Pinned Tweet
The motivation for my account is primarily to educate the American citizen on the constitution. Civics was a required course when I went through public school. Sadly, it's not today. Young Americans are graduating and don't know what Separation of Powers means. Follow me if you're curious.
Chief retweeted
WAIT...WHAT 🚨
The media, told us that Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed isn't part of the Muslim Brotherhood
Strange... for some reason he's being congratulated on their websites homepage
That usually means you're one if them
Who actually checks whether a member of Congress is a citizen?
Article I, Section 2 sets three requirements for the House: age 25, seven years a citizen, and living in the state you represent.
Article I, Section 5 makes each House 'the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.'
In Powell v. McCormack (1969), the Court said the House can refuse to seat someone only for failing those listed qualifications.
Removing a sitting member for anything else means expulsion, and that takes two-thirds.
When a member's citizenship is questioned, should the House wait on the courts, or do its own constitutional job?
The Supreme Court needs to be overhauled.' Texans should read Article III before they vote.
Article III says federal judges 'shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.' That's life tenure, in the text.
The number of justices is just a statute. It's been nine since 1869, and FDR's 1937 plan to add up to six died in a Senate his own party controlled.
Term limits for justices are different. They run straight into that 'good Behaviour' clause.
I want term limits for Congress, and I say the same thing there: do it through Article V or don't call it constitutional.
So which is it, Mr. Talarico: a bill, or an amendment?
#Elections2026
It's the design, stupid.
Does it still limit the power of the federal government? That was the original intent. Today we have politicians who lecture the people on what 'rights' they have. The Declaration says our rights are endowed by our Creator, and the Ninth Amendment says listing some of them doesn't deny the rest. The government doesn't get to pick and choose.
"Impeaching a president takes a simple majority of the House. Removing one takes 67 senators. The House has impeached a president four times and the Senate has convicted zero. Andrew Johnson came closest in 1868, acquitted 35-19, one vote short. Impeachment on day one is a press release. Conviction is a math problem. Which party has 67?"
Want to abolish the U.S. Senate? Read Article V first.
The Constitution in 5 Sentences: Article V.
1. Amendments get proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or by a convention that two-thirds of the states (34) apply for.
2. Either way, nothing takes effect until three-fourths of the states (38) ratify it.
3. All 27 amendments so far came out of Congress. The convention route has never been used, and only the 21st was ratified by state conventions instead of legislatures.
4. Unless Congress sets a deadline, a proposal can wait for centuries: the 27th was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992.
5. One promise is locked even tighter: no state can lose its equal vote in the Senate without its own consent, so 'abolish the Senate' isn't a 38-state project. It's a 50-state one. The Framers made change hard on purpose. If you had 38 states, what's the one amendment you'd spend them on?
Chief retweeted
Maybe the organizing of a protest as part of a larger conspiracy to overthrow the government is worth investigating to the end of prosecuting the illegal goal of the conspiracy. Many otherwise legal, otherwise constitutionally protected conduct, is still illegal if it is also an act toward furthering the conspiracy. Just a thought.
Chief retweeted
I'm riding this thread of foreign influence to shout out to my good friends at @ncri_io ... they just came out with a pretty damning report of direct Iranian collaboration within the Singham nonprofits. Read it here:
networkcontagion.us/reports/…
Chief retweeted
🚨🚨THE DEMOCRACY FILES, PART 3: AMERICA GETS THE FOREIGN-INTERVENTION TREATMENT 🚨
At what point does this become foreign interference of our elections?
To back up: the main group that Danielle Reiff and the other ex-USAID workers belongs to, Renew To Thrive (R2T) / Renew American Democracy (RAD) have an explicit strategy document. That strategy outlines "preparing for the worst" which includes the Insurrection Act or "election meltdown," and their goal is to get "structural reform" in place by that - a polite way of saying our Constitutional Republic has to be overhauled.
In July 2026, R2T/RAD invited foreign state actors to share experience with the American community, for the express purpose of operationalizing their expertise right here in the United States. All actors had experience in international community assisted transitions (I'll let you figure out what that is a code word for).
The disturbing part, though, is that all of the foreign actors' recommendations were implemented right here in America.
You may have seen news headlines like:
- Restore trust in processes
- Increased election security, increased legal presence at polls
- Democratic officials hold tabletop exercises
- Judges prepare for post-election challenges
To be clear, this video doesn't prove that this meeting specifically caused this cascade of escalations. But what it shows is that the democracy-promotion playbook the U.S. spent decades exporting, with situation rooms, observers at every polling place, prebunking and litigation paired with street mobilization, is now being run on America's own election. The same people are running it, and they're taking advice from the foreign actors the U.S. once backed.
Now when you look at officials talking about independent watchdogs or tabletop exercises... know that it's because they are now treating the United States midterms exactly the same as they'd treat elections in a third world country.
And I think more than a small part of them are hoping that it does become a self-fulfilling prophecy as it has in so many of those countries. (For context, my book Unelected documents that so-called "election meltdowns" are precursors to transitions of power via color revolution.)
"They only had muskets" is an argument the Supreme Court already took apart.
In Heller (2008), the Court called the claim that only 18th-century arms are protected "bordering on the frivolous."
The First Amendment isn't limited to quill pens, and the Fourth covers your phone, not just your papers.
In 2016, Caetano v. Massachusetts applied the same rule to stun guns, without a single dissent.
Rights protect the citizen, not the technology of 1791.
If rights froze at 1791, which one would you lose first?
Chief retweeted
@datarepublican is an American legend. Grateful and humbled by her invaluable skills!
For the doubters questioning the audio's authenticity, there's the real thing. Internet do your thing, quickly 👇
fathom.video/share/zudxPzqEN…
The Constitution in 5 Sentences: the Commerce Clause.
Article I, Section 8 lets Congress "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
In 1942, Wickard v. Filburn unanimously held that an Ohio farmer's wheat, grown to feed animals on his own farm and never sold, still counted, because thousands of farmers doing the same thing would add up to an effect on the national market.
In 1995, a San Antonio high school senior named Alfonso Lopez won at the Supreme Court, and for the first time since 1937 the Court said Congress had gone past its commerce power.
Ten years later, Gonzales v. Raich went right back to Wickard to uphold a federal ban on marijuana grown at home for medical use that was legal under state law.
Justice Thomas warned in dissent that if that counts, Congress "can regulate virtually anything."
Where's your line: actual trade between states, or anything that adds up to a market effect?
Who actually gets to rename a state? Not the President, and not Congress.
New Mexico's name is written into Article I of its own state constitution. Changing it takes a state constitutional amendment: a majority of all members of both legislative chambers, then a majority of New Mexico voters.
That's exactly how Rhode Island dropped 'and Providence Plantations' in 2020, 53% to 47%, ten years after voters rejected the same change with 78% voting no.
So 'New America' gets decided by New Mexicans at the ballot box. Would it pass there?
Chief retweeted
Listen up America !!!
This is very terrifying..
The past few days, I got my hands on thousands of new transcripts and hundreds of recordings, thanks to leads from @SKDoubleDub33 and @iamlisalogan .
You've heard that the DSA is proposing structural reforms to America, including abolishing the Senate and imposing term limits.
What you not have heard is - there is an operational plan to put it all into action. If the Democratic Party sweeps 2026, then DSA will become "foot soldiers" in constant clashes with the administration to cross a "red line" or invoke a "doomsday scenario" - meaning, President Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, probably sometime in 2027.
Then, a lot of coordinated responses kick off, including delegitimizing the federal government itself and handing that legitimacy to Democratic governors. 2028 then becomes a vote on whether to keep America governance as-is or to burn it all down to appease a "young and brown" demographic.
The mysterious group who's been coordinating 50501, Indivisible, and coordinating the NoKings protests is called "United Democracy Alliance" and their intellectual leader is Erica Chenoweth who came up with the 3.5% rule of nonviolent regime change.
Patience. I know I've hyped this more than anything else. It's genuinely the biggest discovery I've had. This is an enormous archive. This is only the beginning.
Chief retweeted
All of these insurrectionists need to be rounded up right now for planning a coup or CIA-style color revolution on the United States.
Watching them calmly map out a “crisis of legitimacy,” street chaos, and a ready-made “path” while treating the Constitution like an obstacle is pure regime change playbook.
These aren’t organic activists, they’re the same operators who ran this overseas.
Lock them up before they execute.
@FBIDirectorKash @elonmusk @Scavino47 @SusieWiles47 @VP @POTUS @AGToddBlanche @dbongino
🚨🚨THE DEMOCRACY FILES, PART 1: THE PLAN 🚨
I am working on gathering all the documents.
Now, here's something to understand about the "democracy" and protest ecosystem: almost nobody knows the 'grand plan' so to speak. They simply agree to play a role.
For example, 99% of people breaking stuff on the streets believe they're doing it out of an organic uprising. They don't see that the police have been ordered to stand down. They don't see that legal services have already been arranged for them. They don't see that foundations are paying for their bonds.
Similarly here, governors aren't participating in a pact to destroy the Constitution. Governors simply have agreed to push back on the Insurrection Act. The effect is the same: the governors end up playing a role in a grander plan.
I call this "shared epistemology" in my book Unelected. Motivations differ, people rarely agree to the big evil supervillain framing, but incentives all converge in the same end goal.
No Kings might not agree to explicitly tear down the Constitution, but they nonetheless work with DSA and will turn out millions of people if the right phone call is put in.
Here is one articulation of the plan - and crucially, since then, they have put many NGOs in their places to execute their proper role at all levels when the time is right.
Many more coming.
Chief retweeted
We only have to look to Europe to see our future if we vote blue or abstain. It’s time to get out and vote. Even if you didn’t get everything you wanted or your candidate isn’t perfect, it’s better than the alternative. Vote early, vote on voting day, it doesn’t matter, just vote.
The Constitution in 5 Sentences: the 17th Amendment.
Until 1913, you didn't elect your U.S. senators. Your state legislature did.
That system broke down when legislatures deadlocked, and Delaware had no senators at all from 1901 to 1903.
The 17th Amendment, ratified April 8, 1913, gave the vote to the people of each state.
It also lets a governor fill a vacancy temporarily, if the legislature allows it.
The trade-off is that state governments lost their direct voice in Congress, and that's why 'repeal the 17th' still comes up.
Would you go back to legislatures picking senators?
The Insurrection Act is trending again, so here's what it does and doesn't do.
It lets a president use troops to put down an insurrection or enforce federal law when normal law enforcement can't.
It gives no one the power to run, pause, or count an election. Article I, Section 4 leaves that to the states and Congress.
And 18 U.S.C. 592 makes it a federal crime to bring troops to a polling place.
Know the statute before you panic, or cheer.
🤖 Made with AI
Dang! The timing of this one reminds me of John Kerry being for the war in Iraq before he was against it! Or other leftists being against illegal immigration before they were for it!
