Unethical Quote Of The Month: U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski

mikulski

“So let’s solve the problem. Let’s not get involved in constitutional arguments, and let’s help our American people be safe and secure in their home, their neighborhood, their school and their house of worship.”

—-Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) in her opening remarks ahead of a Senate Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee hearing, prior to testimony from Attorney General Loretta Lynch regarding the Administration’s proposed gun control measures.

Mikulski, who is mercifully retiring, has been a relentless opponent of gun rights, and if you wanted a poster child for Democrats who would ban guns in a heartbeat if they could, Mikulski’s perfect.

“Let’s solve the problem and never mind what the Constitution says” could be the motto of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party as it is evolving. The quote is signature significance: no elected officials who take their oath of office seriously—you know, the like one taken bu U.S. Senators in which they swear to “support and defend the Constitution?—-would ever say, “Let’s not get involved in constitutional arguments…” in considering any legislative act or Presidential order, because the Constitution must be followed and respected in everything the government does.

This is the arrogant, lawless, totalitarian mindset that the hard-left progressive establishment represented by Mikulski now embodies. Why didn’t any mainstream media journalists immediately expose this? Why was it only the conservative bloggers and news sources who found her statement outrageous? And why didn’t any other Senators have the wit, integrity and sense of responsibility to lay her out for saying such a stupid, arrogant, un-American thing?

Constitutional arguments are what keep us free. Those who sneer at them like Mikulski have other plans.

19 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month: U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski

  1. “Why didn’t any mainstream media journalists immediately expose this? Why was it only the conservative bloggers and news sources who found her statement outrageous? And why didn’t any other Senators have the wit, integrity and sense of responsibility to lay her out for saying such a stupid, arrogant, un-American thing?”

    Because they’re all bozos on the same bus.

  2. Dammit, don’t get all logical and stuff. Children are dying! We must act! Unless, it violates a liberal core value, that is. On the other hand, a Constitutional core value is reactionary and hateful. Plow it under!

    We have met the enemy and she is us.

  3. Arrogant, lawless, and totalitarian, you said it all. The Democratic party has evolved over the past 24 years from a center-left party whose differences with the other side were mainly managerial into a hard-left party interested in imposing its own vision of things on the nation, with little or no concern for what anyone else thinks. How did it get there?

    Well, first of all, the Sixties left a small core of extreme leftists interested only in power, by any means necessary, out there. Some of them bided their time, some remained in power on the fringe of their party. Then the Cold War ended and Bush the elder didn’t really try to get reelected. They had their chance to put the center-left in power, and then take an additional step to hard left, or so they thought. Unfortunately the nation wasn’t quite ready to go there, but they did get to put the ideas of single payer healthcare, gays in the military, and so forth on the table, before the American people decided they were not ready to go there and threw the Democrats out of control of Congress. With them went a lot of the remaining Cold War Democrats, who at least grasped the idea that both parties were on the same team against other countries and that America was one, not two nations.

    Slick Willie tacked center, but then embarrassed himself and the office by playing swallow the leader. Faced with loss of power and access, the left closed ranks, saying that character didn’t matter as long as national figures got things done and didn’t rock the boat on a few key issues, notably abortion. This took away his ability to push for Al Gore and led to the 2000 crisis, which led to a lot more ugly rhetoric that wasn’t forgotten, and the Democratic party willing to play as dirty as it needed to in order to avoid a similar failure.

    September 11 seemed to wipe that away, as America pulled together, the Taliban were scattered, and Saddam quickly brought down, leaving Iran and Syria fearing they were next. Then Abu Graihb happened, the war in Iraq went sideways, and the Democrats saw their chance to not just win, but win it all. The collapse of the economy in late 2008 sealed the deal, and they had everything. Even after America half changed its mind in 2010 they still held close to unlimited power, as Harry Reid could and did stop any GOP initiative from seeing the light of day. The party had also surprising success in the Supreme Court, further bolstering the thought that they were unstoppable. Obama still continued to hold a certain level of popularity and success by refusing to deal with the opposition. In the meantime, America became more and more divided into two nations: a liberal north east and west coast that viewed anyone who did not agree with it as racist and full of hate, and therefore unworthy of engagement, and a conservative South and Midwest who viewed those who did not agree with them as arrogant and not worth engaging with.

    Things finally started to go south for them in 2014, however the Republican Party, perhaps wisely, declined to force a showdown. Here we are with 10 months to go until it is time to choose a new president, and frankly, the Democratic Party is in a difficult spot. The fights on the Republican side of the I’ll get all the attention in the media, however, at least the Republicans have candidates who could serve. Here we are with 10 months to go until it is time to choose a new president, and frankly, the Democratic Party is in a difficult spot. The fights on the Republican side of the aisle get all the attention in the media, however, at least the Republicans have candidates who could serve. The Democratic slate is reduced to Hilary, who is surprisingly not able to shake off the large number of scandals in which she is involved, Bernie Sanders, who can’t seriously hope to be elected, and Martin O’Malley, who is only there so that the stark choice between Hillary and Bernie is not so obvious. The remaining Democrats in power are hard left, some of them relics from that Golden Age of radicalism who thought their time had finally come, who see their dreams of a socialist America under the direction of a few visionaries who alone are accepted as the voices of wisdom, crumbling around them. Their mission in this last year of the Messiah’s age, with the light among them only a little while longer, is to make as much of their agenda unchangeable policy as possible, so that, even in the event those hated rubes from Kansas and Texas put another dope like W on Pennsylvania Avenue, he can’t undo their attempts to make this world a better place.

    • Whoa. Back up. 24 years? No. The progressive agenda has been around 100 years now. The progressives decided they should not be ruled by an outdated document. Wilson changed it, FDR stacked and coerced the Courts, LBJ and Obama made huge inroads on their intrusion into the realm of the states.
      -Jut

      • Woody (he HATED being called Woody) even wrote a book about how the Constitution was outmoded and an impediment to progress. He got a nice lesson in how the Constitution works when Congress stuffed his League of Nations.

      • All true, although I wouldn’t put Wilson and FDR in quite the same category as what I’ll call the modern progressive movement, which I think started 24 or so years ago, due to certain philosophical differences, notably race (FDR still went to war with a segregated military and got heavy-handed with Japanese Americans, WW was an outright racist who rolled back desegregation), public sector unions (FDR said there was no right to organize for Federal government employees), non-mainstream sexuality (are you kidding?), and of course fighting with other nations and projecting power (self-explanatory).

  4. “This is the arrogant, lawless, totalitarian mindset that the hard-left progressive establishment represented by Mikulski now embodies. ”

    I don’t think calling it lawless is really correct; it isn’t lawless. Rather, it is their belief in a radically different system of laws.

    Arrogant is certainly the case.

    Totalitarian? Authoritarian, for certain.

    She is, to put it bluntly, an idiot.

    But, hold on a sec here:

    ““Let’s solve the problem and never mind what the Constitution says” could be the motto of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party as it is evolving. ”

    This is hardly unique to the Obama administration, and certainly not to the Democratic party in general. The Bush administration was much worse about this (see also: torture, lying to get us into wars, even more egregious violations of Americans’ civil liberties than the present incarnation of the CIA/NSA), and had the full support of the Republican party. I think suggesting that this is a problem with the modern presidency – certainly post-9/11 – is quite fair, but locating it uniquely with Obama is deceptive. It dates back before him.

    Moreover, I don’t think it is fair to claim that the Democrats in general are all on board with violating the Constitution; they do remain the party of the ACLU, after all. Some Democrats are for it, but many are indeed skeptical of the constitutionality of his executive actions.

    The reason that Obama is doing what he is doing is because, quite frankly, he’s desperate. He has no ability to get anything passed through Congress, and frankly, Congress is completely dysfunctional these days in discharging many of its own Constitutional duties (you know, like passing a freaking budget – it took a Speaker resigning and throwing up the bird to half of his own party to get a Constitution passed). It is not surprising that Obama is resorting to trying to take executive action on things that Congress is refusing to budge on.

    He should rightly be put back in his place, but this is born out of frustration at incompetence, not out of Obama’s deep love for dictatorial rule, or Democrats’ general dislike of the Constitution.

    • 1. The Constitution is the Law of the Land. “Let’s ignore the law” is lawless, by definition.

      2. Leaders try to get around the Constitution. Legislators may not, by oath. Also lawless.

      3. “This isn’t new” and “he did it too” are rationalizations. I’m not writing about Bush. I wrote about Bush when he was President.

      4. Lincoln skirted the Constitution too when it suited his purpose. The post was about the QUOTE. Very few Republicans or Democrats past or present would dream of saying “The Constitution shouldn’t matter.” That the Senator said it, out loud and in public means that she, and the culture she is part of, doesn’t even know they SHOULD obey the Constitution.

      5. The desperation argument is bankrupt and counter-factual. If a President can’t work with Congress—virtually everyone agrees that Obama barely tries—he’s at least 50% of the problem. And if he’s frustrated, tough. The limitations on Presidential power are there for a reason. If he wants to do anything, he has to bend. Unilateral action isn’t Constitutional. Obama’s choices are to accept rejection, or bring his agenda into line with political realities. “I don’t have the skill or will do do this Constitutionally, so I have no choice but to break the law.” That’s what your argument consists of….actually, it’s Obama’s argument. I’m astounded that I keep hearing it. It is civic and Constitutional nonsense, but absolutely progressive, Democratic nonsense.

    • “Moreover, I don’t think it is fair to claim that the Democrats in general are all on board with violating the Constitution; they do remain the party of the ACLU, after all.”

      See, see. . . this is where I’m all conflicted about whether TD is a troll or a satirist. It’s really quite masterful.

  5. See? You’ve found precisely the idiot I cannot tolerate. Someone who ignores the Constitution. You want to register guns, ban guns, confiscate guns? Fine. But you have to amend the constitution to do it. Good luck with that, I’ll fight you every step of the way.

  6. Barbara’s sweet little comment seems to be all over the internet right now. I’d say that if any single quote in recent days exemplifies the leftist mindset, that would be it. For people like her, the Constitution remains a roadblock to their asperations and nothing else. That’s a good thing, too. It’s exactly what that document was crafted to do… defeat the plans of would-be masters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.