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 grok he and those he cites don’t want Donald Trump to be president. Their war gaming for his ouster reads more like a yearning than warning.
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.
That 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.
As 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.”
“If it 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.
There’s more than a bit of hubris in such assurances, especially when viewed against the wider phenomenon of “progressives” having been stunned by November’s election results. The Sun Tzu ain’t exactly strong in these types. They come off more like the provincials held in such disdain by self-styled “progressive” sophisticates, which is pretty evident when you consider Vice’s history of partnerships with governments and establishment media, and that Ginsburg co-authored his paper on “authoritarian reversion” and coups with a prominent apologist for Muslims in America.
If either Pearl of Ginsburg have professional qualifications and experience to assure such a “resistance is futile” certainty, their CVs don’t mention them. No doubt,in their minds, resistance suppression would work here with the same immediate effectiveness we’ve seen in places like Afghanistan. All those armed Americans would march out onto the field of battle in infantry square formations, and it would be “game over,” and “toast,” right?
If that’s the case, we might as well surrender our guns now, don’t you think?
If 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