Wednesday, September 30, 2009

No Bullets in the Valley, only Ballots

Two years ago, I railed against a Blogger on the Huffington Post talking of relieving President Bush of his duties. He was wrong. But because it came from the Left, no one disowned it. It was called a joke. Yeah, I was laughing.

Let me link and quote:

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

If you have reason to believe that the President is responsible for "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces" and for "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital" then you have the obligation to act.

In addition to relieving him of his command as Commander-In-Chief, you also have authority to place the President under MILITARY arrest.


In all your 39 years of service you have shown total loyalty to the chain of command.

However, given the current imperilment of US troops, and the "Conduct Unbecoming Of An Officer And A Gentleman" of this President - you have a greater responsibility to your nation, your code of honor and to the US Constitution.

I wish you well as you prepare to undertake the most heroic action of your distinguished career.

General Pace - please save the US.

Respectfully yours,
Martin Lewis

Now from the Right, on News max, there is this (again, more at the link). Even memeorandum has gotten involved today:

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.

For the left, I hope they understand the word Karma. By not following the laws of civility for a President you didn't like, you opened the door when the electoral cycle entered in your favor. Only the Left can stop what they started. We on the Right are still pissed on how you treated Bush and Palin, don't forget that.

I am a partisan, but I believe in the power of honest elections and a free press. Thanks to ACORN, most on the Right don't think the first is possible. And the press, seriously, I've met some activists who think the media has played sides against us since 1960 and 1964. Where is Columbia Journalism Review [CJR] or Democracy in America [DiA] to dispute that fact? Well, CJR is run by a former left leaning Nation magazine editor, and DiA never references Right leaning Blogs. Start there, go deeper.

When is 60 Minutes going after ACORN Voter fraud? Hint: Never.

And if Conservatives and Republicans feel that our views are not getting addressed (as an opposition party)? What happens then?

If I were President Obama, I would bring former Governor Dean, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to the White House for a public statement apologizing on how they treated Bush and Palin. And make a promise to treat Americans who differ, better.

But no Liberal will stand up for First Amendment Rights of dissent (or actual officeholders) for Conservatives and Republicans. This is blow back.

I don't want a Military (or any other) Coup D'etat in America. Period. I don't even like to joke about it on the Political sphere. In a fiction book, fine. But this door was opened during the past 8 years. Only those who opened this door can close it.

But, since I said fiction, what is your idea for an American Coup D'Etat? Describe either 2004 or 2012. Go. Maybe you can sell the movie rights.

Bookmark and Share


  1. First off, just to repeat what I wrote in response to you at my own blog, most libs attacking Bush insisted that they were returning fire for what you guys did to Clinton. And much of that was because righties were upset at how we treated Bush/Quayle. And then there were attacks on Ronnie Raygun, and the smears on Carter, and clutzy Ford, and tricky Nixon, etc. So this idea that we started it first is a bit juvenile. There's always SOMEBODY who hit first.

    Secondly, I looked at that HuffPo link and almost everyone was pushing back against that bozo. It's hard to know who was right or left, but there were definitely people who identified as Bush haters who thought the guy who posted it was a moron. And I DEFINITELY think the guy was a whackjob who should have taken down that embarrassing wreck of an argument. So I fail to see how you can suggest that no one disowned it. And I actually do think his post was meant to be humorous, even if it wasn't the least bit funny; while the Newsmax guy was most definitely serious, laying out a plan he seemed to think was inevitable.

    Finally, I'll give you my coup idea (I'm quite good at this sort of thing) if you could explain any conceivable way to commit election fraud in a modern presidential election. Seriously, how could ACORN have achieved such a thing? Take North Carolina, a close win for Obama: He won by 14,177 votes. But for good measure, they'd want to have at least 20,000 fraud votes on their side and probably many more as they wouldn't know how many fake votes they needed until afterwards. So how could they arrange that sort of thing, without one of the people involved confessing to this army of fraud voters? Remember, we're talking 20,000 fraud votes without anyone getting caught. How do you do it?

    Or how about the 35,000 minimum needed in Indiana? Or the 150,000 fraud votes in New Mexico? Or the 300,000 fraud votes in Virginia? How could they possibly pull this sort of thing in so many different states without anyone noticing or getting caught or confessing? To suggest that ACORN gave Obama the election would be to suggest that they pulled off one of the greatest schemes in history without getting caught. This, from a group that gets bamboozled by two rich white kids pretending to be street hustlers. I don't think so.

    And hey, I'm not trying to get on your case. I'm just trying to help you think through this a bit. There is no evidence to suggest that any major election fraud occurred and everything you're mentioning is voter registration fraud; not election fraud. And the idea that ACORN somehow gave Obama a million mystery votes without getting caught is entirely absurd, and it would probably have been larger than that. Trust me, you don't sound like a bad guy, but you really have to question this stuff a bit more.

    Oh, and as a teaser, I'll give you a hint on my coup theory: Obama's dead father mysteriously shows up with his real birth certificate, while Biden is fed some bad sushi in Japan, goes into a coma, and is then kidnapped. I'll tell you the rest, but first, the ACORN election fraud.

  2. Oh, and another thing, it can be argued that the "door" for coup d'etat was opened after you guys impeached our president. Or are we forgetting that? Before demands of "chimpeachment," there was an actual impeachment.

    Clinton was wildly popular at the time, yet you guys couldn't resist trying to knock the Big Dog down. Now, he's one of the most popular ex-presidents, while Bush is hated even by many conservatives. Again, I don't support this sort of extremist vilifying, but trying to pin this solely on Democrats is absurd.

  3. Anonymous4:08 PM PDT

    Doctor BioBrain,

    Clinton lied under oath in court...ergo impeachment

  4. "Clinton lied under oath in court...ergo impeachment"

    Yet, the Senate let him off. Perhaps this isn't as straight-forward as you suggest.

    And what of all the other investigations, which started in July of his first year in office and continued after he left office? All of which he was exonerated for. The reality is that you guys started an eight year witch hunt to nail him for any conceivable issue and finally got him on a perjury claim in a case that was dismissed. Pathetic.

    I'll take the lying adulterer over Bush any day. Looks like a majority America agrees with me on that.


Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.

There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.

Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.

Write! History will remember your words!


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...