The title of this missive comes from a military maxim in operational planning. We learned that one should never plan an operation in a void, where you do not consider the actions of the enemy. He does have a vote.
We would go through what we call a wargaming process, where we would consider our action-enemy reaction-our counteraction. As the law of physics says, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This premise should also apply to governing principles for promoting certain policies and legislation. I remember during my time in Congress when the reauthorization of the Patriot Act came up. I did vote for a three-month extension; I wanted a little more time to research and develop my position. After wargaming the Patriot Act, especially the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), my decision was not to support the five-year reauthorization. I was concerned about constitutionality, as well as what could happen if someone else used FISA for purposes not originally intended. Perhaps it would have behooved the Bush administration to wargame out the Patriot Act and associated policy changes. Too often, we rush into creating a new government agency, policy, or program without looking long-term.
I think we all know what happened when the Obama administration got hold of FISA and used it for their nefarious purposes against candidate and President Donald Trump. The enemy always has a vote, and we should be circumspect when creating a “new” government policy or initiative, lest we fail to recognize how the political opposition could use it. The Marxist left in America is not about fairness or niceties, as Barack Obama once quipped, you must “punish your enemies.” That is the essence of the Marxist mind, “by any means necessary.”
And so it is, when I read about President Trump wanting to create an “anti-weaponization” government fund, I evaluate this policy initiative with the same scrutiny. What happens if the Marxist left were to continue such a policy? I would bet that this would be one of the Executive Orders that a leftist President would not rescind. As well, it would create a precedent that I do not believe is constitutional. You are going to put the American taxpayer on the hook for providing compensation for the nefarious actions of certain government actors. If we are to try and restore constitutional governance, along with reducing excessive government spending, this may not pass the smell test. If anything, perhaps the American taxpayer should have a say in this policy? Yes, this is something that sounds great, popular with some, but remember, after 9-11, who would disagree with something called the Patriot Act?
We have a legal process by which the individual American citizen can “petition the government for redress of grievances,” a constitutional right. Instead of creating a government fund, the constitutional right approach would be to file a civil suit against a named government actor. Or if there are many litigants, then a class-action lawsuit. Yes, I hear you, the justice system is skewed left. I have often stated on this platform that the courts are part of the Marxist left’s three branches of rule, the other two being the media and academia. This is why constitutional conservatives need to pay more attention to judicial races and stop disregarding their importance. And this is why the leftists are fuming mad about being at a 6-3 disadvantage in the U.S. Supreme Court. By the way, that is the only court that the Constitution establishes. The lower jurisdiction courts are established by Congress.
Sure, you may throw a fit, but that does not concern me. The anti-weaponization fund policy initiative sounds good, maybe a populist idea. However, when one considers that the enemy has a vote, what would they do with such a policy? As well, is this really within the constitutional enumerated powers, duties, responsibilities, and roles of the federal government as articulated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution? I seem to recall only (18) powers enumerated; hence, the 10th Amendment states that all else is delegated to the States and the people.
Let’s try to get the federal government back into its prescribed constitutional box, one that is restrictive. If we continue to desire a federal government, or any level of government, to be a panacea for everything, it will only continue to grow above and beyond its intended scope. And a government that is big enough to give you all that you want and desire is also the same one that can take it away. Because the enemy has a vote.
Steadfast and Loyal.
