• Home
  • Red States Can Sue NY for Election Interference in Sup. Ct.

Red States Can Sue NY for Election Interference in Sup. Ct.

William L. Kovacs

June 2024

Red States Can Sue NY for Election Interference in Sup. Ct.

The 2024 presidential election is being manipulated by New York, which is using its legal system as a front organization to ensure President Joe Biden prevails over former President Trump, the candidate of the more conservative states (“red states”). More concerning, however, is that the actions of the state of New York are part of a larger group of ultra-Left, Progressive states (“blue states”) dedicated to election interference that changes the behavior of voters, parties, and states across the nation. It’s time the red states utilize their legal remedy by seeking the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve these election interference controversies that affect all states.

Colorado’s bogus legal theory failed, so New York invents a new crime.

Initially, Colorado and Maine attempted to deny Trump ballot access by asserting that he was an ineligible presidential candidate since he had violated the insurrectionist clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down their claims, empathically holding state power does not extend to federal officials and candidates “Because federal officers ‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not a portion, of the people.’”

Subsequently, New York tried a different approach: indictment. It twisted its legal system to give voters nationwide the appearance of providing a fair trial while it schemed to deprive Trump of his constitutional rights. New York’s goal was to tarnish Trump’s reputation, to tilt the election to the blue-state candidate.

It has been less than four months since the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down Colorado’s attempt to remove President Trump from the ballot. During that time, New York invented a new crime to bring against Trump. It was a combination of a misdemeanor business records violation for which the statute of limitation had run and an alleged crime of miscategorizing an expense for a non-disclosure agreement as a legal expense. This unprecedented move was clearly aimed at undermining his candidacy and influencing the election outcome.

New York then staged a trial that transformed a misdemeanor into a felony and convicted Trump of the invented crime. The New York trial court record is replete with examples of how the state, acting through a biased and conflict-ridden judge and a prosecutor campaigning to “Get Trump,” flagrantly violated the former President’s constitutional right to due process to keep him from campaigning in the federal election for President of the U.S.

At trial, New York failed to inform Trump of the alleged crime, denied him the right to put on expert witnesses on election law, and failed to require the jury to unanimously find him guilty of a specific crime as mandated by the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment. New York’s injustice is further compounded by the judge’s “Gag Order” that prevents the former President from freely speaking about the case during the presidential campaign. The Gag Order was continued even after the jury was dismissed, clearly an effort to restrict Trump’s campaign.

The 2024 election is on November 5th.

With the 2024 election just around the corner, the urgency of the situation cannot be overstated. New York’s threat to our federal election can only be resolved by one or more red states petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction over issues involving conflicts between states. If the U.S. Supreme Court does not immediately address New York’s election interference, it could permanently disrupt a “uniquely important national interest” by allowing voters in different states to believe Trump is a criminal and should not hold office.

Since the votes cast in each state are affected by the votes cast in all states, “An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times.”

This disruption could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result, leading to a chaotic and uncertain future. As the Supreme Court noted in the Colorado case,  “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we [United States] endure such chaos.” The potential consequences of inaction are too grave to ignore.

The red States have a direct path to the U.S. Supreme Court to block New York’s election interference.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution reserves a special place in the nation’s operation for states to protect the Republic from the unconstitutional election interference of states seeking to subvert the integrity of national elections. The Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, plays the essential role in upholding this principle. The relevant part of Article III, sec 2, clause 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

This right is so significant to the functioning of the Union that Congress codified and expanded it at 28 U.S.C. sec. 1251(a) to ensure this protection is straightforward and can be immediately exercised by states.

28 U.S.C. 1251(a) reads:

  • The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies between two or more states. [emphasis added]

Moreover, New York’s election interference violates the rights of the voters of all states to have a fair election by denying a presidential candidate the Privileges and Immunities protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court noted:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As the guardians of national elections, the red states have a crucial role to play. They can directly challenge the state of New York’s unconstitutional conduct in the U.S. Supreme Court, thereby upholding our Republic’s integrity and all citizens’ rights.

The Court’s process for handling cases under original review.

While section 1251(a) states that the ‘Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction, the Court views such power as discretionary. Therefore, the red states must file a ‘motion for leave to file a bill of complaint,’ a formal request for permission to present a legal case. The justices will then decide whether to accept or reject the complaint based on the merits of the case and the potential impact on the nation’s electoral process.

Historically, these state vs. state cases involved water rights, boundary disputes, and commercial fishing. The Court has rejected cases involving goods made by convicts, one state prohibiting state employee travel to another state, and inheritance taxes imposed on residents of other states. The last major state vs. state case was Florida vs. Georgia (2021): the Court rejected Florida’s claim that Georgia consumed more than its fair share of water since Florida did not prove by clear and convincing evidence a severe injury caused by Georgia.

Fortunately, an extensive trial court record for the red states makes the case ready for Supreme Court review.

By having original jurisdiction, many of these state vs. state cases arrive at the Supreme Court without the benefit of a lower court decision setting forth the facts and law relied upon by the parties. As a result, the Supreme Court must appoint a Special Master who gathers evidence, takes sworn testimony, and rules on the evidence. This process can take years for the Special Master to complete his report. The Special Master submits a report to the Supreme Court in a manner similar to an appellate court decision. The Court decides to accept or reject the Master’s report.

In the case of the Red States vs New York, there is no need for a Special Master since a comprehensive trial record is available to the Court. Moreover, the questions before the Court are all matters of law, not fact, since all the facts are contained in the trial court record. From that record, the Supreme Court can determine if the state of New York unconstitutionally used its legal system in a manner that interfered with the elections in other states.

While the Supreme Court has adjudicated presidential election controversies, e.g., Bush v. Gore, it involved private parties. However, the Court has never ruled on a controversy in which a group of states alleged another state interfered with a national election. Red States vs. New York is an opportunity for the Court to set limits on election interference by states since these types of state actions are capable of repetition.

 

Post Script

While state vs. state election interference claims rest within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, New York and the actions of other blue states, e.g., Colorado and Maine, to keep Trump off the ballot may also violate numerous federal civil rights statutes, giving former President Trump standing to sue the individuals in those states, acting under color of law, who conspired to keep him off the ballot and/or interfere with the election. These statutes are 42 U.S.C. 1983 (deprivation of civil rights, privileges, and immunities), 42 U.S.C. 1985 (conspiracy to prevent Trump from holding office, obstructing justice, and depriving him of his privileges and immunities), and 42 U.S.C. 1986 (allows Trump to sue those who had the power to prevent violations of his civil rights but were negligent in not preventing them, i.e., the Governor of New York. The Civil Rights statutes may also apply to individuals such as the fifty-one intelligence officials who knew the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic but claimed it to be Russian disinformation to smear Trump and elect Biden. Also, under 42 U.S.C. 1986, the FBI agents may be sued for their negligence in failing to stop the false statements by the fifty-one intelligence officials that interfered with the 2020 election.

 

William L. Kovacs, author of Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic. Received 5 stars from Readers’ Favorite. His previous book, Reform the Kakistocracy, received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chief counsel to a congressional committee. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • Can ‘Clean Energy’ Schemes Get Any Crazier? 

Can ‘Clean Energy’ Schemes Get Any Crazier? 

Paul Driessen

April 2024

Can ‘Clean Energy’ Schemes Get Any Crazier? 

 

The US Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management recently designated two Wind Energy Areas in deepwater areas off the Oregon coast. BOEM is also reviewing offshore wind energy development options for the Gulf of Maine, Central Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and maybe the Great Lakes.

They’re part of Team Biden’s plan to deploy 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy capacity by 2030 and 15,000 MW of floating offshore wind energy capacity by 2035. Capacity is what the turbines could generate when the wind is blowing at optimal speeds, perhaps 30-40% of the year.

30,000 MW is what 2,500 12-MW turbines could generate. It’s enough to meet New York State’s current peak electricity needs on a hot summer day. Add the electricity required to replace gasoline cars and natural gas furnaces and stoves, meet surging AI, data center and streaming video demands, and charge grid-scale backup batteries – and New York alone would likely need 10,000 12-MW offshore turbines.

Meeting the soaring electricity needs of all US states would require hundreds of thousands more.

BOEM nevertheless insists that “Offshore wind is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a new clean energy industry, tackle the climate crisis, and create good-paying jobs while ensuring economic opportunities for all communities.”

Note to be outdone in baseless puffery, the Department of Energy extols the Administration’s goal of “decarbonizing” the entire US electric grid by 2035 and says “offshore wind is especially well-suited” for generating “clean energy.” Two-thirds of all US offshore wind potential, it says, exists over ocean areas so deep that turbines must be mounted on floating platforms anchored to the seafloor by mooring lines tied to suction piles sunk into bottom sediments.

DOE even claims it will somehow reduce the cost of floating deepwater wind energy to $45 per megawatt-hour by 2035. (That’s 45¢ per kilowatt-hour, triple what most Americans now pay.) To buttress its claims, DOE presents maps, artist’s renderings, and images of floating turbine arrays.

It’s almost as though these government officials actually believe they can solve the alleged climate crisis by simply issuing proclamations, regulations, drawings, press releases, and subsidies – and Voila!

Mines open, raw materials materialize, and millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of vehicle and grid-scale batteries, millions of miles of transmission lines, millions of transformers and other technologies get manufactured and installed – affordably and with no fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, toxic air and water pollutants, child and slave labor, or other evils (all at minimal cost), while endangered species and other environmental conflicts disappear (or are relegated to irrelevance) …

and cornucopias of clean, renewable, reliable, affordable electricity are rapidly generated worldwide.

It’s impolite to question fervently held beliefs in fossil-fuel-free utopias. However, a little reality is urgently needed before activists and bureaucrats take us any further down this primrose path.

12-MW offshore turbines are 850 feet tall, carry three 350-foot-long blades, and weigh thousands of tons. To date, few have been installed anywhere, none have been subjected to major hurricanes, and none have been mounted on deepwater floating platforms. Indeed, no such platform-mounted turbines exist outside the realm of concepts and ten-foot models in wind tunnels and test tanks.

The Kincardine floating turbines in the North Sea southeast of Aberdeen, Scotland, are much smaller, and the strongest wind gusts recorded there were in the 83–123 mph range. Sustained wind speeds for category 3-5 hurricanes range from 111 to 157 mph and greater. Some of the worst US landfalling hurricanes reached 126 mph (Katrina, 2003) to 167 mph (Andrew, 1997). The strongest winds ever off the Oregon coast exceeded 100 mph (1962 and 1995).

Subsurface and semisubmersible structures for the smaller 2.0–9.5-MW deepwater turbines weigh 2,000 to 8,000 tons. New semisubmersible platforms for deepwater oil production can be over 30,000 tons and cost a billion dollars or more. Yet even they are probably not large enough for the monstrous 15-MW beasts that the Biden Administration, CNN and others are extolling.

Says CNN: “The first, full-sized floating offshore wind turbine in the United States will tower 850 feet above the waves in the Gulf of Maine… The gigantic machine, with 774-foot diameter blades and tethered to the seabed with thick metal cables, is planned to be put into the water” by 2030.

It’s almost impossible to conceive of the amounts of steel and other raw materials that would be needed for each of these gigantic turbines and support systems; the amounts of ore that would have to be extracted to obtain those materials; the fossil fuels required to mine and process the ores, manufacture the turbines, blades and support systems, and transport and install them; the cost to build each of them.

Based on average deposits being mined today, the 110,000 tons of copper required for 30,000 MW of offshore turbine alone would require removing some 65,000,000 tons of ore and overlying rock. That doesn’t include copper for marine cables, transmission lines, transformers, and other equipment – or the other metals and minerals.

It is inconceivable that these deepwater wind turbine systems could ever recoup all the energy and costs – or offset all the greenhouse gas emissions – involved in building them, no matter how many years they generate electricity. Indeed, those years may be very short due to violent storms and constant salt spray.

It’s equally inconceivable that they could survive major storms. As a deepwater oil production expert explained, the major unexamined issue is the enormous dynamic loads the mooring systems impart on support structures and turbines.

Floating offshore structures are designed to move on their mooring systems, to adjust for wind and waves. But if 115–160 mph winds hit the structures and equipment on their decks, they can be pushed to the limits of survivability. That’s what happened to the Mars TLP rig during Hurricane Katrina.

Some of its mooring lines (tethers) failed, the entire rig was pushed over onto its side, and the 200-foot-tall derrick snapped off and sank. Subsequent analysis found it was not the high winds that caused the failure, but the total structure’s return motion – its restorative forces or “whiplash” – as the wind speeds suddenly dropped from 126 mph, with gusts of 200 mph, to 15 mph.

Now picture 850-foot-tall turbines, with huge blades designed to catch the breezes, atop enormous semisubmersible platforms, being caught in a hurricane or other fierce storm; being pushed over further and further; until wind speeds suddenly plummet, and the turbines whiplash violently – and snap off.

That Shell Oil, among the world’s most experienced offshore oil developers, has dropped out of deepwater wind projects should say a lot about the viability of the far-fetched deepwater schemes Team Biden is promoting to forcibly transform America’s energy and economic system.

That some companies are still in the game underscores how their risks are being forcibly subsidized and underwritten by taxpayers and consumers, who are being dragooned into these schemes by politicians and bureaucrats who likewise have no real skin in the game. Their leasing bids are plummeting, and their electricity price demands are soaring.

It’s time to say, “Enough! We’re going to keep our nuclear and fossil fuel energy until you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your alternatives provide equally abundant, reliable, affordable energy.”

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor to the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)  and author of books and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.

 

  • Home
  • The Saturday Night Massacre, DOJ’s Last Profile in Courage

The Saturday Night Massacre, DOJ’s Last Profile in Courage

February 2024

The Saturday Night Massacre, DOJ’s Last Profile in Courage

The stunning indictment of Mr. Smirnov for lying (he was a long-time FBI confidential informant on many matters, including Biden family corruption), a federal judge releasing him from custody, an immediate second indictment on the same charges, and arrest at his lawyer’s office begs the question – what the hell is going on at the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)? If the DOJ has real evidence of Smirnov’s lies, it should immediately give it to several House committees investigating the president and his son. Or, is this another DOJ ruse to justify pardoning Hunter Biden and hide the president’s criminal activities?                        

Looking back at the DOJ over the last half-century, it is difficult to find many shining examples of its integrity. The last serious bout of DOJ integrity occurred on  October 20, 1973, the night history refers to as the Saturday Night Massacre.

Since then, the federal government has lost the American people’s trust. Only 16% of Americans trust it. A majority of Americans believe the federal government is corrupt. Worse, a University of Chicago poll finds nearly one in three Americans believe it may soon be necessary to take up arms against the government.

The federal government teeters on the “Eve of Destruction.”  It is destroying the United States with its corruption, and the DOJ is its architect. The DOJ was created to uphold the rule of law and keep citizens safe. Unfortunately, it has created a lawless two-tier system of justice that puts all Americans at risk.

How did the DOJ lose its integrity?

On May 26, 1973, Archibald Cox, a bow tie-wearing, preppie-looking, strong-willed man of immense integrity, was appointed by the DOJ as the Special Counsel to investigate the criminal activities of the Nixon White House.

On October 20, 1973, Cox was fired for issuing a subpoena requesting the president to turn over secret tape recordings. Nixon refused. Instead, he ordered Richardson to fire the Special Counsel. The Attorney General resigned, stating he promised Cox and Congress that the investigation would be independent of politics. Next, Nixon ordered Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He also resigned.

Next in line was the Solicitor General Robert Bork, who by statute became the acting Attorney General. Bork obeyed Nixon’s orders and fired Archibald Cox after he refused to obey the president’s order to accept a summary of the tapes and cease all attempts to subpoena them.

Nixon then abolished the Office of Special Counsel and transferred its functions to DOJ.  An aggravated Congress almost immediately initiated impeachment proceedings.

After his firing, Cox noted: “Whether ours [government] shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people.”

For carrying out Nixon’s orders, Bork believed he was promised the next seat on the Supreme Court.

The contrast between Cox and his refusal to abandon the rule of law and Bork’s willingness to do whatever the President wanted to maintain a high position in government can be viewed as DOJ’s transition from profiles in courage to profiles in corruption.

Since 1973, there have been too many examples of DOJ corruption to put in a single article. A few examples sufficiently illustrate its corruption.

A typical example of the DOJ’s misconduct is its regular refusal to provide information to Congress when conducting investigations of its activities, as illustrated by its false filings to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The DOJ refused to provide Congress with the documents to prevent Congress from uncovering its criminal activity. By declining to provide such information, the constitutional powers of Congress and the courts were rendered worthless.

The DOJ and its FBI aggressively force private companies to act illegally. The FBI regularly demanded Twitter, a private company, ban what it deemed misinformation about the President’s son (the Hunter Biden laptop), although it knew the information about the President’s son was truthful. While these actions violate citizens’ First Amendment rights, they were also direct election interference to help Biden win the 2020 election.

The DOJ refused to acknowledge Hunter Biden’s crimes. When the crimes were proven by Congress, i.e., tax evasion, fraud, failure to register as a foreign agent, money laundering, and cocaine, the DOJ attempted to grant Hunter Biden immunity from all crimes, even future crimes. Fortunately, an honest federal judge blocked the immunity agreement. Now, however, after the DOJ’s indictment of Smirnov, the DOJ will likely drop the criminal cases against Hunter Biden.

President Biden is personally compromised based on his son’s laptop information. Moreover, several IRS whistleblowers testified that the DOJ prevented them from reviewing significant evidence incriminating Biden.

The federal government is a tyrant to average citizens without political connections. A Navy officer took photographs of a nuclear submarine he worked on and was imprisoned for improperly handling national security secrets. During the same period, a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, of the same party as the sitting President, destroyed, using bleach bit, significant amounts of national security materials on her unauthorized home computer. She also destroyed similar information on her cell phone by using a hammer. DOJ never prosecuted Clinton.

The most recent illustration of the DOJ’s corruption is implementing a two-tier justice system. For the first time in American history, the DOJ launched several prosecutions of a presidential candidate during an election. DOJ aims to both put Trump in jail and remove him from the presidential ballot, actions only taken by corrupt autocrats.

Concurrently with the Trump prosecutions are the DOJ’s prosecutions of the Trump supporters involved in the January 6th riots. While the riots only lasted several hours, the DOJ launched the most extensive nationwide dragnet in its history to capture every protester. The dragnet was even more extensive than the combined investigations of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack that killed over 3000 Americans and all the mass shootings in the U.S. The DOJ seeks to punish everyone who even strolled peacefully into the Capitol on that day. Yet, Black Lives Matter and other domestic terrorist groups loyal to the Biden administration burned down several cities and attacked federal buildings for over five months. All remain free.

DOJ was established as the primary American institution to protect the rule of law. Attorneys General like Richardson and Ruckelshaus, who radiated integrity, are long gone. DOJ is now led by men like Merrick Garland, who, like Bork, follow orders without concern for the rule of law, the Constitution, or the citizens who pay his salary.  The Garland’s and Bork’s are the perfect examples of “Profiles in Corruption.”  Their desire to hold “power” as individuals, not as trustees of the Constitution, tears the Republic apart.

The Saturday Night Massacre was the DOJ’s last act of courage to preserve the rule of law.  Election day, November 5, 2024, maybe the people’s last chance to save the Republic by removing those government officials who exemplify “Profiles in Corruption.”

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • The Value of U.S. Citizenship in an Open Border Society  

The Value of U.S. Citizenship in an Open Border Society  

William L. Kovacs

February 2024

The Value of U.S. Citizenship in an Open Border Society   

The Southern border of the U.S. is a mess with millions illegally walking into the U.S.  and being welcomed with free food, shelter, healthcare, cash, a cell phone, transportation to the city of their choice, and, in a few locations, the illegals are provided legal services. While 8 out of 10 Americans believe the out-of-control southern border is an emergency or a major problem, the federal government publishes a pamphlet, “What Are the Benefits and Responsibilities of Citizenship,” hyping the value of U.S. citizenship. It also highlights Biden’s callous disregard for his constitutional oath to defend states from invasion.

Comparing the statements made by the federal government on the benefits of citizenship against the facts Americans experience illustrates the utter contempt the federal government has for its citizens.           

Citizens can vote. The first noted benefit of being a citizen is the right to vote. What does the right to vote mean anymore? Hillary Clinton, supported by the FBI, Department of Justice, and the entire mainstream news media, told voters the Russians, with a massive disinformation campaign, elected Donald Trump in 2016. The Russian misinformation lie hampered the entire four years of the Trump presidency.

In the 2020 election, many of Trump’s 75 million supporters believe Trump would have defeated Biden if the FBI and the media had not covered up the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop. This belief is supported by polling. One in six voters would have changed their votes if they knew the laptop was authentic. The truth likely would have reelected Trump. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving the Pennsylvania election law. In that case,  the Democrat Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by judicial fiat, amended the state’s election law in the middle of the 2020 election. While Pennsylvania’s twenty electoral votes would not have changed the Electoral College results, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to clarify, for the 2024 election, the power of state courts to change election laws in the middle of an election.

Now Colorado, New Hampshire, and possibly twenty-nine other states want to ban Donald Trump from being on the 2024 presidential ballot. Will 2024 be another “free election?”

Every other year, our congressional representatives are elected by a rigged system called gerrymandering. The reelection rates for incumbents range from the low 90% to as high as 98%. Congressional districts are drawn to achieve partisan results. Voters are irrelevant. Statistically, there was more turnover in the former Soviet Politburo than in the U.S. Congress.

Now Biden wants some form of legalizing the illegals so they can vote. Imagine the integrity of future elections.

Decades of election controversies raise the question: Does voting matter?

Citizens get priority when petitioning to bring in family members. The processing time for an American citizen to get an immigration petition approved for a foreign spouse is 13 to 54 months. Contrast this lag time to the fact an entire family or group of terrorists coming illegally through the southern border can immediately enter the U.S.  and be safe from deportation after making payment to the cartels that drop the illegals off with the Border Patrol for processing.

Citizens benefit by having a U.S. passport. Citizens are free to travel throughout the U.S. While citizens have such a right, it is limited to lawful activity. Citizens committing crimes are arrested no matter where they are caught. Illegals, however, have many safe areas where they cannot be arrested, notwithstanding the crimes they have committed. These locations include schools, daycare centers, medical facilities, playgrounds for children, social service establishments, churches and demonstrations, parades, and in any Sanctuary city or state. Moreover, many American cities are paying for the bus and air transportation requested by illegals to travel to new cities. Most illegals travel throughout the U.S. without official identifying documents. If illegals do not need passports, identifying documents or even proof of vaccination from disease, why do Americans need these types of documents to prove who they are?

The U.S. government assists Americans outside the U.S. It’s unclear what assistance is given to Americans in trouble abroad. The most recent request for government assistance involves leaving thousands of Americans stranded in Afghanistan when the Biden administration disgracefully surrendered that country. The U.S. also left Americans behind in Iran as far back as 1979. More disgusting is the fact Americans are imprisoned throughout the world, and the U.S. does little to have them released. Recently, the U.S. government charged its citizens a fee to travel back to the U.S. when evacuated from a foreign country crisis. The New York Times wrote that Americans stranded abroad “feel completely abandoned.”

So much for the federal government helping Americans in foreign countries.

Citizens are eligible for federal jobs. The right to work for the federal government may be the one positive benefit of being a citizen that non-citizens do not have. A federal job is as close to nirvana as anyone can get. It requires little work, no creativity, and a talent to put words on pages, i.e., regulations, that no one can understand. Clean clothes are optional. After the pandemic, most federal workers “work” from home as the taxpayers pay billions for vacant office space.

There are 2 million of them. It sounds like a lot of jobs to apply for, but openings only happen when a government worker dies or retires. There is a long wait even for citizens. Today’s civil servants have de facto lifetime appointments. Federal employees are fired at the rate of 0.55%, a rate so low that deaths outnumber firings. Two significant agencies had zero firings—moreover, 99.5% of the 2 million federal employees rated “fully successful” or above. Of the 2 million bureaucrats, only 0.1% received unacceptable ratings.

In addition to job security, the Congressional Budget Office found that bureaucrats’ pay and benefits are 47% more than the combined pay and benefits in the private sector. A Cato Institute study put the number at 80% more than the private sector. The average federal worker receives $123,160 in pay and benefits compared to $69,901 in the private sector.

Sorry, American citizens, while you are welcome to apply for federal jobs, very few will ever be available unless you want to fight some undeclared war in a woke military.

 Citizens can freely exhibit patriotism. A strange benefit to tout when President Biden is using his 2024 campaign to attack 75 million voters he calls a” threat to democracy” because they are conservative and believe in “ Making America Great Again.”

The most ironic asserted benefit is that all citizens are subject to the same tax code. This statement is perhaps the most cynical statement ever made by the federal government. Citizens do not view paying taxes as a benefit of citizenship. Moreover, the illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. In fact, most exist on government grants, which the taxpayer pays for. Finally, if paying taxes is such a great benefit, why does Hunter Biden not pay taxes on his millions of laundered monies?

It’s no wonder that in 1958, almost seventy-five percent of Americans trusted the government. In 2022, only 20% of Americans trust government. The Biden administration treats citizens as commodities that pay taxes. As for the benefits of citizenship, if a citizen is in desperate need of federal help, they need to throw away all their identifying documents and enter the Southern border along with the other illegal immigrants. Only then will the federal, state, and local governments help.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, chairman of a state environmental board, 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
  • Is It Happening Now, A Government Coordinated Coup d’état?

Is It Happening Now, A Government Coordinated Coup d’état?

William L. Kovacs

January 2024

Is It Happening Now, A Government Coordinated Coup d’état?

Last year, I speculated that the actions of the Democrats’ January 6th committee hearings (the “Monkey Trial”), the alleged Russian disinformation campaign by the FBI and CIA, years of refusal by the DOJ and FBI to provide Congress with specifically demanded information on Biden’s money laundering activities and the Biden administration’s manipulation of Big Tech to shut down the truth in America, were setting in motion a coordinated plan to “Get Trump.” The groups involved in these actions are collectively termed “The Syndicate.” The Syndicate labels former President Trump an “insurrectionist” to block him from regaining the presidency.

Later members to join The Syndicate include prosecutors in DC, Florida, New York, and Georgia who indicted the former president in the middle of the presidential election season. They seek jail, fines, and the destruction of Trump and his businesses.  Now, the prosecutors seek immediate trials based on the urgency of the situation, which is the need to put the former president in jail before the November election. This type of abuse of power should be terrifying to Americans.

More recently, several events pushed speculation of a coup into an evidence-based theory of a coup d’état. Colorado and Maine joined The Syndicate by removing the former president from their state presidential ballots. Eleven more states have cases pending to remove Trump from their ballots. The justification for this blitzkrieg of lawsuits is “apparently” a “law review” that asserts 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.

The second event involves the Georgia and New York prosecutors spending hours at the White House on litigation strategy and the Georgia prosecutors getting legal counseling from the Monkey Trial Committee. These meetings are the essence of coordination.

The third act to carry out The Syndicate’s coup is when the Democrat House of Representatives’ January 6th Committee destroyed documents days before having to turn them over to the new Republican majority. First, the Democrats refused to archive many of the materials with the Clerk of the House. They then failed to turn over more than a terabyte of data (the equivalent of 250,000 documents) to the Republicans. More troubling, when the Democrats were caught in their obstruction of justice, they admitted many of the records were destroyed. The new Republican committee hired a forensic expert who was able to retrieve the data. When retrieved, the data could not be opened without the passwords. The Democrats refused to give the Republicans the passwords.

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 a dystopian nation? So far, the writers have been wrong. They have been right; however, Democracy is fragile. Unfortunately, Democracy may be so fragile the U.S. may be in the process of becoming the dystopian place writers fictionalize.

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, The Syndicate, by deeming Trump’s action an insurrection, positions them to eliminate Trump and take control of the government. As part of its fantastic narrative, the federal government, which has a $944 billion annual military machine and describes its military as a fearsome and gargantuan beast, claims it was in existential fear of destruction by “several rioters having firearms and dozens more wielded knives, bats and other real makeshift weapons.” The Syndicate’s reaction to the January 6th riot is best characterized by the hilarious movie “The Mouse that Roared.”

The January 6th crowd so “paralyzed” the then Speaker of the House, the D.C. mayor, and the Capitol Police that they could not respond to President Trump’s offer to send in 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. A nationwide manhunt continues for many others. Many were sent to D.C. Gitmo without the right to counsel or a speedy trial. The DOJ/FBI’s dragnet is its largest in U.S. history, even larger than the search for the 9/11 terrorists.

If January 6th turns out to be a riot and not an insurrection, the systematic actions by The Syndicate would be what academics define as a self-coup d’état. It is a coup in which the nation’s power structure comes to power legally but seeks to stay in power through illegal means. Did The Syndicate label January 6th an insurrection as an excuse to prosecute Trump supporters and organize the entire political machinery of the nation to “Get Trump” and remain in power?

By using the 14th Amendment, they took action to complete the coup. The relevant parts of the 14th Amendment read:

Section 3. 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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The proponents for disqualifying Trump under Section 3 claim:

Further, they argue to the extent Section 3 conflicts with prior constitutional protections, it repeals, supersedes, or satisfies them, including the constitutional protections against ex post facto laws and Trump’s Due Process and free speech rights. The authors believe eliminating all these constitutional rights can be implemented without involving Congress, the states, the process for amending the Constitution, or the need for judicial determinations of fact and law. The authors 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 thousands of election officials. Can each disqualify President Trump because they believe he is an insurrectionist?

The flaws in the proponents’ arguments are so vast as to establish bad faith. First, the proponents of “Get Trump” ignore section 5 altogether, i.e., that Congress has the power to enforce section 3 by legislation, and it has not. Moreover, the term “insurrection” is not defined in the 14th Amendment or anywhere in our Constitution or laws; as such, the 14th Amendment cannot be applied since it would be unconstitutionally vague and a denial of due process. 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 as it would cause legal chaos. 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.

The foundation of a self- coup d’état theory rests on a set of actions to deny the American people the right to vote for the candidate of their choice:

  1. Before Trump became president, there were systematic actions by The 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 Syndicate had the intended negative impact on the Trump presidency.
  3. As far back as 2019, The Syndicate protected Biden by denying the evidence that Hunter’s “Laptop from Hell” was real. They 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 Syndicate, 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 of false information about Trump by The Syndicate continued while he was in office, as evidenced by the Durham and Horowitz Reports.
  6. As to the January 6th riots, The Syndicate still refuses to release the information requested by the Republicans in Congress.
  7. The Monkey Trial 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 Syndicate waited until the 2024 primary election season started to indict him in four separate jurisdictions. The Syndicate, using public resources, is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent Trump from winning the presidency. There is no record of such a massive use of public resources to prosecute one political opponent. Even the international 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 campaign against Biden. The Syndicate appears to be interfering with the 2024 election under the pretense of saving the Constitution by disqualifying Trump from the presidential ballots in states controlled by Democrats.
  10. The Syndicate seeks to disqualify Trump from holding office by advocating that any judge or election official in any state can disqualify the former president from office.
  11. The meetings between the prosecutors, the White House, and the January 6th committee reveal the Syndicate’s coordination. Moreover, the Democrat-controlled committee destroyed a terabyte of evidence, likely evidence that exonerates the January 6th defendants and former president Trump.
  12. Finally, the DOJ and FBI refuse to provide Congress with the information requested to establish a continuing coverup by the federal government.

One hundred thirty-six federal emergency laws in the U.S. grant the Executive the power to be a dictator at the time of his choosing. These emergency powers were used during COVID. These emergency laws can be used again for countless purposes. Since Americans can vote for Congress every two years, a coup d’état is highly unlikely. Americans would be fools, however, to believe a coup d’état can’t happen here. It may be happening.

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 received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • 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]