Trump 25th Amendment Is Pure Political Theater ... As Usual

My friends, I want to talk about something that perfectly captures where we are as a country right now—a proposal from Democrats to use the 25th Amendment to remove Donald Trump from office. Now, this isn’t going anywhere legislatively. It’s not meant to. That’s not the point. The point is narrative. The point is control. The point is keeping a certain segment of the population energized and convinced that Trump is unfit, no matter what.

What’s especially telling is how they want to do it. Not through voters. Not through elections. But through a commission—a panel of so-called “experts.” Physicians. Psychiatrists. Political appointees.

Seventeen people deciding whether a duly elected president is capable of doing his job. That should raise alarms for anyone who values liberty.

Because this isn’t really about Trump.

This is about something much bigger: the rise of political obstructionism coupled with technocracy. The idea that “experts” should run things, that you and I should step aside because someone with a degree or a title supposedly knows better. We’ve seen this before. We lived through it during COVID. “Trust the science,” they said. Don’t ask questions. Don’t challenge authority. Just comply.

But here’s the problem—truth doesn’t fear questions.

Real expertise can explain itself. If someone can’t explain why something makes sense, then maybe they don’t understand it as well as they want us to believe. And yet, increasingly, we’re told to accept conclusions without explanations. Just trust the process. Trust the panel. Trust the system.

That’s not how a free society works.

What we’re witnessing is political theater. It’s an act. It’s designed to look serious, to sound official, to give the impression that something meaningful is happening. But underneath it all, it’s the same strategy we’ve seen for years now: whatever it takes to stop Trump. Impeachment, investigations, criminal charges, and now—if they could—invoking the 25th Amendment through a manufactured process.

I call it the “Seinfeld-Newman Strategy”—which has a simple “whatever it takes” mindset. It doesn’t matter how long it takes or what the mechanism is. The goal is always the same: remove Trump from the equation. And if they can’t do it through voters, they’ll look for another way.

Meanwhile, the same people pushing this were silent when we had a sitting president who, at times, clearly struggled to communicate, to stay on message, to even appear fully aware of what was happening around him. No commission. No urgent calls for removal. Just silence.

That tells you what you need to know.

We have to recognize what’s happening here. This isn’t about protecting the Constitution. It’s about reshaping how power is exercised—moving it away from the people and toward institutions, panels, and “experts” who are insulated from accountability.

And that should concern every one of us.

Conservative, not bitter.
Todd

⚖️ 25th Amendment proposal framed as political theater
🧠 Rise of technocracy and “expert rule”
🎭 Commission model exposes pre-determined outcomes
🦠 COVID-era “trust the science” parallels
🎯 “Whatever it takes” strategy against Trump
🇺🇸 Warning: power shifting away from the people

^{The Stack of Stuff honors the memory of Rush Limbaugh by keeping his iconic phrase alive — only this time, it’s digital. These links give you context for today’s Toddcast, including pieces that back me up, push back, or simply lay out the facts so you can decide for yourself.}

For more on today’s Toddcast, visit today’s Stack on our website and dig in.

ChatGPT is insanely powerful.

But most people waste 90% of its potential by using it like Google.

These 1,000+ proven ChatGPT prompts fix that and help you work 10X faster.

Sign up for Superhuman AI and get:

Claim your free prompts

My friends, what are your thoughts on tipping culture today? When I was younger, we tipped hairstylists and restaurant servers - folks who truly depended on it. In fact, here in Indiana, many servers earn wages that barely cover taxes. Their living comes from tips.

But now, tipping has crept into just about everything. Even Starbucks - long known for tip jars - is prompting digital tips more aggressively, according to Fox News. You half expect the self-checkout machine to ask for 20%.

Look, if you want to tip, that’s your choice. But when it becomes the expectation - when there’s pressure or guilt just for ringing up a purchase - that’s different.

My philosophy on tipping is simple. I’ll happily give it when it’s earned, but I won’t be guilted into it..

I want to build on something I touched on in today’s Toddcast—because it gets at a much bigger issue than just politics.

We’re living in a time where thinking is quietly being replaced by deferring.

Not debating. Not reasoning. Not wrestling with ideas.

Just … deferring.

And it shows up everywhere.

I was reminded of this years ago when I was in college at Butler University. I was in a class with both political science and education majors, and we were discussing an issue—something that required forming an opinion.

I shared mine, and another student responded, “Well, that’s not what the book said.”

I’ll never forget that moment.

Not because she disagreed—but because when I asked her what she thought, she didn’t have an answer.

The book had done the thinking for her.

And that’s the problem.

Somewhere along the way, education for many people stopped being about learning how to think—and became about memorizing what to think. The goal shifted from understanding to repeating. From reasoning to recalling.

And that mindset doesn’t stay in the classroom.

It follows people into adulthood. Into how they consume news. Into how they vote. Into how they respond to authority.

Which brings us right back to what we’re witnessing today.

We’re told to trust panels. Trust commissions. Trust experts.

Don’t ask too many questions.

Don’t worry about the details.

Just accept the conclusion.

We saw this in full force during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Trust the science,” we were told.

But here’s the thing—real science isn’t afraid of questions. Real expertise doesn’t demand blind trust.

It explains itself.

If someone truly understands something, they can break it down. They can walk you through it. They can make it make sense—not just to other experts, but to ordinary people.

In fact, one of the best tests of whether someone understands something is this:

Can they explain it simply?

Not dumb it down—but make it clear.

Or as my friend likes to say, can they “put the cookies on the bottom shelf?”

If they can’t … that’s a problem.

Either they don’t understand it as well as they want us to think, or they don’t want you to understand it.

And neither option should inspire confidence.

There’s actually a term in logic for this—the appeal to authority. It’s when someone tries to win an argument not by explaining why something is true, but by pointing to who said it.

“The experts say…”

“The data says…”

“The science says…”

Okay.

Show me.

Explain it.

Because in a free society, we don’t outsource our thinking to titles, degrees, or institutions.

We evaluate. We question. We seek to understand.

That doesn’t mean rejecting expertise—it means holding it to a higher standard.

It means expecting clarity, not just credentials.

It means refusing to accept “because I said so” as a sufficient answer.

And this matters—a lot—because when people stop thinking for themselves, they become easy to control.

Not through force.

But through narrative.

Through repetition.

Through the illusion of consensus.

That’s how you get a culture where people nod along to things that don’t make a lick of sense and defend ideas they can’t begin to explain.

So here’s a simple challenge.

The next time you hear a claim—especially one that carries the weight of authority—pause and ask:

Can this be explained clearly?

Does it actually make sense?

Or am I being asked to trust something that hasn’t earned my trust?

Because if thinking becomes optional, freedom eventually does too.