August 25, 2007

HuffPo Calls For Military Coup In USA

The Huffington Post published a plea to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs today to arrest George Bush for "conduct unbecoming" -- essentially, a military coup against the elected government of the United States. Martin Lewis claims that the military can arrest a President while not conducting a coup d'etat by focusing only on his role as Commander in Chief of the military:

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief. ...

In addition to relieving him of his command as Commander-In-Chief, you also have authority to place the President under MILITARY arrest.

Lewis quotes extensively from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but clearly his scholarship does not extend to the Constitution. The command of the armed forces follows from the president's election to office, and cannot be separated from the office itself. Bush isn't C-in-C because he got appointed to that position, but because the American electorate voted him into that role. In other words, the military cannot arrest the C-in-C but leave the President in power, and to argue otherwise is to demonstrate complete ignorance.

Secondly, the President does not serve at the pleasure of the Joint Chiefs -- and indeed, the military is subservient to the civilian command structure. They do not have arrest authority over the President -- nor over anyone else in the US other than military personnel, as the Posse Comitatus Act stipulates. Civilian oversight keeps the military from seizing power and is a long and vital tradition in this nation. It's what keeps us from becoming a banana republic, run by military strongmen.

Lewis wants to turn America into just that kind of nation. His Bush-hatred runs so deep that he would willingly see the military take control over the federal government just to get rid of him. The Left likes to talk about supposed fascism among conservatives, but the Huffington Post is literally calling for a military coup to reverse an election, not only an un-Constitutional act but also the kind of authoritarian rule they supposedly despise.

Unbelievable. (via Memeorandum)

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! No response from the HuffPo yet, although if you read the comments on the post, Martin Lewis is very serious about this. He claims that the military can arrest Bush while leaving his "civilian" powers intact, but again, those civilian powers include command of the military as an indivisible part of his office.

Plenty of other people post at HuffPo, like Governor Bill Richardson, for instance. Does Gov. Richardson endorse his co-blogger's demand for a military coup? Shouldn't he at least go on the record as to what he thinks about it? Will he continue to blog at a site that openly calls for a military coup?

UPDATE, 8/26: After spending all day defending his call, Martin Lewis now says that he was joking all along. McQ at QandO calls this "road apples", and notes the several non-satirical defenses Lewis made in the comments. Lewis says that he wanted to see how upset that right-wing blogs would get. I guess he acknowledges that a military coup wouldn't get the Left upset at all.

It's a crock. Someone finally spelled out what an idiot he is, and now he wants to make everyone think that he was joking. Not only is he an idiot, now he's a coward to boot.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/12104

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference HuffPo Calls For Military Coup In USA:

» Huffpo off the deep end again from A Second Hand Conjecture
General Pace, suddenly a voice of wisdom after supposedly being part of the problem, has suggested we need to draw down forces sometime next year. This has driven Martin Lewis to argue that Pace relieve Bush of his command and place him under military ... [Read More]

» Huffpo off the deep end again from A Second Hand Conjecture
General Pace, suddenly a voice of wisdom after supposedly being part of the problem, has suggested we need to draw down forces sometime next year. This has driven Martin Lewis to argue that Pace relieve Bush of his command and place him under military ... [Read More]

» HuffPo Calls for Coup D’état from shyspeak.net
In an article for The Huffington Post, Martin Lewis is calling on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, to arrest the President for “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” Mr. Lewis cites the Uniform Code ... [Read More]

» Huffington Post Publishes Call for American Coup from The American Mind
A Leftist whom I’ve never heard of posted a letter to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace asking him to military arrest President Bush and relieve him of his Commander-in-Chief duties. In other words he wants a military coup. By the ... [Read More]

» Oh My God! This is Freakin' Unbelievable from Pal2pal

Essentially, these freaks want Joints Chief Chairman, General Peter Pace, to arrest the President. HuffPo Calls For Military Coup In USA Ken McCracken writes in response: This is what I wrote to the HuffPo in response: Dear Whomever, Martin Lewis&ap...

[Read More]

» HuffPo New Low from WILLisms.com
The Huffington Post manages to consistently plumb new depths of hatred and sociopathology, but today Martin Lewis posted what is probably the most loathsome piece of garbage yet - General Pace, You Can Save the US - by Arresting Bush... [Read More]

» This Blog Will No Longer Link to HuffPo from J's Cafe Nette
Martin Lewis has written a piece at HuffPo, calling for General Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to arrest President Bush and relieve him of his duties of Commander in Chief. General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility... [Read More]

» Weekend Linkfest from Stop The ACLU
Here are a few links to some interesting things going on in the blogosphere: MsUnderestimated has video of Bill Maher wondering how the morale of the insurgents is. Huffington Post begs General Pace for a military coup in the USA California Yankee says... [Read More]

» Call For A Military Coup from CALIFORNIA YANKEE
I never thought it would happen here. Martin Lewis, the British-born Hollywood-based humorist, writer, producer, TV and radio host, and political extremist, calls upon the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to arrest the president of the United Stat... [Read More]

» Ignorance unbecoming from [H] Hegemonic Pundit
Good news! A far-left Huffington Post writer is calling for a military coup against Bush. (Good grief.) But, as Ed at Captain’s Quarters points out, the ignorance of far-left authors can rarely be understated… Lewis quotes extensively from ... [Read More]

» HuffPo calls for military coup, wants General Pace to arrest President from Sister Toldjah
Read this letter. All of it. Addressed from Martin Lewis at the HuffPo to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, begging him to “arrest” the President on charges of “conduct unbecoming. At the same time I was read... [Read More]

» Hey Musharraf, HufPo has a job for you from thought cops
[Martin Lewis, you have fa-bu-lous hair. Have you ever considered … running for president?] President, er, General Musharraf, when you are, uh, done in Pakistan, there’s somebody who has a job for you over here. HufPo published a post tod... [Read More]

» Martin Lewis at HuffPo Calls For Military Coup In USA from MFVOV Blog
Oh my stars and garters! Get a load of this thread over at Little Green Footballs. It seems that a writer at Huffington Post is requesting a Military coup!   Captains Quarters brought this little gem to light.  Martin Lewis, like the comedy team?... [Read More]

» How about banning Martin Lewis from US entry? from Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense
I wasn’t going to comment on this idiot - who goes by the ripped off name of “Martin/Lewis”, and his absolutely stupid and uniformed foray into US Government. In case you haven’t heard this nutbag wants General Pace to arrest ... [Read More]

» A Huffy Post Blogger Wants a Military Take-over Here in the US from The Pink Flamingo
LIBERAL WANTS GENERAL PACE TO ARREST GWB [Read More]

» In Case of Emergency, Break Democracy from Free Will
In Case of Emergency, Break DemocracyCrank Martin Lewis, writing for the Huffington Post, proposes that General Pace stage a military coup. (Of course, after calling for the coup, Lewis adds a disclaimer that he isn't calling for a coup, because h... [Read More]

» Treason At HuffPo! from Rhymes With Right
What else do you call Martin Lewis' direct call for the overthrow of the Constitutional principle of civilian control of the military by having a general relieve the President of his constitutional role of commander-in-chief during time of war? Though... [Read More]

» FND Prediction #2: When Can the Military Disobey the President? from FND Blog
One of the central questions explored in my book is what to do with a president who violates the Constitution; when he in essence becomes a domestic enemy. The Founding Fathers provided the answer in the enlisted Oath of Office: protect the Constitutio... [Read More]

» Identifying Martin Lewis from postpolitical
You’ve probably heard it already, but HuffPost columnist Martin Lewis has called for General Pace to assume the role of General James Mattoon Scott and launch a military coup d’état to overthrow the president. QandO Blog (via ASHC) wonde... [Read More]

» Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup from Pirate's Cove
 And a Happy Sunday to all. It is another wonderful day in the USA, the Sun is shining, the birds are singing, and half of the population loves Her just the way she is. The other half wants to completely change Her. Go figure. This pinup is by Bi... [Read More]

» HuffPo calls for military coup, wants General Pace to arrest President from Jules Crittenden
Slowly, I pick my aching head up off the table, wipe the sleep out of my eyes, and take a look around the room to see overturned chairs, a couple of broken windows, numerous beer bottles resting on their sides, and several fellow tavern patrons scatter... [Read More]

» Martin Lewis Invites the FBI to Tea from baldilocks
Have you ever had this type of "conversation" with a person? Said person makes nonsensical suggestions based on topical ignorance and when you try to clue the person in, he/she tells you not to interrupt. The person then proceeds to [Read More]

» HuffPo Flirts With Sedition from Nate Nelson
Did you know that there is a federal law which prohibits calling for the overthrow of the United States government? If you didn’t, don’t feel bad; it seems that Huffington Post contributor Martin Lewis didn’t either, or at least I hop... [Read More]

» An Ignorant Proposal from The Sundries Shack
Saturday, the Huffington Post’s Martin Lewis, who bills himself as a “humorist” wrote a post wherein he practically begged the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to stage a military coup and arrest the President. Well, he didn... [Read More]

» Some Quick Linkage from Liberty Pundit
Several quick links to get you started on the day, plus I wanted to clear the decks, so to speak,… ... [Read More]

» Huffington Post Calls for Military Coup d’état from Constitutionally Right
Martin Lewis at the Huffington Post wrote a letter to General Pace this weekend concerning the command of President Bush. In this letter he specifically states that he is not advocating a military coup, but he then goes on to suggest exactly that. S... [Read More]

» Worthy of Note on August 27, 2007 from Neocon News
I’m toying with the idea of creating a sticky post of stories to look at during the day. It could create some redundancy if I write a more lengthy post on a subject mentioned in passing here, but it could also give you a lot more access to other ... [Read More]

» Typical Liberal dodge- HuffPo columnist makes outrageous statements, then claims “it’s just satire” from Leaning Straight Up
Typical indeed.  Martin Lewis made some fairly idiotic comments in a post entitled "General Pace, You Can Save the US - by Arresting Bush for "Conduct Unbecoming". General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to prote... [Read More]

Comments (198)

Posted by unclesmrgol | August 25, 2007 3:28 PM

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

Posted by MattHelm | August 25, 2007 3:29 PM

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.

Posted by eaglewings | August 25, 2007 3:34 PM

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.

Posted by Teresa | August 25, 2007 3:34 PM

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

Posted by commander0 [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 25, 2007 3:39 PM

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

Posted by reliapundit | August 25, 2007 3:45 PM

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.

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | August 25, 2007 3:46 PM

Does anyone now doubt the growing fascism of the Netroots?

Posted by Fight4TheRight | August 25, 2007 3:48 PM

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

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 25, 2007 3:51 PM

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.

Posted by Pesky | August 25, 2007 4:04 PM

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.

Posted by GK | August 25, 2007 4:10 PM

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..

Posted by Mister Snitch! | August 25, 2007 4:20 PM

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.

Posted by chsw | August 25, 2007 4:22 PM

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

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | August 25, 2007 4:25 PM

Why has the left gone insane?

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

Nope.

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

Posted by Clint | August 25, 2007 4:25 PM

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.

Posted by SteveMG | August 25, 2007 4:33 PM

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

Posted by Siergen | August 25, 2007 4:34 PM

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.

Posted by Steven Den Beste | August 25, 2007 4:34 PM

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.

Posted by El Coqui | August 25, 2007 4:35 PM

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

Posted by Bennett | August 25, 2007 4:37 PM

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.

Posted by Siergen | August 25, 2007 4:37 PM

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.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 25, 2007 4:45 PM

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?

Posted by TMLutas | August 25, 2007 4:47 PM

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.

Posted by unclesmrgol | August 25, 2007 4:48 PM

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.

Posted by AW1 Tim | August 25, 2007 4:48 PM

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,

Posted by fouse, gary c | August 25, 2007 4:51 PM

Sounds like Mr Lewis has been smoking his socks.

gary fouse

Posted by MarkJ | August 25, 2007 4:51 PM

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.

Posted by daytrader | August 25, 2007 4:52 PM

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.

Posted by Tully | August 25, 2007 4:52 PM

It might just be that dry British humor thing.

Posted by Bill Peschel | August 25, 2007 4:52 PM

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.

Posted by SDN | August 25, 2007 4:55 PM

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.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 25, 2007 5:03 PM

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.

Posted by Dan_P | August 25, 2007 5:04 PM

"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 ! ! !

Posted by Letalis | August 25, 2007 5:07 PM

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."

Posted by Letalis | August 25, 2007 5:10 PM

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."

Posted by Wally | August 25, 2007 5:11 PM

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."

Posted by xray | August 25, 2007 5:11 PM

"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... ;)

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 25, 2007 5:14 PM

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

Posted by Mike | August 25, 2007 5:16 PM

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?

Posted by The Yell | August 25, 2007 5:18 PM

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.

Posted by JorgXMcKie | August 25, 2007 5:27 PM

Ahhhh, xray, got a link?

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

Posted by RBMN | August 25, 2007 5:37 PM

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

Posted by Greg | August 25, 2007 5:42 PM

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.

Posted by unclesmrgol | August 25, 2007 5:42 PM

The Yell,

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

Posted by pst314 | August 25, 2007 5:44 PM

"prove Democratic prowess on national security"

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

Posted by pk | August 25, 2007 5:48 PM

just two questions.

when is the FBI going to collect this festered rectum?

can we come and watch?

and cheer?

ok three.
C

Posted by M. Simon | August 25, 2007 5:54 PM

The left has not gone insane.

They started out that way.

Posted by Armchairpunter | August 25, 2007 6:01 PM

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...

Posted by Jeffersonian | August 25, 2007 6:10 PM

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.

Posted by David in San Diego | August 25, 2007 6:11 PM

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.

Posted by rbj | August 25, 2007 6:14 PM

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.

Posted by Ken Oglesby | August 25, 2007 6:14 PM

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.

Posted by Ken Oglesby | August 25, 2007 6:20 PM

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.

Posted by Oldcrow | August 25, 2007 6:21 PM

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.

Posted by Fight4TheRight | August 25, 2007 6:23 PM

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?

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 25, 2007 6:23 PM

LIBERAL:
open minded
open armed
open to others' ideas

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

Posted by Kevin | August 25, 2007 6:24 PM

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.

Posted by Kevin | August 25, 2007 6:27 PM

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.

Posted by Bill | August 25, 2007 6:27 PM

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

Posted by vnjagvet | August 25, 2007 6:28 PM

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.

Posted by Oldcrow | August 25, 2007 6:29 PM

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.

Posted by Kevin | August 25, 2007 6:32 PM

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.

Posted by kingronjo | August 25, 2007 6:32 PM

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.

Posted by centralcal | August 25, 2007 6:33 PM

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.

Posted by Bill Sanford | August 25, 2007 6:34 PM

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...

Posted by Bill Sanford | August 25, 2007 6:38 PM

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...

Posted by ThomasD | August 25, 2007 6:43 PM

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.

Posted by JohnG | August 25, 2007 6:59 PM

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.

Posted by David Hardy | August 25, 2007 7:01 PM

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....

Posted by David Hardy | August 25, 2007 7:07 PM

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....

Posted by John Rivera | August 25, 2007 7:07 PM

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.

Posted by DaMav | August 25, 2007 7:08 PM

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.

Posted by Larry Patty | August 25, 2007 7:10 PM

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.

Posted by Bennett | August 25, 2007 7:15 PM

"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.

Posted by bulbasaur | August 25, 2007 7:16 PM

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.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 25, 2007 7:17 PM

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.

Posted by Charles Pennock | August 25, 2007 7:20 PM

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.

Posted by docjim505 | August 25, 2007 7:24 PM

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).

Posted by Charles Pennock | August 25, 2007 7:25 PM

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.

Posted by cj harder | August 25, 2007 7:28 PM

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...

Posted by Laika's Last Woof | August 25, 2007 7:38 PM

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!"?

Posted by NahnCee | August 25, 2007 7:43 PM

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.

Posted by kingronjo | August 25, 2007 7:46 PM

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?

Posted by Brad | August 25, 2007 7:48 PM

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.

Posted by Brad | August 25, 2007 7:53 PM

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.

Posted by Miss Ladybug | August 25, 2007 7:56 PM

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...

Posted by filistro | August 25, 2007 7:59 PM

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.

Posted by Eric | August 25, 2007 8:00 PM

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.

Posted by docjim505 | August 25, 2007 8:29 PM

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.

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.

Posted by Eric | August 25, 2007 8:36 PM

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.

Posted by filistro | August 25, 2007 8:38 PM

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

Posted by pete | August 25, 2007 8:38 PM

sedition

Posted by Kim | August 25, 2007 8:39 PM

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.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 25, 2007 8:46 PM

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.

Posted by Trogluddite | August 25, 2007 8:49 PM

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.

Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | August 25, 2007 8:50 PM

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.

Posted by docjim505 | August 25, 2007 9:00 PM

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.

Posted by Charles Bird [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 25, 2007 9:04 PM

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

Posted by unclesmrgol | August 25, 2007 9:04 PM

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 seriously, so the hearings would certainly have been contentious:
a) He stated that his personal viewpoint is that homosexuality is immoral, and that "don't ask, don't tell" is a correct method.
b) He publicly disagreed when Rumsfeld claimed that Iraqi sovreignty prevented the US military in interfering with torture. Pace's response was that every member of the military had the obligation to prevent inhumane treatment whenever they witnessed it.
c) He publicly disagreed with a White House statement that the Iranian Government was the source of Iranian-manufactured mortar shells, RPGs, and EFPs being used in Iraq against Americans. Paces response was that while the munitions had been proven to be manufactured in Iran, it was unclear whether the Iranian central government was responsible for their transport to Iraq.
d) He stated that he thought Rumsfeld's leadership was inspired by God.
e) He stated that alQaeda had tried to stop voting in Iraqi elections, and had been unsuccessful, because each election had more people voting than the last.

Of course, some of these are old, but they are impedimenta (which is the Latin word for "excess baggage"). Pace has shown himself to be conservative in his religion and willing to speak the exact truth as he sees it to anyone who speaks what he considers the least falsehood. Such a position does not make friends in Washington.

Posted by Ray | August 25, 2007 9:10 PM

From Lewis' post:
"Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

That leaves out the President as he is not an officer, cadet, or midshipman. He is the Commander in Chief of the military and, therefor, has the highest authority.

Lewis' entire premise is flawed. Lewis is trying to suggest that an officer should relieve the President of his command authority and that's impossible. No military officer can relieve the President of his command authority as the President IS the highest authority in the military. What Lewis, and others, fails to understand is that only a higher ranking officer can relieve another officer (or any other member of the military) of their command authority. A General can relieve a Major of their command authority, for example, if that Major is under the command of that General, but no Major can relieve his commanding officer of their command authority. Lower ranking officers do not have that authority! How can Pace, or any other officer, relieve the President of his command authority when the President, as Commander in Chief of the military, out ranks all other members of the military? They can't, so this is just an exercise in futility.

Posted by filistro | August 25, 2007 9:15 PM

Indeed, doc... I'm sure Martin is loving this little furor he's created. Why, there's 11 trackbacks to the Captain's blog entry! Calls for Marty's death and dismemberment! Heads exploding all over the place! Righteous indignation and all sorts and degrees of... of... Huffiness!

Ah yes... I'm sore afraid there will be Laughter in Leftyland tomorrow.

Posted by pete | August 25, 2007 9:22 PM

sedition

Posted by sibac | August 25, 2007 9:25 PM

Martin Lewis, perhaps being British, missed the fact that a American general did address the concept of who works for who in the American government. The general was also a president named George (fancy that) and here's a link on how he handled the situation: http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/washington.htm. The fact is that no general, especially a Marine, would ever pull such a stunt and would probably shoot any officer under his command who'd suggest it.

Posted by docjim505 | August 25, 2007 9:31 PM

Ray,

I think that there are extraordinary circumstances in which a superior officer can be relieved of his command, such as illness, mental breakdown, poltroonery, or other serious bad conduct. The officer or NCO who relieves him will almost certainly have to answer at a court martial, however, and better have IRONCLAD evidence that he was justified in taking such an extraordinary step (this was the subject of the novel "The Caine Mutiny"). Perhaps some other commenter is more familiar with the regulations concerning this subject.

Posted by Bennett | August 25, 2007 9:32 PM

Zelsdorf wrote: "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."

Why would this concern anyone on the left?

Posted by filistro | August 25, 2007 9:42 PM

But he's not joking that Pace should at least make "the noble gesture"....

(Psst, just 'cause we're buddies, here's a tip...)

Go to the offending blog post at HuffPo. Click on "bio." Run down the page and examine the rest of the Martin Lewis oeuvre. Now... you're SURE he's "not joking"?

Posted by docjim505 | August 25, 2007 9:43 PM

filistro,

I guess we'll just chalk this up to lefties having a... different sense of humor. Possibly Cap'n Ed can get in on the fun and suggest that Gen. Pace "relieve" SanFran Nan or Dingy Harry and we can all have a good laugh about that.

Posted by Ray | August 25, 2007 9:46 PM

docjim505,

The only way a commander can be relieved of his or her authority is under the orders of a higher authority within their chain of command. I learned this as a private in basic training.

Consider a combat unit when a commanding officer is ether hurt or killed in action. Members of the unit in question have to contact a higher authority and that authority must approve a change in command before any member of that unit can assume command. This has been true throughout the history of the US Military. Any member of the military that disregards the established chain of command and assumes command authority without prior approval can be, and will be, charged with mutiny.

Posted by filistro | August 25, 2007 9:51 PM

Well, thanks a lot, doc.

I was just beginning to recover my composure when your post inspired a mental image of the good General frog-marching Nancy Pelosi out of the House in her pastel Armani pantsuit with color-co-ordinated handcuffs and matching leg irons... and it made me start giggling all over again.

"General, I will not ask you again. Do not CREASE the LAPELS!"

LOL...

Posted by Carol Herman | August 25, 2007 9:59 PM

Today, Little Green Footballs, Drudge, and InstaPundit all linked to this HuffPo piece. (And, InstaPundit does it by linking, here.)

From what I can see, there are lots of patriotic people who are not amused. Who don't see this, as I do, as being quite silly.

But I can understand that point of view. There's nothing wrong with discussing the ramifications we get when something like this "British comedic" piece comes down the pike.

While over in Huffington's house, I'd bet,she's proud. She's happy that her blog's name travels to a wider circle than the usual clueless wonders on the left, who actually hang out, there.

At least we know the kinds of goods they peddle to their moonbats. And, just like the Internet, you don't even have to leave home, to know what's happened to the left. And, how deranged this stuff really is.

Just the same, no, I wouldn't want to see a Federal Case made of this crap. That would be the waste of time and effort. And, it would afford them a forum they don't deserve.

Posted by Ray | August 25, 2007 9:59 PM

filistro,

If you read his responses to the comments at the HuffPo, you can see that he is not joking. He seriously thinks this is a reasonable idea and that it has a small chance of being successful. He's also seriously wrong as what he is proposing is mutiny and I don't think General Pace would like to end his military career by being convicted of mutiny.

Posted by english teacher | August 25, 2007 10:10 PM

well, as a leftist and proud democratic voter, i for one can tell you that i never read huffington post. that blog is notorious for having in-house trolls on the comments sections flaming readers to record hits. this is just the kind of crap that would get posted there to run up the hit count for advertising purposes. the article in question is ridiculous, but no more so than the countless comments on this thread saying that this one article represents the left. it is one guy's opinion, that's all. i certainly think it is a dumb idea, but we do still have a right to free speech in this country. look at all the stupid crap that rush and coulter say if you don't believe me.

Posted by Scrapiron | August 25, 2007 10:13 PM

Isn't going to happen. 99% of the military support the president and the war. The 1% are the dumb a**es that joined the military and didn't think they would have to fight. They only wanted the training and the 'salary'. Dumb doesn't begin to describe the idiot that proposed this. Didn't he just make himself subject to arrest as a traitor or worse?

Posted by Carol Herman | August 25, 2007 10:20 PM

Ray, do you think General Pace is pleased with this Martin Lewis piece?

Ya know, I think Lewis wrote it, without calling Pace, to even warn him this was coming down the pike.

Now that the Left's cheering this article, how does General Pace go about "getting back his reputation?

And, where are we? How much time did the Left spend on Fitzmas? And, Rove's frog march? Have they learned nothing?

While the Net gains because it's not shy covering this stuff. Hundreds of thousands of people have seen this drivel. This doesn't contain a downside for patriots.

Posted by english teacher | August 25, 2007 10:21 PM

treason is giving direct aid and/or comfort to the enemy. proposing an idea, no matter how boneheaded, is protected speech under the first amendment.

Posted by docjim505 | August 25, 2007 10:47 PM

english teacher raises a good point about "treason". Strictly speaking, I think what Martin advocates is sedition or "willfully advocating the overthrow of the government". This is a serious crime under Title 18 USC, Chapter 115*:

§2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

There is also this little gem:

§2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally

(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:

(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or

(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

But what the hell? It's all just a big joke. Hyuck-hyuck-hyuck! I'm in stitches, myself.

/sarcasm

------------------

(*) http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/D-USC-18.html

Posted by Bennett | August 25, 2007 11:02 PM

Honestly I think we can probably rein in the idea that this guy's blog post should lead to criminal charges.

He's not secretly stockpiling AK-47s in his basement and holding clandestine meetings with the Montana militiamen, he's posting on a blog.

We can all talk about this so freely because we know it's not going to happen. There has never been a military coup in the history of the United States and some guy yacking it up on an obscure lefty website isn't any kind of threat to the Rebublic. Anyway, he's British. He would probably have better luck calling for the armed overthrow of his own useless government, not ours.

Posted by Englush Major | August 25, 2007 11:04 PM

Ah propose we exekute all english teechers who don't know how to Capitalize.

Hay, this be fun!

Posted by Carol Herman | August 25, 2007 11:08 PM

Hyuck-hyuck-hyuck, or not, General Pace's name was used to add "what?"

And, IF Pace wasn't even called on the phone, and alerted that this "free speech suggestion" was heading out the door, and traveling down the pike; how does Pace reclaim his reputation? Is it a leap from "comedy" to Pace's idea?

I'm just asking.

As far as the Left goes, I guess this "new plan" means Rove's left the White House. No frog march possible. So, they've brought up this idea about Bush being "arrested?" Heck, you can't even get him on a DUI. Our president doesn't drink.

As to plots, I am reminded that 8 men faced criminal charges, after Abraham Lincoln was shot and killed by John Wilkes Booth. Booth, himself, was injured. Ran into a barn in Maryland, where he was easy to arrest. But he was shot and killed, instead.

The doctor, who treated Booth's broken ankle, MUDD, served about ten years in a Florida prison; and only got clemency because there had been a devastating epidemic, and he helped others to survive it. But "HIS NAME WAS MUDD."

I think, too, that the Supreme Court took the cases out of military court, at that time; and the men who weren't hung [because 4 were hung]. Received military justice.

I'm not sure. But the Civil War was over. That's why the military didn't get to keep "jurisdiction."

This time around? I'm reminded how "free speech" worked after Kennedy was shot. And, some pamphlet came out that said LBJ had "sex" with JFK's corpse. Using the wounds in his neck, for a vagina.

So, I've grown up to believe speech is indeed free.

But Pace's reputation? Couldn't the man claim a ficticious name should have been used, instead?

At least, too, we know the Left is true to form. But Fitzgerald is no longer on the White House "case." What a bunch of loons.

Posted by Richard Rollo | August 25, 2007 11:14 PM

Well, this takes the cake, as my father used to say. This is BDS Bush Derangement Syndrome with its hair on fire. No serious person would assert that the Uniform Code of Miltary Justice trumps the U.S. Constitution on matters of Presidential powers, determination of capacity, or succession to office. This is just plain stupid.

Posted by brooklyn | August 25, 2007 11:26 PM

LOLOLOLOLOLOL !


Those Liberal Democrats seem really scared, trying to stop the US and GW before Iraq becomes a huge success.

Hurry, get the US Military to take over !

And it would be a laugh riot, as that destruction of a fine Democracy, might actually turn out far worse for the Liberal Democrats in this Country.

Oh, the potential !

Who would the Top Brass send to Gitmo for a little R&R first?

Murtha, Mathews, Pelosi, Reid, etc., etc., ???

The Democrat Partisans should really be careful for what they ask for...

Next thing you know, they will have Hillary Clinton taking things away from them.

Posted by docjim505 | August 25, 2007 11:30 PM

Bennett,

You're right, of course. I suspect that, even if somebody tried to bring charges against this doofus, the judge would simply look at him, roll his eyes in exasperation and pronounce, "You're guilty of being a dumbass. Sentence is confiscation of your personal computer, write 'I will not advocate mutiny or sedition' one thousand times, and payment of a $50 fine for wasting the court's time. Court is adjorned."

What if we tried him in juvenile court? Actually, I think that would be quite appropriate!

Posted by Laika's Last Woof | August 25, 2007 11:42 PM

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!"?

Posted by Bennett | August 25, 2007 11:44 PM

docjim: I remember during the 2004 presidential election a bunch of Brits undertook a letter writing campaign to Ohio residents, encouraging them to vote for Kerry, something like that. And the reaction was so funny. Even people who weren't Bush supporters told the Brits to butt out, we don't take instruction from our former overlords. Because you know, we had that thing called a Revolution. Anyway, it was funny stuff. So our British friend who thinks the good Marine General would ever do anything but salute his President and charge up the nearest hill on his command has spent way too much time in the fever swamps of lefty lunatic land.

Posted by Miss Ladybug | August 25, 2007 11:47 PM

I'm not sure I get those of you that are saying Pace's reputation has been harmed by this article. Lewis is making a suggestion to Pace, but Pace had nothing to do with it, and we all know he's not going to follow through on that seditious suggestion, either... If I'm missing something, please explain.

Posted by Steve Yuen | August 25, 2007 11:54 PM

Expanding on bulbasaur's point,
"The best thing we can do is give this democrat's speech wide ranging play":

It's unnecessary for the Repubs to spend a lot of money designing a 2008 ad campaign. They just have to scour the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos for the best material and trumpet "Here's what [Hillary Clinton's] supporters believe and want for you."

Posted by thenakedemperor | August 25, 2007 11:59 PM

Somewhere, Machiaveli is smiling at this.

Posted by Robohobo | August 26, 2007 12:17 AM

Can you say sedition? Can we call the Lefties traitors yet?

The Hobo

Posted by Robohobo | August 26, 2007 12:19 AM

Can you say sedition? Can we call the Lefties traitors yet?

The Hobo

Posted by Carol Herman | August 26, 2007 12:21 AM

Oddly enough, Miss Ladybug, what clued me in to the possibility that General Pace might actually get offended, was Steven Den Beste's post, above; copied by me, for you to see, below.

There've been patriots, here,who saw this as sedition. Who weren't laughing. And, who thought the writer, Martin Lewis was out of line. And, Huffington was wrong to think this was any sort of "solution" deserving of publication. Let alone what it's got,now. NOTORIETY.

Why would General Pace think this wasn't a serious smear job? You think generals like it when their public image looks like they're loose canons for the left? REALLY? Funny, I just don't see our military this way at all. That's why I think putting Pace's name on this exposes him. What's he gonna do? Claim that he'll take this instruction and carry it out right away? Like I said, I'd bet most public figures aren't looking to be totem poles to screwy ideology. Anyway, here's Den Beste's post, copied from above.

Posted by Steven Den Beste | August 25, 2007 4:34 PM

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.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | August 26, 2007 1:10 AM

Bush.Won.Florida.In.Three.Recounts

lol.

Posted by Ray | August 26, 2007 1:28 AM

Posted by Carol Herman | August 25, 2007 10:20 PM

"Ray, do you think General Pace is pleased with this Martin Lewis piece?"

Probably not. He's most likely scratching his head in wonderment at how foolish Lewis is for suggesting a mutiny. I know I had a WTF! moment when I read it.

Of course, this now draws attention from Clinton's blunder about how another terrorist attack will work to the advantage of Republicans. Maybe that was Lewis's plan, to make a fool of himself in public so Hillary doesn't look so bad? After all, this is already spreading faster than Hillary's gaff. I bet Hillary is sighing in relief.

Posted by Eg | August 26, 2007 1:43 AM

It is almost a full moon, so Huffington Post takes the lead in the 'Charge of the Lunatic Brigade.'

Does anyone dare to volunteer to keep an eye-out at the DU & Kos over the next couple of days as both will probably be rife with insane topic’s and comments? The mental hazards will be many and great, blah, blah, blah....

The least ICE could do is deposit this guy at the gate of the next flight back to Londonstan with a note around his neck, 'We've plenty of our own, thanks.'

Posted by The Yell | August 26, 2007 2:22 AM

We can't deport him, he's blogging the posts Americans won't do...

Posted by Miss Ladybug | August 26, 2007 3:18 AM

Carol H~

I'd seen that. I still don't see how Pace's reputation has been tarnished by this. Is Pace happy about this "letter"? I'd say unlikely. But, just because it's an open letter to Pace doesn't ruin Pace's rep - unwanted attention? yes... Pace has no control over what lefty blogger write to him.

Posted by Clyde | August 26, 2007 3:54 AM

What a maroon!

That Martin Lewis character gave me the best horse-laugh I've had all week. Just another clueless BDS sufferer...

Posted by Winghunter | August 26, 2007 4:16 AM

Liberals have progressed themselves into libertines.


Their new motto might be; "We can knee-jerk ourselves anywhere at anytime for absolutely no reason."

Posted by longwalker | August 26, 2007 4:57 AM

To docjim

You flunked military law in basic. The chain of command exists so that, at any time and in any circumstance, military units are never leaderless as you suppose.

If a unit is almost totally wiped out and the only two effectives remaining are privates, one will automatically be in command by date of rank.

The idea that everything stops until the unit makes contact with higher command and has new leadership appointed is realy dumb.

Posted by Teafran | August 26, 2007 6:12 AM

This argument was once used by Dixiecrats during the Civil Rights Era.

There's nothing new under the sun.

Posted by docjim505 | August 26, 2007 6:16 AM

Um, longwalker, I never said any such thing.

Posted by Fred Beloit | August 26, 2007 6:57 AM

Lewis is a Brit? Bummer, man. I would have voted for him to be the new President installed by Pace. Pass the bong straw man.

Posted by swabjockey05 | August 26, 2007 7:15 AM

The fact that a "legitimate" Dhimmicrat Pres /Vice Pres candidate, Gov Richardson, is a contributor to such a far-left media source does not bode well for our Country. He would only be trying to get those moonbats' votes if he thought there were a lot of them out there...that truly is scary.

Don't know about the rest of you guys but my powder is dry as a bone.

Posted by Richard | August 26, 2007 7:36 AM

Be interesting to see how Lewis answers the question "have you ever advocated the overthrow of the US govt." on his visa application. It sure looks like he is, but he`s insisting he is not.

Posted by Barnestormer | August 26, 2007 7:54 AM

This exchange on the Huffington thread pretty much wraps up the argument for me:

From poster Scepticus:

"The President of the United States does not hold a military office -- hence the term, 'civilian control' of the armed forces.

"Pace has no more authority to 'arrest' the President of the United States than he has to re-write the rules of baseball.

"One of the constitutionally mandated duties/authorities of the civilian office of the presidency (Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States) is that 'The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.' The President is commander in chief because he holds the civilian office of President, not because he is a military officer."


============MARTIN RESPONDS==========

"I ask General Pace to do two things. One is to relieve the President of his command as Commander-In-Chief. The other is to place the President under military arrest. It is arguable as to the conflict between the Constitution and the Uniform Code Of Military Justice."[emphasis added]

Got that? Better read the UCMJ VEERRY carefully, because it just may take legal precedence over the Constitution. And you thought the left didn't support the troops?

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 26, 2007 8:12 AM

Obviously the whole idea of arresting Bush is absurd, stupid, ridiculous, crazy, etc. But I don't believe that every registered Democrat out there would go along with this. I do think that Huffington Post got what they were after, lots of attention.

There are a lot of people on the internet, talk radio, TV etc. who are out for one thing... attention... and they don't much care how they get it. Even people I sometimes agree with can be in this category from time to time. It is the nature of the beast.

When I heard people on the right say that Bush was selling our ports to terrorists during the Dubai Ports controversy, I thought they were out of their freaking minds. But that did not stop Malkin running it into the ground. Now I hear the rumor that the Bush administration was going to plant CIA among the Dubai personnel in foreign ports...which of course means there might be things going on Malkin knows nothing about. But then again she knows nothing about hurricanes and she went after the Bush administration with as much gusto as Spike Lee himself.

Coulter has to know when she runs her mouth about faggots and ragheads what the reaction will be, and like Pavlov's dogs the Left reacts.


Then of course we hear that people like Kyl and McCain and Bush sold out the US to Mexico, they are open border anarchists..... and we are going to lose our sovereignty..... and the dollar will be a thing of the past.... and the constitution will be playing second fiddle to the NAU.... and the Anglo culture will be dead.... and Bush is the first Mexican American president so lets call him Jorge and impeach him..... and on and on. I mean really, this is so ridiculous on its face that I was amazed to hear it get play on talk radio and the blogs. But it did.

It seems to me that there are people out there in the political media who thrive on making trouble.


If the government were to pursue this on grounds that it is sedition and goes after some British comic/political hack at Huffington Post for showing his ass, who do you think will end up looking the most absurd? It might be a toss up.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 26, 2007 8:30 AM

Before we assume that this guy can be tried for sedition, we should remember that documentary that shows Bush getting shot. What was that? What category does that fit into? Should the people who made that be tried as well?

I think that the right and left have lost all sense of boundaries myself.

If either party wanted to make ads depicting the other side as a bunch of dangerous cretons they could find plenty of examples out there in the world of political punditry.

sad but true.

Posted by Captain Ed | August 26, 2007 8:46 AM

Where does the film fit? Into fiction, although in bad taste. The HuffPo piece is advocacy, explicitly calling for a military coup. Big difference.

Posted by pst314 | August 26, 2007 9:12 AM

"Why has the left gone insane? Iraq? "Domestic Spying?" Gitmo? Abu Grab? Nope. Make no mistake, it's still all about Florida 2000."

No, it goes back much farther than that. I saw signs of it in the sixties. The paranoia, the hatred, the tendency to demonize all who disagree, the acceptance of harassment and intimidation as legitimate political tactics.

What we see today is not surprising. Shocking yes, but not surprising.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 26, 2007 9:21 AM

Ed:

Where does the film fit? It is a tasteless attempt to pander to a certain group of people who would like to see Bush dead.

I have never read Huffington Post. I do not know anyone in my day to day life outside the blogs who does. In fact I would guess that as many or more people would hear about that film than hear about this bizarre post by Lewis.

That film may be fiction, but considering the fact that this bozo has no authority or means to carry this little plot of his out I would say this is even less than fiction, it is fantasy.

Now if the government wants to charge this guy with sedition they can be my guest, but they should remember George Galloway's arrogant performance when he was questioned by the US Senate.

Posted by DaveP. | August 26, 2007 10:18 AM

Terrye, just because George "Catman" Galloway does it doesn't make it legal.
Sedition- which is the case here- does not require "the means" to carry out a revolution; it just requires advocating one.
And there is a huge difference between publicly calling for the military overthrow of a serving President and acting like a Socialist loser (but I repeat myself) in front of CSPAN.

Note: I wonder what the Puffington Host's editorial stance would've been if this article had been published in 1998 with only the names changed? I wonder what their position would be if this article was published in 2010 with a sitting Democratic President's name substituted for President Bush's?

Posted by newton | August 26, 2007 10:19 AM

"Nuts!"

Posted by longwalker | August 26, 2007 10:25 AM

Sorry, docjim : I'm new here and got confused. It was Ray replying to one of your postings.

A very feverent "mea cupa, mea cupa, mea maxima cupa" and three lashes with a wet noodle.

Posted by Stephen J. | August 26, 2007 10:28 AM

Personally I'd consider it sedition. But it does occur to me (doing my best legal-technicality lawyer impression here) that there might be an escape clause for any legal context: Put simply, the President is not the Government.

Lewis can argue that he is not advocating sedition in the sense of "calling for the Government's overthrow". It is permitted under the 1st Amendment to call for the President's removal through legal channels if one believes the President has broken the law; that doesn't mean you want the structure of the government and every other official position in it abolished. Sedition is calling for the abolishment of the entire government structure, not merely the removal of one person within it, even if that person be the President.

On the other hand, even if Lewis could be technically excused from the charge of sedition on these grounds (he can always claim that his "understanding" of the UCMJ on which he based his advocacy was an honest error or a satiric parody), he has to some extent accomplished a much more dangerous form of sedition: he has argued that military officers have, and should have, the power to relieve civilian heads of state or civilian offices of their authority over the military.

That is so alien to the Constitution, and so inherently destructive of the legitimacy and stability of a democratic government, that it amounts to calling for an overthrow of government, because such a military "escape clause" would undermine and destroy the government as surely as civic armed insurrection might.

Which I admit I would rather like to see -- Lewis being convicted of sedition because of how he called for Bush's removal, rather than simply that he did so. I try not to be a rabid anti-leftist, but I do appreciate people being forced to realize that means, as well as ends, matter.

Posted by docjim505 | August 26, 2007 10:31 AM

longwalker,

No prob. Especially in heavily-trafficked threads like this, it's easy to get confused about who said what. I wish I could say, "If it sounds stupid, I didn't write it", but that (unfortunately) isn't always the case!

;-)

Posted by DaveP. | August 26, 2007 10:38 AM

A point for consideration, in light of Stephen J's post:
In what way is what Martin Lewis is advocating- that military authority can supersede civilian authority- different from the Democrat's "Chickenhawk" talking point- that only leaders with military rank can command the military?

Posted by NahnCee | August 26, 2007 11:52 AM

The thought occurs that the on-going meltdown within the netroots/looney liberal left is analagous (and correlated) to the on-going and simultaneous melt-down of Al-Queda in Iraq.

That AQ swarmed into Iraq anxious to wage jihad against the "Crusaders" while simultaneously proving their superior Arab masculinity and trusting that super-ghod Allah would provide them with un-ending miracles that would enable their victory and produce lots of dead Americans.

Problem is, Americans shot back. And were large and fast and mean and stern and smart. VERY difficult to kill or to even get close to.

So the terrorists switched targets, first to unprotecting mosques and shrines, then aiming at Iraqi men lined up to become police officers or soliders; and currently they're reduced to killing goats to put their bombs in and targeting school children.

Likewise, the Democrats refused to accept that not only did Bush win TWO elections, but he insisted on going into both Afghanistan and Iraq and there wasn't a damned thing they could do about it.

Like Muslim jihadists, the netroots Democrats have been waging a sniping guerilla war for at least five years now, trying to turn everything in a Watergate-type scandal, smearing anyone and anything they could find to smear, and publishing lots and lots of written lies and photoshopped pictures.

And like the jihadists, they're discovering that not only have their tactics not worked, but that they're losing percentage points in American polls, as well as able politicians like Lieberman who they've forced out and into the opposite army. AND that their ultimate goal of forcing a pull-out of Iraq has also not worked to the point where public opinion in the whole rest of the world is against them.

So, again like the jihadists, they're starting to snipe at each other because they have not been able to seriously wound the military, the war effort or even their hated enemy Dubya. Kos Kids hitting out at Hillary is a much easier target than going after a Supreme Court judge nominee. Huffington demanding that the military do an impossible thing is easier than thinking about what the military *can* do in the world of reality, laws and Constitutional guarantes. Michael Moore's last film about health-care produced loud guffaws of derision, and now they're on the verge of losing one of their last memes of global-warming when it appears that the numbers they've been citing are wrong.

The Democrats have been holding their breath and drumming their bratty little feets against the floor since the day after Gore threw in the towel in Florida. I don't know that this proves the Republicans are stronger, but it definitely starts to look like the Democratic grassroots are just as weak and as wrong as Islamofascists, and that both groups of evil-doing wrong-thinkers misunderestimated their targets as being much weaker than they've proven to be.

Posted by filistro | August 26, 2007 12:06 PM

NC... does it really show you all that?

What it shows me is that modern "conservatives" have become so defensive, they can be counted on to over-react with ludicrous hysteria whenever some silly twit decides to jerk their chain a little bit.

I wish the "Grand Old Party" would just cut it out and show some dignity. Because if they can't be counted on for dignity, who can?

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 26, 2007 12:19 PM

Oh come on. I grew up in the south during the Civil Rights era and trust me the good ol boys were saying a whole lot worse about the powers that be in Washington.

If you charge this idiot with a crime like sedition he will be a hero to those morons. They will have a Lewis Defund Fund going in no time. People will name their new borns after him. There will be a free Martin movement. These people think the US is a dictatorship because our government {gasp} listens in on terrorists phone conversations. Imagine the excitement, the glee, the sheer giddy rapture with which they would react to seeing one of their own charged with sedition, at long last.

I am with filistro here. Just because they say jump you do not have to say how high.

Posted by furious | August 26, 2007 12:22 PM

filistro:

Satire is supposed to be, you know, funny.

And by "funny" is meant Wag the Dog or Bulworth funny, not Gigli funny.

Mr. Lewis, whatever his intention, fails at either, or both, as may be the case.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 26, 2007 12:27 PM

That should be defence fund. Oh well.

Posted by furious | August 26, 2007 12:35 PM

Regarding medal counts...

...did Mr. Lewis compare/contrast the cumulative medal/ribbon count of the Demo Senate committee members who promised to block Gen'l Pace's renomination to Chm Joint Chiefs with that of Gen'l Pace?

Bueller? Filistro? Anyone? Didn't think so.

--furious

Posted by filistro | August 26, 2007 12:36 PM

furious... I really doubt that folks like you were the ones Lewis wanted to entertain.

And I suspect his "target audience" found the whole episode very funny indeed.

Posted by Ray | August 26, 2007 1:06 PM

"The idea that everything stops until the unit makes contact with higher command and has new leadership appointed is realy dumb."

That's not what I was implying. Nothing stops when a commander is not able to perform his function, I never said it did. That's your interpretation of my post. The unit will still carry on as before and the next in command will follow the existing orders until that commander is given official command of the unit in question.

You seem to be making the assumption that military units are not in constant communication and that's pre-WWII thinking. It only takes a few seconds for the unit to contact command and advise them of the situation. Command will immediately transfer control of the unit to the next higher ranking officer. That new commander can not override the fallen commander's last orders, or any other orders prior to this, until that transfer of command takes place. If the dead commander ordered an attack before he was killed, for example, the new commander must follow those orders to the best of his abilities until he is officially given command of that unit, and only then can he override existing orders. This is done to preserve the unit's abilities to carry out the orders of their commander, even when that commander is killed during that action.

Posted by furious | August 26, 2007 1:31 PM

filistro...

Lewis' target audience entertains themselves in the privacy of their own bathrooms...

...or on huffpo. Same diff'.

--furious

Posted by steve poling | August 26, 2007 1:33 PM

when a leftist calls Mr. Bush a lying fascist, how often it is mere projection of his/her own character?

too often we forget the "Socialist" in Germany's National Socialist party. when Saint Hillary suggested national health care, she was advocating government control and private ownership. which i believe matches one definition of fascism.

Trouble is that the terms Nazi and Fascist have become nothing more than demon-terms that denote little more than "those I stridently hate."

Thus when a lefty seriously suggests the crime of which Aaron Burr was convicted, nobody recognizes it for what it is.

Treason doth never prosper...

Posted by Ray | August 26, 2007 1:34 PM

filistro,

Why do you keep making excuses for this man's stupidity? Nothing in his original post or his responses to the comments indicates that it was just satire. It looks to me, and just about everyone else, that he was serious.

Posted by newdome | August 26, 2007 3:30 PM

I am always amused when conservatives take umbrage about these kinds of sentiments when it is coming from Liberals. I do not remeber the same frothing response when Shelby Steele express almost similar sentiments a few months ago in the pages of NR as I recall. Is it the case that Shelby is eminently ignorable or is it because this is coming from a leftie at the HuffPo?

Posted by megapotamus | August 26, 2007 3:38 PM

My reaction I'm sure is much like Bush's, bring it on you braindead Stalinist freaks. Of course, this moron is a Brit, so unlikely to suffer direct consequences... just like these cowardly scum the worldwide. One must give him this, though; he is expressing the firmly held view of many of our so-called "fellow citizens". Bring it, you vermin. Collect your powder and shot. We will meet you. Oh yes, we will meet you.

Posted by Steve Rosenbach | August 26, 2007 3:54 PM

I had no idea that Martin Lewis was a political commentator.

Mr. Lewis is a talented and creative guy in the entertainment business. In the early '70s, working as a young music journalist, he managed to insert 4 fake unreleased song titles in what was to become the official Beatles canon of realeased and unreleased recordings. This prank was only recently revealed, and to this day, there are people who *insist* that they have a bootleg recording of one of those songs. See http://www.martinlewis.com/intro.html

Mr. Lewis is a clever guy who obviously should stick to what he knows and stay away from flights of fancy into politics and policy as he did here.

Ironically, one of the 4 fake "unreleased" song was supposed to be a polemic by John Lennon called, "Left is Right (and Right is Wrong.)"

Mr. Lewis - you say you got a real solution, we-ell, you know, we'd all love to see that plan.

Best regards,
SteveR

Posted by Classical Liberal | August 26, 2007 4:19 PM

This Martin Lewis fellow is a moron, in addition to being guilty of sedition. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the military, but is not in the military. He is not subject to the UCMJ.

Duh.

Posted by Ledger1 | August 26, 2007 4:44 PM

His Bush-hatred runs so deep that he would willingly see the military take control over the federal government just to get rid of him.” –Captain Ed

Martin Lewis may just have a psychotic case of BDS. But, the number of deranged posts at Huffpo is a little too suspicious.

Could it be that some state sponsored "media” group has found a perfect subject to spout fascism?

If one was in the Iranian Quds and wanted to spread propaganda and violence the Huffpo certainly is a fertile place to do so.

I am sure there are many at the Huffpo that would gladly accept compensation in exchange for posting such a screed.

Posted by pk | August 26, 2007 4:51 PM

i don't know if anyone has referred to the following artical on the American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/courage_cowardice_and_the_word_1.html but its a real good one.

one that should be read through to the end.

it has direct reference to Mr. Lewis.

in him we see a man who has stuck his foot in his mouth so far that there is some doubt that he will be able to remove it without resort to amputation.

i see at the start of the thread the people (me included) that want his blood scattered from texas to timbuctoo. but as things go along the "educated" types have been diluting this feeling as much as possible using ridicule and unpalatible alternatives (if you put the young man in jail he will win by gaining noteriety, in his world all publicity is good).

lets look at it this way: instead of squeezing his gonads until he yodels in soprano for the rest of his life, lets put him in custody. charge him with the laundry list of charges that they made up over on Hot Air. instantly a group of leftest lawyers will spring to his aid, however they will want to be paid. by the time he hits the street after his day in court he will be a pauper. (our system of justice is exceedingly good at separating a defendent from any money he has.)

if he is british we could probably deport him.

sure he will be known far and wide. he will be right up there with that group: judas iscariout, benedict arnold, a fellow named quisling, jane fonda.

to us he will be a fifth rate itinerant commedian that desparately needs a day job.

C

Posted by yonason | August 26, 2007 5:03 PM

WILL THEY GET A PASS FOR TREASON?

I'm not sure if it a problem of them being ignorant, or their counting on Americans being ignorant (or both?)

In any case, what legal recourse do we have that might enable us to treat them as traitors and subversives in time of war? I would love to see the govt seize their assets and the assets of those who back them (like Soros?), shut them down, and maybe even send a few to prison for the duration of the war (which promises to be a long one).

O.k., back to reality. We will probably put up with these traitors as they continue to undermine national resolve and to erode the democracy that gave them the freedom to express the hate that is at the core of their being.

Posted by yonason | August 26, 2007 5:08 PM

WILL THEY GET A PASS FOR TREASON?

I'm not sure if it a problem of them being ignorant, or their counting on Americans being ignorant (or both?)

In any case, what legal recourse do we have that might enable us to treat them as traitors and subversives in time of war? I would love to see the govt seize their assets and the assets of those who back them (like Soros?), shut them down, and maybe even send a few to prison for the duration of the war (which promises to be a long one).

O.k., back to reality. We will probably put up with these traitors as they continue to undermine national resolve and to erode the democracy that gave them the freedom to express the hate that is at the core of their being.

Posted by filistro | August 26, 2007 5:53 PM

Ray... go back to Lewis's original post now and read page 3 of the comments where Martin Lewis responds and leaves no doubt that the whole thing was satire, a poke in the eye to the "right wing nuts" he likes to mock.

I knew the piece was intended to be satirical as soon as I read it. Maybe because I spend a lot of time in Canada and have more exposure to British humor, which is certainly an acquired taste... like sushi, or maybe anchovies...

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 26, 2007 6:08 PM

I don't think it can be called treason if the man is not an American. He is just messing with people.

Posted by Ray | August 26, 2007 6:19 PM

filistro ,

It's "funny" how he waited until the following morning to claim his piece was just satire. Why didn't he make this point earlier? Why did he do his best to defend the piece until it was obvious that a lot of people took offense to it? It looks to me that he realizes the stupidity of his piece and is now trying to minimize the damage his "suggestion" has caused to his reputation as a humorist.

Even if it IS satire, it's not very funny. Asking a high ranking member of the military to commit treason and to mutiny against the CinC is not something people should ever joke about. Would you think it was funny, for example, for a right wing blogger to ask the secret service to ignore President Clinton and his need for security? My guess is that the left wing blogs would be demonizing that poster in every on of their blogs and they would call attention to the MSM about how the "right-wing-nuts", as Mr. Lewis puts it, are all crazy and don't believe in the need for the security of former Presidents. I also believe you would be one of them.

Posted by Rascal | August 26, 2007 6:23 PM

Anybody with half a brain (which apparently excludes the nitwits in this precinct) saw that Lewis was indulging in satire. His bit wasn't that funny to start with, but now it is. I love it.

Posted by filistro | August 26, 2007 6:30 PM

Ray, I think Lewis waited until today because he was hugely enjoying the furious over-reaction to his piece and didn't want to spoil the fun until every last head had totally exploded.

As for me... yes, when people make jokes I'm afraid I find them funny no matter who they're aimed at. Right-wingers who are fanatically patriotic can really be quite funny. Left-wingers in white socks and birkenstocks who think they're better than other people because they eat whole grains and protect owls... well, they're pretty hilarious, too.

But then, as I've freely admitted in the past, I'm a very trivial person. :-)

Posted by Captain Ed | August 26, 2007 6:41 PM

What a load of BS. He spent all day defending this post yesterday in the comments, and now today it's "satire". He's not just a jerk, now he's a coward.

Posted by filistro | August 26, 2007 6:44 PM

Hey Ed, he got you good!

Live by the red meat, die by the red meat...

Posted by JohnG | August 26, 2007 7:17 PM

I think most people originally thought it was some lame joke, until he started defending it in the comments and demanding that Gen Pace act his conscience or whatever.

Posted by Bennett | August 26, 2007 7:20 PM

This is what the left always does though, right? John Kerry insults the soldiers' intelligence. Oh, just a joke people. Rosie O'Donnell mocks Chinese people with a phony accent. Oh, a joke, a joke. Madeleine Albright speculates the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden locked up somewhere waiting to spring him to sway the election. Oh, she was just joking.

Just don't write any satire about Muslims. That would be insensitive. And not funny at all.

Satire? Ok, let's go with that. Everyone here who wrote about sedition and treason and hanging him up by his thumbs? Well they were in on the joke from the beginning and were simply being satirical, too. He wasn't serious, well neither was anyone here. This works both ways, right? So nobody got had. Just all in good fun.

Posted by AD | August 26, 2007 7:22 PM

I haven't read through all the comments here, so forgive me if this has been discussed - but


Isn't what Lewis is doing patently illegal?

Even if you're going to argue this isn't treason (if encouraging a coup d'etat against the President isn't treason, what is?), he's encouraging insubordination at the highest levels (also, unless I'm missing something, the President can only be arrested after he's been impeached and tried by the Senate).

Posted by InBama | August 26, 2007 7:52 PM

Lewis's responses to those who posted that made it quite clear he was serious. He spent most of the page 1 comments defending his position in almost every post that rebuked him. Then,only one response on page 2. Then on page 3,the crawfishing begins. The bottom line is that the crap hit the fan and it was getting all over Lewis. It was time to come up with an "excuse" for calling for a military coup in the United States. "Hey guys,I was only kidding" is about the best he could hope for.

Posted by AD | August 26, 2007 7:57 PM

"Ray, I think Lewis waited until today because he was hugely enjoying the furious over-reaction to his piece and didn't want to spoil the fun until every last head had totally exploded."

----

filistro, there **was** no furor over this while Lewis was defending it.

Instapundit didn't link to it until last night and most of the rightwing websites didn't even notice this until today. (And for that matter, it looks like a few sites have started instituting a "no link" policy when it comes to the Huffington Post, to keep them from benefiting from hits over this anyway.) He didn't switch to the "no, no,...um, it was all a joke" defense until we caught wind of this stupidity and started pointing out how idiotic it is.

Posted by Only One Cannoli | August 26, 2007 8:14 PM

This may only be of interest to me but I'm reminded of a stupidly funny scripted youtube video. This Carrottop-looking guy runs up to a soccer coach and kicks him square in the groin, soccer coach doubles over in pain. Next, Carrottop runs up to a 10 yr-old and kicks him in the groin, 10 year old doubles over in pain. Soccer coach struggles to his feet and hobbles after Carrottop who points to a hidden camera and suddenly the victims are amused. Everyone laughs. Hee-hee, it was just a joke after all.

Posted by pk | August 26, 2007 9:36 PM

i am not amused.

C

Posted by Tully | August 26, 2007 10:42 PM

============MARTIN RESPONDS==========
"I ask General Pace to do two things. One is to relieve the President of his command as Commander-In-Chief. The other is to place the President under military arrest. It is arguable as to the conflict between the Constitution and the Uniform Code Of Military Justice."[emphasis added]

Got that? Better read the UCMJ VEERRY carefully, because it just may take legal precedence over the Constitution. And you thought the left didn't support the troops?

The UCMJ is part of US Code, and doesn't apply to civilians. Someone better read both the code AND the officer's oath. Better check out Article 94 so he understands exactly what he's urging Pace to do. And the oath, where there is no conflict in prioritizing the UCMJ and the Constitution.

As so many others have pointed out, the President may be CinC, but he is so by direct Constitutional authority, is a civilian, and is not subject to the UCMJ.

Posted by AD | August 26, 2007 10:58 PM

To add one other thing,

If he did intend this as satire, we weren't alone in recognizing it because nobody over there seemed to recognize it either.

I just read through the first page of comments (and, to be fair, even a lot of leftist posters at Huffington Post are telling the guy he's nuts), but -- absolutely no one I saw over there treated this like it was satire.

Posted by AD | August 26, 2007 11:03 PM

typo, that should be:

"If he did intend this as satire, we weren't alone in not recognizing it because nobody over there seemed to recognize it either."

Posted by Rich Horton | August 26, 2007 11:14 PM

Hmmm...it was a satire to see how how the right wing blogs would react?

I think it was the leftosphere's (non)reaction that was more interesting. Evidently they would accept a coup of Bush with very little in the way of prompting.

Nice to know.

Posted by Miss Ladybug | August 27, 2007 12:03 AM

I took the time to read the American Thinker piece by Stephen Rittenberg. I particularly liked this part:

Fortunately, wordsmith intellectuals are not the majority of Americans. If you took the New York Times, our Ivy League faculties and the Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis as representative of the country, you would conclude we are a nation of castrati. Their screeching volubility notwithstanding, they are nevertheless the minority. I find it comforting, when the caterwauling of the left becomes deafening, to think of them as "the insects of the hour", in Edmund Burke's phrase. He wrote:
"Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that of course they are many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome insects of the hour."

Posted by Jack Coonan | August 27, 2007 5:09 AM

Gee..., By the logic of Mr. Lewis...,

The New Orleans Chief of Police should have arrested Mayor Ray Nagins.

"Check me if I'm wrong Sandy, but If I kill all the golfers on the course..."

Posted by Tully | August 27, 2007 7:47 AM

"...they're gonna lock me up and throw away the key."

Posted by Roger Harrison | August 27, 2007 1:50 PM

All the nut jobs are on the left side, check this out:
http://tinyurl.com/ypegwu
It's the flip side of the argument.
For Real? Sarcasm? I think the guy s serious, as was Lewis

Posted by Scott | August 28, 2007 8:42 AM

"UPDATE, 8/26: After spending all day defending his call, Martin Lewis now says that he was joking all along...Lewis says that he wanted to see how upset that right-wing blogs would get"

A lot of people do this sort of thing, and are hard to pin down because they are both nonserious and ambiguous by nature. The one constant is their need for approval; actual ideas and beliefs are so outdated.

They constantly toss these kinds of statements out there like sending up a weather baloon, ready to embrace or downplay them according to the reaction, hoping something will stick with the public consciousness and make them a trendsetter.

Probably the best litmus test for characters like this is to consider how they would react if their statements received widespread popular support; what if the joint chiefs announced they were planning to act on Lewis' suggestion - does anyone, righty or lefty, seriously think Lewis would then be all in a hurry to calm everyone's fears and assure them he was only joking?

It seems a lot more likely he would be both surprised and delighted, and waste no time publishing yet more screeds in the same vein, working his newfound popularity and approval for all it was worth, preening in front of his friends as the one who "got the shrub".

Post a comment