The states formerly had their own sovereign powers. Now it is the agencies.
We have pointed out before that virtually every agency of the Federal Government has its own armed policy force. Even the Federal Reserve has heavily armed storm troopers at the ready. This is particularly scary since the Fed pays for its storm troopers with money created out of thin air, with no oversight or budget control by Congress.
Trump now asks how much money the State Department is donating to environmental organizations. Well, I am an environmentalist myself. I support most of these organizations and their mission. But why are any agencies of the federal government supporting (buying influence with) them? And why are these organizations in some cases responding with partisan political support? And it isn’t only the State Department and it isn’t only environmental organizations.
We are supposed to have a division of powers within the federal government, but the agencies set up during the Roosevelt administration and since possess executive, legislative, prosecutorial, judicial, and police powers all in one. This is clearly a violation of the Constitution. One of the favorite tactics of many of these agencies is to bring charges against an individual or organization knowing that resistance is nearly futile. The victim can go to court, but the agencies have unlimited legal budgets, and can just keep the case going until the victim runs out of funds. At that point, a “settlement” may be offered in which the surrendering party agrees to hire “consultants” at huge fees for years of oversight, “consultants” who just happen to be former agency employees.
The sovereign powers of the states are supposed to be another check of federal power, along with the division of powers doctrine. But to believe in any state or even regional rights is apparently enough to merit being called a “racist.” In an earlier post, I pointed out that the much excoriated McCarthyism of the early 1950’s has now been revived, this time by the left, but instead of calling anyone you disagree with a “Commie,” you substitute “racist,” “sexist,” or some version of the phobes e.g. “Islamaphobe.” Another example: the New York Times says that the electoral college, which protects the influence of smaller states, was part of the “original sin” of our country, which of course refers, yet again, to racism. So please don’t disagree with the New York Times because that would be, yes, a “racist” thing to do.