Former CNN correspondent Jim Acosta spoke with popular podcaster Jennifer Welch, discussing the plans for radical changes after a Democratic takeover this year. Like many Democratic figures, they said that the expansion of the Supreme Court is obvious. The expansion is essential to clear away any restraints on a radical agenda that will include the trial of a host of conservatives, from Trump to the young former DOGE employee who was injured when he came to the rescue of a woman in a carjacking in Washington, D.C.
What was most notable in the interview was the priority of expanding the Supreme Court. Figures like Eric Holder have expressly stated that packing the Supreme Court with a liberal majority will be the priority after any Democratic takeover.
This has long been the plan among far-left figures, but it is now being embraced by establishment figures as essential to securing a radical agenda to achieve lasting power.
Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.
This week, Democratic strategist James Carville laid out the step-by-step process of how the pack-to-power plan would work.
“I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen,” he said. “A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. The Democratic president is going to announce a special transition advisory committee on the reform of the Supreme Court. They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people.”
Acosta and Welch, however, added a Jacobin touch by demanding trials for a wide range of conservative figures — a call that has been echoed by Democratic members promising impeachments and investigations.
Welch, who appears to be auditioning for the role of Madame Lafarge, insisted:
“The blue tsunami means that Congress is going to haul Elon Musk, ‘Big Balls,’ and a bunch of other people’s a– in front and say, ‘What crimes did you commit?’ And it’s going to get really serious. And the same with Trump because I believe, and this is just my opinion, that Trump and all of the bottom-feeding morons surrounding him and Elon Musk and all the bottom feeding clinger-onners that surround him, I think they commit crimes every day.”
In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss how elected officials often try to enlist mobs to advance their political agendas — only to be consumed by the unrest they helped fuel. This yielding to a “mobocracy” was one of the critical dangers that the Framers sought to deter through protections against majoritarian tyranny.
What is most notable is the warning to establishment figures who are dismissed as “integrity Democrats” who might be squeamish about doing the things that must be done to political opponents. As always, Welch was the face of unrequited rage:
“And I think to reconcile all of this is going to take hardcore — not ‘integrity Democrats – ‘F–k you Democrats’ … ‘F–k you for f–king over our country.’ We are serious about this. We are prosecuting. We’re going to uncover every document, every phone call, everything you did. We will be relentless about it. And that’s the mindset they’ve got to have because I think the electorate is going from, ‘We’ve got to get him out, but also we want accountability.’”
With “integrity Democrats” out of the way, the left will be able to change the system to guarantee not just a radical agenda but permanent power, as explained by Klarman. It is a chilling and ironic prospect on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” which will be released on Feb. 3 as part of the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
The US will need German style de-nazification. Public trails. Public executions. Destroy the MAGAs and the Republican party so they can never bring fascism to the US again.
What fascism? I’m being earnestly curious here. What, that the current administration has done in the last 366 days, constitutes “fascism”? Not your feelings, but hard matter that shows that whatever is happening is “fascism”.
Um …. Fascism is fundamentally defined by the merger of state and corporate power, a concept explicitly articulated by Benito Mussolini, who stated that “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” This model, known as corporatism, involves organizing society into state-controlled corporate groups representing sectors like industry, agriculture, and labor.
Earnestly responding. Everyone hates Trump so how is fascism happening under Trump?
. Isn’t he trying to be rid of that cabinet, anon, but your point is sane.
I’ll add one more point of candor. I used to dismiss comments like this as hyperbole or parody and scroll past them. That was easier than confronting what they signal. History shows that rhetoric framed as “just talk” often precedes real abuses once it becomes normalized. When citizens casually discuss purges, trials, or executions of political opponents, that isn’t noise, it’s a warning sign. This is also an opportunity for people, regardless of their jersey, to denounce this kind of rhetoric outright. If we’re serious about the rule of law and unalienable rights, that rejection should be instinctive, not conditional.
OLLY,
Well said. 20-30 years ago, someone who said such things like purges, trials, executions etc. most Americans would of dismissed them as being a kook. Now, looks like people are not only normalizing it, they are openly promoting it. The kooks have taken over the Democrat party.
That’s a great point Upstate. That’s exactly the shift I’m talking about. Twenty or thirty years ago, rhetoric about purges, show trials, or executions would have triggered an immediate, almost instinctive rejection because people still had an internalized sense of what kind of country this is supposed to be. What’s changed isn’t just politics, it’s civic self-awareness. I’ve come to think of it as a kind of national dysphoria: people no longer clearly recognize who they are, what a constitutional republic is, or what the rule of law is meant to restrain. When that grounding is lost, extreme rhetoric doesn’t sound alarming anymore, it sounds justified. That’s when the danger isn’t just “kooks,” but how many otherwise ordinary citizens stop recognizing the guardrails altogether.
. It’s 3rd and 4th world because it’s all they know. It’s saturation level 1st and 2nd generation origin.
It’s gravely serious as people may become their pot roast for dinner. It’s that low.
Carpe diem
I’m honestly not sure what point you’re trying to make here. If the argument is that we’re witnessing societal collapse, then history gives us a clear warning. Santayana’s observation about repeating history is much like Jefferson’s deliberate use of the word “whenever” in the Declaration; these aren’t one-time events tied to a specific era. They’re recurring patterns rooted in human nature. And that’s the key point: human nature does not change. What changes is whether societies build restraints around it or convince themselves they no longer need them.
. Agree Olly. There is a saturation of low mindedness, ignorance, and calling vice as virtue.
PT’s picture at the beginning of this article is true. It’s gravely serious. I simply call it vice. The origin? A Guatemalan in Florida arrested for three murders? That’s a bad lot…
The response to all ill that’s been done is sorely lacking. It’s the foolish frogs.
Don’t you long for calm voices instead of the breathless alarm in newscasters and government officials?
I agree with you , Olly, everyday. My point are the origins of this tragedy. Broken borders, layer of judiciary spewing nonsense, vices of the US populations, education, it’s pervasive.
. Olly, people from 3rd and 4th worlds should not migrate to the US in these instances. See Omar, Tlaib, Jayapal, Mamdani…refugees should have a time limit on their stay, consider El Salvador, Venezuela. IMO. The United States did have a culture but supplanted. My point
Promoting it? Just because a couple fringe people talked (per Turley) about it online does not make for promotion.
And didn’t Trump say during the 2024 campaign, he’s was going to get even? And he’s daily promoting that.
BTW, you’re full of shite.
The issue isn’t how many people say it, it’s how many no longer instinctively reject it. Deflection and insults don’t answer that problem; they prove it.
The only ones who have ever championed fascism are American leftists, as evidenced by this comment. You want a “hot” civil war? This is how you get one. Be very careful what you wish for.
“The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists ” Anon’s post is the perfect example.
I assume there will be violence. People are not going to let the country walk of the cliff due to political “laws”. There is more to life than law.
In a rambling, completely incoherent speech at Davos, Trump is repeatedly referring to taking over Iceland when he means Greenland.
If Trump gets any more incoherent, the right wing evangelicals will claim he is speaking in tongues
No one can be watching this Davos speech and reach any conclusion other than the President of the United States is deeply mentally impaired and that something is deeply wrong with him. This is both embarrassing and extremely dangerous
Even more dangerous is the media coverage, completely bypassing the obvious mental issues, continuing the pretense of normalcy
I won’t insult my own intelligence by appealing to your intelligence. When a troll starts talking to himself online, it’s time for the rubber room.
For you and yours? And if he does it in Latin?
Your first sentenced is worth quoting, Dio.
Trump’s speech was fantastic, confirmed by the delusions of Anonymous.
totally wrong, anonymous at 11:13. Only the hostile media has painted the picture as a mistake. Watch the video of his speech, and you will clearly see that Trump is talking about ICELAND and the strained talks about four months ago, when Iceland was indicating that it wanted to align with Europe and the E.U. and not the U.S. https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/international-relations/how-does-iceland-fit-it-trump-s-plans-and-how-does-iceland-feel-about-it-column/ar-AA1Mgiml
You are such a clown, dependent upon media and not intelligence, education, or independent thinking.
. It’s understandable, anon, greenbacks…
So this is Democracy…? DEM democracy…. pity
Dear Mr. Turley,
I agree with GEB. This is nothing new. It has only been amplified due to social media. The left has a bunch of spoiled brats running their mouths. Their bottom line is they are upset Mr. Trump wasn’t sent to prison for the rest of his life for questioning the vote in Georgia. The Left was gloating over this as if it was a done deal. Funny thing about truth, it makes its way known as it has in Georgia. All of the Left’s dreams and hopes for Mr. Trump have crashed, so they busy inventing new ones to bring him down. I just hope Fani enjoyed her sex with Mr. Wade. I wonder if she thinks it was worth it now?
All of a piece of the far left radical Democrat plan to install the One Party Totalitarian State, complete with the PC Ministry of Truth and Censorship and Deplatforming of Disfavored Viewpoints.
I’ve written about why history repeats, and this is a textbook example. The Declaration wasn’t just a protest against British policies; it was a warning about recurring patterns of power. One of its core grievances was judges being made instruments of political will. When leaders argue the Court must be neutralized before acting because it might stop them, they’re replaying that same pattern. In doing so, the Democratic Party is positioning itself as an adversary to the rule of law, self-government, and the security of unalienable rights. The names and justifications change, the danger doesn’t. It’s a chilling echo as we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
Hello Olly: Yes, the “rule of law, self-government, and the security of unalienable rights” should be the focus of ALL judges, and that focus should not change depending on political party.
I understand that there are intellectual differences in perception of ‘legal’ interpretations of statutory and constitutional law, -which is why we have more than one judge/justice making decisions that affect all of us.
But it seems that over the last several decades, it has become a game between political parties to control the judiciary. And we must ask ourselves, how is it that two political parties can use or view the exact same and fundamental statutory or constitutional language so differently?
Hi there Lin, and thank you for asking exactly the right question. I agree that the rule of law, self-government, and the security of unalienable rights should guide all judges, regardless of party, and that honest differences in interpretation are inevitable. But I don’t think the widening divide can be explained by intellectual disagreement alone. At some point it becomes about motivation. Sometimes it’s the bending of the law to human nature: ambition, pride, or fear. Sometimes it’s the belief that one is serving a higher or “noble” purpose that justifies stretching the text to reach a preferred outcome. And sometimes it’s the oldest motive of all: money and power. Once outcomes become the objective, interpretation becomes a tool rather than a discipline. That’s precisely why the Founders feared unchecked power more than disagreement, and why an independent judiciary mattered so much to them.
“Once outcomes become the objective, interpretation becomes a tool rather than a discipline.”
Excellent.
Doesn’t the simple fact that there is a need for a SCOTUS to keep the other two branches in check say everything we need to know about humanity?
Exactly Jim! The very existence of an independent Supreme Court is an admission about human nature. The Framers didn’t design checks and balances because they trusted those in power to restrain themselves, but because they knew they wouldn’t. Ambition, passion, fear, and moral certainty are constants. When people argue that the Court must be reshaped or neutralized to allow an agenda to proceed, they are often unwittingly proving the point, demonstrating the very human tendencies the Court was designed to restrain in the first place.
Yes! And what drives me nuts is that no one will ever challenge a Carville by just stating to his reptilian face, “Isn’t the court there to stop exactly what you want to do?”.
You’re not going nuts at all Jim. Your thinking here is clear and sharply focused. When rhetoric is openly unprincipled and anti-constitutional, silence isn’t neutral. In a constitutional republic, the baseline expectation is that leaders and citizens alike will instinctively denounce calls to bypass restraints or lock in permanent power. When that doesn’t happen, it functions as tacit endorsement, even if unintended. That’s how norms erode. The Declaration exists precisely because abuses weren’t denounced early enough, and waiting until power is consolidated has never worked and never will, because human nature does not change.
I just don’t know where this is all heading. It doesn’t seem good though. It’s tough to figure out if it’s just the old “This new generation is a mess” or is this something real.
I assume you have heard of the free on-line courses that Hillsdale College provides? I’ve taken quite a few of them and the ones about the Constitution and Declaration are great refreshers for us all.
You’re not imagining it Jim. If you’ve taken the Hillsdale courses on the Constitution and the Declaration, your instincts are already well calibrated. This isn’t just the perennial “the next generation is a mess” complaint. What feels different is the speed and the direction. In the past, excesses were checked by a broadly shared understanding of first principles. What we’re seeing now is a breakdown of that shared grounding, which means fewer internal brakes when power is justified as necessary or righteous.
If you’ve found the Hillsdale courses helpful, my book will probably resonate as well. It builds on those same principles but applies them to how they’re being forgotten or distorted in real time, and why that loss of grounding makes the trajectory feel so unsettling today.
Excellent. What did you do as work before retirement, Olly? I 🤔
Why did the proud Patriots disguise themselves as American Indians to hide their intent? Why did they throw tea into the river after their government removed the tax on the tea? Why did the revolution come just as the British were starting a wave abolishing slavery and, particularly, chattel slavery across the British empire? Why did a document extolling freedom not free the slaves?
Don’t leave us in suspense…
There are a few factual errors here, and the timeline matters.
First, the tea tax. Parliament did not remove the tax before the Boston Tea Party. In 1770, Parliament repealed most of the Townshend duties but intentionally kept the tax on tea to preserve the precedent that it could tax the colonies without representation. The Tea Act of 1773 actually lowered the price of tea by removing British taxes and granting the East India Company a monopoly, while leaving the colonial tax in place. The issue was never the price of tea. It was the constitutional principle. Accepting the tea meant conceding Parliament’s authority to tax colonists who had no representation.
Second, the disguise and the response. Colonists disguised themselves to avoid immediate arrest in a system where legal redress had repeatedly failed. Parliament’s response was not to prosecute individuals but to collectively punish Massachusetts through the Coercive (Intolerable) Acts: closing Boston Harbor, altering the Massachusetts charter, limiting town meetings, and placing the colony under military control. That was a decisive shift from governing British subjects to treating a colony as a conquered population.
Third, slavery. Britain did not enter a sweeping abolition phase prior to the Revolution. The Somerset decision in 1772 was narrow, applied only to England, and did not abolish slavery in the empire. Britain did not abolish the slave trade until 1807 and slavery itself until 1833. The Declaration’s failure to immediately end slavery was a profound moral contradiction, but it articulated principles; equality and unalienable rights, that ultimately made slavery indefensible. Those principles were later used against the institution, not to protect it.
Taken together, these events explain why independence became unavoidable. The issue wasn’t tea, disguises, or moral perfection. It was a steady pattern: taxation without consent, punishment without trial, suspended self-government, military enforcement, and judges dependent on political will. By 1776, the colonies were no longer being treated as British citizens with rights, but as subjects to be managed. The Declaration didn’t start that path, it was the formal recognition that the path had already been forced.
. You fool, slavery was an economic system spanning the earth including Africa itself. You’re incredibly ignorant to believe ” the British empire” was singularly responsible.
It was God himself who brought the slaves out of Egypt and commanded rest on the 7th day for man, beast and field but the imperative fell on deaf ears until Lincoln heard it and knew it was wrong but not the reason.
Lincoln’s words and deeds were heard world-wide but not the reason.
Tragedy
^^^^^ not Olly. The other fool 😂. Kidding, I meant anon.
. Olly, history repeats because innovation is difficult and genius rare.
Oh geez, another one? Professor Turley sure loves to peddle soft rage click bait for his MAGA readers. These “public trials” of Trump administration members may be warranted if they are found to have violated the law. Just as they are now, all about the law and enforcement, a Democrat in the executive office would be well within their right to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in unlawful conduct and violated the law. ICE agents, Cabinet members, former Secretaries of state, defense, etc. There has been plenty of corruption and malfeasance to go around in this administration to keep the next one busy.
Court packing? Mmmm…not illegal obviously, but if Democrats want to expand the Supreme Court and dilute the conservative majority it is well within their right to do so and the constitution. It has been done before and it can certainly be done again. But soon? No. Not while Trump is in office, he may not last much longer given his poor health and deteriorating mental state. He is certain to be Biden within a year. With the record number of Republicans retiring and the looming midterms it does not look good for Republicans in the near future. Not with the growing opposition to the aggressive ICE tactics and the Hispanic vote no longer supporting Republicans or Trump.
By the way, Trump is still a convicted felon. A criminal. We have a criminal as a president. Crazy eh?
Rabble:
Remember people, don’t feed the trolls. My theory is, they either get paid by the word, or by the reaction. either way, pay them no mind, let them collect their pittance, and once the grift finishes drying up, they’ll leave.
Turley surely must be paid for his articles. At the least by allowing him to advertise his book.
Oh oh its crazy george. Crazy huh?
Dream on.
We must remind ourselves that SCOTUS only hears roughly 100-150 cases a year/session, -compared to more than 40,000 by the collective 13 federal Circuit Courts of Appeals–whose decisions/opinions STAND unless reversed by SCOTUS
.
I remain focused on the insidious creep of left-leaning judges appointed by Democrats over the years to the 13 appellate Circuits . They (the judges) now control 6 or 7 of the 13 circuits, -including both the Federal and DC Circuits. Take a look at the recent shift in composition according to these charts:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2025/06/circuits-shifting-political.html
https://demandjustice.org/circuit-status/
(I believe that since the publication of these charts, a young ‘conservative’ jurist (Whitney Hermandorfer) was confirmed by the Senate to the Sixth Circuit, as the Democrats continue to push inward from the two coasts.)
(I think it is now seven [controlled by Democrat appointees] – a slim majority but devoted to expansion.)
(My only concern is that it has become more of a political power play than adherence to fundamental principle.)
Lin, you’re putting your finger on exactly what should trouble every citizen. The instinctive reaction to any concentration of power, especially over the judiciary, ought to be concern for the security of our rights against the state. That reaction shouldn’t depend on which party holds the pen. Yet instead of defending principles, too many people instinctively put on a preferred jersey and defend their team. When that happens, rights become conditional and power becomes the point. Once judicial structure is treated as a political lever rather than a constitutional safeguard, we’ve already crossed the line the Founders warned us about.
It doesn’t matter who controls the Courts of Appeals. The Federalist Society controls the Supreme Court and has packed enough conservative judges into lower courts, such as Amy Coney Bryant, with carefully curated cases that give cover to the final goal, the restoration of the US government to that of the original founders – the control of the government by the very wealthy to the exclusion of everyone else.
^^^from an anony who can’t even get her name right (and apparently doesn’t even know it, since this was not a typo), and he thinks we will pay attention to his rant?
This can only possibly happen with the full complicity of the MSM. And part of it will be another full-blown open border, More crime and mayhem. And only one way out. What a sad state of affairs. Madness and no understanding of history. Thay you Ivies.
Trump is completely and utterly disconnected from reality.
Today at Davos, he is whining that NATO would not come to the aid of the US if asked.
Here is a verbatim quote:
“But the problem with NATO is that we’ll be there for them 100 percent, but I’m not sure that they’ll be there for us if we gave them the call. ‘Gentlemen, we are being attacked, we’re under attack by such-and-such a nation.’ I know them all very well, I’m not sure that they’d be there. I know we’d be there for them, I don’t know that they’d be there for us.”
He does not seem to understand that Article 5 of the NATO treaty has only ever been invoked once.
The United States invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty charter for the first and only time in its history on Sept. 12, 2001, and all 18 member nations agreed to support the U.S. response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and more than 4,800 service members from coalition countries were killed in Iraq and more than 3,500 were lost in Afghanistan.
EVERY SINGLE NATO NATION SHOWED UP, AND FOUGHT ALONGSIDE THE UNITED STATES !!!!!!!!!
John Bolton nailed it down a long time ago. Trump is all about his vanity. Every decision he makes goes back to that. When his decisions blow up, and they always do, he tap dances with lies to cover them up, and tap dances with lies to cover up those lies, and so on. His entire political philosophy is about pissing people off, getting everyone off balance, and using it to his advantage. His followers have zero policy thoughts. All they know is they hate anyone to the left of themselves. Tariffs are a perfect example. They are about as anti-conservative as you can get. Yet Trump loves them and so his MAGAs love tariffs. Had his stance been tariffs are bad, his followers would think that that. The entire MAGA philosophy is summed up in the t-shirt: “I love Trump because he pisses off the people I hate.”
Rabble:
Then stop being so easy to piss off.
Trump’s legal team just got schooled by Massey and Khana. Trump-the-Rapist and pedophile protector is about to be brought down by the Epstein files (save the lame argument that if there were something there the Democrats would have outed it — no, Democrats were protecting Democrats in the files, which Trump happens to be all over, too). Trump spends the rest of his pathetic conman life behind bars for aiding and abetting his best friend in the 90s in the biggest pedophile operation in history.
HAHAHA, you poor libs are losing it.
We are loving it.
Your response just shows you’re fine with pedophilia.
Rabble:
Why not? You all were fine with it during the Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden admins. Why is the change of command such a sticking point with you Somalian-IQ individuals? I think you need some more learing.
It’s pretty ironic that a self-professed advocate of free speech would allow the comment section attached to his blog to be censored for rationally and civilly expressed political sentiments with which he (or his appointed administrator) disagree. Yes, I know it’s his private property, and he can do with it what he likes, bla, bla, bla, but if that is the point you take from this your IQ is seriously in question. I also know that WordPress can have glitches and that comments that show as posted sometimes fail to appear. But that should be a more-or-less random occurrence. For at least a year, there has been a consistent pattern here where any posted comment discussing the **C*o*n*v*e*n*t*i*o*n**o*f**S*t*a*t*e*s**A*r*t*i*c*l*e**V** initiative summarily disappears after the comment appears to have been accepted. Who is the abject coward who cannot tolerate that discussion?
Just spill you guts pal. And you’re civil and rational. Whiner is more like it.
Re.: Convention of States Article V
AI ( Convention of States Article V ):
Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two methods for proposing amendments: through a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, or via a Convention of States (also called an Article V Convention) triggered by the application of two-thirds (34) of state legislatures.
Key Mechanics of an Article V Convention:
Trigger Requirement: At least 34 state legislatures must submit applications to Congress for a convention to be called.
Ratification: Any amendment proposed at such a convention must still be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states to become part of the Constitution.
Historical Context: While all 27 existing constitutional amendments were proposed by Congress, a Convention of States has never occurred in U.S. history.
Current Status (as of 2026):
Active Resolutions: As of early 2026, 19 states have passed formal resolutions calling for a convention with the specific goals of imposing fiscal restraints, limiting federal power, and establishing term limits for federal officials.
State Legislative Action:
On January 21, 2026, the Kansas House of Representatives is scheduled to debate a Convention of States resolution (SCR 1604), which could make Kansas the 20th state to join the effort.
In Delaware, a similar resolution was defeated in a close Senate vote on January 20, 2026.
Total Applications: Some groups argue that if various older, issue-specific petitions are aggregated (e.g., balanced budget calls from the 1970s), the threshold might be as high as 28 states, just six short of the required 34.
Major Debates and Concerns:
“Runaway Convention”: Critics warn that once a convention is called, delegates might ignore their mandate and propose sweeping, unrestricted changes to the Constitution.
Limited Scope: Proponents argue that the process can be legally restricted to specific topics (like term limits) and that the 38-state ratification hurdle provides a “safety valve” against extreme changes.
Lack of Rules: The Constitution provides no specific rules for how delegates are chosen, how votes are counted, or how a convention would be funded, leading to significant legal uncertainty.
–
Article Five of the United States Constitution
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
List of state applications for an Article V Convention
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_applications_for_an_Article_V_Convention
ArtV.1 Overview of Article V, Amending the Constitution
[Link] constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-1/ALDE_00000507/
Report: Article V Constitutional Conventions
[Link] constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/special-projects/article-v-amending-the-constitution/report-article-v-constitutional-conventions
This article is chilling. Is “the madness” coming? Democrats think it is here — it is not, except in their minds.
Public trials, expand the court. How about public executions.
All for it. Steps of the Capitol with trannies as executioners.
I believe Texas proposed public executions. Seems to me like a great way to garner public sentiment to eliminate the death penalty, but is merely tossed out as red meat for the thoughtless.
Professor Turley’s “sky is falling” campaign may be good for selling apocalyptic books, but is it grounded in reality? It wasn’t really that long ago that someone in New York who wanted to call someone in California, for example, would have to “place” the call with an operator and hope for a callback. And if Edward R. Murrow or Walter Winchell said something profound on the radio, it had to be true. And we laughed at the truth in jest when Harry Truman said, “My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. To tell the truth, there’s hardly a difference.”
All that’s gone now. We no longer rely on the radio (TV), talking heads like Jim Acosta, or politicians, including the president, to know what’s going on. We have direct and immediate access via that small device we carry in our pockets called the smartphone. Harvard professors like Michael Klarman may say outrageous things and propose all sorts of unconstitutional “remedies” in the name of improving democracy. But we know better.
And, of course, there always will be the small minority of losers and clingons looking to advance themselves by latching on to outrageous people with outrageous thoughts. They perform for the rest of us every day. Every good court must have jesters, or the world would be a boring place. But, when all is said and done, that little device I and millions of others carry will inform my fellow Americans and me what the truth is, and millions of us will make our decisions based on hard cold facts, not fiction, hyperbole, or the delusional hallucinations of some cloistered Harvard law professor.
Could not have put it any better.
Turley the flimfam man.
JJC,
I respectfully disagree, re: “But we know better.”
Just look at the “No Kings” protests. Those people should “know better.” Clearly they do not.
All those anti-ICE protesters, agitators. ICE is not just randomly grabbing US citizens off the streets and making them “disappear.” Who they are arresting and deporting are illegals many of which have criminal records. Yet these anti-ICE yahoos should “know better.” Clearly they do not.
What is on those little devices is curated by the billionaires who pay millionaires to convince the middle and lower class to be minions.
Amen.
The government of Greenland announced on Wednesday that it had begun construction in its northernmost region of a maximum-security prison for pedophiles.
The prison, which will house “the worst of the worst,” is a joint venture between Greenland and the nations of the European Union.
A Greenlandic government spokesperson, Hartvig Torkelson, said that the construction of the prison “should not be seen as an act of provocation,” adding, “The only person who could be offended by this would be a pedophile.
wrong thread
I am too old to become a revolutionary, nor do I have the skills to become one, but if the radicals implement their plans as they describe, then a revolt will occur. If I live long enough, then I might be able to watch from the sidelines. But even for those on the sidelines, the effects will be devastating and bloody. The Spanish Civil War of the 1930s here in the USA. A disaster. But the result might be exactly the same. And the Left will pay a price that even they cannot imagine.
So Turley writes about a handful of dunderheads and suddenly the commenters here are prepping for the end of the world.
Lock and Load Babies! it’s time to Get It ON!
I love the smell of napalm roasted Democrats in the Morning,
smells like VICTORY.
Typical Republican. Head to MN and help out there. Bring scalps.
Perhaps, WM. Then again, remember who will be “fighting”. It’ll be The People who already have lots of guns and stockpiles of ammo vs The Shrieking Karens who hate guns. I seriously doubt they’ll find enough Leftists in the military and police forces willing to take up arms against the populace. But the reality? The “SK” will scatter when they provoke the rest into a shooting situation. Let them record their own demise on their iPhones while scurring away like the cowards they truely are. I look forward to the seeing the bewilderment in their eyes as they FO what happens when they choose to FA with the Normals.
JAFO: the thought of the 300 million guns in the USA and the Left’s antipathy toward all things “firearms” suggests that you I correct. I hope so! Plus: regarding the Army, Most of the NCO’s I’ve met do not strike me to be the type to land on the Left.
If it wasn’t for Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema we would have already been there. The Dems wanted to end the filibuster (which Joe and Krysten stopped) in order to then add 5 new Justices which would have allowed their very first bills to pass. What was in their first bills? Well first of all they wanted to “nationalize” elections, ban any use of IDs at polling stations (that’s right, make it illegal for FL or TX to require an ID to vote) and make mail in ballots being sent to EVERYONE the new norm. They wanted to add Puerto Rico and DC as states thereby giving them 4 new senators. They would have codified counting illegals as residents for redistricting purposes. In other words they would have made it impossible for Republicans to ever win again.
Thank you Joe and Krysten!! But you both should have just switched parties…as should John Fetterman right now.
Sure pal, anything you say.
Folks, humor this nutjob.
NUTJOB ANON!!
Rabble:
And yet, you say nothing to actually refute Mr Hull’s points, merely wallow in your own filth. Hy, you hear that? I think there’s a MN protest calling your name, but inside Target because it’s too cold for your little lungs to get enough air to your neurons.
Oh oh. sumone is really pissed off for being made a fool. And well deserved.
Its hullbobby in his new disguise as an anon.
I comment as myself all the time, why would I comment as Anon?
Because you’re an idiot who thinks he’s a smart and savvy commenter?
Nutjobs like you always talk to themselves.
Rabble:
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! That’s all I hear from you slimy cretins. Do some actual introspection. You must realize, if your revolution does succeed, that the new power won’t need people like you. Then where will the previous pawn-revolutionaries end up? If history is anything to go by, you will be quietly disappeared into the night because you aren’t useful anymore.
Then again, I’m sure you don’t get any of this, because you can’t even conceive of breakfast.
Great substantial reply.
They succeeded in counting illegals for redistributing purposes, and I think this was upheld by the Supreme Court. That’s why the only way to correct this is to deport the millions of migrants who entered the country illegally under the Biden administration.
They didn’t “succeed” in counting them, as if this were some fast one they were sneaking past the law. The constitution CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY REQUIRES that every single person who is in the USA when the census is taken, no matter what their legal status MUST be counted.
I don’t believe the Supreme Court has ever “upheld” it, for the simple reason that no frivolous claim to the contrary has ever survived long enough to be brought before it.
If it wasn’t for Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema we would have already been there. The Dems wanted to end the filibuster (which Joe and Krysten stopped)
Not really. If it weren’t for Manchin and Synema, other Democrats would have been found to vote against it. The Dems don’t want to end the filibuster. They made the effort only because they knew it would fail, and in all cases would have made dam sure it failed. Manchin and Synema were merely the visible dissenters.
I love headlines…
“Europe’s Strategy Of Treating Trump Like A Royal Toddler Didn’t Work — So Now What?”