The Constitutional Crisis of Rejecting Election Losses

"Constitutional crisis" and "Democrat" have never been more closely aligned.  Considering all the dangers of the Democratic Party – exploiting our youth into Redcoat Hitler Youth gun control activists and violence against fellow Americans who don't share their political beliefs, to name just two – one under-the-radar danger will soon, I expect, become over the radar:

The Democrats will never, ever again accept presidential election losses.

So what's to stop them from never accepting congressional losses, either in the House or Senate?  What about gubernatorial and state elections?  Local?  School board?  Dog-catcher?

Trump and Bush were "illegitimate"

Why is it that elections have consequences, as President Obama famously said in 2009, only when Democrats win?  "Elections have consequences," in Democratspeak, translates to "I won, you lost, and I don't need to work with you – you need to work with me."  And you know what?  Those who say that are correct.

But why isn't it also correct when Republicans win?  Democrats always deem as illegitimate those who defeat them.  This is nothing new.  President George W. Bush endured throughout his entire presidency the lie that his two terms were illegitimate, as well as the lie that he was installed by the United States Supreme Court as a Manchurian candidate via some sophisticated conspiracy among the five justices who voted to end the Florida recount, former Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris, and Ralph Nader.  Albert Gore won the popular vote, by half a million votes, because of California and New York, where he received a combined 10 million more votes than Bush.

President Trump has thus far endured the lie that his 18-month presidency is illegitimate, as well as the lie that he was installed by Russian president Vladimir Putin as a Manchurian candidate via some sophisticated conspiracy among former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was with the campaign for a whopping 150 days; a dozen Russians, whom not one Democrat voter could actually name and whose offenses not one Democrat could describe; and former Manafort political firm partner Roger Stone, who said he quit the Trump campaign (it was a diversion!).  Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes because of California and New York, where she received a combined 6 million more votes than Trump.

The same guy Democrats called a buffoon also supposedly conspired with Putin in a brilliantly designed covert international collusion operation.  If only Tom Clancy, rest in peace, were alive to tackle that fiction. 

Democrat voters are a Manchurian electorate

The ideology of the Democratic Party is a lethal Molotov cocktail with equal parts lies, violence, and stupidity.  Most Democrats are so drunk on this cocktail that they make Nicolas Cage's raging alcoholic character in Leaving Las Vegaslook like the Dalai Lama of teetotalism.

Talking points, mud-slinging, and political narrative take me back to the good ol' days of American politics.  Hell, even Tip O'Neill knew he had to befriend President Reagan, who was Hitler before Bush and Trump were.

But what we're now witnessing is unsustainable.  Even with past corruption, cronyism, and treason (of which we're aware), America prevailed; she's remained stable – more stable than any other nation, when considering our military and economic might.  More than any other, the most influential singular reason for our electoral equilibrium – for our peaceful transfers of powers – has been our Constitution, a constitution that other nations, which have existed for far longer than these United States, have sought to emulate.

I know, unfortunately, that most Democrat voters are too violent, too stupid, or too dishonest to grasp that they're a Manchurian electorate.  I'm not excusing it.  What I'm saying is, how can America withstand these people?  There's only one way.

We must view the Democratic Party and their sycophantic voters, addicted to the anti-Trump occult and the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) as an existential threat to (lowercase d) democratic institutions and, in our case,constitutional institutions.  There is a growing number of Democrats who have morphed into political terrorists.  Think about it: what is the true aim of terrorism?  It is not, in my opinion, to kill; murder is just part of the cost of doing business.  No, the goal of terrorism is to instill within the target a state of perpetual fear.  Democrat voters believe in their right to terrorize.  The election of Trump didn't create their totalitarianism.  What our win did do, however, was nakedly expose these people for who they've always been: Leninist-Marxist lapdogs with a fetish for unlimited government control over their opposition, and with zero regard for the will of the people – unless it's an outcome they want. 

America has experienced tumultuous times, and those, too, passed.  There's something different in the air at this moment in our history.  The Democratic Party is done for, and the smarter politicians in the party apparatus know it.  You think it's a coincidence that "democratic socialists" (as opposed to tyrannical, murderous socialists) are the future of the party?

Our Founders innately understood that the United States is much more likely to collapse from enemies within than from abroad.  Our republic is only as strong as its weakest link.  When Ben Franklin remarked that we were a republic, and not a monarchy, never forget the second half of his remark: if you can keep it.

To my fellow America First voters: conquer, or be conquered.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/the_constitutional_crisis_of_rejecting_election_losses.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/a_good_slogan_for_the_wrong_party.html