Seditious Column on Newsmax

[mpicky]

John L. Perry

Obama Risks a Domestic Military 'Intervention'

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM

By: John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the

"Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened

doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through

military eyes:

Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted

personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America

by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

They can see that the economy - ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation - is financially reliant on foreign lender

governments.

They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed

services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed

to sag.

They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs

falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes,

destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm

not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they

cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble

the national survival on such political whims?

Obama Risks a Domestic Military 'Intervention' 9/29/09 11:37 PM

Page 2 of 2

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's

military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control

him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared

responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do

the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would

replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the

president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a

Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable

or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say,

"We can always worry about that later."

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal

responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two

presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com. Read John Perry's columns here.

[mpicky]

The column has been removed, but not before it made its rounds on the internet.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/s...perry_coup.pdf

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909300012

[littlebird]

And that's really all I have to say about that.

[mpicky]

Originally Posted by littlebird And that's really all I have to say about that.

Yep, but this is exactly what happened to Bush in his 1st year.

[Aunt Sponge]

It's one thing to have problems with the government, the president, military, etc etc etc.
But this article approaches treason.

and my heavens - he hasn't even been in office for a freaking solid year and people are already pre-plotting some bizarre twisted end?

What nutbags. I'm bendable, maybe even elastic, but I don't stretch that far.

[Sophie♥Hatter]

WOW with Bush we had the actual clear and present danger of dictatorship I can not believe the way people are over reacting to having Obama for a president. Our constitution is a living document if our government does not grow and change it will stagnate and die. Obviously for some the fear of change is so great they are willing to destroy our country to keep it "unchanged".

[luvmytanker06]

Originally Posted by Aunt Sponge It's one thing to have problems with the government, the president, military, etc etc etc. But this article approaches treason. and my heavens - he hasn't even been in office for a freaking solid year and people are already pre-plotting some bizarre twisted end? What nutbags. I'm bendable, maybe even elastic, but I don't stretch that far.

x2

I find this article highly disturbing.