ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Uneasy lies the head

The President appears to be afraid of his Praetorian Parade Guard:
 Take a close look at the M-14 rifles the Marines where carrying at Obama’s second inauguration. The bolts have been removed from the rifles rendering them unable to fire a round.

Apparently Obama’s Secret Service doesn’t trust the USMC. Simply searching each guy to make sure he didn’t have a live round hidden on him wasn’t enough, they had to make sure the guns were inoperable. Remember all those times George Bush (miss him yet?) traveled to Iraq to meet the troops? Troops who had working rifles slung on their shoulders, with loaded magazines in pouches on their belt.  I can’t recall ever seeing the troops with weapons in hand when Obama paid them a visit and after seeing this, if anyone can find such a photo, I’d have to bet that the bolt carriers had been removed prior to Obama’s arrival.

It’s painfully obvious how much contempt Obama has toward the military and the feeling is mutual…and the Secret Service knows it too.
From a purely symbolic perspective, this strikes me as a very last days of Rome motif.  What sort of Commander-in-Chief doesn't trust the men he is commanding?  And why doesn't he trust them?

Labels:

111 Comments:

Anonymous The other skeptic February 10, 2013 1:41 PM  

OT: The Administration has figured out how to restore inflation to Egypt.

Blogger The Great and Powerful Oz February 10, 2013 1:42 PM  

I used to hang around military types back in the 1990s. I still remember hearing about the toast at formal events being changed from "to the President of the United States" to "to the Office of the President of the United States" during the Clinton years.

Today there is even less respect for the current resident of the Oval Office than there was then.

Anonymous STFU Tad February 10, 2013 1:58 PM  

I eagerly await tad's gay, lame-ass justification for this one...

Blogger tz February 10, 2013 2:03 PM  

We will see how long the SS can stay loyal. Note that they need not do anything overt, just arrange for the right "oops". Having Biden next in line and the rest of the succession (it explains certain choices) probably helps.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother February 10, 2013 2:05 PM  

These aren't just any Marines, either. These are Marines from the Eighth & I Barracks, where the Silent Drill Team, Camp David Security, The President's Own Marine Band and the various ceremonial and Arlington national cemetery teams come from. These are very much like the modern day Praetorian Guard as far as their proximity to the White House. These are all infantry guys too.

Anonymous A Visitor February 10, 2013 2:06 PM  

@The Great and Powerful Oz

I wonder what they'd be saying today. That's an interesting anecdote!

Re: the photo Actions speak louder than words.

Remember, as the poster in the link said, how the 101st didn't have their weapons when he visited Ft. Campbell? How about all those times in Afghanistan?

Anonymous 11B February 10, 2013 2:07 PM  

Remember all those times George Bush (miss him yet?)

I am sorry, but when I see a GOPer write the phrase 'George Bush (miss him yet)', I stop reading.

George Bush was an effing disaster and his failure in large part paved the way for Obama. No, I don't miss that bastard, and I wish I'd never even heard of him.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 10, 2013 2:08 PM  

We will see how long the SS can stay loyal.

Hmmm, the SS is full of the sons Obama never had.

Anonymous Godfrey February 10, 2013 2:13 PM  

Why would anyone shoot him? He's a brainless stooge. If he was shot the ruling classes would simply fill his shoes with another teleprompter reader.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 10, 2013 2:20 PM  

Why would anyone shoot him? He's a brainless stooge.

Sure, but perhaps someone around him is the puppet master and is fearful of marines with functioning guns.

Anonymous zen0 February 10, 2013 2:23 PM  

From a story dated January 14th:

When French president Hollande visited a military base last week, the soldiers of the 12th regiment of cuirassiers in Olivet (Loiret), were, curiously, disarmed beforehand. The firing pins were taken out of their guns. What's Hollande afraid of? Muslims in the ranks, or patriots outraged that he has handed the country over to them? These days, you never know where the next bullet will come from.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 10, 2013 2:26 PM  

zen0: Link?

Curious how paranoid the elites have become ... an telling.

Did they search them to see if any of them had a spare firing pin?

Anonymous Porky February 10, 2013 2:26 PM  

"And therefore think him as a serpent's egg..."

Anonymous zen0 February 10, 2013 2:31 PM  

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.ca/2013/01/french-soldiers-disarmed-during.html

Anonymous Tallen February 10, 2013 2:33 PM  

The article is comparing apples and oranges. It's comparing a drill team with drill rifles to troops at a FOB with their issued rifles. I never asked my co-workers on an active duty drill team about their rifles but in ROTC all the drill rifles were disabled and their actions modified to make a sharper sound when they were being manipulated for show.

There is an article from not too long ago about (former) SecDef Panetta visiting a FOB and having all the troops specifically disarmed for his speech when Bush did otherwise.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 10, 2013 2:45 PM  

Frankly I'm a bit disappointed Obama didn't replace the Marines with a platoon of LGBT activists or purple-shirt government unions goons. Or maybe some New Black Panthers.

Anonymous Res Ipsa February 10, 2013 2:47 PM  

"And why doesn't he trust them?"

They swore an oath to up hold the constitution. They might keep their word.

Anonymous realmatt February 10, 2013 2:49 PM  

They swore an oath to up hold the constitution. They might keep their word.

heh

Anonymous The other skeptic February 10, 2013 2:55 PM  

M14 Disassembly photos suggest that the only way the bolt would not be visible in that photo is if it was held back by the bolt stop, or removed.

If held back, it tend to jolt back into battery, I would imagine, with the movements made by the marines during drill.

I cannot imagine that removing the bolts would make for more impressive sounds, however.

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 2:57 PM  

Panetta did the same thing recently when he visited Afghanistan. If I recall correctly, all US troops in his immediate vicinity was disarmed.

At the time, I thought it was just because they didn't trust the Afghans and thought it would be offensive to disarm them while leaving US troops armed. But it's looking like they really don't trust anyone.

And they call us paranoid.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother February 10, 2013 2:58 PM  

You can make the bolts on most semi auto rifles slam home by smacking the buttstock with sufficient force. If the bolts were merely locked back in that picture, they wouldn't be locked back very long into the routine.

They are gone. It is a message.

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 3:00 PM  

@other skeptic

In those photos you can see that the operating rod is fully forward. The bolt isn't held back, it is definitely removed. The only question in my mind is whether or not the pic is Photoshopped.

Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 3:14 PM  

"What sort of Commander-in-Chief doesn't trust the men he is commanding? "

A treacherous man who issues illegal orders would be suspicious of men renowned for fidelity to to God and country.

"And why doesn't he trust them?"

The same sort of men disobeyed an order to stand down and let Muslims murder a US ambassador.

MALTHUS

Anonymous The other skeptic February 10, 2013 3:15 PM  

The only question in my mind is whether or not the pic is Photoshopped.

Watch the video. I cannot imagine anyone painstakingly photoshopping all those frames.

Blogger tz February 10, 2013 3:20 PM  

And in microcosm:

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2013/02/10/mayor-bing-delivers-bonuses-to-high-level-police-after-rank-and-file-cops-get-pay-cuts/

Not that I have sympathy for the blue-coats, only that there is irony, karma, or justice that eventually gets through.

Anonymous Cinco February 10, 2013 3:25 PM  

I am just speculating, but I imagine that there is a possibility that the drill team removed the bolts because their sharp movements can cause them to slide around and create unwanted noise. I am just speculating though, I know for a fact that other units do it during "drill and ceremony." Then again, I have zero experience with an M-14, so what do I know.

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 3:27 PM  

Interestingly, the two guys beside the flagmen carrying 1903 Springfields do appear have bolts. But it looks like they were the only two. You can see them at about 1:47 in the video.

I really can't say how much work it would have taken to edit the video to show all of the bolts missing from the M14's, only that I don't know enough about video editing and graphic arts to tell with certainty whether or not this or any other unsigned digital imagery I see is genuine anymore.

Anonymous ENthePeasant February 10, 2013 3:32 PM  

Gotta love this, and understand it in the larger context. Rand Paul is trying to find out if Obama can issue orders for drone strikes on US soil. I've looked at the entire NDAA and it's not specifically forbidden. Sorry Rand, the answer is yes, the king can issue such orders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rl26KCWQavk

Anonymous jack February 10, 2013 3:34 PM  

At the linked site some of the commenters talked about this. One pointed out that this was an M1 not a 14. I think he may be right. Also, that most if not all parade and drill teams have 'show' weapons that have been disabled for decades.

I think in the article it was pointed out that Bush went to Irak and made a surprise visit. I remember the video of that. The troops were in an auditorium, with either the Sec Def speaking or the Sec Army, and the talker made a joke was there anyone more ranking than he in theater to talk to them. Then Bush walked out to an enthusiastic if surprised welcome. Those troops were armed; well armed. I wonder if Obama would have the stones to duplicate that act?

Anonymous Azimus February 10, 2013 3:44 PM  

C'mon, ceremonial marines as Praetorians? The Secret Service are the body guards of the president. The marines are highly precise, brave, capable... decorations. SS Serves the meaningful role of Praetorians.

BTW I think the Army 3rd Regiment does the Arlington Cemetary Stuff, at least for the Unlnowns... maybe each branch has their own Arlington cermonial unit, I don't know.

Anonymous bw February 10, 2013 3:56 PM  

Ceremonial and Parade. These low ranking drill Marines are there for show.
@Tallen and @jack and @Azimus have it correct.

And the BushFamily as anything other than the Elite, totalitarian entity for Bankster Globalism? Absurd.

Anonymous DrTorch February 10, 2013 4:04 PM  

After the Ft Hood incident, I can't blame him for his paranoia.

Oh, and as for sabatoge of the military

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/08/panetta-us-at-risk-of-being-second-rate-power.html?ESRC=dod.nl

Anonymous Fisk Ellington Rutledge III February 10, 2013 4:05 PM  

I'd like to second, third and fourth the comment about Jorge W. Bush. That imbecile was only better than Obonzo because he was marginally less destructive. What's hilarious about the whole Bush vs. Obama, GOP vs. Democrat "debates" is what both sides apparently don't realize is that Obonzo is merely continuing the vast majority of the Bush agenda. Obonzo is STILL trying to reinflate the Diversity Housing Bubble. Obonzo is admittedly more destructive because his natural constituency is composed almost entirely of White cowards and nonWhite parasites. Bush's constituency was largely composed of clueless, but still decent, productive Whites who proved to be a restraining influence.

Nothing surprises me about Obonzo at this point. Disarming his guard might be the act of an irrational paranoid, but what else is new, and maybe from Obama's point of view it actually seems necessary?

Obama is an affirmative-action parasite. That is his defining characteristic and Obama combines the worst of White Leftist pathology and third-world savagery. 

The Leftist usurps the place of God, treats the masses as his own personal lab rats, and simply does whatever he pleases like the spoiled brat he is. Everything the Leftist does and says is a lie and a crime, flowing from an immoral, malignant ideology. 

And as we see every day in the news from our inner cities, the lively, vibrant, diverse, third-world savage has the impulse control and nuanced social skills of an enraged badger. The Left (along with their bitch "The American Conservative" lolololololol) celebrates these brutes as our saviors. 

Obama, that affirmative-action parasite, is the perfect Leftist, combining all the symptoms of the Leftist pathology in one stuttering, smacking, effeminate package. To make it even more perfect, from the Leftist point of view, Obama is almost certainly an extremely angry, adolescent homosexual. Those horribly embarrassing "Man of Destiny" poses are all you need to prove that. I can just hear him now, "Oh Eric darling, does this pose look sufficiently brutal and petulant? Maybe I need to pout more?"

My guess is that the justified, perfectly reasonable and appropriate hatred felt towards Obama by many, if not most, of the White soldiers in Obama's guard is pretty obvious if you are actually in their presence. It probably rolls off of them in powerful, light-distorting waves.

Anonymous nick digger February 10, 2013 4:15 PM  

Clinton was the same way. He would not allow any police or troops to be armed while he was addres-- I mean, shamelessly using them for P.R.

Blogger Tim February 10, 2013 4:26 PM  

I recall that General McChrystal retired because of disparaging things he said about Obama. Just to add one more example of the mutual lack of respect, or trust.

Anonymous Daniel February 10, 2013 5:05 PM  

It isn't much different than McRapey suddenly deciding to take a 10-day trip down memory lane after firing every gun at his disposal in the wrong direction. An artificial barrier against assault is no better than no barrier at all, but clingers are going to cling.

Blogger Doom February 10, 2013 5:18 PM  

Here is the thing, until he can afford to disarm the Secret Service he will never be safe. He can, and has, picked and chosen from among them. But even he knows his choices are poor, his thinking is at odds with reality, and his bros are the the ones who will betray him first. I just love the unease. At least I am not the only one who understands the way of things, and how simple it can be, at the barrel of a gun.

Anonymous castricv February 10, 2013 5:33 PM  

I think being ruled by flaming, idiotic, faggotty loser true-believers who have the sense and temperment of spoiled 19 year olds, but the courage and strength of well,... these guys is far worse than living under the boot of real tyrants. You can fight and yes die against tyrants. You might even win, but it's honorable and just. All these guys do is just change the truth all the time, train your kids to believe the most disgusting mantras, and eventually just get you thrown in rape you by monkeys prison complexes without anyone else caring.

This is indeed Orwell realized.

Blogger Baloo February 10, 2013 5:35 PM  

Delicious. He does have at least an animal cunning, I guess, or at least his handlers do. I have riffed on this and linked to it here:
The Wisdom of Barack Obama

Anonymous Thales February 10, 2013 5:37 PM  

It isn't much different than McRapey suddenly deciding to take a 10-day trip down memory lane after firing every gun at his disposal in the wrong direction.

Ouch. Yeah, all that winning the internets has really exhausted him, you see...that's all.

Anonymous zen0 February 10, 2013 5:45 PM  

ENthePeasant February 10, 2013 3:32 PM

Gotta love this, and understand it in the larger context. Rand Paul is trying to find out if Obama can issue orders for drone strikes on US soil.


Sounds like they have enlisted drones to neutralize Dorner. If I was any kind of wildlife in that area, I think I would find a cave for a few weeks.

Anonymous Daniel February 10, 2013 5:58 PM  

Ouch. Yeah, all that winning the internets has really exhausted him, you see...that's all.

Heh. That same "internets" that he can't "mallet all of?"

Congratulations are in order, then, for Samoa winning the World Series.

Blogger Roger February 10, 2013 6:07 PM  

Just to be pedantic: according to a comment on the article they are M-1 Garands not M-14's

Anonymous Stilicho February 10, 2013 6:28 PM  

8th & I uses Garands, as shown in that photo. I've never seen them use Garands without bolts though. When one wishes to render ceremonial weapons inoperable, it is usually the practice to spike the barrels. Then bolt or no bolt, the weapon is useless. Removal of the bolt indicates that it is otherwise an operable weapon, thus, the removal also indicates distrust.

Anonymous Stilicho February 10, 2013 6:29 PM  

Heh. That same "internets" that he can't "mallet all of?"

Welcome to the Thumperdome: two man enter, one man squee.

Anonymous David February 10, 2013 6:32 PM  

"Clinton was the same way. He would not allow any police or troops to be armed while he was addres-- I mean, shamelessly using them for P.R."

Yes I distinctly remember one case where Clinton addressed troops and the Secret Service removed the firing pins from their guns beforehand.

I was never in the military but if I was and that had been done to me I would have gotten out as fast as possible.

Anonymous David February 10, 2013 6:36 PM  

"George Bush was an effing disaster and his failure in large part paved the way for Obama. No, I don't miss that bastard, and I wish I'd never even heard of him."

In the 1990s I was what you would call a "Clinton-hater" meaning I was someone who paid attention to the crimes Bill Clinton committed and wanted to see him face justice and answer for those crimes.

George Bush actually made me miss Bill Clinton, and look on the Clinton years with a slight amount of nostalgia.

No matter how bad Obama has gotten, I still don't miss Bush, and if I never see another Bush for as long as I live, it will be too soon.

Anonymous Daniel February 10, 2013 7:05 PM  

Stilicho
Welcome to the Thumperdome: two man enter, one man squee.

If this winner isn't a future post title, all literature has failed.

Anonymous Bob Ramar February 10, 2013 7:10 PM  

The way an M-16, AR-15, or M-4 works, you could not tell if the bolt has been removed by casual observation. You would have to handle the rifle and open the dust cover to know for sure.

OpenID whoresoftheinternet February 10, 2013 7:33 PM  

I wonder what the effect would have been had the military attempted a coup/revolution on Inauguration Day.

I forsee it having a great and powerful effect on the people, because it would be on national T.V. directly involving the President, Chief Justice, Sec. of State, etc., and the news media would be unprepared to cut away and hide its effects. And, of course, the symbolism of the timing---a change of the guard--would resonate as well.

The result being that the coup/revolution leaders would have ample opportunity to propagandize for their side right on national TV, perhaps gaining a lot of support quickly, especially during the symbolic date of an overthrow. After all, one of the sticking points in various attempted revolutions isn't the initial plan, it's the necessity of gaining followers quickly, and gaining enough support so that people who don't support them don't necessarily hate them or want them to fail either. If the media does a blackout of your speeches and refuses to print or comment on your manifesto, you lose at recruitment. The army guys who tried to mount a revolution in GA recently fell victim to it. One of the great successes of the American Revolution was an organized, systematic propaganda system that quickly disseminated pro-Independence propaganda, including speakers and sympathetic newspapers, as well as very good army recruitment (Washington's charisma at recruitment kept the army together during times the money and supplies ran dry).

The idea that a coup at the Inauguration would not be able to be blacked out, and that it would be a direct, symbolic, and near-literal overthrow of Obama, Roberts, etc., with a stage on which to recruit more before the media scrambled and realized to black them out--well, let's just say that, having lived through Sept. 11th in NYC, the potency of the such an event to galvanize old American values like freedom, revolution, and punishment of tyrants is greater than most people suspect.

Perhaps the left's propagandists realized the same, and disarmed America's Praetorian Guard to prevent the chance of it coming true. If any American group would be willing to engage in a coup/revolution at such an event to overthrow tyranny, even if outnumbered, some liberty-loving small wars soldiers of the Marines would be the ones.

Or else, like Beyonce Knowles's lip synching, it was another false display of professionalism by the Obama Regime.



Blogger papabear February 10, 2013 7:35 PM  

afaik, it is standard for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan to carry rifles without magazines while on base. Will double-check with an Army friend.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 7:39 PM  

I do not believe there was any other president in my lifetime that was more roundly despised by those serving in uniform than Bill Clinton, particularly by officers, but I must admit that the feeling was clearly mutual. The half million man army of Desert Storm no longer existed by the time Clinton left office. Bush Jr. did not have the same military his daddy had and only managed to invade Afganistan and Iraq by Federalizing the National Guard. About half of the troops were NGs.

Compared to Clinton, the current president is much more liberal and has done more to harm the military than Clinton ever dared. The current campaign of political correctness in the military seems more like a purge. Operationally, Obamba has continued a surprising amount of the Bush doctrine and retained a lot of the Bush defense team, but the pace of political correctness seems to have accelerated.

OpenID whoresoftheinternet February 10, 2013 7:45 PM  

@DonReynolds:

Clinton was more pragmatic than Obama, and still feared massive repercussions from overt actions. A political vet, he wanted more backroom dealing that he could later take credit for. The 1994 Republican takeover shook him, as he wanted re-election more than anything. Pragmatically, he tacked right, still trying subtly push his leftist agenda.

Obama sees it differently. A political neophyte, he doesn't like backroom dealing, preferring to pawn it off on others. He took Hilary out---he sees himself as a dragon slayer. He likes big steps that he assumes will never be overturned--hence his shredding of the Const. over Obama care. He thinks Chicago style---trample the process, trample the rights, trample the people, then corrupt for the win on election day.

To Clinton, people are meant to be ruled, but also wants to gain their love him---the Purgerer is a natural manipulator who enjoys his sociopathy. For Obama, people are meant to be ruled, and they will be forced to love him---by any means necessary.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 7:51 PM  

whoresoftheinternet...."If any American group would be willing to engage in a coup/revolution at such an event to overthrow tyranny, even if outnumbered, some liberty-loving small wars soldiers of the Marines would be the ones."

I strongly disagree. Marines are highly disciplined and rebellion against lawful authority is not part of their corporate culture. Indeed, I suspect that any Marine unit would have to murder their own officers as a first step. No Marine officer would ever be a party to a coup and they would shoot any fellow Marine on the spot to stop it.

Never expect the US military to attempt a coup. It would require a break in that all-important chain of command.

Anonymous Red Comet February 10, 2013 7:55 PM  

No matter how bad Obama has gotten, I still don't miss Bush, and if I never see another Bush for as long as I live, it will be too soon.

You won't have to wait too long as I'm sure Jeb Bush's son is already being groomed to be the Great Hispanic Hope for the Republican Party.

Anonymous The OASF February 10, 2013 7:57 PM  

Well... on a jollier note I hope we're all ready for another exciting episode of The Walking Politically Correct.

I know I'm not.

Anonymous whorefinder February 10, 2013 8:16 PM  

@DonReynolds:

I strongly disagree. Marines are highly disciplined and rebellion against lawful authority is not part of their corporate culture. Indeed, I suspect that any Marine unit would have to murder their own officers as a first step. No Marine officer would ever be a party to a coup and they would shoot any fellow Marine on the spot to stop it.

---I disagree, in that Marine martial culture is about de-centralization and extending power to the field officer. The Army, Navy, Air Force have much more centralized command structures.

For instance, most "special forces" units in the U.S. military, such as Army Green Berets or Navy SEALS, are under the command of USCENTCOM---basically meaning that only the centralized bureaucracy of Washington can authorize the use of special forces soldiers. In return for granting non-field officers this power, such special forces receive extra funds for training and equipment. However, U.S. Marine's version of "special forces", termed "Force Recon", is not under USCENTCOM's command. The Marines have consistently refused to place the decision of using it's own "special forces" in any other hands other than it's down-chain officers.

What is more, the history of the Marines is that they are evolved to do rapid, amphibious assaults in non-declared war activities---"small wars", as it was called. Marines are used to being in situations where they are technically outnumbered.

What is more, and is important here, is that the Marine corps attracts fewer (percentage-wise) blacks to its ranks. Left-wing commentators have noticed that the more centralized forces, with its huge rule books, tend to support a higher percentage of black troops, rather than the Marines, who push decisions as far down as possible and do not use written rules, only guidelines---they judge by success, not by accurate rule-following. This, in turn, means a smaller knee-jerk percentage of democrat-supporting troops.

Finally, as the military branch with the most rigorous initial basic training (I speak of the initial phases, not training later down the line), the Marines tend to weed out the non-committed very quickly. The emphasis in the initial phase is in cutting the dead weight. The result is a more fanatical fighting force than others---and fanaticism, as any psychologist will tell you, fanaticism can be turned one way or the other in a personality, but it rarely fades. Witness Paul's fanaticism---first as a merciless persecutor of Christians, then as a tireless and loud defender and converter, going from strictly following all Judaic law to rejecting every last bit. The Good Lord chose well.

All this is to say that the Marines are much more likely to operate independently, quickly, and with much more trust in a local commander (who's decisions saved their bacon) rather than an Army guy used to getting orders from across the sea and following the rule book.

Never expect the US military to attempt a coup. It would require a break in that all-important chain of command.

---Militarizes the world over have attempted coups. Happened throughout history and will continue to happen. The idea that America's military is not subject to the same whims and changes of fortune is to grossly misjudge human behavior.

As I noted, a few solders in GA recently tried to foment a revolt. George Washington himself served the British loyally in the French and Indian War.

Anonymous sprach von Teufelshunden February 10, 2013 8:30 PM  

I love it when armchair analysts talk out of their collective asses. Except for Animal Mother and myself, I know no one else here that really knows of what he speaks. (If I missed a fellow Marine, apologies)

Marines are the Presidential Guard. They are the equivalent of the Roman Praetorian. (Though the U.S. Armed Forces uniform is covered, head to toe, with the "head, body, and wings" of the Phoenix. That is not an Eagle. [See Manly P. Hall])

Likewise, Edwin Vieira identifies the USMC with the Praetorians. And will exact justice and order when push comes to shove.

I believe, we are witnessing "surface features" of a more complex mechanism operating behind the scenes.

I articulate that here. This is most telling, of just how this IS working:

Never in American history has there been so much dissent in the military and its high command and inside American Intel as now. It is shocking how deep this dissent runs. There are folks in the current high military command and Intel that now know that 911 was an inside job, a false flag gladio attack by a faction in the USAF, the Neocons, Mossad and assets, and they are hoppin’ mad and want revenge, but they want the actual perps punished...

These folks who have now taken control have had long successful careers in covert tradecraft and are known to be so crafty that if they decide to act, they will do so decisively and may engineer covering incidents to hide any of their massive, broad based corrections designed to deal with those responsible.

Some experts have stated behind closed doors that these gun-grabbers have really exposed those that have hijacked America to the average American Joe for the first time publicly. And they believe this has been a huge miscalculation and a mistake of major proportions. Now the Beast from the City of London may have hell to pay for it all. It appears that the curtain has been pulled back exposing the true Wizard of Oz...

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 8:32 PM  

whoresoftheinternet...."George Washington himself served the British loyally in the French and Indian War."

You misunderstand. Washington did not stage a coup against British rule. He joined a revolutionary army after the revolution had already began. He was hired to the job by the Continental Congress. Besides, he was not a soldier by profession, nor did he rise up from the lower ranks. His brief service in the French and Indian War (in the Virginia Militia) was by no means successful or noteworthy, except that he surrendered to the French. Ironic, no?

Anonymous whorefinder February 10, 2013 8:36 PM  

@DonReynolds:

No Marine officer would ever be a party to a coup and they would shoot any fellow Marine on the spot to stop it.
---Sorry, I think I need to disagree specifically with this sentence.

1. Plenty of Marine officers are venal enough to want to seize power. They are humans, and human are fallible.

2. Plenty of Marine officers are also reminded that they took an oath to the Constitution, not the president. If removing the president saved the constitution in their mind, a coup/revolution would be justified.

3. Plenty of Marines are right-wingers who are anti-gun control, anti-abortion, and very much against Obama. To get a large enough, dedicated group together to create a coup wouldn't be that difficult.

Remember that Homeland Security is worried about right-wing responses from militias now, most of whom are vets. Homeland's bigger worry with such militia take overs is their allying with people still in the military that they know. They have been training for such situations. A small mutiny by a Marine unit coupled with allied militia seizures of supplies (weapons, machinery) would potentially be a hornet's nest for the government to put down.

Anonymous robwbright February 10, 2013 8:37 PM  

My friend was in the Army during Bush admin. Bush visited their base and they were required to have the bolts out of their weapons. It's apparently been Secret Service practice since at least Bush II.

Neither party trusts their own military.

Anonymous whorefinder February 10, 2013 8:46 PM  

@DonReynolds:

You misunderstand. Washington did not stage a coup against British rule. He joined a revolutionary army after the revolution had already began. He was hired to the job by the Continental Congress. Besides, he was not a soldier by profession, nor did he rise up from the lower ranks. His brief service in the French and Indian War (in the Virginia Militia) was by no means successful or noteworthy, except that he surrendered to the French. Ironic, no?

---You misunderstand that the terms "coup" and "revolution" are blurred in most cases, including here and in the American one. Who calls it a coup and who calls it a revolution is largely decided by who is talking and who won. Washington could easily be said to have joined a "coup" or "revolt" or "rebellion" if the British had won. I use him as but one example of a formerly "loyal", military-trained subject who quickly turned on his former government. There are plenty of other military leaders in history who turned on the country/government they swore to protect.


Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 8:55 PM  

This has been going on since at least the Nixon administration. We did around Reagan in the 1980's. You if any of you internet tough guys had ever served, you'd have been aware of that.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 8:59 PM  

whorefinder.."---You misunderstand that the terms "coup" and "revolution" are blurred in most cases, including here and in the American one. Who calls it a coup and who calls it a revolution is largely decided by who is talking and who won."

Keep sucking on that bruise but I am afraid you will find that most of those here know the difference between a military coup to overthrow or seize the government and a revolt by existing state governments, assembled together for common purpose, against the existing government. You could argue that the US Civil War was another example of a similar rebellion, although unsuccessful, the distinction being that the rebellion only became a military problem and did not originate with the military forces, state or national. Coup and revolution are not confused or blurred.

Anonymous whorefinder February 10, 2013 9:01 PM  

@sprach:

If you mean that if you never served in the military, you can't know anything about it, you're quite erroneous. There's plenty of info out there for anyone who can read. If you think someone's wrong on facts, show it. Otherwise, the appeal to authority isn't enough.

Anonymous whorefinder February 10, 2013 9:13 PM  

@DonReynolds:


Keep sucking on that bruise but I am afraid you will find that most of those here know the difference between a military coup to overthrow or seize the government and a revolt by existing state governments, assembled together for common purpose, against the existing government.


---If the existing state governments assembled and had their local military forces seize the government in Washington, that could be a termed a coup or revolution, depending on how you argue. You can pretend a clear cut difference, or you can choose to observe reality.

Anyway, this is all besides the point. Do you really think it impossible for the U.S. military to every start a revolt or revolution or coup against the U.S. government, despite historically militaries around the world doing that just that? If so, I think you're incredibly naive.

You could argue that the US Civil War was another example of a similar rebellion, although unsuccessful, the distinction being that the rebellion only became a military problem and did not originate with the military forces, state or national. Coup and revolution are not confused or blurred.

---The U.S. civil war didn't start with the military, agreed. But if it had--if Lee and other southerners had marched on Washington during Lincoln's inauguration, seized the Federal government, and installed a government pro-Southern interests---would this be a coup or a revolution?

After all, the French revolted many times against their rulers, replacing their governments with new ones sympathetic to the most recent revolutionaries, and people who did not like the latest government rebelled and were put down. Are these successive replacements revolutions or coups?

If a group takes over the government clandestinely, arrests the old government, but yet spends years putting down armies of loyalists to the old regime, is it a coup with policing issues, or a revolution?

The problem is the vague terms here, as well as the negative connotations of "coup" versus the more positive American connotations of "revolution."

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 9:17 PM  

"You if any of you internet tough guys had ever served, you'd have been aware of that."

I don't understand why anyone who values liberty would serve the cadre of jackals running this government. Toughness has got nothing to do with it.

Anonymous Heh February 10, 2013 9:21 PM  

What sort of Commander-in-Chief doesn't trust the men he is commanding?

At Casablanca, FDR reviewed American troops, and FDR's Secret Service men pointed loaded tommy guns at the "loyal troops" in case they opened fire on him for some unknown reason.

Anonymous HH February 10, 2013 9:39 PM  

"Take a close look at the M-14 rifles the Marines where carrying at Obama’s second inauguration. The bolts have been removed from the rifles rendering them unable to fire a round."

I dont know ... these look like M1 garands, not M14s -- no bolts, just the "op rod" -- look at the stock. Its unlikely that they are real operational rifles --- after all they haven;t used M1 or M14s in years --- they use lighter and balanced non firing rifles for drill competitions, parades etc...

Anonymous Jack Amok February 10, 2013 9:45 PM  

A new book claims David Petraeus had his affair exposed by his own bodyguard as some sort of inner circle struggle.. Considering the scandals the Secret Service have suddenly started having, I would expect there's some kind if behind the scenes squabble going on there too.

Well, why not? Everything else is going to Hell all at once.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother February 10, 2013 9:50 PM  

Talking about USMC units rebelling or participating in a coup d'etat is thrilling stuff, but dangerous. The two sources of tyranny in this world are political and military. The Founders placed the military power of the state in the hands of the people to try and prevent either occurrence as long as possible. All of you crying out to the military to save you would merely be trading one master for another. I doubt any of you would want HMC or The Commandant running this country. Trust me, you are better off with Obama. I say that because although you can read about military life, and USMC life in particular, you can not viscerally know what it is like to live under the thumb of an officer or NCO until you join.

The military power is retained in the hands of the people, We The People. This ensures that if the political element tries to seize power, they will be met with resistance, and the security forces of this country will be badly outmanned and outgunned. Ditto for the military element trying to seize power.

When I die, an Eagle, Globe and Anchor will be inscribed on my headstone, as well as Sergeant's stripes, but the last thing I would want is for the Corps to seize power. If it did so, it would become something it was never meant to be, and would soon be unrecognizable. For those who think that the USMC doesn't use Marine Corps Orders, Base Orders, Regimental Orders, Division Orders, Wing Orders, Squadron Orders, your Ten General Orders, you truly do not know anything.

Discipline, as taught to me by my Senior Drill Instructor, Sgt Carlos, Platoon 1118, Delta Co, May 1996:

Discipline is the instant, willing obedience to orders.

Don't trade Obama for Chesty. You will not like it.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother February 10, 2013 9:54 PM  

The US Civil War is horribly misnamed, and was as far from any definition of a coup as you could think of. The Confederate states peacefully seceded, formed their own government, military forces, etc. They were a separate country. At some point in 1861, the New York Times suddenly realized that the North would endure extreme financial hardship if King Cotton did not continue to flow through their ports. At that point the USA decided the CSA needed to be back in the fold. That is when the war started. It was not a civil war between two factions in the same country. The war consisted of two separate countries fighting each other.

What's civil about war, anyway?

Anonymous BlueSkies February 10, 2013 9:55 PM  

So VD - any thoughts on the viability of the Civilian National Security Force that was whitewashed from the 2008 campaign? I have this tinfoil-inspired idea that it would serve two purposes, at least initially.
One, a social or cultural counterbalance to the military, and two, to put down the undesirable rabble that plans on exercising a bit of self-governance, namely out west.

Anonymous Vermont Guy February 10, 2013 10:26 PM  

Eleven General Orders

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 10:29 PM  

BlueSkies...."any thoughts on the viability of the Civilian National Security Force that was whitewashed from the 2008 campaign?"

There has always been a glaring hole in the US military with regard to political influence, specifically.... there is no Commissar, such as you find in the Soviet Red Army and there is none of Mao's Red Guard to oversee the political correctness of the Chinese Army. Of the two, the Chinese actually have more historic experience with separate missions being coordinated.....such as the Boxers of 1900 and the Imperial Chinese Army. The American military have toyed with the idea of political correctness in the past, but only since WWII. During the Cold War, the USAF and Army had True Blue campaigns to heighten awareness among the troops to the danger of Communism and Communist subversion. But this was only in response to the Cold War tensions, there was no such tradition in the US military. Since the military was subject to civilian control, political differences were not amplified in the military except in the highest levels. For instance, the US military was not a significant factor during the Civil War. The war was fought by units raised by the states, essentially militia. The regular army was sent west to deal with the Indian wars.

Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 10:45 PM  

As a former Marine I can say that if we ever have a coup or revolution former and current Marines will be heavily involved

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 10:45 PM  

"For instance, the US military was not a significant factor during the Civil War. The war was fought by units raised by the states, essentially militia."

Wow -- but it seems that by WWI, the military was basically under federal control. How did that happen??

Anonymous dh February 10, 2013 11:07 PM  

It’s painfully obvious how much contempt Obama has toward the military and the feeling is mutual…and the Secret Service knows it too.

I think it's much different from that. Just last week we had a PTSD event where a solider frag'd two other soliders.

Too mnay of the regular army and marines and navy have been in combat recently in Iraq or Afganistan. Too much risk.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 11:27 PM  

Noah B....."Wow -- but it seems that by WWI, the military was basically under federal control. How did that happen??"

The National Guard was established as a federally funded reserve component of the nation's armed forces on 21 January 1903 with the Militia Act of 1903....well before WWI.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 11:29 PM  

With the passage of the 1916 National Defense Act approximately one half of the United States Army's available combat forces and approximately one third of its support organizations were National Guard units.

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 11:55 PM  

It's likely that Secret Service has a similar distrust for state and local law enforcement, allowing them to provide what they consider a porous layer of perimeter security, all the while having a contingency plan to kill them in a worst case scenario.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother February 11, 2013 12:14 AM  

Eleven General Orders

Just seeing who was paying attention.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother February 11, 2013 12:15 AM  

The National Guard was established as a federally funded reserve component of the nation's armed forces on 21 January 1903 with the Militia Act of 1903....well before WWI.

Also called The Dick Act.

Blogger kurt9 February 11, 2013 12:34 AM  

This is just paranoia on Obama's part. There is no way anyone right in the head would take him out. Why? Because that would make him a martyr, just like JFK. Everything I've read about JFK is that he was a walking clusterf**k of a president, and a cold warrior to boot. Do remember that he did run his campaign in 1960 on the supposed "missle gap" with the Soviets - which was purely bogus (which does make you wonder about Eisenhower who knew full well it was BS and said nothing, despite his much mentioned MIC speech). JFK's assassination made him into the liberal martyr and icon that he is today, despite being anything but.

Anyone right in the head knows that political violence does not work.

Anonymous Noah B. February 11, 2013 12:43 AM  

"JFK's assassination made him into the liberal martyr and icon that he is today, despite being anything but."

Sadly he was probably more conservative than any Republican who has run since Goldwater.

Blogger kurt9 February 11, 2013 12:43 AM  

As you may or may not know, POTUS means President Of The United States. Clinton's own secret service began to refer to him as ImPOTUS, which meant the Improbable president of the United States, because of his sexual shenanigans while in office.

Readers of Richard Marchinko's "Rogue Warrior" novels know that the Rogue Warrior himself did not think well of Clinton at all while he was in office.

One can only imagine what he thinks of Obama.

Anonymous Mr. Pea February 11, 2013 12:44 AM  

---If the existing state governments assembled and had their local military forces seize the government in Washington, that could be a termed a coup or revolution, depending on how you argue. You can pretend a clear cut difference, or you can choose to observe reality.


Edwin Vieira on His New Book, 'The Sword and Sovereignty,' and Where the US Went Wrong

Anonymous The other skeptic February 11, 2013 12:46 AM  

Heh. $1M reward for the black man.

I guess he ain't coming in for the party.

Anonymous Noah B. February 11, 2013 12:50 AM  

It's a lot of money, but I really don't think I would be influenced one way or the other by $1M. I'm probably in the minority on that though.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 11, 2013 12:52 AM  

"We are asking the public, 'Please help us to protect you,' " Beck said at a news conference. "Please help us to find Dorner before he is able to kill again."

Hmmm, that should be:

"We are asking the public, 'Please help us to protect us,' " Beck said at a news conference. "Please help us to find Dorner before he is able to kill cops again."

How is that our problem?

Anonymous Noah B. February 11, 2013 12:55 AM  

Having eluded capture thus far, Dorner is probably executing a well thought out plan, relying on assistance from sympathizers, or holding hostages somewhere and laying low. Or possibly some combination of the three.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 11, 2013 1:16 AM  

Also called The Dick Act.

Damn, during the 60's we missed an opportunity to have the Johnson Act repeal the Dick Act. Well, actually, probably would've been the 50's, they don't name acts after Vice Presidents. (and what would be the Biden Act, I wonder?).

Up until recently, I would've put the odds of any branch of the military being involved in a coup at negative numbers. More likely there would be a dispute over who was actually in charge and the military would sit it out, waiting for the situation to resolve itself.

But these days, we're at a tipping point. I don't trust the General officers much. O5 and below have a high proportion of patriots, but would they be marginalized? I get he feeling the NCOs would be mostly on the side of good, but...

Bottom line is nothing is certain any more. All the old verities are suspect.

In the America where the USMC would never mount a coup, the likes of Obama would never win a second term. That America is gone. Perhaps only on vacation, soon to return, but I don't know. Nothing makes sense any longer. Well, that's not quite true. Very little is predictable any longer. We're all Schrödinger's Cats, waiting for the box to open.

Anonymous Nah February 11, 2013 1:26 AM  

Do remember that he did run his campaign in 1960 on the supposed "missle gap" with the Soviets - which was purely bogus (which does make you wonder about Eisenhower who knew full well it was BS and said nothing, despite his much mentioned MIC speech).

Ike and his cabinet members said a LOT about the missile gap not existing in 1959-60. Democrats ignored it.

Anonymous Nah February 11, 2013 1:28 AM  

Dorner is probably executing a well thought out plan,

This guy is a moron. He is on the loose because LAPD is even more incompetent.

Anonymous VryeDenker February 11, 2013 2:38 AM  

May I just point out that the only other head of state I know of who is this paranoid is Robert Mugabe.

Anonymous Noah B. February 11, 2013 3:07 AM  

@Nah

It's all relative -- I'm just saying he may well have planned where to hide, stocked away supplies, and possibly stashed another vehicle or two for future use. Nothing really fancy or complicated or requiring any great intelligence, just some planning and preparation. After all, he's had four years to do it.

Blogger James Dixon February 11, 2013 6:14 AM  

> His brief service in the French and Indian War (in the Virginia Militia) was by no means successful or noteworthy, except that he surrendered to the French. Ironic, no?

He learned his lesson. He never surrendered again.

Anonymous FrankNorman February 11, 2013 6:48 AM  

Nah February 11, 2013 1:26 AM

Do remember that he did run his campaign in 1960 on the supposed "missle gap" with the Soviets - which was purely bogus (which does make you wonder about Eisenhower who knew full well it was BS and said nothing, despite his much mentioned MIC speech).

Ike and his cabinet members said a LOT about the missile gap not existing in 1959-60. Democrats ignored it.


The modern Lefty narrative seems to be to claim that the USA has more nuclear weapons that all other countries on earth put together, and to pretend that the (in reality slightly larger) Russian arsenal does not exist.

Anonymous Stilicho February 11, 2013 6:50 AM  

they use lighter and balanced non firing rifles for drill competitions, parades etc...

Nope. They use M1's, with bolts.

Blogger James Higham February 11, 2013 7:33 AM  

Saw the heading in RSS and thought for a moment that it was going to be about Richard III.

Then I remembered you were in the States. :)

Anonymous Anonymous February 11, 2013 8:46 AM  

Every Marine I know hates the usurper.

Except one, WA State Rep Mike Pope, who is signed on to a background check/registration Bill in the WA house.

Anonymous HH February 11, 2013 8:53 AM  

"Nope. They use M1's, with bolts."

???

Look at the wood and the metallic band on the hand guard .. these are M1 Garands, no bolt in the sense of a bolt action rifle on a semi-auto rifle but there is an op rod (or the charging handle if you like that term better)-- now maybe the drill guys modify the guns for getting that snap crack sound but for a generic M1 garand, M1A, M14 there is no bolt like the 1903, 700 etc...

The point here is that its completely reasonable that a marching/drill team would be NOT issued working guns and ammo for the situation like this and it has nothing to do with a request of the secret service or anyone else.

I am making the call ... this is a non issue ...next

Anonymous Stilicho February 11, 2013 9:31 AM  

I am making the call ... this is a non issue ...next

Let me make this perfectly clear, whether this is a "real" issue or not, I have personal knowledge that the Marines of 8th & I use (or at least did until recently)M1 Garands, including the bolts for their ceremonial duties. When a company from 8th and I takes the field (rarely, but they are technically infantry and I have also personally observed this) they are equipped with modern weapons and gear in the same fashion as other Marines.

An M1 (and M14) and every other semi auto rifle I have ever encountered has a bolt, you simply do not know what you are talking about. A charging handle is not the operating rod. Two different pieces of equipment although they do work together.

Again, you may be correct that this is a non-issue in the larger sense, but it is not a non-issue based upon 8th & I's equipment.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 11, 2013 9:43 AM  

AR-16, M16, M4 Bolt Carrier Groups.

They still call it a bolt on a select-fire and semi-auto rifle.

I agree that those rifles in the Video are M1 Garands. It makes much more sense for ceremonial purposes. I also agree that they have bolts, and that they are missing in that video.

Anonymous Tad February 11, 2013 10:05 AM  

Not only is this a non issue, but the notion that indicates that "The President appears to be afraid" of anything is so far off the mark as to invite a reassessment of the most rudimentary analytical abilities of anyone who suggests this is so.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 11, 2013 10:12 AM  

In his piece on HuffPo readers who support mass murder Robert Wargas says:

Earlier today, I linked to a Huffington Post article concerning Christopher Dorner’s “manifesto” that he wrote to justify the slaughter, and continued slaughter, of Los Angeles citizens.

I am lead to wonder, when did Los Angeles become a sovereign country? Secondly, he seems to be only slaughtering cops and their associates.

(Of course, I am relieved now that Tad has informed us that el Presidente is, like Che, fearless.)

Anonymous Stilicho February 11, 2013 10:42 AM  

8Th & I Marines with their M1 Garands including bolts

Anonymous Noah B. February 11, 2013 11:18 AM  

Shut up, Tad.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis February 11, 2013 11:46 AM  

Vox I am no fan of Obama, far from it, but I think you are stretching here. Not only is that Marine guard purely ceremonial but am I suppossed to assume that there is no chance whatsoever that the troops weren't given empty magazines to put in their weapons for a photoshoot with the GW when he was president? I call bullshit.

Anonymous Anonymous February 11, 2013 12:45 PM  

Actually, no, this is not bullshit.

"Unlike in 2009, in the 2013 inaugural parade, someone in authority made the decision to change that and order the Marines to march with visibly disabled guns."

A cursory search for information, rather than speculation, will do wonders. Obama is indeed concerned for his life when in proximity of a Marine with a working firearm.

Blogger mmaier2112 February 12, 2013 1:11 AM  

stg58: "What's civil about war, anyway?"

Nice GNR quote.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts