10 votes

Is There A 'TOP Secret' Plan By The Military To Remove Barack Obama From The Presidency?

Is There A 'TOP Secret' Plan By The Military To Remove Barack Obama From The Presidency?

Is Anonymous part of a secret group of patriots within the military that is working on a plan to remove Obama?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

He sure deserves to be tried for his crimes anyway.

He sure deserves to be tried for his crimes anyway.

And that wouldn't be a pretty outcome for him (and others).

I only wish it's not too late already for that to happen, eventually.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Maybe the question should be asked differently

Is there a plan to remove civilian control of the government? Maybe it's already happened and no one bothered to inform the rest of us.

SteveMT's picture

That already happened in 1913 with the creation of the Fed.

The switch going on now is from soft-kill to hard-kill. The smoking, drinking, GMO, etc., and all of their wars are still not killing us fast enough.

SteveMT's picture

Rather, there seems to be a secret plan to keep Obama in office!

The military-industrial complex is getting everything they want from Obama. Why stop a good thing? If there is a secret plan to remove Obama, Walter Jones and these two other Congressmen are the only ones in on this plan. Are these secret planners considering a quicker way of doing it? Is this bill the reason that Obama is now asking for permission? Nay, probably not.
H. CON. RES. 40
Expressing the sense of Congress that the President is prohibited under the Constitution from initiating war against Syria without express congressional authorization and the appropriation of funds for the express purpose of waging such a war.
June 20, 2013
Expressing the sense of Congress that the President is prohibited under the Constitution from initiating war against Syria without express congressional authorization and the appropriation of funds for the express purpose of waging such a war.
Sponsor: Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] (introduced 6/20/2013) Cosponsors:
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 6/27/2013
Rep Stivers, Steve [OH-15] - 7/9/2013
Whereas the Constitution's makers entrusted decisions to initiate offensive warfare not in self-defense exclusively to Congress in article I, section 8, clause 11;

Whereas the Constitution's makers knew that the Executive Branch would be prone to manufacture danger and to deceive Congress and the United States people to justify gratuitous wars to aggrandize executive power;

Whereas chronic wars are irreconcilable with liberty, a separation of powers, and the rule of law;

Whereas the entry of the United States Armed Forces into the ongoing war in Syria to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad would make the United States less safe by awakening new enemies;

Whereas the fate of Syria is irrelevant to the security and welfare of the United States and its citizens and is not worth risking the life of a single member of the United States Armed Forces;

Whereas humanitarian wars are a contradiction in terms and characteristically lead to semi-anarchy and chaos, as in Somalia and Libya;

Whereas if victorious, the hydra-headed Syrian insurgency would suppress the Christian population or other minorities as has been similarly witnessed in Iraq with its Shiite-dominated government; and

Whereas United States military aid to the Syrian insurgents risks blowback indistinguishable from the military assistance provided to the splintered Afghan mujahideen in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet Union and culminated in the 9/11 abominations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the President is prohibited under the Constitution from the offensive use of the United States Armed Forces in Syria without prior express authorization by an Act of Congress or without a prior express appropriation of funds for that purpose by an Act of Congress; and

(2) the President's defiance of those constitutional limitations on his authority to initiate war would constitute an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Cyril's picture

Finally noticed your comment.

Finally noticed your comment. Which I agree with.

And btw, I am sad if I break it the harsh way to some of you, but:

if anyone take for granted there will be elections in 2016... well, I, for one, don't.

I'm afraid it's really not a given any longer.

That's how serious I think the situation is, by now.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

These questions must be asked!

I mean, was Jesus really a man or was he a raptor?
We, the people, deserve answers to these questions.


Not gonna happen.

Many Of You Didn't Mind Discussing The JFK Assassination

Whom do you think participated in the "BIG EVENT"

Why do you object to me asking a simple question?


is trying to shift the blame for the JFK assassination to the mafia... I saw a special on it a couple of days ago on the military channel (I can't help myself... I have to go see what others are being indoctrinated with sometimes) and I couldn't help but laugh.

Of course, they laid out a pretty convincing case, but they have all the resources in the world to do so. I'm sure most of the viewers bought it hook, line and sinker.

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

Why not ask the question?

Probably not.
If it did happen, that doesn't solve our problems. Obama can't get anything done, so we kinda benefit with him in office right now anyways.

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

Thank You!

He has managed to mess things up - Obamacare?

If The Moderators Want Me To Remove This Thread, I Will Gladly

I will take it down also if the moderators believe this is too controversial or inappropriate for the Daily Paul...


Major General Smedley Butler



"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


There is no duration defined in the Oath

Oh Great

Our top poster emalvini does it again.

You might want to post this over on Lunaticoutpost.com

lol even if there was

I doubt anyone would mention it on a public forum.

Anything violent would not be the answer. So I would not support anything like this myself. Besides, they'd have to go after not just Hobama, but most of congress as well.

Yea, Why would they stop there..

Me thinks if this were to happen, Clinton, Kerry and Biden would also get taken down as well..

Don't underestimate the power of our best and finest to do their duty.

Watch The Movie: 7 Days in May Starring Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas and Edmond Obrien

Movie trailer:

winning the hearts and minds

... by simply whistleblowing truth. The truth will blow all our minds ...

No violence necessary for a rloveution of truth

song: Bethe Bethe Kese Kese
artist: Gandhi meet Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan
radio: M2 : chillout

I say there will be mutiny

I say there will be mutiny


Because ASKING for permission has worked out so well in human history? Humans are violent, this country was born in violence.

Power only recognizes one thing, force. That has been the maxim of law since the dawn of human civilization.

But go ahead, have your sit in. Get pepper sprayed, beaten, and slammed to the ground and when you're ready I'll have a rifle waiting for ya when you decide to get serious.

violence will only create a vacuum for more sociopaths

once the idealists are all dead and gone, you have nothing but more sociopaths....What's the definition of insanity....oh yeah that's right, repeating the same shit over and over again.

Doesn't seem like you learned much about the non aggression principal or Ron Paul's revolution.

And no one is saying not to defend one's self if attacked.

Thx but I already have plenty of rifles and train plenty seriously.
But go ahead, have your baseless assumptions.

To be honest

Rifles are simply a tool that says, "Shoot me first!" Have you seen any films of these wars.. the state's wmd is far greater than a few folks with rifles.

Completely clueless

Keep holding fast to a failed ideology that "non-violence" in the face of those who brutally beat, maim, tasered, and shoot is going to ever accomplish anything other than raising the cost of your own medical bills.

Rifles may be a tool, but I'll take my chances with my tool than some failed idiotic ideology of non-compliance which will result in me getting shot and not able to respond.

When you're getting shot at without the "tool" let me know how that works out for you, OK?

The moment a government uses WMD's against the population that rises up against it, it's already lost the war.

This government has been beating, taser, shooting non-violent, non-conformist since the early 1900's. Or did you forget the WWI vets who camped out in DC asking for the money that was promised them being shot at and run out of town?

Stick your non-violent, non-compliant bullshit where the sun doesn't shine. In this world called reality where power only recognizes force you'll never accomplish your goals. Save me the bullshit about Ghandi, his was a fluke, not the norm. He also didn't have to worry about mufti-national corporations buying the votes of his government.

Assad useed WMD against his people and still is

So why support Assad?

I am pro-peace, not anti0war. I believe is an awesome defense and don't consider rifles awesome against drones


You really are clueless aren't you? You honestly think Assad used chemical weapons when you've got a lot of sources siting the rebels as using the weapons BY ACCIDENT?

Pro-peace won't get you anywhere but a boot on your throat. Drones are completely useless and subject to signal jamming, hijacking, and EMP type attacks. Yep rifles are worthless against a drone, but electronic warfare isn't.

Get educated instead of following some bullshit statist "pro--peace" indoctrination as it accomplishes NOTHING. Just like the state wants.

I stand with Israel's IDF, that's my kind of defense PRO-PEACE

Yes, I think Assad is using the Jihadists he allowed into Syrai do what he can not do.. kill the FREE SYRIA protesters who he made into rebels by shelling them with tanks and chasing over 1 million out and killing anyone who is not for Assad.


Its your world

or at least your perceived world, and I will let you have it.
I will stay optimistic that your obvious ability think will one day be grounded on something solid and therefore lead you to the correct outcomes.


Liberty = Responsibility

And what are your correct outcomes?


Dear Madame, I would not

Dear Madame,

I would not know where to start with you. Sorry


Liberty = Responsibility

That statement defies all

That statement defies all historical evidence to the contrary. A "few folks with rifles" withstood the most powerful nation on earth and won their liberty in 1783.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

I bet one drone

can take out a block or people armed with rifles faster than a block of people armed with rifles could take out a drone.