Interesting column on the current and likely impact of the foreign policy of the president.
More interesting is the idea that Americans never felt the need to protect themselves proactively from a president bent on the destruction of the Rule of Law.
It is the Rule of Law that is America, not geography. To not defend the Rule of Law is to not defend America and the Constitution that defines us. Pretty clear. Too bad the military leadership refuses to recognize this basic fact.
Impeachment, fundamentally a political response, can’t work in the partisanship that is normal in democracies and democratic republics. We saw this when Clinton was disbarred for felony perjury, but somehow the Senile Boys Club couldn’t manage to convict him. Given that the first verb in the job description of the president is “faithfully,” the idea that lying under oath did not result in being removed from office was, and remains, incredible.
Nonetheless, it should have forewarned: the only defense Americans have decided to provide their liberty is a military action against their CINC: “… to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic…”. This is suboptimal at best, and unworkable in real life, as we have seen zero response from the defenders of the Constitution regardless of how egregious and sustained is the lawlessness of that CINC.
Perhaps the Vietnam-era Left was correct? Perhaps the military ARE nothing but automatons incapable of independent thought and action. As a former cadet at USAFA with lifelong friends in the military, I find this difficult to accept. But there is no other explanation for America’s military leadership not to act on their oath to defend the Constitution; not to defend the president: to defend the Constitution.
The result of this laziness, this absolute refusal to protect the freest nation in history from a fast-developing dictatorship, is an infantile electorate perfectly willing to be broken to the harness of a dictator, and a military willing to send our kids – our future – out to die under suicidal ROE in defense of Dark Ages barbarians – but not to defend their own nation.
This is exactly what we, and the world, are experiencing.
A Middle Class is required in any non-totalitarian State. It’s what makes the country work, educates the kids, and provides goods & services. The first thing dictators do, from Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot is to destroy the Middle Class. What do you think Obama is doing with his economic policies? Destroying the Middle Class.
A nation without borders is not a nation. What do you think Obama is doing with our borders?
A nation whose citizens are unable or unwilling to defend themselves is a nation of subjects – not citizens. What do you think Obama is doing with the 2nd Amendment?
A nation whose citizens are unwilling to take the actions required to save their own system of government … is it really a nation? Is it really a “system of government”?
A government whose voters do not believe in the future of their country enough to populate that future has no business governing anyone who DOES believe in the future. These, however, are the demographics of the Democrat Party and all Blue States. Yet those of us with children seem perfectly willing to NOT “secure the Blessings of Liberty to … our Posterity.”
Is this really who we have become?
A Constitutional alteration to a parliamentary system would have allowed both Bush-43 and Obama to be tossed through a vote of no-confidence when the citizens became fed-up. But that hasn’t happened, nor can it in time to save America. And our voters are too lazy; too many feel entitled to the labor of the Middle Class, and too many elites perfectly satisfied with the crony status quo.
History shows three ways forward. The most elegant statement is contained in the Declaration of Independence. But will the citizens of a nation unwilling to protect what they have do the hard work of replacing a dictator rising in defiance of our laws and Constitution?
Another statement was the secession of States refusing to accept the unconstitutional denial of States’ Rights in the 19th Century. This was an entirely legal action overturned by Lincoln. NY & VA, the two most populous States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, and RI – a quarter of the States – included in their ratification documents notification they’d leave the pact any time they wanted. Had Lincoln been about freeing the slaves, he could have bought & freed them all, the course chosen by Britain, at a cost far below the cost of the Civil War; his Emancipation Proclamation would have covered ALL slaves but did not. Lincoln wanted to consolidate power; all else was secondary to that goal.
Had Southern secession been allowed to stand, would the 20th Century have been so bloody? No intercession by a large industrialized America in WW1 would likely have resulted in a negotiated settlement, and no Weimar Republic, USSR, NAZI Germany, WW2, Korea or Vietnam. And perhaps not the inelegant destruction of the Ottoman Empire and the resulting rise of islamist terrorism.
What WAS the real cost of Lincoln’s war?
Perhaps Texas and Arizona, angered by a federal government dumping thousands of illegal aliens within their States, will de-federalize their Guard, bring them home, and secede. Perhaps other Red States will follow. Perhaps Red Counties will follow Red States.
Perhaps recognition will grow that stasis is not the way forward – not in Yugoslavia. Not in Afghanistan. Not in Iraq. Not in Ukraine. Not in America.
With the greater amount of information available in the digital world come more well-defined worldviews, and Red and Blue no longer seem to agree on anything at all, certainly not on Liberty and Law.
Perhaps this is the only nonviolent way to return to “a more perfect union, [re]establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility… and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Only with a smaller – freer – “union.”
With an obviously lawless tyrant in the White House, with no functional ability to impeach, a military rejecting its oath of office, if secession is off the table, the politicians and military have left only one alternative in the quest of Americans to remain American, to again be a people living in liberty under the rule of law.
Is that really what they want?