Reason and logic are as necessary in making sound decisions as hydrogen and oxygen are required to form water.  The antithesis of reason and logic is emotion and hysteria.  Decision-making based on emotion is by definition devoid of logic and reason because an emotional response overrides logical possibilities.  Logic and hysteria cannot occupy the same space.

We witnessed the result of such hysteria last week when we watched the “sit-in” in the US House of Representatives.  Their gripe?  Losing four anti-gun votes.  The idea that an iconic United States Congressman with the stature of John Lewis would lend his hand in comparing this farce of a stunt with the importance of his past involvement with the civil rights movement is contemptible.  While facing down race discrimination was of the highest nobility, shutting down Congress simply because they didn’t get their way is a thoughtless response that is in no way comparable.

Four separate votes came up and were defeated, that is how the democratic system works.  There is nothing “noble” about having a temper tantrum in the well of the House of Representatives and then cry foul because the camera were turned off.  So much for the photo op to raise all of that money needed for re-election, a publicity stunt, nothing more.

At least two very important lessons should be learned by this.  First, the emotional and hysterical aspects of the mass murder in Orlando are driving the agenda of those politicians that took to the floor in protest.  If they actually had the strength of their convictions as profoundly as they would have us believe, based on their willingness to disrupt their own legislative body, it begs the question of where their collective outrage was in the days and weeks before the highly publicized mass killing.  Anyone as outraged as this it would seem would be making this topic their life’s work, but absent some sensational tragedy, these otherwise seemingly zealous advocates for a cause were all silent on the matter.  Considering this reality, one can only conclude that their shrill protest is a publicity and fund-raising scheme, unashamedly based on the deaths of innocent people, all in the name of money and the power to get re-elected.

Second, the advancement of liberal policy is often times driven by emotion and reaction, as evident in this case.  Because sound legislation is logically and thoughtfully created, a judicial system stacked with sympathetic jurists is required to over-ride the legislative will of the people.  Through judicial activism by legislating from the bench, the liberal agenda can be imposed on us in the name of newly found and freshly minted constitutional rights.

Our current Supreme Court is evenly divided, liberal and conservative.  Our next president will decide the future balance of that court and with that decision will rest the fate of a nation.  Do we live by representation, thoughtful legislation, and the resulting rule of law, or by stomping our feet, shouting down our rivals and screaming rhythmic slogans?