Thread: Glenn Beck's fear of Obama: Seize power overnight

Glenn Beck's fear of Obama: Seize power overnight

THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY
Glenn Beck's fear of Obama: Seize power overnight
Rush: 'Most dangerous time in my life for freedom and liberty in this country'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 26, 2009
9:30 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Will President Obama "seize power overnight" in a move to consolidate White House control of the U.S. government?

That's the fear of Fox News anchor Glenn Beck who discussed the issue at length today with another broadcasting powerhouse, radio's Rush Limbaugh.

"I fear this government, this administration has so much framework already prepared, that they will seize power overnight before anybody even gives it a second thought," Beck said

Watch video here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108088

His comment came as he was analyzing the changing nature of the media since Obama's election, citing the administration's close ties with the NBC network, owned by corporate giant General Electric:

If you watch what could only be called the administration's organ – anything involved with GE or NBC – you've got [GE CEO] Jeffrey Immelt on the board of the Federal Reserve, you have him in the Oval Office consulting not only on health care, but the financial situation, and they are an organ.

If you watch MSNBC, I contend that you will see the future because they are laying the ground for a horrible event ... anything from the right, there's some awful event and I fear this government, this administration has so much framework already prepared, that they will seize power overnight before anybody even gives it a second thought.

Limbaugh responded, "I don't think they're going to be able to seize it overnight without anybody knowing about it."

Get the book that exposes the secret blueprint for ending free speech: "Shut up, America!"

The pair analyzed Obama's appointment of Mark Lloyd, the nation's first "chief diversity officer" at the Federal Communications Commission, and both agreed he is looking to severely limit free speech in America through a series of new initiatives without ever having to revive the "Fairness Doctrine" that was abandoned in 1985.

WND recently reported that Lloyd believes the policy was never actually repealed, and he is said to advocate crippling $250 million fines for radio stations whose programming does not meet with the government's approval.

He's also reportedly pushing for private broadcasters to pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs. That money would then be used to enhance funding of government-subsidized networks such as National Public Radio.

"Citizen access to popular information has been undermined by bad political decisions," Lloyd wrote in his 2006 book, "Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America." "Corporate liberty has overwhelmed citizen equality."

"What they're trying to do here to communications is simply stifle dissenting voices. They're trying to wipe out any opposition," Limbaugh explained. "The things he's talking about doing to shut down radio are simply un-American. ... It is a dangerous time. It's the most dangerous time in my life for freedom and liberty in this country."

Limbaugh maintained every action thus far by Obama has been designed to intentionally hurt, rather than help the nation.

"Look at what they're doing to the U.S. economy," he said. "Anybody with a sense of economic literacy would know this is not how you create jobs. You do not rebuild the private sector. This is being done on purpose. All of these disasters are exactly what Obama wants. The more crises, the better. The more opportunity for government to say, 'Let us in and fix the problem.'"

Limbaugh has been maligned by some in the media for previous comments that he would like Obama to fail in implementing his policies, and he said today he was "uncomfortable thinking and saying these things about a man who's been elected president of the United States."

It is terribly upsetting and disconcerting, and I wish I didn't think it and I wish I didn't have to say it. But there's no way to sugarcoat it. This is not politics as usual. This is not left versus right. This is not Republican versus Democrat. This is statism, totalitarianism versus freedom. And if these people are allowed to go where they want to go unchecked, then some people, a lot of people – I don't think half the country, but close – will wake up one day and find, "My God, what the hell happened?" Because this is not what they voted for. They had no intention of this. They thought they were getting something entirely different and it is a responsibility that we all have being honest and earnest to inform people of what these possibilities are because they are very real.
Beck, who has a national radio show of his own as well as his television broadcast on the Fox News Channel, wondered about a perceived lack of coverage on the issues they were discussing.

"Where is the true outrage from anyone in the media?" asked Beck. "Why are these things not grabbing traction at this point?"

"I think the whole concept of reporting has gone out the window," Limbaugh answered. "I call them the State-Controlled Media because it's what they are. They're just repeaters. They take dictation from [Obama Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel for the most part, and they simply run with it. It's who they are, too."

Despite the potential for doom and gloom, Limbaugh assured Beck that there was a ray of hope that Obama's goals could be defeated.

"Passion, love of country, truth is going to outmaneuver and overpower fake passion, trumped-up people who are just given marching orders and sent out to act in a certain way," Limbaugh said.

"I'm confident that this can be beaten back. If I weren't, you know what, Glenn? I'd pack it all in and I'd spend my money before they take it and I'd go enjoy the rest of what my life is gonna be, but I –

"That's quite a shopping spree," Beck interrupted with a laugh. "Can I come with you?"

"There's plenty of room," said Rush.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108088

"I fear this government, this administration has so much framework already prepared, that they will seize power overnight before anybody even gives it a second thought," Beck said

Sounds like something from a political thriller such as "7 Days in May". While I share many of Beck's concerns, an overnight takeover does not seem likely to me because I don't think that it is possible unless Obama has total control of the US military forces. Without such control he has no means to enforce his takeover, Congress would impeach him, remove him from office (along with all known co-conspirators). Pelosi might become president (that is no political thriller--that would be straight from H.P. Lovecraft).

If Obama is the Commander in Chief why doesn't he have total control of the armed forces? Two basic reasons:

1. The armed forces are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not serve the President. All recruits, whether officers or enlisted personnel, are instructed on what constitutes a legal order and what constitutes an illegal order. Obviously, any type of overnight takeover would require the use of illegal orders to employ US forces. Would the upper brass take this seriously? I think so. When President Nixon was facing impeachment the Secretary of the Air Force promulgated a world-wide message to all USAF members reminding us of our duty to the Constitution (there was some concern in some quarters that Nixon might try to use un-Constitutional means to remain in office if impeached)

2. A significant portion of our armed forces are supplied by the National Guard. The National Guard is under direct control of the various state governors, except when activated for deployment with active duty forces or in the event of national emergency or disaster. If the governors perceive that the president is illegally mobilizing National Guard units, I believe they will refuse to allow the units to mobilize, and I believe the commanders of those units will obey the governors.

So, could the president fake a national disaster by taking advantage of an incident (hurricane, earthquake, terrorist attack, civil unrest, etc) to declare martial law? I would not put it past him, but such a declaration would have to be on such a broader scale than most incidents would justify, so the concept of legality would probably surface almost immediately. In other words, I believe that it would take multiple terrorist attacks all over the country at nearly the same time, or civil unrest like we have never seen before to justify national martial law. I can conceive of no natural disaster that would justify more than a local declaration, at worst regional. It was not required after Hurricane katrina, Andrew or Camille, 3 of the most devastating hurricanes to ever hit the US. It was not required after the California earthquake in the 1980's.

Nevertheless, we need to do every thing we can to block the administration's efforts to silence talk radio, control the Internet, and undermine congressional oversight of major programs via the appointment of so-called czars.