o'who? - Pray for our country.

Google results for "John L. Perry" and coup:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22John+L.+Perry%22+coup&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

From: gg Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php?ref=fpblg

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.

A statement by NewsMax.com:

Statement from Newsmax Regarding Blogger [John L. Perry]

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM
By: Newsmax Media

     In a blog posting to Newsmax, John Perry wrote about a coup scenario involving the U.S. military.   He clearly stated that he was not advocating such a scenario but simply describing one.

     After several reader complaints, Newsmax wanted to ensure that this article was not misinterpreted.  It was removed a short time after being posted.

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

     Mr. Perry served as a political appointee in the Carter administration in HUD and FEMA.   He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

---

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.

---

~~ added by rfh:

One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

source: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

Enlisted:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  So help me God."  (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Officer:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."  (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

---

Military Officer's Oath Is Increasingly to Protect The Constitution

By Rick Erickson, posted on GOPUSA December 30, 2003

source: http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230p.shtml

On December 13, 1991, Medal of Honor recipient and Officer Candidate School Commanding Officer, Colonel Wesley Fox, administered to me and 184 others the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.   So help me God."

Not until years later, after being entrusted with the leadership of Marine infantrymen, did I truly understand the significance of my oath and corresponding officership.  As I came to learn and understand, the oath applied in and out of uniform, including on-duty and off-duty exploits against anyone within or without who would challenge and distort our Constitution, its promotion of liberty and its basis in moral and just causes.

The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle-class conservatism.  Clinton's eight-year politicization of the military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service.  Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military.

Thankfully, officer resistance ultimately prevailed and, with the election of George W. Bush in 2000, everything returned to order for service people.  Between 1992 and 2000, neither the officer's oath nor the Constitution's language changed to accommodate popular politics.  Activists, however, were quick to identify the government branch now most aligned with liberal causes - the courts.  Blanketing pre-positioned left-wing judges with civilian, civil rights cases, the activist agenda was to transcend rulings from their judges to coerce service people into following judicial orders over constitutional ones.  The end was to corrupt the military's separate body of law specifically drafted to be more exacting of morality and discipline.

For example, even though service people overwhelmingly do not want to serve with declaring homosexuals, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) already has it in the works to rewrite the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in a way that advances homosexual conduct like the State of Texas was forced to do so in Lawrence v. Texas. Hoping to persuade that citizens of military and civilian society have the same purpose, the ACLU wants service people to replace their age-old Code with something much more decadent and much less regimented.

Of late, and upon the inexorable lie that the Constitution's authors meant to accommodate atheists, the ACLU directed the Marine Corps' Commandant to "nip this in the bud immediately" after a photo of uniformed Marines bowing their heads in prayer for the president went highly publicized.  Anticipate that, as with its gamble on other fronts, the ACLU will petition our courts until they find a judge to force upon officers a different oath - one that excludes "So help me God" as its salutation.  In the end, the ACLU wants the military to mirror popular civilian culture, but devastatingly gone with the UCMJ will be combat cohesion, moral duty and decisive action on the battlefield.

To be sure, groups like the ACLU are domestic enemies of the United States.  They deliberately distort the Constitution to promote their radical agendas.  Worst of all, no court shows signs of abating this destructive influence in our civil or military law.  Consequently, it is well with the officer's oath to support and defend the Constitution's foundation in order that no enemy directly or indirectly undoes the Constitution's intended language to such an extreme that officers will have nothing left worthy of their pledge or of their armed service.

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

---