There is a chilling story out this morning that another assassination attempt may have been averted. This time, the target was not President Donald Trump or a conservative justice but my former student Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Notably, Colin Demarco, 26, referenced the “fascist” mantra being repeated by Democratic politicians, press, and pundits as the reason for his planning to kill Vought.
According to Arlington police, the assassination may have been thwarted by an attentive and courageous neighbor who, around 3:15 p.m. on August 10, 2025, saw a suspicious male who he believed was hiding a firearm under his shirt, wearing a surgical mask and rubber gloves, and carrying a backpack on the Voughts ’ porch. The neighbor confronted the man and later called the police. The encounter was captured on home surveillance video.
Police then tracked down the man and found digital evidence that the suspect had obtained directions to the victim’s residence, had gathered information on firearms possessed by a relative, and had a guide on how to prevent criminal detection. He also allegedly solicited others to kill Vought and, within a few days of these postings, appeared at his house.
According to CBS News, Demarco claimed to have written a manifesto that detailed weapons and a “Body Disposal Guide,” adding:
The court records show that Demarco is accused of plotting to murder a victim with the initials “R.V.” who, according to the criminal complaint, “has served as a presidential appointee.”
The complaint adds that the alleged victim was involved in the creation of Project 2025 — a project funded by the conservative Heritage Foundation- to produce a policy agenda for the next GOP administration. It called for a radical reshaping of the government in ways that consolidate power in the executive branch.
What is most chilling is how Demarco parroted the talking points of Democratic leaders in justifying the assassination. He reportedly told agents that he found the November 2024 election to be the “lowest point in his life” and feared “impending war and a fascist takeover.”
Many of us have condemned the now common rhetoric coming from top Democratic leaders who are calling conservatives or officials “fascists” and insisting that democracy is about to die in the United States. As figures like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and various congressional members called ICE “Gestapo” and a “secret police,” attacks on federal law enforcement officers have soared.
Recently, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) called out the “fascism in our streets” and suggested that citizens could be justified in shooting masked agents, a chilling claim made earlier by other Democratic leaders.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D. Conn.) recently declared, “What is happening in Minnesota right now is a dystopia. ICE is tear gassing elementary schools. It is disappearing legal residents into cars. It is murdering American citizens.”
Aspiring Democrats are getting the message. Total Wine billionaire David Trone (who is running to recapture his Maryland congressional district from fellow Democrat Rep. April McClain-Delaney) declared this week that the federal government is “literally executing people on the streets” in “not just Minneapolis… all over the United States.”
Ohio Democratic Attorney General candidate Elliot Forhan is running on the catchy pledge that “I will kill Donald Trump.” It is a race to the bottom as Democratic leaders try to take the lead in mob politics.
For years, people have heard politicians and the press call Trump “Hitler” and the GOP a Nazi movement. Some compared stopping Trump to stopping Hitler in 1933. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) declared Trump “is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy and he has to be eliminated.” He later apologized.
Last week, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner promised to “hunt down” ICE officers like “Nazis.” Democratic strategist James Carville previously threatened that “collaborators” may be treated in the same way as they were after World War II.
When combined with the rationalization for the use of lethal force against officers, this rhetoric is not just inflammatory but dangerous. We have heard these voices before in our history. As discussed in Rage and the Republic, we have a rising class of new Jacobins, politicians and pundits who are pandering to the mob. History does not bode well for these politicians seeking to ride the wave of rage when the mob turns against them.
Figures like Demarco hear such reckless rhetoric and take it as a license to commit murder. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) previously went to the steps of the Supreme Court and called out Kavanaugh by name: “I want to tell you, (Justice Neil) Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Nicholas Roske would later go to the home of Justice Kavanaugh to kill him.
Notably, police are also reporting that Demarco expressed support for alleged UnitedHealthcare CEO assassin Luigi Mangione. Again, the unhinged hear praise for such figures from writers such as former Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz who explained the reaction of many women: “Here’s this man who’s a revolutionary, who’s famous, who’s handsome, who’s young, who’s smart, he’s a person who seems like he’s this morally good man, which is hard to find.”
Vought is now under enhanced security protection due to the heightened risk of assassination. Yet, there is no indication that Democratic leaders are tamping down their inflammatory rhetoric. To the contrary, they seem to have “jumped the shark” and are struggling to find ways to stand out to the mob with increasingly outrageous claims. It may work to get them back into power in the midterms, but it will come at a terrible price as they spur greater political violence in this country.
It’s not like Demarco was wrong about his prediction for a second trump admin. And it’s not like Vought isn’t an evil swamp creature doing the bidding of the epstein/thiel/Musk elite who, rather than having to market time their investments but would rather crash the whole thing so they can buy in at near zero…
It’s just that, rather than death, what Vought is most deserving of is being stress point walked into someplace like Cecot. Or dropped in a Venezuelan fishing village to fend for himself in shorts and flip flops. Give him, maybe, twenty bucks. Something like that.
How funny . . . The averted assassination attempt on OMB Director Russell Vought is another significant news story that is non-existent and has gone completely dark within the MSM world.
“The deaths of millions is a statistic.” Keeping it dark was how they did it.
I fear Professor Turley gets serious death threats. He’s literally surrounded by over-educated lunatics, so this risk must be very real to him, but he never writes about his personal fears.
Professor Turley is a profile in courage. Unfortunately, that’s probably cold comfort to his family. For my own humble part, I pray that the Professor is well protected.
Death threats? You stupid fool.
You’re now a person of interest. Better hope he stays healthy.
Diogenes,
IIRC, the good professor did mention in one column that he did indeed get threats of various kinds. It does take great courage to face that kind of thing and have the conviction to continue to write about free speech, point out the rage rhetoric.
Nick Shirley reveals his security informed him the left put out HITS against his life — simply because he exposed fraud
Keep him safe at ALL COSTS.
“People have sent me photos of people on ditches saying ‘that’s going to be you’ and people have openly said that… pic.twitter.com/0VzLurMtiG
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) February 5, 2026
You write about Shirley, then link it to someone else?
“You write about Shirley, then link it to someone else?”
Oh? Was it you, threatening Shirley?
DHS reports more than 180 vehicle attacks on officers over Trump’s second term
“Sanctuary politicians with their rhetoric comparing ICE to the Nazi Gestapo, slave patrols, and the secret police and encouraging illegal aliens to evade arrest have incited violence against law enforcement,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/dhs-reports-more-180-vehicle-attacks-officers-over-trumps-second-term?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
So what? What does that have to do with Demarco?
Everything dumbass!
You can’t assassinate Vought. He needs to be alive for his trial and imprisonment.
Just a thought, what do you think is going to happen when We The People start coming after you? Think about that dumbass!
Feds arrest Trumbull County man accused of threatening Trump, ICE
“The message stated, “I’m personally preparing to hunt and kill ICE agents, and I’m not even close to the only one.”
https://www.wfmj.com/story/53424508/feds-arrest-trumbull-county-man-accused-of-threatening-trump-ice
Self-identified Antifa member arrested in Minnesota after allegedly threatening ICE agents
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/self-identified-antifa-member-arrested-minnesota-after-allegedly-threatening
““I’m personally preparing to hunt and kill ICE agents, and I’m not even close to the only one.””
If he has enough company, maybe we can repopulate Alcatraz 🙂
“The election was a rigged election”
“The only good Democrat is a dead one”
Geez I wonder who’s responsible for making our political discourse so coarse and violent.
That’s easy. Democrats are responsible.
Because Democrats are hateful dishonest liars, they have been falsely calling Republicans fascist since Truman. Here’s the New York Times reporting on it in October, 1948. Democrat FDR sent Americans to die in Europe’s war, then the piece of sh!t Truman has the nerve to call the Republican boys they sent to die Hitler wannabes.
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/02/06/police-thwarted-alleged-assassination-of-omb-director-russell-vought/#comments
It’s a sign not only of how immorally awful Democrats are – but also how immorally awful Democrat voters are to pretend to believe the same lie for 80 years.
Gaslight Obstruct Project
https://www.nytimes.com/1948/10/26/archives/president-likens-dewey-to-hitler-as-fascists-tool-says-when-bigots.html#:~:text=PRESIDENT%20LIKENS%20DEWEY%20TO%20HITLER,SAYS%20GOP%20PERILS%20U.S.%20LIBERTY
As is the case again, the people that push the rhetoric of divisiveness and implied violence, are exempt from their spouting off at the mouth. The Renee Good’s, Pretti and now this individual get either death or jail for being the followers instead of the elite.
Prof. Turley,
I still remain at odds with you regarding the heated political rhetoric.
While I shore your disdain for the violent language being used – by all politicians – but more by the left than the right,
It is still completely protected by the first amendment.
Decisions regarding what is acceptable in violent political rhetoric should be made by citizens in the voting booth – not by loaw enforcement and the courts.
Thus far the evidence regarding Demarco leans towards the typical person with mental health issues – as nearly all these lone killers are, rather than a rational person who is engaging in political violence. But that could still prove true.
Regardless, I am with Maya Angelou
When someone tells you who they are – beleive them the first time.
You list violent political rhetoric by leading democrats.
Voters should decide if that is acceptable.
While the rhetoric from the right is not near as violent, it too should be judged by voters.
It is however clear that the overton window for acceptable violence in political rhetoric has been significantly expanded.
The control for that is with the voters.
With all due respect, this is like telling someone who is stalked: “we can’t do anything until you are attacked.” Free speech should not include the promotion or advocacy of violence.
John, In theory, I agree with you. The framers absolutely expected correction to come from the voters. But a constitutional republic rises and falls on the capacity of its citizens for self-government, and that capacity is not automatic. It must be cultivated.
We are not at a peak of civic virtue right now. We’re in a valley. Under those conditions, expecting voters to do much more than reward their preferred team is unrealistic. Elections register passion when formation is absent.
If voter correction presupposes citizens capable of self-government, what concrete steps restore that capacity once it has eroded?
““I’m personally preparing to hunt and kill ICE agents, and I’m not even close to the only one.””
Your theories about what you call “formation” being at the root of our current problems are well taken, and I think you very well may be correct. But there is what I perceive to be a formidable gap between where we now are, and the earliest possible time that correcting that problem might begin to show results, even if an effective solution was identified and agreed upon tomorrow. I’ve had a bit of “EMT” experience in the long distant past (long enough that all that was required was first aid training and common sense) and one of the first things I was taught was the need to to prioritize treatment: if there is hemorrhaging, that must be stopped before any underlying issues can be addressed, or the patient will probably die. In my considered opinion, the current condition of our society is analogous to hemorrhaging. How do you propose that we deal with the immediate and urgent issues while we are working on correcting “formation”? Because if we do not deal with those pressing issues effectively, and soon, I think your premise may be purely academic; I don’t believe that we will have any opportunity to achieve what you advocate.
Ignore the opening quote, it was in my clipboard from a previous comment.
Don, that’s a helpful way to frame it, and your EMT analogy fits well with how I’m thinking about this from a systems perspective.
In any process, there is common cause variation and special cause variation. The long term reliability of the output depends on addressing the common causes built into the system. In this case, that is the erosion of civic formation, standards, and habits of judgment. But special cause variation still matters. Explicit threats, calls for violence, and acute escalation are not noise in the system. They are shocks. Those have to be addressed immediately through enforcement, protection, and deterrence, or the process never stabilizes enough to improve.
Where I think we get into trouble is when we mistake special causes for the whole problem. Triage is necessary to keep the system from failing outright, but triage alone does not improve the process. It just keeps it running. If we want a system that reliably produces citizens capable of self government, we have to do both. Stop the bleeding when it occurs, and fix the underlying process so the emergencies become rarer rather than permanent.
Without triage, formation never has time to work. Without formation, triage becomes the normal state.
Don: I have an idea going back to your EMT days: triage.
(metaphoric for America)
First you stop the hemorrhaging (close the borders with a tourniquet).
Second, you remove the pathogens/contaminants ( __ _ _ _ _)
Third: You create homeostasis…. with support and healing: love and warmth and instruction on self-survival and self-sustenance and self-cultivation to create Olly’s “capacity” to stimulate new and successful and healthy growth.
I like the triage analogy, as long as we keep it grounded. You stop the immediate damage first. Then you address whatever keeps causing the damage. Only after that can you help people recover and become stable again. That recovery piece is what I mean by restoring capacity.
Taking the triage analogy a bit further, these posts and comment sections often feel like a dysfunctional emergency room. Something serious happens and everyone rushes in, but instead of diagnosing the patient, we argue over which team caused the injury. While that argument goes on, the patient lies there untreated. Blame may feel satisfying, but it does not stabilize anything. Without diagnosis, there is no treatment. Without treatment, the same crisis keeps returning.
If the goal is recovery rather than venting, the work has to shift from scoring points to understanding causes and applying the right remedies in the right order.
Olly: Your comment reminds me of something I read or heard years ago, and I cannot recall the actual words except for the end. It was about war. I am grossly paraphrasing the words, but not the thought.
It was something like: War: the politicians argue the justification for it, the generals argue the strength of it, the economists talk about the need for it, the media headlines call out support for it……….the soldiers just want to go home.
Olly: Apologies! I just now noticed that you had mentioned triage. (To be perfectly honest, I read your entire first comment from 10:30 but just skimmed past your second comment after I saw “civic formation and standards” because you already had made several comments about that in the last few days.
In any event, and to any medical practitioners reading this, of course I know that what I wrote does not parallel the actual division of survivors in a real triage–I was just focusing on the “tri” part! -But I would not have thrown out a comment had I read your second one in toto.
No worries at all Lin. I appreciate you saying that. I understand the skimming. These threads move fast, and once a theme shows up a few times it is easy to assume the rest is repetition. My intent has been less to belabor a point than to see whether the long term issues of formation and standards can be connected to the immediate concerns people are raising.
I should add a bit of context. I first came to this blog years ago when I was in the early stages of my own awakening. I wanted to understand what was being debated about the law, the Constitution, and the structure of our system. At that time, the exchanges here were genuinely formative for me.
Fifteen years later, I find that the debates themselves no longer serve that same role. They still help me refine my understanding of our problems, but the recurring team based arguments increasingly mirror the broader cultural decline rather than point toward solutions.
I will continue to follow the blog because the issues matter. But I will likely participate less. My focus now is on what I see as the more urgent work. Designing an actionable pathway toward improving civic formation and restoring the capacity for self government.
I appreciate the good faith engagement here and wanted to offer that explanation for the shift in how I am participating.
(Olly: very few read this blog at night, so very few people will read this and I feel safer saying this about my own background and what your interests are. [Although I am not an educator, I do have a few books with my name in/on them, and also a contributor for several legal text and reference books]. Earlier today I was thinking about you and wanted to pass this along. Perhaps you are already aware of it, but Tufts University had created a special niche interest in “civics education” especially for youths. This is an old website and I do not know of its current viability; someone told me about it a few years ago. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/what-research-says-history-and-civics-education
Someone like you may be able to contribute to the development or expansion of Tuft’s curricular or outreach programs, perhaps some adjunct association in CA (I don’t know your credentials)? Or work your book into associative/correlative reading for its program(s). Tufts is quite liberal; someone like you might contribute to some balance in its development of critical thinking skills for our young’uns.
(p.s. I’ve only been on this blog for a couple of years so don’t have the Hx that you do.)
Thanks
Thank you for taking the time to share that, and for the thoughtfulness behind it. I appreciate you flagging the Tufts initiative, as well as the spirit in which you did.
And congratulations to you on your own publishing and contributions. That kind of sustained work matters, and it shows.
I’m much earlier in the process by comparison, with just the one book so far, but it’s helped clarify where I want to focus next.
My work now is centered on building an actionable approach to civic formation. Less about winning arguments or picking teams, and more about restoring the capacity for self-government that a constitutional republic actually depends on.
I appreciate the encouragement and the willingness to share ideas and resources.
“What is happening in Minnesota right now is a dystopia. … It is disappearing legal residents into cars. It is murdering American citizens.” That’s Bull Shit.
People like Colin Demarco have to wake up to the realization that there are Tough Times (now & ahead), and that they need to “learn to compete”. The situation is not One Man’s fault (Russell Vought, DJT, ect.)
Some of the World has learned to complete between the lines, Unfortunately the U.S. Middle (Age) Class has lost sight of this and have turned to ‘expectations’ of entitlements.
You wouldn’t know it here in the Rio Grande Valley Texas. The Costco, Walmart, Target and Shopping Mall are full on Saturday & Sundays. Their parking lots full of Cars with Mexican Plates from most all of the Mexican States. Many of the Vehicles are Chinese Brands (BYD, Chery) of which their respective Dealerships sit right across the Boarder. You would never have known there are so many Mexican or Other Nationals are doing so well (MX$) because they have learned to compete in this day and age.
They’re coming here (Legally to shop) from all over Mex:
Aguascalientes | Baja California | Baja California Sur
Campeche | Chiapas | Chihuahua
Coahuila | Colima | Distrito Féderal
Durango | Guanajuato | Guerrero
Hidalgo | Jalisco | México
Michoacán | Morelos | Nayarit
Nuevo León | Oaxaca | Puebla
Querétaro | Quintana Roo | San Luis Potosí
Sinaloa | Sonora | Tabasco
Tamaulípas | Tlaxcala | Veracruz
Yucatán | Zacatecas | …
“Read it and weep” is an idiom used to taunt someone by showing them something that proves you’ve won, succeeded, or are right, implying they should feel bad or cry about their loss or failure. It’s often used playfully in card games (like poker) when showing a winning hand, but can also be a general expression of gloating after outperforming a rival.
Colin Demarco and his Dem Generation has lost this hand.
Certainly a price will be paid for the incitement to violence led by leaders of the Democrat Party. The Dems apparently think they will profit from it. At present in the absence of accountability for such extreme behavior, they may be right. Republicans were once accused of engaging in rhetoric characterized as dog whistles. The message was conveyed so that only a few could hear. Dems picked up a bullhorn so that all would hear and understand their intent. Anarchy and violence is their goal. The rest of us may pay the price.
If anyone is confused about how political violence becomes possible, read the comments.
Political violence is not caused by disagreement. It is caused by the collapse of standards and the substitution of rage for judgment.
When people stop arguing facts and start labeling opponents as “fascists,” “Nazis,” or enemies to be destroyed, violence stops being unthinkable and starts being rationalized.
Dehumanize first. Justify later. That sequence is not accidental. It is historical, predictable, and playing out in real time.
This is not a partisan failure. It is a failure of citizen formation. And it is on full display here.
I agree with you 100% about the rationalization of unthinkable behavior and dehumanizing enemies. This site has become a home for those demonizing “the left” and collectively justifying attacks against them and spreading misinformation. Turley makes his living now by attributing the behavior of an individual to the entire Democratic Party and accusing Democrats of rage while occasionally wishing Trump and others had perhaps said something differently but agreeing with their sentiment. Turley is no Stephen Miller but aiming for the same goal. Enjoy your day.
Please, where is the call to violence…. Go back to your playground and sing “sticks and stones…” To liken the demon-o-crat use of vile language to wishing for a better expression…. Yup, that’s the same thing…
Enigma, Recently I’ve been critical of this blog, and I’ll also own that I’ve previously joined in demonizing the Left for its rhetoric. What’s become clear is that this space increasingly mirrors the culture it critiques. Team jerseys go on, standards come off, and outrage replaces judgment.
I’ve argued before that many of our political failures trace back to the loss of civic formation. This thread illustrates that problem perfectly. Without shared standards, disagreement degrades into dehumanization and restraint becomes optional.
Olly, I appreciate the few voices here, including you, that are capable of rational discussions and will at least consider what others are saying. Take care!
Rational discussions? Oh please. In your case we consider your comment – its always irrelevant.
I agree enigma. Rational debate matters, but it only proves itself when arguments are anchored to objective standards rather than loyalty to a jersey.
” I’ll also own that I’ve previously joined in demonizing the Left for its rhetoric. ”
What is wrong with that ?
You have the right to say what you wish – just as those on the left do.
And the rest of us will judge you based on what you say.
Again nothing wrong with that.
But all judgement are not equal.
The left is the font of rage rhetoric – calling them out for it is NOT wrong, and arguably a positive moral good.
Conversel;y calling half the country nazi’s fascists, hitler, deplorables, when that is absolutely not true is WRONG, IMMORAL, and vile,
The left and right have EQUAL rights to free speech.
They have EQUAL rights to criticise the speach of others.
But they are NOT EQUALLY right in their speech or criticism.
There are bad examples on both sides – but there is nothing even close to parity.
I am not aware of any post of yours that was inappropriate or in significant error.
While EB’s current post is a deluded and deliberate effort to pretend their is some parity when there is not.
John, the reason I owned my past participation is not because it was improper or impermissible. It is because I no longer believe it was effective. Putting on a jersey and saying what I believed needed to be said may have felt satisfying, but it added zero value in changing minds or restoring anything that matters. It produced noise, not correction.
I have shifted my approach because I am trying to address root causes rather than symptoms. The erosion of our capacity for self government did not come from one party winning too many arguments. It came from the loss of shared standards and civic formation. That work cannot be done from inside a jersey. It requires stepping outside factional identity and arguing from objective standards, even when that is less emotionally rewarding.
OLLY,
It is your shift (yes, I noticed) that has me also seeking the root causes.
However, while we have discussed the loss of shared standards and civic formation, I cannot help but wonder if some of the loss is due to the amount of grift that has been uncovered and that may be the driving force to escalate the rage rhetoric. Or perhaps something else we are not seeing.
“This site has become a home for those demonizing “the left” ”
You are atleast partly correct.
People are attacking the left – because you have dehumanized yourselves.
I absolutely totally completely beleive all the rhetoric we are hearing is protected speech.
You can not be censored for it.
You can not be arrected for it.
Government can not punish you in anyway for it.
But you CAN be called out for it.
It is the LEFT that constantly rants about fascism, Nazi’s, Hitler, and much much more nonsense without the slightest clue what they are talking about.
And absolutely more and more people in this country – including on this blog are calling you out for the vile poorly educated idiots that you are.
THAT is the proper consequence for BAD SPEECH.
No one is censoring you. You are free to continue to spew your vile hate speech.
Your not going to jail. your not being silenced.
I will absolutely positively defend your right to spew vile hateful disqusting speech that may contribute to real violence.
Just as I defended the speech of real Nazi’s an the KKK decades ago.
But defending your right to spew garbage will not preclude me from calling you out for the revolting people that you are.
“collectively justifying attacks against them”
Who is “justifying” actual violence against those on the left ?
The very few who are doing so – while fully protected in their speech are approaching the vileness of those of you on the left.
Regardless, as usual you abuse words. Has someone tried to assassinate you ? You are being “attacked with WORDS not knives and guns.
Right now – a growing number of republicans have had actual assassination attempts on them.
Weapons were present, shots fired, and in fortunately few instances people are dead.
There is nothing close to an equivalent on the left.
Most of the time some democrats is actually attacked, it is by another deluded left wing nut.
Gov. Walz in MN is facing death threats and polictical violence because he appears to have publicly caved on allowing ICE into jails and prisons – where they are allowed nearly everywhere else in the country. That is blue on blue violence.
Your unhinged left wing nuts in Minneapolis who think bringing a gun to a protest is a good idea – how many J6ers brought guns to the capital ? EXACTLY ZERO. Are now invading churchs, Setting up road blocks, beating up journalists trying to cover their protests if they think the coverage MIGHT be unflattering. In the weird list of demands of the left is they want all officers to have BodyCams – now that BBBfunding is in place that is happening. Until recently only 1 in 6 ICE officers had bodycams, because Biden’s budget which went through Jan 2026 did not have money for bodycams. Regardless left wing nuts want Bodycams on ICE – BUT they want rules that prohibit ICE from using video to identify and arrest violent protestors.
I can go on and on. The point is YOU $HIT on yourselves. You should expect to have that pointed out.
” spreading misinformation.”
What misinformation ? The left is the font of misinformation. What misinformation is coming from the right ?
“Turley makes his living now by attributing the behavior of an individual to the entire Democratic Party and accusing Democrats of rage”
Almost no one is attributing this to the entire democratic party or even a majority of democrats.
Democrats may near universally have bad policies, but they are not universally spewing rage rhetoric or engaged in violence.
But the democratic party leaders turley is calling out absolutely do.
And large numbers of those on the left – as can easily be seen by posters here and elsewhere do spew rage and hate.
You should be unsurprised that when you call half the country nazi’s, deplorables, … that they hate you back.
That is just newtons third law manifesting itself int he political arena.
If you do not want half the country to treat you as vile, discusting and hateful – do not behave vile disgusting and hateful and do not call those you disagree with fascists, nazi’s deplorables, and the myriads of other names you spew constantly.
” while occasionally wishing Trump and others had perhaps said something differently but agreeing with their sentiment.”
Please find an instance where Trump has “attacked” someone who did not attack him first ?
Please find an instance where Trump has used anything close to the sam hateful rhetoric that you have ?
Please find an instance where trump has called half the country deplorable, or nazi’s or fascists ?
Absolutely Trump blames democrats – almost always for things they are actually doing.
We have had two government shutdowns – because democrats wanted them.
We have had 4 years of open borders – because democrats wanted that.
We had 21.5% inflation over 4 yrs – because democrat caused that.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with blaming democrats for their actual failures.
And most people are wise enough to grasp that blaming “democrats” for real policy failures,
First and foremosts means blaming the leaders of the democratic party,
and only to a lessor extent means blaming people who identify as democrats, for providing votes to these
complete morons who are making everyone’s lives worse by their failures.
You have to look under alot of rocks before you can find anyone calling democrats as a whole nazi’s or fasicsts.
” Turley is no Stephen Miller”
Correct.
“but aiming for the same goal.”
Not at all.
Regardless, you hate Steve Miller because he makes a fool out of you on the national stage.
You can solve your “Stephen Miller” problem trivially – Quit shilling ignorant nonsense.
John, protected speech isn’t the issue. Escalation as a substitute for standards is. Once “they deserve it” becomes the logic, restraint disappears and everyone believes they are only responding. That isn’t accountability. It’s reciprocity.
A society that cannot condemn excess without becoming excessive itself is losing the capacity for self-government.
Golly gee Enigma, do you suppose two assassination attempts on a President, never before implanted lawfare, a years long seditious conspiracy of a fraud led by a former president and a former first lady/s, the assassination of a young conservative White Christian man and the all out lawlessness being employed by the Democrats base has anything to do with the disgust voiced on this site? Think hard and try not to hurt yourself!
Try and be coherent the next time. Thank you.
Lisa, try not to be such a useless troll nest time.
As a guy that plays 8 Ball as a past time I love your name and I agree with your comment.
HB
👍 back at ya, side pocket!
“Turley makes his living now by attributing the behavior of an individual to the entire Democratic Party”
So, where are your examples of your responsible prominent Democratic Party members denouncing the acts of political violence by the Leftist zealots? Because what is evident to me is that the Schumers, and Walzes, and many more “mainstream” Dems deliberately indulging in rhetoric that they know very well will strongly tend to instigate those acts, and afterwards pretending they never did any such thing. It is indisputable that there is overblown rhetoric on both Left and Right, but I am not aware of any recent assassination attempts on prominent Democrats or other Leftists.
OLLY,
Well said. Of course these people using this kind of rhetoric will never apologize or even acknowledge their part in the increase of violence.
Upstate, thank you. Are we helping our argument if we can’t see past the jersey to the broader cultural failure underneath? And if that failure isn’t partisan, shouldn’t restoring shared standards be the common ground?
OLLY,
I agree about restoring shared standards but there seems to be a disconnect between what those standards should be. I would ask what is the root cause for some people to believe this kind of rage rhetoric is the new standard? Why normalize it? What do they think they are accomplishing?
Or is it to just get headlines? If so, very sad.
Excellent Upstate, that’s the right root-cause question. Rage becomes the standard when civic formation collapses. Without shared norms of restraint and evidence, outrage turns into social currency. It signals belonging, drives attention, and replaces argument. What it accomplishes isn’t persuasion. It’s escalation.
OLLY,
Well said, but I must admit, I had to chuckle when you mentioned “norms.”
I seem to recall all the cries for the return of “norms” during Trump’s first term. Then we got the Biden admin, where were the “norms” then? And now, this rage rhetoric, is that the “norms?”
Meanwhile, a Democratic state senator in Georgia is making Nazi Germany comparisons,
“This is too dangerously, too dangerously like Nazi Germany when people refused to stand for what was right,” Sen. Randal Mangham (D).
Upstate, the problem is that “norms” became a partisan slogan rather than a discipline. Real norms require restraint, proportionality, and consistency regardless of who holds power. Casual Nazi comparisons are not a new norm. They are proof that standards have collapsed.
OLLY,
Thinking on it, the rage rhetoric is all the Democrats have. After all their failures, their continuing failures, the exposure of all the fraud, waste and abuse by DOGE, the fraud exposed by independent journalists in MN, OH and other states and in CA, aside from rage, what do they have? Overwhelmingly, Americans to include some 71% of Democrats, support voter ID, and yet Schumer is crying it is Jim Crow 2.0. The only thing they can do is lower the standards, and up the escalation.
Upstate, I understand the argument you are making, but I think you are describing the condition under which escalation becomes attractive, not something unique to Democrats. When policy arguments fail to persuade and facts no longer move opinion, any political movement will default to mobilization rather than persuasion. That is when rage rhetoric appears, standards get lowered, and escalation becomes rational behavior.
The reason pointing to failures, polling, or hypocrisy does not correct this is because those tools only work when citizens still insist on shared standards. Once outrage becomes more effective than argument, the system rewards escalation regardless of which party is under pressure.
That is the dynamic I am focused on, because unless it changes, the behavior will repeat no matter who is winning or losing.
OLLY,
Absolutely there are people in both parties for whom all that matters is the color of the jersey’s
That has always been the case in politics. But for the most part these – particularly on the right are small in number.
On the right these are mostly political operatives looking for jobs, or power,
I would strongly recomend the netflix series “Death By Lightning” as examining that.
Guiteau – Garfields assassin is portrayed as exactly that a disallusioned “red team” operative who who did not get a job after supporting a candidate who ran against patronage.
While there are red team voters and blue team voters, I think there are far less than ever before.
More and more people vote based on POLICIES. Sometimes they vote for bad policies, sometimes they vote for people who lie about their policies. But most people do not vote for the color of candidates jerseys.
Trump has taken over the GOP for Two reasons:
His platform deviated from 40 years of GOP doctrine in several respects that allowed him to appeal to voters who were NOT red team voters.
More than any other politician in my lifetime he has kept the promises that he has made.
MAGA is NOT TEAM red. Trump is a NEW head coach, with a new playbook.
Few people voted for him – because he was the red candidate.
He won because people listened to what he said and CHOSE that.
Both the “red team” and the “blue team” have been transformed by uprisings, revolts within their parties.
Republicans by the Tea Party which became MAGA – that was absolutely an internal inssurrection – and one that externally successfully has attracted people who did not previously vote republican.
Democrats by the Woke left – like Republicans – Democrats are held hostage by the insurrectionists. Republicans could not win elections without the Tea Party, and democrats can not win elections without the “woke left”
The difference is that the “woke left” reduced the number of people OUTSIDE the woke left who would vote democrat,
While MAGA grew the republican party.
Regardless, my point is that outside of the politicians themselves, and those who depend on them for patronage,
Most americans support their “Team” because of its POLICIES, not because of the color of its jerseys.
John, policy preference and civic formation are not the same thing. People can vote on policy and still reason tribally when they excuse excess from their own side. The issue is not whether movements grow or shrink coalitions. It is whether the habits they reinforce strengthen or erode the capacity for self government.
John Say,
That is a very interesting assessment.
I would say the American First idea has been around for a long time. Perhaps going back to the Declaration of Independence. Trump just packaged it up into a nifty campaign slogan. But it relight the original idea and people flocked to it.
I have mentioned in the past when a party no longer represents the voters, the voters have the right to vote for another party, person, or not at all. In this case, Trump and the MAGA campaign attracted a lot of people as you noted. While during the first Trump admin, many Never Trumpers Republicans did what they could to stop him but that only seemed to make the MAGA supporters stronger. Which I think was needed as the old Republican guard needed to go or to change their platform to reflect what the MAGA voters wanted. I think we are seeing the fruits of that change in the Trump second admin and the policies the Republicans are putting forth.
IF Democrats had someone worth voting for and had a decent, traditional JFK like platform, I could vote for them if the Republicans did not. Right now, not seeing any of that from Democrats. When she was running for president, I donated to the Tulsi Gabbard campaign, twice and was going to for a third time but then she dropped out. So, to your point, yes, it is not the jersey but the policies and just as importantly, the candidate.
Unfortunately for moderate and traditional Democrats, the far-left has highjacked the party into the crazy and stupid.
Olly, I enjoyed your book very much. For those of us who have studied the Constitution in minute detail, it is wonderful to focus on the Declaration of Independence line-by-line as you did. I am giving it to my grandson, who is now studying at the nation’s oldest school of law (not Harvard), and hope he enjoys it as much as I did. I particularly liked your Chapter XIV, which describes where we are today. The following chapters are just wishful thinking, which I share, but recognize as such.
Thank you so much Wiseoldlawyer! I appreciate you taking the time to read it so carefully, and I am especially grateful for your comments on the Declaration section. My focus on the Declaration line by line was deliberate, for the same reason I have been framing my comments here the way I have. I am less interested in winning arguments than in restoring attention to first principles and the habits of judgment they require.
I understand your description of the later chapters as aspirational. They were not meant as prediction, but as a way of asking what kind of citizen a constitutional republic actually depends on if it is going to endure.
I am honored that you would share it with your grandson, and I hope it serves him well as he continues his studies.
Wise Old Lawyer
Gen Braxton Bragg was a fine man, I don’t care what his troops said about him at Chicamaqua…
I would choose West Point to prepare rather than law school in today’s climate.
So many children and disappointed weak minded academics here. It’s time for the radical left to face the fact that the United States is a center right country.
This is the latest in a long series of leftist upheaval in our history. Most of those have been abject failures. We need one every 20-30 years to remind ourselves just how far removed from Realville the screaming purple haired idiots can be.
The only bit of luck here is that these would be assassins seem to be rather careless in their planning, seem to be loners living in their own bubble, and are a bit delusional about their motives except to express the talking points they’ve heard on TV. As well, they seem to have been whipped into a frenzy to take an “enemy.” life.
Tell Charlie Kirk and the fireman killed at the Trump rally how lucky we are.
Sorry, I know your heart is in the right place and I guess we are lucky in that Vought and Kavanaugh could have both been in trouble, but it is the rhetoric of the Dems that needs to be called out as Turley does.
Nice Leftist Scumbag – typical disheveled street urchin with nothing to loss or live for! Oh but what a devoted lunatic after being groomed by his favorite Democrap Politicians and Influencers. One thing about a “free society” is the lowest common denominators seem to go right to violence because their public education reinforced their LOW IQ and anarchist Democrats love lone wolf morons on their team.
Hey post a picture of yourself. I’m guessing you’re white trailer trash. No offense intended.
Anonymous, so are you defending the guy? Parasite.
HullBobby,
Seems our annony/Mary/other fake names is rather desperate this morning as the good professor points out, once again, how Democrats rage rhetoric is inciting violence among their followers.
Look who’s calling someone trash 🤣. I bet when you call am uber ride they send a garbage truck. I bet your canopy bed is plastic with wheels and has a green hinged lid on it. I bet your pajamas say hefty on them, come in a roll and have a red draw string! Be Nice civility.
A Russian writer in the 19th century, where revolutionary rhetoric was extremely popular, observed that political activists usually secretly believed in the practices which they condemned the hardest. This statement was proved true in 1917.
I think you made that up. If you knew the writer as a fact, then you would have given him/her due credit for the quote. So, basically, you lied.
It was Dostoyevsky who @edwardmahl remembered. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30129713 . Now please apologize.
Sophy0075 – I read the quote in an article in Commentary Magazine in the late 70’s or early ’80. I cannot be more precise than that. It was probably in the Letters section. In those days, they published long, scholarly letters.
“I think you made that up.”
He’s obviously referring to Dostoevsky’s “Demons” (aka “The Possessed”).
If you were culturally literate, you’d know that. Or if you were intellectually ambitious, as opposed to a drive-by-shooter, you could have discovered that in about 2 minutes.
P.S. To aid the search that you’re not going to do: Dostoevsky was a 19th century Russian writer. He wrote during a time “where revolutionary rhetoric was extremely popular.”
Linda, what exactly is your problem here?
HullBobby,
The problem is Linda/Mary/annony are desperate to deflect from the fact that Democrat leaders who are calling for violence, appears to have inspired yet another person to attempt an assassination attempt.
The quote “secretly believed in the practices which they condemned the hardest” is not directly attributed to Voltaire in the provided search results. However, the sentiment aligns with Voltaire’s broader critiques of hypocrisy, particularly in religious and moral authority.
This specific phrasing appears to be a paraphrased or reworded interpretation of ideas found in Voltaire’s works, especially his “Questions on Miracles” (1765), where he examines the contradictions and hypocrisies in religious institutions. In that text, Voltaire critiques those who claim moral superiority while privately engaging in or tolerating the very behaviors they publicly denounce.
While the exact wording is not found in Voltaire’s original French writings, the concept resonates with his famous observation:
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
This reflects his deep concern about the manipulation of belief and the resulting moral corruption.
The quote in question likely stems from modern interpretations or summaries of Voltaire’s philosophical stance, rather than a direct, verifiable quote from his works.
Russian huh?
Did ChatGPT help ya there?
I have developed a strong suspicion, bordering on a conviction, that many or most of the incessant, repetitive, lengthy, leftist comments here are at best second-hand regurgitation from “AI” bots, and might indeed be the direct result of a bot (or bots) programmed to read all of the comments and directly respond to same. I have some suspicions about a few of the counter posts to those, as well, but I am less convinced in that regard.
“Russian huh?”
Pretty sure that Dostoevsky was Russian. Voltaire, not so much.
You drive-by-shooters do a good job of making yourselves look like the fools that you are.
Why are you continuing this nonsense ?
Did Voltaire say something similar to Edwards claim – sure.
Did Dostoevsky ? I beleive it is a common theme in his books.
In the 20th Century it was the plot of Taylor Caldwell’s “The Devil’s Advocate”
I am sure if I think more about it – I can find this theme in dozens of other works.
Edward did not even offer a specific author,
Nor did he claim no one else ever wrote about the same theme,
This debate is not merely pedantic, wrong and stupid – but the theme was offered for its truth – not its authorship.
What Dostoevsky understood, and what too many still miss, is that intellectual literacy without moral formation does not civilize. It destabilizes.
When people are taught to handle ideas “neutrally,” as abstractions detached from truth, virtue, and consequence, they become fluent without becoming restrained. They learn how to justify anything.
As this essay in Law & Liberty on Demons put it: If we teach neutrally, or indifferently, without moving students’ minds toward truth and students’ hearts toward virtue, then we are doing them a disservice.
https://lawliberty.org/the-dangers-of-a-little-learning/?
That disservice shows up downstream as dehumanization masquerading as conviction, and rage mistaken for righteousness.
This is not a partisan pathology. It is the predictable result of citizen malformation.
Many do not understand these themes or major themes by hundreds of years of western thinkers because they have not read them,
they have not been exposed to them and for the most part they are openly taught that nothing good came from the entirety of the western thought, philosophy. law, morality that is the foundation of pretty much the entire world today.
Those on the left today – who are mostly completely ignorant of thousands of years of intellectual development that brought us where we are, want to toss it all start over from scratch and think that they are going to manage to do better than what has taken humans thousands of years to evolve, buy reimposing schemes that have repeatedly failed in the past.
John, I agree with a large part of what you’re saying, especially the loss of exposure to the intellectual inheritance that made self government possible in the first place.
Where I would broaden the frame is this. That ignorance is no longer confined to one side. It is cultural. Many people today argue confidently about rights, justice, and power without any grounding in the traditions that defined those concepts or the limits that restrained them. In a systems sense, alignment is not the same as formation. Being closer to the framers’ intentions does not automatically mean being fully formed for self government. Orientation matters, but formation is about capacity. The ability to reason beyond team identity, apply standards consistently, and restrain oneself even when doing so costs a short term win. The ideal citizen is not identified by a jersey. They are identified by how they judge rhetoric and behavior when it comes from their own side.
When people are taught that the accumulated thought of centuries is either irrelevant or corrupt, they stop seeing standards as something to inherit and steward. They start seeing them as obstacles to be cleared away. At that point, escalation feels like moral courage. That is why I keep coming back to formation rather than ideology. You can change policies, leaders, or parties, but if citizens are not formed to understand why restraint, proportionality, and continuity matter, the same patterns will repeat under different banners.
The danger is not that people want to improve what we inherited. It is that too many believe they can discard it entirely and rebuild from instinct, outrage, and will. History is very clear about where that leads.
Very glad that no one was harmed.
Ironically, the ones claiming they are fighting fascists are, themselves, fascists. They are intolerant and judgmental, full of hate and rage, acting out the very violence used by their fascist forebears in the Nazi party.
And the test is the comments section here. Rabid, hateful geriatrics scream insults and threats at everyone.
Midterms will give the people back their power.
And we will destroy all Nazis in the USA. Long live the people!
No such thing. You have maos red guard in the democrats though.
Start by destroying Schumer….Please…🙏🙏🙏
You sound like you are creeping past the graveyard. There are millions of young people who supported Trump in the last election. Skillful politicing from Republicans can turn them out again. In the mean time most folks on the left would pee their pants if they ever met Himmler. Heydrich and the boys.
” Skillful politicing from Republicans”
Unfortunately, in far too many past elections, that has proven to be a contradiction in terms. Let’s fervently hope that 2026 and 2028 do not fall into that category.
Anonymous. 🤦
The People are the Moderates and Independents, is that who you are speaking of? Certainly not the Wingnut Lefties😹😹😹
Another red meat post. Come on MAGAotts indulge.
Be less progressively stupid, there will be less red meat. I would like that.
Thanks for confirming your hate and ignorance.
BTW, learn to spell.
As we often point out, if Democrats would not say the things they do, as the good professor points out, he would not have anything to comment about. Democrats do this to themselves. We sit back and wonder what were they thinking when they said these things. What do they hope to accomplish? If someone does get killed, will they acknowledge their part in the escalation in violence?
. What’s the end goal of Democrat leadership, Upstate, as the team has been persuaded and escalation to –> when will we kill them? Now? Now we kill them. Now impede, hinder, undermine valid authority and Now kill them.
What’s the end goal?