American columnist suggests that the U.S. military might overthrow Obama

Once again, the U.S. right-wing nuts are proving themselves to being even wackier than previously thought. How far can these guys go?

Check this out – from “Newsmax“… an American pseudo-media outlet that seems to have, as its sole raison d’être, the demeaning and humiliation of the President and any policy he has ever been a part of.

I must note, however, that this article has disappeared from the site. Apparently even the fascists at Newsmax couldn’t stomach what this moron was writing.

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.

(1300)

Be Sociable, Share!

3 Comments to “American columnist suggests that the U.S. military might overthrow Obama”

  1. It’s probably worth going point by point here too:

    >># 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.”

    Although as officers, they are required by law to follow the lawful orders of their superiors, of whom the President is the most superior. People hinting at military overthrow could, however, be considered part of “all enemies, … domestic.”

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

    That’s an interesting claim. I’ve read the US Constitution and I don’t see how this is possible. I wish he’d have elaborated.

    >># 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.

    Based on what the US looks like now, I fail to see how this possibly could be considered a bad thing except by a religious fundamentalist douchebag.

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

    I guess he forgot about the guy who ran up the deficit and accompanying debt for the last 8 years. Political memory is always so short.

    >># 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.

    Someone needs to rein them in. They’ve run roughshod over rights, the US Constitution and good sense for nearly a decade. Maybe if US foreign policy didn’t present the USA as dicks, there wouldn’t be 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.

    Realistically speaking, there are no such things as effective missile defence. That said, the ABM treaty, signed decades ago, pretty much seals this one up. Man, that author needs to attend a history class.

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

    If that happens, it will be because America starts the wars, and thus won’t have to react.

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

    I’d be insulted by this one if I was a US military officer. I think they see their honour being restored, and by (hopefully) defusing some of the heightened tensions that were aggravated by previous governments, restoring US security. I wonder what the author is basing this claim upon.

    So after all that, maybe the military will take out a nest of right-wing nutters. That would seem to be the best for everyone concerned.

  2. Free Speech also protects douchebags. It must protect douchebags, even guys who write that stuff.

    It wasn’t that many years ago that a certain member of parliament sent letters to Francophone military officers in this country, asking them to defect to the Army of Quebec when Quebec separated after the referendum.

    Personally, I felt that MP should have been hauled away in chains as that is an unequivocal violation of the Criminal Code for the crime of “sedition”, but TPTB did equivocate and called it “free speech”.

  3. Toe says:

    Maybe the ‘columnist’ was just looking for instant feedback on the notion. A test. To up O’s security.

Leave a Reply

*