Opinion: New Normal Series
Just this once, I'm going to indulge myself by taking a leaf out of the ideologue's operating manual; that is, starting with the conclusion and working backwards, cherry picking evidence that fits and ignoring evidence that doesn't, except that I shall add a twist. Instead of the conclusion, I'm going to start with a working hypothesis and test the evidence instead – so that I might either prove or disprove the theory – rather than proceeding on the basis that the outcome was an ideological foregone conclusion.
For some months now, I have had the sense that the current governing clique in the US were demonstrating insufficient concern for their ever increasing unpopularity and consequently cratering poll numbers. As it is, they have wafer thin majorities in both houses of Congress but, instead of seeking a genuinely bi-partisan approach to government, they have rammed through as much radical legislation as they could and made up the difference with a blizzard of Presidential Executive Orders, all of which has resulted in the many and various crises currently enveloping America.
It's a peculiar approach because, unlike the UK - where an unpopular government can limp on for four or five years provided it has a working majority – the US always has mid-term elections, two years into a President's term and they nearly always go badly for the incumbent. Of the 37 held thusfar, 34 have resulted in opposition gains. This government is not going to buck the trend and it is, therefore, a racing certainty that they will lose control of both Houses, thus rendering Biden impotent as well as incontinent (allegedly). But they just don't seem to care.
Yes, there has been token lawfare activity in an attempt to force the Republicans to field a cohort of RINOs (Republican In Name Only candidates) and in some states they have managed to sabotage Republican primary races by voting for the candidates they most want to compete against. They've also tried to gerrymander election re-districting maps (required due to the demographic changes revealed in the 2020 Census) in their favor, although the Republicans still made a net gain of three seats. But, in truth, none of these tactics – even taken together – are anything more than attempts at mitigating losses. Perhaps trying to remake the Republican Party in a Democratic image might be effective over the longer term (the job is half completed already, after all), but it won't change the result in November.
So, something is wrong here. Knowing what we know about the Democrats and the Deep State (and the legacy media) that shares their belief system, their current conduct does not ring true. Their actions are far too muted. The inevitable loss of effective power is mere months away, yet they seem unconcerned. Contrast this behavior with how they reacted when it dawned upon them that they had lost the White House to Trump in 2016. They were apoplectic. They went after him relentlessly for four years, continually trying to find ways to unseat a democratically elected President and, when that didn't work, BLM and Antifa were enlisted as the shock troops in the first domestic color revolution. They then rigged the 2020 election – this is a view shared by a majority of Americans, not just me – mounting an effective coup d'état in the process.
Perhaps they are blind to the facts. Perhaps their elite echo chamber existence is encouraging delusional thinking. Perhaps they believe that Biden can turn the tide. No, I don't think so. My working hypothesis is that they know that they aren't going to lose the mid-terms. Further, the only way that they can be certain of that outcome is to ensure that they don't take place. I previously thought that they might manufacture yet more Covid lock-downs in the autumn (which they still might) and force mail-in ballots on all voters. This would give the Democrats a greater opportunity to cheat, given the laxity of most states' voting laws.
However, I don't think this would be Plan A any more. Many states have tightened up their electoral laws in the past two years and the amount of fraud required to overturn the coming Republican wave may be beyond even the Democrats. Or, maybe they'll do that anyway, thereby guaranteeing protests, which they can liberally seed with the Feds or private contractors to ensure that they turn sufficiently violent to justify another misuse of the word “insurrection”.
In any event, I think the main objective is to force a situation where the President can declare a national emergency. A food shortage severe enough to cause rationing might well be enough. The financial implosion that is out there in our near future, just waiting for the chosen trigger to be pulled would probably do it. The cost of living crisis, perhaps. Another summer campaign of 'mostly peaceful' arson attacks on American cities. A war, which has been the traditional weapon of choice. Any one of these will do due to the extraordinary, furtive annexation of power by the executive.
The federal government should be limited to enumerated rights, powers expressly granted by the Constitution and policed by Congress; at least, it was in the dim and distant. The Constitution includes sufficient provisions for dealing with any and all emergencies without the need to grant government more powers:
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence.”(1)
Thus spoke the Supreme Court, which also decreed:
“an emergency may not call into life a power which has never lived,” but “emergency may afford a reason for the exertion of a living power already enjoyed.”(2)
And that really should be that. There can be no confusion. The Constitution was held to be applicable in all circumstances; natural rights cannot be suspended, period. Those circumstances included times when the nation was at war. Additionally, government could not allot itself a power which it had never previously enjoyed. But, even the unequivocal can be circumvented if you just ignore it and that is exactly what happened. Congress introduced the concept of emergency powers anyway (initially for wartime only) and then, in the most heinous act of all, delegated the right to declare emergencies to the President alone.
It's difficult to credit, really. After all the trouble to which the Founders went to ensure that there were three co-equal branches of government, each acting as a check on the others and Congress just trampled all over it. They included a pointless caveat, presumably as a sop to any opposition; the Senate is supposed to meet every six months to decide whether to allow the emergency powers to continue. But they don't and never have. And even if they did, any decision they might make is capable of being overridden by presidential veto.
You may think that the Founders were wrong and that, in certain extraordinary times, extraordinary measures should be at hand. This would be to miss the point. The Founders weren't oblivious to this argument. They endorsed a limited version of it (minus the obliteration of rights), but at state level, not federal. This preserved the delicate balance of powers between the Feds and the individual states. But, as has been the case since before the establishment of the republic, the federal government wanted their hand on the tiller instead.
And, inevitably, if there is zero oversight, there is zero incentive for a sitting President, or a subsequent one, to dispense with these powers, as they allow for the imposition of measures that are otherwise unlawful and/or unconstitutional. Sure enough, in order to give themselves maximum discretion, the term 'war' started to gain a far wider meaning. As time passed, there were wars on terror, drugs, pandemics, you name it. Indeed, prior to Covid, the US had been under a permanent state of national emergency since 1979, with over 30 such emergencies still current. Once declared, they need only be renewed yearly by the President himself. It is all too easy for a President to declare an emergency simply to gain access to emergency powers when no such emergency truly exists.
The other shoe has also dropped. Despite the Supreme Court's decision, the emergency powers that presidents award themselves called into life all sorts of powers that had never previously lived and these powers stomp all over individual rights. This should not be a surprise. It's always the same; give government an inch and there will always be an incremental normalization of them taking a mile. America went from a situation where the federal government only had the powers specifically granted to it and citizens were blessed with inalienable rights, to the current quagmire. The President can award himself whatever powers he wants, there is no mechanism for curtailing those powers (unless the President himself does so) and citizens rights only exist when the government allows them to.
First you need;
“any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage or disruption severely affecting the U.S. Population, infrastructure, environment, economy or government functions.”(3)
You will note, as is usually the way, that these criteria are entirely subjective and very wide ranging. What might be extraordinary to you, may not be to me, for instance. The same goes for any definition of “severe”. It can also be any incident, anywhere. The wording does not require that any such incident occur on domestic soil, for instance. The regime has explicitly stated that the “climate crisis” is going to result in irreversible global warming; that would meet the criteria. An economic crisis, even one brought about by the regime's own policies, could also qualify. In fact, given control of sufficient levers of power and a media that looks the other way, it is entirely possible to sabotage the country, gaslight the people as to the causes (if explanations are even deemed necessary) and then declare an emergency. This then enables a regime to impose its own solutions; the classic 'third way'. Sound familiar? I wrote this in Shining A Light:
“But when there is a desire to dismantle and remake society in a more controlled, compliant version the obvious solutions are not what are desired. The third way, the new normal, is the destination of choice. The signature methodology is to come up with an idea that it is impossible to argue against, such as clean air, quality public transport, affordable housing or protection of the environment and then execute the strategy in what looks like a disastrous fashion (by design), arriving at the outcome that the globalists had wanted all along.”
There can be no doubt that America is in the grip of several crises, none of which were inevitable. And, while crises are always head turners in their own right, when they are purposely instigated they are also reflective of the regime's direction of travel. But what is the practical effect of a presidential declaration of a national emergency? The following list, while not exhaustive, will give you a flavor:
The imposition of martial law.
The suspension of habeas corpus and introduction of detention without trial.
Restrictions on travel.
Restrictions on communications and an internet kill switch.(4)
This is not pie in the sky. Section 706 of the Communications Act 1996 (5) explicitly states that there is a presidential authority to shut down or seize communications upon the proclamation “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States”.(6) One could make a convincing argument that that the US is already at war with Russia, so all that would be required to trigger S706 is the formal proclamation. It's not as if the regime has made any secret of its contempt for free speech. Could the new Disinformation Governance Board have a part to play? There are no coincidences, remember.
The Secretary of State already has the power to curtail international travel in the event of war, armed hostilities or the threat of “imminent danger to the public health or the physical safety of US travelers.”(7) This is the authority that is used to prevent travel to the likes of Libya or Iraq, but there is no reason why it cannot be applied more widely. Again, all that is required is the stroke of the Presidential pen.
Further, it is known that other instruments, referred to as Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADs) were created in the 1960s and were still in existence in 2008, when Obama came to power. It is also known that none have been withdrawn since then and at least eight new ones have been added.(8) Some explicitly authorize detention without trial. But the full scope of powers that successive presidents have awarded to themselves is unknown, even to Congress. Freedom of Information requests have elicited some responses, but only 500 pages of notes have been released from the archives. Six thousand remain hidden, on grounds of national security. We can safely assume that the more classified information is the most revealing.(9)
Access to whatever draconian powers exist is pretty straightforward. A crisis (of whatever hue) or a war would do the trick and there are numerous indications that Biden and his enablers are deliberately making matters worse in several different theaters. In Ukraine, for example. If involvement in that conflict was necessary in order to sell the myth of Putin's Price Hike, thereby disguising Biden's own culpability for fuel inflation and food shortages, then 100 days ought to do it. If it was merely another grift, this time benefiting the military industrial complex to the tune of $20 billion plus, it's mission accomplished by now. If the purpose was truly to degrade Russia's military capabilities, it was a bad plan that has failed. The Ukrainians are in disarray and have been for many weeks. They've even been taking to social media to broadcast their insubordination and lack of morale to the watching world.(10)
So, why is the US still pursuing war in Ukraine? Not content with goading the Russians into action in the first place with a military presence in Ukraine and reckless talk of the country's accession to NATO, by attempting to entice Sweden and Finland into also joining up, by bankrolling the eight year war against the breakaway republics and voting through $53 billion in weapons and aid, NATO member military forces are now said to be on the ground in Ukraine; two battalions of Poles, to be precise.(11) That could not happen without US blessing.
Not only that. The Lithuanians (of all people), together with the Brits, are cobbling together a “coalition of the willing” to lift the alleged Russian Black Sea blockade of Ukrainian grain exports. Of course, it wouldn't be a NATO force. That would be a provocation. And, of course, there wouldn't be any prospect of a naval confrontation between warships, if the Russians felt that perhaps the coalition might be better employed sailing around in a different sea and opposed them. Not forgetting the fact that Turkey would need to grant approval in order that any fleet might pass through the Bosphorus, something they have already denied Russia and NATO. And the likelihood that the Ukrainians have, in fact, blockaded themselves by mining the approaches to their own harbors.(12) If the Brits are involved, so are the Americans.
The US has also supplied Ukraine with missiles that can reach into Russian territory and have mooted the possibility of further supplying them with Naval Strike Missiles with a range of 300km.(13) And (tellingly) the media, fresh from lying through their teeth about Ukraine's imminent victory, have changed their tune and are now acknowledging that Russia is wiping the floor with the Azov Battalion and their fellow neo-Nazis. The media is not going to be chorusing any message that has not already been curated by the Biden White House and their sudden volte face is no accident.
The US (and NATO) is desperate to keep the Ukrainian pot boiling, even though the Russians are clearly on the verge of victory and the only sensible option is to negotiate, as Kissinger told the great and the good at Davos last week.(14) If it's not for the reasons posited earlier, what is it for? I suspect that they need the war to continue, so that they may escalate it and use that escalation as a justification for domestic tyranny. I expect the media pivot to continue and for the message to change; instead of been fed propaganda about inevitable Ukrainian success, we will instead be hearing about how Ukraine needs more of our help in their righteous resistance against the evil invader. There are alleged to be US troops on the ground in Ukraine already. There was certainly talk of sending special forces to defend the embassy in Kiev. There are also unsubstantiated rumors of a US military mobilization in July.(15)
If Ukraine doesn't do it for you, how about China? There are some ominous signals emanating from that direction, too. President Xi has recently ordered Chinese banks to assess their potential exposure to US sanctions and also directed Chinese nationals overseas to divest themselves of whatever assets they are holding.(16) This may simply be prudence, as the US has lead the charge in peremptorily seizing any Russian asset it can get its hands on, whether state owned or private, and might be expected to do the same if China also displeased them in some way. But there are also reports of Chinese citizens being prevented from leaving the country and bank officials have been instructed to report any attempts to move money out of the country. The economy appears to be in dire straits, too.(17)
Additionally, they are deepening ties with Russia and have been hoarding grain for the past year. And, as predicted, America's shambles of a withdrawal from Afghanistan has emboldened her enemies. Iran and North Korea are up to mischief again (18)(19) and China itself has been harassing Taiwan and US bases in Japan with fighter jets and bombers.(20) There is, too, the small matter of the leak of an audio recording of a military/civilian planning meeting, discussing the detailed logistical requirements for an upcoming invasion of Taiwan.(20)(21) It seems to be a genuine recording.
Just to put the cherry on top, Biden went to Japan last week and, once again, proceeded to put his foot in his mouth by declaring that the US will intervene militarily to defend Taiwan. China's response was to conduct naval live firing drills off the Taiwanese coast.(22) Naturally, US officials then tried to walk back his comments, but perhaps the whole thing was just one more charade; an effective way of riling up the Chinese whilst later claiming that they misspoke. In any event, that's another potential war that's simmering away nicely. However, if a conflict ignites in the China Sea, I would work on the assumption that all is not what it seems. There is more likelihood of US-Sino collusion that there is of genuine emnity.
Perhaps, in addition to a war, a soupçon of domestic unrest might be added to the blend. Another mass shooting, perhaps. Another white supremacist killing black people or an unhinged teen killing schoolkids? There are disturbing facets to both of those recent tragedies.(23)(24) In a country increasingly wracked with such events, how many times does someone with mental health problems need to say that their future plans involve murder -suicide before they are taken seriously? And why is nobody interested in how an unemployed 18 year old managed to pay for $9,000 worth of firearms on a debit card?
The Biden administration is allegedly bracing itself for a summer of violence already, assuming that the Supreme Court follows through on its decision to overturn federal abortion law in Roe v Wade. Threats have already been made to burn down or storm the Supreme Court. Naturally, because these threats are being made by the Left, they do not constitute extremism, according to the Department of Homeland Security:
"The mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics does not constitute domestic violent extremism or illegal activity and is constitutionally protected.”(25)
This is a bald-faced lie, but no matter. It seems that specific threats of violence are protected, but questioning regime narrative on any subject is misinformation that must be punished. The administration abandoned any pretense of an impartial application of justice long ago. But, by once again bending the knee to violent activists, Biden and his lackeys are tacitly encouraging a repeat of the summer of 2020. Lest we forget, that resulted in over $1 billion in paid insurance claims and a number of deaths.(26)
As I hope you can see, there are any number of ways that the administration can grant itself emergency powers; from invoking the long standing hoax that is the climate crisis, engineering shortages of food and energy, encouraging civil unrest or waging unnecessary wars. It all comes down to whether you think that the globalists in power in Washington as merely incompetent ideologues, or whether there is method in their madness. I believe there is an obvious pattern to their actions and that it is consistent with their character. It also facilitates what needs to be done to avoid their inevitable wipe-out in November. If they are to retain their hegemony, the best (and perhaps only) way to do so would be to declare martial law and suspend elections.
Ask yourselves this; if I'm right, and they are manufacturing crises, what is the overall plan? Would it make sense for them to do all this and then, when the inevitable consequences of their policies condemn to an electoral savaging, simply walk away? Do they even seem to be preparing for the mid-terms? Or do they seem to be doing their best to make matters worse on all fronts? And, given their manifest authoritarian tendencies, do you think that they will be able to resist using powers that actually exist? Especially when they have already demonstrated, during the 'pandemic', that they will walk all over their citizens' rights illegally? I just cannot see it.
The Covid lock-downs required the active participation of the states and most complied – but not all. But why request when you can coerce? Coercion is much more reliable and much more appropriate. Things are moving quickly now and there is no suggestion that the pace will slacken. Time is short and they cannot countenance defeat. In fact, it would be wrong to lose, because they are in the right and the opposition, by definition, is evil. Evil cannot be allowed to triumph. And, be mindful. Where America goes, the rest of the West tends to follow.
(2) Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332, 348 (1917)
(3) National Security Presidential Directive 51 & National Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20: National Continuity Policy