Steve Sailer writes: Jamie Kirchick, one of Martin Peretz’s aging Bright Young Men (a skein that includes Andrew Sullivan and Al Gore), writes in the Los Angeles Times:
If Trump wins, a coup isn’t impossible here in the U.S.
… If this scenario sounds implausible, consider that Trump has normalized so many once-outrageous things — from open racism to blatant lying. 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. …
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.
COMMENTS:
* A prominent French Socialist politician said the same thing, should Marine Le Pen win the elections next year.
On one hand, wishful thinking. In both countries officers and the military on average might actually support the nationalist candidates. On the other hand, frightening how our elites are openly advocating for a military coup and basically threatening voters with martial law unless voters comply and vote for the establishment candidates.
* The neocon geniuses let homosexuals and trannies infest the military, and now their only hope for stopping Trump is Seven Gays in May.
* Trump is possibly the one person in political life today who actually would be impeached if he got out of line and abused his authority.
The entire party establishment hates him. A lot of grassroots social conservatives would rather have Pence than Trump as president.
If there’s at least some semi-plausible reason to impeach Trump, he’s as good as gone.
* Trump is possibly the one person in political life today who actually would be impeached if he got out of line and abused his authority.
The entire party establishment hates him. A lot of grassroots social conservatives would rather have Pence than Trump as president.
If there’s at least some semi-plausible reason to impeach Trump, he’s as good as gone.
* I think this is projection on the part of Hillary supporters. A coup is more likely (although still very unlikely) in the event of a Hillary Clinton presidency gone disastrously awry (millions of refugees; possible losing wars against Russia; cities in flame and a crashing economy) than against a Trump Administration.
* “Barro’s “safe bet” candidate voted for the war in Iraq and then followed it up by engineering a “disastrous Libyan intervention,” as the left-of-center New Republic put it. Two years ago, the venerable liberal magazine The Nation warned, “The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016.” In contrast, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul, Trump was the least-bellicose of the 17 candidates running for his party’s nomination. Maybe Barro spent too much time on his scary chart to Google this?”
You failed to mention two other Hillary initiatives. First, she has been advocating arming Ukraine, which Trump opposes. Secondly, she has been calling for “no-fly zones” over Syria, also opposed by Trump, which, apart from being illegal, threaten confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia, which just happens to be in Syria legally at the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria. I am, like you, astounded by the role reversal where the Hillary campaign is portraying Trump as the risky choice whereas she is the one going around proposing all these risky foreign ventures that carry heightened risk of nuclear war with Russia.
I also recall in that Republican debate back in January when Hugh Hewitt tried to trap Trump with his question about the “nuclear triad.” Later claiming that he didn’t hear the question, Trump answered the “question” by riffing on the horrors of nuclear war. That hardly sounded to me like a man anxious to get his finger on the nuclear trigger just so he could launch a nuclear war with Russia. Although I concede that Trump probably had no idea what the “nuclear triad” was, I found his answer rather reassuring, whereas I found no reassurance in Senator Rubio’s glib recital of what the nuclear triad was (I’m convinced that Hewitt, who was a Rubio supporter at one point, fed Rubio that question before the debate just so he would be ready to answer following the anticipated flub by Trump).
* I’ve been praying for a coup for the last 7 1/2 years, and it hasn’t happened, so I it think it’s just wishful thinking on his part.
Exactly who in hell is Jamie Kirchick, anyway?? Another Harvard-Yale demigod lowering himself from Olympus to tell us lowly worms what we ought to think? Gay, too. Well that obviously makes him superior to us hetero “breeder” scum.
* A Jewish passive homosexual who has never handled a weapon in his life is threatening a military coup?
* So considering that he supports the death penalty for traitors, just like Donald Trump, I take it then Kirchick won’t have any complaints when his coup fails and he is strapped onto the lethal injection gurney?
* The Creditor Class Oligarchs can not believe what is happening and they hate the fact that the dumb ass debtor low class no class creeps might vote Trump into office despite the Oligarchs warnings to everyone that bad whites electing Trump mean mayhem and madness will be set free by Charon.
O, and the guy who wrote this splenetic yelp? He prolly realises his job is also on the line if Trump wins for who needs him, or George Will, of Paul Krugman, or Bill Kristol, or Rich Lowrey, or any of the other cuck whores who have sold their souls to the Oligarchs?
* Kirchick was/is the detestable young neocon lickspittle who smeared Ron Paul as racist in the 2008 presidential race, mainly due to those oh so offensive newsletters (clutch pearls now).
* You have to read articles like this in the context of the Party Line that is coming from Hillary HQ. They are currently pushing the poll tested meme that Trump is totally unfit to be President. So you don’t have to choose between odious Trump and equally odious Hillary (as many voters now feel). Rather, odious Hillary is the only viable candidate so you have no real choice but to vote for her even though she is odious.
In the 2002 French election runoff, it was a choice between the corrupt Chirac and Le Pen. The leftists had been squeezed out in the 1st round. In order that Le Pen not win, the socialists came up with the slogan “vote for the crook, not the fascist”. This is where we are now.
This is a desperate strategy that has been forced on the campaign by Hillary’s dismal poll numbers. It is not a sign of strength. The problem with this kind of argument is that it lowers the bar on what the other candidate has to prove. He no longer has to prove that he is the better candidate with the better policies. All he has to do is show you that he is not clinically insane and Hillary’s portrayal of him is falsified. Trump certainly has enough military support that he can drag out a few retired generals to say that they trust him with the nuclear keys.
* I don’t trust anything written by someone named Jamie. It’s not a real name. Makes you sound like you are still in prep school. Even the stupid first name as initial middle name as first name (T. Edward Soandso) is better.
* Who leads le coup– Hillary? Aging whippersnapper Jamie? It is to laugh… A government-collapsing insurrection requires leadership from someone who compels the support — fervent, pragmatic, grudging, and otherwise — of affirmative-action low-level bureaucrats, police, semi-police, and a broad cross-section of the armed services (whose numbers are obviously dwarfed by the other groups). Ahmad Chalabi is dead so who are they supposed to install once they shell Triumph The Insult Candidate’s column? By the way, we are talking about someone who actually had planes & motorcades *before* he ever thought to run for prez. I don’t foresee Fieldmarschal Max Boot driving a tank up Capitol Hill any year soon unless it’s a miniature electric one in the Lockheed-General Dynamics Halloween parade.
* One good thing Trump is doing at this very moment — and has been doing for maybe a couple of weeks now — is nothing. He’s lying back, not intruding onto the scene to express his opinions, and generally looking measured and in control.
The good thing is, he can see that his poll numbers are rising while he keeps his own counsel. This will encourage him to think that he doesn’t have to act as he did in the Republican primaries in order to win, but can instead, finally, take on the mantle of being Presidential and succeed in the general.
This is the precise lesson he needs to learn, I think. More than anything else, it’s the wild man image that he must counteract. Hyperreactivity could be his fatal flaw.
* Isn’t it ironic that the war mongers who act like they are the final word on all things military attack the candidate whom the rank and file support the most. Even when Ron Paul ran four years ago, he was ridiculed for his defense positions. Yet he was receiving the most financial donations from active duty military members.
There definitely is a disconnect between America’s military and her armchair generals.
* From what I remember reading in Volokh’s First Amendment case law textbook, you’re probably in the clear if you call for the revolution to take place at some indefinite time in the future; it would not be protected speech, however, to plan a coup for the coming weekend.
* Kirchick and Kohn lead the Jewish/LGBT (JLGBT?) “pinkshirt” paramilitaries in a “March on DC.”
* A real coup would involve the elitists to actually mobilize and use weapons to oust President Trump. An army of Kagans, Kirchicks and Kristols is going to be sorely lacking in such people who have fired real weapons. Vaunted would be candidate David “JAG” French isn’t going to be much help unless they can moot court Trump out of the White House. But could have the makings of a great sitcom.
* You failed to mention that “conviction” in the Senate requires a 2/3 vote “of the members present.” If Trump is elected, I am sure the Republicans will retain control of the House and Senate. It is virtually unknown in the annals of the U.S. for a party controlling Congress to impeach and convict a President of its own party. Remember that the President who came closest to be convicted (spared by one vote in the Senate, earning the Senator from Kansas a chapter in JFK’s “Profiles in Courage”) was Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln following Lincoln’s assassination. Johnson had been a Democrat, chosen by Lincoln to replace his original Vice President in 1864.
Anyone who remembers the tortuous proceedings against Richard Nixon, when there were clear grounds to impeach, realizes what an exercise in fantasy all this talk is about impeaching Donald Trump even before he got elected. Donald Trump has shown himself to be a risk taker, but he doesn’t impress me as somebody who will risk taking a crazy action that might justify impeachment. He’s much too savvy for that.
* Good example of gaslighting/retconning in plain sight by Kirchik with the hands reference. Trump actually didn’t lose his cool at all when Rubio drew attention to Trump’s hands, but the media acted (in suspicious unison) as if Trump had. That Kirchik was able to tie the lie to a dishonest-hypothesized-suggestion that Trump would instigate a war over such a slight from a foreign dignatory shows Kirchik thought about how to use that lie most effectivley.
* I know it’s a bit fun to laugh at the wussy lefties of today trying to revolt against our he Republican-voting, battle-hardened, gun-toting, Christian troops….
But….a few points to raise our alarm:
(1) remember the Left has often successfully rebelled/fought a nation’s armies, and then overcame them. Militaries, for better or for worse, are willing to capitulate and become tools of TPTB, whomever that is. The Wehrmacht and the Red Army both quickly became tools of the Left. Professional military men are more obedient than the average dude.
(2) The military has already rolled over repeatedly for the Left. Open homosexuality, trannism, female “fighters”, gay “marriage”, etc. have all been embraced with nary a peep.
(3) The Left doesn’t need to beat the army in the field, it merely needs to seize power. A quick seizure followed by a mass media project of “legitimization” works wonders. Look how Comey’s abjuring of duty to recommend prosecute was quickly legitimized as “Comey saving the election for the voters.”
(4) Lefties have their own quiet paramilitary organizations. They have their own guerrilla tactics manuals. And they aren’t afraid of the kind of civilian/innocent slaughter many military men abhor. They are much closer in kind to ISIS and Al-Queda than a professional army.
(5) They already own the FBI. So they have enough manpower and information to make the seizure, and know that they will have no resistance (and, indeed, support from) from the nation’s largest armed domestic police force.
(6) remember that the left loves using unprofessional mobs to keep people from organizing against them. The Germans used the Ernie Rohm-gay gangs to assault opponents; today, the Left has the mindless, murderous black mobs/Panthers to do so.
(7) George Soros as a major funding source for the coup. Remember: so long as supplies are there, they can survive..
When a Lefty calls for a coup, try not to think of the cowards you know individually leading the way with an organized plan, but a mob of crazed lunatics armed with bombs released from the nuthouse holing up in government offices and gang-attacking innocents on the street to keep the populace in fear.
* Genius wunderkind Kirchick apparently failed to notice the Army Times polling showing the Armed Forces breaking to 2-1 for the Bad Boy. Apparently, someone wants to make America Great Again, even if its not Conservative, Inc.
* Hewitt’s “question” about the “nuclear triad” was not especially clearly stated. It was hard to figure out exactly what he was asking. I have known about the “nuclear triad” since I was in college 50 years ago, and I am ready to concede that Trump may not have been familiar with the term. But, in posing the “question” to Trump, Hewitt also announced that he was going to follow-up with the same question to Senator Rubio, which he did. (“Wake Up Call, Marco. Be ready to answer because you’re next.”) It was revealed on Meet the Press several weeks later when Hewitt was one of the guest panelists that he had endorsed Senator Rubio, something that wasn’t revealed before the Las Vegas debate in December. Nor was there any mention at a subsequent debate a few weeks later where Hewitt was again one of the questioners of any endorsement of Rubio by him. Rubio’s answer was so precise that I jumped to the conclusion that he must have been fed the question by Hewitt before the debate. The whole thing smelled like a prearranged plot to sabotage Trump’s candidacy. As I stated at the time, Trump’s lack of knowledge about the “nuclear triad” did not serve as a disqualification of his candidacy, nor did Rubio’s glib recital of the meaning of “nuclear triad” (which was absolutely accurate) make me any more comfortable with Rubio’s neoconnish foreign policy that I was familiar with (being a Florida resident) from the time he ran for the Senate in 2010.
* From time to time throughout history, instigating lil’ imps like Kirchick are slammed by severe blowback of the less than pleasurable variety. I’ve got a funny feeling we are on the threshold of one of those cycles.