"America needs a militant democracy" -- Adolf Hitler, 1939.
Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt advised pushing a "militant democracy" to ensure an "authoritarian figure" like former President Trump never rises to power again.
In an op-ed for the New York Times, Levitsky and Ziblatt describe how they spent the last year "researching how democracies can protect themselves from authoritarian threats from within," lamenting how close Trump remains to getting a second term.
"How could such an openly authoritarian figure have a coin flip’s chance of returning to the presidency? Why have so many of our democracy’s defenses seemingly broken down, and which, if any, remain?" they wrote.
We're not a Democracy; America is a Constitutional Republic.
No matter the majority there are things you can't do; that's the difference. One of the things you can't do, which both these "professors" and Hitler did, is outlaw speech -- whether you're offended by said speech or not.
Harvard and its professors, of course, have freedom of speech too -- even speech that wildly offends like theirs does here.
However, I will note that since The First Amendment applies to all but true and unconditional threats, and in fact it is lawful to note what the retributive act will be if our Constitution is abrogated wholesale because under said Constitution such an act is unconditionally unconstitutional and thus impermissible and as such that note is NOT a legally-punishable threat, that should said Professors manage to convince the public to overthrow the Constitution and its protections, an act of unspeakable evil and an act of Civil War against the American people, that their families, their property and their persons will go first in what follows.
Don't do it Professors.
I don't want it and I assure you don't want it either but by God I will act in whatever degree is necessary to prevent any funny Austrian painters from taking hold in America. We know where that leads, and no, Donald Trump is not Hitler despite your rhetorical bullshit.
It is especially telling that these "Professors" believe that they would somehow be magically shielded from the consequences of such act were they to succeed in provoking it.
That, standing alone, makes them unfit to profess anything and that Harvard allows such as a serious discussion and proposal for America, not a mere academic exercise, is enough for me to call for each and every graduate and student, along with THEIR families, to be shunned in all respects and thus destroyed, entirely within the boundaries of the law as is every person's right under said First Amendment to not associate with those who seek to ruin this nation and kill both them and their families.
Civil unrest or even Civil War.
Go read this:
ttps://x.com/Unitedcajunnavy/status/1845654684989538577
Take careful account of the language. It is not his language, it is the language of FEMA and others in the government. The government believes they have a right to rule, which our Constitution explicitly disavows.
I had a short conversation with a couple the other night over a beverage before a concert. They were talking about "democracy" and I interjected that we aren't one; we're a Constitutional Republic. They countered that the people had a right to decide to which I pointed out that the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy is that in the second 49 sheep and 51 wolves hold a vote on what's for dinner while in a Constitutional Republic that is forbidden even if there is only one sheep and that it is this very fact that means they have any rights at all, such as where we were (a rather blue area) and that absent same the immigrants currently in their state could be billeted in their house and eat all their food without compensation simply by virtue of a vote.
The look on their faces was priceless.
I don't think they liked me very much......
Folks, we can either change minds or ultimately we will have to remove heads. The conversation I had needs to be repeated by everyone, every day. It has to be personal and result in contemplation. It might not have "took" in that instance; I suspect it didn't, but you could see the flash of recognition that I was right, and they could in fact have everything taken from them simply by a majority vote as a consequence of their political positions.
As I said I don't know if I changed minds. After all, I was two ryes and a charcuterie board into the evening at that point and about to go enjoy some fine music. But this is how we avoid having to remove heads, and thus you'd better get to it.
You see, the classic view of "liberal" was just that: You do you, I'll do me, and you and I will leave each other alone. This was entirely supportable. The so-called "conservative" position was "you try to do you and I'll throw you in jail." Aka "you can't fuck who you want; it has to be a woman if you're a man and vice-versa." Or "you can't smoke weed or I'll throw you in jail."
The liberal position was "I'll fuck who I want in the privacy of my own home, and I'll smoke what I want as well, again, in the privacy of my own home."
But then the so-called "liberal" position turned into force as well.
"You will call me by the pronouns I want or go to jail."
"I will smoke what I want where I want, including in your face and I will drive stoned whether you like it or not."
"I will force you to put up with theft, prostitution in public, looting, taking over streets and similar."
"I will force you to allow me, a biological man, to take a shower in the locker room with your daughter."
"I will force you to allow 10 million 'migrants' into the country and also force you to pay them $2,000/mo and the schooling of their kids and for their health care and when they drive without a license or insurance and smash your car you must pay for that too. If you object, even when the inflation this all causes (and depression of wages on top of it) in your town that's just tough shit."
And of course.... "I will force you to inject an untested and possibly-dangerous substance into your arm or be dispossessed of everything."
This is not "liberal"; it is Communist and an argument of superiority along with a right to RULE, which does not exist by our founding documents and no amount of "voting" will change that without formal abrogation of said Constitution -- and no, you won't get ratification of that either as 3/4 of the states would have to agree and they will not.
Short of that there is a point where either minds change or heads are removed.
I have no obligation to accept that which is not Constitutional and if there is no redress in the courts, and there isn't when you accost someone's daughter in the locker room shower with a dick as that is absolutely irreparable harm the correct response to such a demand is to render anyone who goes into the woman's locker room with a dick a dickless man on an immediate basis.
Oh, you don't like that?
Then cut that shit out before those of us who believe in the Constitution become willing to enforce it in person and against not just the person violating our rights but also against all who cheered it on and publicly identified themselves.
This is not about liberalism. You have every right to live as you wish but no right to force others to agree with you, or to pay for whatever you wish to parade around. If you want to cut your own dick off as an adult you have the right to do it but you do not have the right to force anyone else to pay for it, nor do you have a right to force others to use your preferred pronouns. Nor do you have a right to demand you be hired on other than merit because you have green hair, think you're a woman when you're not or to meet some "quota" no matter what it is. And no, you do not have the right to double my (and everyone else's) electric bill and wildly cost-jack every other thing in the economy as energy is behind every good and service produced based on your belief in some invisible boogeyman -- particularly when it is a documented fact that every single bit of our modern life is in fact made possible by and is dependent on carbon.
This same lie -- the right to force others -- is the premise of Obamacare, by the way, and it is just cause for a no-bullshit revolt because it is a demand that I, as a healthy person, pay for those who are not. It does not matter whether you chose the behaviors that led to the disability and ill health. You have no right to demand that I pay your bill for your personal issues.
Taxation for the purpose of public good (e.g. a road) is a different matter. We accept this because there are public goods. But health care is a private good; it inures to you, not I. The reason we have this debate is that we've allowed wild-eyed felonies in the health system to exist in the first place and rather than jail said persons and thereby fix the cost problems we turn to thuggery.
Well a thug is a thug and making two thugs rather than arresting the first one is not only wrong it risks people eventually deciding that if the law doesn't apply when it comes to monopolies and money it doesn't apply when it comes to arson, malicious wounding and homicide either.
Yes, for the singular person making that decision the person who does it gets arrested and goes to jail -- well, they do unless they're a doctor, hospital or nurse who fills your grandmother full of Remdesivir, destroys her kidneys and she dies.
None of them went to jail -- they in fact all got a bonus for doing it.
But what if the people who were the loved ones of said grandmas, and I remind you a million were shoved in the hole so what is that -- five or ten million Americans so-assaulted as their family members -- decide they've had enough of this shit and slit the throats of everyone involved? If you refuse to prosecute manslaughter and even refuse the right to sue for money then the options are to kill every cocksucker involved or tolerate it. Why do you think "tolerate it" is the reasonable response? What sort of evil piece of shit are you if that's your answer to the slaughter of a million Americans for profit and by the way, it certainly appears that it is!
You could neither arrest or jail even 10% of the people if they decided the correct answer is "slit throats" -- and that's assuming the cops were willing to try, and if they did and the people burnt the cop's houses the number of cops willing to try would rapidly become zero since they can't both protect their house and leave said house to go arrest people.
If you think this can't happen oh yes it can and history tells us it does when so-called "liberalism" turns into thuggery -- and what often follows that is a really odd painter-dude with a funny moustache who says "he can fix it all, but there will be a few sacrifices."
Are you willing to take that risk or would you prefer to change minds before we wind up there -- and by the way, we're damned close right here, right now.
And if you think that was an accident, you're wrong.
He pointed out that Laken Riley would be alive today but for the Biden/Harris administrations actions on immigrants.
Oh, he tried to get slimy with it, but the point was made anyway, and it wasn't an accident. Clinton is a slimeball but he's not stupid and he shivved Harris on national television, pointing out that the Harris' policies, which are the same as Biden's in this regard, got Laken Riley killed.
You see, her accused killer came into the country illegally while Biden was President, he was caught, allegedly "vetted" and then released. This is what he says Harris supports and has been doing with Biden.
Problem: Laken is dead and he said "if they had been properly vetted."
Uhhhh..... yeah.
Oh, he's right by the way: Biden and Harris are personally responsible for Laken Riley's death.
Go listen to it yourself.
ttps://x.com/greg_price11/status/1845869475863597075
Oh, and the reason we're not having babies is that the federal government, its deficit spending and thus inflation has nuked the economy and thus for thinking people for 95% of the couples it makes no economic sense to have children. And no, you can't replace those people with immigrants vetted or not because the immigrants who are coming here are intellectually incapable of replacing the Americans in those positions and they further wind up increasing the deficit spending as a direct consequence.
60 Minutes, to be precise.
They've been caught editing the Harris interview -- and not just cutting out a word or two either. It appears they replaced her word salad answer on Israel with a single sentence she spoke regarding Ukraine.
In other words they took an answer from one question and spliced it in place of the actual answer given.
Then they had the audacity to claim Trump was "afraid" of them.
Well 60 Minutes, it appears you self-documented your willingness to deliberately misrepresent the answers Harris gave to questions by splicing and dicing the answer from one question into another. That's not "editing for clarity" or somesuch which we hear as an excuse all the time, its deliberate.
If the media wishes to destroy its own purpose its free to do that but I hope they're ok with being the first place ire is dispensed including against every single one of their employees if the Rule of Law is every lost -- because they will be, and anyone who continues to work for such an outfit, if that event comes, deserves it.
See for yourself: ttps://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1843703383087276529
Or even better, just watch this....
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Tuesday called for the elimination of the Electoral College during a fundraiser in California, a move some Democrats have advocated for in the past after election defeats.
Of course the odds of Walz (or Harris) actually managing to pull that off are slim and none -- and Slim left the building some time ago because it would require a Constitutional Amendment to do -- and plenty of people, and states, are well-aware that it would lead to immediate secession.
In 2023, the Minnesota governor signed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement in which each state would allocate all its electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote for president, regardless of how individual states voted. The compact would take effect only if supporters secure pledges from states with at least 270 electoral votes.
Actually, that's unconstitutional as well -- Interstate Compacts are only permitted if Congress gives them explicit sanction, so that too is a stunt and again, it would lead to immediate secession.
Yes, I know plenty of people would like to see it go. But the problem is that in a Constitutional Republic to make such a sweeping change and effectively enslave everyone not in a handful of states who have outsized populations you need the consent of the rest of the States. You won't get it, and if anyone was to force it down everyone's throats those disenfranchised would have every reason -- and right -- to leave.
May I remind you that 2/3rds of Congress then 3/4 of the States would have to ratify said amendment. They won't for obvious reasons; it would mean they would never again have national political representation at the Executive and such would be immediately followed by other shifts in the House to permanently debar them there as well.
I highly doubt that secession would be peacefully accommodated.
It certainly wasn't the last time and this time virtually everything is interconnected enough (e.g. power, communications, natural gas, etc.) that as soon as the shooting started everyone would be in the dark -- for openers. Oh by the way, if you want just one tiny example of this the only plant that makes IV bags, run by Baxter, is in NC and currently offline. Contemplate the outcome of a national divorce that is refused by force and suddenly nobody, anywhere, has any access to IV supplies and oh by the way refusal-by-force will of course mean a lot of people get shot and need surgery. That's just one tiny example.