Anti-constitutional military leadership is becoming more brazen
One of the chief characteristics of the stereotypical "banana republic" is that, whether or not it has bananas, it is not a republic, but rather a military dictatorship. "El presidente" may speak Spanish, Russian, or Korean. Soon, another language may be added: American English.
One of the core values that has kept us a republic (if we can keep it) is that of civilian control of the military armed forces. Generals and admirals take orders from the commander-in-chief, who is the president of the United States, just as surely as "buck privates" obey orders from the general.
It is shocking to witness the decline of that principle in practice. When General Milley assured our potential wartime enemy, China, that he would give them advance warning if President Trump gave any orders concerning China, orders of which Milley might personally disapprove — when he did that, he was not charged with any of the numerous crimes, from insubordination upward, that he should have. Because of that, other high-ranking officers have been emboldened, not only to follow in Milley's steps, but to incrementally increase their open hostility — hostility not against their woke president, but against the Constitution and the American voter.
Transformational cultural change requires leadership from the top, and we do not have time to wait. Since January of this year, more than 400 anti-LGBTQ+ laws have been introduced at the state level. That number is rising and demonstrates a trend that could be dangerous for service members, their families, and the readiness of the force as a whole.
This statement is a travesty on so many levels that it is difficult to find where to begin. Let us ask Gen. Burt why, instead of a military career, she is not running for a seat on a legislature. Generals do not make laws; they obey them, or at least, that is the principle on which depends our survival as a republic.
Generals also do not institute "transformational cultural change." They do not decide for us whether, or which, cultural changes should be accelerated or resisted. That is a job for voters, of which Burt is only one, and in which she has no greater authority than do you.
She (or zim or whackadoodle) seems to be in a panic that the representatives of the American voter are more concerned with protecting our children from sexual deviants than with funding the kind of event at which Burt made her comments. Time is short, she says, implying that action must be taken swiftly. What kind of action? A palace coup? Martial law?
Burt is not the only military commander flaunting, perhaps suborning, insubordination to the Constitution.
General James Dixon, also of the Space Force, seems to be resisting congressional plans to move his headquarters from woke-friendly Colorado to heartland Alabama. The issue seems to be the ready availability of abortion in Colorado, as opposed to strong legal restrictions in Alabama.
Quoting from NBC News online, "[i]f the headquarters moved to Alabama, it would be at Redstone Arsenal, which does not have a base hospital, leaving staff members and dependents to rely on local civilian medical providers. The military [i.e., your tax dollars] would have to pay for female service members and dependents to leave the state for abortions."
It would have to? Would we also have to pay for irreversible gender-mutilation of children of military members? Even if that mutilation were to be coerced? How far will this go?
The proper procedure for Dixon is to present his professional judgment through official channels. It is not to ignore the Congress and seek a "workaround" to thwart lawful civilian oversight over him.
While the generals are advocating for LGBT inclusion, where is their advocacy for the First Amendment rights of conservative service members? Are conservatives in uniform allowed to voice their opinions during "Pride" events, opinions with which General Burt disagrees? Where are the celebrations of that group's importance?
Both generals, Burt and Dixon, would be well advised to ask why military recruitment is suffering its worst shortfalls in decades, and at a time when military pay, benefits and incentives to join are at or near an all-time high. Are LGBT celebrations on military installations going to reverse that decline in enlistments or exacerbate it?
There is actually a simple, one-word correct answer: reverse or exacerbate. The generals will refuse to say it. They, after all, have their own plan, and defending the Constitution from foreign enemies is not, by all indications, at the top of their agenda.
Are they warning us of an impending coup d'état? After all, as General Burt openly stated, "we do not have time to wait."
Image: DeAnna Burt. Credit: Twitter video from MSNBC.