Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: Rep. Ted Lieu

I guess there are more foolish, dumb, frightening members of Congress than this guy. Think about that.

Lieu, the very model of a modern California Democrat, told CNN host Brianna Keilar, among other things,

“I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech.”

And then, he tweeted,

“Would I like to regulate Fox News? Yes, but I can’t because the First Amendment stops me. And that’s ultimately a good thing in the long run.”

You see, people qualified to the leaders of a democracy don’t want to operate like totalitarians. I don’t trust people who want to summarily execute or imprison political opponents without due process or a trial, but who add “But I can’t because of the Constitution, and I guess that OK.” Or, say things like “I wish I could keep slaves/ outlaw religions/ confiscate guns/ nationalize businesses/ take away private property and give it to whoever I want but there’s that dang Constitution.” Such people are wannabe totalitarians, don’t really like our rights, and would crush them in a second if they saw a chance.

That’s Ted Lieu. That’s a lot of Democrats and progressives. Lieu is just of the few dumb enough to admit it.


16 thoughts on “Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: Rep. Ted Lieu

  1. How about U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell (Democrat from California) who seems perfectly comfortable with the idea to use nuclear weapons against American citizens… all of course… for the greater good.

      • Yes – he was being stupid and hyperbolic by pointing out that the government has nuclear weapons – but he was pretty clearly saying that he was comfortable using government force to confiscate privately owned weapons.
        My question for him would be “So, how many dead Americans would you be happy to stack up in order to achieve this confiscation?”

        • You are right, that’s what Swalwell was saying, and proudly so. He simply used the hyperbolic to illustrate the possibility of overwhelming government force, but he fully intended to suggest that he’d gladly use force, including deadly force, to confiscate firearms.

          This latest from Congressman Lieu is along the exact same lines — he is comfortable using government force (he never mentioned deadly force, but one can’t help seeing the imputation of the possibility) to silence speech he disagrees with.

          Both these sentiments are equally troubling, and they reinforce the reality of today’s Democrat party — a nascent group of totalitarian would-be communists. I fought against their ilk in the 1980’s on behalf of America, and I’d be reluctantly willing to take up arms against them again to prevent the wet dreams of Swalwell and Lieu from becoming reality.

  2. A little collateral damage here, a little collateral damage there… just saying… hyperbolicly speaking of course. Gotta get those bad guys.

  3. I miss the good old-days when the only part of the Bill of Rights that liberals wanted to destroy was the Second Amendment. Good times, good times…
    Now we have enforced speech codes on Government property (schools, 1st Amendment violation.); FISA court shenanigans against US citizens (4th Amendment); asset seizure in excess of any possible fine for misdemeanors (5th amendment); and the 10th is generally ignored, unless a blue state would like to change the way they count votes.
    There’s more, but off the top of my head, which just exploded, that’s a start on a long list.

    • I think you are wrong. They only publicly STATED they ONLY wanted to destroy the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is the amendment that protects the others. Now that they feel they have weakened the second amendment enough, they are happy to go after the rest. Don’t think they haven’t been after all of them since the 1950’s at least.

  4. Jack,

    Scalia said something to the same effect regarding flag burners in Johnson v. Texas. It’s not exactly “… but I’ll defend with my life your right to say it,” but it’s not a calling for the thought police either.

  5. I take his comments in a slightly different way.

    Power corrupts, etc. You either believe that, or you do not. I think it is true.

    I also believe there is a general inclination in people to want to control other people and make them behave the way that satisfies us. It is self-centered or selfish aspect in people.

    The Rule of Law puts that in check. Even those in power are restrained by the law.

    He is simply acknowledging those two things: the desire to wield power to suit one’s own desires, and the restraint on that power imposed by the Constitution.


      • Agreed. Theory and practice though. I would much prefer an Eisenhower, who worries about whether an interstate freeway is constitutional to a Wilson or Roosevelt who we’re fine twisting the constitution to their interpretation, or a Pelosi, who laughed at the question of whether healthcare was provided for in the constitution

        Likewise, I am much more comfortable with Supreme Court Justices who are hesitant to use their power, than those who are not.


  6. We have a two tier justice system out in the open now. Forget Hillery, Cohen, and others who broke laws and still breath free air. Let’s take a look at the unjust application of the law against political enemies.

    Flynn broke no laws. He is accused of lying to a Fed (and by a Fed he did not speak with, as those who interviewed him did not think so) and the full force of the Federal Government broke him, literally.

    Cohen (who is no saint, and deserves prison for real crimes) was forced to agree to a crime that is not a crime for political purposes. Word on the street is that they threatened to go after his family (son, specifically) if he did not do so. Knowing that there are so many laws now, and every American alive likely commits three felonies a day, what father would not fall on his sword for his child?

    Papadopoulos is charged just like Flynn: lying.*

    The list of process and lying ‘crimes’ is long.

    The witch hunt to get Trump has brought this abuse firmly to light. All Mueller is showing is that he can indict a ham sandwich, as everyone and anyone can be gotten to when the US government is willing to cheat.

    *Here is how they might have gotten to you in Mueller’s FBI: You attend a party that the FBI somehow investigates. An agent routinely asks you what color car you drove to the party, to which you reply ‘red.’ Mueller wants to pressure you for whatever reason, so he looks up your car and finds out GM calls that color ‘scarlet.’ You have now committed a felony.

    The statue involved, 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, is very broad. This “makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is “within the jurisdiction” of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy.”

    Taking a look at our red car example: suppose you work for a company who does some housing repairs on a military base. When filling out the paperwork to get your vehicle access, you again call your car color ‘red’
    but GM calls it ‘scarlet.’ You are now exposed to criminal liability, in the right (or wrong) circumstances.

    • Just imagine if your car color is officially ‘plum crazy’ (purple for Mopars)! They will claim you lied on your form where you stated you didn’t have any psychiatric issues if you tell the truth about the color, or claim you lied if you called your car ‘purple’.

  7. Interesting fact: having in your possession any item that is illegal to possess in ANY country on earth is a federal offense.

    Such items can come from your local WalMart.

    So if Honduras outlaws the possession of a certain parrot that you already own (or got from a pet store which legally obtained the bird from a breeder) you are liable.

    Nice, these bureaucrats, huh?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.