What can you trust?

Indeed, who can you trust?

Part of a demoralization campaign is to get you to question everything. It brings to me something attributed to a Soviet dissident who said to only trust your own crooked eye.

So the demoralization is endemic in communist lands. You cannot trust anybody or anything, except your own crooked eye. That would imply that you cannot even trust your own wicked self.

In that vein, this seems to be playing out right here on this blog. Dan Bongino suggests using AI, but AI is a computer program written by HUMANS, and can you trust people?

You may be forced to trust only your own crooked eye.

So here's another AI session about this soft coup concept. When I was a young adult, a boss talked about this very thing. It was even in a Mark Farner song called Social Disaster. The Social Disaster has arrived. It is a soft coup, and there's real evidence supporting it this time. An overthrow of the Constitution and its replacement by a bunch of "Social Democrats" who are nothing but communists in disguise.

Once again, here's the AI dialogue, and note how the distrust is woven in:

Question:

how to overthrow us without firing a shot

Brave AI:

The quote "**We will take America without firing a shot. We do not have to invade the U.S. We will destroy you from within**" is widely attributed to Soviet Premier **Nikita Khrushchev** and cited as dating to **November 18, 1956**, though historical records indicate this specific English phrasing is **disputed** and likely a misinterpretation or later fabrication.

According to the search context, this alleged strategy involves:

* **Ideological Subversion**: Replacing traditional religion with "social" religion and removing biblical principles from public schools.

* **Cultural Erosion**: Undermining the family unit, discrediting the U.S. Constitution, and promoting the breakdown of cultural moral standards.

* **Institutional Infiltration**: Gaining control over teachers' associations, the media, and political parties to spread socialist or communist propaganda.

* **Legal Weakening**: Using courts to weaken basic American institutions and discrediting the Founding Fathers.

While the quote is frequently circulated in online articles and political commentary as a genuine Soviet threat, **Wikiquote** and other sources note it is **disputed**, and the actual Khrushchev remark from 1956 was "**We will bury you**," which has been subject to various interpretations regarding its literal meaning.

Comment:

It seems that Brave AI is soft-pedalling the phenomenon. This is a lot like gas lighting. So the AI is gas lighting us now. Beware of the gas lighting. Not to be saying that you should avoid AI, but think for yourselves. I know it is difficult, but the good things are difficult. Satan has easy snares. Beware the easy traps. These work on animals. They'll work on people too, if they are unwary.  

Another thought is that this may be getting too deep into the weeds.  Stick to what is directly in front of us.  That would be for me, this Talarico dude.

The elements of the soft coup have a long history that precedes Trump by decades

Dan Bongino mentions this Soviet Union defector, and I got his name this time. I asked Brave AI about him.   The Key Moment is at about 14 minutes into the video.

The answer to the Brave AI segment is below:

First, the question:

tell me about yuri bezmenov of the russian kgb, who defected

Brave AI:

**Yuri Bezmenov** (1939–1993), also known by his alias **Tomas David Schuman**, was a Soviet journalist and alleged KGB operative who defected to the West in **1970**. While stationed in **New Delhi, India**, as a correspondent for the state-run **Novosti Press Agency**, he became disillusioned with the Soviet regime and escaped to **Athens, Greece**, disguised as a hippie to evade detection.

Following extensive debriefing by the **CIA**, Bezmenov was resettled in **Canada** under the protection of Western intelligence. In Canada, he worked as a broadcaster for **Radio-Canada International** and later as a consultant, using his platform to expose Soviet intelligence tactics. He became a prominent figure in the 1980s for his lectures and his 1984 book, ***Love Letter to America***, in which he detailed the KGB's strategy of **ideological subversion**.

Bezmenov is best known for outlining the KGB’s **"four stages of ideological subversion"** aimed at destabilizing Western societies from within without military force: (emphasis added  --"soft coup" defined here as having no military component)

1. **Demoralization**: Targeting the youth and intellectuals to create cynicism and apathy toward national values.

2. **Destabilization**: Using various means to create a crisis that makes the country ungovernable.

3. **Crisis: Exploiting the instability to force intervention or chaos.

4. **Normalisation**: Establishing a new, controlled order under the guise of restoring stability.

Despite his influence, Bezmenov faced significant controversy and personal struggles. He claimed that the **KGB** and the Soviet ambassador pressured Canadian Prime Minister **Pierre Trudeau** to remove him from his broadcasting positions, leading to allegations of surveillance and threats. He died in **1993** in obscurity and poverty, though his warnings have gained renewed popularity in recent years regarding modern information warfare and disinformation campaigns.

Now for the Bongino segment mentioned above:

Note KEY MOMENT is at 14 minute mark

USAID's Alumni Network

CTH's take of DataRepublican's expose on Elissa Slotkin's coup plot

Comment:

I won't soft-pedal it. I've been saying it for YEARS. Bongino is all over it, and he's not soft-pedaling it.

Balls on the wall for the truth is what I say. We don't need FUD now. We need to move. Some folks are acting as if we have all the time in the world. We don't.

Totalitarian forces held at bay--- for now

Oct 23rd, 2026

The video is no longer supported and therefore cannot be seen. But the transcript is still there, or should I say HERE.

June 18th, 2012

Courtesy of Ace's blog, I found this video about threats to the First Amendment.  This president is at war with our culture.  The Bill of Rights is key to that culture.  This is but just one example of how that part of our culture is being attacked.

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.