Former CIA Army General: Martial Law Expected & “Warranted�

[Oh Shoot]

....if you apply the logic of "Never let a good crisis go to waste (Rham Emanuel of Chicago)", some progressives in office might see an opportunity to "fundamentaly change the United States of America (Obama)" if the crisis presents itself....All I am saying is that martial law may not be possible on a national level, but it is possible on a smaller local level in some of the larger cities. ....

Speaking of Rahm Deadfish, the crisis is already there in his fair city. I think it's ripe for his buddy Barack to go ahead and declare martial law there now!

- OS

[mikegideon]

Speaking of Rahm Deadfish, the crisis is already there in his fair city. I think it's ripe for his buddy Barack to go ahead and declare martial law there now!

- OS

One of the best places in the world for that kind of wakeup call. Those folks made their bed.

[Glenn]

Most are thinking too broad about Martial law. The Gov. won't try to physically control most of the people since they don't give a damn what happens to me or you. The imposition of martial law will just be a way to keep themselves in power by eliminating what semblance of rights we still have. If there are no elections, the people can't vote out the politicians. You really think a group of armed citizens could take back control of the Government? They are prepared to survive a nuclear war.

Glenn

[TMF]

You really think a group of armed citizens could take back control of the Government? They are prepared to survive a nuclear war.

Glenn

But they aren't prepared to survive their General Officers.

Edited August 6, 2012 by TMF 18B

[partypilot1]

Most are thinking too broad about Martial law. The Gov. won't try to physically control most of the people since they don't give a damn what happens to me or you. The imposition of martial law will just be a way to keep themselves in power by eliminating what semblance of rights we still have. If there are no elections, the people can't vote out the politicians. You really think a group of armed citizens could take back control of the Government? They are prepared to survive a nuclear war.

Glenn

Yep, maybe we will have an election but no changes in office. I've seen this once before when I was working in Venezuela.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Most are thinking too broad about Martial law. The Gov. won't try to physically control most of the people since they don't give a damn what happens to me or you. The imposition of martial law will just be a way to keep themselves in power by eliminating what semblance of rights we still have. If there are no elections, the people can't vote out the politicians. You really think a group of armed citizens could take back control of the Government? They are prepared to survive a nuclear war.

Glenn

They could try that, but it wouldn't work. Once the funding dries up, they lose their power. They might think they could

control masses, but like DaveTN said, it would break down. They can't control much of anything without a bluff. Obama

can't bluff very well, but he can take credit for things he doesn't do.

The power in DC would be forced to capitulate and probably leave DC before you know it. There is a collective component

of power in this country, but it starts with the people accepting the use of that power. A lot of people would possibly die,

but the government would fall in the process. No real winner.

Maybe that's what they want.

[Jonnin]

Just curious, I am not that familiar to the nth detail when the U.S. came off of the gold standard, could it go back on it, i.e. emergency executive order? I would assume a hail mary play in the playbook by the government, with the collapse of the paper money system, it could go back on the gold standard to sure up the government, so as to pay military and police to enforce martial law. Maybe a new U.S. currency so as to distinguish it from historical U.S. currency. I do believe the U.S. goverment still owns the largest stock pile of gold of any nation. Regardless of currency, this has to be worth something. I know for decades, gold was around $30 an ounce, I know today its around $1,700 an ounce. I would assume basic supply and demand principals for gold really has not changed, only the devalue of the currency is all that has changed. Thus, gold is steady, only the devalue of cash as increased giving a illusion gold is going up in value, in fact, it has not. To provde my theory, I recently compared US dollar vs. gold, and Japanese Yen vs. gold, tremendous differences in the curve. Japan is known to have had a more stable economony over the past 5 years, vs. the U.S.

A gold standard is great, but at the moment, we do not have the gold. That is, if everyone in the country wanted to exchange their physical and electronic dollars for real pounds of real yellow metal, the USA does not have the gold to do it, even at today's high gold prices. Swapping to a gold standard, then, would devalue the dollar MORE as they would have to take the existing gold and divide it by the existing and future created (money is constantly created) value. It would become clear that an oz of gold would be worth probably in the $10-25k range!

In the event of a total collapse, which is an economic reset button, that is another story, but to swap to a gold standard today would be to devalue everything at an insane rate of inflation.

Edit: we have billions of today's dollars in gold, but we would need trillions. 10X value of gold to dollars is not too wild a guess. They just did a partial inventory of the gold we have.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Jonnin

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Awhile ago I read what seemed to be serious proposal by people who might get things done, about a quasi-gold standard-- Use the price of gold to set exchange rates between various currencies. For instance if gold costs a terabuck per milligram in zimbabwe currency and it costs a gigabuck per milligram in USA currency, then there would be a 1000:1 exchange rate between the two nations.

[Jonnin]

Awhile ago I read what seemed to be serious proposal by people who might get things done, about a quasi-gold standard-- Use the price of gold to set exchange rates between various currencies. For instance if gold costs a terabuck per milligram in zimbabwe currency and it costs a gigabuck per milligram in USA currency, then there would be a 1000:1 exchange rate between the two nations.

You would have to get everyone to agree to stop printing / creating (eletronic) money for it to work unless these values were always in flux. If always in flux, its already there: you can already exchange currency for other currency or gold. If everyone agreed to stop printing money, there would be an enormous incentive to mine up the untapped gold reserves (there are probably hundreds of thousands of tons of unmined gold that we have located but not yet dug up) and countries with the most undug gold would have serious advantages for a while.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks Jonnin

Yep, I think the proposal was to use gold as the standard to set the constantly floating exchange rate, rather than base currencies on the amount of gold in each nation's vaults. So if the usa were to yet again double its money supply, market forces would force the price of gold up to 2 gigabucks per milligram in USA dollars, and the exchange rate against zimbabwe would drop to a mere 500:1 or whatever.

It would only work to the extent that the price of gold can't be manipulated against currencies. About anything can be manipulated so maybe it wouldn't be practical.

For instance the USA and other nations are constantly bitching that china kicks people's butts in trade by artificially devaluing the yen. And accusations that the USA is printing too much money in order to dilute its massive debt to other nations sovereign funds, which will eventually mean we can pay off the national debt for about the same price as a burger, as soon as burgers cost several trillion bucks apiece. The idea is that basing exchange rates against the price of gold would prevent such.

There have been similar proposals to set exchange rates against the price of oil in various currencies.

There is always motivation to get ahold of lots of gold because people will slit their own granny's throat for enough gold, but if the gold supply were to massively increase, it might still be useful as an exchange rate device.

I don't know anything about it but perhaps gold would be difficult to manipulate for any long period. For instance if a nation tries to artificially raise the value of its currency, cheapening the price of gold in that currency, then the market as a whole would be unwilling to sell gold in that currency until the price rises to what the market sees as a realistic price. If a nation tries to artificially lower the value of its currency, raising the price of gold in that currency, then people would be willing to sell gold but there wouldn't be any buyers willing to pay an unrealistic high price for gold in that currency.

[Glenn]

They could try that, but it wouldn't work. Once the funding dries up, they lose their power. They might think they could

control masses, but like DaveTN said, it would break down. They can't control much of anything without a bluff. Obama

can't bluff very well, but he can take credit for things he doesn't do.

The power in DC would be forced to capitulate and probably leave DC before you know it. There is a collective component

of power in this country, but it starts with the people accepting the use of that power. A lot of people would possibly die,

but the government would fall in the process. No real winner.

Maybe that's what they want.

Most things would just continue on. How many people would be willing to quit paying taxes and risk going to jail, losing their job, health insurance, etc. The entire economy is not going to stop just because the government finally reveals how corrupt it is..

Glenn

[Jonnin]

correct, government corruption is actually probably good for the economy --- lobbiests get paid, it creates jobs, as does cronyism and other pork. Much as we hate pork, a lot of it goes to projects that do turn into jobs.

What causes the economy to collapse is when there is a crisis of epic magnitude, such that food or gold or ammo or medicine etc are worth more than money, when things reach a point that people would rather not have the money because no one wants to give up items that help survive to get more scraps of potentially worthless and certainly useless pieces of paper. Or in short, the economy collapses when the money can no longer be used because it is not trusted to hold any real value. Typical corruption does not lead down that path, although some sort of military takeover of the government to annoint a leader for life might do it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Agreed, but how many of those households have more than a few small boxes of ammo on hand? Most folks don't have a stock pile.

As Seabeejason said, I'm guessing as well that most military folks wouldn't carry out certain orders, but there would be some that would.

90 million guns with 20-50 rounds each would do a lot more damage than you might think. The mere threat of reprisal

might do enough to put the idea of government controlling our lives on the back burner.

I have heard the worn out phrase "sheeple" just like you have, but when pushed to the point, even after decades

of conditioning and complacency, when someone sees the possibility of being turned into the complete slave, or

worse, he might just start taking control of his own destiny, even if it's only briefly. Backed in the corner, you might

see what I mean. Just a matter of survival at that point.

[Worriedman]

No, when our government can go more than a week without a substantial intelligence leak then I might start to worry that they're getting competent enough to do something sinister.

Checked out the 2000+ pages of the Health Care Bill lately?

[TMF]

Checked out the 2000+ pages of the Health Care Bill lately?

That isn't your government's doing, that is the doing of your fellow American voters. I don't like it either, but politicians are like children... they don't know any better. The American voter is suppose to be the smart one in this equation.

Edited August 7, 2012 by TMF 18B

[Jonnin]

Checked out the 2000+ pages of the Health Care Bill lately?

I will hand it to them, that was genius. Make it too big to read, and no one will. I do not think even the SCOTUS judges read it. I know the congressmen did not read the whole thing. People are still finding scary new things in there.

[Glenn]

I will hand it to them, that was genius. Make it too big to read, and no one will. I do not think even the SCOTUS judges read it. I know the congressmen did not read the whole thing. People are still finding scary new things in there.

Like Gov. access to your bank accounts.

Glenn

[Guest ThePunisher]

The American voter is suppose to be the smart one in this equation.

How's that been working out lately?

[TMF]

How's that been working out lately?

In the wise words of Mellencamp: "Ain't that America?"

I've been trying to get Zen lately in a combined effort to lower my blood pressure. Not that I don't believe in doing my part to stop the libs from eroding my rights and all, but every time the left wins a battle I think of the Zen story about the Farmer's Luck. Sh#t happens and it don't mean it's the end of the world, just like if tomorrow I win 10 million dollars it doesn't mean that solves all my future problems.

http://obaitori.typepad.com/obaitori/2010/03/the-farmers-luck.html

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That isn't your government's doing, that is the doing of your fellow American voters. I don't like it either, but politicians are like children... they don't know any better. The American voter is suppose to be the smart one in this equation.

Oh really? Tell me how many congressmen and women ran on the promise of universal health care. Probably none.

anyway, the ones who voted for it paid a heavy toll in 2010. so, that voter isn't that damned dumb as you think they are.

It got us the house back. Now, it's time to get the senate. Stupid Tea Party voters.

[Guest CCI]

Storm coming? This doesn't sound good!

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2012/08/07/n-el-erian-fed-recession.cnnmoney

[TMF]

Oh really? Tell me how many congressmen and women ran on the promise of universal health care. Probably none.

anyway, the ones who voted for it paid a heavy toll in 2010. so, that voter isn't that damned dumb as you think they are.

It got us the house back. Now, it's time to get the senate. Stupid Tea Party voters.

Wait, you were surprised when they pulled the health care thing? This has been the goal of the Dems all along. They haven't been hiding that.

[Oh Shoot]

Storm coming? This doesn't sound good!

http://money.cnn.com...ession.cnnmoney

Scarey little find there. More than many financial doomsday sources I've seen in a while, PIMCO gets my attention.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Wait, you were surprised when they pulled the health care thing? This has been the goal of the Dems all along. They haven't been hiding that.

Never said I was surprised, but I will say it wasn't the voters' fault the way it went down.

[leroy]

All:_________________

I'm a big Moonbattery Blog fan. Found this today. Interestin read:

http://moonbattery.com/?p=15413

Food for thought.

leroy