Second American Revolution

Four years after Obama's re-election the president repeals the 22nd Amendment and voices his intent to run for a third term. His decision to withdraw troops from the Middle East proves unpopular among Republicans who have a stake in Iraqi oil. They accuse him of appeasement, and even of being an Al Qaeda sympathiser

Opinion is divided: half of America's population supports Obama (largely out of desire to preserve the union and prevent a second recession) but others advocate more drastic measures. The Tea Party, fearing Obama's socialist healthcare and introduction of gun licenses, form militias with the intent of overthrowing the dictator. Riots break out throughout America over gas prices. In some places these are suppressed, but elsewhere the National Guard refuses to fire on the protesters. The cities are the scene of vicious house-to-house fighting as regular troops are called in to assist the police. Obama takes on emergency powers: suspending voting, reintroducing conscription and mobilising all reservists

Attempts to restore order backfire when the state of Texas declares independence, followed by many of its neighbors. The rebel government, based in Houston, intends to raise an army and overthrow Obama. Regular army units in Texas are forced to retreat, leaving behind their arms dumps, motor pools and airstrips.

The rebel army is equipped with a diverse range of equipment: in some areas they have hunting camo, fanny packs and shotguns, but elsewhere they have armored cars, assault rifles and even air support from traitor National Guard units.


Which side would you support, and who would ultimately win?

Edited by Nick1986 - 14-Aug-2011 at 21:29

Given your scenario democracy as it historically is known no longer exsists in the tradition of the founding fathers. Obama has no legal right to repeal any amendments. Period.

Things aren't quite that simple. Congress voted to give Obama temporary emergency powers similar to Lincoln during the Civil War on condition fresh elections are held either after the war or in four years' time (those who voted against him promptly resigned and joined the rebels). The regular army remains loyal to the government but many officers have defected. America is truly divided: not everyone wants a revolution and at least half the population still support Obama for ending the War on Terror, creating jobs by nationalising the corporations, and getting the US out of the recession.

Yeah, we already knew congress is revolting.

I thought such ideals were suppressed after the Civil War as the army swore to defend America's government, people and institutions. The oath of enlistment requires soldiers to obey the president and defend America against domestic, as well as foreign, enemies. Many soldiers would doubtless interpret "the people" to be the law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the Tea Party terrorists. Others may fear that the democratically-elected president would be overthrown and replaced by an unelected dictator or (in the case of minorities) that they or or their families would be expelled despite having made America their home

I'm with CV & Fred.

Meden I appreciate the thought. But don't send a check to the US Treasury. It would merely be spent on some other bullshit liberal-leftist, socialist welfare agenda program by this administration. And in a large measure that contributes to the currentg state of affairs.

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis <P =medium align=left>"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). The oath requires allegiance to the constitution first...and therein lies the key legal difference. By bearing true faith and allegiance to the same it would prohibit illegal actions by a President who had abolished an amendment which was illegal action in the first place. He himself was in violation of his oath and any order issued can be defined as illegal and non compilable.

Hence the defection of many army officers who, like General Lee, put their state and personal-morals before their commanders. However, the chance of rapid promotion was a powerful incentive for those who stayed on. At the enlisted level many soldiers do resign, but they are quickly replaced by draftees, mobilised reservists and new volunteers, including Mexican, European and Asian immigrants who have been promised citizenship in return for service

Would the rebel militia and traitor National Guardsmen be strong enough to deal with the regular army and Marines? The guerillas in hunting camo might have an advantage if they used hit-and-run tactics but in a conventional war professional soldiers have the advantage as they have years of training (even if they're supported by green conscripts)

Well my tax dollars are going to Houston then