James Carville just publicly described a Democrat strategy that, if implemented, would create the precise conditions for genuine constitutional conflict in the United States. Carville's proposal: if Democrats win the presidency and both chambers of Congress in 2029, they should immediately grant statehood to Puerto Rico and DC (adding four guaranteed Democrat Senate seats) and expand the Supreme Court from nine to thirteen justices.

"F it, eat our dust," Carville said.

Nick Freitas, former Green Beret and host of Making the Argument, responds: that's not politics. That's the conditions for war.

Freitas spends significant time establishing the legal and historical foundations of the Constitution and why these political stunts are so dangerous. The federal government was created by the states, not the other way around. Article 1, Section 8 enumerates its powers. The 10th Amendment reserves everything else to the states and the people. The general welfare clause, the supremacy clause, the necessary and proper clause — Freitas methodically dismantles the left's broad readings of each, arguing none of them grant the federal government unlimited authority. "There is no way the founders would have signed on to a document that said the federal government could do whatever it wanted provided it was in the general welfare."

The Supreme Court itself, he notes, derives its authority not from constitutional text but from tradition and general acceptance. That is a tradition that evaporates the moment the court is openly packed for partisan outcomes. "If you stack the Supreme Court, why would I trust it? Why would I think it capable of rendering a fair and impartial judgment?"

Jefferson and Madison's Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 established the doctrine of nullification and interposition: states have not only the right but the duty to push back when the federal government exceeds its constitutional authority. The process has two levels. First, refuse to enforce. Second, actively block federal enforcement. "We're going to use our state law enforcement to resist you. You're going to attempt to enforce this through force. We're going to resist you with force."

The federal government's dirty secret: it doesn't have enough personnel to enforce everything. It relies on state and local cooperation. Remove that cooperation and the whole apparatus stalls. And Freitas, who has served in the military, flatly states that ordering the 82nd Airborne into Texas to confiscate guns (as an example) would produce mass refusal or quiet obstruction.

Freitas identifies the likely trigger of a real armed conflict if Democrats follow Carville’s plan: a packed Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun ownership. At that point, he envisions a compact of governors — Idaho, Wyoming, Tennessee, Texas, Indiana, Oklahoma and more — issuing a joint declaration: we do not recognize these laws, we will not enforce them, and we will not permit you to enforce them within our borders. "Let's see how bad you want it, because we can tell you how bad we don't." This wouldn't be secession. It would be states collectively asserting constitutional limits on federal powerthe. That is the exact mechanism the founders built into the system for exactly this scenario.

Freitas's final point is that the Left can't win this fight: "The vanguard of the revolution for the left right now are the same people that literally have a panic attack when they get misgendered. Not exactly the sort of people that are capable of fighting an effective civil war." But Carville doesn't seem to realize that. If Democrats actually execute what Carville described, they won't achieve permanent power. They'll achieve the one thing that turns cold culture war into something much hotter, and they'll lose.

🔥 Top Quotes

"Democrats have absolutely no problem bringing down the hammer of government hard on people they don't like. Republicans are always reluctant to do it. We always say, 'What if the shoe was on the other foot?' Democrats are happy to let you use those arguments to not exercise legitimate power, and when they get back into power, they just bring the hammer, and they bring it heavy."

"Think hard about where you want to raise your family. Because if Democrats got what Carville is asking for, you're going to be asking yourselves where you can defend them from."

FACTS

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was added specifically because several states refused to ratify the Constitution without a guarantee that any power not given to the federal government would remain with the states or the people.

🎙️Trump Tightens Grip on Hormuz Putting Enormous pressure on Iran, Verdict with Ted Cruz  •  33 min

⭐️ 1. Here Is How The Next Civil War Will Start

Making the Argument with Nick Freitas  •  53 min

⭐️ 2. Who Runs Iran?

The Commentary Magazine Podcast  •  73 min

⭐️ 3. Buckley Carlson: Writing Trump’s Speeches, Trump’s Shocking Texts to MTG, and the Epstein Cover-up

The Tucker Carlson Show  •  137 min

⭐️ 4. Who Decides What’s True on Wikipedia?

Conversations with Coleman  •  63 min

⭐️ 5. Stephen Meyer, John Lennox, and James Tour: Three Scientists on the Origins of Everything | Peter Robinson | Hoover Institution

Uncommon Knowledge  •  61 min

 MILITARY

1. Here Is How The Next Civil War Will Start

 Making the Argument with Nick Freitas

Why Listen: This episode is crucial for understanding the underlying tensions in American politics today. Freitas provides a compelling analysis of how political strategies could lead to civil unrest.

Nick Freitas explores the potential catalysts for a civil war in the United States, emphasizing the political strategies that could lead to widespread unrest. By analyzing recent comments from political figures and historical precedents, he argues that the conditions for conflict may be closer than many realize.

 POLICY

2. Who Runs Iran?

 The Commentary Magazine Podcast

Why Listen: This episode provides critical insights into the complexities of U.S.-Iran relations and the internal dynamics that could influence future negotiations.

Fred Kagan joins host Jon Podhoretz to dissect the intricate power dynamics within the Iranian regime amidst ongoing geopolitical tensions. The discussion delves into the implications of these internal struggles on U.S. negotiations and the broader conflict, while also touching on the American public's perception of the war and the potential necessity of regime change to address Iran's nuclear ambitions.

 CULTURE

3. Buckley Carlson: Writing Trump’s Speeches, Trump’s Shocking Texts to MTG, and the Epstein Cover-up

 The Tucker Carlson Show

Why Listen: This episode offers a raw and honest look at the complexities of political loyalty and the consequences of leadership decisions in today's polarized climate.

Buckley Carlson, who wrote speeches for Donald Trump and voted for him three times, shares his deep sense of betrayal regarding Trump's recent actions and decisions. The conversation delves into the complexities of political loyalty, the impact of Trump's policies, and the broader implications for American society.

 TECH

4. Who Decides What’s True on Wikipedia?

 Conversations with Coleman

Why Listen: This episode is essential for understanding the biases that can shape our perception of truth in the digital age and the implications for information integrity.

Ashley Rinsberg explores the ideological biases that have infiltrated Wikipedia, revealing how a small group of editors can dominate politically charged topics. The discussion highlights the implications of these biases on the broader information ecosystem, including AI systems and search engines.

 SCIENCE

5. Stephen Meyer, John Lennox, and James Tour: Three Scientists on the Origins of Everything | Peter Robinson | Hoover Institution

 Uncommon Knowledge

Why Listen: This episode challenges materialist assumptions and advocates for the possibility of intelligent design, making it a must-listen for anyone interested in the intersection of science and philosophy.

Peter Robinson engages mathematician John Lennox, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, and chemist James Tour in a profound discussion on the origins of the universe and life. They explore whether recent scientific discoveries indicate blind, undirected processes or the influence of an intelligent mind, challenging materialist assumptions and reflecting on the implications for human existence and purpose.