User Profile: AboveMyPayGrade

AboveMyPayGrade

Member Since: July 12, 2011

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 17, 2014 at 9:50pm

    The big difference THIS time is that they would be putting their very LIVES on the line to support such an attempted Obama coup – because if Obama COULDN’T pull off his putsch and his administration was brought down as a result of it, the lives of all those who openly supported such treason wouldn’t be worth a Confederate nickel after that.

    I wonder how many of them believe that Obama is REALLY worth taking THAT gamble on, to gamble that after all his incompetence (I offer you the roll-out of ObamaCare as Exhibit A in this realm), the ONE thing he would NAIL would be the successful establishment of a dictatorship. If it were ME, I wouldn’t bet my life on Obama being able to pull this off.

    Assuming I’m correct, his Democrat enablers after that on Capitol Hill would be facing the alternatives of either a hangman’s noose or being a prison lifer if they STAY in the country or having to go into permanent exile OUTSIDE this country.
    And unlike the Nazi war criminals, almost all of whom were little-known even in Germany, who fled the Fatherland for other parts of the world after Germany’s defeat, Obama’s enablers on Capitol Hill would be simply too high-profile to be able to successfully hide for long or to escape America’s “spooks” and other parties (like the Mossad) who would be sent after them to hunt them down and deal with them WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!

  • April 17, 2014 at 9:35pm

    barber2:

    when RussellDouglasMawson111 posted at 8:39pm, “If they start the Civil war Obama can remain Pres..”, you replied at 8:57pm with: “Rus: Keep wondering when the radical Democrats will call forth their old anti-capitalist OWS hordes which blocked up Democrat cities way back during the early Obama years of division and targeting. So similar to their international Left best buddies who like to smash things and start revolutions !”

    Let those OWS types slither out from their holes again and try smashing things, at least in CONSERVATIVE-dominated enclaves (it’s perfectly fine with ME if they want to do this in LIBERAL-dominated enclaves like NYC and Baltimore and Seattle and San Francisco, it will serve the liberals who live there right for having voted for the party of their enablers), and many of them will come out of those enclaves with smashed bodies, smashed by bullets. They’ll find out in the hardest way possible that armed conservatives are NOT going to tolerate the kind of mayhem that their blue-state enablers did – and will DO something about it, and teach these lefties a lesson that the ones that survive their lark of lawlessness will remember for the rest of their lives.

    These lefties will learn, or re-learn, a lesson that they should have known in the first place: sometimes, revolutionaries actually get KILLED in the revolutions that they foment.

  • April 17, 2014 at 9:14pm

    Beachmastermax:

    when booger71 replied at 6:53pm to your 6:46pm post with, “I think Glenn is waiting for the midterms.”, you responded to him with: “Sure there will be any?”

    I’M sure of THIS: on November 4, we WILL have mid-terms (athough they may happen by then under a different president than Barack Obama) – or else by that day, we will be in the midst of Civil War II.

    As someone posted on the Internet several years ago about the possibility of Obama trying to stop the mid-terms in 2010: “Americans WILL vote, either with the ballot box or with the bullet box.”

    Under the Constitution (Article I, Section 4), the STATES are charged with the responsibility of conducting elections. If Obama TRIED to cancel the mid-terms, I feel quite confident that at least the vast majority of Republican governors would tell him to go to hell and that their states WILL be holding elections this year.

    What is Obama going to do THEN, order out the military and/or National Guard and/or OTHER armed entities (like some of our civilian government agencies such as DHS, ATF, etc.) to depose those governors? And how many of those in these outfits would OBEY orders to turn their weapons on the American citizenry to STOP A LAWFUL ELECTION? I’m willing to bet that it will be VERY FEW, at best.

    If Obama TRIED cancelling the mid-terms, the Democrats on Capitol Hill will then have the decision of a career: to support Obama AND open treason in the process, or to OPPOSE this.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 17, 2014 at 1:16pm

    TwinFireSwords, you replied at 10:38am to GenerationX1993′s 10:38am post with: “Never underestimate the wrath of a prog scorned. The other side of the November argument is that they might already know they’re toast, just say “to heck with it”, and go at it with everything they’ve got.”

    Let the progs just TRY it, and they’re going to find out the hard way that what they’ve GOT wasn’t CLOSE to being enough for what they NEEDED for the job.

    And then in the aftermath, the progs who survive the conflagration that they started better have a place already picked out outside of the United States that they can flee to at a moment’s notice and that DOESN’T have an extradition treaty with the United States – because they’ll NEED it.

    A LOT of us would WELCOME the progs attempting this, because we feel that a second Civil War is inevitable ANYWAY, and as I have oft-stated on this site, if indeed Civil War II is unavoidable in this country, then as far as I’M concerned, the SOONER it happens, the BETTER – while I’m still reasonably confident that at least the vast majority of those in our military/National Guard/civilian law-enforcement (in other words, the people in the outfits with the guns) will be on the side of the CITIZENRY and NOT on the side of the Marxists in DC.

    And as far as employees of civilian federal agencies? I’m betting that in such a maelstrom, THEY won’t be any more willing to die for Obama than their BLM colleagues in Nevada were.

  • April 15, 2014 at 11:01pm

    MurryAZ, what happens if the local sheriff is someone like Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio who isn’t ABOUT to abet the feds in their attempt to tyrannize any citizen of HIS jurisdiction?

    By the way, I was just listening to Sean Hannity’s show on Fox tonight, and he had Cliven Bundy’s son on, and asked that son what he will do if the feds come back with several hundred agents in the middle of the night and maybe even kill Bundy and/or members of his family. Bundy’s son responded that if the feds assassinate his father and/or other members of the family, they WILL have a reckoning they won’t like with the American people.

    Before Obama thinks that whacking Cliven Bundy will settle the issue, I have two words of advice for him: Benigno Aquino. He was the main opposition leader to then-Phillippine president Ferdinand Marcos who returned from exile to the Phillippines in 1983 and was immediately assassinated as he left the airplane by Marcos’s forces.

    Marcos may have thought he won a battle, but all he accomplished with this move was to sign the death warrant for his own regime, because the assassination so enraged the Phillippine people and touched off a renewed opposition to Marcos that within three years of the assassination, Marcos was out as the leader of the Phillippines, to be replaced by none other than Benigno Aquino’s widow Cory.

  • April 15, 2014 at 10:55pm

    skunkbear, I actually agree with you on this, that even if the government fired the first shots or drew the first blood, it would still claim or try to make it appear that the ordinary citizenry in fact did so.

    But when you cite Waco, you have to realize that there’s one ENORMOUS difference between THEN and NOW: the INTERNET!

    I was talking to a guy about the standoff in Nevada last week and asked him what he thought of it, and he told me that he had no doubt that if it wasn’t for the Internet, the government would already have concluded this episode by then by simply killing Mr. Bundy and impounding his cattle. But in the age of the Internet, all it takes is a single smart phone or some other device in the right place at the right time, and the government’s brutality will be immortalized forever, or at least for as long as there IS an Internet.

  • April 15, 2014 at 10:48pm

    SOUL LEISTER, you replied at 10:02pm to my 8:44pm post in part with:

    “The flaw in any plan by the government to declare martial law is:

    Whomever tries to enforce it will be so busy trying to protect their own families (who live among us in the community) effectively making them ineffective and easily dispatched… thus they will have to use an outside military to do it.”

    TOTALLY AGREE!

    In fact, many people on this site, including myself, have posed the question of just who is going to be protecting the government jackboots’ families while they’re out jackbooting.

    As you noted, the families of federal employees live among the very citizenry they’d be charged with tyrannizing. Federal employees DON’T live in super-secret government enclaves where the only people they and their families ever associate with or are around are OTHER federal employees and THEIR families. Nope, they’re in our midst, in ordinary homes in ordinary neighborhoods where their neighbors KNOW what they do for a living – and thus, if they’re fool enough to turn on the citizenry, their OWN homes and families will become targets.

    In fact, if the workforce of the federal government is fool enough to obey Obama’s orders to turn violent on the citizenry, I believe that in VERY short order, many of these employees would have no choice but to send their families far away for their own safety – which immediately SIGNIFICANTLY diminishes their quality of life, leaving them alone.

  • April 15, 2014 at 8:53pm

    The-Monk, you posted at 8:11pm: “This law needs to be repealed but won’t because the proglodytes, just like in Nevada with rancher Bundy, they want a firefight started by us so they can bring in the US military.”

    If there IS a firefight between the forces of the government and ordinary citizens, there’s no doubt in my mind that the GOVERNMENT folks will fire the first shot or draw the first blood. It was said in the Old West: “Only cowards draw first!” Well, the forces of Obama are cowards: they’ll draw first.

    And as far as the military being brought in: being brought in to do WHAT? To try to impose a national state of martial law? To shoot down those civilians?

    What if the incident you postulate about happens in a red state with a Republican governor, and that governor, exercising his prerogative under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, REFUSES permission for the military to come into his state to deal with the situation? Then any military commanders who obey such orders from Obama would be obeying a flagrantly illegal order and setting themselves up for a court-martial under a future conservative president.

    And just what makes you so sure that our military would OBEY such an order? Lest I checked, Obama is ANYTHING but popular with our troops. They’ve already endured a steady stream of insults, denigrations, and what not since Day 1 of Obama’s presidency: for him to give them THIS order might just be the straw that breaks their camels’ backs.

    Responses (3) +
  • April 15, 2014 at 8:44pm

    trailblazerOIF, you posted at 7:58pm: “This is a prepatory phase for a false flag attack to be blamed on a right wing constitutionalist group. The corporate owned government will attack U.S. soil and kill Americans and blame it on a right winger. Same way they blamed 9/11 on Islam. My guess is it will happen in sept or october to gain elections and declare martial law.”

    I hate to be a broken record on this site yet AGAIN about this, but I’ll ask YOU the same question I’ve asked so many others who have posited the same thought as you have here:

    Obama can DECLARE a national state of martial law, but SOMEONE is still going to have to IMPOSE and ENFORCE it: please tell me WHO you think Obama will be able to get to DO it.

    I am of the firm opinion that at least the vast majority of those in our military/National Guard/civilian law enforcement will REFUSE to obey such orders if given them by Obama – and the fact that that contingent of armed Americans who descended on Nevada to stand in solidarity with the Bundys consisted of, I understand, members of sheriff’s departments only greatly reaffirms my belief in this realm.

    Employees of civilian federal agencies, like DHS, ATF et al? Well, representatives of the federal government were ALSO present in Nevada (namely BLM) – and turned tail when confronted by armed patriots perfectly prepared to die if push came to shove, which I contend the federal forces present there most definitely WEREN’T and AREN’T.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 14, 2014 at 7:22pm

    barber2, you posted at 6:14pm: “The Democrats remind me of Putin : pushing, nudging, hidden agendas, working behind the scenes , bullying the people, and itching to have a fight so they can squash the people and take over the country.”

    Seems to ME that with all the armed citizens who poured into Nevada to show solidarity with the Bundys, the Democrats just HAD their golden opportunity to SCRATCH that itch. So why DIDN’T they?

    There will surely be much debate over this in the coming days. weeks, and months as to why the feds backed down, but suffice it to say that the feds’ backdown only GREATLY reinforced my oft-stated belief on this site that, contrary to what a lot of other posters here believe, employees of civilian federal agencies will NOT make either effective OR willing jackboots, with few exceptions, if Obama attempts to transform them into that.

    These armed citizens who flooded into Nevada HAD to make the assumption that, given who is president, the feds were prepared to ESCALATE, an escalation that could have produced an effusion of blood, so these patriots had to go to Nevada assuming that it was by no means a given that they would return home alive. Thus, I believe many went prepared to give their lives if need be in this fight.

    The BLM employees, on the other hand, I doubt very much were prepared to sacrifice THEIRS in a firefight with the citizenry; they didn’t sign up with BLM to become martyrs for the honor of Uncle Sam.

  • April 14, 2014 at 1:35pm

    If this guy’s mad plan somehow HAD succeeded and he actually HAD managed to open the hatch in mid-air, which may well have brought down the plane, I’m betting that his eventual visit to the Lord would have been a VERY UNHAPPY ONE, for on that visit, he would surely have discovered that he had a VERY unpleasant eternity waiting for him.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 14, 2014 at 1:14pm

    Bonnieblue2A you replied at 11:54am to quicksdraw 11:11am post with: “He’s just trying to woo the Jewish vote in November via gun control. Waiting for the Socialist Jewish gun grabbers Sen. Schumer and Feinstein to chime-in in 3…….2……1….”

    Let Obama stump for gun control this campaign season, and for every Jewish vote he might woo to the polling booth on November 4 to vote for Democrats, he’ll ensure several times MORE conservative voters dragging their privates through a mile of broken glass to vote against Democrats.

    Obama actually has a FAR better argument for gun control from this just-concluded standoff in Nevada, when armed patriots poured into the state from all over the country to stand in solidarity with the Bundys, than from this shooting in Kansas. But again, let him try to turn this campaign season into a gun-control crusade, and he will ENSURE that the Democrats will get absolutely ROUTED on November 4.

  • April 14, 2014 at 1:08pm

    OBAMA shut up?!

    SURELY YOU JEST!

    I think that, being the uber-narcissist that he is, Obama is terminally in love with the sound of his voice – even if no one ELSE is.

    He’ll be running his mouth clear to the end of his term, and then non-stop after that.

  • April 14, 2014 at 1:05pm

    snowleopard, you posted at 11:15am: “Or will he use this as further ‘proof’ of the ‘violent, terrorist-driven, terror-causing, conservative christians’ in an effort to eliminate more of the faithful?”

    Seems to ME that Obama just HAD an opportunity to eliminate some of the “faithful” in Nevada this past weekend – and PASSED on it.

    WHY he passed on it can and surely will be debated for some time, but he’d still have to give orders to SOMEONE to “eliminate the faithful” – and I’m betting that the BLM personnel weren’t willing to be willing instruments to that end, because they did NOT join BLM to become martyrs for Uncle Sam’s honor.

  • April 14, 2014 at 9:15am

    “Cooperation with our authorities is the key to a peaceful society, Comrades”

    Including, I suppose, obeying orders to be herded into jam-packed cattle cars for “rezettlement to ze east” and then obediently stripping naked upon arrival to be crammed into “bathhouses” for “delousing”, right, Comrade?

    Responses (2) +
  • April 13, 2014 at 4:03pm

    conservitearin, on The Blaze thread yesterday about the return of the Bundys’ cattle, you replied at 1:02am this morning to my 9:39pm post there in part with, “Second you missed my whole point in wicth i clearly infurred that in the age of cameras and video sombody on my side not the goverments side would make the first move forcing the big clamp down on the whole country.”, and then at 1:14am on that thread, you posted in part: “Anyone who thinks your gonna do anything violent against police or feds is not part of what the Tea Party or the 912 project is about. And by the way, in what world do you think you would have even the smallest chance of success. Cmon, Get real. It would be a slaughter followed by MARTIAL law and then were really screwed.”

    As I’ve oft-stated on this site, while Obama can DECLARE a national state of martial law, SOMEONE still needs to IMPOSE and ENFORCE it: tell me WHO you believe Obama will be able to get to DO it.

    I am firm in my belief that at least the vast majority of those in our military/National Guard/civilian law-enforcement will NOT obey such orders. And those in civilian federal government agencies? If the backdown of the BLM personnel in the face of armed citizens preparing to confront them is illustrative, and I believe it is, I don’t believe that THEY will be any more inclined to be willing to get killed for the honor of Uncle Sam anymore than these BLM personnel were – and will ALSO not obey such orders.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 12, 2014 at 9:39pm

    conservitearin, you posted at 8:39pm: “I think the whole thing is bigger then this one case. I think they are trying to push us so far and make us so angry that we have an incident, one where they come in and declare marshall law and try to take our guns.”

    Seems to ME that this incident in Nevada WAS the feds’ chance to push something that would have resulted in bloodshed and OSTENSIBLY been able to be used by Obama as his “Reichstag fire” trigger to try to declare a national state of martial law (that’s the correct spelling for this circumstance, MARTIAL, not MARSHALL) and try to take away our guns. So WHY did the feds PASS on this opportunity? WHY didn’t they try disarming all those private citizens who have been pouring into Nevada armed to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Bundys?

    Many possible answers can be offered, but this incident only reaffirmed my oft-stated belief on this site that for all their bluster, your typical federal civilian employee is really NOT willing to become a martyr for Obama by going jackbooting against the American citizenry, and that given such orders, I think at least the vast majority of them would decline to carry them out, for self-preservation.

    I think that the BLM superiors, who all but certainly were nowhere near Ground Zero of this affair, probably feared that if they’d given their men at the site orders to commit actions that could have gotten some of them killed, their OWN people would have rebelled.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 12, 2014 at 7:40pm

    gduckd, you posted at 5:43pm:

    “This is only a tactical retreat
    The Feds will now ramp up on gun confiscation due to this.”

    Let the Feds just TRY to confiscate our guns.

    And then we’ll see if the putative federal gun-grabbers are as prepared to sacrifice THEIR lives in such an endeavor as the federal BLM employees were prepared to sacrifice THEIRS in this standoff just concluded in Nevada – as in, NOT!

    I have oft-expressed on this site my skepticism that federal civilian employees will make effective jackboots when the fat is in the fire – and this incident in Nevada, now that BLM has backed off in the face of determined and ARMED resistance, has done NOTHING to disabuse me of that conviction.

    My argument is, and has often been on this site, that federal civilian employees did NOT join the federal government looking for an opportunity to become martyrs, they joined looking for a secure and SAFE job from which they could retire with a nice pension after X number of years. These BLM employees were looking at the very real possibility of having to try to spend that federal pension from six feet under the ground – and decided AGAINST dying.

    As I’ve stated on this thread already, many posters here who believe that this is NOT over and believe, as you’ve just stated, that this is only a tactical retreat by the Feds and that they WILL be back on this matter may well be proven correct, but for NOW, it shows that they CAN be successfully resisted.

  • April 12, 2014 at 7:24pm

    Good on you for not checking out the ObamaCare website – although I have oft-stated on this site that the ONLY people who will be going on the ObamaCare site are the DESPERATE and the STUPID. I’m SURE that you’re not in the LATTER camp, and I HOPE that you’re not in the former as well.

    And as I stated in my 2:16pm post, this incident GREATLY reinforces my oft-stated belief on this site that if the SHTF and Obama tries to use federal civilian employees as jackboots against the American people, I think he will discover that they will be FAR less willing than he believes to actually assume that role.

    markjz just stated in his 6:29pm post that armed citizens were present to confront the BLM personnel if those personnel tried acting like an American einsatzgruppen – and look which side backed down? The FEDS!

    As I indicated in my 5:10pm post, maybe the higher-ups in the ranks of federal civilian employees who have the luxury of giving orders from air-conditioned offices far removed from any actual bloodshed may be willing to tyrannize the American people, but for their “grunts”, like those BLM employees who were actually at Ground Zero and NOT in some far-removed office, who will actually be called to carry them out and will be on the front lines and thus the first ones from the feds who figure to get killed if an enraged citizenry decides to fight them, as many of those present in Nevada were prepared to do, I think that they will NOT die for Obama.

  • April 12, 2014 at 5:14pm

    TEXAS-FREEDOM, I saw your 3:02pm reply to my 2:16pm post on the other thread where you stated:

    “If the Feds lose on this one they’ll suffer reversals all over the map, and that doesn’t fit in with their “transformation” theme at all. They have pulled back today but they have ample motivation to make examples of these ranchers and their friends. If they don’t, imagine the resistance we’ll put up against various aspects of Obamacare!
    They’ll come back on these ranchers. Tyranny can do nothing else but to force its opponents to yield.”

    You and the many other posters today who believe that the feds simply CANNOT afford to back down in this situation and are implying that the feds may just engaging in a strategic retreat but will be back to finish this thing may well be proven correct, but I still find it very interesting that the feds felt they even HAD to make such a retreat in this situation.

    If what I postulated at 2:16pm is even remotely correct, what this stand down by the feds may show is that even if those giving the orders at the top are determined to tyrannize the American people, the “grunts” that they are giving the orders to who will have to do the actual dirtywork may not be so willing to actually carry out those orders if it means that some of THEM might get killed. It’s easy for their superiors to give orders from air-conditioned offices far removed from any potential shooting, but those on the front lines may feel MUCH differently

123 To page: Go