It is estimated that 136.8 million Americans cast a ballot in the 2016 election, where 65,443,689 million of the votes went to Hillary Clinton. Since the election, debates have raged and liberals have complained. Many do not believe that Donald Trump should have been elected.

Their claim is that while Trump won the electoral college, Hillary won the popular vote by about 1%. Democrats argue that this is not fair and that they would like to do away with the electoral college and decide elections based on the popular vote.

They would like the public to overlook the fact that doing so would completely alter how our elections are decided. It would amount to letting the country’s largest cities decide who gets elected to be President for the entire nation. The most populated cities who would be in control would include New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Democrats protests have included riots and recount attempts. Today a liberal author named Mark Weston has called for a new type of revolt.

Weston is a journalist, writer, and speaker, as well as the author of five books, including “Prophets and Princes: Saudi Arabia from Muhammad to the Present” and his latest book released this year, “The Runner-Up Presidency: The Elections that Defied America’s Popular Will.” He also writes articles for several magazines.

This morning Time magazine published an article by Weston addressing Clinton voters. He claimed that due to Republicans refusing to listen, a new type of action must be taken, “Democrats must, therefore, pester Republicans where it hurts: the pocketbook.” His reasoning is that liberals have tried all types of reasoning including “appeals to fairness” and of course taunting, “Are you afraid of a direct election? Can’t you win a straight-up vote? doesn’t faze them.”

Weston wants to be very clear, he doesn’t mean, stop paying taxes right now, because that would be illegal. He writes, “Is signing a pledge to not pay taxes legal? Yes, if no overt act of conspiracy is involved, and the pledge itself is hypothetical. No one knows when or if it would be carried out.”

He proposes a hypothetical situation and then gives exact instructions as to how this should done. He also proceeds to threaten Republicans:

“A national movement not to pay federal taxes in the future would put Republicans on notice: they do not have the right to impose a hard-right, second-place presidency on a moderate nation every dozen or so years. If the Republicans won’t help amend the Constitution so that America can resume being a democracy, then Democrats, lacking the representation that supporters of a future popular vote-winner ought to have in the executive branch, should not submit to paying taxes to the federal government.”

He does not stop to explain how this plan avoids hurting everyone and not just Republicans. The major flaw in his logic is that more Democratic voters rely on federal tax money.
One-in-five (22%) Democrats say they had received food stamps compared with 10% of Republicans.
Three in ten Democrats (31%) and about half as many Republicans (17%) say they or someone in their household has benefitted from the food stamp program.
Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%).
Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps.
Minority women in particular are far more likely than their male counterparts to have used food stamps. About four-in-ten black women (39%) have gotten help compared with 21% of black men. The gender-race participation gap is also wide among Hispanics: 31% of Hispanic women but 14% of Hispanic men received assistance.
White women are about twice as likely as white men to receive food stamp assistance (19% vs. 11%)
It is quite difficult to find the rationality among even those few statistics.

So what does Mark Weston think is the first step in his revolt? First, “an online group such as, or both, should circulate a petition. The pledge is not just a powerful protest; it is also effortless, requiring no legal or financial sacrifice at all for years, possibly decades.”

His last point is one of the most ridiculous in the article. “…if a Republican wins the election without winning the popular vote again, we should still pay what we owe in federal taxes—just not to the IRS. Instead, people would compute their federal taxes, file a Form 1040 and write a check to a national escrow account, preferably in a well-established Canadian or British bank that is beyond the reach of the U.S. Justice Department, because whoever opens this account probably will be in violation of U.S. law. In the check’s memo line, people should write, ‘Funds to be transferred to the IRS as soon as America resumes being a democracy.’”

Weston reassures his readers that these drastic measures will not be necessary. He is confident that threats and bullying will be enough to accomplish liberal goals. “The beauty of a no-taxation pledge is that it almost certainly won’t have to be carried out. The mere threat could be enough to propel a Constitutional amendment. If millions sign now, Republicans will know that a third modern Republican runner-up presidency is impossible; Democrats will not be cooperative again.”

It is quite possible that this movement will gain strength. Jill Stein convinced people to donate millions for a recount of votes that has proven less than helpful to Democrats. Cities are defying federal laws to protect illegal immigrants. Schools are offering counseling to students upset about the election. This is a time of insane acts designed to create fear and disorder.

Mark Weston and the Democrats need to stop the tantrums. It is time for them to accept the loss and try again in 4 years.