When Trump Fired Sally Yates, He Fired a Traitor

That sounds like strong language, but what else should we call government officials who rule by fiat, replacing the laws passed by the people's representatives and the Constitution with their own personal preferences?

Her own words say she refused to defend Donald Trump's executive order because she doesn't think it is "right," not because it is unconstitutional or illegal.

Isn't a government where individuals impose their will on the people tyrannical?  If so, then what Yates did is a soft-power revolution aimed at denying the people their right to decide how they are to be ruled.  Yates wants a tyranny where she and her ilk tell us deplorables how we are to live and what we are to believe.

Of course, Sally is following a long established liberal tradition of tyranny.

The people of California overwhelmingly approved Prop. 8, which preserved the definition of marriage.  Yet the liberal governor and attorney general refused to defend the people's vote because they simply didn't like it.  Strangely, even though a huge majority of blacks voted for Prop 8, the liberals' refusal to defend it wasn't deemed racist.

Obama's Justice Department stopped enforcing Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act because it didn't agree with the liberal lawyers' personal morality.  Once again, even though blacks disproportionately reject the idea of gay marriage, no one called Obama a racist.

The liberal Supreme Court discovering new rights for criminals, deciding that pornography is protected speech but the 10 Commandments aren't, deciding that killing one's unborn child is a right, and redefining marriage are all examples of tyrants imposing their will on the people through the guise of legal interpretation.

Then there are the sanctuary cities that declare that illegal immigrants who are criminals who prey on Americans will be protected.   Liberal N.Y. Mayor de Blasio says illegals who drive drunk will be protected from deportation.  It will be interesting to see how he explains the justice of that to the parents of a child that protected individual subsequently kills the next time he drives drunk.

And of course, we hear calls from liberals that California not send federal tax revenue to the government.

What makes these liberal rejections of the rule of law even worse is their massive hypocrisy.

The same liberals who say A.G.s don't need to defend laws they don't like tell us that in private practice, lawyers are required to use every legal technicality they can to ensure that child rapists get off scot-free.

During the election, liberals told us Hillary had a moral obligation to use legal chicanery to ensure that a 41-year-old man who raped a 12-year-old girl had to serve only a few months in prison.  Yet those same liberals tell us that lawyers in the government are morally obliged to not defend laws they don't like.

That's right: in the minds of liberals, lawyers have an obligation to help murders and rapists but not to defend laws they personally don't like.

That's either telling us liberals really like child rapists, which seems unlikely, or that they're hypocrites when they say people like Yates are doing the right thing.

The liberal hypocrisy also shows through in the case of  Kim Davis, a government clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Liberals told us she was a monster.  But when "sanctuary" cities refuse to follow the law, those same liberals commend them.  Clearly thinking they are able to pick and choose what laws to follow but others aren't shows the tyranny at the heart of modern "liberalism."

Could you imagine the liberal outcry if a state decided to withhold revenue from the federal government, as liberals in California are now discussing, because its residents object to the Supreme Court's totalitarian redefinition of marriage?

The reality is that a large portion of the Democratic Party are traitors who reject both the rule of law and the democratic process.  They demand the right to dictate, through traitorous judges and government employees, how the country is to be run, no matter who wins elections.

That's why so many liberals are calling for Trump's impeachment even though he hasn't done anything significant yet, much less anything justifying impeachment.  It doesn't faze them that not that long ago, they said = Bill Clinton lying under oath in order to avoid being sued for sexual harassment was no basis for impeachment.

Obama's serial lying about Obamacare was also not considered grounds for impeachment, but apparently, Trump's opinion that his inauguration crowd was larger than Obama's is grounds for impeachment.

The reality is that far too many liberals believe that the laws don't apply to them and that they are justified in doing anything – from mocking Barron Trump to talking about assassinating Donald Trump – to ensure that their will is tyrannically imposed on the American people.

Those modern liberals are to America what the brownshirts were to Germany or the communists were to Russia.  People who reject the law, reject the right of the people to rule themselves, claim the right to use violence to further their cause, and reject the idea that they too are bound by the Constitution.

Their increasingly violent behavior cannot be long tolerated.  America cannot continue to allow liberals to use violence, fake news, and intimidation to silence the will of the people.  We must hold them to the same standards they, and we, say the rest of America must be held to.

Disagreeing with Trump is not treason.  Government officials making up rules that the people must follow or refusing to enforce the rules the people have endorsed is another story.

Tell your friends that everyone in America has to follow the law and the rules.  It would have been wrong if conservatives protested violently at Obama's inauguration, and it would be wrong if a conservative Supreme Court ruled that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is unconstitutional – because the Constitution reserves all powers related to marriage to the states – and it is equally wrong when liberals betray their oaths and their country by behaving like jackbooted tyrants.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

That sounds like strong language, but what else should we call government officials who rule by fiat, replacing the laws passed by the people's representatives and the Constitution with their own personal preferences?

Her own words say she refused to defend Donald Trump's executive order because she doesn't think it is "right," not because it is unconstitutional or illegal.

Isn't a government where individuals impose their will on the people tyrannical?  If so, then what Yates did is a soft-power revolution aimed at denying the people their right to decide how they are to be ruled.  Yates wants a tyranny where she and her ilk tell us deplorables how we are to live and what we are to believe.

Of course, Sally is following a long established liberal tradition of tyranny.

The people of California overwhelmingly approved Prop. 8, which preserved the definition of marriage.  Yet the liberal governor and attorney general refused to defend the people's vote because they simply didn't like it.  Strangely, even though a huge majority of blacks voted for Prop 8, the liberals' refusal to defend it wasn't deemed racist.

Obama's Justice Department stopped enforcing Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act because it didn't agree with the liberal lawyers' personal morality.  Once again, even though blacks disproportionately reject the idea of gay marriage, no one called Obama a racist.

The liberal Supreme Court discovering new rights for criminals, deciding that pornography is protected speech but the 10 Commandments aren't, deciding that killing one's unborn child is a right, and redefining marriage are all examples of tyrants imposing their will on the people through the guise of legal interpretation.

Then there are the sanctuary cities that declare that illegal immigrants who are criminals who prey on Americans will be protected.   Liberal N.Y. Mayor de Blasio says illegals who drive drunk will be protected from deportation.  It will be interesting to see how he explains the justice of that to the parents of a child that protected individual subsequently kills the next time he drives drunk.

And of course, we hear calls from liberals that California not send federal tax revenue to the government.

What makes these liberal rejections of the rule of law even worse is their massive hypocrisy.

The same liberals who say A.G.s don't need to defend laws they don't like tell us that in private practice, lawyers are required to use every legal technicality they can to ensure that child rapists get off scot-free.

During the election, liberals told us Hillary had a moral obligation to use legal chicanery to ensure that a 41-year-old man who raped a 12-year-old girl had to serve only a few months in prison.  Yet those same liberals tell us that lawyers in the government are morally obliged to not defend laws they don't like.

That's right: in the minds of liberals, lawyers have an obligation to help murders and rapists but not to defend laws they personally don't like.

That's either telling us liberals really like child rapists, which seems unlikely, or that they're hypocrites when they say people like Yates are doing the right thing.

The liberal hypocrisy also shows through in the case of  Kim Davis, a government clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Liberals told us she was a monster.  But when "sanctuary" cities refuse to follow the law, those same liberals commend them.  Clearly thinking they are able to pick and choose what laws to follow but others aren't shows the tyranny at the heart of modern "liberalism."

Could you imagine the liberal outcry if a state decided to withhold revenue from the federal government, as liberals in California are now discussing, because its residents object to the Supreme Court's totalitarian redefinition of marriage?

The reality is that a large portion of the Democratic Party are traitors who reject both the rule of law and the democratic process.  They demand the right to dictate, through traitorous judges and government employees, how the country is to be run, no matter who wins elections.

That's why so many liberals are calling for Trump's impeachment even though he hasn't done anything significant yet, much less anything justifying impeachment.  It doesn't faze them that not that long ago, they said = Bill Clinton lying under oath in order to avoid being sued for sexual harassment was no basis for impeachment.

Obama's serial lying about Obamacare was also not considered grounds for impeachment, but apparently, Trump's opinion that his inauguration crowd was larger than Obama's is grounds for impeachment.

The reality is that far too many liberals believe that the laws don't apply to them and that they are justified in doing anything – from mocking Barron Trump to talking about assassinating Donald Trump – to ensure that their will is tyrannically imposed on the American people.

Those modern liberals are to America what the brownshirts were to Germany or the communists were to Russia.  People who reject the law, reject the right of the people to rule themselves, claim the right to use violence to further their cause, and reject the idea that they too are bound by the Constitution.

Their increasingly violent behavior cannot be long tolerated.  America cannot continue to allow liberals to use violence, fake news, and intimidation to silence the will of the people.  We must hold them to the same standards they, and we, say the rest of America must be held to.

Disagreeing with Trump is not treason.  Government officials making up rules that the people must follow or refusing to enforce the rules the people have endorsed is another story.

Tell your friends that everyone in America has to follow the law and the rules.  It would have been wrong if conservatives protested violently at Obama's inauguration, and it would be wrong if a conservative Supreme Court ruled that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is unconstitutional – because the Constitution reserves all powers related to marriage to the states – and it is equally wrong when liberals betray their oaths and their country by behaving like jackbooted tyrants.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

RECENT VIDEOS