THE DOGE SCAM FINALLY IS QUESTIONED

       Today, US District Court Judge Theodore Chuang effectively eviscerated WEF Young Global Leader Elon Musk's unilateral purges of the US Federal Government. The case reinstated USAID, a program signed into law by President Kennedy in 1961. Judge Chuang's Order requires the Administration to restore email and computer access to all employees of USAID, including those put on administrative leave. Musk's actions "likely harmed the public interest by depriving elected lawmakers of their constitutional authority to decide whether, when and how to close down an agency created by Congress,” he stated. “If a president could escape Appointments Clause scrutiny by having advisors go beyond the traditional role of White House advisers who communicate the president’s priorities to agency heads and instead exercise significant authority throughout the federal government so as to bypass duly appointed officers, the Appointments Clause would be reduced to nothing more than a technical formality,” the judge wrote.

     Tuesday’s injunction only concerns USAID. But the judge took note of Musk’s similar efforts across the federal bureaucracy. “This record must be considered alongside the fact that Musk appears to have been involved in the shutdown of CFPB headquarters as well, and the evidence that shows or strongly suggests that Musk and DOGE, despite their allegedly advisory roles, have taken other unilateral actions without any apparent authorization from agency officials,” Chuang said. 

     It's about time that somebody started questioning Musk's activities. In USAID's case, for example, we could ask why Musk went out of his way to target an agency that was investigating grants that he himself had received from them; or several of the other fired officials examining Musk's shady activities. It also is a valid question of how Musk amassed so much evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse in the entire Federal Government in just under sixty days, when previous independent audits of single agencies typically take months. Which, in its turn, brings up the larger question of who really is in charge of this Administration. 

      While we're all well aware that significant waste and corruption exists in the Federal Government, how do we know that Musk's claims are actually true? We don't really have any more than his word for it. Unlike previous auditors, Musk hasn't gone before Congress and presented this evidence that he supposedly has. 

     Likewise, we know very little about who any of the people working for DOGE actually are. Have they passed background checks? Do they have security clearances? Do they have any experience auditing anybody? Musk has been suspiciously quiet about telling us any of this: in fact, he's threatened media outlets that have looked into it.

     On that same subject, what accounting and auditing methods is Musk employing? "Government auditing is conducted under strict legal frameworks to ensure impartiality and accountability. The individuals carrying them out must be certified, bound by ethical codes, and accountable to the public—swearing an oath, passing exams," one report noted. We have no evidence that DOGE's methods are in accordance with any of this. 

     Conservatism is supposed to be about upholding the Constitutional Rule of Law: turning the Federal Government over to the arbitrary will of a single unaccountable despot is what the Founders of our Republic rebelled against. President Trump has (so far) abided by or legally appealled adverse rulings, but the authoritarians surrounding him don't seem capable of exercising the same degree of restraint. Following Monday's ruling against the illegal deportation of immigrants, fanatics in Congress immediately sought impeachment hearings against the federal judge. Neo-Nazi White House Deputy Chief-of-Staff Stephen Miller roared, "A district court judge has no authority to direct the national security operations of the executive branch!" Peter Thiel's henchman, JD Vance has long been an outspoken critic of the Judicial Branch exercising even minimal controls over the Presidency.

    It is evident from such statements that, despite its pretensions, the Republican Party no longer is at its core a Conservative party. We must face it for what it is: the reactionary version of the postmodern Left; in other words, Neoconservatism. They are leading us to the same disasters that previous Bush-Era Neocons did, and are governed by the same philosophy of an Imperial Executive working in the interests of the Globalist Corporate Elite.