The Big Lies Of The “Resistance”: A Directory. Big Lie #2: “Trump Is Not A Legitimate President”

The Directory of the Big Lies cynically and unethically employed by the President’s political opponents continues with…

Big Lie #2. “Trump is not a legitimate President”

Although this was not the first of the Big Lies, it was the foundation of all the others to come. The assertion, seeded by Hillary Clinton and spread by pundits and the news media, is pure poison to the democracy, national unity, the public trust, and the national welfare.

It boggles the mind that progressives and Democrats have been willing to risk so much harm to the United States and its culture for the sole purpose of waging political warfare against the President of the United States. I have to believe that at other times in our history, any party considering such a strategy would be stopped short by a respected and responsible leader. Incredibly, the Democrats didn’t have one (and still don’t). The obvious individual who could have minimized the political and cultural carnage was Barack Obama. He had neither the courage, the character nor the bi-partisan concern for the nation to do so. This was one more failure of leadership for the most wildly over-praised President in U.S. history.

The most damning aspect of the Democrats’ refusal after the  election to follow the tradition of all previous losing parties is that they had lectured Donald Trump, when they were certain of victory, about how he was obligated to accept the will of the voters.

Hillary Clinton, another leader of the party who could have killed this insidious  tactic in its cradle, was very clear on how essential such acceptance was—when she thought Trump would be the loser:

“To say you won’t respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy,” she said at a rally at a late October rally the University of North Carolina. “We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election.” Later, she said unequivocally that “The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America America.”

For once, Hillary was right. Unable to accept her own responsibility for her shocking defeat, however, she engaged in the exact conduct that she had—correctly—condemned as dangerous, and allowed (and I assume encouraged)  her party to employ it—to this day—as its signature Big Lie.

The claim that an elected President is “illegitimate” is technically sedition: it is an invitation and incitement to insurrection. The violent antifa riots around the Capital during the inauguration were the predictable result of the accusation, which had and has literally, beyond question, not an atom, not an electron of evidence to support it, only unhinged, unjust, hyperbolic contrivances. They begin with the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, just like four previous Presidents did, in a system that is enshrined in the Constitution and that every citizen, politician and elected official accepts as a condition of being an American, being suddenly pronounced as unacceptable.

Rep. John Lewis, whose  position for two decades has been  that no Republican President is legitimate, since he  boycotted both the inauguration of George W. Bush and Trump, went a long way toward spreading Big Lie #2 by saying on NBC that he did not see Trump as a legitimate President because “Russian interference” resulted in the revelation of DNC documents and may have altered the election results. No evidence had surfaced or has ever surfaced that the Russian shenanigans changed sufficient numbers of votes or any votes at all to effect the results of the 2016 election.

We now know that the Obama Administration let the Russian efforts go on unimpeded—it takes a twisted path to reach the argument that Trump is an illegitimate President because the previous President from the adversary party neglected his duties. Most troubling of all, to me, at least, is that in the case of the hacked documents, Americans learned quite a bit about how corrupt Clinton and her campaign, as well as the DNC , were, and it was information they had a right to know.  If an American had hacked the exact same documents and the media revealed them, as of course they would, the claim that any influence on the election was unfair would have been regarded as laughable. If Hillary Clinton has been elected without the public knowing about the Clinton Foundation’s corrupt maneuvers, the campaign using a CNN contributor to cheat in debates and town meetings, and the sinister sabotage of Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the nomination, there would have been a much stronger argument that she was “an illegitimate President’ than any of the claims made about Donald Trump.

The “Illegitimate President” trope seeded all of the “not my President ” demonstrations with a rationalization, though a false one, and justified, also falsely, the effort to try to hijack the Electoral College, argument that the President should be impeached before he was even inaugurated,  and the organized attempts to sabotage the Presidents’ inauguration, traditionally a unifying and healing event.  I blame Lewis for the latter, as well as Trump’s foolish and typical insults leveled against  “the civil rights icon” which gave members of the Congressional Black Caucus what they needed to  let them join the boycott.

After that, the “illegitimate” slur gave Democrats, “the resistance” and the media, as well as many unethical professional groups a  catalyst to activate various plots to remove him without risking the uncertainty of another election.

I tried to find any serious effort to assemble real evidence for the “illegitimate” claim. As is typical when using Big Lies, most screeds asserting this one just restated the lie. That’s enough to accomplish Goebbels’ goal: make the target and his supporters deny the lie, making it a controversy and keeping the lie before the public.  Thank heaven for Old Big Mouth himself, Michael Moore. In January, before the Inauguration, he listed on Facebook his six reasons why Trump was “not a legitimate President.”

He had nothing. Here are  the six:

  1. The Electoral College shouldn’t count. But it does, and that’s the law, you hack.
  2. Trump “isn’t well.” That’s funny; I don’t think Moore is well. This is, of course, just a proto- Plan E , later resurfacing as the 25th Amendment plot, aided by unprofessional psychiatrists who purported to diagnose someone they had neither examined  nor even met. Not only is the claim unsubstantiated, it’s irrelevant. Being “not well” wouldn’t make Trump’s Presidency illegitimate. If the public knowingly elected a certified lunatic as President, the election would still be legitimate. No one can claim the electorate didn’t know Trump’s personality, character and eccentricities by the time they went to the polls.
  3. The Russian interference. Moore, hilariously, said this unmeasurable factor requires a do-over.
  4. The FBI chose sides, Moore says. This one is especially funny in retrospect.
  5.  For #5, Moore just splashed around like a wounded cod. The President is illegitimate because he appointed someone Michael Moore doesn’t like (Ex-SOS Rex Tillerson) as Secretary of State. This “reason” actually exposes what the whole Big Lie is about in its entirety. Trump is “illegitimate” because progressives don’t like him or what he wants to do. This clip has never been more appropriate:

6.  is ridiculous, and yet it is something we still hear from our “unwell” friends and relatives. “Trump has potentially committed a number of felonies,” The statement isn’t law, it isn’t reason, it’s just “I think he’s a bad guy, and I just know I’m right.”

Big Lie #2 is infantile, and constructed of nothing of substance, just bias and free-floating anger. Yet, as I wrote at the beginning, it, and the false assertions within it,  form the foundation of all the Big Lies to come.

21 thoughts on “The Big Lies Of The “Resistance”: A Directory. Big Lie #2: “Trump Is Not A Legitimate President”

  1. I keep thinking of the Eagles song, “Get Over It.” Of all the presidential elections of the last forty-five years, there has been precisely two that I was content with the winner come inauguration day, not even of the same party. I sucked it up and got on with issues more directly related to my own life. And you see, none of them ended up as bad as I feared, nor as good as I hoped. That is the huge benefit of our three-branch system, that they counterbalance each other when they overstretch, (Problem is ALL of them are over-stretching as hard as they can in these partisan days)

    These tantrums about the three year old election baffle me. Haven’t any of these people EVER had to deal with not getting the job, not gaining their dream lover, not getting a lottery prize, or not beating in the face of their childhood enemy? I can’t really even come up with any mass hysteria-denial verging on real crime. Even stories of the 1900 era lynchings that denied humanity and any rational, legal defense were only town-sized. This mass hysteria keeps rumbling at just under a full boil and all the people with the power to end it, don’t want to. The pot is rattling with the energy of the nascient boil, awaiting for the unlucky incident to provide nucleation surface like a Mentos in diet soda.

    I’m more afraid for America than I was immediately after 9-11. Terrorists are much easier to fight than demagogues and power-mongers.

  2. “Being “not well” wouldn’t make Trump’s Presidency illegitimate. If the public knowingly elected a certified lunatic as President, the election would still be legitimate.”

    I realize that Moore was speaking about the President’s psychological health, but can anyone argue that the Democrats who voted for FDR at the 1944 convention didn’t know they were putting dying man on the ballot? Voters may have elected him for a fourth term without all the facts, but, anyone who looked at him could tell he was “unwell”. Does that make FDR’s fourth term illegitimate?

    After all, Yalta may have gone very differently.

    • “1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater is Psychologically Unfit to Be President!-The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater.”
      Fact magazine. Sept.-Oct. 1964 issue

  3. I think the essence of the problem can be found in here: “It boggles the mind that progressives and Democrats have been willing to risk so much harm to the United States and its culture for the sole purpose of waging political warfare against the President of the United States.” Immature kids and pseudo-adults don’t understand consequences and often don’t have a large enough grasp of the world to realize that outside of their tiny world-bubble, people and events just don’t conform to what they think they should be. Don’t like someone else’s opinion? Shout them down, dox them, attempt to ruin their career, threaten violence – the list goes on but how many are ever held accountable?

    Too often there are no consequences for their behaviors or of those like them. You could make a pretty long list of people, including Hilary, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer, and many more who are unlikely to face any sort of consequence for their actions, other than getting reelected again and again. Granted Hilary lost and isn’t exactly the center of Democrat adulation she once was but she isn’t facing a congressional hearing under oath either. How many antifa protesters end up in jail and face life changing repercussions for their actions? Apparently so few that they are statistical anomalies instead of the norms.

    Without real consequences for bad behavior, there’s no reason to stop.

    • You are assuming they don’t want to harm the US and destroy its culture. How many progressive journalists have said they are inciting civil unrest because they “just want to see the whole thing burn”. After reading the FAQ on the Green New Deal, I would have to say that destroying American values and American society is exactly what they are trying to do.

  4. Good one, Jack.

    As you know, I didn’t vote for Trump. But I’m not averse to voting for him next time around. Yes, he’s an Olympic-caliber asshole – but I have to admit to growing admiration for someone who can withstand what he’s taken since the election and keep on plugging, accomplishing much of what he intended to do.

    Love him or hate him, he’s proven that he’s a tough and tenacious bastard – and from my perspective the Presidency requires that. I can’t think of anyone in the D field who has those skills (with the possible exception of Elizabeth Warren, who has other issues).

    • AIM: I agree that Trump’s persistence and perseverance are remarkable and admirable, though no one should be surprised. Of course, this has been twisted into “He won’t leave office when he’s defeated.”

  5. Well written.

    This behavior will only stop when there are consequences… personal consequences. Nothing stops a bully like a swift punch in the jaw.

    Progressives are bullies. The punch is coming. Mark my words.

    • I agree. The stupidity with the leftover Catholic radicals like Berrigan finally started to taper off when the Feds started to hit them with real jail time (3+ years), not just slaps on the wrist. We need to do the same with these folks.

      • I am going to suppose that you do not notice the deep irony in your condemnation of Berrigan. Christians have put up with much more than “3+ years of jail time”, that is if you consider the idea of Christian martyrdom as having any validity at all. I would wager that you don’t. After all, what would a Christian stand up for today?

        In the sorts of predictable rehearsals that sometime go on, if I defend Barrigan it will be taken to mean that I defend all that he advocated and his general religious attitude (and I may not).

        Yet he was an activist opposed to war and war’s machinations, and it this is carried out properly I can’t think of more meaningful activism. In order to create conditions of peace we really will have to ‘study peace’. But that entire idea — to the ears of a classical Conservative — is laughed at. And often it seems unthinking Conservatives end up supporting Neoconservative projects and adventures which have not turned out (are not turning out well) for us . . . and not for those who suffer our ‘interventions’.

        All of the problems — and they are profound problems — that we see manifesting in our present are all connected together, and they need to be exposed to light and analyzed by intelligent, concerned people. The problems are ‘systemic’ and the only way to confront systemic problems is to a) see them and b) attempt to talk about rectification.

        If you dismiss Berrigan and his ant-war activism so easily, I doubt that you would be able to define any social and political activism that would take a stand against *power and its machinations*.

        Because that appears to be the case, one must wonder if you are merely subservient to power, without the concomitant consideration of ethics and morality.

        Berrigan’s political position, from what I know of it, shows elements of corruption (as I would define it) because it internalizes nearly all the ‘liberal assumption’s and is, also in my view, anti-hierarchical and as they say of Berrigan ‘anarchic’. But there is no part of his position that does not have a connection to solid Catholic social doctrine.

  6. I’ll be honest and say I thought there were enough statistical anomalies to warrant my being skeptical of President Obama’s second election victory. Combining that skepticism with the horrific hijinx of Benghazi and I was done with America’s first America second President. Recent events lead me to believe I was right to privately disregard him personally and officially when it did not directly effect me (unethical of me). However, I knew and accepted if a moment of real constitutional importance arrived I would have to take his word for things and subjugate my feelings and suspicions to his authority as President.

    Never would I encourage people to delegitimize Obama. Nor would I organize people to undermine the legitimate authority of the office. This is the difference between private doubt and public action of a Constitution abiding citizen. (I was never a birther for example.)

    Now, we have a propaganda machine almost entirely consumed with publicly undermining a President. It also appears the prior office holder, or at least members of his administration, are a substantial part of this machine along with the opposition party, a majority of the media and the data giants.

    This is how, in part, a statistical minority party (yes, a Nazi reference) came to control Germany and kill millions on a global scale.

    • It also appears the prior office holder, or at least members of his administration, are a substantial part of this machine along with the opposition party, a majority of the media and the data giants.

      This is how, in part, a statistical minority party (yes, a Nazi reference) came to control Germany and kill millions on a global scale.

      It seems to me that you almost but not quite proposing that this political régime which you locate in the prior office holder is more properly understood to be ‘systemic’.

      You mention a ‘machine’: an opposition party, a majority in the media, and the data giants. But what if one carried this assertion even farther and began to see it as ‘what America has become’ in a systemic sense? You seem to place blame in a limited area.

      One needs a different paradigm to view this ‘system’. And I might suggest that it involves the understanding that America has substantially become an empire and the ‘system’ is one that manages that empire. It is that itself which undermines the republican aspect of America, the passing of which we lament. If I am not mistaken this is the argument against ‘globalism’ and its ‘elite managers’.

      What if one were to see America’s adventures of the last 25 years through the Nazi-esque lens that you are proposing? Or put another way, what keeps you from seeing that these wars and much else going on are a manifestation of a profound error with alarming repercussions that arises out of systemic problems?

        • That certainly seems to be true. Obviously (and the point I keep making is tiresomely repeated because it is never acknowledged) is that the causation leading to the present corruption has systemic roots.

          Things will continue as they are now in corrupted form, or the corruption will be addressed by examining causation.

  7. From an opinion piece by Thomas Friedman: “Connect the Dots to See Where Trump’s Taking Us
    The direction and results are obvious”.

    Dot No. 1: Get the term “global warming” out of your head. What’s actually happening is better described as “global weirding.” The warming of the atmosphere makes the weather weird. First, the hots get hotter. This then leads to greater evaporation, which means there’s more water vapor in clouds for precipitation. So the wets get wetter and the floods get wider. But the droughts in dry areas also get drier.

    OK, but just as there is a perceived ‘global weirding’, at the same time, when one examines the psychology operative today, there is a great deal of what looks like ‘hysterical reaction’ which could be called psychological weirding.

    Here, with Friedman, note that a tremendous amount of ‘agency’ is given to Donald Trump, yet a better word is ‘projected onto Donald Trump’. I think it safe to say (it is a fair conclusion) that the American Left has projected its own intentions onto Trump when it hallucinated that if he lost the election he’d somehow refuse to accept the election result. But this is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to general psychological weirding.

    The strange associations going on here are interesting. The whole Earth is acting up it seems and the gods of the atmosphere (the sky-gods) are manifesting their fury and dissatisfaction with man and his ways. How odd it is that the Earth is felt to be unstable and that everything is shifting. Danger looms. These seem to be manifestations of psychological uncertainty and apprehension. Or, they draw out such reactions.

    A great deal of this is ‘projected’ onto Trump with an intensity that reveals the underlying psychological angst. This has been accelerated by NYTs ‘journalism’ with an intensity and passion that do not abate at any point. Even clear evidence against some ‘profound suspicion’ (Russian interference) cannot defeat the core psychological sentiment which decreases slightly for a moment, and then gather power and energy again and shows itself all over again.

    And what Friedman suggests is to ‘connect the dots’ and by doing so a larger pattern will become clear to us. This is an invitation to project in a hysterical social process that looks to be an externalization of projected psychological stuff. So, he could be seen as saying:

    “Trump is upsetting the Cosmic Order and if you *see* as I am seeing you will be able to *see* where this is going which is *obvious* if you engage with us in the projection”.

    It begins to look like a journalistic advertisement to engage in hysteria.

    Not only do we require a ‘master metaphysician’ to understand the nature of the time we are in, but a ‘master psychologist’! I think it must be suggested that this sort of thing cannot end well. It is, after all, a manifestation of psychological derangement. If things do go on in this trajectory some sort of cultural and social political crisis will manifest . . .

    • “(Fill in the blank) is upsetting the Cosmic Order and if you *see* as I am seeing you will be able to *see* where this is going which is *obvious* if you engage with us in the projection”.

      That pretty much sums up what it feels like to be entrenched in social justice politics (though it’s likely all dramatic activist politics carries this sort of emotional weight).

      I remember trying to make people *see* racism everywhere or sexism, homophobia, etc. There was always the imagined “Nazi” around the corner, ready to crush you physically or spiritually. This called for “anti-racists” or activists to be ever ready and to *show* others how prolific these crazy bald heads were. I remember teaching other folks how to scan for the color of laces on those who wore Doc Martins, back in the day, to discern the anti-racist skinheads from the racist ones, who all wore the same costume, save the color of laces. This seemed a matter of life and death. After all someone *showed* me and as a true believer, it was a duty to warn.

      That actual occasional brawls happened, between basically what was then the equivalents of today’s Antifa and the so-called alt. right, was Proof that all Jews and gays, and PoC had to beware. Of course I only witnessed one such street fight, and it had this strange air of a type of manifested state of being that came off as partially synthetic.

      I applied this memory to much of the gnashing of teeth I saw increasingly from moderate activists, once I stepped away from my previous mindset. Now though it seems this cosmic boogeyman vision has expanded to the media and anyone left of center (those right of center have their visions, but their propaganda doesn’t have the same base media reach currently).

      Where do we draw the line between perception and reality? How far can a false vision expand? This is why it’s helpful to discern these Big Lies.

      • That pretty much sums up what it feels like to be entrenched in social justice politics (though it’s likely all dramatic activist politics carries this sort of emotional weight).

        Where do we draw the line between perception and reality? How far can a false vision expand? This is why it’s helpful to discern these Big Lies.

        What interests me about what you wrote, as I have been thinking it over, turns back on one of the main topics of interest to me philosophically. This has to do with interpretation of reality.

        I think it is fair to say that we live in a time in which there is no accepted and understood Interpretation of Reality. Of course we know this as one dimension of so-called ‘postmdernism’.

        Interestingly though we do have an ‘interpretation of reality’ and it insists, though no one ever seems to state it concretely nor absolutely, that there are simply a wide, and often conflicting, array of ‘stories’ about Reality that people subscribe to, get sucked into, trick themselves into accepting, not because any one of them is *true* — since in this new understanding of things there really are no Truths — but because to believe something-anything is convenient.

        I also thought, when I read “Where do we draw the line between perception and reality? How far can a false vision expand?” that in order to converse with you (I mean a general *you* that is everyone/anyone) I would do best to a) identify myself within my *belief system* and b) ask you to do the same. This is effectively what my own position on this Blog has become: an interrogation of the Interpretation of others and an exposition on my own (sorry Jack!).

        At the same time I had to become aware of what I term my ‘liminal’ existence within Being. I turn back to my understanding that when we do not have a profound metaphysic to live in and through, that we effectively lose ‘location’, or have it taken away from us, and that we do not *come into reality more* as a result of losing our metaphysical location, but actually begin to live in a *liminal* non-place! I have actually come to see that in the ‘places of America’ I am familiar with (I know the Bay Area, the Denver region mostly, but I was recently in Ft Lauderdale and observed it strongly there) that the American Place has become a no-place. And that the people, the souls, that you find there ‘wander in a place of no-place’. Perhaps for the first time, in a more concrete way, I have finally grasped what postmodern means. So, to the degree that I am a modern, and this is to a high degree, I recognize that I have become a being that has lost her place. And that is how I would define liminal being:

        late 19th century: from Latin limen, limin- ‘threshold’

        Therefore, in my own case, the object of survival (and it has such a crucial aspect) is to properly define the metaphysics that allow myself to cross from liminal being to profound being.

        What has interested me and what has come into focus as a result of the interests I have, is to see and understand how people locate themselves. So, you have described the *world* of Social Justice Politics. But I propose that there is a world of Conservative American Politics (and I have to tie this in to the general inhabitants of this Blog) but that each *world* has, or should have, a soundly defined metaphysical base, and yet they do not! They really do not. They are both ‘liminal’ and they are both on ‘thresholds’ that do not veer toward structured definition, but in fact away from it into the American No-Place.

        And this is why it has become necessary to grab the term Americanopolis and use it as a sort of flogging device. Though I do this, and catch hell for it, there is no mean-spiritedness in this. I believe that the Americanopolis is 1) a real thing, 2) a ‘thing’ if you will that is intimately tied-up with a sort of ‘project’ of removing people substantially from ‘place’ and locating them in ‘no-place’. By ‘no-place’, obviously, I am referring to a spiritual state. But what has happened is that dislocated people create physical, external space that reflects and expresses non-place-ness. The quick and easy term for this is to refer to Walmart America, as a physical locale, as a disease of the spirit, as a blight, but also as an interior state of people devoid of properly grounded locality: that is, metaphysical orientation.

        Therefore, in relation to what you have written — a description of a ‘place’ in the sense that I mean when you refer to people attempting to *locate* themselves within meaning & activism — I would mention that the psychological dimension (psychological weirding) is highly relevant.

        I would wish to believe — though I may be very wrong — that the New Right or the Philosophical Right can offer a counter-current to the force that pulls people away from ‘authentic being’ and ‘veritable locality’ into the No-Place of the Americanopolis — a place where all meanings become impossibly confused — and helps people to restore themselves on proper metaphysical ground.

        And therefore I would say that I have to work to define in the most dramatic terms! the absolute relevance of ‘recovery of location’ and engagement with genuine activism within this plane of manifestation.

        This does not seem to involve joining in with The Masses or with Mass Opinion nor with Mass Politics nor with all this Noise that is going on around us, but in fact with the dissolution of that. Breaking with it. Our world — our modernity — has been constructed, I say this ironically, on a deconstruction, on a veering away from genuine Being in the Heideggerian sense.

        The Left (in one powerful sense) is the force that pulls one away from solid idea and solid metaphysics. To the degree that we are pulled along in the currents of today, and those currents are lefty, we veer away from genuine being.

        Therefore, the Right (in the philosophical sense) is reaction to and opposition to the Current that flows to Non-Being and No-Place. Only the Right can define structure as I see things. Because leftism and liberalism in its distorted Americanopolistic sense has constructed a *world* that is inauthentic. Now, I can say that I better understand what Heidegger meant when he spoke of the authentic vs the inauthentic.

        I think I have an example of what I mean. I think it really does illustrate a metaphysical condition of no-place. I have been fascinated — perhaps like a rat fascinated by the imposing glare of a cobra — by the technicolor film Singing in the Rain. It is emblematic of the ideology of the Americanopolis. It is composed of absolute no-meaning and no-importance but dressed as it were in the unreally-real saturated tones of Technicolor®. It has no meaning nor importance in any sense beyond itself as Spectacle. And yet it represents a world and becomes a world. But it is also composed of nearly incredible craft and expertise! Craft and thought and planning and skill go into it — and yet it goes no-place. Its object is no-place at all! And yet it conquers!

        I have no summation to offer. I only do here what I have always tried to do: get clear about the nature of the present.

  8. Excellent exposition Jack, and insightful comments as well. Concerning prior presidencies, as mariedowd said,”none of them ended up as bad as I feared, nor as good as I hoped.” I share this sentiment, although guess in general this applies to everyone I ever voted for. My first presidential vote was for Nixon in 1972!
    I am generally an optimistic person, often skeptical but optimistic, but lately I have started to wonder, “what comes after Trump?” The Democrats are still in denial about the 2016 election and at this point a second term for the President seems highly likely. The Republicans still don’t “get” why Trump defeated their slate of “business as usual” 2016 candidates. Will there be another “Trump” (outsider, populist, thumb-in-their-eye candidate), will enough voters be seduced by the wonders of socialism to send us (further) down that road, will we go back to the “choice that really isn’t much of a choice” between middle of the road Dems and Republicans, or will we head in some other direction that I can’t even see at this point?
    Of late, the skeptic in me fears that we will continue to gradually lose our constitutional republic, due to the “Big Lie” and other leftist tactics and methods that are daily the subject of comment on this blog, until a sufficient number of people claim and act upon the “right to revolution” just as our founders did. Even Tennessee’s post-War of Northern Aggression constitution states (Article I, §1) “That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.”
    This will likely not happen in my lifetime, but I am daily more convinced of the inevitability of such action in the historic short term. I hope the republic can be restored by less drastic means, but I am no longer optimistic about it..

  9. Rep. John Lewis, whose position for two decades has been that no Republican President is legitimate, since he boycotted both the inauguration of George W. Bush and Trump, went a long way toward spreading Big Lie #2 by saying on NBC that he did not see Trump as a legitimate President because “Russian interference” resulted in the revelation of DNC documents and may have altered the election results.

    I wonder if these people who complained about “Russian interference” resulting in the ” revelation of DNC documents” also complained about “media interference” regarding the revelation of the Access Hollywood tape.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.