How the Heritage Foundation plans to turn us into a one party autocracy

 From the LA Times.. The Heritage Foundation's target : empower an autocratic executive branch by reinstating the spoils system, making nearly all appointees those now on civil service status, subject to the approval of the president. Conservative groups draw up plan to dismantle U.S. government - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)   In addition, among the coalition participants in forming their Project 25 plans are goals to set up Christianity as the national religion, ending the separation of church and state, which has been key to avoiding the pitfalls of state-sanctioned conflict in a diverse population.

Welcome to the end of the democracy we have known as they try to make this a one-party autocracy. It is a powerful tool to put control of the president, the ultimate Maga dream. The balance of power and checks and balances among the three branches of government, judicial, executive, and legislative, are the keystones of the Constitution, a heritage that has kept the US from becoming a kingdom or an autocracy. It is that heritage the ironically named Heritage Foundation wants to upend.

The civil service was created for one reason: to rid the government of the corrupting spoils system. Imagine in the executive branch was run like a correct city boss who demanded loyalty to him in both "judgment calls" and in awarding contracts only to loyalists. Merit and competency are no longer key to hiring, firing, or advancement. The measure would favor those who are loyal to the "boss". Those who refused to go along with the corruption would be subject to firing. The Project 25, the coalition of right wing groups led by Heritiage Foundation also has the goal to destroy the separation of church and state but to make this a "Christian nation". This is what the Heritage Foundation has in store for us. It is absolutely the most corrupt form of government.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/project-2025-heritage-foundation-christian-nationalism-rcna103510

 Update: 9/17/23 How does it happen a minority of extremists can hold such power in the first place?  Some of it is due to the structure of democracy  institutionalized in the Constitution. ‘Tyranny of the Minority’ writers say Constitution not strong enough to protect democracy | PBS NewsHour

MSN.COM

Conservative groups draw up plan to dismantle the U.S. government and replace it with Trump's vision

How would being anti-woke unify the country? Updated 9 5 23

Updated: 9/5/2023

 I am puzzled. I often hear from GOP wannabe nominees for president claim that if they get elected, the country would be unified. A  unified country is a lovely idea, but what is their definition of unified? How would they accomplish it? Explain? What and why is woke considered evil and anti-woke their ideal?  Do not let them get away with such platitudes. The answers to these questions are keys to the future of this country. Will it be peace and prosperity or conflict, violence, chaos, and uncertainty? This is probably the most important blog posting I ever wrote.

Our nation is somewhere around a 50-50 split, deeply divided on cultural issues and listening only to their preferred media outlets. We will, in a short time, be a nation of what is now a minority of black and brown that will soon be a majority. We have candidates who dog whistle to fellow white nationalists and even to those who have not identified themselves as such intellectually but who respond to fear, fear of immigrants, fear of those of different religions or races, or even sexual identity, and support candidates who channel and give voice to their inner-selves they know is not politically correct. There is loose talk about civil war, retribution, and the ending of democracy, as we have known it, as well.  The Trump factor and the MAGA control of the GOP,  and even defining what is woke and anti-woke, fascism, and democracy on the ballot, are currents swirling around the run-up to the 2024 presidential election. These are not just idle talk, but debates and elections will profoundly shape how we will be governed after 250 years of the great experiment in democracy.   Discussion follows.

THE TRUMP FACTOR

.We have a past president, now the leading candidate for their party's nomination for president,   Donald Trump, who has a long history of supporting violence to accomplish a political goal, and pledges to pardon, the perpetrators of January 6, and failed even to summon the national guard while the riot raged.. Street violence committed by white people is fine, but violence committed by black people and their supporters should be put down by active military, as the George Floyd Summer and Lafayette Square illustrated. His fellow travelers, the MAGAs,  applaud his view of violence. His favored political tools: fear and retribution.These are the ones who  have identified the enemy as "woke."  How does electing them or leader Trump bring our country together? Their approach lays the groundwork for more strife, violence, and racial conflict, not unification. Trump, if the GOP candidate in 2024 and loses, his view of unification of the country of the loser was not only exhibited in 2020, his view is to fight like hell and defy peaceful transition of power.  He is the opposite of a unifier, the singular exception since 1860.  All others delivered acceptance of the outcome of the election for the purpose of honoring the peaceful transfer of power. 

THE MAGA GOP FACTOR 

It isn't just Trump:So explain to me, GOP wannabe presidents, most who pledge to support Trump if he is convicted of a crime and if he is the party candidate, what you mean by national unity. I see some possibilities, some more likely than others, and they are ugly. It involves suppression and violence, the election of a "strong man".  Some even claim civil war will erupt if they do not get their way. Maybe, GOP presidential hopefuls, you can give me a more positive spin.  Here are the uglies:

a.  Elect a strong man to run the country. Eliminate institutional liberal democracy. Choose one who believes he is not bound by any laws. He'll take care of the protestors just like Putin does.  That approach is the one to fear the most, but there are other,  more likely possibilities.

b. Elect a strong man like Viktor Orban who achieves a dictatorship by consensus of his 99% pure ethnic Huntary by buying out opposition media so he can continue hiding the corruption of those supporting him without nosy investigative reporters. It is mind control of the willing. The GOP, now Maga GOP, fawns over the Orban prospect and holds conferences in Hungary to favor that approach. While the US is hardly 99% ethnic or racially pure, many long for such purity that mirrors themselves, and there are many fellow travelers motivated by business interests and taxation advantages. There are those with blue-ribbon education who seek political power with the zeal and talent of modern-day demagogues.. They know their constituents and exploit them for political gain. There are others who do not care and who ignore or who are ignorant of the lessons of such history. They are in real danger of being groomed by those who manipulate the education system so that history as it really happened is no longer taught. There is a  correlation between deep red states and the low education level of their populace, as well.   

c. Control the executive branch by purging opposition and eliminating civic service, gerrymander even more, keeping the dark campaign money flowing as they honor Citizen's United, which gives coverage to secret contributions by our own  US version of oligarchs. Suppress opposition voters by manipulating existing election structures. Undermine confidence in an independent judiciary system or sabotage it with appointees loyal to one ideology or leader instead of following laws. Hmmm.  That sounds familiar. It should. It is happening now before our very American eyes. It is how the Orbans and Erdogans of the Western world got power and are keeping it despite democratic institutions and safeguards.  This is mostly the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation who, after gaining control of the Supreme Court, now are want to control the executive branch, returning to a spoils system, and eliminating civial service. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/conservative-groups-draw-up-plan-to-dismantle-the-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trump-s-vision/ar-AA1g0dTK?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=b3e3db3ba23e4af09b5ce90592832212&ei=12  This also echoes prior statements of intent by Trump to eliminate career and civil service in the executive branch and to use the DOJ to get "retribution" against those who have opposed him.   https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+proposed+ending+civil+service&sca_esv

WHAT IS A WOKE PERSON?

 As a person who falls into the "woke" category, I am white,  of the silent generation, a straight, protestant woman who sees being "woke" as the only way to achieve peace or domestic tranquility .In 85 years, history is not abstract to me.. I have lived it. I don't get it. this anti-woke talk.. I believe the anti-woke is making sure in the future that if they have their way, domestic peace is not on the agenda. On the other hand,  the woke provides an ethic, an approach to tolerate and respect differences, and a path to get along together in a fractured,  racially and demographically diverse future.

While I am not a great fan of memes, I saw this one defining what being "woke" means.  It is a pretty good definition of the positive attributes of being "woke" and  gives some substance why being woke has a better chance of unifying the country than trying to accomplish it with an iron fist of defanging the "woke" by whatever means possible (A,B, or C)     

Another factor that underlies all of this is a growing divide in the education level between Democrats and Republicans.. It is a reverse of years of Democrats appealing to the blue-collar, high school educated while Republicans had more support from those with higher degrees. It is the opposite now. It has happened recently and quickly.  Why and how this has happened will be the subject of many opinions and academic dissertations, but my own theory is that the more education you have, the more you can put matters into perspective and, indeed learn from history. Education increases the ability to use critical thinking.   MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Critical thinking: a misunderstood term that fueled the obsession with CRT     This is why Desantis' anti-woke campaign and the attempts at revisionism of history he advocates and implements in Florida schools is so dangerous.  It is a way of shaping future minds, painting a false view of slavery, is a way of combatting the "woke". The approach is the brainchild of Praeger U. It is also now spreading to other states, including Oklahoma.

CIVIL WAR?

What is this talk about civil war? I was startled by conversations with my late 20s, something grandchildren. They fear the country may break apart with violence sometime in the future, not because they would be the perpetrators but because the racist white nationalists would gain the upper hand.    I had only heard advocacy of a civil war from the current ultra-right wing, but never predicted by those I thought were "woke," as my grandchildren are. Their attitude is, yes, we'll vote, but it won't stop anything, so why do more. It is kismet. Needless to say, they got a stern lecture from me, as I also accused them of being nihilists. Here is how they rationalize their attitude: We don't talk to others directly. We are captive of algorithms and social media. We are just a speck and are powerless. Thoughts run through my head. They have to be watching too many doomsday movies and sci-fi,  yet both can know much and hear snatches of conversations among their peers. Yowwwser.  Organize, activate, I said. Two can play the social media game. Just don't vote, but get your fellow generalists together. We are not a dictatorship yet. You still have a chance, so do it now while you can. You can still head off doomsday. I will not be here on this earth much longer, but I am counting on you, zoomers, I say.

  The 1860 election of Abe Lincoln resuledt in a civil war, as five southern states formed the confederacy.  In that conflict, 360,222 Union and 258,000 Confederate fighters died. {Wikipedia) 

https://wapo.st/44zBbiB   The Only US ‘Civil War’ Will Be a War on Democracy - The Washington Post

Trump appears to break with 124-year history of concession speeches, experts discuss - YouTube

Who's signed the GOP loyalty pledge? - ABC News

Trump Just Broke Through the Last Level of Neo-Fascism (yahoo.com)

 MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Trump fans the flames of violence, yet calls himself the law and order president updated

, The GOP candidates were asked if they would support Trump as the presidential nominee if he was convicted. Here's how they responded. - CBS News

https://time.com/4665755/donald-trump-fear/

Majority minority in the United States - Wikipedia

 https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/midterm-election-house-districts-by-education/

What Is PragerU: Controversial Conservative Platform Entering Classrooms In Florida And Oklahoma (forbes.com)

 

. 

Trump's greatest fear now is of the jury, so get ready for plan B

Trump's attempt to get the judge to delay the trial on charges of his trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election until after the 2024 elections in 2026 was not only a transparent ploy, it revealed something about what he fears the most.  He is acting as if he already believes he will be found guilty by a jury and does not want the trial to occur until after the 2024 election. This motion to delay the trial is classic Trump, setting up Plan B for an anticipated failure. Just like he did before the 2020 election when he gave the excuse if he lost it was because the election was rigged, he is now attempting to claim any guilty verdict can be explained away that he did not have time to prepare for his defense and is laying the groundwork for a post-trial appeal. The judge did not buy his whining and set the date for the trial to begin on March 4, 2024.

 Trump has reason to fear a jury trial.   It is a trial by jury that is the most credible way to determine how guilty he was or not. This is not the same as a court of public opinion, which Trump is an expert in shaping, but it is a court based on evidence. testimony, and facts. It is not an infallible system, but it is as fair as any judicial system can be.   Trump, the master propagandist, cannot bluster, lie, explain away, whine before, during, or after about the unfairness of it all, or threaten retribution to court witnesses and street violence. He likely will not testify, given his tendency to lie and perjure himself. What he usually does when cornered is to blame someone else, likely in this case, relying on bad advice from his lawyers.   

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-judge-set-trump-trial-date-election-interference-case-rcna101669

 Trump may object he needs more than six months to prepare (when the case against him has not been kept secret for the past year). Still, it appears it is a standard time for a case with one defendant and only four items in the indictment, despite the volume of the evidence disclosed by the prosecution to them. It may be thousands of pages, but note that Trump raised $seven million off his mug shot and, as a "billionaire," can afford to hire cadres of attorneys to wade through the evidence. Voters need to know a jury's findings before they cast their votes, not after. Voters have rights, too, as the judge noted. Her date setting is not subject to appeal to a higher panel of judges, though Trump may still try to challenge the trial if he gets a guilty verdict because he did not have time to prepare.  A recent national poll showed that over 60%Americans still want the trial to occur before the 2024 elections. Most in new poll say Trump should be tried before election | The Hill. 

In most other countries, a panel of judges or a judge may make the ruling in a criminal case that could result in jail time. Still, the trial by jury, as the US system requires, puts that into another realm and requires a unanimous decision by 12 of the accused peers in criminal cases. It is one thing for the accused to rant and rave over innocence or how unfair it is in the media, but this one, a trial by a citizen jury, makes any finding much more credible. 

 Stacking the jury or dirtying the pool from which the jury is chosen before the trial is a time-old defense strategy. In the DC federal case regarding election interference, Trump is attempting now with his words and devil incarnate mug shot while trying to avoid violating the judge's constraints regarding what he can and cannot say.   The safeguard in selecting a jury is that both the accused and the accusers can challenge a prospective juror who professes to be open-minded when, in reality, they are secretly partisan. The other safeguard requires all jurors to be unanimous in their final vote in the federal criminal case.   Another in the US judicial system that stacks the case in favor of the defendant., The accused is considered innocent and does not have to prove innocence.  The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the jurors that the defendant is guilty. The burden is on the prosecution to make its case. The accused does not even need to testify in self-defense. 

Trump: ‘The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged’ | The Hill

Not yet has Trump threatened violence if he got a verdict of guilty, but he did claim it would happen if he got indicted. That fizzled. But it could be anticipated in  Trump's 2024 Plan B. It has happened before., in 2020 .

From my blog posting: Update September 24, 2020: Trump himself is threatening insurrection, refusing to commit to a peaceful transition to power if he loses the election.https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54274115 This advocate of law and order is threatening violence. What is he planning to do? Summon his armed militias, unleash his "federal troops" a la Portland? Call for violent demonstrations by the right-wing advocates of violence and civil war? Then what. This may fit under the category of insurrection and the military may see this as intervening, not as intervening in domestic politics but permitted under their charge to intervene in an armed insurrection. with case law.case law defining what it is.: Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.” [Younis Bros. & Co. v. Cigna Worldwide Ins. Co., 899 F. Supp. 1385, 1392-1393 (E.D. Pa. 1995)]"

The Senate immediately passed a resolution upholding peaceful transition with a unanimous vote and a rebuke to Trump immediately and clear, though his name was not in the resolution.  For that we can be grateful, but what say the rest of the GOP?

What as the GOP done to you lately?

 One of the standard political questions posed by candidates is "what has x done FOR you lately?" That question could be turned back on those using this as an attack strategy is "what has X done TO you lately". The answer? Many of the GOP in Congress have voted against making your roads and bridges safer and health care more affordable. . 

One of the travesties costing taxpayer dollars and driving up the cost of prescription drugs to consumers was that big pharma could dictate the price for drugs covered by Medicare because the government was forbidden to negotiate for lower prices. That is now changed for 10 high-demand high-cost drugs in addition to the earlier cap on diabetes meds. Among those now subject to negotiations is blood thinner eliquist and more. Not only does this help those on Medicare, but it should reduce the cost of these government programs and extend their lives. What about those not on Medicare? The lower price will be exposed and may put pressure to lower the price for these on non-medicare. It already worked that way when a cap was put on the cost to those on Medicare for diabetes drugs. Major pharma then lowered the cost to those not yet on Mediccare.

One of the current blanket GOP mantras is Biden has been a disaster for some unspecified performance failures. (he's old and feeble, remember?)_. The infrastructure legislation is already being implemented. All of this is despite of what appears to be the GOP platform of rollback, just say no, do-nothing, and defunding. Democrats need to hold GOP candidates' feet to the fire and expose those candidates who voted no on these specific issues, especially regarding health care costs and infrastructure. They need to be put on the defensive as a way to light how effective Biden has been in getting good stuff done. The GOP needs to be labeled the party of no on issues that impact the needs of the vast middle class.

REUTERS.COM

US names first 10 drugs for Medicare price negotiation

The Biden administration on Tuesday released its list of 10 prescription

Is Trump a fascist? If the shoe fits, wear it.

Update 10/5/23  

Did Trump really say immigrants are poisoning our blood? That is not just fascism, it is 1930's Nazi speak. From the Maddow Blog

The Meidas Touch Network published this report, accompanied by a striking video, highlighting a Trump interview that generated less attention. In reference to migrants entering the United States, the former president said on camera, to an outlet called the National Pulse:

“Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from, and we know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions and insane asylums. We know they’re terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we’re witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It’s poisoning the blood of our country.”

This was not just a dog whistle to Trump's white nationalist supporters, it was a bullhorn. Nothing subtle here.

To be sure, there’s nothing new about Trump attacking those seeking a better life in the United States. But “poisoning the blood of our country” is new.

Laura Barrón-López, White House correspondent for PBS, told viewers last night, “I checked with a historian, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, and she said that language that he’s using ... echoes language used in Nazi propaganda by Adolf Hitler when Adolf Hitler actually said that Jewish people and migrants were ‘causing a blood poisoning’ of Germany.”

Is Trump a fascist?  If the shoe fits, wear it.In 2020, I came to the conclusion Trump fit the classic description of a fascist.  It just is not a good strategy to brand him with it because there is so much baggage in the word that has been used and abused and is inflammatory. An update of 7/22/20 and revised 7/25/2020 and updated October 2020 and Nov. 2, 2020 and Nov 16,2020 and 12/12/2020. (reproduced below) I found one that came close: In an op ed from the Beast, a writer hit some true notes. " Here are five essential ones, though there are others: blind loyalty to a leader who’s really more of a national father figure; belief that the leader is the state; belief that opposition to the leader is opposition to the state, and thus treason; conviction (instilled or ignited by the leader) that the source of the problems facing the good wholesome ethnic majority is some Other or collection of Others who must be ostracized if not banished; agreement that the rules and constraints of democratic order are sometimes useful and should be obeyed as long as one can obey them and win, because doing so confers a certain legitimacy, but if they have to be cast aside to hold power, then cast aside they must be. These principles animate every fascist regime in human history. They are at the heart of Trumpism, and they have drawn many more adherents than I’d have thought possible in this country." Trump Just Broke Through the Last Level of Neo-Fascism (yahoo.com)

Trumpists take fascism a step further and seem to mimic the particular German brand with anti-Semitism (blame Soros for everything), and the use of violence.  They summon the violent militias to act out and terrorize and plan to call on the military to put down protests by force because protests are considered insurrections, per the text of an one of the indictments, should the "fake elector" scheme succeed and create a domestic angry reaction.  After the Lafayette Square fiasco, Joint Chief Gen. Milley made it clear he refused to get the active military involved in putting down demonstrations, but if Trump were re-elected, Gen. Milley would be replaced by a Trump loyalist. Trump's foot fits even the 1930s shoe. 

A much more in depth view of whether Trump was a fascist was contained in a June 2020 blog: https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2020/06/why-i-have-changed-my-views-on-whether.html

Strange as it may seem, Trump's followers try to hijack the brand name of fascism and stick it on the libs. It is a defensive strategy.https://time.com/6306945/donald-trump-democrats-fascists/  The TIME piece only gets at the rationale the Trumpists use. It does not define what it is. However, this hijack of the word echoes Trump's technique of projecting criticism of him using the same words to describe his critics. Trump tries to steal the election with fake electors but calls out the libs for stealing the election by voting dead people and a list of other techniques. He may have been indicted or sued for corrupt business practices, and his son-in-law is set financially for life by the Saudis, but "the real crooks are the Biden crime family". Never mind facts, evidence, or proof. It is the accusation itself that counts. It deflects, gaslights, confuses, toxifies words, and neutralizes criticism effectively. Loyal followers will take what Trump says is the truth at face value, even if juries and judges find no evidence the libs stole it or Trump loyalists have failed to find any connection between Hunter and his father. False equivalencies be hanged. The message is, "if our guy is a crook, the other one is a crook, too.. Everyone is a crook except our crook is on our side . All crooked dealings are equal, and no travesty is worse than the other."  This false equivalency stuff is hard to swallow when one side is indicted four times for crimes, and the other has never been indicted, or one side or their media supporters lose millions of dollars when they are found liable in civil suits and the other side does not begin by even a fraction of an approach.

If Trump actually believes in what he says, he is dangerous and effective in sabotaging democracy. However, if he is a cynical demagogue, he is also dangerous.  Or if he is deranged and self-delusion, he is even more dangerous.  Some are coming late to these realizations as they are now facing criminal prosecution because they followed him down his primrose path.  Jenna Ellis, indicted in the Georgia case,  is just now realizing that Trump is a malicious narcissist in an all-embracing diagnosis of his danger. Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis turns on ‘malignant narcissist’ ex-president | Donald Trump | The Guardian    The term "malicious narcissist" is probably going to stick since it is relevant to whatever is attributed to his behavior of doing what is in his interest, not in the interest of his followers or anyone else and what damage and harm he is doing to the continuation of democracy as we have known it.  He intends, and advocates hate, retribution, and the use of fear to get power and stay in power.  He has no scruples in pursuing that self-interest. He will lie and say whatever will help him, whether he believes it or not or reverses past positions. 

 Trump has been upfront about one thing: he always looks for the best deal. The next time you hear a candidate say that wise up and fear the beneficiary of the best deal might not mean you.: The next time you hear a political candidate is "transactional". seeking the best deal possible, as Trump claimed in "The Art of the Deal.", do not ask a proven liar who he thinks benefits from the transaction, but be aware that narcissists will look after their own interests first, and then if what they advocate is violence, putting the fear of retribution, and revenge, that is by definition "malicious". another word for hurting others. malicious definition - Search (bing.com)

The difference between trials in an autocracy that Trump followers want and in a democracy

 The right is already complaining Trump has been found guilty by the left in the court of public opinion. The right, of course, says it is all politics. The prosecution of Trump has little to do about facts, truth, or the law, they claim.  FYI There is a difference between the current system of justice and what the Trumpsters would like to see.  . We still have an independent judiciary which Trump would like to turn into a tool for his hoped-for autocracy.  There is a  major difference, right there. Trials by a jury of his peers...not a trial by his followers, of course. Almost all testimonies in his four indictments are by those who were loyalists and worked with him and not by his political enemies.. In Florida, his trial is run by an avowed supporter of his. The FBI is run by a Trump appointee.  In DC, the jury has not been chosen yet, nor yet in Georgia. If these  trials were in a country run by a strong man, such a trial by 12 citizens would be very suspect. In this country, he is granted the rights afforded to all defendants....so different in countries governed by a strong man...whether it is communist or Hungarian-style fascism. Trial by public opinion is another matter...but that trial does not land anyone in jail. It could cost him another election.  Be glad we are still a democracy.

Right wing Evangelicals political devotees are Pharisees of our modern times

  The core values of Christianity, central to the faith, from the golden rule to the sermon on the mount, "forgive us of our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" (Lord's Prayer) are what is under attack. That is what identifies those who profess to be Christians, but those who claim those values are politically subversive are no longer following the teachings of Jesus. They are the Pharisees of our era. in Jesus's time, the Pharisees were His antagonists because he spoke against them All of the other "controversies" and contradictions in those who claim to follow the Gospels are secondary but still do not rise to the same fundamental importance as these core values that Jesus advocated..   https://www.newsweek.com/evangelicals-rejecting-jesus-teachings-liberal-talking-points-pastor-1818706?fbclid=IwAR04cEhw4mDJEj2HPaBakmZdIPsSgq-YyPwS2OxRS_hx8p3vzCMNHrwMEiM

Update: 9/9/2023

The observation is not limited to Protestant Evangelicals, either, as Pope Francis calls out US Catholic leaders:Pope says some 'backward' conservatives in US Catholic Church have replaced faith with ideology | AP News

Just as those who feared Jesus's methods and popularity harnassed the Roman governor to go along with the Pharisees who resented the reformist message, the money changers, were what resulted in the Crucifixion. Turning religion into a political weapon is the history of most nations and most successful in nations where they are the overwhelming majority of the population are believers in the same brand of Christianity.. The US is far too diverse as even the views of religion differed from colony to colony to establish a federal state religion. The founders of our country were mostly not Christian clergy but were influenced by the age of reason and found a way to decouple religion from the rulers in the First Amendment, explicitly forbidding the establishment of a state religion which has become the foundation of the separation of church and state. what the founders of our country tried hard to institutionalize in the Constitution.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus/Scribes-and-Pharisees

https://www.skyhinews.com/opinion/opinion-muftic-thank-the-pilgrims-who-began-americas-quest-for-religious-freedom/

What really scares the right wing? Majority rule

 Yesterday, it became clearer than ever in Ohio and in the revealing of the "Chesebro memo" The GOP and extreme right-wing factions fear majority rule by voters when they try to force through an unpopular law or turn a losing candidate into a winner. Since they propose such extreme positions, the normal route of campaigning to convince voters to agree, they instead try to keep the disagreeable from voting. They do it with dirty tricks, gaming the system, or under the cover of fine-sounding words and flag-waving,  plan and execute complex, obscure schemes, threats of violence, and theories promoted without facts or evidence, to justify their actions. They abuse, distort, ignore, change, bully vote officials, and engineer the existing rules originally meant to give a voice to as many eligible voters astu possible. Instead, they tamper down the ability of those who oppose them to vote and get their votes counted, making the minority agenda and candidates the winners instead.   This is what is meant when Democrats use the slogan that democracy is on the ballot.   Majority rule and abidance by the rule of law are under attack.  They hope you, the majority, do not notice.  In Ohio, they did. Voters were not the fools they took them for. It is yet to be seen if 2024 if voters grasp what is at stake.  If either the Ohio vote on a measure to change the rules midway of a contested abortion ban or the fake elector scam outlined in the memo had succeeded, the majority's vote and the rules protecting democracy would have been trampled in the dust.  If the fake elector scheme had succeeded in 2020-2021, Trump would have ascended to his throne.  If he escapes any repercussions after so many indictments, he would take from that the lesson that he did not need to obey laws or the system of democracy we have enjoyed. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/09/previously-unseen-memo-details-trump-plot-subvert-election-results

Ihttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-issue-1-fails-to-pass-2023-results/

Update  9/17/2023  How does it happen a minority of extremists can hold such power in the first place?  Some of it is due to the structure of democracy  institutionalized in the Constitution. ‘Tyranny of the Minority’ writers say Constitution not strong enough to protect democracy | PBS NewsHour

How anti Trump political leaders can win in the court of public opinion.

Listening to the various legal beagles on both sides as they react to the indictment of Trump for 2020 campaign alleged criminal acts has been instructive and will play out in a court trial if and when a trial is held. In the meantime, the real fight will be for the 60% who are not FOX fans or  Trump core supporters. The "other 60%"  are the ones that will determine the outcome in 2024. Biden's supporters and anti-Trumpers need to go on the attack offensive now. Waiting for a trial will be too late because the PR war has already begun and public opinion of voters, once set, is hard to change.  There are still minds to be changed, but  even the Biden supporters need to be revved up. 

 Here is the court of public opinion problem: legal arguments may appeal to reason and logic, and political science theory does, too,  but heart and soul are over which the battle will be fought.  What Trump tried to do should anger and  activate those opposing Trump (Republicans, Democrats, the wishy-washy, wanting someone younger, independents) go on the attack and not stand by waiting for a trial in the distant future to do it for them when an opinion of the voters had already been shaped beyond changing . It is , in short: he tried to take away your right to be heard through your vote so he could stay in power and he used lies to get support to do it. (The terms using steal and stolen have been overused by both sides. They have lost their punch)

So how can Democrats respond and go on the offensive? My old collegiate debate juices got the better of me. The following are some subsets, points that could be used as talking points in plain English devoid of trigger words to rebut or to flesh out the public case to go on the attack. Advice to the vocal: Just avoid getting in the weeds and get straight to the point and repeat, repeat, repeat.

 Subset: The poli sci  approach: here is what Trump tried to do so your votes for Biden would not count so he could stay in the White House, ignore obeying laws since he  had always gotten away with it,  and rule like modern-day dictators he admired.  (Democracy v autocracy: ok as a short hand but it assumes all know what both terms mean and are on the same page)

 Subset: It was no "technical" violation Trump is charged with and what is involved is fundamental to a  working democracy,  ..to vote and get  your vote counted..   In short: he tried to take away your right to be heard through your vote.   Define democracy that way as the most important element.

Subset: Another longer way to phrase the case: "He tried to keep your vote from being counted, votes by you who were a vote that contributed to the majority for Biden in seven states, and he tried to replace it with fake electors for his side so he could win enough states electoral college votes to stay in office".

Subset: He committed a crime using his lies to justify his actions.  His lies were not illegal themselves. In politics lies and opinions, theories, delusions , name calling, are protected freedom of speech.  What became a crime was using  lies intentionally to implement the plot hatched by him and six co-conspirators. Lies were used to justify his scheme to substitute unofficial Trump electors from seven states for the Biden electors and to pressure. scare. and threaten officials in certain states and his own vice president with street violence or criminal charges, into helping him even if they would have to break the laws they swore to uphold in order to do Trump's bidding..

Subset:  He lied to the nation. It worked for him. It always worked for him. He had intended to lie if he lost.  Trump had a history of it before November 2020 whenever he lost an election contest of always blaming losses on "rigged" elections.  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-longstanding-history-calling-elections-rigged-doesnt-results/story?id=74126926 . . In late October, Trump knew he was losing the election and told his close aides. This was revealed in the January 6 committee hearings. (not in the indictment text)  https://www.wsj.com/video/can-you-believe-i-lost-to-this-effing-guy-trump-knew-biden-won-aides-testify/2DAB7FB5-FA7B-4B68-A288-   F08442AD504F.html      (Legal term in the indictment: wilfully lying).  The PR term: intentional

Subset:Public opinion tends to ignore "the innocent until proven guilty" admonition.   It is naive to believe laying low in the public debate and letting Trump and his allies will make a case for his innocence will win in the court of public opinion.

Subset: The case is being tried in the Court of public opinion now. That is the court that counts in November 2024 while voters still have the right to vote and have their votes  counted.  Trump failed to destroy that system, but he tried.

 Subset:The allegations  in the indictment  used his lies to justify a plan to change the outcome and stay in power and he committed crimes by acting to implement the plan. The attempt to commit a crime  is also a crime even if the attempt failed, per the criminal statutes. The allegations in the indictment are Trump used his lies to justify a plan to change the outcome and stay in power and he committed crimes by acting to implement an illegal  plan. The indictment contains enough evidence to make a strong case so use the indictment evidence as well as January 6 sworn testiments. 

Subsets: a debate strategy to turn the "what abouts" back against the Trumpsters.:In case the pro Trump advocates claim something there is  strong evidence against indictment,  one way to approach this is to ask "What about the evidence in the indictment that......" and put the Trump advocates on the defensive. It is a way to educate the public. Trump's allies use "the what abouts" to divert attentions effectively but two can play that game. The advocates on behalf of the anti-Trump should be vocal. 

Subsets: Who should be the debaters in the court of public opinion.  Biden is right to stay silent. Trump's defiance of the judge's warnings may even force a gag order, too. Let their respective allies be the voices in the court of public opinion..

 Subset:After he lost every case in court and was told over and over by state officials, mostly loyal Republicans,  his own legal staff, and his attorney general there was not enough evidence of fraud to change the results. In spite of that, he kept lying to justify why he tried to change the vote state by certain states so he could get enough electoral votes to stay in power.  

Subset: Educate the public: voters are no political science majors or lawyers, and I suspect many do not know that each state determines who won the popular vote in their state so the one who gets the majority of the popular vote in a state, the winner takes all of the electors votes allocated to that state by law.  The electors are officially certified by state officials and the governor and Trump tried to substitute unofficial electors pledged to him in key swing states he lost and to use lots of theories of fraud to convince them he was entitled because of fraud. (Guiliani to the GOP Arizona House speaker:  "we don't have evidence  but we have lots of theories") 

Subset: Biden voters: stop whining. Biden people: stop whining he is too old. You are just feeding the Trump beast. He is only 3 years older the Trump. There is no one else. His competence is due to his using his years in government . experience and personal political contacts on both sides of the aisle. The result is his getting a lot done for the American people. Infrastructure, manufacturing, buy America, reducing the cost of health care, for starters.  These were the same that Trump tried to advocate (except for health care though he gets credit for rapid development of immunization against COVID). Trump failed even  before COVID struck.  Biden's years of experience in foreign policy and first-name basis of world leaders is surpassed; he is no one's fool and he knows how to lead them in ways that are critical for American security. Above all, his own private life is exemplary and no one has pinned proof of he has violated his ethics.  He is a good person as compared to "the most flawed human person" he ever knew. He is a person devoid of any moral standard.  His only compass is what benefits him.
 

My top takeaways and surprises in the Trump indictment re: 2020 election

 My top takeaways after reading the indictment of Trump re 2020 elections

Overwhelming volume ID'd by name of GOP supporters who were officially in charge of vote counting in the 7 targeted states for the fake elector scheme attempt.: There was not enough fraud after they investigated accusations to overturn the official results in their states and Trump was given that information, yet he claimed he believed the election was stolen and continued with the lie then and now. He will have a heck of a time convincing a jury or anyone reading the indictment he did not know he lost and lied intentionally.

Lying is not a crime in political first amendment discourse, but acting on that lie and using it to plot, attempt and conspire to force Pence and others to act on it is the crime and to act against the law to interfere with government proceedings is a crime, even if the coup failed. That was couched as fraud against the government. The intended and unintended victims were really the voters for Biden in the seven states, whose majority votes would not have been counted and those 1000 pleading guilty and 300 in prison who believed Trump's lies and rioted in Jan 6. The others: those who fell for Trump's lies and acted, voted or promoted them.

The most memorable lines: Guiliani (unindicted co-conspirator #1) to AZ House speaker who asked for evidence of election fraud: "We don't have evidence, but we have t lots of theories":

Trump to Pence when the nth time Pence told him he did not have the power to refuse to certify electors: "You're too honest".

The biggest surprise .Unexpected evidence: Pence's contemporary notes of conversations with Trump as he tried to pressure Pence to break the law and get Pense to refuse to certify the election. No one knew Pence took those notes or turned them over to Jack Smith until the reference in the indictment.

Trump per Pence threatened Pence to reveal he refused to delay or decertify the elections with "going public"...inferring per Pence staff Pence would face violence if he didn't go along. Pence's staff alerted Pence's security detail, he was so alarmed. The next day, the noose and Pence's near miss.

One surprise: left out of the charges were "seditious conspiracy" or being responsible for the Jan 6 violence. Trump tried to use it to convince Senators to vote against certification even after the rioters went home.

All reactions:

Wow

Comment

Send