WHAT ROME HAS WROUGHT IN PLAIN VIEW YET SHROUDED IN PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY
"Coughlin has shown us the way of getting at the modern man. He has embarrassed us by showing and using the political power of the church so openly....We know how to tackle America today, and that is our most important problem at the moment." (Communication from Vatican City, published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Nov. 4, 1936.)
-
A DEVIOUS PROPAGANDA MACHINE CONCEALS ROME'S NEFARIOUS ACTIVITIES
-
RELIGIO-POLITICAL AGENDA SUPERSEDES ESTABLISHED ELECTION STRATEGIES
THE STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE AMERICAN NATION
The American news media has been astir with a startling opinion expressed by George W. Bush's director of the CIA:-
Ex CIA Chief Agrees that Republicans are the ‘Most Dangerous’ Political Force in History
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden endorsed the assessment that Republicans today are the most “dangerous” political force in history.
Edward Luce, the U.S. national editor and columnist at the Financial Times, got the ball rolling Wednesday in a Twitter exchange that comes at a time when the Republican Party has largely rallied behind former President Donald Trump.
“I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close,” Luce said.
Hayden quote tweeted the observation, writing, “I agree. And I was the CIA Director.” (Underscored emphasis added.)
Former CIA director warns GOP is the most ‘dangerous and contemptible’ political force on earth
Experts are warning of the danger poised by the Republican Party as Trump supporters escalate their rhetoric as his legal woes mount as he faces investigations in Florida, Georgia, New York, and Washington, D.C.
Edward Luce, an editor at the Financial Times, tweeted, "I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career."
"Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous, and contemptible than today’s Republicans," Luce wrote. "Nothing close."
His analysis was retweeted by former CIA Director Michael Hayden.
"I agree," Hayden wrote. "And I was CIA director." (Underscored emphasis added.)
GOP Is Most 'Dangerous' Political Force in World, Michael Hayden Says
The former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) believes that the modern-day Republican Party is the most "dangerous" political force he has ever observed.
Retired four-star General Michael Hayden, who was nominated in 2006 by former GOP President George W. Bush to be the CIA director, posted his concern about Republicans to Twitter on Wednesday. He re-tweeted a post from Edward Luce, an associate editor of Financial Times.
"I've covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today's Republicans. Nothing close," Luce wrote in an August 12 tweet.
Hayden on Wednesday shared the journalist's post, writing: "I agree. And I was the CIA Director." (Underscored emphasis added.)
How dangerous is today’s Republican Party? Very, former CIA Director Michael Hayden believes.
Hayden — who served in top intelligence roles under Bush and Obama — joined a group of former military leaders warning last month that American democracy ‘is in real peril’
Retired Gen. Michael Hayden, a former director of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, has called out the Republican Party as extremist and dangerous, on an unprecedented level.
Hayden was responding Wednesday to an Aug. 11 tweet by the British journalist and author Edward Luce, who had said: “I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.”
Luce is the chief U.S. commentator for the Financial Times.
“I agree. And I was the CIA Director,” Hayden responded via quote-tweet. (Underscored emphasis added.)
One wonders whether General Hayden is aware that the first President who appointed him to the post of CIA Director was a great admirer of the religio-political power responsible for the present state of the Republican Party, which will be documented in this paper.
We fought to defend democracy. This new threat to America now keeps us awake at night.
For those of us focused on domestic security, the forces of autocracy now trump traditional foreign threats, hands down.
Michael Hayden, James Clapper, Stanley McChrystal, Douglas Lute and Mark Hertling
The following commentary about threats to American democracy was written by five retired U.S. Air Force and Army generals and lieutenant generals, including former CIA Director Michael Hayden.
We know something about serious threats to America's democracy.
Each of us has invested the better part of our lives in military and public service, and in defense of the democratic institutions that Americans cherish. Our careers have placed us on the front lines of the gravest threats America has faced in the past half-century.
Today, we harbor unprecedented concern for our country and for our democracy. The nation we have defended for decades is in real peril.
Our democratic institutions and norms are more vulnerable than ever. If you were to ask us when in our lives we were most likely to be losing sleep at night, we would all tell you, "Last night. And tonight. And tomorrow night.” Because history teaches us that democracy is never guaranteed, not even here.
Domestic threats more dangerous than foreign adversaries
For those of us devoted to protecting democracies abroad, there comes a time when our efforts seem overshadowed by the erosion of democracy here at home. And for those of us focused on domestic security, the forces of autocracy now trump traditional foreign threats, hands down.
It is no accident that 1 in 3 Americans seem willing to justify political violence as a means for overturning election results. This mindset has been nurtured by would-be autocrats and their enablers, who applaud the willingness of some Americans to rise up, even with weapons in hand, to "take back" a vision of America that's riddled with contradictions, prejudices and systemic inequalities. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
In none of the reports quoted above is the role of the Church of Rome mentioned. Indeed, nowhere in the current American news media are there warnings against the danger of fascistic autocracy is the Roman Catholic hierarchy ever mentioned.
ROME TOOK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CAPTIVE
The following passages under the heading of "The Bishops' Pastoral Plan" points out that when it was put into action the Church of Rome took control of the Republican Party:
Catholic
Doctrine and Reproductive Health
WHY THE CHURCH CAN’T CHANGE . . . [Note that this publication is
dated in the winter of 2000. What was already evident has since swollen
into an overwhelming tide.]
The Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities
On November 20, 1975, at its annual meeting, the American Catholic bishops issued the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities, a frank and superbly detailed blueprint of the bishops’ strategy for infiltrating and manipulating the American democratic process at national, state and local levels. It maps out the creation of a national political machine controlled by the Vatican through the bishops. The plan is directed toward creating a highly sophisticated, meticulously organized, and well-financed local, state, and national political machine. The plan candidly states that the Church will undertake activities to elect officials from local to national levels who will adhere to Vatican-ordained positions; that it will seek to influence policy in ways that will eliminate the threat to the Church; and that it will encourage the Executive Branch to deal “administratively” with matters that are unfavorable to the Church. . .
One of the more profound accomplishments of this Plan is the capture of the Republican Party by the Vatican. This accomplishment was vital to the bishops’ legislative agenda described in the Plan. In a July 28, 1994, Los Angeles Times wire service story, Jack Nelson describes the maneuvers of the Religious Right so that this takeover is all but an accomplished fact.
On September 11, 1995, Bill Moyers gives his assessment of the influence of the Religious Right in remarks titled Echoes of the Crusades: The Radical Religious Right’s Holy War on American Freedom: “They control the Republican party, the House of Representatives and the Senate._._._.”22
Outgoing Republican National Committee Chairman Richard Bond told the members of that committee on January 29, 1993, that it was time for the Republican Party to abandon the papal position on abortion. Bond said that the party should not be governed by “zealotry masquerading as principle.”23
But who is the Religious Right? The Spring 1994 issue of Conscience, the journal of Catholics for a Free Choice, exploded the myth that the Religious Right is a Protestant movement. It was designed, created, and controlled by Catholics in response to the Pastoral Plan. These Catholics recruited opportunistic Protestants to give the appearance that Protestants were the instigators. The leadership is Catholic but the followers are often Protestant. The National Catholic Reporter predicted that the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan would lead to the creation of a new political party, an American Catholic Party.24 But instead, the Vatican simply chose to seize control of the Republican Party.
The outcomes of the Plan have been truly remarkable. And they have implications for all Americans. (Underscored emphasis added.)
The above quotation is from a remarkable publication which explains why the news media is exclusively focused on the Republican Party, and not on the Roman Catholic hierarchy which controls it. The same publication reveals with specificity how Rome controls the press:
Catholic
Doctrine and Reproductive Health
WHY THE CHURCH CAN’T CHANGE
VATICAN REJECTION OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
* * *
"This pressure [of the Catholic Church on American journalism] is one of the most important forces in American life, and the only one about which secrecy is generally maintained, no newspaper being brave enough to discuss it, although all fear it and believe that the problem should be dragged into the open and made publicly known."260a
-- George Seldes
1890 - 1995
Journalist and Dean of
Investigative Reporters
George Seldes was the leading observer and critic of American journalism in this century. Of his 21 books, 260b seven deal with freedom of the press.260c The pressure of the Catholic Church on American journalism has been catastrophic for population growth control efforts such as the Rockefeller Commission and the NSSM 200 initiative. The secrecy imposed by the Catholic Church accounts for the near total lack of awareness of the grave threat overpopulation poses to virtually every treasured aspect of life in America. How and why journalism in this country has come to such a deplorable state will be the subject of this chapter.
As we have said, the Catholic hierarchy's hatred of freedom of the press has long been known. According to Bernhard Hasler, in his encyclical Mirari vos, Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) "condemned the ideas of liberalism. He viewed freedom of conscience as a `false and absurd concept,' indeed a mad delusion. Freedom of the press, to his mind, could never be sufficiently abhorred and anathematized."260d In 1850, Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) branded freedom of the press and freedom of association as intrinsically evil.260e The Catholic hierarchy has never accepted the concept of freedom of the press.
By 1870, the principles of the French Revolution (1848), which included freedom of the press, had brought the Catholic Church to its knees. Newspapers everywhere were conveying the truth about Catholicism. Indeed, unrestricted journalism of the time was a major cause for the drive to adopt the principle of infallibility (see Chapter 11). According to Hasler, the Infallibilist Party "wanted to employ the infallible pope to contain the forces of unbridled journalism."260f On May 25, 1870, the newspaper Unita Cattolica, which supported adoption of the principle of infallibility, wrote, "The infallible pope must counteract and cure the prevailing abuses of unbridled freedom of the press, thanks to which journalists daily spread lies and calumny. Every day the pope can teach, condemn, and define dogma and Catholics will never be permitted to question his decisions."260g
With the adoption of the principle of infallibility by Pius IX and freedom of the press branded intrinsically evil by him, the Church immediately set out to "bridle" the press. In the United States, the Knights of Columbus was created in 1882 to organize the Catholic laity into a tightly controlled and responsive machine. By 1914 the Knights of Columbus had evolved into a national organization capable of intimidating anyone who criticized the Church in any way. During the period from August 1914 to January 17, 1917, the Knights succeeded, according to their own report, in shutting down 60 of the 62 or 63 newspapers in the United States that published news critical of the Catholic Church. And they bragged about it.260h
In 1946, Pius XII told a group of American editors that freedom of the press "does not allow a man to print what is wrong, what is known to be false, or what is calculated to undermine and destroy the moral and religious fiber of individuals and the peace and harmony of nations."260i The pope, of course, considers himself the supreme judge of what is wrong, false, moral, religious, peaceful and harmonious encompassing all aspects of our existence. Given the pontiff's statement, reporters, editors and publishers have only those rights given to them by the pope. Thus, any reporter, editor or publisher who defies the pope becomes fair game. These were the ground rules established by the Knights of Columbus in their crusade early in this century to destroy all American newspapers that did not conform to the dictates of the Vatican. (Italicized text in the original; underscored emphasis added.)
PAUL BLANSHARD ASSESSES VATICAN INFLUENCE
In 1949, Paul Blanshard reported on his extensive study of Catholic censorship and boycott in a book, American Freedom and Catholic Power. He found that, "The censorship system of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is neither a spasmodic nor an intermittent phenomenon. It is a highly organized system of cultural and moral controls that applies not only to books, plays, magazines and motion pictures, but to persons and places....[The Church] holds the power of economic life and death over many authors, publishers and producers who must rely upon American Catholics for patronage and support."260j
For his analysis, Blanshard depends heavily on the writings of Catholics in good standing, including Canon law. He observes: "Catholics are taught that the Roman Catholic Church is the supreme guardian and purveyor of truth, that the Pope has infallible judgment in moral matters, and that `union of minds requires not only a perfect accord in the one Faith, but complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.' The words are those of Leo XIII in his Chief Duties of Christian Citizens ....260k `The Church is not afraid of the truth,' says Father John C. Heenan in his Priest and Penitent, but She is very much afraid that a clever presentation of falsehood will deceive even the elect.' The Church teaches that literature is `immoral' if it is opposed to Catholic standards, and that `no one has a right to publish such literature any more than one has a right to poison wells or sell tainted food.'"260l . . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
For additional relevant information, open the following pages:
GEORGE SELDES -- AMERICA'S PREMIER PRESS CRITIC
ON "CATHOLIC ISSUES" THERE IS NO FREE PRESS
A DEVIOUS PROPAGANDA MACHINE CONCEALS ROME'S NEFARIOUS ACTIVITIES
Articles can be found which identify a Roman Catholic dominant influence over the Republican Party; but it is presented as though it has essentially been a voluntary evolution rather than a forcible, involuntary process. The following is a good example. There is much misinterpretation here. It bears all the marks of the kind of propaganda which has effectively concealed the execution of an aggressive program by the USCCB under the direction of the Vatican. Obvious misstatements or rationalizations of facts in the following passages are underscored:-
How GOP got Catholicized (A March 23, 2012, essay)
The GOP is undergoing a quiet process of Catholicization. It’s one of the reasons why this year’s race has focused so much on social issues – and sex.
Republican outreach to Catholics began in the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon tried to entice blue-collar “white ethnics” to the GOP by taking a tough stand on abortion. Nixon told members of his staff he was tempted to convert to Catholicism himself, but was worried it would be seen as cheap politics: “They would say there goes Tricky Dick Nixon trying to win the Catholic vote. …”
Nixon genuinely admired the Catholic intellectual tradition and its ability to provide reasonable arguments to defend conservative values at a time when they were undergoing widespread reappraisal. That certainly made the Church an invaluable partner during the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s.
When the Moral Majority was established in 1979 to oppose things like abortion and homosexual rights, its evangelical founders did their best to include Catholics. Despite the organization’s reputation for being the political voice box of televangelists and peddlers of the apocalypse, by the mid ’80s it drew a third of its funding from Catholic donors. Leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson consciously used the Moral Majority (and, later, the Christian Coalition) as an exercise in ecumenical coalition building.
Falwell and Robertson were fans of Pope John Paul II and his resilient anti-communism. But they also recognized, like Nixon, that the Catholic Church had a vast intellectual heritage that could be drawn upon when fighting the liberals. For example, when debating abortion, evangelicals had hitherto tended to rely on Scripture to make their case. Catholics, on the other hand, had been integrating the concept of “human rights” into their theology since the 1890s.
Under Catholic influence, the pro-life movement evolved from a zealous, theology-heavy rationale to one more couched in the language of human dignity and personhood.
By 2000, Catholic social teaching was a core component of the Republican Party’s “compassionate conservatism” agenda. Karl Rove targeted religious Catholics on behalf of George W. Bush, while the president made a big play of his social traditionalism. In the 2004 election, Bush beat John Kerry among Catholics, despite the fact that Kerry described himself as a faithful Catholic who never went anywhere without his rosary beads.
Crucially, Bush’s victory among Catholics was made possible by his margin of support among those who attend Mass regularly. Catholics who said they rarely went to church plumped for Kerry. The election heralded a new split within the politics of the communion, between religious and ethnic Catholics. Indeed, it could be argued that just as Republican Protestants have become a little more Catholic in their outlook, so conservative Catholics have become a little more Protestant in theirs. . .
The first two paragraphs begin a portrayal of Roman Catholicism as a benign and desirable religious faith. There is no evidence that Nixon "was tempted to convert to Catholicism himself, but was worried it would be seen as cheap politics." To the contrary, there is documentation that he viewed the Roman Catholics in a purely political right-wing/left-wing way (Nixon on Catholics: "Split down the middle".) In fact an online transcript of a recorded conversation between Nixon and Haldeman, his Chief of Staff, shreds Catholicism in such profane language that it can neither be quoted nor the web page hyperlinked in this article.
The reference in the second paragraph to "Republican outreach to Catholics" is a deceptive oversimplification. The following is from an obviously ecumenist article; but it actually exposes the some of the intricate web of deceit which ensnared gullible Protestants:
How abortion unified Catholics and evangelicals to become a power on the right
The evangelical-Catholic political alliance over abortion began in the late 1960s with Richard Nixon. Nixon aides Pat Buchanan and Kevin Phillips made the case that abortion was potentially a wedge issue that could separate Catholics from the Democratic Party. Abortion, Buchanan wrote in a private memo, was “a rising issue and gut issue with Catholics.” . . .
The canniest leaders understood that abortion politics could help conservatism, and vice versa. Weyrich explained to his fellow conservatives that abortion should be “made the keystone of their organizing strategy, since this was the issue that could divide the Democratic Party.”
During the Jimmy Carter administration, what came to be known as the religious right began to take shape. A key impetus was the Internal Revenue Service’s attempt to remove Bob Jones University’s tax exempt status because it banned interracial dating. In 1979, Weyrich joined together with a Baptist minister named Jerry Falwell to form a new multifaith religious group to advocate conservative cultural issues. They called it the Moral Majority.
The prevalence of Catholics in the leadership of this religious right, little noticed by the press at the time, helped elevate abortion as an issue and bridge the Catholic-Protestant divide. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
This article was published by the non-denominational Religion News Service (RNS,) so its association of Kevin Phillips with the Nixon presidency's use of abortion as a wedge issue to separate Catholics from the Democratic Party may simply be an unintentional error. However, Phillips did publicize a cynical analysis of race relations in the American South which was used by the Nixon White House to turn the South into a bastion of the Republican Party. He was not the one who had a religious agenda, and he divorced himself from the theocratic agenda of the Republican Party. The bête noire of Nixon's interest in Rome's abortion agenda was his aide Pat Buchanan, a devout Roman Catholic and culture wars activist, and a predictor of what the Republican Party has become. This article also introduces the biggest name in the fusion of Protestants and Roman Catholics in the Religious Right. That name is Paul Weyrich:
The Real Origins of the Religious Right
Paul Weyrich, the late religious conservative political activist and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, saw his opening.
In the decades following World War II, evangelicals, especially white evangelicals in the North, had drifted toward the Republican Party—inclined in that direction by general Cold War anxieties, vestigial suspicions of Catholicism and well-known evangelist Billy Graham’s very public friendship with Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Despite these predilections, though, evangelicals had largely stayed out of the political arena, at least in any organized way. If he could change that, Weyrich reasoned, their large numbers would constitute a formidable voting bloc—one that he could easily marshal behind conservative causes.
“The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Weyrich believed that the political possibilities of such a coalition were unlimited. “The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated,” he wrote. “If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams.”
But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Focusing again on the factual misrepresentations in the passages quoted from How GOP got Catholicized, the author states that "When the Moral Majority was established in 1979 to oppose things like abortion and homosexual rights, its evangelical founders did their best to include Catholics." The documentation quoted and hyperlinked above proves that the statement is absolutely false. Was the author not aware that the "Moral Majority" is recognized as having been co-founded by Paul Weyrich, and that the phrase '"Moral Majority" was coined by him?:
Moral Majority Founder, Conservative Leader Paul Weyrich Dies
Paul M. Weyrich, who co-founded the Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell in 1979, died this morning around 1 a.m. He was 66 years old. . .
Paul Weyrich, coined ‘moral majority’ phrase, dies
Conservative activist Paul Weyrich, who coined the phrase "moral majority" and helped turn social conservatives into a powerful force in the Republican Party, died Thursday. He was 66. . .
Weyrich, who lived in northern Virginia, was one of three founders of the Moral Majority, and later had a hand in creating the Christian Coalition.
Weyrich got his start as a reporter in Milwaukee, and came to Washington in 1967 as press secretary to Sen. Gordon Allott, R-Colo. Six year later, he founded the Heritage Foundation, and the next year the Free Congress Foundation. At a 1979 gathering of religious leaders, Weyrich talked of a "moral majority" in the country. The name stuck. Over the next decade, the group led by the Rev. Jerry Falwell energized the conservative movement as a political force.
Note the place of the Christian Coalition which Paul Weyrich "had a hand in creating."
The statement in How GOP got Catholicized that "Leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson consciously used the Moral Majority (and, later, the Christian Coalition) as an exercise in ecumenical coalition building" is a fantasy. The USCCB's "Pastoral Plan" specifically emphasized the goal of ecumenism.
The evidence is overwhelming that the Vatican, through Roman Catholic hierarchy in America, took over the Republican Party and brought it into subjection to Rome's creation: the Religious Right coalition and its culture wars.
RELIGIO-POLITICAL AGENDA SUPERSEDES ESTABLISHED ELECTION STRATEGIES
Why Republicans Are Turning an Easy Election Into a Culture War (Apr. 14, 2022)
Translated into the context of the 2022 midterms, Republicans have all the ingredients for a simple midterm message: an unpopular president, a discouraged Democratic base, and a simple economic issue that gives Democrats a lot of problems they cannot solve (inflation). History suggests they are on their way to victory, at least in terms of winning back the U.S. House (a really big deal since it kills a rare Democratic governing trifecta in Washington) and making gains at the state level as well. It’s kind of a no-brainer.
But are Republicans campaigning that way? So far, by and large, no. Instead, to a remarkable extent, Republican candidates and elected officials are going whole hog into culture-war topics. They’re pushing near-total bans on abortion, making law-and-order demands for a crackdown on crime, and railing against the alleged “woke indoctrination” of public-school students on matters of gender, sexuality, and race. This is happening more at the state level than in Washington. But anyone who watched the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson or pays attention to the antics of Marjorie Taylor Greene knows that congressional Republicans are as capable of wild culture-war gyrations as your average conservative occupying a safe state-legislative seat in the rural South.
So what’s going on? Are Republicans incapable of message discipline or out of touch with an electorate that’s relatively progressive on cultural issues? Are they consumed with “base mobilization”? Or maybe they’re just mirroring Donald Trump’s self-destructive tendencies?
Here are some possible explanations for a midterm strategy gone wild.
The conservative Christian base is demanding culture war
The most obvious reason Republican politicians are serving up culture-war fare is that their party base is dominated by conservative Christians who are more concerned about the supposed deterioration of traditional values than just about any other political topic. Indeed, there is some evidence that such voters are in a counterrevolutionary state of mind, anxious to use a Republican resurgence to roll back recent progressive gains on a wide range of issues, and free of any inhibitions about displaying their religious motivations. As the New York Times recently reported, there’s a new mood firing up the Christian right’s marriage of convenience with the Republican Party thanks to the MAGA movement’s radicalism:
The infusion of explicitly religious fervor — much of it rooted in the charismatic tradition, which emphasizes the power of the Holy Spirit — into the right-wing movement is changing the atmosphere of events and rallies, many of which feature Christian symbols and rituals, especially praise music.
With spiritual mission driving political ideals, the stakes of any conflict, whether over masks or school curriculums, can feel that much larger, and compromise can be even more difficult to achieve. Political ambitions come to be about defending God, pointing to a desire to build a nation that actively promotes a particular set of Christian beliefs. . .
New and more popular culture-war issues are emerging
Even if the central motivation of many conservative-base voters is still traditional Evangelical or Catholic religious views and a rejection of progressive cultural accomplishments, there are new wrinkles in the old fabric of right-wing cultural politics. The emergence of transgender rights as the new frontier of gender and sexual inclusiveness is discomfiting to a lot of people who typically consider themselves enlightened and accepting of others. And an ancient, religion-based hostility to public education (a.k.a. “government schools”) has found new energy in concerns about COVID-19 lockdowns and the power of teachers unions, which bleeds over into “parental rights” agendas long set by homeschoolers and others wanting public subsidies for private education.
For that matter, “wokeness” itself as a political curse word has given new impetus to old-school racist and sexist impulses, beyond the ranks of conservative ideologues. And recent crime trends — or, arguably, a crime panic based on the inevitable reversal of decades-long reductions in most crimes — have made quasi-authoritarian attitudes toward urban areas as dystopian sinkholes of disorder and social pathology more common, even among swing-voter elements of the electorate.
In other words, a variety of circumstances have made right-wing culture-war politics something of a flavor of the month beyond the fever swamps in which it typically festers.
Conservatives want to change the culture now
It’s important to understand that a lot of the current culture-war energy on the right is emanating from places where conservatives already enjoy power, notably state legislatures in both red and purple jurisdictions. For many of these people, the 2022 midterms are not an opportunity to deny Democrats power or even seize more power for themselves; they’re an opportunity to aggressively govern in a culturally conservative manner without much fear of voter backlash. With the wind at their backs, Republicans are doing what they and their voters want, which is to redirect a culture perceived as godless and disordered back into its customary channels. Perhaps Republicans would be more careful about cultural counterrevolution in a less favorable political environment. But for now the historic pattern of midterm losses for the White House party, intensified by the first serious inflation scare since the 1970s, and an unpopular presidency makes it possible for conservatives to let their non-freak flag fly.
Is this just an unusual, dangerous moment that will fade if Republicans fail to meet their sky-high expectations in November? Perhaps. But keep in mind that the enduring popularity of Donald Trump in today’s conservative politics owes a lot to the 45th president’s habit of always remaining on the offensive and using divisive polarization to build a coalition of the radically aggrieved and just enough swing voters to win elections. Trumpism means never having to moderate and never retreating. Worse yet for the country, when Republicans fail electorally, Trumpism tells them they should double down on base-exciting extremism. Don’t expect them to retreat. (Underscored emphasis added.)
The insightful article from which the foregoing passages are quoted was published in April, 2022, before the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and before the leak of the draft Supreme Court decision in the following month. The legalization of abortion stirred the Vatican and the USCCB into action for the express purpose of shoring up the dogma of papal infallibility; but this was only a part of the ultimate purpose of Rome to rule over all. Therefore the overturning of Roe v. Wade falls short of the ultimate purpose, hence the emerging "new and more popular culture-war issues." The following is copied from "CHURCH SEEKING DOMINATION OVER STATE IN THE CRUSADE AGAINST ABORTION" earlier on this page and In END TIME PROPHETIC EVENTS:
It must never be overlooked that the papacy, from its very inception, has sought supremacy over the entire world. Read or listen to its history. Furthermore this was reasserted very recently in the papacy of John Paul II.
The Roman Catholic politics of abortion is directly connected with the reason why the dogma of papal infallibility was decreed in the First Vatican Council (1869-1870.) At the time of Vatican Council I the papacy was in a state of great crisis. The princes and European states were claiming authority over the Church. Here it should be noted that "In 1869–70 American bishops participated in Vatican I, where they were among the minority that opposed the decree of papal infallibility" (Roman Catholicism in the United States and Canada.)
America was neither a kingdom nor a nation which claimed authority over the Church; but by its constitution guaranteeing separation of church and state and individual freedom, it has been a far deadlier enemy of papal supremacy. Princes could be deposed one by one; but the God-given formula for individual freedom enunciated by Jesus Christ (Matt. 22:21) is welcomed by the people. In general, with the exception of any who have become conditioned to authoritainian government, the people reject coercion by the civil power; and Almighty God coerces no-one. Therefore, once the separation of church and state and the individual liberty guaranteed by the United States constitution has become ingrained in the people, this can only be overcome by destruction of the Constitution - hence Rome's war on the Constitution. Under Pope Pius XI (1922-1929) Roman Catholicism was mobilized against American democracy, with one of the most massive propaganda campaigns in history. It has been brilliantly, and indeed diabolically, successful since it was ramped up by the USCCB's Pastoral Plan of 1975, which made no secret of the fact that it was to be spearheaded by the anti-abortion crusade. A sufficient percentage of the population has been brainwashed into an emotional belief that abortion at any stage of pregnancy amounts to "murder" of innocent "unborn babies." This has fostered indifference to the demolition of the constitutional freedoms of the nation inherent in the anti-abortion crusade.
Returning to Vatican Council I, there was at the same time as the threat from the princes and European states, an internal "confrontation between two tendencies that were especially strong in France (but had ramifications all over Europe) and polarized the debate: “Gallicanism”, stressing the freedom of particular churches over against Rome, and “Ultramontanism”, exalting the central authority of the pope over national churches."
So “Ultramontanism” is but another term for the supremacy of papal Rome . . .
(Cf. It is striking that . . .)
It is manifest that the Vatican is tearing apart the fabric of American society on the way to accomplishing Papal supremacy, and she is using the Republican Party for this purpose. So British journalist and author Edward Luce could convincingly say: “I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close;” and he can receive support from former CIA Director Michael Hayden, by himself and with five retired U.S. Air Force and Army generals and lieutenant generals.
Since the destruction of American democracy is the ultimate goal of the papacy, the culture wars are continuing as analyzed in Why Republicans Are Turning an Easy Election Into a Culture War, cited earlier in this paper. As usual the analysis correctly describes the conflict, but attributes it to the surface appearance of having been caused by Donald Trump, thus failing to recognize that the papacy is in control.
The following article underscores the fact that America's democracy is threatened by a Republican Party which ignores public opinion. No mention is made of the fact that this is the inevitable result of control of the Party by the papacy, which has been working assiduously for over a century to destroy America's democracy. The papacy scorns public opinion (note the declarations of Pope Leo XIII, quoted from Christian Edwardson's Facts of Faith, Chapter 26 titled "Americanism Versus Romanism"):
'A Crisis Coming': The Twin Threats to American Democracy
The United States faces two distinct challenges, the movement by Republicans who refuse to accept defeat in an election and a growing disconnect between political power and public opinion. (Matt Chase/The New York Times)
The United States has experienced deep political turmoil several times before over the past century. The Great Depression caused Americans to doubt the country’s economic system. World War II and the Cold War presented threats from global totalitarian movements. The 1960s and ’70s were marred by assassinations, riots, a losing war and a disgraced president.
These earlier periods were each more alarming in some ways than anything that has happened in the United States recently. Yet during each of those previous times of tumult, the basic dynamics of American democracy held firm. Candidates who won the most votes were able to take power and attempt to address the country’s problems.
The current period is different. As a result, the United States today finds itself in a situation with little historical precedent. American democracy is facing two distinct threats, which together represent the most serious challenge to the country’s governing ideals in decades.
The first threat is acute: a growing movement inside one of the country’s two major parties — the Republican Party — to refuse to accept defeat in an election.
The violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress, meant to prevent the certification of President Joe Biden’s election, was the clearest manifestation of this movement, but it has continued since then. Hundreds of elected Republican officials around the country falsely claim that the 2020 election was rigged. Some of them are running for statewide offices that would oversee future elections, potentially putting them in position to overturn an election in 2024 or beyond.
“There is the possibility, for the first time in American history, that a legitimately elected president will not be able to take office,” said Yascha Mounk, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University who studies democracy.
The second threat to democracy is chronic but also growing: The power to set government policy is becoming increasingly disconnected from public opinion.
The run of recent Supreme Court decisions — both sweeping and, according to polls, unpopular — highlights this disconnect. Although the Democratic Party has won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees seems poised to shape American politics for years, if not decades. And the court is only one of the means through which policy outcomes are becoming less closely tied to the popular will.
Two of the past four presidents have taken office despite losing the popular vote. Senators representing a majority of Americans are often unable to pass bills, partly because of the increasing use of the filibuster. Even the House, intended as the branch of the government that most reflects the popular will, does not always do so because of the way districts are drawn.
“We are far and away the most countermajoritarian democracy in the world,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and a co-author of the book “How Democracies Die,” with Daniel Ziblatt.
The causes of the twin threats to democracy are complex and debated among scholars.
The chronic threats to democracy generally spring from enduring features of American government, some written into the Constitution. But they did not conflict with majority opinion to the same degree in past decades. One reason is that more populous states, whose residents receive less power because of the Senate and the Electoral College, have grown so much larger than small states. . .
The acute threats to democracy — and the rise of authoritarian sentiment, or at least the acceptance of it, among many voters — have different causes. They partly reflect frustration over nearly a half-century of slow-growing living standards for the American working class and middle class. They also reflect cultural fears, especially among white people, that the United States is being transformed into a new country, more racially diverse and less religious, with rapidly changing attitudes toward gender, language and more.
The economic frustrations and cultural fears have combined to create a chasm in American political life between prosperous, diverse major metropolitan areas and more traditional, religious and economically struggling smaller cities and rural areas. The first category is increasingly liberal and Democratic, the second increasingly conservative and Republican.
The political contest between the two can feel existential to people in both camps, with disagreements over nearly every prominent issue. “When we’re voting, we’re not just voting for a set of policies but for what we think makes us Americans and who we are as a people,” said Lilliana Mason, a political scientist and the author of “Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity.” “If our party loses the election, then all of these parts of us feel like losers.”
These sharp disagreements have led many Americans to doubt the country’s system of government. In a recent poll by Quinnipiac University, 69% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans said that democracy was “in danger of collapse.” Of course, the two sides have very different opinions about the nature of the threat.
Many Democrats share the concerns of historians and scholars who study democracy, pointing to the possibility of overturned election results and the deterioration of majority rule. “Equality and democracy are under assault,” Biden said in a speech this month in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia. “We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise.”
Many Republicans have defended their increasingly aggressive tactics by saying they are trying to protect American values. In some cases, these claims rely on falsehoods — about election fraud, Biden’s supposed “socialism,” Barack Obama’s birthplace and more.
In others, they are rooted in anxiety over real developments, including illegal immigration and “cancel culture.” Some on the left now consider widely held opinions among conservative and moderate Americans — on abortion, policing, affirmative action, COVID-19 and other subjects — to be so objectionable that they cannot be debated. In the view of many conservatives and some experts, this intolerance is stifling open debate at the heart of the American political system.
The divergent sense of crisis on left and right can itself weaken
democracy, and it has been exacerbated
by technology. . .
Conspiracy theories and outright lies have a long American history, dating to the personal attacks that were a staple of the partisan press during the 18th century. In the mid-20th century, tens of thousands of Americans joined the John Birch Society, a far-right group that claimed Dwight Eisenhower was a secret communist.
Today, however, falsehoods can spread much more easily, through social media and a fractured news environment. In the 1950s, no major television network spread the lies about Eisenhower. In recent years, the country’s most watched cable channel, Fox News, regularly promoted falsehoods about election results, Obama’s birthplace and other subjects. . .
Again and again, geographic sorting has helped cause a growing disconnect between public opinion and election results, and this disconnect has shaped the Supreme Court as well. The court’s membership at any given time is dictated by the outcomes of presidential and Senate elections over the previous few decades. And if elections reflected popular opinion, Democratic appointees would dominate the court.
Every current justice has been appointed during one of the past nine presidential terms, and a Democrat has won the popular vote in seven of those nine and the presidency in five of the nine. Yet the court is now dominated by a conservative, six-member majority. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
The crisis is not just "coming." It is the here and now of all the subversive elements described above; not least of all the electoral imbalances, lying propaganda, and corruption of the judicial system. This is most blatantly evidenced by a Supreme Court controlled by six Roman Catholic ideologues intent on achieving papal domination of America, as the prelude to world domination.
The nation has become a dangerously divided country, as demonstrated by the passages quoted above. The division has been stirred up by Rome through the cleverly camouflaged manipulation of her agents. Division has long been the most effective tool of imperial power. The following confirms this in the history of the British Empire. How she exercised it is illustrated in the following passages:
Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules
Once the English hit on the tactic of using ethnic and religious differences to divide a population, the conquest of Ireland became a reality. Within 250 years, that formula would be transported to India, Africa, and the Middle East.
Sometimes populations were splintered by religions, as with Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims in India. Sometimes societies were divided by tribes, as with the Ibos and Hausa in Nigeria. Sometimes, as in Ireland, foreign ethnic groups were imported and used as a buffer between the colonial authorities and the colonized. That is how large numbers of East Indians ended up in Kenya, South Africa, British Guyana, and Uganda.
It was “divide and conquer” that made it possible for an insignificant island in the north of Europe to rule the world. Division and chaos, tribal, religious and ethnic hatred, were the secret to empire. Guns and artillery were always in the background in case things went awry, but in fact, it rarely came to that. . .
Rome's imperial power has been advancing by a policy of "divide and conquer." She didn't need any lessons from British imperialism. With British imperialism "guns and artillery were always in the background in case things went awry;" but she consistently established parliamentary democracies, within the bounds of "divide and conquer," in the territories which she ruled. This principle of governance survived when she voluntarily granted, or was forced to grant, independence. Rome's relentless objective and religio-political manipulation of governmental policy has always been the destruction of democracy. To this end warfare, sometimes physical and always ideological, has been her modus operandi, and by this means she purposes to achieve imperial power over the whole world. This has been amply demonstrated by the culture wars which have divided America and fostered violence.
The following essay recognizes this strategy of the Trumpian/Republican/Roman Catholic crusade against the American body politic:
Trump's Divide-and-Conquer Strategy
by Robert Reich
February 6, 2018
* * *
Trump has intentionally cleaved America into two warring camps: pro-Trump and anti-Trump. And he has convinced the pro-Trumps that his enemy is their enemy.
Most Americans are not passionate conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats. But they have become impassioned Trump supporters or Trump haters.
Polls say 37 percent of Americans approve of him, and most disapprove. These numbers are the tips of two vast icebergs of intensity.
Trump has forced all of us to take sides, and to despise those on the other. There's no middle ground.
The Republican Party used to stand for fiscal responsibility, states' rights, free trade, and a hard line against Russian aggression. Now it just stands for Trump.
Pro-Trump Republicans remain the majority in the GOP. As long as Trump can keep them riled up, and as long as Republicans remain in control of at least one chamber of Congress, he's safe. . .
Fox News is his propaganda arm, magnifying his tweets, rallies, and lies. The rest of the media also plays into Trump's strategy by making him the defining controversy of America. Every particular dispute—DACA, the “wall,” North Korea, Mueller's investigation, and so on—becomes another aspect of the larger national war over Trump.
It's the divide-and-conquer strategy of a tyrant.
Democracies require sufficient social trust that citizens regard the views of those they disagree with as worthy of equal consideration to their own. That way, they'll accept political outcomes they dislike.
Trump's divide-and-conquer strategy is to destroy that trust. (Underscored emphasis added.)
Again, all is attributed to Trump; but Cardinal Dolan figuratively "spilled the beans" when he stated defensively “you gotta make gnocchi with the dough you’ve got.” This statement was made in response to criticism of the American hierarchy's cozy relationship with Donald Trump by Roman Catholics. For the full context read TRUMP'S COZY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE AMERICAN CARDINALS AND BISHOPS. The critics explicitly recognized that the Bishops had "inextricably linked the Catholic Church in the United States to the Republican Party and, particularly, President Donald Trump."
Rome's inextricable linkage to the Republican Party has been disastrous for democracy and the worst is yet to come.
DOOMSDAY LOOMS FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Editorial: One election away from losing American democracy
America may be one election away from losing its democracy. Democracy’s fate seems to hinge on a little known act, the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Now is the time for Congress to bring the Electoral Count Act into this century. There are plenty of state bills across the country making it harder to vote in the United States. The Electoral Count Act deals with the vote count on the back end and sets the rules for whether those votes will actually be counted.
The 1887 act is a federal law establishing procedures to abide by constitutional provisions for the counting of electoral votes following a presidential election.
The 2020 election was the first in America’s history to not yield a peaceful transfer of power. That failure is rooted in two loopholes contained in the 1887 law — loopholes that must be closed before another presidential election occurs. First, the act enables state legislatures to ignore the popular vote and choose an alternative slate of electors in the case of an undefined failed election. It gives power to politicians, not voters, to decide when an election’s results must be disqualified or reworked. The dangers of handing such wide-ranging powers to politicians should now be obvious.
The 1887 act also decrees that if one representative and one senator object, in writing, to the counting of any state’s electoral votes, the bodies must adjourn to their chambers to debate the matter.
Americans saw for themselves the chaos that can ensue when as few as two politicians have the power to throw a wrench into the nation’s electoral gears. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, 147 Republican officeholders were willing to decertify the Electoral College count. Included in those 147 were six Missouri Republicans: Sen. Josh Hawley and Reps. Sam Graves, Vicky Hartzler, Billy Long, Blaine Luetkemeyer and Jason Smith.
This time, it was the Republican Party invoking the 1887 law to circumvent the actual vote count to effectively nullify Joe Biden’s election as president. The next time, it could be Democrats. Unless the Electoral Count Act is reformed, the blueprints are out there for any future administration and partisan supporters in Congress to sidestep the will of the people in order to retain power. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)
Whether or not the Democrats would ever abandon liberalism, which is hated by Rome, and use the Electoral Count Act "to sidestep the will of the people in order to retain power," it can be stated with confidence that they will never get the chance:
The Republican plot to steal the 2024 election
Redistricting is the next step on a path to one-party rule
The redistricting process kicked off this week in Washington. The Census Bureau released initial data from the 2020 census Monday afternoon, (much later than usual thanks to a combination of the pandemic, Donald Trump's efforts to stop unauthorized immigrants from being counted, and his administration's general flailing incompetence), which means that congressional district boundaries will soon be redrawn to account for changes in population.
These changes will probably tend to benefit the Republican Party, as conservative states will get more seats — for instance, Texas will gain two seats, while New York, California, and Illinois will all lose one. Republicans are also certain to use the process to try to gerrymander themselves as many additional congressional seats as possible by leveraging their control of a majority of state legislatures. And that is just the opening tactic in a long-term strategy to abolish American democracy and set up one-party rule.
The basic strategy goes like this. First, win control of state legislatures, then gerrymander the state district boundaries such that it's virtually impossible to lose, and add further protection with vote suppression laws making it harder for liberals to cast their ballots. Then, leverage control of the state legislatures in a post-census year to gerrymander the congressional district boundaries and gain a large advantage in the national House vote. This was exactly what happened after the previous census in 2010, when a fortunately-timed Republican wave victory allowed them to cement a roughly 4-5 point handicap in House elections and control of the chamber for eight years, along with control of dozens of state legislatures. . .
Though some of those 2010-vintage gerrymanders have been eroded or taken down through the courts, new ones will be attempted in every state Republicans control this year that do not have nonpartisan redistricting commissions (which is most of them). As Ryan Grim estimates at The Intercept, a fresh hardcore House gerrymander would likely net the GOP 15-20 House seats — easily enough to let them take the majority, if the 2022 electorate looks anything like 2020. And thanks to the conservative hammerlock on the Supreme Court, the new gerrymanders and vote suppression measures are virtually guaranteed to be blessed as "legal" (in conservative jurisprudence, something is constitutional if it benefits Republicans).
It's impossible to gerrymander the Senate, of course, but luckily for Republicans that chamber is inherently gerrymandered due to the large number of disproportionately white, low-population rural states that lean conservative. The swing seat in the Senate is biased something like 7 points to the right.
If the GOP can win the House and Senate in the 2022 midterms, and if they retain control of a handful of swing-state legislatures, then they will be in a perfect position to steal the presidency in 2024. As Jonathan V. Last explains at The Bulwark, it would be quite simple to steal a presidential election within the formal rules of America's electoral system, though of course it would be a blatant violation of the entire spirit of the Constitution. The anachronistic, nonsensical legal structure that governs presidential elections says that if Congress does not certify a majority winner in the Electoral College, then the next president will be chosen by a vote of the House — but each state delegation bizarrely gets only one vote. Wyoming's one representative will get the same sway as the 50-odd representatives in California. (The vice president would be chosen by the Senate, a relic of the old rules in which that office had a separate election.) (Underscored emphasis added.)
The nefarious scheming of the Republican Party is verified by the opinion of a highly respected, ultraconservative, former judge of the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. It would be unrealistic to ignore his warnings. It is clearly too late to avert the looming disaster for the American nation; but alertness is crucial to preparedness for the despotism that will follow:
Opinion: The Republican blueprint to steal the 2024 election
Opinion by J. Michael Luttig
Updated 9:09 AM EDT, Wed April 27, 2022
Editor’s Note: J. Michael Luttig, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, formerly served on the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for 15 years. He advised Vice President Mike Pence on January 6. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. . .
Nearly a year and a half later, surprisingly few understand what January 6 was all about.
Fewer still understand why former President Donald Trump and Republicans persist in their long-disproven claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Much less why they are obsessed about making the 2024 race a referendum on the “stolen” election of 2020, which even they know was not stolen.
January 6 was never about a stolen election or even about actual voting fraud. It was always and only about an election that Trump lost fair and square, under legislatively promulgated election rules in a handful of swing states that he and other Republicans contend were unlawfully changed by state election officials and state courts to expand the right and opportunity to vote, largely in response to the Covid pandemic.
The Republicans’ mystifying claim to this day that Trump did, or would have, received more votes than Joe Biden in 2020 were it not for actual voting fraud, is but the shiny object that Republicans have tauntingly and disingenuously dangled before the American public for almost a year and a half now to distract attention from their far more ambitious objective.
That objective is not somehow to rescind the 2020 election, as they would have us believe. That’s constitutionally impossible. Trump’s and the Republicans’ far more ambitious objective is to execute successfully in 2024 the very same plan they failed in executing in 2020 and to overturn the 2024 election if Trump or his anointed successor loses again in the next quadrennial contest.
The last presidential election was a dry run for the next.
From long before Election Day 2020, Trump and Republicans planned to overturn the presidential election by exploiting the Electors and Elections Clauses of the Constitution, the Electoral College, the Electoral Count Act of 1877, and the 12th Amendment, if Trump lost the popular and Electoral College vote.
The cornerstone of the plan was to have the Supreme Court embrace the little known “independent state legislature” doctrine, which, in turn, would pave the way for exploitation of the Electoral College process and the Electoral Count Act, and finally for Vice President Mike Pence to reject enough swing state electoral votes to overturn the election using Pence’s ceremonial power under the 12th Amendment and award the presidency to Donald Trump.
The independent state legislature doctrine says that, under the Elections and the Electors Clauses of the Constitution, state legislatures possess plenary and exclusive power over the conduct of federal presidential elections and the selection of state presidential electors. Not even a state supreme court, let alone other state elections officials, can alter the legislatively written election rules or interfere with the appointment of state electors by the legislatures, under this theory.
The Supreme Court has never decided whether to embrace the independent state legislature doctrine. But then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in separate concurring opinions said they would embrace that doctrine in Bush v. Gore, 20 years earlier, and Republicans had every reason to believe there were at least five votes on the Supreme Court for the doctrine in November 2020, with Amy Coney Barrett having just been confirmed in the eleventh hour before the election.
Trump and the Republicans began executing this first stage of their plan months before November 3, by challenging as violative of the independent state legislature doctrine election rules relating to early- and late-voting, extensions of voting days and times, mail-in ballots, and other election law changes that Republicans contended had been unlawfully altered by state officials and state courts in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Michigan.
These cases eventually wound their way to the Supreme Court in the fall of 2020, and by December, the Supreme Court had decided all of these cases, but only by orders, either disallowing federal court intervention to change an election rule that had been promulgated by a state legislature, allowing legislatively promulgated rules to be changed by state officials and state courts, or deadlocking 4-4, because Justice Barrett was not sworn in until after those cases were briefed and ready for decision by the Court. In none of these cases did the Supreme Court decide the all-important independent state legislature doctrine.
Thwarted by the Supreme Court’s indecision on that doctrine, Trump and the Republicans turned their efforts to the second stage of their plan, exploitation of the Electoral College and the Electoral Count Act.
The Electoral College is the process by which Americans choose their presidents, a process that can lead to the election as president of a candidate who does not receive a majority of votes cast by the American voters. Republicans have grown increasingly wary of the Electoral College with the new census and political demographics of the nation’s shifting population.
The Electoral Count Act empowers Congress to decide the presidency in a host of circumstances where Congress determines that state electoral votes were not “regularly given” by electors who were “lawfully certified,” terms that are undefined and ambiguous. In this second stage of the plan, the Republicans needed to generate state-certified alternative slates of electors from swing states where Biden won the popular vote who would cast their electoral votes for Trump instead. Congress would then count the votes of these alternative electoral slates on January 6, rather than the votes of the certified electoral slates for Biden, and Trump would be declared the reelected president.
The Republicans’ plan failed at this stage when they were unable to secure a single legitimate, alternative slate of electors from any state because the various state officials refused to officially certify these Trump-urged slates.
Thwarted by the Supreme Court in the first stage, foiled by their inability to come up with alternative state electoral slates in the second stage, and with time running out, Trump and the Republicans began executing the final option in their plan, which was to scare up illegitimate alternative electoral slates in various swing states to be transmitted to Congress. Whereupon, on January 6, Vice President Pence would count only the votes of the illegitimate electors from the swing states, and not the votes of the legitimate, certified electors that were cast for Biden, and declare Donald Trump’s reelection as President of the United States.
The entire house of cards collapsed at noon on January 6, when Pence refused to go along with the ill-conceived plan, correctly concluding that under the 12th Amendment he had no power to reject the votes that had been cast by the duly certified electors or to delay the count to give Republicans even more time to whip up alternative electoral slates. . .
Trump and Republicans are preparing to return to the Supreme Court, where this time they will likely win the independent state legislature doctrine, now that Amy Coney Barrett is on the Court and ready to vote. Barrett has not addressed the issue, but this turns on an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and Barrett is firmly aligned on that method of constitutional interpretation with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, all three of whom have written that they believe the doctrine is correct.
Only last month, in a case from North Carolina the Court declined to hear, Moore v. Harper, four Justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) said that the independent state legislature question is of exceptional importance to our national elections, the issue will continue to recur and the Court should decide the issue sooner rather than later before the next presidential election. This case involved congressional redistricting, but the independent state legislature doctrine is as applicable to redistricting as it is to presidential elections.
The Republicans are also in the throes of electing Trump-endorsed candidates to state legislative offices in key swing states, installing into office their favored state election officials who deny that Biden won the 2020 election, such as secretaries of state, electing sympathetic state court judges onto the state benches and grooming their preferred potential electors for ultimate selection by the party, all so they will be positioned to generate and transmit alternative electoral slates to Congress, if need be.
Finally, they are furiously politicking to elect Trump supporters to the Senate and House, so they can overturn the election in Congress, as a last resort.
Forewarned is to be forearmed. . .
As it stands today, Trump, or his anointed successor, and the Republicans are poised, in their word, to “steal” from Democrats the presidential election in 2024 that they falsely claim the Democrats stole from them in 2020. But there is a difference between the falsely claimed “stolen” election of 2020 and what would be the stolen election of 2024. Unlike the Democrats’ theft claimed by Republicans, the Republicans’ theft would be in open defiance of the popular vote and thus the will of the American people: poetic, though tragic, irony for America’s democracy. (Italicized and underscored emphasis added.)
Nothing in Judge Luttig's opinion perceptibly penetrates beyond Donald Trump and the Republicans. However, it is manifestly observable that there is a tight relationship between the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Republican Party. A significant segment of the Roman Catholic community has openly published its objection to that relationship. There is not a publication in America which can honestly deny awareness of the relationship, or of the super majority of doctrinaire Roman Catholic justices on the Supreme Court which was manipulated into uncontrolled religio-political power by the Republican appointed members. This super majority is blatantly enforcing papal policy on the culture wars issues and America's democracy. Their alarmingly illegitimate decisions are observably untethered by the rule of established law (stare decisis,) or by the Constitution. The CNN editors must be aware of all of this. What was the reason for the editor's note to ensure the reader's understanding that the Judge's opinion was his own? Also, why the general practice of the news media burying the truth about Rome's controlling power over the Republican Party, which in effect is disinformation? The reason is given earlier in this paper. It is fear of punishment by a vengeful Roman Catholic hierarchy.
The independent state legislature doctrine is on the calendar for the now current term of the Supreme Court:
How the Supreme Court could radically reshape elections for president and Congress
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that it has agreed to hear a case next term that could upend election laws across the country with the potential endorsement of a fringe legal theory about how much power state legislatures have over the running of congressional and presidential elections.
The case, called Moore v. Harper, is centered on newly drawn maps of voting districts for North Carolina's 14 seats in the next U.S. House of Representatives.
Republican state lawmakers want to resurrect a map that North Carolina's state courts struck down, finding that the map approved by the GOP-controlled legislature violated multiple provisions in the state's constitution by giving Republican candidates an unfair advantage through partisan gerrymandering. A court-drawn map has been put in place instead for this year's midterm elections.
In their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, the Republican lawmakers argue that the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause gives state legislatures the power to determine how congressional elections are conducted without any checks and balances from state constitutions or state courts.
Based on this independent state legislature theory, they contend that the North Carolina state courts' decision to throw out and replace the legislature-drawn map violates the federal constitution — an argument that radically departs from the U.S. Supreme Court's historical record of deferring to state courts on how state constitutions and laws should be interpreted.
A Supreme Court endorsement of the theory could upend elections laws across the U.S.
The high court declined in March to weigh in on an emergency request for this case, but in a dissenting opinion, three of the court's conservatives — Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — signaled they would likely side with the Republican lawmakers' embrace of this theory.
Many legal scholars, however, have been waving warning signs that the high court's endorsement of the theory could have severe consequences across the country for congressional and presidential elections.
"It would be extremely disruptive," says Carolyn Shapiro, a law professor and founder and co-director of Chicago-Kent College of Law's Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States. "It would allow the possibility that people who don't like state supreme court rulings that have been on the books potentially for years could step back in and say, 'Well, actually, that ruling only applies to state elections.' "
Under this theory, Shapiro adds, holding elections for different levels of government at the same time could become practically difficult given that officials would potentially have to prepare for different sets of ballots, voter registration systems and, in some states, voter ID laws.
The court's support for the theory could also affect the 2024 presidential election
Vikram Amar, dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, notes that a "hyper-charged" version of the theory pointing to the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution served as the backdrop for the "fake electors" scheme that is a focus of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Depending on how broadly the Supreme Court rules in the North Carolina redistricting case, Amar says support for the theory by the court could affect the 2024 presidential election. States with Republican-controlled legislatures could see it as an invitation to set new election rules that take power away from voters when picking electors for the Electoral College or to make state lawmakers, not courts, the judges in disputes after the election.
"It is really a grave danger to American democracy to say that state legislatures are free from state constitutions to do whatever they want," says Amar, who co-wrote an article for the Supreme Court Review at the University of Chicago about how the theory goes against an originalist understanding of the U.S. Constitution. "State constitutions are an important source of American democracy, limits and rights. And I think it would be terrible if the U.S. Supreme Court distorted federalism to reject that very important premise."
To Shapiro, the Chicago-Kent College of Law professor, the theory "doesn't make any sense at all."
"The legislatures are created by constitutions. Their powers are defined by constitutions. The way those powers interact with other branches of state government is defined by state constitutions. Limitations on those powers are defined by state constitutions," says Shapiro, who wrote an upcoming article on the theory's origins and implications for The University of Chicago Law Review. "The idea that there's some kind of legislative power that is separate and apart from the ordinary constitutional limitations is really quite remarkable and lawless." (Underscored emphasis added.)
Note this statement of Judge Luttig: "As it stands today . . ." He had also stated in the preceding sentence: "Forewarned is to be forearmed.
"Bible students have been forewarned in Rev. 13, and should long have been forearmed by the prophecies; but 32% of Seventh-day Adventists polled by Spectrum in early October, planned to vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 election!
What motivated them? It is blatantly obvious that the man is the embodiment of evil. Just his vulgarity and advocacy of violence alone should turn Christians away! The votes of Seventh-day Adventists for Trump could not have been with an understanding of Bible prophecy. These apparently have never studied, or understood, or believed, the prophecies of the Books of Daniel, II Thessalonians, and Revelation concerning the Antichrist (the "Man of Sin,") and receiving the Mark of the Beast.
The prophetic events of Rev.13 have been rushing on, ahead of the final sign of the end (Dan. 11:45) and the close of probation (Dan. 12:1.) Can it be much longer before events in Jerusalem take the inevitable turn towards the fulfillment of Dan. 11:45? Is there still time for Seventh-day Adventists who habitually vote Republican to wake up before being wholly overwhelmed by strong delusion?
"Pope Pius feels that the United States is the ideal base for Catholicism's great drive....
The Catholic Movement, Rome's militant organization numbering millions all over the world, will be marshaled direct from Rome by Monsignor Pizzardo - next to Pacelli the Holy See's shrewdest diplomat and politician - instead of by the local bishops as before. The priest's education is to be thoroughly revised and modernized - with special attention to modern propaganda methods. In addition there will be established in each country a central bureau, responsible only to Rome, to combat red agitation with every political weapon available....The church must fight, and at once.
Coughlin has shown us the way . . ." (Communication from Vatican City, published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Nov. 4, 1936.)