There has always been the possibility that the military, or someone in the military, would try to control the government, that has not changed since 1776. Anyone that thinks otherwise should reconsider.

Is the military closer, now, to feeling a need to intervene? I don’t know, but they have my sympathies for the shabby way the White House is failing to meet the President’s responsibility to uphold and defend the Constitution (and not fund raisers in Chicago).

What I don’t like is that newsmax.com and John L. Perry had their words taken down, yet the article has been copied and cited innumerable times around the Internet. If the content of this article is seditious or treasonous, if it advocates violence or and unlawful change of government (it doesn’t, in my opinion), then how is the nation served by repeating the contents hither and yon? Is not every single mention of the contents as dangerous and likely to incite illegal acts as the original article?

Or is the point that newsmax.com and John L. Perry don’t support President B. Hussein Obama - and it is because the words are *theirs* that their copy must be removed from in front of the public?

Remember the age-old definition of freedom of speech - you have to defend the right of everyone opposing you to speak whatever they will, to have freedom of speech.