Every now and then a comment by one of the Obama faction’s “puppet media” figureheads reveals more than intended about the faction’s deeply inimical view of America. Commenting on the West Point venue for Obama’s transparently deceptive speech on the deployment of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews observed that Obama “went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case.” Though a storm of criticism has led to the usual expressions of sorrow and phony repentance for his use of the term, it was, at the very least, a telling “Freudian slip,” offering a glimpse of the core mentality that alone makes sense of the Obama faction’s otherwise incomprehensibly destructive policies for the nation.
Like all other members of the U.S. military, the students and other military personnel at West Point take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. The American military’s respect for civilian authority is one of the hallmarks of our nation’s history. It is doubtless also one reason the American republic (government of, by and for the people) has until now defied the fate predicted by political philosophers since ancient times for governments based on the sovereignty of the people. The president and indeed all the other officials in the different branches of the U.S. government derive their authority, and the deference the military shows for it, from the U.S. Constitution. They can nowhere feel more certain that their enunciation of policy will be respectfully received and dutifully followed than when they are on the grounds of the institution where this tradition of loyal respect and obedience is first ingrained as part of the honorable professional ethic of our military leaders (something Obama exploited by going there to explain his inexcusable and unpopular dithering with the lives of our troops).
Of course, the present occupant of the White House has expressed and seems intent on implementing an understanding of government that rejects both the basic moral premises of the U.S. Constitution and the institutional arrangements it establishes in light of them. (For much more on this read through the articles under the topic “Design for Despotism” on my Loyal to Liberty blog.) For a faction that intends to implement its agenda without regard for constitutional requirements, the U.S. military’s proven record of constitutional loyalty may seem more hostile than reassuring. After all, the military oath commits our armed forces to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As the folks in Honduras have learned, even the highest civilian officials of a constitutional republic may take it into their heads to defy the clear and plain requirements of a written constitution.
Though the president of Honduras was removed from office in strict accordance with the provisions of the Honduran constitution, the Obama faction has sided with ousted former President Zelaya, decrying the supposed violation of democratic rule. Apparently, the Obama zealots reject the notion that the provisions of a written constitution supersede the authority of any given majority vote.
Obama has already shown a preference for implementing his national socialist agenda by means that circumvent the U.S. Constitution’s provision for legislative oversight of the executive branch; to wit, his proliferation of petty dictators whom his servile media claque revel in referring to as “czars” (a word derived from Caesar, the name of the dictator whose ascendancy marked the end of the ancient Roman republic). Obama faction leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been brazenly cavalier in their open contempt for questions about the constitutionality of their proposed government takeover of the health-care sector. On the excuse that government must have whatever power it needs to do things for people, they simply dismiss with prejudice anyone who dares to remember that the ultimate purpose of the Constitution is to secure the blessings derived from the liberty of the people. This it does by forestalling the abuses inevitably connected with an unchecked concentration of power in the hands of any person or faction among them.
Sadly, throughout history such abuses have required the subversion of a nation’s military instruments. Organizations intended to keep people safe from harm become instead the basis for governments that threaten them with harm unless they toe the line dictated by some factional leader or agenda. But America’s military leaders have been educated to respect the authority of the Constitution, not that of any given individual or faction. As this safeguards the liberty of the people, it also makes the professional discipline of the military a reliable friend to all government officials who act with respect for its constitutional provisions. If Obama-faction zealots like Chris Matthews instead see the educational home of that military tradition as the “enemy camp,” their apprehension speaks tellingly of their own deep abandonment of the constitutional loyalty they apparently fear in the honorable defenders of the Constitution.
All this takes on an especially tragic and melancholy aspect when we remember that the very people whose loyalty the Obama zealots fear are every day risking and giving their lives, whatever their opinions about government policy, in proof of their conviction that this is what the Constitution and their oaths require. The American people owe them something better than to entrust power to heedless ideologues who, despite their teleprompter rhetoric, instinctively respond to this honorable service with deep-seated enmity and fear, rather than the pride, respect and patriotic affection most Americans feel whenever their hearts reflect upon it.