The director of the Social Security Administration actually said, with actual words, that he’d shut down the agency if he did not get clarity from a judge.
Before I get to what the judge said, let that sink in.
The man in charge of Social Security said the door is now open to stopping payments to scores of millions of elderly people if he did not get something that he wants from some person whom he dislikes.
The man responsible said, in essence, that he is going to dare this person whom he dislikes to not do what he wants, and if she does not do that thing, he’s going to shut down Social Security, in the process almost certainly killing some of those scores of millions of people.
Do it.
Or the old man gets it.
This is what you say when you have no fear of voters, not only those of us who are working and paying into a system that may be the only guarantee of survival after we’re done working, but also of that class of voter that shows up for every election, from the president to the city hall comptroller. This is what you say when being held democratically accountable for your words and deeds is an afterthought, if even that.
This is also what you say when you’re dry-running the concept of a nefarious future plan, perhaps in this case, stealing from a gigantic pool of money that every working person has been paying into since they started working, then blaming the theft on some boogeyman.
What did the judge say? She said Elon Musk’s “DOGE” does not have rightful authority to access the computer systems of the Social Security Administration, which contain “personally identifiable information,” and ordered it to delete previously obtained files.
In reaction, Administrator Leland Dudek said the ruling was too vague. “Everything in this agency is PII,” he said. “Unless I get clarification, I’ll just start to shut it down. I don’t have much of a choice here.”
Friday was the second time he said this. The first time was Thursday.
The judge clarified herself, though she did not need to, as Dudek’s demand for clarity was based on a willful misreading of her order.
Even so, everything’s fine now, but also not fine, not fine at all, because the man responsible for Social Security has revealed himself to be a hostage-taker who is willing to endanger the lives of scores of millions of elderly people to get something in return, even the stupidest thing.
More generally, Dudek has revealed the mindset of the regime, which is to say, its criminal mindset, to wit: there’s nothing we can’t do, as it can be justified by the fact that no one is standing in our way. Not even the most reliable voters will stand in our way. We don’t fear them.
That the judge clarified herself is a case in point. She didn’t need to, but Dudek forced her, which means that future rulings are subject to whether the regime believes they are right. That makes the regime the final arbiter of the law. That leaves open the likelihood of it saying that whatever it does is “legal,” even if what it does is steal Social Security.
In light of this, we have wonder what some moderate Democrats are thinking, as only their party has the promise, politically, of standing in the regime’s way, thus reminding it of the price to be paid for even hinting at being willing to hold hostage scores of millions of elders.
US Senator Adam Schiff was on a late night TV show during which he said the return to power for the Democrats is rooted in their ability to convince a majority of Americans that they can “get shit done.”
Giving voice to the conventional wisdom among the Democrats, Schiff stands in contrast to what some are now calling a nascent tea party-like movement inside the party, perhaps best represented by New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was the main draw to a 30,000-person rally in Denver “against oligarchy.”
I have said “oligarchy” is poor messaging, but the point remains that AOC (as well as US Senator Bernie Sanders, who was also at the rally) can draw crowds this big because everything they say is a story. In that story, there are good guys and there are bad guys. There is no one else.
The good guys do not spend their time explaining why they are good guys. They do not ask imaginary referees for permission to fight the bad guys, because the bad guys are not just bad. They’re evil. The good guys know you can’t be reasonable with evil without becoming evil.
AOC and the energy she’s leading are focused on “oligarchy” right now, but it’s easy to imagine their focus being redirected to transparently evil-doers, such as the director of the Social Security Administration appearing to test-run a literally diabolical scheme to steal billions and billions and billions from everyone who is not very obscenely rich.
NOW READ: There's only one way out of this mess