February 27, 2014

“Levin Tells The Tea Party to Fight Obama’s Tyranny: ‘Firewall of The Constitution Has Been Breached'”

Fifth anniversary address, given this morning:

The FCC wants to take down radio shows like Levin’s. Both the Democrats and the GOP Establishment despise the TEA Party, which — like those “meddling kids” and their damned talking dog who keep pulling off their faux conservative masks — continues to foil their ingenious plans to enrich themselves and dupe the public. And establishment commentators, who live off the tits of the Party’s money men, persist in their efforts to demonize real conservatives, to marginalize them as dangerous kooks, and to speak in pleasing tones about the need for “realism” and an end to party infighting even as they cast stones and work to damage contenders to the entrenched aristocracy.

All of these people suck ass. And Levin, bless him, has been long willing to say so.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 2:53pm
20 comments | Trackback

Comments (20)

  1. Damn you, Autoplay! Damn you!

  2. Democrats In All But Label Only

  3. Levin for President.

  4. And then Thomas Sowell and Ann Coulter say Ted Cruz is ruining everything.

    Independence was not achieved by populating the army with royalists, on account of the royalists would have crossed the Delaware and kept going until they joined the ranks of the Redcoats.

    God took Andrew Breitbart, but the devil has taken Thomas Sowell.

  5. I think Sowell’s fallen into the self-appointed-moderator trap. I don’t agree with his take, but I respect him enough to believe he’s acting in good faith.

    Coulter on the other hand; who the hell knows what’s going on there.

  6. >who the hell knows what’s going on there.<

    mrs. romney wants to be relevant?

  7. I thought she was whoring for Christie.

  8. I agree with Ernst about Mr. Sowell. Besides, I think he’s more than earned us cutting him some slack.

  9. The California AG, Kamala Harris, is asking the 9th Circuit to be allowed to have standing to then petition for an en banc court decision in the CCW Peruta case.

    What was struck down by the court was the requirement to show “good cause” why one should be allowed to “bear arms.” I say “bear arms” because the court said that the State must allow either open carry or concealed carry and cannot make both something a normal citizen couldn’t do as there is a right to “bear arms” outside the home for self protection.

    One thing stood out to me and to the commentators.

    [T]he state characterizes the “good cause” requirement … as a “modest” requirement.

    So a constitutional right must pass a “modest requirement” of showing “good cause” why you should be allowed to exercise that “right?”

    As was pointed out this could be a game-changer in constitutional law.

    Just imagine:

    How about having a modest requirement to demonstrate good cause before being allowed to vote. Or speak, or assemble.

    A “modest” requirement of “good cause” to be granted the Right to freedom from involuntary servitude?

    Just think of the “basic transformational” possibilities in just the “good cause” clause.

    Then add in that Kamala Harris argues that as long as some form of a constitutional right is allowed in a large geographical area then the ban on that right in a smaller (heavily populated) area is not a restriction on that right.

    The panel was wrong because San Diego COUNTY (as opposed to the City of San Diego) generally allows open carry in almost all unincorporated areas, except those close to population concentrations–and that this area is most of the county.

    Under this reading of the Constitution the South, or any other area of the country, could resume with slavery since they would only be a small portion of the geographical area of the nation.

    Immense opportunities open, with this way of reading of the Constitution, for all of Progressive-dom.

  10. Under this reading of the Constitution the South, or any other area of the country, could resume with slavery

    D.C. and New Pyongyang York are way ahead of you.

  11. Obviously, Kamela is looking to make a name for herself. Kamela is probably going to run for Governor and wants the leftist cred. And, it doesn’t hurt that this issue aligns with Kamela’s world view.

  12. CT State Police Ready to Go Door-To-Door

    To confiscate unregistered assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

    “We’re sworn to uphold the law,” Connecticut State Police Spokesman Lt. Paul Vance [says] … “We’re not the Gestapo.” … “I don’t want to talk about the Constitution m’am. At all. Not at all.” … “I’m the master.”

  13. So a constitutional right must pass a “modest requirement” of showing “good cause” why you should be allowed to exercise that “right?”

    Talk about a Kamela’s nose in the tent…

  14. I agree with Ernst about Mr. Sowell. Besides, I think he’s more than earned us cutting him some slack.

    Yeah, but the parallel construction on my comment was too delish to pass up.

  15. Geoffb, I should have posted here, but I put a sipsey street irregulars link in the Friday open thread. A response to connecticut’s intention to confiscate. As has been said of late, “This will not end well.”

  16. Does CT intend in fact to go searching for unregistered assault weapons so they can confiscate them?

    Because I’m inferring from some of the comments to the piece geoffB linked that the CT State Police spokesman was presented with a hypothetical and then hounded, Patterico-style, to answer the question!.

    n.b. & full disclosure, I lack the capability to play the youtube vid Farrago posted, so I can only go by what’s in the comments.

  17. She was definitely confrontational. He’d only commit to enforcing all laws if they were broken.
    I guess we’ll have to wait and see whether Connecticut is going to up the ante and actually enforce the law. So far, it has sent letters to the scoff-laws. Unless the legislature repeals the law, I’m guessing the powers that be will ratchet this up incrementally.

  18. goddamn autoplay, we hates it.

    Regarding the Connecticut gun-grab law (which I do not follow carefully myself), it would also be useful to know the state of the situation of any legal challenge currently in the courts. Is the law liable to be regarded by a court as an ex-post-facto imposition? Will it be struck down on that or some other violation of constitutionality?

  19. US District Court upheld the law at the end of January – government has a substantial interest in public safety and crime. Besides, it didn’t ban handguns, the quintessential home defense weapon. It will be appealed. We’ll have to see what the Circuit Court does.

  20. returning briefly to the scene of the autoplay crime . . .

    A tip o’ the hat to you RI Red — both for the information and the kindness to put it.

Leave a Reply