Government-Related Posts

COMMENTARY: of necessity, the US has had to reverse our own perception of our place in the world previously set by Obama and to encourage allies and even those on the fence to view us in a new light – our actions, not just words, will show the way for other nations to reconsider their individual places in the world based on an improved perspective of how we see ourselves – bottom line? it’s working but much remains to be done in the near and distant future

‘A Force for Good’: Pompeo Explains the Trump Administration’s Vision for America’s Role in the World

Nolan Peterson  September 11, 2019

KYIV, Ukraine—America’s post-9/11 global fight against terrorism is another year older. After 18 years, American troops are still deployed around the world combatting terrorism; a fight in which they will likely remain engaged for another generation, or more.

Yet, even as America’s counterterrorism campaigns go on and on, and casualties continue to mount slowly, the country’s foreign policy challenges have become far more diverse—and arguably far more dangerous—than they were when dawn broke on Sept. 11, 2001.

After a generational focus on counterterrorism and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. policymakers are adapting to a new reality in which so-called strategic competition between nation-states and the specter of major conflicts are once again driving world events. 

This new era requires a top-to-bottom rethinking of how America should exercise its role as the world’s top power. To that end, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says, the Trump administration has given American foreign policy a much-needed course correction after the Obama era.

“My sense, from having now traveled a bit, is that when President [Donald] Trump came into office people were confused that [President Barack Obama] had traveled much of the globe apologizing for many of the things that America had done around the world over the past decades,” Pompeo tells The Daily Signal in an exclusive, wide-ranging telephone interview.

“I and President Trump have a very different take. Every place we go, America is a force for good. I believe that with all my heart,” Pompeo says, adding:

 We don’t always get it right. Not always perfect. But our efforts are noble and important, and we try to make America secure and at the same time [improve] the lives of people in every country … to improve their capacity for freedom and liberty in their own nation.

‘America First’

Totalitarian governments in China and Russia are increasingly turning to foreign adventures to advertise their legitimacy to domestic audiences. Meanwhile, with the rising use of “gray zone” tactics among America’s adversaries, a country’s power on the world stage no longer is measured by economic clout, military force, or even diplomatic sway. 

Rather, the audacious use of misinformation to shape public opinion at home and abroad allows countries like Iran and Russia to punch well above their hard and soft power weight classes in influencing world events.

The world not only is a dangerous place, but numerous global hot spots remain just one so-called Franz Ferdinand scenario away from disaster. To name a few: Russian artillery thunders daily in eastern Ukraine; Iran’s aggression is ratcheting up in the Strait of Hormuz and across the Middle East; China and the U.S. are embroiled in a trade war as Beijing ramps up its militarization of the South China Sea; Venezuela muddles along as a failed socialist state in waiting; and the denuclearization of North Korea remains elusive. The list goes on.

“When President Trump took office there were a … number of places where America had been absent from the stage and allowed challenges to be presented to American national security,” Pompeo tells The Daily Signal.

“An America that seeks to be everywhere and police everything is destined to minimize its capacity to actually achieve good ends for America, and frankly, for the most countries as well,” Pompeo says, making the case for the Trump administration’s “America first” doctrine of prioritizing U.S. interests. Evidently, the arc of history is not automatically bending toward a global utopia. Consequently, in the eyes of the Trump administration, the world needs American leadership. However, choosing the country’s foreign policy commitments requires some tough tradeoffs, Pompeo says.

“So when I think about our role, it’s in that light,” Pompeo says. “It’s about making sure that where we go, wherever we expend our energy and our time and our resources, wherever we put our young men and women in the military at risk, that we’re doing so with a clear vision of how it makes America more secure.”

A key plank of Trump’s “America First” philosophy, Pompeo says, is to shore up America’s economy as a hedge against today’s myriad international threats.

“The president has focused very much on the fact that without a strong American economy all of these risks become greater,” Pompeo says. “Much of the diplomatic effort we’ve been engaged in … has been aimed at ensuring that America has access to markets, that we are using our diplomatic efforts to help make sure that America’s economy can continue to grow and prosper; knowing that when we get that right, we can … handle the security issues appropriately as well.”


Afghanistan is one place where the Trump administration believes the U.S. can streamline its military footprint, freeing up counterterrorism resources to wage a fight that is now more globally dispersed than in the period immediately following the September 2001 terror attacks.

“The question today is how do we make sure that we match today’s requirements with American resources to most effectively keep America safe,” Pompeo says.

Today, about 14,500 U.S. troops remain deployed to Afghanistan, providing air support and other types of assistance to Afghan forces. 

After more than a year of negotiations, Washington and the Taliban appeared to be nearing a breakthrough deal last week for the partial withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. However, Trump announced Saturday that he was cutting off those talks after a deadly Taliban attack in Kabul killed an American soldier—the 16th U.S. fatality in Afghanistan this year. 

Peace talks with the Taliban, for the time being, are dead in the water. So, too, is the prospect of an American exit from Afghanistan in the near future. 

Yet, the global fight against terrorism cannot be reduced to one theater. And, according to Pompeo, the Trump administration scored a key win in that broader conflict in March with the territorial defeat of the Islamic State’s so-called caliphate.

ISIS had risen when [Trump] came into office. We’ve laid out a strategy and now have delivered the defeat of the caliphate in Syria,” Pompeo says, using an alternative name for the Islamic State terrorist group.

“We know … the radical Islamic terrorists are still out there and they want to do harm to America,” Pompeo adds. “But we took down the caliphate and reduced the risk from that particular place, so we’ve been very focused on that and we’ll have to continue to be.”

Soft Power

A frequent criticism of the Trump administration’s foreign policy is that by pursuing “America First,” it has diminished the nation’s global standing. Critics contend that Trump’s sometimes-sharp criticism of America’s allies has unnecessarily chafed formerly dependable relationships.

Also, the president’s challenge of the utility of legacy international institutions—NATO, in particular—has led to warnings from many quarters about the impending ruination of the liberal world order.

“The order that has structured international politics since the end of World War II is fracturing,” wrote the authors of a December article in Foreign Affairs magazine. Trump has “upended” the “rules-based international order,” which, the authors noted, concurrently is under assault from countries such as  Russia and China.

Pompeo doesn’t discount the historic security challenges facing Western democracies. Yet, the secretary of state also challenges the notion that America’s national esteem is on the decline, or that the Trump administration’s “America First” doctrine somehow had dimmed the global promise of democracy and undercut the stability of the so-called rules-based world order.

For his part, Pompeo argues that the U.S.  brand is as strong as ever in the eyes of those who want to achieve a better life by emulating America’s founding values in their own countries. The world is always watching, and the example set by America’s democratic republic—warts and all—has global repercussions, the secretary of state says.

America’s role in the world is to “be that beacon, to be that shining light, to be demonstrably right when it comes to freedom and liberty,” Pompeo says. “That exceptional place that we know America to be, we can never lose sight of that. We have to demonstrate that each and every day.”

U.S. foreign policy cannot rely solely on either coercion or enticement to influence the behaviors of foreign governments. And not every outcome that America seeks to achieve around the world comes at a price. 

Rather, Pompeo says, the U.S. retains a singular ability to effect geopolitical change through the inspirational power of “those founding ideas that underlay the American vision and the American story.”

“When you exert America’s influence around the world in a way that is reflective of our country and its founding ideas of individual liberty and freedom, and a sense [that] each nation has its own sovereign right to make decisions for itself, [then] we’re going to do things that are best for the American people,” Pompeo says. 

“When you start to get that right, we can travel around these conflict regions and conflict issues … and see that in every case we’ve put America in a better place than we were, even in the course of just two and a half short years,” he adds.

Ongoing protests in Hong Kong against Beijing’s rule, along with the recent anti-government protests in Russia, suggest that the global appeal of freedom and democracy may not be as passé as the Trump administration’s critics contend. 

“I see this in many pockets of the world where authoritarian regimes are in control,” Pompeo tells The Daily Signal. “I see human beings seeking to make life better for themselves and their family. That’s certainly economically. But more broadly, I see them seeking to assert their rights.”

In the interview, Pompeo doesn’t link the parallel protest movements in Hong Kong and Russia as part of a gathering global tide against authoritarianism. He does, however, say that free access to information in today’s digitized world has helped spread expectations of basic human rights and freedom worldwide.

As we now live in this age where information can flow across boundaries in a way that it couldn’t five years ago, or 25 years ago, and the world now has the capacity to see that there is opportunity … and that freedom and democracy actually work to deliver better economic outcomes as well,” Pompeo says. “I do see this happening in countries across the world, and I’m thankful for that.”

A Human Face

Pompeo has worn a lot of hats in his life—Army officer, congressman from Kansas, CIA director, and, since April 26, 2018, America’s 70th secretary of state. 

Through it all, the 55-year-old California native has participated in the exercise of American power abroad at nearly every level of government. 

During Pompeo’s sweeping career, some experiences stand apart, offering a uniquely human face to the consequences of decisions made at the very pinnacle of U.S. governmental power. 

One such moment happened while he was in North Korea in May 2018. As the new secretary of state paved the way for the first summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, he also negotiated for the release of three American prisoners held by Pyongyang. 

We’d had a long day of discussions with Chairman Kim and we believed we were going to get these three Americans out, but we weren’t sure,” Pompeo recalls.

After 13 hours in North Korea, including a 90-minute meeting with Kim, Pompeo reboarded his jet, still unsure whether the prisoners would be released. 

Then the vehicles pulled up, and the three Americans got out.

“I remember when they climbed out of the van, and they could walk, and it looked like their health conditions were good,” Pompeo recalls of the prisoners’ last-minute deliverance. 

“What a relief it was for me. What a proud moment it was for me to have been able to be there and engage in the conversation on behalf of President Trump that led these three men to be able to return to their homes and to their families,” Pompeo says.

“And it was truly, personally rewarding to watch as they climbed the stairs into the airplane and get a chance to shake their hand and give them a hug and tell them they were on their way home.”

With the frenetic pace of his duties as secretary of state, Pompeo has little time to reflect on his place in history. But, given that America is on the cusp of a new era of geopolitics, the Trump administration is, perhaps, setting the tone for American policy for generations to come. 

“This isn’t academic,” Pompeo says of his responsibilities as secretary of state, adding:

This isn’t just about something that happened at a think tank, or a policy that someone’s going to write about in a magazine. The decisions we make, and the way that we execute them, impact real people every day. It keeps me going. It reminds me of how focused I need to be and how good my team needs to be.

Ultimately, Pompeo says, he aspires to put America’s interests, as well as those of its partners and allies, on a trajectory that will lead to good outcomes … that go far beyond the time of service that I’ll have.” “But I spend my time focused on trying to deliver outcomes, and then the history books will be written,” he says.

COMMENTARY: the unintended consequences of incompetence lies in Pelosi’s lap – it clearly appears that she has become an embittered old woman whose only direction is one of ‘Resistance’ – gee, Nancy, how’s that working out for the Demos and you? from our perspective, the failure is EPIC!

September 7, 2019. By Larry Schweikart

The suicide of the House is complete

The recent announcement by James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) that he would not seek re-election in 2020 sparked new worries among the GOP that retaking the House in 2020 might be nearly impossible.  Although Sensenbrenner’s district should be “safe” (as should about half of the more than a dozen seats in districts where Republicans are retiring), it never helps to lose an incumbent.

That said, in 2020, the control of the House may be well near irrelevant.

Over time, the House has had one major constitutional duty: the budget.  All spending and taxation bills must originate in the House.  But in all likelihood, the decline of the House started in 1995, when the newly elected Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich caved in to media pressure to give Bill Clinton his bloated budget.  Since then, no House has even attempted to control the deficits or the debt.  For eight years under George W. Bush, the rationale was to fund the War on Terror.  Then, under Barack Obama, the Democrat House had no intention of dealing with the deficits or the debt.  For eight years, under both Democrats and Republicans, nothing was done to recapture the budget process.  Continuing resolutions were the rule of the day.

Enter Nancy Pelosi, whose Congress openly and energetically vowed to do utterly nothing in the way of actual legislation, but instead to investigate and otherwise obstruct President Donald Trump. This marked the final transition of the House into irrelevance.

Meanwhile, Trump marched through his presidency like Sherman through Georgia, canceling bad trade deals, negotiating new ones, imposing tariffs, and most recently building the wall.  Yes, quietly, while everyone was watching Robert Mueller testify, Trump’s reallocation of Department of Defense funds to build the wall was upheld, and wall construction has already started (and in some places been completed) in California and Arizona.  Trump predicted that fully 500 miles of the Wall will be completed by 2020.

And the House had nothing whatsoever to do with it.  It would be possible for a Democrat House to pass a budget that would not be anything close to what the Senate would pass — then fight it out in reconciliation — and see a Trump-unfriendly budget get vetoed.  Even if the Republicans lose a few more seats in 2020, they won’t have a veto-proof majority.  The House cannot override a Trump veto.

When it comes to another signature issue for Trump, judges, Mitch McConnell in the Senate has been a machine.  Trump’s appointees are closing in on 30% of the federal bench total, and more wait in the wings.  It is entirely possible that Trump will get at least one, and perhaps more, Supreme Court picks.  What role does the House play in all this?  None.

Trump has already canceled NAFTA.  In its place, he has negotiated a new trade agreement that must be approved by both the House and the Senate — but if the House refuses to act, NAFTA is still dead.  The House can only confirm and add to Trump’s power, not reduce it.

Two rules apply here.  Rule 1: A muscle that is not used atrophies.  The House’s constitutional muscle is budget-making.  If it has voluntarily abdicated that role, who needs it?  Rule 2: Nature abhors a vacuum.  If the House doesn’t pass immigration bills (as Trump has begged it to), or address DACA (as Trump has begged it to), or write a budget that Trump can sign, then it has consigned itself to irrelevance.

I write this with some sadness. It certainly was not the Founders’ vision for the House to be the least relevant of the legislative process, and in the minds of many of the Founders, it was to be the most “democratic” and responsive to the people.  Once the House ceded its most fundamental responsibilities, it was inevitable that those duties would be done by the Executive.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that some or many of the House retirees intuitively know that the House has become meaningless.  They may well know that, although the process was long in developing, Nancy Pelosi has turned the House of Representatives into the American equivalent of the House of Lords.

COMMENTARY: if the US were to eliminate the Electoral College, the seven (7) largest states would be able to elect the president, offering no input from the others not among the seven – thus, so-called ‘democracy’ would adhere to only pols in those states and no voices would be tolerated from those not included, no campaigning in the rest, no say in how government operates or the issues it must handle – a terribly bad idea but one that the Dems openly seek so as to constitute their power until such time as our ‘system’ collapses as it would following history’s pattern – of course the Dems care NOTHING for our country, only for their own power! a failure heading our way! Beware We The People changing to We The Anti-American Democrats!

September 7, 2019. By R. Quinn Kennedy

Reminder to Liberals: The USA Is Not a Democracy

Semantic infiltration within the political realm is typically defined, in its various forms, as unknowingly adopting the terms used by an opponent in such a way as to undermines one’s own argument.

With the help of their cronies in the mainstream media, leftists are exceptionally good at semantic infiltration.  Take, for example, the words “illegal alien.”  The term is simple enough.  When a citizen from a foreign country enters a country not of his origin, he is alien to that newly entered country because, by birth, he is not a citizen of it.  When the individual has entered the new country in violation of that country’s immigration laws, he can be properly termed an “illegal alien.”

Throughout the late 1990s, in order to shift the emphasis away from the very real fact that Mexican nationals crossing the border into the United States were doing so illegally, the Left coined the disingenuous term “undocumented immigrants.”  The mainstream media, clearly understanding Nazi Germany’s propaganda techniques used to influence public perception, began repeating the term “undocumented immigrant” relentlessly.

“Undocumented,” in this case, infers that illegal aliens simply lack the correct documentation that affords them the same basic rights as a legal citizen of the United States.  Since Americans take pride in our country having risen to greatness in large part through mass legal immigration, the term “immigrant” seemingly provides a level of equal status.

Through semantic infiltration, the Left and mainstream media paint the perception that those who have traveled into our country illegally are not at all different from those who have immigrated.  The proof of the Left’s effectiveness in establishing politically correct semantic infiltration is when we observe Republican politicians, right-leaning political pundits, and even Fox News adopting the term.  This is despite a 2012 ruling by the Supreme Court in which it used the term “illegal alien” because of its descriptive precision.

In a very similar manner, the Left uses the word “democracy” to describe the United States’ form of government.  In her attempt to justify the abolition of the electoral college as a form of electing the president of the United States, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently stated that the electoral college is “democracy-altering.”  This would be an absolutely true statement if not for the fact that she was referring to the United States of America, which is not a democracy.

Does this basic detail hinder Ocasio-Cortez, leftists, the mainstream media, and even many on the right from repeatedly referring to the United States as a democracy?  Not in the least.  The reason is because of the astonishing success the Left has had using semantic infiltration to frame our form of government as a democracy rather than using the correct term, “representative republic.”  The term “representive” refers to the manner in which our republic functions.

Ironically, in an effort to further graft democracy into societal lexicon, the Left has begun using the Euro-inspired term “representative democracy” in its never-ending semantic infiltration assault.  On November 6, 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”  He could not have been more correct.  A democracy cannot have an electoral college since, by definition, a democracy is not representative.

There’s a simple yet crucial reason for arguing the distinction between a republic and a democracy.  By blurring the definition by which our form of government was founded, the Left attempts to float any outrageous politically correct notion to the American public under the pretense of “This will help make our democracy work the way it should.”

When Benjamin Franklin was asked at the end of the Philadelphia Convention which form of government the American people were given, Franklin famously answered, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

To appreciate Benjamin Franklin’s response, it’s important to recognize that our Founding Fathers were scholars in the highest sense.  They recognized that before Rome was an empire, it was a republic — a collection of city-states that made up the whole.  Individual city-states oftentimes lacked the military and economic capability to adequately defend against foreign invaders.  However, by banding together, the city-states got a considerably stronger military and an economic republic that would have to be reckoned with should a foreign army attempt an invasion.  By joining the collective republic, each city-state’s security was significantly increased.

With this historical knowledge, our Founding Fathers wisely determined that each of their thirteen individual states were made much more secure when united together as a single republic.  The Constitution, the Electoral College, and subsequent representation from each state were all based on a republic government comprised of a collection of states. Significantly, this is why the Pledge of Allegiance begins with citing an allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, which is the representation around the world of the republic of the United States of America.

The precise distinction of the United States as a representative republic rather a democracy is vital to individual freedom because it prevents “tyranny of the masses.”  In today’s heated political environment, a representative republic form of government makes it far less likely that the 11,506,364 people in California and New York who voted for the Progressive candidate in the last presidential election can impose their political will on the 11,382,874 people in Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Montana, Arizona, West Virginia, Wyoming, Iowa, Missouri, and Idaho who did not.  Since our form of government is a representative republic, the freedoms we enjoy are not dependent upon the political winds that blow in and out of the course of American history.

In 1814, John Adams wrote, “Democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.  There never was a Democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

Why do democracies never last long?  Because they ultimately give way to authoritarianism and dictatorship.  Even as early as 1814, John Adams recognized this.  In the world today, we have a preponderance of historical evidence to support his claim.

Having experienced a life of oppression under the rule of dictatorial King George III, John Adams had a forceful belief in the principles of individual liberty and how precious that liberty is.  To risk its loss to a democracy style of government was unimaginable to Adams and the host of other Founding Fathers willing to risk their wealth, family, and their lives to establish the republic of the United States of America.

Maintaining our republic form of government has created economic, political, and military security within the U.S. that has made it the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

The intentional semantic infiltration by the Left that our country is a democracy may, on its surface, seem relatively inconsequential.  However, upholding the distinction that we are, indeed, a republic is foundational to a way of life that makes the United States the envy of the world.

COMMENTARY: those who watch his actions know that DJT is getting things done! the opposite of His Imperial Majesty Obama who failed in some many ways and was predicted to do so with his limited experience and minimal qualifications – this man, aside from his tweets that are best left unsaid, clearly has an agenda and is tackling his campaign promises as time goes by – think about that! he actually does what he said he would do – a new political surprise, the man knows of what he said and acts on those promises – gotta love it!!

TOP 10: President Trump’s biggest accomplishments of 2019!

By Pamela Geller – on January 1, 2020
While the Democrats plotted to overthrow the President….


Americans saw plenty of Washington at its worst this year, with one party in Congress obsessed with a partisan impeachment stunt and obstructing progress at every turn. But despite getting no help from the far left, America today is soaring to new heights.

It’s tough to pick only 10 accomplishments from such an extraordinary year, but here are just a few of the biggest things President Donald J. Trump has gotten done for the American people in 2019:

  1. The Trump Boom is going strong. The unemployment rate recently hit its lowest mark in 50 years. All told, since President Trump’s election, our economy has added more than 7 million jobs—over half a million in manufacturing alone.
  2. The stock market keeps breaking records: The Dow Jones and S&P 500 hit record closes again on Friday.
  3. The working class is thriving, as are previously forgotten communities. Wages are now rising the fastest for low-income workers, and poverty rates for African Americans and Hispanic Americans have reached all-time lows.
  4. Accountable government is back. Since taking office, President Trump has rolled back nearly 8 regulations for every new one, saving American taxpayers more than $50 billion in the process—with bigger savings still to come.
  5. Better trade deals are putting America back in the driver’s seat. Congress approved President Trump’s USMCA this month—a huge win for U.S. workers, farmers, and manufacturers that will create 176,000 new jobs.
  6. Trade with China in particular is about to get a whole lot fairer. As part of a historic “phase 1” deal, Beijing has agreed to structural reforms in its trade practices and to make substantial purchases of American agricultural products.
  7. Securing the border is paying off and making our country safer. President Trump struck new agreements with Mexico and Central American countries this year to help stop the flood of illegal immigration. Thanks to this swift action, border apprehensions fell by more than 70 percent from May to November.
  8. On health care, President Trump is fighting to give our patients the best system on Earth. While Democrats try to take away choice, the President’s focus on affordability led to the largest year-over-year drop in drug prices ever recorded.
  9. American interests are taking center stage abroad. In just one example: After years of not paying their fair share, NATO Allies will have increased defense spending by $130 billion by the end of next year.
  10. Our great military took out the world’s top terrorist in October. (Meet Conan, the hero dog who helped them do it!) Our troops are now getting the support they deserve. President Trump recently signed the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2020 fiscal year, which includes the biggest pay raise for our military in a decade.

WATCH: “Our best days are yet to come!”

COMMENTARY: there remain in government many appointed or hired by the Obama Administration, people whose daily agenda is resistance to President Trump and his administration – add to this the left- and liberal-leaning members off the Demo Party and one can easily see what they have been up to in the last three years – as in the mindset of their Imperial Majesty, thankfully no longer in office, they seek only to bring down Pres. Trump in any way they can, wherever it can be achieved across the wide spectrum of federal activities – their deliberate efforts and continual lies impacts federal action in countless areas – it is truly time to ‘drain the swamp’

Revealing the Real Cause of Deep State Corruption

America is threatened by a loss of its constitutional system. The threat does not come from the current occupant of the White House, but from those who would seek to expel him.

Stephen B. Presser  December 29 2019

What could possibly explain the transparent nonsense that is the attempt to impeach and remove President Donald Trump? The farrago of exaggerations and outright lies that the leadership of the Democrats in the House of Representatives are currently peddling makes little sense.

Impeachment was a remedy crafted by the Founders to remove a corrupt official who put his or her interests ahead of those of the country. But when a president has managed one of the most successful economic recoveries in modern times, and when he has succeeded in reducing taxes, regulations, and in reforming the federal judiciary, that president doesn’t seem like a problem the Constitution’s Framers sought to cure.

Could it be, instead, that those seeking to remove President Trump are themselves the beneficiaries of the kind of corruption the framers feared?

The idea is gaining some currency, as some observers have begun to suggest what we are witnessing is a distraction by the “deep state,” to shift our attention away from the revelations of the extreme misconduct of our entrenched bureaucracy in our intelligence, foreign service, and law enforcement agencies during the Obama Administration. The misconduct is detailed in Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s recent report and could be the subject of prosecutions by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

There is much merit in that analysis. It makes good sense to understand the smokescreen of impeachment as a means of obscuring what appears to be the extraordinary corruption of the Biden family and former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, or even the “pay to play” assertions concerning the Clinton Foundation, the concealing of which is the best explanation for Hillary Clinton’s shenanigans regarding her “homebrew” server which was used to shield her misconduct from public view.

If, as President Trump maintains, he is the sworn enemy of such corruption, it certainly would make sense for those who have benefitted and continue to benefit from a misuse of the power and largesse of the federal government to fight him tooth and nail.

Punishing such corruption would be reason enough to support Republicans if they are sincere in their effort to do this. But understanding a deeper cause of the rot that has beset our national government is also necessary.

What makes it possible for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to claim they are protecting the Constitution? The Constitution they purport to be safeguarding bears no relationship to the original understanding of the actual document.

How can Pelosi refuse even to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate unless Majority Leader McConnell permits Democrats to implement Senate proceedings, such as the calling of witnesses who did not appear in the House, or provides her assurances of “fair play,” such as were denied President Trump in the House’s hearings?

How could this strategy be something concocted by liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe? How could other purportedly respected liberal law professors such as Noah Feldman and Pamela Karlan support the transparently absurd impeachment theories of the House Democrats?

Could it be that the explanation for this is also something of an answer to the question of why so many Democrat officials of blue-state cities are emboldened to defy our immigration restrictions, or why blue state officials believe they can ignore the federal government’s laws on cannabis, or even the Constitution’s Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms?

Is there a parallel between Pelosi’s flaunting of the Constitution and its structure and President Barack Obama’s decision that he could implement DACA without the benefit of federal legislation?

What is it that has made the federal Constitution so plastic, that has empowered so many Democrats—many of them educated at our finest law schools—to believe that the clear constitutional provisions regarding the separation of powers and the limitations on the federal government could be ignored?

We are, it would seem, reaping the harvest of the seeds sown by the New Deal and the Warren Court, by Roe v. Wade, by Obergefell v. Hodges, and by a jurisprudence embraced by our elite law schools in the course of the last two generations. Those cases, and the law professors who approved of them, and the law students they educated, came to believe that our Constitution was outmoded, and that it was the job of enlightened jurists and jurisprudence to amend it without benefit of Article V.

On the theory that the Constitution’s framers supported slavery and the deprivation of the franchise to women, it is no surprise that some frank justices such as Thurgood Marshall could argue that deference was simply not due to the original understanding of that document. The abandonment of that deference, then, is what led to the court essentially rewriting the 14th Amendment to let it advance the policies it favored. These grievances with the original document, they argued, permitted them to make new constitutional law and to reallocate the constitutional responsibilities between the state and federal governments.

Once one abandons the original understanding as a means of advancing the rule of law, however, the way is opened for any Supreme Court justice, bureaucrat or legislator convinced that he has access to a higher truth than the Constitution’s Framers or the sovereign people who ratified their work, to ignore the strictures of our fundamental law and to promote arbitrarily whatever policies are ideologically or personally more pleasing. That arbitrary behavior, however, is what leads to corruption, an abandonment of the rule of law, the ending of popular sovereignty, and ultimately to tyranny. This country is threatened by a loss of its constitutional system, and of the morality that the Framers believed must undergird it. The threat does not come, however, from the occupant of the White House, but from those who would seek to expel him.