Coop's Corner
September 30, 2009 4:18 PM

Screwball Meme Du Jour: U.S. Headed For Coup?

By
Charles Cooper
Topics
In The News
(AP)
There's a screwball meme making the rounds about whether the United States is ripe for a military takeover.

Normally, I'd dismiss this as yet more apocalyptic blather from the same folks who get worked up about black helicopters and FEMA concentration camps. What's interesting is that both extremes on the political spectrum are offering up the same apocalyptic prediction. Maybe it's a slow Wednesday but their prognosticatons have managed to garner quite a bit of attention - perhaps another sign of the increasingly fraught condition of our nerves in this autumn of our discontent.

A writer named John L. Perry kicked things off when he published a column on the right-leaning web site Newsmax. The piece has since been pulled from the Internet. (Another conspiracy to rob Americans of their liberties?) Click here to read the archived version. Among other things, Perry writes:

"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."

Hardly the second coming of Thomas Paine but good enough to strike a chord with the faithful who were already convinced the president is a (take your pick: A) Socialist, B) Nazi, C) Socialist-Nazi or D) Other. At the very least, he's an illegal alien and thus unconstitutionally residing in the White House. Happily , one self-described conservative blogger solved the puzzle for the rest of us: "The real issue is that the Left is trying to scare the American people – to further divide us. Conservatives have ZERO interest in a military dictatorship."

I feel so relieved.

It so happened that a similar forecast came from Gore Vidal, one of the great figures in contemporary letters, who let loose with another of his periodic jeremiads on the perils facing the republic. In an interview with Vidal returned to familiar themes: that we're a nation of no-nothing knuckleheads with little idea what's going on outside of our back fence; that Americans are "the worst-educated people in the First World," and that we make up a malleable lumpenproletariat that clever advertisers can manipulate to their hearts' content.

That was just the table setter. Vidal told his interlocutor that the United States is ripe for a military dictatorship "fairly soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together."

If you've followed Vidal's career, this isn't a particularly new theme - especially in the aftermath of September 11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't need to buy his argument entirely but Vidal has spoken eloquently about the consequences of the United States being engaged in a seemingly permanent state of war. (See, for instance, his 2007 interview with the Financial Times.)

But when you mention Gore Vidal and the immortal John L. Perry in the same breath, is there any doubt whose name is going to attract more attention? So it was that National Review's Jonah Goldberg cites with disapproval excerpts from the interview. (Curiously, he omitted completely mention of Perry's far more hysterical warning or its strange disappearance following publication.)

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey was much better at recognizing intellectual hooey falsely offered up as analysis. Writing of Perry, he termed the column "a lunatic fantasy straight out of Greek theater" while dismissing Vidal's warning as equally ludicrous. "Both men should be encouraged to take some time off and regain their senses, and should be roundly ignored until they do."

...

PS: A spokeswoman for Newsmax told Talking Points Memo that Perry was an "unpaid blogger" for the site. However, TPM points out that Perry is described on the Newsmax bio page, as someone who "contributes a regular column to Newsmax.com."



  • Charles Cooper is an executive editor at CNET News. He has covered technology and business for more than 25 years, working at CBSNews.com, the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie.

Add a Comment See all 36 Comments
by Imacbeth25 October 13, 2009 1:06 PM EDT
dragon8me I doubt Jesus depised either capitalism or money. His "father" was a businessman (a carpenter) and Jesus probably trained as one, too. The only time I remember reading about Jesus having any problems with "money" was when He chased the moneylenders, etc, out of the temple -- one time when He showed He could have a temper. I don't think He had problems with money, in and of itself. Like Martin Luther, He had a problem with How it was being done. Remember, earlier in His life, He also disobeyed his mother when He left them without permission to teach at the temple. He later told His mother He was "about my Father's business," patently disrespectful to His mother and adoptive father.
Reply to this comment
by Imacbeth25 October 13, 2009 10:19 AM EDT
I admit I haven?t read all 45 entries and if someone else has already mentioned this, I apologize. An excellent book which discusses what might happen in a military takeover of the United States is Orson Scott Card?s EMPIRE. Read it. You might become a bit concerned. Mr. Card mentions what he has heard and learned regarding a second ?Civil War,? not one between African-Americans and Whites, but one between the Blue and Red states (check the presidential election maps). Irish Blessings upon the United States of America. May our enemies be afflicted with itching without the benefit of scratching. (The second sentence is a paraphrase of a real Irish curse. GOOGLE Irish Blessings and Curses if you would know more.)
Reply to this comment
by zippiez October 12, 2009 12:17 PM EDT
It will happen in December 2012.
Just before the end of time.

Why are worried about this possibility when lobbyists already accomplished the takeover.

Oh, that's right, with the free market and capitalism, nothing bad can ever happen.
Reply to this comment
by D_Morris_PE October 7, 2009 4:39 PM EDT
I wrote this to a friend who was concerned about the current levels of polarization and incivility:
I, too, consider myself to be "just another guy", although I have always been opinionated. I am not one to stand out in front of a crowd and say that the Emperor has no clothes, but that hasn't stopped me from harboring those thoughts and occasionally expressing them to others.

I feel that a lot of the current unrest is justified because of the kooks running the asylum in Washington. Nancy Pelosi, for example, needs to be told to sit down, shut up, and go home, along with Henry Waxman, Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, and many, many, more. We have been fortunate in past years to have conservative leadership pulling the reins on unbounded spending desires.

How we got to this economic crisis is a prime example of purported "goodness" being subverted by unintended consequences. On December 21, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, created by a lame-duck Congress that was soon to be out of power. This legislation was the last major bill he signed before Bush took office in January. The CFMA reauthorized Credit Default Swaps (CDS) which had been banned since the 1930's for their part in triggering the Great Depression. Intended as "insurance" to cover risky investments, the CDS instruments became defacto commodities and were bought and, sold just like stock, but with no reporting requirements. Given this history of bad outcomes, Congress still wrote the bill at the urging of JP Morgan, so that JPM wouldn't have to keep cash reserves to cover their risky loans. Just like dominoes, once the easy money mortgages started to default, folks were collecting their "insurance", which triggered more defaults, and so on. BTW, Congress is still refusing to outlaw CDS documents or provide regulatory oversight by the SEC.

Which leads us to Phase 2 of the meltdown - bank takeovers. The Federal Reserve (which is a private entity, NOT a government agency), started playing favorites and pulling strings. Wachovia would still exist if the "rules" that were adopted just two days later had been applied. That would have given cash to Wachovia to meet their short-term problems of "quiet withdrawals" that had left them without enough cash on hand. They were forced to be sold to Wells Fargo, just like Bank of America was forced to buy Merrill Lynch, and so on. That dried up any cash and loans were not being issued.

Which leads us to Phase 3 - auto industry takeover. Car sales had been in a slump for a while and the manufacturers needed loans to cover their day-to-day operating costs. No loans = bankrupt businesses everywhere, especially in the car industry and the ripple-down effects are still being felt, and will continue for some time to come.

On to Phase 4 - President Obama wants to remake the Health Industry and create a federal insurance program that will likely reduce Medicare payments, drive existing insurance programs out of existence, probably reduce that availability of new technology, and (unintended consequence) reduce the number of physicians because there will not be any financial incentive to become a doctor. My hunch is that this effort was a sop to Hillary Clinton, who was rebuffed in her previous attempts under Bill Clinton, to get her to abandon her Presidential campaign.

All of that together is, basically, a reverse coup-de-tat, where the government is the entity taking over, and THAT, my friend, is the cause for widespread discontent. The Democrats see nothing wrong with this, as though it were the natural order of things. Never mind that in just 3 months the government obligated more money than the previous three years budget, with no plans for repayment or what happens next. The Stimulus Plan is just a huge pork-barrel project, with little thought other than "spend it NOW".

I can only hope that Americans will reclaim their government by throwing out the rascals we've got, or at least reverting them to the minority party, beginning with the 2010 elections. I fervently believe that conservatives have a better long-term view of how things work, even if there are too many pro-business gifts.

I also believe in establishment of a basic flat-tax, with no loopholes, exemptions, or voluminous tax codes. The sole job for the IRS would be to count the receipts from our paychecks. We all would pay one percentage rate, somewhere around 15-17%, directly from our pay. No Income tax forms to file, no deductions to worry about, no receipts to manage. Salaries would HAVE to be paid by check.

I also believe that our news outlets are more biased than they let on, most being liberal to very liberal, and that bothers me because I want them to just provide the facts and details straight up, with no slanting, amplification, or theatrical music or dramatic imagery.
Reply to this comment
by 6591Hou October 6, 2009 7:30 PM EDT
Screwballs are screwballs regardless of any cursory political affiliation. There is no 'The military' as much as there is no 'The government', a nebulous and unseen boogyman.
The ramblings of one fruit-loop about the millions of our brothers, sisters, cousins, moms, and dads who wear the uniform acting in some unanimous and nefarious manner is an insult to them and the people who raised them, grew up next to them, hung out with them.
These are your childhood friends, your family members, your neighbors this nut is talking about - not some mindless zombies who just sprang up out of the ground. Don't add injury to his insult.
Reply to this comment
by newcombat October 2, 2009 5:18 PM EDT
It's not accurate to say this started this past Wednesday with the NewsMax biz.

A rather large handful of generals have been gathering at Human Rights First to respond to Cheney's media blitz and, I sense, grumblings they hear within their wide brassy acquaintance worldwide.

There have been a number of indications that something serious enough to draw these generals out of retirement (many of them) is afoot.

For example -- the 9/11/09 Miami Herald Op Ed piece coauthored by Gen Charles Krulak, blasting Cheney on torture. Krulak has a very interesting family history. Coming out of retirement to bash the retired Cheney means something.

Here's a roundup:

http://newcombat.net/Conversation/2009/10/01/generals-vs-tcheneys/
Reply to this comment
by imnho October 2, 2009 3:15 PM EDT
Its very irresponsable for the wingnuts to hint that it would be a good thing if someone were to violently overthrow the goverment. The problem is that people who do this are encourging people who are one step away from anti-social activties to take the extra step.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti October 2, 2009 1:20 PM EDT
This must have been started by the wacko, extremist Republican neo con party of death. The racist, greedy conservatives have taken over the party.

Actually we already had the coup. When the Bush Crime Family stole the 2000 election, it completed the takeover of the country by the rich and the big corporations. As in other right wing fascist countries, they now own all the wealth and run the media, the military and the Congress for their profit.
Reply to this comment
by billwalker234 October 2, 2009 9:36 AM EDT
The author and dragon8me as well as others are obviously ignorant of certain documented public record and facts.

It is a matter of public record that Obama joined a lawsuit in 2006 to assert he, as a member of Congress, had the right to veto the Constitution. His own attorney admitted in open public court this was a criminal violation of oath of office. Under that federal law, Obama was and is forbidden from "holding or accepting" federal office. Obama was a named defendant. Therefore Mr. Obama as well as Mr. McCain sought office while federal law said they could not. In short, the 2008 election was a fraud.

The lawsuit concerned calling an Article V Convention. The Constitution requires a convention call if 34 states apply for such a call. The public record shows all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for a call some 20 times the number required. Thus, Obama has participated in the overthrow of our constitutional form of government as he, as a member of Congress, has refused to obey it.

The texts of the applications can be read at www.foavc.org. The lawsuit is discussed in FAQ 9.1 of that website. Given these documented facts that Obama is legally not entitled to hold the office of president and was fully aware of that fact before he sought office, a coup is not only possible but likely given that Mr. Obama has demonstrated he does not support his current oath of office nor is not legally entitled to hold office. But as this is the case, it would not be a coup. Merely the removal of an illegal officeholder not entitled to be there is the first place.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti October 2, 2009 2:43 PM EDT
We already had the coup in 2000 when the corporate Supreme Court appointed Bushoccio. The white wingers are really reaching for any straws at this point. Obama can join any lawsuit he wants, he can say anything he wants and he can think anything he wants. As long as he doesn;t do anything he wants like the Bush Crime Family did.
by babooph October 2, 2009 2:10 AM EDT
With the mess Bush left ,who would want to take over ?Obama can have the thankless job of trying to fix humpty dumpty.
Reply to this comment
See all 36 Comments
.
Latest CBS News Headlines Popular CBS News Stories
on Facebook Most Discussed Stories
on CBS News

Follow Coop's Corner

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...