Before jetting off on a three-month holiday, the United States Supreme Court handed the New Right some major victories in its goal of establishing Uniparty rule. The first of these rulings overturned a 1935 law restricting Presidential authority in creating and establishing Federal agencies without consent of Congress. Overturning that Act has been a goal of the New Right since Bush 1.0. Bush Sr. was a great proponent of the so-called Unitary Executive Theory which was also one of the cornerstones of the Deep-State Heritage Foundation's Project 2025.
Chief Justice Jack Roberts, a Bush 2.0 appointee, bragged that “If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, {the 1935 law} we overrule it...We hold that such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.” Head-of-State Trump added on Social Media: “It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers.”
The purpose of the 1935 law was to restrain the Chief Executive from wholesale purges of regulatory agencies such as those carried out by Elon Musk and his DOGE goon-squads and the replacement of such agents with ideologues. Congress passed the law during the New Deal Era when several new agencies were being created; because they rightly feared the concentration of power in agencies in which a measure of independence was necessary. From the attacks on the law under Bush to the present time, the Democrats have offered token resistance to the Unitary Executive Theory, but always pushed their own purges to the maximum when in power themselves. As we enter the Accelerationist Phase of the Great Reset, the law no longer stands as an obstacle.
In a separate ruling, the Court discreetly exempted one agency---the Federal Reserve Board---from such wholesale purges. The Administration had sought to remove regional Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook; the Court ruled ostensibly against the White House. Roberts wrote again---completely contradicting his earlier ruling that "Were Cook not provided an opportunity to contest the charge, it “would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”
While this appeared to be a defeat for the Uniparty, it was actually welcomed by the Financial Oligarchs who will maintain a measure of autonomy over the national financial system. It also in a fashion helps accelerate the drive towards Central Bank Digital Currency, which the Administration already has prohibited from the Federal Reserve Board but thrown the floodgates wide open for the Financial Cartels to impose it. In fact, enabling CBDC under the guise of preventing it was one of the first acts of the Administration following orders from the WEF.
The Court also overturned any further restrictions---as if the ones remaining after previous decisions had any force---striking down the Federal Elections Campaign Act's provisions on how much a political party may spend on its own candidates. The decision follows the longstanding Bush Machine efforts in such cases as Kelo vs. New London (2005), Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). Kelo ruled that vested financial interests can seize private property if a government rules such confiscations in the 'public interest.' Citizens United unleashed unlimited independent Corporate spending and McCutcheon removed the aggregate cap on what a single donor can give. Today's ruling allows donations to a party to serve as de facto donations to a given candidate. Under the previous 'Election regulations', an individual could donate a maximum of $7,000 to a candidate for public office, but that same individual could give hundreds of thousands---or even millions---of dollars to that candidate’s political party every 'Election' cycle, funneled through various state committees. If the Party can give any or all of that money to the same candidate, there is no significance to the $7,000 limit. A candidate now has access to all the cash the Oligarchs pump into the system.
It ought to be obvious by now---even to the somnambulant American public---that, as we approach the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, that we're back roughly where we started when the Republic was founded. Unitary Executives, Royal Monopoly Charters, Rump Parliaments, Houses of Lords---our so-called 'Democracy' is a dead letter and has been for some time. We're not going to vote our way out by swapping one side of the Uniparty for the other---any more than the British Whigs or Tories or the Crown's High Court helped bring about needed reforms in the American Colonies. Today, however, few Americans seem willing to fight for independence; instead they line up behind whatever faction promises them a greater share of the loot.
No comments:
Post a Comment