TL;DR:

The alleged plan targets January 3rd, not Election Day: If Democrats win a narrow House majority, Republicans install a loyalist House Clerk in December who omits targeted progressive and Muslim lawmakers (facing federal investigative pretexts) from the opening roll call. This allows Republicans to seize the Speakership and permanently exclude those members using an oath-of-office legal loophole, locking in House control while the seats sit vacant during years of litigation.

This is the same thing that Judge Luttig recently spoke about, but here's the intricacies of how this could play out.

The playbook, published by Vought’s CRA in October, lays out a constitutional workaround to disqualify progressive lawmakers.

• While the Supreme Court’s Powell v. McCormack (1969) established that the House cannot create extra-constitutional qualifications (such as political or religious tests), CRA argues the Article VI constitutional oath itself is an enforceable standard. If the House determines a member-elect’s associations or speech prove they cannot take the oath in good faith, the House can refuse to swear them in.
• This strategy resurrects the 1919 exclusion of Victor Berger, a foreign-born socialist denied his seat in Congress.
• Lawmakers categorized under the CRA's framing of a "Red-Green Alliance" (Democratic Socialists of America members, Marxists, and Muslim progressives—specifically targeting naturalized citizens like Representative Ilhan Omar).

OCTOBER

• Donald Trump publicly praises Russell Vought, hinting at a looming "surprise" that will make him a historically pivotal figure.
• The CRA publishes its legal defense and 7-step plan for refusing to seat ideological opponents.
• Federal law enforcement (DHS/ICE's criminal investigative branch) executes high-profile actions, such as searching Rep. Ilhan Omar’s home, manufacturing active criminal investigations that can later be cited to challenge electoral credentials.

NOVEMBER

• Democrats win a razor-thin majority in the House (e.g., within 5–10 seats).
• Donald Trump and allies reject the results, declaring nationwide electoral fraud.

DECEMBER

• During the lame-duck session, the outgoing Republican majority still controls the House.
• Speaker Mike Johnson replaces the current non-partisan Clerk of the House (Kevin McCumber) with a partisan loyalist.
• Under House rules, the Clerk presides over the opening of a new Congress before a Speaker is chosen and solely determines the initial roll of members-elect whose credentials are deemed regular.

JANUARY

At noon on January 3, the newly appointed Clerk manipulates the initial roster to artificially flip the majority:

1. The Clerk leaves several targeted Democratic members-elect off the certified roll, citing ongoing federal investigations or credential questions.
2. Because the Democratic majority has been mechanically trimmed below the threshold, Republicans command the floor vote and re-elect a Republican Speaker.
3. Execution of the CRA Playbook:
   • When members are called to take the oath, an ally formally objects to the targeted representatives.
   • The targeted members-elect are instructed to stand aside while the rest are sworn in.
   • With their manufactured majority, the House votes to find that the targeted members cannot take the oath in good faith.
   • The House officially excludes the members, declares their seats vacant, and notifies the respective state governors.

AFTERMATH

• Excluded members file federal lawsuits contesting the action.
• The appeals process winds slowly toward a conservative-dominated Supreme Court.
• While litigation stretches on for months or years, the seats remain vacant, preserving a functional Republican working majority and testing the boundaries of a transformed constitutional order.

Note: This is taken from UNFTR's monologue in the most recent episode. I took the transcript, cleaned it up, and threw it into Gemini for a phased breakdown for easy read. If you prefer to listen, here's a direct link to the part in the episode.

What do you all think about this? I think we need to keep raising this far and wide so if/when they try it, everyone who is in a position of power can take action against it.

Summary:

The September inflation report shows that consumer prices are accelerating again, even as the labor market continues to weaken. Annual inflation increased to 3.7%, up from 3.4% in August, reaching its highest level since May. Energy prices were the biggest contributor, rising 5.2% in a single month and 20.4% over the past year. Gasoline prices alone increased 9.1% in September, accounting for more than half of the month's overall inflation increase. With gasoline averaging more than $4 per gallon and diesel exceeding $6, the ongoing war with Iran is creating substantial pressure on transportation and household expenses.

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett acknowledged the energy price surge but described it as temporary, arguing that other parts of the report showed encouraging developments. Food prices were unchanged from August, while prescription drug prices declined 1.2%. Hassett said the administration's efforts to reduce food and medication costs would continue producing results. The White House also maintained that elevated fuel prices were a temporary consequence of the conflict with Iran rather than evidence of a broader deterioration in affordability.

However, inflation outside food and energy also accelerated. Core inflation increased from 2.4% to 2.6% annually, suggesting that price pressures extend beyond the immediate energy shock. This matters because the Federal Reserve generally pays close attention to underlying inflation when determining whether interest rates need to remain elevated. Navy Federal Credit Union economist Heather Long characterized the report as evidence that inflation is becoming more widespread and persistent than previously expected.

The impact on purchasing power is particularly important. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, real average hourly earnings declined 0.5% in September, meaning consumer prices rose faster than wages. This doesn't necessarily mean workers received pay cuts in dollar terms; it means their earnings purchased less after accounting for inflation. With annual wage growth around 3% and inflation running at 3.7%, the pressure on household purchasing power is becoming more noticeable.

The report also complicates the Federal Reserve's next decision. September's employment report showed only 29,000 new jobs and unemployment at 4.2%, suggesting hiring has slowed substantially. Normally, that would support holding interest rates steady or eventually reducing them. But with inflation accelerating, the Fed has less flexibility to stimulate hiring without risking additional price increases. Financial markets responded to the inflation report with higher Treasury yields and renewed expectations of another interest rate increase, potentially in December.

Summary: The US Ambassador to Canada is warning Canadian politicians that their actions could be interpreted as election interference, and is threatening a response.

My take: I'm not sure if this would even make the news in the US, but it sure does here. I think it's important that more Americans see firsthand how their government is treating (former) allies. This is just one more example.

Canada did not choose this trade war. Trump did that.

It was Trump's decision to escalate the trade war by applying blanket tariffs to all Canadian imports.

Rightly or wrongly (I believe it's the latter), Trump believes that he is using tariffs as a negotiating tactic. A strategic 'tool' to get other countries to do what he wants them to.

With an economy far outsized by that of the US, we have no choice but to be strategic. (We also have a leader who is intellectually capable of strategic negotiation, but that's another matter.) So yes, our tariffs target states where it will cause the most political aggravation for Trump.

(Edit to add: I won't even get into the numerous times the US, Trump most recently, has blatantly and directly interfered in elections in other countries.)

So in Trump's world, he can use whatever tools he wants to beat other countries over the head. But when those countries respond, he sees it as unfair. Pretty typical of a bully, I suppose.

If you're wondering, a couple of years down the road, where all your friends and allies went ... this is where. This is how senior officials from your government are speaking to and about the countries that have been friends and allies. I know that there are a lot of Americans who are just as appalled by this as we are, but (speaking as a Canadian) I sincerely hope that all of you use the upcoming midterms as a way of sending that message loud and clear.

I know I get it into with everyone, and this post probably breaks the rules, but I have never seen such a perfect example of the attitude that makes democrats not only look bad, but leads them to arrogantly triple down on goofy positions.

Jen Psaki (BA English and Sociology) puts her nose way up, and spits way down on the new Press Secretary's JD

You wanna debate lawyer vs attorney, okay, Psaki, but admit you yourself filled the same position without any advanced degree at all.

Link in comments, because it can't be posted in OP

A good article detailing the current political situation between Russia, Ukraine, America and Europe.

Ukraine has made significant gains this year thanks to expanding it's long range missile capabilities and targeting vital Russian industries such as oil and gas, including Moscow itself.

These attacks combined with greatly increased support from European allies has limited Russia's ability to fund it's invasion and has caused global gas prices to increase.

Donald Trump is desperate to lower gas costs as much as he can prior to the mid term elections and is negotiating with Russia to lift sanctions while American allies attempt to convince the President to increase sanctions instead to further push Russia into abandoning it's invasion while it is weakening.

As of this article there has been no attempt by Russia to end the war or stop targeting Ukraine's own gas industry and power plants. Meanwhile Ukraine has currently complied with the presidents demand that they stop attacking Russia's gas industry.

Summary:

President Donald Trump is insisting that Russia and Ukraine have agreed to stop attacking each other's energy infrastructure, even though neither country has publicly confirmed a finalized ceasefire agreement. Trump first announced the supposed agreement on October 11, declaring that it would take effect immediately. When reporters questioned him the following day about the lack of confirmation, Trump responded, “They agreed because I said they agreed.” His remarks have added confusion over whether an actual agreement exists, what facilities it would protect, and when its terms would become enforceable.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the announcement caught Kyiv by surprise, but emphasized that Ukraine is willing to participate in a genuine energy ceasefire. His condition is that Russia must stop attacking Ukrainian power plants, electrical grids and other energy infrastructure in exchange for Ukraine halting strikes on Russian oil refineries. Zelenskyy has argued that an agreement protecting only Russian refineries would be unequal, particularly because Ukraine has very limited operational refining capacity. The Kremlin, meanwhile, has declined to confirm Trump's announcement, leaving the status of the proposed ceasefire unresolved.

Carlson self published an interview last week with the UK's Rees-Mogg where he claimed that the UK should not have fought in world War 2 for two reasons.

1. Germany had a intelligible right to Poland that it didn't have to the UK and thus Hitler surely wouldn't have invaded the uk.

2. The war was not economically rewarding for the average citizen of the uk to warrant the loss of life.

Summary: MAGA conservatives and certain elements of the progressive left are undermining the American and Western traditions they claim to defend. MAGA politicians celebrate Western civilization, American greatness, and national identity while disregarding the constitutional principles, democratic institutions, and rule of law that make those traditions valuable. Meanwhile, some progressives undermine the legitimacy of the American national community by emphasizing historical injustices in ways that weaken the shared sense of belonging necessary for political solidarity. Defending America requires an inclusive patriotism that acknowledges the country's failures while remaining committed to its foundational ideals.

Progressive institutions such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid similarly depend on the belief that Americans owe one another certain obligations simply because they belong to the same nation. While we can and should acknowledge the historical mistreatment of Native Americans and the need to address continuing inequalities, symbolic gestures such as land acknowledgments can distract from substantive improvements. More importantly, portraying the American national community as fundamentally illegitimate risks undermining the solidarity necessary to pursue progressive economic policies.

America's greatest political inheritance is its universalistic conception of citizenship, grounded in democratic ideals rather than ethnicity or ancestry. He contrasts this understanding with Samuel Huntington's theory of competing civilizations, which defines Western identity largely through religious and cultural boundaries. This dstinctions are frequently incoherenet, such as Huntington's exclusion of Orthodox Greece from the modern West despite its foundational role in Western intellectual history.

Western civilization is valuable because it developed political principles that transcend cultural and ethnic boundaries, including individual rights, constitutional government, and political equality. Rather than rejecting America because it failed to uphold those ideals, the Civil Rights movement and leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. insisted that the nation fulfill its promises.

The Trump administration's actual foreign policy frequently contradicts its professed commitment to Western values, particularly regarding Ukraine. Ukraine's resistance to Russian aggression represents a struggle for national sovereignty and the right to participate in Western democratic institutions. Yet elements of the MAGA movement treat immigration as a greater threat to Western civilization than Russian expansionism and consequently express sympathy for European nationalist parties that oppose support for Ukraine or undermine liberal democratic institutions.

The administration's use of taxpayer-funded advertisements promoting Trump during election season, along with contradictory statements about whether the president would reimburse the government show the hollowness of MAGA's devotion to western traditions. The prohibition against using public resources for personal political advantage reflects a centuries-old Western tradition of restraining executive power and protecting the public treasury. The administration's willingness to disregard such principles while invoking the grandeur of ancient Greece reveals that its commitment to Western civilization is largely symbolic rather than substantive. MAGA exploiting patriotic imagery while weakening the very institutions and values that give American traditions their significance.

Progressives howevercannot effectively oppose these developments if they simultaneously portray the United States as an inherently illegitimate political enterprise. Defending democracy, the rule of law, and social welfare programs requires believing that the American political community is worth preserving and improving. A successful progressive movement must demonstrate affection for the country and confidence in its foundational ideals, rather than treating patriotism as something inherently suspect.

\Note: Yes, The summary is provided by AI, lightly edited. The point of the summary is to provide a basis for discussion for those that do not wish to read the entire article initially, not prove how smart I am to summarize things well.*

Commentary: It's a good article that matches my political instincts and disdain for the excesses of the progressive movemently, while simultaneously making clear where our priorities in the pro-democracy coaltion should of all rights ought to be. I encourage people to read it, and not just read the summary and comment.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/destroying-the-west-in-order-to-save

Summary:
On October 12, 2026, federal agents from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a division of ICE, supported by the Department of Justice, executed a search warrant at the Washington, D.C., home of Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). Sources indicate the investigation centers on potential immigration document fraud involving paperwork completed by her late father when she was a child. The Department of Justice confirmed the search was part of an ongoing criminal investigation, while President Donald Trump stated he had "nothing to do with" the raid and that decisions rest with the DOJ.

Rep. Omar denied any wrongdoing, condemning the search as an "outrageous abuse of power" and a political attempt to intimidate her. House Democratic leaders, including Leader Hakeem Jeffries, characterized the raid as "deeply disturbing" and raised concerns about the weaponization of federal law enforcement against political opponents.

Commentary:

This is a latest escalation of Trump’s weaponization of the executive against political rivals, federal agents under ICE raided the home of Rep. Ilhan Omar early Monday morning under the pretense of an immigration investigation. Republicans have repeatedly questioned Omar’s immigration status across her career as a congressperson.

DOJ typically blocks the execution of search warrants and investigations in political cases in a 60-day window before elections. It seems like this guideline was ignored.

Omar has lived in the US since 1995, when her family applied for and was granted asylum. She became a citizen in 2000. It seems to me that the only thing that has changed is her influence on the national stage, and this is an attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate loud critics of the administration. In my opinion, we are on an incredibly dangerous path right now, and actions like this make it clear that there is no action Trump will not take to avoid defeat in the midterms.

Some discussion questions: Is it appropriate for the Trump administration to conduct immigration raids on a US citizen and political rival? Is the timing of the raid, less than 30 days until the midterm, hinting at further raids and related tactics that will be deployed as we near the November election date? What actions should lawmakers take to prevent this abuse of power?

https://www.iwfeatures.com/profile/sherrie-laurie-built-a-refuge-for-women-then-had-to-fight-to-protect-it/

Article features the conflict between protecting vulnerable women and laws about gender identity discrimination. The article details a woman only homeless shelter being sued because the director wouldn't admit a man who showed up wanting access. The articles explains how vulnerable the women who use the shelter are and the set up of the shelter. The article asks the questions do laws that proiritize gender identity harm women.

Neutral Summary: President Trump announced an agreement with Vladimir Putin to temporarily lift US sanctions on Russian diesel imports, aiming to reduce fuel prices that have surged nearly 70% since the outbreak of the US–Iran war, reaching approximately $6.30 per gallon.

The agreement provides for three shipments:

• 300,000 tonnes immediately, equivalent to roughly 75% of daily US diesel consumption.
• 500,000 tonnes in November.
• 1 million additional tonnes subsequently.

However, energy analysts argue the agreement will have little meaningful impact on diesel prices for several reasons:

1. Insufficient volume: The initial shipment represents less than a day's US consumption.
2. Transportation delays: Shipping Russian diesel to the US will take approximately three weeks, meaning supplies will arrive shortly before the November midterm elections.
3. Russian production constraints: Ukrainian drone strikes have damaged Russian refining infrastructure, raising doubts about whether Russia can fulfill its commitments.
4. Sanctions complications: Companies must navigate potentially conflicting US and European sanctions requirements when handling Russian-origin fuel.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/11/trump-russia-diesel-deal-putin-little-impact-prices

Note: Yes, the Summary is AI Generated. AI is very good at summarizing things. The point of the summary is to provide a factual basis for discussion, not prove to you that I am smart and I know what I am talking about.

Commentary: There is so much about this deal that just doesn't make sense.

First, obviously it is bad to give the Russians money while they bomb Ukrainian women and children. That's precisely why restricting Russian energy revenues, including discouraging countries like India from purchasing Russian oil, has been a central component of sanctions policy.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/08/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-addresses-threats-to-the-united-states-by-the-government-of-the-russian-federation/

Second, Russia itself is experiencing fuel shortages. Just last week, *The Guardian* reported that South Korea had exported more than 176,000 tonnes of fuel, predominantly diesel, to Russia to help alleviate its shortages. How much additional diesel can Russia realistically export when its refineries are already struggling to meet domestic demand. And if imports really would solve the American shortage...why isn't America buying from South Korea?(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/06/oil-tankers-south-korea-russia-ukraine-war)

Third, the United States is itself a major net exporter of diesel and related distillates, exporting approximately 53 million barrels per month.

Importing a relatively trivial quantity of Russian diesel, much of which would likely enter through import infrastructure concentrated on the East Coast, is unlikely to materially reduce US prices, especially in the farm states. Maybe its good for Susanne Collins in Maine?

1. Few competitive House seats: Only 40–50 of 435 seats are genuinely competitive due to polarization and gerrymandering. Democrats may win a relatively narrow House majority of 5–20 seats.

2. Difficult Senate map: Democrats need to flip four seats, including several in states Trump won comfortably in 2024. Senate control remains uncertain.

3. Turnout challenges: Young, Black, and Hispanic voters tend to participate less in midterms, potentially weakening Democratic performance.

4. Republican fundraising advantage: Republican committees and allied PACs have approximately $614 million available, compared with Democrats' $392 million, giving Republicans greater advertising resources.

5. Polling uncertainty: Polls currently favor Democrats 43%–35%, but previous elections have sometimes underestimated Republican support.

6. Attacks portraying Democrats as socialists:
   Republicans hope to associate moderate Democrats with the party's progressive wing, potentially persuading independents in close races.

Six reasons Democrats may fall short of a midterm landslide in November - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/six-reasons-democrats-may-fall-short-midterm-landslide-november-2026-10-12/

Summary:

The disagreement between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has escalated significantly following Trump's agreement with Vladimir Putin to release Russian diesel into global markets. On Saturday, Trump publicly suggested that Ukraine replace Zelenskyy with a leader willing to negotiate an end to the war. “I suggest they get a new leader who can make a deal,” Trump told reporters, arguing that Zelenskyy had repeatedly passed up opportunities to reach an agreement with Russia. The comments came after Zelenskyy condemned the diesel arrangement, warning that easing sanctions would provide Moscow with additional revenue to continue its military operations.

The dispute centers largely on Ukraine's continued attacks against Russian oil refineries. According to a U.S. official, Washington repeatedly asked Kyiv to stop targeting the facilities because the resulting damage was contributing to global diesel shortages. Ukraine continued its strikes, reportedly hitting five Russian refineries this week alone. These attacks have reduced Russia's refining capacity and contributed to Moscow's decision to suspend diesel exports in July, removing approximately 800,000 barrels per day from an already constrained global market. Ukraine views the refinery strikes as a way to weaken Russia's war economy, while Trump has emphasized their effects on fuel prices for American consumers and businesses.

The diesel agreement itself remains uncertain. Trump announced that Russia would immediately release more than 300,000 metric tons of diesel, followed by another 500,000 tons in November and potentially millions more afterward. However, energy analysts question whether Russia's damaged refineries can produce the promised quantities. The first two shipments would equal approximately 6 million barrels, enough to cover only about a day and a half of U.S. diesel consumption. Dan Pickering of Pickering Energy Partners estimated that the agreement might increase available supplies by 5% to 6% through the end of the year, but described it as helpful rather than transformative. Diesel futures fell roughly 4% following the announcement, although that market reaction doesn't establish how much relief consumers will ultimately receive.

The timing has made the diplomatic situation particularly sensitive. Trump's announcement came while Ukrainian officials were meeting with American negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Miami to discuss possible steps toward ending the war. Zelenskyy said Ukraine had been blindsided by the agreement. According to Axios, Zelenskyy had offered to stop attacking Russian refineries if Moscow stopped attacking Ukrainian power plants, but a U.S. official said Trump wanted Ukraine to halt its strikes without requiring that reciprocal commitment. This disagreement underscores a larger divide over how negotiations should proceed and what concessions each side should make.

Meanwhile, Russia's attacks on Ukrainian cities have intensified. A strike on residential buildings in Zaporizhzhia on Saturday killed 20 people, including three children, according to Ukrainian authorities. Zelenskyy argued that easing sanctions while these attacks continue sends Moscow the wrong message. Former Vice President Mike Pence also criticized the diesel agreement, saying the United States should not provide Russia with additional economic support while its war continues. Sanctions experts have raised concerns that allowing Russian petroleum sales could weaken the broader effort to restrict Moscow's wartime revenue.

Summary:

President Donald Trump announced Friday that he reached an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to release up to 4.8 million metric tons of Russian diesel into the global market, in an effort to bring down fuel prices that have surged during the wars in Iran and Ukraine. According to Trump, Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons, followed by 500,000 tons in November, another 1 million tons shortly afterward, and an additional 3 million tons depending on the condition of Russian refineries. These are announced commitments, not shipments that have already been independently confirmed.

To facilitate the agreement, the Treasury Department issued General License 135, temporarily relaxing sanctions on transactions involving Russian diesel, including imports into the United States. The authorization runs through April 7, 2027. This represents a significant change in U.S. sanctions enforcement toward Russian energy, which has faced restrictions since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The exemption applies specifically to diesel-related transactions rather than lifting all sanctions on Russia.

The administration is responding to an increasingly severe diesel shortage. U.S. diesel prices have climbed approximately 70% since the war with Iran began, reaching around $6.28 per gallon nationally. Ukrainian attacks have damaged Russian refining capacity, while Iranian and Houthi attacks have disrupted fuel production and shipping throughout the Middle East. Diesel is particularly important because it powers commercial trucks, agricultural machinery, construction equipment and portions of the freight industry. Higher diesel prices can therefore increase the cost of transporting and producing goods throughout the economy.

The agreement immediately drew criticism from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who warned that easing sanctions without securing Russian concessions could provide Moscow with additional revenue to finance its war. Zelenskyy described the arrangement as a benefit to Putin rather than a step toward peace. The administration's stated objective, meanwhile, is to increase available diesel supplies and reduce costs for American consumers and businesses. The competing considerations are lower energy prices versus maintaining economic pressure on Russia.

This is also the latest in a series of measures Trump has pursued to address high diesel prices. His administration previously considered banning U.S. diesel exports but moved away from the proposal after industry objections. It also authorized temporary highway use of tax-exempt, red-dyed diesel, although uncertainty surrounding tax obligations has limited the measure's effectiveness. The new Russian agreement takes a different approach by attempting to increase global supplies rather than restricting American exports or changing domestic fuel-use rules.

The biggest question is how much relief this agreement can realistically provide. The initial 300,000 tons represents approximately 2.2 million barrels of diesel, a meaningful shipment but relatively small compared with global consumption. The full agreement could have a larger effect if Russia delivers the promised quantities and those supplies reach markets experiencing shortages. Diesel futures declined following the announcement, but that doesn't guarantee an immediate reduction at American pumps. With refineries damaged, shipping routes disrupted and the wars continuing, the additional Russian supply may ease some pressure without fully resolving the shortage