Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
NewsMax: Military coup will 'get rid of Obama': Treasonous words
Share:
by smkovalinsky | September 30, 2009 at 07:49 am
817 views | 10 Recommendations | 9 comments
Photos
NewsMax's John Perry sees a coup pending: If people keep tuning into his words, expect a big Tea Party Problem. Looks like he wants to steer those Tea Party marches into a patch of nasty weather: In his delusional state, he will want the National Guard called out because he believes they will turn on Obama. This is a blatant suggestion to his followers to stir things up. Logan Murphy of "Crooks and Liars" has it right, all the way:
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.Did you get that? Perry doesn't advocate a military overthrow of the Obama administration, he's...just sayin'. Does anyone doubt that we'll see "military coup" signs at the next tea party? Mr. Perry believes he has the pulse of our military, but his assumptions go beyond the pale, straining the limits of credulity:
Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
There are so many flaws in this clown's logic, I don't know where to begin. What he's actually describing is George Bush's presidency, not Barack Obama's. If you can stand to click through to Perry's article, I would be most interested to hear your thoughts on his assumptions. As Jamie asked -- can you say treason?
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
smkovalinsky
New York, New York, United States
Most Recommended Stories in World
Recommendations (10)
Rory Cripps
New Port Richey, Florida, United States
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States
The_Cynic
Freddy Beach, Where the deer r, Canada
a211423
Clearlake, California, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (9)
at 08:26 on September 30th, 2009
From The Consitutional Law of the United States by Westel Woodbury, the definition of Constitutional Treason to the United States may be charged only in cases where the accused has levied war against the United States, adhered to its enemies, or given them aid and comfort and , for conviction there must have been an overt act.
The distinction between a riot or resistance to the execution of a law and treason is not always easy to draw, but in general the authorities hold that resistance to public authority, in order to constitute a levying of war, and therefore treason, must amount to an effort directly to overthrow the government, or to prevent a law from being executed, not simply in a particular instance, but generally.
Mr Perry's rantings would appear to fall under freedom of speech, not treason as he has not commited an "overt act."
at 14:13 on September 30th, 2009
Right On a211423 and well put! There's no law against being a nut and expressing one's nutty views. And that applies equally to both fringes of the political spectrum!
at 08:59 on September 30th, 2009
And, it is interesting that the US has its rights spelled out in a constitution, whereas in Britain and Canada it is not so clearly defined, allowing a person to think that I could be arrested for Free Speech.
Mark Steyn's book went through that hellish process that Canada has set up to restrict Free Speech. Fortunately for the public image of Canada and for the sake of Free Speech itself, Mark Steyn won.
at 11:57 on September 30th, 2009
Yeah, you do, but they are inferior to ours, as was explained to me by a Canadian friend in Rome years ago and the only explanation of how it could be that Mark Steyn could have faced judicial proceedings over contentions he made about Islam in his book.
Underpinnings are underpinnings. The Constitution goes beyond the underpinnings.
at 12:54 on September 30th, 2009
You can't win by calling names. You can only win by taking positions sustained by facts.
You have commissions in charge of reviewing books and Mark Steyn was dragged in because he made critical observations about Islam.
That would never happen here.
Bush eroded our civil liberties. but, even with Bush, we are in better condition as far as freedom of speech goes.
I mean you guys had to fight to be allowed to see FoxNews. Talk about fear of the other side.
I did know quite a few illegals who were Canadian living in San Francisco. Apparently, many Canadians don't see things the way you do.
at 13:15 on September 30th, 2009
Sorry, Lorac, you will get to have the last word. Enjoy your sense of superiority. You will need it for the upcoming tough times.
My parent and grandparnts are immigrants. My wife is black. I don't believe many myths about the US and I lived for almost a dozen years in Italy. I really do see our flaws. And the major one is that our right and our left don't see themselves.
Over and out.
- reply
Jon W (not verified)at 11:44 on October 1st, 2009
Hi RoyJust reading through the comments and thought I should point out that Canada *does* have a charter of rights that pretty clearly sets out that we do have freedom of speech up here:laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_1 Fundamental Freedoms Fundamental freedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.Add that to 800 years of British common law tradition and you'll see the freedom of speech is very well ingrained in law in Canada.Ezra Levant ran afoul of the Alberta "Human Rights" Tribunal, which investigated a complaint about his magazine for running Danish cartoons. Mark Steyn had a similar thing happen to him. At any rate the offending section of the act that allowed that to happen is now on the chopping block to bring it into line with the rest of Canadian Law.See here: canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com/2009/09/macleans-it-took-while-but-section-13.htmlThought I'd get that out there.Jon
at 15:00 on September 30th, 2009
JEEZ Lorac! As an American, I'm truly sorry that you hate my country! But you're right that America has some problems. However in my opinion, America's problems are not nearly as bad as most of the world's problems. And it seems that the only proof needed to back that assertion up is the fact that millions of immigrants continue to flock to America. They must do this for a reason. But whatever their reason, I'm sure that a better life for them and their children has something to do with it. They can go back home whenever they want to--for the most part, no one here in America is holding them hostage. But for some reason, immigrants choose to stay here in America for generations and generations and virtually none of them choose to return (except on vacation) to the country of their birth. America definitely has something going on that the rest of the world fancies. It's been like this for over two hundred years and will probably continue.
Canada sounds like a great place to live--far superior to America. This begs the question: Why does any immigrant choose to come to America when he or she can go to Canada? I have no doubt that they'd be much better off in Canada than in America. We've got to get the word out to these immigrants that Canada is a much better choice for them.
- reply
Annon. (not verified)at 13:53 on October 7th, 2009
The illegals get a free ride here, not in canada. Canada is a better place for the legals. America give the illegals a free ride, completely free that is pay no taxes, yet recieve health care, get a decent paying job if they need anything else they just ask Obama for it and they are sure to get it.