Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Rightwingnut John Perry Fantasizes About a "Military Coup" to Eliminate President Obama

Rightwingnut John Perry fantasizes has written a column about a possible "military coup" to remove President Obama from office. What terrible thing has Obama done to merit Perry's column? Perry lists a parade of horribles lies, including the patently false notion that Obama has "nationalized" "American institutions."

Some of Perry's grievances should have led to the ouster of President Bush. For example, Perry warns of the "horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time." Earth to Perry: Iraq + Afghanistan = Wars Bush started.

Perry also complains "that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments." Earth to Perry: The economy became a severe problem long before January 2009.

Also, I suspect that most foreign lending comes from private investors. In addition, debt is debt regardless of whether foreign or domestic investors own it. The only thing that makes domestically owned debt more attractive is the relatively greater control the government has over the owner. Exercising that control, however, sounds like something Perry would call "Marxist."

What Happened to Elections?
Perry only contemplates a "nonviolent" or "bloodless" "military" coup (oxymoron?). Dr. King would be proud!

In an August 3, 2009 column, however, Perry advocated old-fashioned, democracy-based regime change. He argued that Republicans should endeavor to find candidates with the "qualifications and vision" to "outshine" Democrats. I wonder whether Perry believes this task remains attainable.

Finally, in the same August 2009 article, Perry lauded Sarah Palin as a possible presidential candidate for the GOP in 2012. This endorsement probably damns his political judgment more than his proposed fictional coup de tat:

Someone will emerge from the current funk and fog as the most-attractive Republican presidential nominee. If Sarah Palin can help boost enough conservatives into office by next fall, she will be well-along the road to the 2012 GOP nomination — regardless of whether or when she’s a declared candidate.

Right now, she appears to outclass other potential Republican candidates. Better than any, so far, she fits the formula for not reelecting Obama.
Palin for President? Precious.

UPDATE: A reader (Eric) notes that Newsmax has removed Perry's essay. Being too extreme for Newsmax is pretty extreme. If anyone finds a cached version of the page, please let me know.

UPDATE II: A rightwing website has reprinted the coup essay. See here.


eric said...

I read the Perry column late last night, and tried to persuade myself it had to be some kind of misguided satire. It now appears to have been removed from the Newsmax site. I hope someone captured a copy.

liberal dissent said...

I remember some of the wingnuts fantasizing about a coup during the Clinton administration, too.

Anonymous said...

Darren, talk about synchronicity (or something, LOL). I was just about to write to you with a serious question about this idiocy: how can the wingnuts use the Constitution as their illogical(?) be all and end all justification of their wingnuttery?

I'm looking at the ad of JFK is a traitor published on the day of his assassination and reading all these "arguments" discussing his "abuses" of the Constitution -- and scratching my head. Not that I expect logic and reason from wingnuts, but isn't there a cogent and persuasive case to be made about the Constitution being a living document and subject to change (all the amendments, for example) when we evolve as the society? It was written 200+ years ago, for godsakes, the life was very different then. Its literal interpretation, seen in the wingnutty circles, but also in the more mainstream discourse on the American politics, is mind-boggling to me. It is almost as if we looked to the Bible for prescriptions on TV watching and Internet surfing. It isn't applicable or useful.

So my question is, shouldn't Constitutional scholars go to great lengths to enlighten people and correct the rigid (mis)interpretations of the document that do not do anyone good? (Not that it would make a dent in the wingnutty paranoia, but it would delegitimize, at least in the minds of its possible susceptible followers, the wingnuts' bizarre "arguments" that what they advocate and do is motivated by "defending the Constitution").

Anonymous said...

Oh, my... That right-wing website you reference in your second update, Darren... Welcome to The Tin-Foil Hat Society.

Holy crap. Idiocy is the preexisting condition in this country.

P.S. The word verification for my comment is "culte." Appropriately so, IMO.

Aeneas said...

Oddly enough, I read that so called article also. Have no idea who the 'wingnut' is, but I kicked myself for wasting time reading such nonesense. Honestly, unless we're studying alternate realities, we should not even spend one minute on this. I mean... his very scenario of a coup is idiotic.

Enough said.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

LS: I don't but thanks for pointing this out.

Elizabeth: There are limits to reasoning!

Aeneas: I starting reading the article because it made certain claims about the Constitution. I responded to it (despite being repulsed by idiocy) because this was one of those ideas that could have "stuck" without an early rebuttal -- like the "death panels."

liberal dissent said...

If I were Obama, I would have my press secretary, if asked about it, just sadly state that Perry's column was an insult to the brave men and women serving in the armed forces, for him to even suggest they would violate their oaths like that.

Real Time Analytics