Recent news of a new political warfare exercise to block a constitutional transition of presidential power has thrown more light on well-connected radical lawyers and their powerful network inside the Justice Department and Pentagon. The war game is part of the 2024 Democracy Futures Project, a revival of a 2020 exercise called the Transition Integrity Project. The 2020 exercise called for a military coup against Trump if his election was certified. A revived exercise, involving many of the same people, is calling for a coup again in the 2024 election, while fanning public fears that it is Trump who would stage the coup.
The Center for Security Policy’s Senior Analyst for Strategy, Dr. J. Michael Waller, formerly CIA, spent an afternoon with Tucker Carlson to discuss the 2020 project and efforts this year to disrupt the 2024 American presidential election.
The 2020 scenarios, Carlson summarized, were “Elect our guy, or America falls apart and people die. … the assessment was clear. You could not allow Donald Trump to win or else America would end.”
The scenarios worked out a military coup against Trump if he won the 2020 election. And similar blueprints have been worked out for this coming November, December, and January.
Waller: “[This is] legal insurrection because they’re doing this now through lawfare. They’re doing it through Georgetown University Law Center. That’s the premier law school in Washington, DC. It’s a feeder school to the Justice Department. It’s a feeder school to Supreme Court clerks. Right into the whole intelligence community. And this stuff is being planned there.”
“Wargaming out military coups against a sitting president. First after a disputed election in 2020 and now, in 2024, being the host of an entire project to unseat a president who they agree would have been legally and clearly elected by a majority of the public and electoral votes."
Waller: “We have a good opportunity right now because we have a lot better lay of the land than back in 2020. Not much attention was paid to the Transition Integrity Project. It operated semi-secretly. Now it’s come out of the closet and we know who more of the characters are. We’ve had four years to look at who these actors are and how they operate. We know a lot more about their game plan. They’ve gotten careless in a lot of areas."
Today marks the 250th anniversary of the birth of fiction author Jane Austen, who examined ordinary, day-to-day, small-town family life within an Overton window-frame which once included Biblical civilization and ethics.
The world of Jane Austen's generation was rapidly pivoting the Overton window to a secular worldview, and so were the cultures of contemporary nations.
Lord David Cecil, a biographer of Miss Austen, noted this comparison between authors:
"If I were in doubt as to the wisdom of one of my actions, I should not consult Flaubert or Dostoyevsky. The opinion of Balzac or Dickens would carry little weight with me: were Stendhal to rebuke me, it would only convince me I had done right: even in the judgment of Tolstoy I should not put complete confidence. But I should be seriously upset, I should worry for weeks and weeks, if I incurred the disapproval of Jane Austen."
"We are smack in the middle of a Fourth Turning, and the turmoil of it all has affected the entire West. Over the last five years, virtually every major institution has disgraced itself. What used to be a high-trust society has been blown to smithereens, and nobody knows what to think anymore. And even when an individual person’s convictions haven’t changed, despite the societal turmoil, it is very difficult to know who to think those convictions with. This implosion of all the trusted institutions and relationships has of course included those of us on the political right.
"...So what am I saying? When being normal is weird, be normal. When being normal is normal, remember why you should be normal, and be prepared to defend it, which cannot be done apart from Christ. And when being normal is weird, don’t be extra weird. Be extra normal. Normal you say? By what standard? To the law and to the testimony. Exactly so."
Doug Wilson