Below The Beltway

I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.

NewsMax Columnist: Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’

by @ 8:16 am on September 30, 2009. Filed under Barack Obama, Obama Derangement Syndrome, Politics

Over at NewsMax, which is hardly the place to go for rational political argument I will admit, John L. Perry advocates a military coup to overthrow the President of the United States:

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.

(…)

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.

Yes, it is reversible.

That’s what elections are for and we’ve got one coming up in 398 days, and another one coming up in 1,133 days. If the American public doesn’t approve of what the President has done, then they’ll vote him and his party out of office. See, that’s how things work under the Constitution.

Update: It now appears that Newsmax has sent the article down the memory hole. You can find it on Google Cache still or, the full text of the article is below the fold:

Obama Risks A Domestic Military “Intervention”

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

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

10 Responses to “NewsMax Columnist: Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’”

  1. [...] disarmament agenda, all the while knowing that Iran had a second s ecret nuclear facility . NewsMax Columnist: Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’ – belowthebeltway.com 09/30/2009 Over at NewsMax, which is hardly the place to go for [...]

  2. Kevin says:

    See why the right wing likes the coup in Honduras so much..

  3. Rock says:

    Look what I found:

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

  4. Rock,

    The American Revolution was not an anti-democratic, anti-liberty military coup.

  5. tfr says:

    Ok, so has anyone in the military or close to it seen any sign of this?
    I’ve never seen the remotest inkling of anything except total subordination of the military power to the civil power here in the US. It’s part of military discipline.

  6. tfr,

    No, I don’t think this is even remotely in the mind of any military officer. It’s just not part of their culture and never would be, I think.

    It only lives in the paranoid fantasies of wingnuts and netrooters and in Tom Clancy novels

  7. Justin Bowen says:

    That’s what elections are for and we’ve got one coming up in 398 days, and another one coming up in 1,133 days. If the American public doesn’t approve of what the President has done, then they’ll vote him and his party out of office. See, that’s how things work under the Constitution.

    How many days into Bush’s third term are we now?

    I think you give the average person wayyy too much credit Doug. What’s the difference if Republicans or Democrats are elected at this point?

  8. Mike says:

    “Ok, so has anyone in the military or close to it seen any sign of this?”

    Absolutely not. Doug’s completely right when he says it’s not part of our culture and never will be…that’s why the Truman/MacArthur showdown was such a big deal, and why it’ll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens to McChrystal. The author is correct in the difference between the oaths that officers take versus enlisted, but quite incorrect in what the distinction actually means. The lack of an “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me” clause in the oath that officers take is not intended so that officers get to the be the arbiter of whether or not what the President is broadly doing is Constitutional. Instead, it’s there to indicate the increased responsibility that officers have to determine whether or not specific orders issued to them are legal…as in, if Cheney had gotten his way and military personnel had been used on U.S. soil to arrest terrorism suspects, I would have hoped that the officer(s) given that order would have refused it, since it is illegal in a very specific, narrow, manner. Obama’s policies…not so much. I mean, if overthrowing the government based on a broad disregard for the principles of the Constitution was the military’s policy, we would’ve had a coup with almost every president since FDR.

    The only time I could see an actual coup remotely becoming a possibility would be if a president did something incredibly stupid that blatantly disregards the letter of the Constitution…like try to stay in office a third term, or something like that.

  9. If the military rebels it will have to be from the middle ranks on down. The upper ranks are vetted for loyalty to the NWO. You can count on that.

    It’s already ‘fascism’ and headed toward full blown communism. The sheeple and most ‘patriots’/conservatives/truthers/paulbots/whatever will be willing slaves because they are unwilling to do what is required.

    It will take many expensive suits hanging along Pennsylvania Ave. to fix this mess if it can be fixed.

    Don’t understand? Start here:

    http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

    Think globally, fight locally. Aim small, miss small. One shot, one dead “Liberal”(communist/fascist).

  10. Sir,

    You’re nuts.

[Below The Beltway is proudly powered by WordPress.]