The FBI is vetting members of the National Guard for pro-Trump bias on the suspicion that one might do something violent. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) amplified this peculiar situation during an appearance on MSNBC. He discussed the fact that Indira Gandhi and Anwar Sadat were both killed by members of their own military, and then said:
The Guard is 90 some-odd percent male, and only about 20 percent of white males voted for Biden, you’ve got to figure the guard is more conservative. There are probably not more than 25% of the people that are there protecting us that voted for Biden. The other 75% are in the class who might want to do something. It does concern me.
One critical component of a democracy is a civilian military that takes an oath to the Constitution and is responsible to the chain of command, including the president as commander-in-chief. That role transitions tomorrow to Joe Biden. To question the integrity of the National Guard members this way and include race in the criticism is not just astonishing—it is dangerous, especially when the entire establishment media and the party taking power tomorrow refer to the individuals who stormed the Capitol, anyone who questioned the election results, and all of Trump’s voters as white supremacists and Nazis. Taken together, it looks like a blatant attempt to divide the National Guard along racial and ideological lines.
So, the national law enforcement agency is digging into military members who are then being divided up by race and political affiliation by political leaders. This is unprecedented and part of a larger pattern. When I was researching events that took place in Ukraine during the Obama administration to better understand the impeachment proceedings, I came across the concept of a color revolution. When I looked at the steps defined by Michael McFaul, who was ambassador to Russia, they seemed to mirror the political landscape in the U.S. after the 2016 election:
- A semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime
- An unpopular incumbent
- A united and organized opposition
- An ability to quickly drive home the point that voting results were falsified
- Enough independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote
- A political opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to protest electoral fraud
- Divisions among the regime’s coercive forces
Later, comments by former Secretary of State John Kerry gave me chills. In a panel discussion in June of 2020, he accused Republicans of voter suppression, specifically mentioning the gubernatorial race in Georgia that Democrat Stacey Abrams lost. To this day, Democrats and the media prop up the claim that the election was stolen from her.
Then Kerry said this:
If people don’t have adequate access to the ballot, I mean that’s the stuff on which revolutions are built. If you begin to deny people the capacity of your democracy to work, even the Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, we have an inherent right to challenge that. And I’m worried that increasingly, people are disaffected.
Kerry was setting up the narrative, seemingly to justify outrage from the left in the event of an election loss—possibly violent outrage. Then, during the election, an unsubstantiated article in The Atlantic attempted to drive a wedge between President Trump as commander in chief and the military’s rank-and-file members. I warned at the time that this was more significant than a poorly sourced hit piece. Recalling Kerry’s comments, I concluded with:
The only way to head off chaos is to make sure we can have faith in the election process. The only way to do that is to reject the fundamental changes to the system that Democrats are proposing.
When Michael Anton wrote The Coming Coup in September 2020, it was a relief. Someone far smarter than me finally confirmed that I would not need to make a significant investment in tin foil. He saw similarities to a color revolution as well. Then a Bloomberg-funded firm, Hawkfish, warned of a “Red Mirage.” They explained it would appear that President Trump won on election night, but continued counting of widespread mail-in ballots would give the race to Biden. They asserted that this would result in chaos. In hindsight, that is awfully eerie.
At that point, it seemed narratives had been built to create chaos and possibly violence no matter who won. There is a media ecosystem on both sides of the aisle to inform people of a falsified vote. Sydney Powell and Lin Wood compounded this with their extraordinary claims regarding the election. Both had significant credibility with the conservative media ecosystem because of General Michael Flynn and Nick Sandmann’s defenses. It would not surprise me at all to one day learn these two attorneys were the targets of deliberate disinformation campaigns to sow discord.
Their extraordinary claims could not be substantiated. All other court challenges related to election irregularities that many felt they saw live on television were fruitless. Faith in the election process, especially in Georgia, plummeted, and Trump’s base grew frustrated and angry. Republican turnout cratered in the Georgia Senate runoffs, and Democrats now hold all three branches of government. This is due in no small part to the coverage of real and phantom election irregularities. The corporate media’s refusal to acknowledge any irregularities at all roiled President Trump’s supporters even more.
Then, as Tucker Carlson said during his monologue last night, the completely predictable happened. What should have been a protest turned into a riot at the Capitol the day the election was certified. That incident, and an FBI threat assessment, have been used to bring approximately 26,000 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., to secure Inauguration Day—troops whose fidelity to their oath and the chain of command are being questioned.
Meanwhile, there is a growing corporate media chorus to silence Republicans on cable news, social media, and other platforms through regulation and deplatforming. They assert that mainstream outlets like Fox News could promote violence. Democrat members of Congress have proposed using the 14th Amendment to remove any member who questioned the election results. Obviously, they are all Republicans. Some Democrats have gone so far as to accuse GOP members writ large of being complicit or involved in the riots. There were even suggestions that any future Trump rallies be outlawed.
It is like living in opposite-world, watching the left use every institution at their disposal to act in authoritarian ways to eliminate fundamental freedoms like speech and association, while accusing their political opponents of being authoritarians. With their rhetoric, the impeachment vote, and continued accusations toward anyone on the right, from the president on down, it almost feels as if they want something to go horribly sideways at the inauguration. We should all pray that it doesn’t.
But if it goes off without a hitch, there is a contingency plan. Here is a despicable video by author Don Winslow that is going viral. It claims Trump supporters will form a domestic army, should be considered domestic terrorists, and encourages people to monitor their neighbors to identify potential threats:
NEW VIDEO #TrumpsNewArmy VOLUME UP
On January 20th Donald Trump will no longer be The Commander in Chief.
He will lose control of the U.S. Armed Forces and take control of a NEW ARMY. pic.twitter.com/59MHHaIegP
— Don Winslow (@donwinslow) January 19, 2021
This nation has never needed a leader as badly as it does today. Sadly, no one in sight is up to this challenge. It is certainly not the frail and often feeble man who will take the oath of office to tomorrow. And the authoritarian left is just waiting for any pretext to crush all dissent.