That Danged Constitution

That Danged Constitution

That Danged Constitution

In a rare and somewhat frightening bout of honesty, California Democrat Ted Lieu made two stunning (or maybe not) admissions on the air recently 1) that he would love to control speech and 2) the only thing stopping him from doing so is that danged US Constitution.

What’s stunning and frightening to me is not the fact that Lieu and the left want to impose their little tyrannical diktats on Americans via government force. We already knew that; they’ve been working to impose “hate speech” labels on speech they don’t like and outlaw it for years. Microagressions, safe spaces, speech restrictions… the left is not just supportive of these idiotic initiatives and restrictions, many on the left find them “necessary.”

Hell, Joy Behar thinks (and I use that term loosely when it comes to that daft bint) that maybe retiring Senator Orrin Hatch should “go to jail” for not speaking out against Donald Trump.

Not only do these dunces want to control what you say and how you say it, but they apparently want to imprison you if you don’t say what they want you to say.

What really frightens me is that Lieu – as an elected official and military officer who has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States – feels secure enough to publicly admit this travesty. What really scares me is that Lieu would have no problem using government force to gag the American public and silence dissenting speech if it wasn’t for that danged Constitution!

Look, I don’t steal, I don’t murder, I don’t rape, I don’t abuse others – not because it’s illegal, but because as a thinking human being, I know it is wrong to do so. A while ago, comedian and magician Penn Jillette made a very astute observation about his morality as an atheist.

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don’t want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don’t want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you.

This can also be applied to the Constitution. The Constitution protects existing rights from government infringement – rights we all have as individuals and human beings. Violating those rights is immoral and unethical – especially if doing so involves government force. I don’t need a law to tell me that. I don’t need the Constitution to spell it out. As a rational, thinking human being I know that using force against another person to violate their fundamental, natural rights is wrong.

By Lieu’s “logic,” the only thing stopping him from violating the rights of his fellow human beings is that there’s a law against it. He’d be fine with stealing others’ stuff, but the law prohibits it. He’d be glad to violate your right to keep and bear arms, if it wasn’t for that pesky Second Amendment. He’d be glad to rape and murder, but it’s against the law.

And remember, Ted Lieu only wants to limit and regulate free speech with which he disagrees. It’s perfectly OK for him to lie and obfuscate in order to manipulate public opinion because he’s obviously the only qualified arbiter of what kind of speech the public should be exposed to.

Pretty ballsy for a guy who accused President Trump of being a pathological liar. “This is how authoritarian regimes get started,” he claimed. Does little Teddy own a mirror?

An ethical human being would not have any wish to restrict the fundamental right of another person to express themselves, regardless of whether the Constitution specifically limits his authority to do so. If you have to be told that, you shouldn’t be in Congress.

Worse yet, this pernicious, oozing pimple is also a member of the Air Force Reserves. He’s a military officer – a full-bird Colonel, who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The fact that he freely admits that he would engage in dictatorial behavior if it wasn’t for that pesky Constitution, gives me a cold shiver. I don’t trust him to uphold his oath. I don’t trust him to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. A would-be dictator who proudly admits that the Law of the Land he swore to defend is the only thing standing in the way of his tyrannical wet dreams has no place in the military.

I’m relieved that he at least recognizes the limits the Constitution places on his authority (Gosh! We should all be super grateful!), but the fact that the law – and not ethics or any sense of right and wrong – is the only thing standing between Ted Lieu and tyranny is more than worrisome.

Featured image courtesy of Pixabay.

Written by

Marta Hernandez is an immigrant, writer, editor, science fiction fan (especially military sci-fi), and a lover of freedom, her children, her husband and her pets. She loves to shoot, and range time is sacred, as is her hiking obsession, especially if we’re talking the European Alps. She is an avid caffeine and TWD addict, and wants to own otters, sloths, wallabies, koalas, and wombats when she grows up.

14 Comments
  • scott says:

    Trying to figurfe out how this ass monkey hasn’t been brought up on charges for violating the UCMJ… I’m sure that any prosecutor worth their salt could make charges stick for his comments against HIS boss…He seems to be a poster child for the affirmative action / leftist push under the previous occupant of the Whitehouse…

  • SFC D says:

    Colonel, you have publicly violated the oath you swore as an officer of the United States Air Force, embarrassed yourself as a leader and representative of the United States government, and it is in the best interest of the military and yourself to resign your commission, effective immediately. Your leadership should be clamoring for your scalp right now. Read the following, and see if any of it seems familiar:

    “I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

  • GWB says:

    Penn Jillette made a very astute observation about his morality as an atheist.
    And I think Penn is fooling himself.

    I don’t need the Constitution to spell it out.
    Well, if it isn’t spelled out, then how does everyone know what it all is? We all have similar consciences, but we need a spelling out so there’s no ambiguity, AND so we can teach subsequent generations about it in a coherent fashion.

    And, no, you wouldn’t be a good person without someone teaching you how to be a good person.

    Laws only keep the marginal folks from doing bad things*. Societal norms (upon which the laws are based) keep most people from doing those things. But, those marginal folks? They’re you and me – on different aspects of the law, and to differing degrees of harm than other people.
    (* Marginal becomes defined by the laws themselves. Enough laws and everyone becomes “marginal”. Few enough laws and a huge majority of properly raised folks never even approach the line.)

    An ethical human being would not have any wish to restrict the fundamental right of another person to express themselves
    I don’t wholeheartedly agree. IMO, an ethical human would certainly have the wish (I don’t think you can be ethical and believe that others should be subjected to profanity and vulgarity just because someone else wishes to do so), but would suppress implementation of that wish because of other issues. Also, an ethical person would wish to restrict their children’s expression – otherwise they won’t learn to restrict themselves. (Note: I am most emphatically NOT a libertarian, though I flirt with it insofar as the size of the national gov’t goes.)

    The fact that he freely admits that he would engage in dictatorial behavior if it wasn’t for that pesky Constitution, gives me a cold shiver.
    But it’s NOT a violation of his oath – unless he actually violates the Constitution. I agree when you question his commitment to that oath. But if he tried to get the amendment amended, in the proper fashion, that would not be a violation of his oath.
    (That bit is more directed at Scott and SFC D.)

    The dude is a … well, you used a lot of good phrases, and I won’t repeat. But, so far, he’s smart enough to stay on the right side of that line.
    The real scary bit? The guy keeps getting elected despite this authoritarian streak. Look to his constituency as to where America’s real problem lies.

    • scott says:

      Thanks GWB, but my comment on this assclown was actually more in relation to his disparaging comments and insults to his Commander in Chief, which most definitely do violate the UCMJ, but i agree with you that his comments about restricting speech to not yet rise to the level of violating his oath. ( though they most certainly do in spirit..

    • Marta Hernandez says:

      I don’t mean to imply that we don’t need the Constitution. Of course, laws need to be codified. That’s not in debate. What I mean is that I know right from wrong without the Constitution having to tell me.

      As an ethical human being, I can wish someone would shut the hell up. I would NEVER wish to shut them up by force – government or otherwise.

      Teaching our children is an obligation we all have. That’s not what I’m talking about here. An ethical, rational person understands that shutting someone up via force because they happen to voice a dissenting view is immoral. That’s completely different than teaching your kids to be quiet when appropriate and respectful – especially since they reside in your home and are beholden to you for their food, clothing, shelter, etc.

      I am more libertarian than you are, but that said, we agree on the basics.

    • SFC D says:

      GWB, if this man was your commanding officer, would you feel confident in his ability to lead, given his feelings about the constitution?

      • Marta Hernandez says:

        Absolutely not. And that was my point. He didn’t violate his oath. He acknowledged the constitution prevents him from being a tyrannical fuck, which is true. But would I want him anywhere near leading troops? Hell to the fuck no!

        • John Sanford says:

          He does more than simply acknowledge that the Constitution prevents him from being a tyrannical fuck. He says “I think over the long run, it’s better that government doesn’t regulate the content of speech.”

  • Jim says:

    California Democrat Ted Lieu must perceive himself as an Übermensch while the rest of us are Untermenschen. I guess that fits with Madame Money’s [HC] description of the common people of the USA as ”deplorables”. His desire to regulate the speech of the ignorant ‘peasants’ is just like the President of the Human Rights commission in Australia who [as I mentioned elsewhere] wished she could regulate speech ”around the kitchen table”. Such people want to turn open democratic societies into replicas of the old DDR [East Germany] or Rumania where informing on one’s neighbours or even family to the various secret police forces became the norm.

  • Charles N. Steele says:

    I largely agree with you, Marta, but must make one small correction. You write “… the fact that the law – and not ethics or any sense of right and wrong – is the only thing standing between Ted Lieu and tyranny is more than worrisome.”

    You likely mean “his desire to try to be tyrannical,” not “tyranny.” If he tried, there’s a number of us Americans who would be happy to show him what happens to tyrants. It’s ironic that leftists don’t realize that it’s the Constitution that protects them from *us.*

    • Marta Hernandez says:

      I more mean that if there was no law, he would go for it. The fact that there would be people standing in his way and likely shooting his ass aside. LOL

  • Reformed Trombonist says:

    Trying to figure out what’s so astute about Penn Jillette’s remark? The question is not whether he wants to do those things. The question is, why are they wrong? If there is no God, they wouldn’t be, not in any absolute sense.

    And then, what about the ones who are not Penn Jillette, the ones that do want to do those things to you? Aren’t we seeing that being played out in Europe right now? Where judges rule it’s okay for their immigrants to rape women or even small boys, because that’s okay in their culture?

    This is where Jillette’s logic leads. The human heart can rationalize any act, I don’t care what it is, We need a moral authority who’s bigger than we are, smarter than we are, more powerful than we are, and wiser, and more knowledgeable, and, most important, has our best interests at heart.

  • Paul Reismiller says:

    Great article Marta! You hit every important point right on the head.

  • Pat says:

    I spent 22 years in the military including time in the reserves and working with the national guard. There were plenty of this idiots in the ranks. They were quite political in fighting for promotion and their biases known only to their supporters. They could be ass clowns when not in uniform as long as they did their jobs when they were drilling. Also the promotion system is, at best, imperfect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram