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. [A litany of the other things that these “top military officers” might be seeing appears here.]
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do? …
[D]o they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
And the answer:
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.
Now, so far, it’s still (barely) plausible to maintain, as the author does, that “[d]escribing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.” But then he says this:
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”
Wow. I mean, wow. That is seriously out-there, insanely extreme stuff that doesn’t exactly seem in keeping with what most Massachusetts voters are looking for in their next Senator.
Brown’s ad is not a Google ad or some other automated service that places ads you might not expect on your site (like the Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter ads that Google has decided should run periodically on BMG). It’s a banner ad purchased by the Brown campaign specifically to run on Newsmax — as we can tell by the URL of the “donate” page to which the ad directs the click-through.
To be fair to Brown, he probably did not know about every bit of Newsmax’s content when he bought the ad, and maybe he didn’t realize that regular Newsmax columnists would prefer to see the Joint Chiefs running the country instead of the president. Well, now he knows. So, Senator Brown, what do you think about your advertising dollars supporting a columnist — who, by the way, is “a regular columnist for Newsmax.com” — writing approvingly of a military coup in this country? Do you intend to ask Newsmax to be sure that your ad does not run next to this column?
I dislike Brown as much as the next guy, but this is a silly gotcha. I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask someone to read and approve every column on a web site they run an ad on.
But with Newsmax, this isn’t just an isolated column. That fits entirely within their extremist oeuvre. Scott Brown is helping to fund that dreck with his ad dollars. It is not completely unreasonable to ask him whether he agrees with their editorial stances.
if you’re trying to appeal to Mass moderates and independents, this isn’t the way to go about it.
I wouldn’t fault him for putting this ad on newsmax, his campaign simply does not have time to map out a methodical advertising scheme. However I would fault him for continuing to buy advertising space from them, and expect him to discontinue his current ads there.
<
p>I do not expect pols to never make mistakes, even if after the fact the mistake is seemingly obvious. One thing I do look for is a pol who is not afraid to admit and fix their own mistakes. And if he does do that I think I would probably like him better than if he had never put the ad up in the first place.
<
p>On the other hand I do want to say that I think putting this on the front page is making a mountain out of a mole hill, and is the same sort of tactic that we Dems often fault Repubs for employing (Think Bill Ayers connections/ Obama’s ACORN ties). What should be up for discussion are the policy positions that actually come out of Brown’s mouth, not this kind of ridiculous guilty by association stuff.
Funny you should mention acorn, Scott Brown is actually just now trying to play that silly card on Coakley and Mass dems:
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
Brown is trying to go extreme right here. What does Coakley have to do with ACORN? Does Brown have any illegal activity in the MA offices that he wishes pursued.
<
p>No?
<
p>Then what’s our “huggable” legislator doing.
Even if both the Republicans left in the state vote for Scott Brown, the guy hasn’t a chance. This sounds like a dirty trick time and why waste a dirty trick?
<
p>Remember when Billy was trying for senate president? Two more qualified candidates before him got unsolicited contributions from gangsters. The donations were leaked to the press, the hopefuls returned the donations to the mob and Whitey’s brother made senate president because nobody wanted that august body to be linked with crime.
<
p>Ah, politics and the art of deception…
<
p>
Where Mr. Vidal opines that there wil be a military take over of USA.
<
p>The Brown campaign bought space–they had no idea where it was going to be presented to the public (although they should have). I would gather that the ad was placed looking for donations rather than votes because probably 20 people in MA read Newsmax. It is unlikely that Brown would want his name appearing on Daily Kos (the antithetical of Newsmax.)
<
p>Who cares?
Please tell me all about the Daily Kos front-pagers advocating the overthrow of the Bush government by extralegal means, even though many of them felt that government to be illegitimate.
<
p>There are some loons among DKos commentators, as among BMG commentators. But there is no comparison between the level of extremism at Daily Kos and Newsmax. Hint: Kos’ agenda is to organize progressive Democrats to win elections.
As I read of Pittsburgh and how the rights of Americans were trampled there without public outcry, and hear the President (the Constitutional Scholar) tear up the Constitution without public outcry, I fear he is right.
<
p>Yeah, all political campaigns run through agencies that handle advertising. The agencies are apolitical and serve to make themselves a buck. So they would only look up advertising prospects by going through a database and dividing the money amongst popularity vs. cost.
Ads pop up on BMG from time to time that definitely do not jive with our views. They are random based on search words. Otherwise, shouldn’t the campaign be sticking to state media websites to place the ads under their control?
Of course. Even if the ad were served up by Google or similar, Newsmax would get money for every click on the ad and that money would be ultimately coming from Scott Brown’s campaign. That is how Google ads work.
<
p>That said, it looks like Newsmax handles their own skyscraper ads.
The Newsmax ad is not.
If your ads are chockablock with the odious or nutty, it’s up to you to explain and then distance yourself if you so choose. The burden is on Brown to do this.
TPM has more…
I just emailed TPM to let them know about the Scott Brown wrinkle and his response here.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Our campaign’s web ads are targeted at an audience that will find my pro-jobs and anti-tax message appealing. Obviously, we don’t review or endorse editorial content, or the opinions of columnists, on websites where we advertise. However, I’m also a proud member for nearly three decades of the National Guard. I’ve sacrificed time away from family to perform my military duties and obligations. I respect the chain of command and my commander in chief, and I find the John Perry column offensive and insulting to all military members, who like me are loyal and duty-bound. For that reason, I’ve instructed my campaign staff to take down the Newsmax ad.
Good answer 🙂
<
p>It’s unfortunate that your base is found on a site where such views are endorsed.
Are you taking your ads off of Newsmax completely, or just off of the article (which was pulled anyway)?
While on many issues, you and I will agree to disagree, your response here was responsible and showed integrity.
<
p>I hope the rest of your campaign also takes the road of integrity, and avoids fear mongering and negative campaigning of the sort done by Kerry Healy’s campaign, which smeared and attacked the entire defense bar, the right to counsel, and the rule of law itself in my opinion.
As a veteran of Operation Desert Storm, served as an Infantry Team Leader with the 2/187th, I share your opinion that the column was “offensive and insulting to all military members, who like me are loyal and duty-bound.”
<
p>Ne Desit Virtus
It was an opinion and a hypothetical. The fact that there are grade schools in USA having the children singing “worship” songs to “dear leader” is reality!
Now there is something to worry about.
Educate yourself about the Fox story (hint: may require looking at non-Fox sources) before parroting the latest faux outrage.
… pieces can and sometimes are offensive. If being an opinion piece is all it is, that has no bearing on it’s offensiveness.
the US military can solve the Obama “problem” by treasonous coup? Try this on: I’m of the opinion that you rape your daughter while your wife has sex with a priest. It is opinion and hypothetical but is it any less offensive? I think not.
By this time next year some of the folks here will be smearing you reputation and that of everyone in your immediate family. Every act or word you have uttered will warrant disparagement. Nothing you have ever accomplished,
including your military service, will warrant even a token good word. It’s politics as usual in MA. As I had the temerity to state to Rep. Steven Lynch on one occasion—-
” the dishonesty that appears as day to day business on Beacon Hill should result in the imprisonment of most solons in this state.” Rep. Lynch didn’t smile—but he never forgot my name.
Scott should be losing sleep over the fact that his people think that it’s still 1999, and people are dumb enough to believe in that “pro-jobs, anti-tax” campaign line. Romney and Bush tried that, and it’s the reason Democrats are running the show.
<
p>But if Brown wants to position himself as their ideological inheritor, he’s welcome to do so.
Mr. Scott Brown,
<
p>You’ve been busy campaigning for US Senate, representing your constituents in the Commonwealth and serving in the reserves so I will give you some time to get up to speed. I would not expect you to have spent the time necessary to investigate the facts about ACORN and how public opinion is being manipulated to make ACORN the latest GOP wedge issue.
<
p>As an officer and an attorney in the Judge Advocate Generals office of the reserves, I’m sure you recognize the imperative of due process, of vetting all the facts and conducting a fair hearing before pronouncing a decision and meting out punishment. Otherwise, it would be prejudicial and our sense of fairness and justice in this country would be no better than some third world dictator.
<
p>Recetly at BMG, we have had a series of posts about ACORN which I ask you to review here and here.
<
p>Republicans exploit how the Fox News/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh leadership trains its protesting followers to focus their resentment and anxieties on largely powerless and downtrodden factions like ACORN, while ignoring, and even revering, the outright pillaging by virtually omnipotent corporate interests that own and control the Government.
<
p>If after you have come up to speed on the issue, you decide not to withdrawal your legislation that de-funds ACORN in the Commonwealth, please explain in detail your reasoning.
<
p>Until then, you can expect political statements like the one below to pop up on popular blog sites in the Commonwealth as a means of drawing your and voters attention to your complicity in exploiting a wedge issue at the expense of the largely powerless and most downtrodden factions of our society.
<
p>
I cringe.
<
p>Without addressing the validity of your comment, I can say that this a.) hijacks a thread where Senator Brown was good enough to respond in a thoughtful and dignified manner and b.) includes a picture that is tasteless given the quality of Senator Brown’s response.
<
p>Neil, I like much of what you have to say and like to 6 rate your comments, but frankly this is embarrassing and is an example of tactics I would expect from EaBo Clipper. There’s nothing wrong with questioning Senator Brown on ACORN, but this does not advance your position.
but it is not any harsher than the campaign by the GOP to focus resentment and anxieties on largely powerless and downtrodden factions like ACORN. Do you honestly thing any of the words I offer would get Scott Brown’s his attention? Absolutely not. This he will see. And this he can choose to respond to.
<
p>Scott did not cite a single specific allegation, never mind a specific indictment or conviction of wrong-doing by ACORN or ACORN employees in Massachusetts stating only,
<
p>
<
p>If Scott can cite bona fide indictments and prosecutions never mind convictions, well then I’m all ears. Otherwise, we might as well be a third-world banana republic where the standard of evidence is video broadcast on party news television.
<
p>
<
p>If ACORN is doing an effective job counseling homeowners facing possible foreclosure and first-time home buyers then why would it be in the interest of the Commonwealth to de-fund this service on the basis of videos recorded in Baltimore and elsewhere and aired on Fox News with breathless commentary by outraged pundits like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly?
Scott Brown’s attacks on ACORN is the worst kind of politics because no one is standing up for the least powerful and downtrodden people in our society, and the attack is prejudicial, based on amateur video not an indictment or a conviction, or in the case of Massachusetts not even one report of malfeasance.
<
p>When Scott was in college he decided to pose for some nudie mags. I’m using the images he made to get his attention and at the same time poking fun that his attack on ACORN is a fig leaf for his own indiscretion. If he withdraws the legislation then the young buff Scott Brown images will be shelved.
<
p>New Image Here
<
p>Will Scott Brown respond to questions about HIS CHARGES?
<
p>
<
p>1) What are the substantive facts regarding the indictments and prosecutions of ACORN employees and ACORN as an organization around the nation?
<
p>2) Why do you recommend we act now instead of waiting for a verdict?
<
p>3) Can you explain how those cases reflect on the culpability of ACORN employees and the organization in Massachusetts?
<
p>
For having the misfortune of having an ad on Glenn Beck?
Are you lumping yourself in with us “losers” now? How droll.
I love my local CVS! I went out of my way to patronize Shaws yesterday.
Nothing local. Washington Independent story.
All those links and not one back to BMG?
the has been running ads on Newsmax.com one, a link to this thread?
This article does not attach to Scott Brown. He was notified about his association with it and unequivocally both separated from it and condemned it.
<
p>That said, this cannot be left unexamined:
<
p>
<
p>Taking it down does not hold John L Perry and Newsmax.com accountable for their expression. With rights come responsibilities. We should be hammering John L Perry and Newsmax.com over the head with this and demanding accountability.
Scott Brown? Will he?
Via email:
<
p>
I think his response is reasonable. Of course, he chose, as you point out, this dance partner. Sometimes ya get a little on ya.
<
p>Newsmax in all its forms is an abomination and is likely one of the major reasons why the secret service doesn’t sleep at night.
<
p>I have to say as a veteran, though, I find this talk appalling. Who the hell do these people think they are? I’m at a loss for words, really.
<
p>I will say, though, that after spending eight years distancing myself from the military under the Bush years, I’m hoping that a rehabilitation of service and what it means to be in the United States Armed Forces will occur under the Obama administration. I’m not holding my breath, though, as I think we may have passed the point of no return. Our role as international bully is indisputable.
<
p>That said, I’ll know it’s safe to say out loud I was in the Army when the United States contributes meaningful numbers to U.N. Peacekeeping Forces around the world. Until then, no, and the Armed Services will remain a haven for sexual deviants, religious zealots, and antisocial miscreants as a result.
I hereby pledge alliance to our new military overlords
The last time a group of people tried to take over this country by military force, it was aimed at a Democratic president loved by the people as well…
<
p>
to this?
Fortunately, two-time Medal of Honor recipient Butler was a true patriot. He also wrote a short book titled War is a Racket. Recommended reading.
Mind you, one of the motors of that effort was Al Smith, also a Democrat. The GOP was utterly irrelevant at the time.
was supposedly involved:
I remember reading that Prescott was accused in all of this, but couldn’t find an online source to back it up.
like later this month, who is who and who says what is going to have much less relevant in daily survival.