Brazil seems poised on a knife edge between being a free and democratic nation, and falling to a communist dictatorship. The once free nation of Canada has succumbed to a tyrannical cabal in Ottawa headed by Mr. Trudeau. Farmers in the Netherlands are protesting the theft of their farms to satisfy the Marxist agenda of certain European parliamentarians. Klaus Schwab wants to establish a one-world government, with those he selects in charge. The Communist Party of China controls its people with social credits and lethal punishment for dissent. Everywhere we look, including within our own borders, there seems to be a plethora of leaders with the idea of totalitarian control.
Whether it is called Communism or Socialism or Fascism or Marxism, or some other ism, it is all about the control of a populace by a small number of "elite" rulers - with the best of intentions, of course. Whatever name it is called by, the end result is a return to a primitive time of kings and aristocracy and autocratic rule even though we don't use those terms any more. The end result is still the same.
Who rules?
We forget that the foundation of all government is the strongest gang principle. Under this principle, the strongest gang is ultimately the one that gets to determine how people shall live and work, and what privileges are allotted to each. Ultimately it comes down to a hierarchy within the members of the gang itself, and everyone else - the masses, the peasantry, the hoi polloi, the workers - all the names given to those who are not in the circle of power.
For most of history, the rulers of a country were those who could persuade or otherwise recruit enough followers to form their own gang. Various gangs would compete for control until it was established which gang was stronger. Followers would be attracted to the stronger gangs for a variety of reasons. For some it was redistribution of wealth where a strong gang could take from the weaker and give the loot to its followers. For others it was the perverse attraction of being able to command others and make them obey despite their objections. Yet others simply found it easier to go along to get along rather than resist. Whatever the reason, gangs would wax and wane in power through competitive forces both inside and out.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
The traditional forms of strong gangs prevailed for literally thousands of years, through empire after empire and culture after culture. Some were benevolent, others not, but all required obedience to the gang leaders with no dissent tolerated - a practical definition of tyranny.
Eventually, though, some grew tired of this pattern, and thought there must be a better way. Why should a small group of power wielders impose their will over the population? Yes, there were benefits to having a group who could organize labor and resources to accomplish certain objectives, such as providing for a common defense, or establishing a uniform system of justice, but where to draw the line?
Why, though, should those benefits be so haphazardly provided by a system of control so often prone to abuse? Why couldn't a people organize themselves and select from among their number a group of people who would, for a limited time, provide the useful management functions needed to provide the benefits of cooperative effort?
It was in response to that question that the Great American Experiment was initiated. Not only would the people be free from arbitrary rulers, but they would be able to chose temporary leaders who would provide the benefits of organization but who could also be replaced should they show tendencies toward arbitrary rule instead of service.
True, there had been experiments in the past, notably with certain Greek city-states, and with the Roman Republic. It was noted that there seemed to be a universal tendency for power groups to form and to use certain times of crisis to assume control. Our Founders recognized this tendency and built controls into our system to reduce the ability of such power gangs to form. It has taken over two hundred years of concerted effort to overcome, at least in part, those safeguards of our liberty.
Support Canada Free Press
The hallmark of tyranny
By providing for removal of leaders with autocratic tendencies from the levers of control, a measure of accountability was established for those in power. Accountability, though, is not something tyrants find comforting or desirable. In fact, tyrannies act to shield those in power from accountability. Sometimes it is through special legal structures such as Sovereign Immunity or a two-tier justice system. Other times it is simply through a type of direct challenge much like kings and autocrats used in the past - a "go ahead and try to stop me" attitude.
Whatever the method, a hallmark of tyranny is the barriers they emplace to shield them from accountability for their actions. How easy is it for the leaders of a country to be held responsible for their actions? The answer to this question will measure where along the road to tyranny a nation may be found. Can leaders be removed either by regular election, or through special recall, or are they insulated from challenges? How do they treat dissent? Are protests allowed or opposed? Are mechanisms for removal complied with, or are they actively resisted?
Are we there yet, daddy?
So now we come back to America. We have an administrative state that is strongly allergic to accountability. Since its inception near the turn of the last century under the Wilson regime, it has grown in size and power. We now have hundreds of agencies filled with hundreds of thousands of faceless, nameless bureaucrats writing rules and regulations that have force of law and which we are obliged to obey. Legislators who are supposed to oversee and control these agencies are happy to delegate authority so they can get down to the really important tasks of raising money and campaigning for the next election.
More recently, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, use of Executive Orders to curtail energy supplies, facilitate massive illegal immigration, and numerous other actions that act against the well-being of the populace have served as grooming activities to prepare the populace to accept far more significant and permanent restrictions on freedom yet to come.
It is well recognized that a two-tier justice system exists, where Republicans and conservatives are prosecuted and severely punished for what are often minor acts, while far more serious actions by the Left and Democrats are ignored and dismissed. One need only look at how the January 6 individuals have been treated for acts of trespass and minor vandalism, and compare that to the Antifa and BLM rioters who destroyed billions of dollars of property and even committed murder.
The road more traveled
By nearly every measure, the US is far down the road to tyranny. People who protest and dissent are labeled "domestic terrorists" by State agencies, have midnight raids conducted to harass and arrest them, and often have most of their Constitutional rights to fair trial and a speedy hearing abridged or even denied.
Recently, we have had elections where it is clear to most concerned that the results were not fair and honest and did not reflect the true will of the populace. Attempts to investigate and correct matters have been actively opposed by the "winners" of these elections. This is clear evidence of manipulating the system to avoid accountability. As pointed out earlier, the litmus test of tyranny is the active suppression of accountability for those in power.
A way out
Although we are far down that road, all is not lost. The gang in power does not yet have enough power to overcome all opposition, and must still act in ways at least superficially consistent with the system of laws, checks, and balances that our Founders emplaced for our protection.
Presently on the docket for the Supreme Court is a case presented by four brothers from Utah. The case, No. 22-380 (22-4007), presented by the Brunson brothers, asks if elected officials should be held accountable for breaking their oaths of office. The specific issue is around the 2020 election when most of Congress voted to certify the results of the Presidential election, given the substantial concerns about election fraud, and the clear need to investigate such allegations prior to certification. The case argues that failure to investigate was a violation of the oath of office these Congressmen took, with the obvious detrimental result such improper certification has had on the course of the nation.
We are accustomed to politicians making all sorts of promises during campaigns and while in office. Most of these promises are never kept, but politicians are seldom held to their word, so there is little cost in making such promises.
An oath of office, on the other hand, is a solemnly sworn oath to perform certain duties or take specific actions, and forms a type of contract with the populace. For example, a Presidential oath requires the President to faithfully uphold the Constitution. The Constitution, in turn, requires the President to faithfully uphold the laws of the land. Our current president is failing to uphold a variety of immigration laws that would prevent the current flood of illegal immigration. Should the President be held to account for violation of his oath of office?
Courting justice
The court has a few options. It can simply decline to hear the case. In that event, things continue as they are where the oath of office is generally considered simply a pro forma step to assuming power, and can generally be ignored in the exercise of that power.
Should the court decide to hear the case, it can decide that an oath of office is not enforceable, and that things can continue much as they are, but with official sanction for ignoring an oath. Such a decision would further remove restraints across all elected and appointed offices, and could even affect the oaths of service for the military, the police, and the entire justice system.
Conversely, the Court could decide that oaths of office were enforceable, and that officials could be held accountable for violation of their oaths. While such a decision would generate much consternation among officials, it would serve a great purpose of restoring the accountability of office that has been so greatly eroded.
Much rests on this seemingly innocuous case. I encourage those who value Constitutional government and individual liberty to write to the Court and encourage them to take up the case. If nothing else, the arguments for and against should be enlightening and instructive, and a decision could do much to restore the powers of government to the people. This could be the case of a generation that determines the direction of the country for many years to come.
David Robb is a practicing scientist and CTO of a small firm developing new security technologies for detection of drugs and other contraband. Dave has published extensively in TheBlueStateConservative, and occasionally in American Thinker.
