Leer en Español
Biden is preparing to use the institutions as one more piece of his partisan game board.
The fact that 25,000 National Guard troops guard Washington’s Capitol during his inauguration – three times the number of U.S. troops currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined – is bad news for democracy.
The Silicon Valley mafia and the media, at the service of the powerful apparatus of the Democratic Party, have clung to the thesis that the assault on the Capitol was only carried out by a mob of Trump followers and have not wanted to let it go, so that the excessive use of force is done to justify a forceful response to traitors to the country.
Perfectly orchestrated, while media agitators, prisoners of their own rhetoric, attack by means of lies and selective censorship, holding Trump responsible for a coup d’état. Democrats point out from repeated incitement to party hatred. It is indecent to spread so much disinformation while, at the same time, conducting a witch-hunt against voices that do not share their unique way of thinking.
The purpose of his campaign is not so much measured by an interest to reveal the truth as by weaponizing the assault on the Capitol to demonize Trump and his supporters. And his narrative, instead of uniting the country, has made it even more tense, stirring up sectarianism and creating a climate of permanent suspicion against anyone who doubts the integrity of the election and demands more freedom of expression.
From now on, more than half the country could be accused of maintaining some kind of moral complicity with the intellectual and material authors of this “coup d’état”. The obsession of the sectors of the left with establishing these dividing lines could create a wave of indignation in civil society as never before seen.
We are in favor of justice sanctioning violent acts against democratic institutions, but also of clarifying all the levers hidden behind any protest in the service of political manipulation.
The consolidation of an influential political extreme left with the complacency of a media linked to the elite of the Democratic Party, and the disavowal by leaders of the right who tend to a moderate and complacent discourse, has served to cover up the alarming political tension that the country is living through, still under the civil fracture of the protests that exploded in more than 30 cities after the death of George Floyd and that left millions of dollars in damage to public buildings, looting of commercial establishments and irreparable damage to the rule of law.
The military: The next Democratic purge
Precisely, one of the most alarming conclusions of the congressional investigation into 9/11 was the verification that the inconsistency of police forces and intelligence agencies coordinated by the respective states was an obstacle in the way of anti-terrorist prevention.
The lack of leadership by many public representatives in guaranteeing order and security during the demonstrations leaves them in a very compromised situation, and should have force them to give a detailed explanation of the facts.
This is the case of the Democratic Governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, who described as a provocation the fact that Trump ordered in federal security forces to stop the violence and restore security and protection in the city of Seattle.
Little did Inslee do then to repel the violet actions then organized by “Antifa” and “BLM.” However, the governor did not hesitate to call in 750 members of the Guard just a week ago to defend legislators from right-wing hate groups, and to allow them to exercise their First Amendment rights on the Capitol campus.
It is always striking how violent demonstrations in America are either allowed or rejected depending on who is promoting them.
Why did the Democrats flatly reject the presence of the National Guard during the urban terrorism organized by the left, and now demand the presence of 25,000 soldiers on Capitol Hill to ensure the inauguration against alleged anger by conservatives?
In the month of June 2020, and in order to confront the urban guerrillas of the left, groups that shook a good part of the country, Donald Trump was forced to deploy the National Guard troops in at least 15 states and in Washington D.C.
After the violence became chronic, the Secret Service, in charge of the president’s security, made the decision to move him to the White House subway bunker to protect him from a growing threat by violent groups. The press did not give much importance to this serious threat against the main representative of the executive branc, and imposed a severe information blackout about it.
Those riots not only reflected the institutional instability or legal conflict in some Democratic-ruled states, but also created a deep erosion in the social fabric and quality of our democracy.
From that moment on, the process of violating the rule of law and breaking the rules of democracy became a problem of the utmost gravity, placing the federal government in charge of protecting coexistence and political freedom against the strategy of systemic ideological hatred.
The governors and mayors of Washington, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Portland and New York called for moderation and proportionality in order to face the subversive violence that had appropriated their cities under institutional protection, and whose objective was to generate destabilizing disturbances against constitutional government.
The protection that these public representatives exercised over extremist groups should be considered a humiliation for the State, with some experts going so far as to qualify it as a serious infringement of the constitutional duties and commitments of a government which is to defend the security and coexistence of its citizens.
Interestingly, in those days the press fueled a conspiracy theory from the left to disturb public opinion. It was that Trump could use the Insurrection Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1807, to employ the military against the protests.
Using victimization as a campaign story, the media elite questioned Trump’s decision to involve the National Guard in the security apparatus against violent demonstrations. To add fuel to the fire, progressive media outlets questioned the presence of General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, dressed in military uniform during the official photo of Donald Trump in front of a church that had been vandalized during protests near the White House.
Against separation of powers
The obsession with converting the United States Army into a target of accusations is part of a priority strategy by the most extremist sectors of the left, looking for a poisonous breeding ground to discredit uncomfortable top commanders and mold them to the schemes of the most ideologized left.
In an interview granted last Monday to CNN, Steve Cohen, Democratic representative from Tennessee, insinuated the need to carry out a purge within the National Guard to guarantee that the high commands were aligned with his party’s programs.
“The National Guard is 90 percent white men, of whom only 20 percent voted for Biden,” Cohen said. He added, “Given their predominantly conservative status … there are probably no more than 25% of the guards who are willing to protect us.”
For her part, statements made by Nancy Pelosi warning that the Speaker of the House could intervene in the chain of command to protect the world from President Trump have sown unrest in much of the government and are a clear sign of the institutional deterioration that the United States could suffer under the totalitarian power of the Democrats.
Coincidentally, Pelosi claimed in early January to have spoken with General Mark Milley for the purpose of taking appropriate precautions to prevent an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing launch codes and ordering a nuclear attack.
According to her statements, Pelosi is said to have attempted to instrumentalize the military leadership for partisan purposes in an effort to appear to maintain control of the armed forces and, through them, the state.
Nancy Pelosi’s call to General Milley constitutes an attack on the separation of powers by attempting to attribute to the legislative branch decisions that only fall within the purview of the military, in accordance with the Constitution. Some experts have gone further by calling the decision of the Speaker of the House a ploy with the military to depose the president.
Hence, the violent events that took place in the U.S. Capitol – about which, by the way, the FBI and few media have so far questioned whether undercover members of “Antifa” and “BLM” could be among the assailants – seem designed as a tailor-made suit for Biden in order to give him such broad and absolute powers.
There is no precedent in U.S. democracy for politicians who are so damaging to the national interest. The Democratic Party and its like-minded media should stop their unwarranted speculation about the top leaders of the U.S. military and stop irresponsibly undermining the prestige of an institution with over 245 years of service to the Constitution and the American people.
This process of confrontation against the rule of law that has shaken the United States in the last year would look like foolishness were it not for the drama of the situation and because, in the heat of the ideological battle, trust has been broken between the two main parties, on an extremely sensitive issue such as the security and independence of the branches of government.
Juan Carlos Sánchez, journalist and writer. His columns are published in different newspapers in Spain and the United States. He is the author of several books and is preparing the essay "Nación y libertad en el pensamiento económico del Conde Pozos Dulces" // Juan Carlos es periodista y escritor. Sus columnas se publican en diferentes diarios de España y EE.UU. Autor de varios libros, tiene en preparación la obra de ensayo “Nación y libertad en el pensamiento económico del Conde Pozos Dulces”