What Is a Domestic Enemy?

by

Gadfly

           On June 11, 2020, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, apologized for accompanying his Commander-in-Chief for an important signal in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church.  President Trump appears to have shrugged it off.

           I reflected on a couple of experiences that risked being political and showing disloyalty.  The first was a top three meeting (master sergeants, senior master sergeants, and chief master sergeants) at an Air Force wing.  About 80 were present.  One chief master sergeant stood up and said, “Colonel, it’s not fair that the commander-in-chief can participate in sexual harassment and lie to our Nation without being held accountable.”  My response was, “Accountability for the President is a matter for the ballot box.  We know what our ‘zero tolerance’ standards are.  We all set an example for others by enforcing them.”  The question spoke to a political matter, and I did not step into the trap.

           On another occasion, while teaching as the head of the Reserve Officer Training Corps program at a university, one of my students (a cadet) asked for my view on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  I responded that “it was a good question.  As I stand here before you in uniform, I support the Department of Defense policy.”  The student pressed, “But, Sir.  What is your personal view?”  I told him that it would be inappropriate for me to offer my personal view, but encouraged the students to spend a few minutes debating it.  I wanted to emphasize the importance of being apolitical and loyal to the institution, even when you might disagree on some matters.

   

Thus, trying to understand Milley’s rationale for the apology made me realize that he may not know what a domestic enemy is.

Here is how (transcript here; infamous clip here) the General expressed his apology in front of colonels graduating from the National Defense University (bold, italics are mine to address in subsequent commentary):

Equality and opportunity is a matter of readiness. It’s the basis of cohesion. We fight wars as teams, and we cannot tolerate anything that divides us. Let me conclude with two simple pieces of advice, based on 40 years in uniform, that you may find useful as many of you will surely go on to be flag officers. First, always maintain a keen sense of situational awareness. As senior leaders, everything you do will be closely watched, and I am not immune. As many of you saw the result of the photograph of me at Lafayette Square last week, that sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society. I should not have been there. My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics. As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I’ve learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it.

           Equality and opportunity are political euphemisms.  An Army private is not equal to a corporal, let alone a four-star general. Access to opportunity is subject to many variables and factors and is dependent upon the motivation of each individual to be prepared to benefit from opportunities when they present themselves. For members of the profession of arms, professional competence and loyalty are far more critical.  We expect these individuals to meet or exceed these standards; and if they do not, we discharge them.  Our profession is existential.  There is no room for pandering or coddling.  I will address loyalty later in the article.

           [W]e cannot tolerate anything that divides us.  The protests, looting, and rioting are fully intended to divide us.  So, for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say what he did, speaks volumes about his critical lack of situational awareness.

           Lafayette Square (also known as President’s Park, Washington, D.C) was on the way to St. John’s Episcopal Church, (often called the Church of the Presidents).  President Trump wanted to do two things during this event.  First, as President of the United States of America, he wanted to demonstrate that our Nation is still based on the rule of law, such that he could openly walk across Lafayette Square (President’s Park) to a site (the Church of the Presidents) that had been vandalized by the “so called peaceful protestors.”

Trump’s second objective was to send a signal (far more than a photo op) that First Amendment rights do not justify violating sacred values through physical destruction of churches.  “Fire-bombing,” “torching,” or “setting on fire”— language advanced by the media downplayed the fact that “peaceful protestors” do not deliberately vandalize property, let alone sacred property.

 

Yet, Milley emphasized during his speech:

 

The freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution allow people to demand change just as the peaceful protesters are doing all across the country. That is why we serve in the military. On day one, you and I, we all, we all swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

           Peaceful protestors?  Is Milley unaware of the millions, perhaps billions now, in damage being incurred across the nation?  Is he unaware that anarchists have seized and now occupy territory in Seattle?  As these “peaceful protestors” take down or destroy historical monuments, is he unaware that a statue of Lenin (responsible for tremendous brutality—see my article “Where to Begin”) still occupies a safe space in Seattle?

           Swore an oath.  Milley did not include that we support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

           Milley also said the following:

We who were the cloth of our nation come from the people of our nation. And we must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military that is so deeply rooted in the very essence of our republic. . . .. And my second piece of advice is very simple. Embrace the Constitution, keep it close to your heart. It is our North Star. It’s our map to a better future. Though we are not a perfect union, believe in the United States, believe in our country, believe in your troops. And believe in our purpose. Few other nations have been able to change for the greater good. And that is because of the rights and values embedded in our Constitution.

         [W]e must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military.  I completely agree.  What does this mean?  It means loyalty (in addition to professional competence) to the commander-in-chief, regardless of political party.  It also means avoiding getting entangled in political issues.  When the military, such as Service Academies, impose on their cadets and midshipmen to engage in “conversations” about social or political matters, it becomes VERY political.  It is very difficult to encourage open minds when the thrust and tone of such “conversations” reflect a monolithic “political” view.  Right now, the monolithic view is progressivism, Milley’s map to a better future, based on the power elite’s North Star.

           President Trump also believes in the Constitution and the essence of our republic.  President Trump subscribes to natural rights grounded in our Judeo-Christian tradition.  This is what made America great and it reflects his political agenda.  A republic is the golden mean between two extreme forms of government:  autocracy and democracy.  The protests, looting, and rioting are a manifestation of democracy.  If unchecked by the tools and institutions of a republic, the democracy will give birth to a tyrannical autocracy.  In his commencement speech, among the lessons being taught, Milley failed to instruct a fundamental principle of our Constitutional Republic:  Trump is the politically elected commander-in-chief to which our military pledges its apolitical loyalty.

[B]ecause of the rights and values embedded in our Constitution.  The rights embedded in our Constitution are natural rights—equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The Bill of rights expand upon these rights.  Other rights, such as civil rights, are statutory and have emerged overtime, typically recognizing factions that characterize a democracy, which weakens the golden mean of a republic.  In essence, our governments have usurped the sovereign people by creating an administrative state that has become repressive over time.

          Political philosopher, David Easton, defined politics “as the authoritative allocation of values.”  “Authoritative allocation” implies political power.  President Trump was elected to carry out his political agenda, which reflects Constitutional Republic values.  These values are not congruent with the left’s.  Instead of finding ways to advance their agenda in peaceful ways, the left distorts the truth and pursues lawfare ways (costly litigation and activist judges) of punishing those with different values.

           Embrace the Constitution.  Members of the profession of arms (as well as government officials) swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  In his commencement speech, Milley spent less than three minutes on the foreign threat and more than 10 minutes on domestic matters.  By balancing his speech the way he did, Milley delved into politics.  Not once in the speech, nor in any other public statements, did he mention the “domestic enemy” of the Constitution.  The domestic enemy is on full display and his “situational awareness” fails to see it.  Today, the left—progressives, democrats, the Communist Party USA and various communist front organizations (Organizing for Action, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Sunrise Movement, and so forth —is fully committed to “fundamentally transforming America.”

          

Milley’s walk with the President was an opportunity to acknowledge this awareness and to send a strong signal to our military force that we are fully prepared to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

Perhaps Milley has since had an epiphany and now understands the seriousness of this existential moment in our journey through history.  I hope so.  We all make mistakes and err in judgment.  Yet, when called upon to exercise courageous leadership in a critical situation, we must be worthy to make the right decisions.     

America's Titular Sovereign

            Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, let me ask you a question.  Who has sovereign power in America?

            IM:  The answer is easy:  “We the People” as indicated in the first three words of our Constitution.

            Old Gadfly:  Is that true in actuality, or merely in theory?

            IM:  I think in actuality.

            Old Gadfly:  As in delegating enumerated powers to a National Government?

            IM:  Of course.

            Old Gadfly:  And members of our National Government have been disciplined to act only within the boundaries established?

            AM:  Of course not.  Just consider the growing Administrative State with over 460 agencies, 2.7 million unelected bureaucrats that impose a regulatory regime on millions of Americans.  This is one of the reasons our pocket Constitutions have been replaced with the Constitution Annotated, now nearly 3,000 pages long.  The Congressional Research Service is charged by law (a 1970 joint resolution by Congress with large Democrat majorities in both chambers) to periodically update this document with analysis and interpretations of Court rulings.  There is a growing progressive faction that believes it is far more expedient to “amend” the constitution through the court, which has been very deferential to expanding powers by the legislative branch.  In 2005, Roger Pilon gave compelling testimony to Congress  on this shift.  Even Constitutional scholars such as David Strauss argue for a “living Constitution” in his book  by the same title, whereby common law and tradition update the Constitution, which is very similar to the British system--a system with no “written” Constitution.

            IM:  But Article V of the Constitution establishes how “we the people” determined the Constitution would be amended.  How is the National Government getting away with its disregard for this sovereign power?  Have the people become titular sovereigns?

            AM:  Article V provides two methods for proposing amendments:  Congress can propose (it only takes one member  in either the House or Senate) and States can apply for a convention for proposing amendments.  Since 1789, more than 11,500 amendments have been initiated within the Halls of Congress.  Only 33 were actually proposed to the States, and only 27 of those were ratified by the States.  Congress has been very successful with its “pocket veto” in voting down any amendment that would take away any of its power, even if it is unconstitutional.  The second method has never happened, even though today, 41 of the 50 States have one or more active applications (about 275 total—see data provided by the Article V Library) for a convention.  The Constitutional language says, “on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, [Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.”  It does not qualify the type of application or assign any conditions in terms of what constitutes “an application.”  Once 34 or more States have passed a resolution or application, Congress is mandated (“shall”) to call a Convention for proposing amendments.  The language does not limit the convention to a single or specific amendment.  This decision rests with the delegates, commissioned by their respective States, assembled at the Convention.  State legislatures can further limit delegate authority in its commissioning language.

            IM:  Yet, there is a growing body of legal and scholarly literature that finds many issues with a simple and straight-forward reading of the language.  There has never been a Convention for Proposing Amendments; yet, the scholars will provide all sorts of “historical precedent” to complicate or discourage such a Convention.  Thus, academic and ruling elite have usurped the sovereignty of “we the people” in deference to a more enlightened oligarchy.  In actuality, “we the people” have become titular in effect.

            AM:  When do you think the intended sovereign will wake up?  Timothy Sandefur is the author of The Permission Society:  How the Ruling Class Turns Our Freedoms into Privileges and What We Can Do about It (see here  for an excellent presentation on the book).    The thesis implied in the title is well supported in his set of evidence-based arguments.  Americans are losing unalienable rights.

            IM:  The Constitution was inspired by fundamental principles explicitly stated in our Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson cautioned future generations to have the courage to exercise their sovereignty in order to protect our unalienable rights:  “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Old Gadfly:  The great peace and prosperity (Safety and Happiness) the vast majority of Americans enjoy today are Blessings of Liberty that many in our society take for granted.  Comfort breeds complacency, such that political factions seeking greater power are manipulating our political system via soft amendments (via court rulings) to shift sovereign power away from “we the people” to an enlightened ruling class.  History has recorded these transient failures for centuries.  These are the historical precedents that the enlightened ruling elite do not acknowledge or simply ignore.

AM:  We need a Convention of States for proposing amendments to restore sovereign power to the people.

Old Gadfly:  Yes, and I have confidence in the virtuous deliberations that would take place.  Given an event that stands to achieve a significant historical impact on the scale of the abolition of slavery, Convention commissioners would rise to the expectations, transparency, and accountably such an event demands.  We have far more faith in the decency and courage of “we the people” than our enlightened ruling elite.  The former seeks to protect our unalienable rights.  The latter merely seeks power.