Why the King Amendment is Hypocritical

Seth Victor

Recently Angelique Rivard explained some of the dangers inherent in Rep. Steve King’s amendment to H.R. 6083, the Farm Bill. What makes this amendment maddening is that Mr. King has cited law to support this measure that he would decry as the product of an overreaching government in almost any other circumstance. There is no doubt that Mr. King’s proposal is intended to end state protection for farmed animals; his website proudly declares that he hopes to terminate the efforts of animal rights groups, ensuring “that radical organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and PETA are prohibited from establishing a patchwork of restrictive state laws aimed at slowly suffocating production agriculture out of existence.”

King has hardly been the darling of animal rights before this foray, as Stephen Colbert nicely summarizes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Humane Society Legislative Fund and the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund both gave him a 0% rating in 2012. This came after a 2010 statement at a National 4-H Conference that “the HSUS is run by vegetarians with an agenda whose goal is to take meat off everyone’s table in America.” King has also previously voted against broadening the definitions of the Endangered Species Act in 2005 which would have enabled better listing criteria.

Two years ago, King gave a speech to Congress expressing his concerns about the EPA’s management of state water. King argued that having too much agency regulation leads to situations where “government regulation gets out of hand and starts to take over the property rights of the individuals who have a right to use that property in a responsible way as a means of an income to produce crops. . . .” In other words, King worries that the agency doesn’t appreciate the singularities of his home state, and that a blanket policy might not be proper for Iowa when in comes to water. King has also stated his opposition to broadening federal regulations or standards on the issues of abortion, health care, and the economy in general, each time believing that the individuals should be left to do what they want, save for abortion, where he wants the state bans to control and be federally enforced.

These other topics can be tied to the Commerce Clause with the same linguistic wrangling with which King lassoed the Farm Bill, yet here we see King seeking to void the law of the individual states. Three years ago King opined to the House, “when government gets involved, huge money gets lost. And when liberals get involved and progressives get involved, huge principles of liberty and freedom are sacrificed away to try to reach some kind of a formula of what they think that America should be like.” Again, in other words, when the liberals try to implement nationwide standards, it kills America, but when I do, I save it.

The takeaway isn’t novel. Rep. King’s proposal is hypocritical, or perhaps he simply is a hypocrite. He isn’t unlike many other representatives in this regard, but it doesn’t make the amendment any less idiotic. Chickens who can’t turn around? Appropriately housed. A law that increases those cages by a few inches? Onerous conditions that will bring about the downfall of our country. Do the right thing, ‘Merica.

About these ads

6 Responses

  1. thank you for reminding the unbiased yet caring reader of our own responsibilities by exposing the ignorance of, lazy thinking of, questionable allegiances of and thuggish orneriness of paid politicians who are the bane of this country. may they cease to be re-elected and re-elected in a frightening, monotonous parade of sheer horror — because of voters who take our homework and research and investigation regarding these henchmen quite seriously…starting NOW!

  2. That Colbert clip is very funny. I wonder if the audience is laughing with discomfort at the realization that his schtick partially points a (chicken) finger at . . . them?

  3. […] Our thanks to Animal Blawg, where this post originally appeared on September 2, […]

  4. […] version is something that is not in it: the “King Amendment”, a criticized hypocritical measure,  did not make the final cut, due in part to a large outcry against stripping states of their […]

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,319 other followers

%d bloggers like this: