Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said the quiet part out loud Saturday when she thanked former President Donald Trump at an Illinois rally for his role in overturning Roe v. Wade by packing the U.S. Supreme Court with radical Republican justices. GOP lawmaker calls Roe ruling ‘victory for white life’ as Trump rally cheers:

“President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday,” Rep. Mary E. Miller (R) said at the rally Saturday night in Mendon, Ill., referring to Trump’s former campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

She began clapping her hands as spectators, some clutching red “Save America” placards, also began to applaud.

Her remark drew widespread condemnation on social media, and Miller’s team swiftly issued an explanation for what it deemed to be “a mix-up of words.”

Miller’s spokesman, Isaiah Wartman, told the Associated Press that the Illinois Republican misread her prepared speech and was supposed to declare the divisive court ruling a victory for the “right to life.”

Yeah, sure. “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”

[O]thers pointed out that many in the crowd seemed unfazed by Miller’s comment. “Whether it was a slip or not, the audience heard ‘white life’ and didn’t flinch. They applauded,” tweeted columnist Ahmed Baba, who writes for the Independent.

On Friday, Miller hailed the high court’s decision as “a joyous victory.” She said Roe v. Wade had “done untold damage to our country,” and she accused the “cruel abortion industry” of deceiving Americans. She thanked Trump for helping to overturn Roe by “appointing Supreme Court justices who value life.”

Trump — who has endorsed Miller against GOP Rep. Rodney Davis after Democrats redistricted them into competing for a single seat — was hosting the rally ahead of the state’s hotly contested primary on Tuesday.

This is the same White Christian Natonalist who prasised Adolph Hitler

This is not the first time Miller has been scrutinized for comments in her speeches. Last year, she was forced to apologize after quoting Adolf Hitler at a “Moms for America” event in Washington.

Hitler was right on one thing, She said, ‘Whoever has the youth has the future,’” Miller said during the rally. Her remark, just two days after she was sworn in as a House member, led to calls for her resignation on social media and from Democrats.

Miller later issued a statement expressing remorse for quoting the Nazi leader.

“I sincerely apologize for any harm my words caused and regret using a reference to one of the most evil dictators in history to illustrate the dangers that outside influences can have on our youth,” she said.

Eva Braun’s “gaffe” is entertainment value for the media.

But on a more serious note, as I have explained before, the seeds to the destruction of our democracy are sown in our Constitution, i.e.,  the slavery preserving compromises which led to the anti-democratic U.S. Senate and the Electoral College. White Christian Nationalist Republicans are fully exploiting these seeds of destruction to destroy our democracy for their theocratic authoritarian tyranny of the minority. They are the American Taliban.

Ron Brownstein warns, America Is Growing Apart, Possibly for Good (excerpt):

[Michael Podhorzer is a longtime political strategist for labor unions and the chair of the Analyst Institute, a collaborative of progressive groups that studies elections.]

To Podhorzer, the growing divisions between red and blue states represent a reversion to the lines of separation through much of the nation’s history. The differences among states in the Donald Trump era, he writes, are “very similar, both geographically and culturally, to the divides between the Union and the Confederacy. And those dividing lines were largely set at the nation’s founding, when slave states and free states forged an uneasy alliance to become ‘one nation.’”

Podhorzer isn’t predicting another civil war, exactly. But he’s warning that the pressure on the country’s fundamental cohesion is likely to continue ratcheting up in the 2020s. Like other analysts who study democracy, he views the Trump faction that now dominates the Republican Party—what he terms the “MAGA movement”—as the U.S. equivalent to the authoritarian parties in places such as Hungary and Venezuela. It is a multipronged, fundamentally antidemocratic movement that has built a solidifying base of institutional support through conservative media networks, evangelical churches, wealthy Republican donors, GOP elected officials, paramilitary white-nationalist groups, and a mass public following. And it is determined to impose its policy and social vision on the entire country—with or without majority support. “The structural attacks on our institutions that paved the way for Trump’s candidacy will continue to progress,” Podhorzer argues, “with or without him at the helm.”

All of this is fueling what I’ve called “the great divergence” now under way between red and blue states. This divergence itself creates enormous strain on the country’s cohesion, but more and more even that looks like only a way station. What’s becoming clearer over time is that the Trump-era GOP is hoping to use its electoral dominance of the red states, the small-state bias in the Electoral College and the Senate, and the GOP-appointed majority on the Supreme Court to impose its economic and social model on the entire nation—with or without majority public support. As measured on fronts including the January 6 insurrection, the procession of Republican 2020 election deniers running for offices that would provide them with control over the 2024 electoral machinery, and the systematic advance of a Republican agenda by the Supreme Court, the underlying political question of the 2020s remains whether majority rule—and democracy as we’ve known it—can survive this offensive.

[To] Podhorzer, the growing separation means that after the period of fading distinctions, bedrock differences dating back to the country’s founding are resurfacing. And one crucial element of that, he argues, is the return of what he calls “one-party rule in the red nation.”

With some complex but telling statistical calculations, he documents a return to historical patterns from the Jim Crow era in which the dominant party (segregationist Democrats then, conservative Republicans now) has skewed the playing field to achieve a level of political dominance in the red nation far beyond its level of popular support. Undergirding that advantage, he argues, are laws that make registering or voting in many of the red states more difficult, and severe gerrymanders that have allowed Republicans to virtually lock in indefinite control of many state legislatures. Grumbach reached a similar conclusion in a recent paper analyzing trends in small-d democracy across the states. “It’s a really stacked deck in these states because of this democratic backsliding,” Grumbach said.

The core question that Podhorzer’s analysis raises is how the United States will function with two sections that are moving so far apart. History, in my view, offers two models.

[It] seems unlikely that the Trump-era Republicans installing the policy priorities of their preponderantly white and Christian coalition across the red states will be satisfied just setting the rules in the places now under their control. Podhorzer, like Mason and Grumbach, believes that the MAGA movement’s long-term goal is to tilt the electoral rules in enough states to make winning Congress or the White House almost impossible for Democrats. Then, with support from the GOP-appointed majority on the Supreme Court, Republicans could impose red-state values and programs nationwide, even if most Americans oppose them. The “MAGA movement is not stopping at the borders of the states it already controls,” Podhorzer writes. “It seeks to conquer as much territory as possible by any means possible.”

The Trump model, in other words, is more the South in 1850 than the South in 1950, more John Calhoun than Richard Russell. (Some red-state Republicans are even distantly echoing Calhoun in promising to nullify—that is, defy—federal laws with which they disagree.) That doesn’t mean that Americans are condemned to fight one another again as they did after the 1850s. But it does mean that the 2020s may bring the greatest threats to the country’s basic stability since those dark and tumultuous years.

Insurrectionist MAGA Sen. Josh Hawley echoed this analysis. Josh Hawley says abortion ruling will push people to move states, strengthening the GOP (excerpt):

Sen. Hawley said he welcomes the debate among states as some, like California, immediately moved to embrace abortion rights and others, like Missouri, immediately moved to restrict it.

He predicted that people will base where they live on whether abortion is allowed and that the decision will end up redrawing demographic lines across the country.

“I would predict that the effect is going to be that more and more red states are going to become more red, purple states are going to become red and the blue states are going to get a lot bluer,” Hawley said. “And I would look for Republicans as a result of this to extend their strength in the Electoral College. And that’s very good news.”

He said the political realignment would mean that social conservatives would no longer have to work with fiscal conservatives in politics, resulting in a more populist, conservative [fascist] Republican Party — which is also the lane of the Republican Party he currently occupies.

While Hawley said he welcomed the state-level debate about abortion rights, Kansas will be the first state that officially puts voter opinion to the test. In August, Kansans will vote on whether to add language to the Kansas Constitution that says abortion is not a constitutional right.

As I have said before, we need a revised Constituion for a modern era. But it is virtually impossible to revise the Constitution when Republicans are relying on the anti-democratic Senate and antiquated Electoral College – which no other modern democracy in the world uses because it is so anti-democratic – for the ability to impose their theocratic White Christian Nationalist tyranny of the minority on America. They are not going to agree to change constitutional provisions which are the source of their power.

If Republicans believe that the majority of Americans who oppose their tyranny of the minority will accept it like docile sheep, they are deeply delusional. History shows that the majority will rise up and resist a tyranny of the minority. The question then becomes, can the Republic survive? What comes next if it fails?