The Roots Of American And British Decline Bear Bitter Fruit A Century Later

In the first quarter of the 21^st century the US and Britain find themselves collapsing from the apex position in western civilization which one then the other occupied for more than three centuries.  The interesting thing is that their collapse was precipitated almost simultaneously early in the 20^th century. 

In Britain, I’m sorry to say, my hero Winston Churchill was a primary driver of the legislation that would eventually put a stake through the heart of the nation he loved. The first act was the People’s Budget, which introduced unprecedented taxes on the lands and incomes of Britain's wealthy to fund new social welfare programs. Chancellor of the Exchequer Lloyd George said the Budget would make poverty “as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests.”

The People’s Budget became law in 1910, after a year of delay by the House of Lords, the upper, dynastic house of Parliament. That delay was the final straw that led to the catastrophic Parliament Act of 1911.  Prior to the Parliament Act the House of Lords could veto budget bills indefinitely, meaning it had an actual veto.  Angry that the Lords had delayed the People’s Budget, the liberals decided to eviscerate their power altogether. The law eliminated the House of Lords’ ability to veto money bills at all and greatly limited their ability to stop other kinds.  As it was a law, the House of Lords would have to acquiesce to its own castration.  Not surprisingly most Lords opposed the measure, and it only passed upon a threat from King George V to pack the House with a sufficient number of new liberal Lords for it to do so. 

Across the pond in America the same leftist movement was preparing to send a similar pair of stakes through the heart of the Republic.  The first was the 16^th Amendment, ratified in February 1913, which changed the Constitution to allow for direct income taxation rather than apportioning it among the states based on population. The second, the 17^th Amendment, ratified two months later, changed the Constitution so that Senators, rather than being appointed by state legislatures, were selected by direct election of citizens. Suddenly, states, one of the three legs of the Republican table our Founding Fathers left us, had no voice in Washington.

The similarity of content and timing between the pair of acts in the two most powerful nations in the world was extraordinary.  In both cases the acts essentially gave the governments the almost limitless ability to redistribute wealth while at the same time eviscerating the power of their upper houses, which traditionally acted as yokes on the rapacious nature of government. 

Fast forward a century and both the US and Britain find themselves in the throes of economic and cultural suicide. In both countries debt and deficit spending are off the charts, free speech is being throttled, crime is out of control and leftist lies are being used to demonize half the population.

The most acute problem in both however is the fact that millions of people from third world countries with zero familiarity with, interest in or fealty to their laws and culture are being imported and settled among the citizens, whether their citizens want it or not.

The reality is that Britain is running headfirst into the dystopian abyss with the utterly incompetent new PM Keir Starmer at the helm with no rescue in sight as elections are not required for another five years and there’s little chance the feckless, globalist king will dissolve Parliament.  Here in America at least we’ve given ourselves a lifeline in the form of electing Donald Trump. But that lifeline is not going to be without its challenges.

The most consequential challenge is going to be in the neighborhoods and on the streets of sanctuary cities and states across the country who have spent decades ignoring the Constitution and thumbing their noses at the federal government, abetted the entire time by compromised politicians in Washington.  Not only have we had governors say they will not cooperate, but now in Denver we have a Democrat mayor saying he will battle the federal government trying to deport illegals, suggesting a “Tiananmen Square moment” is possible.

Although anyone paying attention recognizes that probably 90% of what the federal government does is basically unconstitutional, one thing that is very much within its purview is national defense. As such, when the nation is invaded by 30 million illegal aliens it’s a threat to national security.  And it’s no less a threat just because the invaders are coming across the border in fits and spurts and largely without a singular command. 

The fact that sanctuary cities and states have for decades openly flouted federal regulations as they relate to detainers and assistance to INS suggests that they have no respect for the Constitution.  Like Obama, for them the Constitution is merely an obstacle to be overcome when it constrains something they want to do and a shield to hide behind when trying to avoid what they are supposed to do.  The fact that much of Washington allowed them to do so for decades with impunity says essentially the same thing about America’s elected representatives.

Donald Trump, as Commander in Chief, is the man who is responsible for defending the country, and he can accomplish most of his deportation promise voluntarily.  If he takes these four steps he’ll likely accomplish 75% of his goal. 

1)      Stop all federal dollars going to programs that support illegal aliens.  That includes federal, state and local programs.  Do the same for NGOs and remove their tax exempt status. 

2)      Tax remittances at a rate of 50%.

3)      Stop all federal dollars going to any “sanctuary” city or state, for any purpose. 

4)      Arrest any state or local government official who refuses to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.

These steps will likely drive a majority of immigrants to self deport or volunteer to be repatriated.  For those whom these measures don’t inspire a trip home, hardened criminals or members of gangs like Tren de Aragua or MS 13, the president could and should harness the military to enforce federal law if states and cities don’t cooperate.  Ike, JFK and LBJ did so to enforce school desegregation, and ameliorating the danger of citizens being killed by criminal invaders is easily as worthy a cause of action as is ensuring children can attend school safely. 

Had the United States or Britain had an upper house that functioned as a break on government excess over the last century it’s unlikely we’d be here… but they didn’t and we are. Nonetheless, Winston Churchill, the half American sometime radical and reformer, who helped drive a stake into the nation he loved so much was to later make amends by leading her through her darkest hour. Today Donald Trump has the opportunity to echo Churchill’s finest hour by articulating exactly what makes America worth fighting for, why the invasion can’t be tolerated, and being willing to do what needs to be done to protect her and her citizens, regardless of the vitriol, contempt and obstruction he will no doubt have to endure along the way.