GraniteGrok

UPDATE:  The Dems have voted to use the Slaughter Solution of voting to not vote (yeah, they won't read it, and now, don't want to be on record as voting for it.  Shea-Porter & Hodes voted not to vote.

In disparaging the Founding Geniuses' vision of limited government that would protect individual liberties,  Obama, Reid & Pelosi are truly out to transform America into a socialist state in which Government will intrude, by law & regulation, into every nook & cranny of our individual lives.  Obamacare will turn every citizen from being free into merely a client of the State - forcing a dependence upon Government that is unneeded, unwarranted, & undesired.  We are the frog;  Obamacare Socialism is the slowly boiling water of a tyrannical State.  It IS time to melt phone systems & clog up email servers to let our representatives know that we are in the battle, as Old Ben warned, to keep our Republic. Barry, Harry, & Nancy are trying to make "Determined Weakness" a reality.  Numbers for Congress: 877-762-8762        202-224-3121          202-225-3121.

For NH Readers:    Carol Shea-Nancy's BFF-Porter   DC: (202) 225-5456   Manchester: (603) 641-9536   email form

                 Paul Hodes:  DC:  (202) 225-5206     Concord:  (603) 223-9814  email form

Posted by Skip at 11:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Leader has been at odds with the Supreme Court over campaign finance rules.  His reasoning is simple.  The old rules work to the advantage of incumbents, and entrenched bureaucrats.  The new rules make it easier for anyone to compete.  They actually level the field a bit.  But being 'in power' and being as corrupt as they come, any change in the current arrangements makes keeping the power more difficult so all manner of rhetoric will be used to scare the average voter into thinking that opening up campaign finance rules is bad.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The gag reel of Obamaisms suggests that the new rules will allow special interests, unions, and big business to interfere with elections.  Obama will lie his way to the grave to convince you of this.  But special interests, unions and big business already interfere, and not just during elections, but 365 days a year operating in an exclusive club to which most of us--and most any other interests--cannot afford admission.  Lobbyists, PAC's, 527's among others with large wallets, are a constant presence in Washington where they keep the revolving door spinning with incestuous public-private relationships whose common genetic marker is money in the hundreds of millions.  These 'special interets' are what give the people in power the ability to stay there.  And to make a relevant comparison to recent events, they are what is driving the liberal obsession with doing anything and everything to pass their version of health insurance reform.  So while Mr. Obamais crying about free speech money corrupting democracy, he's been busy as a bee making deals with lobbyists and special interests to bring 1/6th of the US economy under their coordinated control of his corporate-socialist-bureaucratic-utopian regime.

It's always been about closing deals with special interests that will allow the revolving door and the money to flow to the connected deal makers and elitist incumbents at the exclusion of all others.

So any money that could challenge those already entrenched is considered dangerous. It is money they do not control and it allows people outside the elite community (from both parties) to knock holes in the barriers to admission.  It gives a political voice to someone who may not already have skin in the game, and permits them to support an idea or a candidate who is not (not yet at least) plugged into the Georgetown Matrix.

Paul Hodes is plugged into the Georgetown Matrix.   He's a big money insider.  And while he's been complaining about the process he's been taking money from insurance and investment companies, banks and bankers like Goldman Sachs, and hordes of left wing special interests.  So when he came out against the Supreme Court decision, even said he'd sponsor a bill to put those restrictions back in place, he wasn't defending free speech he was protecting his own special interest--the big fat tube running from his campaign to the DC money machine.  And protect it he will.  Free speech is dangerous to Paul Hodes; so speech with enough money behind it to begin to compete with his well funded war chest can't be anything but unconstitutional.

Hodes is one of many poster children for the problem.

Political speech cannot be restricted based on how much it costs to exercise if for no other reason than that those in power will make it their perennial mission to simply price everyone else out of the market.  And if they can't price them out, they will legislate them out.  

Only an utter fool, or an entrenched elitist would willingly leave the definition of political speech in the hands of those who are the greatest risk from it, or limit it based it on how much it costs; but as we can see from the reactions of liberals and their fellow travelers we have both in abundance.

Cross Posted From NH Insider

Posted by Steve at 1:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A general State education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mold in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body.

- John Stuart Mill

Posted by Skip at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From NRO:

Then (President Obama, Sept. 5, 2009):

"We have to revive this economy and rebuild it stronger than before. And making sure that folks have the opportunity and incentive to save – for a home or college, for retirement or a rainy day — is essential to that effort.

"Now:

March 18 (Bloomberg) — Democratic congressional leaders would raise to 3.8 percent the Obama administration’s proposed new Medicare tax on investment income to generate an estimated $210 billion to help fund a health-care overhaul plan.

Surprised?  Just another tentacle of Obama "spreading the wealth"; most of that new tax will be taken from from those that have done the right thing to be independent and saved their money - most for their retirement.  Or, that money is used to start new or expand current businesses - re: new jobs.

Obama is not about wealth creation, a vibrant economy.  It is an ideological bent to take (steal) from folks who have followed the traditional American dream and expectation and forcibly take it.

So, once again, we see that what he says, we cannot believe - his actions belie his words.  

Ask yourself - why bother to save when you know that the Government is just going to take the fruits of your labor?  The old saying still holds true: tax something and you get less of it.  Obama either believes that it won't hold true for HIM, or doesn't care.  

Incentive to save; yeah, that lasted a long time, right?

Integrity.  You decide.

Posted by Skip at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It ain't getting any better in the polls, ladies and gentlemen!  In a single year, he has joined Bush at the low of his Presidency - which took Bush until the end of eight years.

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You have to wonder what the House democrats in Washington are drinking?  They actually believe that passing the Senate bill without actually voting on it is less of a risk to their political futures.

And then there’s Obama.  He thinks that his signing the Senate bill without it having had an up or down vote in the House will rescue his presidency?

Posted by Steve at 3:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, about 120 people showed up yesterday for Sen. Gordon Humphrey's hastily called "Obamacare Protest" which came on the heels of his fiery speech here.

He certainly spoke in this YouTube, as well as former Mayor Frank Guinta (running to retire Carol Shea-Porter in NH's First Congressional District., who has done a whole raft of these healthcare type events).

I expect that this will not be the last that we hear of this.  Make no mistake, there is a battle going on out there - one of those who wish for this country to stay true to the ideals as set forth by the Founders and those that have no problem in redefining the common language in their attempts to change us into the Bismarkian ideals of socialism stemming from the nascent socialism movement in Germany during the 1880s (where "Progressives" got their start).

A battle: true freedom of individual liberty, or an ersatz promise freedom from necessity wafting as if from a Siren's call (for which you will be forced to provide for everyone's needs and wants)?

Independence, or a Progressive socialism?  You will choose, one way or another...

Posted by Skip at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Alinsky, in his book "Rules for Radicals" basically gave the socialist truth away "The end justifies the means".  Obama said, during his interview with Bret Baier of Fox News this week, that he was not concerned with the "process".  In reading Alinsky's book, this is brought out over and over again - only the end point matters - and Alinsky admitted that truth does not matter.

(H/T: ALG)

The biggest speed bump to achieving the Progressive' vision of Nirvana (i.e., Socialism)?  The Constitution.  Thus, declaring that the "Deem and Pass" is Constitutional  may well be falling into that re-definition of the language that most Americans don't realize that Progressives have been using.

Freedom?  Not the definition that I know, use and love, fer 'sure!

Posted by Skip at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Governments cannot create liberty, or choice, or freedom, they can only take it away.  It is a lesson you can only learn from history.  And those who refuse to learn it are left with even fewer choices if or when they or their ancestors, decide they want it back.

- Steve MacDonald

Posted by Skip at 9:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Steve at 8:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Bob Bestani at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The JUA money grab is back in the news.  A group is blasting Kelly Ayotte and John Lynch for trying to balance the budget with 110 million from a fund created by the state but filled with money from the pockets of doctors who were forced by law to contribute to it.  The thinking goes that because the state forced them to pay in, the state has rights to the money because it (the state) created the underwriting fund.

That's like buying a big cookie jar, forcing people to put their money in it, and then insisting that money is now yours because it's your jar. 

Jar owner Lynch and AG Ayotte still beleive they were wronged by the State Supreme court when it said "you can't have the money" which is not unexpected.  They also insist that an injustice was done based on the judicial dissent which claims the state has a right to that money. 

I'm not a lawyer so let's skip all that for a moment and boil this down in simple terms.

The state forced someone to put their property in a fund so that the state could then claim ownership of that fund?  Did they know this up front? 

If the law can be demonstrated to justify such a taking is there not something then wrong with the law?

I think a governor and AG have a commitment not just to execute the laws that are written but to protect us from the ones that are written badly.  But that would require more leadership and less of a desire to hide poor management skills by robbing others to cover irresponsible governance.

This is like being mugged.  The mugger (the state) sees the money, decides you can part with it because they need it more and feel entitled to it, so they then go about the business of depriving you of it by any means necessary.  Hiding behind legal interpretation does not make it right.

And while the NH Supreme court left a backdoor in their decision for new legislation that could change the law, presumably to allow the legislature to legally rob the JUA, wouldn't it be an encouraging sign if the legislature instead wrote a law that removed the states right to take that property?  And wouldn't it be encouraging to have a governor who was more interested in what was right for New Hampshire than whatever he could justify to cover his and his democrat legislatures collective ass?

Posted by Steve at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Heh - filed under Humor!  Who knew - a circus all in a single part of one column (from the Union Leader, John DiStaso's after my take on it).  It goes on for a bit, so, let me give you the 'Grok abridged version:

Steve quotes the ruling of the NH Supremes to set off the fuse, Binnie & crew get horrified looks on their faces ("incoming!?!?") & get a bit of a whack, other political operatives are scrambling to get out of the way of the flying food (some landing), Lynch via Manning is throwing Ayotte under the bus as if Lynch's hands are clean, Ayotte thinks Steve is shady to blow off culpability and gets called on it by Carney (a Repub actually defending the Right to Private Property & the First Amendment - who'd a thunk it??). Ovide uses this whole thing to fake a slap at Steve who started it but really sends the roundhouse at Kelly (Hmm: velvet glove and magical misdirection; well done!), Manning still thinks that the Supremes are wrong and still doesn't like private property and believes Government owns it all (a Democrat - who'd a thunk that??  Surprised yet?) and Hynsie is sitting on Mt. Olympus merely surveying the carnage below while Democrat attack dog Kathy Sullivan is either bewildered or is munching on popcorn.

OK, what am I talking about?  The column (keep up, please):

Ayotte, Lynch hit back at 'attack group'

BINNIE, CARNEY: WE'RE NOT INVOLVED. A veteran GOP consultant and a spokesman for Republican Senate candidate Bill Binnie said Thursday they had nothing to do with the "HandsOffNH" program being launched against former Attorney General and GOP Senate hopeful Kelly Ayotte and Democratic Gov. John Lynch by the Virginia-based Americans for Job Security.

Bryan Lanza, Binnie's campaign manager said also said Binnie did not contribute to the effort.

"The first we heard about it" was what the Granite Status report earlier today, Lanza said.

David Carney, a nationally-known GOP consultant based in Hancock, said he is a consultant for Americans for Job Security, but had nothing to do with the anti-Ayotte and anti-Lynch effort focusing on an attempt last year to use $110 million in medical malpractice premium funds to help balance the state budget (see earlier items below).

"I have never met Bill Binnie," said Carney, who worked in the 1980s with top Binnie consultant Paul Collins in the first Bush White House and, previously, former Gov. John H. Sununu's office.

"It's not about Kelly Ayotte," said Carney. "It's about public officials trying to take private property and making the public aware of their secret dealings.

"Politicians should be held accountable for their actions," said Carney. "Not one word in the AJS communication is wrong. The arrogant ruling class should get a grip. The First Amendment allows folks to speak out, and nowhere do the politicos get to pick who or when folks can speak up."

On Thursday afternoon, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte today called the pro-business Americans for Jobs Security an "outside shady organization" that is distorting her role in an effort last year to use $110 million in medical malpractice funds to balance the state budget.

The Granite Status earlier today reported that AJS was launching a Web site, web advertising and a mass mailing criticizing Ayotte and Gov. John Lynch for their role in the state's failed attempt to tap the Joint Underwriting Association's medical malpractice premium fund to balance the budget (see our item below). The move was banned in by the state Supreme Court.

AJS called it a private property rights issue, with its president Steve DeMaura saying, "The people of New Hampshire deserve to know the truth about John Lynch and Kelly Ayotte's unconstitutional attempts to take private property."

Ayotte said this afternoon, "This is an outside group which, from what I understand, has a demonstrated record for false and sleazy attacks, and they are distorting my record. It is an outside shady organization."

One of Ayotte's GOP Republican primary opponents, Ovide Lamontagne, came to her defense, sort of.

Lamontagne said Ayotte "has a lot to answer for concerning her role in the JUA matter, which involved the unconstitutional theft of $110 million in private funds" and her explanations "have only raised more questions."

But he also said he was disappointed that an out-of-state organization is getting involved in the New Hampshire race, and should "butt out."

Lamontagne said that just as "party bosses and Washington elites" should stay out of the race, so should "out-of-state groups who try to influence with neither accountability nor disclosure."

Lynch spokesman Colin Manning also responded to the AJS attack.Manning emailed the Status:

"The JUA was established as a government run and government subsidized malpractice insurance program for doctors. The doctors who paid their premiums, got the benefit of the insurance."

Manning wrote, "The governor agreed with the attorney general, the insurance commissioner and the Legislature that any surplus funds rightfully belonged to the taxpayers of New Hampshire. The Governor also agreed with the two Supreme Court justices who in the dissenting opinion wrote that the majority misapplied New Hampshire law, ignored critical evidence and expanded the role for judicial view of economic legislation."

Manning continued, "Clearly, this out-of-state attack group doesn't have its facts straight, referring to the private accounts of doctors, nurses and health care providers. That certainly does not describe the JUA."

Also today, veteran GOP strategist and web expert Patrick Hynes, who operates the Now!Hampshire political web site, confirmed he is a member of the AJS board of directors, but said he had nothing to do with the group's effort in New Hampshire.

In response to questions raised about his possible role in the AJS effort by state Democratic National Committeewoman Kathy Sullivan on the progressive BlueHampshire.com site, Hynes said, "The first I heard about this was in the Granite Status."

Hynes said, "The board has an advisory role in terms of keeping the books and the financial aspect of the group, which is the responsibility written on the charter. We don't have a role in the day-to-day or strategic operations.

"I didn't have any decision-making authority in this at all," said Hynes who added, referring to the Senate primary, "I don't have a horse in this race."

Regarding the AJS "HandsOffNH" effort, Hynes said, "Generally speaking, I'm in favor of any organization speaking out about issues they care about."

AJS president Steve DeMaura also said group board members "have no day to day control of the organization. They serve in a oversight role."

And finally, I do appreciate the call out for what it really is (Carney speaking to the "ruling class" and the First Amendment).  Ah yes, politics at its finest - Hilarity all around!"

"May I have some more, please?" 

Posted by Skip at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Like I said a while ago, it is time for the 'Grok to get busy in the NH races.  Right now, it looks like Ovide Lamontagne has picked up yet another nationally known Conservative: Erick Erickson from RedState:

Friends, we can change the Republican Caucus in the United States Senate. But we have to unite behind the real small government conservatives out there. We must get on the same page to improve our own.

Here is the list. We need these guys:

Ken Buck in Colorado
Chuck DeVore in California
Michael Williams in Texas
Marco Rubio in Florida
Rand Paul in Kentucky
Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania
Danny Tarkanian in Nevada
Marlin Stutzman in Indiana
Mike Lee in Utah

And if we can, I say we go with Ovide LaMontagne in New Hampshire and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. Let’s go all and all in for small government conservatives. This year is our last best chance in a long time to get a slate of solid conservatives.

Erick, who I met at a Samsphere bloggers weekend a couple of years ago and I trade emails with him from time to time; he is one of the most fiercely conservative folks I know and is fearless in letting people know where he stands and what he thinks.  Like the 'Grok, he is unflaggingly committed to ideals of a limited Government that protects individual liberties, Republican platform, and tortures Liberal / Progressives for sport (and with him, it is like a panther toying with cornered rats).  He is also well known for going after Republicans that "sully the brand" when they act like Democrat-lites.  He just got a gig on CNN and has already inflamed Liberal sensibilities (such as they exist) for getting that gig.

For Erick to bestow his blessings on Ovide should be noticed here in NH.  Trust me, Erick suffers no fools or pretenders with his support, so consider this a Conservative stamp of approval.

Oh, Ovide?  Just a tiny word of advice: ALWAYS remember that Erick ALSO watches those he chooses - he, along with the 'Grok, loves the word "accountable".

Posted by Skip at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by Jim Bender - candidate for US Senate from NH

WE THE PEOPLE have created a “Frankengovernment.” By that, I mean Frankenstein, not Al Franken. This is a monster that we the people created. We let it get too big. We let it get too powerful. We let it serve itself instead of serving us. We let it take our liberties.

Now comes yet another “final” push to force a government takeover of our health-care system. When the legislation was still only roughly 1,000 pages long, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said, “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two weeks and two lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read the bill?”

Like the other famous monsters before it (consider HAL 9000 from “2001: A Space Odyssey”), the monster is doing what it wants, despite furious opposition from its previous masters. At some point along the road, we lost control. Even though the clear majority of the people deem the legislation to be harmful, costly and likely to make their standard of care go down, the government doesn’t stop. It leaves many to wonder if the government even can be stopped.

The bill has ballooned to more than 2,700 pages, but, of course, there’s no room for tort reform. But, if there’s no tort reform, then what’s in it?

Massive expansions of government bureaucracy, unprecedented incursions into your privacy, and a litany of taxes on income, products and services that will combine to drive down the standard of living in America.

The Congressional Budget Office has predicted that even under the best scenario, “premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law individual market…” That’s no surprise to those who know the government well. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are already on the way to bankruptcy. This is a dysfunctional government of arrogance of superiority, self-assured incompetence, economic illiteracy, unconscionable partisanship and self-righteous corruption.

What is perhaps most telling about the debate is that President Obama has declared the debate to be...

Continue reading "Our ‘Frankengovernment’ is a monster out of control" »

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Remember, this is Progressivism in process.  Constitution?  Bill of Rights?

Progressivism is incremental socialism.  You know what that means?

Yeah, that's right. Satisfying every "gimme" person until there's no money anywhere...think I'm kidding?  Where's that $100 Trillion owed for S.S & Medicare coming from?  Go ahead - ask that "proud" Progressive and watch them squirm....

Posted by Skip at 6:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Alexandria, VA- Americans for Job Security launched advertisements today highlighting Governor John Lynch and Former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte’s unconstitutional attempts to take private property.  

Governor John Lynch and his Attorney General Kelly Ayotte attempted one of the largest confiscations of private property in New Hampshire history. Together, they moved to drain the private medical malpractice funds of our doctors, nurses and healthcare providers. Thankfully the Supreme Court slapped down their $110 million raid of private funds.

“The people of New Hampshire deserve to know the truth about John Lynch and Kelly Ayotte’s unconstitutional attempts to take private property,” said Stephen DeMaura president of AJS.

“…the state’s move was an unconstitutional taking of private property,” Nashua Telegraph 1/29/2010

“The Lynch-Ayotte mindset of private property confiscation to feed a bigger and ever growing government is fundamentally misguided,” added DeMaura.  

“If John Lynch and Kelly Ayotte thought raiding the private accounts of Doctors, Nurses and health care providers was ok then what about the victims’ restitution fund, or College 529 savings plans?,” DeMaura said.

AJS’s initial effort includes a petition and website at www.HandsOffNH.com, as well as internet and direct mail advertising.

Americans for Job Security is a non-profit, non-partisan pro-business issue advocacy organization that promotes issues that strengthen the American economy. To learn more about AJS visit www.SaveJobs.org.

Full Disclosure: Yes, AJS has taken out ads on the 'Grok - just like PETA did once.  After all, we are capitalists in heart and spirit (although I will admit, having the PETA ad allowed us a few more jokes than normal...and paid for a GREAT Prime Rib dinner for me)

Posted by Skip at 6:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Both Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter have just voted for the Slaughter Solution which readies a vote to not vote on Obamacare - that act that, after Social Security and Medicare, will be the largest theft of the young generation's money to the eldest in history. Even as I am getting close to being in that "elder cohort" (if it is still around - am beginning to have my severe doubts), essentially it is politicians of both stripes that do believe it is theirs to give.

To be sure, it isn't just Democrats that steal their taxpayers money - Repubs have joined in the "stealfest" as a way of political life.  However, it is this one, Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) effectively  warns us, like any addict, "we'll keep doing this until you stop us!".

(H/T: Michelle)

Posted by Skip at 5:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Continue reading "National Journal - poll for week of 3/18/10" »

Posted by Skip at 5:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A conservative's version of a Progressive's remake of one of the most famous lines in American history:

Give me liberty, or give me dea ... lol just kidding. Give me entitlements

-- CalebHowe

(H/T: RightWingNews)

Posted by Skip at 9:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It just might be that time.  

The free market has produced faster, cheaper, more reliable, and more service oriented alternatives, all competing aggressively for market share and creating significantly more jobs and opportunities than will be lost by the global giant that was once Blockbuster.  And if Blockbuster can’t reconcile its problems with debt holders and is no more, there will be plenty of scavengers to pick up the pieces, to create new growth from the remains.  But then that is what open markets do.  They encourage people with little more than an idea and some energy to encourage the decline of lumbering goliaths for the mutual benefit of the consumer and the industry.  It’s a process liberals bemoan, one that they work tirelessly to subvert, and since January 2009 have doubled down on. 

Continue reading "Creative Destruction" »

Posted by Steve at 9:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Liberty has never come from government.  Liberty has always come from the subjects of government.  The history of liberty is the history of resistance.

-Woodrow Wilson, President

I find my self in complete agree with the above, but find it incongruent that it passes from the first national level politician that proudly wore the label "Progressive".  That movement, whose latest uber-proponent, is Barack Obama, believes not in the definition of liberty as espoused by the Founding Fathers but in a redefinition of that term as something given to the masses from a government composed of elites governing from the heights of an "enlightened" sense of a rational Science of Politics that would make all those silly decisions of government for us.

In this, President Wilson may well have been describing the TEA Party movement, as these "subjects" are now rebelling from that self same Progressive movement's attempts to "rule for us".

Posted by Skip at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Not at all, not at all:

• 60% agree that a current Democrat proposal to send the Senate health care bill to the president without voting up or down on it is “unfair.”
• 81% health care reforms that would increase insurance premiums for healthy people to offset premiums of people who wait until they are diagnosed with an illness to purchase insurance.
• 81% oppose allowing the government to decide what kind of health care coverage Americans are able to purchase.
• 87% oppose having a government panel recommend or decide what medical procedures or medical advances your doctor or health plan can or cannot use.
• 84% support reforms that would allow people to buy health insurance where it is the least expensive, such as across state lines.
• 76% oppose health care reforms that would raise taxes and cut Medicare benefits to pay for health care subsidies for expanded coverage for those currently insured.
• 78% support health care reforms that would let people buy less costly health plans and save and invest for health care needs in the future on a tax-free basis.
• 51% oppose health care reforms that would let people lock-in premiums by paying more for their insurance.
• 85% support health care reforms that would let people get lower premiums for getting or staying healthy.
• 82% support the idea that more money should be invested in the development of cures for the most devastating diseases.
• 47% oppose increasing Medicare payroll taxes for high wage earners (46% support)
• 48% oppose reducing what doctors and hospitals are paid for their services (45% support).
• 47% think it is credible that the new health care proposal will increase taxes and insurance premiums for 73 million Americans (44% say it is not).
  

More info as to where this data / poll came from:

Today, the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest Advance (CMPI-A), in partnership with Pajamas Media, is releasing national survey data on Americans’ views of the proposed health care reform legislation before Congress...GfK Roper completed 1,000 interviews with a nationally-representative sample of Americans ages 18 years old and over. The interviews were conducted between March 12 and March 14, 2010. The average margin of error for the total sample is ± 3 percentage points.

Posted by Skip at 8:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Subject: Join Sen Humphrey on Thurs. in riding Congress out of town on a rail

When:     Thursday, March 18

Time:      4pm

Where:     Manchester, NH - City Hall Plaza

Following his fiery speech in Rochester last night, former U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey has called upon all Tea Party patriots and concerned citizens to join him in an emergency rally at the Manchester City Hall Plaza on, Thursday, Mar 18 at 4:00 PM.  The purpose of tomorrow's rally in Manchester is to protest the attempt by left wing radicals in the Obama Administration and the Congress to take over the nations entire system.

The main attraction will be the "riding of Congress out of town on a rail."    "We've gotten hold of a mannequin and dressed him like a Member of Congress -- well let's call him a dummy, since he looks like a Congressman," said Andrew Hemingway, an assistant to Senator Humphrey.

Last night at tumultuous Tea Party rally in Rochester, in a speech described by Foster's Daily Democrat as "fiery," Senator Humphrey accused the President of lying about the true cost of Obama care and lying about preserving choice of doctors.  "The far left is trying to ram down our throats a massive new federal bureaucracy that will  run up trillions of dollars in deficits and destroy the finest health care delivery system in the world, subjecting us all to rationing of health care, long waiting lists, and third-rate medicine," Humphrey says.

"The Tea Party movement has rallied public opinion across the nation, but some members of Congress still refuse to listen.  Government that ignores the majority is a government of thugs and tyrants,," Humphrey says.  "We need to go all out in the next few days to force Reid and Pelosi to back down.  To that end, I implore every last concerned citizen to rally with us at the Manchester City Hall Plaza tomorrow.  Following remarks, we'll mount up the dummy on a rail and ride him out of town, treating him to the same contempt with which our forbears treated the despised agents of the tyrant King George!"

Riding Congress out of town on a rail will make great television footage that can help swing the last needed votes in Washington.  Be a part of history.  Join us at Manchester City Hall Plaza, today, Thursday, March 18, at 4:00 PM.

If you have any "Don't Tread on Me Flags" or appropriate signs or banners, other Tea Party paraphernalia, or colonial costuming, bring 'em or wear 'em!

(H/T: Phyllis)

Posted by Skip at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

That seems to be the mantra du jour from Progressives (remember, Progressivism is the same as Marxism, only "slow cooked").  Demonizing Conservatives by holding them to be cold-hearted skin flints, holding onto the money that they earned, and wanting government to do less and less, they let their verbal cannons fly.

Here's their single largest problem (from a post at CNSNews on what the debt is going to do to the economy as a whole):

Ryan pointed out that the Government Accountability Office recently reported that the federal government already faces a “fiscal gap” of $76 trillion, meaning that over the next 75 years the cost of the benefits promised in federal entitlement programs exceeds the tax revenues expected to pay for those benefits by that amount. That works out to almost $250,000 for every single American and about $650,000 for every American household.

And when you question them on this, when you are unrelentingly focused on getting the question answered "and who is going to pay for all this?", Progressives have no answer.  Oh sure, they prevaricate that the rich will pay for it (where the top 1% already pay 40% of all income taxes even as they only earn the 22% of the income) - even as that $76 Trillion works out to be every single penny of the entire nation's GDP (approx $14 Trillion/yr) for 5.4 years. 

That ain't (and CAN'T) happen - you can tax 100% of everything away from everyone and every business and those GOVERNMENT processes (made by both clueless and power-greedy politicians) and the shortfall still can't be made up.  EVAH!

Once again, what the Progressives are pitching for an end game (and make no mistake - it is complete socialism via Government control (if not direct ownership) of society) will come to a complete fall off the cliff.

Ask them this question: what are you going to say to all those people YOU have made dependent on government for their very being when the money runs out?

My take?  Weaning people off government dependence is the answer and returning to what de Toqueville called America's best feature: self-responsibility and individualism.  Too many things become politicized once government has touched anything and all Government money comes with strings. 

The example has already been set forth: are you a Katrina victim or a Mid-West flooding survivor? self-reliance is the key - which do you choose to be?  What is it that you want your family to learn?

Posted by Skip at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Stunning - simply stunning:

President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch: $4.9 trillion. But it took him over four years to rack up the first two trillion dollars in debt.

It has taken Mr. Obama 421 days.

When the money runs out, the end result is Banana Republic status for the USA.  Obama is certainly #1 in leading the way....

(H/T: CBS via HotAir)

Posted by Skip at 1:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Steve at 2:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey spoke at the Hands off Healthcare rally last night in Rochester. Here is what he had to say and below the video is an article from Foster's reporter Adam Krause.

Posted by Andrew Hemingway at 1:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear President Obama,

"We The People" have stated resolutely we reject your vision for our country.

You claim you have not heard us. "We The People" have assembled across America resisting your efforts to subvert our constitution and undermine our liberty. You claim you have not seen us.

Since you have not acknowledged our message, let us here present it once more for if, as President Wilson said, a leader's ear must ring with the voices of the people, the time has come.

Our greatest treasure is freedom - the absence of restraints on our ability to think and to act.  The corollary of freedom is individual responsibility.  We believe in the power of the individual.

A few years ago, President Bush said, "History moves toward freedom because the desire for freedom is written in every human heart." Let us add that we will preserve it only as long as devotion to freedom is expressed in the heart of our actions.

When President Lincoln dedicated Gettysburg National Cemetery he declared, "It is for us the living...to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus so nobly advanced."  That unfinished cause for which our soldiers willingly go to battle and for which so many have given their lives is a  free United States of America.  It has been nearly one hundred fifty years and the work President Lincoln spoke of is not finished.  In fact, that work will never be finished.

Freedom is the capacity for self-determination.  It is not an entity but a condition, and conditions change.  Freedom can expand, yet so can it contract. You promised change when you took office, Mr. President, but subjugation is not change we wanted or will accept.  

You have expanded government, violated our constitution, confounded laws, seized private industry, destroyed jobs, perverted our economy, curtailed free speech, corrupted our currency, weakened our national security, and endangered our sovereignty.  By compromising our nation's cultural, legal, and economic institutions, you are ensuring that our children will never achieve the same quality of life as we enjoy today.  Through generational theft you are robbing the unborn of opportunity.

This is not acceptable.  Not in America. We did not become a strong nation through hope but rather through self-reliance.

No one better understands the relationship between individual achievement,dignity and strength than our armed forces. Through every war, our soldiers, have held this nation's destiny in their hands. They have not failed us. They cherish freedom enough that they are willing to die for it.  Our duty to them and to ourselves is to treasure freedom enough to live up to it.

We accept the challenge, Mr. President.

That is why we are assembling across the land to deliver our message to you as often and in every way we can.  Dismiss us at your political peril.

Our great nation is a Republic.  We will not accept tyranny under any guise.  Your policy to redistribute the fruits of our labor is Statism and will not be tolerated. By our honor, Mr. President, we vow forever to resist coercive government in America.  Patriots will not stand silent as you attempt to dismantle the greatest nation on earth.  "We The People" will defend our liberty, we will protect our beloved country and America's exceptionalism will prevail.

God Bless the United States of America!

Sincerely,

"We The People"

Posted by Skip at 12:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Steve at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

- James Madison, President

Words of wisdon - willfully ignored by Progressives

Posted by Skip at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here in NH, the Democrats shoved a radical change to how LLCs are taxes - and to have Government determine how much the owners could take as "reasonable compensation" before it could kick in.  Regular readers have seen updates as small business owners have started a rebellion (thanks to Andy Sanborn and Andrew Hemingway) Tag that along with the proposed MaggieCare which would have Government determine if a hospital is charging "equitable" fees (and getting taxed to boot for the "opportunity"), you can see that the Progressives agenda here in NH is the same as it is in DC - putting Government into charge of everything (after all, we individual schlubs just aren't capable of running our own lives and affairs!).

Jack Kimball is running for Governor here in NH and has a take on the LLC tax flip-flop by Governor John "Do Nuttin'" Lynch (D):

A few days ago, Governor Lynch decided to reverse his position on the controversial LLC tax. While I could not be happier with this position, Gov. Lynch’s advocacy shows his true colors.

The LLC tax was a last-minute change to the budget, created at 10:00 pm on the last day of negotiations, without even a public hearing. The tax places an additional 5% levy on interests and dividends of corporations, on top of the 8.5% business profits tax. It was supposed to bring in another $15 million dollars a year to state coffers.

So why the flip-flop? Gov. Lynch is now worried that larger corporations will be able to get out paying their share of the taxes with the help of tax professionals. This means that for all the political trouble the LLC tax has caused, Gov. Lynch will be getting even less money out of the deal than he hoped.

But Gov. Lynch is still getting all he can out of it. He waited until the legislature had already voted to implement the tax rules for 2009 before beginning talk of repeal. This means that even if the tax does get repealed, businesses are still forced to pay it this year. If Gov. Lynch really does care about the well-being of small businesses in the state, why did he not repeal the tax a week earlier?

Even the “talk of repeal” process is political. Rather than coming straight out and sponsoring a bill for repealing the tax, high-level Democrats are strategizing with the Governor about their plan for repealing the bill. In secret, of course. Repealing a bill does not need a strategy session, and it certainly does not need to be done in secret. Unless, of course, you want to replace the LLC tax with some equally unpopular way of raising revenue.

This gets to the heart of Governor Lynch and the Democrat’s real problem: New Hampshire has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

New Hampshire needs a balanced budget, but this will never happen by raising taxes. All raising taxes will do is hurt our economy by driving away businesses and giving people less spending power. This will in turn decrease the tax base.

If elected Governor, I will address New Hampshire’s spending problem.  Cutting down the size of government and increasing efficiency will get rid of government waste. Creating economic incentives and a favorable climate for small businesses will broaden our tax base. Lowering taxes will put more money in citizens’ pockets, which will in turn help our economy rebound. Only then will we see state revenues–and prosperity–going up.

Lynch tried to fiscally help cover for the House and Senate Democrat leadership - but when the buzz saws turned from being on the LLCs to being wielded by those same LLCs, Lynch caved.  He gave up.  He's swinging in the political winds.

And now, he's getting caught.....imagine, such a "popular" Gov with historical approval rates of 60-70% is down around 50%??  And Jack, a new comer to politics THIS YEAR, is in the 30s?

Hah!  Wait until Lynch has to start laying off more SEIU union members!

Glub, glub, glub.....

Posted by Skip at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Is this a case of "be careful for what you wish for" , or "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"?  From the Washington Examiner:

This weekend, David Axelrod, the president's top political advisor went on television and defended Democrats health care reform efforts by favorably comparing it to the state health care plan in Massachusetts:

"Senator [Scott] Brown [R-Mass.] comes from a state that has a healthcare plan that's similar to the one we're trying to enact here," Axelrod said on ABC's "This Week". "We're just trying to give the rest of America the same opportunities that the people of Massachusetts have."

By "the same opportunities that the people of Massachusetts have" I hope Axelrod isn't referring to premiums growing 21 to 46 percent faster than the national average or per capita health spending increasing faster than the national average in seven of the last eight years.

Oh joy - as if life isn't expensive as it is!  Actually for me, the hardest to take with RomneyCare is the individual mandate - the same feature that will put you behind bars in Obamacare is in RomneyCare (albeit, just fines and not jail bars).  Individual freedom?  Individual choice? Apparently, that important aspect of Conservatism has been (will be) sacrificed on the alter of "the common good).

Oh wait, there's more!

The Massachusetts treasurer said Tuesday that Congress will "threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years" if it adopts a health care overhaul modeled after the Bay State's.

Treasurer Timothy Cahill — a former Democrat running as an independent for governor — said the local plan enacted in 2006 has succeeded only because of huge subsidies and favorable regulatory changes from the federal government.

He asked, "Who, exactly, is going to bail out the federal government if this plan goes national?"

...He also gave reporters a copy of a recent state ledger sheet, showing the state's Medicaid program ballooning from $7.5 billion to a projected $9.2 billion since the plan was adopted. Meanwhile, of the 407,000 newly insured, only 32 percent paid for private insurance wholly by themselves.

History to be.  Remember, Obama's Administration already owns a $60 Trillion shortfall in unfunded mandates for SS and Medicare - 4 X national GDP.  THIS YEAR, Social Security is demanding payment on the IOU's from the rest of the Feds - and they don't have it!

Socialism demands other peoples' money - and as we are seeing in the news, if the Dems are happy to run roughshod over the Constitution by voting to not vote to pass a bill, they will have no compunction about deeming us as having "the other peoples' money".
 

Posted by Skip at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

...Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand more. In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world. Nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone cold war...

Well, how's that working out?  In the case of Israel, not so much - being an ally of the United States seems to be a downer instead of an upper.  Just for allowing building housing in an area that was exempt from a previous agreement?  Yes, sir - the Chicago way - the Alinsky way!  From Powerline:

Haaretz reports that Israel has not only received a tongue lashing from Secretary Clinton delivered to Ambassador Michael Oren, but has also received four peremptory demands:

1. Investigate the process that led to the announcement of the Ramat Shlomo construction plans in the middle of Biden's visit. The Americans seek an official response from Israel on whether this was a bureaucratic mistake or a deliberate act carried out for political reasons. Already on Saturday night, Netanyahu announced the convening of a committee to look into the issue.

2. Reverse the decision by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee to approve construction of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat Shlomo.

3. Make a substantial gesture toward the Palestinians enabling the renewal of peace talks. The Americans suggested that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners be released, that the Israel Defense Forces withdraw from additional areas of the West Bank and transfer them to Palestinian control, that the siege of the Gaza Strip be eased and further roadblocks in the West Bank be removed.

4. Issue an official declaration that the talks with the Palestinians, even indirect talks, will deal with all the conflict's core issues - borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements, water and settlements.

It's quite a package, if accurate, and it's hard to see how any self-respecting Israeli government could submit to it. Item number three in addition gives expressive form to the notion that it is dangerous being an ally of the United States in the Age of Obama.

Oh, another thing from that UN speech:

We have fully embraced the millennium development goals.

Think the ONE campaign.  Think an additional tax on the US taxpayers - 2.5% of national GDP.  That's $350,000,000,000 / year. 

Obama said "...spread the wealth...".  He's working on that too.

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“In 1991, Mohamed Akram wrote a memo for the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood that explained its work in America as "a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The Gospel writers have noted that Jesus called his disciples to a way of life in which any act of violence can be overcome by love. We must not return evil for evil, Jesus taught, but must return good for evil; we must not hate those who wrong us but must love our enemies and pray for those who hate us. The Qur’an never says this. Instead it explicitly declares that Allah does not love those who do not believe in him:

Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (9:30) (See also Bukhari 8:427), one of the last things Prophet Muhammad ever said on his deathbed was "May Allah curse the Jews and Christians.”)

“Allah, deal with the Jews, your enemies and the enemies of Islam. Deal with the crusaders, and America, and Europe behind them, O Lord of the worlds.” Ahmad Abu Halabiya

Continue reading "Liberal Pacifism VS Islamic Extremism" »

Posted by Amil at 7:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Majorie Smith cutting the budget reads like a prisoner forced to read a prepared statement just prior to their execution, that impugns their home country of ills for which they are about to be executed.

Then there is this.

"There are a lot of people who would not have believed the people in this room are supporting some of these cuts," [Smith] said. 

(Quoted from this mornings Union Leader.)

Unfortunately there were more cuts available but then there were not.  Democrats desperate to take whatever federal money Obama offered, to add to their three year spendapalooza--never in their wildest dreams thinking they'd actually have to cut back--got their buds nipped by Bud Fitch.

The original version of House Bill 1664 proposed $76 million in state cuts. Rules on federal stimulus funds that require continued spending on education programs forced the committee to walk away from $13 million in cuts to state colleges and UNH, and to drop a plan to save $19 million on aid to the state's neediest schools.

Deputy Attorney General Bud Fitch explained the stimulus funding rules to the committee. When the state took $164 million in education funds, he pointed out, "There were a big strings tied to this and you elected to take it."

What a relief.  Remember..

"There are a lot of people who would not have believed the people in this room are supporting some of these cuts," [Smith] said

So that means that any shortfall that results from spending too much and thinking the feds would pay the check must now come out of the pockets of New Hampshire Families.  You like that...New Hampshire Families?  I borrowed that from the liberals who only care about taking money from New Hampshire families to pay for whatever their centrist little minds can think to spend it on.

As unpleasant as this all is--the taking away after all the giving--is that every person in New Hampshire who gets some benefit from the state, gets it at the expense of someone elses earnings.  In the real world, that's not a number that rises as quickly as the unions convince bureaucrats it will.  So after years of bad management, we're at a cross roads and someone has to pay.  And when there is no money left to bleed from taxpayers--or they simply are no longer willing to bleed what they have, government has to give, and a change in management is likely.

So while it is nice to see them giving it the old college try, to quote Ms. Smith again...

"Cut us a little slack, because we're trying to do the right thing."

..had you been all that concerned with doing the right thing in the first place, we very likley wouldn't be in this mess at all.

Cross posted from NH Insider

Posted by Steve at 7:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Need I say more??

Posted by Andrew Hemingway at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You have GOT to be kidding....from Roll Call:

Pelosi Calls All Female Democratic Members Into Meeting
March 16, 2010, 7:02 p.m.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is asking all female Democratic Members to attend a hastily called meeting Wednesday morning but isn’t saying what the meeting is about.

Pelosi’s office sent an e-mail out Tuesday evening requesting that all female Democrats come to the Members-only meeting at 10 a.m.

An aide to one Democratic Member said Pelosi’s office said the topic of the meeting was “to be determined.”

The meeting comes as Democratic leaders enter the final stretch of health care reform — and as they scramble to address fractures in their Caucus over abortion and immigration provisions in the bill. 

I want to say some special arm-twisting is about to happen....but men have those appendages as well, so why is Pelosi discriminating against the male members of the Democrat caucus?

Explanation of the post title:  CSP tried to pass off a bad joke as her comment of "send the men home and we'll get healthcare passed".

We're in the best of hands....
(H/T: Pat)

Posted by Skip at 10:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I have been trying to do more reading than usual - not on current events but more on underlying philosophies so as to (hopefully) lead to better blogging. One of those posts I ran across had this:

...The message from Tea Partiers is that Alinsky has not succeeded any better than his more illustrious revolutionary peers. Rather than losing all hope in the American system of liberty, justice and limited government, these community-builders -- the Tea Partiers -- are rallying to express their firm commitment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees equality under the law, not equality of material-world goods. The Constitution is designed to preserve liberty, not "empathy," for as any sentient person knows, empathy is entirely dependent upon which type of tyrant is sitting in the seat of judgment.

Take a read of the article - some have said that the TEA Party movement is nothing more than the Right's version of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.  Not quite so EVEN IF it may seem to be such at the surface level.   Instead, it is as diametrically an opposing view of the world as one can get.

This brings to the fore the ideological battle now being played out in the news:

• Fighting for individual liberties as was pre-eminent by the writers of the Constitution, or
• Fighting for a socialistic based America as desired by the Progressives (who merely sniff at Constitutional bounds)
  

Posted by Skip at 8:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've just started to read F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" - and I happen to stumble over this

 quote from Pelosi and Marx on 'Freedom' over at the American Thinker:

Friedrich Hayek wrote about this subtle shift in the word "freedom" over sixty years ago. He argued that as socialists began coming under fire for promoting servitude and control, they made the creative decision to harness to their "cart the strongest of all political motives -- the craving for freedom." For Hayek,

The subtle change in meaning to which the word ‘freedom' was subjected in order that this argument sound plausible is important.  To the great apostles of political freedom the word had meant freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached.

For the socialists, however, "before man could be truly free, the 'despotism of physical want' had to be broken, the ‘restraints of the economic system' relaxed." For Hayek, this new definition of freedom was simply "another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth."

Hayek asks a fascinating question that each and every American needs to consider before deciding whether to return any Obamacare-supporting politician to power this fall:

Who can seriously doubt ... that the power which a multi-millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest [bureaucrat] possess who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work?

Nancy Pelosi's theory of "economic freedom," you see, requires legions of new bureaucrats wielding the power of the state so that you can be liberated from your inauthentic, job-locked selves. If we take freedom in its true meaning -- as freedom from coercion -- we see instantly, however, that indeed, I am less coerced by a neighboring millionaire than by the tiniest government bureaucrat deciding where and when I can see a doctor, go to school, or become job-locked.

The calculus of Progressives that is always shown "we will make you free from the vicissitudes of life".  The translation is that you can have X, Y AND Z and it will cost you nothing.  The flip side is the phrase "There ain't such thing as a free lunch" is not in their lexicon; if it were, the jig would be up.  The only way they can make this tune sing is to never say that your freedom comes at the expense and freedom of another.

Is it right to demand an entitlement from others for your freedom?

Posted by Skip at 7:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Over at NRO was this "heads up" for more politicians looking for a bailout: 

Gov. Paterson said yesterday the feds have to help bail out cash-starved New York to help plug the more than $9 billion budget gap facing the state.

"We are struggling for survival to close this budget deficit," Paterson said during a town-hall meeting in White Plains, his second budget-focused event in the past week.

He added: "There is going to have to be federal relief here."

If the citizens of the other 49 states fall for this, they are bigger fools than I take them for. New York's state government is a nest of thieves. Our moronic state electorate signed on willingly and gleefully to the government's offer to let us trade in our one-dollar bills for fives. Now that the whole stinking Ponzi scheme is collapsing, the Albany crooks are calling on folk in Oregon, Tennessee, and North Dakota to help keep it going.

Pay no attention, America. New York deserves whatever is coming to it.

I would agree - this country was based on responsibility and for those States (and their taxpayers!) that have been more prudent, more frugal, and did not spend in cadence with the phrase "let the good times roll!" should not have to be on the hook for those States that have acted like NY.  While much has been said concerning the moral hazard of socialism (yes folks, right here on the 'Grok).

Yet, there are those that DO believe fiscal basket cases like NY and CA should be bailed out.  Mike Kitch, intrepid reporter for the Laconia Daily Sun, and I had quite the "discussion" a while ago over this.  Essentially, I had made my point that we watched every penny that was spent and that our budgets were carefully overseen and managed; we stayed within reasonable limits and did not spend either to the limit of what could be possible or over that limit.  My jaw dropped, however, to the asphalt when he looked me in the eye and stated "Yes, Gilford SHOULD be made to give of taxpayer funds to other towns less fortunate - you are all rich compared to them!".  I asked "Does that mean to towns, and states like CA, that have totally "mismanaged their budgets?" (thinking that the word mismanaged" would give him an exit, that outright stupidity should not be rewarded.

He let me know, in no uncertain terms, that I was cold-hearted and selfish for not wanting to help.  I could only shake my head, got in my car, and our conversations have dwindled to pretty much nothing ever since.

I guess he couldn't understand that taxpayer money was not mine to give!  As a conservative, one of my core political beliefs is self-responsibility - you are responsible for the decisions you make and for the outcomes stemming from those actions.  These are not my kids that need bailing out - these are adults that have voluntarily NOT been acting fiscally responsible for quite some time.  If those elected officials HAD been responsible, they wouldn't be in the situation(s) they are now.  Ditto for the voters in a second-order review - they voted these fools into office, thus, they bear the responsibility of their elected representatives.

Second, as an elected official, I have a duty and an obligation to spend only what is needed - and no more.  Would I be showing respect to my constituents by being so flagrant with their money in sending their money elsewhere to account for others stupidity?  I think not.

Yet, as I found out, there are indeed others (e.g., Mike Kitch) believe that it was my obligation and duty to have done so.

It truly is an unfortunate state of affairs when many wrongly conflate government with individual charity; it is FAR worse to punish citizens who have maintained good government by paying for those who have not.

Posted by Skip at 5:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Talking about bills that don’t exist.  Voting on things that they’ve never read, perhaps never seen. Inventing procedural rules to bypass an actual vote so it doesn’t fail.  The president and democrat leadership talking about things that we know are in the bits of the bill we can see as if they are not there. Blatant disregard for the will of the people, not just on the bill itself, but the process as well.  Raising taxes, increasing government meddling.
This isn’t about health reform.  It’s about power.  But I think it may be about power in a way we’ve not yet considered.
The left has long been milking the narrative that they are afraid our ‘differences’ will lead to violence.  At the same time, they are doing everything they can in DC to incite exactly that kind of violence, maybe even outright rebellion.  It would be the ultimate crisis, one not to be wasted.
Just think about what they might try to do if they ram this through without even voting on it and America decides it’s had enough?
Marshall Law? Police state? What can you imagine that is beyond the scope of this left wing government?
The words of moon bat Eric Massa come to mind.  ‘If they ram this through it will tear this country apart.”
Well, maybe that’s exactly what they have planned.

Posted by Steve at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

New Hampshire has a few in the form of Charlie Bass and Rich Ashooh who are not only running for the Second and First Congressional House Districts in New Hampshire respectively, but who are also connected to each other through the revolving door. 

As a Lobbyist running a PAC for BAE back in 2006, Ashooh moved money to the Bass campaign; the same year BAE and its employees gave 16K to Bass; the same year Bass was finally term limited by the electorate (after ignoring his own promise at term limits) and for lingering too lavishly in the moderate, big government shadow of George W. Bush.  But the revolving door keeps people like Bass well heeled.  After getting punted out of office he landed at the PR firm Devine Strategies where he worked with Elias ‘Skip” Ashooh, Rich Ashooh's older brother.

Lobbyist and now candidate Ashooh is a Bass supporter, but has also supported democrat candidates and tax schemes  like the NH  tax everyone (including some democrats) are now running from.  He likes to mingle with environmental Justice and UN Millennial Development Goal junkies like The One Campaign, (One Vote specifically) and as noted is the younger brother of ‘Skip’ Ashooh, from Divine Strategies where Bass flopped after de-election. 

The small government grass roots is uncomfortable with the reality that Ashooh and Bass both have the revolving door connections to build swollen campaign coffers to advance moderate histories.   They have both chosen to run in a large enough field of primary opponents (in both districts) against candidates with significantly more conservative credentials, that a vote split to their right could allow the revolving door insiders a realistic shot at a primary win, at a time when revolving door insiders could be the most hated breed of political animal in the nation. 

Ashooh, at this point, presents very little danger in CD-1.  But that race is so crowded that it is difficult to see at this point who will land on top.  CD-2 however offers two conservatives who will divide most of the votes, with Bass in a position to take advantage of a conservative split between Bob Giuda and Jennifer Horn.  A split that has conservatives wondering what to do about Bass.  Despite his rhetoric and run to the right he's not abandoned his moderate supporters or revolving door ways.

So with the Granite State poised to make major Republican gains in the legislature,  to retain the Gregg Senate seat while flipping both House seats, a Bass and Ashooh primary makes for an interesting Summer.  And while a primary is always a good thing, at the end of the day these guys are still major revolving door insiders, candidates democrats would prefer to run against if given a choice.  How that will play out under the circumstance of crowded primaries in a year when the TEA party is not interested in candidates like Bass remains to be seen.  But even if his poll numbers are lousy, like all good revolving door candidates he'll still have plenty of insider money to run with. 

This is not because government-run health care is so effective or beloved; rather, it fosters a debilitating spirit of dependency that is fatal to a self-governing people. In short, it kills the self-reliance and individualism critical to a free-market democracy.

For Mr. Obama, that is precisely the point. Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution, laid out the Marxist blueprint that has been followed by the radical left since 1917. Lenin urged that any disaster should be exploited to "hasten the destruction ... of the capitalist class." The 2008 Great Recession brought Mr. Obama to power. He has been seizing this crisis in order to overthrow the old capitalist order.

- Jeffrey Kuhner

(H/T: Washington Times)

Posted by Skip at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the CATO Institute:

"Just as an example, the CATO study found that, while Washington DC public schools claim to spend about $17,000/student, the actual price tag is closer to $28,000. Just to put this in perspective, this is a higher price than the private Potomac School, Georgetown Preparatory School, Stone Ridge School and Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School. In fact, it’s only $2,000 less than Sidwell Friends, the ultra-exclusive private academy where President Obama’s own daughters attend."

"In other words, parents in Washington are spending nearly as much on schools with a 41.8% dropout rate as they could be on a school that produced Nancy Reagan and Bill Nye and is widely regarded as one of the best private schools in the nation."

My local school system, according to the just published 2009 "Annual Report Card" has 1298 students in 3 schools (Elementary, Middle, and High School).  Our hamlet just approved a budget of $18,085.44 for expenditures: just about $18,085 / student.  State average is about $13,915 / student.

At least our dropout rate is about 0.88% / year.  However, for academic results, SAT scores of our high school graduates have been consistently below the state average the last 4 years.  NECAP scores (think NE regional standardized testing) aren't up to snuff at the high school level: only about 30% are proficient or above in math, ditto in science (reading has 75% proficient or better).

Good value for a cost / results ratio in relation to state average??  For those that read the stats, probably nope.  For those merely looking at the kids' report cards/  Maybe?

You?

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Beware of Greeks bearing Politicians promising Gifts...

We've seen it with our own kiddies "Johnny - give that back to Stevie!" as the four year old takes away a toy that has caught his eye that another kid was contentedly play with.  It happens at homes, in play situations, and in day care centers.  After a certain age, however, it is called stealing or theft; when one takes something of value from another simply because it catches their eye or fulfills a need for them.  It matters not, that the original owner had a better purpose for that "thing" - it is taken.

Politicians are wont to say "this person is in need or that needs to be fixed".  True words, depending on the situation.  The problem is, as one of my favorite political philosophers, Professor Walter E. Williams, brings up - to do so requires that something given to one MUST be taken away from another.  He also disagrees, vehemently, that Government is not Santa Claus (emphasis mine):

NOTE: Heh!  I had set this up, started a couple of other posts, and then saw Steve's Notable Quote from Walter Williams on this exact quote - too funny!

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else’s wish come true.

None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one’s own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.

(H/T: Hot Air)

Progressives are well down their path in convincing the American public that ONLY Big Government can fix their woes, heal their pain, correct wrongs?  How often do you hear "Somebody has to do something about that?" Or, "Somebody ought to pass a law....", and then pass that off that someone else has to spend of their time, and spend of their money (or other peoples' money) to correct what they believe to be wrong.

How often, instead of blieving that the cost should be borne by others, should you be thinking "Why aren't YOU doing something about it instead of waiting on somebody else? Why aren't YOU getting up off your fat behind, shutting your complaining tongue, and fix it yourself?"

Why do we wait for someone else to take care of our problem?  Why do we allow politicians to take from us to perform what used to be individual charity?  After all, these things used to be taken care of by individuals, right, before Government became so big?  Life hasn't become THAT complicated that only Government can solve problems.  ONE person, one MOTIVATED person, will always make a difference...

....and not need government to solve a problem.  It does require, however, that one is willing to get up off their fat ass instead of outsourcing it to Gubmint...

I'm not the only one saying that Big Government = presents = entitlements; it is all unsustainable:

And it is not just the GOP leadership at fault.  It is also the American people themselves.  We have allowed ourselves to become addicted to governmental freebies.  We suck down rebates [government  -Skip] on home loans and “cash for clunkers.”  We send our kids to government schools.  And there is nary a single politician in the post-GWB GOP who appears willing to put their neck on the chopping block to try to remedy the real problem - the out-of-control spending on Medicare and Social Security.  Why?  Because the aforementioned senior citizens - the most faithful voting bloc, and who are highly dependent on the entitlement crack - would crucify them.  But who can blame them?  They are in a tight spot - the nanny state promised to take care of them, give them a nice monthly check and cheap/free health care in return for their dependency.  It would be tough to pull the rug out now.  But we must explore ways to fix this, or the economy will implode beneath the weight of this entitlement drug.

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Rumor Has it that any democrat who wants Obama to campaign for them come November had best vote for health care.  Joe Biden too.

Posted by Steve at 7:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Steve at 7:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I said this concerning Brian Poznanski (D-Kegger) [Steve, I STILL like that touch!]:

Seems to be a constant theme with the Hon. Brian Poznanski - not wishing to be held account by the Law for breaking the law (such a sterling example, eh?).  He also was behind a bill that would allow underage dope smokers to possess marijuana without getting a record on that, too ("I wanna do what I wanna do - without responsibility!").

"Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance."

If Pelosi wants us to imagine it, let's do it with a few caveats, shall we? If liberal Boomers such as Nancy Pelosi insist on creating government incentives for a generation of people to be unemployed artists who nonetheless have their health care paid for by productive members of society, there will be fewer productive members of society.

If they insist on creating a generation unable to care for itself up to and past the ripe old age of 26 by incentivizing "children"—and I use to term loosely— to stay on parent's health insurance policies until they're turning the corner from Clearasil to Botox, there will be fewer educated, able-bodied people who ever learn to take care of themselves.

Like many on the Right, I was floored when I first read that Pelosi quote - it is akin to that infamous Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign ad where she is sitting next to a Christmas tree mumbling about "gifts to the masses", all the while knowing that her gifts, being used to bribe adults into voting for her, were only possible with our tax money.

"Get it?"

First, Pelosi wishes us to be free from the adult bonds of providing for ourselves, from taking care of our needs.  Consider the freedom she offers!  The ability to flit here, flit there, like a young'un trying to figure out what coat fits best.  Easy as pie - dangle the carrot, of "fake" freedom, in front of our eyes and make it swing from side to side.  Mesmerizing, isn't it?

In the second, Hillary treats we adults citizens as mere children to be taken care of by the State - "see the pretty presents?"  Pretty inviting: Universal Healthcare, Universal Pre-K, Alternative Energy for all, middle class tax breaks; a short list in the commercial but those enamored of Big Government will always have more to give.  Much more - it is oh so easy to do!

What is ALWAYS glossed over is the cost, the true cost of government doing more and more (Progressives are like that - like Satan showing the apple to Eve).  Oh, dollars are mentioned (if at all, it is "not all that much - just a couple of cups of coffee each", or only the rich, or only companies will pay - always someone else), but being adults, we need to contemplate and count the cost spiritually. What does it say when the elites in government, those that would govern us, believe the cost to do all these things costs them nothing (as we still are paying for ourselves) and turns us into wards of the State - instead of independent, rugged, and robust individual adults?

In effect, both of these female Democrats, these Big Government Progressives show us the true meaning of the Progressive movement, the true expression of Progressivism - "Listen, children, just let the State / Big Government take care of all your cares and needs; after all, you CAN trust us!".

The real cost is the cost to our liberties - as government grows to provide more, it WILL put more and more regulations in place that will limit our freedoms.  Count on it!

Progressive definition of liberty: freedom from the consequences of bad decisions. Or from life!

Is this a cost you are willing to pay?  Or allow your children to pay for you?

Posted by Skip at 5:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Kegger - nice touch, Steve!  From Steve's post:

First, an underage house member Brian Poznanski (D- Kegger)  is arrested at a house party in Bedford where he is violating the law with (an in front of) some 21 other people, while allowing other laws to be broken.  Mr. Poznanski just happens to be the sponsor of a bill that would allow underage drinkers to avoid a formal arrest record if they promise to seek treatment.  The bill quietly disappears after Mr. Poznanski apologizes without further repercussions from his democrat leaders in the NH House.

Seems to be a constant theme with the Hon. Brian Poznanski - not wishing to be held account by the Law for breaking the law (such a sterling example, eh?).  He also was behind a bill that would allow underage dope smokers to possess marijuana without getting a record on that, too ("I wanna do what I wanna do - without responsibility!").

Progressive definition of liberty: freedom from the consequences of bad decisions.

My prediction:  he'll go far in the Democrat party - after all, look at Timmy Geithner!  Secretary of the Treasury and oversees the IRS.  You know, that organization that is responsible for collecting taxes and holding taxpayers to account? 

Yeah....you know what happened...

Posted by Skip at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Signs (like last year) - bring them!

Speakers - check!

Speakers that will inform - double check!

Speakers that are as upset as you are about the out-of-control spending and anti-Constitutional acts by the chuckleheads in DC and Concord - YOU BETCHA!

Wanna grill some of the candidates running here in NH - they've been invited!  Some are as TEA Party oriented as I am - come give them words of encouragement (and let them know you'll be watching)!  Let's ALSO see if you can find those that aren't (or just mouthing the words)...if they have the temerity to show!

*****

If you can't be in Manchester?  There's one in Concord earlier in the day and

one in Portsmouth:

The Seacoast Freedom Network is hosting a TEA Party on Thursday, April 15, 5-7 p.m. at Prescott Park in Portsmouth, New Hamsphire.
 
The theme of this Tea Party is "Taking Back Our Country" and all patriotic Americans are invited to join us for this special event.
 
At last year's Tea Party in Portsmouth we shouted out our protests to the out-of-control government spending and power grab in Washinton!  This year our focus will be on TAKING ACTION!  We cannot simply stand by and watch our liberties being threatened and stripped away!
 
Jeff Chidester, host of New Perspective Radio at 96.7 the wave, will emcee this event.  Special guests speakers include Jack Kimball and Bill Binnie, among others.  More info will be provided as our plans and other speakers are confirmed.
 
If you wish to help with this event, please contact us at: seacoastfn@aol.com
 
Bring your signs and we'll SEE YOU THERE!

Posted by Skip at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Terri Norelli isn't all that interested in ethics.  In the past few months several potentially high profile cases have gone softly into that good night with as little pomp as possible. 

First, an underage house member Brian Poznanski (D- Kegger)  is arrested at a house party in Bedford where he is violating the law with (an in front of) some 21 other people, while allowing other laws to be broken.  Mr. Poznanski just happens to be the sponsor of a bill that would allow underage drinkers to avoid a formal arrest record if they promise to seek treatment.  The bill quietly disappears after Mr. Poznanski apologizes without further repercussions from his democrat leaders in the NH House.

Next, Peter Leishman, (D- I think I can, I think I can) who after months of investigation into the possibility that he had been using his legislative muscle to manipulate rail deals from which he would benefit significantly, is let off the hook with a letter of warning, from which he might at worst sustain an angry paper cut, but whose effect is otherwise likely to have no affect at all.  Again, impropriety is not an issue, so sayeth the democrat leadership of their own.

And now we have Dan Eaton (D- Spend first tax question later) who is implicated in a liquor commission investigation.  The head of the liquor commission is on leave while the State looks into the matter, but Rep Eaton, whose primary contribution to the state is to find new and creative ways to spend your money is not in any imminent danger whatsoever.  He may even find himself elevated for being accused of involking the "Hey don't you know who I am" clause from the left wing book of words and phrases.

The investigation will, I predict, vindicate Mr. Eaton, not becausehe is innocent of any wrongdoing but because he is Dan Eaton.  The NHDP has already rolled out the "well you did it too, nah nah defense" sans the details of how they did it too as well.  Besides if a freshman backbencher like Poznanski can actually break laws and violate his oath in front of a crowd of minors without repercussion why would Dan Eaton worry?  And he won't. 

Norelli's not going to do anything because that is the policy of democrat leadership in NH.  Don't take responsibility, hide as much as possible, protect your own, and whenever possible misdirect by implicating opponents or shroud the issue in process until it goes away.

But don't worry.  As soon as the Republicans take over the House again Terri and all the other liberals will abandon their game of ethics-three card monty and again be transformed into ethics hawks.  We'll have more investigations than we can shake a Budweiser at from a commuter train

Cross Posted From NH Insider

Posted by Steve at 9:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Matthew Spalding from the Heritage Foundation is an expert on the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, Political Institutions, Political History and Citizenship and it is evident on every page of his book, 'We Still Hold These Truths.'  This thing is crack for liberty lovers, and if you don't already own a copy order one now, or stop and pick one up this weekend.

Mr. Spalding takes us on a tour of the thinking behind the concepts of liberty and why they are worth defending.  The book is very readable, and worth every moment of your time.

I apologize for not having a graphic of the cover but I will find one later.

Get it, read it, share it.  It's a great book

Posted by Steve at 8:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Week 10 - whew, thought I'd be losing more ground!  Slowing down, but still going down.  Chan reports that "...With the two dinner parties I attended over the weekend I’m amazed I didn’t gain weight. But I didn’t lose any either."

Hmm, perhaps I should slyly whisper into his wife's ear "hey, take him out more often!"

Previous weeks after the jump:

Continue reading "The Great New Hampshire Blogger Weight Loss Challenge - Week 9 results" »

Posted by Skip at 8:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

- Adam Smith

Posted by Skip at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As you can see, the 'Grok is running a banner ad "Make Sure Your Voice Is Heard".  There is no more divisive issue in the country today than healthcare.  No, it is not that people do not receive the healthcare - the law already stands that if they go to a hospital, they will be treated.  What all the howhaw is what is the payment process?  The Statist / Progressives complain that we all have to pay for the uninsured's visits to the hospital, thus we NEED this huge honkin' bill to pay for it?

Let me boil it down: so you Progressives want us to still pay for the uninsured AND pay for the thousands more for all of the bureaucracies that this bill will entail - mostly sight unread?

AND it looks like MY Chuckleheaded CongressCritters Carol Shea-Porter, Paul Hodes (the Senator-wanna-be), and Jeanne Shaheen are going to go along with the plan to say that the US House of Representatives, via the Slaughter Solution, is going to pass a rule that says that they voted on the Senate bill....when they haven't?  "Bend the Price Curve" - that's all I've been hearing - all that's going to happen is that they are going to "Bend the Constitution" and not do their jobs!

When it all comes down to it, it still is the same case that I spoke about last April 15th at the Manchester TEA Party event:

THEY WON'T READ THE BILL!

And now, if you really want to simplify and boil it down to the essence of the day, Pelosi (Carol Shea-Porter's BFF) isn't getting the message either:

THEY REFUSE TO VOTE ON THE BILL!

A year later, they still haven't!  The problem is, most of us have.  And here in NH, we ain't liking it all that much.  A year has passed - and Carol Shea-Porter, Paul Hodes, and Jeanne Shaheen (Democrats all from NH) still aren't listening or reading - or voting:

Posted by Skip at 7:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

• [5:1] O you who believe, you shall fulfill your covenants. Permitted for you to eat are the livestock, except those specifically prohibited herein. You shall not permit hunting throughout Hajj pilgrimage. Allah decrees whatever He wills.
• [5:10] As for those who disbelieve and reject our revelations, they are the dwellers of Hell.

• [5:77] Say, "O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion beyond the truth, and do not follow the opinions of people who have gone astray, and have misled multitudes of people; they are far astray from the right path."
• [5:78] Condemned are those who disbelieved among the Children of Israel, by the tongue of David and Jesus, the son of Mary. This is because they disobeyed and transgressed.

Continue reading "Muslims’ Sheep Mentality" »

Posted by Amil at 7:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Continue reading " “The Roll-Out of the Marc Tucker/Obama/Arne Plan”" »

Posted by Skip at 7:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

TMEW and I had some other plans for the weekend, and during the "down time", I just couldn't summon what was needed to put ideas to fingertips (e.g., writer's block). 

S'all right though, as yesterday I spent putting my fingertips to a different purpose: we spent the afternoon and early evening at an intro level marksman class the the Belmont Firearms and Range.  We've done our share of making small holes in perfectly good pieces of paper - just didn't have it down pat how to make perfectly larger holes out of collections of smaller ones.  We've learned that it is harder, much harder, than it looks.

Well, we passed and now are much better at it at 10 & 15 yards (for me, 10 rounds in a 2" grouping three out of four mags!) - not so shabby for a couple of duffers that just started this new hobby this past fall....

Posted by Skip at 8:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by Dan Itse (NH House of Representatives)

First, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that all citizens of a State were treated equally before the Law.

Second, you don't have to go to the Second Amendment to see the right of self defense protected. This reliance on the Federal Constitution is dangerous as it relies on a distant government for protection.

The privileges and immunities clause Article IV, Section 2 along with the Constitutions of the States (which are far more protective of our rights) establishes all you need. The privileges and immunities clause defines that every State a member of the United States recognizes the rights enumerated in each State. Since Pennsylvania has the explicit enumeration of the individual right to keep and bear arms and Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Virginia have the implicit individual right to keep and bear arms in their recognition of the right to defend life and liberty and protect property, the individual right to keep and bear arms has been absolute since before June 21, 1788, before the ratification of the Bill of Rights and long before the 14th amendment (1865).

The Articles of Confederation also include this concept.  Article IV has the same clause of privileges and immunities of each State being recognized by every State. Therefore, the recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms of member States has been recognized since 1781.

Basically, in regard to the member States of the United States, the Second Amendment is at its least irrelevant or maybe at its strongest, redundant.

Does it is recognition under the incorporation doctrine (progressive doctrine of centralization) weaken the Tenth Amendment? Only psychologically since the Constitution for the United States already required the recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms by the States. The danger is that it makes us less aware of our rights recognized by the States.

The concept incorporation of the Second Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment can not ultimately damage the Tenth Amendment.  The only thing that can damage the Tenth Amendment is the failure to enforce it.

Posted by Skip at 8:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Political leaders in capitalist countries who cheer the collapse of socialism in other countries continue to favor socialist solutions in their own.  They know the words, but they have not learned the tune.

- Milton and Rose Friedman

Posted by Skip at 8:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You know, NH is a great place for the politically minded!  It is here that retail politics flourishes; there is much truth to the old joke of "hey, aren't you supporting so-and-so?  Dunno, only met him three time so far..."

While it is true that media politics leaps in at the end of the trail (i.e., in true earnest a few weeks before voting day for the Federal candidates, shorter for the State oriented ones) and it does cost tons of money for radio, TV and mailed piece, it is the eye to eye, handshake, and small group talks predominate.  And they certainly are!  Politics among the inside-baseball types, jockeying for the support of this political / activist person or that special interest group by the candidates has been non-stop for months now.  Yes, we are in the Perpetual Campaign here in NH - all the way around from the ticket bottom (the local races at the Town level) to the near top (US Senator).  Lines have been drawn, issues staked out, and stances mostly set (er, they can ALWAYS change, right).  

Looking for a full time hobby (obsession)?  This certainly can be one!

Retail Politics - this stage that is in full force right now here in NH and a lot of it has been precipitated by Judd Gregg's decision to leave the Senate - let's call it Let's-Play-Political-Musical-Chair-Palooza! I'm only going to address the Republican side of the equation. Candidates have not been shy in flocking in for this once in a generation opportunities:

• Senator:
• Hodes wants to make the jump from Congress to Senate and seems to have the Democrat field to himself.  Well, at least, for now; his less than steller poll numbers may act like a summer porch light to other moths out there. 
  
• In fact, I've heard the rumors that in addition to the other "political lurkers" out there waiting to see if there an opportunity, I've heard from multiple sources that it is looking highly possible that Lynch will decide "I've been Gov long enough".  What a WONDERFUL place for the Do Nuttin' Guv Lynch to be hidden amongst 434 others and simply be one of the crowd - he certainly could be uncontroversial and cast no important votes: just like he has as Gov. - but easier!
  
• On the Repub side, there is Kelly Ayotte, Jim Bender, Bill Binnie, and Ovide Lamontagne carving out niches for themselves, with Ayotte being perceived as the Anointed Establishment one, Bender and Binnie the Businessmen, and Ovide (so much easier to type!) as the anti-Establishment, Liberty/Freedom candidate 
• In the polls, everyone is either competitive with Hodes or can beat Hodes.  This is good news, optimistic news, but if conclusions were now, why campaign.  Stuff happens, "macaca" moments take place, and oppo research can turn up golden nuggets of Kryptonite at the most inopportune time.

• CD-2 Congress: with Hodes jumping chairs, yet another empty seat.
  
• I'm not commenting on the Dem side of the field - YET
• Republicans are flocking in to compete for that now empty seat: Bob Guida, Jennifer Horn, and that TEA Party posseur (and relative latecomer to the race) Charlie Bass.  The latter has been (hmm, do I dare make the joke and use the double quotes on the word has and been ???) a professional politician in DC already, Jennifer has not been tainted and Bob has had much experience in NH.

Sidebar: I've already pasted Bass for being a TEA Party wanna-be-without-having-done-the-work.  Imagine that - a politician trying to take credit for the work of others!  Shame on him for even THINKING he could get away with it!

That said, the folks that have been part of the movement;  Jack Kimball has come out of the TEA Party movement here in NH to run on TEA Party principles, and Frank Guinta, Jennifer Horn and Bob Guida have been supportive, spoken at, and helped at events.  Bass can't hold a candle for these folks!

• CD-1 Congress
  
• Frankly, Carol Shea-Porter has become an embarrassment.  Running lock step with Pelosi hasn't helped in the TEA Party environment, but her constant foot-in-mouth disease has made her gaffes and mis-speaks national fodder for the blogosphere o the Right.  Poll numbers?  Tanking.
  
• The front runner on the Right is former Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta accompanied by Bob Bestani, Peter Bearse, Mike Castaldo, and newcomer Rich Ashooh.
  

• Governor
• Lynch - see above.  For someone that has been at 70% positive, the latest Rasmussen polls reflect the Teflon coming off.  What can you say when he polls 50% against 32% against low name recognition Republican rivals?  His integrity is now in question from his flip-flop on gay marriage, his judgment is now in question on the flip-flop on the LLC tax, and now having to lay off workers because of his mismanagement of the budget (er, getting shoved around by the House and Senate Democrats???) ain't helping either
• And Republicans have lined up there as well - Jack Kimball, Karen Testerman, and now John Stephen.
  

And there are still others on the Republican side that are waiting to announce - notably, Sean Mahoney who has been rumored to have been ready to jump in for several races.  While it still remains to see which race (Congress?  Senate?  Gov?), it means that inside the NH GOP, there will be the Republican Committeeman slot open - yet one more chair around which there will be swirls and circles.  I'm already reading / hearing rumors: Grant Bosse, Steve Duprey, Tom Eaton, Joel Maiola, Chuck Douglas, Tom Rath...

Heh!  I would be perceived as the proverbial wrecking ball - a fiscal conservative, a social conservative....Hey, why not a blogger this time?

Naw, I actually SUPPORT the Platform!  Shades of heresy - I actually think the planks are to be promoted, supported, talked about, and put into action!  Worst, I guess, is that I talk straight - and let people know it.  Holding politicians accountable does not endear one to those same such folks.  Plus, I have no money to campaign with - just the 'Grok.  Something tells me that would not be enough...

...or would it?  Comments please.

Posted by Skip at 8:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It is becoming an increasingly obvious fact of economic history that the development of economic systems which concentrate on the common good depends on a determinate ethical system, which in turn can be born and sustained only by strong religious convictions.  Conversely, it has also become obvious that the decline of such discipline can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse.

-  Pope Benedict XVI

Posted by Skip at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Paul  Hodes is out there talking up a storm about how he’s “not going to be bullied into changing his position” on Health care.  I almost fell out of my chair laughing.  I never realized he had his own position, but if that’s what he’s calling it fine. But consider this first because it tells you a good deal about who Paul Hodes is.  Six to eight months of increasing constituent objection, all the phone calls, email, faxes, letters; the comments in the old press and the new; the declining approval of Hodes, the congress, and the president, none of that has swayed “the position” of one Paul Hodes.  But the minute AHIP starts an ad campaign about the possible downside of this plot to reform health care, Hodes feels bullied?

Hodes reacts defensively to special interests but not his own voters.  Nice message.  And I know why, but maybe you don’t.

Continue reading "He Doth Protest Too Much" »

Posted by Steve at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What do you get when you mix 124 Donkeys and one RINO?  A list of NH House reps on the wrong side of a bill to repeal another stupid tax.

The House voted to ax the tent tax, (HB 1445) and repeal the 9% 'rooms and meals' tax for people who go to a camp site and provide their own room and their own meal.  The bill still needs to pass the state Senate, which has a similar bill all its own, and then get past fence-sitter Lynch whose positionwe can  never know from day to day, not that we can rely on what he says as an indication of how he'll act once an actual bill is on his desk, but it's got momentum, even if some of it represented by legislators who are afraid to touch it.

HB1445 did still have its supporters.  Margie Smith tried to table it, but that lost 153 to 171.  The tax and spenders then tried to ITL it but that failed 145 to 181.  Then when Sherm Packard managed to get an OTP roll call vote to pass the repeal, it succeeded  202 to 125.

68 House reps did not vote on this bill. A list for another time perhaps.

But 124 democrats and 1 Republican (Rock 5  Kenneth Gould) tried to keep the tax alive  and were more than happy to do it for the record.  So here's the record on the jump

Continue reading "The Tent Tax Party" »

Posted by Steve at 6:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the joys of blogging is the anonymous commenters who drop the bottle of Booth's Dry Gin long enough to type something lucid. (Lucid is a stretch)   Most of these word-smiths are probably NHDP staffers who can't find anything better to do while they watch the party lose special election after special election on the road to being sent packing in November.

One recent commenter with the  anonymous name"YouLittleDick" had this to say about a post asking whether chronic ethics issues avoider--and keeper of campaign cash from corrupt democrats--Paul Hodes knew anything about an implication of impropriety with Ethics committee chair Edolphus Towns.

"...but it's worth looking in to." As a matter of general health I know that it is worth looking into your butt for polyps. Oh, but your head is already there, so keep looking. Hodes is one sharp lawyer and has a very persuasive gift of gab (debate). Now, spell gambling - three times! Do it with your mouth closed because you might get more of the poop in it. Any polyps?

For those unfamiliar, this is the apex of liberal thought in the defense of any argument.  Anatomy, quite often feces or things related to it, and if possible insulting your typos, your intelligence, etc.  I guess there are a good number of proof readers in the liberal camp with ass obsessions which makes sense.  If you are incapable of original thoughts yourself--beyond the mind set of a middle school bully--but still have a desire to work with words, you are left with looking at other peoples ideas, hovering around them like a moth, and just about as intellectually agile.   Still can't spell Massachusetts though.  And if that's all you've got going for you, why not.  And to be fair, I did misspell gambling.

As to Hodes being a sharp lawyer, are you implying that he's sharp enough to have noticed that the Chairman of a committee he sits on continues to find himself associated with corruption and just hasn't exposed him yet?  Or do you mean sharp as in, good at getting crooks and embezzlers like Rosie McNamara off without paying back the taxpayers she screwed?  Or maybe we can combine the two and he can help get his committee chair off without having to pay back any of the taxpayers he's screwed.

Hodes is a rubber-stamp liberal hack trying to run as something he's not, just to make his loss (to whomever wins the republican primary) look competitive.  Don't bother.  We can see the fork sticking out of you from here.  You're done.

But keep the comments coming.  You losers crack me up.

Cross Posted From NH Insider

Posted by Steve at 6:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From NewsBusters:

It was the MSM version of "win one for the Gipper."  A manifestly moved Andrea Mitchell told a Dem congressman that with Pres. Obama having put so much on the line for health care reform, "you've got to get this for him."

Mitchell, ostensibly a "correspondent," her voice brimming with emotion, made her heart-felt plea to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) during her 1 PM MNSBC show today.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Bottom line, what happens if you don't get health care for this president is, this is really all-or-nothing for the sense of his power, his legacy, he's invested so much in this, in this first year. You've got to get this for him.

Yeah, that's certainly an objective viewpoint from a stalwart of the MainStream Media - "we report...and tell you what to think too!" Let us translate for this highly esteemed (at least on the Left) report (and cheerleader for) on the aspect of Obamacare. 

Poor President Obama, he so certainly deserves this - why, he's golfed worked so hard on this - all 11 pages and 411 speeches.  And let's not forget all those frequent flier miles in Air Force One for all those speeches!  His Presidency is at stake!  And it is all because of those rotten, selfish Republicans who won't vote for him and his sterling oratory!

Right!  Those self same Republicans can't hold ANYTHING up - but since many journalists can't do even simple math, the numbers just don't add for them (including the unemployment stats for their industry either).

Look, I have no problem with those that opine - that's what Fox News does most nights.  But that's what they do - they make NO claims to be objective (as opposed to the actual news story folks). 

Andrea Mitchell IS supposed to be objective - will she be the next to jump the line and just go work for Obama (like a larger and larger number have already done)?

Speaking of downslope number (journalism unemployment) - haven't they figured out that it is this kind of reporting (good thing that all 5 of her viewers were just starting to tune in) that is causing their dismal rating - and for Fox's to continue to climb?

Posted by Skip at 5:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's been a while since I've done this - apologies!  I start off with Brent from Weekend Pundit who has a graph that is right up my alley:

But of course, these Liberal / Progressive / Socialists never own up to the real answer to that question.

*****

Well, it's not flushing during the Superbowl, but it was hockey in Canada during the Olympics!  Paul from Pun Salad delivers this chart:

It's a usual story of our alleged public servants throwing themselves between willing buyers and sellers.

They generally think its "selfless" - I just wish it would be more of MYOB & let adults be adults.

*****

Bruce at No Looking Backwards points out a flaw that Freedom folks seem to have - nd end game.  In this case, that nutty NY Pol that wants to ban restaurants from using salt while cooking:

Incremental erosion of our liberty. It's the bedrock principle upon which their empire rests.

State: We must ban all _________.
Sheep: NO! That's outrageous! We Won't let you!
State: OK, you win. We'll only ban certain kinds of __________.
Sheep: YAY! We defeated the tyrants!

Lather, rinse, repeat.

If we are going to fight, we should be acting like Sherman's March to the Sea.

*****

Charlie Arlinghaus over at NH Watchdog is warning we NH Citizens to not accept cries of "we killed it" concerning the LLC tax:

The governor and the legislature are sending mixed signals on the possible repeal of the controversial LLC tax. The governor has said he is working on a plan to repeal the tax but we haven’t heard about any details of the negotiations with legislative leadership. Complicating matters, the House leadership today is planning on rejecting a bill to do precisely what the governor says he and the leadership want to do.

Gov. John "Do Nuttin'" Lynch has ALWAYS tried to be in the still waters - finally, he's getting rolled in the roiling waves - it's about freakin' time the Teflon wore off.  Better yet - he's doing it to himself!

*****

Continue reading "Round about some of the NH Conservative sites - week of 3/12/10" »

Posted by Skip at 4:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)