Sen. Rand Paul on Friday announced the launch of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, making good on an idea he floated during last year's campaign.
GOP Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Mike Lee (Utah) will join the Kentucky Republican as the first members of the caucus.
DeMint helped several tea party-backed candidates — including Paul and Lee — win primaries last year and he is viewed as a hero within the grass-roots movement.
The group's first meeting will be on Jan. 27. The Senate group mirrors the House Tea Party Caucus, which Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) announced she was forming last year.
According to a joint statement announcing the caucus issued Friday afternoon, "citizens will be invited to speak so we can hear from them and address their concerns about what's happening in Washington."
It's like the Superfriends, only without the really big computer in the Hall of Justice. Or the superpowers. Or the invisible jet. Or...well okay, maybe more like the Legion of Doom, Jim DeMint kinda looks like Solomon Grundy. What will the Senate Tea Party Caucus actually do all day, anyhow? Citizens will be invited to speak? That should be fun.
Oh please, let's see some crazy-ass Tea Party faithful on C-SPAN speaking to Congress on how Obama's secret Kenyan Muslim volunteer army is putting gay mind-control fluoride in school lunches, too.
Seriously, what do these guys hope to accomplish besides accidental televised comedy hi-jinks?
Posts
22 comments:
I hope they didn't buy their "Tea Party Caucus" stationery in bulk. The general public is catching onto the fact that the "Tea Party" is just gun-nut Bush dead-enders in
patriot drag.
Seriously, what do these guys hope to accomplish besides accidental televised comedy hi-jinks?
Yeah. They aren't nearly as smart or serious as Democrats.
Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Jim DeMint know infinitely more about how the U.S. Constitution works than Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee does, or more than Zandar does for that matter.
How quickly we forget Zandar likes to style himself as a Constitutional scholar with such smash hits as "The First Amendment includes separation of church and state".
OMG Anonymous Troll wants to relitigate the Christine O'Donnell argument.
You remember how that turned out last November, right?
The First Amendment no more literally promises "separation of church and state" than does the Second Amendment literally promise you the right to own a gun for any purpose and use you see fit.
It actually guarantees you the right to "keep and bear" the military armaments issued to you.
So if you own a gun, you should be in Afghanistan right now, using it for its only Constitutionally sanctioned function.
I love Constitutional Originalism.
The First Amendment no more literally promises "separation of church and state" than does the Second Amendment literally promise you the right to own a gun for any purpose and use you see fit.
Come back when you know what you're talking about, child. The person who told you what to regurgitate about the Constitution is/was an idiot.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Nope. No right to individual gun ownership. Just a right to carry a weapon as a member of the militia, and have it on your person or in your home in anticipation of being called into duty.
Activist courts have misinterpreted this clear language in recent years, but even the Reagan administration agreed with me on this, Stevie.
Question:
Why isn't Zandar denouncing Democrat Steve Cohen comparing Republicans to Nazis on the floor of the House, as Steve AR pointed out earlier?
I'd like to see the defense for that. I also demand that Zandar live up to his own standards he applies to the right and call for Cohen's immediate resignation.
Or do you tacitly agree with his slander through your silence?
You don't get to demand anything from me, number one.
Number two, I don't support what Cohen said, it was stupid and he should apologize.
If however that's the bar for resignation from the House, there are several dozen people ahead of him in line.
The we get to add another link to the growing file on your lies, hypocrisy, and hate speech.
Do yourself a favor and shut it down before the FBI comes asking questions.
Allan:
Nope. No right to individual gun ownership.
Really? You don't read English very well, do you, child? Re-read the 2nd Amendment again. That "right of the People to keep and bear arms" is separate from the part about the well-regulated militia (that's what commas do). Then read Heller. Even the dissenters said the right exists. Then read McDonald v. Chicago. Then come back when you've grown up.
Yes, Heller was a bad decision in many respects, most especially in creating a right to own guns in self-defense out of whole cloth.
You'll notice that the above sentence contains commas. Please tell me which part of the sentence is invisible to you: the part before the comma, or the part after. Then tell me what meaning you extract from the half of my sentence you see. This will help me communicate better with you in the future by adapting my commenting style to work better with your disability.
ZCP, I agree that what Steve Cohen said was wrong. He's a really great guy, by the way. He's responded with personalized thank-you cards when I have donated to his campaign.
What he should have said was, "I have a list of 57 members of the Republican Party who are active members of the Nazi movement."
That would have been more in accord with House protocol, and a better emulation of Republican standards of conduct.
Applause @ Allan.
And an amused smirk.
Allan:
Yes, Heller was a bad decision in many respects, most especially in creating a right to own guns in self-defense out of whole cloth.
The 2nd Amendment allows any law-abiding person in the U.S. to own guns that aren't banned outright (e.g., a sawed-off shotgun). The right to defend myself with such a gun (or knife, or club, or my bare hands) already exists. Heller upheld the rights already in place; it didn't create anything.
You sound as ridiculous as those assholes running various Illinois towns that had passed local handgun bans. A Wilmette man used his handgun to shoot a criminal who had broken into the man's house (the criminal was wounded, caught, and eventually sentenced to a number of years in prison). The assholes running the village of Wilmette charged the crime victim with a crime, violating the ban. This is the logical end result of liberalism, making the victim of a crime a criminal.
That case actually got more ridiculous. Activist state and federal judges childishly agreed with the village of Wilmette for nearly a year. The Illinois state legislature stepped in to pass a statute to allow those like the crime victim to use self-defense against frivolous charges by villages like Wilmette. The poster-child for Democratic politics, Rod Blagojevich (himself a criminal asshole), was stupid enough to veto the bill; it was overridden and became law. Wilmette dropped the charges.
Like I said, come back when you've grown up, child.
You know, every day that passes liberals prove more and more that they believe the Constitution means whatever they say it means< rather than the actual words there.
A prime example: Democrat John Lewis has been in Congress for decades and still doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
He's nearly as stupid as Allan here.
z? why did you delete my post? are you trolling your own blog again?
@ZCP
john boehner just did the same thing.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1109/Boehner_mixes_up_Constitution_and_Declaration.html
F bomb tripped the spam filter. Sheesh.
Uh... how would that (given the acceptable meaning of "F bomb") trigger the spam filter?
Hell, I didn't know you had a spam filter.
I don't have one. Google blogspot has one, it's weird, I don't understand how it works, but it does not like short posts with the f-bomb in them.
Oh. Fair point.
Post a Comment