Professional Soldiers ®

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)
-   -   America's Second Civil War (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52035)

Uman 11-17-2019 17:13

The DOD and others need a George C Marshall
 
The DOD and the rest of the Executive Branch needs a house cleaning like Marshall did prior to WWII, 500 officer down to LTC level.

bblhead672 11-18-2019 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uman (Post 654052)
The DOD and the rest of the Executive Branch needs a house cleaning like Marshall did prior to WWII, 500 officer down to LTC level.

Sounds like an excellent starting point.

bubba 11-18-2019 18:03

For Mr. Horowitz
 
1 Attachment(s)
Thought I’d leave this here for the IG Mr. Horowitz to use when signaling to AG Barr and Mr. Durham.

Attachment 36062

The base-of fire element has been emplaced and is set to open up at a “rapid rate” on or about 11 Dec 2019. This break-contact by the dims is about to get some 4:1 love!

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...eillance-abuse

Uman 11-18-2019 19:52

Nice Bubba
 
Trump also just used some political warfare maneuvering with the pardons of the Working Class/Ranks Pipe Hitters Union in the military. He just won the Union over out from under the Deep Staters both in uniform and out in the DOD.

tonyz 11-19-2019 07:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uman (Post 654062)
Trump also just used some political warfare maneuvering with the pardons of the Working Class/Ranks Pipe Hitters Union in the military. He just won the Union over out from under the Deep Staters both in uniform and out in the DOD.

Concur. The timing was not coincidental with the timing of Vindman testimony.

Box 11-19-2019 07:59

If he REALLY wants to "win over" the "union... he needs to fire a left leaning G.O.

It's not like he doesn't know how to fire people - shit, DJT saying, "You're fired" is the only reason some Americans even know who he is.

Just like the old urban legend of punching the biggest guy in the prison yard on your first day in the Pen' - you gotta set a precedent.
Bring in a G.O. - ask him why something hasn't succeeded yet -
...wrong answer
You're fired


Then watch the cockroaches scatter

tonyz 11-19-2019 08:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Box (Post 654065)
If he REALLY wants to "win over" the "union... he needs to fire a left leaning G.O.

It's not like he doesn't know how to fire people - shit, DJT saying, "You're fired" is the only reason some Americans even know who he is.

Just like the old urban legend of punching the biggest guy in the prison yard on your first day in the Pen' - you gotta set a precedent.
Bring in a G.O. - ask him why something hasn't succeeded yet -
...wrong answer
You're fired


Then watch the cockroaches scatter

Carrots and sticks. Stick is coming. And both, when properly applied do tend to move things.

CSB 11-19-2019 14:55

https://www.armyt*imes.com/news/your...icly-on-trump/

From the article quoted above:

“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen,
and I was worried about the implications to the U.S. Government’s support of Ukraine,”
Vindman said in his deposition.

My first reaction, as one Lieutenant Colonel talking about another Lieutenant Colonel:
Who the fuck are you to testify in a hearing in the House of representatives as to what YOU feel is improper of the president?
Report all the facts you want, and just the facts, in response to questions, but save your opinion
to the time after you have turned in your uniform and moved into retirement.

Would we allow a LTC to testify "Well, in my opinion, General Hopscotch had his head up his ass
when he cancelled the C-17 assembly line."

(An aside: Don't know if there is any reason why he would wear a uniform the first time he testified,
but a business suit the second time. Curious.)

Perhaps LTC Vindman should read the oath of office that President Trump took upon his assuming the office of President:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

And what are the duties of the Office of the President?
Again, let us look to the Constitution:

Article II, Section 3: “… he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed …”.

Imagine that! A President who actually takes care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is, on the federal level,
the “Top Cop” with a constitutional duty to root out crime and corruption where ever he may find it, both domestic and foreign
(to the extent it violated United States laws).

Crimes such as failure to report foreign income, the same crime that put Paul Manafort in jail;
or being an unregistered foreign agent, the same offense that former General Michael Flynn was convicted of.
The Democrats had no problem with those investigations,
and when crimes were discovered, the defendant’s being prosecuted.

Did Obama “take care that the laws be faithfully executed?”

Hell no, in fact, his DACA program was nothing short of a presidential declaration that he would NOT enforce the laws as written.
Don’t get me started on the ATF “walking” guns into Mexico in violation of federal law.

Did President Trump demand that Hunter Biden be arrested?

Did he request that Joe and/or Hunter Biden be jailed?

NO.

President Trump had the audacity to request that there be an investigation — that’s all, just an investigation —
of what took place under the Obama/Biden administration to see if laws were broken, because you damn well know for sure
that a coverup and whitewash was all that would take place when Obama/Biden held office.

But the Democrats absolutely will not stand for an investigation,
they know too well what might emerge if those rocks are turned over.

Uman 11-19-2019 16:37

The first round a Trump's ax job
 
The first people to be made an example of are the Navy and Army JAG and Chain Of Command people involved in withholding evidence in the Gallagher and Lt Lorance cases. If they are retired call them back on active duty just to burn them, to include any Flag Officer who made these decisions or knew about it and did not speak up.

Florida Patriot 11-20-2019 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSB (Post 654070)
https://www.armyt*imes.com/news/your...icly-on-trump/

From the article quoted above:

“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen,
and I was worried about the implications to the U.S. Government’s support of Ukraine,”
Vindman said in his deposition.

My first reaction, as one Lieutenant Colonel talking about another Lieutenant Colonel:
Who the fuck are you to testify in a hearing in the House of representatives as to what YOU feel is improper of the president?
Report all the facts you want, and just the facts, in response to questions, but save your opinion
to the time after you have turned in your uniform and moved into retirement.

Would we allow a LTC to testify "Well, in my opinion, General Hopscotch had his head up his ass
when he cancelled the C-17 assembly line."

(An aside: Don't know if there is any reason why he would wear a uniform the first time he testified,
but a business suit the second time. Curious.)

Perhaps LTC Vindman should read the oath of office that President Trump took upon his assuming the office of President:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

And what are the duties of the Office of the President?
Again, let us look to the Constitution:

Article II, Section 3: “… he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed …”.

Imagine that! A President who actually takes care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is, on the federal level,
the “Top Cop” with a constitutional duty to root out crime and corruption where ever he may find it, both domestic and foreign
(to the extent it violated United States laws).

Crimes such as failure to report foreign income, the same crime that put Paul Manafort in jail;
or being an unregistered foreign agent, the same offense that former General Michael Flynn was convicted of.
The Democrats had no problem with those investigations,
and when crimes were discovered, the defendant’s being prosecuted.

Did Obama “take care that the laws be faithfully executed?”

Hell no, in fact, his DACA program was nothing short of a presidential declaration that he would NOT enforce the laws as written.
Don’t get me started on the ATF “walking” guns into Mexico in violation of federal law.

Did President Trump demand that Hunter Biden be arrested?

Did he request that Joe and/or Hunter Biden be jailed?

NO.

President Trump had the audacity to request that there be an investigation — that’s all, just an investigation —
of what took place under the Obama/Biden administration to see if laws were broken, because you damn well know for sure
that a coverup and whitewash was all that would take place when Obama/Biden held office.

But the Democrats absolutely will not stand for an investigation,
they know too well what might emerge if those rocks are turned over.

I would like to subscribe to your news letter sir.

CSB 11-20-2019 17:41

I don't have a blog, but I post regularly here and at "This Ain't Hell."

Here is a followup on my thought processes when I wrote the above:

Quote:

Joe Biden’s confession: “I withheld one billion dollars in guaranteed U.S. Government aid until that prosecutor was fired!”

Joe Biden’s explanation: “And I did it because he wasn’t a very good prosecutor. And I, Pure of Heart with an equally Pure of Heart son making $50,000 a month working for a foreign natural gas company while I’m the sitting Vice President, wanted a really good investigator. So I had the old prosecutor fired in the hope we would get a hard charging zealous replacement who would conduct a legitimate investigation.”

So what are the Democrats complaining about?

Donald Trump should say: “I agree with you 100% Joe… I’m sure you and your son were as pure as the newly fallen snow. That’s why, like you, I wanted a full and fair investigation of any corruption during your term of office. You can thank me later when the investigation discloses that you did nothing wrong. I can’t have such an honorable man as yourself be sidetracked with baseless claims that your son’s job was a political payoff: ‘pay my son or no U.S. aid.’

So I’m sure you will be as happy as me, Joe, to have Hunter’s brilliant memoranda and position papers published, the successful marketing plans he developed, his email messages that steered the company so well, the minutes of the Board Meetings with his input and sage advice, all released and inspected, all proving Hunter had a real job with real responsibilities. Isn’t that right, Joe?”

“Joe?”

=====================================

AN ASIDE: Um, by the way Joe, that “energy company." That was fossil fuel, wasn’t it? You know, natural gas that produces greenhouse gases when burned, leading to global warning. You should be grateful we asked for an investigation by the Ukraine government, and not by Al Gore and Greta Thunberg.
“How dare you!”

Badger52 11-20-2019 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSB (Post 654085)
I don't have a blog, but I post regularly here and at "This Ain't Hell."

Here is a followup on my thought processes when I wrote the above:

Deserves full spell-out.
For.The.Win.

Florida Patriot 11-21-2019 08:46

Quote:

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...28/567/500155/
(Circuit Judge Kozinski dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.)

Some copy/paste here but it's spot on. The flip of the GA in Virginia & the hard push the dems are doing to restrict 2A rights in that state may likely cause a backlash of unintended consequences.

tonyz 12-13-2019 09:33

Well, the Pelosi, Shiff, Nadler impeachment sham marched on this morning.

It's not a coup. It's a civil war.
By Phil D'Agostino
American Thinker
December 13, 2019

Lately, it's been convenient — and self-serving to some — to call what is going on with the Trump administration a coup. It's a "soft coup" or a "silent coup" or a wish-it-were-a-coup.

Let's take a look at what that means. According to all definitions I can find, a coup is a sudden, often violent overthrow of a government. Every time I look up the definition of a coup, I get something like this from Merriam-Webster: "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics." But there is nothing sudden about this.

Have you ever thought, "What would a modern civil war look like?" Tanks rolling down the streets of Washington, D.C.? Missiles targeting the Congress? Armed forces storming the White House or Capitol Building? None of these would accomplish anything. So what would a modern-day civil war look like?

At least since the 1960s, a faction of people have been looking for a chance to make our government conform to what they think it should be. This faction has identified itself in many ways, and its members always embrace Marxist ideals with a top-down government run by a few. A "law-based" government, on the other hand, would have a constitution to protect the rights of the minority from the "tyranny" of the majority. That is what the United States of America is: a law-based government founded on the belief that those working in government are employees of the people, and not that the people are subservient to them. And all decisions are to be based on our agreement to form such a government — that is, as spelled out in our Constitution.

When a group, no matter how large or small, decides it wants to step beyond the constitutional means for changing the government and change it to fit their own ideals of government, and superimpose those ideals on everybody else, we have a true conflict. If that conflict cannot be resolved to their satisfaction through the instrumentalities of the provisions to do so, and so they decide to overthrow it and replace it with their own views or ideas, we have a war. We have those circumstances playing out before our eyes (and ears).

We can define a civil war as a conflict or competition between political factions or regions within the same country to take over the reins of governance without due process. A careful look at what some call the "Deep State" would tell us we have that here in the USA. Further, we have had that state of conflict for many years.

As evidenced by the statements of many current players behind the scenes who have been actively trying to fundamentally transform America, it would seem that in the 20th century, it was determined by those committed to this transformation that the people of the USA would never willfully throw away their own freedoms and embrace some form of Marxian socialism. Therefore, in order to effect this change, there needed to be an internal use of the system itself to subvert it through legislation and regulations to become a de facto state of Marxian socialism without ever calling it such, nor voting for such.

Ever since, there have been bureaucrats and presidents who have worked against the will of the majority in order to "overthrow" the duly elected government and replace it with their own view of what the USA government "should" look like. It is a war, not a coup. They are relentless. Indefatigable. They will never stop. What we are seeing with Mr. Trump is an "Antietam" or a "Gettysburg — a bloody battlefield, but just another battlefield.

It isn't a coup. Not soft. Not silent. And if we don't see it as a war, we lose. Why? Because we then think it's about Mr. Trump or his administration. It isn't.

Any conservative or any Republican who embraces the ideals of small government, personal freedom of choice, personal property rights, and the ability to defend our ownership of what we've created or accumulated will be the next target. A relative handful of people would superimpose their views as a minority onto the will of the majority because they believe themselves to be smarter, better, and more correct.

Note that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government and the tyranny of the majority. But it also makes us a nation of laws, not votes alone. A majority cannot vote to expel all people who are from a certain nation or of a certain religion. Majority alone does not rule. A majority must first conform to the rule of law. These civil warriors seek to negate that premise and foist upon us their own view, whether we like it or not.

Tyrants, dictators, and their minions are very clever when it comes to using the rules you agree to play with against those playing by the rules. This is war. When Trump leaves office, the war shall continue.

This is about who will run our government. Will it be those duly elected by the people and states, or will it be by the fiat and caprice of those who see themselves as smarter and more relevant than the rest of us?

Again, think of what a modern civil war would look like. There is no way a modern civil war would ever be fought against the most powerful military force in the history of mankind. No, it will come from within. As Khrushchev said, our nation will fall from within ("Your own working class will bury you," 1963), and communists will prevail as a result. That is what we are witnessing: a civil war, not a coup.



Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...#ixzz6806iSGmc
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Florida Patriot 12-13-2019 18:48

[QUOTE=tonyz;654351]Well, the Pelosi, Shiff, Nadler impeachment sham marched on this morning.

It's not a coup. It's a civil war.
By Phil D'Agostino
American Thinker
December 13, 2019

Lately, it's been convenient — and self-serving to some — to call what is going on with the Trump administration a coup. It's a "soft coup" or a "silent coup" or a wish-it-were-a-coup.

Let's take a look at what that means. According to all definitions I can find, a coup is a sudden, often violent overthrow of a government. Every time I look up the definition of a coup, I get something like this from Merriam-Webster: "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics." But there is nothing sudden about this.

Have you ever thought, "What would a modern civil war look like?" Tanks rolling down the streets of Washington, D.C.? Missiles targeting the Congress? Armed forces storming the White House or Capitol Building? None of these would accomplish anything. So what would a modern-day civil war look like?

At least since the 1960s, a faction of people have been looking for a chance to make our government conform to what they think it should be. This faction has identified itself in many ways, and its members always embrace Marxist ideals with a top-down government run by a few. A "law-based" government, on the other hand, would have a constitution to protect the rights of the minority from the "tyranny" of the majority. That is what the United States of America is: a law-based government founded on the belief that those working in government are employees of the people, and not that the people are subservient to them. And all decisions are to be based on our agreement to form such a government — that is, as spelled out in our Constitution.

When a group, no matter how large or small, decides it wants to step beyond the constitutional means for changing the government and change it to fit their own ideals of government, and superimpose those ideals on everybody else, we have a true conflict. If that conflict cannot be resolved to their satisfaction through the instrumentalities of the provisions to do so, and so they decide to overthrow it and replace it with their own views or ideas, we have a war. We have those circumstances playing out before our eyes (and ears).

We can define a civil war as a conflict or competition between political factions or regions within the same country to take over the reins of governance without due process. A careful look at what some call the "Deep State" would tell us we have that here in the USA. Further, we have had that state of conflict for many years.

As evidenced by the statements of many current players behind the scenes who have been actively trying to fundamentally transform America, it would seem that in the 20th century, it was determined by those committed to this transformation that the people of the USA would never willfully throw away their own freedoms and embrace some form of Marxian socialism. Therefore, in order to effect this change, there needed to be an internal use of the system itself to subvert it through legislation and regulations to become a de facto state of Marxian socialism without ever calling it such, nor voting for such.

Ever since, there have been bureaucrats and presidents who have worked against the will of the majority in order to "overthrow" the duly elected government and replace it with their own view of what the USA government "should" look like. It is a war, not a coup. They are relentless. Indefatigable. They will never stop. What we are seeing with Mr. Trump is an "Antietam" or a "Gettysburg — a bloody battlefield, but just another battlefield.

It isn't a coup. Not soft. Not silent. And if we don't see it as a war, we lose. Why? Because we then think it's about Mr. Trump or his administration. It isn't.

Any conservative or any Republican who embraces the ideals of small government, personal freedom of choice, personal property rights, and the ability to defend our ownership of what we've created or accumulated will be the next target. A relative handful of people would superimpose their views as a minority onto the will of the majority because they believe themselves to be smarter, better, and more correct.

Note that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government and the tyranny of the majority. But it also makes us a nation of laws, not votes alone. A majority cannot vote to expel all people who are from a certain nation or of a certain religion. Majority alone does not rule. A majority must first conform to the rule of law. These civil warriors seek to negate that premise and foist upon us their own view, whether we like it or not.

Tyrants, dictators, and their minions are very clever when it comes to using the rules you agree to play with against those playing by the rules. This is war. When Trump leaves office, the war shall continue.

This is about who will run our government. Will it be those duly elected by the people and states, or will it be by the fiat and caprice of those who see themselves as smarter and more relevant than the rest of us?

Again, think of what a modern civil war would look like. There is no way a modern civil war would ever be fought against the most powerful military force in the history of mankind. No, it will come from within. As Khrushchev said, our nation will fall from within ("Your own working class will bury you," 1963), and communists will prevail as a result. That is what we are witnessing: a civil war, not a coup.



Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...#ixzz6806iSGmc
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinke
QFT.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:35.


Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers ®