L.A. Times hopes for military coup against Trump

Good day all, now that Donald Trump has been formally nominated as the Republican Candidate for President, the Moonbats have started howling. Tuesday, the Los Angeles Times posted a column stating that a military coup against President Trump is a possibility.

The column, by James Kirchick, shows a level of delusion rivaling that of Hitler in his bunker in 1945. (And no I’m not calling him a Nazi) He honestly thinks that the United States Military would remove President Donald Trump. Here is what this clown wrote, along with some comments by yours truly:

Americans viewing the recent failed coup attempt in Turkey as some exotic foreign news story — the latest, violent yet hardly unusual political development to occur in a region constantly beset by turmoil — should pause to consider that the prospect of similar instability would not be unfathomable in this country if Donald Trump were to win the presidency.

Trump is the most brazenly authoritarian figure to secure the nomination of a major American political party. He expresses his support for all manner of strongmen, and his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, has actually worked for one: former Ukrainian president and Vladimir Putin ally Viktor Yanukovich.

Much as I hate to bring reality into Kirchick’s fantasy, everyone over there was using American consultants during the elections. As to Manafort? He wanted a paycheck like everyone else.

At the Republican National Convention here Monday, Manafort put some of the tricks he learned overseas as a dictator whisperer to good use, employing underhanded tactics to avoid a roll call vote on the convention’s rules package,

That was Reince Preibus and the others shutting down the Never Trumpers and RINOS4Hillary idiots. You might want to take a look at the Democrat primaries and how Cave In Bernie was essentially shut down before he even got started. Oh wait! That is a trigger phrase. Quick! Off to your safe place.

and quietly removing language from the party platform expressing support for Ukraine’s democratic aspirations.

That’s the first I’ve heard of it, and frankly, big deal. If you have paid any attention to Trump, he is reflecting America’s desire to get out of the World Police business for a while.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has repeatedly bragged about ordering soldiers to commit war crimes, and has dismissed the possibility that he would face any resistance. “They won’t refuse,” he told Fox News’ Bret Baierearlier this year. “They’re not gonna refuse me. Believe me.” When Baier insisted that such orders are “illegal,” Trump replied, “I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

Since you have no idea what sort of training a soldier goes through regarding illegal orders, and what, exactly an illegal order is, what qualifies you to comment? By the way, have you ever considered America’s nuclear forces? A large number of those weapons are aimed at cities. If the military gets the confirmed order to launch, they will do so, and millions of little children will be converted into fallout.

The so called “Illegal Orders” thing came about after the Nuremberg trials at the end of WW 2. The horror of the death camps was such, along with the knowledge that the Allies did nothing prior to or during the war to stop, that we had to make someone pay. Since the Nazi’s used the phrase “I vas chust vollowink orderz” to try and duck responsibility, the tribunal said “No deal” convicted and hanged the lot of them. They wanted to hang them anyway and this was a means to an end.

Oh really? Blimpish swagger might fly within the patriarchal confines of a family business, a criminal operation (the distinction is sometimes blurred) or a dictatorship. It does not, however, work in a liberal democracy, legally grounded by a written constitution, each branch restrained by separation of powers.

Where shall I begin? How about that the United States is NOT a “Liberal Democracy” it is a Republic. As to your veiled accusation that the Trump businesses are a criminal operation? Well, did you pay any attention to James Comey’s brief on your candidate, Hillary Clinton just prior to his dropping his pants and bending over a table? No? Didn’t think so.

And those Separation of Powers? A very good idea. Pity your president, Barack Obama ignores them. Finally, if Trump issues orders to the Military to blow some place off the map, more than likely he will have gone to Congress first for authorization. (Preferably a formal declaration of War) Once he has that, he is the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces and he can literally order the nuclear destruction of a target.

Try to imagine, then, a situation in which Trump commanded our military to do something stupid, illegal or irrational.

Ok. Hmm, Nope, can’t think of anything. Do you have any examples in mind?

Something so dangerous that it put the lives of Americans and the security of the country at stake.

You mean like throwing open the borders to anyone who wants to cross, and importing tens of thousands of potential Islamic terrorists with out bothering to do any sort of background check?

Faced with opposition from his military brass, Trump would perhaps reconsider and back down. But what if he didn’t?

Hate to break it to you bub, but the Military Brass has been known to oppose the orders of a President.

In that case, our military men and women, who swear to uphold the Constitution and a civilian chain of command, would be forced to choose between obeying the law and serving the wishes of someone who has explicitly expressed his utter lack of respect for it.

Oh you are really walking into it aren’t you?

They might well choose the former.

Yes, they might, and there is a way for them to protest an order. However, I seriously doubt that we’re both thinking the same thing.

Asked by TV host Bill Maher what would happen if Trump told American soldiers to kill the families of terrorists, as he has promised to do, retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden replied, “If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”

“You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Hayden added. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”

Here’s the thing about International Law and the Rules of War. They are meaningless. Both Germany and Imperial Japan signed treaties regarding captured enemy soldiers. The Germans weren’t scrupulous in following them, especially with regards to captured Soviet troops. The Japanese? They ignored them completely.

You might also want to consider how POW’s were treated in the Hanoi Hilton. I suggest giving Senator John McCain a call. Go ahead, I’ll wait. I do have a pretty good idea of his response though.

As for the current threats we face? That being Islamic terrorism and support for it from various states? They don’t follow any rules other than Sharia, (and not even that in many cases). If they capture American soldiers, the best they can hope for is a quick death.

Previously, in those rare situations when irreconcilable disagreements have arisen between America’s civilian and military leadership, it is the latter who were ultimately deemed out of line. This was the case when President Truman acrimoniously fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur after he publicly criticized Truman for denying him permission to bomb China in the midst of the Korean War. Though MacArthur returned to the United States with a hero’s welcome, Truman’s decision endures as one of the most important in the history of American civil-military relations.

That was due to MacArthur refusing orders. We can discuss whether or not his desire to nuke the Chinese, Russians and North Koreans was correct, but when Truman said no, MacArthur ignored him and went around him publicly. The worst case scenario, Truman could have had MacArthur court martialed. He didn’t, and instead allowed him to retire and fade away, which he did. You might recall that MacArthur did look at running for President, but was rejected.

Trump could pull a reverse-Truman, firing a general who refused to bomb.

Again, there is a procedure. The general can resign. However, that isn’t what you have in mind, is it?

If this scenario sounds implausible, consider that Trump has normalized so many once-outrageous things — from open racism to blatant lying.

And here we go!

Needless to say, such dystopian situations are unimaginable under a President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or — heaven forbid — a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit.

[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbp_JQ7RxqM’]

Oh that’s funny! I didn’t know Kirchick was such a comedian. I guess he forgot about Hillary’s pushing for the attack on Libya because she didn’t like how Gaddafi did things, and cackled when he was dragged out and shot in the head? By the way, where was the congressional approval for what Cankles and King Putt did in Libya?

Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to.

Now to hit you upside the head with a Clue by Four. The military, in general, supports what Trump is saying. Trump, unlike your choice for President, Hillary Clinton, doesn’t want to send the military in unless there is a clear and present threat to America. Obama, Bush and Clinton all sent our forces into areas we really didn’t need to go.

We’ve seen how Obama has not only sent American forces into areas we have no real interests, in those areas we do, he’s tied their hands to such an extent, that military casualties have skyrocketed. Bush’s invasion of Iraq is generally understood to have been a really bad idea, and his follow up was a complete mess. Bill Clinton sent forces into what was Yugoslavia. We had no reason to be there. Then there was the “Blackhawk Down” mess in Mogadishu.

What we see here is in James Kirchick’s column is the typical paranoid delusions of your typical Progressive moonbat. There is no way the Military will move against a President Trump, as it would be nearly impossible for them to move against a President Hillary Clinton. If they were issued orders by either one that were “Over the top,” then they would and could refuse them, and go to Congress to seek their help in removing the president in a constitutional manner. (Impeachment or a declaration under Section 4 of the 25^th Amendment.

Honestly, the only orders I could see that would really cause an issue for the military would be an order for the troops to move against American Citizens, such as under a declaration of Martial Law, suspension of the Constitution, cancellation of elections and an order to go into homes and seize people’s guns. That order is more than likely to come from President Hillary Clinton then Donald Trump.

Even then, removing the President in a coup probably won’t happen. If it went that route, the odds are they wouldn’t stop with just the President, but also go after Congress and you Kirchick. Oh, you didn’t think of that did you? You seem to forget that the military is institutionally conservative. They also don’t like journalists very much. If you demand they step in, they may not stop where you want them to. The military has over 200 years of training and tradition not to step in when the civilian government screws up. They aren’t going to start now, no matter what you want.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

[yasr_visitor_votes size=”large”]