And about that oath, a conundrum.
Oath : a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
This oath is taken by all members of the military and a similar oath is taken by many if not all officials and public servants. The concept of Lawful Orders is also in play.
Military people may struggle with these sometimes conflicting demands, but sometimes it becomes clear.
That struggle is occurring now.
It assumes that the Constitution of the United States is the primary thing that the swearer is to defend. It assumes that there exists people both here and elsewhere that could threaten the continuation of that Constitution and by extension, the country that it purports to define.
Suppose as an exercise, there are people who seek or gain power and state specifically that they wish to discard parts of all of the constitution. Suppose they are even stating that the Constitution is outdated and is in some ways evil and suppose they seek to change that Constitution in a way that disadvantages citizens who have come to depend on it for protection of their liberties.
Who decides at which point in the above scenario is the swearer obligated to honor the oath.
It was an oath of an individual, making a personal commitment to support and defend.
Suppose the person supports candidates who he believes support the Constitution, and they lose based upon what he thinks was an affront to the Constitution by people who were willing to lie cheat and steal to gain an electoral victory.
Then, believing that the process has been compromised by the “enemies of the Constitution” he sees them taking actions that promise to further expand their hold on unconstitutional power.
He sees the new president, who has said that only despots rule by executive order, or “decrees” use them to a level that has not been seen ever before. He sees the new administration flooding the zone with 50 players on the field, daring the opposition to deal with them all in court.
He sees the nations capital, occupied by troops, and he knows why.
Despots use military power to maintain ill gotten political power.
Despots consider themselves to be above that protective Constitution.
Despots want more than Constitutions, congresses and courts will allow them.
Despots consider themselves, not the people , as sources of political power and will……”Mein Kampf” “My Struggle” All while accusing their opponents of sedition, insurrection and despotic behavior.
Then he plays again in his mind the oath he took, ponders it’s implications to the nation and him and his family , wonders if the center of his government, the Constitution, will hold and protect him and the society without him being forced to embrace the unthinkable result of the individual oath he took and wonders if someone will arise to lead justice back to the forefront.
Maybe it is the Democrats who, by their actions , are inciting insurrection by others who wish only to protect the Constitution.
Maybe they are really that stupid and lacking in self awareness.
Maybe if they cannot criminally get and hold power, they will really as some of their Antifa and BLM minions state, “Burn it all down.”
Maybe they think that having the votes, they can insure that that always have the votes. I think of Hitler in the bunker at the end, Mussolini hanging from a lamp post.
Are we as a nation more like China? Who will be there to wade ashore as we did in France to save us from destruction.
No one.
I think of dictators and despotic parties who, thinking their citizens to be helpless sheep, were mistaken.
We shall see.
Categories