Newsmax column suggesting military coup against Obama

[Galvatron]

Link

Here is the full text of John L. Perry's column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic." Perry also writes that a coup, while not "ideal," may be preferable to "Obama's radical ideal" -- and would "restore and defend the Constitution." Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.


Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

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?

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.

And this is only the first year of his term. Imagine how crazy the wingnuts will be by 2012.

[Vaporous]

It speaks volumes about the militarized nature of our society when the military is viewed as the only government agency that works.

Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars.

at the point of a loaded gun and at the cost of democracy you fucking hack

If this was a more mainstream voice I would be enraged, and not a little worried, that the right wings "anti-communism" platform has already jumped to this level of lunacy.

[Anguirus]

I think this guy read Seven Days in May and got entirely the wrong idea.

If the integrity of the Constitution weighs so heavily on his mind, why doesn't he point out what article Obama is violating? And where was he when Bush was wiping Cheney's ass with it?

[Knife]

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

As I am forced to point out more and more, lately, not necessarily here but else where, the US Constitution doesn't have any fucking thing in it about the US being a capitalistic, free market nation. Without that, how can the Constitution be trampled by any 'nationalization' even if I let that little bit of hyperbole pass.

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

Lol, as officers, I'd hope they've had some history classes and know that this is nothing irregular or even extraordinary in US history.

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.

As officers, I'd hope they have a realistic notion of who and what are enemies are and who and what have a realistic change of doing damage to us. I would hope they'd be more inline to worry about real threats and not imagined ones.

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

Uhm, we are already doing that now.

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

*snort*

I don't even know what to say about that bs line. Perhaps what the author really means is, those Officers who are politically aligned with the authors viewpoints can see the nation's safety and their own perceived military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

[Bluewolf]

Wow the loonies are really stepping up. First with tat retarded FB poll, now this. It makes me wonder if any of these iddiots wwill actually do anything and for the sake of the US, I really hope not.

[Knife]

Wow the loonies are really stepping up. First with tat retarded FB poll, now this. It makes me wonder if any of these iddiots wwill actually do anything and for the sake of the US, I really hope not.

Sad part is, if something does happen tragedy wise, these assclowns will go to ground so as not to get an ass whopping for their rhetoric, then pop back up after it's over to continue on with their bullshit.

[Julhelm]

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.

ROFL

[fgalkin]

Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars.

I agree completely. Look what a great job they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, those bastions of Freedom and Democracy. Truly, if anyone can rebuild America, it's the military.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[General Zod]

I like how they whine about the US being financially reliant on foreign lender governments without seeming to realize that the US wouldn't have existed in the first place without them.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't Newsmax one of those crazy-ass right-wing pseudo-news sites, like WorldNutDaily?

[JLTucker]

Isn't Newsmax one of those crazy-ass right-wing pseudo-news sites, like WorldNutDaily?

Yep. They also have a magazine. My stepfather is a subscriber. Their most recent issue has Glenn Beck on the cover dressed as Uncle Sam: "Glenn Beck wants you! Recruits must read 'Arguing with Idiots'".

[The Spartan]

Their most recent issue has Glenn Beck on the cover.

Unfortunately, so does Time.

[Ryan Thunder]

Isn't Newsmax one of those crazy-ass right-wing pseudo-news sites, like WorldNutDaily?

Yep. They also have a magazine. My stepfather is a subscriber. Their most recent issue has Glenn Beck on the cover dressed as Uncle Sam: "Glenn Beck wants you! Recruits must read 'Arguing with Idiots'".

The irony is palpable.

[Simon_Jester]

What, you think idiots don't argue with each other?

[Ryan Thunder]

What, you think idiots don't argue with each other?

That was my first thought, but then I realized they're usually too busy circle-jerking.

[Azazal]

and I see that Newsmax is trying to back away from this guy

Flip flop ahoy

In a statement sent to TPM, Newsmax spokeswoman Paula Pradines said that John L. Perry -- the columnist who claimed a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" was increasingly possible -- is just an "unpaid blogger" for the magazine.

"He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger," she said.

On his Newsmax bio page, Perry is described as someone who "contributes a regular column to Newsmax.com." On the site's "Blogs" page, he's listed alongside other contributors including Ben Stein, Grover Norquist and Christopher Ruddy, the owner and editor-in-chief on Newsmax.

He has also written a column nearly every week since late 1999.

Pradines said Newsmax pulled the column after several reader complaints "to insure that this article was not misinterpreted."

"Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government," she added, "and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions."

Besides, Perry "clearly stated that he was not advocating such a scenario but simply describing one," she wrote.

[Isolder74]

Wow they are backpeddling so hard they must have gotten dizzy!

This is not worth the electrons that the article was generated with!

[CmdrWilkens]

Only TPM has already dug in and found out that not only is the "unpaid blogger" bit an exagggeration the guy was one of their star cooluminsts:

TPM

Later Update: Let me just add a little more on this. As you can see, the angle Newsmax is taking on this is to suggest that Perry doesn't really have anything to do with them, that he's just an "unpaid blogger." Now I think we all understand that there are many sites -- Kos, Redstate, even TPM -- where readers are allowed to set up their own blogs or diaries and write their own stuff. These are essentially discussion areas. And it's a cheap shot when someone finds some nutty diary on Kos and says DailyKos published such and such. Newsmax is claiming that that's what's happening here. But we've taken a close look. And I think it's clear that that is not true. Perry has written a weekly column for the site going back to at least 1999. And he's prominently listed on the bio page of all Newsmax columnists, along with Dick Morris, Dr. Laura, Grover Norquist, Lanny Davis, Michael Reagan, Rep. Ernest Istook, etc. (You can see the page we're referring to here; scroll down and look for the red arrow on the left.) We'll have more for you on this shortly.

[FSTargetDrone]

You can read the other ravings of this nut Perry here.

[Duckie]

In other news, the RNC paid Newsmax for their subscriber list to use for mass mailings earlier this year, and when queried refused to distance itself from Newsmax in the same way it refused to distance itself from the Birthers on WorldNetDaily.

The descent into madness for the Republican Party continues apace.

[Patrick Degan]

And so, Newsmax joins the GOP in thinking they can spew crazy-ass shit any time and none of it will ever reach the notice of the outside world.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Of course the conservatives are touting this as an isolated incident. Like the protestors. Also the conservative motivated killing sprees that occur almost monthly now. Or the murder of a Federal worker in the militianut region of Kentucky. And the Facebook incident.

[General Zod]

Of course the conservatives are touting this as an isolated incident. Like the protestors. Also the conservative motivated killing sprees that occur almost monthly now. Or the murder of a Federal worker in the militianut region of Kentucky. And the Facebook incident.

Yeah, I think you're stretching on the Kentucky Federal worker murder there. It doesn't take waves of conservative nutbaggery for isolationist dicktards in a backwater state to kill someone because they're a Federal employee. As far as killing sprees . . . what?

[chitoryu12]

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.

Something about advocating a radical method as a means of defeating a "radical" makes me chuckle inside.

[Oskuro]

Aaah, the "Obama problem", or in other words, "he's in office and we are not".