The week began with a donor to Elizabeth Warren with a Biden–Harris bumper sticker on his truck allegedly hiding in the bushes for 12 hours with an SKS rifle hoping to blow off Donald Trump’s head as he golfed. In response to the second such attempt on the former president’s life this summer, a majority of Democrats answered “not sure” (25 percent) or “yes” (28 percent) to the question of “Would America be better off if Donald Trump had been killed last weekend.” Their leaders gave them the green light. Hillary Rodham Clinton described Trump to Rachel Maddow on Monday as a “danger to our country and the world.” This over-the-top judgment cast so soon after the attempted murder of the former president seemed as though part of a concerted effort by party panjandrums to counter what happened in the polls the last time someone tried to assassinate Donald Trump from happening again. “And you hear this ‘fight, fight, fight’ chant, which you heard Trump do right after the shooting in Butler,” Jen Psaki said to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, adding: “That does scare me a little bit.” Warren, the author of A Fighting Chance, This Fight Is Our Fight, and Only Righteous Fights, expressed an epiphany, at least when it comes to Donald Trump using such language, in calling his a “very, very different kind of approach.” She added that Trump, nearly murdered by one of her small-dollar donors through an unkind in-kind contribution to Democrats on Sunday, “puts us all at risk.” Or does life-or-death rhetoric such as Warren’s do that? A University of Chicago poll found a far greater number of opponents than supporters of Donald Trump supporting violence to prevent the opposing side from taking power. The Maine and Colorado secretaries of state who sought to delete Trump’s name from ballots, the hectoring lawsuits designed to bankrupt the former president both financially and reputationally, and the politicized indictments that threatened the Republican nominee with 717.5 years in prison (show that to anyone saying Democrats are soft on crime) all sought what Ryan Wesley Routh sought: the disenfranchisement of all Trump supporters. “How many more assassination attempts on Donald Trump until the president and vice president and you pick a different word to describe Trump other than ‘threat’?” Fox News Channel’s Peter Doocy asked Karine Jean-Pierre on Tuesday. The White House press secretary, who referred to Trump as a “threat” during the briefing, responded by labeling his question “incredibly dangerous.” Peter Baker wrote in the New York Times Monday, “At the heart of today’s eruption of political violence is Mr. Trump, a figure who seems to inspire people to make threats or take actions both for him and against him.” Liberals once called such rationales “blaming the victim.” They cannot fathom a political opponent they so despise as a victim, so they depict Trump as always and everywhere the perpetrator — even when a nutter tries to kill him. If Ryan Wesley Routh had succeeded, would the New York Times someday judge it a suicide? One could see the sizable pro-assassination segment of the Democratic Party cheering it on. This all seems deranged. It’s not new. In 1963, when a Marxist murdered the president of the United States, the Communist Party frantically sought to obscure Lee Harvey Oswald’s communications with its leadership by releasing “Who Really Killed Pres. Kennedy?” nine days later. “Who really was he?” it asked of Oswald. “An adventurer who was made the ‘fall guy’ by higher ups? A dupe? Or an innocent victim? What is the truth?” The pamphlet issued by the Communist Party of Illinois claimed that “only the Ultra Right and the Southern Racists” benefitted, and pointed out “Dallas is the stronghold of the Ultra Right” and “the John Birch Society.” It said nothing of Oswald receiving literature from the CPUSA, requesting its lawyer John Abt serve as his lawyer, or that the assassin had lived in the Soviet Union from 1959 until the previous year. The pattern continued because it worked so well in the case of Kennedy that many self-described conservatives eventually parroted it. A Nation of Islam hit squad did not murder Malcolm X, insisted his votaries; the CIA, the FBI, and other shadowy groups did. More than a decade ago when Jared Lee Loughner murdered six people and severely wounded Rep. Gabby Gifford, the likes of Paul Krugman, Joan Walsh, and Keith Olbermann reflexively blamed the Right. “As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” a former classmate, Caitie Parker, tweeted. She later described him as “a political radical.” Ultimately, Loughner’s mug shot, in which he looked like a cross between The Wall’s Pink and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’s Billy Bibbit, offered more fertile ground than did politics to find root cause. A Rorschach Test quality colors the politics-on-the-brain Left’s response to violence, political or otherwise. The facts rarely guide their assessments. Their ideological hatreds do in almost all instances. Donald Trump ultimately does not threaten democracy or the world. He threatens whether Democrats control the White House. The politically obsessed cannot distinguish between the latter and the former. READ MORE: A Troubling Preview of Harris’ Housing Policies Harris’ Truancy Crackdown Comes Back to Haunt Her Trump Assassination Attempt With GoPro in Tow The post Will the Real Threats to Democracy Please Stand Up? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.