What were you saying about "toast"? [British regulars surrender to militia forces
led by George Rogers Clark at Fort Sackville - PD-Art]
"What would happen in the minutes and hours after a coup in America?" Mike Pearl of Vice Media asks
in a bit of "progressive" wishful thinking sprinkled with multiple
hollow disclaimers. He takes pains to explain how unlikely it is, and
how horrible it would be, but you don't need to read too closely between
the lines to know he and those he cites don't want Donald Trump to be
president. Their war gaming for his ouster reads more like a yearning
The assumption, of course, is that a president
with "America First" policies is a coup-worthy threat, unlike the
acceleration toward totalitarianism a Hillary presidency would have
produced. It also emphasizes the accusation that an Electoral College
victory protecting the interests of the states is not legitimate. We
see that meme personified against Trump by the likes of John Lewis and
Elizabeth Warren, and happily shared by an establishment media
that overwhelmingly agrees.
hardly squares with the red/blue divide. Americans who believe
unbendingly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and particularly
in the Second Amendment, don't really have a problem with policies
that so thwart and horrify "progressives" - that's why the divide.
with all who support such oath-breakers, the further assumption is
that their outrage will apply to senior military leadership. With some
of the examples we've seen, like oath breakers David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal
joining in the demand for civilian disarmament, they may have a point. And that, undoubtedly, is why Oath Keepers, with its "Orders We Will Not Obey
represents such an existential threat to those who would abet tyranny.
It certainly explains why the same special interests that want to
delegitimize Trump actively portray those who put the oath first as
"haters" and "anti-government extremists."
"As long as
the courts back the coup, any Trump supporters who take to the streets
and exercise a very literal interpretation of their Second Amendment
rights-to form a militia and fight government tyranny-don't stand much
of a chance," Pearl asserts, just like he knows what he's talking
about. "The federal government is usually hesitant to use force against
armed groups like the Bundys, but those groups never pose an
existential threat to the dominant regime."
were really a high-stakes situation where they thought their regime was
at risk, they would've been toast," Pearl's advisor, University of
Chicago law professor Tom Ginsburg assures him.
To read more, or make a comment on this post, GO HERE
you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a
donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
Post a Comment
Authors of comments and posts are solely responsible for their statements. Please email MiddletownInsider@gmail.com for questions or concerns. This blog, (and any site using the blogger platform), does not and cannot track the source of comments. While opinions and criticism are fine, they are subject to moderator discretion; slander and vile attacks of individuals will not to be tolerated. Middletown Insider retains the right to deny any post or comment without explanation.