Politics – Page 106 – Shall Not Be Questioned

The Theory That F&F Was a Pretext for Gun Control

CBS News has a piece that lends credence to what is being portrayed by the water carrying media as a wild-eyed paranoid conspiracy theory:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

Of course, evidence that they used Fast and Furious to make the case for the multi-sale reporting requirement is not evidence that the entire purpose of the operation was to gin up support for gun control. It’s hard for me to see why they’d request wiretaps if the sole purpose was driving up trace numbers. I think when all is said and done, we’ll discover that driving trace numbers from Mexico was just the icing on the cake. If I had to take a wild eyed guess on what the President is hiding, it’s probably evidence of perjury, and it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a some talk about how the higher trace numbers will just provide more evidence to support gun control efforts, whether the multi-sale requirement or a new assault weapons ban. Was the purpose of F&F only to make a case for gun control? Who knows. It wouldn’t surprise me, but I also wouldn’t be surprised to find out that this literally was an underpants gnome strategy of an investigation.

Let straw purchasers traffic lots of gun to Mexico.
???
Take down cartel kingpins!

I mean, it’s ridiculous, but it’s also Government. But if all this was is a botched operation, the politically sensible thing to do would be to throw a few people under the bus and come clean about it. This was obviously something bigger, or none of the coverup makes sense. But what is the White House hiding? It’s hard for me to understand how people on the left aren’t interested in that question. If this was still the Bush Administration, I’d sure as hell be curious, and would want answers.

Dip in the Polls for Obama?

Looks like the electorate didn’t like the assertion of Executive Privilege. Given Obama’s struggles recently, this leads me to believe whatever is being shielded by the White House is worse than what he’s going to suffer for shielding it. Either that or he’s good enough friends with Eric Holder he’s willing to take the White House down to help him. Or Eric Holder has enough dirt on people. Who knows.

Who’s Voting

Ace of Spades has an interesting post on Independent Voters, who are turning away from Obama. If you want to understand why our political system is in such dire straits, you should go read it. Studies of independent voters show that the majority of them are closet partisans. In other words, they can be considered reliable votes for one of the two major parties, but for various reasons, don’t want to identity with them. There is, however, a large number of voters who fit the profile that Ace describes, and they constitute enough people to swing elections:

In other words, they have decided — they just think it makes them seem like smarter, more informed voters to claim they’re still deciding, so they won’t admit that. As they’re actuallyÂ notÂ very well informed voters — and I think they know this — this pretense becomes very important to them. They need some pretense to excuse away their complete disinterest in reading the news.

So they basically start insisting they want the candidates themselves to catch them up to speed, ignoring the fact that policies are spelled out on their campaign websites, and ignoring the fact that these positions are easily and readily discoverable, just by googling and reading.

In 2008, this cohort broke heavily for Obama, and in 2012 they will be an important component in the race. This is why political rhetoric today is so heavily geared toward the ignorant. Speaking of which, Ilya Somin has a video highlighting the problem of political ignorance.

Progress in Jury Nullification

A panel of perspective jurors seems none too thrilled about a felony trial over a small amount of coke. Of course, I can promise you none of those who answered that they would nullify ended up on the jury.

Obama’s Messaging is Off

The Obama campaign has been paying protestors in Michigan to follow Mitt Romney around the state. They tried denying it, but the protestors admitted it to reporters, claiming they were pulling down anywhere from $7.25/hour to $17/hour. Pejman has the best explanation for why the denial from the Obama campaign is terrible messaging for the president:

Personally, I donâ€™t understand why Team Obama doesnâ€™t admit to paying the protesters. If they do, perhaps then the president can actually claim to have created a few jobs.

Resolution to Find Holder in Contempt Passes House Committee

From NRA. I don’t really understand why Obama invoking Executive Privilege was a smart move. It’s basically an admission of White House involvement in the scandal, and now, unlike before, the entire media is paying attention to Fast and Furious. How ironic that it might be Obama himself be the one to blow this scandal wide open.

Where Do Small Government Supporters Turn When They Lose?

Why, the federal government, of course! Supporters of Ron Paul are upset that their candidate did not win. Instead of just learning what they can from the campaign and applying it to other candidates, they are filing a lawsuit asking the federal government to intervene in the nominating process of a political party.

The legal filing, which names Priebus and GOP chairmen in every state as defendants, “seeks the guidance of the court” on whether the plaintiffs are free to break with certain state party rules and vote for the candidate of their choice at the August convention.

The plaintiffs claim that so-called “binding” delegate rules â€“ in which delegates are required to vote for the winner of their state’s primary or caucus at the convention â€“ violate federal law and prevent delegates from exercising their “Constitutional right to vote their conscience” in Tampa.

I must have missed that part of the Constitution that specifies one’s right to vote at any private gathering. It’s worth adding that Ron Paul’s spokesperson says that they have nothing to do with this lawsuit and they do not support it at all.

This appears to be a case of folks who are all for small government until they decide they want to make government work for them to get what they want.

I Am Amused by Everyone Talking about Wawa

Mitt Romney, being from Michigan, and more recently Massachusetts, probably does not have much experience with Wawa. For those of you who live in Sheetz country, you can get a pretty close comparison to Wawa’s ruthless efficiency on delivering you food. If you can find a good Wawa, you go to the console, pick out your sandwich or other eats, go grab a drink or other convenience store items, then pay for it (the machine prints out a receipt for you to pre-pay, which will then be stamped paid by the cashier.) Usually, if the Wawa is good, and not too busy, you’ll turn around back to the deli counter, and trade a stamped receipt for your Hoagie (not a Sub, as the barbarians call it). Also with Wawa, instead of the standard “Would you like fries with that,” the machine will always ask whether you’d like bacon with that. Doesn’t matter what the sandwich is, they’ll slap some bacon on it for you if you want. They’ll even slap double bacon on if you want. I’ve been to other parts of the country, where there is no Wawa, and other than Sheetz, I haven’t found a whole lot that measures up.

So the fact that Mitt was surprised by this whole process doesn’t mean a whole lot. Wawa is one thing I would sorely miss if I lived somewhere else. Both 7-11 and the gas station convenience stores are ghetto by comparison.

Hating on Pennsylvania Republicans

I really wish Democrats in my area were more aligned with me on anything remotely fiscal or on the right to bear arms. I need an alternative that’s serious about issues and not running for fun on a third party ticket. So much that’s wrong with the GOP in this area of Pennsylvania is represented by what has recently been uncovered about recent ethics violations, some by a Republican former lawmaker from this region as he heads up a government monopoly agency.

We’ve got favors in exchange for business opportunities and crony capitalism:

For six months beginning last summer, the report said, a top LCB aide devoted part of her time to searching for jobs for Conti’s brother and daughter. It was not clear from the report who had directed the aide to do this.

But earlier this year, the report said, Conti e-mailed Starr, recommending that the famed restaurateur hire his daughter.

In the same e-mail, Conti wrote: “On the business front, I would love to revisit the opportunity for a wine boutique in one of your future properties. Team PLCB could be [a] dependable partner. . . . And thank you for reading the info from a proud father in regards to his daughter . . . .”

Weeks later, Conti’s daughter was hired as an executive assistant for Starr Restaurants Catering Group, the report says.

We’ve got sponsorship gifts for the spouses organized by the bureaucrats:

The report concluded that Stapleton, the onetime LCB chairman, accepted several gifts from an LCB vendor, North Wales-based Capital Wine & Spirits.

The gifts included about $1,700 worth of alcohol for an event at the Hotel Hershey last year that Stapleton and his ex-wife organized – the annual Keystone Weekend, billed as a forum for business, civic, sports, and entertainment leaders to exchange ideas on current issues.

Stapleton solicited the alcohol and the LCB vendor donated 60 bottles, the report said. It quoted an e-mail sent to him last Sept. 12 by a Capital executive: “The wine and spirits for Keystone weekend is taken care of.”

The report said another LCB vendor, Majestic Wine & Spirits, lined up a celebrity chef for the same event.

We’ve got pay-offs with free tickets to major sporting events with companies seeking business deals with the agency:

It says one LCB vendor secured a round of golf with a pro for Stapleton during a tournament at Aronimink – and sent two employees to serve as Stapleton’s caddies.
…
Conti, according to the report, frequently attended Philadelphia-area sporting events last summer.

He and his wife, Molli, were described as guests of the Philadelphia Union during one of its soccer games last June – at a time when the team was trying to conduct business with the LCB. Weeks later, the Union invited Conti again, but Short, the LCB marketing director, ended up going in his place, the report said.

Conti, a former Republican state senator from Bucks County, was described as often attending Phillies games as a guest of LCB vendors. Investigators “found no evidence that Conti or his family members paid for the tickets.”

The problem in this is that it’s not business partners doing something nice for each other. The article points out that it’s a crime for these executives to accept gifts, and the state ethics laws also prohibit the employees from using their position to benefit their family members. Interestingly, this wasn’t even a thorough investigation because the investigators couldn’t interview staff or vendors. They relied solely on what the executives were admitting to in official emails.

Of course, members of the GOP in other parts of the state are largely responsible for stalling the privatization bills that would get the state out of the business of selling liquor so that these politicians-turned-bureaucrats wouldn’t even be in a position to use their offices to demand favors and jobs in exchange for business opportunities at taxpayer expense.

I know that in this area, the Republicans brag about not being too socially conservative. That’s fine, but not just because it’s more in line with my views, but because this area has a large population of NY and NJ transplants who aren’t socially conservative either. Then they also brag about not being fiscal conservatives, either. Everything the GOP leaders here say in public are very much about just staying in control as opposed to actually promoting good government or even ideas. It’s very frustrating because they don’t give me a single reason to vote for them as opposed to voting against the other guy in the race. We have a few exceptions here and there, but not many.

Ending Checks and Balances

Based on the comments of the President and a Democratic Congressman, I sometimes wonder if a new platform for the Democratic Party isn’t going to be that the Supreme Court can no longer serve as a check on the Executive and Legislative branches. This morning, Rep. Gerry Connolly said:

â€œItâ€™s not really up to the Supreme Court to second-guess the legitimate decision made by the elected representatives of the people, and if people want to change that law, they can do so by changing the legislators,â€ he said.

Of course, in April, Obama made comments that caused him trouble by challenging the authority of the Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by Congress and supported by the President.

“For years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or the lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” he said at a news conference.
…
Mr. Obama said the court would take an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it overturns the law because it was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

To continue in the over-the-top rhetoric from Connolly, he also added this statement on just how terrible opposition to the individual mandate would be:

Connolly said a ruling against the mandate would rank with the courtâ€™s worst decisions in its history. He compared the potential opinion with those now considered to be the Supreme Courtâ€™s biggest mistakes: Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the â€œseparate but equalâ€ doctrine, and Dred Scott v. Sandford, which said that people brought to the United States as slaves are not U.S. citizens with rights.

It almost comes off as saying that those opposed to the individual mandate are like people who support racism and slavery. Another decision by the Court that Connolly cites as a problem a case he refuses to name, but rather prefers to call “the very novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, overturning D.C.â€™s gun control laws.” Though that isn’t quite as evil a case as the challenge to healthcare. He just considers that to be an example of extreme partisanship on the part of conservatives on the Court.