Newsmax Columnist Suggests Military Coup in US

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,732
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php?ref=mp

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.

Newsmax pulled the article from their site. Normally I very much oppose self-censorship, but this article is the very definition of irresponsible journalism. Just curious what you guys think. For me it's just another reminder of how many crazy bastards are out there.
 
Just more bullshit to rile up the death panelers, birthers, and the rest of the racists and dumb folk.

A coup is just about impossible in modern America and this idea would've been much better suited during Bush 2.0 when he decided to finish what his daddy couldn't by launching a questionable war on Iraq. Plenty of soldiers gave up their rights and are now/have served jailtime for refusing to serve in such a 'questionable' conflict.

I'm glad the Democrats are finally responding to the GOP and Co.'s scare tactics with their own headlines of: "Republicans want you to die" - GOP has been winning in the media mud slinging fest and its time to turn that bullshit around.
 
Just one word: Paranoia.
 
I may not be an expert on their constitution, but where does it forbid nationalizing corporations and institutions?


Wouldn't they see it more "being trampled" if they overthrow democratically elected leaders?



I'm surprised that (no, not surprised. Reassured in my views of) a great part of the American people are still buying this level of crap.
 
I believe it was Jon Stewart who asked Newt Gingrich, regarding a nationalized health care system;

"Why is it reasonable to think that the government can run a nationalized, socialized army?"

He's a comedian, sure, but he did hit the nail there.
 
Man, the batshit minority sure is getting mouthy lately.
 
Ha I love these nuts.

I don't see anywhere near enough service personnel backing this if it came into being.
 
It's fine and dandy having the officers. Though, even if they don't swear to do as the president says, it must be said that they still have somewhat pressing legal obligations as officers. Not starting coup d'etat's would be one of those obligations. If I'm not mistaken, a US military officer can't openly criticise his commander in Chief, I find it highly doubtful there's a loophole letting him go AWOL to participate in a coup d'etat.

And as the pouch against Gorbatsjov displayed all to clearly in 1991... if you don't have the support of the soldiers on the ground, you will fail. Let's recap what the hard liners had in their favor in 1991..

1. The KGB, ruthless, effective, dangerous.
2. The ministry of defense.
3. All channels of broadcast
4. The underlying fact that this was the USSR

They didn't succeed, they didn't support from the troops they sent to Moscow, tough luck. I find it funny that people even consider that young men and women raised in democracy would consider following orders that were de facto the same as ousting the democraticly elected government.

I find it funny that the people who are the most concerned about the second ammendment don't give jack shit about the fourth or the fifth. Then again, I'm a European intellectual liberal commie, so what do I know?

Conspiracy freaks are everywhere. Just laugh, they'll go away eventually.
 
Conspiracy freaks are everywhere. Just laugh, they'll go away eventually.

Nope. They get shows on Fox News.

Or six figures from people to speak to them. Sarah Palin did just that, going to Hong Kong. Bill Maher had a field day with that one:

"Makes a change, for once it was China buying our cheap, plastic crap."

"Palin was asked what was her favourite part of Hong Kong. She said 'The bit at the end when he climbed up the Empire State Building."
 
That article is so full of paranoia and crap it's hard to believe.

I find it highly doubtful there's a loophole letting him go AWOL to participate in a coup d'etat.
If a coup were successful, the participants would get away with it, if it were not, they wouldn't. It doesn't matter what any regulations say.
 
How exactly do they think a coup would be "non-violent", anyway? A coup would most assuredly result in full-scale civil war.

A plan by the radical right that's full of holes? Stop the presses.
 
Who comes up with this shit??? I am not even sure that came from a right winger, that sounds more like an attempt from the other side just to further divide and enrage people. I am pretty right leaning on most things, not to mention my 18 years in the Army, but this is just plain insanity.

By the way, here are both oaths and a little bit of history behind them:



"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men and officers of the Continental Army:

Enlisted: The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read: "I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army." The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read: "I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them."

Officers: Continental Congress passed two versions of this oath of office, applied to military and civilian national officers. The first, on 21 October 1776, read: "I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other office which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their authority, with fidelity and honour, and according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God." The revised version, voted 3 February 1778, read "I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."

The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The next section of that chapter specified that "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established."

Although the enlisted oath remained unchanged until 1950, the officer oath has undergone substantial minor modification since 1789. A change in about 1830 read: "I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States." Under an act of 2 July 1862 the oath became: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatsoever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." An act of 13 May 1884 reverted to a simpler formulation: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This version remained in effect until the 1959 adoption of the present wording.
 
Last edited:
That article is so full of paranoia and crap it's hard to believe.

If a coup were successful, the participants would get away with it, if it were not, they wouldn't. It doesn't matter what any regulations say.

Yes, but part of the argument was that officers did not sweare alegance to the President.

:)
 
Top