Biden Takes Action to Prevent Potential Trump Purge of the Deep State

Hey, welcome to Crossroads folks. There is a battle taking place for the future of the deep state because Donald Trump is saying he gets back into office, he's going to fire them and Joe Biden now is trying to make sure that does not happen by changing some of the laws. Now look, if Donald J Trump wins the presidency this year, he's saying that he will fire roughly maybe 50,000 individuals who we would call the deep state. And really this is because of a possible change to rules that were made to the Office of Personnel Management that would allow a president to fire people who otherwise would be part of a permanent bureaucracy. You normally cannot get rid of them. But there is now a battle taking place over these rules. The Biden administration, they have recently undone the Trump era changes in a bid to protect these unelected officials who we would call the deep state. But even with this move, it can potentially be rolled back, placing the so-called deep state on pretty unstable ground. Let me explain folks. AP News said the government's chief human resources agency, the Office of Personnel Management, issued a new rule on Thursday just recently, making it harder to fire thousands of federal employees, hoping to head off former President Donald Trump's promises to radically remake the workforce along ideological lines that they claim if he wins back the White House in November. They say the Office of Personnel Management regulations will bar career civil servants from being reclassified as political appointees or as other at-will workers who are more easily dismissed from their jobs. They know as well that it comes in response to a Schedule F. And that's the big one folks. F is in fired. And that's an executive order Trump issued in 2020 that sought to allow for reclassifying tens of thousands of the 2.2 million federal employees, and thus reduce their job security protections. In other words, folks, you have a permanent bureaucracy in America. Individuals who remain in power regardless of who's president, regardless of who we elect, and so on. And as we have given more power to agencies in the United States, what we call the administrative state, where government agencies can rule by decree, not through the legislative process, these individuals have gained really expansive power. You can't get rid of them. They're not elected. When they do things against the American people, there's nothing to hold them to account. And so these individuals are becoming like, almost like an unelected permanent government. And there's nothing you can do to get rid of them. Donald Trump, through an executive order, changed some of the laws at OPM, Office of Personnel Management, which manages, of course, government employees, kind of like the federal government's human resources department, and made it so the president can fire these people by changing basically how their jobs are classified. He can make it so that a president can, for example, change the leadership of these organizations. The president can deem a person unfit for their job and remove them, just as you would any other kind of appointee position. Because, as you know, when a president comes into office, oftentimes they come in with their own cabinet, they appoint new officials, and they get rid of the old ones. There's nothing the old ones can do. They can't sue or anything else like that, because that is part of our process of a change of power of government. Now, what is happening is that, and I'll get into the administrative state and how this seems to work a bit more as we go further into this episode, but what is happening now is that they don't want to get rid of those folks. And so the Biden administration has tried to roll back and change the rules on Trump's executive order with that. Keep in mind, it's not hard. An executive order is unstable to an extent. An executive order can be just dismissed by a president. It's easy to do. But an executive order can be brought back very easily. And so back to this article, they're saying that President Joe Biden nullified Schedule F upon taking office. He got rid of it. But if Trump were to revive it during a second administration, which he could, it's an executive order, it says he could dramatically increase the around 4,000 federal employees who are considered political appointees and typically change with each new president. In other words, right now, the president can remove about 4,000 people when he comes into office. If Trump changed this, he could pretty much remove all of them. And we could have something like Malay in Argentina, where he's the president in Argentina, where he has the chainsaw and he's like, I will reduce the government. Trump can do something like that where, again, we fire most of the unelected bureaucrats, get rid of a lot of the fat on government, and make ourselves, let's say, able to pay off our federal debt maybe or something like that. Here's more on this from Just the News explaining a bit further. Just the News explained it by saying the Biden administration recently implemented a new rule that would make it difficult or more difficult to fire federal employees. They say as well on Thursday, the Office of Personal Management issued a rule that nonpartisan career civil servants with protected status, you normally cannot get rid of them, will not be able to have that status taken away. That's, of course, what the Biden administration is doing. But I should add, it's all very shaky. This is sandcastles, folks, sandcastles that can change as soon as the tide comes in. Now, as a bit of background, again, this ties to one of the major policies that Trump is You might remember Trump has a government in waiting. This is being done in conjunction with the Trump 2025 agenda, as they're calling it, a program through the Heritage Foundation, where they have all of his appointees waiting in the wings to come back into office. And when they do, they're going to do what Trump did not do last time. When Trump came into office in 2016, and this was one of the big criticisms against him of a lot of people who even supported him, but people who just understood how government works, is that last time when Trump came into office, he did not bring a cabinet with him. He did not replace a lot of the officials who were there. And some would argue that because he did not replace a lot of these officials, they were acting against them through the roles that they maintained. And we did witness that many of the officials who Trump kept in the wings ended up turning on him. They betrayed him almost to almost to a tee, almost every one of them. In fact, they betrayed the president of the United States, right? They turned against Trump. They were involved in the investigations against him. They were involved in the Trump Russia hoax. They were involved in what I would call an attempted coup d'etat, a palace coup, whereby they falsified evidence, used falsified evidence to investigate the president, appointed a special counsel to investigate the president, used controlled media to make the entire country believe the president was a Russian agent, all based on the premise of false information on the Trump Russia hoax, which had been financed by the Clinton campaign of the Democratic Party. This is all known now. But they used that to try to remove the president from office. And many of these unelected bureaucrats and others who, again, just Trump didn't replace, were involved with that scandal. Now, that being the case, what Trump currently has in place is a system to, again, fire all those people and bring his new cabinet in. The big difference, though, is it's not just the appointees. It's not just those 4,000. There's also people at the heads of all the different agencies, similar leadership positions all through the government. And these individuals normally cannot be fired, they cannot be removed because they're not appointees, and there's other classifications on the nature of their jobs. You cannot get rid of them. And so they represent a type of government that is there regardless of who is in power. What Trump has done now, and tried to do, and Biden's trying to roll back, is made it so they can be removed. And so that government in waiting, if Trump comes back in, can replace not just those 4,000 individuals, but also all those people in the wings who represent a different type of government than maybe what Trump and his supporters want. In other words, depending on which side of the aisle you're on, this is good or horrible, right? You could argue already these individuals might represent the type of government of the Bush-era Republicans and the Clinton-era Democrats, the permanent bureaucracy, the deep state, as many people call them. Individuals who represent a different type of government than the one that is coming in, and who would very likely oppose Trump from within the government were he to become president yet again, which is of course the case where Biden is protecting them, to try and make sure that does not happen. Now back to just the news, they say normally they can't just be fired by the president. And since they're mostly unelected officials, and thanks to union protections, and other factors when it comes to government jobs, it's typically very hard to remove them. These are people who are not really accountable to anybody. And the result is, they say, that they become a pseudo-permanent government, not accountable to American voters, and relatively immune to policies or positions of elected leaders, like the president. And they note that because of this, they get framed as a type of permanent bureaucracy, a deep state, that cannot really be held to account, and typically maintains its power, regardless of who is elected to lead the country. And as a segment of the government workforce has been able to hold onto authority, combined with the regulatory state, and the gradual expansion of government power within the agencies, this segment of unelected officials has slowly gained significant power over the United States government, folks. And of course, that's where Trump's new plan comes into play. Trump wasn't just talking about firing the 4,000 people, which he didn't do last time, right? Replacing the people who he can appoint. He wasn't just talking about doing that. Last time when he was in office, he didn't do that, really. He kept a lot of them. Not only now is he talking about firing those, the number going around, that people he is possibly gonna fire, is about 50,000. Not 4,000, 50,000. And really, this is from a couple years ago, in July of 2022. Let me show you just one of the articles on it. Government executive said, in 2022, former president Donald Trump on Tuesday seemed to endorse a recently unveiled plan by a cadre of his former staffers to strip tens of thousands of federal workers of their civil protections and fire them at will under the next Republican administration. They note, Trump spoke at the time on Tuesday, this is 2022, at an event hosted by the America First Policy Institute, a think tank founded by former staffers in his administration. They note that his speech came on the heels of an Axios report that last week at the time, that former White House aides are planning to revive the controversial Schedule F. There's the name again, folks. F as in fired, fire the deep state. It's a job classification system, they say, that would take current federal workers in policy related positions out of the competitive service, stripping them of civil service protections and making them effectively at will employees. You can fire them. They note that Schedule F was authorized via executive order in October of 2020 when Trump was president, by the way, meaning Trump did it. But the Trump administration failed to implement the measure before he left office in January of 2021, probably because Trump didn't think it could be removed. It was one of President Biden's first acts as president to rescind the edict. And he said, this is the quote here. We need to make it much easier to fire rogue bureaucrats who are deliberately undermining democracy or at minimum, just want to keep their jobs, Trump said. They want to hold onto their jobs. Congress should pass historic reforms, empowering the president to ensure that any bureaucrat who is corrupt, incompetent, or unnecessary for the job can be told, did you hear this? You're fired. Get out. You're fired. You have to do it, deep state. And they say, Trump said as well, Washington will be an entirely different place without the deep state. And notes that those involved in the efforts to revive Schedule F told government executive last week that they have identified 50,000 federal employees who could be fired under the proposed new authority, although they hope to fire only a fraction of that total to create a chilling effect to keep the rest of them in line. And they note as well, the Schedule F was reviled by members of both parties as well as good government groups, academics and federal employee unions. Keep in mind this publication is more in favor of big government, it seems. And they note that when it was unveiled in 2020, but lawmakers failed to act at the time to prevent its implementation with Republicans and some members of Democratic leadership concluding it would go away once Trump left office, which it did. Some experts warned it would return in some form with the next Republican administration, which it probably will. Now, as this debate comes around yet again, right? The big corporate media, guess what they're doing? Well, they're coming out to defend the unelected leadership of this country. The corporate media are defending the deep state openly. I'll be talking more about this though after a quick word from our sponsor. Experts agree one of the best ways to protect against financial uncertainty is to diversify your portfolio. Learn how physical gold and silver can secure your retirement funds from today's economic challenges with a gold IRA from American Hartford Gold. You can safeguard your wealth with no penalties or taxes when you transfer your current qualifying retirement accounts. Call now and our precious metals specialists will send you a free information kit, no cost or obligation. American Hartford Gold, a trusted industry leader with an A plus from the Better Business Bureau has a five star rating from thousands of happy clients. Whether you are getting physical precious metals in a gold IRA or delivered to your doorstep, we offer only the highest quality gold and silver for your peace of mind. We also offer a no fee buyback commitment, a low price guarantee along with free shipping and free insurance. So don't wait, call the number on your screen today and secure your financial future. Hey, welcome back folks. The big corporate media are running cover for the deep state. We're trying to support them as all this takes place. Now look, as this debate comes about yet again, you're going to be hearing a lot more of it over the next year probably. The big corporate media, the other unelected bureaucrats, are coming out to defend the unelected leadership of this country. And right around the time that the Biden administration is changing laws in an effort to protect the deep state, guess who? New York Times put out this very, very strange article and video, by the way. This is New York Times, folks. They have a big propaganda video that goes alongside this article, by the way. And they say, as America closes in on a major election, mistrust is brewing around the mysterious government entity that's now denounced in scary sounding terms, the deep state and the swamp. What do those words even mean? Who exactly do they describe? New York Times then goes into this description. The deep state is people like you and I. They stay up late watching Star Trek reruns and so on, right? And then they continue by saying, when we hear deep state, instead of recoiling, we should rally. We should think about the workers, otherwise known as our public servants. They don't really serve us if they are not elected and they can't be removed, but beside that point, they continue saying, the everyday superheroes who wake up ready to dedicate their careers and their lives to serving us. These are the Americans we employ. Even though their work is often invisible, it makes our lives better. The invisible government, folks, the superheroes acting for us, even if we don't support them or vote for them. But they add, if Donald Trump is reelected in an act scheduled left, that could change. He would have the power to eviscerate the so-called deep state and replace our public servants with people who work for him, not us. I would say it depends on who you describe as him. Maybe that's Trump and the half the country who voted for him last time, or probably a lot more than that, frankly. If it's, again, us, meaning the unelected bureaucrats and the establishment that the New York Times seems to have come to represent, that represents, of course, a different type of government and one that maybe should be held accountable. One of the issues I would personally raise, personally, is that we live in a country where we're supposed to be able to elect our leaders and the administrative state, the expanding powers within federal agencies, it's something that was not part of the original American system. Government agencies can create rules bypassing the legislative process, meaning we're living under rules, not laws. Laws normally have to, again, go through Congress. You need Congress to agree on it. The president has to sign off on it. That's how laws are normally created. But because federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or others can just make up rules on a whim and then implement these, the American people have to live by a different set of standards that does not go through the normal legislative process. And because you have an expansive program whereby agencies can grow and expand, especially as they create more of these rules, basically, through what we call the administrative state, I call it legislative groups, they're not really legislations. We find ourselves living under the thumb of an unelected leadership that has the power of the federal government. They're not elected. They cannot be removed. They're not being held accountable. And even though they can dictate our lives, our educations, the way we farm, everything, there's nothing making sure that they're actually representing the American people through our normal process of elections and accountability. And so I would question whether these people actually do represent the American people. And if, for example, through the votes of the Americans choosing who would leave the country and allowing that individual, whoever it may be, to replace that permanent leadership and to change the nature of the permanent bureaucracy, does that not represent a type of democracy as well? Again, a republic, which is what America is, we are not a democracy. A republic is defined as what you call representative democracy. We elect the people to represent us in the democratic process. And if, for example, the people we elect are no longer representing us, or even if they're bypassing that process entirely, that's not a democracy. That's not a republic. That's a tyranny. That is a tyranny run by unelected bureaucrats. That is not what we have as a normal system of government. And so I would argue, ironically, that what Trump is doing is more in line with actual democracy and the actual nature of a republic being representative democracy than this type of permanent dictatorship that these other individuals seem to be trying to defend. A permanent dictatorship, I assume they're only defending because the individuals they're trying to defend align with only one side of the political aisle, it seems. Align with only one subset of a political party. They do not represent all of us. Meaning, again, these are not people who represent all of Americans. They represent a certain subset of an agenda or an ideology. And again, that does raise the question, should they be removed? What holds them to account if they become corrupt as Trump is raising? What holds them to account if they misuse their power, if they do things that are abusive to the American people? Should they not be held to account if they do that? And should it be the case that we have no ability to fire them, even if they abuse their positions of power? Even if, for example, they engage in things that are harmful to the American people? Even if they expand their power through the use of the administrative state and become essentially like little dictators all throughout the country? Should we not have a system of accountability for those individuals? That is the real question that is being raised here. Now, I'd note that the New York Times, while defending the deep state, go figure, that's New York Times for you. The New York Times even had a video trying to promote the deep state. This thing is like 100% ridiculous propaganda. If you want to watch it, if you can stomach it, this is 100% propaganda. And they focus by basically trying to, you know, minimize the issue, showing these individuals as the heroes of the unelected bureaucrats, right? But look, this is of course the same New York Times that seems to have an unhealthy love for tyrannical power in general, like the Chinese Communist Party, like the Soviet Union, like the Nazis when they helped cover up the Holocaust before all of this. This is the same New York Times that ran a big puff piece trying to defend the censorship system of government agencies colluding with big tech to censor Americans, which just happened by the way. And they were likewise criticized for this. Let me show you some of this, just to give a demonstration. This is newsbusters on what New York Times had done while they're trying to defend, New York Times trying to defend how basically the federal government is colluding with massive corporations to censor Americans. The news outlet, you would normally think journalists would be all for freedom of speech. For some reason they're not. And here's what newsbusters said. They said the New York Times effectively wrote what amounted to a 3,984 word eulogy for the death of the dystopian thought police. The Times mourned that former President Donald Trump's allies are winning the war over disinformation. And the newspaper, New York Times, acting like a free speech gatekeeper, bemoaned that Trump and free speech absolutists have successfully stymied the effort to filter election lies online. New York Times is unhappy, it seems, that again, they can't have American people censored and that their ridiculous fake narratives can't be questioned, basically, as far as I see it. But they know, newsbusters says, the same outlet that's whining about disinformation and election lies is the one that uses its own platform to gaslight struggling Americans on how President Biden's inflation economy looks sunny. New York Times, right? But who's keeping track, they say. The disgruntled publication, New York Times, attempted to justify big tech's collusion, whipped out the Capitol Hill riot on January 6, 2021, to justify government officials jawboning big tech platforms to censor speech. The newspaper dubbed the dystopian collusion a quote, grand swell built in Washington to rein in the onslaught of lies that had fueled the assault on the peaceful transfer of power. Yeah, right. Now look, journalists used to be the main advocates for free speech. That's how it used to be. Because remember, folks, in the Constitution, freedom of speech is written right alongside the freedom of the press and freedom of belief. Freedom of speech is the backbone of the American media. Freedom of speech, our ability to criticize elected leadership, that was not something you had in many parts of the world at the time of the founding of the United States of America. That was something that was relatively novel. If you criticize the king, they'd probably kill you for it. But of course, in America, we wanted the ability to criticize the king. We wanted the ability to have debates. The very basis, again, of elected government is people need to see the good and the bad. We need to show you what is right and what is wrong. We need to have debates. We need to have opinions. Because if we're going to be people smart enough to go and cast our votes and decide who leads this country, the very nature of elected government is an informed public, an informed public capable of criticizing things they don't like. If you remove the process through which we can criticize things we don't like, then what are we? We're no longer a system of government with normal elected leadership. We are a dictatorship maintained through thought control. And of course, that seems to be what these corrupt, disgusting news outlets, the big corporate media are trying to defend. A thought control system. The gatekeepers of free speech masquerading as news outlets, trying to censor not only their political enemies, but even their business competitors, and bemoaning when a giant corporate government collusion system has its powers rolled back so they can no longer censor normal Americans. Look folks, when did it happen that government working with mega corporations, these big tech companies, to censor Americans and even bury news stories went from being seen as a bad thing to a good thing by some of these disgusting giant corporate news outlets that I would say represent that same type of corporate interest. I personally think it says a lot about them, frankly, and frankly as well. They seem to support censorship because it makes it harder for their business competitors to compete against them. It changes the ground of the fight. It makes it so that guys like me are fighting with one hand tied behind our back, while these guys, you know, are able to like fight two or three at a time, right? They have their buddies fighting alongside them. They can hold our arms back while the other one punches us, and we're still showing them. We're still taking to the ropes, right? What they're doing is they're trying to shut down alternative voices. And I'd note, despite that, they're still dying. The corporate media are still losing readership. They're still losing subscribers. They're still failing, despite the rigged game that they're playing in. But otherwise, they seem to think that government censorship, working with massive corporations, isn't something that will seemingly affect them. And you have to ask, why is that? Why do they not seem to believe that government censorship is going to affect them? Maybe it's because they believe that they're defending a system that supports their own interests, meaning their business interests, meaning a corrupt collusion between the new propagandists, the permanent bureaucracy, and giant megacorporations who believe they've become the gatekeepers of free speech. Frankly, I would like to know why they think it would not affect them, folks. Now, that being said, speaking of censorship and the violations of the Constitution, there's a debate right now over FISA, Section 702, the backdoor in government spying operations that allows for warrantless surveillance of Americans, something I would say violates the Constitution in very clear means, but is being allowed again for anti-terrorism investigations. I'll be talking about this though only on Epic TV, so those of you on YouTube, Facebook, Rumble, Twitter, come and join us on Epic TV. The link is in the description below. You'll get access to the rest of my episode, the live Q&As, you can ask questions on the show, and our exclusive features and documentaries, including the one I did recently on the Chinese Communist Party secret biolab that was discovered in California, folks. We exposed how the Chinese Communist Party, through ties, through individuals, and so on, had a secret biolab running out of a farming town in California where they found humanized mice, vials labeled with all kinds of random diseases, a fridge with vials of unknown liquids with a piece of paper that said Ebola on it, right here in the United States in Reedley County with ties to Chinese Communist Party operatives. This is just one example of the type of reporting you can find on Epic TV, which frankly I don't think you can find in many other places. I did an in-depth investigation into that particular story, let me show you a trailer for that special, and if you want to watch it, link is in the description. Major gaps in regulations are allowing clandestine labs like the one in Reedley to operate. Chinese laboratories just can't help themselves. The more you look into it, the crazier it gets. I would ask, oh, what are you doing with the mice? Oh, well, we don't actually do that, it's someone else that does the experiment. If the Chinese Communist Party wants to start a lab in the United States, there's no American law to stop them from doing it.