Talarico's fraud begins with his "faith"

Yours truly spotted Talarico as a fake right from the beginning.

Unfortunately, if you can believe the polls, he is getting to some people.

Perhaps it is late in the game to begin defining him. But one would've thought that it was obvious. Evidently it isn't.

So here's a question to GAB AI on his "faith".

What about Talarico's claims to be Christian?

GAB AI:

James Talarico’s claims to be Christian have become the primary flashpoint in his Senate race, serving as a lens through which voters evaluate his sincerity, his policy goals, and the legitimacy of his political identity. His use of faith is not incidental; he has explicitly anchored his political platform in his seminary studies and his interpretation of the Gospel.

This has resulted in two sharply conflicting assessments of his Christian identity.

1. The "Social Gospel" Perspective

Talarico maintains that his faith is the primary driver of his liberal political agenda. He frequently cites the Great Commandment—to "love thy neighbor"—as the moral imperative behind his support for public education funding, his opposition to school choice vouchers, and his defense of liberal social policies.

- The Theological Argument: Talarico argues that the modern Republican interpretation of Christianity—which he labels "Christian nationalism"—has corrupted the faith by wedding it to political power. He insists that a "true" Christian should prioritize the poor, the marginalized, and the immigrant. In this view, he is being intellectually honest about his theology, even if it is a theology that is historically and culturally at odds with the evangelical tradition dominant in Texas.

2. The Critic’s Assessment: "Blasphemous" and Performative

The intense backlash against Talarico, particularly from evangelical leaders like Robert Jeffress and conservative influencers, is not merely a disagreement on policy; it is an attack on the legitimacy of his faith. Critics point to three specific areas where they argue his actions are incompatible with his claims:

- Gender and Theology: Talarico’s 2021 comment that "God is nonbinary" remains his most damaging statement regarding his faith. To his critics, this is not a complex theological nuance, but an act of "blasphemy" that demonstrates he is willing to redefine the nature of God to satisfy modern secular gender ideology. They argue that this disqualifies him from being considered a faithful representative of Christian values.

- Weaponizing the Pulpit: Critics argue that Talarico uses "Christianese"—the specialized language and cultural markers of the faith—as a political shield. By framing his legislative agenda as a mandate from Jesus, he effectively immunizes his policies from criticism. If his tax or healthcare plan is framed as a "Christian imperative," then to oppose it is to oppose the faith itself. His opponents view this as a form of spiritual manipulation.

- The Contrast with Traditional Morality: The GOP message at the Dallas convention highlighted a stark divide: they positioned Talarico as a "progressive antithesis" to Christianity. By prioritizing secular social justice over traditional biblical teachings on human nature and sexuality, they argue he is practicing "cultural Christianity" or "liberal civil religion" rather than the historic, orthodox faith.

The Problem of "Theological Modernism"

The friction here is rooted in two fundamentally different ideas of what it means to be Christian:

- Traditionalist View: Christianity is a fixed set of beliefs and practices handed down through Scripture and tradition. A person who rejects biblical definitions of gender or opposes orthodox teachings is, by definition, not a Christian in any meaningful sense. They see Talarico as an exponent of "theological modernism"—an attempt to force the faith to accommodate contemporary secular progressivism.

- Talarico’s View: Christianity is an evolving, lived experience focused on social liberation and the "radical vision" of Jesus as a reformer. He views his opponents' focus on issues like abortion or gender as a distraction from the "real" work of the Gospel, which he identifies as challenging the "seat of power."

How Honest is He?

When you ask how "honest" his claims to be Christian are, you are essentially asking whether he believes his own synthesis of progressivism and faith.

- If you believe faith is a personal journey: You might see Talarico as a sincere, if radical, individual who is attempting to live out a faith that is deeply uncomfortable to the establishment.

- If you believe faith requires adherence to historic doctrines: You will likely view Talarico as fundamentally dishonest, or at the very least, as someone who is rebranding secular leftist ideology with Christian terminology to make it more palatable to a religious electorate.

Ultimately, the debate over Talarico’s faith is not about whether he "goes to church" or "prays," but about the propriety of his theology. His opponents do not just think he is wrong about policies; they think he is attempting to fundamentally hollow out the Christian faith and refill it with the tenets of a modern, secular, political movement. That is the core of why his Christian identity is such a high-voltage issue in this campaign.



Comment:

GAB AI is soft-pedalling again.

Maybe they are hedging against the re-emergence of cancel culture. It WILL return if the Democrats return. That means a lot of censorship.

You cannot "split the baby" with regards to the truth. Either it is true or it isn't. Talarico is fake.

Soft-pedaling radicalism

The GAB AI is soft-pedaling Talarico's exposure here. I've got questions.

Question:

If James Talrico says he wants to restore checks and balances, how does that square with what Carville and the Democratic Socialists are saying?

GAB AI:

James Talarico’s campaign rhetoric regarding "checks and balances" stands in a state of deliberate tension with the more open, revolutionary demands of James Carville and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Talarico appears to be performing a delicate balancing act, attempting to reconcile these disparate goals through a specific rhetorical framing.

1. The Linguistic Strategy: Defining "Checks" Through "Accountability"

Talarico squares his position by redefining the term "checks and balances" to mean executive accountability rather than institutional friction.

- Talarico’s Lens: He frames the executive branch as having effectively "captured" the government, rendering the legislative branch impotent. By calling to "restore" checks, he is arguing that Congress must be empowered to act decisively to curb executive overreach.

- The Bridge to Carville/DSA: This is where his position aligns with the more radical elements. Both Talarico and the DSA argue that the current system is "broken" or "rigged." By defining the "check" as a requirement for action (e.g., Congress overriding the executive) rather than inaction (the status quo or gridlock), he creates a justification for removing the very mechanisms—like the filibuster—that currently act as structural safeguards.

2. The Conflict of Intent

While Talarico uses the language of traditional constitutionalism, his proposed solutions create a functional convergence with the Carville/DSA agenda:

- Removal of Hurdles: Talarico’s push to abolish the filibuster is the key link. Carville advocates for this to ensure the Democratic Party can pass its agenda without obstruction; the DSA advocates for this because they see the Senate itself as an anti-democratic obstacle. Talarico frames it as a "necessary reform" to allow a majority to govern. While he stops short of calling for the abolition of the Senate (as the DSA does), he is actively dismantling the procedural "checks" that currently make the Senate a distinct, deliberative body.

- Judicial Power: Talarico’s call to "overhaul" the Supreme Court mirrors the Carville/DSA desire to break the current judicial majority. By using the language of "restoring balance," Talarico gives a palatable veneer to a radical institutional shift: he presents it not as a power grab, but as a correction of a corrupted body.

3. The "Constitutionalist" Cover

Talarico is effectively serving as the political bridge between the institutional establishment and the radical base.

- For Moderate/Independent Voters: The phrase "restoring checks and balances" resonates with voters who believe in the American constitutional system. It sounds principled, measured, and familiar.

- For the Radical Base: They understand the subtext. They know that in modern political shorthand, "restoring checks" when directed at a conservative-leaning judiciary or a gridlocked Senate means "removing the people currently holding power."

The Fundamental Contradiction

There is a massive logical gap that Talarico leaves unaddressed: If the system’s "checks and balances" are what currently prevent the government from acting, then "restoring" them—by strengthening the majority—inevitably leads to an environment where the minority has no power to stop the majority.

James Talarico is attempting to frame the removal of institutional obstacles as the fulfillment of the Founders' intent, while Carville and the DSA are being more transparent about the fact that they view those same obstacles as problems to be eliminated. Talarico’s rhetoric acts as a tactical filter: it allows him to move toward the same "majoritarian" end-state as the radical wing, while maintaining the rhetorical high ground of a constitutionalist.

Ultimately, his position "squares" with theirs only if you accept that the Constitution is failing specifically because it prevents the current Democratic agenda from being enacted immediately and without opposition. If that is the starting premise, then "restoring checks and balances" is merely a clever way of saying "empowering the ruling majority to act without resistance."



Comment:

This answer reflects the attitude of many people. They just won't let themselves see what's going on here. It is obfuscation and flat-out LYING.

No Junior Senator is going to call the shots. Whatever he says on the campaign trail is going to differ a lot with what actually comes down the pike. If the Dems win the Senate and the House, they'll go all-out, I suspect. There'd have to be some real stout hearts to oppose this, and I see that you cannot always count on the Bushie wing--but you can definitely count on the lefties to vote as one. Talarico cannot step out of line, or he will have a short career.

In other words, a nightmare scenario is definitely in play here. Ignore the threat at your peril. If the Bill of Rights go, then everything is in play. I DO MEAN EVERYTHING.

Follow-up question to GAB AI:

With respect to campaign rhetoric, how honest is Talarico?

GAB AI:

Assessing the honesty of a candidate in a high-stakes campaign involves looking at the gap between their public rhetoric, their legislative record, and their stated policy goals. In James Talarico’s case, the debate over his honesty depends largely on whether one views his campaign as a pivot toward moderation or as a tactical rebranding.

The Argument for "Political Adaptation" (The Honest Pivot)

Supporters and some moderate political observers argue that Talarico’s campaign reflects a genuine evolution. They point to the following:

- Bipartisan Record: Data from his time in the Texas House shows he was a lead author on dozens of bills that passed with Republican co-authors, such as legislation on prekindergarten class sizes and educational support for inmates. His supporters argue that this demonstrates he is not the "radical partisan" his opponents portray him as, but a pragmatic legislator who understands the necessity of compromise.

- Correction of Past Rhetoric: Talarico has been transparent about distancing himself from his previous, more abrasive political persona, admitting that some of his past remarks "missed the mark" or were "cringe-y." In an environment where politicians rarely admit fault, some see this as an honest effort to grow and reach a broader constituency.

The Argument for "Strategic Rebranding" (The Tactical Pivot)

Critics, including his primary opponents and Republican detractors, argue that his current rhetoric is a calculated attempt to mask a fundamentally left-wing agenda. They cite several factors to support the claim that he is being dishonest with voters:

- The "Progressive" Label: Talarico previously identified as a progressive, yet his campaign literature no longer uses that term. Critics argue that his shift in language is a purely cosmetic change designed to appeal to the "Texas middle," while his underlying legislative goals—such as his support for an "overhaul" of the Supreme Court and ending the filibuster—remain unchanged.

- The "Vegan" Controversy: While the claim that he is a vegan was demonstrably false (he has been filmed eating various meats on the campaign trail), the fact that the rumor gained so much traction speaks to a perception that he is fundamentally a coastal elite who is out of touch with Texas culture. His need to repeatedly defend his diet is seen by critics as a sign that he is a "political performer" rather than a candidate with deep roots in the state's traditions.

- "Checks and Balances" vs. "Power Grab": As previously discussed, critics view his framing of "restoring checks and balances" as fundamentally dishonest. They argue that by advocating for the end of the filibuster and structural changes to the Supreme Court, he is actively campaigning for the destruction of the very institutions he claims he wants to restore. To his opponents, this is a "bait-and-switch" maneuver.

Assessing the "Truth" Gap

The core of the question regarding Talarico’s honesty is an interpretative one:

1. If you believe honesty means consistency: Talarico fails the test. He has significantly moderated his public language, moved away from progressive branding, and is actively downplaying his more combative stances from earlier years.

2. If you believe honesty means adapting to the electorate: Talarico is simply doing what successful politicians have done for centuries: shifting to meet the demands of a new, broader constituency (in this case, the entire state of Texas rather than just his legislative district).

Ultimately, voters who see him as dishonest focus on his proposed institutional changes, viewing his rhetoric about "restoration" as a tactical lie designed to hide a radical agenda. Voters who see him as honest focus on his legislative record of bipartisan cooperation, viewing his shift in rhetoric as a maturation of his political identity. Whether he is being dishonest is less about specific falsehoods and more about whether his current, moderate-toned campaign is a sincere reflection of his future governing priorities or a temporary mask worn to reach the U.S. Senate.

Comment:

Once again, I see Talarico as a total fake. He tells people what they want to hear, but you'll see and hear a different story if he gets the opportunity.

Once upon a time, I created a category on the blog called "Politics Schmolitics". If a so-called self-described "moderate" can participate in a huge power grab for one-party dictatorship, and call it "checks-and-balances", I say his capacity for deceit runs pretty damned deep. It definitely brings a feeling of disgust, and captures the feeling I have about this guy.

Whatever you do, don't forget what Carville advocated

This is in furtherance to the support that a color revolution  (Elissa Slotkin) is going to be attempted. It started with something that the so-called "moderates" of the Democrat once cautioned against, and are now advocating.  The removal of checks and balances are part of the Democratic Socialist Platform.

Please discuss James Carville's advice to pack the Supreme Court and add two states so as to leave the GOP in the dust...

GAB AI:

James Carville has spent the better part of the last two years advocating for a radical structural overhaul of the American federal system. His stated goal is to consolidate permanent Democratic power, an objective he argues is necessary to "save democracy" from the influence of Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

The Carville Strategy

Carville’s proposal is a trifecta of institutional changes designed to lock in a legislative and judicial advantage for the Democratic Party:

- D.C. and Puerto Rico Statehood: Carville advocates for the unilateral admission of Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico as states. He posits that this move is a political necessity, as both entities are widely expected to consistently elect Democratic senators, effectively guaranteeing the party a long-term majority in the upper chamber of Congress.

- Expanding the Supreme Court: He has explicitly called for expanding the number of Supreme Court justices to 13. By adding four new seats to the existing nine, a Democratic president and Senate would have the opportunity to appoint a liberal supermajority, effectively neutralizing the current conservative judicial bench.

- The "Just Do It" Mandate: Perhaps the most notable aspect of Carville’s advice is his tactical instruction to Democratic leadership: "Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it." Carville argues that attempting to build public consensus for these measures is a mistake. Instead, he believes the party should wait until they hold the presidency and both chambers of Congress and then implement these changes immediately via simple majority legislation, leaving the Republican opposition with no viable recourse.

The Rationale: Political Retribution

Carville frames these drastic measures as a "course correction" necessitated by what he perceives as a history of Republican "stealing" of power. He frequently cites GOP efforts regarding congressional redistricting, the confirmation of conservative judges, and the obstruction of previous democratic processes as justification for his own party's "power grab."

In his view, the modern American political system is so "imperfect" and skewed toward the right—due in part to structural features like the Senate and the Electoral College—that the only way for the Left to regain dominance is to forcefully re-engineer the government’s foundations. His rhetoric—famously punctuated by the phrase "F--- it. Eat our dust"—reflects a shift toward a "by any means necessary" approach to national governance.

Critical Reception and Consequences

The reaction to Carville’s proposals has been starkly polarized along ideological lines:

- Democratic Pragmatism vs. Radicalism: While some progressive activists have long championed court-packing and D.C. statehood, the broader Democratic establishment has remained cautious. Even as Carville pushes these ideas on his podcast, mainstream party leaders have been wary of the optics, fearing that such moves would be viewed by the electorate as a naked grab for power, potentially triggering a backlash.

- Republican Outrage: For the Right, Carville’s comments are seen as a confirmation of their darkest warnings about the Left's intentions. President Trump and other conservative leaders have labeled this plan a "country-destroying" scheme, arguing that it would effectively end the constitutional order and establish a one-party state for the next century.

- Constitutional Concerns: Legal scholars often note that while Congress has the power to define the size of the Supreme Court and the conditions for statehood, doing so for the explicit purpose of partisan advantage would represent a massive departure from historical norms. It would effectively transform the judiciary and the Senate from deliberative, representative institutions into appendages of the ruling party’s platform.

Ultimately, Carville's strategy signals the end of the post-WWII consensus on institutional norms. He is explicitly calling for a shift toward "hardball" politics, where the rules of the American republic are viewed not as sacred constraints, but as variables to be manipulated to secure demographic and ideological victory.

Follow-up question:

Did the Democrat Socialists refer to the end of the Electoral College and Senate?

GAB AI:

Yes. The "Workers Deserve More" platform, released by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in July 2026, explicitly calls for the abolition of both the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College.

These proposals are part of a broader manifesto aimed at fundamentally restructuring the U.S. government. The platform advocates for the following structural changes:

- Abolishing the U.S. Senate: The DSA describes the Senate as an "anachronistic institution," with leadership comparing it to the British House of Lords and characterizing it as a tool designed to "protect power" and limit the influence of the populace.

- Abolishing the Electoral College: The platform proposes eliminating the current presidential election system, which has been in place since the founding of the republic, in favor of a process where the president is chosen by Congress.

- Subordinating the Executive and Judiciary: The platform seeks to replace the current presidency and the Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary branch that would be directly "chosen by and subordinate to Congress."

- Structural Overhaul: Beyond these specific institutions, the platform calls for expanding the House of Representatives, transitioning the nation to a "multi-party democracy," and implementing mandatory ranked-choice voting for all elections.

The DSA’s proposals represent a clear rejection of the American system of separated powers and checks and balances established by the Founders. Implementation of these changes would require multiple constitutional amendments, which necessitates the approval of two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states. Given the constitutional hurdles and the radical nature of the reforms, these goals are widely viewed as a long-term ideological project rather than immediate policy objectives.

Follow-up question:

Didn't James Talarico who is running for Senator from Texas say he wants to "restore" checks and balances?

GAB AI:

Yes, James Talarico has made the restoration of "checks and balances" a central theme of his U.S. Senate campaign. However, his definition of that term and the methods he proposes to achieve it have generated significant debate, as they differ sharply from the traditional understanding of the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Talarico’s Stated Position

In his recent media appearances, including his interview on The Daily, Talarico argues that the legislative branch has abdicated its responsibilities, allowing the executive branch to grow too powerful. He cites the use of the War Powers Act to bypass Congress and the general overreach of the federal bureaucracy as evidence that the system is "broken." He frequently argues that "Congress should reassert its authority" to serve as a proper check on the executive.

The Conflict Between "Checks" and "Filibuster"

While Talarico frames his platform as a restoration of traditional constitutional balance, his specific policy prescriptions are viewed by critics—and even some legal observers—as paradoxically undermining those very protections:

- Abolishing the Filibuster: Talarico has explicitly called for the abolition of the Senate filibuster. He describes it as a "Jim Crow relic" and argues that the majority party should be able to govern with 51 votes. Critics point out that the filibuster is a procedural check designed to force consensus and protect the minority in a country as large and diverse as the United States. They argue that removing it would turn the Senate into a mirror of the House, where the majority can push through any agenda without opposition, thereby removing a critical legislative "check."

- Supreme Court "Overhaul": Talarico has also advocated for an "overhaul" of the Supreme Court, which includes term limits, binding codes of conduct, and an openness to expanding the number of justices. Opponents argue that these proposals represent an attempt to exert political control over the judiciary—the branch specifically designed to be an independent check on the other two—rather than a genuine restoration of balance.

Differing Interpretations

There is a fundamental disagreement over what Talarico means by "restoration":

- The Talarico View: He maintains that the current system is "rigged" by billionaire interests and lobbyists, and that "unrigging" it requires streamlining government action so that the majority can actually deliver on its promises. In this view, "checks and balances" currently serve only to preserve the status quo and prevent necessary systemic change.

- The Traditionalist View: Critics, particularly constitutional conservatives, argue that Talarico’s definition of "checks and balances" is essentially a call for "majoritarianism." They contend that the Founders intentionally built "friction" into the system—via the Senate, the filibuster, and an independent judiciary—to prevent the very kind of rapid, unchecked concentration of power that Talarico’s proposals would likely facilitate.

In short, while Talarico uses the language of "restoring" the constitutional order, his concrete proposals for eliminating the filibuster and fundamentally changing the composition and function of the Supreme Court are viewed by his detractors as a plan to remove the structural barriers that currently prevent a single political party from dominating all three branches of the federal government.

Some info on DataRepublican

This is in further support of the Elissa Slotkin post

Also a backgrounder on DataRepublican on X.

DataRepublican is the online persona of Jennica Pounds, a data analyst, software engineer, and former Department of Defense (DoD) Special Government Employee who rose to prominence on X (formerly Twitter) for her investigations into government spending and alleged institutional corruption.

Professional Background

Pounds’ background is rooted in the tech and data science sectors. Prior to her pivot into high-profile political investigation, she worked at Upstart, an AI-driven lending platform with early financial ties to Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund. Her technical expertise in parsing large datasets provided the foundation for the "DataRepublican" brand, which gained rapid traction due to its focus on identifying inefficiencies and waste within the federal bureaucracy.

Rise to Influence on X

The DataRepublican account became a significant voice in the digital conservative movement, particularly as Elon Musk began amplifying her findings. Her influence was built on several key strategies:

- Targeting Government Waste: She frequently tagged powerful political figures and highlighted specific federal agencies, identifying what she claimed were over $1 billion in potential spending cuts suitable for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

- The "Outsider" Persona: For nearly two years, Pounds cultivated an image as a lone, anonymous citizen-researcher working outside the system to expose the "Deep State" and government corruption.

- Identity Disclosure: In February 2025, her identity as Jennica Pounds—a deaf, nonverbal software engineer—was publicly revealed. Shortly after, she announced she was leaving her private-sector work to focus full-time on "DOGE-adjacent efforts."

Transition to Government Service

A significant turning point occurred in 2026 when it was revealed that Pounds had transitioned from an external investigator to a Special Government Employee within the Department of War (Defense). This shift prompted criticism from some followers who questioned the optics of a "government corruption whistleblower" taking a salaried position within the very system she had previously criticized.

"The Democracy Files" and 2026 Allegations

In October 2026, Pounds released an extensive archive she dubbed "The Democracy Files." This release alleged a sophisticated, coordinated strategy involving:

- Actors: Former USAID officials, retired military leaders, and prominent activist organizations.

- The Strategy: Pounds claims these actors are coordinating to challenge the legitimacy of federal authority following the 2026 midterm elections.

- The Goal: Her documentation alleges that these groups are planning to create enough civil unrest to provoke a response from President Trump, intending to use that response as a pretext to mobilize Democratic governors and challenge the constitutional order.

While her work has received endorsements from figures like Elon Musk and Charlie Kirk, it remains a subject of intense debate. Conservative commentators highlight her findings as a vital warning of an impending constitutional crisis, while others note that the internal transcripts and recordings she provided have not been independently authenticated, and there is insufficient evidence to prove that a coordinated insurrection was authorized by any national leadership.

Comment:

This is tempered somewhat at the end there. If there's any question about DataRepublican, there is no question about what James Carville said. Carville was talking about a power grab of unprecedented proportions. Also, there's no doubt what we're facing if the Democrats regain power in the both branches of Congress. There's also talk of going after Elon Musk and anyone associated with Trump. This all comes after the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the attempted assassination of Trump, and the disappointment of certain lefties who included Talarico's mentor.

There Was a Secret Coup Plan but then Elissa Slotkin Opened Her Big Mouth

Asking GAB AI about the subject of the following video:

Could you provide a backgrounder on Elissa Slotkin please.

Answer:



Elissa Slotkin is a Democratic politician currently serving as a U.S. Senator from Michigan, having been elected to the seat in 2024 after previously serving in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2019 to 2025. Her career reflects a trajectory typical of the modern national security establishment, moving from the intelligence community to elective office.

Early Life and Education

Born on July 10, 1976, in New York, Slotkin grew up in Holly, Michigan. Her family history is rooted in the meatpacking industry, specifically the Hygrade Foods company founded by her great-grandfather, which was headquartered in Detroit. She attended Cornell University, earning a bachelor’s degree in rural sociology in 1998, followed by a master’s degree in international affairs from Columbia University in 2003.

Intelligence and National Security Career

Slotkin’s professional path was fundamentally altered by the events of September 11, 2001, which occurred just as she began her graduate studies. Following her time at Columbia, she was recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as a Middle East analyst. During her tenure with the agency, which lasted from 2003 to 2007, she completed three tours in Iraq.

Her career transitioned into policy roles within the executive branch:

- National Security Council: She served as a director for Iraq policy, initially under the administration of President George W. Bush and continuing into the early years of the Obama administration.

- Department of Defense: She held several senior positions, culminating in her role as the acting assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs from 2015 to 2017. In this capacity, she oversaw policy relating to Russia, the Middle East, and Africa.

Congressional Career

Slotkin entered electoral politics in 2017, winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018. Her campaigns frequently centered on themes of healthcare accessibility—often citing her mother’s struggles with cancer and insurance costs—and a focus on domestic manufacturing and supply chain security.

In 2024, she successfully ran for the U.S. Senate to succeed retiring Senator Debbie Stabenow. Her current committee assignments include:

- Armed Services

- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

- Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry

- Veterans’ Affairs



Legal Controversies

During her time in office, Slotkin has occasionally faced intense political and legal scrutiny. In early 2026, she became the subject of an investigation involving other lawmakers regarding a video that prompted accusations of interference with military discipline. A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., ultimately declined to indict her on charges brought by the Justice Department, an outcome considered highly unusual for an indictment request initiated by federal prosecutors.

Throughout her tenure, Slotkin has positioned herself as a vocal opponent of Donald Trump, often emphasizing the need for the Democratic Party to articulate a distinct policy vision rather than focusing solely on opposition.

Comment:

The following is a video provided by Promethean Action, which is titled the same as the post on this blog:



P.S.

Don't forget that James Carville opened up his big mouth and suggested that the Dems pack the courts add new liberal states and have the GOP "eat their dust". Carville is supposed a main-line Democrat guy, but he seems to following the same path as these color revolutionaries.

Does Karl Rove and the Bushie and Cheneys have any comment?

All-in on truth

If you are going to be all-in on something, then you'd better well stick to it.

The left and their friends on the so-called right like to make this about the dishonesty on our side. All through the Trump years, I have disregarded and attacked as hard as I could their dishonesty, while at the same time refusing to vet their attacks.

Does that put me in conflict with being "all-in" on the truth? I say no.

There's one exception that I'll make, and that has to do with the reality of life. An enemy will lie to you without limits. That's because an enemy wants to defeat you, and the first casualty of war, and any conflict, is the truth. You cannot be totally truthful with someone who is trying to destroy you. That's what the enemy will attack you with, of course. But the enemy doesn't care about the truth, the enemy cares about destroying you.

The "all-in" part having to do with the truth ends there unless you want to get destroyed. An iron-clad fact is that any living organism is unlikely to willingly go into a death wish mode.

If it is something of an hypocrisy to refuse to honestly examine an enemy's accusations, I'll say that is an unfortunate fact of life. You cannot treat the enemies accusations are worthy of consideration. That's because of what an enemy wants is your destruction. The search for truth has to start with the premise that an enemy is LYING. So why treat an enemy's word as worthy of respect?

The way Talarico talks, he is an enemy. I think he is lying rather aggressively. He cannot use the resort to Christian charity in order to excuse himself for being an imperfect person, because he turns around and attacks Paxton rather aggressively himself. Talarico will want himself to be treated with Christian generosity, but he doesn't give that same treatment to Paxton. His attacks are severe, and frankly they don't add up in a lot of cases, and I suspect that these attacks are just LIES.

But then he retreats behind Christianity while not practicing it himself.

To say so isn't hypocrisy. It is just more of the truth. Talarico is an ENEMY. HE WILL SAY ANYTHING TO DEFEAT HIS ENEMY. He treats Paxton, and others that agree with him no respect nor Christian generosity of spirit. Then why should he get any himself?

As far as I'm concerned, saying so is truthful. There is no hypocrisy in my book, as it says in the New Testament not to give that is what is holy to the dogs, because they will turn around and tear you to pieces.

That's exactly what Talarico is doing. He will tear true Christians to pieces.

John Solomon podcast: Republican Texas Rep. Beth Van Duyne on Texas Senate Showdown

Plus Trafalar pollster has some comments on some apparent GOP momentum.