• Home
  • Could It Happen Here, A Federal Syndicate Coup d’état?

Could It Happen Here, A Federal Syndicate Coup d’état?

William L. Kovacs

September 2023

Could It Happen Here, A Federal Syndicate Coup d’état?

Since Sinclair Lewis wrote “It Can’t Happen Here” in 1935, many authors have raised the question: Is Democracy so fragile that the U.S. could become an “ism” nation? Fortunately, all the writers have been wrong about the U.S. becoming a dystopian nation. They have been right, however, about Democracy being fragile. This article will examine the actions of the federal government, its spy, propaganda, and law enforcement machines (collectively “the Federal Syndicate”) against former President Trump and his supporters over the last few years. It asks the question – is the federal government run by stupid people doing stupid things, or are its leaders subverting the Constitution to control the government?

But for the political advantage to the Democrats, the events of January 6th would have been defined as a riot, “a violent disturbance of the peace by a group of people.” Unfortunately, Democratic leadership deemed it an insurrection, an attempt by an organized group of people to defeat their government and take control of it. As part of its narrative, the federal government, which has a $944 billion annual military machine and describes its military as a fearsome and gargantuan beast, exhibits existential fear of destruction by the fact “several rioters had firearms and dozens more wielded knives, bats and other real makeshift weapons.” The Federal Syndicate’s reactions to the January 6th riot are best characterized by the hilarious movie “The Mouse that Roared.”

The crowd so paralyzed the Speaker of the House, the D.C. mayor, and the Capitol Police that they could not respond to President Trump’s offer to send the National Guard. These political elites seemed confident the FBI infiltrators planted in the crowd to incite legal demonstrators to break the law would prove the truth of their insurrection narrative. Two thousand demonstrators entered the Capitol, and 1100 were arrested. Many were sent to D.C. Gitmo without their right to counsel or a speedy trial. The DOJ/FBI’s dragnet is the largest in the history of the U.S. DC Gitmo is similar to the Guantanamo military prison in Cuba, also referred to as Gitmo, but without the sunshine.

If January 6th were a riot and not an insurrection, then the systematic actions by the Federal Syndicate would be what academics define as a self-coup d’état. It is a form of coup in which the nation’s power structure comes to power legally but seeks to stay in power through illegal means.

Did The Federal Syndicate label January 6th an insurrection as an excuse to prosecute 1100 Trump supporters and organize the entire Democrat political machinery to indict former president Trump? Unfortunately, many citizens arrested were unknowing and loyal Americans who simply trespassed inside the Capitol. Many even believed the police were waiving them in.

Since the opinion pages are full of articles talking about the coordination of the four Trump prosecutions to inflict destruction, perhaps even death, on him, the Durham report decimating the alleged Russian cover-up by the FBI and CIA, and the Biden administration’s manipulation of Big Tech to shut down the truth in America, this article will focus on the most recent effort to ensuring Trump is “finally taken out.”

Specifically, a few members of the Federalists Society and a retired “conservative” circuit judge, disgruntled over not being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserted that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (“Section 3”), a Civil War Amendment, forbids President Trump from ever again holding office since he somehow participated in an undefined, not judicially established, insurrection.

More disconcerting is that January 6th may have been a camouflage for covert activities. Is the Federal Syndicate pretending to protect the Constitution while secretly plotting to destroy Donald Trump and conservative Americans?

The relevant parts of Section 3 read:

No person shall…hold any office…under the United States or any state, who having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution… [if such person] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

The proponents for disqualifying Trump under Section 3 claim:

Further, they argue to the extent Section 3 conflicts with prior constitutional protections, “Section 3 repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto fact laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech protections of the First Amendment.”

According to the mainstream press, New Hampshire already has activity to disqualify Trump. Several progressive advocacy groups are lobbying state election officials to disqualify Trump from being listed on their state ballots.

The flaws in the proponents’ arguments are legion. The term “insurrection” is not defined in the 14th Amendment or anywhere in our Constitution or laws; as such, it cannot be applied since it would be unconstitutionally vague. Moreover, the two federal cases addressing Section 3 rejected its use to disqualify government officials from holding office. In, In re Griffin (1869), Justice Chase rejected the application of Section 3 for several reasons. Its application would cause legal chaos, and it was not self-executing. Most importantly, the application of Section 3, as claimed, denies defendants due process and several other constitutional guarantees. In U.S. v. Powell (1871), the court ruled there must be findings of fact before rendering any decision.

Crazily, the authors assert Section 3 is so broad it rewrites the U.S. Constitution by repealing numerous constitutional protections for government officials without involving Congress, the states, the process for amending the Constitution, judicial determinations of fact and law, due process, or even the people of the nation.

The authors again crazily pronounce election officials are empowered to disqualify Trump. According to the National Council of State Legislators, there are more than 10,000 election administration jurisdictions in the U.S. There are likely tens or even hundreds of thousands of election officials. Can each of them disqualify President Trump because they believe he is an insurrectionist?

Under existing circumstances, could the facts establish a self- coup d’état?

  1. Before Trump became president, there were systematic actions by the Federal Syndicate to circulate false information to make the public believe the Russians compromised him.
  2. The lies about Trump led to two impeachments in the House. While the Senate acquitted Trump, the actions of the Federal Syndicate had the intended negative impact on Trump.
  3. As far back as 2019, the Federal Syndicate protected Biden by denying the evidence that Hunter’s “Laptop from Hell” was real. It also hid that there were 5400 Biden emails in which Joe Biden used the pseudonyms “Robert L. Peters” and “JRB Ware” to conceal the Biden money laundering activities with Ukraine, Russia, and Romania.
  4. The Secret Service, in violation of federal law, tipped off Hunter Biden that his storage units were to be raided, thereby allowing Hunter to remove all incriminating evidence.
  5. The circulation by the Federal Syndicate of false information about Trump continued while he was in office, as evidenced by the Durham and Horowitz Reports.
  6. As to the January 6th riots, the Federal Syndicate still refuses to release the information requested by Congress.
  7. The special January 6th committee formed by the House Democrats prohibited Republicans from naming their members to the Committee, thereby preventing the cross-examination of witnesses and a fair hearing on the day’s events.
  8. After President Trump left office, the Democrats waited until the 2024 primary election season started to indict him in four separate jurisdictions. The Democrats, using public resources, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to go after one person. There is no record in the world of such a massive use of public resources to prosecute one political opponent. Even the famous Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals focused the government’s prosecution in one court.
  9. All the prosecution trials are scheduled during campaign season to ensure Trump cannot compete against Biden. The Federal Syndicate appears to be interfering with the 2024 election under the pretense of saving the Constitution.
  10. Now, the Democrats seek to disqualify Trump from holding office by advocating that any election official in any state can disqualify the former president from office. All to be accomplished by a process that is self-executing by any state executioner who somehow personally believes, without a public inquiry, legislative definition, or judicial determination, that Trump is an insurrectionist.

Since Americans can vote for Congress every two years, a coup d’état is highly unlikely. But Americans would be fools to believe a coup d’état can’t happen here. Self-coups come in many forms, and all use legal means. Leaders could assume special emergency powers as a permanent means of governing. We all experienced these emergency powers during the COVID pandemic with lockdowns, masks, school cancellations, and restrictions on free speech if it related to the truth of the federal government’s pronouncements on health matters. Moreover, 136 federal emergency laws in the U.S. grant the Executive the power to be a dictator at the time of his choosing.

Between 1946 and 2022, an estimated 148 self-coup attempts occurred, of which 110 were in dictatorships and 38 in democracies. Based on the actions of the Federal Syndicate, one could argue it is implementing a self-coup d’état. If that is not the goal of the Biden administration and its Federal Syndicate, then these groups need to renounce the activities that give the impression of a coup taking place. Continuing with its illegal actions to over-prosecute objectionable individuals, restrict constitutionally protected free speech, withhold evidence of criminal activity from Congress, and give the appearance of interfering with elections only leads the public to believe “It is happening here.”

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • The Constitution is Irrelevant if our Leaders are Corrupt

The Constitution is Irrelevant if our Leaders are Corrupt

William L. Kovacs

August 2023

The Constitution is Irrelevant if our Leaders are Corrupt

The appointment of David Weiss to be Special Counsel in the Hunter Biden investigation has caused outrage in political circles. Democrats scream Republicans got what they asked for, a special counsel. Republicans view his appointment as the continuation of a Department of Justice (“DOJ”) coverup of criminal activity.

This debate is an unnecessary waste of time. The Biden administration detests the Constitution and the rule of law. Appointing a special counsel not eligible to serve under federal regulations or the Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct (“Bar Rules”) is no greater offense to the Constitution than refusing to enforce immigration laws, forgiving student loans by assuming Congressional spending powers, or accepting bribes from foreign nations. It’s all criminal activity harmful to the U.S.

If Mr. Weiss insists on serving as special counsel, he will be another “in-your-face” Biden-supported lawbreaker. He will operate in violation of federal regulations governing special counsels and Bar Rules. He is appointed by an Attorney General (“AG”) who believes he is “The Law.”

The statutes, regulations, and Bar Rules are irrelevant except to law students.

A law student might discuss 28 U.S.C. sections 509, 510, 515, and 533 as granting the AG vast powers to conduct investigations and to appoint so-called “special counsels.” All the AG needs to do is prepare an appointment letter which tells the public little. From that point forward, the public is locked out of the justice system, and the special counsel is free to make any innocent person a criminal or any criminal an innocent person.

The law student would cite 28 C.F.R Part 600 as the regulations governing special counsels. 28 C.F.R. Sec. 600.3 is the key section.  It mandates that “the Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.” As a U.S. Attorney, David Weiss is disqualified as a government employee. Moreover, that section requires the special counsel to “conduct the investigation ably, expeditiously and thoroughly.” The past performance of Mr. Weiss in the Hunter Biden saga, in which he failed, after four years, to find even publicly available evidence, establishes an embarrassing lack of skills.

Section 28 C.F.R, sec 600.7 requires that a special counsel shall comply with the rules …  and policies of the Department of Justice, including being from outside the government. Being in violation of sec. 600.3 qualifies as misconduct. There is no direct language in AG’s Order No. 5730-2023, appointing Weiss, that specifically revokes the prohibition. Using sleight of hand, the AG attempts to unilaterally change federal regulations, without any notice, by requiring Weiss to comply with only a few of the federal regulations, sections 600.4 to 600.10. The AG omits compliance with sec. 600.3, the provision that requires Special Counsels to be outside of government. Fortunately, due to sloppy drafting, sec. 600.7, one of the sections that must be followed, mandates compliance with all policies and regulations of the DOJ. Since sec.600.3 was not revoked, it still applies to Weiss.

This is another example of the lengths the AG will go to break the law just to protect a corrupt administration. He tried a similar scheme in the Hunter Biden plea deal when he hid Hunter Biden’s complete immunity from prosecution in an unrelated section of the documents.

Does the AG have the legal authority to secretly revoke a regulatory requirement without going through the Office of Legal Counsel and taking public comment on the proposed rule? Doubtful, but such deceit is more proof of the Biden Syndicate at work.

Additionally, the AG cannot destroy the rule of law in the states unless the states want to be complicit in its destruction.

Under Bar Rule 1.7, a lawyer may represent a client if there is the existence of a conflict of interest if “the representation is not prohibited by law.” Unfortunately for Mr. Weiss, sec. 600.3 prohibits such representation since regulations are considered laws.

Under  Bar Rule 3.3 and in comments, a lawyer owes a duty of candor to the court. By serving as Special Counsel, Mr. Weiss has an affirmative duty to notify the court that he is acting in violation of federal regulations. Under Bar Rule 8.4, Mr. Weiss must inform the court he is intentionally committing misconduct before the court. Acting as Special Counsel in violation of federal law, he violates the Bar Rules by engaging in conduct involving deceit and misrepresentation if he tries to hide his federal employee status and the AG’s attempt to secretly waive federal regulations without the proper notice.

If Weiss ever returns to federal court in Delaware, or anywhere, in the Hunter Biden matter, the judge should ask: “Are you a government employee?” If Weiss answers “yes,” the court should disqualify Weiss. It would be an oxymoronic act for the AG to state his department has a conflict of interest in the Biden investigation and then waive a regulation so he could appoint a special counsel that has the same conflict of interest. It is the duty of all judges to supervise the conduct of prosecutors and to report professional misconduct.

Weiss was appointed special counsel because the Biden administration has public disdain for the rule of law, the Constitution, and Congress. If the judge disqualifies Mr. Weiss from operating as Special Counsel, the public will quickly discover the administration’s disdain for the courts. Paraphrasing President Andrew Jackson, “the judge made her decision, now let her enforce it.”

It is almost impossible for a court to enforce its orders without assistance from the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, most courts, when confronted by a ruthless president, “will hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil.”

Historians will write volumes on the most corrupt presidential administration in history. Citizens a century from now will wonder why U.S. law enforcement agencies supported and protected such a corrupt president. The “Books” will range from “We did not know he was a Manchurian President” to “The Deep State was the puppeteer of a mindless old guy.” Unfortunately, the nation will decline as long as the DOJ is the bureaucratic handmaid for corruption.

Future Americans will ponder the imponderable until they realize that no matter how strongly we believe in our Constitution and the rule of law, such beliefs are irrelevant if our leaders are corrupt. Corrupt leaders destroy every nation they rule. In the final analysis, corruption is happening here in the “Good Ol U.S.A.” Corruption is the signature characteristic of the Biden administration.

Thank God for history. It will be the only voice to hold the Biden administration and its corrupt legal system accountable for its misdeeds. History will be brutal.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • R.I.P. Rule of Law, How Bad Can It Get?

R.I.P. Rule of Law, How Bad Can It Get?

William L. Kovacs

August 2023

R.I.P. Rule of Law, How Bad Can It Get?

With the exception of the Civil War, the people of the United States have generally lived in a rule-of-law society, one in which all persons are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. Regrettably, by living so long in good fortune, the people of the U.S. have not put serious thought into what happens when the rule of law dies. The Biden administration’s recent creation of a two-tier system of justice bluntly informs us that while the nation has been blessed with a civil society for 247 years, we are not protected from a bad ending. The theory of the rule of law may be eternal, but its application in the U.S. now appears transient.

Why are the actions of the federal government today more harmful to democracy than in the past?

While there has always been corruption in the federal government, it has never been systemic until the Biden administration. The House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability sets out the timeframe of corruption from 2013 to 2023. It includes Biden’s corrupt dealings with China, Ukraine, Romania, and Kazakhstan. Biden’s Department of Justice and its surrogate investigative arm, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“DOJ”), have indicted and are attempting to imprison former president Trump, Biden’s primary rival in the 2024 election. This all follows four years of the Trump presidency, during which the DOJ lied to the FISA courts about the Trump administration and concocted the false Russian collusion narrative that led to the sham impeachment of Trump.

The most horrifying conduct of Biden’s special counsel is his effort to criminalize Trump’s right to speak, think and have confidentiality in his discussions with lawyers. This conduct is an attempt to criminalize all speech that is different from the government’s sanctioned speech.

There is also the DOJ’s attempt to give a sweetheart, no jail time, deal to Hunter Biden by ignoring his conduct as a tax cheat, drug addict, money launderer, and unregistered foreign agent. Even the day before Devon Archer was to give testimony before the House Oversight Committee, DOJ informed him to report to prison before giving testimony. This was an overt attempt at witness intimidation. While the list of crimes by the Biden administration will fill volumes in the history books, the existential question is – how much harm can the Biden administration do to the nation if its conduct continues?

How bad can Biden’s corruption get? Really bad!

Keep in mind the federal government has sovereign immunity. It cannot be sued without its consent. It will not prosecute itself for criminal conduct. Yes, corrupt officials can be prosecuted but only if the DOJ seeks to prosecute them. The Hunter Biden saga illustrates the power DOJ to destroy the rule of law in the United States. DOJ intentionally delayed prosecuting Hunter Biden for almost a decade, thereby allowing the statute of limitations to expire on the most serious tax evasion charges. And, finally, when a Republican House of Representatives pushed the DOJ into prosecuting Hunter Biden, DOJ indicted him on misdemeanor charges and, in a faux plea agreement, sought no jail time. It also attempted to give him complete immunity for all other crimes.  Fortunately for the nation, judge Noreika uncovered DOJ’s deception and refused to accept the sham plea deal.

The significant point in DOJ’s coverup is that it has the sole power to determine who will be prosecuted and what laws will be enforced. Congress can investigate DOJ actions, but it cannot force it to act in accordance with the law or to apply our laws equally. The courts can only hear matters before them. Nothing requires the federal government to prosecute any specific crime. The president can fire corrupt DOJ officials, but what if those officials are carrying out the president’s orders? Yes, the House of Representatives can impeach the president for treason, bribery, and other High crimes and misdemeanors, but if the Senate refuses to convict the president, all his corruption continues.

What does this mean?

President John Adams described our Republic as “A government of laws, not of men.” In the 21t c. those words are pure poppycock. The United States is a government of individuals holding personal power, wealth, and privilege. These individuals will undertake any action, including criminal conduct, to protect themselves the country be damned.

While the proper role of a government official should be as a trustee to the Constitution and a fiduciary to the institution in which they serve, few officials follow that path. Most hold power as politicians that give loyalty only to those helping them maintain their office. It is this loyalty to party and donors that undercuts the principle of separation of powers in the Constitution. There are no checks on power; there is only the Republicans checking the power of Democrats and Democrats checking the power of Republicans.

How can the power of the Executive branch be controlled?

The most effective mechanism for ensuring limited government, but the least likely to be acted upon by our officials, would be for each branch of government to constantly check the power of the other branches, notwithstanding political party affiliation. Absent an effective check on power, there are a few options for restraining corruption:

1.  The most practical approach to controlling corruption in the Executive branch is if one House of Congress is controlled by a party in opposition to the president. That House of Congress can refuse to fund a corrupt government, notwithstanding the fact that part of the government will shut down. The House of Representatives has a clear choice, to fund corruption or to shut down the corrupt agency.

To appropriate money, the House of Representatives and the Senate must agree on the amount of money the government needs, and the president must sign the appropriations into law. But if one House of Congress refuses to appropriate any money to fund a part of the government, that part of the government will be discontinued without passing a new law. This crude process is the only way to control a corrupt government.

2. Congress should grant Use Immunity to those with knowledge of corruption in the Executive branch. By granting use immunity to corrupt officials, corrupt officials can be forced to testify without fear of future punishment for the new information they provide. Securing the truth may be the only mechanism to make the federal government honest and eventually workable.

3. The only real power “We the people” have to control government is our power to vote for members of Congress. We do not vote for the President; that is done by the electoral college and a convoluted quilt of state voting laws, state Secretaries of State, and judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court is appointed, as are the millions of nameless bureaucrats that make laws daily by regulating almost every aspect of society.

Our right to vote for members of Congress is extraordinarily powerful. It is a legal mechanism for a peaceful revolution. With our votes, we can vote out all members of Congress every two years and elect a Congress that is a trustee of the Constitution and a fiduciary to the institution in which they serve. Only by electing a Congress willing to constantly check the powers of the other branches of government can citizens ensure that at least one branch of government, Congress, functions as the Constitution intends.

Electing a Congress that obeys the Constitution is the only failsafe mechanism given to the people to ensure we remain a Republic. If the people of the U.S. continue to elect a Congress that gives it loyalty to politics rather than the Constitution, the nation dies.

So how bad can a corrupt government be?

In the final analysis, John Adams was wrong. We are not a government of laws. The Biden administration and its DOJ have transitioned the United States into a government of men. Rather Thomas Jefferson, Adams’ nemesis, had it correct when he stated, “The government you elect is the government you deserve.” There is little in our Constitution to control a government that is willing to corrupt our constitutional system for personal benefit. So, we must all recognize as citizens the government we elect only functions as well as the individuals we elect.

So how bad can it (the federal government) get without the rule of law? Pick your worst nightmare, and don’t leave any possibility out for being too terrifying. As a nation of men, not laws, we are all subject to the power of narcissists exercised for personal political advantage. History has proven such insanity can result in inhuman outcomes.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • The Climate Change Frenzy Is a Mass Hysteria Movement

The Climate Change Frenzy Is a Mass Hysteria Movement

William L. Kovacs

June 2023

The Climate Change Frenzy Is a Mass Hysteria Movement

Since the Biden administration promised to eliminate all fossil fuels, climate change activists have transitioned from seeking to use the government to control society into a collective group possessed by an illusion based on excessive fear that climate change is destroying the planet. This climate collective believes that by dismantling society, the government can prevent the end of the world.

Researchers refer to such collective fears as mass hysteria. They consider it a psychogenic illness, “a condition that begins in the mind rather than the body.” It exposes itself when a group of people start feeling anxious, sick, or crazed at the same time, notwithstanding the absence of any physical reason for their condition.

A recent The Lancet study of 10,000 young people, ages 16 – 25, found that 59% were extremely worried about climate change; 84% were at least moderately worried. The respondents suffered from sadness, anxiety, and anger and felt powerless, helpless, and guilty. The authors conclude that climate anxiety is so great these young people believe humanity is doomed, all they value is being destroyed, and they are hesitant to have children. Illustrating the impact of climate hysteria is the belief by the young people that government could protect them if it would listen to their feelings, validate and respect them, and implement their views, i.e., do what they demand.

Episodes of mass hysteria have been recorded since the Middle Ages. There have been Witch trials, dancing plagues in which the participants could not stop dancing until they were so tired, they died, and screaming trances. In modern political times, there was the Red Scare hysteria over the perceived threat of communism. Before the Covid pandemic, there was the Y2K hysteria over the belief that when clocks struck midnight on January 1, 2000, all computer systems would fail to recognize the year, and society would collapse due to massive electrical outages.

Influencing today’s climate collective is a federal government and media that pound into the heads of these young people that society’s use of fossil fuels causes every problem in the world. If an area of the world is too hot or cold, it’s climate change. Forest fires, storms, floods, and draughts are due to climate change. The oceans are getting warmer, species are dying, and humanity faces more health risks due to climate change. Climate change even causes poverty. The fact that the earth is much cleaner today than a century ago is irrelevant to those possessed by climate hysteria.

Pulling together these desperate report findings is a recent National Institutes of Health study on “Covid-19 and the Political Economy of Mass Hysteria. While the study focused on how the political system and social media negatively impacted the public mind during the Covid pandemic, its findings apply to situations in which large segments of a population believe, without any injury, they are continuously exposed to dangerous conditions.

The authors of the NIH study describe mass hysteria as “a large group of people get[ting] collectively very upset” by negative information. “This threat [negative information] evokes fear and spreads in society. Symptoms can also spread.” This spread of emotions and anxiety through impacted groups is called “contagion,”

Once an infected group is in a state of mass hysteria, the government can “impose measures on the rest of the population, inflicting almost unrestricted harm,” including abrogating civil liberties. The authors describe how the federal government used lockdowns and distancing to decrease psychological resistance and create greater hysteria. The government’s actions, combined with news agencies and social media, promoted massive negative news campaigns that deteriorated psychic health by intentionally scaring those in the already anxious population.

The authors conclude that the combination of a big government that eliminates information that competes with its desired narrative and the negative information spread by social media make society more prone to the development of mass hysteria.

The Biden administration uses climate change to create the anxiety that causes mass hysteria. President Biden regularly informs the public that “Climate change is the existential threat to humanity…Unchecked, it is going to actually bake this planet. This is not hyperbole. It’s real.”

Biden emphasizes a “Whole-of-government-approach” to climate change is mandatory since it touches every aspect of society and all things made by society.

By implementing a whole of government approach, Biden makes climate change the top federal priority. Policy changes are made in every aspect of governing to address climate change, including new taxes, zero-emission cars, regulating hundreds of appliances, the electrical grid, power plants, mining, oil production, manufacturing generally, and international relations. Biden’s message to these young people is that climate change is so harmful every aspect of society must be regulated to save the planet. Unfortunately, the Lancet study finds the anxiety is so deep the government’s whole-of-government response is insufficient.

The media follows its climate change narrative as a means of ingratiating itself with the government. By November 2021, U.S. news coverage of climate change reached an all-time high. Key to the coverage increase was a change in describing it from global warming to “more intense words and phrases to describe the phenomenon, such as “climate catastrophe” and “climate emergency.” These new terms were then incorporated into the tacking algorithms to increase term coverage by 50%. As an expert noted, “Our [that] language helps describe the realities of our [the climate collectivists] world.”

Within two years, the Biden administration created a deep-rooted mass hysteria about climate change among young adults. The anxiety is so great there is nothing the government can do short of shutting down society to ease their pain. Biden’s quest for power and its media partners in deception has created a widespread mental health crisis within the population segment that will soon be some of the leaders in the United States. Intentionally creating hysteria in a nation is not responsible governing or reporting.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

  • Home
  • Biden’s “Rule of Law” Administered by a Team of Criminals

Biden’s “Rule of Law” Administered by a Team of Criminals

William L. Kovacs

April 2023

Biden’s “Rule of Law” Administered by a Team of Criminals

The United States, for centuries touted itself as a Rule of Law society. Citizens believe we are all equal before the law, including government officials. This concept is described as “the law is the king,” “no man is above the law,” or “we are a government of laws, not men.”

Unfortunately, the rule of law is neither a rule nor a law. It is a myth. The Biden administration exposes the myth by its every action. The most recent example is the IRS whistleblower who got tired of trying to bring the truth about Hunter Biden’s foreign payments and tax cheating to the top Justice Department (“DOJ”) officials. It appears the DOJ refused to speak with the whistleblowers, however, after listening to a top DOJ official perjure himself before Congress, the whistleblower brought evidence of the DOJ corruption to Congress.

There is the Secretary of Homeland Security, contrary to thousands of hours of video evidence and testimony by border patrol agents and media outlets, who tells Congress the southern border is closed and secure.

The most disturbing corruption, however, is the damage done to the integrity of the U.S. election system by the Biden campaign and its “patriotic CIA officials.” It now appears the letter signed by the fifty-one high-level U.S. security officials was false when sent. It was a lie to the American people in order to influence the 2020 presidential election. While Trump lost the election by receiving fewer votes than Biden, Trump was right that election crimes cost him the election. The crimes were revealed by former CIA acting chief Mike Morrell. He admitted that the letter signed by the “51 intel experts” claiming the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian misinformation was the real misinformation. Morrell organized the signatures on the false letter to help Biden win the 2020 presidential election.  Morrell hoped he would get the top CIA position. Unfortunately, Biden’s patronage was rewarded to Antony Blinken, Secretary of State, for initiating the letter.

The Biden administration’s list of lies, deceptions, and direct interference with criminal investigations prove there is no rule of law in the U.S. The federal government is operating as a criminal syndicate.

Most concerning, however, is other than the undefined, vague limits placed on the government by the Constitution or laws passed by Congress, there is scant mention of how our legal system applies to the operation of government when it acts illegally, even tyrannically. The fact is the federal government is not held accountable other than occasionally being voted out of office. It operates for its own benefit. The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity protects those running government from being subjected to citizens seeking recourse against it for unlawful actions or even crimes.

As with the rule of law, Sovereign immunity is not written into our Constitution. It is merely a doctrine that was not even recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court until 90 years after the ratification of our Constitution. While the Supreme Court protects federal power by applying the doctrine, it struggles to articulate any constitutional foundation for its use. The doctrine currently holds that the federal government cannot be sued without its consent. It bars all lawsuits against the federal government or its officers unless Congress enacts a law that clearly expresses its intent to lift the bar.

With absolute immunity from suit, unless otherwise legislated, there are few mechanisms to hold the United States government accountable for its illegal actions. The government waives some civil immunity in matters for small claims on its purse, such as torts, and breaches of contract. It sets out specific mechanisms so citizens believe they can secure monetary relief against illegal government actions. The Government Accountability Office, however, notes the waiver of sovereign immunity is not enough to assume the victim will be paid. Specifically, there can be no payment without a congressional appropriation.

Since the government is immune from liability without its consent, the only control over the Executive branch is another branch of government that checks the powers of an abusive branch. When all branches of our government are controlled by one party, the Biden administration proves, there is no rule of law since there is no viable check on abusive power.

When at least one part of the government is controlled by the opposition party, there is at least a slim chance of discovering a little of the government’s illegal activity. Unfortunately, unless the President agrees to hold the federal government accountable for crimes or Congress is able to check the powers of the abusive Executive officials, most likely through impeachment, there are no other mechanisms for holding the federal government accountable for its crimes.

The House of Representatives can always impeach an Executive that acts illegally; however, removing a corrupt Executive is unlikely since it requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Unless the President’s party votes to convict, the Executive remains in office, and the criminality can continue unchecked.

Certainly, citizens can speak out, protest, demonstrate, and complain about government corruption.  In the end, however, citizens will be ignored if the government wants to ignore them. Or arrested if the government wants them arrested, as illustrated by the FBI sending twenty heavily armed FBI agents, with weapons drawn, supported by a fleet of armored vehicles, to arrest a pro-life activist at his home in a small Pennsylvania town while playing with his seven children in the front yard. The crime was not disclosed by the FBI, but press reports suggest the person was arrested for pushing a man who was verbally harassing one of his young children. State authorities refused to prosecute the alleged “crime.” The person claiming to be pushed filed a criminal complaint in state court but failed to show up at trial. The case was dismissed.

Dismissing one case is fruitless if the FBI continues to target as domestic terrorists, objectional groups like pro-life advocates, Catholics attending Latin mass, and parents who speak out at school board meetings.

The only power “We the people” have to control corruption in the federal government is our right to vote. It is extraordinarily powerful. By electing a Republican House of Representatives, Americans are witnessing the exposure of corruption by those who lead the nation. Unfortunately, exposing corruption has its limits since the Biden administration determines who is a criminal and who it will prosecute.

The stakes in the 2024 election are very high. If the Biden administration and the Democratic Senate are not voted out of office, the corruption of the Biden administration will continue unchecked until at least 2029.  Who knows what the state of the Republic will be after eight years of unchecked corruption?

 

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

  • Home
  • Biden Beats Buchanan for Title “Worst U.S. President”

Biden Beats Buchanan for Title “Worst U.S. President”

William L. Kovacs

April 2023

Biden Beats Buchanan for Title “Worst U.S. President”

 

On March 21, 2021, ReformTheKakistocracy.com was the first to raise the question – Will Joe Biden be the 21st-century James Buchanan?

After only two and a quarter years in office, Joe Biden has trounced James Buchanan in his quest to secure the title “Worst U.S. President in history.” Biden’s incompetence, his obsession with undoing Trump’s major accomplishments such as energy independence and a secure southern border, his groveling to China, the creation of a two-tier system of justice, and his encouraging political prosecutions, has done more to fester hostility between Americans of different beliefs, than any U.S. president, including Buchanan who laid the foundation for the Civil War.

It took Buchanan four years to set brother against brother in this nation. Biden started dividing Americans from the day he was sworn into office by issuing numerous Executive Orders on divisive issues. Biden is laying the foundation for an authoritarian state in which the federal government targets disfavored individuals and groups.

Buchanan’s background.

For those unfamiliar with the name James Buchanan, he was the nation’s 15th president. Most historians consider Buchanan the nation’s most inept and worst president. His term of office was 1857 – 1861, the years before the Civil War when our nation was deeply divided over the issue of slavery. Instead of working to bridge the divide, Buchanan not only allowed regional tensions to fester, he lobbied the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold slavery and advocated for Kansas to join the union as a slave state. Within months after the end of his presidency, the Civil War ignited.

The philosopher George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The campaigns and governing styles of Buchanan and Biden are similar. Both campaigns intentionally avoided any discussion of the extraordinary tensions in the nation. Both presidents governed by stroking division. While these points alone should clearly put the U.S. on notice that the past is about to repeat itself, there are many more similarities.

Biden and Buchanan: both lifetime politicians.

Buchanan and Biden both spent their entire lives in politics before assuming the presidency. Buchanan was a member of the Pennsylvania legislature, a Congressman and Senator from Pennsylvania, Secretary of State, and an Ambassador to Great Britain and Russia. Buchanan was first elected to political office (Pennsylvania House of Representatives) at age 23. Biden was first elected to political office as a member of the New Castle County Council at age 27. He then served for almost five decades as a Senator from Delaware and vice president of the U.S.

Biden and Buchanan sought the presidency for decades.

Buchanan and Biden were regular contenders for the Democrat party nomination throughout their careers. Buchanan sought the presidency in 1844, 1848, and 1852 and finally secured the nomination in 1856. Biden unsuccessfully sought the Democrat nomination for over thirty years, pitifully losing primaries in 1988 and 2008. Finally, in 2020 he secured the nomination.

Biden and Buchanan won by avoiding campaigning.

Buchanan and Biden found excuses to avoid discussing the divisive issues facing the nation during their presidential campaigns. During the 1856 campaign, Buchanan was serving as Ambassador to Great Britain and could not actively campaign for president. His campaigning was limited to writing letters pledging to uphold the Democrat platform. He rarely mentioned the biggest issue of the day, the riots over the Kansas-Nebraska Act concerning slavery.

Like Buchanan, Biden was out of sight most of the campaign. Biden used the pandemic as an excuse to run a “bunker strategy” from the basement of his home. He made very few statements on issues and few public appearances.

In the year they were nominated the actions of others put them in the White House.

An even more odd similarity, neither man strenuously sought the presidency in the year they secured their nominations. Rather both relied on others to make them look acceptable. Simply, by avoiding active campaigns and any discussion of the issues, Buchanan and Biden secured the Democrat nominations in troubled times.

Buchanan’s two primary opponents were harmed by taking strong positions on the slavery issue. President Franklin Pierce held pro-slavery views, and Senator Stephen Douglas was the primary sponsor of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a law allowing for popular sovereignty over the slavery issue in the new territories. Its passage resulted in violent uprisings causing Pierce and Douglas to lose large numbers of convention delegates from the North and West. Additionally, Buchanan promised to only run for one term, allowing his supporters to tell Douglas that support for Buchanan would help him secure the nomination in 1860.

Biden also had strong primary opponents in his rocky path to the 2020 nomination. He finished poorly in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada to Bernie Sanders, an articulate, energetic, seventy-nine-year-old socialist. Biden’s candidacy was in “roadkill” and “also ran” status until Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) endorsed him in the South Carolina primary. Clyburn’s endorsement gave him huge support from the black community and delivered Biden’s first-ever primary win in thirty years of running. In fact, it was the first time Biden had ever received more than 1¼ % of the vote, his high in 2008.

The deal sealing the Clyburn endorsement, however, was Biden’s willingness to follow Clyburn’s instructions and publicly announce in the South Carolina presidential primary debate that he would nominate a black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. With that promise, Biden collected on Clyburn’s offer and won South Carolina with 49% of the vote. From that time forward, the Democrat Party lined up behind Biden, whose competitors, except Sanders, dropped out almost immediately.

Both were considered dull candidates.

Buchanan was perfectly positioned to take advantage of the chaos. The prominent historian William Cooper described Buchanan as a “[A] smooth, pleasantly dull [northern] conservative,” having “ideological ties to the South.”

Biden, like Buchanan, was far from exciting. His personality is described as driven to seek approval, wanting others to view him as a friend, and often praising and flattered others as an image of goodwill.

Buchanan and Biden, seemingly “nice guys,” achieved victory based on the actions of others and avoidance of the issues.

Biden wins the worst U.S. President in history contest by dividing Americans on many issues, while Buchanan only divided Americans on the slavery issue.

If Buchanan’s actions helped ignite a civil war by further dividing the nation over one issue, what might four years of a Biden presidency do as it divides the nation on almost every issue.

Biden, from day one of his presidency, bypassed Congress to open the southern border to drug smugglers, limited energy production, promoted preferential rights for transgender people over others, imposed diversity, equity, and inclusion on the entire federal government, forced the financial community into financing ESG, and signed onto the Paris Climate Accord which gives China a competitive advantage over the U.S.

Biden also weaponized the FBI against political opponents by intimidating parents at school board meetings, characterized Catholics as terrorists, and allowed the FBI  to participate in Big Tech’s censorship of conservative media and speech, to name only a fraction of his actions.

Biden uses the tactics of an authoritarian state ruler, not a president elected to serve the nation. Until the Biden administration, it was inconceivable that any modern president would allow such massive corruption in our political system. Unfortunately, Biden wanted the presidency for personal power and to secure his place in history, not to serve the nation. Biden has succeeded, his is now secured the title “The Worst President in U.S. History.”

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • Childish beliefs drive lethal energy and agricultural agendas

Childish beliefs drive lethal energy and agricultural agendas

Paul Driessen

February 2023

Childish beliefs drive lethal energy and agricultural agendas
Many eco-activists (and too many legislators, regulators, judges and journalists) have trouble thinking beyond slogans. They apparently believe declaring ecological emergencies, repeating clever mantras, and issuing proclamations and mandates will create a fossil-fuel-free, organic farming utopia. In their dreams.

Since 1950, American farmers increased per-acre corn yields by an incredible 500% – and other crop yields by smaller but still amazing amounts, while using less land, water, fuel, fertilizers and pesticides. Their exports helped slash global hunger and malnutrition. Farmers in Brazil, India and other countries worldwide have likewise enjoyed record harvests in recent years. Their success has many “roots.”

Hybrid seeds combine valuable traits from different plants. Biotech seeds protect crops against insects and viruses and reduce water and pesticide demand. Nitrogen fertilizers (synthesized from natural gas) join phosphorus and potassium in supercharging soils. School and online programs offer libraries of agricultural success tools. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) further spurs plant growth.

Long-lasting herbicides control weeds that would otherwise steal moisture and nutrients from crops, while enabling farmers to utilize no-till farming that avoids breaking up soils, reduces erosion, further retains soil moisture and preserves vital soil organisms. Israeli-developed drip irrigation delivers water without the evaporation characteristic of other irrigation methods.

Modern high-tech tractors use GPS systems, sensors, cameras and other equipment to steer precise courses across fields, while constantly measuring soil composition, and injecting just the right kinds and amounts of fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, along with seeds, to ensure optimal harvests.

Imagine the bounteous crops for humanity if all these technologies could spread across the globe.

Instead, this planet-saving, life-saving progress is under assault – by well-meaning or ideologically driven, ill-advised or ill-intended … but all well-funded … organizations that demand natural gas bans, “more Earth friendly” agriculture and a return to “traditional farming lifestyles.”

Their hatred of biotech crops is intense and well-documented, but they also despise hybrid seeds. They want modern herbicides and insecticides banned, in favor of “natural” alternatives that are often toxic to bees, animals and people; may actually be synthetic (eg, neurotoxic pyrethrins); and are rarely tested for residues on produce or long-term toxicity to humans. They demand “natural” fertilizers, which often provide a tiny fraction of nutrients that modern synthetic fertilizers do.

They want to teach only “traditional” (ie, subsistence) farming, especially in Africa. They prefer to call it “food sovereignty” – which they claim is the “right” to “culturally appropriate” food produced through “ecologically sound and sustainable methods,” in accord with AgroEcology policies. In other words, millions more people (ruling elites and their kids?) doing back-breaking stoop labor, dawn to dusk.

Tractors? Why not horses, oxen or human labor, they ask? At least get rid of gasoline and diesel tractors and trucks, in favor of electric models. Never mind that EV tractors and combines would require several tons of battery modules, and still wouldn’t be able to do a full day’s work without hours-long recharges.

They want oil and gas locked in the ground. “We don’t need petrochemical products, especially synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.” Or tractor tires, paint, windows, GPS/computer housings, and more.

Have these illiterati looked at their own clothing, food, homes, offices or world? Synthetic fabrics, cosmetics, cell phone and computer housings, pharmaceuticals, tapes and adhesives, protective gear, eyeglasses, car bodies, detergents, wind turbine nacelle covers and blades, medical devices, car bodies – practically everything around them and in their lives exists because of oil, gas and petrochemicals.

But we can just use biofuels to replace feed stocks for products we really need, they proclaim. Right.

Banishing oil, gas, petrochemicals and internal-combustion engines would certainly mean no more ethanol as a gasoline additive. That would eliminate the need to grow corn on 36,000,000 acres (equivalent to Iowa), and that land could be used for food crops or wildlife habitat. Except it won’t be.

Organic farms have significantly lower crop yields per acre and require far more land than conventional agriculture. Worse, ending oil and gas production means tens of millions of acres would have to be planted with biofuel crops, to provide feed stocks for thousands of now-petrochemical products.

That means vastly more tractors or human labor – and more water, fertilizers and pesticides – to cultivate and harvest sugar and oilseed crops (and algae). And then all those simple biofuel molecules would have to be transformed into much more complex hydrocarbons to provide the necessary feed stocks. That would require even more energy, from even more wind turbines and solar panels – on top of doubling or tripling our existing electricity needs, to transform the U.S. and global economies to all-electric systems, and repeatedly recharge the grid-balancing and power backup batteries those systems would require.

Or perhaps Team Biden plans to simply import all those petrochemicals and/or products – as it seems to be planning with regard to wind turbines, solar panels, battery modules, transformers and other “green” energy equipment. America will not be able to produce any of it, because Team Biden and its allies oppose mining and drilling in the USA (even for raw materials essential for their utopian “renewable” energy transformation – and we won’t even have affordable, reliable electricity to operate factories.

How can these “best and brightest” decision-makers and advisors be so ignorant, inept and clueless – so unable to connect even two or three dots? They’re destroying our planet, habitats and wildlife, to “Save the Earth” from a computer-modeled “climate crisis” that President Biden absurdly insists is “a greater threat than nuclear war.”

They base critical policies that deeply affect lives and livelihoods everywhere on childish beliefs in Santa Claus and Harry Potter. They think we can banish today’s energy and agricultural resources and technologies – and amazing replacements will just be there … via some mystical, mythical process called Materials Acquisition for Government-mandated Infrastructure Change (MAGIC).

Some of them know this cannot possibly happen, but promote the policies anyway. They seem to believe they can mandate that “common folks” will just have to live austerely, under nineteenth or early twentieth century living standards, in 700-square-foot apartments, using electricity when it’s available (not when they need it), and subsisting on bug burgers and larvae milk.

They think Africa would be “the perfect laboratory” for testing new foods, like “crackers, muffins, meat loaves and sausages” made from lake flies. If all that fails, they’ll just impose forced rationing.

Others would go even further. Obama science advisor John Holdren advocated “de-development of the [United States and other over-developed countries] and semi-development of the under-developed countries, to approach a decent and ecologically sustainable standard of living for all in between.”

Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau once said, “in order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.” Environmental Defense scientist Charles Wurster said “People are the cause of all the problems…. We need to get rid of some of them, and [banning DDT] is as good a way as any.”

Environmental and racial justice? Campaigns, policies government actions to eradicate fossil fuels and modern agricultural practices and technologies go well beyond callous and imperious. They go well beyond eco-imperialism, eco-colonialism and eco-Apartheid. They drive eco-manslaughter on a global scale via energy, farming and climate policy. They impose systemic, systematic racism.

These ideas, and these policy proponents, are what should be banished from government, media and academic institutions. Not the wondrous technologies that make modern life possible.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, climate change, environmental policy and human rights.
Contact me: [email protected]
  • Home
  • Student Debt & Climate Change: Tyranny by National Emergency

Student Debt & Climate Change: Tyranny by National Emergency

William L. Kovacs

August 2022

Student Debt & Climate Change: Tyranny by National Emergency

The Biden administration is claiming Congress, by its enactment of national emergency statutes, has given the president the power to unilaterally control all aspects of life in America. A year ago, it locked down the country for Covid. In August, it forgave $600 billion of student debt. Next, it will regulate the entire economy in the name of climate change. Scary as these scenarios might be, Congress might have given the president these powers in its state of irrelevancy. If Congress does not revoke these emergency powers and reclaim its legislative authority, we are certain to live under tyranny. William L. Kovacs, The author

August 23, 2022, President Biden forgives $600 billion of student loan debt. His asserted authority is the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (“HEROES”), which “authorizes” such power to address the financial harms caused by a national emergency. The continuing national emergency is COVID.

Biden is also contemplating the designation of climate change as a national emergency. If such a declaration is lawful, it would allow his administration to shut down the economy of the United States. Biden recently called climate change a “clear and present danger,” vowing to use unspecified executive powers to address it. The likely asserted authority will be the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).

How can a president have such powers under our Constitution? There is a simple answer. Congress has granted many emergency powers to the Executive. And unfortunately, in a divided Congress, it cannot revoke them.

There are 126 laws passed by Congress authorizing the President to use so-called “national emergency powers.”  These laws allow U.S. Presidents to keep this nation in a perpetual national emergency. President Biden knows how to use these powers; Congress does not know how to reclaim them.

Since the start of his presidency, Biden has aggressively used emergency powers. He extended President Trump’s national emergency order indefinitely on the Covid pandemic. Relying upon emergency public health powers, Biden mandated that 84 million Americans subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act either obtain a Covid-19 vaccine or submit to weekly testing. Biden also used the emergency powers to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium to stem the spread of Covid.

With little discussion, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the mandatory employee Covid testing and eviction moratorium orders. However,  the Court in West Virginia v. EPA (“WVA v. EPA”), an administrative law case involving climate change, issued a groundbreaking ruling that will likely determine the legality of future Executive overreach, including future declarations of national emergency. EPA attempted to regulate climate change using obscure and vague provisions of the Clean Air Act. The court held EPA “were [was] asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”

The holding in WVA v. EPA will likely subject future emergency declarations to more intense scrutiny as to congressional intent. Such scrutiny is essential. Student debt cancellation is a perfect example of manipulating language. By isolating every word of the HEROES Act, e.g., “wave” or “modify,”  and separating the words from its legislative history and historical context, the Biden administration justifies its loan forgiveness declaration. Biden’s argument is simple – Covid placed students in a worse financial condition.

Designating some “happening” a national emergency allows the President to spend additional money and circumvent restrictions that might be imposed by law.

By designating “climate change” an  emergency, Biden could order “…sweeping actions to restrain greenhouse gas production – such as banning U.S. crude oil exports, ending offshore drilling or speeding the manufacturing of electric vehicles.” Such actions could decimate world energy supplies and, likely, our economy.

These congressionally delegated emergency powers are so broad and vague they allow a U.S. president to suspend the Constitution until Congress either cuts off funding or the Supreme Court strikes down the emergency declaration.

While Congress has only one law designated “National Emergencies,” NYU’s Brennan Center identifies 136 laws that allow the President to declare a national emergency. Ninety-six of these laws require nothing more than the signature of the President on an emergency proclamation. Fifteen emergency laws have restrictions such as involving a specific subject matter or the need for armed forces. Only thirteen of these emergency laws require a congressional declaration of emergency.

These 136 emergency laws are part of a massive legal framework that contains over 3000 separate criminal offenses in 50 titles of the U.S. Code and 23,000 pages of federal law. That was the last count in 1980. More troublesome, the National Emergencies Act “…does not define what constitutes a national emergency.”

Without a  definition, the statutory meaning of the term must be determined by the common meaning found in a dictionary. Merriam Webster defines a national emergency as “a state of emergency (an unforeseen circumstance needing immediate action) resulting from a danger or threat of danger to a nation from foreign or domestic sources and usually declared to be in existence by a governmental authority.” Such a subjective definition is determined through the eye of the beholder.

The troubling use of recent declarations is that they were invoked with scant factual findings to support the government’s actions. The public health emergency law referenced a waiver of a liability law for those assisting the federal government to address Covid, i.e., protecting the pharmaceutical companies.

The only requirement to implement an emergency power is the President must specify the provision in any of the 136 laws under which he will act. The provision cited does not need to relate to the actions he takes. On this point, the decision in WVA v. EPA may change the outcome if the court forces the President to stay within the powers of the statute relied upon when declaring the emergency.

Congress must find a mechanism to terminate these emergency laws when they have served their purpose. Without such a mechanism, the emergency can be continued merely by the President issuing a declaration for it to continue. One option for terminating an emergency power is for Congress to terminate it by joint resolution. Since the President must sign joint resolutions, Congress needs a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto. Without Congress being able to override a veto, these emergency powers are perpetual.

In addition to health emergencies, other powers available to the President include the ability to control airports, industrial facilities, and any device capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation, i.e., our communications system. The authority most used is IEEPA. It authorizes the President to invoke emergency powers relating to U.S. national security, foreign policy, or the economy, including financial and commercial transactions. The IEEPA has been invoked 55 times. Presidents can impose sanctions on individuals and countries, including freezing bank accounts and seizing assets. While the threat is required to be related to an activity in whole or part outside of the U.S., it is easy for a president to assert a foreign connection by claiming national security.

By enacting the National Emergencies Act and the 136 other statutes, Congress gives presidents the power to be a dictator at times of their choosing. There are only two practical ways to restrain a President’s use of emergency powers. The U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated a willingness to curb the administrative state. Still, the legal process takes many years, and the outcome depends on the political leanings of the court.

A more powerful approach is for Congress to function as an independent check on the Executive, as envisioned in our Constitution. Unfortunately, as long as the members of Congress who are of the same party as the President serve as a president’s lapdogs, Congress is mostly irrelevant.

The only remaining viable option would arise when different political parties control the House and Senate. In this situation, the House of Congress, controlled by the party in opposition to the President’s party, could refuse to appropriate funding for the President’s power grab. Without both Houses of Congress agreeing to appropriate money for the emergency, the President has no means of paying for his power grab. In the final analysis, starving the dictator may be the only solution to save the Republic.

 

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice-president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms, and his book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. His second book, The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic, is a collection of quotes from the Left on how to control society by eliminating capitalism, people, and truth.

This article was first published in “The Thinking Conservative,”  August 2022

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • A Modest Proposal to Stop Climate Change (a satire)

A Modest Proposal to Stop Climate Change (a satire)

William L. Kovacs

July 2022

By implementing the policies of the radical environmental left, president Joe Biden will become the transformative figure he believes he is. He will be the first prophet in humankind to cause the apocalypse he predicts.  William L. Kovacs

Predictions of apocalyptic events have been made since humankind created the calendar needed for assigning the year in which the apocalypse will occur. Predictions include an antichrist, the elimination of humanity and species, the end of the world, and judgment day. All from false prophets. The prediction of a climate change apocalypse will likely occur but not from an event totally outside of human control or even high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rather the apocalypse will be caused by the only entity on earth that can cause an apocalypse. That entity is government and Joe Biden, in biblical terms, is the vessel that will make it happen.

The climate hysterics describe a world that is full of disease, melting sea ice causing extreme worldwide flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, raging forest fires, cities with regular temperatures over 120 degrees, water so acidic as to harm marine life, and starvation over much of the world.

President Biden tells Americans in his usual “tough talk” that climate change is the “number one issue facing humanity.” That the climate crisis poses “the existential threat to human existence as we know it.” He promises “We are going to get rid of fossil fuels,” and the United States will cut its greenhouse gas emissions 50-52% by 2030 compared with 2005 levels.

Biden’s policy advisors implement his policies by shutting down oil and gas pipelines, denying investors the capital needed to produce fossil fuels, and regulating almost every manufactured product from cars to light bulbs. They also propose spending trillions more dollars on green energy in a highly inflationary economy so we can live in an environmental nirvana free of climate anxiety.

Unfortunately, to meet his policy of a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 Biden still needs to reduce emissions by 15 gigatons of CO2 equivalent. Worse, “U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose by 6.2% last year (2021) compared with 2020.” Moreover, even with gas at $5 a gallon, consumption is close to its pre-pandemic highs.

Moreover, whatever the government mandates, the wealthy will continue to use private jets, and live in massive estates, and even estates on the beach where flooding is likely. They have all the food, water, transportation, housing, high-value goods, and servants they could ever need for many lifetimes. It is the average person that suffers from the government’s actions to address climate change. They suffer inflation, high energy prices, and a lower standard of living.

Even if Biden were the son of Obama, there is nothing reasonable he can do to tame the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. That was all attempted by the prior “god.” The radical environmental groups want Biden to take Congress behind the proverbial gym and beat the hell out of it like he promised to do to Trump. Biden likely believes he can take Congress behind the gym. After all, he shakes hands with invisible persons, believes the U.S. has the fastest growing economy in the world and has the Easter bunny rescuing him from pontificating about his delusions in public.

President Biden, your term as president is not over, however, you have very little support among ordinary people who must work every day for a living. Your best hope of being a transformative president is to do whatever the radical left believes is needed to eliminate fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the Left views your presidency as a series of half measures, perhaps only quarter measures. Scranton Joe, you can prove them wrong.

Keep up hope, a delusional mind can find reality in strange ways.

A few days ago, I found an embargoed copy of the Left’s Manifesto on Climate Change. The Left intends to give it to Kamala Harris after it forces you to resign. You have done so much for the radical Left; it is unfair to deprive you of the opportunity to fulfill their dreams. So, I am giving you this draft. Since you are very good at taking credit for the work of others, I suggest you get a pen, a lot of ink and the largest roll of two-ply toilet paper you can find. Then, start writing an Executive Order that promises to achieve all of the Left’s dreams.

Joe Biden quickly scribbles:

“I, Joe Biden, President of the U.S. do hereby order that all my cabinet Secretary Office Boys, girls, LGBTQIA+ and every person, of every gender, subject to my rule, (illegals are free of all restrictions), and especially the wealthy ones, obey the following commands:

  1. All private plane travel is hereby prohibited since rich people ravage the planet and this order is an excuse to permanently live at my beach house.
  2. All limousine travel is prohibited, except for elected Democrats at the federal, state or local level.
  3. All limousines are prohibited from carrying the Buttigieg bicycle and dropping it off a few blocks from his office so he looks like he commutes by bike. (In a bracketed note Biden writes, “Let Buttigieg walk.”)
  4. All new houses and apartments must be under 2000 square feet.
  5. All existing houses over 2000 square feet must be converted to shared living quarters with illegal immigrants having living priority over anyone, including the owner. This provision shall not apply to Democrats willing to exhibit hypocrisy in public and be criticized by conservative media. Demonstrated hypocrisy reveals leadership.
  6. All office buildings must remove elevators since walking stairs is healthy.
  7. Buildings will be warmed by body heat in the winter and cooled by paper fans in the summer for as long as there is paper.
  8. All 6000 products made from oil and gas are hereby banned. “

 Biden’s staff attaches a partial list of just 144 of the 6000 items so the public has some idea of what illegal items are made from oil or gas. Keep in mind that 42 – a gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make the following unneeded products that citizens may not realize are destroying the planet:

 

Adhesives, Air mattresses, Ammonia, Antifreeze, Antihistamines, Antiseptics, Artificial limbs, Artificial turf, Asphalt, Aspirin, Awnings, Backpacks, Balloons, Ballpoint pens, Bandages, Beach umbrellas, Boats, Cameras, Candies and gum, Candles, Car battery cases, Car enamel, Cassettes, Caulking, CDs/computer disks, Cell phones, Clothes, Clothesline, Clothing, Coffee makers, Cold cream, Combs, Computer keyboards, Computer monitors, Cortisone, Crayons, Credit cards, Curtains, Dashboards, Denture adhesives, Dentures, Deodorant, Detergent, Dice, Dishwashing liquid, Dog collars, Drinking cups, Dyes, Electric blankets, Electrical tape, Enamel, Epoxy paint, Eyeglasses, Fan belts, Faucet washers, Fertilizers, Fishing boots, Fishing lures, Floor wax, Food preservatives, Footballs, Fuel tanks, Glue, Glycerin, Golf bags, Golf balls, Guitar strings, Hair coloring, Hair curlers, Hand lotion, Hearing aids, Heart valves, House paint, Hula hoops, Ice buckets, Ice chests, Ice cube trays, Ink, Insect repellent, Insecticides, Insulation, iPad/iPhone, Kayaks, Laptops, Life jackets, Light-weight aircraft, Lipstick, Loudspeakers, Lubricants, Luggage, Model cars, Mops, Motorcycle helmets, Movie film, Nail polish, Noise insulation, Nylon rope, Oil filters, Packaging, Paint brushes, Paint roller, Pajamas, Panty hose, Parachutes, Perfumes, Permanent press, Petroleum jelly, Pharmaceuticals, Pillow filling, Plastic toys, Plastics, Plywood adhesive, Propane, Purses, Putty, Refrigerants, Refrigerator linings, Roller skate wheels, Roofing, Rubber cement, Rubbing alcohol, Safety glasses, Shampoo, Shaving cream, Shoe polish, Shoes/sandals, Shower curtains, Skateboards, Skis Soap dishes, Soft contact lenses, Solar panels, Solvents, Spacesuits, Sports car bodies, Sunglasses, Surf boards, Swimming pools Synthetic rubber Telephones Tennis rackets Tents Tires Tool boxes Tool racks, Toothbrushes, Toothpaste, Transparent tape, Trash bags, Truck and automobile parts, Tubing, TV cabinets, Umbrellas, Unbreakable dishes, Upholstery, Vaporizers, Vinyl flooring, Vitamin capsules, Water pipes, Wind turbine blades, Yarn. Top of Form

Pretty much everything produced by man includes or requires petroleum products. By banning the production of oil and gas and the products made from it, the Biden administration will clearly achieve the Left’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% by 2030 compared with 2005 levels.

President Biden, banning all oil and gas production will make you the most Transformative President in U.S. history. You will achieve every goal of the radical Left.  With the banning of these 6000 products and items, there will be little work for the masses. This will allow you to print more and more money and distribute it quickly since you only need electrons. Please, however, use the electrons quickly since the grid is likely to go down.

The Left’s economists that preach Modern Monetary Theory will praise you on every street corner since there will no longer be television interviews due to the ban on the materials needed to produce the sets. Unfortunately, since there will be almost nothing to purchase, putting money in bank accounts will be a “futile and stupid gesture.”

After a while there will be massive food shortages and a great loss of life, that is the goal of the radical environmental movement. One of its great thinkers, Jacque Yves-Cousteau, stated – “It’s terrible to have to say this. The world population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”

Finally, without Americans having access to industrial production, energy, and food, China will be the world superpower since it will not follow the U.S.’s lead on meeting climate goals. Ignore the grim news however, this is a fabulous opportunity for your son, Hunter. He will likely receive a very large bonus from the Chinese for giving you sound advice on transforming the U.S. By taking Hunter’s advice, Mr. President, you will be in all the history books as the most transformative ruler in the history of the world. You will exceed Nero; it took him fourteen years to collapse the Roman Empire. You will collapse the U.S. in four, a remarkable record, one worthy of a Nobel Prize.

Bye, Bye American Pie, there is nothing more to divide!

 

William L. Kovacs is the author of Reform the Kakistocracy, the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He also authored The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic, a collection of apocalyptic quotes from environmentalists. Mr. Kovacs has served as senior vice-president for the US Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law DC law firms.

 

  • Home
  • Spending Power is Bargaining Power: No Wall, No Dept Ed

Spending Power is Bargaining Power: No Wall, No Dept Ed

William L. Kovacs

June 2022

Spending Power is Bargaining Power: No Wall, No Dept Ed

While Joe Biden has a long plagiarism record, he at least steals good lines. For the release of his FY 2023 budget, he attributed to his father a phrase borrowed from James Frick (first director of development for the University of Notre Dame), “Don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” Actual words of wisdom related to congressional spending power and Biden’s refusal to build a border wall or enforce immigration laws.

Biden knows what he values. Its time for Congress to respond with its own set of values. If Republicans take control of at least the House of Representatives, they should inform the president; that if he does not build the border wall and enforce immigration laws, it will not fund the Department of Education (“Dept. Ed”). While these issues are unrelated, combining them into one negotiation is legal, workable, and requires little effort by a Republican House.

The ability of Congress to place limits on an out-of-control federal government and a president that refuses to execute the laws of the land rests on how it uses the “spending power” granted by the Constitution. Congress, including Republican Congresses, have used this power to spend and spend more for a century. Today Congress is confronted by a spendthrift President that has intentionally opened the Southern Border of the U.S. to millions of illegals, including drug smugglers, sex traffickers, and terrorists. This deliberately reckless decision harms citizens, overwhelms small cities, and costs taxpayers billions. Courts have ordered Biden to enforce immigration laws, but his administration continues to implement its values.

Implied in congressional spending power is the power not to spend. With a $30 trillion national debt, Congress can no longer ignore its real power not to spend. Congress only debates the level of spending, never the fact that it does not have to appropriate any money for any program, for any reason. If one House of Congress refuses to spend money, that one Chamber can control the size and shape of government. More importantly, if the Executive acts unreasonably, one House of Congress can control the Executive by refusing to spend on the Executive branch’s priorities.

If Republicans gain control of the House of Representatives in 2023, they could impeach Biden, but a conviction is unlikely. They could try to pass a more restrictive immigration law, but they will not have the votes to override his veto. Republicans could continue whining on cable TV, which feeds their egos but little else. A more forceful alternative is to find creative ways to use its spending power.

Under the Origination and Spending Clauses of the Constitution, only Congress has the power to raise revenue and spend money. No power in the United States can make Congress appropriate money that it does not want to spend. While it takes both houses of Congress and the president to enact a new law or spend money, spending no money is different. If one House of Congress refuses to spend money, there is no authorized money to spend.

Why the Dept. Ed?

The Dept. Ed should be the center of the negotiations since it is owned and operated by Biden’s most significant political supporters, the teachers’ unions. The teachers’ unions donated $43 million to liberal groups in the 2020 election cycle.

The Dept. Ed is a perpetual pay-off to the teachers’ unions. Congress can use this sacred cow as a bargaining tool. The Dept. Ed is the platform that allows the teachers’ unions to foster the teaching of Critical Race Theory, impose mask mandates, and torture children’s minds by telling them they are born racists. The mere possibility of the teachers’ unions losing this power will likely persuade Democrats to accept the reality that building the border wall and enforcing immigration laws is a cheap price to pay to keep the Dept. Ed.

Using such leverage requires Congress to engage in high-level negotiations. If Biden concedes, the Republicans get the border wall and immigration enforcement. If Biden refuses to negotiate, the Republicans get to eliminate the agency they had wanted to eliminate since1980 when it was created.

Other than spending several trillion dollars to expand the educational bureaucracy, studies and test results establish the Dept. Ed has made little or no impact on education.

The  Dept. Ed administers educational assistance,  collects educational data, and enforces privacy and civil rights laws like destroying Title IX for women’s sports. Of the 15 cabinet-level agencies in the federal government, its $ 96 billion discretionary budget is the third largest of all departments, only behind Defense and Health and Human Services.

The Dept. Ed has not, in any manner, enhanced education in its 42 years of operation:

  1. The Programme for International Student Assessment (“PISA”) found that among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 18th in science.
  2. The same PISA study found that U.S. millennials in the workforce were tied for last on mathematics and problem-solving tests among the millennials in all the industrial countries tested.
  3. A National Assessment of Educational Progress study found that after 40 years of assistance, there has been no improvement in high school math and reading.
  4. A comparison of SAT scores from 1972 to 2021 illustrates that math scores remained flat, 509 in 1972 and 508 in 2016. The SAT was redesigned in 2017; unfortunately, the scores remained flat even on the redesigned test.
  5. On the reading portion of the SAT, test scores dropped from 530 in 1972 to 494 in 2016.
  6. The National Assessment of Education Progress (“NAEP”) analyzed the number of twelfth-grade students’ performances in science for 2009, 2015, and 2019. There was no change in achievement levels. The average science score of 150 for twelfth-grade students in 2019 was not significantly different compared to 2015 or 2009.

 

While it is unlikely Congress would ever voluntarily abolish this failed agency, it does have an opportunity to use it as a bargaining chip to have a border wall constructed finally and immigration laws enforced.