[Winstonm]

Quote

Here is the full text of John L. Perry's column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic." Perry also writes that a coup, while not "ideal," may be preferable to "Obama's radical ideal" -- and would "restore and defend the Constitution." Newsmax has since removed the column from its website

This article ran on the site Newsmax, but was quickly pulled down. Before it could disappear, Talking Point Memo grabbed it and posted it here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009...o.php?ref=fpblg

[Winstonm]

Wikipedia entry about Newsmax:

Quote

In March, 2009 Forbes featured Newsmax and described Ruddy's company as a "media empire" and the "great right hope" of a troubled Republican Party. Forbes noted that after just a decade of operations it had become a "media powerhouse" - and had surpassed such well known web sites as the Drudgereport in web visitors. According to the magazine, Newsmax draws 3.8 million unique visitors monthly. Political analyst Dick Morris was quoted as saying that Newsmax had become the "most influential Republican-leaning media outlet" in the nation.

[Vampyr]

Definitely sedition, illegal according to the Smith Act of 1940.

I have to agree with Jimmy Carter that this sort of thing is predicated upon racism. When in living memory have people been so rabidly opposed to a president, to the pont of suggesting a military coup?

Lots of people really, really hated W and were afraid for the country under his leadership. But there was nothing approaching the lunacy we are seeing now.

[MattieShoe]

Dave Chapelle on the first black president

Made me laugh :-)

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Sep 30 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

Quote

Here is the full text of John L. Perry's column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic." Perry also writes that a coup, while not "ideal," may be preferable to "Obama's radical ideal" -- and would "restore and defend the Constitution." Newsmax has since removed the column from its website

This article ran on the site Newsmax, but was quickly pulled down. Before it could disappear, Talking Point Memo grabbed it and posted it here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009...o.php?ref=fpblg

never heard of newsmax.....granted I do not know most computer sights..


My first reaction was to puke.


I only hope newsmax, whatever it is, is 100% better next time.


side note if this was quickly pulled down.......I like this site...

[PassedOut]

John L. Perry lives in a fantasy world of wishful thinking. Few people in the military are idiotic enough to consider a coup. And any attempted coup would be crushed immediately by the vast majority in the military who remain loyal to the US.

[blackshoe]

The "vast majority" in the military remain loyal to the Constitution. After all, that's what our oath is about.

A Royal Navy officer once told me that if Parliament told the Navy to do one thing, and the Queen told them to do another, they'd follow the Queen. Same deal - it is she to whom they make their oath.

[Winstonm]

I'm not so sure that this wording:

Quote

Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

where he claims not to advocate a coup but then asks the reader to adopt a military perspective in reading what comes next is in fact an act of advocating for support of a coup?

After all, he didn't say read this from the perspective of the U.S. Attorney General - he suggested trying to understand the rightness of the actions by viewing it through military eyes.

From the column:

Quote

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

I must be slow because I don't remember "bloodless coup" as being in the Bill of Rights. Life, liberty, and bloodless coups???

[PassedOut]

There simply will not be enough disloyal soldiers in the US to mount a successful coup against their lawful commander in chief. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been spending too much time at nutty sites on the internet.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Sep 30 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

There simply will not be enough disloyal soldiers in the US to mount a successful coup against their lawful commander in chief. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been spending too much time at nutty sites on the internet.

I am very much a defender of 1st amendment rights - but I am not so sure this isn't beyond the protection of those rights. It strikes me as advocating treason.

[Al_U_Card]

They certainly stood by while W gutted the constitution.

Obama is just totally for the banks while W was for the corporations....

[barmar]

Winstonm, on Oct 1 2009, 12:03 AM, said:

I'm not so sure that this wording:

Quote

Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

where he claims not to advocate a coup but then asks the reader to adopt a military perspective in reading what comes next is in fact an act of advocating for support of a coup?

Did you get your negatives mixed up? I think that despite his claim that he's not advocating the coup, the article clearly is meant to incite it. It's like the web sites with lists of abortion doctors claiming that they are not advocating violent action against them.

[PassedOut]

Al_U_Card, on Sep 30 2009, 11:32 PM, said:

They certainly stood by while W gutted the constitution.

As un-American as Bush's actions were, he did not and could not "gut" the constitution. Some of his actions were illegal, and the courts struck down some of those illegal actions during his term and some might be struck down in the future.

Nevertheless, the military (rightfully) did not mount a coup against Bush -- they left it to the courts and to the voters to correct things. If Obama acts illegally, the courts will step in. And if the voters don't trust Obama (so far they clearly do trust him), he'll not win a second term. Soldiers, too, understand that.