There’s nothing wrong with being gay. I have plenty of friends who are going to hell. —Stephen Colbert
HB 1264, sponsored by Representatives Jerry Bergevin of Manchester and Frank Sapareto of Derry met with a firestorm of opposition from the Gay Community along with religious and civil rights groups mouthpieces. The Union Leader intriguingly, made this a gay/straight issue through the context of their reporting, despite nothing in the bill making any direct (or even indirect) reference to any group respectively.
Mitt Romney has gone to great lengths to belittle Gingrich’s role in the Reagan revolution, even having an aide check the index of Reagan’s diary to find “just one reference” to Newt. Problem is, that speed reading to find what you want to believe, leads you to overlook everything else.
In fact, the people who were there at the time have a great deal to tell about Newt’s involvement, and it rapidly becomes apparent why the RINO establishment hates him so. Read some of the stories by Jeffrey Lord and Peter Ferrara, and you will see why those who were, and are, inclined toward ‘Pale Pastels’ are so affronted by Newton Leroy Gingrich. Bob Dole watering down the party platform, and leaving the door open to tax increases? BAM! “Newt struck back, hard”, said Lord, who was there at the time, calling Dole the “tax collector for the welfare state”. Pow! Read more history of the Reagan Revolution
Has the sweet milk of Obama’s class warfare rhetoric taken another sour turn? I’m talking about Warren Buffett’s secretary. How could a woman who is only paid $60,000.00 per year (according to her boss) be able to afford two homes while somehow amassing enough annual wealth to put her in a tax bracket that doesn’t even exist for the top1%?
An ABC News report, for example, says she “pays a tax rate of 35.8%,” in contrast to Buffett’s 17.4% The very top federal income tax bracket is 35%, not 35.8%, and that doesn’t kick in until a taxpayer has adjusted gross income above $379,150.
Does that mean Bosanek is among the 0.4% of taxpayers whose income hits the top federal bracket? You know, the “1%” Obama and his pals always rail about?
“A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have….”—Sen. Barry Goldwater
Representative Marshall E. “Lee” Quandt, Rockingham District 13 is this week’s RINO OF THE WEEK. Representative Quandt tends to be “Clintonista” with his navigation of the New Hampshire political Fabric and based on his New Hampshire House Republican Alliance Scorecard, he enjoys some modicum of success doing that.
I suppose you’ll want some context for that headline. Back in December (12/9/2011) I explained why New Hampshire should continue lowering tobacco taxes. I suggested we adopt some kind of schedule by which we would sunset tobacco taxes over the next decade based of the long term decline in sales. Why, after all, would you risk the states ability to invest in anything, including the left’s rhetorical “neediest residents in their most desperate hours (or something),” using an unreliable source of revenue in decline?
OK, what I actually said was
“Only a progressive zipper-head would rely on more revenue from something they want to get rid of. Increasing the tax on a declining market will only accelerate the unreliability of the revenue stream. That creates the opportunity for bigger budget holes that must then be filled on the fly.”
As if by magic, Sylvia Larsen, Democrat super-minoirty leader of the New Hampshire State Senate, in the face of declining unit sales, as fewer people smoke, after a decades long trend indicating that tobacco purchases will likely continue to decrease in the future, thinks we should increase our reliance on cigarette taxes in New Hampshire.
I was still working on the video from Concord, so I did not live blog Obama. However, I kept noticing the inconsistencies in what he was saying. Sure, he talks a nice game, and if you are only partially listening, it sounded good. If you are not politically aware, you might have thought the same. However, I kept exclaiming to TMEW, over and over, “he just said said the opposite a moment ago”, “wait, he just said WHAT?”, or “Huh? That makes no sense whatsover based on what he said 10 minutes ago!”.
Thus, when I found this guy, Clark Judge, over at Hugh Hewitt’s blog (reformatted it here), I just had to repost it to show how Obama (or his speech writers) has no clue what happens when you really do think about those inconsistencies:
It sounded like such a soft, even conservative speech.
But let me get this straight:
banks will be punished (do I understand this right, by a committee headed by Eric Holder?) if their lending is too risky,
and they will be required (by the same committee) to give more home loans (meaning, it must be, to people who would otherwise not qualify for the loans, or else the government would not have to be involved) at lower rates (which means rates that do not compensate them as much as the market says they need to be compensated for the risks they are taking, all of which sounds like a new edition of the policies that brought on the financial collapse),
which must mean that they will have to pull back on risky lending someplace other than homes,
the only place that most banks would be able to pull back on riskier customers would be loans to small and new businesses,
but these are the businesses that have created just about all the jobs over the last 20 years and he said early in the speech he wants to encourage them,
National School Choice Week – Support HB 1607, SB 372 & Our NH Legislators
Concord, NH – January 22-28, 2012 is National School Choice Week during which families and organizations across the country focus on improving access for all students to schools that best meet their educational needs, not just those located within their own municipal boundary.
“absolutely provide every child in this nation a world-class education, which will achieve far better results than our current system. But we need fresh, creative and innovation solutions designed and implemented at the state and local level. We do not need the Federal Government mandating a one-size-fits-all curriculum. We do not need more money, we have more than enough to do a far better job than we are doing. The answer is to empower teachers, families and communities to develop and implement creative and innovative education choices and solutions for the new century.”
And in New Hampshire, we are fortunate to have state legislators who believe and support these ideas. House Bill 1607, and its Senate companion, SB 372, will be introduced on January 23rd into the House Ways and Means, and January 24th into the Senate Education committees, respectively. Both would provide a tax credit for businesses that donate to educational scholarship funds and
“Allow maximum freedom to parents and independent schools to respond to and, without governmental control, provide for the educational needs of children.”
Rep. Timothy Horrigan is a frequent commenter here at the ‘Grok; we may not agree and I think that he ofts “misses the point”, but I’m glad he visits, glad he comments, and seems to take our repartee (and retorts) with good humor. Or, he at least keeps coming back. So when I heard he had signed up on the “testimony sheet” (I think it has an official name, but I don’t remember it), I looked forward to listening:
OK, I’m touting my own horn here. Sure, I am in favor of a Voter ID bill that requires a picture ID. Given the two bills, I think I would favor SB289 over SB318. Yes, the latter tries to cover more areas but I think that SB289 is more tightly focused on the major issue (the actual act of voting and making sure that that the person who is casting the ballot is the person they purport to be). And while I like the idea of “home runs”, in this case I think that a solid single is a better political bet at this point in time.
That said, I finally did move from behind the camera to in front of it – a position that I am not used to. However, I think that this is the first time, I believe, that someone has given testimony to a committee hearing of either chamber (Senate or House) by reading from a blog post using a Android smartphone:
Committee hearings are just that – be they of the NH Senate or NH House (or your local government) – the committee members are there to listen. Sure, they may have already made their decisions, but they owe it to their constituents to sit, listen patiently, and question those offering testimony.
David Scanlan, NH Deputy Secretary of State – in opposition
Patricia Piechuh (City and Town Clerks Association) – in opposition
NH House Representative Perry spoke – in opposition
Melissa Madden (America Votes) – in opposition
Thomas Bazinski Jr – in opposition
Harriet Cady – in favor
David Scanlan, NH Deputy Secretary of State speaking in opposition to the bill:
Patricia Piechuh, President of the City and Town Clerks Association speaking in opposition to the bill:
Right after the NH senate committee heard testimony on SB289 and NH State Senator Russell Prescott (here, here, and here), they started right to discuss SB318 which also addressed the need for voter verification at the ballot box as a necessary tool to help prevent voter fraud and to protect the integrity of the votes [ Read more ]
Certainly, those at Davos are the world Elite, globe-trotting to Switzerland to talk about the ills of the world and what they can do about it (or transform it) without truly understanding the root cause of the problem. And if you want to know what I believe an Elite to be, well, here you go. [ Read more ]
I have a question for progressives. If a fetus is just a lump of tissue, isn’t abortion just another form of plastic surgery? You can’t even find a Democrat willing to admit the procedure is not elective. It’s woman’s choice, yes? And if you’ve ever gotten an unwanted earful from some feminis, going on about [ Read more ]
In the Progressive view, the ends of government cannot be limited to protecting natural rights, because nature supplies no rights, and positive rights created by government change over time. Thus limited government is replaced with government of unlimited power and scope, what some political scientists call the administrative state. Rejecting natural justice, the liberal mind [ Read more ]
New Hampshire’s white tower liberals and their advocates in state government have been adamant about their policy on College students voting in the Granite State. While we have called this voter fraud, the Democrats insist that if you go to school here, then you should be able to vote here. But are these “New Hampshire [ Read more ]
This post has all of the other testimony, pro and con, on SB289 relative to having to present a valid picture ID in order to vote in NH elections. This first one is NH Deputy Sec. of State David Scanlan bringing the news that his department is supporting this bill and its amendment by Senator [ Read more ]
Along with his testimony on his amendments SB289 concerning presenting a valid picture ID in order to vote here in NH, the other NH State Senators on the committee had a few questions for him: The details on the bill can be seen here.
I am just going to keep saying this, and saying this, and saying this while the Presidential campaign is ongoing: Will the Press be willing to do that investigative homework? Or, will this still hold true: After all, at the Washington Press Corp Dinner where Obama let this loose: “Most of you all covered me… [ Read more ]
I love these meaningless labels you people employ to scare people. “Elite” why not “effete” why not “European minded”? Does an “elite” have lots of money, or is an “elite” just overeducated? Can you be a capitalist and an “elite” or are they mutually exclusive? Do you have to have travelled abroad to be an [ Read more ]
HB 1264, sponsored by Representatives Jerry Bergevin of Manchester and Frank Sapareto of Derry met with a firestorm of opposition from the Gay Community along with religious and civil rights groups mouthpieces. The Union Leader intriguingly, made this a gay/straight issue through the context of their reporting, despite nothing in the bill making any direct (or even indirect) reference to any group respectively.
