Strange anger at Obama for Tuesday speech to schools

[the mongoose]

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.

[taoyoyo]

Gawd bless Murica, these are strange times indeed.

[dubman]

what a perceptive look into the minds of our top military leaders today. thanks internet.

[stimpee]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

By: John L. Perry

*snip*

Nice copy paste of an article that seems to have been posted on newsmax.com and then swiftly removed. wonder why

[Sean]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

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.

Just wanted to quote the whole thing so that you wouldn't be able to take it down like Newsmax did, Mongoose. Don't want to lose this kind of evidence regarding Deckard's point about threats against Obama. So what do you think of the article? In light of your support of "birthers", of the "death panel" concept, of the belief that Obama wants to take away all your guns and everything else you've shared here, I have to assume you think this is a super, bang-up article that you maybe even hope will come to pass. But that's a huge assumption, so I'd like to hear it from you before reaching a definite conclusion about it.

Incidentally, as I'm sure most people have heard by now, Newsmax took down the article and claimed that they have no relationship with this writer other than him being an unpaid blogger who's post they hosted. Yet in the Newsmax biography about him, Perry is described as an "award-winning newspaper editor and writer" who "contributes a regular column to Newsmax.com."

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Sean

I have to assume you think this is a super, bang-up article that you maybe even hope will come to pass

That's my impression of conspiracists, or even the faithful when they discuss the apocalypse in church. They all respond to these horrific disgusting theories with a sense of excitement and enjoyment. Like in their heart of hearts they want to see their nonbeliever neighbors burn in flames and their own country ripped apart. In each case, they'll be the exception, they'll always be a member of the elect that is preserved from the atrocities. And afterward, utopia will be realized and all the corruption cleansed. For them its never about solving the problem, its about blowing up the chalk board.

I got news for you mongoose, if Obama were to get offed, your whole arcadian middle class white life style of malls and video games will probably be the most threatened its ever been.

Anyhoo, Since its so fashionable to dress this current state of affairs like the 30's, take a look at this military coup plot that was targeting FDR in
'34. A rough 80% of the news back then was controlled by monopoly just as it is now. Failed american capitalism spawns interest in socialism and fascism, each side polarizing away from the middle. A liberal, charismatic, populist president is in charge during economic hardship. Elite corporate interests are at loggerheads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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]

One thing I think is starkly different between FDR and Obama is FDR was genuinely liberal. Obama is just smarter than 99% of his critics and black, so he makes up with these two dynamics as far as stoking the fire beneath him.

[the mongoose]

Spot on:

[stimpee]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

Spot on:

theyre scraping the barrel a bit there arent they? just search around and you'll find plenty of evidence of what Obama has done. And compared to GW Bush at least he's actually IN the white house and not on vacation. Bush spent more time on vacation than any other president in history.

[Sean]

And once again, the idea that Obama has done nothing in his first year in office can only be thought of as "spot on" if you ignore those pesky facts. Feel free to peruse this comprehensive recap of everything the Obama administration has been doing so far in regards to the economy, energy, health care, education, military conflicts, diplomacy, and domestic security. Just click on any of the tab headings below "Progress Report" for more details on a particular subject. The amount of stuff that's been done is far too extensive for me to try to summarize here.

Or, you can just ignore the facts yet again and stick to your unfounded, preconceived conclusions. But you may be interested since one of the many things he's done is, on March 24th, to pass a $700 million plan to bolster security resources at the U.S./Mexican border - despite your assurances that he wants to "insure all of Mexico"! Strange that.

But my personal favorite was his reversal of Bush's limits on federal funding for stem cell research. Or maybe it's his green energy initiatives, like putting control of additional emissions goals in the hands of State governments so they can legally require more improvements to emissions than federal law currently mandates. And of course, Republican Senator George Voinovich didn't like that, saying "I am fearful that today's action will begin the process of setting the American auto industry back even further," or in other words, "I am fearful that today's action will begin the process of me losing some political support from big businesses".

Either way, it's impossible to factually claim nothing's been done. Not that facts ever seem to have gotten in your way before...

[Strangelet]

snl should own up to the fact their grasp of political satire left with dennis miller back in the early 90's. Its a different game and one much better handled on the comedy network.

Here's a great breakdown of the assertions made in the skit versus reality

Here at PolitiFact, however, we're tracking Obama's 515 promises with our Obameter, which rates them as Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works and No Action.
Just for fun, we thought we'd go through Saturday Night Live's checklist and match it up with the promises we've rated on the Obameter.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...aign-promises/

Its more nuanced, but it really doesn't look that great to be honest. But much of the standstill is clearly a result of things getting stuck in the mire of congress and the military. A congress that holds a super majority of democrats that should just allow his agenda to be steamrolled into being signed into law.

I heard an activist talking in a church say this to his audience: "Not only is Obama not going to be able to save you, you're going to have to save Obama." I think that's God's gospel.

My criticism of obama, if I were to think about it, is a criticism of american government in general and the democratic party in more particular. Jon Stewart did a much more precise job of owning the dems in this video.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_305948.html

If you believe, as I do, that the health care mess is largely consequent of the insanity of the fox news backed tea party movement, then its largely consequent of Obama not stepping up and fighting for the cause. I've seen more fire from the comedy network than from the white house.

Then there's the bailout. I don't think it was meant to be a conspiratorial pillaging of our country's wealth to the bankers, that's just what its turned out to be.