Silent Coup

By | August 19, 2013 | 0 Comments





President Barack Obama

Gen. Antonio López de Santa Anna

This title is borrowed from a book about the Watergate scandal, which resulted in the resignation of President Nixon. The author’s thesis was that it was a “set-up” by Nixon’s enemies. I never found this idea plausible, but the idea of a silent coup remained with me.
I believe we may now be in the midst of a silent coup. By “silent” the author of the Nixon book meant that the coup was out of sight of the people. On the contrary, by “silent” I mean that the current coup is in plain sight of the people, but the people are silent. This form of silence is even more distressing. If people are unaware of what is going on, you can’t blame them. But if they are aware – and just don’t care – then what?
The usual notion of a coup is a takeover or putsch, in which the military overthrows the civilian government. This is one type of coup, but by no means the only type:

[M]ilitary historian Edward Luttwak says, “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.” Thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état. [Emphasis added.]

Leftists talk endlessly about “the people,” but in fact have no respect for them. Lenin claimed to speak for the peasants, but privately he called them “cattle.” Nothing has changed in a century. The leftist magazine Mother Jones adorned its cover with the following:

A confused and frightened citizenry votes against its own self-interest.

But who knows what is best for the confused and frightened citizens? The leftist “elite,” of course. President Obama makes no secret of his disregard, even contempt, for both popular opinion and the Constitution. In discussing people who live in depressed areas where factories have closed, Obama declared:

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Barack Obama, 2008

Obama believes that devotion to religion or to the Second Amendment is akin to racism and xenophobia. He sees them as primitive notions that have no place in modern society. But without religion, we have no firm basis for ethics − and no sound foundation for objecting to whatever the government decides to do. And without an individual right to own firearms, we have no effective means of defending ourselves from tyrants or other criminals.
Disparaging guns and religion is a devious way of encouraging acquiescence to tyranny. What good is public opinion, if it is not founded on ethical values, and not enforceable by the people on government officials? A confused, disarmed public is the dream of tyrants.
Without an informed, empowered populace, the only other obstacle to tyranny is the Constitution. But Obama made it crystal clear that although he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, he regards it as a relic at best, and as an obstacle at worst.
Obama complains that the Constitution is “fundamentally flawed,” because it fails to provide for redistribution of wealth. Apparently he compares the Constitution unfavorably with “The Communist Manifesto.” Such thinking may have been understandable in a young college student who was unaware of the 100 million deaths attributable to communism. But such ignorance and naïveté is inexcusable in a supposedly mature individual in a position of great power.
Obama fails to understand the fundamental goal of the Constitution − to reduce the risk of tyranny by limiting the power of the federal government. He sees this as a flaw, not as a virtue. He wants a “living Constitution,” meaning not the document as actually written, but a vague concept to be interpreted by liberal judges to mean whatever they want it to mean today. Tomorrow it may mean something else, depending on “current social needs” and “international norms.” I knew a guy in junior high school named Norm, but he had nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution.
I used to believe that this “living Constitution” was like having no Constitution, and being ruled by liberal judges. But now I realize that it might be better to have no Constitution at all. Then every new policy would have to be voted upon by Congress. Abolish the death penalty? Give mass-murdering terrorists captured overseas the same rights as a shoplifter arrested in Omaha? Allow same-sex marriage? Order that ballots be printed in many languages, thereby making a mockery of the requirement that new citizens must have a reading knowledge of English?
These and other contentious issues would have to be debated and voted upon. And if the public disagreed, we could vote our representatives out of office at the next election. But with a “living Constitution,” unelected judges with lifetime jobs will rule on these crucial issues, claiming that “the Constitution” requires them to do so. And we have no recourse.
A “living Constitution” is like James Bond’s double-0 license − it empowers the holder to do anything he or she pleases. If you doubt this, consider then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s response to a question as to whether Obamacare is constitutional. She replied, “Are you serious?” − while giggling. That giggle revealed the leftist attitude toward the Constitution: contempt.
This attitude is, in effect: “Congress can enact, or the president can order, anything we bleeping please, without regard to the Constitution. It’s not our job to worry about the Constitution. That’s the role of the Supreme Court.” This is akin to saying, “I pay no attention to whether something belongs to me or not. If I like it, I take it. It’s up to the police to catch me if they can.” These people call themselves progressives. Others call them socialists. I call them high-functioning sociopaths.
Or consider Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s testimony that the Constitution should be interpreted to favor the “disadvantaged.” But who decides who is “disadvantaged”? The judges, of course. This is another way of saying, “We do as we please.” Contrast this with the Bible:

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Leviticus 19:15

Oh, I almost forgot − we mustn’t cling to our religion. No, judges should rule not according to our legal traditions, but according to the judges’ own biases − as influenced by the teachings of Marx. If that isn’t a coup, what is?
Leftists assume that they will always be in control. But what if the reaction against their attempted coup goes too far? What if right-wing extremists come to power? Then they can rule through “czars” who are not confirmed by the Senate but are beholden only to the president. Then they can appoint judges who rule according to their biases. Leftists claim to fear fascism, but by weakening the checks and balances our Founders so wisely established, they are opening the door to tyranny of all types, not just their own.
● When Congress refused to pass the Dream Act, President Obama put it into effect by executive order. He simply waved his hand, and illegal aliens who were born here were suddenly legalized.
● When Obamacare ran into trouble, he delayed the employer mandate by one year, though the law gives him no such power.
● When Obama felt that federal drug penalties were too strict, he ordered U.S. attorneys to withhold evidence and make the offenses seem less serious, thus bypassing Congress entirely.
● When Obama disliked the Defense of Marriage Act, he simply refused to enforce it.
These are clear usurpations of congressional power, as well as violations of the Constitution:

He [the president] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Article II, Section 3, Clause 5

But what if Obama is followed by a reactionary president, who orders that all those whom Obama legalized shall immediately be deported? What if he decrees that all of Obamacare be delayed until the year 3000? What if he decrees that all same-sex marriages are null and void? What will “progressives” do then? They dismantled the constitutional system of checks and balances. They transformed the president into a virtual dictator. Yes, he wears a suit instead of a uniform, but that’s just a matter of style.

In Europe the fascists goose-stepped; in America they jog.
– John O’Sullivan

If the president can enforce edicts that Congress did not pass, and fail to enforce laws that Congress did pass, in what sense is he still a president, and not a dictator in the mold of a Latin American caudillo? When Texans say “Remember the Alamo!” they are recalling their revolt against the tyranny of the Mexican caudillo, General Antonio López de Santa Anna. What Texans fought and died to overcome, we are now submitting ourselves to in spineless servitude and cowardly silence.

Freedom is never an achieved state. Like electricity, we’ve got to keep generating it, or the lights go out.
Wayne LaPierre

Contact: You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

Social Widgets powered by