Has the US Government Declared War on Its Citizens?

Imagine if the U.S. government targeted a foreign nation-state by devaluing its currency, pushing waves of migrants across its borders, undermining the security of its elections, denigrating the unifying elements of its citizens’ shared history, stoking the flames of any racial or ethnic discord, and spreading fake news in order to incite the passions of its people.  Wouldn’t we call that an effective, albeit immoral, hybrid war strategy for taking down an enemy without ever having to fire a shot?  Does that assessment change if the hybrid war is being fought, not against a foreign nation, but rather against the individual American states and their citizens?

A country without borders:

For more than forty years, Americans have begged the federal government to put a stop to illegal immigration.  Instead, Congress has done nothing but push various forms of amnesty for those whose first act upon entering this country is to break its immigration laws.  Rather than listening to voters and securing our porous borders, lawmakers have chosen to ridicule Americans as xenophobic for daring to believe that it is not healthy for the United States to have tens of millions of foreign nationals creating a parallel nation within our own.

Sex-trafficking, narco-terrorism, identity theft, drained public resources, and cultural clashes have all accompanied a federal government policy that can be described, at best, as intentionally not enforcing existing immigration law, or at worst, as willfully countermanding enforceable law by aiding and abetting border crossers with promises of social welfare upon arrival and publicly-funded relocation services across the continent.  More and more Democrat-controlled jurisdictions are going so far as to demand that illegal aliens be given the right to vote in elections, effectively nullifying American citizens’ votes with those of citizens of foreign nations.

If twenty-five million Americans (a sensible estimate of the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. today) crossed into Canada, they would instantly become Canada’s largest voting bloc.  It is doubtful, however, that either Canadians or global observers would find it fair or just for those Americans to take over power in Parliament.  Yet the American government sees no such problem replacing its own voters with those from other countries.

Elections without trust:

We have hundred-million-dollar lotteries in America that sell tickets at every hole-in-the-wall gas station from the middle of the Nevada desert to the remote Maine wilderness, and when winning jackpot numbers come up, winning ticket-holders are identified almost immediately.  Yet a national political election arrives, and it takes days, if not weeks, for the nation to discover the winner.  Only third-world banana republics and the United States of America conduct elections with so few identification requirements for voters and so few security protocols for safeguarding ballots.

The logical result is that only 20% of Americans are “very confident” that election outcomes are legitimate.  A reasonable person might expect national politicians to comprehend the widely held belief that vote fraud is prevalent as a debilitating vulnerability for both American national security and domestic political stability.

Government officials, however, are more offended by Americans questioning election outcomes than they are by the elimination of secret ballots, the transformation of voting day into voting season, the imposition of mass mail-in balloting by judicial fiat, the construction of parking lot drop boxes for anonymous and unsecured ballot-stuffing, late-night ballot dumps, private contractors hired by tech companies to manipulate elections, or truckloads of votes simply disappearing.

Democrats see all these election abominations, ignore their myriad openings for vote fraud, and insist on reframing them as “voting rights.”  Normal people look at them in horror and shout, “We have corrupt elections in America!”  The January 6 Commission hears these people; learns nothing; and cries out, “Domestic terrorists!”

A nation without history:

Nations of people without any sense of shared history or purpose do not remain nations for long.  Tearing down statues destroys collective memory of the past.  Reimagining America’s founding as some evil paradise for slaveholders, instead of the triumph for human liberty that it was, cheapens all the struggles Americans have endured together for freedom.

Fixating on skin color serves no purpose other than to salt the land with hatred and division.  Choosing to vilify local law enforcement as “white supremacists” while celebrating citywide arson and mayhem in the name of “racial justice” only assures that “justice for all” disappears for good.  Why is the secretary of education committed to pushing Critical Race Theory on public school students while accusing concerned parents of being “domestic terrorists”?  Why do the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation push “white supremacy” as the most lethal domestic terrorism threat a half-century after Jim Crow?  Why does the White House routinely demonize its Republican opponents as being malicious racists not at all different from George Wallace or Bull Connor (both Democrats)?

Disparaging local policing as institutionalized racism has had the predictable effect of increasing crime across the country.  Falsely accusing white Americans of being irredeemably racist has had the predictable effect of dividing the country along racial lines.  Rewriting Americans’ history so that the country’s steady pursuit of human freedom is intentionally stricken from the record has had the predictable effect of convincing too many Americans that nothing about their nation’s past is worth preserving.  Why would a rational government seek to divide Americans by race unless its mission is to destroy national unity for good?

An economy without a middle class:

Relentless central bank money-printing, exploding federal government debt, and the intentional abandonment of American blue-collar manufacturing jobs in exchange for “free trade” promises of cheaper imports and greater Wall Street profits have done more to hurt ordinary Americans than any foreign threat.

Thousands of impoverished and blighted towns across the country serve as painful testaments to those policies.  While the wealthiest 1% of Americans have never been richer, the middle class has descended into poverty.  What kind of government intentionally depreciates the value of the dollars paid for the workingman’s labor, cripples his children’s future with unserviceable debt, and then sends his job overseas so that the things he can no longer afford are built by people he no longer knows?

What kind of government sacrifices the abundant natural resources of its own lands so that it is dependent on oil, steel, minerals, and rare earth metals from foreign adversaries and enemies?  What kind of government sacrifices a labor force spread across the continent so that a small number of tech and finance employees in a handful of coastal cities can prosper at everyone else’s expense?  It is as if the U.S. government set out to make a broad swath of the American people as dependent on government welfare as the government is dependent on critical resources coming from foreign dictators.  How could that possibly be a formula for American safety, security, and survival?

If we were being honest with ourselves, surely we would ask whether the government of the United States has quietly declared war on the people of the United States.  Or is that question no longer permitted in this new era of government-sanctioned censorship?