Military and Police

The (Neo) Democrat’s Party of Lawlessness — Part I

What is the Democrat Party doing to Americans’ sense of justice? The neo-Democrats ignore immigration laws, ignore equal justice under the law, ignore due process, ignore free speech, ignore freedom of religion, ignore the right to keep and bear arms, etc. More and more, they’re ignoring, generally, the rule of law. This should concern you. If it doesn’t, you may want to reexamine your own commitment to American liberty and law and order because they are inextricably linked.

If elected officials, especially those charged with law enforcement responsibilities, target only those in the opposing political party, the law means nothing. Here’s an example of such lawlessness. Recently, the incoming Democrat attorney general of New York, Letitia James, said she plans to conduct a cavity search of President Trump’s business and campaign dealings in the state.

James said, “We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well.” The political targeting of opponents for criminal liability is so ugly, it diminishes us as a nation supposedly committed to equal justice.

It’s not as if a legitimate victim made a complaint, which she is obligated to investigate. In this case, to paraphrase Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s chief of the secret police, the neo-Democrats have shown Letitia James the man, and now she’ll set out to find them the crime.

Now, if she also planned to investigate the myriad questionable Clinton family financial/charitable enterprises in the state, I’d have to concede, at least she’s being equitable. Instead, this neo-Democrat plans a targeted investigation against a Republican president.

What a colossal waste of New York taxpayer time and money. But this member of the lawless resistance knows if you look long enough at anyone, you’ll find something—especially if you want to.

Does anyone believe New York AG-elect James will put any effort at all into the Clintons’ business, campaign, and charity efforts in New York? No. While she’ll use the brightest spotlight she can find to investigate a Republican President Trump, I doubt she’ll allow even the flicker from a candle anywhere near the Democrat Clintons’ operations.

She would if the neo-Democrats believed in equal justice, but they clearly no longer do. The AG will go after a Republican like a banshee on speed while ignoring Democrat law-breaking. Look at how the Democrat Party leadership treated Brett Kavanaugh versus Keith Ellison—oh, wait…Minnesota Representative Ellison is a high-ranking member of the Democrat Party leadership. How dishonorable is it to pursue political office, especially one involving law enforcement, only to use it as a weapon against your political enemies?

I can imagine what would have happened to me, as a police officer, if I’d only ticketed drivers I knew were Democrats or investigated crimes only when Republicans were the victims. Fired comes to mind, sued seems likely, and, perhaps, a bit of time in the clink.

The lawlessness has gotten to the point that, instead of Democrat, you’ll notice I’m starting to use the term neo-Democrat when referring to the modern Democrat Party activists and political leadership. What has happened to that party? They’re certainly not the party my Massachusetts, JFK-loving, Democrat family supported as I was growing up.

It was a party that, while advocating for bigger government and more social spending, still used to defend true liberalism, as in the political virtues listed above in the first paragraph. It has changed to nearly unrecognizable. So, neo, meaning new or modified, helps me set apart traditional Democrats from the intolerant, lawless radical bullies who have taken over the party.

Traditional Democrats must take their party back, so they can return it to sanity. Even before this neo-Democrat takeover, I didn’t agree with the Dems. But at least they didn’t support lawlessness and oppose law enforcement, as they do now. More honest Democrats like Professor Alan Dershowitz need to publicly support due process, law and order, the rule of law, and civil rights for all. They need to oppose the multi-tiered justice system that seems to be replacing our equal justice system.

There has always been a “team loyalty” phenomenon in politics. We make excuses for misbehavior on our side of the aisle. Initially, it may be natural to support and defend our friends and oppose and accuse our enemies. But, as more incriminating information develops, at what point does this support cross an ethical line and become ignoring or even forgiving destructively deceitful or illegal behavior? To the contrary, we also need to consider any exculpatory evidence about our opponents, if it arises, for the same reasons.

Today’s neo-Democrats and their leaders in the House and Senate seem disinterested in, well, a sane stance toward law and order. They must be insane because ignoring lawlessness is self-destructive and so is opposing equal justice, due process, free speech, and national borders. Think about it. How can a society function when one political party eschews the things that make a free society peaceful and prosperous and, further, serve to keep it that way?

As a police officer, I once swore an oath to uphold my state’s and the U.S. Constitution. I find it mindboggling (yes, my mind is literally boggled) when I saw U.S. Congressional members and Senators, who swore a similar oath, speaking out against due process and for a virtual assassination of a decent man, as they did with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Hell, despite zero incriminating and significant exculpatory evidence Kavanaugh committed the alleged wrongdoing, neo-Democrats are still lauding his accuser.

I hear some people, even some conservatives, in an attempt to make peace with neo-Democrats, concede that all politicians are guilty of political sleaze, misconduct, and even lawlessness. While that may be true, it’s not to anywhere near the same degree on the right, especially with the law. In fact, conservative and libertarian reverence for and adherence to the Constitution and its prescription for free speech, due process, the rule of law, etc., are some of what distinguishes conservatives and libertarians from the leftist neo-Democrats.

Lawless, leftist, anti-free speech groups such as Media Matters and Move On have become infamous for their diligent campaigns to boycott and remove political opponents with whom they disagree from various media platforms. Groups such as these have launched operations against people like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and many others.

Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful in three of these cases. Unfortunately, they were successful in ousting Bill O’Reilly from his immensely successful The O’Reilly Factor on the FOX News Channel. Though, O’Reilly may have the last laugh. His new platform on the Internet, via his podcast at, is growing in popularity.

On the other hand, conservative pundits on Internet TV (i.e. Blaze TV, Newsmax TV, and NRA TV) broadcast radio (i.e. Rush Limbaugh), and FOX News Channel (sadly, to a diminishing degree), still support free speech, due process, and the rule of law. Conservative and libertarian commentators often state their opposition to boycotts and to removing from the airwaves people with whom they disagree.

It’s the reverse with neo-Democrat mainstream media. Tolerance of conservative/libertarian perspectives on cable and network news is virtually non-existent. Supposedly objective reporters and anchors on cable news channels, such as CNN, MSNBC, and the broadcast news networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS incessantly spout their opposition to conservatism, the Republican Party, the American president, free speech, religious freedom, immigration laws, due process, and the rule of law.

For two years and counting, we’ve seen this bias with the reportage on the so-called Russia collusion investigation. Finally, we’re beginning to hear chatter about an end to Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into (remember the original mandate) Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election. There have been no charges filed or prosecutions recommended for the actual “non-crime” of collusion and no legitimate evidence presented. So, speculate is all we can do about what kind of report Mueller will release.

Radical leftist pundits are yearning for a Mueller surprise. That he, somehow, held out to the end with no leaks of some mystery smoking gun the investigators have withheld—until now. Neo-Democrats are salivating at the prospect of Mueller springing this bombshell on the American people, which will have them clogging the U.S. Capitol switchboard with calls for President Trump’s impeachment—or, better yet, incarceration. I guess we’ll see about that.

On the right, some, I believe naïvely, think Mueller will concede he found no hint of Russian collusion, leave it at that, and just ride off into the sunset. They hold out hope that Mr. Mueller is the repository of legal virtue and integrity so many expressed at the outset. I wish I could agree, but Mueller hiring all those partisan Democrats to investigate a Republican president they loathe ended my hopes of a fair investigation. It seems unlikely Mueller, or at least his investigation, will go away quietly regardless of how it ends. After all, the neo-leftist coup is not complete until President Trump is removed from office—by any means possible.

I have personal evidence that they won’t go away. I watched as officials of President Obama’s DOJ refused to go away from Seattle. After all, with barely a pretense of searching for valid proof of wrongdoing, they fabricated “evidence.” They produced statistics showing the cops in my department violated the Constitution nearly one out of every four times they had to use force. It’s an absurd number on its face, which a local professor from a prominent university law school debunked soon after. But it had no effect on the city’s leftists, the DOJ, or the consent decree they inflicted on the officers, regardless of the truth.

Now, I truly hope I’m wrong, and I don’t like to speculate. However, too many smart people I respect have hinted that they also believe Special Counsel Mueller may do this. Do what? I’m expecting Mueller to release a nebulous report filled with allusion, insinuation, omission, and speculation. Will the special counsel disguise accusations against President Trump in restrained terms and present seemingly incriminating information as unverifiable “evidence” rather than false accusations?

You know, like the lies that permeated the Christopher Steele dossier fabricated and paid for by the neo-Democrats. What’s even stranger about this result, if it occurs this way, is that a prosecutor would issue a report publicly that is one-sided and didn’t find evidence of the crime (or in this case, non-crime) they were charged with looking for.

Remember, the special prosecutor’s report is just that, a prosecutor’s report. There is no special defense counsel to speak on the target’s behalf. The report, whether or not public, will only contain what the prosecutor found and wishes to release and does not have to include any exculpatory evidence supporting President Trump.

And let’s not fool ourselves into believing our Republican president was anything other than targeted by a biased special counsel, his merry band of neo-Democrats, and who-knows-who-else concealed within the government establishment.

To bring it down to the local level, if a court tries and acquits a defendant, they do not find him or her “innocent.” They find the defendant “not guilty.” However, if a city or county prosecutor finds no or insufficient evidence of a crime to initiate court proceedings, to prosecute and attempt to convict a defendant, that person remains legally innocent, right? I mean, since the defendant began with the presumption of innocence, if not charged and tried, doesn’t he or she remain, by law, innocent? It’s all about that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing.

What if Mr. Mueller releases a report about the investigation that casts doubt on an innocent person, in this case President Trump? Wouldn’t it be the same as if a city or county prosecutor were investigating a defendant and, after finding no evidence of a crime and declining to prosecute, still releases a public report, slanting why he or she could not find or present evidence to charge and prosecute? Does that sound fair? But fair is the last thing this lawless, neo-Democrat, Russian collusion investigation has been.

To be continued…

The opinions expressed here by contributors are their own and are not the view of OpsLens which seeks to provide a platform for experience-driven commentary on today's trending headlines in the U.S. and around the world. Have a different opinion or something more to add on this topic? Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own experience-driven commentary.
Steve Pomper

Steve Pomper is an OpsLens contributor, a retired Seattle police officer, and the author of four non-fiction books, including De-Policing America: A Street Cop’s View of the Anti-Police State. You can read a review of this new book in Front Page Magazine and listen to an interview with Steve on the Joe Pags Show. Steve was a field-training officer, on the East Precinct Community Police Team, and served his entire career on the streets. He has a BA in English Language and Literature. He enjoys spending time with his kids and grand-kids. He loves to ride his Harley, hike, and cycle with his wife, Jody, a retired firefighter. You can find out more about Steve and send him comments and questions at

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Watch The Drew Berquist Show

Everywhere, at home or on the go.