Democrat sit-in: Aged hippies violate House rules, perform gun-control PR stunt

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016, the Democrats staged a sit-in on the House floor to force a vote on the gun control measures that failed in the Senate.  In a throwback to the kumbaya past of many House members, such as John Lewis, Democrats see gun control in the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack as worthy of some good ol' agitatin' in violation of House rules.  As Lewis stated, "now is the time to get in the way.  The time to act is now.  We will be silent no more."

When have these old hippies ever been silent or, for that matter, as Nancy Pelosi claims, silenced?  Their modus operandi is and always has been to make noise – as loud and as often as they can.  With the Democrat-Media Complex in their back pocket, they have never been silenced, nor have they been forced into silence by quisling Republicans.  Anyone who falls for this just isn't paying attention.

Make no mistake about it, though: Obama, Hillary, and the entire Democrat-Media Complex see this as a winning issue for 2016 – one they intend to turn into a movement, akin to the 2012 race, when income inequality was the defining issue and Occupy Wall Street the movement.  Rep. Butterfield (D-N.C.) put it this way: "Write this date down – June 22.  It's the beginning of a movement.  This is just the beginning." 

I recall a similar call to action directed toward Occupy Wall Street by Obama and Van Jones, only they had a year head start before the 2012 election.  Now they have only six months.  I think Democrats originally thought #BlackLivesMatter would be their go-to movement for 2016 – and the machinery has been whirring along at a grand clip.  But the murder of gays in Orlando, with a gun, warranted a change in plans.  After all, it appeals to a wider swath of potential constituents than just black lives.  Just change the shirts and signs, and presto!  New movement, same agitators.  

Speaking of agitators, famed civil rights activist Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) told NBC, "Sometimes you are moved by history."  It's clear that the history that moves the Democrats is the history of the '60s – when they were actually on the wrong side.  The war they forced to an end resulted in the deaths of millions in Cambodia and the displacement of millions of Vietnamese and cast America as a paper tiger (a reputation she found hard to shake and, sadly, continues to live up to).  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 they claim was theirs wasn't.  The drug and free love environment they embraced left America a cultural shell of its former self: hippy/yuppy parents gave birth to generations of children with record numbers of learning disabilities and behavioral and addiction issues; high divorce rates and blended families with offspring from multiple couplings gave rise to generations riddled with low self-esteem and depression; rampant fatherlessness left voids filled by increased drug abuse, criminal activity, out-of-wedlock births, and promiscuity; and the obliteration of gender differences by the feminist movement pushed men to the side, marginalizing their role in families and communities.  Free love destroyed marriage and gave us gender confusion instead.  The list is endless. 

Compare that to the history that moved the Tea Party – that of the Founding, where people fought for an idea that created a nation that has been at the forefront not only of freedom, but of innovation and prosperity and has opened its doors to countless immigrants seeking a better life. 

But suppose the Tea Party Caucus had staged a sit-in when Nancy Pelosi was devising the 2000-plus-page Obamacare bill!  Can you imagine if Republicans tried to block that bill by occupying the House floor and staying put until their demands were met?  Actually, yes, we can: the Tea Party and the GOP would have been pilloried in the press as radical activists, out of control, standing in the way of letting House leadership "get the job done."  They would have been accused of putting partisan politics ahead of the country, mocked for their principles and devotion to the constitution – especially their throwback to the original 1773 tea party in Boston – and accused of racism. 

But wait, there's more!  When Democrats bring legislative business to a grinding halt, it is an acceptable as well as a laudable form of pushback against Republican leadership.  But when conservatives dig in their heels on the budget, they are obstructionists shutting down the government, prohibiting vets from visiting memorial sites, indigent government employees from collecting wages, and the public from receiving vital government services.

The double standards are dizzying.

Whereas Democrat commentary about this sit-in – and the cause for it – is hyperbolic, Republican reaction is, once again, tepid and, in the case of Paul Ryan, kind of insipid.

First a sampling from House Democrats – but only a few, lest my brain explodes:   

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Penn.): We're not going to watch any more people in this country get slaughtered and do nothing!

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas): Break the shackles!

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.): Every day that we don't commit to a vote, the blood is on the leadership of this House.

And from our speaker, who correctly characterizes the sit-in as a publicity stunt: "This isn't trying to come up with a solution to a problem.  This is trying to get attention."  Duh!  A better response, and one it wouldn't hurt to disseminate, is that of Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), which can be paraphrased as The sit-in at Woolworth's in the '60s was for civil rights.  This sit-in by the Democrats is to strip Americans of their constitutional rights – and, I would add, making them more vulnerable to terrorists and criminals.

As for some of the media optics, when I Googled "Democrats sit-in," the first article that appeared is this one from NBC.  The article refers to Orlando several times but only as the "worst mass shooting" in America or just "the shooting spree."  There is no mention of terrorism or a terrorist.  It also commented that "[i]t is unusual for members to disrupt the functioning of the House to this degree."  Actually, it is a violation of House rules.

Wouldn't it be nice to see all of these Democrats get this exercised about the massacre in Orlando and level their complaints and anger against the real perpetrators of the crime, not a gun control law that wouldn't have made a difference?

This entire P.R. stunt disgusts me – especially the streaming video uploaded after the House went into recess and official video was cut, the selfies, and the "selfless" acts of senators bringing in food and drink.  The only thing I'd like to see – because I think it would be hysterical – is how all of these old hippies get up off the floor.  It's kind of a metaphor for their tiresome unconstitutional gun control proposals. 

In any case, Loretta Lynch said "love and compassion" are the best responses to terrorism, so shouldn't the Democrats be having a love-in with Republicans rather than an angry sit-in?  Let me try to visualize it.  On second thought, never mind.

If you experience technical problems, please write to