Lawless Left

Did you miss it all evolving? Maybe you could have, if you were not paying attention this week. Within a day of an unknown candidate winning a primary race in Queens, NY, over Joseph Crowley, Democrats solidified their “abolish ICE” position. Three days later they were in the streets protesting to demonstrate their newfound position. Mainsteaming it complete. Within days, NY’s junior Senator was wholeheartedly sporting the position.

But no one saw that one coming. They could be excused for a host of reasons. But no one heard of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez before that either, the 28 year-old Bernie socialist.

It was like a meteor hitting. By Saturday, media reported 750 marches of protest across the country. It was so quick; evolution is now lightning speed with Democrats.

It normally starts with the same line.

Let’s be crystal clear, when Democrats say “this is not who we are,” what they are really saying is that we are not a country that respects the rule of law. We are not a country that should protect its borders from invasion. And finally, what they are saying is that we are a lawless people….or should be. That’s the way, uh-huh uh-huh. they like it.

Yes, I know that is a radical statement but it is not hyperbole. At least it represents the Democrats and their party to a tee. Lawlessness is key in their agenda.

But I know people disagree. Somehow I am being dishonest. Though the facts stand contrary to that argument. They only “respect” the rule of law when it fits their political agenda, and only for as long as it does.

So Democrats are lawless, like those people they “stand up” for and encourage.

Obama pipes up, as the latest push of the illegal invasion spawns media stories about children being separated from parents and families. Washington Examiner:

Obama added Americas hold the common ideal “that all of us are created equal, and all of us deserve the chance to become something better.”

“That’s the legacy our parents and grandparents and generations before created for us, and it’s something we have to protect for the generations to come,” he continued. “But we have to do more than say ‘this isn’t who we are.’ We have to prove it – through our policies, our laws, our actions, and our votes.” — Obama commenting on World Refugee Day.

Here we go with the same code words again, ‘this is not who we are.’ They said it on preventing terrorists from coming to America, or getting tough on Islamists. The travel ban was the latest. But thankfully that power has remained within the president.

Look, they have no respect for law really. When in their favor, they say “that’s the law, period.” But otherwise, if you don’t like the law, or don’t believe it is right, then civil disobedience is the answer. Defy the law, and protest it. But respect it? No chance. So there is no illusion Democrats respect the law. If they don’t like it, they simply ignore it as their right. And they will go to battle against the rule of law.

Another great line for Democrats in prime time talking points.

Their other favorite words to repeat, “we are better then that.” But no, Democrats are not better than that. They only use words like a lemon meringue pie in your face. They are revealing the truth, they have no respect for the rule of law — only the politics of activism. The more radical the position the better it sells.

They want open borders and lawlessness. What is next, you might ask? They already called for abolishing local police forces. That seemed radical even for them, but maybe no more. Basically anything that stands in the way of lawlessness could be a target. Or anything that stands in the way of chaos and anarchy. (their other best friend)

It is a hard case to make that progressives want vast government control over every element in your lives, where the nanny state rules, and yet want people to be lawless. I guess that is what happens in “evolution,” sometimes it missfires. If you have people that don’t care about consistency or hypocrisy, or even decency, and grounded by nothing larger than themselves, then this is the inevitable result. A collision of forces.

Desperation can do dangerous things. The left will cling to any new – hopefully radical — idea now that might be popular with their radical, angry base. All at an alarming speed. What is the next new thing? Who could predict? But it is not pretty.

The central rule is Republicans and conservatives, their enemies, should follow and be saddled by the law but Leftists? Not so much.

Right Ring | Bullright

Gen. Hayden sees DHS as Nazis

So here we go. let the Nazi comparisons begin. But they are done by Obama VIPs and the calcified left.

Gateway Pundit

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden just compared the US to Nazis.

Jim Hoft

Hayden is outraged that immigrants are separated from their children when they come into the country illegally.

It doesn’t get any lower or worse than that.

I would add, or how many Jews willingly and gleefully jumped on trains to “camps” to try to improve their lives? (or gladly went unaccompanied)

Why should walking through the Resistance portal guarantee the validity of the absurd?

Hillary rehearses amnesty and comedy

In pandering to Hispanics, Latinos and media, Hillary makes a profound declarative statement on Wednesday:

Pressed by debate moderator Jorge Ramos on who should deported, Clinton said: “I will not deport children. I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members, either.”


Children and family members. So did she leave anyone out, like maybe friends of family members and children? Well, who does that leave? How about single people with no family or children here. How about criminals and felons who have no family or children here. It’s just ridiculous, who’s left?

When Hillary was asked about her rogue server, which has caused her all the trouble:

“It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed.”

In an old Laugh-In comedy skit, Edith Ann (Lilly Tomlin) used to crawl into a big rocking chair like a 5 year-old saying something like “no one told me not to … So I did.” Hillary’s point is no one told me it was not allowed (disallowed) so I naturally did it.

But at the same time her Department was sending around notices telling people not to use their private email for official business. Translation: no one told me what I was doing was wrong, so I kept doing it. Duh! You can “bet your sweet bippy.” “And that’s the truth.”

Right to Life means right to death if you’re liberal

Yesterday I noticed something a bit odd. I saw Liberal-apologist Media adopting language about “Life”. What brought that on, you ask? It was the fuhrer-in-chief invoking “life” in his rally in Connecticut for gun control.

The kids at Sandy Hook were where they were supposed to be. So were those moviegoers in Aurora. So were those worshippers in Oak Creek. So was Gabby Giffords. She was at a supermarket, listening to the concerns of her constituents. (Applause.) They were exactly where they were supposed to be. They were also exercising their rights — to assemble peaceably; to worship freely and safely. They were exercising the rights of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So surely, we can reconcile those two things. Surely, America doesn’t have to be divided between rural and urban, and Democrat and Republican when it comes to something like this.

If you’re an American who wants to do something to prevent more families from knowing the immeasurable anguish that these families here have known, then we have to act. Now is the time to get engaged. Now is the time to get involved. Now is the time to push back on fear, and frustration, and misinformation. Now is the time for everybody to make their voices heard from every state house to the corridors of Congress.

Obama: “But this is not about me. This is about those children and those families.”

So its about children and families; and the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.Reminiscent of the shock of Hillary at a Roe/Wade anniversary declaring abortion should be safe,legal and rare.

Of course ever the quick studies, Liberal Lapdog media were quick to follow the lead and to make the connection to abortion. To stifle that notion, they complained that the Right is always talking about Life and abortion but they aren’t so anxious to talk about gun control.

And the way Obama framed it was as if someone is trumping the right to life by the second amendment. Not true. The second amendment defends the right of life. That is a fundamental purpose of it, self-defense and a guard to protect innocent life.

Still they set up their argument that the right was standing in the way of Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness in their support of the second amendment. Not so. But that matters not to the Dictocrat in the Oval Office or his many minions. He cites polls of support for background checks as a matter of rebutted fact against the second amendment lobby.(i.e. gun owners)

Now you have to say wait a second. They are spoiling for a fight over the Life issue. Well, the abortion lobby and Democrats resist even sonograms for mothers. They don’t want them to see the baby they are going to abort – kill. No, but they want background checks for every person trying to buy a firearm for the potential danger it will do, presumably to somebody.

He declares he wants to protect children. Saline, scissors and suction hoses are A-okay. And do not try to over regulate that. All children should have a right to a saline bath, or scissors to the back of the head if need be, for whatever reason. But its the gun lobby you have to worry about.

And they want to make sure they promote that “right” and teach our youth that its an unwavering right. They want justices to swear on the alter of an abortion decision. Then they need to subsidize and coddle the very industry doing the most of the abortions in the country.(while it enjoys a budget surplus) We’re told how government has a responsibility to subsidize that industry, to “preserve” abortion “rights”.

Then declare the gun lobby to be public enemy number one? How’s that for supporting Life?

Of course, they never want to acknowledge the good that firearms do in protecting life and liberty, or the deterrent value. All they see is that someone could be killed with that gun. Never mind the doctor standing there waiting to kill the baby, or fetus as they want to call it, for any reason. They even want late-term abortions up to the second he/she is ready to meet the outside world. They want to deny and rob it of its first and only breath and all life thereafter. That is justifiable to libs.

You’ll always hear Obama strategists talking about “pushing back” on an issue or point. What about pushing back on the babies’ behalf or the issue of life?

But on this day, for this issue of gun control, they trot out the life issue and decide it is worth protecting. And they want to remind us all how “life is a foundational right in our foundation of government. Hooray for putting life at the fore for once. What is the reason again?

To protect life by infringing on the second amendment which offers protections for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. See how it works to libs? They need to regulate down the second amendment rights to supposedly protect life. They’ve shown how much they really care about life, and demonstrated it over and over. They see Roe v Wade as a fundamental right. And they don’t want anything to infringe on abortion so-called “rights”.

What is abortion and Roe v Wade in reality? Its a right to kill; a right to deny life, liberty, and puruit of happiness. An unwavering “right” in their eyes. They file it up there with all the enumerated rights.

There are no appeals. As I said, they resist sonogram requirements but want universal background checks for all Americans. There are no waiting periods for abortion. Not to worry about mental screenings. The less regulation they can do on abortion the better.

They don’t even want to share or expose the database to the public. But as we saw with Garnett News, no problem with publishing names and addresses of law abiding gun owners and plotting their homes on a map. They declared that under the freedom of information.

But no such freedom for info on killing babies which they declare a fundamental right in our Constitution. (excuse me) *** I forgot, their right of privacy means “right” to kill your baby. (how did I forget?)

It is also revealing that when you mention rights in the Bill of Rights, Dems are quick to remind you of limitations on rights, namely one through four. So the inference is that they and government need to regulate these rights, and properly limit them. But when the subject of abortion comes up they never want to address limitations, if possible.

So no shouting fire in a theater, but kill your baby? No problem, its a “right” you know.

They glance over that to assert an unquestionable and moreless unlimited right to abortion. They don’t want states to regulate it, they don’t want localities to regulate it, and they don’t want it limited by any of those. And you will never hear them complain about too many abortion clinics.

Obama: “Now is the time to push back on fear, and frustration, and misinformation.”

Funny, that’s what I was thinking.

Are there any adults in the room?

The only reason I mention this piece is it’s a provocative thought. (which was his objective) And these are his words — Rev Jim Wallis, one who Obama confides in.

I was putting my 9-year-old to bed a few nights ago. He said, “Dad I heard you talking on the phone about guns and the press conference you’re talking at tomorrow. ”

“What do you think about it Jack? What do you think about it Jack?” I asked him.

And here’s what Jack said:
“I think that they ought to let people who, like licensed hunters, have guns if they use them to hunt. And people who need guns — who need guns for their job like policemen and army. But I don’t think that we should just let anybody have any kind of gun and any kind of bullets that they want. That’s pretty crazy.

I agree with Jack.
– Jim Wallis

(copy paste link

The rest of the article was a type of lecture attacking NRA’s president and others on morality and theology. But he says he agrees with that statement of his 9-year old.

It is a statement from a 9-year old, just like those “letters” of children Obama used in his performance the other day in signing Executive Orders. They are still statements of children. We cannot really criticize the statements of children. (whatever inspired them) Maybe that is the political value of them to the left. They also portray the very innocence the left abandoned long ago.(think Roe v Wade)

But they do represent children’s thinking!

Call me crazy, I also don’t think children should be making the laws or policies, even though at times they might do a better job. Come on. Yea, who wants to argue with or against a 9-year old? Who wants a nation ruled by 9 or 14 year olds? Though I wonder what their view on abortion policy might be?

We are adults and should be a little more intelligent than that. The irony is he criticized Wayne LaPierre for simply suggesting a good person with a gun versus a bad one – or “good” and “bad” persons. Wallis lectured how that is not morally or theologically correct. But then look how a child thinks in his/her naïve innocence, he uses that as his example.

In the 60s you would have been hard pressed to find children who did not want to get rid of “the bomb” or war. Even though doing so does not guarantee a pristine society.

It is idealism on steroids to think just ridding us of guns will rid us of problems, dangers, or dangerous streets. Maybe, as a child might fantasize, we just need a law to outlaw bad and evil. Too bad we didn’t think of that.

No, not to knock any 9-year old’s thinking or idealism, we appreciate it. But they need parents to protect them, a society that doesn’t see them as expendable, and politicians or others who don’t want to extort them or their innocence for political gain either. So let’s put the children in proper perspective. Don’t confuse politics with childhood.

Since he came to office, Obama has been using children to make his case on one policy after another. But the left goes into hysteria when the NRA mentions children in an ad.

Are there any adults in the room?

A new book

A new book just released is called “Heaven Sent: The Heather Miller Story”.

It is the story of a child diagnosed with cancer and her family. It’s a tribute to this child, who may have been beyond her years; and through it how her story touched many others. Authored by a Pittsburg sports writer and her mother, Wendy. Almost certain to touch you in one way or another.

Heaven Sent

I don’t believe it’s available in stores.
Here is the link to publisher:

*** Proceeds go to children and their families battling cancer. ***