Politics – Page 118 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Helicopter Government

Forget helicopter parents mentioned in the post over teens who no longer desire the independence that comes with driving, this is a case of government gone mad with control over how you parent your children.

The Department of Labor has proposed new rules that would restrict children under the age of 16 from working on a farm or ranch. The list of tasks youth would not be allowed to do is astonishing to me. For example, milking cows would not be allowed, and neither would building a fence. One item that stood out to me was that no youth under the age of 16 would be allowed to use a tool that was powered by any source other than hand or foot power. That would eliminate youth using flashlights, garden hoses (because hoses are powered by water) battery operated screwdrivers, etc.

The mother who wrote this (a fifth-generation hog farmer in Missouri) notes that she cares about the safety of her children far more than any federal bureaucrat in DC, and she, as a mother, should be trusted to keep her children safe.

I spent my high school years in a small town where the biggest paper of the year had huge pictures of all the kids who won ribbons at the county fair with the animals they raised. Sometimes, that required work and tools that the Department of Labor would now ban. Those kids raised those animals, contributed to all of the work that goes into caring for them, and many times would get to enjoy the fruits of their labor with the reward of feeding their families. It seems like some bureaucrat in DC isn’t a fan of such a way of life. As much as the left complains about big corporations and not having family-run farms, they sure seem to be in a hurry to destroy what is left of that culture.

You Can Take Your CPAC and Shove It!

Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is today, tomorrow and Saturday. All I have to say is that CPAC and the American Conservative Union that runs can go get bent as far as I’m concerned. Why? Because they have chosen to exclude gay conservative groups from their conference. I will not blog about CPAC, blog about ACU, except to say that they are short sighted and narrow minded, who are afraid to tell social conservatives to suck it up and deal with the fact that there are gay people in this world, and some of them are generally conservative.

I grant conservative groups their religious views on homosexuality. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. Is this really the year to be narrowing the coalition? Is this a good election to say we don’t need those votes? Sorry, but another four years of Obama is going to do a lot more to hurt “family values”Â than being near gay people for a few days.

Holder Recommits the Obama Administration to More Gun Control

Holder has been known for getting the Administration into hot water by pushing a gun control agenda publicly (as opposed to the Administration’s actual strategy, which is to push it behind the scenes). Chris Cox, NRA-ILA’s Chief Lobbyist, points out what Holder has recently been saying, but I wanted to present the full video of the actual statement. If you’ve just eaten, I apologize, for the poor, and shameless dramatic acting here by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) is liable to make your stomach churn:

I do have to note that Issa is quite the fisherman rhetorically. After Connolly is finished his sorry display of dramatic acting, Issa casts the bait out there, and with the help of Connolly, Holder takes it hook, line and sinker. Issa asked the Administration to present to Congress the package of gun control it wants. I can promise you during the election year, this will not be forthcoming. In fact, Connolly should probably be happy Rahm is now mayor of Chicago. Getting confronted in the Congressional showers by a naked Rahm would be the least of Connolly’s problems with the now former Chief of Staff, given that he helped Issa bait Holder, and was probably too dumb to realize it.

We would dearly love to have the Administration on public record as pushing gun control heading into the 2012 election. That would make my job as a volunteer a lot easier, not to mention the folks back in Fairfax.

Lucky 13

According to NRA, 13 anti-gun amendments have been filed in attempt to scuttle a bill to strengthen Pennsylvania’s pre-emption law. The House may take it up today.

It will be interesting to see how many get any votes outside of the standard liberal strongholds.

UPDATE: They adjourned until Monday.

Preemption Enhancement Bill Moving in Pennsylvania

NRA reports that the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee passed the pre-emption bill today by a vote of 19-4. All of the Republicans who voted went in our favor, and six of the Democrats joined them. Politically speaking, the only name that jumps out at me as odd to want to pick a fight on gun rights in 2012 is Rep. Eugene DePasquale. He’s running for a statewide office, though one that NRA doesn’t grade on (to the best of my knowledge).

In the alert, NRA notes that the bill could be on the House floor as soon as Wednesday. They are asking people to call their state representatives to make sure that no poison pill amendments are added to the legislation.

If enacted, House Bill 1523 would help eliminate the need for litigation by gun owners who have been unduly burdened by local ordinances which violate the current state firearm preemption law. Citizens with no criminal intent should not be placed in jeopardy of running afoul of local restrictions they don’t even know exist simply because they have crossed from one municipality to another.

That would be nice. What a crazy concept that citizens won’t bear such a high burden of pointing out that a government shouldn’t be making illegal laws.

Adam Winkler on the Bloomberg Ad

Professor Adam Winkler has an article in The Daily Beast suggesting that the Bloomberg/Mumbles Super Bowl adÂ will hurt Obama:

Gun-control proponents can only pray that Obama doesnâ€™t take Menino and Bloombergâ€™s bait. Making gun control a more important issue in the election would be a terrible mistake for the presidentâ€”and for the cause of gun control.

Yes, it most definitely would. Obama is playing the game smart, because the biggest threat to the Second Amendment these days is from the courts. The politicians we mostly have in line at this point. Gun issues just not being at the front of people’s minds is going to be the biggest challenge for NRA this election. Those who want to see more from Obama don’t understand just how much of a losing issue gun control is electorally.

More on the New Likely Brady Campaign Goals

John Richardson did some digging into the organization that Dan Gross founded to get an idea of what he bringing to the table. It definitely seems to be money.

…they use entertainment and New York sports figures as their draw. I think Brady is seeking an in to deep pockets and Gross will provide that. Iâ€™m sure he has a great Rolodex.

He also knows how to get taxpayer dollars according to what Jacob found.

I donâ€™t believe heâ€™s been on the receiving end of pork from Albany. He did get $50,000 (through PAX) from the NYC Council in â€™10

Jacob also did some digging through NY state political donation records and it seems to indicate that he is not the same Dan Gross who has given modestly to Democrats the last few years. Instead, the new Brady president has only given to one candidate. He was backing a Democrat though, so he is likely on that side of the political spectrum.

More and more, it looks like the involvement of Dan Gross indicates that the Brady Center will be the big focus and they are likely quietly handing off the political work to Bloomberg. I noticed that the Brady accounts have been promoting Bloomberg’s MAIG Super Bowl commercial in social media, so that could be read as another sign that they are leaving that work up to the billionaire while the Brady Center staffers just try to fundraise to save their jobs. (This also wouldn’t be unheard of since we know that the partnership started a few years ago when both MAIG & Brady were using the same lobbyist who now heads CeaseFirePA.)

On Ginsburg’s Statement to Egypt

When I heard of Justice Ginsburg’s statement before an Egyptian audience today, I have to admit I just couldn’t work up the amount of outage as many on the right. Many folks fail to consider that a good part of our constitution is strictly mechanical, and represents compromises brought about by folks who were facing the daunting task of bringing 13 separate sovereigns together into some kind of national Republic. Much of the mechanics of the US constitution doesn’t translate into the political cultures of other countries, even if the overarching principles are worth studying (for which I would include to RKBA to be among those principles).

Eugene Volokh also sticks up for Justice Ginsburg:

And it might well be that Egypt might be well-served by a very different approach than the U.S. Constitutions â€” for instance, with regard to relations between the federal government and more local governments, with regard to whether to have a Presidential system or a parliamentary system, with regard to how hard the constitution would be to amend, with regard to how judges are selected and how long they serve, with regard to how the President is selected, with regard to the relationship between the two chambers of the legislature, with regard to whether all executive officials work for the President or whether some are independently elected or selected, with regard to just how to craft the criminal justice system, and so on. (And here I just speak of the big picture questions, and not more specific details.) Remember that even our own statesâ€™ constitutions differ in many respects, especially with regard to separation of powers and the selection and tenure of judges, from the U.S. Constitution. Again, that the constitutional text, coupled with a wide range of extratextual political and legal practices, has worked well for us over 200+ years doesnâ€™t tell us that it would work well for Egypt for the coming years.

I tend to agree, and with the rest of his argument. I certainly have many disagreements with Justice Ginsburg’s interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, but in many ways the US Constitution reflects the unique circumstances of this country’s founding, and continuing political struggles, that is not necessarily reflective of the political struggles in other countries. To be sure, it outlines many guarantees I believe are universal, but most of the constitution revolves around structural components which are arguably suited to our culture, but perhaps not others. It would, for instance, be difficult to imagine the French arguing over the meaning of interstate commerce, to the extent Americans do today, and have done since the founding.

On Making a Difference

Let’s face it, a lot of folks (even our dear, wonderful readers) like to bitch and moan. They also don’t like to do squat when it comes to their issue of choice. We usually hear that it’s because one person can’t make a difference. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, tell that to a piano teacher who just ended up cited by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a decision that threw out all of our new legislative districts and forces us back to 2001 lines for the rest of the year – maybe.

Oh, and did I mention that this decision that relies on her proposal actually screws things up enough that candidates were already gathering petitions for the old (new) districts and now they may not even be able to run in them?

So, yeah, one person made a difference. Probably a bigger difference than she imagined.

Time for the Popcorn

The presidential race may soon be a source of entertainment worthy of a bucket of buttery popcorn.

Roseanne Barr said Thursday sheâ€™s running for the Green Partyâ€™s presidential nomination â€” and itâ€™s no joke.

Some of the first live political blogging I ever did was when Jello Biafra was trying to get the nomination at the Green Party convention in 2000. That was funny.