Trump’s Far-Right Endorses Suspending The Constitution
By Michael Hoffman
www.RevisionistHistory.org
General Michael Flynn, fresh from his pardon by the president, has endorsed a statement by the Right-wing “We the People Convention,” stating that Trump must “declare a limited form of Martial Law, temporarily suspend the Constitution, have the military oversee a national re-vote and silence the media.”
The “We the People Convention” is calling for a re-vote to include “only registered voters with photo IDs, to be limited to only paper ballots, to be hand counted and with members of both Democrat and Republican parties observing.”
Yes, indeed, all U.S. voting ought to be conducted like that. But Trump needed to have that in place prior to the November election, not after his defeat.
For any “conservative” GOP group to advocate suspension of the United States Constitution makes a mockery of everything for which patriots stand. And Trump's ex-National Security Advisor, who is so IQ-challenged he was entrapped with ease by the FBI when he was serving in the White House, is complicit in this Fascist, precedent-setting treason, thereby fulfilling Leftist predictions, reflective of Cass Sunstein’s stratagem for “cognitive infiltration” of the easily duped and misdirected Right-wing, now identified as an anti-Constitutional force.
Here we observe the cultivated chaos that has swirled around Donald Trump for four years. Mr. Trump is not a detail man and the “detail” of only paper ballot voting by citizens with photo IDs should have been his prime focus, raised repeatedly and emphatically before November.
The objective of the current chaos is to throw the key Georgia senatorial election in January into a too-close-to-call contest wherein the Democrats’ candidates squeak through, thereby handing control of Congress to Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. Trump’s sloppy, lazy and unfocused handling of the election controversy has been indicative of his whole presidency, with its myriad lost opportunities, together with an off-putting, blowhard persona that has exhausted and alienated many of his erstwhile supporters.
President Trump should be projecting a calm, statesman-like demeanor. He can effectively retaliate against his perceived enemies in the media and the crooked elections establishment, by campaigning energetically from one end of the state of Georgia to the other between now and January 5, narrowly focused on demanding an exclusive in-person, paper ballot, photo ID election. Even if that goal is not implemented in January it can intimidate and preempt a planned vote fraud.
The end result of a focused campaign in the Peach Tree State, one which eschews whining and projects dignity in the face of a possibly stolen presidential election, while generating sympathy for Mr. Trump and the GOP, would very likely be victory in Georgia, retention of Republican control of the Senate and consequently, a crucially important brake on the revolutionary schemes of Harris and Biden.
If however, he continues to play the part of a petulant sore loser while his allies urge suspending the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights), you can bet those derisory images and dire threats will turn up in Democratic attack ads, and a majority Republican U.S. Senate will have been sacrificed to the engorged ego of Donald Trump and the native Fascism of his most fanatical partisans.
Copyright© MMXX
www.RevisionistHistory.org
_______________________
Michael Hoffman is the editor of the periodical Revisionist History®
Independent History & Research
Box 849 • Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816
I cannot say that I disagree with your commentary. Unfortunately, were a form of martial law be declared and/or the Constitution "temporarily" be suspended, to my mind, it would be another affirmation the many court 'rulings' handed down over the past century or more.
ReplyDeleteA reader offers the following criticism
ReplyDelete(We welcome dissent and disagreements such as that of the civil B.T., although we don't always have the time to reply)
On Dec 3, 2020, at 12:11, B.T. wrote:
Greetings Mr. Hoffman,
I don't know any more than you do about the FBI-Flynn interviews, but it is apparent that it was a witch hunt and General Flynn was targeted. Assuming you have not gained access to the General's military personnel files and his cognitive testing results, without knowing the specifics, why refer to him as "IQ challenged" simply based off of the limited knowledge you have regarding his entrapment by the FBI? Do you believe you would have fared better than General Flynn in a similar situation? If not, would you or should I consider you to be "IQ challenged"?
Your writings and your books have opened my eyes to many things and have changed my world view and I'm appreciative and grateful, but at the risk of offending you, you sometimes come off as haughty and judgemental with your name calling. I'm afraid that rather than being an effective strategy, it may tend to distract or deter some readers from your mission and your message.
I hope you and your family are well,
B.T.
Stillwater, MN
____________
Dear B.T.
General Michael Flynn was the National Security Adviser, as you know.
As you also surely realize there have been a host of falsely accused persons, from celebrity chef and designer Martha Stewart on down, who were investigated for crimes they did not commit, and then convicted and imprisoned solely for “lying to the FBI.”
The rule of thumb for any American citizen is that you never, ever speak to an agent of the FBI except in the presence and upon the advice of an astute attorney. This is not rocket science. It’s elementary personal legal security 101. For General Flynn, the Federal official assigned the top responsibility for advising the President of the United States and Commander in Chief in matters of security, to gullibly submit to an FBI “conversation” in the White House on the basis that — Golly gee whiz, these fellas are my friends — does indeed, it seems to me, merit for him the appellation, "IQ-challenged.”
I sometimes write in the same vein and tenor as Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken (though I am nowhere near their league of wordsmithing mastery), and if you are familiar with their observations on all and sundry, you would find them often at least as acerbic as my evaluation of Gen. Flynn’s competence, now compounded by his abysmal endorsement of the so-called We the People Convention’s advocacy of the suspension of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, a crime for which Abraham Lincoln rightly forever bears the stigma of tyrant.
Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
Michael Hoffman wrote: "The rule of thumb for any American citizen is that you never, ever speak to an agent of the FBI except in the presence and upon the advice of an astute attorney. This is not rocket science. It’s elementary personal legal security 101."
ReplyDeleteCorrection Michael. You should never speak to—i.e. be questioned by—a police officer (let alone a federal agent) without your lawyer present. The police officer is not your "friend" as so many naively think when being "interviewed" by them. Even your Miranda rights warn you that anything you say to them can be used against you in a court of law. Further, if they have no cause to detain you during the interrogation and you're hungry or tired etc. then you're actually free to leave the meeting anytime. My knowledge of this has come, not from first hand experience thankfully, but from watching crime docos like 48 Hours in which unwitting victims have ended up confessing to crimes they never committed and spending countless years in prison fighting for their freedom. The American justice system ironically is a source of much injustice and in desperate need of reform.
Yah, Mike. The machine's broken. The Supreme Court dropped the ball, and now it's a free for all. The Liberal Democrats are claiming victory. Either their coup de'etat stands, or the opposition gives them a run for their money. You are timid. Democracy has proven an unworkable political system. It's dictatorship ahead. As it stands,the godless are in control. If the Christians want to dispute who the dictators will be, why are you siding with the atheists? I thought you were supposed to be a Roman "Catholic".
ReplyDelete