What happens when the federal government no longer protects the states against invasion?

This isn't about diversity, open borders, or internationalism. This is about Democrats gaining raw power through a harvest of ballots from a permanent underclass.

The past few weeks have given rise to several uncomfortable questions.

In the past, the party in power has always been held accountable for what it's done in the previous two years.  History teaches us that if that party has a horrible record, its members are thrown out of office in a massive wave election in a rejection of their policies. 

That didn't happen, and even worse, they have us on the same trajectory that was present before the election.  This effectively means that their repulsive policies have been reinforced rather than rejected.

Hence, those uncomfortable questions keep cropping up.

What is the point of voting and elections in general if the voice of the people isn't heard?

What is the point of paying for a government indoctrination system (schools) that turns out people who vote for their own enslavement?

What do we do when state governments buy votes with other people's money, cruelly taken by force?

What happens when the federal government no longer protects the states against invasion?

That last one is particularly troubling, because the states entered into a contractual agreement, and it is being flouted, in our faces, daily.  Anti-liberty authoritarians of the fascist far left regularly lie about this fact, telling us that "the border is secure."  But how is there an illegal invader crisis in New York City and around the nation if "the border is secure"?  

Are they going to try their usual deceit and deception and argue the semantics of the word "invasion"?  You only need to look at a dictionary definition of the word to see that it's defined as "the act of entering a place in large numbers, especially in a way that is harmful or unwanted."

Then, to add insult to injury, like clockwork, right after the midterm election scam-o-rama, Senator Chuck Schumer had an epiphany, because suddenly we're "short of workers," and the only way to fill out those ballots for Democrats...er..."have a great future" is to grant amnesty (read: voting rights supporting leftists) to "however many" illegal invaders there are in the country.

Because nothing breeds success like more than 42 million people overloading our system, Cloward-Piven style (archive of the original piece here).  Then, on top of all of that, Democrats are racing to implement amnesty in a lame-duck session before they lose power.  Public opinion is running against further destroying the country that way, but when has the fascist far left let the voice of the people be its guide?  

Consider this thought experiment.

Let's say you have an estate along with several like-minded people with the same values. 

You and your neighbors decide to become a gated community — a united estates, if you will.  The contractual exchange for joining this community is that you agree to partially pay for the security for the border for the united estates to "protect each of them against Invasion."

It works out fine until Karl (pronouns: He, Ganef) from Demonrat Developers comes along and is "elected" by a highly suspicious voting process to run the community.  

While Karl and his Demonrats are all too happy to take your money, they utterly fail to keep out criminals, terrorists, or invaders.  Then it's found that they are encouraging this invasion.

Wouldn't you agree that the community would be in breach of contract with the individual estates?

Wouldn't you also agree that we have the same situation in the States?

As in the U.S. Constitution — Article 4, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Thus, the guarantee to every State in this Union would be that the United States shall protect each of them against invasion.  Has the federal government protected each state against invasion?

Any rational assessment of the facts would agree that hasn't been the case.

Make no mistake: this isn't about diversity, open borders, internationalism, or Chuck Schumer's convenient epiphany.  This is about their gaining raw power through a harvest of ballots from a permanent underclass.

So we return to one of our original uncomfortable questions: what happens when the federal government no longer protects the states against invasion?

The beginning lines of this document come to mind, because what else is there?  As we've previously postulated, the Founding Fathers assumed that the parties would stay on a moral course of action and not let lust for power overwhelm basic decency.    

Look through your copies of the Constitution.  But be warned: apparently, our modern-day version of the KGB, Gestapo, or Stasi considers having one as incriminating evidence.

Originally published on the American Thinker