Confederacy as treasonous

Doomsday Prepper Forums - The Number One Prepper Site

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

grayghost668

A True Doomsday Prepper
Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
4,225
Reaction score
9,640
Location
Arkansas
Top military officer labels Confederacy as treasonous as Pentagon takes ‘hard look’ at rebel ties



The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.
Mark A. Milley wearing a suit and tie: Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, left, listens as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley testifies during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday, July 9, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP)
Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, left, listens as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley testifies during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday, July 9, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP)
“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”

The Army is now about 20 percent black, he said.
“For those young soldiers that go onto a base — a Fort Hood, a Fort Bragg or a fort wherever named after a Confederate general — they can be reminded that that general fought for the institution of slavery that may have enslaved one of their ancestors,” he said.
Last month, Trump rejected calls to rename installations after Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper signaled a willingness to do so, saying his administration “will not even consider” that plan.
Milley stopped short of offering a policy prescription for how to handle the installation names, which has become a flash point at the Pentagon, as the nation grapples with the history of racism in the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of police in May.
The installations, all in former Confederate states, were named with input from influential local residents during the Jim Crow era. The Army courted their buy-in because it needed large swaths of land to build bases during the military buildups of World War I and II.
That decision was political, Milley told the committee, and renaming the installations would also be a political move.
Two of the Army’s biggest installations are named after Confederate commanders and avowed white supremacists.
Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the headquarters of the Special Forces, bears the name of Gen. Braxton Bragg, who is often assailed as one of the most bumbling commanders in the Civil War. Fort Benning in Georgia, the home of Army infantry and airborne training, is named after Brig. Gen. Henry Benning, who laid out the protection of slavery as the motivation for secession in a speech in 1861.
The other bases named after Confederate commanders are forts Lee, Pickett and A.P. Hill in Virginia, forts Polk and Beauregard in Louisiana, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Gordon in Georgia and Fort Rucker in Alabama.
The Pentagon has also considered a blanket ban on the Confederate flag in public places at all military installations.
During the hearing, Milley and Esper also jostled with lawmakers over reports about an alleged Russian program to pay militants bounties to attack U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan that may have resulted in American deaths. Esper and Milley said defense intelligence agencies could not corroborate the information.
At one point, Esper said he had not received an intelligence report that specifically used the word “bounty” but later said he received reports that broadly mentioned payments.
During the hearing, Esper also defended the use of National Guardsmen to aid police as protests over Floyd’s death spread across the country. National Guard troops were alongside law enforcement as authorities removed demonstrators from Lafayette Square near the White House on June 1 so that Trump could visit a nearby church.
The Guardsmen “did not advance on the crowd,” fire rubber bullets or use chemical agents such as tear gas. Their role was static support, Esper said.
But lawmakers criticized what occurred hours later as a much more kinetic action. Helicopters from the D.C. National Guard — whose chain of command goes directly to the Pentagon — roared over protesters as low as 45 feet from the ground, an analysis by The Washington Post found.
Esper launched an investigation into the use of the helicopters. The report is under review with the Pentagon’s inspector general and could go to the committee next week, Esper said.
 

Rellgar

A True Doomsday Prepper
Administrator
Global Moderator
Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,133
Reaction score
8,678
Location
Top secret
They are wrong! It was each states constitutional right to succeed from the union. No matter what these idiot lawyers and activistx constitutional scholars like Barrack Obama claim.


NewsSportsEntertainmentLifeObitse-EditionHomesCarsJobsClassifieds

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
Opinion
It’s Debatable: Do states have the right to secede from the Union?
By Arnold Loewy and Charles Moster
Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:18 AM
Updated May 20, 2018 at 9:18 AM

This week, Arnold Loewy and Charles Moster debate the rights of states to secede from the Union, specifically during the Civil War. Moster is a former litigation attorney in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidential administrations who has offices in Lubbock, Amarillo, Midland/Odessa, Abilene and Georgetown. Loewy is the George Killiam Professor of Law at Texas Tech School of Law.

• Moster (Lincoln was dead wrong): The bells tolled proudly following the formal secession of the state of South Carolina on December 20, 1860. To the legislators of this proud state and the eleven states which followed and later formed the Confederacy, their legal right to exit the Union was not an esoteric debate topic but a reality. This “reality” was ultimately demonstrated indelibly and grotesquely at the First Battle of Bull Run on July 21, 1861, when more soldiers fell in the first hour than all of the battles ever fought in the United States to date. When the Civil War finally ended upon General Robert E. Lee’s surrender to Ulysses S. Grant on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia, 620,000 Americans or 2 percent of the population of the nation was obliterated. So much for esoteric issues.

The adage that the victors of war write the history is all too true. From the pages of school history books to the dramatic and award-winning recounting of the Civil War in Ken Burns documentary, the Confederate states are always depicted as the spoilers and traitors who were justly punished and humiliated for their evil acts.

However, nothing is further from the truth as the southern states had every legal right to secede and determine their own destiny. As heretical as it might seem, Abraham Lincoln was dead wrong (emphasis on “dead”) in declaring war against his fellow states and citizens. It was his decision to employ military force which resolved what should have been a constitutional question to be pondered at the time.

There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution which prohibits a state from seceding from the union. This is made clear by a proposal which was made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant the new federal government the specific power to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, widely acknowledged as the key founding father of the Constitution and scholar, rejected this proposal stating, “A Union of states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.” The assurance of state sovereignty is embodied in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, which reserves to the states all rights which have not been specifically delegated to the federal government. As the federal government was never delegated the right to force the states into violent submission, secession is properly a legal right which can be exercised at any time.
 

Brent S

Top Poster
Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2013
Messages
12,833
Reaction score
29,006
Location
South East US
I don’t believe in the right of any state to seceede for any reason. I do believe in their rights to argue their grievances and come up with solutions and comprise.
as far as renaming the bases goes, I’m not personally for it. These commanders were part of our history and trying to rewrite our history is a mistake. One thing that did make me pause though was the statement from general Milady. With 20% of the military being black I can understand some wondering why they named the bases after slavery proponents and traitors to begin with. I only hope the majority of the statues are taken and put in in museums for protection. They are works of art, historical pieces and need to be Preserved.
 

grayghost668

A True Doomsday Prepper
Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
4,225
Reaction score
9,640
Location
Arkansas
I don’t believe in the right of any state to seceede for any reason. I do believe in their rights to argue their grievances and come up with solutions and comprise.
as far as renaming the bases goes, I’m not personally for it. These commanders were part of our history and trying to rewrite our history is a mistake. One thing that did make me pause though was the statement from general Milady. With 20% of the military being black I can understand some wondering why they named the bases after slavery proponents and traitors to begin with. I only hope the majority of the statues are taken and put in in museums for protection. They are works of art, historical pieces and need to be Preserved.

for all of you leaning into the treason crap,,,,,,,,


WERE WE ALL TRAITORS BECAUSE OF THE






American Revolutionary War
Apr 19, 1775 – Sep 3, 1783


The American Revolutionary War, also known as the American War of Independence, was initiated by the thirteen original colonies against the Kingdom of Great Britain over their objection to Parliament’s direct taxation and its lack of colonial representation.
 

GeorgiaPeachie

A True Doomsday Prepper
Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
7,021
Location
Georgia
I don’t believe in the right of any state to seceede for any reason. I do believe in their rights to argue their grievances and come up with solutions and comprise.
as far as renaming the bases goes, I’m not personally for it. These commanders were part of our history and trying to rewrite our history is a mistake. One thing that did make me pause though was the statement from general Milady. With 20% of the military being black I can understand some wondering why they named the bases after slavery proponents and traitors to begin with. I only hope the majority of the statues are taken and put in in museums for protection. They are works of art, historical pieces and need to be Preserved.
The Right of States to succeed legally is in the Constitution in the 10th Amendment. The article above explains it well. Myself, I very much back a States right to succeed. Personally, I would bet on it happening at some point in the future. Not one state, but Blocks of states succeeding.
 

Morgan101

Active Member
Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
124
Reaction score
513
Location
Missouri
This quote is very apropos here:

History is not there for you to like or dislike. It is there for you to learn, and if it offends you all the better. Then you will be less likely to repeat it. It is not yours to erase. It belongs to all of us.

We can all play jailhouse lawyer giving an opinion on whether or not States can secede. People in the South felt just as strongly that they were right, as the people in the North thought they were wrong.

If I had to offer an opinion I would say let the States decide by a vote of the people. If the people of the state decide they want the name changed then change it. If they decide to leave it the way it is then leave it alone.
 

Maverick

Top Poster
Global Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
10,202
Reaction score
24,204
Location
Washington State - between 2 mountains and a river
This is systematic in the West, Germany disbanded it's Special Forces (KSK) a few weeks ago because it was full of right wing soldiers. Something else is at play here and now the US, it seems the Armed Forces are weaving out Soldiers that may be sympathetic to succession, the Armed Forces in the US have been changing to homogeneous ideology for a few decades now.
 

Rellgar

A True Doomsday Prepper
Administrator
Global Moderator
Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,133
Reaction score
8,678
Location
Top secret
I don’t believe in the right of any state to seceede for any reason. I do believe in their rights to argue their grievances and come up with solutions and comprise.
as far as renaming the bases goes, I’m not personally for it. These commanders were part of our history and trying to rewrite our history is a mistake. One thing that did make me pause though was the statement from general Milady. With 20% of the military being black I can understand some wondering why they named the bases after slavery proponents and traitors to begin with. I only hope the majority of the statues are taken and put in in museums for protection. They are works of art, historical pieces and need to be Preserved.
That's because you dont believe in all of the constitution. I dont agree with the Souths decision to succeed or in slavery(I'm looking at it 170 years later), but they had the right to do so within the constitution.
 

Rellgar

A True Doomsday Prepper
Administrator
Global Moderator
Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,133
Reaction score
8,678
Location
Top secret
This is systematic in the West, Germany disbanded it's Special Forces (KSK) a few weeks ago because it was full of right wing soldiers. Something else is at play here and now the US, it seems the Armed Forces are weaving out Soldiers that may be sympathetic to succession, the Armed Forces in the US have been changing to homogeneous ideology for a few decades now.
Unfortunately, trump still has the Obama military command structure in place.
 

ShadowWolf 13

Active Member
Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
105
Reaction score
293
Location
Upstate NY
for all of you leaning into the treason crap,,,,,,,,


WERE WE ALL TRAITORS BECAUSE OF THE






American Revolutionary War
Apr 19, 1775 – Sep 3, 1783


The American Revolutionary War, also known as the American War of Independence, was initiated by the thirteen original colonies against the Kingdom of Great Britain over their objection to Parliament’s direct taxation and its lack of colonial representation.
I agree 💯% with greyghost668 as American citizens we could all technically / legally be considered traitors so to try to rewrite history to pander to some leftwing liberal a**holes political career ambition's is stupid unless you intend to unjustly try every American citizen as a whole for being a traitor in witch case per the Constitution you'd give right to the milita's to assemble and stand in defiance of a tyrannical government
 

DrHenley

A True Doomsday Prepper
Global Moderator
VIP Supporting Member
Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
9,494
Reaction score
27,074
Location
Columbus, GA USA
This article was written in 1988 by European scholar Dr. Erik Kuehnelt-Leddihn. In the excerpt, look at the second paragraph. "The stage for such violence is set if the parties represent philosophies so different as to make dialogue and compromise impossible." That is where we are right now. There is no compromise between what the radical left controlling the Democrat party wants and what freedom loving Americans want. There is no appeasement that will mollify them. Anything short of complete rejection of what they want is capitulation. There is no middle ground.



How could a democracy, even an initially liberal one, develop into a totalitarian tyranny? As we said in the beginning, there are three avenues of approach, and in each case the evolution would be of an “organic” nature. The tyranny would evolve from the very character of even a liberal democracy because there is, from the beginning on, a worm in the apple: freedom and equality do not mix, they practically exclude each other. Equality doesn’t exist in nature and therefore can be established only by force. He who wants geographic equality has to dynamite mountains and fill up the valleys. To get a hedge of even height one has to apply pruning shears. To achieve equal scholastic levels in a school one would have to pressure certain students into extra hard work while holding back others.

The first road to totalitarian tyranny (though by no means the most frequently used) is the overthrow by force of a liberal democracy through a revolutionary movement, as a rule a party advocating tyranny but unable to win the necessary support in free elections. The stage for such violence is set if the parties represent philosophies so different as to make dialogue and compromise impossible. Clausewitz said that wars are the continuation of diplomacy by other means, and in ideologically divided nations revolutions are truly the continuation of parliamentarism with other means. The result is the absolute rule of one “party” which, having finally achieved complete control, might still call itself a party, referring to its parliamentary past, when it still was merely a part of the diet.

A typical case is the Red October of 1917. The Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party could not win the elections in Alexander Kerenski’s democratic Russian Republic and therefore staged a coup with the help of a defeated, marauding army and navy, and in this way established a firm socialistic tyranny. Many liberal democracies are enfeebled by party strife to such an extent that revolutionary organizations can easily seize power, and sometimes the citizenry, for a time, seems happy that chaos has come to an end. In Italy the Marcia su Roma of the Fascists made them the rulers of the country. Mussolini, a socialist of old, had learned the technique of political conquest from his International Socialist friends and, not surprisingly, Fascist Italy was the second European power, after Laborite Britain (and long before the United States) to recognize the Soviet regime.

The second avenue toward totalitarian tyranny is “free elections.” It can happen that a totalitarian party with great popularity gains such momentum and so many votes that it becomes legally and democratically a country’s master. This happened in Germany in 1932 when no less than 60 per cent of the electorate voted for totalitarian despotism: for every two National Socialists there was one international socialist in the form of a Marxist Communist, and another one in the form of a somewhat less Marxist Social Democrat. Under these circum stances liberal democracy was doomed, since it had no longer a majority in the Reichstag. This development could have been halted only by a military dictatorship (as envisaged by General von Schleicher who was later murdered by the Nazis) or by a restoration of the Hohenzollerns (as planned by Bruning). Yet, within the democratic and constitutional framework, the National Socialists were bound to win.

Then there is the third way in which a democracy changes into a totalitarian tyranny. The first political analyst who foresaw this hitherto-never-experienced kind of evolution was Alexis de Tocqueville. He drew an exact and frightening picture of our Provider State (wrongly called Welfare State) in the second volume of his Democracy in America, published in 1835; he spoke at length about a form of tyranny which he could only describe, but not name, because it had no historic precedent. Admittedly, it took several generations until Tocqueville’s vision became a reality.

He envisaged a democratic government in which nearly all human affairs would be regulated by a mild, “compassionate” but determined government under which the citizens would practice their pursuit of happiness as “timid animals,” losing all initiative and freedom. The Roman Emperors, he said, could direct their wrath against individuals, but control of all forms of life was out of the question under their rule. We have to add that in Tocqueville’s time the technology for such a surveillance and regulation was insufficiently developed. The computer had not been invented and thus his warnings found little echo in the past century.
 

JohnnyilSanto

Member
Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
208
Location
Italy
This article was written in 1988 by European scholar Dr. Erik Kuehnelt-Leddihn. In the excerpt, look at the second paragraph. "The stage for such violence is set if the parties represent philosophies so different as to make dialogue and compromise impossible." That is where we are right now. There is no compromise between what the radical left controlling the Democrat party wants and what freedom loving Americans want. There is no appeasement that will mollify them. Anything short of complete rejection of what they want is capitulation. There is no middle ground.



How could a democracy, even an initially liberal one, develop into a totalitarian tyranny? As we said in the beginning, there are three avenues of approach, and in each case the evolution would be of an “organic” nature. The tyranny would evolve from the very character of even a liberal democracy because there is, from the beginning on, a worm in the apple: freedom and equality do not mix, they practically exclude each other. Equality doesn’t exist in nature and therefore can be established only by force. He who wants geographic equality has to dynamite mountains and fill up the valleys. To get a hedge of even height one has to apply pruning shears. To achieve equal scholastic levels in a school one would have to pressure certain students into extra hard work while holding back others.

La prima strada verso la tirannia totalitaria (anche se non la più usata di frequente) è il rovesciamento con la forza di una democrazia liberale attraverso un movimento rivoluzionario, di norma un partito che sostiene la tirannia ma incapace di ottenere il sostegno necessario alle libere elezioni. Il palcoscenico di tale violenza è fissato se le parti rappresentano filosofie così diverse da rendere impossibile il dialogo e il compromesso. Clausewitz ha affermato che le guerre sono la continuazione della diplomazia con altri mezzi, e in nazioni divise ideologicamente le rivoluzioni sono veramente la continuazione del parlamentarismo con altri mezzi. Il risultato è la regola assoluta di un "partito" che, dopo aver finalmente ottenuto il controllo completo, potrebbe ancora definirsi un partito, riferendosi al suo passato parlamentare, quando faceva ancora solo parte della dieta.

Un caso tipico è l'ottobre rosso del 1917. L'ala bolscevica del Partito socialdemocratico russo non poté vincere le elezioni nella Repubblica democratica russa di Alexander Kerenski e quindi organizzò un colpo di stato con l'aiuto di un esercito e di una marinai sconfitti e predatori, e in questo modo stabilì una tirannia socialista ferma. Molte democrazie liberali sono indebolite dalle lotte dei partiti a tal punto che le organizzazioni rivoluzionarie possono facilmente impadronirsi del potere, e talvolta la cittadinanza, per un certo periodo, sembra felice che il caos sia finito. In Italia la Marcia su Romadei fascisti li ha resi i sovrani del paese. Mussolini, un vecchio socialista, aveva imparato la tecnica della conquista politica dai suoi amici socialisti internazionali e, non a caso, l'Italia fascista era la seconda potenza europea, dopo che la Gran Bretagna laburista (e molto prima degli Stati Uniti) riconosceva il regime sovietico.

La seconda strada verso la tirannia totalitaria sono le "elezioni libere". Può succedere che un partito totalitario con grande popolarità ottenga un tale slancio e così tanti voti da diventare legalmentee democraticamente il padrone di un paese. Ciò accadde in Germania nel 1932 quando non meno del 60% dell'elettorato votò per il dispotismo totalitario: per ogni due nazionalsocialisti c'era un socialista internazionale nella forma di un comunista marxista e un altro nella forma di un po 'meno marxista Socialdemocratico. In queste circostanze la democrazia liberale era condannata, poiché non aveva più una maggioranza nel Reichstag. Questo sviluppo avrebbe potuto essere fermato solo da una dittatura militare (come previsto dal generale von Schleicher che fu successivamente assassinato dai nazisti) o da un restauro degli Hohenzollerns (come previsto da Bruning). Eppure, nel quadro democratico e costituzionale, i nazionalsocialisti erano tenuti a vincere.

Poi c'è il terzo modo in cui una democrazia si trasforma in una tirannia totalitaria. Il primo analista politico che previde questo tipo di evoluzione finora mai sperimentato fu Alexis de Tocqueville. Ha disegnato un quadro esatto e spaventoso del nostro Stato di Provider (erroneamente chiamato Welfare State) nel secondo volume della sua democrazia in America, pubblicato nel 1835; parlò a lungo di una forma di tirannia che poteva solo descrivere, ma non nominare, perché non aveva precedenti storici. Certo, ci vollero diverse generazioni prima che la visione di Tocqueville diventasse realtà.

Immaginava un governo democratico in cui quasi tutti gli affari umani sarebbero stati regolati da un governo mite, "compassionevole" ma determinato, in base al quale i cittadini avrebbero praticato la loro ricerca della felicità come "animali timidi", perdendo ogni iniziativa e libertà. Gli imperatori romani, disse, potevano dirigere la loro ira contro gli individui, ma il controllo di tutte le forme di vita era fuori discussione sotto il loro dominio. Dobbiamo aggiungere che ai tempi di Tocqueville la tecnologia per tale sorveglianza e regolamentazione non era sufficientemente sviluppata. Il computer non era stato inventato e quindi i suoi avvertimenti trovarono poca eco nel secolo scorso.
[/CITAZIONE]
This is an interesting contribution.


But I also believe it is time to look beyond the obsolete left / right division.
The forces involved are much larger, mostly hidden.
I remember that in Italy, after the war, the Italian Communist Party spoke of the importance of the family; now, the "heirs" of that party promote the destruction of the family and abominations against nature and against God.
The communists / socialists of 70 years ago no longer exist, their place was taken by the freemasonry that uses their names and symbols, and "ideals";
opposing the Fascim, demonized at the highest levels, to impose their satanic messages.
Accusing, defaming, censoring, beating, incarcerating, anyone who dares to defend Jesus Christ, the homeland, the family and our cultural identity.
 

GeorgiaPeachie

A True Doomsday Prepper
Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
7,021
Location
Georgia
Unfortunately, trump still has the Obama military command structure in place.
At a time like this is when I really wish we had a strong person (like Trump) who understands the military structure and workings! What did obama change in the structure...if you don’t mind explaining.
 

Maverick

Top Poster
Global Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
10,202
Reaction score
24,204
Location
Washington State - between 2 mountains and a river
This is systematic in the West, Germany disbanded it's Special Forces (KSK) a few weeks ago because it was full of right wing soldiers. Something else is at play here and now the US, it seems the Armed Forces are weaving out Soldiers that may be sympathetic to succession, the Armed Forces in the US have been changing to homogeneous ideology for a few decades now.
Need I say more

US Army investigating handout calling ‘Make America Great Again’ a form of White supremacy

Testing the water?
The Army said the material was sent out in error

The long list of items include “calling the police on black people,” “respectability politics,” celebrating Columbus Day, as well as saying “all lives matter” and “Make America Great Again” — President Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan.

 

Rellgar

A True Doomsday Prepper
Administrator
Global Moderator
Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,133
Reaction score
8,678
Location
Top secret
At a time like this is when I really wish we had a strong person (like Trump) who understands the military structure and workings! What did obama change in the structure...if you don’t mind explaining.
Here is the list of our military elite who have been purged or fired under Obama:
Commanding Generals fired:


· General John R. Allen-U.S. Marines Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] (Nov 2012)
· Major General Ralph Baker (2 Star)-U.S. Army Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn in Africa (April 2013)
· Major General Michael Carey (2 Star)-U.S. Air Force Commander of the 20th US Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (Oct 2013)
· Colonel James Christmas-U.S. Marines Commander 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit & Commander Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response Unit (July 2013)
· Major General Peter Fuller-U.S. Army Commander in Afghanistan (May 2011)
· Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus-U.S. Marine Corps Regional Commander of SW and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan (Oct 2013)
· General Carter F. Ham-U.S. Army African Command (Oct 2013)
· Lieutenant General David H. Huntoon (3 Star), Jr.-U.S. Army 58th Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, NY (2013)
· Command Sergeant Major Don B Jordan-U.S. Army 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (suspended Oct 2013)
· General James Mattis-U.S. Marines Chief of CentCom (May 2013)
· Colonel Daren Margolin-U.S. Marine in charge of Quantico's Security Battalion (Oct 2013)
· General Stanley McChrystal-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (June 2010)
· General David D. McKiernan-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (2009)
· General David Petraeus-Director of CIA from September 2011 to November 2012 & U.S. Army Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] and Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan [USFOR-A] (Nov 2012)
· Brigadier General Bryan Roberts-U.S. Army Commander 2nd Brigade (May 2013)
· Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant-U.S. Marine Corps Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command & Commander of Aviation Wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan (Sept 2013)
· Colonel Eric Tilley-U.S. Army Commander of Garrison Japan (Nov 2013)
· Brigadier General Bryan Wampler-U.S. Army Commanding General of 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command [TSC] (suspended Oct 2013)

Commanding Admirals fired:
· Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette-U.S. Navy Commander John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group Three (Oct 2012)
· Vice Admiral Tim Giardina(3 Star, demoted to 2 Star)-U.S. Navy Deputy Commander of the US Strategic Command, Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10 (Oct 2013)

Naval Officers fired: (All in 2011)
· Captain David Geisler-U.S. Navy Commander Task Force 53 in Bahrain (Oct 2011)
· Commander Laredo Bell-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Support Activity Saratoga Springs, NY (Aug 2011)
· Lieutenant Commander Kurt Boenisch-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)
· Commander Nathan Borchers-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Stout (Mar 2011)
· Commander Robert Brown-U.S. Navy Commander Beachmaster Unit 2 Fort Story, VA (Aug 2011)
· Commander Andrew Crowe-Executive Officer Navy Region Center Singapore (Apr 2011)
· Captain Robert Gamberg-Executive Officer carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (Jun 2011)
· Captain Rex Guinn-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Legal Service office Japan (Feb 2011)
· Commander Kevin Harms- U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 137 aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (Mar 2011)
· Lieutenant Commander Martin Holguin-U.S. Navy Commander mine countermeasures Fearless (Oct 2011)
· Captain Owen Honors-U.S. Navy Commander aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (Jan 2011)
· Captain Donald Hornbeck-U.S. Navy Commander Destroyer Squadron 1 San Diego
(Apr 2011)
· Rear Admiral Ron Horton-U.S. Navy Commander Logistics Group, Western Pacific
(Mar 2011)
· Commander Etta Jones-U.S. Navy Commander amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)
· Commander Ralph Jones-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Green Bay (Jul 2011)
· Commander Jonathan Jackson-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 134, deployed aboard carrier Carl Vinson (Dec 2011)
· Captain Eric Merrill-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Emory S. Land (Jul 2011)
· Captain William Mosk-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Station Rota, U.S. Navy Commander Naval Activities Spain (Apr 2011)
· Commander Timothy Murphy-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 129 at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA (Apr 2011)
· Commander Joseph Nosse-U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine Kentucky (Oct 2011)
· Commander Mark Olson-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer The Sullivans FL (Sep 2011)
· Commander John Pethel-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock New York (Dec 2011)
· Commander Karl Pugh-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 141 Whidbey Island, WA (Jul 2011)
· Commander Jason Strength-U.S. Navy Commander of Navy Recruiting District Nashville, TN (Jul 2011)
· Captain Greg Thomas-U.S. Navy Commander Norfolk Naval Shipyard (May 2011)
· Commander Mike Varney-U.S. Navy Commander attack submarine Connecticut (Jun 2011)
· Commander Jay Wylie-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Momsen (Apr 2011)
Naval Officers fired: (All in 2012):
· Commander Alan C. Aber-Executive Officer Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 71 (July 2012)
· Commander Derick Armstrong- U.S. Navy Commander missile destroyer USS The Sullivans (May 2012)
· Commander Martin Arriola- U.S. Navy Commander destroyer USS Porter (Aug 2012)
· Captain Antonio Cardoso- U.S. Navy Commander Training Support Center San Diego (Sep 2012)
· Captain James CoBell- U.S. Navy Commander Oceana Naval Air Station's Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic (Sep 2012)
· Captain Joseph E. Darlak- U.S. Navy Commander frigate USS Vandegrift (Nov 2012)
· Captain Daniel Dusek-U.S. Navy Commander USS Bonhomme
· Commander David Faught-Executive Officer destroyer Chung-Hoon (Sep 2012)
· Commander Franklin Fernandez- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24 (Aug 2012)
· Commander Ray Hartman- U.S. Navy Commander Amphibious dock-landing ship Fort McHenry (Nov 2012)
· Commander Shelly Hakspiel-Executive Officer Navy Drug Screening Lab San Diego (May 2012)
· Commander Jon Haydel- U.S. Navy Commander USS San Diego (Mar 2012)
· Commander Diego Hernandez- U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine USS Wyoming (Feb 2012)
· Commander Lee Hoey- U.S. Navy Commander Drug Screening Laboratory, San Diego (May 2012)
· Commander Ivan Jimenez-Executive Officer frigate Vandegrift (Nov 2012)
· Commander Dennis Klein- U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Columbia (May 2012)
· Captain Chuck Litchfield- U.S. Navy Commander assault ship USS Essex (Jun 2012)
· Captain Marcia Kim Lyons- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic New England (Apr 2012)
· Captain Robert Marin- U.S. Navy Commander cruiser USS Cowpens (Feb 2012)
· Captain Sean McDonell- U.S. Navy Commander Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 FL (Nov 2012)
· Commander Corrine Parker- U.S. Navy Commander Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 1 (Apr 2012)
· Captain Liza Raimondo- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic Patuxent River, MD (Jun 2012)
· Captain Jeffrey Riedel- Program manager, Littoral Combat Ship program (Jan 2012)
· Commander Sara Santoski- U.S. Navy Commander Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 15 (Sep 2012)
· Commander Kyle G. Strudthoff-Executive Officer Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 25 (Sep 2012)
· Commander Sheryl Tannahill- U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Nashville, TN (Sep 2012)
· Commander Michael Ward- U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Pittsburgh (Aug 2012)
· Captain Michael Wiegand- U.S. Navy Commander Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (Nov 2012)
· Captain Ted Williams- U.S. Navy Commander amphibious command ship Mount Whitney (Nov 2012)
 

Rellgar

A True Doomsday Prepper
Administrator
Global Moderator
Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,133
Reaction score
8,678
Location
Top secret
Part 2 continued

· Commander Jeffrey Wissel- U.S. Navy Commander of Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron 1 (Feb 2012)

Naval Officers fired: (All in 2013):
· Lieutenant Commander Lauren Allen-Executive Officer submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013)
· Reserve Captain Jay Bowman-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Fort Dix, NJ (Mar 2013)
· Captain William Cogar-U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Mercy's medical treatment facility (Sept 2013)
· Commander Steve Fuller-Executive Officer frigate Kauffman (Mar 2013)
· Captain Shawn Hendricks-Program Manager for naval enterprise IT networks (June 2013)
· Captain David Hunter-U.S. Navy Commander of Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron 12 & Coastal Riverine Group 2 (Feb 2013)
· Captain Eric Johnson-U.S. Navy Chief of Military Entrance Processing Command at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, IL (2013)
· Captain Devon Jones-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Air Facility El Centro, CA (July 2013)
· Captain Kevin Knoop-U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Comfort's medical treatment facility (Aug 2013)
· Lieutenant Commander Jack O'Neill-U.S. Navy Commander Operational Support Center Rock Island, IL (Mar 2013)
· Commander Allen Maestas-Executive Officer Beachmaster Unit 1 (May 2013)
· Commander Luis Molina-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Pasadena (Jan 2013)
· Commander James Pickens-Executive Officer frigate Gary (Feb 2013)
· Lieutenant Commander Mark Rice-U.S. Navy Commander Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013)
· Commander Michael Runkle-U.S. Navy Commander of Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 2 (May 2013)
· Commander Jason Stapleton-Executive Office Patrol Squadron 4 in Hawaii (Mar 2013)
· Commander Nathan Sukols-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013)
· Lieutenant Daniel Tyler-Executive Officer Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013)
· Commander Edward White-U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 106 (Aug 2013)
· Captain Jeffrey Winter-U.S. Navy Commander of Carrier Air Wing 17 (Sept 2013)
· Commander Thomas Winter-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Montpelier (Jan 2013)
· Commander Corey Wofford- U.S. Navy Commander frigate Kauffman (Feb 2013)


Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented.Things have gotten so bad that a number of retired generals are publicly speaking out about the 'purg' of the U.S. military that they believe is taking place. As you will see below, dozens of highly decorated military leaders have been dismissed from their positions over the past few years. So why is this happening? What is going on right now is absolutely crazy especially during a time of peace. Is there a deliberate attempt to reshape the military and remove those who don't adhere to the proper 'viewpoints' ? Does someone out there feel a need to get officers that won't cooperate out of the way?

Throughout world history, whatever comes next after a military purge is never good.
If this continues, what is the U.S. military going to look like in a few years?

Perhaps you are reading this and you think that 'purge' is too strong a word for what is taking place. Well, justconsider the following quotes from some very highly decorated retired officers:

-Retired Army Major General Paul Vallely:The White House protects their own.That's why they stalled on the investigation into fast and furious, Benghazi and Obamacare.He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.

-Retired Army Major General Patrick Brady: There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him.
-Retired Army Lt. General William G. Jerry Boykin:Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause.

-Retired Navy Captain Joseph John:I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views.

A Pentagon official who asked to remain nameless because they were not authorized to speak on the matter said even young officers, down through the ranks have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job just keep your mouth shut. Now this trend appears to be accelerating.


General Vallely's comment:
Absolutely every communist regime on the planet did this as soon as they got in power. I am surprised this communist traitor with his feet up on our furniture in the white house hasn't done this until now!


SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? I am doing my part. How about forwarding this.
Paul

(General Paul Vallely)
 

Latest posts

Top