The Trump opposition: Hell hath no fury like Democrats' scorn
© Getty Images

Taking a page out of Hamas’ Charter towards the State of Israel, ever-grieving Democrats continue to march in lockstep against the results of the 2016 Presidential Election, condemning Donald Trump as a loathsome aberration and recognizing his right to exist — as president — only until he is obliterated.

In Leftist minds, the Trump presidency is an act of ungodly usurpation — some twisted “Art of the Deal” takeover and gaming of the system — which not only commands his smiting, but also requires that it be carried out expeditiously with vengeance and humiliation. 

Trump’s destruction is nothing less than the moral battle for the soul of America, and his sacrifice will reconcile God and the Democrats for the mortal sin of ever allowing him to be elected president in the first place.

Reaching this level of hatred and contempt has required cultivation.

ADVERTISEMENT
Yes, Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWoman behind pro-Trump Facebook page denies being influenced by Russians Trump: CNN, MSNBC 'got scammed' into covering Russian-organized rally Pennsylvania Democrats set to win big with new district map MORE and her supporters certainly never missed an opportunity to declare Donald Trump unworthy to be commander-in-chief; however, history will show that the true seeds of Trump’s “illegitimacy” were officially sown and sanctioned on August 2, 2016 —ironically, by way of presidential imprimatur.

For it was on that day at a press conference in the White House East Room that President Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaOvernight Energy: Dems ask Pruitt to justify first-class travel | Obama EPA chief says reg rollback won't stand | Ex-adviser expects Trump to eventually rejoin Paris accord Overnight Regulation: Trump to take steps to ban bump stocks | Trump eases rules on insurance sold outside of ObamaCare | FCC to officially rescind net neutrality Thursday | Obama EPA chief: Reg rollback won't stand Ex-US ambassador: Mueller is the one who is tough on Russia MORE stood next to the Prime Minister of Singapore and announced to the world, “the Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president.

The unprecedented audacity and traitorous nature of such an shocking statement — a sitting U.S. President publicly denouncing the duly elected presidential nominee of a major political party — had barely sunk in, when Obama slid the dagger in even further: “The fact that he doesn’t appear to have the basic knowledge around critical issues . . . means that he’s woefully unprepared to do this job. . . . There has to be a point in which you say this is not somebody I can support for president of the United States.

Yet, despite three more months of Obama-inspired beat downs — even sweetened by Madonna’s heartwarming public service announcement at an Amy Schumer show in support of Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ worst nightmare came to pass and Trump pulled off the impossible.

Suddenly the race to invalidate the general election, before the inauguration, was on—and by any means necessary.

The Democratic “illegitimacy” machine roared into full gear: recounts were demanded; Electoral College voters were encouraged to be “faithless” (the lives of faithful ones were threatened); FBI chief Comey’s eleventh-hour treachery was denounced; white, blue-collar, Midwestern voters were slandered as hayseeds and “racists”; proposals for the abolishment of the Electoral College were drafted; and insidious Russian hackings were cause to call for a new election. 

But nothing stuck to the wall.

Rudderless and drifting, the Democrats went rogue and tried the unthinkable—reconciliation.

Promises were made to “work with him (Trump) on things we can agree on” (Sen. Sherrod BrownSherrod Campbell BrownLawmaker interest in NAFTA intensifies amid Trump moves Dem senator shares photo praising LeBron James after Laura Ingraham attacks Trump gets recommendation for steep curbs on imported steel, risking trade war MORE, D–Ohio) and even Minority Leader Chuck SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerDemocrats now attack internet rules they once embraced Schumer: Trump budget would ‘cripple’ gun background checks Schumer: Senate Republicans' silence 'deafening' on guns, Russia MORE offered to “work in good faith on issues like infrastructure and trade.”

But wholly unaccustomed to political rapprochement, the honeymoon lasted but a few days, and overwrought with fear and loathing, the Left opted for more familiar tried and true Progressive tactics: never admitting defeat; never allowing the rhetoric to cool down; and never accepting blame for anything bad. 

If the Obama administration has proved anything, it was that if you repeat lies loud enough and long enough, sooner or later the people will believe them.

Enter Rep. John Lewis, he of the impeccable civil rights pedigree, who told Chuck Todd on Meet the Press: “I don’t see the president-elect as a legitimate president. I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected.” 

It was a flat-out “conspiracy.” And as such, he would not be attending the inauguration—“It will be the first one that I miss since I’ve been in Congress.”

EMBED VIDEO HERE

Not quite. Apparently he forgot that he also boycotted George Bush’s 2001 swearing-in—denying the legitimacy of that election as well.

But truth be told, there have always been cracks in Lewis’ righteousness. His default position has always been to paint his political rivals as unworthy and racist — particularly likening them to George Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama during the 1960s and ‘70s.

In 2008, Lewis attacked John McCainJohn Sidney McCainLawmakers worry about rise of fake video technology Democrats put Dreamers and their party in danger by playing hardball Trump set a good defense budget, but here is how to make it better MORE (and Sarah Palin) for “sowing the seeds of hatred and division” and suggested that McCain was reminiscent of Wallace—a charge for which McCain has never forgiven Lewis.

During last year’s primaries, the Wallace comparisons were raised: “I’ve been around a while and Trump reminds me so much of a lot of things that George Wallace said and did.”

And most recently, at the confirmation hearings of Sen. Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsUnder pressure, Trump shifts blame for Russia intrusion Overnight Tech: Judge blocks AT&T request for DOJ communications | Facebook VP apologizes for tweets about Mueller probe | Tech wants Treasury to fight EU tax proposal Overnight Regulation: Trump to take steps to ban bump stocks | Trump eases rules on insurance sold outside of ObamaCare | FCC to officially rescind net neutrality Thursday | Obama EPA chief: Reg rollback won't stand MORE (R-AL), Lewis invoked Wallace yet again, saying “calls for law and order will mean today what it meant in Alabama when I was coming up back then.”

The list goes back almost 40 years.

As the charge of Trump’s illegitimacy roils on, it will warm Lewis’ heart that plans are afoot for to impeach President TrumpDonald John TrumpAccuser says Trump should be afraid of the truth Woman behind pro-Trump Facebook page denies being influenced by Russians Shulkin says he has White House approval to root out 'subversion' at VA MORE. (Lewis called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.) Two civil rights groups, Free Speech for People and RootsAction have launched a new website, and have called on supporters to join a petition demanding Congress determine whether there is enough evidence—on the grounds of conflicts of interest—to warrant Trump’s impeachment. Picking up the baton, the American Civil Liberties Union is in the process of obtaining government documents to see if these claims can be substantiated.

In the end, like Iran’s stance towards Israel, to Democrats—the destruction of President Donald J. Trump is non-negotiable.

Russell Paul La Valle is an opinion writer whose work has appeared in the The Washington Post, The New York Times, New York Daily News, Newsday and The Village Voice.  and many others. He is a former contributing editor to the philosophical think tank, The Objectivist Center.


The views expressed by Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.