Enemy combatants, fifth columns, and coups

jade-helm-15

bradford
Bradford

William Bradford, the West Point law professor who resigned Monday after publishing a law review article in which he described American legal scholars as “enemy combatants” and called for military strikes against a “fifth column” of academics, law schools, and the media outlets that spread their ideas, apparently has also written a piece in which he makes the case for a military coup in the United States.

Titled “Alea Iacta Est: The U.S. Coup of 2017,” Matt Ford writes at The Atlantic that,

The abstract is strewn with thinly-veiled references to President Obama, asking, for example, “What conditions precedent would be required before the American military would be justified in using or threatening force to oust a U.S. president attempting to ‘fundamentally transform the United States of America’?” Although describing it simply as a “heuristic test of a proferred theory,” it also wonders aloud, “Is such a duty incumbent upon the U.S. armed forces at present?”

The Latin phrase “Alea iacta est” is translated as “the die is cast,” and according to the Roman historian Suetonius were the words spoken by Julius Caesar as he led his army across the River Rubicon in defiance of the Senate, beginning the civil war  which would place the victorious general on the throne of empire, replacing a flawed democracy with military dictatorship.

Below is the full abstract (emphasis added by me), taken from Bradford’s LinkedIn page. I refuse to link to it, so look him up yourself if you must. And remember, this guy was helping to educate the next generation of American military leaders.

Does the Constitution place any limits on civilian government? What if the American people were to elect a president who “want[s] to destroy this nation” and works to “create division among the people, encourage a culture of ridicule for basic morality and the principles that made and sustained the country, undermine the financial stability of the nation, and weaken and destroy the military[?]” What remedies, if any, did the Framers commend to us in the event a tyrant should ever assume the presidency? Do the people have the right to resist a tyrant, and does that remedy hold any prospect of success without the support of the military? Does the Constitution and its principle of civilian control require complete subordination of the military to civilian government and to such a commander-in-chief under these circumstances? Does the U.S. military have the right or even the duty to intervene in the domestic politics of the United States as Constitutional and popular savior when the times require it, and who makes such a determination? If so, how do we know when this right or duty is triggered, and what are the implications of such a right or duty for the Constitutional obligations of military and civilian leaders? Is such a duty incumbent upon the U.S. armed forces at present? What conditions precedent would be required before the American military would be justified in using or threatening force to oust a U.S. president attempting to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”? If complete subordination of the military to civilian government is preferable to military intervention in the U.S., what constraints and limitations on government must civilian governors accept as the price of military abstention, and how else but by military intervention are those constraints and limitations to enforced? This Article describes why, how, and to what end an American coup might occur as a heuristic test of a proffered theory.

Pulled over for being “uppity”

Dayton Police, combating direct eye contact since 1796.

In Dayton, Ohio, last week a black motorist was pulled over by a white police officer because, as the cop is heard saying on video,

You made direct eye contact with me and held onto it when I was passing you.

Where I grew up, in a small, rural town in central Florida, there was a word that got applied to blacks who didn’t know their place. That word was “uppity,” and was usually followed by another word, starting with the letter “N”.

Now you may argue that uppity is just a word meaning snobbish. But no, uppity, in this context, is racist. Don’t take my word for it. The second-most popular definition at Urban Dictionary lays it out.

Word used by racist old white Southerners to refer to any black person who looks them in the eye. Usually followed by [N-word]. “That uppity [N-word] is not working in the cotton field like he should be.”

Scott Walker has a message for the world

team_america_world_police05
Scott Walker leaves the Citadel after his first major foreign policy speech last Friday.

 

Scott Walker was down in South Carolina last week to give a major speech on foreign policy, an area in which his credentials have been questioned. To be fair, this is nothing new. After all, what governor can claim any real meaningful expertise when it comes to foreign relations?

Ok, besides Sarah Palin and that view of Russia from her front porch. Or G.W. Bush with all that Mexico right next door.

Anyway, while Walker’s speech before an audience of cadets at the Citadel (all members of the military academy’s Republican Society, by the way) was a little light on actual policy specifics, he did deploy the rhetorical heavy artillery:

As president, I will send the following message: The retreat is over. American leadership is back. American leadership is back and, together with our allies, we will not surrender another inch of ground to terrorists or any other power that threatens our safety.

America will not be intimidated. And neither will I.

He continued:

Are we safer now than we were seven years ago? Anyone who believes the answer to that question is yes should vote for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Sadly, I believe the answer is no, America is not safer. Since Secretary Clinton took charge of our nation’s diplomacy, we’ve abandoned American leadership in the world, forgotten that America is an exceptional country, and lost faith in America’s ability to influence world events.

Stirring words for sure. But it turns out that the version of the speech that Walker, famous for speaking without the aid of a teleprompter, delivered was very different from the prepared draft of his remarks. As luck would have it, I came across the original text.

So, in the interests of no-retreat, won’t-be-intimidated, world-influencing, exceptional leadership, I want to share with you the original. Conveniently set to music …

“That ain’t my culture and heritage!”

Pay no attention to the unbiblical dinosaur behind Georgia State Sen. Josh McKoon.
Pay no attention to the unbiblical dinosaur behind Georgia State Sen. Josh McKoon.

The champion of Georgia’s “religious liberty” bill, Republican State Sen. Josh McKoon, has come clean on the real purpose of the legislation that is currently stalled in the state legislature.

As Slate explains, when moderate Republicans proposed an amendment to the bill that would expressly clarify that it was not intended to legalize discrimination against LGBT Georgians,

McKoon let the façade drop. “That amendment,” he fumed, “would completely undercut the purpose of the bill.”

In a loving homage to the good old days of the struggle against civil rights for African Americans, McKoon blames opposition to the bill on a group of outside agitators that the rest of us would recognize as the bedrock pillars of the state’s corporate community. You know, troublemakers like Delta Airlines, Coca-Cola, and Home Depot.

We’ve had this problem because very large multi-national corporations that are headquartered in this state – their executives, many of whom are not from Georgia, have different values than you and I do. They think that their cultural norms, their liberal, far-left cultural norms, should be applied to our state.

In short, those goddam Yankee liberal do-gooders with their corporate dollars just don’t fit in with the cherished culture and heritage of the great state of Georgia.

You know, I think McKoon ought to let Homer T. Stokes explain from here.