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.

 

Would U.S. citizens be able to oust our President as Egypt is attempting?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mike_trivisonno
 


Ok so you are telling an Iraq vet about people being killed by Muslims? you are also preaching about commies and socialized but you yourself want to control what people think. Pretty funny. Again jihad is not a common thing until 70 years ago. It was in retaliation to suez cannal and Israel treaties. Read some ww1 history




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Would the US Military fire upon its own citizens? YES. While some in the military would refuse to do so, most would follow orders.

Last summer I emailed my brother who is in the Army and stationed in Germany. I asked him if the American people stood up to a tyrannical government, in his opinion, would the Military fire on the citizens. His reply was,

"It does not matter what nationality you are or what country you are from if you are a threat to the American Government. You would be classified as enemy combatants. So yes, if you were enemy combatants our orders would be clear. We would fire on you."

My brother and I are totally on opposite sides of the coin when it comes to Obama and our tyrannical government. It really makes me wonder if they have brainwashed him, since he basically told me that he would kill his own brother if the President ordered it.

So for those that think the Military will not fire on us, there will be a lot of them that would, ones that are loyal to the Regime, loyalty obtained by either brainwashing or stupidity, or both.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by kennylee
 


Yes, that is the official statement of the Military.
Would it really happen? Please refer to my last post.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Cygnis
 


Voting is still a legitimate way to engage the government, but it is often a very limited way of participating, as many have noted in this thread. By the time your vote is cast for a candidate, your choices have been whittled down. Depending on the situation, the parties may put forward middle of the road candidates that offer little discernible difference.

There is, however, far FAR more to American government than federal elections when it comes down to opportunities to participate. It starts at the local level, where Council and Board meetings are still open and.easily accessible to the public. These are covered by local newspapers, often in detail.

The problem is that most Americans without specific economic interests no longer pay the slightest attention to the machinations of their local government. Apply this proclivity up the ladder and you find things are very similar....with one exception. At the upper levels of government, the largest economic interests are working fervently to control the agendas in the media. The laws controlling media standards have changed over the past forty years and the result has been the politicization and polarization of news media.

It doesn't begin or end with a president. It doesn't even begin or end with any political party.

It begins or ends when communities of citizens take control of their local governments and policies through community-specific assessment of needs. America still contains the BEST toolkits for a healthy democracy, but as long as people leave them to rust and simply consume their politics from party leadership or groups with narrow economic interests, it will continue to be corrupt, inept, and incompetent.

We have no one to blame but ourselves. The government is the people, but the people refuse to take he reigns.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NightShift
 


Excellent post. Spot on.

On a tangent I would say after 911 (for whatever reason it happened) the very best thing we could have done was to create a mandatory civil service. F the patriot act. If we all were forced to be reservists not only would the actual citizens be the frontline of defense but natural disaster organization would be a whole lot better.

The main thing is when everyones kids are up to be shifted out to war then the whole public would pay more attention to why we are going and if it's worth it.

By civil service I mean (redcross, americorp, military reserves, engineer corps etc.)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Wouldn't happen in the same way. The USA already had those massive zombie 'change .. yes we can .. spread the wealth' rallies. That's what you are seeing over there ... 'change' and 'spread the wealth' rallies (did ya' see the english version signs?). I don't think America would fall for the same bunk again. At least .. I hope they've learned their lesson and wouldn't.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by kennylee
 




I don't believe it would happen like that. It has happened in social situations (Ohio st) but not on that scale. One of the things and dangers the politicians have against them is that a lot of military officers both battlefield and university trained believe in the concepts layer out by the constitution. If the military was ordered to fire on a mass majority I believe it would start a massive schism in the military. Those not connected to the arms industry would section of into militia with massive armaments and military know how.

That's why we would see more subtle power play like the instant replacement or ouster of a president. The same political ideals have been displayed since Richard Nixon by every party so it wouldn't really matter who is the president. He is easily removable while still continuing the political philosophy.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
if bush was in office still than yeah it would be our duty as us citizens but there president has been in power for 30 years so i think they know what there out there for.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


Look at what happened to the Bonus Army, FDR called in the Military and they got shot up.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


I think mike trivisonne was tongue in cheek.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NightShift
 


Come on...
If voting really changed the system, it woud have been banned long ago.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
The short answer is no. The long answer is that if we tried, every single person involved would be declared a terrorist and the government would declare martial law.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
I don't think such a thing would be allowed. I think we would find out just how tight a grasp our government have on us as citizens. A bigger question maybe, would our military fire upon its fellow citizens?


A short answer yes and we don't have to fire a shot to accomplish it. The means for peaceful transition of power is enshrined within the Constitution.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:
"The House of Representatives ... and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:
"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

Article II, Section 4:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Since the House of Representatives is the house of Congress that is representative of the people, it can be said that the people themselves have the power of impeachment. Given such, we cannot just impeach the president (or other public officer) for random reasons such as we don't like them or their policies. Those guidelines reside in Article II, Section 4. Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Given then, things get a little murky due to the 17th Amendment and the changing of how senators are elected. Once known to be the seat of the States at the Federal level of government, is now merely a powerful representative house. Even so, the Senate has the duty to try the public officer in the event of an impeachment.

What is also great about the system is that impeachment trials do not trigger the double-jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment. This means that a public officer can be tried in a normal court of law for their transgression.

Now of course, the above is the peaceful and correct transfer of power or removal of power of our public officials. In these times, many people believe that even if there were crimes committed that passed the test provided in Article II, Section 4, the House of Representatives being unresponsive to the People will not push for impeachment.

At that point what does the citizenry do? Clearly Constitutional Government at that point has clearly broken down and it is the duty of the people to reaffirm their role as the source of political power to being governed. It is here where I would actually agree that the rule of law has failed and free peoples must reassert their right to be governed by consent, not by tyranny.

Normally, I advocate the peaceful transfer of power. It works. If that breaks down then it is up to the People to make the next move.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
I don't think such a thing would be allowed. I think we would find out just how tight a grasp our government have on us as citizens. A bigger question maybe, would our military fire upon its fellow citizens?


I don't think it would matter at all in our country - we're bought and paid for. When we go to vote we are given two hands to pick from, each one containing the same object, albeit painted a slightly different shade of the same color.

If we were to replace one, another hand would come forward and open up with a newer and flashier object! They all come from the same hand.


Khar



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The US has always been a unique country in the sense that .. the govt has a very solid hold on the masses .. and even more solid hold on the process that ensures it's own survival .. shadow governments, etc .. the millitary and defense dept in general is very strong and people have been led to believe they have all the power under a democratic process .. when in reality they have nothing but a very comfortable life that makes them forget the problems of the world .. Americans wouldn't even bother to do anything of the sort as long as there is walmart .. home depo and burger king/kfc round the corner, and they can afford it ... sounds funny .. but it's a reality that applies to about 90% of the population ..

In contrast to that .. people in Egypt and other places are actually suffering big time .. that is what leads to such action ..it's high time actually ..

The US is too structured and developed .. the Govt has it's tentacles in everything to squash any uprising .. this is why when someone here mentioned the TV series Jericho .. I was thinking just that .. it would have to be an inside job of the Govt to carry out something BIG like a false flag nuke strike to divide and bring down the "beast" ... it's too late for people alone to do anything in the US .. they have been fooled into a false sense of security and achieving the "American dream" for so long ... and rendered powerless in the process ... a real shame ..



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kennylee
Would the US Military fire upon its own citizens? YES. While some in the military would refuse to do so, most would follow orders.

Last summer I emailed my brother who is in the Army and stationed in Germany. I asked him if the American people stood up to a tyrannical government, in his opinion, would the Military fire on the citizens. His reply was,

"It does not matter what nationality you are or what country you are from if you are a threat to the American Government. You would be classified as enemy combatants. So yes, if you were enemy combatants our orders would be clear. We would fire on you."

My brother and I are totally on opposite sides of the coin when it comes to Obama and our tyrannical government. It really makes me wonder if they have brainwashed him, since he basically told me that he would kill his own brother if the President ordered it.

As was the real horror of the civil war in 1860's.

Originally posted by kennylee
So for those that think the Military will not fire on us, there will be a lot of them that would, ones that are loyal to the Regime, loyalty obtained by either brainwashing or stupidity, or both.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


Where have you been? We students protested the Vietnam War for gosh sakes at Kent State...and the National Guard fired on us and killed us! Killed us for protesting on a college campus. Shot us. D-e-a-d.

Well, if you are dead, then how are you posting to ATS?


I'm sorry you were killed.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Here in the US there is no way the rioting people could take out the government without the full support of the military. If they really wanted to they would just crop dust you with nerve gas and the problem is solved. Or they could blast you with sonic weapons water cannons rubber bullets tear gas etc.

If everyone united, the rioters could shut down industry etc and cost the corporations a lot of profits. Fight Club type movements. but people are divided by race, by fear, by religion, by law

Even if the people really got militant and had at least part of the military helping to overthrow the government, the powers that be would flee into their underground bunkers at Denver International Airport and others.

It's a terrible stupid idea to do it that way. The death toll would be huge.

Peaceful local community based overthrow of the corporate tyranny is the path to victory. Everyone needs to agree to peacefully break unconstitutional laws and regulations so frequently that they cannot possibly punish us all. Study some Gandhi. It's simple and effective.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
It could be done in a week. Every fed building in the hands of the people.
I think we have them out numbered and surrounded.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 
If you will look into this just a weensie bit, you will find that it was planned and organized by the same Terrorists and National Socialist Democrats that we are waging war against. They are playing the Egyptian people as pawns in their game of Jihad and world domination. Even the protests in the US were organised by these same National Socialist Democrats, carrying signs that are blacked out in the media, but that give Socialist websites that are VERY anti-American. That means YOU, whether you support them or not. I seriously ask you to wake up and start looking at what is really going on, for all of our sakes.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join