The Democratic candidate for Virginia’s next lieutenant governor, Ghazala Firdous Hashmi, appears to believe that the United States Constitution is dead. During a recent campaign stop, Hashmi gave a speech in front of an upside-down American flag, a symbol of distress, accompanied by a makeshift tombstone that read, “RIP Constitution.”
Recently, I have debated professors from Harvard and Boston College over claims that we are in a “constitutional crisis.” Hashmi is apparently well past a crisis and is suggesting that the Constitution is somehow deceased.
She tells the crowd:“We have to fight. We are not going to concede this democracy to the efforts of tyranny. We are not going to concede the rights that we have in this country to protect every single citizen. We are going to fight. This is an act of civil disobedience that we are going to keep up and make sure that your voices continue throughout Virginia, all throughout the country.”
Hashmi is continuing the Democratic narrative that democracy is dying in America and tyranny is on the rise. It was the mantra before the last election when Republicans secured control of both houses and the White House. Despite that failure, Democrats are doubling down on rage rhetoric and unhinged claims.
Our constitutional system continues to function as it has through prior
“ages of rage.” The nation is divided, so less work tends to get done in Congress. In the meantime, the courts continue to address many of these controversies. The Trump Administration has won and lost cases in the federal system, including the Supreme Court.
Many of those declaring the death of democracy seem to primarily object to how the democratic process has worked. Past presidents, including Joe Biden, have violated the Constitution. Yet, these same figures did not declare a constitutional crisis or, in this case, a dead constitution.
However, telling supporters that the Constitution is dead and that tyranny is on the rise only serves to fuel the rage and political violence. Recently, the Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Abigail Spanberger, told supporters, “Let your rage fuel you.”
Now the woman running to serve as Spanberger’s Lieutenant Governor is telling people that the Constitution is dead and democracy is dying. Some will hear such inflammatory comments as a license to take extreme actions, including violence.
A few of today’s other news stories:
– Nation erupts in celebration as government finally shuts down
– Dems call for common-sense sombrero control
– NFL hoping to win back conservatives with Super Bowl performance by Spanish-speaking man in a dress
– Super Bowl halftime show to feature MS-13 backup dancers
– Hamas rejects deal to end genocide after learning it would require them to stop killing Jews
– UK prosecutes synagogue for provoking attach by being openly Jewish
– Pope condemns God for instituting death penalty
– Stephen Colbert unveils hilarious skit of dancing Tylenol pills
– Conservative family cancels Netflix for fifth time
– Sexist Pete Hegseth demands women be equal to men
– Pete Hegseth hires Hans, Franz to get generals into shape
– Researchers believe autism caused by trains being so gosh darn cool
– Mormons respond to attack by continuing to be amazingly kind to everyone
– Dems outraged by unprecedented political prosecutions of people not named Trump
– Supporters ask Gavin Newsom to stop doing meth before posting on social media
– Sad: man could have been profoundly moved by classic piece of literature if it had only contained a character of his exact race, sex, and socio-economic class
– Smart: man joins Mets so he can get whole October off every year
– Wife says she stayed up all night thinking about what you said about her overthinking things
– Consequences of government shutdown include: that department you’ve never heard of that does nothing for you will be furloughed (you can kiss the Commission on Overseas Native Fisheries goodbye); government workers will lose thousands of hours of sleep they would otherwise be getting at work; Rand Paul will be intolerably giddy; AOC will have to go back to bartending (but she doesn’t know how to make rum and Coke); instead of shopping online while working from home, government employees will have to shop online while furloughed at home; nobody will be able to unlock the restrooms at Yosemite National Park
LOL………………… nice
OMFK
She doesn’t know how to make a rum and coke, aka a Cuba Libre’, a free Cuban!
Too funny, the Puerto Rican Big booty Latina representative for the Democratic Socialists doesn’t know how to make a free Cuban…but she sure knows how to make Cuba Pobre’.
Hysterical. One might say that you had a transient flight of ideas but they’re all great!
NotSoOLd: Hope you had a peaceful and meaningful Yom Kipper. Thanks for the light humor. Reminded me of years ago, when I first became “of age” for alcohol, I tried to transition in as smoothly as possible while on a date, asking for a Roman Coke.
haha but notfunny. I meant Yom Kippur. please excuse typo
(now that I think about it, my unfortunate typo is even funnier, considering that kippers are a pretty common item in Jewish appetizers/cuisine. Maybe I should sell this line to the Babylon Bee?)
No worries, Lin.
There’s Yom Kippur, and then there’s: “Kipper – yum!”
You’re closer than you think. At least as most American Jews pronounce it, it sounds exactly like “kipper”. Spelling it with a U is closer to the original Hebrew, but it doesn’t reflect common usage.
Also, kippers are an English thing, not Jewish. Jews eat herring, but usually pickled or salted, not kippered.
The government shut down???
HIP HIP HURRRRRRRRAAAAYYYY!!!!
FINALLY, THE INFINITESIMAL GOVERNMENT OF THE AMERICAN FOUNDERS IS IMPLEMENTED!
Of note: The actual Americans in Utah DID NOT burn down a city after the assassination of an American leader, political activist, organizer, public figure, and Christian.
The Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Here’s are my questions: Pam Bondi recently was excoriated for using the term “hate speech.” She did not define the term. Can there be any question that rhetoric advocating hatred for Trump, whites, men, women, “boomers,” etc. has incited actual lawless action? What is the difference between Bondi’s term “hate speech” and the “rage rhetoric,” “unhinged claims,” and “inflammatory comments” that you acknowledge are being used to fuel rage and political violence? At what point, if every, does “hate speech” lose First Amendment protection under current law? Does the fact that mental illness is a serious, growing and unaddressed problem in the US. and that the Democrat Party encourages mental illnesses such as gender dysphoria and paranoia change that analysis? In other words, at what point do individuals who knowingly use speech to fuel rage and political violence among a growing segment of the US population that is clearly mentally ill lose First Amendment protection for that speech?
Two things come to mind: first, the word “imminent” is probably the key word in the Brandenburg case.
Second, there would have to be a law that the speech is violating. If the “hate speech” or “rage rhetoric” is demonstrably harmful but there is no law on the books that it violates, it’s still legal.
I think you, like most non-lawyers and many lawyers, do not understand the distinction between Constitutional (i.e., common) law and statutory law. Which is why I was directing my questions at Professor Turley. But thanks for your input!
Statutory law is irrelevant in this discussion. It is a 1St A issue and imminent is the controlling language in the unanimous decision.
And the Judiciary Act of 1789 and Roe v. Wade were unconstitutional.
Brandenburg unconstitutionally denied constitutional rights.
The judge had no power to amend the Constitution or amend by “interpretation,” which is nowhere to be found in that document.
“[The] constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation…”
Stop right there because after that is where the judge began illicitly denying the constitutional freedom of speech.
No matter how great the desire to act with omnipotence, constitutional rights may not be denied.
The crime begins at the point of bodily injury or property damage.
Anonymous – I’m a lawyer, but clearly you’re not since you think Constitutional law is the same as common law. They’re not the same.
Plus, what I said was correct. For example, why would you deny that the word “imminent” – which you yourself used in summarizing Brandenburg’s holding – is an important qualifier? And why would you deny that speech which is not prohibited by statute is permitted? What part did you not understand?
Your reaction seems to be along the lines of, “I’m going to disagree with you even though you are correct, I just feel like being disagreeable today.”
Well, then please tell us all how Supreme Court opinions interpreting the Constitution differ from common law (as opposed to statutory law — “a law” and “on the books” is what how you phrased it, perhaps inartfully since you were probably so intent on throwing shade on other all commenters that you couldn’t be bothered to actually think about what you were saying). Also, I did not deny that the word “imminent” was an important qualifier in the Brandenburg holding. In fact, that is exactly what my questions were designed to get at. You apparently have too much time on your hands. Good luck to you in quest for online recognition!
Difficult but we are not England.
Are you referencing the the recent murder of Iryna on a train and the murderer saying I killed that white woman as hate speech? Perhaps hate crime? Hate is one reason or the cause of murder, yes.
*. Are you asking if hate can be contrived by speech as in the hate contrived in nazi Germany causing the Jewish holocaust? Yes, speech can contrived hate and can manipulate people psychologically. It’s used everyday in advertising. We all want eagle brand jeans. They come with Sydney sweeney. How can anyone deny this?
There are three key elements of incitement, ALL of which must be satisfied for it to be unprotected by the constitution. The speech must be both (1) subjectively intended and (2) objectively likely to cause the audience to (3) imminently commit a crime. That essentially means incitement is defined as speech that whips its audience up into such a frenzy that it temporarily robs them of free choice and turns them into robots, causing them to commit crimes completely at the speaker’s behest, without having considered it or made any decision of their own. Any speech that merely advocates crime, but leaves its audience free to decide for themselves whether to act on it, is not incitement and is absolutely protected.
OT, Scotus grants review in a 2nd Amendment case:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/supreme-court-takes-case-over-140539094.html
It would be a good thing for SCOTUS to overturn the Hawaii restriction, but unlike many recent 2A cases, the application to other jurisdictions will be pretty minimal, as there are not many states that do likewise. Even NJ, with its myriad 2A infringements, allows carry on private property made accessible to the public, unless it runs afoul of one of the many other restrictions.
he Democrat voice is very good about presenting the same talking point at the same time. Unfortunately, the current strategy is to stoke the social fire for violence . . . and only violence.
Pretty interesting word choice considering a Republican just set actual fire to a church and inflicted violence upon a harmless group of Mormons during services.
He was not a Republican.
He was a veteran with PTSD that like ALL of these other incidents is committed by a mentally or emotionally disturbed person. Based on the stats it appears that the gender dysphoria crowd takes the win with the carnage of war survivors a second. Based on that, it appears that the gender-benders follow the radical left Democratic ideology.
The anony-moron’s use of “Republican” is a transparent attempt at pushing the “both sides” canard.
No it shows how asinine attributing an individual’s actions to their political party is.
Of course I don’t think that all Republicans are X, Y, or Z. Nor do I think rhetoric that both you and Turley routinely use – attributing all sorts of societal ills to the Democratic boogeyman – are anything more than a “transparent attempt” at pushing a fake worldview that blue and red masterminds are responsible for all actions taken by individuals who support a certain party.
Turley and YOU are fueling the age of rage. That you didn’t understand this is troubling.
Yo, anonymous both-sides-er:
– tell me the last time a conservative extremist assassinated a liberal commentator engaging in reasoned dialogue on a college campus,
– tell me the last time conservatives celebrated the assassination of a liberal with thousands of gleeful social media posts containing slanders and lies
– tell me the last time conservatives burned down 20 cities, causing 25 deaths and billions in property damage in reaction to one of their own getting killed by the police
– tell me the last time conservatives shut down liberal speakers on college campus
– tell me the last time conservatives occupied college campuses and wouldn’t let anyone of a certain religion pass through or go to class, or terrorized people of that religion on libraries by banging on windows
– tell me the last time conservatives occupied university buildings, vandalized them, and assaulted security guards and janitors inside
– tell me the last time a conservative gunned down a health insurance CEO in cold blood
– tell me the last time conservatives made a folk hero out of a murderer and thereby inspired more murders
– tell me the last time conservatives firebombed car dealerships and vandalized cars from a company whose CEO was trying to reduce government waste, fraud, and abuse
You’re promoting the “both sides” lie, but can you name the above incidents, anonymous troll? No, because they don’t exist.
Great reply. I copied it just in case I get the energy to tag it to one of these ill-informed, factless, and shallow thinkers who spew brain-dead comments every time they open their overused mouths. I skip over anonymous, but one can’t avoid all of them.
The difference is that in all the cases of left-wing violence we talk about, the attacker was not just a Democrat but was motivated by his Democrat politics. These Democrat attackers may not be 100% sane, but they’re not so round the bend that they don’t choose their targets for their politics.
By contrast, you can’t find even one case of a Republican attacking anyone for political reasons. Even if this Michigan person was a Republican, which I doubt, his attack had nothing to do with that.
I’ve been wondering what type of psychosis the left has to foster an idea at the base level, let’s say: male against female in physical competition, assisting a lawless individual over a lawful one, and one more, murder for thought. There has to be some kind of psychological term for this depravity, using the [self-perception theory] where beliefs and self-characterization are determined by self-observation determining behavior. Staying with self-identity, they could be afflicted with [self-serving bias] denying responsibility for failure and credit for success. These two theories may answer some questions but not the mental state where depravity can exist in an individual or a political party. Quoting what I received defining {depravity} from the net: “The state of being depraved or corrupted, a vitiated state of moral character; general badness of character; wickedness of mind or heart; absence of religious feeling and principle’. Is the whole of the left filled with this affliction of vileness, or do others fit into a Pygmalion bubble of {others’ expectations} and are merely blinded by the need of self-acceptance, joining the crowd. I am sure we can find in the annuals of history examples of dishonoring fellow citizens, but the latest assaults by the Democratic Party are over the top, assaulting the very laws they operate under.
What a heap of swill.
Some would say that the Democrats have abandoned god and have found no moral set of values on which to set their flag. Or they simply Will do anything to reachieve power, up to bringing down the Republic
“Democrats have abandoned God.
A Chinese woman who lived through Mao Zedong’s brutality once said:
‘If you have no moral code, then your moral code is that of society. If society is turned upside down, so is your moral code.”
Democrats now take whichever side is convenient for the moment, not out of principle, but because they are working to turn society itself upside down. Their moral code reflects that inversion.
The irony is that Trump supporters rallied around an upside down flag after Trump’s guilty verdict last year.
It is speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
There is no story here. What a nothingburger.
God forbid a candidate for political office uses symbolism to convey a hyperbolic message.
How many times did Trump use hyperbole in campaign speeches? Heck, just this past week, he has been creating deepfake AI images of his political opponents – like Jeffries with a sombrero hat. Where was Turley’s faux outrage of those tactics?
Isn’t free speech grand.
It sure worked for ticking off you poor libs. Love the sombreros
It is my impression that many, many, many of those critical of our country and of our Constitution, -and who demand change, -are themselves members of various minority groups….smaller numbers within their own identities, but wishing to Unite to overthrow the Majority.
They are the loudest voices that the MEDIA focuses on. Think Omar and Tlaib, to Jasmine Crockett, to AOC, to Ellen and Rosie O’Donnell, to Jimmy Kimmel and NY’s Mamdani. Why are we so familiar with THEIR names?
-Because they have the loudspeaker; they have the spotlight. They have the MEDIA. Even though they might rake in
$$millions and $$billions from capitalism and Freedom, they want the Power to speak for the collective crowd. -And that collective crowd, including millions of illegals, becomes the lowest common denominator for ALL.
Yes, these loud voices become the Evita and Robin Hoods for “the People.”
They calculatingly understand the Power of the Masses.
“The Smell of the Greasepaint, the Roar of the Crowd.” The riots, the protests, the vandalism, the pillaging, the defacing and destruction, the race-bating, the discrediting and replacement with propagandistic messaging….
RIP Constitution, Stability, Morality, Civility, MERIT, RATIONALITY, an Educating Education, Honesty, Humility, Whiteness, Religion, Decency, organization under the rule of law…you know, all the things that made America what it is.
RIP for those polite, quiet, respectful but laissez-faire MAJORITIES who are too shocked and paralyzed at what they are seeing and hearing to React in a legal and meaningful way. Who represents them? The media isn’t focusing on them. We wouldn’t even know they still represent a singular majority (not a united front of collectives).
I must have forgotten their names.
What a load of malarky! I bet if you totaled all of the media minutes involving the names on your list, it would come nowhere near the coverage given to Trump, who as far as I know, is not a “minority.”
Moreover, casting some sort of struggle of minorities versus the “Majority” is, mathematically, nonsense. Women are half of the country’s population, so any aggregate of minority groups would well exceed half of the country.
Finally, someone must have slept through Con Law. We don’t have a governmental system that allows for the tyranny of the “Majority.” Carolene Products Footnote 4 was instrumental in clarifying our country’s recognition of “discrete and insular minorities,” and the role our Constitution has to protect them against majoritarian tyranny.
a. women are not a “discreet and insular” minority. That was pretty silly on your part. Indeed, relying on your own favorite Wikipedia/Google, women “greatly” outnumber men in the voting population by about 10 million.
There are very few, if any, remaining arenas of discrimination or disparate tx law where they might be considered as such.
b. the significance of Footnote Four is de minimis today as it predates SEVERAL protective laws and legal decisions, the Voting Rights Act, and SCOTUS cases including Thornburg and the subsequent creation of majority-minority districts. As you must know (if you yourself are a constitutional scholar), while it maintains historical significance and inspiration for subsequent legislation and jurisprudence, why you would cite it is curious.
c. even if, arguendo, where Footnote Four maintains reference today (rarely referenced because of more recent law and decisions) it has absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with my comment.
d. are you just striking back against the negative feedback from others that you received yesterday?
Thanks anyway.
from lin malarkey. (try to spell it correctly next time, or did law school fail to teach spelling and legal relevance related to the credibility of those expressing opposing arguments?)
This sounds like drivel from someone other than Lin. Shocked that someone with (allegedly) a legal degree would spout such nonsense.
^this sounds like georgie.
Lin,
Great comment. Yes, the media does give those people the loudspeaker. Good news is, trust in MSM, those very loudspeakers, is at a all time low, American trust in media hits new low: Poll
https://justthenews.com/accountability/media/american-trust-media-hits-new-low-poll?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Meanwhile trust, and paid subscriptions to independent media continues to grow.
They remind me of the situation in Venezuela, a small group claims they know a better way, just elect us and we will make everything better! It sure did not go that way! Anyone recall the Maduro diet? Or the scenes of Venezuelans having to weight their currency as it had devalued so much, it was faster and easier to weight it than count it.
I would add to your list, responsibility, accountability, reason and common sense.
Leave it to a shite slinger to heap more rep shite.
I clearly would place you, as a crude hate-mongering, name-calling, non-substantive commenter, in the “discreet and insular” “minority” class. Consider yourself lucky that this forum does not “disenfranchise” you or your comments, as “anonymous” must be a protected class under your personal reasoning and intelligence.
Upstate Farmer: Good additions.
Re: Venezuela. This is a good example of the danger of courting the under-educated masses, and how gullible they may become.
p.s. still thinking of your rumaki, something I rarely see on menus any more. Last time I had it, only remember seasoned bacon curled around water chestnuts; don’t know of other ingredients and I ate several! Mmmm!
Ok, Conservatives, Libertarians, general MAGA nutties. Professor Turley seems to be yanking your chain and getting you into a new episode of hysterics and paranoia.
It is crazy amusing how the Professor engages you into these things. It wasn’t too long ago (the Biden years) that conservatives and conspiracy theory obsessed MAGA was getting all worked up on talk of Civil War, Divorce from the Union, our country is in decline, and tyranny, etc, etc, etc, etc. That is part of why Jan 6 happened.
The Professor barely made a peep about his “age of rage” mantra or noted how the right was downright apoplectic whenever a Democrat in power proposed something downright scary like Universal Healthcare, or increasing taxes on the rich, tackling a pandemic, etc, etc, etc. The right was making all kinds of declarations of taking back out nation, civil war, retribution, and revenge. Then they found their new boogeyman, The transgender and wokism both used again to call for “war” against them because…it’s scary weird for some reason. You know, some age of rageism.
Democrats have been correctly pointing out there are serious constitutional issues that are being twisted and contorted by Trump and those in his orbit. Some label them as Facsist, an American flavor of Facsist to be exact. Many are not wrong. Some are a little bit too exaggerating others have it right on the money. One recent example is Secretary Hegseth and Trump making speeches about the need to get rid of fat generals and admirals and soldiers (Trump our commander in Chief is a ginormous fatty too). Then our allegedly Facsist president told a room full of generals and admirals how he wants to send the active military into U.S. Cities (Democrat cities) and use them as training grounds for handling….crime or whatever he thinks is the crisis he saw on TV. The look on the faces of our military leaders showed “this guy is nuts” or “whoa, that’s illegal”. Professor Turley (a supposedly constitutional scholar) should know that sending active military troops into U.S. Cities to quel crime, protests, and help with immigration deportations IS a Constitutional crisis thing.
For my friends on the right who are a bit dense when it comes to history, Remember why we had our revolution? We had a KIng dictating and mandating laws from afar and he sent the military to quell unrest, protests, and dissent, sound awfully familiar doesn’t it? We have a DHS declaring agents can enter homes without a warrant to take illegal immigrants into custody. Mmmmm… British Troops used to take over homes and property at will because they were… the law and under the King’s mandates. That is funny, didn’t we fight against that kind of tyranny and control? Now it seems the right is embracing the very same ideas and notions that led us to declare Independence and go to war against tyranny. Trump wants to be like King and rule without the pesky checks and balances of our Congress and Courts.
Turley has a knack for making wild exaggerations and fomenting rage, yes rage, ironically by finding and picking incidents and stories that will surely rile up MAGA and conservatives…oh yes and Libertarians (John Say doesn’t like bunching up conservatives with libertarians). He pushes misleading narratives to make “the others” look bad and justify authoritarian leanings of the right. They love a strong leader, one that will vanquish and suppress the enemies of the state, Democrats, Gays, the Transgender, the woke, the poor, etc. Because only real Americans are worthy and just because…..they are real Americans.
One thing is for sure. The current Republican government is so focused on keeping their base so paranoid and suspicious of anything that is not part of…their team. Never mind the economy is not growing, our allies no longer trust our current government ( we have an idiot for a president) and we are spending $20 Billion to bail out Argentina because they modeled their policies on libertarian and ‘free market’ ideals and their economy is in free fall. But that is not all. They are also selling soybeans to the Chinese because the Chinese stopped buying ours. How crazy is that. We are giving billions to nation that is selling soybeans to the Chinese while we have farmers facing bankruptcy because our president’s tariffs robbed them of their market share. Now he wants to use the same tariff money to bail out our farmers (socialism anyone?). Looks like we are the next ‘Argentina’. Who is going to bail us out?
You can be sure that if you include terms like “MAGA nutties” in your first sentence, nobody in your target audience is going to read beyond the first sentence.
You really don’t have much of a brain, do you?
He suffers from “Kruger-Dunning[sic]” syndrome, a term he learned from the Internet and tried to accuse others of it, even though it really is “Dunning-Kruger,” Which is why we know georgie picks up new knowledge every day online and tries to impose it on people. Not an original thought in his head that he hasn’t copycatted and screwed up in its replication.
MAGAs are not the target audience. They are not literate enough to read the paragraph. The target audience is showing to normal people that not 100% of the commentators on this blog are MAGA fascists.
Look at X’s first sentence. He’s addressing MAGA supporters. You really don’t have much of a brain, do you?
episode of hysterics and paranoia.
And yet, you are here george.
Our president famously said in 2022 that he wanted to terminate part of the Constitution in 2020.
In May 2025, Trump said “I don’t know” when asked whether he needed to uphold the Constitution
So, while clearly hyperbolic, the sentiment isn’t that much of a stretch.
It’s called playing you. We can see it worked
This politician asks for votes by offering a dead constitution. She deserves the reply of Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More in A Man for all Seasons: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
JT, Get a life, quit your obfuscation.
U.S. Government web sites are posting highly partisan messages during the shutdown which are a clear violation of the Hatch Act.
The President says he is going after anyone that criticizes him. A clear violation of the 1st amendment.
But hey, it’s all Hunter Biden’s fault right?
Proof.. ano’s like you never post any
What do you know. Another MAGA idiot who claims rampant voter fraud, may be committing voter fraud himself.
“The focus on voter fraud in Pennsylvania is particularly ironic because it sure looks like, and a trail of documentation suggests, that Posobiec is living in Maryland but voting in Pennsylvania. If so, that would be a violation of voting laws, experts say.”
As usual. Ano posted zero proof.
Did you do any research to see if it is true?
Hell no, that would require thinking for yourself. Something DJT prohibits.
So in small words. You have none
Not OG anonymous but pretty easy to Google:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/10/jack-posobiec-voter-fraud-pizzagate-maga.html
Not surprising, given past examples – like when Mark Meadows was removed from NC’s voter rolls in 2022 following an investigation into his 2020 voter registration.
The hypocrisy is so bad that is almost funny.
You used Slate… what proof did they offer?
___________________
The focus on voter fraud in Pennsylvania is particularly ironic because it sure looks like, and a trail of documentation suggests, that Posobiec is living in Maryland but voting in Pennsylvania. If so, that would be a violation of voting laws, experts say.
That’s called opinion. If they had facts, they would have posted it…
Will Dustoff react once the evidence is provided? Of course not. As Posobiec’s former boss Charlie Kirk once said, “Prove me wrong.”
Probably voting in both States. I’d prove how it’s done but it’s a federal crime.
I won’t hold my breadth that Trump will uphold this campaign promise, w/r/t Posobiec:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-warns-prison-sentences-people-cheated-2024-rcna170088
NBC you say. How many dems have claimed their lost to the RNC was stolen. You can go all the way back to Bush.
She has her nose in the wind. She smells what’s happening in New York and she wants to get her share at the public trough. If we should go back in time would we see that she held the same views or did she just hide them to reach her give me a job for life as a guard in the Gulag ambitions? Like Mamdani in New York, her nose for the smell of a carcass scans the aroma in the air. What that she be queen as is her right from birth. Hillary was better at it.
Yes, federal and State elected officials went to the big trough. Omar has 30 million. Not too shabby for someone from Somalia. 0 to 30 million…
Professor Turley is right that “the Constitution is dead” talk distorts history. The founding generation did not declare a constitution dead; they argued their rights as British subjects were being stripped. For 150 years they were conditioned by self-government, then after 1763 Britain cracked down with taxation without representation, dissolved assemblies, and troops in their streets. That was real tyranny. By contrast, what we are seeing today under President Trump looks almost the opposite. Federal action is often aimed at protecting rights and restoring order when local officials fail to do so. Treating that as the same thing is not patriotism. It is rage without historical understanding.
If the constitution is dead, as is implied by this candidate, why is she running for office? She should just assume the position and tell the other candidates tough luck (being nice). I would like to see how long she lasts.
Well, the good professor has point out more than a few professors declaring the Constitution is a threat to America. No surprise this candidate is pushing that it is dead. The question I have asked in the past is if they want to re-write the Constitution or do away with it, what do they propose to replace it?
The ten pillars of communism?
@Upstate
My guess would be something that fits into a little red book.
Free speech at its best. Maybe you should seek her out and beat her with a shovel.
Why would I do that? I am not a leftist. I might donate to the Republican candidate. That is what MAGA people do.
Doesn’t sound like she understands our Constitution well enough to make this proclamation. We are not, and have never been a pure ‘democracy’, by design, and the modern left are the tyranny, period. They do not get to administer or withhold our inalienable rights. This is madness. Still waiting for those sensible, ‘classical’ liberals to stand up. Anyone? Anyone?
And here, on public display, is the zenith of multicultural and illegal immigration. There is a slide to chaos at the bottom of this pit if we do not contain it soon.
WHAT THE HELL— HOW CAN SHE EVEN HAVE THE AUDACITY TO RUN FOR OFFICE???
It’s advertising. Say something outrageous, use visuals like the upside down flag and have people chant your name. People tend to vote for the name they know. It’s the how in how people are reelected until they’re in a rest home and no one knows it.
Hashmi hashmi hashmi…
are all leftys on the CCP payroll? The constitution is the only thing that keeps their tyranny at bay.
Socialism is anti-freedom, then the free stuff ends (anti-free) and then you better listen and earn your keep worm
there is no free lunch, but if you live in the USA, you are amongst the richest in the world because we have individual freedom and
individual opportunity that provides for individual wealth generation. No collective will ever do that because it’s anti-collective; no control over you.
So be a human with rights instead of part of a collective that will lure you with promises of ‘rights’ as if they don’t already belong to you and can also take them away at a whim.
*. Hashmi doesn’t understand the Constitution limits government and there is freedom aka rights. She imagines the government must micromanage an individual’s freedom.
That happened because of public money in welfare. Minorities are micromanaging women’s bodies now. How it happened was via public health clinics and the backlash of — no, not with my money.
Hashmi thinks the government is in individual micromanagement, BIG government. No, Ms. Hashmi, small government and maximum freedom.
That’s the political system.
Abe Lincoln was an economic president moving from Jeffersonian economics to Lincoln economics. Wasn’t it called mercantile? Scarlett made her biscuits in the lumber business, merchandise.