It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A covert coup? The U.S. Is at war with itself.

page: 5
48
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I've long held that the only way to fix our government is to tear it down to nothing, and rebuild. It is too big and corrupt to address parts of it individually. The beast won't allow its arm to be cut off any more than you or I would. But the military is another issue.


Interesting you bring that up, because the military or more specifically defense is the biggest sector in our government, responsible for 9 million contractor between the direct and indirect work and another 2.5 million are soldiers. That's 11.5 million in the US employed by defense, considering we only have something like 147 million workers or so, that's 7.5% of our economy. Manufacturing, Retail, and Health Care are the only things that surpass that. And that has been changing every single year.


With a very broad "there are many limits and details to this statement"...I'm not totally opposed to the idea of the military taking over, or removing our government so long as the plan includes the rebuilding afterwards back to a Constitutional, law-abiding and incorruptible government. And before anyone bitches...yes...incorruptible is impossible, but there are many safe-guards I'd love to see imposed that would be impossible today.


What parts of the government are unconstitutional today? Can you prove it? If you can prove it, it's an easy court case to win. It has been my experience that people who scream for constitutionality haven't actually read the document. They've been told what it says, and what to think about it. The constitution claims federal jurisdiction over all business in the US that it deems beneficial to the nation. It tells Congress to do what they see fit. And it says, do whatever the times require, but make sure you always do/don't do x, y, and z. Oh, and somewhere in there it forgets to include that you have a right to vote too (seriously, read it... there is no right to vote in the Constitution or in any amendments).


Politicians campaign promises are converted into an employment contract before they take office. They sign the contract and if they don't work toward the promises they were elected to execute...they can be fired.


This doesn't work in political positions, because if I'm the opposition party, I'm going to steadfastly oppose every single policy the President proposes to make good on his promises. If I do this, I get a member of the other party out of office, and get the chance to reelect my own person. This would create a massive degeneration in Washington.



Term limits for all and much shorter ones. Personally I'd love to see a one or two year draft from the people of their representatives to avoid any career politicians. But I would settle for "you can be a politician once and for no more than two years" type rule.


So you think the most important jobs in our society should be filled by people who have no job experience, and no time to get that job experience?

Putting that aside, don't you think that would lead to an unstable country as everyone is out after a couple years? America would hold no consistent foreign policy, long term strategies, or even basic laws. They would all change quickly as the political winds blow and people leave office.


I'd love to see a "no lies" clause for all politicians. From the date they take office they will be considered under oath when addressing the people or their peers. If they knowingly lie...they can and will be removed from office. "You can keep your Doctor" type protection.


I assume that means you would give them a team of lawyers to write every word on their speeches? I assume you would also be ready for the rearrangement which would occur, that would result in several offices to oversee sectors that are appointed and don't report to the president, but rather function autonomously? That way the President could be insulated from that.


If a politician does not support the law, or if he/she breaks or doesn't enforce the law...they WILL BE removed from office. Period! I want to have respect for my leaders...not loathe them.


Law is just a guideline of what you should do. It's every citizens duty to break bad laws. Politicians not enforcing bad laws is how you get them stricken from the books.



Big one here...the role of politicians should be as employees OF THE PEOPLE. They are interviewed, hired and fired based upon their actions or in-actions. Standard holidays, vacations, etc.


Isn't this up to the voters?




posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

It appears that you have faith in our present form of government's behavior and intentions. Many are of the opinion that the oligarchy which has now fully replaced what once resembled a democratic republic has absolutely no interest whatsoever in the public's well-being and literally zero percent concern with regards to legitimate justice.
edit on 25-12-2015 by humanityrising because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
You have to look at the factions that are parts of the American power landscape.

You have the neocons, the globalists, and Zionists who all have agendas.

The globalists outwardly say Obama should have made a pact with Syria. The neocons want a war with Syria, and the Zionists want what Israel wants.

Each has a great influence on Obama and of the three the globalists may be hiding their true intention.

Often the neocons and Zionists are merged such as in Hillary Clinton but Hillary also serves the globalists.

You have to serve one or two or all of them or you won’t enter the White House as president.

If Trump thinks he can do that then he’s delusional.

Hillary is likely the next president because she serves all three loyally.

Trump is likely hiding his loyalty and most likely he is allighned closely with the globalists though he hasn’t played his hand as yet.

He's deliberately hiding his preferences



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: humanityrising
a reply to: Aazadan

It appears that you have faith in our present form of government's behavior and intentions. Many are of the opinion that the oligarchy which has now fully replaced what once resembled a democratic republic has absolutely no interest whatsoever in the public's well-being and literally zero percent concern with regards to legitimate justice.


There's problems in our government but it's really not that bad once you stop getting involved in the politics of the moment and start looking at issues on a 10+ year scale rather than who said what in the past week.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I've long held that the only way to fix our government is to tear it down to nothing, and rebuild. It is too big and corrupt to address parts of it individually. The beast won't allow its arm to be cut off any more than you or I would. But the military is another issue.


Interesting you bring that up, because the military or more specifically defense is the biggest sector in our government, responsible for 9 million contractor between the direct and indirect work and another 2.5 million are soldiers. That's 11.5 million in the US employed by defense, considering we only have something like 147 million workers or so, that's 7.5% of our economy. Manufacturing, Retail, and Health Care are the only things that surpass that. And that has been changing every single year.


With a very broad "there are many limits and details to this statement"...I'm not totally opposed to the idea of the military taking over, or removing our government so long as the plan includes the rebuilding afterwards back to a Constitutional, law-abiding and incorruptible government. And before anyone bitches...yes...incorruptible is impossible, but there are many safe-guards I'd love to see imposed that would be impossible today.


What parts of the government are unconstitutional today? Can you prove it? If you can prove it, it's an easy court case to win. It has been my experience that people who scream for constitutionality haven't actually read the document. They've been told what it says, and what to think about it. The constitution claims federal jurisdiction over all business in the US that it deems beneficial to the nation. It tells Congress to do what they see fit. And it says, do whatever the times require, but make sure you always do/don't do x, y, and z. Oh, and somewhere in there it forgets to include that you have a right to vote too (seriously, read it... there is no right to vote in the Constitution or in any amendments).


Politicians campaign promises are converted into an employment contract before they take office. They sign the contract and if they don't work toward the promises they were elected to execute...they can be fired.


This doesn't work in political positions, because if I'm the opposition party, I'm going to steadfastly oppose every single policy the President proposes to make good on his promises. If I do this, I get a member of the other party out of office, and get the chance to reelect my own person. This would create a massive degeneration in Washington.



Term limits for all and much shorter ones. Personally I'd love to see a one or two year draft from the people of their representatives to avoid any career politicians. But I would settle for "you can be a politician once and for no more than two years" type rule.


So you think the most important jobs in our society should be filled by people who have no job experience, and no time to get that job experience?

Putting that aside, don't you think that would lead to an unstable country as everyone is out after a couple years? America would hold no consistent foreign policy, long term strategies, or even basic laws. They would all change quickly as the political winds blow and people leave office.


I'd love to see a "no lies" clause for all politicians. From the date they take office they will be considered under oath when addressing the people or their peers. If they knowingly lie...they can and will be removed from office. "You can keep your Doctor" type protection.


I assume that means you would give them a team of lawyers to write every word on their speeches? I assume you would also be ready for the rearrangement which would occur, that would result in several offices to oversee sectors that are appointed and don't report to the president, but rather function autonomously? That way the President could be insulated from that.


If a politician does not support the law, or if he/she breaks or doesn't enforce the law...they WILL BE removed from office. Period! I want to have respect for my leaders...not loathe them.


Law is just a guideline of what you should do. It's every citizens duty to break bad laws. Politicians not enforcing bad laws is how you get them stricken from the books.



Big one here...the role of politicians should be as employees OF THE PEOPLE. They are interviewed, hired and fired based upon their actions or in-actions. Standard holidays, vacations, etc.


Isn't this up to the voters?

To be short...yes...I stand by every example of cleaning up our government that you addressed. Yes...I don't want career politicians. Yes...I'd prefer an educated citizen over a politician. Yes...the people should decide if politicians should be employees...and I believe the majority would say YES. I'm sure if you and I had hours to discuss this, you would agree with parts of what I would like and I would concede to a number of details. But what we have isn't working. What we have is people with no fear or concern of the people, doing many things the people don't want at prices they don't want. We have given near absolute power to individuals to control our lives. Much like a senior who can no longer care for themselves...to spend our money as they see fit...etc. We are not invalids. We have given too much power to a group who has become power hungry. It should be fixed.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

You think there are only three factions in the United States government? Every department is home to a plethora of private empires, each trying to get its agenda on the table, or at least fighting to survive the next round of budget cuts.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if there were perhaps more than just a little bit of friction building up between the politicians and some within the military, specifically, those who are sick of simply being the expendable enforcers of the political geopolitical craziness and able ti think things through with some common sense.

I always thought there was something rather stinky surrounding the whole Benghazi debacle. For instance, US consular security seems to normally be the duty of the military, with USMC guards and backup in case something goes crappy.
In this instance though, the State Department provided it's own mercenary guard force. My personal opinion, it was nothing more than an off the books operation and likely, as has been talked about many times before, responsible for running fighters and weapons from Libya to Syria. Under such circumstances, they'd sure not want the military around asking questions!
It would also explain the lack of military backup when they were attacked. Someone making a point perhaps and telling Clinton, it's a State Department op, you're on your own on this one!



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
why does any of this suprise anyone anymore



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

That's an easy fix. Elect the people that are trying to make government work, don't elect the people that run on a campaign of fixing a broken government by breaking it further and disempowering it by making it dysfunctional.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




who deserve to be tried for treason?


trying, trying....thats all we ever see. Now if only there was an actual indictment, an actual fair court, an unbribale jury...something may change...I think I'm dreaming



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Son of Will




but almost every veteran I know (who is, let's say, over 30) is a down-to-earth, reasonable, worldly person. The younger generation are mostly gung-ho morons


Over 30? OK that means born prior to 1985? So they went to Vietnam and Korea to fight a "just War". What you gonna blame that there was no internet then? There were still books, Kent State University assassination of students, JFK's warnings, My Lai massacre, Jonestown massacre and the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan, countless massacres within the regional USA of indegenous peoples using the military. Its all history if you care to look.

You may call it "gung-ho" of the younger generation; you conveniently overlook the fact that the military takes you and trains you to do its bidding...your past ethics or morals are of no consequence. You are there to obey. The saddest part is after all that they come back wounded and have to fight for compensation breadcrumbs and try to reintergrate back into society.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7




The military stops errant ideas all the time ,I have no links off hand but I am aware the last 3 presidents wanted Iran and the military said no


Do you realize how that sounds to the rest of the World? A squabble as to yea or nay...
a squabble between a commander in chief and the military whose sole purpose was to defend the realm from enemies foreign or domestic....

never mind the fact that they are sovereign nations...or there are "real humans at the end of
those cross hairs...why let that inconvenient fact get in the way...


The Military Brass and the Military Industrial Corps and their lobbyists are in bed together - revolving door and all that. The whole is tainited from the top down.

Was there no military involved in "Iran Contra Noriega Oliver North" affair, just blame the CIA?



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Quite a good summary you have posted



Clinton sort of 'got it' when it came to foreign policy, but he was too paralyzed by his own personal transgressions to act

His foreign policy was self serving...
busy enjoying the millions shipped back yearly from Afghanistan in Drug money in body bags using military transporters and then there's Vincent Forster.....

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...


Like Clinton, Foster was from Hope, Ark. He worked for the Rose Law firm with Hillary Clinton. London Telegraph reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports a member of the Foster family has confirmed to him that Foster and Mrs. Clinton were lovers. Foster had intimate knowledge of the Clintons' personal finances. Foster was involved in an investigation of their finances, and reportedly made a phone call to Hillary Clinton, in Los Angeles, just hours before his death. Recently, the signed report of medical examiner Dr. Donald Haut was uncovered at the National Archives. It stated that Foster had a previously unreported gunshot wound to his neck


or

www.conspiracyschool.com... aine-and-bill-clinton


Part 2: The Money Trail How the CIA laundered millions in drug profits from Mena and paid for Clinton's 1992 election campaign. by John Dee * * * In part one of this article, we examined a CIA-supervised coc aine smuggling operation based during the '80s in Mena, Arkansas. We also detailed evidence of then-Governor Clinton's role in supressing evidnce, mishandling federal funds, even blocking a congressional level investigation into the affair. While Clinton's at-least tacit role in the Mena cover-up continues to this day (he has yet to authorize any investigation into the charges), behind the scenes are highly secretive, quasi-independent elements within the US intelligence community who are handling the actual machinery. In a high level deal between the National Security Council and the Medellin cartel, millions of dollars were paid to Felix Rodriguez, the CIA's commander at El Salvador's Ilopango Air Base, and others (including Manuel Noriega) in exchange for access to the CIA pipeline for Medellin coc aine. In this conclusion, we examine the secret network which laundered the Mena drug money. We also find that these same covert bankers, with close ties to BCCI, financed Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. [It should be noted that since the publication of part one, this writer has learned that Buddy Young was appointed by Pres. Clinton to head the Dallas Regional Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Young was Governor Clinton's chief of security



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Ever heard of the School of the Americas?
Theres where to start.

Just because we get some think tank pushing an idea onto a president doesn't mean our military can do it intact.
Apparently SAYING so has career killing consequences and the rats are leaving the ship as they have already BOOTED the ones with spines,thanks to Valerie.
edit on 31-12-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7




Ever heard of the School of the Americas? Theres where to start.


Yes and they played no small part in training dictators crown princes and the military. What you conveniently overlook again is that the world pays a big price.....

You fail to address the real tragic human cost or sovereignty as I outlined in my post.....


never mind the fact that they are sovereign nations...or there are "real humans at the end of those cross hairs...why let that inconvenient fact get in the way...


but we get it; you're from the US with a military background



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Here is yet another example of military obstruction against political errors.
joeforamerica.com...



new topics




 
48
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join