Captain's Quarters -

Wow. Hopefully, this is the minority report from that end of the spectrum.

The stupidity of idiots such as Lewis never ceases to amaze me. All I have to say to the Lewis and his cohorts in the lunatic fringe is this: Be very careful what you wish for, because one day you might just get it. These morons fail to understand that if the 'man on horseback' does come, they're the first people that are going to get rounded up, stood up against a wall, and shot--or hanged--a rope is reusable. I would suggest that Lewis and the rest of his ilk read about the following individuals and events: Sulla, Julius Caesar, Cromwell, the 18th Brumaire and Napoleon's coup, and I can go on.

The Leftist intellectuals like to preen that they're the ones that are going to be calling the shots, but it won't take long until they find themselves on some purge list drawn up by the modern equivalent of Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus.

Ignorant morons--the lot of them.

This is a hilarious post. What does he think, that after Pace supposedly arrests Bush, that Cheney would then leave power so that Nancy Pelosi becomes President? And since the arrest and removal would not be under the impeachment powers, acting President Cheney could immediately pardon President W, after which Pace would be immediately hauled off to Guantanamo. (Which I think is the real purpose of the advice. Get rid of the people making progress in Iraq by any means necessary.)As Mark Levin rightly says, liberalism is stupidity personified.

Even as a lefty, I'm not fond of Huffington Post because they tend to attract freaks like this guy.

That was more like a Martin & Lewis routine. Just how stupid are these people?

lefties love juntas - for the common good.

proof? they admire chavez. and still love fidel.

what's insane about this huffpost is the thought that someone like pace would even consider something like this.

more proof the left is utterly deranged.

they are troofers
who believe in AGW,
and think the economy sucks.

OF COURSE JERKS LIKE THIS WOULD FAVOR A COUP - WHILE SIMULTANEOULY COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW THE GWOT HAS ROBBED THEM OF THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES.

sheeeeeeesh.

Does anyone now doubt the growing fascism of the Netroots?

You beat me to the punch commandero with the Dean Martin & Jerry Lewis line!! Bravo!

I did want to point out that the honorable Martin Lewis featured by this compelling piece of journalism, is the same Martin Lewis that offered these two previous articles on HuffPo:

- " Abortion Ban & Virginia Massacre: Don't Forget To Thank The Nader Voters "

- " Chris Matthews' Penis Envy "

HuffPo, again scores a direct hit with compelling journalism! hahahaha

Martin Lewis is a British humorist, so I wouldn't worry too much about him.

He used to work with Beatles PR man Derek Taylor, so I'm sure the drugs kicked in a long time ago.

Martin Lewis is a British-born, Hollywood-based humorist, commentator, producer and radio host.

Just making sure this bit of irony - he's foreign born - isn't lost.

But, most of the Military voted for Bush in 2004, no? Bush got something like 65% and Kerry got 35%.

Perhaps the BDS nuts should know this..

Yeah, an unhinged post. But it was ever thus. Anyone catch the latest 'Mad Men' (AMC), in which a 60's underground club is visited? Naturally, the 'daring' entertainment includes peans of praise for Kruschev and Fidel.

I hadn't seen this new site design. It's great, a real improvement.

I do not know whether Martin Lewis is being sarcastic or not. However, if he is serious about his suggestion for a coup, then he should be arrested and deported immediately as an undesirable alien.

chsw

Why has the left gone insane?

Iraq? "Domestic Spying?" Gitmo? Abu Grab?

Nope.

Make no mistake, it's still all about Florida 2000.

Utterly bizarre.

If it's really true that President Bush has committed serious crimes, warranting his arrest and removal from office... isn't there some other channel by which we remove such presidents?

Perhaps he's even seen it suggested on a few million bumper stickers on the cars of his ideological brethren??

Isn't it, perhaps, currently in the hands of the Democratic Party???

And he's proposing that it should instead be done by an extra-Constitutional military coup.

Deranged.

And I guess (following this, er logic) that if Gen. Pace doesn't arrest Bush then he too would be in dereliction of duty and warrants being arrested.

Then, the next Chairman of the JCS would be called to arrest Bush and if he doesn't he too would be in dereliction.... et cetera, et cetera.

It's always funny watching the Left play army.

SMG

This is just a natural evolution of the Left's calling on the military to ignore the Congressionally-mandated "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and instead implement a new "gay friendly" policy. If you truly believe that "the ends justify the means", then a dictatorship that agrees with your policies is preferable to a democracy that doesn't.

I wonder whether he has just committed sedition? That is a very serious crime, and it isn't "protected speech" under the First Amendment.

He is openly and actively advocating armed overthrow of the government.

Well, I wonder if this fills now the legal definition of sedition. Because there is a padded cell somewhere with his name on it.

El Coqui

See? Liberals DO support our troops.

Seriously, though, perhaps we should explore this idea. Yes, there are major constitutional and practical problems with it but I don't think that should stop us from considering it.

General Pace, a distinguished Marine who swore an oath more than 30 years ago to uphold and defend the Constituion of the United States, who has now served dutifully in three wars under the command of at least three different Presidents, will now simply disavow all that he holds sacred and dear, strap on his sidearm and march purposefully to the White House to remove the man sitting behind the desk, by force of arms if he refuses to go willingly.

Yes, this I can see happening.

This is just a natural evolution of the Left's calling on the military to ignore the Congressionally-mandated "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and instead implement a new "gay friendly" policy. If you truly believe that "the ends justify the means", then a dictatorship that agrees with your policies is preferable to a democracy that doesn't.

Arianna, a once pretty Greek lady, who married a homosexual, so her beauty went unspent in her marriage ...

As to her attempts to make her husband a senator? That failed, too.

Now, she wants the LEFT to get "military?" What's she gonna use to "arrest Bush?" Have all the other BDS "ideas" flittered away, already?

The day the LEFT gets more than a few military recruits, they'll find Huffington's plans fall a bit short for "execution purposes."

For the left, in America, it was a major error NOT to have the services of the military already "invested" in your program. Ain't gonna happen, now. And, Wesley Clark's not gonna find himself president, either.

What a bunch of kooks.

Oh, and congress-critters, in general, are less well liked than ever.

Ya know, even the media's gotten lame. You can't even get a "take-over" by the pundits on people's TV tubes. Even if this got "announced!" All that would follow would be people, laughing.

Is HuffPo running a test to see if wet dreams actually can fly? Does she beat these things with broomsticks?

The really funny part is that this proposed action would leave GWB's civilian powers intact, somehow. One of those civilian powers is, of course, the pardon power. GWB could then legally pardon himself of any charge sheet and take up again his CiC duties, the first order of which would be some rapid promotions, retirements, and firings of an officer corps that would tolerate this.

A President is head of the executive. Unless we want to decouple the military from the civilian government (bad idea) the President must either be entirely removed or left to serve out his term no matter how they might annoy you ideologically. This is a roadmap for coup after coup and a politicized military. That would be awful and this guy's Huffpo posting privileges are an embarrassment to the rest of the crowd.

I'm not going to bother joining huffington to comment, so I'll comment here.

Martin says explicitly in the article that he's not endorsing a military coup. That's obvious obfuscation.

Martin bases his proposition on "The United States Code: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X, Section 934." This is a very small part of the Code; Martin fails to incorporate into his reasoning several other portions of the code explicitly defining who is covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In particular, review Section 101. Note also section 801

Then review Section 802 (Persons Subject to this Chapter), right under 801.

Then ask yourself whether Martin in his fixated mood understands any of this.

Shipmates,

Well, to be candid, the author of the piece has actually comitted a felony by calling for the armed overthrow of the Government. That, my friends, is not only a felony, but in a time of war is punishable by death.

I would here call upon competant authorities to arrest the author and anyone who allowed that piece to be published and bring them to trial to answer for their actions.

There certainly are limits to free speech, and that article crossed them by a wide margin.

Respects,

Sounds like Mr Lewis has been smoking his socks.

gary fouse

Lewis's modest proposal is, as stated by others, utterly unconstitutional. Furthermore, what makes Lewis think the Armed Forces, even if it did take up his suggestion, wouldn't morph into a Frankenstein's monster and cart off other politicians like, oh say, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Hmmmmmmmmm?

I also chuckled at Lewis's breathless reference to General Pace's decorations. Need we remind him that Pace received several of those for his service in Vietnam: y'know, for allegedly "killing innocent Vietnamese men, women, and children" and all that rot.

So let me get this straight: Lewis is advocating, in effect, that Pace, a "probable war criminal" according to the traditional view of leftists (like Lewis), forcibly arrest the President, another "war criminal" because, you see, Pace is a "good" war criminal and Bush is a "bad" one. Go figure that one out.

One last note on the decorations business: Lewis appears to be incredibly lazy in his research. I think a thorough check will reveal that Bush is, in fact, eligible to receive (albeit probably retroactively) various Texas ANG and even Air Force awards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awards_and_decorations_of_the_National_Guard#Texas

Lewis is particularly stupid in his automatically equating lots of medals with a) integrity and b) competence. I spent 20 years in the Marines and Air Force and can testify that some folks sporting chestfuls of ribbons were total wastes (I knew one married Lieutenant Colonel who screwed anything in a skirt) while others, with little or none, were recognized experts in their respective occupations.

Wait there's more

Here is another spellbinding quote from another poster over there today dissing Hillary 

 

An attack "will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again"? It's the New York Post, but the quote is obviously correct or we would have heard early push back from the Clinton camp on it.

We haven't worked all these years, including during the '06 elections, to prove Democratic prowess on national security to hear one of our leading candidates for president talk trash about that image. To say effectively that our foreign policy bona fides are less in times of national peril, while using rhetoric that favors the fearmongering Republican foreign policy supremacy script. It is a gift to the other side. So why serve up a Republican line? So candidate Clinton can say she's beaten the wingnuts back before and she can do it again, especially when our vulnerabilities are tapped. Underground message: She's strong. It's just the Democratic image that is not, but not to worry, Clinton can save us.

It might just be that dry British humor thing.

Oh. My. God.

Even during the Clinton administration, when so many conservatives on that fringe suffered from CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome), I don't recall ever hearing one of them advocating a military coup to remove him from office.

I think we have a world record-setter, folks. The Left has officially gone farther over the edge than the Right.

The Left SO doesn't want to go there.

After the shenanigans Gore pulled getting military ballots disqualified in 2000 (I was working on a military installation at the time), there were a LARGE number of people saying he'd need to hire his own crew for Air Force One, and speculating that his election by disqualifying their votes just might justify their refusing to obey his orders. Now, one might expect this out of 18 year old enlisted, or butterbars fresh out of school; there's a reason why young and stupid are synonyms.

One does not expect this from captains, majors, and colonels, nor yet from Master Sergeants and Chiefs with 20+ years of service.

Hate to say it, leftards, but they aren't on your side.

Memo TO: Hugh Beaumont

Please note, there have been 3 separate ALL State recounts done of Florida's 2000 vote. And, Bush beat Algore, each and every time.

Of course, the Left's been in a dither since then. On that, I agree.

They went and curled themselves up with thousands of lawyers. And, they have every intention of stealing elections. What's needed? Low turnouts.

Still Hugh Hewitt, who is also a lawyer, got it right, in 2004. When he published a book, "that if lots of people vote, instead of staying home, then the Bonkeys can't steal elections.

Still, they may think they can do it with "gimmicky" computers? This did give the edge, in 1988, to the elder Bush, in New Hampshire.

It's one of the reasons that the left is going crazy; seeing as they do the American way of wanting to rest controls away from Iowa and New Hampshire.

It's just ain't all that easy to tamper with the Wills of the People!

By the way, where's the advantage to HuffPo? Even though you're talking about that site, I didn't go and give them any business.

The Net keeps us free from having to visit the moonbats.

"General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?"

"Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no."

"General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Martin just asks us to substitute "GWB" for "Communist".

I can understand why Martin would want Gen. Pace
to protect "our precious bodily fluids" from GWB.

I'm not totally sure Gen. Pace would agree that's his "role".

But, it's too late for Martin.
GWB has "sapped and impurified" the "precious bodily fluid" (water) in his brain cavity.

I KNEW those tinfoil hats were no DAMN GOOD ! ! !

Let's just say that I have been involved in formulating a government's response to many of what must be called "intra-tribal political disputes." In most of them, the party out of power eventually gets to the point where they would be perfectly happy to see the "tribe" totally destroyed if that is what it takes to remove from office the party in power.

Why?

Because that creates the vacuum of leadership and government in order for those who were out of power to seize power.

"And the men who stirred us on,
sit in judgment of our own,
they decide,
and the shotgun sings the song."

As Instie says:

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Let's just say that I have been involved in formulating a government's response to many of what must be called "intra-tribal political disputes." In most of them, the party out of power eventually gets to the point where they would be perfectly happy to see the "tribe" totally destroyed if that is what it takes to remove from office the party in power.

Why?

Because that creates the vacuum of leadership and government in order for those who were out of power to seize power.

"And the men who stirred us on,
sit in judgment of our own,
they decide,
and the shotgun sings the song."

As Instie says:

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

I think we have a world record-setter, folks. The Left has officially gone farther over the edge than the Right.

Ya think? What about when Thomas Sowell wrote recently at the National Review that "When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup."

"Even during the Clinton administration, when so many conservatives on that fringe suffered from CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome), I don't recall ever hearing one of them advocating a military coup to remove him from office."

Ahh, I did... ;)

This is so ridiculous. I mean really, don't these people have anything else to do?

Unbelievable? On the contrary, it's all too believable. I hereby, and with good cheer, nominate you for the Capt. Louis Renault award for being shocked, shocked(!) that liberals would behave in such an insanely unconstitutional manner. After all, such folks love Fidel Castro and virtually every other dictatorial thug on the planet. Is it really such a stretch to imagine that they would be fond of their favorite thug's tactics?

I'm reminded of the Averroist heretics of the University of Paris, who wasted their lives "proving" such concepts as "God cannot create the world" or that "the soul is dependent on the material body and mortal", not because they really had faith that these were true, but because they were professional debaters without responsibility and had more fun, more pride, more status among their own clique, in "proving" nonsense than defending their Faith as revealed. As Umberto Eco put it, they had succumbed "to the pleasures of argument".

Lewis knows this is not true. He knows it is not going to happen. For those two reasons, it is safe to publish for the amusement of sophisticated Lefties who can "compartmentalize" between what they truly hope for, and what is pleasant to say. Only neocon troglodytes like the Religious Right, which is forever saying what it really means, could fail to get that. How tiresome! It goes right over their heads.

Life would be easier if BDS sufferers just grunted and howled, instead of vocalizing. But they do op-eds in their delirium, and it's best to let the hallucinatory episodes pass unnoticed.

Ahhhh, xray, got a link?

Anyway, being from Greece, Huffie probably thinks coups by generals are the normal way of changing th government.

For balance, I'll say something positive about him.

He's funnier than Al Franken. Best I can do.

See:
Martin Lewis at Chicago Beatlefest 1997
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6b0IGPq6ds

Why are you surprised? These, after all, are the same people who have cheered on CIA employees sabotaging Bush Administration efforts in the GWOT.

CIA overthrowing the results of elections in South America = "Bad". CIA doing it in the US = "Good", at least it is so long as the elections were won by Republicans.

I'm not a Leftist because in America the only "principle" leftists believe in is "power to us, and those who claim to agree with us." This is just more of that.

The Yell,

So it's a joke? Wow, sure fooled those netroots over on huffpost who are responding to him...

"prove Democratic prowess on national security"

That reminds me of the old Tom Lehrer song, "Fight Fiercely Harvard".

just two questions.

when is the FBI going to collect this festered rectum?

can we come and watch?

and cheer?

ok three.
C

The left has not gone insane.

They started out that way.

Stock market commentators have an ethical responsibility to disclose their interests, if any, in securities upon which they comment. Those advocating radical regime change should, likewise, disclose just where they believe they'll find themselves positioned when the new king or queen is crowned.

In some cases, such as for those agitating for socialism, you'd find that the advocates assume that they--or those remarkably similar or sympathetic to them--would occupy the places of power and/or prestige while others would be put in their place. It is difficult to imagine a socialist Ivy League professor assuming he or she will be anything less than an Ivy League professor or, possibly, a well-placed bureaucrat after the revolution. Few reckon seriously with the possibility that they might be reassigned to the salt mines under the new scheme.

This call for military "justice" achieves altogether new depths as an example of policy prescriptions rife with delusional self-interest. I don't think a Republican president would lose nearly the sleep that a Democratic would if men and women in uniform were roving up and down Pennsylvania Avenue seeking to dispense justice.

Then, again, if General Pace spends much time reading the Huffington Post, we've got bigger problems...

To be fair, I heard stuff like this from the mouth-breathing right during Clinton's years. However, it was always mumbled by one of the kookier members of the group and as an unserious wish. It was never, ever splayed across the screen of what purports to be a serious journal of socio-political commentary, and as a serious proposal to boot.

M-L is bonkers.

I would not be surprised to see Mr. Lewis being paid a visit from the Secret Service to discuss his post. These guys always pay particular attention to all extra-legal or extra-Constitutional ways to remove a standing President (The legal ways being the loss of an election and impeachment).

And for any trolls out there worried about the "chilling" effect on Mr. Lewis, may I remind of this: When Bill Clinton was President, Sen. Jesse Helms, a Constitutional Officer at the time, made a joke that Clinton shouldn't visit some parts of North Carolina. Senator Helms received a visit from those very serious men from the Department of Treasury. The Secret Service don't care who POTUS is, but they care about threats no matter who they come from and how benign they are.

There were some musings that perhaps Clinton could be relieved of the presidency because the UCMJ forbids adultery and he was Commander in Chief. The Left howled at that (and rightfully so) because Clinton was a civillian in charge of the military. For one of them to argue the reverse here means that he feels that Clinton should have been removed from office.

Geez Captain,I don't think complete ignorance is at work here at all.
What I DO think is at work is complete,utter stupidity that the American left is so accomplished at showing,and occasionally,as now,spewing out their pie holes.
I went to(SHUDDER)public schools in the 50s and 60s and I had the good fortune to have civics and history teachers who still believed in actually educating their students rather than indoctrinating them and I knew that the military couldn't arrest the President that far back.
I mean,if you read the the textbooks available then you will find most,if not all,of your arguments in them.
Of course,after I left high school in 1969 and refused to go to college because of the communist and socialist influence,they may have changed the textbooks.
Perhaps if we emailed this person a copy of the Constitution with a strong recommendation to read it,he might straighten out.
You think?

Until that happens,he is just another left-leaning moron.

Geez Captain,I don't think complete ignorance is at work here at all.
What I DO think is at work is complete,utter stupidity that the American left is so accomplished at showing,and occasionally,as now,spewing out their pie holes.
I went to(SHUDDER)public schools in the 50s and 60s and I had the good fortune to have civics and history teachers who still believed in actually educating their students rather than indoctrinating them and I knew that the military couldn't arrest the President that far back.
I mean,if you read the the textbooks available then you will find most,if not all,of your arguments in them.
Of course,after I left high school in 1969 and refused to go to college because of the communist and socialist influence,they may have changed the textbooks.
Perhaps if we emailed this person a copy of the Constitution with a strong recommendation to read it,he might straighten out.
You think?

Until that happens,he is just another left-leaning moron.

not only an un-Constitutional act but also the kind of authoritarian rule they supposedly despise.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on August 25, 2007 3:04 PM |

ED,
I am glad you put the "supposedly" in that statement because the left wants authoritarian rule on their terms as they have shown over and over again in their words and actions. Hell a majority of them are communists or as they like to call themselves progressives, socialists or whatever and here we thought the commies all went the way of the Dodo after the cold war, no they just re branded themselves and now they are back with a vengence.

Perhaps I've lost my mind or at least my short term memory but wasn't General Pace FIRED a couple of months ago and replaced by a Navy Admiral as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

LIBERAL:
open minded
open armed
open to others' ideas

yeah, right. Agree with us or die Mr President. Nice. Real liberal

In case no one has already pointed out the obvious, whoever exactly the Chairman orders to go arrest the President would instead put the Chairman himself in handcuffs in about 10 seconds, and haul him off to the brig.

In case no one has already pointed out the obvious, whoever exactly the Chairman orders to go arrest the President would instead put the Chairman himself in handcuffs in about 10 seconds, and haul him off to the brig.

He's responding to comments now and even making a bigger fool of himself.

Were there any legal support for this yahoo's woolgathering post, Harry Truman would have been subject to removal by MacArthur in April 1951 for having the poor judgment to remove MacArthur for disobeying Truman.

Or maybe not, since Truman was a Democrat.

not only an un-Constitutional act but also the kind of authoritarian rule they supposedly despise.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on August 25, 2007 3:04 PM |

ED,
I am glad you put the "supposedly" in that statement because the left wants authoritarian rule on their terms as they have shown over and over again in their words and actions. Hell a majority of them are communists or as they like to call themselves progressives, socialists or whatever and here we thought the commies all went the way of the Dodo after the cold war, no they just re branded themselves and now they are back with a vengence.

In case no one has already pointed out the obvious, whoever exactly the Chairman orders to go arrest the President would instead put the Chairman himself in handcuffs in about 10 seconds, and haul him off to the brig.

Not being a military lawyer I was left wondering why Clinton was never brought down by Monica and the adultery.

I knew that adultery was a very serious offense in the military code. At the least a General would have been busted down a grade or so. If Clinton was busted down a grade he could no longer fulfill his Constitutional role as C-in-C and would have had to resign the Presidency in my hypothesis. My guess was because she was a civilian it was not applicable, that if she was a member of the Armed Services perhaps things would be different.

I was never thinking, o this is a great way to get rid of the clown, but more in the way of intellectual curiousity. Cllnton leaving for al-gore made no difference to me.

The Huffington Post, and Ariana, want to be a "player" in the political media. The problem is only the insane, or those who are on their way to becoming insane, are her regular readers and commenters. And, of course, SOME of her posters are certifiable as well.

I agree with many other commenters on this thread, I think the Secret Service should pay a visit to Mr. Lewis. The left in this country are treading in evermore murky waters - between treason, sedition, anti-Americanism - and, sadly, it is spreading among them like a pandemic virus.

Wow, the far left is going off the deep end. This writer is wacko at best, and downright dangerous at worst.

The REALLY SCARY thing is, if the Left can call for a military takeover by the Right, what will they do when they control the White House? Is the country facing a military coup by the Left? Seems as if they will do anything to further their aims. Whoever called them 'netroots Nazis' got it right...

Wow, the far left is going off the deep end. This writer is wacko at best, and downright dangerous at worst.

The REALLY SCARY thing is, if the Left can call for a military takeover by the Right, what will they do when they control the White House? Is the country facing a military coup by the Left? Seems as if they will do anything to further their aims. Whoever called them 'netroots Nazis' got it right...

Anbody witnessing another person committing acts of sedition in a time of war needs to take action in defense of the nation.

To be crystal clear - I am NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any illegal act, such as cold blooded murder, but if 230 grains of lead, in the form of a .45 caliber FMJ bullet were suddenly to enter Martin Lewis' cranium at high velocity I would not call that a 'bad thing' and would personally consider it a lawful act in defense of civilian authority.

Or maybe just an inexplicable coincidence.

Gee, anbody can play this game too.

I just read it as a tit-for-tat satire of the Philip Atkinson piece that caused a dustup on Family Security Matters last week.

It's all Karl Rove's Parthian shot.

Make Dick Cheney president.

He runs for President in '08 with both the advantage of incumbency *and* that of being a new guy. If the Surge works, he gets credit for it without being blamed for what came before.

He can now run for office in 2012, too, since a president can be *elected* twice.

Plus, establishes that the President serves at the permission of the military, and can be removed if he fails the standard of an officer and a gentleman. Wouldn't that have been fun in the Clinton years! And lots of luck for Hilary, etc. in the future.

Then blame it all on the lefties and say the Huffington Post first urged the idea, the administration is always open to good ideas, even from the left.

What a genius....

It's all Karl Rove's Parthian shot.

Make Dick Cheney president.

He runs for President in '08 with both the advantage of incumbency *and* that of being a new guy. If the Surge works, he gets credit for it without being blamed for what came before.

He can now run for office in 2012, too, since a president can be *elected* twice.

Plus, establishes that the President serves at the permission of the military, and can be removed if he fails the standard of an officer and a gentleman. Wouldn't that have been fun in the Clinton years! And lots of luck for Hilary, etc. in the future.

Then blame it all on the lefties and say the Huffington Post first urged the idea, the administration is always open to good ideas, even from the left.

What a genius....

Sounds pretty desperate on the part of the left. The emphasis should be on impeachment. If in fact King George broke the law, which I believe, then the case should be made to the American people. That in turn will force a cowardly Congress to do their duty. We should threaten the politicians with their jobs if they don't hold this rogue President (and his henchmen) accountable.

I'm quite certain the Joint Chiefs are too patriotic and too smart to try such a stunt but the Huffington Mob has once again revealed themselves as fundamentally unAmerican scum who would advocate a military coup of an elected President.

you can laugh or cry
but keep your powder dry
The ultimate resource for freedom is Amendment II

oh, and if you click on Martin's name he claims to be a British "humorist". So don't be surprised if this is all a "joke", a la John Kerry, American comedian.

He's just showing his ignorance. The chairman of the Joint Chief's is the President's top military advisor, not a commander. He has absolutely no authority over military personnel that he does not derive directly from the President and the Secretary of Defense.

"Perhaps I've lost my mind or at least my short term memory but wasn't General Pace FIRED a couple of months ago and replaced by a Navy Admiral as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?"

Admiral Mullen doesn't come in until 10/1/07.

But you're right, Pace was relieved because SecDef didn't think he'd get by the Senate if he were renominated to the post. Aha! Pace has to got to be really upset by that, maybe upset enough to force a coup! Now I see how this will work, Pace must act now before it's too late.

Remember, the best way to respond to this is not to stifle leftist speech...

The best thing we can do is give this democrat's speech wide ranging play.

E-mail it to your democrat friends.

Point out that Huffpo is a mainstream organ of the democrat party.

Make them uneasy about being associated with the once great democrat party.

kingronjo said:

"Not being a military lawyer I was left wondering why Clinton was never brought down by Monica and the adultery.

I knew that adultery was a very serious offense in the military code. At the least a General would have been busted down a grade or so. If Clinton was busted down a grade he could no longer fulfill his Constitutional role as C-in-C and would have had to resign the Presidency in my hypothesis. My guess was because she was a civilian it was not applicable, that if she was a member of the Armed Services perhaps things would be different.

I was never thinking, o this is a great way to get rid of the clown, but more in the way of intellectual curiousity. Cllnton leaving for al-gore made no difference to me."

Just imagine what would have happened if Clinton actually had been convicted in the Senate-or if he had done the Nixonesque rhing and resigned to "spare the country". Incumbent President Al Gore would then have most likely been easily elected in 2000. 9/11 would still have happened, of course, but that's a topic for another day.

As for the legal aspects of Clinton's "trial" in the Senate, he is a civilian, but you have to remember that the whole thing was a farce from many angles. First of all, Clinton was being defended by the best lawyers money could buy, while the "prosecutors" were the "Impeachment Managers", who hadn't practiced law in 25 years.

In addition, despite the voluminous physical evidence accumulated in the investigation of Clinton, only a few of those who sat in judgement of Clinton actuallt took the time to go to the evidence room and examine it.

Naturally, there was also political arm-twisting behind the scenes. Trent Lott caved, and I'm sure more than one Dem made threats to expose all of the dirt they had on the other side in a "nuclear" fashion had Clinton been convicted by the Senate. Add public opinion "polling" that was no doubt biased in Clinton's favor and you have a no-brainer.

For a strictly legal reading on Clinton's misdeeds, "An Affair of State" by Federal Judge and law school professor Richard Posner offers a devasating indictment, rather convincingly arguing that Clinton in fact committed perjury not once but many times.

On the other hand, Alan Dershowitz wrote a book called "Sexual McCarthyism" at the exact same time, which argued that felony perjury is excusable if it's about sex.

Having read both, I tend to believe Posner, despite my newfound respect for Dershowitz after he "got religion" on 9/11.

I would think a stronger case could be made against the Nancy and Harry for aiding and abeting the enemy. The idiot who wrote this has never read the oath that each military person takes upon enlisting or re-enlisting.

I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.

It also says, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I would venture to say the domestic enemies are and have been the Democratic (Communist) Party.

This has got to be a joke. Please, SOMEBODY tell me that it's a joke. Somebody. ANYBODY.

Let's leave personalities out of it. Who in their right f***ing mind would EVER advocate the military removing ANY president from office? One of the great blessings of our military is that it has NEVER done anything like this; it has ALWAYS been obedient to the civilian leadership of the United States (well, except for the Southern officers who betrayed their oaths and country in 1861), which is exactly how it should be.

Is Martin smoking some serious crack? Is he insane?

Please, please, PLEASE tell me that this is a joke.

I note that I don't see many (if any) of our resident lefties commenting on this. Sheer embarrassment? If it ain't, it bloody well SHOULD be.

BTW, anybody ever read "Seven Days in May" or seen the movie? I can't imagine more than a handful of American military personnel EVER going along with any plot to stage a coup, no matter how much they despised the president (or Congress, for that matter).

I would think a stronger case could be made against the Nancy and Harry for aiding and abeting the enemy. The idiot who wrote this has never read the oath that each military person takes upon enlisting or re-enlisting.

I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.

It also says, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I would venture to say the domestic enemies are and have been the Democratic (Communist) Party.

At least this person is searching for a solution to this pr crisis. Reading all these blogs today reminds me of how the French parliamentarians were debating the number of angels on the head of a pin when certain events gave birth to what we hold as a democratic forum. In Iran last week the Russian and Chinese leaders signed a treaty that isn't reported. In Canada here we have complete media blackouts on any news that doen't actually 'fit' the rhetoric from the WH. Meanwhile... long trails of aerosols are dumped at will into the sky over my home and everyone I know is sick. One phone call to my local government office two weeks ago ended my lifetime mebership in the Conservative Party...

Martin Lewis is British ... ahh, now I understand, he's all misty-eyed for the Lord Protector.

"I would here call upon competant authorities to arrest the author ..."
And end the most bloody foot-shooting spree since John Kerry bellowed, "Your daughter is gay!"?

Martin Lewis is a British-born, Hollywood-based humorist, commentator, producer and radio host.

Ahhhh, all is revealed. He's not left, per se, he's Yurp. Yurps simply can NOT wrap their mind around that which is America, including our Constitution, separation of powers, and freedom of speech.

I wonder how long he's been here, but then if he's based in Hollywood, that's a LaLaLand all it's own and hardly conducive to teaching a good grasp of reality.

Del Dolemonte:

I wasnt referring to Clinton being impeached. I was wondering why he wasnt hauled in front of a military court in a sort of court-martial (for lack of a better term) because of his extramarital affairs.

Assume he was found guilty and his punishment was to lose a grade, no longer making him C-in-C. I would think at that point he would be forced to resign. This would not be a bunch of political hacks judging him but 30+ year professional military men, possibly the Joint Chiefs. All just for intellectual fun, not cuz he's a Dem.

What would the ultimate outcome be if a POTUS could be knocked down a few military grades? Would he be forced to resign? Could he transfer C-in-C powers to someone else and stay as POTUS? The Capt seems to feel that the military can't try him. My question would be why not?

Ya gotta love it when some putz who has zero knowledge about the military, tries to talk about the military and their duties. What a maroon. No wonder every time the communists/leftists take over a country, the first thing they do is whack all the leftist loons that were the driving force behind the takeover in the 1st place.

Ya gotta love it when some putz who has zero knowledge about the military, tries to talk about the military and their duties. What a maroon. No wonder every time the communists/leftists take over a country, the first thing they do is whack all the leftist loons that were the driving force behind the takeover in the 1st place.

Just to make it clear for everyone, for those who seem to miss this point:

The President (whoever this person may be) is C-in-C, but that is a civilian position, not military. No civilian is subject to the UCMJ. Only way to lawfully relieve a President of C-in-C responsibility is to also relieve said President from ALL presidential responsibilities through impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate...

Dear God, is nothing sacred?

What's next, Mr. Bean kidnapping Barney and Ms Beazley? Monty Python doing a skit about "Condi in The Situation Room with the Rope"?

Those dastardly British humorists are trying to stage a coup! No amount of outrage is sufficient!

This is the funniest thread I've seen in ages. I'm weak with laughter.

Calling for the non-electoral overthrow of the US government is a crime. It's outlined within the set of laws commonly called treason. Punishable by death or prison.

Yeah, filistro, we're really yuckin' it up. Hey, did you hear the one about the Army surrounding the Capitol, dragging all the dems out and machinegunning the lot of them? Hilarious! Or the Air Force and Navy nuking the blue states? I didn't think I'd stop laughing when I heard that one.

/sarcasm

As I indicated in a previous post, I hope that Martin IS joking, though I must say that I don't find it very funny if he is. O' course, after Jon Karys "joke" about being stuck in Iraq, I realized that libs have a... rather different sense of humor than the rest of us.

The LLL idiots may try to laugh this one off but I guarantee that anyone and everyone who posts at Puffho is gonna get eyeballed by the Secret Service/FBI/DHS and rightfully so. I would expect some arrests in a couple of weeks.

These irresponsible, immature children are going to learn the hard way that freedom of speech does not mean they have the right to say whatever they want and there will be no consequences.

Posted by Ennis | August 25, 2007 8:31 PM

The LLL idiots may try to laugh this one off but I guarantee that anyone and everyone who posts at Puffho is gonna get eyeballed by the Secret Service/FBI/DHS and rightfully so. I would expect some arrests in a couple of weeks.

These irresponsible, immature children are going to learn the hard way that freedom of speech does not mean they have the right to say whatever they want and there will be no consequences.

Eric says:
I hope you are right. I'm getting very tired of this type of noise and I would like it to stop.

Oh c'mon, doc.

Surely those two military jackets at the bottom of the post gave you a clue, didn't they?

(Sorry to keep calling you Shirley....)

Hee hee hee

sedition

The Constitution stands. The election of 2008 will happen. Will 80% go out and vote to protect the Constitution, or will they stay at home and erode it? As to having the fringes rights of free speech investigated by the State...waste of time...the State should put the resources into borders, ports, airports, transportation grids. The East German style of policing should not be the model. Enough that we copied their highways etc.

You know I have a suggestion for General Pace.

Here. It's free.

Pace can ask Lt. General Dayton to "spare" some of those palestinian troops he's training; to "halp" out in the war against Iran. (Or in protecting the hide of Abbas.) Something or other, over there, is producing this "training ground."

Dunno if Dayton will keep the "jumping through hoops," exercises, though.

On the other hand, would it matter? When the first shot is fired these people run away.

So, as I see it. Bush would be standing there, and suddenly he'd see all this motion. Men in uniforms, dropping their hats; and taking off. Bush wouldn't even know why.

Think of the video.

He'd be seen as stunned.

And, "Condi with the rope, in the situation room," should be learning how to twirl it like Will Rogers. Quite an act.

What's to follow?

Every time I think the left's gone and done it; they produce another whopper.

My apologies if someone else has added this. Did anyone at HuffPo check Article 2 of the UCMJ, which defines who is subject to the code? I can assure you that U.S. civilians in the United States are not subject to the UCMJ - there may be extraordinary circumstances that would allow this, but none of which I can even imagine right now.

I think the idiots on the left need to check out historically what happens when they takeover government. The first thing they do is line up the intellectuals and shoot them. There is no use for rable rousers after the fact. The writer is guilty of advocating the violent overthrow of our government and needs to be hanged.

Incidentally, filistro, Lewis' comments seem to indicate that he isn't kidding.

Martin Lewis, HuffPo (posted 01:38 pm on 08/25/2007): I am most certainly not proposing sedition. I am saying that General Pace has an authority - be it military, moral or notional - to use his position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to announce that he is relieving the President of his role as Commander-In-Chief. It may not carry weight over the President's power. But the symobilsm of such an act in defense of America's beleagured and abused armed forces could resonate loudly.

At least Lewis has enough sense to realize that Pace hasn't really got the authority to remove the president from office. But he's not joking that Pace should at least make "the noble gesture".

It'd be interesting to see Pace's reaction to such a suggestion. Nay, it might even be hillarious to watch the reaction of a US Marine to the suggestion that he should commit an act of mutiny if not sedition.

Lewis is active in the comments section, clearly demonstrating his ignorance of both the U.S. Constitution and the UCMJ.

Fight4TheRight,

No, General Pace succeeded the Air Force general Richard Myers. He was not renominated by Bush, so he is due to step down as Chairman on 30 September 2007. When he steps down, Navy Admiral Micheal Mullen is his likely (but not certain) successor. That would be in keeping with the rotation of the Chairmanhood amongst the services.

The reason he was not renominated was because the White House determined that Pace would not fare well in the hearings he would face before the Senate.

It looks like Pace rankled both sides pretty