Is a military coup about to occur here in America? According to this outstanding compilation video from David Vose, it very well may be. Though I am now and have ALWAYS been AGAINST any kind of violence, especially the kind of violence DISHED OUT BY OUR SHADOW GOVERNMENT AROUND THE ENTIRE WORLD via unjust wars and military occupations such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and the list goes on, nothing burns me up more than the thought of living under a dictatorship of such PURE EVIL warmongers as Bush, Cheney, Obama and John Kerry who just want to bomb the entire world into submission. Thankfully, Americans are now STANDING UP and saying NO MORE to this FASCIST GOVERNMENT. Let’s all hope that this doesn’t turn violent, and of course, I do not advocate the OVERTHROW of any government, but if a coup happens here in America, TPTB can only blame themselves. In fact, the Declaration of Independence CLEARLY points out:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation….
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
A Military Coup Will Remove Obama
President Obama’s presidency has a definitive shelf life. His backpedaling in the Middle East is of major concern to the military establishment but also to special interest groups such as the Carlyle Group. Obama is threatening to let Iraq and Afghanistan follow in the footsteps of Vietnam. Further, Obama’s refusal to attack Syria and Iran threatens the viability of the Petrodollar. This two part series will examine the forces which are lining up against this President and how five simultaneous political scandals are being held over his head to gain compliance from several powerful special interest groups.
The Aftermath of Benghazi
Obama’s presidency may not survive until 2016. He has the most dramatic set of political scandals in the history of the Oval Office. The only question remaining for this president is will he leave office as a result of the scandals or the result of a direct military coup? Obama has already survived one military coup attempt, but it is difficult to believe that there aren’t more military coups waiting in the wings for the right moment to strike.
The First Military Coup
In the fall of 2012, it is now clear that President Obama survived an attempted military coup. My sources tell me, that Obama, is fully aware of the fact that key elements of the military want him gone as the President and, in response, Obama has secretly embedded his CIA operatives in various military command structures around the world by placing these operatives into executive command positions in order to help them prevent just such a military coup and these embedded forces have indeed served him well in the aftermath of Benghazi.
Often, these embedded operatives serve as the second-in-command. The sole purpose of Obama’s operatives is to keep watch on key military leaders and to prevent them from moving against the policies of the present administration.
The murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detail at Benghazi served as a flashpoint for an attempted military coup. What is interesting about the coup attempt, is that very divergent military forces have joined together to take down Obama’s presidency. At issue was the attempted rescue of Ambassador Stevens by two senior military command officers.
Can you imagine the reaction of Stevens, his security team, and two senior command officers if Stevens had indeed been rescued? The gun-running stories of the CIA to Al-Qaeda would have turned the general populace on its ear. This would have been Obama’s Watergate moment. Of course, Stevens had to be murdered to cover up Obama’s complicity in gun-running to Al-Qaeda. Remember, it was Hillary Clinton, on behalf of Obama, who refused to beef up security for Ambassador Stevens at his request. With all that the Benghazi event represents, the sheep of America would’ve been awakened if Stevens had survived to talk. With the inability of the Obama administration to squelch the cries of conspiracy in the aftermath of Benghazi, Hillary, in an effort to preserve her 2016 election hopes, could not jump off the Obama ship fast enough. And even Napolitano has jumped ship and look for more defections in the weeks ahead. Obama is in real trouble. Spying on reporters and using the IRS to harass political enemies is damning, but Benghazi is career ending.
A Review of Benghazi
Let’s review what we have learned about what transpired at Benghazi. The Benghazi consulate, which was no more than a CIA safe house, came under attack by Al Qaeda forces and the attack lasted several hours. We now know that CIA forces were right down the street at the time of the attack that murdered Stevens Al Qaeda attackers, as they attempted to flee the murder scene, were subsequently murdered by the CIA forces, who could have been used to rescue Stevens. This was a desperate attempt to conceal Obama’s gun running operations. We also know that several key personnel at Benghazi have been forced to sign nondisclosure agreements about what they know. What did they know?
The Truth Is Hiding In Plain Sight
What is known, and what was reported in the New York Times, is that this administration ran guns to Al Qaeda in a Middle East version of fast and furious. We’ve also learned that Ambassador Stevens was the conduit between the establishment and Al Qaeda receiving weapons, which they used to overthrow the Libyan government.
The murder of Stevens and his team at Benghazi is a seminal moment in American history. We have further learned that al-Qaeda forces, fighting on the side of NATO in Libya, obtained 20,000 hand-held stinger missiles. This means that the Obama administration has allowed al-Qaeda to be armed to the teeth including the acquisition of 20,000 stinger missiles in which only one is needed to take down an American airliner. To cover their tracks, the Obama administration left Chris Stevens and his bodyguards defenseless as they were killed by the very terrorists who this administration armed. Can you imagine how the election of 2012 would’ve turned if the American public had this information. This is why Stevens had to be killed, but there’s more.
Arming Al-Qaeda In Syria
It is now common knowledge that this administration was also running guns to Al Qaeda in an attempt to overthrow Assad of Syria. However, news of their gunrunning was beginning to leak and the source of the gunrunning had to be eliminated. That source was Ambassador Chris Stevens and the sensitive information that he held, unfortunately for Stevens, came only a couple of months prior to the 2012 presidential election. It is quite apparent that this administration felt that the evidence of their gunrunning trail must be totally obliterated and the only way to accomplish that was to arm Al Qaeda forces to assassinate Ambassador Stevens. These are not shocking revelations and I believe it’s likely that Congress knew the truth is far back as December of 2012. However, the congressional investigation did not succeed in their attempts at getting to the bottom of the Stevens murder. For more than a month Hillary Clinton refused to show up and testify. Other establishment figures were less than cooperative with regard to the congressional investigation. However, there is a clear and distinctive pattern of high command military awareness of this establishment’s murderous and treacherous actions which culminated in the death, the preventable death of Stevens and his bodyguard contingency.
The Middle East command structure of the American military was not on board with President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta is so unpopular with the troops, that when he visits Afghanistan, the troops must be disarmed prior to his landing because he has been fired upon before from American ground forces.
In the aftermath of the Benghazi massacre, two senior level command officers, General Carter Ham, the former commander of AFRICOM and Admiral Charles M. Gayouette were removed from the command positions and arrested by their executive officers. Do you remember that I previously said that Obama was embedding CIA operatives into the number two command positions in key military commands around the world? When Hamm was in the process of launching a rescue mission to save Stevens, General Rodriguez promptly arrested Hamm and assumed his position as the head of AFRICOM.
Before we get into why Hamm and Gayoutte were sacked on the same day, please allow me to first say that Obama’s action of sacking two high ranking officers is so unprecedented, so reckless, that it is difficult to comprehend. Please allow me to offer a sports analogy in order to explain the magnitude of this action. Imagine that your favorite football team was on the eve of playing in the Super Bowl and the owner of your team fired both the head coach and the quarterback the night before the big game. Wouldn’t this throw your team into a state of disarray? Of course it would, and subsequently your team would face annihilation. This is exactly the case with our forces in the Middle East after the firing of these two military leaders at this critical point in time. The deposing and subsequent arrest of the AFRICOM commanding officer, and the firing of a Carrier task force commander was an irresponsible move by the Obama administration and left a dangerous leadership void in the Middle East that has needlessly put the lives of our military at risk. And it is important to note that these firings took place at a time when it appeared that war with Iran, Syria, China and Russia was on the immediate horizon.
The positions held by Hamm and Gayouette are so powerful and so sensitive, that their replacements require approval from the Senate. Why would Obama engage in such a reckless act when the country was so close to war? Very simply, both men were jointly attempting to rescue Ambassador Stevens and his bodyguards, despite being told to stand down by Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta who was acting under Obama’s orders.
As Stevens was begging for help after the attack had begun, General Hamm had activated a special forces team within minutes of learning that the embassy, which was really a CIA safe house, was under attack. When General Ham received his “stand down” orders from Obama, he still continued with his plans to go ahead with the rescue and was arrested within minutes of contravening the order by his second in command, General Rodriquez. Admiral Gayouette, the commander of Carrier Strike Group Three, was preparing to provide intelligence and air cover for General Hamm’s rescue in violation of his standing orders and he was promptly relieved of command for allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.” What is so significant about the sacking of these two military officers is that they were from two completely different command structures in two different branches of the military. This speaks clearly to an overall military mindset with regard to how they view Obama.
It is abundantly clear that had Obama been concerned for saving the lives of the four murdered Americans, American forces could have stopped the mortar fire that eventually killed Ambassador Stevens. However, Panetta and Obama blocked any rescue attempt. In legal parlance, Obama, Panetta and Clinton are, at minimum, accomplices to murder. At maximum these three rogue government officials are co-conspirators to first degree murder and now they have sacked two senior command military leaders to cover their complicity in an act of treason. I feel like I am watching an episode of the former popular television show, 24, as we are presently engaged in a plot that scarcely anyone would have believed if it had aired on television and not occurred in real life.
Others Have Taken Note and Spoken Out
Even though the corporate controlled media refuses to provide detailed coverage of the events in Benghazi, Representative Buck McKeon wrote a letter to Obama in which he boldly stated ”As we are painfully aware, despite the fact that the military had resources in the area, the military did not deploy any assets to secure U.S. personnel in Benghazi during the hours the consulate and the annex were under attack. I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command (author’s note: General Hamm) and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief.”
There is also proof that Obama was warned in advance of the coming attack in which Stevens begged for more protection and his impassioned plea was denied by Clinton.
There’s further evidence that US agents in Libya were at least aware of weapons and militants moving across the border. The ties between murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and jihadist Syrian rebels are becoming more clear as it is now known that Chris Stevens was an arms dealer for the CIA and brokered arms deals with Al-Qaeda and their affiliate rebels in both Libya and Syria. Can anyone imagine the political fallout to this President if word of this had ever leaked out? Stevens was the link between the CIA and Al-Qaeda. With Stevens out of the way, the trail could grow cold and the American public would be none the wiser. This is why a rescue attempt was not permitted and this explains why two senior level officials were sacked for trying to do so. However, it is becoming increasingly clear this mutiny represents a military mindset and has the backing of the Carlyle Group. This connection will be explored in part two.
Obama’s Tumultuous Relationship with the Military
General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military intervention in Libya. And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders. The first sign of a major rift between the American military and Obama became evident when the supreme commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, was fired by Obama for derogatory comments made by the general about the president. Interestingly, the reporter who published a story which led to McChrystal’s firing was none other than recently murdered reporter Michael Hastings.
First McChrystal, then Hamm and Gayoutte were fired by Obama. There appears to be a growing body of evidence that the military is becoming more emboldened in their rebellion against this rogue President.
CIA Director David Patraeus Is Sacked
Patraeus was the former commander in Iraq and in Afghanistan after McChrystal was fired by Obama. He was rewarded when he was appointed to be the CIA director. An extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell brought down his reign as CIA director in November of 2012, just following the election.
There is the reason given to explain an event and there is the real reason behind the event. Sixty percent of all married men cheat on their spouses. The more money they make and the more power a man possesses, the more opportunity for cheating.
I have swamp land for sale, in Florida, for anyone to purchase if they are naive enough to believe that David Petraeus, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), resigned solely based upon having an extramarital affair with the biographer-turned-mistress, Paula Broadwell. How did the affair compromise Petraeus’ position as CIA director? The FBI, who vetted Patraeus for the CIA director position, concluded that it did not.
Within two months after the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged by Obama:
- Gen. Hamm, on October 18, 2012.
- Adm. Gayouette, on October 18, 2012.
- Gen. Petraeus, on November 9, 2012.
- General Allen, on November 13, 2012.
Other casualties of military leadership during this time frame includes General Keene and General Odierno. Further, the second in commander of Central Command, General Mattis, And who could forget about General Mckiernan? In total, Obama has sacked nearly 20 generals during his tenure as president.
Not wanting the Middle East to become America’s next Vietnam, the military wants Obama gone. And now the military has a strong partner, the Carlyle Group whose connections ripple through the American power structure. These connections and the other reasons why the Obama administration may not be standing by the end of year will be presented in part two.
125 thoughts on “A Military Coup Will Remove Obama”
Great article!!!! Wow I like to see obama leave the white house in cuffs
Gloria August 9, 2013 at 7:18 am
Thank you for your concise reporting of this matter. Looking forward to part II.
Questions – If this does happens and Obama and his group are gone, can there be positive results if the changes are to the powerful Carlyle Group? Also, haven’t large corporations and groups had major power and influence over our military for quite some time?
And now the military has a strong partner, the
Carlyle Group whose connections ripple through
the American power structure.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Neither option is desirable as it is a lose-lose for the American people.
If you believe Staff Officers will start a Coup – Then you need to go back to the planet you came from………………..
EDITOR’S NOTE: A little military education for you maxx gold, theater command officers are not staff officers. Obama, may or may not control the Joint Chiefs, but it is obvious that he does not control the theater command officers.
No One Knows the Day or the Hour August 9, 2013 at 7:57 am
David; “Really”? (do you do your own home work? research?)
Do you know who has a large interest in the Carlyle Group? It’s Called the Bushes (Jr. and Sr. both had / have large interest in the Carlyle Group; Not sure if Sr.’s position was handed to Jr. or not… but none the less someone in the family has it). And if Jr. meet with the other two former Pres. in Africa as indicated previously on many sites; etc… Maybe… Just maybe they are all on the same team. Not Sure if you are running a miss-information campaign or not… but maybe you should look into my assertions.
It is frustrating to see articles like this; especially when people talk about (For Instance) the Fed. Reserve, and the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) when ole Ben himself is on the Board of Directors… any everyone points fingers all over the place but can never connect the dots. Just like the former Secretary of Treasury (Geithner) was on the Board before he took his role in the Govt. You guys really need to do more research… before you put out articles… and make claims; unless you are just trying to perpetuate the on going campaign on miss-information campaign.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes, HW and JR are part of the Carlyle group. What you are missing and what I will cover part 2 is that the Carlyle group has far reaching tentacles which has already been exposed in this article, at least in part. When a president makes an enemy of the Carlyle group, the list of enemies grows very quickly.
When asked by Russian commanders what parts of the American Constitution Obama had violated, this report continues, their US Military counterparts listed a number of serious charges that include:
1.) Obama’s authorizing the assassination of US citizens without their having charges made against them or being able to defend themselves at trials.
2.) Allowing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct murders on US soil.
3.) Allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to tap the phones, intercept the emails, and in other ways spy upon the American public;
4.) Allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct against the American people the largest spy operation ever undertaken.
5.) Conduct an illegal and un-Constitutional war against Libya.
6.) Obama’s overturning of US laws by executive power without Congressional approval.
Of the gravest concerns about Obama these US Military commanders have, this report says, was his 6 July 2012 Executive Order giving him total power over all communication systems in the United States, and his 16 May 2012 Executive Order wherein he outlawed any American citizen from writing or saying Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi was elected to office because he ran unopposed.
Both of these Executive Orders, US Military commanders said, “Strike at the heart” of the very essence of what it is be an American and which without the United States would cease to exist.
Most ominously for the American people are new reports being leaked by the US Military about Obama stating that his “mentors”, who include those of his inner circle, have long advocated the overthrowing of the Constitution and have openly discussed the “eliminating” of the estimated 25 million US civilians they believe would oppose them and not be able to be “reconditioned” in their planned reeducation camps.
To how Obama would “eliminate” such a staggering number of armed Americans, this report continues, would be by his unilaterally imposing on his nation the United Nations Small Arms Treaty many experts are warning will be the largest gun grab in US history.
Interestingly, this grave report notes that what the US Military is planning for Obama they have done before when they planned for the overthrow of President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 in what is referred to as “The Business Plot”.
The Business Plot (also known as the Plot against FDR and the White House Putsch) was a political conspiracy in 1933. Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler warned that wealthy businessmen and bankers were plotting to create a fascist veterans’ organization and use it in a coup d’état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler as leader of that organization.
In 1934, Butler testified to the Special Committee on Un-American Activities Congressional committee (the “McCormack-Dickstein Committee”) on these claims. In the opinion of the committee, these allegations were credible, but no one was ever prosecuted.
And, in what can only be described as history making a full circle, the JP Morgan banking empire that financed the attempted coup against Roosevelt in 1933 appears to be behind the US Military plan to oust Obama too.
According to this report, the $5.8 billion trading loss JP Morgan reported this past week has been traced by Russian finance experts to a “great number” of shell companies under the control of former US Military officers designed to destabilize the Obama regime creating the pretext for the overthrow of the American President.
To who will win this titanic struggle this report doesn’t say. But, it does grimly note that where the coup against Roosevelt in 1933 failed, these plotters have had a long time to learn the lessons of their failure making them less likely to fail again.
Could a Military Coup Happen in the U.S.?
Jul 5, 2013 03:00 AM ET // by Paul Greenberg
The recent citizen uprising and ultimate military takeover of the Egyptian government has been highly scrutinized by the Obama administration. The question that remains in the minds of some Americans is, could the same thing happen here?
Although it may seem far-fetched, past presidents of the United States did warn about a potential usurping of power by the military. In his farewell address to the American people, Dwight Eisenhower said, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
Was Eisenhower’s concern really warranted?
“The historical context is important here,” said Stephen Griffin, professor of constitutional law and author of the new book, “Long Wars and the Constitution.”
At that time, President Harry Truman had ordered a military buildup after North Korea invaded South Korea. All parts of the military were expanded, and the military budget was something like 75 percent of the total national budget. Furthermore, the military built strong relationships with Congressional leaders so that none of their money would be cut. There was a perception that enormous money, power and influence flowed to the military.”
That is not the case now, according to military and political science experts. There was a trimming back under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, once the Korean War settled. Eisenhower relied more on nuclear weapons and air power, which led to tensions and a potentially dangerous situation, Griffin said. That resulted in Eisenhower’s concern, expressed in his farewell speech.
Today, a military coup in America similar to what happened in Egypt seems unlikely, largely due to the military’s allegiance to the Constitution, according to Christopher Fettweis, associate professor of political science at Tulane University.
“The military here buys into the system — they don’t fight it out,” said Fettweis. “They know there are legal, constitutional ways to remove the president. Even if the citizens initiated something like what happened in Egypt, when orders come down to the military, you salute and move on.”
Presidents Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy were dealing with military personnel who had been promoted during World War II, Fettweis said. “They rose to power because they merited it during war. But the post-Vietnam military is different in character, and much more restrained. It would be hard to compare our situation with that in Egypt, because the Egyptian army is trying to model itself on the Turkish model — to not have an Islamist democracy.”
Still, U.S. presidents have kept a watchful eye on military growth and power since the beginning of our nation. Even George Washington addressed the issue in his 1796 farewell address: “Overgrown military establishments, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
That concern permeates contemporary international leaders’ reactions to the takeover in Egypt. President Barack Obama has expressed his own deep concern over what happened there, particularly about the suspension of the country’s constitution. He is now on record with his encouragement to the Egyptian military to restore civilian rule, as is U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who issued a statement that said “…it will be crucial to quickly reinforce civilian rule in accordance with principles of democracy.”
Closer to home, the takeover scenario seems unlikely, Griffin agreed. “The military here would want to stay on the sidelines — they do not mix up in politics.”
US Military Reveals Coup Plan To Topple Obama, 4.7 out of 5 based on 163 ratings