(Wikimedia Commons)
Don't get upset at "the United States." The regime is not the United States. Save your upset for your children and your spouse.
A version of this article was posted on Substack.
There are a lot of upset people out there. They are upset with the regime, which is understandable. But these people generally refer to the actions of the regime as though they were the actions of their United States Government, or even the actions of the United States.
The actions that we have seen since January 20, 2025 are not actions of the United States. If this did not become clear enough after the regime's budget of death passed the senate and house, here are three relatively brief examples that illustrate that the actions of the regime are not the actions of the United States.
First, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor.
First, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor. It says on their website, which of course is now run by the regime, that this Bureau is independent. That is not exactly true.
I looked at the roster of personnel at the BLS as it's called, so you wouldn't have to, as the saying goes. During the Second American Apocalypse that we are living through now, or trying to, the Bureau is run by many people who were installed during the First American Apocalypse.
Further, this supposedly independent Bureau "works closely with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ... to collect trade and transportation data." Resume Valley Report titled How Accurate Are the Projections of the Labor Statistics?, online July 6, 2025, at https://www.resumevalley.com/how-accurate-are-the-projections-of-the-labor-statistics/.
In my research, I also came across reports that the Department of Labor might be "cooking the books," meaning publishing false figures. On closer examination, these reports were repeating that claim about Barack Obama! Barack Obama left office sometime on January 20, 2017 before the First American Apocalypse took over.
None of this generates trust or respect for the current Department of Labor. It is certainly not the Department it used to be, so it is a big mistake to treat it as though it is still what it used to be.
Second, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice is not a department of justice any more; in fact, it isn't even the civil division any longer.
On June 11, 2025 the current Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice issued a MEMORANDUM directed to "All Civil Division Employees." The Memo said a number of things, so it would be good to read it for yourself to see what they intend for you. You can find it on the doj website: https://www.justice.gov/civil/media/1404046/dl?inline.
For nearly one page of this four-page Memo, beginning on page number 3, they focused on "radical gender experimentation." Lest you think that they only have a harmless fetish, their Memorandum continues: "The Civil Division will use all available resources to prioritize investigations of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other appropriate entities consistent with these directives."
They do not have the authority. They are "investigating" anyway. What do "investigations" of your doctors, your hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies from which you buy your prescribed drugs, "and other appropriate entities" actually involve, what do they mean?
The part of this Memo that the press paid attention to, begins on page 3 and goes on to the end. For a full page and roughly an additional third of a page, the Civil Division of DOJ is similarly and deliberately vague about what their Memo calls "Prioritizing Denaturalization." The first priority on the list, on page 4, consists of cases against "individuals who pose a potential danger to national security." This category of individuals includes "those with a nexus to terrorism."
We have seen that this regime treats all the people it kidnaps like the people are dangerous to the regime's security.
We have also heard lawyers and other people paid by this regime say that everyone abducted has "a nexus to terrorism." They even said that about a student walking alone on the street whom they surrounded with at least 6 people, some masked, and at least some armed because, I guess, the student might be dangerous to them.
She was a co-author of an op-ed in a student newspaper.
This is not your mother's and father's department of justice.
Third, there is ICE. There is always ICE now.
Third and finally, there is Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. ICE will get more money from the budget of death that this regime required, than the armed forces of many nations. I have also read, and you probably have as well, that after this budget of death, ICE will become the largest "law enforcement" agency in the country.
But ICE will not be the United States. In fact, many people have doubts that it is a "law enforcement" agency like, say, the FBI used to be.
I will conclude these three examples that illustrate how the current regime is not the United States, with this quote from the conservative or perhaps libertarian Cato Institute Blog:
ICE's deportation agenda is not what is being advertised to the American public. ICE is not interested in prioritizing public safety, yet it constantly pretends that anyone who objects to its tactics and priorities is defending violent criminals. But violent criminals are not ICE's primary focus. Indeed, it now has no focus altogether. That's the essence of mass deportation: It is indiscriminate, unfocused, and chaotic.
David J. Bier, 65 Percent of People Taken by ICE Had No Convictions, 93 Percent No Violent Convictions, CATO BLOG INSTITUTE (June 20, 2025), at https://www.cato.org/blog/65-people-taken-ice-had-no-convictions-93-no-violent-convictions.
Even the Cato Institute recognizes that this regime is not the United States.
We all should see them for what they are. Call them by their true names.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2025 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law? There's more on my Substack newsletter.
One Last Time ... (Today is the Deadline to Comment.)
As I wrote before, so one last time it's worth the asking for sure: Why don't you leave a Comment on the proposed Civil Service Rule on or before today, June 7? You still have time to affect the outcome. Go ahead, affect the outcome.
And here is a Comment I left yesterday. It may be different from the one you will leave today. That's okay. Go ahead and affect the outcome in your own words with your own thoughts.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management.
Docket ID: OPM-2025-0004.
RIN 3206-AO80.
This proposed rulemaking by the Office of Personnel Management is titled "Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service." OPM is not authorized to issue this proposed rule-making. To the contrary, OPM is prohibited by the governing statutes enacted by Congress from promulgating this proposed rule-making.
OPM's instant rule-making is at once both unauthorized, and contrary to OPM's rule-making authorization extended by Congress.
OPM is the creature of an Act of Congress. From its inception in 1978, OPM was required by Congress to abide by Congressionally required protections afforded by the laws enacted by Congress. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C.A. § 1103(a)(5)(A), providing that the Director of OPM's functions include "executing, administering, and enforcing (A) the civil service rules and regulations of the President and the Office and the laws governing the civil service" (emphasis added); and id., § 1103(b), which requires OPM when promulgating rules to follow notice and comment procedures established by Congress in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
In recognition of the obvious fact that from its inception, OPM has been required by Congress to promulgate rules governing the civil service which are subject to laws enacted by Congress, OPM seems to have followed the APA's notice and comment procedures here, in the instant proposed rule-making, for example.
The focus of OPM's instant proposed rule-making is on efficiency of the civil service. OPM has been authorized by Congressional statute to prescribe rules for agencies to take action "against an employee only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service." 5 U.S.C.A. § 7513(a). OPM acknowledges that this is the source of what OPM calls "[m]odern adverse action procedures for most Federal employees[.]" See 90 FR at 17199.
In addition, agencies have been authorized by Congress to "reduce in grade or remove an employee for unacceptable performance," subject to the provisions of Section 4303, 5 U.S.C.A. § 4303(a), which of course include its remaining subsections, id., § 4303(b)-(d).
But the rules which Congress has authorized OPM to prescribe must include notice and opportunity to be heard, standard Constitutional protections of Due Process, prescribed by Congress. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C.A. § 7513(b)-(e); 5 U.S.C.A. § 4303(b)-(d).
OPM's proposed rule-making does not afford Due Process protections of any kind. OPM does not follow either Section 7513 or Section 4303 in this regard. To the contrary, a clear result of finalizing OPM's Proposed Rule would be to circumvent the Due Process protections enacted by Congress in those Sections of the United States Code.
OPM's proposed rule-making does not offer any substitute for the Due Process protections afforded by Section 4303 or by Section 7513. To the contrary, in this Proposed Rule OPM would remove or eliminate those protections for the thousands of workers that would be covered by this rule-making should it be finalized.
For these reasons, whether they are taken separately or together, OPM's proposed rule should not be finalized and, if finalized, it should instead be rewritten or totally withdrawn, but if it is not rewritten or withdrawn, it should be declared arbitrary and capricious by every reviewing court and its enforcement should be enjoined.
OPM's instant rule-making is arbitrary and capricious for at least two reasons as a result: (1) failure to offer an alternative and (2) failure to tailor rules to address the narrowest possible focus without adversely affecting employee rights.
As noted, OPM's rule-making does not provide any substitutes of any kind for the notice and opportunity to be heard, i.e., Due Process, provisions extended by Congress to federal workers. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C.A. § 4303(b)-(d); 5 U.S.C.A. § 7513(b)-(e). This failure alone dooms the proposed rule-making. If the law is followed by OPM, then this proposed rule-making should not be finalized. If for some reason this proposed OPM rule-making is made final, the reviewing courts must declare it invalid and unauthorized.
Second, OPM's proposed rule-making for the same reasons does not address the narrowest possible focus of the concerns OPM expresses in it, without adversely affecting employee rights by its proposed rule-making. In this case, OPM ultimately states its apparently foregone conclusion that efficiency of the federal civil service can only be improved by removing the Due Process protections established by Congress. This failure, too, dooms the proposed rule-making. If the law is followed by OPM, then this proposed rule-making should not be finalized. If for some reason this proposed OPM rule-making is made final, the reviewing courts must declare it invalid and unauthorized.
For all of the reasons expressed in this Comment, whether taken separately or together, OPM's proposed rule should not be finalized. It should instead be rewritten or simply withdrawn. If it is not rewritten or withdrawn, it should be declared arbitrary and capricious by every reviewing court and its enforcement should be enjoined.
Thank you for your consideration.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2025 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law? Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter.
Posted by Dennis Wall on June 07, 2025 at 09:25 AM in "By What Authority?", Comments to Proposed Rules Changes, Rules and regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tags: #ArbitraryAndCapricious, #CivilService, #DueProcess, #OPM, #Protections, #Rule-Making