So this week we've been treated to an elected county clerk in Kentucky refusing to obey a Supreme Court ruling based (wrongly) on her religious convictions.
A few months ago, a young woman was gunned down in San Francisco by an illegal alien who took up residence there because it declared itself a "sanctuary city" by elected officials who voted to stop enforcing Federal immigration laws on deportation they didn't agree with politically.
Rancher Cliven Bundy refused to acknowledge (questionable) Federal authority over what may once have been his land, and in doing so attracted hundreds of followers to establish an armed resistance to civil authorities.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder refused to pursue any legal action against former IRS official Lois Lerner, who clearly and deliberately targeted groups she deemed conservative with special scrutiny not afforded other liberal groups applying for the same tax-exempt status as the conservatives wanted.
Finally, President Obama has illegally and arbitrarily delayed the implementation of two specific programs in his signature legislative achievement known as Obamacare; that being the Cadillac Tax on high coverage medical plans and the Employer Mandate. Both are considered to be programs which will negatively impact both unions (in the case of the Cadillac tax) and medium sized businesses of 50 people or more. The implication here is that he doesn't want the political hit or the negative publicity of another Obamacare failure similar to the God-awful website roll-out of two years ago.
And don't get me started on what will or won't happen to Hillary.
The simple term for this is "anarchy".
But it's the long-term implications of this alarming trend that I'm worried about. Look, you'd be hard pressed to find someone as anti-big government as I am, but I will at least acknowledge that by refusing to accept lawful authority, it will only lead to a serious breakdown in our society. A civilized society simply cannot exist when people get to pick and choose without consequence the laws they deem worthy of obeying.
It's going to take a better class of voters willing to elect a better class of politicians who are willing to address head-on the need for regulatory reform, because when you have as many laws as we have on the books, you're bound to find a significant number of stinkers out there that certain people are unwilling to follow. Yes, the problem remains that there are too many ridiculous laws on the books, but that is just the symptom of the problem.
The real problem is electing people who want to point to some legislative "accomplishment" by CREATING a new law, not REMOVING some bad ones. The former sure hasn't worked. Why don't we try for the latter instead?
Hi! I'm Dave Richard, your host. I hope you enjoy your visit. We'll be talking about current events, politics, the occasional sports (I'm a HUGE New England Patriots fan, so get over it), and some "Get off my lawn!" issues.