fly over state may revolt. Educate me please. what am I missing in this urban legend of one world order?

It is not Obama we have to worry about. It's government in all of its forms and those of our neighbors, friends, and even family that make themselves a part of that government overclass. Are we worse off than we were before Obama was elected, yes-- but we were also worse off after Bush was elected, and Clinton, and Bush 1, and those before them.

Obama is simply the spokesman (talking head) for those that truly run the government and make all of the important decisions, those that hide in the shadows behind their elected and appointed political figureheads. As long as we sanction the millions of individual Americans that make up our government and what they do to us, we can expect no significant change, except probably worse offense against us.

BHO is a puppet of big bucks and they desperately want Hillary to
succeed him so that we don't need a fascist takeover, IMHO.
there would probably be a host of armed bikers and the like
who would descent on D.C. if martial law were attempted. -- j
.

I continue to believe that Obama does intend such a takeover, but he is running out of time in which to do it. What he needs is a "Reichstag fire", some event which (in the minds of gullible TV viewers) would justify his imposing martial law. A violent response by armed civilians to law enforcement actions such as those in Ferguson, Baltimore, or at the Bundy Ranch would have given him that incident. Since that didn't happen, he will continue to try to provoke one by encouraging similar outrages until the day he leaves office.

Is Obama a tyrant? A resounding YES. Is there the potential that he could exploit or even foment instability in the general populace to initiate a military-style takeover under martial law? I don't see why not other than many of the people I know in the military would reject any kind of attempt at this. I think he could subject many of the more liberal states, but he would in reality start another civil war if he did.

If only the military would not support him. I would not bet on that - 4 Stars got those stars by kissing his butt.

You mean in his motherland?

No, it can't happen. There are too many of us that won't let that happen. If you thing there are crazies out there in this country, just go ahead and make an official proposal that the US is going to do this.

But then again, I just heard a part of a story on some idiot wanting to tax each firearm $25 and each and every round of ammo another 5 cents. Are you kidding me? It's got something to do with preventing crime? Oh well, it's probably some liberal moron perhaps in New York or Chicago coming up with that scheme.

Oh shit (please excuse the expression) it's closer to home that I expected, it's in Seattle. http://www.king5.com/story/news/local... Thank goodness I live on the other side of Lake Washington, on the Eastside, our nut jobs aren't as bad as the nut jobs on the other side of the lake, or are they? What if this spreads to New York, Chicago, or perhaps Philadelphia, or Houston? Get out of my life, leave me alone. How about another new automobile tax to prevent automobile accidents. That would "save" more people than a stupid gun and ammo tax. I wonder what the penalty will be if you shoot someone with a round that the tax wasn't paid on?

Well I said it can't happen, there are too many of us that just won't let it. But then again, I heard only part of a story on the radio this morning about someone's plan to tax every gun $25, and each round of ammo another 5 cents. I hope I get to hear the rest of that story someday. It had something to do with "reducing crime". Maybe it's not here, maybe it is.......doesn't matter to me, I'm old enough I don't care what they do to me, maybe I'll just become a martyr.

Oh shit (please excuse the expression), it's in Seattle. http://www.king5.com/story/news/local... Thank God I don't live in Seattle. I wonder if this insanity could spread across the lake to the Eastside, or perhaps even to New York or Texas?

I don't expect him to be dictator. The powers that be probably want to maintain the image of free and fair elections and that the people actually decide who the President is.

I think JoleneMartens is correct. It is crucial to not break the image. The pattern that I see is an increasing doublethink that changes, for example, 'rights' to mean 'endowments'. If the facade were to be destroyed, there would be too great a chance of a major outcry and a possible reaction that would undo all of the gains that socialism has made.

The only way that the image of the US could be maintained to its own citizens, and the POTUS remain longer in place than his proper term, would be if a series of 9/11 type incidents happened right at election time. Even then, I think it would just reset the elections a few months into the future - which makes that scenario one that would not be worth artificially generating.

Jan

1+ for a funny, funny dino.

Jan