They are pushing this country to Civil War and Obama knows it. Why else would he swear in on Abraham Lincoln's bible?

He wants to take over the US and doesn't want states anymore, He just wants to make the USA just America. He is a dictator plain and simple. Fortunately I don't think very many people are going to play along with his plan.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
They are pushing this country to Civil War and Obama knows it. Why else would he swear in on Abraham Lincoln's bible?

He wants to take over the US and doesn't want states anymore, He just wants to make the USA just America. He is a dictator plain and simple. Fortunately I don't think very many people are going to play along with his plan.

I think too many people are relying too heavily on the last line of your post. The problem is, when the change happens and The United States of America is no longer, it won't come all at once with troops lining the streets... it will be in the little dribs and drabs, like we've been seeing in the last decade or so. And each and every time, the majority of the American public will be supporting those moves in the name of "safety," "security," and "for the better good." It'll all be over before anyone is even aware of it... and those of us who are aware and who have been shouting out about the end of our Republic will be silenced, disarmed, and shuffled away as they criminalize what is currently still legal and cast suspicion and label "domestic terrorist" on all we hold dear and believe in.

These things are already happening, and the pace is quickening. Every day, this country is further divided into little groups... red/blue, liberal/conservative, white/black/latino, christian/muslim/jew, elites/commoners, rich/poor, gay/straight, etc., etc., etc. What is easier to take over and rule? A united populace with a common goal and purpose or a bunch of smaller groups who can't get along with their neighbors, their family members, etc.? As petty hatreds and mistrust begin to take over, the social order will continue to break down. Martial law is right around the corner.

As unemployment continues to take hold, and private healthcare is centralized, many of these groups become more and more dependent on the Federal Government... a government that they'll think twice about questioning if they want to be cared for when they're sick, if they want to eat, if they want to house and protect their loved ones.

Read Stephen King's Needful Things (or see the movie.) It is a perfect microcosm showing how easy it is to take down an idealic community through subtle and simple manipulation behind the scenes. Move a few pieces into place, set a stage, and let momentum take care of the rest.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
This comes at a time when President Obama PROMISED to bring our troops home, yet instead the National Guards, which are used for emergency situations in the U.S., and sometimes when necessary for a large war if the President thinks we need them. But in this case, the oposite is happening. There are hardly any battles in Iraq anymore. in Afghanistan thinks might escalate but not to the point that so many National Guards are needed. IMO SOMETHING is about to happen.

I think you make a very valid and very important point here. This logic needs to be investigated in depth, and shared with everyone who will listen. This needs to be pointed out again and again. Questions need to be asked and conclusions need to be drawn. People need to ask WHY their National Guard, the force in place to protect that state in times of emergency, are being removed from those states.

Let's take a giant, but logical, leap here and say that federal troops DO roll into a city or state based on some "emergency", real or manufactured. How does a deployed National Guard return home to protect their state? Aren't they dependent on Federal contractors to get them back home? Don't they take orders from Federal officers in the field when they are overseas? If the US Military, under orders from their Commander In Chief, wants to take something, they can also prevent their defense force from trying to defend it.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
The largest deployment of National Guards in a time when we don't really need to do that, meanwhile the Obama administration is making radical changes in the U.S. to the point that he is not upholding, and defending the Constitution anymore, to me it means they might be about to do something to further restrict our rights, and instead of calling the National Guard, They will call in "Blackwater" which uses and has used "mercenaries" to do their job.
I hope I am wrong.

As AJ and others have shown, they've had foreign troops training "in cooperation" with American authorities for awhile now. When the time comes they will be the ones in your streets under the guise of a UN peacekeeping force, and they will most likely drop you in a heartbeat, opposed to the high number of US soldiers who wouldn't. They want as few US soldiers operating here as possible. And yes, I'm sure they'll be plenty of mercenaries running rampant as well, raping (your wife, daughter, g/f) and pillaging at will.

Peace

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Dr Love]

some states such as New York, a trained militia?

Neither the NYS State Guard or the NYS State Naval Militia are combat capable and neither are the vast majority of the 30 odd state/territorial defense forces. The only ones that are combat capable are the Puerto Rico Territorial Guard and the American Samoa Insular Guard Force due to the isolated locations of most US territories and/or the lack of a permanent regular military garrison.

That being said, if the US military were ordered against the American people they would be more likely to stage a military coup and overthrow Obama then they would be to attack their own people. Hence the reason why Obama wants his "Civilian National Security Force" to act his private army.

Originally posted by Dr LoveAs AJ and others have shown, they've had foreign troops training "in cooperation" with American authorities for awhile now. When the time comes they will be the ones in your streets under the guise of a UN peacekeeping force, and they will most likely drop you in a heartbeat, opposed to the high number of US soldiers who wouldn't. They want as few US soldiers operating here as possible. And yes, I'm sure they'll be plenty of mercenaries running rampant as well, raping (your wife, daughter, g/f) and pilaging at will.

Peace

This is true... but remember that the troops at Kent State didn't seem to hesitate opening fire on a bunch of unarmed college kids.

Originally posted by ChrisF231
That being said, if the US military were ordered against the American people they would be more likely to stage a military coup and overthrow Obama then they would be to attack their own people. Hence the reason why Obama wants his "Civilian National Security Force" to act his private army.

You are correct in thinking that Obama's force is his ace in the hole if it needs to go in that direction, but at risk of beating a dead horse, there are plenty of examples of military and law enforcement opening fire on their own given the proper circumstances.

Sure, you will have trouble getting troops to fire on "peaceful protesters made up of a bunch of moms and dads;" but what if that assembled mob is labeled as "domestic terrorists?" What if a number of crimes have been attributed to the terrorists and the suspicion of far worse is at hand? At that point, it doesn't matter if your compound is full of women and children, agressive action will take place... just ask the Branch Davidians.

I asked my brother when all this war got started 'why are they sending in the national guard' his reply was 'cause they want to leave our states unguarded'.

Sending in the Merc's was to protect the oil fields and if the Merc's got into trouble, the blame would be placed on the National Guard, and that's how i see it.

Any State that impose a threat to the aganda, that states National Guard is sent to Iraq, weakening that state to protect itself.

Am i far off base here..........?

Originally posted by larphillips

This is true... but remember that the troops at Kent State didn't seem to hesitate opening fire on a bunch of unarmed college kids.

Nor did they have any qualms about shooting a little boy (Sam) in the back as he ran away and that boys mother (Vicki) in the face as she cradled her baby in Idaho.

I'm sure way more feds will stay loyal to the man rather than the country than we'd like to think.

Think about how many feds and guardsmen there are. Then think about how rarely they are actually called upon and how relatively few of them are ever involved. And still, in that small pool of feds, they manage to commit ridiculous atrocities on the American people. The more feds that are activated the more psychos will be shooting little kids in the back and getting away with it.

The ones who arent looking at you down the sights of their rifles will just be pretending to side with you long enough to make the arrest or shoot you themselves as we learned with the Browns.

Can't trust any of them and the risk of attempting to far outweighs any potential benefits.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Not to mention if there was another terrorist attack on this country(god forbid) over half the country would instantly turn on the government.

Good points all.

But what if that next terrorist act were blamed on "domestic terrorists?" Would the country turn on the government in an instant? Doubtful. Would the masses beg, BEG, the government to crack down and take away more of our freedoms? You bet. I think the stage is being set.

Oh, and Koresh may or may not have been a fruit loop (I lean towards may, but that is only if the information released about him was 100% true), but does that justify a full scale, heavily armed assault where women and children were KNOWN to be?

Originally posted by Dr Love

As AJ and others have shown, they've had foreign troops training "in cooperation" with American authorities for awhile now. When the time comes they will be the ones in your streets under the guise of a UN peacekeeping force, and they will most likely drop you in a heartbeat, opposed to the high number of US soldiers who wouldn't. They want as few US soldiers operating here as possible. And yes, I'm sure they'll be plenty of mercenaries running rampant as well, raping (your wife, daughter, g/f) and pillaging at will.

Peace

You are right, and that's exactly what I have been thinking. They want as few National Guards to be in the states as possible, just so they can use mercs and even foreign troops.

The thing is I was talking about this in these forum back in 2004, yet almost no members believed this would be possible.

I even made a prediction that TPTB would cause problems to the point that many Americans would resort to violence, and in order to stop this TPTB would bring in UN troops, and other troops from Russia, and even maybe China to quell American citizens.

It is a shame that this possibility is becoming a reality every day that passes. I really hoped, and still hope to be wrong.