Coup d’état in America – evidence mounts

The Constitution assumed local control of most government functions, not the current centralized system.
Print Friendly

Last year my fellow editor warned of a coup d’état in America. In case any reader has any doubt, Barack Obama and his allies have removed all doubt in the last several weeks. And in the process have made America ripe for rebellion. But if the right people stand up and lead, the results need not be as chaotic as one might suppose.

Coup d’état, Exhibit A: The Newtown Incident

The Newtown Incident needs no further description. Or does it? Did Adam Lanza steal three weapons, and use them at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, all by his lonesome? Dwight Kehoe at TPATH pointed out that the mainstream media first reported one thing, then changed their story. They first said Lanza might have had a Bushmaster AR-15 with him at the school, but left it in his automobile. Then they started saying something radically different, as if they had said it all along. One can imagine Winston Smith at the Ministry (Department?) of Truth rushing out a memo to them and obligingly destroying old copy. Except that it’s too late. Someone cobbled together some original footage and uploaded it to YouTube. You can play it below. (To any Department of Truth wannabes: don’t even think you can quash it now. The resistance, when it forms, will have copies.)

Speaking of media accountability: MSNBC charged yesterday that some heartless viewers “heckled” the father of one of the pupils who died at Sandy Hook, after he had the temerity to ask “who in this room needs an assault weapon.” The only problem was: he asked the question, and they answered him. (And did everyone miss the other father of a victim, who said guns were not the problem?)

Today, no one doubts that twenty pupils and eight adults died that day. What people do wonder about is: Did Adam Lanza act alone? Or did he have help? Or not so much help, as “handlers” who shot him, “threw down” their weapons next to his body, and vanished into the woods? Play the third embedded video. Listen carefully to the back-and-forth on the radio, beginning at the 3:13 mark. Police clearly describe at least two shooters. Not satisfied? Play the fourth video, which is the source of the third.

How is this relevant? Well, when you’re planning a coup d’état, and want popular support for it, you don’t wait for that support to “just happen.” You drum it up. And sometimes, if one episode does not “convince” the people, maybe several will. Why, then, do we now see at least one such gunfire episode a week beginning about a month after the Newtown Incident? Coincidence? Ian Fleming said this about coincidence:

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and the third time it’s enemy action.

Coup Exhibit B: Gun Control Redux

Your local sheriff might be all that stands between you and a coup d'état.

Badge of the Sheriff of El Paso County, Texas. Photo: El Paso County Sheriff’s Office

Last week, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) released her proposed “assault weapons ban” to the public. Or to be more specific, gun rights journalist David Codrea got the text and published it to Scribd.com; you may read it below.

Two problems. First, the Feinstein bill exempts government officials and their bodyguards. That’s special pleading. Second, the Feinstein bill includes handguns and shotguns. Everyone who cared to know, knew this was coming. You should also remember that in 1995, Feinstein said what she really thought of the idea of anyone, except a law-enforcement officer or an active-duty military member, having a gun:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.

Except that she won’t turn hers in. Nor will New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s bodyguards. Not that they should. But protection of their persons is not a special privilege, available to them alone.

If you’re planning a coup d’état, it helps if the people have no guns and cannot resist you.

Coup Exhibit C: DHS Buys Ammunition

Why is the Department of Homeland Security buying millions, even billions, of rounds of ammunition? The news of these massive bullet buys does not come only from “the usual suspects.” This article, going back to September 19, 2012, came from Arutz-7. From Israel. Arutz-7 pointed out a few interesting items:

  • Many of these rounds are hollow-point rounds. They expand on impact.
  • Many other of these rounds can go through walls.
  • The Social Security Administration also bought 174,000 rounds. Why?
  • The military started preparing for riots in the streets.

And then there’s this piece in Business Insider. This article discusses a continued pattern of ammo buys by DHS and other agencies. It also discusses whether the agents are shooting up all those rounds in training. Two things:

  1. Training for all these agents would need 15 to 20 million rounds a year. DHS is buying many more rounds than that.
  2. What’s happening to the spent brass? The spent brass usually goes back to the ammo maker for recycling and re-use. Not this time. Yes, the Army is destroying some of that brass (though Congress told them to stop doing that). But not all of it. Not this many rounds. Not by a long shot (pun intended).

Again, if you’re planning a coup d’état, you need to be ready to shoot a lot of people.

And in case you don’t get that point, DHS is buying 7,000 of the same weapons they don’t want the people to have. Hypocrisy? Worse than that. It’s special pleading:

Do as I say, not as I do.

Or, put another way:

Rank has its privileges.

Rank. The Constitution does not recognize such rank. But the politicians pushing gun control clearly stand on their own rank. If they’re planning a coup, you know why.

Coup Exhibit D: Loose Talk of Scrapping the Constitution

A law professor should know better. But Georgetown University Law Professor Louis M. Seidman actually said to abolish the Constitution. (Here is the source.) That, of course, would force us to re-argue the case for our rights. Well, obviously if you’re planning a coup d’état, you want to make sure that the people have no rights, except those you grant. In other words, the people’s rights are whatever you say they are, any time you say it.

Mark Levin was afraid of a Supreme Court being the sole arbiters of the Constitution. Professor Seidman would have people get used to one man making that decision.

Coup Exhibit E: Fomenting Trouble

Actor Stephen Boyd, as Marcus Valerius Messala, new Tribune and Commander of the Garrison of Jerusalem (Ben-Hur, MGM, 1959), almost dismissively tells his predecessor:

There’s always some rabble-rouser stirring up trouble.

Well, how if the government itself were stirring up trouble? The Rev. William Owens, Jr. so accuses. He said it on the Capitol steps yesterday, in answer to the 23 executive orders (for that is what de facto President Obama called them, no matter what semantic distinction anyone might care to make) that Barack Obama signed.

Oh, what a perfect excuse! When riots break out, people cry out for someone to restore order. And the government is then ready, with its billions of rounds of ammunition, and armed with the same weapons they took from the people. That’s the perfect recipe for a coup d’état.

And what is a coup d’état? It’s what happens when a group of people take over one part of the government from within, then use that part to destroy the other parts and rule alone.

Can anyone stop it?

Yes. And what’s more, the group of people best qualified to stop it, are starting to wake up to the danger. Who are these people? Your local sheriff – if he fully knows his duty under the Constitution, and at common law.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, signaled his understanding. He flatly refuses to confiscate guns. And if he has to, he will go to war with any federal agency who tries to take guns away from his fellow lawful residents.

Twenty-eight of twenty-nine sheriffs in Utah protested Obama’s executive orders and likewise vowed to stand on the Constitution.

These are only some of the 225 sheriffs who have taken a similar stand. They belong to the new Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers’ Association that Richard Mack, former Sheriff of Graham County, Arizona (and plaintiff in Printz v. US) founded. Here is the latest list. It includes Sheriff Donald Smith of Putnam County, New York – the same county that refused to cooperate with The Journal News when they were publishing gun owners’ names and addresses. (They have since taken their map down and now admitted that forty percent of the names and addresses shouldn’t have been on it!)

So if the federal government tries a coup d’état against the Constitution, they will have these 225 sheriffs to deal with. And anyone else who has guns and refuses to hand them over.

Related articles: