I made the mistake of replying to a Chevron post yesterday on Twitter, and now my feed is filled with screeching about all of this, baiting me to respond. I hate how the algos are meant to “drive engagement” by feeding you things you disagree with.

Most takes I’m seeing are bad takes. Most appear to be MSM interpretations meant to scaremonger you more into hating scary orange man. Let’s start the commentary by stating that I voted for Obama twice and Trump twice – meaning, I call balls on strikes on policy and am in the middle politically. I can appreciate both sides of the arguments. But recently, the far left has poisoned most of our media and with this, anyone who has sane viewpoints is drowned out by the screeching.

Part 1 – immunity

First, let’s discuss presidential immunity, and why this ruling is important. Let’s also be clear – the Supreme Court does not MAKE law. So lots of people are now calling for expansion of the Supreme Court to simply overrule anything the current SCOTUS is doing – to then be judicial activists to MAKE law. This is not the design of our Supreme Court. I want to also counter my discussion here by stating the Sotomayor made very, very valid points in her dissent – but this is the function of the Supreme Court, and this illustrates the genius of it.

Let’s step back a second to see how and why we got here. Stalin – or his crew – was once heard stating “show me the man, and I will show you the crime”. Currently, we are in a very, very bad presidency for liberty. The policies are failures, and it is clear to anyone that lives in a major city with hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants pouring in, that Biden’s failed border policy reversing all of Trump’s progress – was a disaster. At this point now, the Biden presidency is failed on policy. I don’t want to get personal on anything, and stay with balls and strikes. It has been clear for some time that Trump’s policies, for the most part, presented a pretty strong America to the world. This is not to advocate for his stupid, childish, and immature “mean tweets”. It’s to say that we were in a pretty good place under him until COVID happened. But right now, the left has their backs against the wall and are losing to Trump on a lot of fronts with the polls. In this respect, the Biden campaign, or actors of the campaign, appeared to launch what we now call a “lawfare campaign” on Trump.

This lawfare has had a multi-pronged attack. First, there was a civil lawsuit brought by Jean Carroll in regards to libel. Apparently, she made a claim, and then Trump called her a liar, to which she was then awarded millions of dollars in a libel suit. This was based on a claim she had made that took place decades earlier, where there were no witnesses, no video, no police reports, and – no one could even remember what year it was. This attack was meant to make him look like a rapist of sorts. Trump denies the allegations, and yet I have yet to see any evidence presented of his guilt. Only her word. In the #metoo movement, apparently, “innocent until proven guilty” is replaced with “always believe the woman, no matter what, even if there’s no evidence”. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, only I haven’t seen evidence that it did. So why should I automatically believe he’s some sort of rapist? This is part of the plan to get him to have the woman vote drop him.

You then have the lawsuit dealing with the valuation of Mar A Lago as “inflated estimate” which then had a fine of what seemed to be half a billion dollars. This is perhaps the most dangerous court decision of the last 50 years for anything to do with real estate in NY. Anyone who has ever had a home equity loan, in their lives, could thus also be guilty of this. Trump had estimated his assets, then a bank provided his company loans. The banks that do this have their own appraisers, and with this, are not benevolent in this process. As a matter of de-risking, they need to ensure the asset is worth what he claimed. They did. The loan was made, and paid back in full. No harm was done to anyone, and a routine real estate transaction that thousands of people do daily brought a ridiculous fine – meant to drain Trump of all cash he had to thus force him to not be able to campaign.

This is then married to the strategy of throwing him in jail. He was recently convicted of 34 felonies in NY. The truth here is, that none of you reading this can accurately describe what exactly the crime was, nor could you list who the victim was. The general gist of it was a porn star was trying to extort a presidential candidate at the last minute with salacious allegations. If no money was paid, the “story” would leak, and thus damage his campaign. “Shakedown” money is paid out to extortionists like this all the time, and is legal. Often, the amount of money is small enough that it is just not worth the hit to the person’s image so it is just paid quietly. Again, this is legal to do. At issue was that there were allegations this was paid for by Trump’s attorney and not properly disclosed as an in-kind campaign contribution, just days before the election. The FEC saw this and decided the elements didn’t exist for the this. And, overall, it was some sort of accounting problem, not necessarily a crime. Still, the NY AG then decided to use some form of state accounting laws to then come after Trump – as the FEC decided there was no case. The case that was presented dealt with them covering up some sort of crime, but the AG would not list the crime. Nothing was mentioned until closing arguments, at which the defense had to present first – and last was the prosecutor, who dumped accusations at the end, that could not be defended due to the defense having to go first. Then, in the jury instructions, where “beyond a reasonable doubt” means that jurors have to be unanimous on a crime – the judge instructed them that “he could be potentially guilty of a litany of things, of which you do not have to agree on which”. This is counter to our entire judicial system. Even former governor and AG Andrew Cuomo said these crimes never would have been brought if his last name was not Trump.

So this was meant to jail a political opponent.

As part of the multi-pronged attack, they are also trying to go after him in Atlanta, where the famous mug shot was taken. Trump had claimed immunity to some extent on this, and the Supreme Court was then brought in to rule on immunity. Let’s now tug on this string, as the lawfare here is trying to find the crime to fit the man.

  • FDR had rounded up an ethnic group – Japanese – and put them into camps
  • Truman killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese with a nuke
  • Bush killed 400k Iraqi nationals in a war that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on us
  • Obama killed US citizens with drone strikes – and gave them no due process

In the above instances, it had been traditional for the president to get immunity from prosecution based on his official acts and duties as president. The Supreme Court simply held the standard to which has been granted to every other president.

Now here is the beauty of the ruling. Which has been lost on the screechers. Sotomayor wrote a dissent I mostly agree with. But she’s also missing the bigger point. She had written that now a president could drone strike a political opponent and be not held liable. The chilling thing here, is that Biden thus has this ability to drone strike his opponent for the next 8 months or so, with immunity. The intimation here was that it would only be the crazy Trump who would do this, and not Biden.

But the point here that everyone is missing is that it is not up to the Supreme Court to make laws. They interpret them and the Constitution. What this means, is that Congress should now define what “official acts are” and it is in the best interest of the dems AND republicans to thus clearly define this and make a law. A bipartisan bill limiting executive power is in both of their interests, and with this, even if Biden/Trump veto it, there should be enough support for it to then override any vetoes.

That is how the system is supposed to work.

Score this up for upholding the union. Now, if official acts are defined, and Trump was doing things outside of those official acts, so be it. Let them prosecute. But you cannot prosecute him for something where no former president has ever been prosecuted, without understanding what exactly he did that was wrong. This is how justice works folks.

Part 2 – chevron

While I am a political moderate, I am a FISCAL conservative. Almost radically so. This doesn’t mean I’m a bible thumper and claim morality on anything. It means I am for a minimalist federal government. I have been since I got my first book on government waste when I was about 10. Most of the root of our issues today are geared in our money problems. The government has grown so much in size, it’s feeding a giant beast tax money that then allows more growth.

It needs to stop, as we are now $35 trillion in debt, and Yellen, with a straight face, has zero problems taking this to $50 trillion.

I’m also not going to pretend to have heard of the Chevron doctrine before yesterday. So many people are now “experts” on this. However, the suit came from a small fisherman that was having problems paying $700 a day to be monitored by a government agency. The costs were driving him out of business.

The Chevron doctrine essentially gave government agencies the right to create all kinds of rules themselves, with little to no oversight. “They are the experts, so we will defer to them” has been the idea for 40 years. At issue here wasn’t that there was a right for them to regulate the fisherman, it was the costs that were forced upon him that would drive him out of business.

Congress is given the power in this country to create laws. Period. So I have extreme, extreme issues with presidential executive orders, which I feel should be “emergency” and only apply for 30 days, which gives the president the immediate ability to act, but then allows Congress to write the laws that can then be signed into law with the president. Maybe you do 90 days. So be it. But presidents are not given the right to create laws, and every presidential executive order should be challenged by congress, tomorrow, and every last one of them should be repealed. So – I am a purist here to the Constitution.

That being said, these agencies were put into existence because of laws, but their ability to write rules, issue fines, and continue to grow in size exponentially in power far surpassed anything that was initially intended with the Chevron ruling.

Trump wanted to fight “the swamp”. Well, Chevron has been the protection for the swamp. And, the justices that ruled in favor to remove Chevron I’d define as libertarian-oriented. They aren’t far right. They aren’t trying to crash planes next week. But you have to consider that these agencies have grown in size, and power, to such an extent that there has been no checks to balance this power.

This power then allowed OSHA to then require everyone get the jab in the workplace, even if you were a remote-based employee. This was not a law passed by elected officials, it was a rule implemented by the swamp that had no ability to be challenged because of the Chevron ruling. If you do not know already, I’m not anti-vax. I was happy they came up with a COVID “treatment” (that is not vaccine). Despite the fact that it did not prevent you from getting COVID, nor did it prevent you from transmitting COVID, OSHA still required this. And at the same time, the CDC was making up science as they went, while getting kickbacks from the pharm companies. This is NOT how our agencies are supposed to work.

Then, you could not question the CDC, or you were branded “anti-science” or “anti-vaccine”. Any science that cannot be questioned is religion. It is then faith-based in your institutions, rather than rigorous scientific overview. I stood my ground and did not get the COVID “treatment”. I lost family and friends over this decision, which was a highly private medical decision that should have been between me and my doctor to determine my risk. Instead, an unelected bureaucrat created a rule to force a medical treatment on hundreds of millions of people to go to work or school.

Yet, the mainstream media now is gaslighting you to believe that tomorrow this will lead to dirty drinking water.

Motives

You have to start asking questions. Who is paying for mainstream media? Think about these anchors and the salaries these people are making. Who is paying for it? Advertisers. And, it makes no sense if your cable news show is critical of any advertisers, right?

You then have a powerful lobbyist faction. Former congressmen and agency insiders can then get massive salaries working for these groups. Sometimes, the agencies then hire these people back and they operate on behalf of private industry.

Basically, what Chevron did was create a direct pipeline where private industries can infiltrate our agencies, get them to enact rules that favor them, and then act without any form of oversight or ability to be challenged legally for any rules they make.

Yet the MSM now is having you believe that because of this, planes are now going to be falling out of the skies. Why is that?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/nih-scientists-made-710m-in-royalties-from-drug-makers-a-fact-they-tried-to-hide/ar-BB1nuldg

Basically, with the Chevron doctrine gone, agencies can now be challenged in court for rules they make. Consider the OSHA rule with the jab. That can be challenged.

Consider also how they tried to censor people during COVID. They used social media – and pressures on them – to push a state sponsored message, and anyone who challenged this was to be silenced.

Who stands to win with Chevron eliminated? The people. Why? Because these agencies now have accountability to the people, to congress, to anyone with standing. This guy who was charged $700 a day to place an agent with him – no one authorized this charging by law, it was a rule enabled. This now allows him to operate his small business without having to pay $700 a day for a fishing boat.

What this does, potentially, is allow more small businesses to operate, and prevent big corporations from usurping up their power. Consider when the COVID rules kicked in, “essential businesses” were allowed to operate, but no one else. This allowed Home Depot to be open, but not your local hardware shop. Again – those with power and influence were allowed to get on this list, at the expense of putting small businesses out of business.

Overall, this de-claws agencies from creating rules out of thin air that can harm small businesses. It allows accountability. It can help to reduce these agencies in size. Why? They need to justify their existence by creating rules day in and day out, then enforcing these rules. If many of these rules are rolled back, then there are less agents need to enforce them. And, if any rule needs to have congressional oversight, then any and all rules will have bipartisan support. This is a massive win for liberty, and removes power from the almighty swamp.

Consider the deficits we run. These agencies continue to grow in size every year. Now, potentially, they can be reduced in size. This is also a big win for fiscal conservatives, who feel a very minimal footprint is needed from a FEDERAL level. I believe in states rights, and do NOT believe in massive federal government. While it may make sense to have a Federal EPA, it makes a lot MORE sense to have strong state-level EPAs which can create laws within their states, and the federal EPA then ensures that the state EPAs stay within federal laws. Period. There is no other reason to have a federal EPA. Perhaps the Federal EPA could exist to track issues and trends across multiple states and provide states assistance where needed. However, I do NOT believe in an “all-knowing” EPA that rules all 50 states with an iron fist.

Minimalism. It costs a hell of a lot less. It allows for more freedom. And – states are then more free to find what works best with competition, so much that other states may then copy “best practices” that may apply to their states. \

Conclusion

In the first item above, I feel this puts an end to “lawfare” where political operatives can then target their political opponents. This goes for Biden AND Trump. I feel this acknowledges how former presidents were awarded this benefit, but it was never clearly expressed. I feel this also provides an opportunity for Congress to clearly define what presidential acts are, to ensure that no one is above the law – but also to allow a president freedom to operate in official duties. I feel this is how it should be – checks and balances – and can prevent “lawfare” in the future.

In the second item, as a fiscal conservative, I believe this puts a limit on the power of federal agencies, and can start to reduce their size and importance. Why can OSHA force you to lose your job over a jab, why can a fish and game police force $700 a day on you or shut you down, and why can the IRS then jail people for spurious rules they conjure up to target specific classes of people? In this respect, I feel the swamp can start to be drained, and with this, the swamp will fight back. And, use the mainstream media to try and scare you into thinking that strong federal oversight is good for you. It’s not. If your state wants to create laws and monitor things, so be it, but the federal level was never granted this type of authority over you. It’s been a 40 year power grab, and that stopped yesterday. Now, we unwind this mess.

In both cases, this is a win for the libertarian in people. It is a loss for the “all-powerful state” who wants to continue with lawfare because they cannot win on policy. It is a loss for the giant agencies who grow exponentially with unchecked amounts of money and power given to them.

The mainstream media is carrying the water for the far leftist control state, and with this, they continue their fear mongering campaigns to try and enslave you further. You are parroting the words and fears of the largest companies and government organizations. You are what Yuri called “the useless idiot”. YOU are falling prey to the fear narratives they feed you daily, to then allow them to control you more. Reagan had once famously said – “the 9 most terrifying words in the English language are – I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.

Today was a win for liberty. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.