The Truth Is Out There

Posts tagged ‘history’

How the US Government Turned on the People


The catastrophic mismanagement of Hurricane Helene relief is a showing sign to the American people that Washington is not only dysfunctional, but worse, it doesn’t even seem to be trying to serve the people.

Instead, the people serve it. Like livestock.

So how did we get here?

The Long March of Bureaucracy

As with the economy, the seeds of our political crisis began a hundred years ago in the Progressive era.

The Progressives big year for taking over the economy was 1913, with income tax and the Federal Reserve Acts.

But the political takeover was earlier — according to historian Murray Rothbard, it began precisely 30 years earlier with something called the Pendleton Act of 1883.

The Act made bureaucrats professionals who are independent of politicians. This was allegedly to fight corruption, but note that a bureaucracy that’s independent of politicians is also independent of voters.

After all, politicians are the only part of the government who answers to voters. So if bureaucrats don’t answer to them, then who do they answer to?

Simple: they answer to nobody. The government bureaucracy becomes a self-serving occupying army. By design.

Bureaucrats and Angels

Progressives did this because they’ve convinced themselves that government workers are omniscient angels — that the act of collecting a government paycheck is a kind of purifying bath that washes away the greed and malice of the unwashed masses over whom the government lords over as if the people are parasites.

This may sound goofy, but talk to a Progressive.

Of course, after Covid, anybody who thinks bureaucrats are omniscient angels needs a lobotomy.

The Union of Bureaucrats and Socialists

Once installed with Pendleton, this independent bureaucracy was, of course, captured by the left — socialists, because they both wanted the same thing: increased government control.

They began in the Progressive Era with widespread regulations that were billed as ‘reining in’ Big Business, but were of course, written by Big Business, marketed by their paid socialist activists, then implemented by bureaucrats whose funding came from politicians on the payroll — well, the donor lists — of Big Business.

And so was born our Corporatist system — of course, there’s another word for it that begins with F and ends in -ism, but then I’m not trying to get censored.

Socialism’s “Inevitability”

This capture is why it feels the world is grinding ever more socialist: the bureaucracy partners with socialists to a common end: government control over the people.

They then use government money — your money — to propagate the takeover through academia, media and corporations who are punished if they don’t toe the line. Elon Musk’s regulatory harassment being just one example.

It can feel intimidating: Covid showed us there is essentially no institution in the country that has not been infiltrated by this toxic combination of government money and intimidation.

The cartels call it plata o plombo. Silver or lead. And the socialist Deep State uses both.

Crisis and the Deep State

Over the past century, every crisis grew this Deep State: world wars, Great Depression. Even made-up crises like global warming and, of course, Covid.

Covid was their dream come true: total control.

The problem, of course, is that once a wild animal tastes human blood you can never trust it again.

That’s exactly what happened in a moment that I believe is very close to today: The wartime socialism of World War I.

The men who pushed World War I — men like Herbert Hoover — imposed Soviet-style economic and social control during the war.

Once the war ended, they were very reluctant to hand that power back, and they spent the rest of their careers trying to get it again.

Unfortunately, the stock market crash of 1929 was the excuse they needed. They used it to seize the commanding heights of the economy — the administrative state, and, 100 years later, they still run it.

So that all takes us to today: a totalitarian Deep State that progressively seizes economic, social, and political power. Enslaving us with debt, mandates, taxes, and surveillance.

The administrative state can be defeated, but not by fighting the hydra head by head. That only works with single head snakes and make no mistake about it, our government has no single head. Rather, you go to the source: the independent bureaucracy.

To end the totalitarian deep state, politicians must have the ability to fire and hire anybody they like. Because the people must have that power, and until we abolish governments, politicians are their only voice.

The only alternative is progressive enslavement by bureaucratic commissars until the people rise up and fix it by other means that few will enjoy.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The WHO continues its march for power


Back in June, there was encouraging news that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) pandemic agreement failed to pass. This agreement would have surrendered American sovereignty to unaccountable and unelected international bureaucrats operating at the behest of special interests. Thankfully, this agreement failed to pass.

But the WHO isn’t giving up. It is continuing its march for power.

The issue was brought up to members of Congress for a press conference on the Hill to raise awareness about the ongoing power grab attempt by the United Nations (UN) and the WHO.

The globalists at the UN and the WHO want power over America’s public health policy. If they are successful, their proposed pandemic agreement will irreparably harm American national sovereignty. Family Research Council Action (FRC Action) has been working on this matter and keeping you updated over the past year. Would you consider supporting our work by making a donation today?

This past weekend, the UN hosted a conference called “Summit of the Future” where certain international agreements, including the Pact for the Future, were discussed. The Pact would give the WHO power over the response to future pandemics, large-scale climate events, major events in space, and much more.

During the press conference, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) told reporters there were “enough examples and enough reasons” listed in the Pact for the Future’s emergency platform “for them to get involved pretty much whenever and wherever they want to.”

He later said on Washington Watch, “They want authority. They want global governance. And they’ll do whatever they can to achieve that. This agreement that we’re trying to stop would give them authority, global authority, in multiple categories of catastrophic events that might happen around the world.”

Congressman Crane also pointed out that Americans will not be able to vote the WHO’s bureaucrats out of office, meaning they will not be held accountable to we the people. This would be a terrible infringement upon American sovereignty, which is why FRC Action has been sounding the alarm for quite some time.

Recently, the U.S. House passed the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act. This important bill would require the Senate to ratify the WHO’s pandemic agreement since it would function as a legally binding treaty. The Senate should also pass this measure to protect American sovereignty.

That’s one reason why the upcoming election is so important. Our nation needs leaders who will protect American sovereignty, not those who will hand it over to bureaucrats overseas. After all, our elected members of Congress are supposed to be the ones who represent the people of the United States.

Also discussed during the UN conference was the UN’s Global Digital Compact, which would require member states to control misinformation and disinformation. Under said Compact, even communications critical of the WHO could be characterized as “misinformation.” The UN’s Common Agenda document would provide “accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content.”

We cannot allow this dangerous power grab to go unchallenged. I am convinced that the UN and the WHO think we are not paying attention to what they are trying to do. They would be mistaken.

Tens of thousands of you have already signed petitions to Congress urging them not to allow Washington to cede American sovereignty to the WHO.

The United States should defund the UN and the WHO, and any pandemic agreement or treaty should be submitted to the Senate for ratification.

While many ignore the WHO’s continual march for power, actions will continue sounding the alarms and work to stop it. Our members of Congress must act to protect American sovereignty from the WHO.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Guest Column: DOJ Dusts Off Civil War-Era Statute to Replace 1512(c)(2)


In the aftermath of SCOTUS ruling that overturned DOJ’s most common felony against J6ers, the Department of Justice is using an antiquated law to keep punishing Trump supporters.

This is a guest post by David W. Fischer, a Maryland and D.C.-based criminal defense attorney and the senior partner at Fischer & Putzi, P.A.  Most recently, Fischer defended January 6 defendant Thomas Caldwell, who was acquitted on seditious and other conspiracy charges.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. 

That’s what Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is doing in their over-zealous prosecution of January 6 defendants.  In June, the Supreme Court in United States v. Fischer effectively nuked hundreds of “obstruction” of Congress charges against January 6 defendants, ruling that a post-Enron statute, 18 U.S.C. §1512, designed to punish document destruction, did not apply to a Capitol Hill protest “gone wild.” 

Nonetheless, obsessed with targeting Trump supporters, the DOJ is now charging multiple defendants with a Civil War-era statute—18 U.S.C. § 372—which punishes (up to 6 years in prison) those who intimidate “officers of the United States” from their posts.  The DOJ charges that J6ers conspired to chase Members of Congress from Capitol Hill in violation of Section 372.  Once again, the DOJ is unfairly prosecuting J6ers under a statute that does not apply to their conduct.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 372 punishes conspiracies “to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed[.]”  The DOJ’s position is that Members of Congress hold the “offices” and are the “officers of the United States” that are covered by Section 372 and, accordingly, that J6ers can be prosecuted for allegedly causing their evacuation from Capitol Hill.  The DOJ is obviously wrong from both a historical and statutory construction standpoint. 

Enacted During the Civil War

In April 1861, confederate soldiers and sympathizers began forcibly seizing federal property within the southern and border states, chasing Union soldiers (Fort Sumpter), postmasters, custom house managers, and other federal officials from their posts.  Congress quickly responded by passing a series of laws that included what is now Section 372.  The obvious purpose of Section 372 was to protect “officers of the United States,” a term of art used in the Constitution, which applies to those individuals who hold federal jobs in the government thanks to the “Appointments Clause,” Art. II, § II, cl. II.  Members of Congress, however, are not constitutional “officers of the United States.” 

Members of Congress are not ‘Officers of the United States’ Under the Constitution

That Members of Congress are not “officers of the United States” is widely accepted among constitutional scholars.   As the Supreme Court observed in Bowsher v. Synar, which struck down portions of the 1980s Gramm-Rudman Act, “[N]o person who is an officer of the United States may serve as a Member of the Congress.”  Additionally, Members of Congress do not hold an “office, trust, or place of confidence” as that term is used in Section 372. 

In fact, this phrase is boilerplate language used in ubiquitous commissions given to presidential appointees, e.g., military officers, federal judges, etc., since the days of President George Washington.  Presidential commissions of “trust and confidence” are issued to “officers” pursuant to the Commissions Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, § 3, cl. 4 (“[The President] shall commission all the officers of the United States.”).  A Member of Congress does not receive a “commission” because he or she, unlike federal judges, executive branch appointees, and military officers, is not an “officer of the United States” and, hence, does not hold an “office, trust, or place confidence.”

The DOJ’s Counter-Argument is Baseless

 In court filings, the DOJ has not disputed that, under the Constitution, Members of Congress are not “officers of the United States.”  Instead, the DOJ argues that the 1861 Congress that enacted Section 372 used the term “officer of the United States” in a sense broader than the technical, constitutional definition.  According to the DOJ, because Members of Congress “hold office,” they are covered by Section 372’s use of the term “officers of the United States.”  This argument, however, is baseless. 

In fact, binding Supreme Court precedent from the 19th century holds that, when used in federal criminal statutes, the terms “office,” “officer,” and “officer of the United States,” absent unambiguous language to the contrary, refer to individuals who received positions via the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

In one of those cases decided in 1878, United States v. Germaine, a surgeon hired by the Commissioner of Pensions was indicted for extortion while serving as, in the words of the statute, an “officer of the United States.”  Arguing for the indictment’s dismissal, the surgeon argued that because he was not appointed to his position pursuant to the Appointments Clause, he could not be convicted of violating a statute, which applied only to “officers of the United States.”  The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that absent unambiguous language to the contrary, the term “officer of the United States,” when used in criminal statutes, is limited to individuals appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause.  In 1925, the Supreme Court in Steele v. United States summarized its numerous 19th century: “It is quite true that the words ‘officer of the United States,’ when employed in the statutes of the United States, is to be taken usually to have the limited constitutional meaning.”

Other Language in Section 372 Supports the J6ers

Section 372’s wording, moreover, proves that Members of Congress are not covered by the statute.  This statute punishes conspiracies aimed at preventing individuals “from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States[.]” Members of Congress, obviously, do not “accept” their positions—instead, they assume or take office.  A person “accepting” an “office, trust, or place of confidence” presupposes that someone offered that person position they accepted.

Members of Congress, by contrast, run for their offices and are elected by the voters. They do not “accept” government job “offers.” Accordingly, the phrase “office, trust, or place of confidence” in § 372—which lists stations that can be “accepted,” obviously does not include Members of Congress

Additionally, Congress’s use of the phrase “any person . . . holding any office . . . under the United States” in Section 372 further proves that Members of Congress are not covered by the statute’s language. This language, tellingly, appears to have been lifted from the Constitution’s “Ineligibility Clause,” pursuant to which Members of Congress are prohibited from simultaneously holding “offices”: “[N]o Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”  (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2).  It is beyond belief that Congress intended to include itself in Section 372 by using verbatim language from the Constitution’s Ineligibility Clause, which actually bars Members of Congress from holding “offices.”

More Abuses of the Law

One of the unfortunate aspects of the lawfare that has been unleashed against Donald Trump and his supporters has been the misuse of federal criminal statutes.  Section 372 was enacted with a very specific purpose:  to protect commissioned officers in charge of various federal outposts throughout the United States, especially in southern states.  Additionally, the Supreme Court has made clear that criminal statutes that use the terms “office” or “officer of the United States” do not apply to individuals other than commissioned, presidential appointees. 

As Members of Congress were not covered in Section 372’s language, the DOJ’s use of this statute against J6ers is a total and complete miscarriage of justice just as everything else this bully agency is.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: