Newsmax Calls for a Military Coup in U.S.

Newsmax has an article up today by one John Perry, predicting that the U.S. military will intervene to take over the Obama administration (via Talking Points Memo — h/t to njgruber in Comments for the permalink):

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.

[...]
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.”

That last line is probably good advice for us sane people, too.

So first, please don’t tell me that Newsmax is a way-out-there, UFO-sighting, fringe right publication. I know it is. But just to see something like this anywhere is extremely scary, and hey, Newsmax says we should take it seriously, so maybe we should.

And second, Newsmax claims they are not advocating, just reading the tea leaves. That’s horse manure. Of course they’re advocating. Read it.

Finally, I don’t know about you, but I just checked my passport. It’s current.

Author: KATHY KATTENBURG

Share This Post On

42 Comments

  1. I once subscribed to Newsmax’s email alerts. It took months of “please remove me from your email list” requests to get them to stop.

    The “Obama problem”? Oh, they mean democracy. Yeah, I suppose that could be a problem if you are an extreme right-wing nut and the rest of the nation isn’t. And as a former military family, there isn’t a chance in hell of a coup d’etat. It’s little more than a wet dream of the rightfully alienated fringe.

  2. Kathy these people are silly and childish without the capacity to understand that the very essence of the Constitution is change, considered or actual, radical or by degree. It was designed to avert violence associated with inevitable political change, not to rigidly preserve any status quo or dogmatic ideology beyond the majority’s will. All things change, especially the will and desires of people. By having the unique ability to change often, at least in harmony with the will of the majority, we preserve a nation for posterity. We hope.

    It is said that our nation is an experiment in self government. If so, then the risks of failure are always apparent.

  3. As silly as the article is your headline is misleading and inaccurate Kathy. There is a difference between suggesting what might happen and advocating for it. The artilce clearly states:

    Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.

  4. Wikipedia – Business Plot

    The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) was a reported political conspiracy in 1933 which involved wealthy businessmen plotting a coup d’état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1934 retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testified to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional committee that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a coup.[1] In the opinion of the committee these allegations were credible. One of the purported plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their report, the Congressional committee stated that it was able to confirm Butler's statements other than the proposal from MacGuire which it considered more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports. [2] However, no prosecutions or further investigations followed. While historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, most agree that some sort of “wild scheme” was contemplated and discussed.[3][4][5][6][7] Contemporaneous media initially dismissed the plot, with a The New York Times editorial characterizing it as a “gigantic hoax;”[8] When the committee's final report was released, the Times said the committee “purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true” and “It also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated”.

    Not exactly the first time the Right-Wing thinks about Military Coups. Unfortunately, this president is no FDR and I am not sure that there are any Smedley Butler's left in the Military.

  5. Leonidas,
    Other than that single sentence, the author is clearly fantasizing.

  6. Agreed, like I said the article is silly, but the headline Kathy chose is misleading.

  7. Leonidas,
    Of course the difference is that Vidal is clearly wary of the idea of a dictatorship, whereas Perry is practically salivating at the idea of a coup. Nice try though.

  8. Would it be helpful to consider the facts?

    - Obama's so-called nationalization of institutions and enterprises was actually the continuation of a policy put in place before he was sworn in (TARP)
    - Obama has slow walked the GITMO closing
    - Obama has slow walked the exit from Iraq to be consistent with Iraqi requests
    - Obama has ordered additional troops to Afghanistan at the military's suggestion & is now being asked for even more
    - Obama supported and signed the Lilly Leadbettter Act
    - Obama supported and signed the Stimulus Bill
    - Obama supports “health care reform”, but took single payer socialized medicine off the table before it could be put on the table
    - Obama re-opened embryonic stem cell research but with some restrictions still in place
    - Obama resisted prosecuting past administration officials for torture related decisions
    - Obama supports re-authorization of the most questionable provisions of the Patriot Act with only modest revisions
    - Obama nominated mainstream (Linsey Graham's description) Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
    - Obama advocates increased sanctions against Iran for their nuclear program
    - Obama has slow walked gay rights issues and remains on record as opposing gay marriage
    - Obama is not using his office to press Card Check

    The truth is that Obama's governance philosophy is run-of-the-mill liberal. One could argue effectively that he is not as liberal as FDR or LBJ….or Pelosi, Frank or Feingold. It's fine to disagree with his policies (I do that a lot), but be honest enough to disagree with what those policies really are, and they are not Marxist or socialist.

    Articles like the one quoted above from Newsmax show ignorance, extremism and hyperbole as articles of faith. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I believe most Americans see through this kind of extremist pap, though a small percentage may not and that could be dangerous.

  9. Would it be helpful to consider the facts?

    Facts are for p**sies and liberals, Real Americans know the “TRUTH”, they use their gut to fact check, and their gut says that Obama is not a christian, was not born in America, and is communist-islamo-fascist who has the support of the “Dirty F**ken Hippies” who want to destroy America, our Judeo-Christian morality and ethics, and our God given way of life.

    Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I believe most Americans see through this kind of extremist pap, though a small percentage may not and that could be dangerous.

    You are…

    Yeah, Dream on…

    Once this crap hits Fox News, and it will, you are going to get 10 to 20% of the population actively supporting a coup and another 20 to 30% praying for one…

    The basic rule of conservatism:
    Whatever the “Dirty F**vken Hippies” are for, I am against and whatever the “Dirty F**vken Hippies” are against, I am for.

  10. Folks always SAY things. It's when they are echoed by those in power when it becomes a situation. I really don't like Newsmax. But we'll see if this fantasy starts being echoed by those in power. I wouldn't worry too much Kathy….. yet! LOL…

  11. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.

    This is what you call a CYA disclaimer. He can point to it if the secret service comes knocking.

  12. I love what Rick Moran said in his recent post about this same subject:

    No domestic unrest because of this action? What to do with all those very angry liberals and Democrats? It might be emotionally satisfying for some to see our opponents marched off to those detention camps Haliburton built in Utah and Nevada, but gawd, we’d never hear the end of it.

    Full article here: http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/09/3

    Yeah, what to do with those VERY ANGRY liberals? No amount of <sarcasm on> LATTES <sarcasm off> will placate them in a coup!

  13. This kind of reminds of all the hubbub about Bush making secret plans for a draft a few years ago. No one with any sense took that seriously and no one with any sense should take this seriously.

  14. LOL A draft when were in the middle of two wars. Not so crazy…
    A coup from the nuts at Newmax. Padded wall crazy…
    Maybe the Ghost of Patrick Swayze will lead the militias against the Red Dawn Obamama.

  15. But we'll see if this fantasy starts being echoed by those in power.

    I doesn't take “those in power” to turn fantasy into tragedy. Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan and John Wilkes Booth didn't need “those in powers” approval to do what they did.

    Silence instead of condemnation is taken as a sigh of approval by the wackos of this world and you're sending them the message they long to hear.

  16. I just got back from a trip where I drove 1200 miles since Sunday. Kathy beat me to it on this one. I don't have time today for comments but I need to add this:

    An even bigger issue that I see emerging here is that on several fronts SOME conservative Republicans basically have the narrative: unless you elected a conservative Republican who agrees with US the government is evil, the President is illegitimate, etc., our country is threatened.

    Two things about this: 1. Someone like me has voted for Republicans over the years and used to be one. I cannot say how absolutely turned off I am by this kind of rhetoric. I start tuning out those who indulge in it because it is as extremist to me as the far left that I opposed during the Vietnam War was during the 60s. 2. Conservatives who use the Unless You Elected Our People It's Not Democracy rhetoric are setting themselves up for a very difficult time the next time the election cycle changes and they get a conservative Republican in the White House. American democracy has always functioned by Americans who are on the losing side accepting the legitimacy of those who won. And before I hear about all Democrats saying that Bush didn't really win, Al Gore accepted the election results and the Democratic mainstream did not make that an issue for 8 years. There were other issues and some leftist bloggers and talk show hosts raised it. But most Democrats accepted the legitimacy of the government. It can't be accurately stated now that MOST Republicans are calling Obama illegitmate or a threat to America as we know it. But this fringe is a huge turn off; if this rhetoric wasn't so extremist the GOP would probably have more people voting for it in 2010 who are disappointed with Obama (in terms of what he has done and hasn't done). But these are voters who will differ from Obama on policy and will not want to cast votes for people who seem agreeing with those who are politically foaming at the mouth.

    This is NOT the Republican mainstream But it is a total turn off. Some people hold their nose and vote for the party that they feel stinks less. The Democrats now seem to be heading in a direction where they will be at war with each other over the public option. This segment of conservatives who are painting Obama as a Marxist, Nazi, Socialist…are not helping the image of conservatism, except among those who eagerly contribute to infomercials to fund groups that want to pursue the birther issue.

    A realistic chance of a coup? Highly unlikely.

    Newsmax has its sources but as a longtime professional journalist who worked not just here but overseas I will say what any reporter can tell you: there are LOTS of sources you can use. But because you have a source doesn't mean that source represents a consensus.

    A reporter or columnist can say “sources say” or “analysts say” but how many sources is that against a context of available sources? And are they talking to sources who already agree with them?

    Military coup? This is kind of like a Code Pink on the right but with bigger paranoia issues. You read this and can just hear The Twlight Zone theme.

    FOOTNOTE: I've read Newxmax for years and even subscribed to its magazine for a while. I don't link to it and its reporting. I consider it on the same line as a lot of the Matt Drudge EXCLUSIVE REPORTS! that have occasionally shown up, prove to be inaccurate, and just vanish from the DR without a correction or follow up. I know of at least one more conservative blogger who years ago said the same thing.

    NOW if they do an article that later shows up in MAINSTREAM MEDIA reporting, then I'll link to it. I figure the mainstream media will pursue it if it is valid. I know some bloggers will denounce that attitude since the mainstream media is untrustworthy (unless you link to it in about 85 percent of your posts, quote its news stories and opinion columns and make its content the basis on which you do your blog…THEN you trust it when you need it), but if AP or the WaPO wrote about rumblings about a coup..THEN I'd run it. I'll leave the Story That'll Bust This Town Wide Open to others.

    Again, I was going to do a post on this with my point above on sources and the image this is creating that some conservatives cannot accept election results, yet will fully expect Americans who don't agree with them to accept it when their candidates win (which they will at some future stage since political history is cyclical)

    I think this piece Kathy linked to is more significant because it is one more indication of how Obama is being painted as a danger to American that “real” patriots see as such. Troubling to say the least.

  17. That one sounds like it came right off the desk of Dick Cheney. It has “scare” written all over it. There is no Obama problem. There is however a big problem with traitors and enemies trying to inject rebellious statements like this into mainstream media for the hoped-effect.

    We elected him as our leader. If the military does anything to Our power [through him] they will have to face off with the citizens. Obama is our phasod. We Rule and the military answers to Us.

    There, did I get the thrust of the Constitution right?

  18. I truly don't understand this.

    If I read it correctly, you acknowledge that some leftist bloggers and talk show hosts questioned the legitimacy of GWB's presidency. But since the mainstream Democrats did not, and Al Gore eventually conceded, you didn't find it a turn off that the fringe left refused to accept the legitimacy of GWB as POTUS.

    Similarly, you acknowledge that the mainstream of the GOP is not now questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, and although you didn't mention it, I think it goes without saying that John McCain has never questioned the legitimacy of his loss.

    So why is it now such a turnoff that you don't think that the voters who might be dissatisfied with Obama's presidency or with the Dem led Congress can't possibly consider voting GOP as a counterbalance, since some fringe of the GOP is doing exactly what some fringe Dems did during the last administration?

  19. The Left did question W's legitimacy, but they never called for a military coup. Many serious conservative thinkers are calling for their party to disown the likes of the birthers and Newsmax. CS – Are you willing to send the likes of Newsmax to Siberia…

  20. Again we return to the term “traitors”. Anyone who believes that circumventing our democratic process to bring about power change in government is a traitor to democracy. The definition really couldn't be any simpler. And We The People will deal with traitors as they should be dealt with..

  21. Leo Just call out the tin hat faction on your side and forget about Gore Vidal.

    I said the Perry piece was absurb already.

    I just pointed out that the Gore Vidal piece was shared a same absurd viewpoint.

    Absurd is absurd, no matter who says it.

  22. CS – Are you willing to send the likes of Newsmax to Siberia…

    Of course…I have no use for Newsmax and never read it. The links all over Memeorandum today got me to click over there (and now I see that even Newsmax has apparently disowned the author or at least this one post by him.) That got me wondering who this guy is, since I'd never heard of him. His bio indicates that all of his former employment in govt was with Democratic administrations, and he served as a fellow at a liberal think tank. I assume since he has now joined Newsmax, and appears to have written numerous anti-Obama columns, that he's no longer a Democrat, but I wonder what path put him with the right wing fringe element at an organization like Newsmax?

  23. A) Grow up about this; B) Be more productive by watching “Seven Days in May.”

  24. I get what you are saying SteveK. But Lee Harvey Oswald didn't cause the dissolution of the United States even though he assassinated a President. You need groups to cause that (coups, etc). Like Joe, I'm completely turned off to rhetoric like this.

  25. “Obama has slow walked gay rights issues and remains on record as opposing gay marriage”-

    Yeah this needs to be dropped off a bridge and forgotten. It's one of those no substance feel good issues and does way more harm than good.

  26. “The Moderate Voice” is another way of “Sitting on the Fence.”

  27. Which is precisely why I wrote, “Newsmax claims they are not advocating, just reading the tea leaves. That’s horse manure. Of course they’re advocating.” So telling me what the article clearly states does not really work as an expression of disagreement, y'now?

  28. Thank you, nj! I updated to give you a shout-out. :-)

  29. “Newsmax [...] just reading the tea [bag & party] leaves”

    (Completed)

  30. Let me go contrarian here knowing that my pro-Obama cred is golden… This kook who posted this column may be channeling some far right fantasy stuff out there. But to say that it represents anything beyond that is just opportunism. One of the problems in politics is that we discredit even moderate opponents by linking them with extremist loons. It's like when the Right goes after some liberal because he once worked for an organization that had a board member that once worked at an organization that got some money from ACORN. These markers of extremism are useful for the other side to exploit and discredit. But if they don't turn into action they are just the random rantings of side lunatics.

    If something violent does come of all this rhetoric then the story changes. I firmly believe that Timothy McVeigh did as much to re-elect Bill Clinton as anybody – simply by discrediting much of the hard core anti-government Right and by setting the country up to blame the GOP for the famous October 1995 government shutdown.

    Americans tolerate radical speech. American do not tolerate radical action. That's why marches and protests on both sides end up doing very little to influence people. But when those events become genuinely destructive or violent the backlash is something fierce.

    So I won't get worked up over this idiot – as long as nobody decides to carry out his fantasy.

  31. Now, now. You all are getting yourselves all worked up for nothing. There is no monster in the closet, no boogieman under the bed and no military plot to overthrow Obama. Now, drink your warm milk and try to go back to sleep.

  32. Of course they’re advocating

    Ummm…no.

    They are being silly, no not advocating. I have no problem with denonucing them for silliness, but you will have to forgive me for not wearing a tinfoil cap.

  33. When some fringe wacko, filled full of Fox Propaganda Network gibberish; encouraged by his elected Republican lawmakers calling the President a “liar” or “enemy of humanity” or the “anti-christ”; having been inundated with radio blowhards questioning the validity of the president's citizenship and equating him as some marxist dictator, when this wacko finally blows and does something to try and kill the president or some member of congress, it will be really great to look back at all this and say, “Wow, we never saw it coming.”

    Fairness doctrine returns.

  34. “The basic rule of conservatism:…”

    And here's the basic rule of liberalism:
    1. If I am a vegetarian – then YOU must be vegetarian.
    2. If I don't want to work – then YOU must pay me.
    3. If I don't want to earn – then YOU must feed me.
    4. If I don't want to take responsibility for my own actions – blame someone else and sue them.
    5. If I can't actually convince the public that socialism is great, then I'll do it through the schools and through the courts.

    :)
    LOL

  35. If I can't actually convince the public that socialism is great, then I'll do it through the schools.

    Unfortunately, our state-run schools aren't up to the job.

  36. poor soul. . .living with such terrorism of the mind. . .

  37. lurxst said:

    “When some fringe wacko, filled full …gibberish; encouraged by…elected Republican(s)…calling the President a “liar” …..or the “anti-christ”; ….. inundated with radio blowhards questioning the … the president's citizenship and equating him as some marxist dictator, when this wacko finally blows and does something to … kill the president or some member of congress, it will be really great to look back at all this and say, “Wow, we never saw it coming.”

    Well, we have been there and done that. In 1963 the President of the US was killed by a communist. Oswald had clear ties to the Soviet Union and communism in general. That he was a communist, whether he had a card on him at the time, or not, was undisputed. In fact, the Soviets rejected Oswald as a nut case, exactly as the Michigan Militia rejected McVeigh. World War III was adverted because sane people realized that the Oswald murder of a US President was not the opening act of a nuclear war that would have killed hundreds of millions, but rather the lone act of a madman who hoped to influence history beyond his weight, just as McVeigh hoped.

    Did some “saw it coming?” Maybe, but sanity prevailed.

    I hope that Obama serves out his full term and is soundly rejected by the voters in 2012.

    I trust that you will join with me in hoping that, should anything happen to the President in the meantime, whoever may be responsible, (including the not unlikely possibility that another communist might do it), sanity will again prevail and the country will deal with our tragedy in a constitutional manner and that democracy will be preserved.

    For one thing, I shudder to think what race riots may occur if anything happens to the President, and my first suspicions, should that happen, will be cast to the left and not to the right.

    After all, as the Romans asked, “who benefits?” Just as the left tried to take advantage of Teddy Kennedy’s death to press forward with nationalized health care, I am sure that the untimely death of President Obama would result in calls for the full implementation of his agenda, ( and the carving of his visage on Mount Rushmore.) Any attempt to overthrow Obama is the worst possible thing that could happen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and the best possible thing for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

  38. Very well said, elrod.

Submit a Comment