It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


If a coup d'etat could happen to the U.S. in the mid-1980s, what else are we missing?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:38 PM
reply to post by )=( )=(

You wouldnt even qualify to take the advice in my signature, so keep talking.

I was responding to something another person said about the title not matching the post. I wasnt explaining the OPs point to that poster, simply pointing out that what has happened in the US over time is sort of a coup d'etat.

So go have a doughnut, Homer, and calm yourself down. And, its generally poor form to quote the entire post of another poster, you can just quote the relevant portion before you add your mindless one liner.

posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:42 PM
reply to post by kozmo

I agree
Kennedy tried to break it and was trashed...
like Lincoln, and there are two other presidents ( I'd have to look up their names) who attempted and were assassinated ( I think ) going back to Jackson who did beat the bankers...

posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by kozmo

You could be right. I havent really explored that timeline in depth, and will now that you have brought it up.

There certainly has been a hijacking of our system, I have no problem believing it could have begun before Kennedy. Certainly when you look at case law, the twisting of the Constitution to suit powerful economic forces began almost before the ink was dry on the Constitution itself.

posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:52 PM

Here is a good summation going back to Jackson - it really is a running problem
they really did make it stick in 1913 though..I won't argue that

For what they did to Kennedy in front of the public - thats when they laid the coup right on the doorstep of the American people...and showed the whole world who the boss is openly

posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by Danbones

For what they did to Kennedy in front of the public - thats when they laid the coup right on the doorstep of the American people...and showed the whole world who the boss is openly

Exactly... it's the gigantic middle finger displayed to America... a clear message to anyone thinking they might perform the duties of the presidency as the American people would want.

posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by Danbones

For what they did to Kennedy in front of the public - thats when they laid the coup right on the doorstep of the American people...and showed the whole world who the boss is openly

Exactly... it's the gigantic middle finger displayed to America... a clear message to anyone thinking they might perform the duties of the presidency as the American people would want.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:56 AM
reply to post by kozmo

Yes the fincial coup was the worst of them all, Wilsons' farewell address said it all. If only people would have learned from history then...

They could have corrected it, the people were able and still are, just need to try. It will be too late by the time any one actually wakes up and rouses the sheeple...

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:59 AM
reply to post by ADVISOR

Advisor, wiser words were never spoken!
But put faith in mankind, we are awakening! The night is darkest before the dawn...

Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it, which is precisely why we are where we are today. This is also the reason that our institutions of "education" (Please read as "Indoctrination") practice such revisionist history. You can't necessarily place blame on the sum of mankind for they have been fooled and tricked by those whom they trust to teach them and lead them. But again, the masses are awakening and the insiders are scared to death as evidenced by their mad dash to complete their plans now - acting recklessly in the process - which only serves to create more awareness and awakening.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:08 AM
reply to post by Truth1000

The coup was 11/22/63. Everything since then is a direct result.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:29 AM
1913 was indeed the red letter year, but people always forget that other wholly unconstitutional amendment in 1913 as well...the 17th Amendment.

by allow the Senators to be directly elected by the people, the States lost their representation within the government. This effectively created a disconnect not only of State Sovereignty but forged a great disconnect between the State Legislature and Governor and the people.

See, in the past if a Senator was voting out of line of the majority of the people of his State, the people could inform the State politicians to reign the Senator in. Now that a Senator does not have to rely on the State to appoint (or in some states, confirm the appointment), the Senator does not have to follow the interests of the State that he represents.

The argument could always be made for politicians loyally following party lines as the beginning of the end (and I will support that one completely), but creating the disconnect in representation allowed for misrepresentation throughout the whole of the Federal government.

edit on by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:34 AM
Don't forget that Gerald Ford, a CONSENTING member to the Warren Commission, became President while neither elected as Vice-president or President. Nixon appointed him, and Ford paid back his mentor by pardoning all his sins. No one outside of Washington had a chance to vote for him to gain office.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by )=( )=(
That's what wrong with the country today - clearly you are uninformed
on current events.

Actually, what is wrong with the world is too many people are looking for something for nothing. Not enough are willing to work hard for what they have and more importantly, stand up to keep what they earned.

And that was a stupid thing to say.

If being called stupid by you is a badge of honor then I will take it.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:48 PM
reply to post by WATCHER.1

Just look at President Kennedy's NSAM 263 (21 NOV 63) and then look at President Johnson's NSAM 273 (26 NOV 63). The day before Kennedy was shot, we were removing troops from Vietnam. On the third full day as President, Johnson recommended "maintaining levels" in paragraph 6 to assure that programs do NOT drop below what was given the Diem Government. Then in paragraph 8 there is a plan for extending the area of action fifty miles into Loas. That would seem hard to do if planning a draw-down of forces.

Quite a change in policy for such a short timeframe, I would say.

Below are the copies of both NSAMs.



TO: Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

SUBJECT: South Vietnam

At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.
The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.




The Secretary of State
The Secretary of Defense
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Administrator, AID
The Director, USIA

The President has reviewed the discussions of South Vietnam which occurred in Honolulu, and has discussed the matter further with Ambassador Lodge. He directs that the following guidance be issued to all concerned:
1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The test of all U. S. decisions and actions in this area should be the effectiveness of their contribution to this purpose.

2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U. S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House state- ment of October 2, 1963.

3. It is a major interest of the United States Government that the present provisional government of South Vietnam should be assisted in consolidating itself and in holding and developing increased public support. All U.S. officers should conduct themselves width this objective in view.

4. The President expects that all senior officers of the Government will move energetically to insure the full unity of support for established U.S. policy in South Vietnam. Both in Washington and in the field, it is essential that the Government be unified. It is of particular importance that express or implied criticism of officers of other branches be scrupulously avoided in all contacts with the Vietnamese Government and with the press. More specifically, the President approves the following lines of action developed in the discussions of the Honolulu meeting, of November 20. The offices of the Government to which central responsibility is assigned are indicated in each case.

5. We should concentrate our own efforts, and insofar as possible we should persuade the Government of South Vietnam to concentrate its efforts, on the critical situation in the Mekong Delta. This concentra- tion should include not only military but political, economic, social, educational and informational effort. We should seek to turn the tide not only of battle but of belief, and we should seek to increase not only the control of hamlets but the productivity of this area, especially where the proceeds can be held for the advantage of anti-Communist forces.

(Action: The whole country team under the direct supervision of the Ambassador.)

6. Programs of military and economic assistance should be maintained at such levels that their magnitude and effectiveness in the eyes of the Vietnamese Government do not fall below the levels sustained by the United States in the time of the Diem Government. This does not exclude arrangements for economy on the MAP account with respect to accounting for ammunition, or any other readjustments which are possible as between MAP and other U. S. defense resources. Special attention should be given to the expansion of the import, distribution, and effective use of fertilizer for the Delta.

(Action: AID and DOD as appropriate. )

7. Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity, and in each instance there should be estimates of such factors as:

A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam;
B. The plausibility of denial;

C. Possible North Vietnamese retaliation;

D. Other international reaction.

Plans should be submitted promptly for approval by higher authority. (Action: State, DOD, and CIA. )
8. With respect to Laos, a plan should be a developed and submitted for approval by higher authority for military operations up to a line up to 50 kilometers inside Laos, together with political plans for minimizing the international hazards of such an enterprise. Since it is agreed that operational responsibility for such undertakings should pass from CAS to MACV, this plan should include a redefined method of political guidance for such operations, since their timing and character can have an intimate relation to the fluctuating situation in Laos.

(Action: State, DOD, and CIA.)

9. It was agreed in Honolulu that the situation in Cambodia is of the first importance for South Vietnam, and it is therefore urgent that we should lose no opportunity to exercise a favorable influence upon that country. In particular a plan should be developed using all available evidence and methods of persuasion for showing the Cambodians that the recent charges against us are groundless.

(Action: State.)

10. In connection with paragraphs 7 and 8 above, it is desired that we should develop as strong and persuasive a case as possible to demonstrate to the world the degree to which the Viet Cong is controlled, sustained and supplied from Hanoi, through Laos and other channels. In short, we need a more contemporary version of the Jorden Report, as powerful and complete as possible.

(Action: Department of State with other agencies as necessary.)

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:55 PM
So, in other words, once Kennedy was out of the way, someone else started calling the shots and reversed his decision about troop levels in Vietnam? And that may or may not have been Johnson?

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:09 PM

Now that the book INCUBUS is out, I can start posting more information than I have chosen to do in the past. The Joint Chiefs had a "special meeting" with Johnson the day after he became the new President. It just so happened, the JCS guys weren't the only ones there. They wanted to make it VERY clear to Johnson who was really running the show.

Look at NSAM 328, only 18 months after Kennedy was shot:

National Security Action Memorandum No. 328 a memorandum issued on April 6, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson that authorized the use of American combat troops in the Vietnam War. It included an approval for an 18–20,000 man increase in U.S. military support forces and a general framework of continuing action against North Vietnam and Laos.

Compare this to NSAM 273 and you can see that Johnson had had not only done away with Kennedy's 10,000 man withdrawal, but had RAISED troop strength by 20,000 and had begun to institute the war in Loas that NSAM 273 had hinted at, on his THIRD FULL DAY in office, after Kennedy had been killed.

Johnson was being a good boy and doing what he was told!

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:17 PM
I have a strong feeling the same happens to every president on his first day in office, and I bet that's a huge shock to them. How well they handle both this news and themselves after hearing it is key to such things like whether or not they get re-elected, or, as in Kennedy's case, get to live. Oh, and the same probably goes for Congress members.

Congrats on the book, by the way. Can't wait to read it.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:58 PM
Congress is a waste.

Do you know why they can't control the NSA?

President Truman created the NSA as a sub-division of the DoD by a classified Presidential Directive in 1952. By envoking the separation of powers from the Constitution, since the NSA was created only as an Executive Branch function, they could exclude certain aspects of their operations under Executive Privilige. There are still classified aspects of the NSA's creation that remains classified FROM CONGRESS! That's why can hide things so effectively.

Actually, that's just ONE reason they can hide things so effectively.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:05 PM
Let me guess another reason...the NGOs? I'm sure that ties into all this somehow. And of course we're talking about that other government Clinton mentioned...the real one...not the one that's just for show.

As for your premise of the Kennedy assassination being a coup d'etat...was it really? They did not overthrow the real government (which is them) but just replaces a figurehead leader who went rogue on them, at the same time warning those to come in the future. It wasn't really even the illusion of a coup because it was not apparent to anyone.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:16 PM
The use of NGOs is a hugely successful means of side-stepping legal authority. Even NGOs with names that would suggest they are ladeling out stew at free soup kitchens can be a covert cover for an Under-Government operation that no one can identify where it comes from or where it goes.

I really like you, Lucidity, but if you look back, I wasn't the one who brought up the JFK debate. I was merely addings a few sticks to the fire on that issue. Even in my book, as a novel - so I can claim "It's not real, it's just a novel!" I will not discuss that event. Period!

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:26 PM
Point taken. I know you started with Reagan, and your question is "what else are we missing, but does the fundamental theory really differ all that much? In this case, it didn't matter whether he had Alzheimer's or long as they could hide it, there was continuity of government and no need to replace him. In a way, his unfortunate situation probably just made things easier for them.

One of the things that makes me wonder about certain theories is why Bush-41 only got one term. Maybe some of his actions in regard to Desert Storm didn't toe the line? Or maybe he just wanted out.

What else are we missing? Probably a lot. There's a lot they just don't tell us. Congress included. They only tell them enough to get the results they want...make them feel special when in reality they have no control. They're just for show, as are the two "parties." To divert us from what's really going on.

[edit on 7/18/2010 by ~Lucidity]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in