NO STAND-DOWN ORDER DURING BENGHAZI ATTACK. AMERICAN MILITARY COUP FAILED.

GENERAL PAUL VALLELY IS NOT THE ONLY HIGH-RANKING MILITARY MAN WHO WANTS TO OUST OBAMA BY MILITARY COUP, BUT HE MAY BE THE MOST HONEST.
VALLELY HAS GONE ON RECORD MORE THAN ONCE AS SAYING HE'D BE DELIGHTED TO LEAD A COUP TO TAKE THE PRESIDENCY AWAY FROM OBAMA.
Paul Vallely, a retired major general and senior military analyst for the conservative news channel FOX, told the Surprise, Arizona, Tea Party Patriots during a Dec. 3 speech that other retired military personnel and veterans groups had contacted him about the possibility.
“I had a call this afternoon from Idaho, the gentleman said, ‘If I give you 250,000 Marines to go to Washington, will you lead them?’” Vallely said as the group laughed and gasped. “I said, ‘Yes, I will, I’ll surround the White House and I’ll surround the Capitol building, but it’s going to take physical presence to do things.”
[NOTE: THIS WAS RECORDED.]

A COUP HAS ALREADY BEEN TRIED AND 7 HEADS ROLLED IN RAPID SUCCESSION AFTER THEIR FAILED ATTEMPT!

Representative Buck McKeon wrote a letter to Obama in which he stated  ”As we are painfully aware, despite the fact that the military had resources in the area, the military did not deploy any assets to secure U.S. personnel in Benghazi during the hours the consulate and the annex were under attack. I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command (General Hamm) and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief.”

THEY DIDN'T IGNORE ANYTHING. AS HAS NOW BEEN PROVEN, THERE WAS NO "STAND-DOWN" ORDER, AND OBAMA HAD TURNED THE ENTIRE OPERATION OVER TO THE MILITARY, TO LEON PANETTA AND GENERAL DEMPSEY WHO HAVE BOTH TESTIFIED THAT OBAMA ISSUED NO STAND-DOWN ORDERS, NOR DID HILLARY CLINTON!
THEY BOTH TESTIFIED THAT OBAMA'S WORDS WERE  to “employ all possible means to secure our personnel”, AND THAT HE TOLD THEM TO DO ALL THAT WAS NECESSARY TO THAT END.

THE MILITARY/CIA SACRIFICED STEVENS AND THE OTHERS TO TRY TO RESCUE THEIR OWN COUP ATTEMPT AND KEEP THE GUN-RUNNING OUT OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

THERE WAS NO STAND-DOWN ORDER GIVEN THAT DAY, AND THAT HAS BEEN TESTIFIED TO BY A MAN WHO WAS THERE AND WHO OUGHT TO KNOW, LT. COL. S.E.GIBSON. AND THAT ORDERS CAME FROM THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, LEON PANETTA.

The eight Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee issued a report concluding that, “There was no ‘stand down’ order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi.”
Lieutenant Colonel Gibson’s instructions were precisely clarified in a colloquy before the Armed Services Committee:
<<Mrs. Roby: ... Do you agree that you and your team were ordered to ... “stand down?”

Colonel Gibson:  Madam Chairman, I was not ordered to stand down.  I was ordered to remain in place.  “Stand down” implies that we cease all operations, cease all activities.  We continued to support the team that was in Tripoli.  We continued to maintain visibility of the events as they unfolded.>>

The Republican House Armed Services Committee report concluded that, “There was no ‘stand down’ order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi,” AND THAT REPORT ALSO EXPLAINED THAT "the Defense Department did, in fact, begin spinning up assets immediately", contrary to  accusations.

When the Department of State learned the SMC [Special Mission Compound] was being assaulted on September 11, officials notified DOD’s National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. 
Thus began a chain of events that involved DOD allocating various forces to the crisis.  The response decisions were based upon what forces were available and could readily be brought to bear on the situation as it was understood by senior leaders.

Asked why no outside forces were deployed to Benghazi during the attack, Ham responded that after the initial assault on the U.S. special mission he believed the attack was finished.
However, his explanation may raise questions about his stated judgment that night, which turned out to be mortally off base. After the initial attack on the U.S. mission, there was a second round of deadly assaults against the nearby CIA annex, the location to which the victims of the first assaults were evacuated.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/general-cant-explain-why-forces-not-deployed-to-benghazi/#zF6kvTsZvKsZOIUe.99

<<Asked why no outside forces were deployed to Benghazi during the attack, General Ham responded that after the initial assault on the U.S. special mission he believed the attack was finished.

However, his explanation may raise questions about his stated judgment that night, which turned out to be mortally off base. After the initial attack on the U.S. mission, there was a second round of deadly assaults against the nearby CIA annex, the location to which the victims of the first assaults were evacuated.>>

n June, Martin Dempsey, chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that the highly trained Special Forces were on call.
In comments that may warrant further investigation, Dempsey further stated at a Senate hearing that on the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, command of EUCOM CIF was transferred from the military’s European command to Ham’s AFRICOM, or the United States Africa Command.
Dempsey did not state any reason for the unusual transfer of command nor could he provide a timeline for the transfer the night of the attack.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/general-cant-explain-why-forces-not-deployed-to-benghazi/#zF6kvTsZvKsZOIUe.99

<<In June, Martin Dempsey, chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that the highly trained Special Forces EUCOM CIF were on call.

In comments that may warrant further investigation, Dempsey further stated at a Senate hearing that on the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, command of EUCOM CIF was transferred from the military’s European command to Ham’s AFRICOM, or the United States Africa Command.

Dempsey did not state any reason for the unusual transfer of command nor could he provide a timeline for the transfer the night of the attack.>>

THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW:
IT IS KEPT OUT OF MANY ARTICLES DEALING WITH BENGHAZI, BUT IT WAS PART OF THE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE'S REPORT, SO THIS IS THEIR OPINION AND IS WHAT THEY FOUND OUT!

<<Following the meeting in the White House, Secretary Panetta (in consultation with General Ham, General Dempsey, and others) verbally authorized three specific actions.

 First, two Marine FAST platoons in Rota, Spain were ordered to prepare to deploy; one bound for Benghazi and one destined for Tripoli. 

Second, a special operations unit assigned to the European Command, known as a Commander’s In-Extremis Force (CIF), which was training in Croatia was ordered to move to a U.S. Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy and await further instructions. 

Third, a special operations unit in the United States was also dispatched to the region.  These orders were issued approximately two to four hours after the initial attack on the SMC.>>

OBAMA HIMSELF ISSUED NO ORDERS, LEFT IT UP TO HIS MILITARY AND HIS DEFENSE SECRETARY AND THEY DID THE SET-UP FOR THE DEATHS OF THOSE AT THE CIA's BENGHAZI COMPLEX.
Testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Panetta said the president told them to “do whatever you need to do to be able to protect our people there,” though when it came to specifics the president “left it up to us.”
THE MILITARY, AFTER FAILING IN THEIR INITIAL COUP ATTEMPT, TRIED AGAIN TO OUST OBAMA BY "PUBLIC OUTCRY"...THEY HAD TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE OBAMA LOOK SO BAD, SO ANTI-AMERICAN THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WOULD SCREAM FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT.
THEY CHOSE BENGHAZI.

The Benghazi consulate was no more than a CIA safe house
It came under attack, SUPPOSEDLY by Al Qaeda forces and WE WERE TOLD that the attack lasted several hours.
NO, THERE WERE TWO ATTACKS THAT DAY, ONE EARLIER, AND THEN THE FATAL ONE.
ALL THE GENERALS SAID THEY DID NOT NOW THE CIA HAD RECENTLY HELD SOME HIGH-RANKING "TERRORISTS" THERE, AND ALL CLAIMED NOT TO KNOW THAT THE CIA WAS OPERATING A COMPLEX THERE, PERIOD.

We now know that CIA forces were right down the street at the time of the LAST attack that murdered Stevens and the others.
We were TOLD these were Al Qaeda forces.
As they attempted to flee the murder scene, SURPRISE! They were killed by the CIA forces, who SHOULD have rescued Stevens.
THINK ABOUT THIS.
JUST THINK!

The ties between murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and jihadist Syrian rebels are becoming more clear as it is now known that Chris Stevens was an arms dealer for the CIA and brokered arms deals with Al-Qaeda and their affiliate rebels in both Libya and Syria.
Stevens was the link between the CIA and Al-Qaeda.
NATO (the U.S. being part of NATO) HAD GIVEN THOSE LIBYAN "REBELS" 20,000 STINGER MISSILES SO THEY COULD MURDER GADDAFI.
STEVENS WAS TRYING TO BROKER A DEAL TO GET THOSE BACK FOR THE SYRIAN GUYS, THE ONES WE WANTED TO KILL ASSAD AND BRING SYRIA BACK ONLINE.
STEVENS HAD BEEN FOUND OUT.
HAD HE LIVED, WE WOULD NOW KNOW, PERHAPS, THE NAMES OF THOSE WHO WERE AND STILL ARE RUNNING GUNS AND WEAPONS TO THOSE ELUSIVE ( AND UTTERLY FICTITIOUS) "AL-QAEDA" GUYS.

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT PRESIDENT REAGAN CALLED THOSE FIRST "AL-QAEDA" FELLOWS "FREEDOM FIGHTERS" AND SENT THEM ALL KINDS OF WEAPONS TO HELP THEM PROTECT THEIR AFGHANISTAN.
AND REMEMBER THE PHOTOS OF ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI BEING SENT OVER TO SHOW THEM HOW TO USE THOSE NICE NEW WEAPONS!

REMEMBER GEORGE H.W. BUSH ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR AND SENDING BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS  YO SADDAM HUSSEIN AND THE PHOTOS OF DONALD RUMSFELD EMBRACING SADDAM.
REMEMBERING ALL THAT, LET'S THINK AGAIN!
WHO WOULD WANT WAR TO GO ON AND ON AND ON?
WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM EXTENDED WARS?
WHO IS PROGRAMMED TO DO WAR?
WHO IN OUR GOVERNMENT GETS THE LION'S SHARE OF FEDERAL DOLLARS?
WHO HAS THE LARGEST NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT?
WHO WOULD MOST LIKELY WANT GUNS AND OTHER WEAPONS IN THE HANDS OF LUNATICS IN SYRIA, LIBYA, OR ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE GLOBE SO WE COULD KEEP HAVING WARS?
THE PENTAGON AND THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX BOTH LOVE WAR, NEED WAR, WANT WAR TO BE ETERNAL.
BOTH MAKE MONEY OFF WAR. 
THE PENTAGON GETS TRILLIONS OF FEDERAL DOLLARS FOR WAR.
THE PENTAGON AND DoD HAVE THE MOST FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND THEN THERE ARE ALL THE TROOPS, NAVY, AIR FORCE, ARMY, MARINES...MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
BOTH THE PENTAGON AND THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WOULD BENEFIT IN MANY WAYS FROM PROTRACTED WARS. 

BUT ONLY THOSE IN THE MILITARY ARE TRAINED TO DO WAR.
SO, WHO MIGHT NOT ONLY ENCOURAGE BUT ALSO ASSIST THE CIA IN GUN-RUNNING TO SYRIA, LIBYA, AND ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS A WAR GOING ON?
THE PENTAGON AND WALL STREET.

APPLY THE LOGIC BEHIND WHY THOSE TWO ENTITIES WOULD WANT MORE WAR, LONGER WARS, NOT WANT TO SEE WAR END AND JUST THINK FOR YOURSELVES!

<<There is a clear and distinctive pattern of high command military awareness of these murderous and treacherous actions which culminated in the death, the preventable death of Stevens and his bodyguard contingency. 
In the aftermath of the Benghazi massacre, two senior level command officers, General Carter Ham, the former commander of AFRICOM and Admiral Charles M. Gayouette were removed from the command positions and arrested by their executive officers.>>
 
THINK!
IF Ham was in the process of launching a RESCUE mission to SAVE Stevens, WHY would General Rodriguez promptly arrest Ham and assume his position as the head of AFRICOM?
DID HAM DISOBEY ORDERS FROM PANETTA AND DEMPSEY TO "STAND DOWN", OR DID HAM SUDDENLY LEARN WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE INVOLVED IN A MILITARY COUP TO OVERTHROW A SITTING PRESIDENT?
Either way, his career ended.

LET'S EXAMINE SOME OTHER FACTS...AS TO WHY THE MILITARY SO HATES OBAMA (OTHER THAN THE FACT HE HAD A NON-WHITE FATHER).

LIKE KENNEDY, OBAMA WANTED TO STOP THE WARS, BECAUSE OBAMA IS A "PEACENIK", HAS LONG BEEN AFFILIATED WITH OTHER "PEACENIKS", AND THE SYRIA THING WAS ESCALATING IN A DIRECTION HE HAD NO INTENTION OF GOING TOWARD. 

BUT OBAMA IS NO FRIEND TO ISRAEL, WE MUST KEEP IN MIND.
YES, HE'D LIKE TO LEAVE A "LEGACY" OF PULLING THE NATION COMPLETELY OUT OF THE RUINS GEORGE, Jr. LEFT IT IN, AND YES, HE'D LIKE TO BE KNOWN AS THE "POOR WORKING MAN'S FRIEND", BUT SAVING MONEY BY CALLING ALL OUR TROOPS HOME WILL ALSO LEAVE ISRAEL HANGING.
<<Obama earnestly supports the ideas of the late Professor Seymour Melman of the University of Columbia;
Melman was part of a circle of peace advocates led by University of Pennsylvania Professor Zellig Harris that included Noam Chomsky, Marcus Raskin, Harley Shaiken, John Ullmann, Lloyd J. Dumas, John Kenneth Galbraith, among many others. He was also on the advisory board of FFIPP-USA (Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace-USA), a network of Palestinian, Israeli, and International faculty and students working for an end of the "Israeli occupation" of Palestinian territories and for a "just peace" – meaning a peace favoring the Palestinians.
The often-called "dangerous," "unpatriotic" idea supported by these men – Melman, Harris, Chomsky, Raskin, Shaiken, Ullmann, Dumas, Galbraith, etc. – is that it is impossible for the United States to both support the largest military machine the world has ever seen while at the same time providing a decent living for average Americans. >>

WHAT HAS OBAMA SAID ABOUT THIS BEFORE?
Bob Woodward writes in his book, Obama's Wars, that at one crucial White House meeting, Obama said:

    "There needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it [Afghanistan] off and get out of Afghanistan. Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room."

And he went on to say:

    "I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars [on defense]."

Reporting on the picture that Woodward painted in his book concerning Obama's relationship with the generals, Robert Dreyfuss writes:

    "One of the biggest sources of tension reported in the book is between the generals and Obama's political people, who recognize that the war isn't popular. Throughout, Obama seems aware that he is in danger of morphing into President Bush, fighting a losing war endlessly, while losing political support at home. At one point, Obama says,

        'I can't let this be a war without end, and I can't lose the whole Democratic Party'."

NOTE: So much of the Defense Budget is tied in one way or another to the Middle East that it is almost impossible to fathom, BUT cutting the Defense Budget plays into the hands of those seeking peace in the Middle East at Israel's expense.
Melman's ideas, therefore, draw in anti-Israel advocates to them, as illustrated by the membership of the FFIPP.

<<The Defense Budget for 2011 authorizes $549 billion in defense spending; but this figure does not include the $159 billion cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for this year. If defense spending was cut in half - to $355 billion (still three times greater than China and five times more than Russia) - the money saved could reduce the deficit to nothing over a relatively small period of time without menacing efforts to alleviate the suffering of the middle-class and the poor as a result of the current recession.>> 

That was 3 years ago, and that figure is higher now!

As things stand today, America's military forces occupy nearly the entire planet with new estimates showing 60,000 US special operations forces are now conducting assassinations, night-raids, training missions, joint operations and exercises in 120 countries around the world. 

What Obama wants to do is put Melman's ideas into practice by shrinking the U.S. Defense budget by as much as 50% and shifting all those trillionsinto the civilian economy; but in order to do this, ANYONE, including Obama would be forced to collapse the American New World Order System that Big Daddy Bush and so many before him have touted as the "only way", and shift the governance of the world to international organizations such as the United Nations.
OBAMA IS NOT AVERSE TO GIVING THE U.N. CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES. 
IT IS INEVITABLE AS THAT IS WHAT THE BIG MONEY BOYS ALL WANT, BUT NOT THE MILITARY!
THE U.S. MILITARY WANTS TO CALL THEIR OWN SHOTS, ALL OF THEM, NOT BOW TO THE U.N.

SO, OBAMA WOULD (A) BRING THE TROOPS HOME, (B) SHIFT ALL THAT MONEY TO "SOCIAL PROGRAMS", PERHAPS, BUT ALSO REDUCE THE DEFICIT, AND THAT WOULD MEAN TOO MUCH LOSS TO THE MILITARY AND THOSE WHO MAKE MEGA-BUCKS FROM WAR, AND (C) HAND OVER THE USA TO THE U.N.

HE HAD TO BE STOPPED.

HE HAD TO BE STOPPED JUST AS KENNEDY WAS STOPPED WHEN HE WAS GOING TO GET US OUT OF VIETNAM AND END THE RULE OF AMERICA BY ITS BANKING ELITE/WALL STREET CROWD WHOM HE KNEW TO BE IN CAHOOTS WITH THE PENTAGON/MILOITARY WAR-MONGERS!

THERE HAD TO BE EITHER AN ASSASSINATION OR A MILITARY COUP!

IT WAS A NEW WAR, A WAR ON OBAMA, AND THE RULING ELITE SENT IN THEIR "ENFORCERS", THE HIGH-RANKING U.S. MILITARY!
THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT OBAMA WAS AWARE OF THE PLANNED COUP
There seems to be very little doubt that Obama and his surrogates have been aware that the generals were planning a coup d'etat against him: it appears that the FBI had been keeping Obama abreast of what was happening. Indeed, IT WAS PRECISELY FOR THAT REASON THAT OBAMA BESTOWED AN "UPSIDE-DOWN" PROMOTION ON PETRAEUS, MOVING HIM OUT OF THE MILITARY COMMAND STRUCTURE – a command structure Obama felt,

    THREATENED him;

    LOATHED both him and his left-leaning followers.

OBAMA: DETERMINED NOT TO GO THE WAY OF KENNEDY

Obama was determined not to go the way Kennedy went – at least if he had anything to say about it.

It was precisely for this reason that Obama has moved decisively against those he considers to be the coup's main plotters after the election: "forcing" the resignation of General Petraeus from the CIA, dismissing Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette from his command of the Stennis strike group in the Mediterranean, firing General Carter F. Ham from AfriCorp, dismissing General Allen from his command in Afghanistan, and forcing the "resignations" of Brigadier General Jeffery A. Sinclair and US Navy Commander Joseph E. Darlak PLUS a whole host of less-well known officers – all of which gives evidence as to the decisive effort by Obama and his allies AFTER the election to stomp out all vestiges of the coup d'etat that they believed the military had been directing at them.

COVERING UP THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A COUP ATTEMPT NOW BECAME
THE AIM FOR OBAMA'S STAFF. ...

<<A desperate attempt to hide the fact that a coup attempt had been made against him.>>
WHAT WOULD AMERICANS DO, KNOWING THAT THE MILITARY SO DISDAINED AND LOATHED HIM THAT THEY HAD BEEN WILLING TO RISK INVOLVING THEMSELVES IN A COUP D'ETAT DIRECTED AGAINST A PRESIDENT OF THE USA?

THEY NEED NOT HAVE BOTHERED....AFTER ALL, THE MILITARY, BY ALL ACCOUNTS, IS THE MOST RESPECTED INSTITUTION IN THE COUNTRY. THE GENERALS ARE GODS TO MOST AMERICANS.

Indeed, according to a poll done recently by the Associated Press, more than 65% of all Americans view the military as the most honorable and deeply respected institution in the country, while only a relatively small minority of the population respects the "politicos" that haunt the corridors of the White House and Congress. 

STILL...It is precisely for this reason – i.e., the fact that America's "politicos" are despised by so many Americans while the military is both respected and honored by a huge majority of the same Americans – that Obama and his followers had to move carefully against the schemers, even after they had become fully aware of the planned coup.


BUT THE PLOT, THE MILITARY COUP WAS BRIEFLY MENTIONED...IN A VERY SMALL WAY REMEMBER?

Soldiers allegedly plotted to kill Obama, oust government
08/27/12 08:08 PM EDT
<<Army soldiers formed a militia group in Georgia that plotted to overthrow the U.S. government — and they killed a fellow soldier and his girlfriend to keep the plot secret, prosecutors alleged Monday, according to the Associated Press.
Prosecutors in the Long County, Ga., case say that the militia group planned to overtake the nearby Fort Stewart, to bomb a dam in Washington state and poison the state’s apple crop and ultimately overthrow the government and assassinate the president, according to reports."This domestic terrorist organization did not simply plan and talk," prosecutor Isabel Pauley told the judge. "Prior to the murders in this case, the group took action. Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans." 

One of the four soldiers charged, Pfc. Michael Burnett, backed up the prosecutor’s claims Monday, after he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and agreed to testify against the others, the AP reported.
The other defendants, Pvt. Isaac Aguigui, Sgt. Anthony Peden and Pvt. Christopher Salmon, have been charged in criminal court with murder and criminal gang activity, among other charges. The Army also filed charges against the four soldiers, according to reports, although it has not acted on them.>>

November 21, 2012

<<Navy Captain Ted Williams was relieved of duty pending investigation into alleged misconduct. Two more senior American Navy commanders have been added to the growing list of high-ranking military officers relieved of duty due to ‘personal’ misconduct. Two commanding officers in US Navy’s 6th Fleet based in Italy were stripped of their commands on Monday pending investigations into “allegations of misconduct,” US-based journal Foreign Policy quoted a Navy statement on Tuesday,.

According to the report, 24 American naval officers have so far been relieved of their commands this year on charges of misconduct.

Cmdr. Ray Hartman, commanding officer of amphibious dock-landing ship USS Fort McHenry was relieved of his command on Monday. Also relieved was Navy Capt. Ted Williams, top officer of the USS Mount Whitney, an amphibious command ship.

Williams, according to the report, was previously a transitory replacement No. 2 officer of the USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier after that ship's executive officer, Capt. Robert Gamberg, was found guilty of an "improper relationship."

A Navy official speaking on condition of anonymity is quoted in the report as saying that both officers were relieved of duty over offense of “personal misconduct… not anything to do with the operation of the ship or the mission of the ship.”

Less than three weeks ago, another ship commander and three naval officers were relieved of duty for drunken conduct during a port call in Russia.>>

WE CAN ASSUME THAT THE TRAGEDY AT BENGHAZI DISRUPTED THE SYRIAN GUN-RUNNING ENOUGH TO KEEP US FROM SENDING TROOPS TO SYRIA, STOPPED ANOTHER IRAQ FROM HAPPENING, ANOTHER AFGHANISTAN, ANOTHER LIBYA.
WHETHER THERE WILL BE ANOTHER COUP ATTEMPT WE CAN'T SAY.

SOME HAVE SPECULATED THAT OUR MILITARY IS IN CONTROL OF SEVERAL "MISSING" NUCLEAR WARHEADS AND HAVE USED THOSE AS LEVERAGE TO STOP THE COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE MIDDLE EAST, GERMANY, JAPAN, ETC.
THE BIG BOYS AT THE PENTAGON DO LOVE WAR...BUT WHAT WILL THEY DO TO KEEP WARS GOING? 

WHAT HAVE THEY ALREADY DONE?

THE COUP ATTEMPTS WILL CONTINUE
The failure of the recent military coup will not end with the firings and forced resignations of those who were implicated in the recent plot – Petraeus, Gaouette, Ham, Allen, Sinclair, Darlak, etc. The hatred for Obama and his left-wing followers is far too deeply embedded in both the military and the CIA to be crippled by Obama's feeble attempt .

All that is needed for a new coup attempt to be made is some kind of MIND-NUMBING EVENT (whether a "manufactured one" like 9-11 or not, no matter) that will lead to a dictatorial takeover of the United States by the Religious-Right in conjunction with America's financial elites and supported by the American military – an event that will precipitate the OVERT imposition of police-state controls on the American population; an event such as –

    the collapse of the economy

    chaos in Europe

    an Israeli air attack on Iran

    any number of natural catastrophes such as a major earthquake, flood, etc.

    and, most significant of all, a manufactured "9-11"-type crisis.

The forces  arrayed against Obama are simply too great for him to withstand over any extended length of time. Obama's left-wing followers possess no guns; they do not command America's financial elites; and his followers are nothing more than a very loose and somewhat disjointed collection of factions (blacks, Hispanics, militant feminists, the gay and lesbian community, etc.) that are held together by nothing more than their hatred of "White America" and their distaste for Christianity.

AND, ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE OBAMA HATERS: LONGING FOR A NEW CAMELOT

Most Christian evangelicals will see this as more fuel to feed the flames of hatred that are raging in their hearts against Obama. These are those who haunt what Heilbrunn calls "the usual Obama-hating venues."

They will be saddened by the fact that the coup attempt failed;
William Greider, former assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, explains why; he writes:

    "The decayed condition of American democracy is difficult to grasp ... Symptoms of distress are accumulating freely in the political system and citizens are demoralized ... A climate of stagnant doubt has enveloped contemporary politics, a generalized disappointment that is too diffuse and intangible to be easily confronted ... This dissonance ... is so discomforting that many naturally turn away from its implications ... In place of meaningful democracy, the political community has embraced a ... culture of false appearances ... [It] responds to the public's desires with an artful dance of symbolic [and vacant] gestures - hollow laws that are emptied of serious content in the private bargaining of Washington. Promises are made and never kept. Laws are enacted and never enforced. When ordinary people organize themselves to confront the deception, they find themselves too marginalized to make much difference.

    "There is, as a result, an almost palpable yearning within today's electorate to be rescued from all this; a desire for some kind of Arthurian figure to step forward and put an end to it."

THERE IS NO "ARTHUR".