If wonder seems idle it is because we associate it with childhood, when we are sometimes lost, as Rilke said, in the “nowhere without no”, oblivious of what is going on around us.
This newsletter has already provided a critique of the militarization of the police forces of the USA; you might want to revisit the relevantbook review before reading further.
The transformation of cops into heavy infantry is not nearly controversial enough. Its rationale has infected some agencies in the federal government that are utterly unsuited to military tasks. In this commentary, Tom Coburn and Adam Andrejewski present the facts and ask some politically incorrect but essential questions.
It’s past time someone blew the whistle. Did you know that military weapons and special forces training are being provided to employees of the Internal Revenue Service, The Health and Human Services Special Office of Inspector General Agents, and The Department of Veterans’ Affairs?
Those questions are introductory. The fundamental puzzle is whether Uncle Sam expects his servants to engage the citizenry in combat.
Well, governments do tend to find victims. Extremists, insurgents, radicals — whatever the Powers That Be call them, they are humans who, in the opinion of some political leaders, pose dangers to someone.
One can reasonably expect that all actions taken by militarized civil servants will be justified as efforts to enhance security. (Remember that prediction.)
Of course no ethical government can tolerate treasonous violence from the citizenry. Everyone agrees that the overthrow of constitutional justice by genuine villains is improper.
Accordingly, the questions for a civilized society include: at what point can the rulers ethically go to war against the ruled? When is it justifiable for government to adopt the security policies of the extinct German Democratic Republic (aka Communist East Germany)?
Note, please: the government’s willingness to countenance literal domestic warfare is a mindset, not a rational evaluation of threats and dangers. In sharp contrast, the citizenry’s willingness to oppose illegitimate force violently is a Jeffersonian principle.
That means it is in the best interests of decent government that the citizens examine the creation of armies whose targets are not aliens, but the domestic population.
It is appropriate to ask whether the national government’s insiders know something that would horrify all USA residents, if they were party to the secret.
Well, this much is clear: the ruling elite currently envisions a nation utterly disarmed — and “protected” by a heavily-armed civil service.
Again and again, this newsletter has reminded you of the chilling words of presidential candidate Obama:
We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
It can not be more obvious: Obama is making good on his promise to transform US politics by militarizing the federal establishment. Some observers will note that he has stupidly waited to do that until the end of his second term approaches; others will say that the militarization will certainly not be continued under Hillary. In fact both of those observations, if offered honestly and without deceitful intent, are stunningly naive.
US Electioneering As It Is And As It Should Be
Trump can’t win. As Peggy Noonan explains in a recent Wall Street Journal essay, Trump has given his opponent what her campaign needed: a good reason for voters to vote for Hillary.
Noonan clarifies the bizarre facts brilliantly. At first, the former first lady’s reason for running “…came down to I’m Hillary and I deserve it.” That’s counterproductive — it displays her hubris and sense of entitlement. But now, according to Noonan, Hillary is saying, “I may have narcissistic personality disorder, but he’s got it worse and in spades. If I’m corrupt, he’s more corrupt. I have poor judgment? Everything he says is poor judgment.”
Seldom if ever has the USA had such unsuitable candidates for its highest executive office.
Voters simply can’t get it right, because no third party aspirant can possibly win.
As dismal as the facts are, one must move on. For example, say you agree with those fifty-one career diplomats who protested the USA’s incredibly incompetent, stupid, deadly, and disastrous Syria policy that was tossed together by Obama and Kerry. Those two are the world’s most highly-placed amateurs.
Accordingly, you understand why things are in a terrible mess, but that does not help. You know the USA is unable to keep up with Putin, restrain Iran, quell ISIS, pacify Syria, cope with immigration, strengthen the economy, compete with China in every sphere of human activity, inspire hope and optimism about the future, and give the lie to the absurd myth of anthropogenic global warming. You understand that Hillary will be even worse at managing the nation’s foreign policy than Obama and Kerry have been, so no matter where you look, you can foresee only a future marred by blunders, feckless planning, and a paucity of policy informed by ethical vision.
Overall, the USA is in deep trouble because it decided to avoid inspired, principled leadership in favor of trendy faith in empty posturing. It has ignored intellectual and ethical achievement and handed power to charlatans. It almost seems as if the electorate wants to give virtually everybody a term or two in the White House. Worst of all, Obama’s example appears to have taught the voters nothing.
The prudent US resident will have to consider preparing for catastrophe, though exactly what form the modern Armageddon will take is impossible to predict. The near future could include economic problems either domestic or international, bigger wars, disastrous relations with other nations, or…whatever.
Both major parties are backing freaks, and the nation can only lose in November. But…is there a way to restore sanity to government, as well as increase the chances of avoiding an eventual Putsch, coup, or rebellion?
Yes. Here it is. Do consider it carefully.
As always, the best answer is to resort to the federal constitution. That document has been unwisely ignored, as Prof. Hamburger can attest.
Links Courtesy Of The Tramp Abroad
This is an interesting Clinton relationship.
What motivated Omar Mateen is not the real question. How in the world did this dangerous, mentally unbalanced terrorist-leaning person slip through the net of the US intelligence and law enforcement agencies, only to acquire weapons legally that enabled him to kill forty-nine innocent people? As Mr Galloway says, stand by, because this story has legs…. Here’s another article to check out.
Defending Hillary. In some quarters — as for example this newsletter — she needs all the help she can get!
It’s like 9/11 all over again, with the various federal intelligence and police authorities not talking to each other: FBI, ATF, TSA, et al. If they had added it all up and looked at this guy in context, perhaps a massacre could have been prevented.
Commentary reports (subscription required) that a recent CNN poll of 239 Republicans showed that 48% want a new party nominee to replace Trump. Could it happen at the GOP convention? Yes. Is it likely? No.
Are you tired of the Hillary e-mail mess? Of course you are. Everyone is. Which is exactly what she’s counted on.
Immigration, culture, and common sense. Recommended, but try to ignore the music — the addition of which was a stupid idea.
Whether Iran was or still is building nuclear bombs remains the object of guesswork, surmise, hope, and political posturing. Of course Obama and Kerry claim the world can trust the Iranians not to build atom bombs, but…why should Israel trust anyone? Use your subscription to Commentary to read more about this critical topic.
These questions do not seem difficult. After all, the federal US constitution guarantees the rights of human beings within US jurisdiction, not just the rights of US citizens. And the issues themselves are not complex. Well, so it seems….
Notice that the Libertarians don’t call this the fascism it is. Their denunciation is polite, carefully framed, and as to the facts of the matter…well, it’s narrowly correct. This newsletter agrees with that…but prefers to speak forthrightly about treasonous disavowal of the constitution’s clear language.
The double advantage to being a politicized federal official is that you can (1) hogtie your opponents by abusing your authority and (2) make a good living doing it.
It’s time the electorate understood the meaning and implications of what Obama and Hillary are saying. Fortunately, Sam Harris has produced a brilliant clarification of the harm done by those consummate cynics. Harris’s remarks get this newsletter’s highest possible recommendation.
The masthead includes a quote from the works of Raymond Tallis.