[Lurkinanloomin]

The party apparachiks have abandoned the rule of law, the citizens have not, thus the support for Trump.

[DannyTN]

Trump’s immigration plan would restore the law after 30 years of administrations refusing to enforce the law.

Trump is likely to be the MOST law abiding President we’ve had in a long time.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

There is no rule of law.

[Uncle Miltie]

GOPe = Amnesty = Rewarding Lawbreakers.

[headstamp 2]

What Obama has served to do if anything is show just how irrelevant and impotent the Congress is now. Especially the RINO Congress of Mitch Boehner.

[Cowboy Bob]

Libs don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

The Libs ran roughshod over the constitution. The GOPe in congress sat silently when Obama raped America. When the pendulum swings back in the form of Trump/Cruz, the Libs can't complain. They brought it upon themselves.

[dirtboy]

Mona Charon is an amnesty pimp and wastes no time sliming Trump with this steaming pantload:

The appeal of Trump falls into this category. Though one might suppose that his borderline pathological narcissism, his arrested emotional development, and his nearly incoherent ramblings would exclude him from consideration for county clerk, he sits atop the GOP field. The message from a segment of the Republican party is: “Okay, we’re an autocracy now. So let’s have this guy govern by fiat.”

Tell me, Mona - how is wanting existing immigration law enforced governing by fiat?

Hint: it's not.

[Gaffer]

In all truth, Trump has nothing to do with Mona’s complaint. It’s the readership hook.....grab current attention because of “Trump”.

The guts of the article is really about her question of “Republicans” and their loss of vision or something with respect to the rule of law - which Obama has consistently ignored throughout his Presidency and will continue to do so.

Mona, I submit that your use of “Republican” shows a very misplaced and ill defined premise. Establishment Republicans don’t give a damn about the rule of law. Never did, else they would have done something in the years since 2012 when they retook the House of Representatives.

The only steadfast supporters of RoL are conservatives - at the condemnation of our quisling Republican leadership who say we are “loony,” “crazies” and whatnot.

Just because you put some demeaning language about Trump in your article with scant relevancy to your too-late plaint doesn’t mean he is the problem of it all. For that, look back to what you’re calling Republican, missy.

[chris37]

Let’s ask Hillary Clinton about the rule of law.

For us, I mean, not her, obviously.

[Pelham]

“Have Republicans Grown Tired of Supporting the Rule of Law? by MONA CHAREN August 28, 2015 “

Well Mona Charen ought to know. For years she’s been one of the main GOPe apologists for illegal immigration. A female Michael Medved.

Since when did either one of them care about the rule of law?

They’ve been more than willing to advocate wholesale lawbreaking whenever it benefits the GOP’s desire to replace Americans with latino invaders.

[Secret Agent Man]

democrats gave up on it ens ago. only pretend to support it when its a law they love.

[gaijin]

2016: Year of the PenAndPhone.

TICK, TOCK, TICK, TOCK....

[EternalVigilance]

Most Americans, and most Republicans, don’t even know what the basis of the rule of law is any more.

New tagline ...

[nathanbedford]

his borderline pathological narcissism, his arrested emotional development, and his nearly incoherent ramblings

The hard but inescapable truth is that Trump has demonstrated these elements of character, narcissism, arrested emotional development and his ramblings have been indisputably incoherent. Trump supporters do not deny these truths they attack the messenger or they say that Trump's victims deserve it or they say the people don't care.

But Charon jumps to another conclusion which is not warranted:

The message from a segment of the Republican party is: “Okay, we’re an autocracy now. So let’s have this guy govern by fiat.”

There is no evidence that Trump would govern as an autocrat. Actually, Mona Charon's criticism is not directed precisely at Trump but at his supporters and not without some justice because they have demonstrated an imperviousness to the obvious when it comes to Donald Trump's character failings but there is nothing to suggest they are calling for autocracy. That is unfair.

Nor has Trump given us any warrant to believe that he is not a patriot. I think he has a very shallow understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law which ensues from it, I think he would govern ad hoc untethered from a conservative philosophy that I at least would approve of, but I have no warrant to believe that he is not a patriot.

Mona Charon documents the case of tyranny laid against Barack Obama. Barack Obama and his acolytes in the Democratic Party who have elevated him beyond impeachment and nearly beyond criticism do not share Donald Trump's patriotism. Obama in particular is a Marxist, actually a real communist, who despises America and certainly despises a Constitution which inhibits them transforming the system into socialism or something more extreme and even worse. I use the word "despise" in all its senses: He both hates America and its Constitution and he has no regard for America or its Constitution. He does not respect them.

Trump may have a host of misconceptions swirling around in his head but he loves his country and would do his incoherent, rambling patriotic best-whatever that might prove to be.

[zerosix]

Yawn!

Another "useful idiot" speaks and quotes another from the DC cesspool for the once late, great conservative NR.

Their writers need to get out more. Maybe they can apply for Visas to travel to Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, we'll let them cross the borders without going through metal detectors, etc. They can stop at a local gas station, Walmart, grocery store, or even a Bob Evans and chat up regular folks going about their business, ask what they think about the upcoming election. Don't ask whom they're for, they'll tell them quick enough.

They can arrange for tickets to attend a KC Royals game, KC Chief's game, or high school football game on Friday night. Watch opening ceremonies, though they might find them awfully patriotic for their tastes. Catch up with someone buying a hot dog or beer and ask if that person has heard of Trump or what they think of say "Anchor Babies," this if they value holding on to their establishment views, they might find no one agrees with them, maybe not.

Then they can apply to reenter the DC area and get back to their real lives - thankfully.

Glad I put that membership money to good use, I now purchase yard waste bags with it.

[TexasFreeper2009]

The left started the lawlessness, and the right cant fight with both hands tied behind our back anymore or we will lose and if we lose the whole world goes down with us.

Sorry, but drastic times call for drastic actions.

It’s past time for a strong leader on the right to do whatever is necessary to fix all the damage the left has done. Heck stack the courts if we have to, I dont care but fix this before it’s too late.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

A ridiculous argument is no argument at all. It is just irritating.

[Little Ray]

Don’t often agree with Mona Charen. She’s one of those lukewarm “conservatives” that give the GOP-E a bad name.

But the Trump cult of personality is getting downright scary. Everybody seems to think he’s some sort of super-conservative, when, in fact, he was a Democrat until 2008, supported gun control, and has generally flip-flopped in a way that we’d forgive a normal ‘Pubbie politician.

It isn’t that I don’t like what I’ve heard him say against illegal immigration (barbarian invasion, actually), it is just that I don’t really trust him on that (as somebody pointed out “It is a negotiating stance”) or any other issue.

[sportutegrl]

What a misleading headline. Obama was popular, then he ruled like a dictator. Trump is popular, therefore: Republicans don’t support the rule of law?

[Pollster1]

I am a strong believer in the rule of law, however . . . and that’s a phrase I never expected to follow with any “however” . . . I can see a need for drastic steps to restore freedom.

I would be okay with a real president taking drastic steps to dismantle Obama’s legacy. That includes refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress in the course of transitioning to a post-Obamacare world.

I would be okay with a real president enforcing immigration law through executive order if the courts were too slow, including using the military or national guard to patrol the border and to control camps for illegals awaiting a fair hearing before being sent home.

I would be okay with a real president granting a blanket pardon to all Americans for any past, present, or future violations of the National Firearms Act or of other unconstitutional restrictions on the God-given individual right of the people to keep and bear arms.

It’s time to restore freedom, and minor irregularities in the transition are just fine with me.

[Note: I am not going to elaborate on how large an irregularity I would consider reasonable. I would just note that all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.]