If a coup d'etat could happen to the U.S. in the mid-1980s, what else are we missing?

As subsequent events clearly showed, with President Ronald Reagan demonstrating clear signs of Alzheimer's Disease while still in the White House, which has been confirmed in later years, consider how many people had to participate in the cover-up of the fact that the American Chief Executive was unfit for office.

According to the 25th Amendment, an incapacitated President should be removed from office when any medical condition would keep that President from adequately performing his duties, allowing the power of his office to follow legally to the Vice President. However, no adminstrative staff member, cabinet member, member of Congress, member of the Departments of State, Defense, or anyone else, ever stood up and said, "This President is ill and cannot perform his duties. He needs to be legally removed from office, according to the Constitutional precepts."

Since the President was not removed from office, all of those necessary actions for President Reagan were thus performed by staff members, the Joint Chiefs, Senators, House of Representative members, State Department members, and even personal aides. Because Reagan could not recall the information he had been briefed a day or two before, those actions were then completed by people that were not elected by the people to perform the duties of the highest office in the land.

Think of this alone - how did they decide among themselves who would be authorized to control the launch codes for all of our nuclear weapons? Would that supreme authority really be left in the hands of an Alzheimer's patient?

If this had happened in some "Banana Republic" off the coast of South America, etc., it would be viewed as just another case of "ugly politics" in a Third-World country. Sadly, this instead occurred in the United States of America.

In the upcoming book, this is referred to as another example of "hiding in plain sight" for the actions of the people who choose to lead our nation, but not to do so by following the laws of the land. And the Alzheimer's was so bad that Nancy would not allow any significant post-Presidential public interviews because they would have demonstrated how badly the President's mind had deteriorated. In the same way I previously tried to address the problems with the Dulce facility and the crazy events of Tonopah/Areas 51 &52/Groom Lake areas, we simply follow along like dumb sheep.

Why do we not learn?

Forgive me for saying this, but the title of this thread has nothing to do with the body of the thread.

I am just so confused with how this has to do with anything at all.....

reply to post by KillenfizzenHumboflorator


I agree. Though I do get, sorta, that he is saying that by having a President that was mentally incompetent, we effectively had non elected persons running our government.

en.wikipedia.org...

Typically, a coup d'état uses the extant government's power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says: “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d'état.

In a sense, this HAS happened in the US, though I suspect Reagan was not the president it actually happened under, I tend to think it occurred more around the time Kennedy was assasinated. I would say that every president since that time has either been a "fool" (Reagan, Carter, ) or a conspirator (the Bushes, Clinton) I am on the fence as to whether or not Obama is in the former or latter category, and I do believe that Clinton began in the one camp and then ended up in the latter. I tend to think the same of Obama, that he began as a fool and is being converted while in office.

In the US, however, this overthrow of our representative democracy is kept on the down low. We are given the illusion of a representative government, and the illusion of free elections, but in fact, our government deliberately declines to do what we ask it to. Only the minimum pretense needed to keep us from realizing that we have no representation is given. It is easier to control us that way, if we realized we lost our government years ago, and we in essence in a facist state, we might try to fight back. Because we are not sure, and we think perhaps our leaders are acting on behalf of part of the electorate, even if we ourselves dont like it, we do nothing, and better still, we become disenfranchised with democracy and voting itself.

It is contrived and controlled apathy and hopelessness. And ironically, this round was sold to us as "Hope and Change," when in fact we have gotten neither.

Stop feeding the machine. Pick a third party and vote for them, and stop picking between two "dummy" candidates.

Reagan was not the first one. Just saw an episode of Unsolved History about how sick and addicted to drugs JFK was. Scary to think that both he and Reagan had their fingers on the trigger.

He wasn't the last one, either, there was a sort of near coup that Clinton had to deal with.

It was hushed up with amazing speed though.

Reagan was giving public interviews and speeches until he was diagnosed with Alzheimers in 94. Perhaps you are talking about the head injury he took in the summer of 89? Although he was in plenty of public speaking settings right after that as well. However I some people in the Reagan family have claimed that the head injury in 89 led to and early onset of Alzheimers in 94. He was out of office at that point though. So I am little confused on what your talking about.

Originally posted by MrSpad
Reagan was giving public interviews and speeches until he was diagnosed with Alzheimers in 94.

Exactly. He gave his 'Tear down this wall speech' on June 12th, 1987. He certainly did not sound like a man suffering from anything at that point.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Nothing except megalomania.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
Nothing except megalomania.

Right, because immediately following that speech he made himself King of the World.

Presidents dont have any power anyway. Guys like Bush snr probably did, head of the empires secret police and all that, so someone like him in power, is very dangerous and probably carried a hell of a lot of autonomy in that office. Thats the type of guy that has the power to be accidently killing billionaire CEO's in airplane crashes.

Anyone else, guys like Reagen?, actor?, head of the actors union?, pffft, bought and paid for im affraid. Chances are not one #ing thing he ever did or said was was of his own accord.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


He certainly acted like he was, especially with the mining of the harbor in Nicarugua.

Not all megalomaniacs think they are kings or queens.
medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
He certainly acted like he was...

So we can agree to disagree. On a personal level I would take half a Ronald Reagan to the guy we have now.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander



No what he is saying is that individuals covered up the fact that the
president was incompentent and basically covered it up instead of
following proper precedures to replace him. SO...IF THEY COVERED
THAT UP - WHAT OTHER THINGS BEHIND THE SCENES ARE THEY
WILLING TO COVER UP. DOH- a homer minute huh?

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
He certainly acted like he was...

So we can agree to disagree. On a personal level I would take half a Ronald Reagan to the guy we have now.

That's what wrong with the country today - clearly you are uninformed
on current events. And that was a stupid thing to say.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by KillenfizzenHumboflorator

 

I agree. Though I do get, sorta, that he is saying that by having a President that was mentally incompetent, we effectively had non elected persons running our government.

en.wikipedia.org...

Typically, a coup d'état uses the extant government's power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says: “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d'état.

In a sense, this HAS happened in the US, though I suspect Reagan was not the president it actually happened under, I tend to think it occurred more around the time Kennedy was assasinated. I would say that every president since that time has either been a "fool" (Reagan, Carter, ) or a conspirator (the Bushes, Clinton) I am on the fence as to whether or not Obama is in the former or latter category, and I do believe that Clinton began in the one camp and then ended up in the latter. I tend to think the same of Obama, that he began as a fool and is being converted while in office.

In the US, however, this overthrow of our representative democracy is kept on the down low. We are given the illusion of a representative government, and the illusion of free elections, but in fact, our government deliberately declines to do what we ask it to. Only the minimum pretense needed to keep us from realizing that we have no representation is given. It is easier to control us that way, if we realized we lost our government years ago, and we in essence in a facist state, we might try to fight back. Because we are not sure, and we think perhaps our leaders are acting on behalf of part of the electorate, even if we ourselves dont like it, we do nothing, and better still, we become disenfranchised with democracy and voting itself.

It is contrived and controlled apathy and hopelessness. And ironically, this round was sold to us as "Hope and Change," when in fact we have gotten neither.

Stop feeding the machine. Pick a third party and vote for them, and stop picking between two "dummy" candidates.

maybe you should take the advice of your signature, he he.

Originally posted by )=( )=(
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

No what he is saying is that individuals covered up the fact that the
president was incompentent and basically covered it up instead of
following proper precedures to replace him. SO...IF THEY COVERED
THAT UP - WHAT OTHER THINGS BEHIND THE SCENES ARE THEY
WILLING TO COVER UP. DOH- a homer minute huh?

Because he is saying it does not make it true. We know Reagan did indeed have lots of public speeches and contact with the public all the way up through 94. Not to mention if any of it was even remotely true the Dems would have lit him and and Bush Sr. up in the election. I mean even if just a rumor existed they would have run with it.

In the mid 80s, try the 60s when JFK was assassinated.

If you don't consider that a coup, then I suggest rereading history.
We were at war, and being targeted by hidden enemies, worse thing that could have happend did.

Shame, no one learned from history then. I dont expect them to do such now. Would be too easy, people rather not and do thing the hard way and screw every thing up.

Sorry, you are ALL wrong! Yes, there was a coup. The first phase was in 1913 and the final stages were completed in 1933. Everything since then has been merely theatre. I'm not about to try to explain it again on the umpteenth thread. Do some research... there are dozens of threads discussing it. In fact, one is currently underway called US Political Secrecy: Timeline for Legislative Enslavement.

That's just one - take the time to follow the rabbit down the hole. Be warned, it will scare the hell out of you but it will enlighten you.

yeah the central bank coup...good point

then when Kennedy tried to shake it....
What amazes me is that the evidence has shown, and this has been known for some time now, that Kennedy's assassination was a coup d'etat.
Committed by the CIA in conjunction with the Zionist bankers and the mob.
LBJ just stepped right up and did the dirty on the peeps.
no minting our own money that would be the right thing to do.
hey they gotts opium poppy bush(es)GET EM!
why we'll just replace the rum running mobster with the
zionist mobster

It has been released to the public and apparently went over most people's heads...
Bullet made a U turn in mid air, yeah of course they do.
Hey look! a naked boob at a football game!
Right on! I love my government.
they make naked boobs at football games.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 11-7-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by Danbones


Dan, all of that is true, but that is NOT the Coup. The coup occurred LONG before JFK. The problem was that JFK felt like he didn't have to play along with all of the hard work that the corporatists and bankers put into owning and controlling the country. So, put simply, he was removed and replaced with someone who would continue to play along.