Sources
• ProPublica (NC/Newby case study): https://www.propublica.org/article/paul-newby-north-carolina-supreme-court
• NC Courts (Harper v. Hall rehearing opinion, Apr 28 2023): https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/appellate-court-opinions/harper-v-hall-0
• Justia (Harper v. Hall summary): https://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/supreme-court/2023/413pa21-2.html
• Brennan Center (Politics of Judicial Elections 2021–2022): https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/politics-judicial-elections-2021-2022
• RSLC (Republican State Leadership Committee): https://rslc.gop/
• RSLC Judicial Fairness Initiative example: https://rslc.gop/judicial-fairness-initiative-jfi-announces-targets-races-in-2024/
• Federalist Society (State Court Docket Watch): https://fedsoc.org/scdw
• ADF (Alliance Defending Freedom — Attorney Network): https://adflegal.org/for-attorneys/attorney-network/
• Gallup (record-low 35% confidence context): https://news.gallup.com/poll/653897/americans-pass-judgment-courts.aspx

I can accept that as an explanation for the rhetoric. My concern is that it’s being used to create policy that functions like a membership test: who counts by default and gets presumed legitimate, and who has to prove they belong, or gets treated as suspect or disqualified.

"Haves vs have-nots” doesn’t refute my point. It may just rename it. Who gets to be a “have” often depends on who gets counted as a legitimate member.

If this is only class competition, why do we keep seeing “replacement,” “real Americans,” or “I wouldn’t vote for you because you’re an Indian”? That’s not just markets. It's membership hierarchy.

My question isn’t denying economics or power. It’s: why does the debate so often slide from policy tradeoffs (levels/capacity/wages) into membership tests when the demographic mix is shifting?

I appreciate the candor. One thing that stands out to me is that this exact “power shift” theory predates today’s immigration debate by a long time.
In White America (originally 1923; later reissued), Earnest Sevier Cox lays out a scenario where demographic change leads to political dependency and ends with “a mixed-breed would sit as President” (his phrasing). That’s essentially the same structure as modern “replacement” rhetoric: not just debating “how much immigration,” but claiming that legitimacy and power are inherently tied to ancestry and a specific cultural baseline.
That’s why I’m exploring the “90-year funnel” idea: the core question of who counts as a legitimate member or leader appears early in explicit texts, then resurfaces later in organized policy and campaign language, sometimes channeled through immigration policy, sometimes through voting rules and questions of political representation.
You can see the same “who legitimately represents whom” dispute playing out in current Section 2 and redistricting cases, which the Supreme Court is revisiting again.

Filming agents in public isn’t doxing. The memo targets organized doxing, but it creates a posture where footage can get treated as part of a doxing pipeline once it’s used to identify or target agents at home, even if someone else does the doxing.

Appreciate the honesty. That’s Christian nationalism in plain English: power worship. And it’s exactly why church/state fusion is poison.

Win what, this #1331737 'modern Christian' culture war?