Attempted Coup d’État
David C. Stolinsky, MD
Oct. 25, 2010
When I was choosing a title for this column, I wondered whether the term “coup” was too strong. The usual notion of a coup is a takeover or putsch, in which the military, or a faction of 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.]
− Wikipedia
After reading this definition, I felt more confident that “coup” is not an exaggeration. What else should one call an attempt to seize control of the levers of power, without the approval of the majority of citizens, and contrary to the Constitution?
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 adorns its current 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. For example, President Obama and his associates make no secret of their 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. Of course, 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 has 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 it 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 at all, 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? Cheapen citizenship by requiring ballots to be printed in many languages?
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 can rule on these and other crucial issues, claiming that “the Constitution” requires them to do so. And we have no recourse.
In the end, 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 Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s response to a question as to whether ObamaCare is constitutional. She replied, “Are you serious?” − while giggling. That giggle revealed what the leftist attitude toward the Constitution really is: contempt.
This attitude is, in effect, “Congress can enact, and the president can order, anything we bleeping please, without regard to the written Constitution. It’s not our job to worry about the Constitution. That is the role of the courts, especially 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 may call themselves progressives. Others may call them socialists. I call them high-functioning sociopaths.
Or consider recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s testimony on how the Constitution should be interpreted to favor the “disadvantaged.” But who decides who is “disadvantaged”? The judges themselves, 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, we should get our rules for judges not from the Bible, and not from our legal tradition, but from 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.
“Coup” is an accurate description of what is being attempted. One might add the words “nonviolent,” thank goodness, or “stealthy,” as in “hide in plain sight.” But it is a coup.
I pray that the coup will fail, though it is too soon to say. We will have a better idea on the night of November 2, but the struggle against would-be tyrants is ongoing. As the proverb states, it is not ours to finish the task, but we are not excused from doing our part.
Freedom is never an achieved state. Like electricity, we’ve got to keep generating it, or the lights go out.
− Wayne LaPierre
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.
SOURCE
0 comments:
Post a Comment