The federal government is constantly out of money and always needs more. It resembles the cartoon character “Wimpy,” a friend of Popeye. Wimpy is a mooch and scam artist. He was always out of cash, but his voracious appetite for hamburgers forced him to ask all – “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” The federal government constantly asks taxpayers, “I’ll gladly properly manage your money on Tuesday for more taxpayer money today.” The proper management of taxpayer monies never happens; only more promises from our politicians to reform their government mismanagement.

The federal government is very blase about its $35 trillion national debt, and Congress uses its annual budget games to hide unnecessary expenditures in the proverbial weeds. The federal government’s budget is a camouflage to hide its financial condition – it is de facto bankrupt. Its adversaries and the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) understand the federal government’s financial stress more than American politicians. The BRICS  are attempting to create a competing reserve currency and eventually replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. If this ever happens, the U.S. will rapidly sink into second-class status.

Since 2000, the dollar has declined in use and acceptance as the world’s reserve currency from 71% to 60%. The more the federal government uses the dollar to punish foreign adversaries for policies the U.S. dislikes, the more nations seek to displace the dollar to protect their own currencies.

It’s now time for American citizens to focus on this financial disaster facing this nation before it drifts into a financial crisis our government cannot easily fix. The BRICS know the U.S. lives on borrowed time, sustained only by its printing press and a large supply of paper and ink.

A book exposing the perils of the federal government’s fiscal health is written annually but rarely read. If the federal government and Congress won’t read it, it is time for citizens to read it and start taking control of their country.

The book  is titled “The Financial Report of the United States Government” or the “Financial Report.” While federal government agencies prepare their chapters, the significant aspect of the report is that the composite report is audited by the General Accounting Office (“GAO”), an independent arm of Congress. It is not a regurgitation of the budget, focusing on deficits, surpluses, and debt. The Financial Report focuses on the government’s net operating costs, i.e., the differences between real revenues and real costs.

How broke is the federal government? In its latest report (2022), the gross cost of the federal government was $ 7.4 trillion. While it collected $4.9 trillion in taxes, the actual net cost of government is $9.1 trillion since it must recognize an additional future expense of $2.2 trillion, which it incurred by underestimating the cost of employee and veterans’ benefits. Fortunately for the federal government, since it will not have to pay the employee and veterans benefits immediately, accounting standards allow it to show a deficit of only $1.37 trillion for 2022.

What is the value of all the federal government assets? On the asset side of the ledger, the federal government has only $4.962 trillion in assets. This amount consists of $878 billion in cash, inventory valued at $407 billion, and $1.2 trillion in property, plant, and equipment. Its largest asset is “Loan Receivable, Net,” valued at $1.434 trillion. Of that amount, $1.3 trillion is the Federal Student Loan program that President Biden wants to forgive, an act that would immediately reduce federal assets to $3.62 trillion.

What is the bottom line? After GAO makes all adjustments, total federal assets are $5 trillion, and total liabilities are $40 trillion. The federal government is in the hole for $35 trillion. Moreover, the GAO report does not consider, for audit purposes, any unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, which are estimated at $76 trillion.

If most families live paycheck to paycheck, the federal government lives from every withholding tax payment to the next. If the average American family has difficulty paying the bills, they should be terrified that for every U.S. citizen, including infants, their share of the national debt is $100,000. For families, their share is over $250,000. At some point, Mr. and Mrs. America and the kids must realize the government is penniless. It is borrowing from our children so it can gorge itself today. The federal government, like Wimpy, is a “deadbeat,” a person or entity “that is not willing to pay debts or accept responsibility.”

Every time the federal government takes money out of a paycheck for its wastefulness, it tells the taxpayer, “I’ll gladly pay you on Tuesday for your hard-earned money today.”

William L. Kovacs, author of Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic. The book 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 wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

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 wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post How Broke Is the Federal Government? It’s Penniless! appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Introducing the 4Liberty Network: Liberty-Minded Media for All

Streaming live from the Missouri Times building’s newly revamped studio, the Wake Up America Show has hit the #1 spot in political talk streams on Elon Musk’s X platform multiple times recently. Now, with the debut of 4LibertyNetwork.com, Petersen is aiming even higher by bringing new voices to the forefront and delivering more of the liberty-centered content that audiences crave.

“After two successful years of growing the Wake Up America Show and 4LibertyShop.com, I’m excited to launch the 4Liberty Network,” says Petersen. “We’ve built a strong, healthy community, and now it’s time to bring new talents into the spotlight while delivering more of the liberty-centered content people are craving.”

Meet the Lineup: Fresh Faces, Fresh Voices

The 4Liberty Network will feature a dynamic lineup of shows, all with their own unique style and focus. Here’s what you can expect:

• Culturama: Airing live on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 7-9 pm Central, Culturama is hosted by Daniella Pentsak—a charismatic, Marilyn Monroe-inspired personality with a master’s degree. This 1950s-themed retro show blends culture and politics with a libertarian twist, offering both style and substance. Get your dose of thought-provoking discussions at rumble.com/culturama.
• Liberty Tonight: Thursdays from 9-11 pm Central, this Tonight Show-style program brings together hosts Brian Peotter and Jordan Marinovich (aka King Libertarian). Mixing fake celebrity interviews, news, and satire, Liberty Tonight is the fun and innovative commentary you didn’t know you needed. Expect a blend of humor and hard-hitting discussions at rumble.com/libertytonight.
• The Wake Up America Show with Austin Petersen: Kicking off every weekday from 7-9 am Central, Petersen’s Wake Up America Show offers an upbeat, 1980s retro vibe with “silly shirts and serious interviews.” Always optimistic and passionate about America’s future, Petersen delivers zany yet brainy news talk to start your day right.

Powered by Liberty, Fueled by Community

The success of the 4Liberty Network is directly tied to the incredible support of its audience and the success of its e-commerce store, 4LibertyShop.com. The shop has a loyal following, bringing in thousands of customers who proudly sport patriotic merch and enjoy Founding Flavors coffee. Even Argentina’s President, Javier Milei, has recognized the store’s offerings!

“Our community doesn’t just support us with views—they’re buying the products that keep this vision alive and profitable,” says Petersen.

The Future of Free Speech, Now on Rumble & Locals

Partnering with Rumble and Locals, the 4Liberty Network is committed to free speech and uncensored content. Petersen emphasizes that, “We’re not just creating a media outlet; we’re building a long-term platform where our ideas can thrive.” With Rumble’s state-of-the-art studio software and the support of the crowd-funded Locals website, the 4Liberty Network will serve as a home base for its shows while extending their reach across multiple platforms.

Stay Tuned: The Liberty Revolution Is Just Getting Started

The Wake Up America Show launched in 2022 and has since transformed into a full-fledged media network, thanks to Petersen’s vision and passion. Now, with the 4Liberty Network in full swing, the goal is to showcase fresh talent, spark conversations, and grow a community where liberty thrives.

To stay updated on all things 4Liberty Network and to catch upcoming shows, visit 4LibertyNetwork.com and follow Austin Petersen on X at @AP4Liberty.

For any media inquiries, you can reach out to Austin Petersen directly at 573-319-1586 or email at austin@stonegaitllc.com.

Get ready to join the Liberty movement—one show at a time!

The post Exciting New Expansion for 4Liberty Network – Austin Petersen’s Liberty Media Powerhouse Is Here! appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

It’s crucial to remember, however, that a prior liberal/Progressive SCOTUS created the regulatory powers of the Administrative State. These court-created powers lasted for many decades and greatly diminished Congress’s powers to control the Administrative State.

To prevent a return to an all-powerful, court-sanctioned Administrative State, it is imperative that Congress seizes this period of anticipated regulatory sanity to codify and expand the court’s decisions. The role of congressional action in preserving this victory cannot be overstated. After being absent from the regulatory reform debate for decades, Congress must now actively protect the benefits of these recent decisions.

The three SCOTUS decisions are excellent examples of how, in the absence of Congress, the federal judiciary can allow regulators to take on the trappings of a “Star Chamber” that can only be dismantled by a future court.

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. The Secretary of Commerce, the court reversed the forty years of deference courts gave to federal agencies under Chevron vs. NRDC. Chevron’s legal and economic impact is gargantuan. At the time of the Chevron decision in 1984, the federal bureaucracy had issued approximately 65,000 regulations since the beginning of the Administrative State. After Chevron, the tentacles of the Administrative State expanded to control almost every aspect of society, including the products made, the information provided, and the energy it used. By 2023, the bureaucracy had issued 215,500 regulations costing the economy approximately $2 trillion to implement annually.

The courts dutifully applied Chevron’s deference. Seventy future SCOTUS  decisions relied upon it, and it was cited in 17,000 lower court decisions. By removing agency deference, SCOTUS returned agency rulemaking power to Congress’s original intent, formulated in its Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)—that judges, not bureaucrats, make independent interpretations of the law.

In the second case, SEC vs. Jarkesy, the court struck down the power of federal agencies to act as regulators, judges, and executioners, which could impose substantial civil penalties without providing the defendant’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

While Jarkesy sought judicial review in a federal court, the SEC forced him to adjudicate the matter in-house. The agency’s administrative law judge levied a $300,000 fine on Jarkesy and ordered the disgorgement of $685,000 in illicit profits for violations of the anti-fraud provisions in federal securities law. Jarkesy petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for judicial review, arguing that he had the right to a jury trial since the SEC sought penalties. The federal appellate court agreed with Jarkesy.

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s finding. It is reasoned that when an agency seeks to impose civil penalties, the action is in the nature of punishment. Since punishment at common law was imposed by courts holding jury trials, Jarkesy was entitled to a jury trial.

The ruling in Jarkesy is significant because federal agencies hire several thousand ALJs to hear evidence and make judicial decisions. These administrative proceedings are very costly to defendants but are more comfortable for agencies since the outcome is determined by their paid-for, in-house “judges.”

Loper and Jarkesy build upon  WVA v. EPA, the case in which SCOTUS formulated its Major Questions Doctrine requiring an agency to establish statutory authority when transforming long-standing policy into a dramatically new one. EPA historically applied section 111 of the Clean Air Act only to specific energy sources at particular locations. Suddenly, the EPA “discovered new authority” and authorized itself to determine what types of electrical power could be generated and distributed to the nation. SCOTUS found that EPA lacked the statutory authority to transform its facility-by-facility approach to clean air regulation into the power to regulate the entire electricity grid. The critical aspect of its ruling is that when federal agencies suddenly change long-established policies, the agency must prove Congress granted them such authority.

In the three cases, SCOTUS reversed long-established positions that agencies could fill in the legislative blanks in the law, force citizens into trials controlled by agency-paid judges, and unilaterally extend regulatory powers to “newly discovered activities.”

The dramatic change in the court’s judicial philosophy exhibited a newfound respect for Congress as it searched for its congressional intent or any constitutional support for agency activity

For those familiar with our Constitution and congressionally written laws, it’s clear that vagueness is omnipresent in most texts. This understanding should raise concerns about the potential for a future SCOTUS with a liberal/Progressive majority to reverse the current limits. Such a reversal could allow agencies to once again operate as unsupervised lawmakers, thereby potentially making them supreme in the lawmaking process. This potential imbalance underscores the need to preserve the recent SCOTUS decisions.

While conservative Republicans in Congress for decades voiced concerns over the growth of the regulatory state, they could not secure the votes to restrain the system created by the liberal/Progressive SCOTUS.

Only the 115^th Congress seriously attempted to reform the APA and, by implication, the Administrative State through the proposed Regulatory Accountability Act (“RAA”). The RAA sought to reform the rulemaking process to ensure final rules were based on sound facts and law, inadequate science could be challenged, major rules were subject to on-the-record hearings with cross-examination, and courts, not regulators, interpreted the law.

The House passed the RAA several times. A Republican Senate even voted it out of committee; however, Senate leadership under Mitch McConnell, a patron of the Administrative State, refused to bring the legislation to the floor. This effort was Congress’ first and last serious attempt to reform the Administrative State since its creation in 1946.

In the final analysis, agencies will fight to the last rulemaking proceeding to expand their regulatory powers. The Biden administration recently proved the truth of the assertion by forgiving additional student loan debt after a conservative SCOTUS declared such actions beyond the powers granted to the Executive by Congress. While the current SCOTUS has significantly limited the power of agencies to make new laws without congressional authority, a future liberal/Progressive court could reverse these limits. It is up to Congress to place statutory limitations on an agency’s power to make laws without authority from Congress. Such action is necessary if Congress is to reclaim and retain its constitutional role as the nation’s sole legislative authority.

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 wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post SCOTUS Ignites a Regulatory Reform Revolution appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

 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 5^th.

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 wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post Red States Can Sue NY for Election Interference in SCOTUS appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

In addition to funding wars, Congress appropriates trillions of questionable dollars to anyone in the U.S. to address COVID-19 and green technology without any evidence of effectiveness or need.

At least $18 trillion of our $34 trillion national debt can be attributed to some combination of undeclared wars, misinformation, and lies. Every taxpayer is left with the $260,000 tab that accompanies federally created inflation, decaying schools, rising interest rates, declining wages, sagging productivity, labor strikes, supply chain problems, increasing taxes, open borders, and terrorists in the homeland. These problems are not music to the ears of Americans who “get another day older and deeper in debt.”

The unfortunate aspect of this situation is that as much as one-half of the national debt might have been avoided by honesty from our presidents and a Congress willing to debate the critical issues of the day.

$18 trillion of policy mistakes that could have been avoided by a serious debate in Congress and good quality information.

 Vietnam (1965-1973). The U.S. was not attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin as it claimed, yet that lie was our excuse for waging a war against North Vietnam that killed 58,220 American soldiers, wounded 153,303, and another 1,643 are still missing. The war cost U.S. citizens $168 billion in the 1960s-1970s, which would be over $1 trillion today. The costs of that war continue today, with around $22 billion in compensation for injured veterans and lifetime benefits for their families. U.S. involvement in the war ended in 1973, but the U.S. withdrawal was a roadmap to its disgraceful surrender in Afghanistan.

 Afghanistan and Global War on Terror (2001 to 2022). After terrorists crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers in NYC and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, the home of the terrorists. The global war on terror began and lasted for two decades. The U.S. stayed at war in the Middle East 18 years after President Bush declared “Mission Accomplished.”  Its cost is estimated at $8 trillion and over 900,000 deaths. Even after the war ended, the U.S. estimates $2.2 trillion for the future care of our veterans. After two decades of fighting in Afghanistan, the U.S. disgracefully abandoned the war and the hundreds of thousands of Afghans who worked to help the Americans. The U.S. also left $7.12 billion worth of equipment for the terrorists to use against us.

The Iraq War (2003 – 2011). The Iraq War was the result of the U.S. Intelligence Agencies falsely telling the American people Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destructions (“WMD”). Hussein did not have any WMD. Rather, the war was President Bush’s obsession to remove Hussein from power to correct what he believed was a mistake by Father Bush not to invade Iraq and eliminate Saddam Hussein. The cost of the Iraq war was $1.8 trillion and cost 550,000 lives.

Ukraine War (2022-present). So far, the U.S. has spent $115 billion on the Ukraine war with Russia. Presently, the U.S. Senate wants to give Ukraine another $60 billion. While the history of the Ukraine War is not written, there is considerable controversy over the U.S. role in the 2014 coup that overthrew the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych. The U.S. and the EU certainly wanted a friendly Ukrainian government. The toppling of the Russian-friendly ruler and the installation of a pro-western ruler of Ukraine led to Russia invading and taking Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

Complicating Ukrainian politics, in 2016, after a new Ukraine president was installed,  then Vice President Biden threatened to deny Ukraine $1 billion if the president of Ukraine did not fire Special Prosecutor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma, a corrupt company that paid large sums of money to Hunter Biden to lobby the Obama administration to force Ukraine to end the investigations of its corruption. Now President Biden has forcefully stated he will support Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” The final cost of war is unknown, and the cost of rebuilding Ukraine will be in the hundreds of billions.

Additional Wars (1950-2022). In addition to four major undeclared wars, the U.S. has been involved in the Korean War, Laotian Civil War, Permesta Rebellion, Lebanon crisis, Bay of Pigs, Dominican Civil War, Korean DMZ conflict, Cambodian Civil War, Lebanese Armed Forces, Grenada, Libya, Tanker war, invasion of Panama, Somali, Bosnian and Croatian wars, Kosovo war, intervention in Yemen, intervention in North-West Pakistan, second intervention in Somali Civil War, Ocean Shield, Operation Observant Compass (Uganda), intervention in Niger, Syrian Civil War, second intervention in Libya, Operation Prosperity Guardian (Red Sea conflict).

Cost of Covid (2019-2022). The federal government spent over $4.6 trillion during the Covid pandemic. Most of the money went to individuals and corporations to keep them afloat during the government-mandated shutdown and to Big Pharma for the vaccines that were never properly tested. There is considerable conflict over the usefulness of the Covid vaccines. Moreover, there are many who believe the lockdowns, school closures, fraud, lost productivity, and the rise in mental health cases will cost the U.S. many trillions in the future. The OECD estimates the cost of the lost learning in the U.S. will be $14.1 trillion. Congress never received any information from either Trump or Biden on the origins of COVID-19.

The Inflation Reduction Act (2023). The IRA is not about reducing inflation in any manner. It was about funding green technology. The IRA tax credits for anything “green” incentivized more pigs to show up at the trough than CBO estimated. Within months after the program started, Goldman Sachs raised its estimated cost of the credits to  $1.2 trillion for the same time period. The original forecast missed the cost of the credits for electric vehicles by $379 billion; energy manufacturing, $156 billion; renewable electricity production, $82 billion; energy efficiency, $42 billion; hydrogen, $36 billion; biofuels, $34 billion; and carbon capture, $31 billion.

Governments Make Mistakes; unfortunately, the U.S. federal government does not learn from them.

 The total cost of these few policy mistakes is well over $18 trillion. As to the wars, Congress never declared any of them. As to Vietnam and Iraq, the American people were simply lied to.  As to the COVID cover-up, the most disconcerting fact is that the federal government continues to refuse to tell citizens the origins of COVID-19 or provide scientific studies to support the mandated vaccinations, lockdowns, closures, or other police state tactics.

The U.S. federal government appears to be incapable of learning from its mistakes. The U.S. involves itself in war after war, yet Congress rarely debates the need for the war before the president sends money, equipment, troops, or some combination of war assistance to the fight. The U.S. federal government passes society-changing policies like COVID and IRA and appropriates trillions to implement them with few, if any, members of Congress or the president even reading the summaries of the laws.

The American people deserve more for the $6 trillion they send to Washington each year and the $34 trillion the federal government borrowed in our name. Asking Congress to perform its constitutional responsibility to declare war before the president sends troops and/or equipment to fight the war is not unreasonable. Demanding the Executive to provide the science underlying major public health emergency orders is not unreasonable. Demanding our leaders tell us the truth, rather than lies, about what the government is doing is not unreasonable. Unfortunately, Congress and the president seem very content with living in a state of undeclared wars, perpetual misinformation, and lies.

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 wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post Half the National Debt is from Wars, Misinformation and Lies appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

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 wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post The Constitution is Irrelevant if our Leaders are Corrupt appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Unfortunately, this simple statement often achieves its goal of obstructing efforts by Congress to obtain information. While Congress may be upset with the response, many times, it is cowed into accepting presidents can protect their people from being investigated for criminal conduct. Fortunes, however, can be reversed. If Republicans win the White House with a presidential candidate who sincerely wants to uphold the rule of law, restore justice to the legal system and hold the “Deep State” accountable, that president can make it happen.

The leading Presidential candidates for the Republican nomination have promised to fire the FBI director and clean house at the Department of Justice. If a Republican wins the presidency in November 2024, FBI Director Wary and AG Garland will resign long before they can be fired. So, candidates, please, stop pandering. No one will be fired. All pablum, worthless and oversimplified promises.

Suppose a new president truly wants to clean up the deep, dark, corrupt state at the DOJ and FBI. In that case, the Republican president need only waive Executive Privilege and issue an Executive Order declassifying all investigatory materials sought by the current Republican House of Representatives. Let Congress bleed the truth out of those subverting the Constitution.

Executive compliance is simple. When Congress requests documents, the Executive should order them produced. When testimony is sought, provide it without asserting objections. Cooperate with the Republican House to find the truth.

Since the Nixon administration, presidents have asserted Executive Privileges thirty times to block congressional investigations. Presidential assertions included protecting the president’s brother (Billy Carter), girlfriends (Monica Lewinsky), mismanagement of funds (Solyndra), foreign affairs (Benghazi), gun running (fast and furious), and the Watergate tapes. Democrat and Republican administrations act as if providing Congress with requested information concerning an investigation will somehow diminish their manhood.

Finding and eliminating corruption is for the benefit of the nation. Hiding corruption does not assist the president in the faithful execution of the law. The DOJ/FBI’s long-running minuet of never sharing information with congressional committees is a mechanism of deceit, not of protecting the independence and effectiveness of law enforcement, the identities of informants, avoiding pre-trial publicity, or interfering with prosecutorial discretion. The Supreme Court has long recognized the “…implied power [of Congress] to investigate and to compel the production of information” from the Executive branch.

“Executive Privilege for presidential communications is limited to the quintessential power and nondelegation of Presidential power, and those are the core functions in the Constitution.” It should only be asserted to preserve those core constitutional functions. Claiming it beyond the core constitutional functions is a delaying tactic that often allows illegal conduct to continue.

As to declassifying all documents related to alleged criminal activity in the Executive branch, no president should ever be intentionally or unintentionally covering it up. The American Bar Association writes, “Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as commander in chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through executive orders.” While there are procedures for declassifying the materials, a president, except for certain materials such as nuclear secrets, has almost total control to declassify records by Executive Order. Presidents at all times have the power to put sunlight on government corruption. When they choose not to expose corruption, it is an intentional coverup.

Unfortunately, since the Nixon administration in the early 1970s, the Executive branch has forced Congress to issue subpoenas to secure requested documents. Presidents achieve their goal of protecting corruption by requiring years of legal battles to enforce the subpoena.

Hopefully, there will be a Republican Congress, or at least a Republican House sworn in on January 3, 2025, and on January 20, 2025, a Republican president. Between January 3, 2025, and January 20, 2025, the Republican Congress can prepare the appropriate investigative letters to the incoming president requesting the information needed to root out corruption in the DOJ/FBI. On January 20, when the Republican president enters the White House, his first order of business should be to issue an Executive Order waiving Executive privilege and formally declassifying the documents relating to all congressional investigations. These waivers should encompass all alleged DOJ/FBI corruption as described in the Durham Report, Mueller and Horowitz Reports, payments received by Joe and Hunter Biden from foreign countries, all matters associated with the development of a two-tier system of justice, efforts by the federal government to force social media companies to manipulate information distributed to the public and all other matters of high-level DOJ and FBI corruption.

By taking this approach, the president will tremendously assist the congressional investigation of the DOJ/FBI misconduct without investigating the departments he leads. If Congress finds evidence of criminal activity, it will refer the evidence to new appointees at a DOJ for appropriate prosecution.

Suppose Executive branch personnel refuse to testify or take the Fifth to protect their constitutional rights. In that case, Congress can grant the Use Immunity, which compels their testimony but provides immunity to the witness for the new information provided. A witness that refuses to testify after being given Use Immunity can be cited for contempt of Congress and imprisoned.

It’s time the federal government gets serious about corruption in government. More intriguing would be if a president followed this advice. The nation might uncover who is running the Deep State.

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 wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post The Big Govt Lie: “I Can’t Answer, the Matter Is Under Investigation.” appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

A noticeable issue with recent US Libertarian presidential candidates is their lack of dynamism. There seems to be a lack of compilation clips showcasing Jo Jorgensen or Gary Johnson’s noteworthy moments or victories in debates. In stark contrast, Javier Milei embodies the Argentinian libertarian version of Ben Shapiro, masterfully dismantling Keynesians and socialists in debates. Consider having two candidates who share your favored policies — would you choose the one who excels in debates, the individual brimming with energy? Or would you opt for the less engaging, more boring candidate?

A shift in the approach to debates is imperative for libertarian candidates. Instead of pleading for inclusion in national debates, they must proactively engage in televised discussions with proponents of opposing ideologies. Such debates not only provide a platform for presenting libertarian principles to a wider audience but also showcase the strength of the ideas in direct comparison with alternatives. Engaging in dialogues with supporters of other candidates demonstrates confidence and competence, while also dismantling misconceptions about libertarianism. By embracing this strategy, libertarian candidates can step out of the shadows and become formidable contenders in the realm of public discourse.

Another distinction setting Javier Milei apart from recent US libertarian presidential candidates lies in his clarity of campaign themes and issues. Gary Johnson’s campaign, for instance, was built on the premise of being neither Trump nor Hillary. Although a resonant theme, Johnson’s own gaffes undermined his message. From not knowing what Aleppo was to questionable behavior on television, his effectiveness was hindered. For example, he stuck his tongue on TV while giving a response to an interviewer. When asked on tv to endorse a political figure in the world he named Shimon Peres which recently passed at the time, so the interviewer asked him to name one alive and he couldn’t. He had forgotten Vicente Fox’s name and Bill Weld saved him by naming him and named Angela Merkel. All those responses are Keynesians and neoliberals, a far cry from libertarian ideals. And Bill Weld literally said he “vouches for Hillary Clinton”.

In 2020, medical freedom, criminal justice reform, and gun rights emerged as significant issues due to the activism surrounding them. Unfortunately, Jo Jorgensen failed to effectively champion these causes. Gun rights militias were on the rise like the NFAC and Boogaloo Bois and the biggest progun rally in US which took place in Virginia of 2020 yet she didn’t take the momentum. The legacy of the party’s opposition to the war on drugs and police militarization since its inception in 1971 was scarcely highlighted.

While criminal justice reform was discussed, Jorgensen’s endorsement of the BLM movement conflicted with many libertarian values. Tthe majority of their activists voted and donated to democrats like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, who have a huge history of being anti criminal justice reform, they also promoted the destruction of private property and private businesses. Of course it drew considerable criticism and division in the party. Medical freedom wasn’t even an issue on the main page of the website campaign.

Javier Milei’s predictive insights also set him apart with his “A-ha moments” or “I told you so” moments. He accurately forewarned about certain policies and their consequential outcomes, such as those related to the central bank, inflation, and monetary policy. This capacity to anticipate and explain consequences echoes figures like Ron Paul in his warnings about the war on drugs and US foreign policy. To truly impact change, we need candidates who can prophesize potential pitfalls.

Lastly, the power of thematic repetition plays a significant role in Milei’s success. His supporters can recite his theme of what libertarianism is in unison, creating a strong sense of unity and identity. This tactic could be mirrored within the libertarian movement by emphasizing core principles like the “Non-Aggression Principle,” influential works such as “I, Pencil” by Milton Friedman, The US Constitution and even satirical pieces like “National Anthem of Libertaria” by Dominic Frisby, parody of the Soviet Union anthem. This strategy fosters group cohesion around shared ideals, distinguishing libertarians from others.

In conclusion, the triumph of Javier Milei and the Argentine Libertary Forward party underscores the potency of effective campaigning. It proves that Libertarians can win when we campaign the right way. The contrasting elements between his success and the challenges faced by recent US libertarian candidates illuminate vital lessons for the movement. Whether through compelling debates, clear issue identification, foresight, or thematic unity, there are opportunities to elevate libertarian ideals and secure success on a broader scale.

The post Javier Milei and the Libertarian Victory in Argentina: Lessons for American Libertarians appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

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 starts 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 wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post The Climate Change Frenzy Is a Mass Hysteria Movement appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

If punishment is the desire, Congress, as the legislative branch, can’t impose it. If Congress exposes the corruption, DOJ will not prosecute it, as evidenced by the Horowitz and Durham reports of government corruption.

Since the DOJ and FBI are impeding the congressional investigations, the only viable option left for the Committees is to secure the testimony of all relevant witnesses by granting “use immunity” to the Biden family, Hunter’s business associates, and the past and present leadership of the DOJ and FBI. Congress has this power under 18 U.S.C. sec 2005.

Once receiving use immunity, the witnesses can testify free of prosecution for any testimony concerning their criminal activity. A refusal to answer subjects the witness to Contempt of Congress and could result in imprisonment.

Congress has the sole discretion to grant use immunity. Moreover, neither the DOJ nor the courts can interfere with the grant of it. Title 18 USC sec. 6005 authorizes either House of Congress to grant use immunity once an individual refuses to give testimony or provide other information based on his privilege against self-incrimination.

Historically, Congress is reluctant to grant use immunity since it usually results in an inability of the DOJ to prosecute criminals. DOJ describes the dilemma:

Congress may now be forced to choose between granting immunity to exercise its oversight and investigative functions and forgoing a grant of immunity to allow the prosecution of key witnesses.

In the present situation, however, Congress is not facing a dilemma since DOJ is unwilling to prosecute any of the involved parties.

In the Watergate trials, like today, the DOJ refused to cooperate with Congress. The US Senate sought to grant use immunity to witnesses. DOJ asserted it, and the court has the power to block the grant of immunity. Chief Judge Sirica upheld the Senate’s power, writing:

Immunity is the fixed price which the government must pay to obtain certain kinds of information, and only the government [Congress] can determine how much information it wants to ‘buy’ in light of the fixed price.

Obtaining an immunity order from the district court is straightforward. In this instance, a duly authorized representative of the House of Representatives or the Committee seeking the testimony shall request a court order to require a witness to give testimony. The House or the concerned Committee must give ten days’ notice of the request to the Attorney General.

The district court must grant the congressional request if it finds:

1. In the case of a proceeding before either House of Congress, the request was approved by a majority vote of the members present, or
2. In the case of a proceeding before a committee, the request for such an order was approved by two-thirds of the members of the Committee; and
3. That the Attorney General was given ten days’ notice. The Attorney General can request another twenty days to “insulate from the immunity grant any incriminating data already in his files prior to the witness’s testimony.”

Once these conditions are met, the statute is mandatory. “The court shall” issue the order. Chief Judge Sirica held section 6005 casts the role of the court as ministerial, and the Attorney General is deprived of his normal discretion concerning the granting of immunity.

Judge Sirica concluded: “[There is a] power of the Congress to inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of the Government.” Quoting President Wilson, he notes the informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.

The American people are owed the truth about corruption in their government. The House of Representatives has the power to obtain the truth. What is more important to the nation, truth or the false hope of punishment?

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 wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post Use Immunity: Congress Can Find Truth by Forgoing Punishment appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.