When President Ronald Reagan was shot and laying on the operating table, General Alexander Haig said, "I am in control here.", giving the impression a military coup of the United States had occurred.
Since then, I have been trying to figure out what really happened and here is what I came up with, so far. It started with General Douglas MacArthur and this quote gives the background:
"There is a tradition in American government that the military is subordinate to the civilian leaders. Generals do not make statements about policy without first clearing them with their superiors. But MacArthur, used to ruling in Japan, ignored the chain of command, and began writing letters about what the United States should do in Korea. He sent a letter to the Veterans of Foreign Wars saying that Formosa would be a fine place to launch an aggressive campaign against China. After the Chinese entered the war -- something MacArthur had assured Truman would never happen -- MacArthur wrote to Speaker of the House Joe Martin saying the United States could only win by an all-out war, and this meant bombing the Manchurian bases. So Harry Truman fired him, and evoked a firestorm of criticism from conservatives who believed Truman to be soft on communism. But there is no question that Truman was absolutely correct. Whether his overall policy was right or wrong, the American Constitution commits control of foreign policy to the president and not to the military. As Truman explained, avoidance of World War III while containing aggression was a difficult line to walk, but that was the policy the United States had decided upon. No soldier, not even a five-star general, could unilaterally challenge that policy without disturbing an essential element of democratic government."
Every 'Brass' has their staff and MacArthur's 'pretty boy' was 2nd Lieutenant Alexander M. Haig.
"Upon graduating from the U.S. Military Academy in 1947, Alexander M. Haig was commission a second lieutenant in the Army, serving in Japan with the 1st Cavalry Division and on the staff of General Douglas MacArthur, in the Korean War."
General MacArthur hated Truman, was a Republican, and had many Republican friends in 'high places'.
"As the crisis intensified and public backing for the war eroded, MacArthur stepped up his private and public criticisms of the administration. Predicting catastrophe unless dramatic action was taken, MacArthur recommended full-scale military action against the People's Republic of China, including a coastal blockade of the Chinese mainland, intensive bombing of industrial centers in Manchuria and northern China, and the unleashing of at least 50,000 of Chiang's Nationalist troops on the Korean peninsula. He also suggested using atomic weapons against China, although he put forth no precise plan for deployment. By the spring of 1951 he advocated a second major offensive north of the thirty-eighth parallel to unify the two Koreas. His pronouncements found an especially receptive audience among conservative Republicans--including House Minority leader Joe Martin of Massachusetts, California Representative Richard M. Nixon, and Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy--who had vigorously attacked Truman for over committing U.S. power to Europe and giving short shrift to Asia. MacArthur had established a political power base with these Republicans and had never hid his own presidential ambitions."
The scariest, besides (I AM NOT A CROOK) Richard M. Nixon, was Senator Joseph McCarthy.
"The hunt for subversives started during the war itself, and was furthered by congressional committees that often abused their powers of investigation to harass people with whom they differed politically. Then in February 1950, an undistinguished, first-term Republican senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, burst into national prominence when, in a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, he held up a piece of paper that he claimed was a list of 205 known communists currently working in the State Department. McCarthy never produced documentation for a single one of his charges, but for the next four years he exploited an issue that he realized had touched a nerve in the American public.
Resolved, That the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, failed to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in clearing up matters referred to that subcommittee which concerned his conduct as a Senator and affected the honor of the Senate and, instead, repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members who were trying to carry out assigned duties, thereby obstructing the constitutional processes of the Senate, and that this conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, is contrary to senatorial traditions and is hereby condemned."
"During World War I, Eisenhower (nicknamed "Ike" as a boy) served at several military training camps, establishing himself as a first-rate organizer and trainer of men. He spent two years as executive officer to Gen. Fox Conner, military commander at Camp Gaillard in the Panama Canal Zone. With Conner's help, Eisenhower was admitted to the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In 1926, he graduated first in his class of 275, going on to attend the Army War College in Washington, D.C. He advanced in his career, holding various posts, including aide to General Douglas MacArthur, then Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Going with MacArthur when the General was named military adviser to the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935, Eisenhower helped establish the Philippine Air Force and the Philippine Military Academy. He obtained a pilot's license at age 47."
IKE'S TOP 5 MOST DISLIKED CONTEMPORARIES
1. Senator Joseph McCarthy, 2. Harry S. Truman, 3. Field Marshal Bernard Mongomery, 4. John F. Kennedy, 5. General Douglas MacArthur, and special mention Lyndon B. Johnson.
"Nixon blamed the country's economic and other problems on Democratic President Truman's administration and argued that things were much improved under the outgoing Republican administration of Eisenhower."
Then there was the "Bay of Pigs" and the "Cold War"
There are some who believe the "Bay of Pigs" was the beginning of a Coup of the United States Government and part of the reason for President John Kennedy's assassination.
Democratic President Truman totally angers General Douglas MacArthur, a Republican.
It is easy to imagine MacArthur and his Republican buddies, Martin, McCarthy, and Nixon vowing vengeance, no matter how long it takes.
Republican Eisenhower becomes President and warns of "The Military Industrial Complex".
Kennedy becomes President, defeating Nixon and totally angers the 'Intelligence Community'. ((btw) Most 'Intelligence personnel' have a military background and some of them belong to organizations/orders/societies they entered as students.)
At this point, you have to ask yourself what made a difference during these times and the answer is, 'Military controlled' atomic bomb; which annihilated the "Right to Bear Arms" and made things historically 'one sided'; in that, the wealthy 1% of the population that controlled the remaining 99% lost control to their 'Royal Guard'.
The "Cold War" link above is an outline.
I put the UFO link on Reagan's name, because this is about the time one stopped seeing him in public and on the media.
The 'thing' that is interesting during these times is, one hardly saw Vice President Bush, except for Vice Presidential functions, during the entire Reagan era. What was he doing?
Enter Bush 1
"The powerful men of Skull & Bones genuinely believe that they have a strategic and moral "right" to control world affairs. Consequently, they take upon themselves the authority to crush any rivalrous threat to U.S. imperial leadership, whether by current allies, such as Japan, Germany or Great Britain, or by Cold War adversaries, like the Soviet Union. The members of the Order, due to their narrow WASP upbringing, view with particular suspicion the maneuverings of Zionist Israel and its affluent, influential lobby in the United States.
Bush, his fellow Bonesmen and their like-thinking elitist allies in the American Establishment see themselves as New World Order warriors, an American samurai caste of sorts, whose mission is restoring American greatness. They intend to utilize the institutional networks of the U.S. government and key private agencies, such as the New York Council on Foreign Relations, to advance their purpose.
The Skull & Bones members believe in the idea of "constructive chaos." By keeping their true policy intentions secret, by constantly sending out mixed signals on all critical policy issues, they consciously seek to sow confusion among both their nominal "friends" and "enemies" alike.
The fulcrum for the policy of constructive chaos is, at present, the Middle East situation. Although U.S. military action in the region has for the time being subsided, America's military power will remain a critical determinant in the future of that vital zone of conflict. American military power is aimed at securing undisputed control over the vast reservoir of oil -- not at necessarily fostering any permanent alignment of local states or combinations of regional interests."
The Project for the New American Century
"January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick"
This letter indicates "The Plan" was/is still alive.
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?
Morning After Plan For Iraq In Works
"One plan being considered by the White House is based on the occupation of Japan following World War II and includes installing a U.S. commander to administer Iraq, perhaps U.S. Central Command head Gen. Tommy Franks in the role taken by Gen. Douglas MacArthur after Tokyo surrendered in 1945, The New York Times said in its Friday editions."
Liberated Iraq could be ruled by US general
"An American general could be appointed to rule a liberated Iraq as part of a White House plan modeled on Gen Douglas MacArthur's rule over Japan after the Second World War."
Tommy Franks Says
Bush May Discard Constitution
If Another Terrorist Attack Occurs
Gen. Tommy Franks said in an interview with the lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government".
The stunning revelation is the headline story on the right-wing news site NewsMax for Friday. Franks said that another terrorism attack will result in "... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years..."
He indicated that if another terrorism attack occurs Bush will likely declare martial law and the Constitution will apparently be "discarded".
17 MAY 2004
CSPAN - State Department Press Conference (aprox 10:20 EDT)
Referenced MacArthur and his news blocking plan during Korea