If you thought three hours of the Democrats' vision was tough to take, imagine four years. In Thursday's marathon preview of what our country would look like under the extremists applying for this president's job, there was no tap-dancing around the truth: the America of our Founders would be in serious jeopardy. When the 10 candidates on stage make Barack Obama look conservative, you know something is dreadfully wrong.
If there was one bright spot in Thursday night's circus, it was the number of people tuning in to watch. Clocking in at around 15 million viewers, ABC's debate could be record-setting. That's good news for the GOP, whose best advertisement for Donald Trump is the views of the people running against him. And based on real-time polling, most of them missed the mainstream mark.
NPR tracked a whole slew of unpopular ideas, pointing out that most Democrats doubled down on the highly controversial ones -- to their own detriment, surveys say. Things like slavery reparations (27 percent support), open borders (27 percent), health insurance for illegals (33 percent), and Medicare for All (41 percent) got chilly reviews from voters. Health care got the lion's share of the attention last night, with foreign policy and guns rounding out the top three. But it was the issue ABC didn't cover that had Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) fuming.
"The #DemDebate was three hours long and not one question about abortion or reproductive rights," Harris tweeted minutes after the cameras switched off. Turns out, the California senator wasn't just prepared to defend her abortion radicalism, she was eager to. The pro-sex work liberal, who voted to leave perfectly healthy newborns on hospital tables to die, must think her agenda of legal infanticide is something to crow about. That delusion was shared by Beto O'Rourke, who also blasted the network for not giving Democrats time to talk about the best ways for disposing of live infants. But don't worry. Beto is coming for your guns, because he wants to end the violence. Unless the victims are innocent children. Then he and his fellow Democrats won't just defend the bloodshed -- they'll finance it.
"H**l yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47," boomed O'Rourke. "We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore." Exactly how would that work, ABC's David Muir asked? Senator Harris said it was simple -- just bypass Congress. But President Obama tried that, Muir insisted, issuing more than 23 executive orders, "and yet here we all are today." Even former Vice President Joe Biden, he reminder her, has said, "Some really talented people are seeking the nomination. They sa[y], 'I'm going to issue an executive order.' [But, Biden admitted], "There's no constitutional authority to issue that executive order when they say 'I'm going to eliminate assault weapons. You can't do that by executive order.'"
To which Harris interjected, "I would just say, 'Hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can't -- let's say, yes we can.'" The line got a few half-hearted chuckles, but most of America wasn't laughing. Because what Kamala is suggesting is the same thing every liberal on that stage has pushed in one scenario or another: lawlessness. With shades of Obama's "We Can't Wait" campaign, Harris blurted out, "The idea that we wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just -- it's overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills, elementary, middle, and high school students, where they are learning about how they have to hide in a closet or crouch in a corner if there is a mass shooter roaming the hallways of their school."
Obviously, it's human nature in these crises to want to act. I don't blame the Left for that. I blame them for treating the Constitution like nothing more than a speed bump in their high-speed chase of gun control. America barely survived a man who built his presidency on circumventing Congress. Now, 20 more liberals stand ready to take a match to our democratic process. And for a problem that won't be solved by more laws anyway!
The problem has never been guns. Are there policies we could strengthen? Absolutely. But mankind has had instruments of destruction dating back to Cain and Abel. The real crisis is the moral vacuum left behind when society kicked religion and morality out of the public space. Of course, some liberals don't want to have a discussion about the underlying problem, because it would mean acknowledging the fallen nature of man. That, not stricter gun laws, is what's keeping us from finding real solutions as a nation. We can talk about limiting access to guns, but if we're truly concerned about violence, let's also talk about expanding access to God. Until we're willing to address both, nothing will change.
