How do you have a democracy if you don’t have laws? And how do you have laws if you don’t enforce them? Laws are gifts; we reject law at our peril. One of the most troubling aspects of recent American political discourse is the absolute willingness to simply ignore laws, which is kind of a problem. You see, the basis of democracy is we the people, through our legislature and the guy we elect president, make laws. So democracy is, at its most basic level, the ability to make laws. But if you make a law, and then you don’t enforce it because you choose not to, or you use obnoxious methods like deceit and corrupt judges to prevent its enforcement, then you don’t really have laws. And if you don’t have laws, you don’t have a democracy.
But now, the things we decree through the democratic process have become lawless. The left has absolutely no hesitation in simply ignoring what the people want. Oh, they’ll argue that they’re doing what the people want, but in a democracy, the people manifest what they want through the passage of laws through the Democratic process. What we have today is the neutering of laws through the process of a bunch of leftists getting together and deciding what they want and trying to jam it down our collective throat.
It’s easy to understand the temptation for lawlessness. The best way to deal with an obstacle is to ignore it where possible, and it’s entirely possible when you have a regime media, court system, and an absolutely anti-democratic Democrat Party all angry because they can’t get what they want because the majority of Americans don’t want the same kind of deviant communist race garbage that the left prefers. So, ignoring the law, therefore ignoring democracy, is imperative. They imagine we must to save democracy by burning it down; all that they will do is end up with ashes.
Now, after spending 30 years as a lawyer, I’m under no illusion that the law or the justice system is perfect. But I’m also under no illusion that if you don’t have a law or justice system, you have a dictatorship. There are various kinds of dictatorships. You can have some ridiculous clown doing the Mussolini thing in front of a bunch of slack-jawed thugs. But you can also have a technocratic dictatorship where a bunch of people collectively take power and dictate to everyone else. That’s what we’ve got here with the kind of globalist nanny state goofs that we see demanding to run our country like some frigid wine-woman teacher runs her kindergarten. But make no mistake. While the Mussolini type will default to taking you out and shooting you quickly, the nannies will start with hectoring, badgering, and pestering you, but if that doesn’t work, eventually, they’ll also be happy to murder you. And they’ll blame you for making them do it because you asked for it, you racist, sexist, transphobic, Islamophobic, fatist, cis, Christian, Republican, gun-owner of pallor who refuses to submit to your betters.
We got examples all over the place. Let’s start with immigration. Remember how we had all those immigration laws? It says if you’re some sort of Third World peasant, you can’t just wander here at your leisure and also decide that you’re going to get a bunch of welfare so that, in fact, we are paying for our own replacement by a class of future Democrat serfs. Well, the Constitution is pretty clear that the job of the President is to enforce the law, and the law is pretty clear that you can’t be here as an illegal alien, but the Democrats had this amazing idea. How about they just not enforce the law? How about they just not do it? How about instead of going through the trouble of making the arguments and convincing people and then going through the process that we all learned about watching Schoolhouse Rock on Saturday mornings back in the 1970s between the Banana Splits and Fat Albert, they just don’t do it? How is that functionally different from a dictatorship? No, they did not declare a new law. They just decided not to enforce the one that exists, the one that passed Congress and was signed by the President. It’s repeal by decree. Again, how do you have a democracy if you’re not enforcing the laws that democratic institutions passed?
Well, you weren’t doing democracy, but that’s the point. They don’t want to do democracy. They want to be in charge, and democracy is an obstacle. And yes, I know that this is a constitutional republic, but lighten up and just don’t take us off on some stupid tangent.
Just the other day when that ridiculous little Temu Pete Buttigieg, the fake Christian heretic weirdo who’s running for the Texas Senate, who happens to be as whiter than Mitt Romney after six months in a cave, conspired with Stephen Colbert to bring some attention to himself so he could beat powerful, strong, black woman of blackness and strong powerfulness Jasmine Crockett in the current Democrat primary. There’s been an equal time law for broadcast television for almost a century. It is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 315 and mandates, in general terms, that during the period leading up to a primary or general election, if you put one candidate on TV outside of a newscast, you must put the other candidate(s) on, too. Now, I think that in 2026, this is a bad law, though I understand that when it was enacted, the broadcast spectrum was limited and you didn’t have other routes to reach voters, a TV station owner could sway the election by giving one candidate exposure while excluding the others. That’s not the case now, especially with the interwebs, and maybe this law should go away. But the law hasn’t gone away. It’s a law passed by our Congress, and that has not been thrown out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional or repealed by the legislative process, so it must be enforced. Naturally, James Talarico, who’s about as honest as a used Yugo salesman who used to work for Enron, got out there and started claiming that the FCC was persecuting him, he was lying. It was CBS that refused to break the law. And the answer from the Democrats? Blame the Trump administration for potentially enforcing it.
So, Democrats can not only ignore duly enacted laws, but it is the latest Worst Thing Ever when Trump potentially enforces a duly enacted law. So, basically, laws exist only when Democrats choose to approve.
That’s tyranny, and it is exquisitely dangerous. The law is the foundation of a free society, but today far too many of our peers would undermine the gift that is the law because it is inconvenient, because it frustrates their temporary and transitory desires. At one time, we understood that as men of the West, as civilized people. There are two great dissertations on the importance of the law that instantly come to mind from within the Western canon – them being located there, we can understand why leftists have no conception of them. The Bible is clear that the law provides the basis of justice. “And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.” (Deuteronomy 6:25). Freedom comes from the law: “I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts” (Psalm 119:45). Jesus declares, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). Naturally, the bible warns that judges must “not pervert justice” or show partiality (Deuteronomy 16:19; Leviticus 19:15). Hint, hint.
The other great exposition of the importance of law is from A Man For All Seasons, where Sir Thomas More gives his famous speech about how adherence to the law is vital for a just society. Sir Thomas would give the devil himself the benefit of law for his own safety’s sake.
The routine disregard of the law for short-term advantage will have long-term, disastrous consequences. Maybe the ones advocating we disregard the law don’t see it. Maybe they don’t care. But if they succeed, they will certainly care when the law is not there to protect them from the anarchy and the tyranny of raw power – power these fools do not themselves have – that must inevitably follow the death of the law, for we will not submit to the tyranny of the lawless.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2026/02/23/when-the-law-is-optional-you-have-tyranny-n2671687?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-mQtJdjWHHA&_nlid=mQtJdjWHHA&_nhids=ncqWjHbPuxj1ls
