Tomorrow will be an anniversary of sorts. For it was on that day, January 6, when 31 House lawmakers tried to deny a presidential election victory to its rightful winner and, in doing so, became the first congressional election deniers in modern American history.

That event took place on January 6, all right — January 6, 2005. And the deniers weren’t Republicans. Instead, they were a band of sore-losing Democrats who were desperately trying to deny the awarding of Ohio’s electoral votes to President George W. Bush, who’d won the decisive Buckeye State by 118,601 votes, hardly a razor-thin margin. Among the deniers that day was a familiar face — that of South Carolina’s James Clyburn, the man most responsible for propping up a decrepit Joe Biden in early 2020 and propelling him to the Democrat nomination for president.

Detroit Democrat John Conyers took to the House floor that dark day to claim that “electronic machines transferred” votes from John Kerry — the man James Taranto habitually and hilariously called “the haughty, French-looking Democrat who by the way served in Vietnam” — to the younger Bush. That, Conyers insisted, created “significantly more votes than voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one ballot.”

Conyers even claimed — get this — that Diebold, a maker of voting machines, had “reprogrammed the computer by remote dial-up” to alter the outcome of the Ohio election.

We recount this forgotten history because Democrats routinely accuse their political opponents of precisely that which they are guilty of. And they tend to get away with it because the mainstream media lets them.

But we here at The Patriot Post aren’t the mainstream media.

Accordingly, then, on the eve of tomorrow’s election-deniers’ anniversary, we also must call attention to the most consequential of a new generation of election deniers: New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries, the man poised to become our nation’s next House minority leader.

All throughout this most recent election cycle, we heard the Democrats and their Leftmedia lickspittles label one Republican candidate after another as an election denier. Strangely, though, they were stone-cold silent about Jeffries, who himself was running for reelection — even though Jeffries has a well-known history of election denialism. We mentioned Jeffries’s denialism back in mid-November, but given his pending perch atop the House Democrat caucus, we think it deserves a bit more sunlight.

“The more we learn about 2016 election,” Jeffries said back on February 16, 2018, “the more ILLEGITIMATE it becomes. America deserves to know whether we have a FAKE President in the Oval Office.”

“Climate Change is NOT a hoax. But 45’s election may have been,” went another post. And, “The real hoax is likely your so-called election victory” went still another one.

Predictably, Time magazine rushed to Jeffries’s defense, weakly running the headline: “Top Republicans Are Attacking Hakeem Jeffries as an ‘Election Denier.’ Here’s Why That Label Is Misleading.”

Time then offered this explanation: “The term ‘election denier’ has taken on a particular meaning, however, after Trump’s failed re-election campaign. The phrase has come to be associated with Republicans who claim the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, assert without evidence there was fraud in 2020 voting, and cast doubt on secure voting systems — claims that lead to the deadly January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.”

So, according to the Leftmedia, “Calling Jeffries an ‘election denier’ is misleading and conflates different issues.”

Uh-huh. It conflates election denialism with election denialism.

Clearly, neither the hypocrisy nor the double standard are lost on Texas Congressman Ronny Jackson, who put the question rhetorically: “Hakeem Jeffries called the 2016 election ILLEGITIMATE. Why are Democrats electing an ELECTION DENIER to lead their party? Where is the media outrage labeling Jeffries a THREAT to Democracy?”

Are we making too big a deal of this obviously bogus terminology or history? After all, the ability to question the validity of an election is one of the fundamental liberties of a free people. Should we simply move on then? Not if we’re to take Joe Biden for his word. (We know, work with us.) All we need to remember is that dark, Third-Reichy Independence Hall speech he gave last September 1 — especially this part:

Democracy cannot survive when one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election: either they win or they are cheated. I will not stand by and watch elections in this country stolen by people who simply refuse to accept that they lost. …

I will not stand by and watch — I will not — the will of the American people be overturned by wild conspiracy theories and baseless, evidence-free claims of fraud.

So if ol’ Scranton Joe is disinclined to stand by while folks “simply refuse to accept that they lost,” who are we to disagree?

If — if — the term means anything at all, Hakeem Jeffries is an election denier. Full stop. And the Democrats had better get used to the label.

Updated with a brief observation about elections and free peoples.