Supremely Totalitarian

Back in those long-ago days when I was a college professor of political science (yes, I have finally unsubscribed from the daily job listings sent to my email from HigherEdJobs.com), I explained the Soviet concept of “peace” as follows:

The Soviets claim they want peace. Yes, they do.

They want a piece of Virginia, a piece of New York, a piece of California  . . .

My voice would trail off as I waited for the guffaws, which were loud and boisterous from my students in the New York City-Long Island metropolitan area whenever I taught there (the Midwesterners, on the other hand, were not so quick to see humor or to understand satire), before I made the point that the Soviets were master propagandists who used the word “peace” to claim that anyone who opposed their international schemes of espionage, sabotage, and aggression were war mongers who were opposed to “peace.” Such propaganda worked with the Great Appeaser himself, James Earl Carter, Jr., perhaps most famously when he met with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in Vienna, Austria, in 1979.

The petty, mean-spirited little peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia, enabled Communist revolutionaries in Nicaragua and El Salvador in Central America and in Angola on the continent of Africa. He played the role of an obsequious inferior to Soviet dictator Leonid Brezhnev's domineering superior at the Soviet-American summit in Vienna, Austria, that took place between June 16, 1979, and June 18, 1979, as the decrepit, corrupt, venal old Stalinist, Brezhnev, played the Baptist Jimmy Carter for the fool that he is and remains when he, Brezhnev, an atheist, invoked the name of God in behalf of the alleged necessity of signing the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II (SALT II). Carter was convinced that he had made inroads on the dictator's atheism:

Inside the U.S. Embassy's cramped and dreary conference room, the leaders arranged themselves and their aides at either side of a gleaming 25-ft. table. Brezhnev brought with him nine aides, including Chernenko, Gromyko, Ogarkov and Ustinov; Carter was accompanied by the same number, including Brown, Brzezinski and Vance. As guest, Brezhnev led off. He put on his rimless spectacles and stolidly read aloud from his sheaf of prepared remarks. He was followed by Carter, who talked from several pages of notes handwritten on yellow legal paper. Among them was a sentence he had noted on hearing Brezhnev utter it the day before: "God will not forgive us if we fail." (Time Magazine, June 25, 1979, page 7.) 

Carter's giddy Sovietphilia, an echo of what was exhibited throughout the career of the late United States Senator George S. McGovern (D-South Dakota), who was termed—and rightly so—an “apologist for international communism” by the late President of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations George Meany on the Columbia Broadcasting System's Face the Nation program in 1972, ended six months later when the Red Army invaded Afghanistan on December 27, 1979, prompting the nitwit to say to Barbara Walters in an end-of-the year interview televised on the American Broadcasting Company, "Barbara, I've learned more about the Soviet Union in the last three weeks than I had in the past three years." As my only sibling was wont to say when faced with the startled statements of politicians who had "discovered" something that was obvious for all to see, "Do tell." Yes, do tell, Jimmy. Do tell.

Well, in like manner, American and European leftists are really Soviet-style fascists who claim to be defenders of “democracy” even though what they really mean is that anyone who dares to oppose their policies and candidates is opposed to “democracy.” It is the same sort of rhetorical trick used by the Soviets of yore and that the Chicoms still use. It is also the same sort of demagogic tool used by blacks and women within the organized crime of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” use to claim that any criticism of them, their policy positions, and actions is “racist”
 and/or “misogynist.”

This is all totalitarianism, but it is also the same sort of self-centered behavior produced by fallen human nature in a child who demands his way lest he blurts out to his parents, “You don’t love me. You don’t want me to be happy. You hate me, so I hate you, too.” Children love to intimidate their parents into backing down so that they can get their way, and it is unfortunately the case of this kind of emotional manipulation carries with them as they grow older. We are now eyewitnesses to the reflexive use of this kind of intimidating and manipulative rhetoric in almost every aspect of public and social life today.

The transformation of the organized crime family of the false opposite of naturalist “left” into an ape of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been many decades in the making before the Alinsky and Frank Marshall Davis trained Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro rose to power sixteen years ago and really has never relinquished it since. Obama/Soetoro had dripping contempt for his political opponents, and he played a major role in undermining the presidency of his successor, Donald John Trump, while orchestrating the nominations of Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton in 2016 and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., in 2020 before choreographing Biden’s forced departure from the 2024 presidential race on Sunday, July 14, 2024:

A new Substack out from Seymour Hersch indicates that former President Barack Obama and VP Kamala Harris, now presumptive Democrat nominee for president, threatened sitting President Joe Biden with the potential invocation of the 25th Amendment if he didn't drop out the presidential race and cede that spot to the veep. This would mean that not only did they force Biden out of the race, but that the Democrats know full well that Biden isn't fit to serve out the rest of his term, but are comfortable letting him continued as a figure head if it serves their efforts to retain power for the party.

Biden engaged in a debate with former President and GOP nominee for president Donald Trump on June 27. It was so bad that almost instantly Democrat leaders and pundits were looking for a way to get Biden off the ticket. They could see that there was very little chance that Biden, in his diminished state, coudl beat Trump at the ballot box. The party elite were aghast and worked hard both in public and private to oust Biden. While much of that played out in leaked rumor, speculation, it turns out, per Hersch, that what was going on behind the scenes was a kind of coup, complete with threats from the Obama Kamala team.

"By Saturday, July 20," Hersch writes, "former President Barack Obama was deeply involved, and there was talk that he would place a call to Biden. It was not clear whether Biden had been examined or just what happened to him in Las Vegas. 'The Big Three,' the official said, referring to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, continued to be directly involved. 'On Sunday morning,' the official told me, with the approval of Pelosi and Schumer, 'Obama called Biden after breakfast and said, ‘Here’s the deal. We have Kamala’s approval to invoke the 25th Amendment.' The amendment provides that when the president is determined by the vice president and others to be unfit to carry out the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall assume those duties."

"'It was clear at this point,' the official said," per Hersch, "'that she would get the nod'—that is, the support to run for the presidency in the November election. 'But Obama also made it clear,' the official said, 'that he was not going to immediately endorse her. But the group had decided that her work as a prosecutor would help her deal with Trump in a debate.'"

On July 26, the Obamas, both Barack and Michelle, did endorse Harris. The phone call during which they offered her their backing was filmed, the call on speaker, while Harris held the phone to her ear. A mic could be seen pinned to her blazer.

"The official, who has decades of experience in fundraising, told me that Obama emerged as the strongman throughout the negotiations. 'He had an agenda and he wanted to seek it through to the end, and he wanted to have control over who would be elected.'"

It had been rumored that Pelosi and Schumer wanted Biden out. It had been rumored that Obama had given Hollywood A-lister George Clooney the go-ahead to write his op ed in The New York Times calling for Biden to step aside. It was rumored, too, that if Biden didn't step down his legacy would be at stake. Once Biden's letter withdrawing from the race was posted to X, with the endorsement of Harris shortly afterwards, party leadership all began oohing and ahing over Biden's "selfless" decision to step aside and praising his decision to nominate Harris. Jeffries and Schumer began claiming that Harris' candidacy was coming from the "grassroots" and not from the "top down."

If Hersch is right, however, it becomes apparent that Biden did not step down "selflessly" but was forced out lest he lose his presidency altogether, and it becomes further obvious that Harris was installed by top party brass and not, as they'd like Americans to believe, by the grassroots. To date, Harris has not received a single vote. (Seymour Hersh: Obama and Kamala threatened to invoke the 25th Amendment on Biden before he dropped out.)

As I noted just above, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is still very much in charge of what happens in the United States of America, and unlike the party bosses of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries who picked presidential candidates behind closed doors and without any public or much participation, Obama/Soetoro has maintained control of politics and public policy because he has always believed that he had a “mission” to “transform” the United States of America into a “just” society according to the dictates of the Communists, Socialists, and Alinskyites who formed him in his youth. Donald John Trump’s election was, in his view, an “accidental” interruption of this process of “transformation,” and he did his dead level best during Trump’s presidency to make that all efforts to retard this “transformation” were undermined in some form or another until “order” could be restored on November 3, 2020. The prospect of Donald John Trump’s return to the presidency is, for Obama/Soetoro, a mortal peril to his “vision” of “transformation,” which is why old man Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., was used for as long as he remained “useful” until it became apparent that the “enemy of democracy,” Trump, was going to sweep Biden aside in a landslide if the latter did not drop out of the 2024 presidential race.

It is no “accident,” therefore, that the stooge who hid out in his basement in 2020 and spent a great deal of his presidency at his residence or beach house in Delaware proposed the “No One Is Above the Law” amendment to “reform” the Supreme Court of the United States of America because some of its rulings are said to “threaten” the demigod of “democracy,” meaning, of course, that some of the Court’s decisions have interfered with Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s program of totalitarian “transformation.”

Here is the outline of the “No One Is Above the Law” amendment as found on the White House website. Appropriate interjections will be made at various points:

From his first day in office—and every day since then—President Biden has taken action to strengthen American democracy and protect the rule of law. (FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No One Is Above the Law.)

Interjection Number One:

Eighty-five Pinocchios on this one.

Once again, strengthening “democracy” for the Democrats means making it easier for them to hold onto power while demonizing their hapless opponents, most of whom believe in nothing other than keeping their own seats for no other purpose than to hold their seats. The leftists, of course, actually believe in things.

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., has done much to disparage those who voted for President Donald John Trump as “threats to democracy,” and he has undertaken various draconian measures to combat “disinformation,” meaning anything that contradicts what he and those who control him want the masses to believe. This has been particularly the case with respect to his administration’s efforts to stifle the spread of true stories about the harmful effects of the “vaccines” that he mandated upon most Federal workers, including members of the armed forces, to retain their employment, and it was on May 13, 2021, that he issued a “dirty dozen” list of those said to be “killing” people with “disinformation” (i.e. truth) about the poisonous jabs.

Moreover, as will be pointed out in the next section, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and his administration have used an unprecedented lawfare against former President Donald John Trump to keep him out of the White House and to impose the harshest penalties upon those who merely walked into the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, while also persecuting pro-life advocates such as John Hinshaw and Joan Andrews Bell.

Protector of “democracy”?

No, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., is an old fashioned thug who protects his own and punishes his enemies, including ordering his administration’s officials to stonewall legitimate Congressional inquiries into his own lawbreaking, including permitting millions upon millions of foreigners to cross the border of the United States of America illegally before resettling them all across the country, even going so far as to refuse to track known criminals and terrorists once they have been permitted entry.

To the next section:

In recent years, the Supreme Court has overturned long-established legal precedents protecting fundamental rights. This Court has gutted civil rights protections, taken away a woman’s right to choose, and now granted Presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office. (FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No One Is Above the Law.)

Interjection Number Two:

There is no “right” for any human being to “choose” to kill an innocent human being. Institutions of civil governance have no authority to “bestow” rights and all that the Supreme Court of the United States of America did in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization, June 24, 2022, was to state the so-called “right” to “permit,” restrict, or prohibit baby-butchery belongs to the “people” in the states. Baby killing is continuing in many states just as it had before the Dobbs decision. The Biden administration’s demagogic misrepresentation of the Dobbs decision continues solely to stoke emotion by extolling the shedding of innocent blood.

At the same time, recent ethics scandals involving some Justices have caused the public to question the fairness and independence that are essential for the Court to faithfully carry out its mission to deliver justice for all Americans. (FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No One Is Above the Law.)

Interjection Number Three:

The “left” has manufactured so-called “scandals” to smear Associate Justices Samuel L. Alito and Clarence Thomas just as it used phony “scandals” to smear Thomas during his Senate confirmation hearings thirty-three years ago and to smear Brett Michael Kavanaugh during his own Senate confirmation hearings six years ago.

The real scandal involving the Supreme Court of the United States of America was the unprecedented leak of Justice Alito’s draft decision for the Court in the Dobbs case. Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr., would not require the justices to be questioned under oath, thereby preventing a thorough investigation of the leak, which probably involved a pro-abortion justice or one of his or her law clerks. That is the real scandal, Joey baby.

President Biden believes that no one—neither the President nor the Supreme Court—is above the law. (FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No One Is Above the Law.)

Interjection Number Four:

No one is above the law?

Not William Jefferson Blythe Clinton nor Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (Whitewater, Filegate, Travegate, Chinagate, Monicagate, Benghazi-gate, confidential emails-gate, etc)?

Not Eric Himpton Holder, who was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to submit information about the Fast and Furious scandal?

Not Merrick Garland, who was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over the recording that special counsel Robert Hur had made when interviewing Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., over unauthorized retention of classified materials to which he had no right to retain?

Not Biden himself for having not only retained those documents but keeping them in unsecured locations such as the Delaware garage when his beloved Corvette is parked, man?

Democrats are above the law, but Donald John Trump is below it, all in the name of “saving democracy.”

In the face of this crisis of confidence in America’s democratic institutions, President Biden is calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability:

1. No Immunity for Crimes a Former President Committed in Office: President Biden shares the Founders’ belief that the President’s power is limited—not absolute—and must ultimately reside with the people. He is calling for a constitutional amendment that makes clear No One Is Above the Law or immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This No One Is Above the Law Amendment will state that the Constitution does not confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President. (FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No One Is Above the Law.)

Interjection Number Five:

What is unprecedented is not the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Donald J. Trump v. United States, July 1, 2024 (see Imprudent Actions Have Consequences) but the Biden administration’s determined use of lawfare against a former president solely to prevent him from winning the office in a fair election. The criminalization of political differences is what has characterized one miscarriage of injustice after another in the Biden administration, and the “No One is Above the Law Amendment” is simply a red herring that the big guy himself knows will never receive two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress nor be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or state ratifying conventions.”

Certainly, six amendments to the United States Constitution have been proposed and adopted to overturn various decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

The Eleventh Amendment overturned the Court’s decision in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793, that permitted a citizen of one state to sue another state in Federal court.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments overturned various aspects of the decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, March 6, 1857, that upheld the constitutionality of slavery overturning the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and declared also that black people were not citizens of the United States of America.

The Thirteenth Amendment, 1865, forbade slavery and all other forms of involuntary servitude.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s (1868) principal purpose was to clothe the newly freed slaves with the mantle of citizenship, although it had other provisions that some have argued apply the Fifth Amendment’s due process of law clause to the actions of state governments.

The Fifteenth Amendment, 1870, stated that the right to vote shall not be denied on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Sixteenth Amendment, 1913, overturned the Court’s decision in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company, 1895, that Congress could not impose a direct tax on property or income without apportioning it among the states.

The Twenty-sixth Amendment, 1971, overturned the Court’s decision in the case of Oregon v. Mitchell, December 21, 1970, that held that the United States Voting Rights Act of 1970 could not give the right to vote to 18-20 year-olds in state elections, thus prompting an amendment to accomplish constitutionally what Congress had no authority to do statutorily.

Thus, there is precedent for overturning decisions of the United States Supreme Court, but the “No One Is Above the Law” amendment will not be one of them as it is an effort to target one man, Donald John Trump, to make sure that he can be imprisoned for the rest of his life for the crime of having defeated Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton on November 8, 2016.

Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices: Congress approved term limits for the Presidency over 75 years ago, and President Biden believes they should do the same for the Supreme Court. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court Justices. Term limits would help ensure that the Court’s membership changes with some regularity; make timing for Court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary; and reduce the chance that any single Presidency imposes undue influence for generations to come. President Biden supports a system in which the President would appoint a Justice every two years to spend eighteen years in active service on the Supreme Court. (FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No One Is Above the Law.)

Interjection Number Six:

This could be accomplished only by means of a constitutional amendment. Although Congress has the authority to increase the number of seats on the Court (there have as few as three and as many as eleven) by legislation alone, term limiting Supreme Court justices can be accomplished only by means of a constitutional amendment. Moreover, the proposal to appoint a new justice every two years would make the Court a tool of the “left” in perpetuity, which is precisely what Biden seeks to accomplish while knowing at the same time his proposals are dead in the water unless Democrats can secure a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, which is most unlikely.

Binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court: President Biden believes that Congress should pass binding, enforceable conduct and ethics rules that require Justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Supreme Court Justices should not be exempt from the enforceable code of conduct that applies to every other federal judge.

President Biden and Vice President Harris look forward to working with Congress and empowering the American people to prevent the abuse of Presidential power, restore faith in the Supreme Court, and strengthen the guardrails of democracy. President Biden thanks the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis of Supreme Court reform proposals. The Administration will continue its work to ensure that no one is above the law – and in America, the people rule. (FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No One Is Above the Law.)

Interjection Number Seven:

This is all designed to make the Supreme Court a tool of the “left,” and for the “left” the term “people” means them and them all.

As constitution law professor Jonathan Turley has noted:

President (and Supreme Court Chief Justice) William Howard Taft once said, “Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever.”

But not if Joe Biden has his way. Indeed, both the president and court as we know it could be gone.

In a failed attempt to save his nomination, Biden offered to “reform” the court by imposing an 18-year term limit that would jettison the three most senior conservative justices.

With only six months left in his presidency, Biden’s efforts are likely to fail, but, unfortunately, could set the stage for activists under a Harris administration in seeking to change the court forever.

For more than 50 years, Biden staunchly refused to play politics with the Supreme Court and support calls for “reforms” from the left of his party.

For a politician who has long been criticized for changing positions with the polls on issues from abortion to criminal justice to gun rights, the court was one of the few areas of true principle for Biden.

Even though he refused to answer questions on packing the court in the 2020 election, he ultimately rejected the call as president.

Yet Biden’s final principle fell this month when facing the premature and involuntary end of his candidacy. Faced with being a one-term president, the Supreme Court would have to be sacrificed.

Biden opted for the least of the evils in pushing for term limits rather than court packing.

It was the more popular option for Biden to yield on. Voters have always loved term limits.

The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found 67% of Americans, including 82% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans, support a proposal to set finite terms for justices.

But there were few law professors and even fewer Democratic members clamoring for term limits until conservatives secured a stable majority on the court. Then, suddenly, the court had to be “reformed” without delay.

It is no accident that the first three justices who would be term-limited off the court are conservatives: Clarence Thomas (after 33 years on the court), Chief Justice John Roberts (after 19 years) and Justice Samuel Alito (after 18 years).

Think, however, about the iconic decisions we would have lost with term limits in place. Liberal Justice William Douglas’ 36 years on the court would have literally been cut in half. He would have been kicked off in 1957.

His famous opinions like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), striking down bans on contraceptives, would not have been written — an ironic result for those seeking limits after the court’s ruling in Dobbs.

Likewise, liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s tenure would have ended in 2011 before she wrote her famous dissent in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), defending voting rights.

Anthony Kennedy’s term would have ended in 2011 rather than 2018, before he wrote opinions such as United States v. Windsor, striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Obviously, other justices could have written opinions in these cases, but the point is that many justices wrote their best opinions after 18 years on the court.

Moreover, the framers clearly wanted these positions as lifetime appointments as an added protection against political pressure or influence.

For more than two centuries, presidents have struggled with the Supreme Court, but none (until now) have attempted to end life tenure on the court.

Presidents have served as the firewall for the anger and radicalism that has periodically engulfed the court.

Now Biden is leading the mob for changing this institution for the first time since its founding.

It is a testament to what I call “an age of rage” in my new book. After years of supporting the court when it was setting aside conservative precedent, liberals now want the court changed to dump or dilute the majority.

It is unlikely to end there. After sending Thomas, Roberts and Alito packing, many want to go further and pack the court itself.

Democratic leaders such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have called for outright court packing — a proposal that Vice President Kamala Harris has suggested she might support.

Where Biden is a political opportunist in belatedly joining this movement, Harris is a true believer from the far left.

If she is elected, Congress is still likely to be closely divided. That will only increase pressure to convert the court into an alternative avenue for social and political reform.

Harvard professor Michael Klarman warned that all of the plans to change the country were ultimately dependent on packing the court.

With the 2020 election, he stated that Democrats could change the election system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.”

Notably, if Biden were to seek this change as a legislative matter without a constitutional amendment, future Congresses could pare terms further from 18 to eight years or even less.

In his speech, Biden declared that he wanted the membership of the court changed with greater “regularity.”

If Congress has this authority, it could change the occupants of the court faster than a South Beach timeshare condo. 

That is clearly the opposite of what the framers intended, but Biden insists that these times are different and democracy will only be safeguarded by attacking one of our core stabilizing institutions.

According to the Washington Post, the president made his pledge in a Zoom call to the left-wing Congressional Progressive Caucus, chaired by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and co-chaired by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). It did not succeed in resuscitating his candidacy.  

The pledge will be dead on arrival in Congress. What is left is a King Lear-like tragedy of a presidency, betrayed by those closest to him, and wandering the land for continued relevance. 

History will show a pitiful figure who offered up the court as the cost of staying in power, only to lose his candidacy and his legacy. (Joe Biden tries to sacrifice the Supreme Court not for 'democracy' but for the far left.)

President Ronald Wilson Reagan made terrible mistakes when appointing the likes of Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Professor Turley clearly believes that case involving sodomite “rights” such Windsor v. New York, June 26, 2013 (see Irreversible By Means Merely Human), and Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015 (see Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part one, Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part two, Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part three, and Arguing Who Decides That Which is Beyond Humans To Decide, part four),  were decided correctly. They were not.

Apart from that, however, Turley’s points are entirely correct, although he does not realize that one of the principal problems with American constitutional jurisprudence is that it admits of no higher authority that the constitution’s text, making the constitution as mutable as the “will of the “people” itself and as malleable as Holy Writ in the hands of a Protestant or a Modernist.

The New York Post editorialized the Biden proposal was entirely political nature to place the government of the United States of America permanently in the hands of the “leftists” without much in the way of checking their totalitarian desires:

Democrats just revealed their true, sick political nature with their cynical push to remake the Supreme Court.

Indeed, they showed just how far they’re willing to go to take down Donald Trump and win an election.

And that they are the real threat to democracy and America’s political system.

The plan, rolled out by President Biden and Veep Kamala Harris, would impose 18-year term limits on justices, essentially, a plan to pack the court with liberals.

They’d subject justices to a code of conduct you can bet will be used similarly against justices they dislike.

Plus, they want more limits on presidential immunity after the Supreme Court reminded them that, under the Constitution, presidents cannot be charged with crimes for official actions they take while in office.

That could help promote their strategy of using lawfare against political foes.

Make no mistake: This would be a radical upturning of an institution that has served the nation well for decades.

Dems aim to undermine the court’s legitimacy and overturn its decisions — all to frame Trump and win an election.

Their sock puppets in the media laid the groundwork for a code of conduct with their perverted attack on the conservative justices — Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, in particular.

But it’s all theater. It’s part of the Dems’ fantasyland claim that “democracy is at stake” and the end of America as we know it is nigh.

How can we know? Because Biden himself once opposed court-packing.

Because the idea for term limits has come up only now, with conservatives holding a majority of the court’s nine seats.

Indeed, Dems were quite happy with lifetime appointments when left-leaning justices, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were in the majority.

Also because there’s no actual problem here this plan aims to fix (other than Dems not getting their way on key issues before the court).

Rather, the nation’s high court is functioning not only as it was meant to function — but in precisely the way you’d want it to: i.e., not as an extension of the political system, but as an independent branch of government that puts a check on other branches.

Under the Biden-Harris, the court would no longer be an apolitical arbiter that judges issues — like the constitutionality of laws, say, and the limits of congressional and executive-branch power — based on the merits.

But here’s the kicker: Dems know none of this is going to happen.

And that doesn’t matter: They’ll just blame those evil Republicans for blocking “reform.”

Let’s face it: The idea of subverting an independent body to the will of politicians is precisely what voters should be most worried about.

It would destroy a political system that has long served America well.

Democrats may be right that “democracy” is at risk this year — from them. (The Biden-Harris plan to wreck the Supreme Court is the REAL threat to America's democratic system.)

Father Bernard Reilly, writing in The Life of Pope Leo XIII: From an Authentic Memoir in 1887 while the Holy Father was still alive at a chipper seventy-seven years of age, explained that the future pontiff learned about the fraudulent nature of “democracy” when he was assigned to be the papal nuncio to the court of Brussels in 1843:

How different among the Latin nations of Continental Europe and their offshoots was the use of the suffrage, whether open or secret, in electing to municipal or national offices! What a farce the ballot was the from the beginning, and is still, in countries we might name. And what oppression is practiced, in the name of liberty and under the shame of constitutional forms, by peoples whose anti-Christian teachings destroy the religious and moral sense, with the elementary and essential ides of individual right, making what they call free government the most hideous intolerance and the downright and unrestrained proscription of all opinions, convictions, and acts which differ from their own false and narrow notions!

From the very birth of constitutional government in Belgium, the country became, like the little Republic of Geneva, a hot-bed in which sprang up a luxuriant growth of secret associations conspiring against the monarchical institutions of the Continent. All political exiles, all socialistic and anarchical dreamers, found a safe refuge there, and there wrote and published, plotted and planned. (Father Bernard Reilly, The Life of Pope Leo XIII: From an Authentic Memoir, published originally in 1887 and republished in 2017 by Mediatrix Press, pp. 109-110.)

Father Reilly did not realize that what applied to Belgium when Archbishop Gioacchino Vincenzo Raffaele Luigi Pecci was nuncio there in 1843 applied also to Father Reilly’s own beloved United States of America, something that Cardinal Pie noted quite explicitly:

"So much as Christ does not reign over societies, that much does His influence over individuals remain superficial and precarious. If it is true that the work of the apostolate is, by definition, to bring about the conversion of individuals, and that it is not nations which will go to heaven, but souls, one by one, it must not, meanwhile, be forgotten that the individual lives profoundly joined in a social organization that has influence over him. If you attempt to convert individuals without wishing to Christianize their social institutions, your work remains frail. What you have built in the morning, others will reverse in the evening. Is it not this tact of God's enemies instructive to us? In seeking everyday to tear away the heart of the individual, they employ more effort in the pursuit of destroying social institutions. One single defeat for God in this area, is the disturbance of the faith, if not the ruin, in a great number of souls." (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie, back side of the title page.)

" 'Do not reproach us,' Cardinal pie insists, 'for returning more often than not to this question of the rights of Jesus Christ over society; the responsibility of spiritual medicine, like that of the body, lasts as long as it takes to uproot [error]. Our many Saints and our many seers have traced for us the duty in this regard. The errors of the Donatists had a range incomparably less than these lamentable effects tests us. We are seeing, however, in reading the sermons of the holy Bishop of Hippo [St. Augustine], that we should not pass up an occasion to take them p again, almost daily, against these controversies. The sectarian spirit [analogous to the divisiveness of the Donatists] is eminently opinionated and stubborn; without regard to the more convincing answers, to the more decisive refutations, it imperturbably repeats the same common place banalities, reproduced invariably and without restraint. If the defenders of the truth, out of squeamishness, scruple against repeating, if the yare not renewing the blows, already a hundred times, against the lie, it [political naturalism] will remain master of the terrain' " (Fr. de St. Just, pp. 93-99, quoted in Selecting Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, p. 30.)

"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction,

"if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .

"To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."

Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:

"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?". . . .

"Neither in His Person," Card, Pie said in a celebrated pastoral instruction,

"nor in the exercise of His rights, can Jesus Christ be divided, dissolved, split up; in Him the distinction of natures and operations can never be separated or opposed; the divine cannot be incompatible to the human, nor the human to the divine. On the contrary, it is the peace, the drawing together, the reconciliation; it is the very character of union which has made the two things one: 'He is our peace, Who hat made both one. . .'  (Eph. 2:14). This is why St. John told us: 'every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and is now already in the world' (1 John 4:3; cf. also 1 John 2:18, 22; 2 John: 7).

"So then, Card. Pie continues,

"when I hear certain talk being spread around, certain pithy statements (i.e., 'Separation of Church and State,' for one, and the enigmatic axiom 'A free Church in a free State,' for another) prevailing from day to day, and which are being introduced into the heart of societies, the dissolvent by which the world must perish, I utter this cry of alarm: Beware the Antichrist."

Fr. de St. Just adds:

"Accordingly, the Bishop of Poitiers had always fought against THE SEPARATION OF Church and State. Moreover, he opposed all separations, that of reason and faith, of nature and grace, of natural religion and revealed religion, the separation of the philosopher and the Christian, of private man and public man. He saw in all these [separations] a resurgence of Manichean dualism and he had fought all these with, the supreme argument, the law formed by Christ. Therefore, it is in all truth, writing to [Minister of the Interior] the Count of Presigny, that he could render this testimony:

'We have nothing in common with the theorists of disunion and opposition of two orders, temporal and spiritual, natural and supernatural. We struggle, on the contrary, with all our strength against these doctrines of separation which is leading to the denial of religion itself and of revealed religion.'"

Fr. de St. Just returns at this point and introduces us to what is perhaps Msgr. Pie's strongest language, with regard to this entire subject:

"To this doctrine of the Church, which Msgr. Pie brought to the mind of the rulers of nations, the liberals would oppose acts favoring separation.

"Certain countries, Belgium and America, for example, haven't they proclaimed the separation of Church and State, and doesn't the Church enjoy a more complete liberty under such a system?"

Cardinal Pie responded firmly to this question:

'THE AMERICAN AND BELGIUM SYSTEM, this system of philosophical-political indifference, shall eternally be a bastard system" (pp. 122-124 in Fr. de St. Just's book) (Selected Writings of Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, pp. 21-23.)

None other than Pope Saint Pius X used the writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers to help him explicate Catholic Social Teaching as a bishop in Mantua, Italy, and Venice, Italy, before he did so upon his elevation to the Throne of Saint Peter on August 3, 1903:

"[St.] Pius X, giving audience in the French seminary, declared to have 'often read and re-read' the works of Cardinal Pie . . . . This veneration of [St.] Pius X for the great Bishop of Poitiers is demonstrated for us by this account found in Canon [Paul] Vigue's 'Select Pages of Cardinal Pie': "A priest from Poitiers has recalled that one day he had the honor of having been introduced into the cabinet of the Supreme Pontiff, [St.] Pius X, in the company of a religious who was also from Poitiers. 'Oh! the diocese of Poitiers," the Holy Father exclaimed, raising his hands, when he heard the name Poitiers mentioned. "I have almost the entire works of your Cardinal,' the saintly Pontiff continued, 'and, for years, there has hardly been a day that I have not read some of its pages.' (Selected Writings of Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, testimonial pages.)

It is perhaps useful here to remind readers, what with all the talk of saving “democracy,” that Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that genuine democracy requires virtue, something that is in rare supply these days among those who desires to “save democracy” so that they can rule in a totalitarian manner while the “people” enjoy their bread and circuses and are no more concerned about such totalitarianism than are most people in Red China, who have grown up in a totalitarian system and accept is as such a way of life:

Democracy is an imperfect regime, as a regime in ratione regiminis, as a result of the lack of unity and continuity in the direction of interior and exterior affairs. Also this regime should only be for the perfect already capable of directing themselves—those virtuous and competent enough to pronounce as is fitting upon the very complicated problems on which the life of a great people depends. But it is always true to say as Saint Thomas noted that these virtuous and competent men are extremely rare; and democracy, supposing such perfection among subjects, cannot give it to them. From this point of view, democracy is a bit in politics what quietism is in spirituality; it supposes man has arrived, at the age or the state of perfection, even though he still may be a child. In treating him as a perfect person, democracy does not give him what is required to become one.

Since true virtue united to true competence is a rare thing among men, since the majority among them are incapable of governing and they have a need of being led, the regime which is the best for them is the one which can make up for their imperfection. This regimen perfectum in ratione regiminis, by reason of unity, continuity, and efficacy of direction towards a single end which is difficult to achieve is monarchy. Above all a tempered monarchy which is always attentive to the different forms of national activity. It is better than democracy or than the feudal regime. Monarchy assures the interior and exterior peace of a great nation, and permits her to long endure. (Dom Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, “On Royal Government,” translated by Andrew Strain, On Royal Government)

Pope Pius IX prophetically what would happen when the “societies” (Freemasonry then, Freemasonry and the cabal of globalist elites who plot the demise of us peons and plan a diet of insects for those who are deemed “fit’ enough to live at present) got hold of the fraud that is the universal franchise:

To allow the masses, invariably uninformed and impulsive, to make decisions on the most serious matters, is this not to hand oneself over to chance and deliberately run towards the abyss? Yes, it would be more appropriate to call universal suffrage universal madness and, when the secret societies have taken control of it as is all too often the case, universal falsehood." (Pope Pius IX, Statement to French pilgrims, May 5, 1874, cited by Abbe Georges de Nantes, CCR # 333, p. 24.)

This prophetic statement has come true in our own time.

Our salvation is not to be had in the farce of the clash between the members of the organized crime families of the false opposites of the naturalist “left” and “right,” which is why is why it is important for readers of this site to remember that it is impossible to produce the conditions conductive to social comity while men continue to live as the enemies of the King of Kings Who was made manifesto the Kings of the Gentiles. Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar worshiped the Baby King, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but the lords of Modernity want us to worship them and to obey their “infallible” commands and diktats without complaint.  We are undergoing a chastisement that is long overdue, a chastisement that, if we are honest with ourselves, we deserve solely for our own sins of lethargic self-indulgence, worldliness, and the countless numbers of invisible compromises we have made with the world and its false allures.

This chastisement is long overdue as a world bereft of a due submission to the Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls is a world that has descended into the depths of madness in which contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave have determined that they can play God with impunity and, quite indeed, be heralded for their being “champions” of scientific research. No one, of course, is supposed to notice that the “research” being conducted at this time is identical to what was being done by mad scientists in the German “Weimar Republic” between 1919-1933 and under the so-called “Third Reich” of Adolph Hitler between 1933 and 1945.

Most of the people alive today are so distracted with bread and circuses that they have grown “comfortable” with and/or “indifferent” to the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by surgical means and completely ignorant of the fact that, to quote the late Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., “most contraceptives abort, and most contraceptives abort all the time.” There is near-universal support for the myth of “brain death”/human organ vivisection and transplantation and “palliative”/hospice “care.” Even sadder still, most people alive today think nothing of blasphemy, immodesty, indecency, impurity, or “little” acts of dishonesty in their own daily lives.

God the Holy Ghost Himself inspired these words that apply to the situation that faces us today:

[34] Justice exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable. (Proverbs 14: 34.) 

The United States of America has long sanctioned sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance under cover of the civil law and in every nook and cranny of what passes for popular culture. 

Yet it is that even many fully traditional Catholics in the catacombs continue to believe that this or that election is going to retard the advance of the grave evils that are the product of the natural degeneration of the welter of naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferent, semi-Pelagian errors of the founders, some of whom had a founding hatred for Christ the King.

Turn away from the conflicts between the false opposites of the naturalist “left” and “right” that are nothing other than sideshows concocted in the laboratories of hell and designed to convince men that it is through violent confrontations that injustices can be remedied and a sense of “liberty” that has always been licentiousness and not true liberty can be “enjoyed” again. The standard of the Holy Cross of Our Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, is the one and only standard of true liberty for men and their nations.

No, it is only by adherence to our Catholic Faith as we prostrate ourselves before Our Eucharistic King and pledge ourselves to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary to His own Most Sacred Heart that we can find a remedy in the souls of individual men to help them overcome the conflicts and agitations of the moment and thus rise to the heights of personal sanctity.

This world in which we live is passing away. The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will be made manifest ‘ere long. We must be focused on the sanctification and salvation of our own immortal souls as we keep our First Friday devotions with fervor and pray Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary every day, including on each First Saturday for the intentions specified by the Mother of God in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, and to Sister Lucia dos Santos in Tuy, Spain.

Put your trust in the Most Sacred Heart of Christ the King and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as one’s state-in-life permits.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the North American Martyrs, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saint Ignatius of Loyola, pray for us.

Saint Francis Xavier, pray for us.

Saint Alphonsus Rodriguez, pray for us.

Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, pray for us.

Saint John Berchmans, pray for us.

Saint Robert Bellarmine, pray for us.

Saint Isaac Jogues, pray for us.

Saint Rene Goupil, pray for us.

Saint Jean Lalande, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel Lallemant, pray for us.

Saint Noel Chabanel, pray for us.

Saint Anthony Daniel, pray for us.

Saint Charles Garnier, pray for us.

Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J., pray for us.

Father Francis Xavier Weninger, S.J., pray for us.

Father Maurice Meschler, S.J., pray for us.