If you were ordered to remove Obama from office by the military, would you?

From his earliest days in office, Obama knew his agenda was treasonous, and expressed fears of a military coup, but despite his Stalin-like purge, several of the nation’s finest admirals and generals have come forward accusing Obama of outright TREASON. The problem: No one in America knows because the Obamamaniamedia has completely ignored the highly decorated men who have come forward. Perhaps the most significant of those to openly call Obama a traitor is the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, General Michael Flynn. For those who don’t know, that is an APPOINTED position, so at the very highest of levels within our government, Obama’s own people have called him a traitor. Flynn is hardly the only general to come forward, as have several admirals, and when you see the information they revealed, you’re going to be sick. The information that follows, is voluminous, but it is also incredibly thorough, intended to silence anyone who suggests Obama is not a traitor with FACTS! Internet posts like this one are the EXACT reason The TPP Has a Secret Clause Included to Limit Free Speech Online Once Fully Implemented. The government has the mainstream media under control… it’s alternative media they need to silence at any cost! For that reason, you might want to check out

Before we get to former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, General Michael Flynn, some other men who have come forward accusing Obama of treason. Four Star Navy Admiral Lyons has accused Obama many times publicly of crimes ranging from Treason, to Colluding with the Enemy, to Supplying the enemy with Stinger Missiles. Admiral Lyons is hardly alone. Lieutenant General Thomas McInnerney has also come forward and publicly said the U.S. government is infected with Muslim Brotherhood terrorist cells in every branch. Recall what the Examiner said about Obama’s half brother and his involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood:

President Obama’s half brother, Malik Obama has been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Tahani Al-Jebali. a former Chancellor of the Constitutional Court of Egypt, and one of it’s current advisors, spoke on Egyptian TV, which has been translated by Walid Shoebat, former Muslim Brotherhood member. Al-Jebali says the reason the US has backed the Muslim Brotherhood, is because Malik Obama is their financial adviser.

When it comes to the accusations of treason levied against Obama, anyone choosing to believe Obama over men like Admiral Lyons or Lieutenant General Thomas McInnerney has GOT to be living in Obama’s Fantasy Land, where the unicorn still runs free. Lyons and McInnerney are men who have lived and dedicated their entire lives to honor and the safety of this country, which is far more than we can say about Mr. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” Lieutenant General McInerney’s Military Awards and Decorations alone include:

Distinguished Service Medal with oak leaf cluster

Defense Superior Service Medal

Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster

Distinguished Flying Cross with oak leaf cluster

Bronze Star Medal with “V” device and oak leaf cluster

Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster

Air Medal with 17 oak leaf clusters

Air Force Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster

Vietnam Service Medal with six service stars

You don't sound like a military man.....are you actually one? Fart in the wind is a facebook type comment however if you would like to discuss his ACTUAL ACTIVITIES and then make a serious comment as to whether he should be tried, convicted and hung as one of the worst American Traitors on record, I'm open.....that's if you want to have a real discussion.....let me know and we can go on this one SSG Lobo......what the hell does "stick up" with your facebook comments mean anyway?

Capt (Join to see) - Assuming our country still has free and fair elections... and that election fraud is not being used by the minority to effect their desired outcome.

Yep, the U.S. doesn't do military coups. It has to be Congress's doing.

Heads UP people! Do you REALLY think he will leave office, even if Congress grows the fortitude to impeach him? I DON'T! IF they impeach him,. the ONLY way he will leave office, is if the Military forces remove him. They would be following the oath they swore. If he was impeached, that SHOULD remove any oath requirement to follow HIS orders.

President Obama will leave office the same way the majority of presidents leave office. When his term is over. What you are talking of is a coups and is treasonous not to mention paranoid. This sounds just like the talk running around the internet about Operation Jade Helm. That was nonsense and so is this.

PO1 Norm Burns - Grab your gun and go for it. Don't forget to write and tell us how it went

Depends on the interpretation of high crime and misdemeanors. There is no way we can kick his butt out of office because he has done an excellent job of CY.

Needs to be impeached before the military will take any action. If he's about to order nuke strikes on England I'd hope the SS would stop him.

1SG (Join to see) We would be battle buddies.

MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht - Nonsense

Hitler was "logical, rational, and predictable". Many, especially in America (my father was one) venerated him until he began a murderous campaign of world domination (which is arguably Putin's aim as well). Sadly, Putin looks appealing in comparison to the weakness of Western leaders, especially President Obama. Those of us for whom leadership is a close companion, are especially sensitive to our CIC's foibles and weakness and it's easy to look up to Putin as an example to follow. However, we must resist the urge and look among candidates who share our values, especially our love and fealty to the Constitution and individual liberty.

I'm going to respectfully disagree that Hitler was logical, rational, and predictable. I don't really see him as being logical or rational in a moral sense. Hitler was a serial liar and used propaganda to control the German people. Lying isn't logical because lies get discovered and you only find yourself having more to explain and keep up with before they're found out. Hitler was not a great military leader. He didn't listen to the advice of his generals. In fact, the officer corps didn't much care for him because they saw him as less. Hitler was a low ranking enlisted in communications who was awarded for taking risks and exposing himself to enemy fire; he was simply lucky he never got injured badly in combat. Fate smiled on him. The German generals knew Hitler had obtained office by deceit and they were keenly aware of his lack of integrity, but their dogged (albeit blind) devotion to duty mandated that they support him. Hmmm. Scratching my head here... Does that ring vaguely familiar?

What would Europe look like today if the German military had opposed Hitler? Or what if that bomb the officer planted under the table succeeded in killing Hitler. Hitler survived; the officer, most unfortunately, didn't. But if Hitler had died in the blast, would he become the savior of Germany and countless thousands in the war? That officer sacrificed himself for a nobler cause. [I'm discussing history not advocating anyone take out our Cmdr-in-Chief so let's just get this point straight! I'm merely trying to get you to think bigger than the box some of your heads are currently in and see that devotion to duty is a good thing, but it's not a good thing when you are sworn to follow orders that are illegal -- either because the person giving them is not qualified to give them, or because they run counter to the law and are not in the best interest of your nation.] How could those in the military not speak up but rather follow orders to massacre Jews, which they did without remorse, and be a part of his Arian ambitions? I'm all for loyalty to one's country, but am not a fan of blind loyalty for loyalty's sake.

Capt Jeff S. - I suggest reading "The Third Reich Trilogy" by Richard Evans , particularly the first volume , "The Coming of the Third Reich". Evans is considered one of the premier writers on the subject.

Second , I would suggest , "Mein Kampf", as a second adjunct , to the above book.

As to Hitler coming to power, he was a mesmerising speaker and was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg , after coming in second in the presidential election to Hindenburg. Later Hitler was conferred overall power by passage of the Enabling Act by a huge margin in the Reichstag.

Thanks for those suggestions.

Indeed Hitler was popular with the general public, and though he was a very animated and captivating speaker, Hindenburg despised him. After some political backstabbing went on, Hindenburg reluctantly made Hitler Chancellor. I was told by a German Arty officer (who taught me Statistics), that the men in the German Officer Corps always saw him as a Corporal who was not as refined or educated in the art of war as they were. He was seen as eccentric. Who asks to keep going to the front lines and volunteers to run messages between the front lines and the rear?!! They respected Hitler's bravery in battle, and his medals were all legit. Nobody could knock Hitler for that. The officers were impressed by his passionate ability to speak and motivate the German people to turn their country around... and though Hitler was their leader, he simply was not in their gentlemen's league. (Note that Hitler did not get promoted beyond Corporal despite his many medals and heroism because he was not seen as having the leadership necessary to go up higher in the ranks.) Who knew?!!

The German Arty Officer also told me a joke.

How do you know when you have found the proper range for your shells?
When 1/2 the casualties are yours and 1/2 are theirs.

Ran across this documentary and I think you might like it as well. It's 5 hrs 50 min long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkh0tE3_hnc

Very succinct and to the point.

PO3 Sherry Thornburg, thank you.

We are a banana republic under Obama

CPL Glynnda White, unfortunately, you are right.

MCPO Katrina Hutcherson - You definition is the definition of a moderate. Moderates used to be common in both parties.

Bill Clinton (and Hillary today) are left-of-center moderates. Ronald Reagan and Colin Powell (I wish he were running) are right-of-center moderates.

Sadly Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Lindsay Graham and John Kasich are the only moderates running this cycle, and only Hillary has any real chance to win the primary, let alone the general election.

LTC (Join to see) - Agreed Sir, and I am in total agreement with your description of Donald Trump as a blowhard. I do however disagree that I am somehow responsible as a member of the GOP for his popularity or that I can do anything to put a stop to it, I'm not a thought policeman!

IMHO though, Hilary has and will blatantly lie, deny or say whatever is necessary to further her political agenda, avoid criticism and blame for her indiscretions and get elected. She does not have the moral character and trustworthiness to be President. Though it would be nice to see a qualified woman get elected to lead the country, she does not fit the bill and doesn't deserve that historical monicker. My dear friend and liberal democrat has admitted to me that if either Sanders or Clinton win the democratic nomination she will be forced to vote republican in the general election...thIs is a crazy election cycle for sure.

As far as CPT L S degrading and name calling those on the extreme right, I admit I jumped the gun for admonishing him on that post but it was the behavior in general that I admonished and he often slings the same type of insults at the GOP. You just can't paint all members of any political party with the same broad brush and I find such intolerance and political vitriol from a service member on active duty disconcerting. Don't they stress to Army and National Guard members and especially commissioned officers that they should keep their political views to themselves and not try to influence subordinates?

MCPO Katrina Hutcherson - Wel I never said you (or every republican) was responsible.

I used to be a Republican and would be today had the religious right and then the no-taxes crowd not hijacked the party. I believe strongly in fiscal responsibility and providing services in a rational way. Welfare to work is a good example

What many don't realize is that the Southern racists used to be Democrats (look up "Dixiecrats") and the GOP was the progressive party. That all changed from the mid 1950s through the late 1960s as the civil rights movement took hold and the Democratic party gradually moved away from Jim Crow and segregation and those Dixiecrats who didn't change with their party (very few did) moved to the GOP.

The social (as opposed to fiscal) conservatives didn't take over the GOP right away. I would argue that it wasn't until 1991 or so when George H.W. Bush (whom I voted for) aligned himself and his party with Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition, and the ride of the religious right began.

When the religious right took hold, I still considered voting GOP, but more and more I was pushed to the Democrats, though I disagree with many aspects of their platform (too weak on crime, too many handouts, anti-gun), they at least remained socially on the right side of history pushing for equal pay for women, increasing the minimum wage and pushing for paid family leave. Still, pro-choice Republicans remained, and I voted for one such pro-choice GOP candidate for CA governor, TWICE (Arnold Schwarzenegger).

The Tea Party was, for me, the last nail in the GOP coffin. As a social progressive and fiscal conservative (which means taxing enough to pay the bills, no reckless cutting of everything), I now have to choose between being on the wrong side of history on social issues (GOP) or voting for policies that give too much away and thereby create an overall poorer economy (Dem). Neither choice is perfect, and so I have to look at what is really important to me when I vote.

For me, keeping religion out of government is my primary issue, and no I don't just mean keeping mandatory prayer out of public schools (very important), but keeping the teachings of a specific religion from controlling the law. Hobby Lobby, a case that allows a religious employer to restrict the contraceptive options of its employees due to the owner's religious beliefs is a perfect example, and the many states that want to ban gay marriage and abortion rights due to religious reasons is an even stronger motivator for me.

Gay marriage in particular is something I take very personally. As a lawyer, roughly 10% of law school class was gay. I also have or had at least three openly gay soldiers in my units over the last decade face real discrimination. While I am not gay myself, the marriage equality issue resonates with me because I am White and my wife is Asian, a marriage that was illegal in most states until 1967 and against which the EXACT SAME religious arguments were used then that the religious right is using now.

Discrimination based on race, sex, age, religion (or lack thereof) or orientation simply has no place, anywhere, period. That most GOP candidates are fighting so hard to maintain their right to discriminate means that if elected, those candidates would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who (most likely) rule on cases that made their dream of continued discrimination a reality.

Supreme Court nominations is the single most important thing I consider when I vote for a president, and as such, I can only vote pro-choice and pro-equality.

LTC (Join to see) - I must apologize, I usually get on RP when I'm tired and can't sleep. In my tired confusion I attributed some things others posted to you. I rarely vote down and you probably didn't deserve that either.
Though I am registered as a republican, I'm not in agreement with the religious right or the tea party either, and I have voted for democrats when I feel they will do a better job. I have never factored the composition of and potential Supreme Court nominations into my thought process in presidential elections, but I did read John Grisham's "The Pelican Brief" for what it's worth. I wish Justices had term limits.
My most important issue is the amount of money we spend loosing the "war on poverty". I don't have a lack compassion for the poor, but throwing money at them won't get them out of the vicious cycle of poverty. As you're probably aware, after President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he made his true feelings known with this quote: "These negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they've never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years". Well it's been 51 years and it's still working like a champ for the democrats. While the poor aren't limited to blacks, the strategy is the same. We don't give them enough to make a difference but the democrats are still getting those easy votes. The democratic voters think republicans are too greedy and don't care about the less fortunate, but it's their own leaders who are using the poor as pawns. To truly help them we should be spending money on better education, job training, parenting classes, alcohol and drug rehabilitation, fighting crime, cleaning up urban blight etc.. We should help the poor build self esteem by making them self sufficient.

I take gay marriage and equality very personally also. I had a half brother and I have two sisters. My brother was gay and tragically committed suicide in 1976 when he was 23. It was much more difficult to be gay at that time... One of my two sisters is gay. When she realized that, she was scared to death. She was in the Navy and spent the next 20 years being grilled and investigated by the NCIS because she looked like she was gay. She was smart enough not to admit she was, but her life was full of fear and anxiety that she would get caught and embarrass our father who was an O-6. I have two children, both boys, the youngest is gay. It was pretty obvious to me when he was only three. He bravely came out at 15 and the harassment he suffered in high school by both peers and teachers was pretty bad. He was viciously beaten by a group of boys which resulted in PTSD, anxiety disorder and severe depression all leading to a suicide attempt two weeks before his 21st birthday. He is 25 now and his outlook is somewhat improved but he still tells me if they invent a pill that could make you straight he would be first in line for it. He was an excellent student who qualified to attend community college for his senior year, but after suffering through so much, he barely managed to graduate and he struggles to keep a decent job with only a HS degree. It doesn't help that he compares himself to his brother who was an Eagle Scout, got a full scholarship from Air Force ROTC and is now a Captain. He's convinced success was easier for his brother because he's straight. I also have a few gay aunts and uncles and a bisexual niece. I'm certainly convinced there is a genetic component to sexual identity and I know that no one in their right mind would choose to be gay. I don't understand why homophobics think someone would choose such a difficult life. I hold onto hope that science will eventually prove that it is caused by nature not nurture and that the numbers of people who understand that grow bigger each year. We are definitely moving in the right direction and I don't think the Supreme Court would be able to reverse the gains homosexuals have already made...

No. Absolutely not.
It is an unlawful order, and those are not to be followed.

This nation is NOT under martial law, and I would fight it if it ever were. Our constitution is written in such a way that civilian authorities are the ultimate commanders of the uniformed forces- not the generals.

Can an improperly vetted candidate who doesn't meet the Constitutional qualifications of office be the lawfully elected President?

Why not. He doesn't render a salute to the Marines on his Helo. We'd have to take out the secret service first though.

If that's what I was ordered to do. I'd gladly do it even more so since he refuses to salute back to the Marines on his Helo.

SGT Jeremiah B. pretty much my thoughts.

The POTUS how about we get rid of these idiots in Congress, that should be the first start.

Capt Jeff S. - Then justify the invasion of Iraq, did that make the world better?

Iraq wasn't Obama's doing.....that's Bush. So invalid question.

That and Law Enforcement. Military has no authority, or right to act on such an unlawful order. There is a legal process to remove a sitting POTUS, it would be a dark day it is used, even though needed. Sometimes the cure is painful and dangerous.

I agree. Who is going to give the military the order anyway. He fires generals by the dozen.

Am still scratching my head over the Washington Navy Yard shooting. Was it random, or was it to take out some folks that were meeting, and if so, what were they meeting about. It just doesn't make sense that the shooter would be able to come in through a back door that was left unlocked, bypassing security, etc.

Except that he didn't come in through the back door "bypassing security". He had a valid pass. That information is widely available, and conspiracy free...

When this 'poor decision' hits home... or close to home, let us know.

So, when I did a google image search of this phot, I found nothing behind these photos from any news sources or other websites. I also can't find anything other than twitter. It may be photoshopped based on that source (the first image).

Honestly, from a realistic point of view, it's probably not an DAESH fighter especially since he's shaven and the severed head is bearded. Members of the Free Syrian Army fighting DAESH and Assad are known to normally be clean shaven, whereas DAESH normally wear a beard. FSA also sometimes uses decapitation as well as revenge against DAESH who have decapitated FSA victims they've killed. His uniform also tips me off to him being something other than DAESH.

Furthermore, one picture next to another is misleading, we don't know where this is or when this was. We don't know the source of the photos. It also could be someone who looks extremely similar to the other (and no, they actually don't look like the same guy, check out the cheek bone difference, the difference between the ocular cavity (the eye hole: the man on the left has much shallower eyes then the one on the right, and the one on the right has eyes that are closer set together than the man on the left).

Basically, don't quit your day job, and don't believe every image you see online.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/kleinfeld-refugee-memes-debunking-846

You found nothing? It's all over Twitter. FWIW.

"You can trust internet memes as a reliable source for factual information." -Abraham Lincoln.