Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke
What kind of leader wants a military more loyal to himself than to the rule of law?

And why?

These are two questions to ponder when considering the strange happenings in the armed forces since Barack Obama took office.

Let’s start with a hypothetical. Let’s say you were a hard-left-wing commander in chief who wanted the military firmly in your corner. You’d certainly note that our armed forces have been a bastion of conservatism and Christian faith, and you’d know that its members generally weren’t very fond of you. So how would you go about changing this?

Some years ago I met a very young, all-American looking white fellow who had just exited the military. His reason was that he hadn’t been advanced the way he believed he should have been, and he wasn’t going to remain in the armed forces if it provided no future. Now, one interpretation here is that he was a millennial with an inflated opinion of himself (he didn’t strike me that way, though). Yet there is another interpretation.

The Obama administration has given affirmative action in the military a dose of steroids, promoting minorities and women — and, I believe, homosexuals and lesbians — at the expense of white men. By the way, is this yet another reason why Obama wanted homosexuals to be able to serve openly? After all, you can’t target them for special treatment if you don’t know who they are.

But the point is this: if I were that hypothetical hard-left-wing leader, I’d know that one way to change the military’s political climate is the same way you do it in the nation at large.

Demographic manipulation.

White men generally vote Republican, white military men even more so, and white military men who are practicing Christians, well, that’s a recipe for a left-behind left. Minorities, women, atheists and the LGBT* crowd, however, are reliable liberal constituencies. So what would I do if I were that hard leftist?

I’d create a military climate friendly toward groups that are my constituencies and hostile toward those that aren’t.

And I’d do more than subordinate white men to other groups in the promotion process. I’d clamp down on Christian expression — which had often been robust in the military — and punish servicemen who transgressed against my separation-of-church-and-everything policy. I’d let the world know that as far as homosexuality goes, the armed services are open for monkey business. I’d also force military personnel to be politically correct not just about sexuality, but also Islam, so that they were confronted with the choice of saying things they don’t believe or career damage. After all, good people might rather leave the service than live a lie. And I’d issue instructional materials characterizing traditionalists as a threat, so that the low-information servicemen may believe it and the more savvy would feel further alienated.

The goal here is to create a situation in which traditionalists will be encouraged to leave the military or not enlist in the first place. Of course, this method can’t bleed out all the red-blooded, but it can shift the balance. It can ensure a few things:

  • The number of leftist fellow travelers in the armed forces will be as great as possible.
  • As many of the rest as possible will be apolitical, mind-numbed types who wouldn’t question unconstitutional orders.
  • The remaining traditionalists would be outnumbered by the first two groups and in a don’t ask-don’t tell predicament. And having been denied promotions, they’d have little institutional power.

At the same time that I was transforming the body, I’d also have to gain control of the head. To this end I would look to replace as many generals as possible with those I believed would do my bidding. For once I owned the military head, body and soul, I could really dream that impossible dream.

Anyway, that’s what I would do were I that hypothetical hard-left-wing leader.

Incidentally, they’re all things Barack Obama has already done.

As for the generals, note that the two-star general who oversaw our arsenal of intercontinental missiles, Major General Michael Carey, was just fired, becoming “the latest in a string of recent high-profile firings of top U.S. generals,” as Reuters puts it. Talk-show-host Michael Savage discussed this on his Friday program and was very suspicious about the Air Force’s reluctance to provide a reason for canning the man who oversaw our nuclear weapons — the service only said that the general was terminated for undisclosed “personal misbehavior.” As for me, I’ll just repeat my opening questions:

What kind of leader wants a military more loyal to himself than to the rule of law?

And why?

Whatever your conclusions, there is of course a mundane explanation for all of this. Leftists truly believe in their insane diversity dogma and quite reflexively try to socially re-engineer whatever they can sink their claws into, be they universities, neighborhoods, businesses or even the entities charged with protecting their compassionate selves. And in this age of increasing corruption and decadence, it wouldn’t be surprising to find generals transgressing against military code. Yet given that Barack Obama is a shadowy figure with a penchant for hiding his past (college records, etc.); that he has had avowed communists in his administration (Van Jones, Anita Dunn); that he seemed to belong to Chicago’s socialist New Party in the 1990s; and that, according to former Occidental College acquaintance and ex-Marxist John Drew, Obama was a flat-out “Marxist Leninist” who believed in old-style communist revolution, well, one’s imagination can conjure up some interesting scenarios.

The only question is, is it at all possible that Obama’s imagination conjures up the same ones?
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    It’s quite clear that the leftist ideal of government is what was referred to once as enlightened despotism — with enlightened, of course, being defined as agreeing with the Left. The evidence for this is overwhelming, including their often-expressed admiration for such systems and their uncritical approval of the lawlessness and unchecked executive rule of the Fascist Messiah. (In practice, their actual goal may be for a god-king. Certainly they always seek a Leader to worship.) I’ve suspected for some time that Obama’s model is Hugo Chavez, and I’ve seen nothing to disabuse me of that notion.

  2. Kung Fu Zu says:

    There is no big conspiracy!!! The Leftist in Chief would never plan and implement a policy to push out the most conservative, patriot Americans from the military. You are all paranoid. This is the natural progression of history and the ineluctable outcome of “equality under the law” for everyone. Having the occasional Islamic fanatic masquerading as an Army officer murdering a few soldiers is just the price we have to pay for that invaluable tool “diversity”. The Zeitgeist will not be denied.

    As to how this might impact efficacy, well you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Anyway, when the Left completely controls things, no other country in the world will want to go war with us. So we will only need the military to control those few crazy conservatives who are still hiding in the forests.

    • Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Kung, I agree. And I don’t think even most conservatives understand just how far Left and alienated from his own country that Obama is. I’m not a birther, but that movement makes sense in that it understands (perhaps only intuitively if not legally) that something is rotten in Denmark. Obama is a de facto foreigner to this country.

      So are now a huge percentage of Americans. This is the rot of the Left, top to bottom. We must somehow purge it from our system and replace it with something good.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        When it comes to immigration, liberals always insist that being an American is not a matter of birth. And by that standard, Obama is clearly no American. There’s no accident that the military have been regular victims of his abuses — because they choose to defend a country that Obama resents and perhaps even hates.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        I am sick of the people who constantly call for comity and exhibit a genetic predisposition to “move to the center.”

        From at least the time of Wilson, the progressives have continuously moved the country to the left by demanding increasingly outrageous concessions from everyone else. And steadily, largely due to those “moderates” who like to see themselves as sensible and reasonable people, the Left has moved the political center so far left as to be out of telescope range.

        What these deluded “moderates” don’t seem to understand or care about, is that if people do not take a stand, now, the Left will take the country so far to the Dark Side that Darth Vader will appear to moral.

  3. Selwyn — great analysis. I’ve been watching these attacks on the military and they do fit O’s agenda perfectly. If he ever wants to attack the American people he’ll have to remake the military until it is, as he likes to say, his military.


    I agree – Obama is hollowing out the military and at the same time corrupting what remains with the Progressive poison, and it may very well be with the long-term goal of turning the military against us, especially if American patriots are forced to secede to save themselves. Consider: if ten or twenty states seceded today, I do not believe the U.S. military would attack them to force them back under Obama’s one-man rule even if ordered to do so, but they might after a couple of decades of further Progressive indoctrination.

    I was thinking the same thing about the police – many departments today would not agree to confiscate private arms should the Democrats go further with confiscation than they’re already done in some places, but given enough time, decent law officers could be replaced with the jack-booted thugs the Progressives need to enforce their rule upon us.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Consider the behavior of police chiefs (who are appointed by political leaders) as opposed to sheriffs (who are elected). The latter, especially in rural areas, tend to be strongly pro-gun (as no doubt are their men). The former are more likely to be anti-gun because that’s what their mayors want. Over time, their men may well adopt the same attitude, particularly if they carefully exclude dissenting opinions from the force.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *