1) Newsmax.com contributor John Perry wrote a piece, an opinion, expressing concern that at least one scenario might be more likely now than in the past - the military intervening in the President's affairs - a coup.
2) Newsmax.com took the page down, the article is not listed, now, on John L. Perry's author page where his other articles are listed.
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.And others pick it up.
3) Little Green Footballs reports that the Perry piece was written - and pulled (This article contains the full text of the initial post).
Bad Craziness at Newsmax: Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention
Weird | Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:03:51 am PDT
Newsmax columnist John L. Perry published this article at the site yesterday, and it’s apparently been tossed down the memory hole.
For obvious reasons.
Beltway Blips mentions the piece. TPM LiveWire includes the NewsMax announcement about removing the piece. MediaMatters reports Newsmax columnist: Military coup "to resolve the 'Obama problem' " is not "unrealistic"
4) TimesOnLine.com relates Gore Vidal's opinion - not related to the Perry piece - that America is facing a dictator soon.
Gore Vidal: ‘We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US’
The grand old man of letters Gore Vidal claims America is ‘rotting away’ — and don’t expect Barack Obama to save it
Note that the Times, (known the world over as The London Times paper), is published outside the US, and outside White House influence - the Vidal article has not been removed.
5) Comments mostly range between calling the article sedition and treason, to goofy.
What is disturbing is the apparent censorship and chilling effect on free speech.
I doubt that Mr. Perry's piece is complete. I believe there though the military might conclude - maybe, in some hypothetical space and time - that President Obama had abandoned devotion and obedience to the US Constitution - that they would not act, unless the Congress and Supreme Court also abandoned the Constitution. So I don't believe military intervention is any closer today than it has been since (General) George Washington was first sworn in as the first President of the United States. Intervention - a coup - could happen, it could always have happened. But the military, at least during my service in the US Navy, teaches and lives the premise that the military must be governed by civilian authority to maintain a rule of law and order - and that the military exists to provide security for that rule of law and order, as defined in the US Constitution.
As well imagine a general officer of the military walking into a meeting with B. Hussein Obama and intervening, as a fund raiser from Chicago walking into the White House and telling B. Hussein Obama, "Get the Olympics into Chicago, now, or else." Actually, I have less experience with fund raisers from Chicago, so that might not be a fair comparison.
No, what I find disturbing is how the original piece was seditious and treasonous - though it warned of an existing threat, not create or advocate a threat - and was so contrary to the good of the nation that it had to be removed. And yet those that agree with the gravity of the situation, or especially those that ridicule the notion, are free to copy and comment on the content of that dangerous piece.
There have been rumors of other blogs and online content that have been affected, when they rose to the notice of the White House. Did B. Hussein Obama, the Secret Service, or other staff or representatives - or other government agencies or marshals - intervene at NewsMax or directly to John L. Perry? We may have to wait for the next Presidential administration - or impeachment hearings for B. Hussein Obama, if that should happen - to find out.