Stacy Herbert, my partner on MaxKeiser.com just posted this excellent comment regarding John L. Perry -- former staff member of the LBJ and Carter administration -- call for 'bloodless' coup in the US. Strikingly, the rhetoric is exactly what the US spews here at home to rally around coups in South America. Now it's being used here at home.
Stacy: The article I posted earlier in the comments from Newsmax has now been removed from their site. But the story can be found here on Media Matters.
The article was written by John L. Perry, a former staff member of the LBJ and Carter administrtaions. Perry called for a 'bloodless' coup in the US. It would be 'non-violent' he said because the US is not a banana republic. And he claims to have inside knowledge that this is what certain military people are presently thinking.
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.
Of course, the reality is that Obama has not actually changed much policy from what Bush had introduced, including a doubling of the deficit, handing trillions to bankers with zero regulation and promise, in fact, of further 'de-regulation', an expansion of military adventures and of the police state, etc. The only issue that is slightly different is how they market their hand outs to health insurance companies guised as health care 'reform.' Obama has his $1 trillion over ten years for mandatory insurance, Bush had his 'Medicare' reform with a price tag at least twice that.
So, if Obama is so like Bush, then why the hysteria now?
I think the increasing number of shrill and panicked charges and wild conspiracies about an 'illegitimate' president and now (deleted) op-eds for coup are looking more and more like a page out of the neo-con / Military Industrial Complex handbook. It's exactly the process they use against other third world leaders (and let's face it, the US is now fast on the way to becoming one ). I often hear shrieks of Obama being surrounded by 'radical leftists' and 'Marxists' -- the very same propaganda codewords used by the military industrial complex when paving the way for popular support in overthrowing Latin American leaders (think Aristide or Zelaya). Clearly, much of the US population is almost Manchurian in responding to such codewords.
And to the shouters in the town hall 'radical leftist' probably means one thing, but, in truth, Obama is surrounded by Goldman Sachs bankers. While Goldman is demonstrably for redistribution of wealth, I hardly think their kind of redistribution qualifies as 'leftist.' So while shouters and screechers don't need evidence just codewords, I have to ask what are the powerful people behind the scenes really thinking? Of course, the MIC gets only about $1 trillion per year, but was always the favored industry . . . up until Clinton paved the way for a Goldman take over. Maybe the MIC doesn't like them getting $1.5 trillion? Who knows? But I'm sure it has a lot to do with the conversation about to take place tomorrow with Iran. A few extreme shrills want war and know that time and conversation will allow for evidence and reason to trump emotion and hysteria.
The shouters and screechers would probably welcome a coup (just as in Honduras a large percentage of the population is for it) and perhaps think the military will be on the side of their 50% and will only bash and incarcerate the other 50% of the population.
This is what happens when you no longer have a republic, but only a mere democracy.
They can make the population support anything. Anything.