At the “No Kings” rallies, we saw countless, open calls for violence against President Trump and other Republicans
When pressed, some Democrats will shrug and insist that “both sides have bad apples who sometimes say bad things, but that doesn’t mean they reflect the views of their party as a whole”
That sounds like a good argument—and in the past it might have been
But open calls for violence among Democrats have recently become so common, widely accepted, and even celebrated—as they certainly were at the “No Kings” rallies—that this argument rings hollow
Those engaging in such behavior over the weekend appear to have done so with full, unbridled approval of their fellow protesters
And this happened in so many times—and in so many different locations—that it’s impossible to dismiss them as one-off exceptions
Please share this post if you agree, commenting on any examples you found especially troubling
This guy’s promoting the killing of federal law enforcement personnel—with the apparent approval of the crowd
Dick proudly announces that he wants to “kill the president”
Nothing funky happening here:
Revolting lament that Trump turned his head in Butler, PA in July 2024
If Trump isn’t removed from office “there will be violence”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Seven Simple Points Explaining How We Can Pass The SAVE America Act—And Save America!
(1) Bring the SAVE America Act back to the Senate floor next week, making clear that we will keep debating the bill until we pass it.
(2) Stay in session through weekends and (gasp) long-scheduled recess weeks, making clear that filibustering senators must stand, speak, and otherwise hold the floor—always with the understanding that if they drop the ball, we can “call the question” and pass the bill with the simple majority we already have.
(3) Even if the filibustering senators never drop the ball (that will NOT be an easy task for them if we keep up the pressure), they’ll start to experience political and physical exhaustion two or three weeks into this.
Many will begin thinking about face-saving amendments that could get them to “yes”—especially as it becomes clear to the American people that their arguments against the bill are not well founded.
It might have something to do with the Supreme Court’s ruling in NY Times v. Sullivan (1964).
2. Before the Court’s ruling in NY Times v. Sullivan, if the media lied about a public figure and wrecked his or her reputation, he or she could sue for defamation, typically in state court under state defamation law—just like anyone else.
3. But then the Warren Court invented a brand-new “actual malice” rule out of thin air: now public figures have to prove the media either *knew* their story was false OR recklessly disregarded the truth.
2. No, ChatGPT didn’t hallucinate; that’s literally what SCOTUS said in *Wickard v. Filburn*: growing wheat on your own land for your own use can be regulated by the U.S. government because it affects “interstate commerce.”
New Deal judicial activism at its peak.
3. Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn grew extra wheat—a little more than federal regulators in Washington had “allowed” him to grow—to feed his animals and family.
But that wheat never entered interstate commerce.
In fact, it was never sold and never even left Filburn’s family farm in Montgomery County, Ohio (near Dayton).
2. It’s unwise and even reckless to run all spending bills through a single committee for at least three independent reasons
First, it makes no sense from a workload-distribution standpoint
3. The staggering size, cost, and complexity of the federal government are such that no sane person would assign all of the workload associated with all spending bills to one committee
Responsibility for spending bills should be distributed broadly among all who have been elected to either chamber of Congress—not just to a select few who happen to serve on one committee
🧵1. Congress should be *passing* the SAVE Act to stop noncitizens from voting—not paying leftists to lobby against it
The Labor/HHS spending bill advanced by the Senate Appropriations Committee contains an earmark giving $500,000 to leftists falsely claiming the SAVE Act would “disenfranchise millions of Americans”
🧵 1. The massive fraud schemes in Minnesota—billions in stolen federal funds from child nutrition, autism services, housing stabilization & childcare programs—aren’t just a failure of oversight
These areas (welfare, education aid, health services) lie far outside Congress’s enumerated powers under the Constitution
And they likely represent just the tip of a much larger iceberg—with other schemes going on in many other states
2. Strictly speaking, the federal government has no sound constitutional authority—rooted in the plain text and original understanding of that document—to run or fund state-level social welfare programs like these
3. When Congress acts where it’s not authorized, that’s an overreach
As the Tenth Amendment makes clear, functions not deemed federal by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to fund Somali daycare centers