Newsmax calls for a Miltary Coup

[Iason Ouabache]

http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

And just in case that link goes down the Memory Hole: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909290042

There is no way in hell a "civilized" military coup would happen. I know bloodless coups have supposedly happened before but there is no way in hell that the right wingers wouldn't come out shooting. They've stocked up way too ammo to let it go to waste.

[Captain Utopia]

Haha. Good. I predict the Liberal media outlets will fan the flames of this until Republicans are forced to denounce it unequivocally. It should be entertaining, at least, and it might even mean a chance for less unchecked idiocy for a little while.

[Rumckle]

Or, they have no choice but to go through with the "plan", whether they originally intended to or not.

[Iason Ouabache]

Haha. Good. I predict the Liberal media outlets will fan the flames of this until Republicans are forced to denounce it unequivocally. It should be entertaining, at least, and it might even mean a chance for less unchecked idiocy for a little while.

At the very least I am impressed by your optimism.  The right wingers already have some plausible deniablity since he said that a coup is "possible" not that he would like to see one happen. He wasn't advocating the overthrow of the government, he was just saying that military might, at some point in the future, want to step in and depose a man who won 53% of the popular vote. He doesn't want to see war in the streets, he's just preparing for the likelihood.

[Captain Utopia]

I'm cheerfully optimistic for the future in many ways.

Though the Republicans are now starting to close the gap, they really missed the boat with regards the ways in which internet technology (youtube, social networking, blogs) started to affect the landscape in just the last four years as evidenced by the last election. It's unlikely we'll see such a gap again. But I think the relevance of this is that you can't get away with as much blatant stupidity any more - since so much analysis is crowd-sourced, documented and preserved all over the internet. Even with this public archive as young as it is, the grey areas of plausible deniability are shrinking.

For example - what would happen if Limbaugh runs with and defends this tomorrow? Would Republicans still be afraid to break from him or would they play by the old rules and dig the hole deeper by equivocating?

[Halfbaked1]

No way there would be a coup unless they were ordered to shoot American citizens who were unarmed.  Wouldn't happen, I know too many military folks and grew up around them to think that such a thing would happen.  I mean the kind of things that would be required for such a situation to occur are nigh unto impossible to come together.

On the other hand, if it could happen then we already have a potential map of how things could be.  Just read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. 

[Cain]

What the hell does Robert Heinlein, or John Perry, know about military coups?

Oh, thats right, nothing.

Just another wingnut fantasy wank, with all the lack of knowledge and research than entails.  Nothing to see here.  If the military weren't prepared to off The Warlord after his extreme incompetence at every level, the Boy Prince, who has actually shown some ability to think and plan beyond that of a brain-dead prop for Christian "right to life" values sure as hell isn't going to be.

The cause of this tantrum is pretty obvious.  The Boy Prince isn't sufficiently committed to death and destruction in Afghanistan.  He's thinking, instead of blindly sending in tens of thousands of extra troops, most of whom have no experience in population centric counterinsurgency and would likely just do what the other 50%+ of troops in Afghanistan are doing - which is fuck all. 

[Halfbaked1]

That wasn't really my point Cain.  Just because I use the idea doesn't mean that I am saying that Heinlein is some sort of social scientist.  But if that helped you get it off your chest man then it's all cool.

[Cain]

Where did I claim Heinlein was a social scientist?  Nowhere.  Stop making shit up just because I know your favourite author knows fuck all about the topic in question and has no place in a discussion about it.

[AFK]

Haha. Good. I predict the Liberal media outlets will fan the flames of this until Republicans are forced to denounce it unequivocally. It should be entertaining, at least, and it might even mean a chance for less unchecked idiocy for a little while.

At the very least I am impressed by your optimism.  The right wingers already have some plausible deniablity since he said that a coup is "possible" not that he would like to see one happen. He wasn't advocating the overthrow of the government, he was just saying that military might, at some point in the future, want to step in and depose a man who won 53% of the popular vote. He doesn't want to see war in the streets, he's just preparing for the likelihood.

Yeah, the guy probably has this wet dream every night and it culminates with him in a threesome with McVeigh and Rudolph over the corpses of liberals. 

[LMNO]

Interesting how he decided "Commander In Chief" is now merely a figurehead title.

[Iason Ouabache]

And poof, it is gone.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/newsmax-columnist-military-coup-may-be-needed-to-resolve-the-obama-problem.php

Late update: A spokeswoman for Newsmax sent a statement to TPM admitting that the magazine removed the column after several reader complaints. She also identified Perry as an "unpaid blogger."

Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.

[Captain Utopia]

And poof, it is gone.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/newsmax-columnist-military-coup-may-be-needed-to-resolve-the-obama-problem.php

Late update: A spokeswoman for Newsmax sent a statement to TPM admitting that the magazine removed the column after several reader complaints. She also identified Perry as an "unpaid blogger."

Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.

This must mean that they're now conspiring in secret    Or that the left-wing media is forcing a stifling of "healthy debate". Or.. or..

Oh I wish I'd cultivated my political site alts.

Not sure whether to be disappointed that the right-wing lunacy knows some bounds after all, or glad.

[Cain]

The sedition wankery in that TPM thread is actually kinda sickening, I find.

[Captain Utopia]

Absolutely - but isn't like everything else - without the cheerleaders making noise then no-one else spends much time talking about the story?

Incidentally, do you know of any political sites where the comment sections aren't just a partisan battleground?  I gave up looking last year and now I just ignore the comments almost entirely.