Where Things Stand

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“In order for a system to be stabIe, it requires negative feedback, also known as consequences.”

– Barrie Drain

“Fighting fascism,” for the American Jacobins who lead the Democratic Party, means opposing any attempt to flush the corruption out of the entrenched bureaucracy, just as their pet phrase “our democracy” actually refers to the matrix of grift and despotic activism that drives their political operating system. That is exactly how and why the USAID was so crucial to spread captured taxpayer spoils as NGO salaries for the gender studies grads to play “activist,” so as to inflict their special brand of sadistic power madness over the land — to keep the game going.

Now, USAID is scattered to the winds and all they have left is their installed base of federal judges and the horde of lawfare lawyers who feed them bogus cases to halt the remaining work of Mr. Trump’s executive branch clean-up operation.

Remember: Robespierre, leader of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, was a lawyer.

Their version of defending “our democracy” in 1793 was the Reign of Terror that sent at least 17,000 political opponents to the guillotine.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD)

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is the Democrats’ Robespierre. He is promising his own reign of terror when his party recaptures Congress in the 2026 “midterm” election.

Norm Eisen is his chief lawyer and legal strategist. His sole aim is recapture power in order to restore the Democrats’ sadistic regime of thought-control and the money-flows that feed it. That’s where things stand for the moment. You can sense how this tension is tending toward something that looks like civil war.

Someone needs to investigate the relationship between the lawfare squad and the judges to see how closely they worked together.

It appears that Norm would write prosecution memos, articles, etc., (as well as go on CNN) to act as an analyst when in reality he was running the… pic.twitter.com/hdkDggzlt4

— The Researcher (@listen_2learn) March 24, 2025

The game now is to goad President Trump into any kind of executive action in defiance of this legal insurrection that would subject him to impeachment after January 2027, when a new Congress is seated, theoretically with a Democratic majority. There are several flaws in the Raskin / Eisen plan-of-action. One is their supposition that the Democratic Party is popular enough to win a Congressional majority in 2026, or that they will enjoy the installed devices of electoral cheating to achieve victory no matter what.

The party is currently blundering wildly in support of obviously insane actions that a vast majority voters oppose, such as stopping the deportation of illegal immigrants, allowing men to compete in women’s sports, and opposing proof of citizenship in federal elections. Which is to say that the voters are onto exactly how crazy and destructive the Democratic Party has become.

The question is: what can be done about this lawfare insurrection. An easy solution would be for Congress to pass a law restricting the power of federal judges to issue orders that affect the nation as a whole outside their own designated districts. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley has introduced the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025. Grassley argues that nationwide injunctions, which allow a single district judge to block federal policies across the country, represent judicial overreach and disrupt the constitutional balance of powers.

In the House, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) has introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 (HR 1526, passed on April 9) to complement Sen. Grassley’s bill. The Constitution is somewhat vague about the composition of a federal judiciary below the Supreme Court, and essentially leaves the matter to Congress to set parameters for the power of federal judges. Congress can also alter or abolish districts, such as the DC federal district from which so much partisan Democratic Party lawfare has emanated under political activist Judges James Boasberg, Amy Berman Jackson, Tanya Chutkan, and Beryl Howell (all of them involved in the sadistic prosecutions of J-6 defendants).

The bills from each house next must go through a reconciliation process that boils them down to a single piece of legislation that can be sent to Mr. Trump for the presidential signature. The House passage is likely assured. The hang-up is that under Senate rules, the Democrats could mount a filibuster that would require 60 votes to break. The Republicans only control the chamber by a 53 to 47 majority, and no Democrats have signaled any intention to vote in favor of such a bill. In any case, the entire process would take months and might not succeed at all.

A much simpler remedy would be for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to rule in any of a number of cases now on their docket that the lawfare antics of the federal judges amount to interference with an independent executive branch — in short, that the judiciary can’t usurp the executive powers of the President, which include the conduct of foreign policy, the ability to manage personnel in executive agencies, and certain issues around the spending of taxpayer dollars.

A different sort of remedy would be the application by the DOJ of federal statute 18 USC 371, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States against Norm Eisen and his colleagues-in-lawfare for attempting to maliciously bury the executive branch in litigation for the purpose of nullifying the executive powers of the president. Beyond all that is the abyss: a nullified election, a paralyzed chief executive, and a constitutional crisis that has the potential to lead to civil violence. The Democrats seem willing to go there, perhaps even avid for it.

The Jacobins of 1793 were mad for blood, too, and they spilled a whole lot of it. By the summer of 1794, the blood was finally spouting out of their own necks. . . and then the Jacobin reign of terror came to a sudden and complete end. Heed their example.