But, says Bruce Walker at American Thinker, these fears are not likely to materialize. Here is his column. (or go here)
Some conservatives have begun to openly wonder if Obama is going to seize power in America. Would he want to do this? Perhaps so (a scary thought, but he has promised change.) No one dreamed that Carter, the worst president of the last century, wanted or planned to seize power. Clinton wanted to win power, but the worst anyone expected of Clinton was Huey Long bossism.For an alternative viewpoint (sort of) click here.
Obama rose in politics through the thoroughly corrupt one-party government of Chicago. His spiritual advisor sounds like a rabble-rousing storm trooper. His intellectual mentor, Saul Alinksy, like the Bolsheviks and Nazis, believed in state terrorism. If Obama wanted to follow their leads, could he? I believe not.
Once it became clear that Obama was acting without any pretense of constitutionality, he would need muscle to back him up. Yet the greatest source of that muscle, the United States Military, loathes Obama as much as he loathes them. He would need intelligence, yet his maltreatment of the CIA ensures that those operatives would toss more bananas peels in front of him than real information should he make an extraconstitutional move.
Obama would also need the police, yet the President’s comments about a Cambridge policeman, a member of what has to be among the most politically correct force in America, shows the natural antipathy between Obama and law enforcement officers. The police, “pigs,” to the crowd that Obama belonged to as a community organizer, cannot be a solid support of any seizure of power.
What about the civilian national security force promised by Obama during the campaign? Conservatives are much more likely to be veterans and own guns than leftists. The creation and coordination of a real civilian army would also profoundly antagonize all state and local police forces.
Our federal system still exists, although states’ rights have declined greatly, but state governments still exercise real power (as several governors demonstrated in rejecting stimulus funds.) Nazis, Soviets, and Fascists all had to first crush federalism before gaining absolute power. States founded America, something almost unique among nations – state governments still have a special role in our United States. Crushing states completely would be very hard and very risky.
Beginning a coup or a revolution from above, as some fear Obama may do, also presumes that the revolution will end in a certain direction. If Obama and his elitist cohorts began a revolution, it would surely end: but how? Not only are the military, the CIA, and the police generally disgusted with Obama, but the ideological sentiment of the American people is profoundly out of step with Obama.
In every single state of the nation, according to a recent Gallup Poll, conservatives outnumber liberals. Consistently over the last decade, including the most recent, Battleground Poll, sixty percent of Americans call themselves conservatives. It is impossible to imagine conservatives support a leftist coup or revolution from above.
But the problem for Obama would extend beyond that. Attempting something like a seizure of power could be expected to alienate vast numbers of moderates and many self-defined liberals as well. Probably three-quarters or more of Americans would oppose any practical effort to end democracy, suspend civil rights, or end the Constitution which was open and clear.
Even his political party would have nightmares about any attempt by Obama to seize political power. The consequences of failure, which would be likely, could be a conservative counter-revolution. More likely, though, would be an electoral nightmare for Democrats which would last for decades. This is why a seizure of power is unheard of in the English-speaking democracies of Britain, Canada, America, Australia, and New Zealand.
The British Parliament, in which the Labour Party has huge majorities, has the theoretical power to pass a law which ended the requirement for new elections at least every five years. The Labour Party could simply make its power permanent. This would not even be an unconstitutional seizure of power. Yet no one believes Prime Minister Brown would ever propose that or that he could persuade his party to accept that. Even though he will be thoroughly trounced in the next general election, there will be an election in about nine months.
Politicians need elections just like lawyers need lawsuits. Without contested elections, Congress becomes as irrelevant as the Reichstag after Hitler got the Enabling Act passed. So even Obama's own party, or much of it, would oppose a seizure of power.
Finally, if Obama attempted an effective seizure of power and provoked a real national revolution, the repercussions for Democrats and the left in a successful counter-revolution could lead to a second American revolution in which vast amounts of political power could be explicitly returned to the states, the role of government in our lives precisely defined, the semi-divine status of judges overthrown, and power returned to the people.
Could the leftist choke hold on the media prevent a new revolution? Well, the left has tried to stop the Tea Party movement and the Town Hall protests with no success at all. Polling data shows the increasing ineffectiveness of the establishment media in controlling American’s thinking and actions.
Obama is not going to try to seize power, because he would fail utterly and damn his precious radicalism for decades in America. What he will do is what his predecessors on the left have done: acquire power through Fabian tactics; win one battle (like increasing union bosses’ power) and then move to the next lever of power in government and society. That is the dangerous path we have been on for many decades. We need to fight the very real enemies, not imaginary ones.
4 comments:
The last people to stage a serious plot against the government was The Business Plot.
In short, the were wealthy, they were fascists and they disapproved of big government.
Obama cannot "stage a coup" because he is already in power. The only people capable of staging a coup would be those opposed to Obama.
And I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. In fact I think the chances of a conservative assassinating Obama is a real likelihood (esp since it was conservatives who blew up that government building in Oklahoma City)
You are so full of mindless cliches and misinformation that you are almost a caricature. I am starting to think you are someone' troll-bot.
Look at your second sentence: In short, the were wealthy, they were fascists and they disapproved of big government.
A "fascist" who disapproves of big government is an oxymoron. Fascism loves big business too, as long as it has big government in charge of it. If anyone in this conversation is a fascist it is Barack Obama who is looking more and more like Mussolini every day.
Now let's look at your third paragraph. Obama cannot "stage a coup" because he is already in power. The only people capable of staging a coup would be those opposed to Obama.
If you had actually read anything in the post . . . with comprehension . . . then you would know that the kind of coup being spoken of is that of a President taking over and throwing out the constitution. You still cannot seem to get it through your head that (a) this is a republic, not a democracy, not a monarchy, (b) that we are governed not by any set of "rulers" (Obama is not in "power") but by a set of laws--a constitution, and (c) any elected government official placing himself above the constitution or setting it aside for any reason would be staging a coup.
Now let's look at the really asinine thing you said at the bottom: And I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. In fact I think the chances of a conservative assassinating Obama is a real likelihood (esp since it was conservatives who blew up that government building in Oklahoma City)
"Conservatives" did not blow up the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. It was Tim McVeigh working with an accomplice. They were not conservatives, they were conspiracy nuts, the kind who believe that the world is run by a bunch of Jewish bankers and that World War II was staged so that more oil could be sold by Exxon/Mobil. They were loons, my friend. And if you want to start counting loons, you will find there are way more of them on the left than on the right. To lay the OKC bombing in the lap of "conservatives" is a calumnous lie and you should be better than that.
The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful, and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control.
You agree with that?
Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly.
It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will. And I will because not only did I swear to, but I believe in what it stands for in every bit of my heart, soul and being.
Guess who said those wonderful things?
OSO quotes Tim McVeigh: The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful, and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control.
Then OSO asks: You agree with that?
I agree with the fact that we have been turning incrementally socialist for the last 100 years. But, I do not believe that "government" as an entity, actively fears the fact that the populace owns guns. I do think that there are some in government who would like to take away the right to own guns (they reside on the Left) and I do think that the founders of this country believed that an armed populace was absolutely essential to the maintenance of individual liberty. The second amendment protects the first.
OSO quotes McVeigh again: Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly.
It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will. And I will because not only did I swear to, but I believe in what it stands for in every bit of my heart, soul and being.
Then OSO asks: Guess who said those wonderful things?
Um, Tim McVeigh?
My question for you, OSO, is why you are so dull as to not be able to distinguish between the words of a revolutionary and those of individuals working within the system to change things?
Here is the absurdity of your logic illustrated for you:
OSO and Joseph Stalin both believe in large, socialistic government programs and that the enactment of these programs will make for better society. Are Joseph Stalin and OSO the same then? If OSO were to obtain power in Australia could we expect mass political torture and execution to commence? The idea is no more ridiculous than your comparison of Tim McVeigh and the average American conservative.
I might agree with Tim McVeigh on a lot of things. We might like the same kind of ice cream. We might both gripe about the post office. We might both think the government is sliding into socialism. We might both think the 2nd amendment is important.
But for you to compare me to a murderer of children and other innocents, a man guilty of horrendous sedition, based on those things is asinine and morally decrepit at the same time.
The hypocrisy and blindness of this kind of thinking is blatant and appalling. It is the worst form of negative stereotyping and it always seems to come from people who claim to be thinkers but in practice do not even know how. Their logical ineptness is only exceeded by their ideological bigotry.
I'd like to be nice to you, OSO, but your bigotry and blindness are inexcusable.
Honestly, are you that stupid? How are you any smarter than Tim McVeigh himself? I put you both in the same category when it comes to stupidity. No, really. Look at those quotations and the flaws in his thinking and then look at your own ridiculous assertions. How are you any better as a thinker?
I thought about demonstrating for you the flaws in what Tim McVeigh had to say and what he did, but why should I have to defend myself against such blundering? Do your own homework.
Post a Comment