[FoRK] Coup Needed - What the right wing really thinks?

Stephen D. Williams sdw at lig.net
Thu Oct 1 11:20:26 PDT 2009


Or at least the fringe. When following a technical topic, I noticed a 
link twittered by Tim O'Reilly ( http://twitter.com/timoreilly ), but 
the page was gone. Even Newsmax couldn't stomach it apparently, but 
Google Cache prevails. Good to preserve publicly. It's not good to 
ignore funky stuff growing in the dark. It feels like many people 
developed mental illness during the Bush years. Or became comfortable 
allowing it out in public. That is at least true of ignorance.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:st9T5Lydw4kJ:www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html+newsmax+coup&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Originally at: 
http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html
Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’

> Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’
>
> Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM
>
> By: John L. Perry
>
> 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.
>
> John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served 
> on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for 
> Newsmax.com. Read John Perry's columns here.
>
> © 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.






More information about the FoRK mailing list