Meet the New Press

2 - 4 PM EST

NewsTalk 1490AM

Laconia, NH

• Starting next week, April 7th, we will broadcast from 11AM to 1PM-- through lunch, which we hope makes it more convenient for the live listener, thus leaving a whole afternoon to savor life...
• And-- within 2 or 3 weeks, we will be streaming the program LIVE ON THE INTERNET! That way there, no matter where you are in the world, you can hear us live beyond the current central New Hampshire broadcast area, instead of waiting for the podcasts. That will allow those who currently listen to the podcasts an opportunity to phone in during the program.

• In studio guests Susan Peterson, Judy Paris, and Karen Thurston. These would be some of those awesome "Moms" who conducted the "Gathering of Mothers" event in support of the troops and victory. They are the same ones outraged at last week's "peace rally" in Concord put on by students from local public schools. As the saying goes, there is "no fury like a woman scorned." We'll talk about the rally, an exchange with NH Peace Action leader Ann Miller, supporting the troops, and patriotism.
• Jonathan Martin--On Friday Jonathan Martin, Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei had a piece in the Politico titled “Republicans Fear 2008 Meltdown.” In it they write: "Republicans across the country are warning that increasing public discontent toward President Bush, the Iraq war and the GOP brand in general threatens to send the party's 2008 campaign planning into a tailspin." Also, A new American Research Group poll shows that former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen would wallop Sen. John Sununu in a rematch of the 2002 race.  44% to 34%. Liz Mair at GOP Progress asks Granite Staters to chain Shaheen to her desk at Harvard, where she’s a professor now.  Pat will aski if Republicans are going to lose this seat

• R. Emmett Tyrrell will come on to discuss his new book The Clinton Crack-Up.

• Crystal Deuker of ThinkCondi.net called me the other day, quite irate at Mitt Romney for something he recently did… or didn’t do. She'll tell us why. She'll talk about whether or not Secretary of State Rice should run for president. In fact, you can call in and answer our

Question of the day, which is: “Should Condi Rice run for president?”

Call in at 603-527-1490 and let us know what you think (even if you’re not in the listening area, we’d love to hear from you.) Crystal will be on at 3:30 EST.

As you can see, there's always a great lineup here on MTNP. We are as anxious to get the livestreaming up and running as those of you beyond the broadcast area are to listen and participate live. Remember--- It all starts at 11AM EST starting next Saturday, April 7th.

Posted by Doug at 9:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here are some questions for the Governor about his constitutional amendment that he would rather not answer.

Posted by Ed Mosca at 8:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Ed Mosca at 8:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 8:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Ed Mosca at 8:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Steve Forbes Joins Team Rudy as National Co-Chair and Senior Policy Advisor

New York City – The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee today announced that Steve Forbes, President and Chief Executive Officer of Forbes and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President of the United States.  Mr. Forbes will serve as a National Campaign Co-Chair and Senior Policy Advisor. 

.

“I am honored to support Rudy Giuliani for President,” Steve Forbes said. “As Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani showed how exercising fiscal discipline – including tax cuts – lowers deficits, spurs economic growth, and increases revenue.  It is time the rest of the country benefit from a true fiscal conservative leader who gets real results.”

.

“Steve and I share an economic vision that embraces supply-side economics, tax relief, and spending restraint,” said Mayor Giuliani.  “I look forward to working with Steve and am proud to have him as a member of our team.”

.

About Steve Forbes:

.

Mr. Forbes is a distinguished leader in the business community.  He is President and Chief Executive Officer of Forbes and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, and is also a frequent business commentator for Fox News Channel’s “Forbes on Fox”.  

.

In 1985, President Reagan appointed Mr. Forbes as Chairman of the bi-partisan Board for International Broadcasting (BIB), where he directed the programming for Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.  He was reappointed by President George H.W. Bush and served until 1993. 

.

In 1996 and 2000, Mr. Forbes ran as a Republican candidate for president on a platform that advocated a flat income tax. 

.

He is currently on the boards of The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, the Heritage Foundation and The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and is the author of two books on political and economic policy issues.

.

Note: Rudy’s Economic Record-At-A-Glance is attached and available at www.joinrudy2008.com

Posted by Doug at 9:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 

Sign reads "Not one more death. Not one more dollar."

They are barely old enough to fight or vote, but local high-school students showed yesterday that they are old enough to make their voices heard in loud opposition against the war in Iraq. Between 100 and 200 students, peace activists and passers-by demonstrated in front of the State House yesterday afternoon, in a rally organized by the peace clubs of Concord High School and Hopkinton High School, with the help of New Hampshire Peace Action and the American Friends Service Committee.

.

"I think the war's wrong, and we all do as much as we can do," said Hopkinton High School senior Will Merrow, who co-founded his school's peace club. Merrow rallied the crowd, telling them if anyone could give him a reason why the country is in Iraq, he would get off the stage. "If not, I'll stay up here until the death toll stops. We cannot and we will not take it any longer," he said.

.

"The concern for Iraqi deaths is a testament to the humanity of the students involved in peace," said Anne Miller, director of New Hampshire Peace Action.
Many students said this was their first peace rally. They heard about it through flyers at school and through friends. Nat Nelson, a Concord High School senior, said he came because a friend invited him over Facebook.

.

"This rally may have minimal impact, but compounding on each other, it's one of the few easy steps we can take," he said. "It's important to amass public opinion."

Late in the rally, 11-year-old Alicia Sanders-Zakre, a sixth grader at Rundlett Middle School, took the microphone and read songwriter John Denver's "Peace Poem." Sanders-Zakre said she decided to speak because she believes everyone's voice counts.

.

"If you think I'm only one person and can't make a difference, nothing happens," she said. "But if everyone works together and thinks they can make a difference, we can."

 

TEENS DISHONOR OUR BELOVED SOLDIERS

Although previously told how disrespectful and dishonoring it would be to use empty shoes to signify Iraqi civilian deaths from the Iraq war, I see the various high school “peace” groups completely disregarded the advice given to them and used them anyway on Sunday. (Interestingly, a friend of mine asked one of the marchers if the empty shoes signified all of the Iraqis murdered by Sadam, and she replied that she didn’t know). So much for knowing what you’re participating in….

.

The HS Peace groups literally “stole” a sacred military tradition of empty combat boots used to honor our fallen soldiers and probably (based on advice given to them), added one pair of combat boots supposedly showing respect to the NH soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq. All the while, they’re committing psychological warfare against our American troops with little concern or sympathy for their feelings.

.

How ridiculous the statement made by Will Merrow; i.e., “if anyone could give him a reason why the country is in Iraq, he would get off the stage.” (Obviously, a safe-statement while surrounded by like-minded people). “If not, I’ll stay up here until the death toll stops.”

Somehow I doubt that Mr. Merrow is still standing at the State House, but apparently he has been somewhat brainwashed by Ms. Miller’s la, la land “peace” agenda and her unrealistic viewpoint that “terrorists” should find “common ground” and use “diplomacy” with us even though they have little respect for any life (including their own) and are more than willing to blow themselves up and take innocents with them.

.

Too bad Ann Miller doesn’t care as much about her own country and the American soldiers protecting her as she does about the Iraqis. Perhaps she should consider permanently moving to Iraq since she has much more compassion for them.

.

And, yes, Ms. Schoenberg your quote from Mr. Merrow; i.e., “it’s one of the few EASY (emp. mine) steps we can take” speaks volumes since their original march was re-scheduled from the same, snowy day that many veterans and pro-support our troops people did show up at the Concord State House since we’re not so easily deterred by a little weather and so focused on our own comforts.

.

Thank goodness our soldiers are braver and willing to make personal sacrifices even for these youth who haven’t lived (nor experienced life) long enough to really understand the disgrace of their actions against their own countrymen.

.

Judy Paris

I contacted the Monitor today and was told they didn't cover the Gathering of Mothers because they were too busy.

.

I asked if they thought that this article was appropriate to print. After all my son spent a year patrolling streets in Mosul to make neighborhoods safe for children to play and the mothers to travel to get food. I was very disturbed that they would allow an article with such detail to be printed, especially the " Several adults walked around dressed as larger-than-life Iraqi mothers, draped in black fabric holding "bloodied" white cloth representing an Iraqi baby".

.

Being quiet about this is not an option, I will not sit quietly be and accept this portrayal that even hints that my son or any of his fellow soldiers are baby killers! One of our Gold Star Mothers is very upset that her son's name was on a pair of boots.

.

They explained that they are just reporting the news and are not bias on anyone issue ~ Yeah right! We are asking for support in writing letters to the editor that this type of press is not appreciated.

.

I am also concerned that this type of media is supported by local public schools using our tax dollars to support this type of gathering.

.

In closing I did suggest that perhaps they could have collected up the shoes and sent them to the Iraqi people, I got very little response.

I always thought that Monitor tended to be a more liberal media source and after reading the coverage given to the Peace Rally held this past weekend I would say that they fall squarely into the category of printing what sells. The Monitor neglected to cover another side of the story. On March 17th the Blue and Gold Star Mothers held a Support Our Eagles - Past, Present and Future vigil. The NH Peace Coalition was to hold a rally that same day, however due to the snowstorm they decided to postpone their rally until the following week.  The Blue and Gold Star Mothers along with several members from veteran groups braved the weather to support our sons and daughters who are serving all over the world.  Some have even made the ultimate sacrifice for us, including those who would use them from public display. A press release was sent out almost 2 weeks prior to this vigil, yet nothing appeared in the Monitor. 

.

Instead I sit here tonight crushed that the high school that my child (who’s serving) just graduated from in 2005, would support and promote such a one-sided agenda to take place in their hallways. I can’t believe that flyers were handed out to invite students to the Peace Rally. If the schools felt that it is okay to use my tax dollar for this, are they going to afford an opportunity for my Sailor to come in a talk and meet freely with the students, as well as hand out information about the military?

.

I’m most saddened that my son serving is all but forgotten in the halls of Concord High. Do the school officials feel that the student body should forget that he and other’s of that alma mater are there because they know in their hearts that they are making a difference. The Monitor’s covering of the rally held on March 25th accomplished what it set out to do…It sold papers, it clearly showed one side of the story. It showed little regard for those whose families are serving.  

.

There is one thing I am sure of, my son would have written home and asked for shoes for the children to wear instead using them to gain pity from those around him. He also understands respect for a fallen comrade and never would have lowered himself to using the disrespectful display that adorned the State House grounds. 

.

America is Home of the Free, Because of the Brave!  Support Your Troops!

.

Fondly,

Holly Haas

Dear Editors of the Concord Monitor,

.

Shame on you for the article you printed in the Concord Monitor, March 26th edition, "We cannot and will not take it any longer".  According to the Concord Monitor, when contacted by the president of the NH Blue Star Mothers, you stated that you are not bias on any one issue.  Let me ask you then, why was the "Gathering of Mothers" not covered by your paper the weekend before on the Capital grounds?  Oh Yeah....the question was asked, I know the answer. The Concord Monitor response was that you were all "too busy" to cover that story!!

.

In my opinion, The actions by the NH Peace Action, The American Friends Service Committee and the Peace Clubs of Concord High School and Hopkinton High School along with the Concord Monitor committed nothing less than an act of Treason.  Gasp!!!.....Before anyone starts accusing me of deformation of Character, know the definition of Treason.

"TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. "

Now, you tell me that this event sponsored by the above supporters and reported by your paper does not give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States of America !

.

Like it or not we are at war.  My son, right now, is serving and risking his life as a member of the United States Army so that you can sleep each night in peace, safe from the harm our enemies would love to break through if it were not for my son and every son and daughter serving in the armed forces of our precious and wonderful country.

.

I am sure that this letter will find its way to the trash can instead of being considered for printing in your paper, but know this isn't the only place you will find this letter.  With the help of true Americans everywhere, this letter will find itself read around the world before your next edition makes it to press.

.

Was this event considered news?  Yes, it was....as was the event of the "Gathering of Mothers" in support of our troops.  Until you can cover both sides of an issue such as this, you cannot  claim that your paper is not bias on any one issue.

.

Carol Patey

Posted by Doug at 8:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (1)

A bit late, but better that then never.  Sorry for the timing, but there's been lots going on.  Effectively, a group of us went to Senator's McCain's Town Hall over at the Franklin Opera House.  For those of you who will never experience the retail politics of NH and why I believe it is special, here is a brief glimpse.  Will you "get it" from this single rendition?  Probably not, but there is an invitation embedded in the retelling.

Also, as with Doug, I have no idea of who I will be supporting...yet.  I know a few that I won't, but not who THE guy will be yet..... 

3/23/07
Franklin Opera House

Senator John McCain

The event was supposed to start at 7pm....we got here at about 20 of in order to get a decent seat. Said the obligatory hellos to those that we knew (e.g., Ken Merrifield, Franklin City Councillor).

The "house" is packed. Built in 1892, it is known as the Franklin Opera House. Originally it started out as the Veterans Memorial Hall (Civil War) and was operationally combined with the function of an opera house. This is an old building, recently restored as a community gathering place. It is in the shape of the old style opera palaces....it sits about 100 or so on the main floor with a wrap around balcony with 3 courses of seats, 3 sets, with about 13-15 people per section.. Main floor is 7 rows in 2 sections of 4 people per row/section, and then 2 sets of outer alcoves with 3 rows of 5 each.

Doug is on the "press" riser, setting up his camera where there were a few others from the press. I am sitting with TMEW, Doug's wife, and another political activist from our town. Up on the stage, I recognize Tom Guinta (former Franklin Mayor) and Ken Merrifield. There are a bunch of others up there, other local pols of note and / or supporting Senator McCain.

The sound system looks like it will overwhelm the crowd....but full of static (got better as the event progressed, but what looked fairly beefy turned out to be rather tinny). Somebody ought to tell the sound folks it sounds terrible (no one ever did). I wonder if the is the house system or McCain's.

More after the jump...and it does "pick up".  He also took questions from the crowd - no, not from que cards but allowed to just ordinary folks to stand up and put him on the spot....

Men are dressed in all ranges - business casual to suits....but there are the NH obligatory flannel shirts too. It is obvious who the dignitaries are, the staffers, and then the rest of us from the haberdashery.

Just before 7pm, a half hearted attempt was made by one older gentleman on stage to get people going...stamping his feet in time with the music and clapping his hands....everyone ignored him.

The Master of Ceremonies finally got up to get things started. He should have done a sound check - his wireless mike is not working (good work by the sound tech...he had to come forward to look at it....finally got it working). The announcement was finally made that the Senator has landed and is on route.....preliminary remarks and introductions were given. One of the nice touches was that the M.C. asked for all of the veterans to stand and received a rousing hand of applause. Then he surprised me in asking that all family members of veterans, active or not, please stand as well.

Reason? Senator McCain has explicitly asked that the request be given, as he knows full well that those that serve(d) had to have the support of their families in order to do what they do (and yes, TMEW and I stood to honor our son the Marine (recently discharged). Doug Voy (former Marine) then led the pledge of allegiance, followed by the MC attempting to fill some time.

The local folks had 36 people working for McCain in 2000 in central NH. Now, 9/11 has changed things. Lots of people want to prevent it from happening again. It is very important to select the right Commander in Chief in this election - "this may be crucial". He then switched back to talking about the families of the those serving. His son served in Iraq for a year and is going back for another tour. Our next president has to be able to make hard choices...the M.C. believes that more shared sacrifice must be needed. We need straight talk. Someone that will not break the trust of our Commander in Chief to the public and the military. We need someone who is uniquely qualified to be president and Commander in Chief. He believes it HAS to be McCain, and then attempts to introduce McCain.

Guess he is faking people out, or he got faked out - no McCain. Everyone stopped clapping (however, still standing) but no McCain. Since Doug is not on the press riser, his wife thought he was filming in order to YouTube McCain outside! Two minutes go by and people are still standing. Those up on stage have the "silly looking faces" on - can't stop smiling, but unclear what else to do either. The M.C. walks down off stage to see what is going on off, most of the crowd is still standing (I decided to sit down much earlier with the laptop). Still don' t see Doug....knowing Doug, I wonder if he collared McCain to ask him to appear on the radio show! Or interviewed for the GG1 (no such luck on either count)?

Music just restarted....people clapping in time to the music by the Travelling Willburrys - "Won't Back Down".

By looking at the stage folks, it is easy to tell the real McCain supporters versus those that are just present. All of a sudden, general applause breaks out instead of the rhythmic clapping and cheers break out. Typical political rally entrance as Senator McCain comes up on stage in a black suit and shakes everyone's hands. Reaches down and puts on the "protect the primary " sticker and announces that he is glad to be back in Franklin. A few jokes and publicly thanks to the people on the stage.

Brief story about when he succeeded Barry Goldwater and mentions a lady by the name of Marcel Peterson (a VIP). After being in the Senate for a few months, McCain got a call from her about her garbage pickup at 2am. He told her to call the Mayor. The response (which got laughter) was "No, I would not want to bother such an important man like him!".

He loves being back in the town hall meetings.....loves being in the essence of democracy. He Comments on the move up dates of the other states in the primary and caucuses. He will do everything he can to keep NH first. He challenges those from other states to come along to NH with him to see the NH difference in retail politics - up close and personal. Not everyone agrees with him, but they come. Illustrated this difference with a story about Mo Udall and the guy that didn't like him as he had only met him twice - and that was true.....only in NH.

Tonight, Senator McCain only wants to discuss only 3 issues: Iraq and Congress, climate change, and illegal immigration.

On the first, he announced that the House had just passed $125 billion supplemental spending bill but had to buy votes with $25 billion spent on pork. It was supposed to be emergency funding for Iraq, and then starts to list all of the pork. Senate added more hundreds of millions of more for lots of stuff not about the war. "Shameful and disgraceful when this kind of thing goes on" - I believe him as he says this, and his record can prove it out.

A Washington Post article talks that is it all about the money, yet the Democrats say it is their mandate from the election. The WaPo notes that while the Dems think they have a mandate to stop the war, some haven't gotten message as they could only get the votes by using tactics normally reserved for highway bills. Even the WaPo nails them for an unconditional retreat that the majority of Americans disagree with.

McCain: we are torn over this....and mistakes were made. However, we now have a new general, a new strategy, and a new direction. If the Dems feel that the war is wrong, they ought to cut it off now, not in 2008. He really starts to rag on them to that if the war is truely a failure, they ought to kill the funding. It is not courageous to do things this way - no honor. McCain says that there is now good news that is being ignored. In Anbar province, the sheiks are fighting Al Queda now and assisting the Coalition. Our military are now doing walkabouts in the neighborhoods, living in those neighborhoods, and it is having an effect!

If we fail, the Islamists will follow us home (unlike Viet Nam). Just read Osama, et al, own writings - they are after us and not just Iraq. They use the Internet and propaganda and turn decent people into suicide bombers. He relates a story about having just met the head of British MI5. What concerns her the most are the latest crop of bombers in the UK were home grown - the problem in not necessarily from foreign lands. She says "It is a great challenge".

The good news - our best and most patriotic are in the military. He says that pundits say that his support for the war will kill his chances at the Presidency. He talks about a visit to Brookhaven in San Antonio - after being there, political ambitions fade when you see the wounded. During a trip to Exeter, a man stood up and said that he had just lost his son and wants to make sure that it was not in vain (Senator McCain was visibly moved over the memory of that guy).

Then Senator McCain switched to illegal Immigration and stated that the immigration process was broken. 30% of illegals are here on expired visas. He said that in 1986 that we would fix that but it didn't. We have to secure the borders. Most illegals simply want a job. If people think that they can get a job, they will come. He wants employers to hire Americans first and if they cannot, then they could hire guest workers. They would then get a biometric visa, work, and then goes home. Any employer not using this method should be prosecuted. Let the word spread.

What should we do? No one should reward illegal behavior. There are a variety of proposals....a comprehensive proposal will be out in a week or so. He believes that the new President of Mexico is a good man and wants to help. Senator McCain believes that he wants to fix the corruption...let's see if he can do it (but not sure if he can).

Then he switched once again - to climate change.

Admits that he didn't know anything in 2000. Joe Lieberman and he thinks that mankind is causing global warming and cites a National Academy of Science report. He thinks we should reduce green house emissions. He uses the precautionary principle (my words, not his) - What if he is right but we do nothing...what do we leave our children? He thinks it can be done with little economic costs. Industry can make money from green and cites GE as a primary example. He is not getting much applause on this stuff, and no applause when he mentions that we should have higher milage cars to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Believes in ethanol.

Nuclear power is a big YES for him...he believes in it. Mentions that the French produce 80% of their electricity with nukes. After all, it is for the children.

We live in a very dangerous world. Iraq, Iran want nukes..North Korea wants them...the Chinese and their economic and military power is rising....Chavez insults the US and President Bush. The 1970s were bad too. However, President Reagan didn't believe that America's best days were behind us. McCain says the best days are still ahead of us. All you have to do is look at the the kids, the military, silicon valley. He believes that he is qualified to lead the US.

He then gets a standing "O" from most of the audience. He graciously accepts the applause but stops the crowd after a couple of moments and announces that he will take questions from the audience

- After 9/11, the President told us to go shopping. There is still disagreement over the 9/11 memorial (in NYC). We wait in long lines at airport to take off our shoes. What are you going to do to make us stop being afraid in the world? Our only major decision was to create a bureaucracy (i.e., Homeland Security. Repeats - what are you going to do to make us not afraid?

I really wanted to go up, slap and shake that guy, and tell him that only HE can make him not afraid - no one else. What a loser.

That said, McCain said that we thought, at the time, that we were going to be attacked again. If he is President, he will ask the country to sacrifice. Americans have to do this.....look at the Greatest Generation...we can invoke that spirit again.

- Follow up - Everyone at home during WWII sacrificed...why are we not doing it here....why are we not paying higher gas prices?

McCain's response was that he would not going to ask for unnecessary sacrifice just for the sake of sacrifice - it has to be needed.

- Two questions....you say that we should stay until we win in Iraq - what is winning? And if you are President, what would you do in making the White House and the Country run green? Making it more efficient?

Success is a stable capital, political and economic development with people living a normal life with security. We have problems here in the US, too, in big cities. Not quite the same, but kinda is. Iraq military has to become viable, we withdraw, and the Iraq government gets good, we withdraw to enclaves until needed. Notes that we still have 30K troops in S. Korea (and I add, in Germany, Britain, Japan, and lots of other places).

Wants a test for gov't. Is the bureaucracies succeeding in their missions? There are 8 just for displaced workers; are they working? Are the managers efficient? Are they saving money like every small business? Have to reform it to do with less and be more efficient. McCain is embarrassed that Republicans have expanded government faster than anytime since Great Society. That's why we lost.

- Someone held up his book - what did he learn from his parents and how it got him through... Courts are separating dads from kids.....

Fundamental problem of single parents....kids cannot grow in normal families. Need to focus on education...encourages two parent families. He would be famous if he had an answer to the problem. Faith has a role. he's stumbling a bit...not really answering the question. Wants to talk about faith based initiatives instead. Talked about Katrina and the most effective program was not a government one but was the Celebration Baptist church and its focal point as others came in to help.

- Cost of insurance. what will you do about health costs ($100K for a hysterectomy)?

Believes that this is a major problem. One of the major reasons is that many believe they cannot keep their health insurance if they lose their job. He wants tort reform, insurance portability and to be affordable. Those who lose their jobs and the related insurance should have access to to cheaper insurance to cover catastrophic problems. Small businesses should be able to pool together to get better rates and coverages. Need to do more with information technology. Double digit increases every year is unacceptable.

- Part of the national budget is welfare, it continues to grow more and more.....what is it going to do to my bottom line?

Have to sit down and fix Medicare and SS. He wants bipartisan agreement to fix it. Congress has only a 15% approval rating. He really is not answering the question well.

- Majority of NH towns are poor. The questioner sees a lobbyist from big Pharm - how can government reduce the cost?

We should allow imported drugs. We should encourage more competition for prices. Talked about patents expiring on drugs and allow more generics.

- A question stemming from 1975 dealing with SS fraud...when they clean up their act?

"I don't know". There is no lock box, there is no account in SS with your name on it.

Note: I was REALLY shocked when the Senator actually came out and said the phrase "Ponzi scheme"! Excellent exercise in telling the truth.

- Second wacko question of the night - given the dollar is worth 4.5% of a 1913 dollar, what will you do to terminate the Fed reserve system and is the sole source of inflation on this continent?

This economy has the lowest rate of inflation in a long time. Not comparable to 1913. McCain said that he had liked Greenspan's job. I noticed that the questioner didn't agreed with McCain's answer.

- From a twenty-something - what will you do to encourage my generation to do great things like Kennedy did?

"Not just Kennedy but also Reagan". Proud of our folks. We have to give people examples of great causes and leadership. We should revere and praise those examples. We have to ask them to do it, and tell them why it is needed.

- Does not like development of new nukes....will he commit to no new nukes and save the money?

He answered yes, no new nukes.

- Is the VA going to be fully funded any time soon? And is there a way to prevent the Dems from dividing the country again like Viet Nam as it hurts us and helps the enemy?

Americans will have to demand this. Nations lose wars, and then the Nations suffer.

We have to fix the VA or people will not want to serve (based on what they see - quoted George Washington)

- A very bashful young girl had kept her hand up a long time but refused to talk at the right time (her Mom asked for her) - does he recycle?

Yes he does.

- A girl from Bishop Brady (FIRST robotics team captain) - Invited the Senator to attend LA competition. Then turned it over to a teammate - How will McCain promote math and science?

He will provide scholarships in science and math.

Called on Judy Tilton to come up on the stage.  During the Viet Nam war, bracelets were given / sold that had names of P.O.W.s.  She ended up with Senator McCain's name and wears his bracelet.

Posted by Skip at 8:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"The consequences of failure in Iraq will be catastrophic. When we ended VietNam, they didn't follow us home. Any casual observer of what they are saying in speeches and on their web sites knows that won't be the case this time."

"Reveals exactly how radical and dangerous they really are."

Posted by Doug at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Democrat spin coming out of Concord is that either you’re in favor of the Lynch amendment or you’re in favor of an income tax.  In the words of State Senator Martha Fuller Clark, “If the Legislature and the citizens defeat this amendment, they are saying the state should fund the full cost of education.” She went on to say, “That's a lot of money. No other state except Hawaii pays for all of it. If the Republicans block this, they're voting for a broad-based tax. That's what they accuse the Democrats of supporting.” 

"I'm not alone in the want of someone else added to the list of people to choose from to be president."

What else would explain the somewhat sudden appearance of AlGore in the number three slot for the Dems and Fred Thompson in third for the Republicans, according to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll?

Despite previous posts expressing my agreement with Duncan Hunter on almost all of the issues and liking Giuliani for his apparent leadership skills combined with cross-party appeal, I still remain desirous of something more. And while I sometimes see the logic of a McCain nomination as perhaps the only hope for a Republican victory in 2008, the voice in my head says, "Not yet." Up until this point, my ideal candidate if the world were perfect is Newt, and yet, the world isn't perfect, and neither is Newt, as many people often remind me. And he's NOT in the race, officially, either.

On the liberal/ Democrat side of life, there must undoubtedly be someone like me, wistful for something more that what's offered. Hillary? You either like her, or you get the fingernail on the chalkboard feeling. Obama? Not for a majority of Americans on election day. Edwards? Depending on his wife's prognosis, he might not stay around. And the taste of the losing Kerry/Edwards ticket still lingers. Certainly I can empathize with my left wing counterparts feeling unsatisfied at the moment.

What else can this poll tell us? Political junkies and those who pay attention to such stuff are restless. Those newcomers to this election cycle aren't all that excited yet over what they see. And people unengaged at all yet remain uninterested. On top of all that, with the current jockeying of states for new primary positions, the days of real voting get closer, accelerating events faster than we've ever seen. At the same time, long-time top-tiered candidates appear to have worn out their welcome.

Might the time be right for Fred Thompson and AlGore to ride in on white horses, side by side to save their respective parties? Things are gonna heat up real soon, I think.

Posted by Doug at 9:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

And who says our present system is NOT progressive.  From NRO:

The Tax Foundation folks grouped together all federal, state, and local government spending and revenues. Then they looked at the net effect on income quintiles. The results confirmed the extent to which American government has become a redistribution scheme. The bottom 20 percent of households in income received about $8.21 in government spending for every dollar contributed in taxes (they don't pay income taxes, of course, but they do pay a variety of other taxes, such as on sales and property). In the middle quintile, households got $1.30 in government stuff for every tax dollar. You mathematically inclined know where I'm going with this — someone has to pay the bills. It's basically the top quintile, who consumed 41 cents in government benefits for every dollar surrendered. In 2004, the amount of income redistributed in this manner was between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion.

This is just a staggering amount of money.  Yet, the liberals seem to think that we just HAVE to roll back the tax cuts in order to feed the governmental machine.  

Often, the "taxers" in town talk about 7 cents per thousand evaluation, 15 cents/thousand, or what it happens to be.  In our town of Gilford, NH, with approx. 7,400 residents, the total budget is about $32 million -> about $4,300 / person.

With about 300 million people in the US, let's use the lower number of $1 trillion -> a yield of  $33,334 / person.  As the commentary ended:

And, of course, it's just not enough

Ever. 

Posted by Skip at 8:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our friend Liz gave us a heads up on the troop supplimental pork up.  Now she gives break down on the pork itself:

What the hell all of this is doing in a defense bill, I have no idea:

$24 million for funding for sugar beets

$3 million for funding for sugar cane (goes to one Hawaiian co-op).

$20 million for insect infestation damage reimbursements in Nevada, Idaho, and Utah.

[snip]

• $22.8 million for geothermal research and development.

• $500 million for wildland fire management.

• $13 million for mine safety technology research.

• $31 million for one month extension of Milk Income Loss Contract program (MILC)

• $50 million for fisheries disaster mitigation fund.

• $100 million for security at the Presidential Candidate Nominating Conventions

• $2 million for the University of Vermont 

Take a link over.....see how our elected officials used our money to sell out our troops....

Posted by Skip at 8:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Myth #1:  “If the Legislature doesn’t define an adequate education, the Supreme Court will do it for them.”  The truth is that for as long as the Legislature and the Governor continue doing the Claremont kowtow, the Court, not the Legislature, will be the branch of government that ultimately sets education policy.  This should come as no surprise because the Court said just that in Claremont I.  Specifically, it said that it is the Legislature’s task “in the first instance” to define adequacy.  In plain English, the Court gave itself the power to rewrite some or all of the definition. 

The Court’s jurisprudence makes it clear that it considers any legislative definition of an adequate education merely a rough draft for the Court to edit as it sees fit.  

Myth #2:  “Defining an adequate education will allow us to finally determine the cost, which will allow us to adequately fund the schools.”  What a crock.  One cannot look at the components of whatever we decide an adequate education is, and determine their respective costs.  It is not like pricing a cheeseburger.  With the cheeseburger, one can accurately figure the cost of the patty, the cheese, the bun, the lettuce, the ketchup and mustard, and what you’d need to pay someone to put it together.  Try doing that with “proficient in calculus,” “fluent in French” and “knows American history.”  It’s impossible.

What’s more, numerous other variables, besides funding, affect education performance.  These include the competence of administrators, the quality of teachers, the talents and motivations of student and the involvement of parents.  Because of these variables, the cost of an adequate education necessarily varies not just by school district and not just by school, but by student.  As a result, even if one could somehow figure a generic cost of, for example, “proficient in calculus,” one would still need to account for, on a student-by-student basis, the effect of non-financial variables to reliably figure the actual cost. 

If adequate funding is the real goal, then give parents vouchers that can be used at any school, private or public.  That will get the dollars where they should go. 

While the founding generation was high on public education, it wasn’t to prepare students to compete in a global economy against the English and the French.  Rather, public education was seen as the best means to preserve the republican governments they had established.  The founders believed that a virtuous and enlightened citizenry would be the best check against the tendencies of governments to become corrupt and tyrannical.  The irony of the Claremont decisions, then, is that the Court, in the name of effectuating the constitution’s education clause, has engaged in the very sort of governmental overreaching that the State’s founders hoped that public education would thwart. 

Posted by Ed Mosca at 7:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm glad the NH Democratic Party has chosen Buckley as their standardbearer. It may help NHerites better understand what they bargain for when they elect Dems to vital positions in the state government. He may cause the thinking voter to think twice before casting a ballot for a member of "Buckley's Party".

[NH Congressman Paul] Hodes addressed the controversy early in the meeting, during a time set aside for Congressional briefings, and before the vote on the amendment to allow write-in votes.

.

Hodes first said he "probably was uncharacteristically unartful or undiplomatic" in his initial response to the Buckley videos. He said he was in part concerned about "the process" being undertaken to elect Buckley. "I simply felt that a process of changing the rules midstream was not the way to do things at this point, that it is a bad precedent," he said.

But Hodes said he also was concerned the party "could be exposed to distractions over these next two years."

"For me it was an issue and is an issue of what's in the best long-term interest of the party," he said.

"My concern is that as we Democrats move forward in a period of time when we've just had a historic election and are moving into elections in 2008, that we as a party not be distracted by the politics of personal destruction, and my concern was that Republicans or others would use this distracting stuff to divert us from what we need to do as Democrats."

When it came time to deliver her candidate speech, Betty Hall also made an impassioned plea for committee members to consider the good of the party. "What we do today is going to have ramifications during the entire primary season and during the national elections," she said. "At this time, our country needs us badly."

"Here is the pill we have to swallow," Hall said. "Republicans have attacked us. But we gave them the ammunition."

"We do not know the whole truth of these matters at this time. We do know the consequences of failure: Two years of attacks, two years of ridicule from opponents, distraction from our candidates and our message, irreparable harm to our first-in-the-nation primary."

Hall also called the campaign for state chairman "a travesty" and said, "We have not served our party well by playing insider politics."

I saw Betty Hall at a Dem event here in Laconia. If I were a Democrat, I would have taken my chances with her. But I'm not. I'm glad they chose Buckley...

Posted by Doug at 1:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Watching the Alton Selectman’s Correia hearing should be a wakeup call to every city, town and state official. How do you define "double-dipping"?  Is it the taking pay for outside details while receiving pay for hours not worked for regular duty? The answer is obvious YES.  What is problematic was lack of documentation on that point.

.

The common off-duty traffic control job is privately paid for work.  When an “Off-Duty” police officer act in the capacity as a traffic control person, the work performed is nothing other than a part-time job.  “Privately paid” work is first offered to off-duty police officers in the city or town the work is to be performed.  Then, as described during the Correia hearings, the part-time job is offered to surrounding off-duty law enforcement communities’ employees.  If no off-duty police officers, “salaried” or hourly, opt to work the traffic details then it is offered to the off-duty county sheriffs.  Ultimately, a private employer may be allowed to provide a certified flag person.

How one defines documentation is the issue. In the private sector, if an employer even allows its employees to use their skills at a second job using the employer’s equipment at a part-time job, it is not accounted for by that company.  When allowed, a part-time job is the responsibility of the individual.  They, as individuals, are liable for work performed, taxes, FICA, insurances etc, and damages to borrowed equipment. Either they are a subcontractor or a part-time employee of another company.

.

The town of Alton’s double dipping issues are not unique; it is the only instance where a city or town manager took the proper action. 

.

In the City of Laconia, back in the late 80’s, it occurred two years in a row in two different departments.  The first instance was when Fire Department Salaried Employees took a $500 uniform allowance, simply because the Union hourly employees had that provision in the contract.  No such provision existed in the cities Wage and Compensation Plan. That practice was ended but no disciplinary action was initiated because the legal opinion was that the council appropriated the money so they contemporaneously approved it. In other words didn’t ask don’t tell.

.

Then, it was discovered that the Police Commission allowed Police Department “salaried” police officer to get paid an extra days pay for every holiday, a day that was automatically paid by virtue of “salaried” (24/7 365 day), double dipping.  This was simply called innovative management.  However, the practice was halted by the police commission.  Then, it was discovered that the Fire Department had been double dipping by doing the same thing, getting an extra days pay simply because it was a holiday, more double dipping.  It also took place when a Department head was attending a State Board meetings while also being paid by the state.

.

The justification was that in Police and Fire departments, the white shirt salaried employees worked motorcycle week and did not get any extra pay or overtime, so it was way to pay them for the extra hours work.  Once again it’s how you define “salaried”.

.

The issue of co-mingling taxpayer dollars with user fees/private money such as those with Water and Sewer rate payers is resolved by the establishment of Enterprise Funds.  Defined as a department, accounted for like a private business, owned by the city.  In the case of privately paid “Off-Duty” privately paid jobs, work done by off-duty police officers, only the City of Manchester, in part, is known to have corrected the co-mingling of Tax dollars with Private money.  At the recommendation of auditors, a special fund was created.  Police officers contributed an amount on deposit in this fund, sufficient to pay officers who work a part-time job while “off-duty”.  When an officer works a part-time job, at the moment he or she is paid through the city’s payroll system, the necessary money is “contemporaneously” transferred into the City’s General Fund. If and when the private company pays its bill for a traffic control job, the “Special” Fund is reimbursed.  This method insures that at no time does the co-mingling of Tax payer money with private money take place.  However, no mention is made regarding the rental, by the off-duty police officers, of a fully equipped municipal vehicle.  Laconia has an INTERNAL SERVICE FUND but no REVENUE line item for rental for privately paid traffic detail was found.  Why?

.

What has not been asked is what the impact upon any community’s contributions to the New Hampshire pension fund, or the long term impact in calculating the annual employees’ pension?  Double dipping is not an Alton problem it is a statewide problem that can no longer be addressed with eye’s wide shut.

.

Thomas A. Tardif

Laconia, NH

Posted by Doug at 5:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Apparently your biggest concern is the amendment’s requirement that state taxes pay 50 percent of the cost of an adequate education.  You’ve offered as a talking-point the question: “50 percent of what?”  The question is ultimately irrelevant.  Even if Lynch gives you a number that doesn’t require a broad-based tax, there is nothing stopping a future Legislature from doubling or tripling or quadrupling the cost.  The amendment is grotesque and the State GOP should be trying to kill it, not trying to forge meaningless compromises.

You also frame the choices as either the Lynch amendment or “risk taking our chances with a potential court-ordered plan.”  This type of narrow, defeatist thinking is why the State GOP has become the minority party.  For a decade, the State GOP has been an enabler of judicial activism.  Its refrain of “only an amendment” can save us, which you appear to have adopted, reflects a profound misunderstanding of how our system of government works.  Unelected judges don’t have the constitutional authority to write education policy.

Now is not the time for fence-straddling and more same-but-less Republicanism.  It’s time for an unequivocal statement of principle.  I suggest the following:  The New Hampshire Republican Party opposes any constitutional amendment that writes any aspect of the Claremont decisions into the Constitution.  

But what if the Court then says that we have to raise $2.5 billion, or whatever the Democrats in the Legislature say adequacy costs, with state taxes, you ask.  Bring it on, I say.  Let’s make the 2008 elections about whether unelected judges, or the voters, should decide how much, and how, we tax ourselves.

Posted by Ed Mosca at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In show of sensitivity, schools chief renames Easter events

TIVERTON — The Easter Bunny was to have made a stop at a craft fair at the Tiverton Middle School tomorrow, appearing for photos with students as part of a fundraising effort sponsored by the school’s Parent-Teacher Council.

.

But Schools Supt. William Rearick called a halt to the use of the word “Easter” at a school event, just as the word “Christmas” is out of bounds in school publications and activities.

.

Instead of the Easter Bunny, the Parent-Teacher Council booth will offer photos with Peter Rabbit.

Similarly, Rearick said, he has told officials of the Tiverton Land Trust that a flier inviting children to an egg hunt cannot include the word “Easter.” Rearick said he planned to review the proposed wording — which a Land Trust official said does not include the word “Easter” — before deciding whether students can take the flier home. Rearick said yesterday,

“We’re trying to walk a fine line between promoting any religion” while permitting celebrations.

“I don’t like the term ‘politically correct,’ ” Rearick said, but during the last year and a half or two years, he has become “more aware of folks who don’t have a Christian background.”

Posted by Doug at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In order to elect Buckley, Democrats had to amend their state party constitution to allow write-in votes. They did just that by a unanimous vote at the start of the day's business.

Posted by Doug at 5:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

everything in my power to make sure that NH retains its first in the nation status

Posted by Doug at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Washing Feet Endangers Students, School Says

If Jesus washed his disciples' feet at a Georgia college in 2007, he'd likely be accused of "hazing."

That's the position a Christian ministry at Savannah State University has found itself in, after it washed the feet of its new members. The campus ministry Commissioned II Love (C2L) was also accused of "harassing" students by sharing their faith.

Washing of feet is a symbolic gesture of servitude in the Christian faith, following the example of Jesus, who washed the disciples' feet during their last meal before his crucifixion, as recounted in the New Testament gospel of John (13:1-17).

The Christian group says the foot washing ritual "serves as a symbol of purity, a charge to share the gospel, and an act of service to others ... [it] is not a condition of gaining membership, status, or acceptance into C2L or holding an office."

The explanation appears in a lawsuit brought by C2L against SSU after the group was suspended for "harassment" and "hazing."

As most committed Christians know, the washing of feet was done by Jesus to his disciples before he was crucified.  This was a practical example of leadership by example, as in that time, that activity was done by slaves and servants.  The "Master of the house" would never humiliate himself to wash the feet of his guests (even today in the Middle East, notice that hitting with "dirty" shoes is a sign of extreme disrespect).

Yet, Jesus "lowered" Himself to show that no one is above another.  In like manner, C2L is trying to show others of this philosophy.  Yet it seems that C2L, in following His example, have fallen prey in the latest example of anti-Christian activities on a college campus.

And frankly, a trumped up charge, IMHO.  HOW can ANYONE see that the simple act of washing feet is "hazing?"  I can see where forcing candidates to drink large quantities of liquids (people have died of both water and alcohol intoxication), requiring risky behavior, or abject humiliation could be construed as hazing, but washing of feet?

And "sharing their faith" is harrassment?  What about events where activities like truely harrassing military recruiters and damaging their property, throwing eggs, and outright shouting / taunting are allowed by college administrations (who then sanction that as First Amendment rights or academic freedom of expression)?  Yes, a double standard....

According to the complaint before the U.S. district court in the southern district of Georgia, several SSU students organized a petition to have C2L shut down, accusing it of having a "cult-like mentality."

Several students?  How many is several?  And the qualifications?

Actually, those questions don't seem to matter much...it seems that if one person complains, no matter the background or the issue, something is lost or shut down.  Once again, the tyranny of the minority trumps the majority. 

The SSU student handbook defines hazing as follows: "to subject a student to an activity which endangers or is likely to endanger the physical health of a student, regardless of a student's willingness to participate in such activity."

I ask - how can washing of feet fit  the above definition?  No, it does not....it is just an excuse. 

The handbook also states: "No rights are more highly regarded ... than the first amendment guarantees of freedom of speech [and] freedom of expression."

Sure....it sure sounds like it.....and the actions certainly seem to back it up.....sure.....

"Now we are finding that at other schools, they will use almost any reason - or sometimes even no reason at all - to get rid of Christian student groups."

Posted by Skip at 8:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 7:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, I've seen the word "FredHead" standing for those that are campainging for a Presidential run by Fred Thompon (actor, former US attorney, and former Senator).  I know another conservative in the local area seems to be all for this!

IF this is an indication, I could be interested....maybe it's time to look into him.....the actor that was a President wasn't bad at all......

Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever.  Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto. 

NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto.

This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.

Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn’t even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There’s a consensus.

Ask Galileo.

Humor...I like it!

(H/T: NRO mention of Fred Thompson on the Paul Harvey commentary) 

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

(H/T: Jorge)

HUMOR:  This came from a Republican wag from Wolfeboro(NH):  Working people frequently ask retired people what they do to make their days interesting. For example, the other day I went downtown and into a shop. I was only there for about 5 minutes and when I came out, there was a parking enforcement officer writing out a parking ticket.

I said to him, "Come on, how about giving a retired person a break?

He ignored me and continued writing the ticket.

I called him a "jerk."

He glared at me and wrote another ticket for having worn tires.

So I called him a "donut eating loser".

He wrote a third ticket and put in on the windshield with the first. The more I abused him, the more tickets he wrote.

Posted by Skip at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Ed Mosca at 8:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week, we briefly discussed General Peter Pace's comment that he believed that homosexuality was immoral.  Needless to say, conservative religious groups praised his statement; obviously homosexual rights groups decried it.

It all comes down to your sense of morality, and where that sense of morality stems from.  Is it a case of religious training, family upbringing, a peer group, or just an inate sense of right or wrong?  Is your sense of right and wrong derived from popular culture or from long standing traditions?

Is is based on an absolute basis?  Or a relative scale (e.g., based on the what the current sense of society believes is right or wrong)? 

While General Peter Pace is seen as the titular head of the Armed Services, many believe that he should have only spouted the military line of "don't ask, don't tell".  While many believe that should be the end all, it seems to deny that he himself is allowed to have his own beliefs, especially if it runs counter to popular political demands.

Senator Brownback quick supported his statement.  While he is running as a conservative, and it could be taken as identifying with his base, it still takes a bit to openly admit (nowadays) opposition to what seems to be a politically protected subgroup.  I am NOT going to use the word "brave", as I don't think that this situation rises to that level.

Yet, two of the leading Democratics for the Presidency didn't want to say what they really believed.  The question:

    Do you agree or disagree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral?

The Sun-Times story, I think, summed it up right:

How Obama, Clinton tripped on gay rights

Politics is just such a minefield! Pundits, enemies, rivals and even some normal people will hang on every word.  Politicos tune each word for every nuance possible in an attempt to make sure that they do not insult or turn off any possible voting bloc.  And in this case, Senator Brownback could care less. But Senators Obama and Clinton care mightily!

Obama's news hit, if there was to be one, was supposed to be his speech at the union's presidential forum. But it was his dodging a question tossed at him on his way out of the hotel last week about whether homosexuality was immoral that left his team scrambling to repair relations with an important Democratic constituency, the gay and lesbian community.

Well, there's a tank killer mine (or politician's dream) if there ever was one!  And where there's one, there's got to be two! 

Chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, as it happened, made the same stumble a few hours before Obama, sidestepping the same question. So both teams swung into damage control duty with gay rights groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and Stonewall Democrats, national gay political organizations.

Simple minded politicians!  Such an easy question for most - for it goes to the core of a person.  Such a simple word, yes or no, says volumes about the morality (or lack thereof, depending on your viewpoint) of that person.  Truely a case where less is more.

Yes, neither would answer at first.  Of course not!  We can't afford to alienate ANYone, right?

By the end of that day, both campaigns issued separate statements saying that they do not consider homosexuality immoral.

Well, we now see the political calculus and risk taking in full flight - and both Obama and Clinton have gone Left in a case of going for the part of the Democratic party that votes in the primaries.  And goes against thousands of years of the traditional sense of morality (sorta like the liberal Episcopalians - sorry, couldn't resist!)

While this may help them get to the Big Game, it certainly won't help them score three pointers with traditional morality type folks (including yours' truely).  They do show that they they believe in more of a culture based morality than an absolute. 

It remains to be seen whether or not a majority of Americans will accept this branch of secular humanism.  While most believe in "live and let live", values count.  Hesitating to make one's values known will count too.

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

Once again, the American Anglican church (the Episcopalians) are rejecting the will of the majority of the Anglicans around the world.  Why?  It is my observation that this is nothing more than typical American radicalism, an outgrowth of the narcissistic '60s generation, not willing to bow to authority.

NEW YORK - Episcopal bishops risked losing their place in the global Anglican family Wednesday by affirming their support for gays and rejecting a key demand that they give up some authority to theological conservatives outside the U.S. church.

One would think that being a minority,  they would get the idea that the majority has the upper hand, that their pleas for unity should be accepted for the sake of unity.  Even though that which they fight for most is anathema to the majority.  As the saying goes, only in America!

"We cannot accept what would be injurious to the church and could well lead to its permanent division," the bishops said in a resolution from a private meeting in Texas.

The Episcopal Church is the U.S. wing of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion, a fellowship of churches that traces its roots to the Church of England. But it is at odds theologically with the vast majority of Anglican churches, which take a more conservative view on sexuality and other issues.

Isn't this kinda backwards?  The American bishops, less than 3% of the world wide population, are doing and espousing that which is causing the split (a liberal theology, especially concerning homosexual priests and bishops), but are refusing to own up to it?  Or recognize it?

Episcopal bishops said they still have a "passionate desire" to stay in the communion. But the Anglican spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, issued a brief statement Wednesday calling their decision "discouraging." The small yet affluent Episcopal Church, with 2.3 million members, covers a significant chunk of the Anglican Communion's budget.

Basic reasoning here - if you don't agree with the rules, do you really belong in that group?  If you do not believe with the majority's belief, are you, by definition, part of that group?

And if the rest of the world's Anglican church decides against the American branch, who would be in the right? 

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

Actually, it was Vice President Gore that "signed" Kyoto, but the Congress refused to ratify it (I think, 93-4).  Yet it is Bush that is taking the heat for the decision of Congress.

At the same time, it is the Europeans that tout their participation in that treaty are failing to keep to their own committments.  By larger and larger amounts.

Right - say you believe in it, keep making pronouncements about keeping to limits, and then blow through them like they didn't exist.  But hey, its the intentions, right? 

Thus, I found this quite amusing.  Once again, Europe makes another committement, a "binding committment" to cut their CO2 by 20%  by 2020 compared to 1990.

Good luck with that!  Actually, go ahead - it WILL ruin your economies.  Are they really all that willing to bet their welfare states on this?

No, not really, especially when you read about  Germany:

There's a hitch, though, for Germany, said Reinhard Loske, a member of the German parliament and climate expert for the Green party parliamentary group: Currently, up to 26 coal-fired power plants -- which would burn either hard (anthracite) or brown (lignite) coal -- are either being built right now or are in the planning stages in Germany.

 

"If all of those plants end up being installed, there is no way we can reach our climate protection goals for reducing emissions," Loske said.

 

Coal-fired power plants are one of the biggest producers of greenhouses gases, which scientists have said are primarily responsible for global warming.

Like what has been said....do Kyoto and ruin your economy.  But we support Kyoto!!! But building more COAL fired power plants?  Seems to be supporting the economy first.  But we support Kyoto!!!

Sorta like Gore - wants us to reduce our living standards while he uses the equivalent of the environmentalism religion's papal indulgences -> carbon offsets.  I will believe it when the celebrity environmental evangelists and countries walk their talk. 

Otherwise, it is nothing but pontificating and...

...hot air

what a coincidence..... 

Posted by Skip at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

if elected president, including universal health care, preschool for every child, and making college more affordable.

She also pledged to promote energy independence and drew laughs from the crowd when she described replacing ordinary light bulbs with energy-efficient models and shutting off lights to conserve power.

"I turn off a light and say, 'Take that, Iran,' and 'Take that, Venezuela.' We should not be sending our money to people who are not going to support our values," she said.

Posted by Doug at 8:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I read and watched as did many Americans  the protests in Washington DC and other places throughout the Country over the weekend.

.

I noticed the terminology used by most of the media. The media seemed to want to keep the observation and language used as close to the past (Vietnam Era) as possible.

.

I had the opportunity to be with a group of Blue and Gold Star mothers in Concord on Saturday,March 17th along with Veterans from past Wars. The day as you remember was pretty cold and the traveling situation was not the best.

.

It was a very positive day and the hearts were warm in support of those serving today in harms way. The politics of war did not take place. The focus was the "Support Of Those Serving"and their families.

Many there were Vietnam Veterans who remembered well the protests and protesters of the past. We discussed the situation of the VA (Walter Reed), the POW/MIA issue and the 3 Americans being held POW in Iraq today. We discussed the politics of War and we remembered the "Bring Our Boys Home" signs and how nothing much has changed.We remembered and discussed politicians at all levels making the War about them and their beliefs and party and little to do with those serving or their families.We discussed the start of this War and all the flags and true support the troops had and how many of us stated, "I wonder how many would be waving those flags 2-3 years down the road"?

.

One Vietnam Veteran mentioned that he felt most of those protesting were just there to protect their American dream but how those "American dreams were purchased by the nightmares of a few".

.

Those there understood War, the sacrifices made by the few, the grandstanding by many and the pretended patriotism of others. There was no screaming, swearing or media.

.

There were Mothers of those serving, their families,  and Veterans with one honest purpose who joined together..to support those serving,their families and those who will serve.

.

Counter protesters? No..Just people joining together in support of what many just talk about. Those men and women doing the serving. Those mothers and Veterans will still be supporting the troops when the others are long gone but the battle continues as history proves.

.

This War? Different form any other War in history. It's a War of idology and will be part of our lives,our children and grandchildren.

.
Bob Jones
Meredith,NH

Posted by Doug at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

ABSOLUTELY AWESOME!

the success of "Hillary 1984" means that now "every candidate will have to worry about some guy with a video camera and a Mac being able to do whatever he or she wants."

Posted by Doug at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Canadian Press (CBC) reports this:

BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) - Scores of protesters shed their clothes and hugged trees in a bid to save a grove of oak trees slated to be chopped down to make way for new buildings on the University of California, Berkeley campus.

On Saturday, 78 bare-bottomed activists - some first-time nudists, others lifelong exhibitionists - joined a half-dozen protesters who have been living in the trees since December.

Someone PLEASE tell me why liberals / lefties / protesters really believe that the act of taking off their clothes is really going to make one whit of difference to their protesting?  Seriously? 

Now, I have no interest in persuing this to see if anyone took pictures of this and posted them on the Internet.  However, seeing some of the ages of some protestors that have done so "au naturale", I wouldn't even want to look.

This goes along with "drumming for peace" and other non-such activities.  

Nude protests?  Even if you made sure that all of the protesters were super models, wouldn't be like some of the real clever ads that sometimes are produced?  The ads become eye candy and the viewers forget the message / sponsor.  The eyecandy becomes the message.  And not the message. 

University administrators want to cut down more than 30 oaks near Memorial Stadium to make way for a $125-million sports training facility.

Posted by Skip at 8:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Nagin Suspects a Plot To Keep Blacks Away

New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin has suggested that the slow recovery and rebuilding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina -- which has prevented many black former residents from returning -- is part of a plan to change the racial makeup and political leadership of his and other cities.

.

"Ladies and gentlemen, what happened in New Orleans could happen anywhere," Nagin said at a dinner sponsored by the National Newspaper Publishers Association, a trade group for newspapers that target black readers. "They are studying this model of natural disasters, dispersing the community and changing the electoral process in that community."

Nagin suggested his chance at reelection in the mayoral race had seemed slim because "they dispersed all of our people across 44 states with one-way tickets." "They thought they were talking about a different kind of New Orleans," Nagin said. "They didn't realize that folks were awake, that they were paying attention."

Posted by Doug at 7:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

 

Despite the cold, we had a great turnout for the Blue Star and Gold Star Moms Supporting our Troops to Victory - we stood in Concord for those that were in Washington DC - Eagles - Past, Present, and Future.  To all of you that got the word out through print, radio, etc. - Thank You!!!   For those that wanted to be there but could not because of weather - you were missed, but we know wherever you were you were "standing with us".  Thank you again for all your support and prayers....it is people like all of you that know the importance of what our sons, husbands, daughters, mothers, etc. are doing to keep us safer.  May GOD bless them and America.

VietNam vets join Blue and Gold Star Mothers in prayer during snowstorm rally in Concord, NH

Rally organizer and Blue Star Mothers of NH leader Karen Thurston addresses the group gathered at the March 17th statehouse event.

Blue Star Mothers Karen Thurston and Karen Testerman are joined by a shaggy friend. None of them look too bothered by the somewhat nasty weather.

Gold Star Mother Natalie Healey shares a moment with Blue Star Karen Testerman

Bob Jones (POW/MIA jacket) of the Northeast Network POW/MIA welcomes members of Rolling Thunder to snowy Concord

What more can one say?

Imagine being a soldier far away in the desert and seeing this? How can it NOT brighten their day?

The group gathers in support of the Gathering of Eagles in DC, our brave troops, and those who are POW and/or MIA.

Bob Jones and friend reminding everyone that we must NEVER, EVER forget or give up on those who haven't returned...

Click here to visit Michelle Malkin's blog for complete coverage and pictures of the Gathering of Eagles event in DC.

Posted by Doug at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Marchers brave nor'easter to highlight need for climate change

By KRISTINA TEDESCHI
Staff Writer

NORTHAMPTON - As a nor'easter arrived in the area, participants in the Interfaith Walk for Climate Rescue began their trek from Northampton to Boston to stop global warming, an eight-day journey predicted to be the largest of its kind for the environment in the U.S.

.

Walkers descended the steps of the Unitarian Society building on Main Street in Northampton around 2 p.m., with supporters singing "Keep on Walking Forward" by Pat Humphries,

while elementary school students with signs reading "Stop Global Warming Now" lined the walkway to send them off into the storm.

What more can you say? Elementary school kids? What the hell do they care about such things? Tell me they're NOT brainwashing and indoctrinating our youth. If they were being properly taught  to be rational, inquisitive persons, they would be too ashamed to stand in a snowstorm protesting global warming.

(H/T John H via FR)

Posted by Doug at 8:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Remember that story a while ago about the six Muslim imams that were yanked off the US Airways flight a while ago?  They had been rather praying rather loudly in the waiting area, did not take their assigned seats and took seats in a configuration  similar to that of the 9/11 hijackers, asked for seat belt extenders when they didn't need them, and were heard to be saying things good about Sadaam and bad about Bush and America.

Now, in and of themselves, each action probably did not warrant much attention.  However, putting them all together, even regular folks are going to get suspicious (even worried).  So what do you do?  Call 911, call the authorities, or talk to someone that can investigate something further.

You might think concerned citizens (as opposed to the neighborhood gossip), right?  Just being vigilant, as our government has asked, right?

Well, according to these six Imams, CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations), and the ACLU (you know who they are - and if you don't, you don't care about this story):

THEY SHOULD BE SUED!

That's right...people trying to do the right thing should be SUED! The Washington Times reports it here and from the Star Tribune:

The "flying imams' " federal lawsuit, filed this week in Minneapolis, has made headlines around the country. The imams are demanding unspecified damages from US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, both with deep pockets. But their suit includes other defendants, as yet unnamed. These people, unaffiliated with the airline industry or government, are among the imams' most vulnerable targets.

On 9/12, the travel industry all but died - who wanted to fly?  It may be a stretch, but if this type of behavior continues, it could continue that - frighten off passengers.  Not only with a threat of death (if the behavior was carried out to its horrible illogical ending), but now with the threat of being sued.

Background: 

The imams' prayer was reported by the gate agent, who told police "I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud." Another flight attendant said she noticed three to four people praying but did not consider it unusual.

One passenger said the men were near the ticket counter and "seemed angry," and engaged in a "heated discussion" about the U.S. "killing Saddam" Hussein, and then shouting "Allah, Allah, Allah" when called for boarding.

Passengers and the flight crew say the men were disruptive and did not take their assigned seats and formed a pattern similar to the September 11 hijackers. Some of the men asked for seat-belt extensions they did not need, criticized the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talked about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Sure, and these folks believe I should just keep peering into my laptop screen....right!  Got news for these jerks (and I call them that as they seemed intent on doing nothing but riling people up just so that they could claim victimhood status - oh look, just another case of Islamophobia!

No, yet another case of trying to create more dhimmitude among the infidels.  Let's use the their own social mores, policies, and laws to advance our own agenda....

After extensive consultations, the pilot asked authorities to remove the imams for questioning, which they did, releasing them later that day.

"The pilot did what he had to do," passenger Rita Snelson of Maplewood told the Star Tribune. "I told the airline afterward, 'Thank you for watching over us.' "

The men were escorted off Flight 300 to Phoenix, handcuffed briefly, then searched and questioned for several hours by airport police and members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

So, what is the lawsuit about?  In some ways, the typical excuses made to open up wallets:

The imams' lawsuit, however, asserts that US Airways and the MAC acted solely out of religious and ethnic discrimination. It includes 17 separate counts.

It also rehearses a catalogue of harms allegedly suffered by the imams, including fear, depression, mental pain and financial injury. They have not only endured exhaustion, humiliation and ridicule, but also have lost sleep and developed anxiety about flying.

Gee, does my son get to sue?  He went to boot camp, and the stories that he told me kinda sound just like that: fear, depression, mental pain, and humiliation (ok, not the financial stuff).  This is just so much hooey...

If it was just that, my attitude would be "eh, so what?".  But it's not: 

But the most alarming aspect of the imams' suit is buried in paragraph 21 of their complaint. It describes "John Doe" defendants whose identity the imams' attorneys are still investigating. It reads: "Defendants 'John Does' were passengers ... who contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of Plaintiffs' performing their prayer at the airport terminal."

Paragraph 22 adds: "Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting [these defendants'] liability ... at such time as Plaintiffs ascertain the same."

In plain English, the imams plan to sue the "John Does," too.

Who are these unnamed culprits? The complaint describes them as "an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch" as they prayed. "The gentleman ('John Doe') in the couple ... picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray," then "moved to a corner" and "kept talking into his cellular phone."

Great - to summarize this action, try this on for size - "We are willingly doing something that will frighten you, and if you alert the authorities, we'll sue your pants off!" 

In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.

The imams' attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security. Average folks, "John Does" like you and me, initially observed and reported the imams' suspicious behavior on Nov. 20. Such people are our "first responders" against terrorism. But the imams' suit may frighten such individuals into silence, as they seek to avoid the nightmare of being labeled bigots and named as defendants.

Folks, this is scary!  This is nothing more than intimidation - talk to someone about what we do and it will cost you money for lawyers.  It will cost you in publicity (especially if you don't want it).  This is about the pushing of Islam by creating a "buffer zone" for more activity.

Posted by Skip at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

that caused Paul Hodes to drop his support for Buckley's bid to become Chairman of the New Hampshire Democrat Party.

WARNING: THE VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC CONTENT.

[update] ***COMMENT BY DOUG:

I don't see what all the fuss is about. After watching the video and considering the Democrat agenda, I think Buckley's the PERFECT guy to lead them. Consider Mr. Buckley, and then contrast against the brouhaha created by CJC Peter Pace who dares speak a belief that the US is ill-served by any "policy that  says it is OK to be immoral in any way." Buckley is celebrated, while Pace will be crucified.

Posted by Ed Mosca at 8:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Just creeping along...one little push at a time!  Americans are known for being tolerant folks - after all, we have been known as being the melting pot.  Unfortunately, when I keep seeing stories like this, I start thinking "tossed salad" as a result of an overabundance of multiculturalism and an over emphasis of identity politics - "I am my group, my group is me". 

It just seems that the monniker "American" just isn't enough anymore.  It is rapidly becoming a time when people start believing that they are able to pick which laws they wish to follow and what social mores they keep.  Too often, it is about ME vs. my RESPONSIBILITY.

If you take a job in the private sector, especially that in the service area, what the heck good is it to take a position that serves the general public, when you don't want to serve the public?

No good. at all.  From the Star Tribune:

Customer service and faith clash at registers

Beryl Dsouza was late and in no mood for delays when she stopped at a Target store after work two weeks ago for milk, bread and bacon.

So Dsouza was taken aback when the cashier -- who had on the traditional headscarf, or hijab, worn by many Muslim women -- refused to swipe the bacon through the checkout scanner.

"She made me scan the bacon. Then she opened the bag and made me put it in the bag," said Dsouza, 53, of Minneapolis. "It made me wonder why this person took a job as a cashier."

Me too.  This is not serving the public - it is serving yourself.  "Me" has become more and more important in our narcissistic society.  This is just one more bit to the puzzle, where YOU have to accomodate ME, no matter what is expected.  After all, who is more important than ME?

But that is just part of it.  Once again, we see in Minneapolis the push to change our society into following that of one that is Sharia controlled - one piece of pork at a time (gee, does that mean that we will have to pick another word to describe what politicians try to do - bring home the bacon?"). 

In the latest example of religious beliefs creating tension in the workplace, some Muslims in the Twin Cities are adhering to a strict interpretation of the Qur'an that prohibits the handling of pork products.

Instead of swiping the items themselves, they are asking non-Muslim employees or shoppers to do it for them.

If they wish to follow their religion, fine and dandy.  If they wish to then have us follow it as well - well, not so much.  By requiring others to do the work for which they have been hired such as this or the taxi drivers that I have written about a number of times, they are expecting that by using the "freedom of religion" in a way that most Americans find obnoxious.

And I find it dangerous - and if carried further - illegal.  When do I, as I have asked before, get to start putting my religious tenets before established law?  Why should they have special privileges that I do not get to use?

Dr. Shah Khan, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Minnesota in Fridley, said the Somali Muslim community is divided between those who believe it is wrong only to eat pork and more orthodox Muslims who believe the prohibition extends to selling, touching or handling the meat.

He urged people to remember the extraordinary adjustments many Somalis have made in coming to the Twin Cities. "Many of these people are refugees. They may have been tortured. And they came here having never held a book in English," he said. "They're already adapting to our society. We need to adapt to them, too."

Wrong...and nothing but spin.  When you come to our society, the onus is on you to adapt and to adopt.  Yes, they may be refugees, but having decided to come here, bring the best of your former homeland but there are customs here that need to be adhered to.  Why would they prefer to change ours to those of that homeland that caused them to come here in the first place?

I'm not trying to be xenophobic, but again, I see this as yet another case of a lack of assimilation, and a lack of motiviation.

And it is this lack of assimilation that is changing us from being the melting pot that is so unique in all the world to just an aggregation of small ethnic and religious communities. 

Target released this statement in response: "Providing guests with consistently fast checkouts is a key, fundamental part of our business and our guest service commitment. As always, we continue to explore reasonable solutions that consider the concerns of team members while ensuring that we maintain our ability to provide the highest level of guest service."

Basic question - if I wanted to price and bag my own goods, wouldn't I have wanted to use a self-checkout station?  Why go to a cashier if I have to do it myself?  Why should I have to wait for yet another employee (which might take a while given that most stores try to run as lean as possible)?

This situation certainly isn't going to help my ire.... 

Eden Prairie-based Supervalu, the nation's third-largest supermarket chain and the parent company of Cub Foods, moves new employees into jobs that don't interfere with their moral beliefs, said Haley Meyer, a company spokeswoman.

I have absolutely no problem with this....this should be the reality of those that do not or wish to not fully do a job due to religious convictions. 

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for a person's religious practices if it doesn't impose an undue hardship.

A customer's personal preferences is usually not a factor in deciding whether a religious practice is protected in the workplace, noted Khadija Athman, national civil rights manager for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington.

I, as a customer, expect someone to carry out the job in which they are employed.  And I treat CAIR with the level of respect due to an organization who leaders have been tied to terrorist groups and whose leaders, in the past, have stated that they wish to see Sharia law be the law of the US.  And I do not appreciate the attempt to change the person who is at fault. THat is nothing but spin and an attempt to further have folks question who is in the right.  Which is not that cashier.

And I do not believe that CAIR is just a civil rights group either.  Their foundations lie with the Muslim Brotherhood - an organization that wishes for Islam and Sharia law to be over all. 

Some people see the Muslims' actions as evidence of an unwillingness to adapt to the American workplace, and to the society as a whole.

"It's about one ethnic group imposing its own beliefs on the rest of us," said Manny Laureano, 51, of Plymouth, who plays trumpet for the Minnesota Orchestra. "It goes against the whole idea of this country as different groups of people who came together to create a single culture."

Couldn't have said it better myself.....

Posted by Skip at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We received news earlier today that the NH Peace Coalition will NOT be holding their rally on Saturday, March 17th.  We have been offered the permits for the State House Lawn and sidewalk in front of the State House. After discussion we decided that one of our members will pick up the permits tomorrow and we WILL hold our vigil!

.

**What will change is we will not march from the Shaw’s parking lot for safety reasons and instead will meet in front of the State House.** One of our members will lead us in prayer ~ we will pledge Allegiance to our flag and sing the Star Spangle Banner.

.

As it might be a little cold and wet outside we will gather from 11:00 ~ 12:30 to coincide with the Gathering of Eagles in D.C.

.

We are asking people to use their own judgment for traveling to Concord for the Gathering of Mothers to Support Our Eagles ~ Although we would love to have you their with us, we would rather to have you safe and sound to stand beside us for other vigils.

"… An eagle knows when a storm is approaching long before it breaks. The eagle will fly to some high spot and wait for the winds to come. When the storm hits, it sets its wings so that the wind will pick it up and lift it above the storm. While the storm rages below, the eagle is soaring above it."

.
An unknown author

Thank you all for your support,

The Blue Star Mothers of New Hampshire

Posted by Doug at 6:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire on Wednesday became the first Republican in Congress to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' dismissal, hours after President Bush expressed confidence in his embattled Cabinet officer.

.

Gonzales has been fending off Democratic demands for his firing in the wake of disclosures surrounding the ousters of eight U.S. attorneys — dismissals Democrats have characterized as a politically motivated purge.

.

Support from many Republicans had been muted, but there was no outright GOP call for his dismissal until now.

.

"I think the president should replace him," Sununu said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think the attorney general should be fired."

.

Bush, at a news conference in Mexico, told reporters when asked about the controversy: "Mistakes were made. And I'm frankly not happy about them."

.

But the president expressed confidence in Gonzales, a longtime friend, and defended the firings. "What Al did and what the Justice Department did was appropriate," he said. What was "mishandled," Bush said, was the Justice Department's release of some but not all details of how the firings were carried out.

That's why I supported YOU, back then, Senator Sununu!

 "I have no use for Gonzo, but this is despicable by Sununu."

I would expect Senator Hagel to join the Dems in sticking the long knives in President Bush. But you, Senator Sununu?

(DCE at WeekendPundit has more background here.)

[UPDATE: Again, DCE at WeekendPundit has detail]

Posted by Doug at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Senate punishes College Republicans for fraudulent WHAM scholarship ad

03/15/07 - The University of Rhode Island Student Senate denied the appeal of the College Republicans over a controversial scholarship at last night's meeting.

.

The senate, along with College Republican Chairman Ryan Bilodeau, debated whether the "White Heterosexual American Male" scholarship violated the senate bylaws, which prohibit discrimination by any member group. However, the club never granted the scholarship to an applicant.

The Student Organization Advisory and Review Committee, chaired by Matt Yates, handed two punishments to the group. The first required the College Republicans to write a letter of apology to be printed in the Cigar.

Kingston, R.I. – Tonight the University of Rhode Island (U.R.I.) College Republicans meet with the Student Senate to appeal its decision to censor and force speech upon the group.  Last semester the U.R.I. College Republicans offered a satirical "White Heterosexual American Male Scholarship" to U.R.I. students to bring attention to the inherently racist policy of affirmative action. 

.

Months later the Student Organizations Advisory & Review Committee (SOARC) is unanimously demanding a pre-approved written apology and is requiring the group to receive permission for all programs it holds until next February.

.

The scholarship was offered in satire, however, and was therefore never granted and/or distributed, and the group therefore contends that the scholarship was therefore completely legal in the eyes of the school and the law.  The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a national legal group whose mission it is to “defend and sustain individual rights at America's increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities,” sent a letter to the school in defense of the College Republicans with the promise that they are “committed to using all of our resources to seeing this matter through to a just and moral conclusion.”

.

At the SOARC Committee Meeting, one committee member compared the scholarship to a death threat with no action, and other members often intimidated Chairman Ryan Bilodeau with loaded political questions.

.

"It is unfortunate that while attempting to bring the broader debate of affirmative action and freedom of speech to campus, members of the SOARC committee are censoring a group whose political convictions many of them disagree with, and are going even further by advocating forced speech in demanding that the Chairman of the group apologize for doing so," Bilodeau said.  "At the University of Rhode Island, entering the free marketplace of ideas comes at a heavy price."

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

Now, compared to Doug, I've blogged little about the Prez '08 campaigns so far.  Given that the campaigns are now moving into the next higher gear, perhaps it's time for this conservative to start wading in.

Illegal immigration is one of my hot buttons.  So is the jr. Senator from MA (my birth state) for his flip-flops.  Well, here's sorta of a new twofer take on this as the Boston Herald is reporting some more stuff on Mitt Romney:

Immigration stance improv: From Mitt, another dubious act

Add immigration to the long list of hesitations conservatives ought to have about Mitt Romney.

What he thinks ought to be done about the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country depends on whether you asked him POC (pre-official candidacy) or AOC (after-official candidacy).

Back in 1994, when the U.S. Senate, not the Oval Office, was in Romney’s sights, he said in those now infamous (on YouTube anyway) debates with Sen. Edward Kennedy: “I do not believe that we should deny all services to people who come here from across the border.”

And more recently, but still POC, Romney told the Lowell Sun in March 2006, “I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let’s have them registered, know who they are. Those who’ve been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn’t be here; those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.”

Now, given the immigration sweep fiasco which just took place in Romney’s home state (where mothers were among those rounded up from a New Bedford factory while children were left without adequate care) the former governor’s position of March 2006 was positively prescient. Whatever your views of immigration and border control, the impracticality of prying illegal immigrants who are already here (and whose children are citizens by virtue of their birth on American soil) out of our communities (and our economy) is obvious.

Equally obvious to Romney, though, was the need to conservativize (I know that’s not a word, but it should be) his credentials on immigration. He couldn’t very well run as the GOP’s alternative to Sen. John McCain if his position on illegal immigration were virtually identical, now could he?

Enter AOC Romney. In February on “This Week,” George Stephanopoulos asked Romney whether illegal immigrants should have a path to citizenship. The answer? “No.”

Then at the Conservative Political Action Annual Conference earlier this month, Romney denounced McCain’s plan as a taxpayer giveaway that amounts to amnesty.

“McCain-Kennedy isn’t the answer,” he said.

So what is?

Well, Romney’s common-sense positions against granting in-state tuition rates and driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, he says, will offer insight to his approach. He’s right on those two policies...

but relatively minor legislative skirmishes shed little light on the reality of what to do about the workers at Michael Bianco Inc., their families and the millions like them elsewhere in the U.S.

But the most galling part of Romney’s immigration pandering is that he may advocate an end to citizenship for the children of illegals born on American soil.

“It’s something which I’m looking at,” he told Stephanopoulos. “I think it’s an important and valid topic.”

Really? Then why didn’t Romney bring it up earlier this week when he addressed Miami-Dade Republicans in Florida? “As president, I will stand side-by-side with the members of this community in fighting the menace of the Cuban monsters,” Romney said, according to published reports. But he said not a word about the “menace” of illegal immigration. That wouldn’t be because of Florida’s influential Hispanic voting bloc, would it?

“He’s going to have problems in South Florida,” said Miami-Dade County Commissioner Jose “Pepe” Diaz.

According to recent polls, Romney’s having problems everywhere. The reason is obvious. On taxes, abortion, gay rights and now immigration, Romney’s switch in positions POC to AOC have made his credibility DOA.

Posted by Skip at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, the Dems cannot seem to get it right.  Thinking that they had a mandate, they kinda forgot how they were able to stifle the majority GOP in passing legislation.  You'd think they would have learned that lesson, right?

Umm, not so much.  As our friend Liz from GOPPROGRESS reports, they're trying the "if you can't go under, try going over!"

Posted by Skip at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A judge has ordered taxpayers to foot the bill - up to $20,000 - for a sex-change operation that will make a 21-year-old man into a woman. In a ruling to be released Thursday, Manhattan Family Court Judge Sheldon Rand said the city must provide the subsidized snip because the woman wannabe, identified as Mariah Lopez, had been in the care of the Administration for Children's Services as a youngster.

The judge said the agency has a duty to pay for all "necessary" medical care to the kids in its charge.

Rand ruled that Lopez suffers from a diagnosed gender-identity disorder and that surgery is the recognized treatment. "I don't think it's hit me yet. The consequences are so far reaching," a jubilant Lopez told The Post after learning of her victory in the legal battle, which started before Lopez was 18 and cared for by ACS. "This court has recognized that gender-identity disorder is a real condition and there is a real solution to it and people don't have to suffer from it."

.

The city's senior lawyer on the case, Julian Kalkstein, said, "We respectfully disagree with the judge's decision and are going to be appealing the case."

.

Lopez said the surgery would cost between $15,000 and $20,000. The city has already paid for a laser hair-removal procedure around Lopez's genital area.

Posted by Doug at 7:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The parental notification issue isn't going away soon. Just one day after the House passed a repeal of the law requiring a parent to be notified before a child has an abortion, Rep. Edmond Gionet asked for the bill to be reconsidered. That means more debate in the House, more roll call votes and more spotlight on everyone.

"They're gonna feel the heat," said Rep. Fran Wendelboe.

As I've said before, this is not about abortion-- it's about a medical surgical procedure on a minor child. Several months back, I dropped my son at the dentist to get a cavity filled without going in. As he is only 15, when I got back to my nearby office, I got a call indicating I needed to go back in to the dentist's or fax a note giving them permission to fill a cavity. If it were my daughter murdering my unborn grandchild... no problem. No permission needed.

Oh, and in case you're inclined, as I first was, to blame this on the new Democratic rule, think again. Consider the record of the votes right here in Belknap County, where I live. Here's the roll call:

Allen, Janet Republican Belknap 05 Yea
Arsenault, Beth Democrat Belknap 04 Yea
Boyce, Laurie Republican Belknap 05 Nay
Clark, Charles Republican Belknap 05 Not Voting
Flanders, Donald Republican Belknap 04 Not Voting
Heald, Bruce Republican Belknap 03 Not Voting
Millham, Alida Republican Belknap 05 Yea
Morrison, Gail Democrat Belknap 02 Yea
Nedeau, Stephen Republican Belknap 03 Nay
Pilliod, James Republican Belknap 05 Yea
Reever, Judith Democrat Belknap 04 Yea
Russell, David Republican Belknap 06 Yea
Thomas, John Republican Belknap 05 Nay
Tilton, Franklin Republican Belknap 04 Nay
Tobin, William Republican Belknap 02 Nay
Wendelboe, Fran Republican Belknap 01 Nay
Whalley, Michael Republican Belknap 05 Nay

Wood, Jane Democrat Belknap 04 Yea

Posted by Doug at 4:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just received the call from the State House regarding our application to rally there.  We were DENIED.  I then talked with the supervisor and because of the issues between the groups, they have been told it will be first come, first serve and the peace activists had sent their request in first, so they get it.

.

He told me that the sidewalk on Main Street belongs to the city of Concord , and we can try to get a permit there if the activists haven't already, however, we couldn't walk under the arch and onto state property.  He did say that he wishes he could allow us to rally for the Troops, because he understands, he's got three kids in the military and two already served two tours in Iraq , but he just can't.

The peaceniks got the only available assembly permit for the sidewalk at the State House too!

Following this second denial of a place to rally, the Blue Star Mothers tried to get the use of the inside of the Legislative Office Building for an invocation and an indoor place for those in attendance who might be handicapped. Again, no dice.

And yet, the rally is scheduled for Saturday. How can this be?

with NO assembly permit.

Nothing say's they can't get together and walk around the Block,around the State house

Suggestion....WE GO WITH IT !!!! Hey,don't need a permit to walk around the block that the State House sits on. We Walk,We Sing,We do whatever in hell you wish...we are there "together" supporting the "Gathering Of Eagles in DC.."NH's Gathering of Mothers and Supporters"....Hey,I got nothing against Peace!! People have the Right to do and Say what they wish!! I fought for that right BUT Don't tell me I Can't !!!!
 
I Vote...we go with it AS IS. Everything that WE TOGETHER, we were going to do we still do. We do it walking..All in favor say,"GET ER DONE!!!"...

Posted by Doug at 1:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a speech to over 1,000 enthusiastic Democrats at the Sheraton Nashua Hotel, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) tonight signaled a change in focus in her campaign for the presidency.  The event was the New Hampshire Democratic Party's annual "100 Club" dinner.

.

Perhaps following her rival John Edwards in appealing to America's downtrodden, Clinton dedicated much of her speech to the "invisible Americans" who she says have been ignored by the Bush administration.

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

Posted by Ed Mosca at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Ed Mosca at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Check out this opinion by Judge Laurence Silberman.  Reasoning from the text of the Second Amendment and the contemporary understanding, he concludes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.  Then compare it to the dissent.  Who's right?  At the risk of simplifying matters, it depends on whether the Supreme Court precedent is controlling, the effect and meaning of the preamble about the "well regulated militia," including whether the term "State" means a nation or means the states. 

 A bit of trivia -- President George H. W. Bush passed over Silberman in favor of Souter.

Posted by Ed Mosca at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Blue and Gold Star Mothers of New Hampshire
Supporting our Eagles ~ Past, Present and Future

 

"SUPPORT THE GATHERING OF MOTHERS WHO ARE SUPPORTING THE GATHERING OF EAGLES IN DC"

Bring your flags! Join us as we walk around the State House in support of the Eagles in DC

.

At home for every man or woman who defends and ensures our liberty and protects the shores of America are the mothers who nurtured them into adulthood.  We are mostly the silent majority who just encourage and support our military sons and daughters.  We are extended by mothers whose blue stars turned gold when their son or daughter gave the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms ALL Americans enjoy.  We are the Blue and Gold Star Mothers of NH.  Together we support our troops as they head towards Victory in the battles they encounter to protect the people and the borders of America.

.

On Saturday, March 17th we will assemble with veterans, past, present and future who have served in the armed forces of these United States of America in support of the Gathering of Eagles in Washington, D.C.

.

The Gathering of Eagles at the Wall Memorial in Washington DC is to stand silent guard over our nation's memorials, in honor of our fallen, and in solidarity with our armed forces in harm's way today. 

.

In the words of Lt. Col. Steve Russell, USA retired, we should make no apologies.

“What shall we say?  What more can we give to our nation than the type of sacrifice we have already given?  What words can we the soldiers use to convince Americans at home that the biggest mistakes being made in this war are on the home front, not the battlefront?  What will be the value of temporary civilian comforts and the illusion of national safety when a giant shadow of Islamic terrorism is casting itself onto our shores?  What will be the meaning of the rhetoric and the political debate when we sift through the rubble of a workplace, a shopping mall or public transit—digging out American bodies targeted for no other reason than because of our way of life and who we are as a people?  It is a scene that every soldier who has witnessed it abroad will fight with all his might to keep away—but we never thought that our own people would betray our efforts.”

We the Blue and Gold Star Mothers say YES to supporting our troops to Victory.

Blue Star Mothers of NH is a non-profit, non-partisan, non-political organization that supports their sons and daughters as they serve our country past, present and future.

For those of you who want to march  we will meet at the Shaw's Parking Lot on Fort Eddy Road at 10:45 AM and march from there Legislation Building. It may take about 1/2 hour before we meet up with the others.

.

For those of you who don't want to walk about 1/2 mile to the State House from Fort Eddy Road Plaza parking lot, you can park at the garages noted below. We will meet you at the Legislation Building Steps.  Don't loiter there while waiting for us. Take your signs and walk around the State House, and all around until you see us.  We will
meet you around 11:15 AM

.

PARKING: We should find plenty of parking at the two parking garages in the center of town.  One is on Warren Street across from Margaritas Restaurant. (That's a one way going onto Main Street so you'll have to go up a block to get to that parking garage.)  Another is on the corner of Green Street and Park Street.  There also is another one on North State Street by the YMCA, I'm not sure if the garages charge on Saturdays but we'll find out when we get there! 

.

Bring your posters and your flags, bring family members and your friends and join us as we walk the block around the State House to show our Support for Eagles in DC and our Eagles Past, Present and Future ~ let's support our troops to Victory!!

We will start with a prayer and we will pledge Allegiance to our flag and we will be singing patriotic songs!

.

We thank you for your support,

.

Karen Thurston
Blue Star Mothers of NH

Posted by Doug at 9:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

• He's back! Pat Hynes. He'll tell us about himself (as usual) and about what is was like to be at CPAC.

• Drew Johnson of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research will discuss his organization's recent notoriety with a Drudge link, and a posting here on the 'Grok, about a report on Al Gore's personal energy consumption. We'll talk about Al's movie, and the so-called carbon credits BS.

• Karen Thurston of the Blue Star Mothers of NH and Bob Jones of the Northeast POW/MIA Network will be in studio to fill us in about the upcoming Gathering of Eagles event in DC, along with a special happening they've put together in support right here in NH. They'll discuss the "Gathering of Mothers Who Are Supporting the Gathering of Eagles in DC."  Bob will give us his take on the military hospital state of affairs and anything else we need to know about MIA/POW soldiers, so that NOBODY forgets.

• Richard Juve of Meredith will stop by for some local politics and the gang will  discuss the "Question of the Day": The repeal of NH's parental notification (of abortions by minors) law. Agree? Disagree?

Posted by Doug at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Mike Biundo continues to hammer away at Governor Empty-Suit: 

"But as the legislature scrambles to acquiesce to an improper Court ruling and its arrogant imposition of a deadline to define 'adequacy', Lynch is embracing an education spending plan that he, himself, agreed was 'unconstitutional' based on the court's ruling.

'One can't blame Governor Lynch if he is confused,' said Biundo. 'For too long, he and many members of the legislature have believed that the Court can just 'order up' law''".

The only quibble that I have with Mike is that the Republican "leadership" has been just as bad as Governor Empty-Suit as they too accept the misbegotten premise that the Supreme Court can order the Legislature to write a certain type of law and write that law itself, should the Legislature not comply, and they should be called out as well. 

 Keep up the good work, Mike.  It's about time some common sense was injected into the ever increasingly inane discourse on education funding.

Posted by Ed Mosca at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Cullen said Buckley accuser Rep. Steve Vaillancourt 'is about as much a Republican as Anna Nicole Smith was a natural blond. The fact is, Ray Buckley was wronged.'"

Kudos to Fergus for calling out a RINO; something his predecessors never would do.

NOW SHOW SOME REAL POLITICAL COURAGE, Fergus.  What you said about Vaillancourt's Republican credentials applies at least as much to Liz Hager and her ilk.  How about calling them out for their disgraceful vote on parental notification?

Posted by Ed Mosca at 9:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Kudos to Manchester's Mike Biundo who understands that the so-called education funding issue has nothing to do with improving the quality of public education and everything to do with self-aggrandizement by a panel of five unelected lawyers in black robes.  Click here for Biundo's recent op-ed.  Unfortunately, the NH GOP's "leaders," i.e. Ted Gatsas and Mike Whalley, obviously don't agree as they have spent the last decade competing with the Democrats to enable judicial activism.

Good job Mike Biundo.  And for the milquetoast Republicans who lack the sense and the spine to stand up to the imperialistic and illegal actions of the NH Supreme Court -- YOU'RE PATHETIC.

Posted by Ed Mosca at 8:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Although Lynch's initial budget proposed an unconscionable 14.1% increase in spending, at least he exercised comparative restraint when it came to runaway education spending, which he proposed to increase by 5%, rather than the much higher increase called for by the Gatsas funding scheme.

 Well it didn't take long for Governor Empty-Suit to cave to the education establishment.  Now he "he wants to provide all school districts with the money they expect under the existing school funding law, plus an additional 5 percent."

Posted by Ed Mosca at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"We're going to go through probably 10 kegs in three hours," said state Rep. Jeff Goley, who worked the beer station.

The crowd included a number of political figures, including Mayor Frank Guinta, former Mayor Bob Baines, Sens. Lou D'Allesandro and Ted Gatsas and U.S. Attorney Tom Colantuono."

And for those who claim that the Union Leader, from which the above was taken, has a "conservative" bias, note that state rep Jeff Goley is a DEMOCRAT who lost his license for DWI in 2002.  Gee, you think if he were a conservative Republican that wouldn't have found its way into the story?

Posted by Ed Mosca at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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

Ted Gatsas is proposing to combat higher property taxes by having the State issue credits to homeowners over the age of 65.  Click here.  Gatsas' proposal treats the symptom, not the disease, which is out-of-control spending.  Repeat after me, Ted: low taxes are the result of low spending.

Gatsas' proposal will have at least two bad effects.  First, it will make seniors less concerned about spending, which will make it easier for the tax-and-spend crowd to increase taxes.

 Second, it is regressive:  "To qualify, a senior's income must be less than $75,000, and his or her assets cannot exceed $500,000, excluding a house."  The median family income in New Hampshire, if my memory serves me correctly, is under $60,000.00, and the median assets, again going on memory, are materially lower than $500,000, never mind $500,000 plus a house.  Thus, Gatsas' scheme will result in people living in modest houses paying higher taxes to subsidize the property tax bills of the affluent.

This type of Rockefeller Republicanism is a big part of why the State GOP was obliterated in the 2006 elections.

Posted by Ed Mosca at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Hon. David E. Cote, Chairman
Judiciary Committee
New Hampshire House of Representatives
Room 208—Legislative Office Building
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

.

Dear Representative Cote and Members of the Committee:

.

As Chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester and on behalf of Bishop John B. McCormack, I am writing to express our opposition to HB 184.  The Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act recognizes the fundamental and constitutionally-protected role of parents in caring for their children and should not be repealed.

.

The Catholic Church vigorously promotes the dignity and sanctity of both human life and the family as essential elements of human society.  The Diocese of Manchester strongly supported enactment of the Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act.  Indeed, when its constitutionality was questioned before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the United States Supreme Court, the Diocese of Manchester, along with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, urged the Courts to uphold the law.

.

Diocesan support is rooted firmly in the natural law that when any significant issue confronts a family member, the family should come together to resolve it.  A pregnant minor will benefit from parental involvement as she faces a life-altering decision that involves not only her unborn child, but also her own physical health and emotional well-being.  Parents have an equally fundamental interest in the welfare of their children as well as a right and a responsibility to care for them.

The Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act advances the health and welfare of children.  As the United States Supreme Court has said:

.

Parental involvement laws are based on the quite reasonable assumption that minors will benefit from consultation with their parents and that children will often not realize that their parents have their best interests at heart.¹

.

Often due to their lack of experience and knowledge, teenagers cannot make informed choices about the medical care and treatment that take into account both the immediate and long-term consequences of a decision to have an abortion.  Their abortion providers, peers, and sexual partners do not always have the perspective or knowledge to provide sound advice.

.

This is not just a matter of maturity; it is a matter of responsibility.  Parents are responsible for the care and welfare of their dependent children.  Abortion is significant and irreversible surgery that involves innocent life and can have life-threatening physical complications.  A parent is in the best position to ensure that the child’s health and family history are considered, that the child is receiving the best medical advice, and that the child obtains appropriate follow-up medical care.

.

Abortion also can have long-term mental health consequences.  A doctor or other health care provider, no matter how compassionate, is not responsible for the child’s mental health—parents are responsible for their minor children.

.

It would be a grave mistake to divest parents of meaningful input into the health care of their own dependent children.  Opponents of the law falsely assume a conflict between the right and responsibility of parents to care for their children, on the one hand, and the best interests of their children, on the other.  In every other context, the law assumes that parents are the natural guardians of their children’s health and best interests.  It is folly to believe that third parties are in a better position than parents to protect the interests of their children.  Such a view is inconsistent with how the law generally treats parents and children.  Indeed, the State of New Hampshire has long recognized the fundamental role of parents in caring for their children by requiring parental consent--not just parental notification--to a long list of health care and non-health care matters.²

.

For the foregoing reasons, the Diocese of Manchester urges your Committee to find this bill inexpedient to legislate.

.

Thank you all for your service to the people of the State of New Hampshire.

.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Diane M. Quinlan

Chancellor

Posted by Doug at 9:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A story and a question.  This time, the question first:

Do things like this happen in your town? 

If they do, let me know....would just like to know..... 

Being on the local Budget Committe in our village of 7,400, I've learned a lot.  Today, I learned something new from this story in one of the local papers (The Citizen):
 

County balks at funding Genesis

We are what is known as an SB2 town here in NH.  This means that we do not have the traditional Town Meeting that NH has been known for (one or two nights of the year, all of the townfolk go to the meeting place, discuss what is to be voted on ["the Warrants"] and vote on them - even if it takes until 1 or 2 in the morning) but we do have Deliberative Meetings - one for the Town Budget and one for the School Budget.

Same as non-SB2 towns except we then vote later instead of during - using paper ballots instead of voice or hand raising. But I digress....

One of the things that the Budget Committee has struggled with over the years is removing funding for what are known as "outside agencies"; I call them NGOs - Non-Governmental Organizations.  One of them,  Genesis Behavioral Health, seems to have been doing an end run for funding itself:

LACONIA - Belknap County's contribution to Genesis Behavioral Health was up and then went back down on Monday after a debate was sparked over some legislators' belief that the mental health agency is "double-dipping" in asking both the county and individual towns for financial backing.

There was a fair amount of heat for doing that, yet a majority of us felt that compelling taxpayers to effectively donate to a charity via their taxes to organizations that they may not wish to give to otherwise was wrong.  Property taxes, we felt, were better used on direct Town services and not giving them to NGOs, even if they do good works.  

If people want to, they could give directly.  Why force giving coercively?  Anyways, more a bit further down....

Genesis is among nine "outside agencies" that receive annual funding from the county budget and this year requested a $34,200 appropriation to cover expenses relating to the care of its residents, many of whom cannot pay for their mental health services.

County Commission Chair Philip "Bud" Daigneault said his panel voted in favor of lowering that amount and funding $27,500 — an amount that still would provide a 10-percent increase over the $26,000 the agency received in 2006. [snip]

"We thought Genesis should work within that number," said Daigneault, noting that it also receives state and federal support.

This I kinda figured on.  What I didn't know is that the County gives them money as well. Not a single, not a double, not even a trifecta!  This is a quad-dipping!  Why?  Nice funding.  I hope that someone at each level is getting ready to ask "and how is your billing doing" just to make sure.
 

However, members of the legislative subcommittee working on the Genesis portion of the county budget voted to raise the amount to the $34,200 that was originally requested.

Rep. Alida Millham, R-Gilford, and Judie Reever, D-Laconia, outvoted Laurie Boyce, R-Alton, in recommending that the amount be funded at the original request and defended their decision on Monday.

Millham said she has been familiar with Genesis since its inception and expressed confidence that the organization was asking for an amount that would cover its costs.

[snip]

Daigneault said he respects the work Genesis does but he expressed concern with what he believes constitutes going back on an agreement made more than a decade ago that would have the county supporting the agency and not the towns.

The county commission chair said Genesis has been violating that arrangement by going out annually and requesting funds from towns on an annual basis that appear on town warrants for approval by taxpayers.
 

I guess what I am not happy with is that in being a long term member of the County delegation, she would have known of the above agreement (gee, shades of the football kerfuffle in Gilford too - say one thing do another!).  Yet, she was the one who lobbied Gilford and now the County - against that agreement.

[snip]

Rep. Fran Wendelboe, R-New Hampton, agreed and noted that they regularly ask for contributions that appear to be asking taxpayers from Belknap County to fund them twice.

She said Genesis representatives show up at town meetings and tell of the thousands upon thousands of dollars in care they provide to residents of a given town and then ask for a modest sum without explaining that they get state, county and federal funding.

"I think it's kind of misleading how it's reported to the towns," said Wendelboe.

Daigneault said the action is a simple matter of the group "double-dipping".

[snip]

Millham said it would be doing Genesis a "disfavor" to say it is duping taxpayers and noted that some expenses — like mental health experts' trips to the emergency room for suicidal patients — may not be covered otherwise.

Not nice, not cool. 

Why would she do this?  Well, the article did say that  "Millham said she has been familiar with Genesis since its inception".

Well, from another paper, The Gilford Steamer, (2/7/07, Stakes are raised on Budget Committee issue) in town, I quote:

Earlier in the meeting, the residents present in the meeting voted to redo a portion of the committee's work on the municipal budget. Resident Alida Millham made a motion to amend Article 12 to include funding for three outside agencies at a total of $13,879.

"These agencies provide real support for the real Gilford people," said Millham, a member of the Genesis Behavioral Health Advisory Committee. "The attitude should not be to let someone else do it."

As a conservative Republican, I have a problem with THAT attitude - forcing taxpayers to support an organization that they otherwise might not just because Ms. Millham thinks that they should. 

The definition of Charity begins and ends with individual giving - not collectively unless that group of people do it on their own.  Charity is willingly given - not demanded. As she has done.

Without letting us know of her advocacy. 

The Budget Committee had previously excluded funds for the Red Cross, Genesis Behavioral Health, a mental health crisis facility, and New Beginnings, a women's shelter.

I was not aware that when Mrs. Millham lobbied for re-inserting the funding,  she was on the Genesis Committee. 

She can belong to any organization that she wishes to be on.  She can certainly advocate for anyone or thing she wishes to.  However, I do think that the right thing would have been to announce that she had that connection. 

Does the County delegation know that?  Did the 300 at the DS know that? Maybe I'm the one just not in the know? It would have been nice to have known that she was advocating at two level for funding for a group that had agreed not to.

Or would the better thing to do would have been to recuse herself.

Posted by Skip at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Ed Mosca at 9:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This follows up on my two posts below regarding parental notification and same-sex marriage.  I assume the NH GOP's avoidance of these issues results from a fear of turning off independent voters.  I don't think that accepting or adopting the Democrats' far-left agenda is necessary to attract independents.  Most folks support parental notification and, regardless of their views on "civil unions," believe that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman.

So, how about it Fergus?  The State GOP hasn't been shy about making unequivocal statements about Carol Shea-Porter's lunatic rantings on the Iraq war.  Let's hear something as unequivocal on parental notification and same-sex marriage.

Posted by Ed Mosca at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This story from the UK's Guardian, a liberal (and generally anti-American) newspaper, just seems to has to be walking backwards just to paint America as the bad guy....

Iran's rich architecture and rare treasures threatened by possible US strikes 

 Right off the bat, we see how this British story is skewed.  Iran, the nation whose president has promised to wipe Israel off the map, threatened the US, and has just laughed at the UN sanctions and made the EU 3 (France, Germany, and Britain) look like hapless chumps, is made to be such a wonderful place.  The US, the country that has twice saved the UK's butt, not so much.

No mention is made of WHY Iran may be making itself a target...

In his quiet office at the British Museum, among the portraits of long-dead explorers and copies of 3,000-year-old inscriptions, one of the greatest experts on the archaeology of the Middle East has a series of maps of Iranian nuclear installations spread out across his desk.

Well now, which where there first - the ancient sites, or the new ones?  Is this professor that naive that he cannot see the connection - this is the archaeological equivalent of the "human shields" that were going to protect Iraq's people.  That is, until the Sadaam had them placed near military targets and then told the West "Sure, go ahead!"  

The message - I really don't care about these useful idiots, but you do.  This is the same thing. 

John Curtis's maps fill him with foreboding: because they show how many of Iran's nuclear plants are perilously close to ancient cultural sites.

Natanz, home to a uranium enrichment plant, is renowned for its exquisite ceramics; Isfahan, home to a uranium conversion plant, is also a Unesco world heritage site and was regarded in the 16th century as the most beautiful city on earth.

"The archaeology is so rich there is almost nowhere that you could say is devoid of interest," Dr Curtis said. "But certainly a list must be compiled of the sites which need the most consideration."

So why is he already going after the Americans?  Why is he not incensed that the Iranians have placed military targets so close to his objects of veneration?  Why is he not leading the charge to marshal worldwide outrage at what the Iranians are doing to put those sites at risk?

This, too, was kinda cute (in a bad sort of way):

[snip]

Professor Harriet Crawford, of the Institute of Archaeology in London, one of the archaeologists who sounded the alarm before the Iraq war, said yesterday: "An attack on Iran would not only cause thousands more avoidable deaths, but would also risk inflicting untold damage on its heritage, comparable with that seen in Iraq."

Reading this, I'm not sure which is more valuable to her - the people or the things?

Other nuclear installations lie close to Shiraz, dubbed "the city of roses and nightingales", famous for the tombs of medieval poets; Persepolis, the great palace of King Darius, whose ruins are still magnificent; and the 6th century BC tomb of Cyrus the Great, the Persian ruler who was said to have been buried in a coffin of gold.

[snip]

Now Dr Curtis dreads seeing history repeated, this time through the escalating threat from the United States against Iran. "Any kind of military activity whatever in Iran, whether aerial bombing or land invasion, would inevitably have the gravest consequences, not only for its people but for its cultural heritage - which should be a matter of concern not just to Iranians but to the whole world," he said.

Sorry, but this is like blaming the parent for disciplining a misbehaving child.  The source of the problem is not the adult but with the bad behavior.  For if the bad behavior did not exist (the threat to effectively committ genocide upon the state of Israel or use the threat of a nuclear device against others in the world), "possible" strikes would not happen.

Imagine that....act nice to your neighbors, and nothing bad happens! 

"The main nuclear bases would seem the most likely targets - which would directly threaten two major sites, Isfahan and Natanz." The medieval splendour of those cities, at the height of the power of Islamic Persia from the 13th to the 17th centuries, was built on a cultural history which was already thousands of years old. The history of cities, of writing, of engineering and astronomy began in the ancient centres of Iran and Iraq.

No kidding!  When't the last time a war was waged where military targets were not targeted?  What would be the use of starting a war and not taking out the source of the problem? 

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

Posted by Ed Mosca at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Ed Mosca at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What if you read the following in your local paper?

Fifteen year old skier's leg amputated without parents' knowledge or consent

Skier Jason Borden's left leg was amputated Saturday after he shattered it in a skiing accident. The surgery, which was not considered an emergency, was performed at Thomson's General Hospital without his parents' knowledge or consent. Physicians are currently debating whether such surgery was even necessary, citing experts who believe the boy's leg could have been saved. Jason's parents, Phil and Cindy Borden are outraged and are currently filing papers to sue Thomson's.

After reading such an account, wouldn't you be outraged? Wouldn't you hope the Bordens would succeed in suing Thomson's General Hospital out of existence? What if you also heard that the state legislature was considering a measure to allow all such operations to be conducted on minors without even the knowledge of their parents? Wouldn't you be angry that the rights of parents who love their children and who will be the ones picking up the pieces after the surgery had been so cavalierly tossed aside? Wouldn't you believe that the same state which requires permission from a parent before a child is allowed to take ibuprofen at school had gone insane?

.

Fortunately, the above story is fictitious. Yet something analogous is happening in New Hampshire with regard to the surgical procedure of abortion, and our lack of outrage only shows that we can come to accept shocking events merely because they are commonplace.

.

Currently, certain members of our legislature, along with our governor, are working to overturn the law that requires parental notification before a minor can have an abortion. Lest anyone think that this is a minor procedure like having one's teeth cleaned, consider the following:

.

Common short-term side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, pain, cramping, and bleeding.

.

Rarer, more serious, immediate side effects include infection, heavy bleeding, perforation of the uterus, damage to the cervix, and incomplete abortion which could require hospitalization.

.

Long-term side effects can include increased psychological problems, including a higher suicide rate. A large Finland study found a six times greater rate of suicide for women during the year following an abortion than for women who gave birth.

.

Another long term effect is an increase in miscarriage and infertility. A study of 252 women at Harvard found the risk of infertility more than doubled as a result of abortion. Other studies found an even higher rate of infertility resulting from abortion.

.

Most studies of women and breast cancer have observed a significant increase in breast cancer rates in women who have terminated their first pregnancy.

.

Those who think that a minor should be able to be operated on without her parents' knowledge or consent will, no doubt, expect the parents or their insurance carrier to pick up the bill should she need to be hospitalized for complications. The girl and her parents will be the ones who are affected if she experiences psychological problems, or infertility or breast cancer later in life. The clinic counselor and doctor will have pocketed their fees and exited her life long ago and won't be held accountable for the resulting damage.

.

Parents should have the right to be notified at the very least when such a serious surgical procedure is going to be performed on their daughter. The current law, which requires notifying only one parent, is the bare minimum of protection the state should provide, and some of our representatives are trying to sweep even that away. Don't let them. Call or write them and urge them to vote against HB184.

.

Posted by Doug at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I recently posted on Washington State trying to surpass the "San Fran values" in a big way.  Well, Betsy's Page has another story about socialism...and its failure.  Once again, socialism that supposedly was started "the right way".  Once again, the inevitable failure of such, no matter how good the intentions.

Why?  The lack of not accounting of two of the more powerful human traits: fairness and greed.  Bolded emphasis is mine.

What was once thought to be one of the purest examples of socialism is dwindling to an end. When Israel was founded, socialists idealists thought that founding collective farms - kibbutzim - would be a foundation on which to build their economies. Now, decades later, they're finding that socialism just didn't work out. One by one, those kibbutzim are being privatized.

In recent decades, kibbutzniks have grappled with crippling bank debt, membership attrition and the waning of the collectivist ethic on which the country was founded.

Now, in belated recognition of the demise of their utopian ethic and Israel's shift to capitalism from socialism, a majority of kibbutzes are scrapping their egalitarian salary schemes and allowing members to live each according to their own earning power.

They really tried to make a go of it, even going so far as to collectivize the raising of children. But they only survived financially because of support from the government.

Greed.  While often used by socialists as one of the worst outcomes of capitalism, it is one of its best items too.  For while greed run amok is a bad thing (which is actually more of a case of the "winning at any cost"), it is the motivation for people to improve themselves, raise themselves up the economic ladder, and make life better for their families.  And, as they benefit, their customers and employees benefit too.

Greed.  While often used by socialists as one of the worst outcomes of capitalism, it is one of its best items too.  For while greed run amok is a bad thing (which is actually more of a case of the "winning at any cost"), it is the motivation for people to improve themselves, raise themselves up the economic ladder, and make life better for their families.  And, as they benefit, their customers and employees benefit too. 

The kibbutz compelled members to turn over private possessions for public use. Children were even raised in communal dorms rather than in their parents' homes. Social life revolved around the dining hall. A kibbutz committee approved plans for higher education and careers. Whoever left was considered a traitor.

With the ascension of the conservative Likud Party to power in the 1980s, the government cut off generous subsidies that exposed the waste and unprofitable operations of the kibbutzes, as well as billions of dollars in bank debt. A $17 billion bailout made the kibbutzes seem spoiled rather than selfless.

Socialism is always about wealth redistribution.  And as we see, the results here and everywhere else it has been tried is that it never works long term.  Oh, sure, for a short time, maybe the first generation when the ideas of "we're all in it together" and effectively working as yet another style of belief system.  Past that?  Not so much - without massive subsidies (or blind ignorance), it failes.  Miserably.  Why?

Meanwhile, observing Israel's growing prosperity, kibbutzniks forgot the ideals behind their spartan existence and began craving the same creature comforts as their neighbors. The collapse of the Soviet Union and communism also had an impact.

 
Who the heck wants to continue to wear a hairshirt for eternity when it is plain that another system, capitalism, is working when yours is not?  Unless you are one of those that believes 'just a little while longer, just a little tweak here" and refuses to evaluate empirical evidence.

In the past 20 years, the kibbutzes have lost one-fourth of their population and today number 120,000 members, a small fraction of Israel's 6.5 million people.

"I know that if I work hard, that I'll earn the same as the person living next to me who works less," explained Sharon Tirosh, 31, director of human resources at Ga'ash, who also supports the change.

"There is something in the education, that begins at the bottom, that there's no point in being terribly successful."

Imagine that. They can't reform human nature. People found that they didn't like it that they got the same financial reward as people who worked less and so they worked less. Adam Smith wins again.

The problem with the teachers in the Washington State post is that it is only the ideas that are being pushed and not the consequences of carrying them out.  Repeating myself - those teachers don't play chess and therefore cannot think several moves down the road. 

Posted by Skip at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

the flip side of Ann grabbing headlines for herself is that she deliberately put the presidential contenders and the other people attending CPAC in a bad light (Left wing talking point: "See, that's what Republicans really say when they're together!") in order to draw attention to herself.

That makes her extremely selfish, especially since this is the second year in a row that she has said something particularly obnoxious and controversial at CPAC. What's on tap for next year? Will she drop the N-bomb? Will she use the C-word to describe Hillary Clinton? Whatever her plans are, after being burned twice in a row, CPAC shouldn't invite her back next year.

I really hate to do this, but for her stupid remark, there is no choice but to give Ann Coulter the GraniteGrok "Dope of the Week" award...

Even if she claims we're all using the wrong definition of the word, she still shouldn't have done it. Huh?

faggot- a bundle of sticks and branches bound together; a package of several things tied together for carrying or storing; fasten together rods of iron in order to heat or weld them;

secure with or  as if with ropes.

Perhaps we all misunderstood Ann Coulter. You see, she could claim she wasn't talking about Edwards' sexual orientation at all. She was talking about his hair.

Still stupid, nonetheless. Blame it on "Triple-S" I guess.

Posted by Doug at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)

Putting the politics aside for a moment (why can't they just "shut up and sing?"), the Roger Waters concert was a disappointment of monumental proportions. The first set contained several songs from one of my personal favorite Floyd albums, Wish You Were Here. They weren't too bad at first, but the more it went on, the more I asked myself, "Is it live, or is it Memorex?"

.

[snip]

.

Every song sounded EXACTLY as they do on the albums- nothing special- no extended solos. Nothing. Last night, I could have stayed home, played a Pink Floyd album, added audience noise (and barf on the seats) and simulated exactly the performance I witnessed for some 75 bucks.

.

The disappointing "performance" was bad enough. When playing "Dogs" from my favorite Floyd album, Animals, a large pig balloon was released. Pretty cool, right? Just like the old days of Pink Floyd, right?

.

Well, not really. Painted on both sides were the words, "Save your bacon. Vote for Democrats this election." The movie screen behind the stage flashed George Bush images- not portraying him in a good light for sure. Then came the images of the bad "wall." Some of the Berlin Wall. Then, images of the wall Israel has built to stop the homicide bombers- portrayed to be the moral equivalent of the Berlin Wall. Then he sang a new "song" called "Leaving Beirut". It is all about how wonderful the Arab people are, and how WE are the cause of  the problems in that area of the world.

.

I should have left the concert early on, instead of staying to the bitter end. When I left, not only was I totally pissed off about the fact that much of the "music" was obviously tape, I was angry about having anti-American sentiments shoved in my face- and am now convinced that Roger Waters stands as a good example of the rebirth of European anti-semitism.

.

Sometimes fond memories of people and events from times past are best left that way- memories. I will continue to listen to my collection of Pink Floyd and Roger Waters music- but will save money in the future by not going to any more of his "live" performances (Democratic rallies) and will not be purchasing any new "music" he might put forth.

Posted by Doug at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY'S REMARKS AT CPAC

March 2, 2007
As Prepared For Delivery

.

It's good to be with so many conservatives. In fact, I invited all the conservatives in Massachusetts to come hear me today and I'm glad to report that they are both here.

.

I'm happy to learn that after I speak you're going to hear from Ann Coulter. That's a good thing. I think it's important to get the views of moderates.

.

The mainstream media is surprised that we're here. They wrote our obituary last fall. Course, they've written our obituary before: after Watergate, after the 82 midterm elections, after Iran-contra, and after Bill Clinton's election. The truth is that their wishful thinking reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, I predict that we'll be around a lot longer than . . . say, newspapers.

.

No conservatism is alive and well. And it is needed more than ever. America faces a new generation of challenges, critical challenges. Today is similar in many respects to what we faced as a nation 30 years ago, looking at the menacing face of communism. 

In fact, 30 years ago, in this very conference, one man stood up and told America what was needed. It was conservatism, a new coalition of conservatives that would lead to a brighter future for the nation. Ronald Reagan said this: "What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority." And here is where he said that this conservative alliance would lead: "I have seen the conservative future, and it works."

.

Coming from Massachusetts, I saw first hand the liberal future, and it doesn't work. That's why I ran against Ted Kennedy. Liberal social programs weren't solving poverty; they were in fact creating a culture of poverty. I didn't win, but at least Teddy had to take out a mortgage on his home to beat me.

.

I was once campaigning in a poor section in Boston when a person came up to me and said: "What are you doing here? This is Kennedy country." I looked around at the vacant store fronts and boarded up windows and replied: "Yeah, it looks like Kennedy country."

.

No, it is the conservative coalition represented here that can build a brighter future for America: economic conservatives, social conservatives, and national security conservatives.

.

I saw the potential of economic conservatism when I became governor. The state budget was $3 billion short. Liberals wanted to raise taxes, but I cut government instead. I eliminated and combined duplicative and wasteful agencies and programs, and I balanced the budget four years in a row. One commentator said that I didn't just go after the sacred cows, I went after the whole herd. And after four years as governor, I'm proud to report that Massachusetts has 600 fewer state workers than when I took office.

.

I went after taxes as well. The Legislature passed a $250 million retroactive capital gains tax increase. I knew my veto would be overridden by the 85% Democrat majority. So I had the Department of Revenue send every taxpayer a pro forma bill for their new higher taxes, and then I waited for folks to call their legislators. And did they ever. Then, I sent the Legislature an amendment that turned the $250 million tax increase into a $250 million refund. Amazingly, the Legislature now saw the error of their ways.

.

I didn't stop there. We made the investment tax credit permanent. We passed sales tax holidays. We gave tax breaks to medical manufacturing companies. We gave real estate tax breaks to seniors. And in each of my last three years, I submitted a budget that cut the income tax.

.

It's time for some economic conservatism in Washington as well.

.

We've seen an embarrassing spike in non-defense, discretionary spending. As you know, I'm proud to be the first Presidential candidate to sign Grover Norquist's tax pledge. But I have another pledge I am making to you today. If I am elected President, I will cap non-defense discretionary spending at inflation minus one percent. That alone will save $300 billion over 10 years. If Congress sends me a budget that exceeds the cap, I will veto that budget. I don't care if it's a Republican or Democrat Congress, I will veto that budget.

And I know how to veto. I like vetoes. I vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations as Governor. And, by the way, if Congress doesn't want to do the cutting itself, then give me the same line item veto I had as governor.

And one more thing, I will personally lead a top to bottom review of government programs, agencies, procurement and spending. It's time to cut out the mountains of waste and inefficiency and duplication in the federal government. I've done that in business, I've done that in the Olympics, and I've done that in Massachusetts. And boy, I can't wait to get my hands on Washington.

Democrats in Washington are itching to raise taxes – 2011 is set to be a record breaking tax hike. Not if I'm President. I'll fight to stop the tax hike. And I'll fight for a new savings plan for middle class Americans as well – one that will grow the economy and help families at the same time. Under my plan, the amount of tax they will pay on dividends, interest and capital gains will be absolutely zero.

.

It's high time to take government apart and put it back together, but this time simpler, smarter and smaller.

.

Let's talk about social conservatism too.

.

Massachusetts became center stage for the liberal social agenda – sort of San Francisco east, Nancy Pelosi style.

.

Ten months into my term, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said our Constitution requires gay marriage. John Adams, who wrote it, would be surprised.

.

Less than a year later, scientists were trying to convince me that it's not a moral issue to clone entirely new human embryos solely for research.

.

Not long after that, the Catholic Church was forced to exit their adoption service because they preferred placing kids in homes with a mom and a dad, not two dads or two moms.

I have stood in the center of the battlefield on every major social issue. I fought to preserve our traditional values and to protect the sanctity of life.

.

I vetoed bills, and filed new bills. I enforced a law that banned out-of-state same sex couples from coming to Massachusetts to get married. I went to the court again and again, I testified before Congress for the federal marriage amendment, and I championed our successful drive that collected 170,000 signatures for a citizen ballot initiative to protect marriage.

.

To me, a fundamental principle of democracy is at stake. It is the people who are sovereign in America, not a few folks in black robes. Judges add things that aren't in the Constitution, and they take away things that are in the Constitution. In that regard, they let the campaign finance lobby take away First Amendment rights. If I'm President, I will fight to repeal McCain-Feingold.

Another aspect of American sovereignty is the security of our borders. The current system is a virtual concrete wall against those who have skill and education, but it's a wide open walk across the border for those that have neither.

.

McCain-Kennedy isn't the answer. As governor, I took a very different approach. I authorized our state police to enforce immigration laws. I vetoed a tuition break for illegals and said no to driver's licenses. McCain-Kennedy gives benefits to illegals that would cost taxpayers millions. And more importantly, amnesty didn't work 20 years ago, and it won't work today.

The new generation of challenges we face today includes challenges to our national security as well. Violent Jihadists are intent on replacing moderate Islamic governments with a Caliphate. To do that, they seek the collapse of our economy and our military.

.

We will defeat the violent jihad with a two-part strategy. First, an unquestionably strong military. The best ally peace has in the world is a strong America. We need more men and women in the military, better armaments, and a Strategic Defense Initiative. And there's a second aspect of our strategy: we must bring together all the civilized nations of the world in what might be called a Second Marshall Plan. Together with them, and with volunteers, businesses and NGOs, we must support moderate Muslim nations and peoples. They need public schools that are not Wahabi schools, the rule of law, property rights, modern banking and agriculture and pro-growth economic policies. In the end, it is the Muslim people themselves who will eliminate radical jihad.

.

Iraq is just one front in the war. We removed Hussein, but afterward, we were under-prepared, under-planned, under-manned, and under-managed. But walking away now or dividing the country and then walking away would have real and severe risks for America and for our troops. I support the troop surge for that reason. And one thing I know, we shouldn't let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid dictate our battle strategy to the commanders in the field or to the Commander-in-Chief.

Conservatism is a belief in strength. It is because of America's strength that we don't all speak German and that our kids don't all speak Russian. And it is because of America's strength that our grandchildren will not have to speak Farsi or Arabic or Chinese. America must remain the world's military superpower. That is a first principle of conservatism. To remain the military superpower, we must remain the world's economic superpower as well. You can't be a Tier I military with a Tier II economy – the Soviet Union tried to keep that up for a while, and lost.

It's inconceivable to us that we could ever be passed economically. But 100 years ago, it was inconceivable that anyone could have passed England or France. But we did. And if you look East, you can see that we are facing much more difficult competition from Asia than we have faced before. They want to move the center of manufacturing and technology and innovation from America to Asia. We may just smile, but don't forget what Will Rogers said: "Even if you're on the right track, if you don't move, you'll get run over." America will move, but the question is, "In what direction?"

.

History can be a guide. The 20th Century saw two economic systems pitted against each other. Ours was built on free enterprise, free trade and the primacy of the individual. The Soviet's was built on government command and control, and the primacy of the state.

.

Ours produced the most powerful economy in the world that has given its citizens a standard of living our grandparents never dreamed possible; theirs produced a downward spiraling standard of living and eventual collapse.

.

The 20th Century history lesson is that America's economy is strong because we put our trust in freedom, in the American people, and in the free enterprises they create.

If we are to keep America strong, we must turn to the source of America's strength. Liberals think that government is the source of our greatness. They're wrong. The American people are the source of our strength: hard working, educated, skilled, family-oriented, willing to sacrifice for their family and their country, God-fearing, freedom-loving American people. They always have been the source of our strength and they always will be.

And so if we need to call on the strength of America, you don't strengthen government, you strengthen the American people.

.

You strengthen the American people by letting them keep more of their own money, and not taxing their families at death.

You strengthen the American people by making sure that the voice of millions of voters trumps the voice of unelected judges.

You strengthen the American people by securing our borders and by insisting that the children who come legally to this land are taught in English.

.

And perhaps most importantly, you strengthen the American people when you strengthen the American family. Marriage must come before children because every child deserves a mother and a father.

.

This is not the time for us to shrink from conservative principles. It is time for us to stand in strength.

.

Because America faces unprecedented challenges, strength is the only answer. Strong military, strong economy, strong families.

.

Thirty years ago, in challenging times, a great coalition was forged in these halls. Today, we face a new generation of challenges.

.

If we in this room lock our arms together, we can forge the political will to rebuild our military might. If we in this room will simply march forward we can propel America's growth and prosperity to lead to the world. If we in this room lift up our eyes, we will lift the spirit of the nation.

.

 Now is the time, this is the place, for us to stand together, to lead a great coalition of strength, For our families, for our future, for America. May God bless this great land.

Posted by Doug at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Al Gore wants us all to make due with less energy (as opposed to what he does, see here).  Call it "wearing the hairshirt for us - McMansion with a huge energy and a Gulfstream to boot.

I thought it was a political ploy to 1) get back in the limelight, and 2) run as a Green.

Seems that there might be an ulterior motive at play - all those carbon offsets he says that he is buying?  Seems he is paying to a company....that he owns.  What a sweet deal - paying yourself in order to look good!

Yeah, a bit cynical...but if I was one of the hardcore environmentalists, I'd be a tad concerned.

Now, I have no problem with someone making a buck.  Heck, I have no problem with someone making a LOT of bucks -  a REAL lot of bucks.  But making it look like one thing to mask what seems to be a hidden motive?  Not so much.

NewsBusters is on it again:

Media Ignore Al Gore’s Financial Ties to Global Warming

As NewsBusters reported here, here, and here, there are huge dollars to be made from global warming alarmism. However, conceivably no one is better positioned to financially benefit from this scam than Dr. Global Warming himself, former Vice President Al Gore, a fact that the media will surely not share with Americans any time soon.

As reported by Dan Riehl (emphasis mine throughout):

[H]ow Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

Fascinating. So, as Dr. Global Warming travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us its okay because he’s buying carbon offsets, he’s actually purchasing these investments from himself.

Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into this junk science.

Riehl marvelously concluded:

If Al Gore is successful with this latest scheme, Gore and his cronies are going to be much more $green$ than most of the earth. And the only green in this for you and me is the kind that accompanies envy as Gore trucks around on private jets putting dollars to offset his extravagance into a cash machine generating profits on the backs of the middle class with misrepresented science that doesn't deserve to be called science at all.

Meanwhile, a complacent media, rather than hounding Gore over his financial conflicts of interest, continue to shill for this conman’s junk science.

When you add it all up, this is a flimflam of epic proportions:

• First, Gore sets up a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism
• Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population
• Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act
• Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists
• Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in
• Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens

Posted by Skip at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Busybody time again (this seems to be more widespread and more often than I thought!).

Once again, California.  Once again, a Democrat (not that I am picking on the more liberal pols, but they are making it easy).  And a Republican signs onto to this foolishness.   Read:

Calif. Bill would give newborns $500

Each would get a $500 savings account 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Happy birthday, baby, here's $500, courtesy of California taxpayers.

The state's Legislature is considering a plan for taxpayers to provide a tax-free, long-term investment account to every baby born in California, regardless of his or her parents' financial or immigration status.

Sure!  Once again, someone who thinks that they have such a "nice" idea giving babies a step up in life.  After, it's for the kids, right?

One more example of a legislator with too much time on their hands.  And once again, someone who has no problem in using other peoples' money to make it happen.   And this is one of things can can grind me faster than grinding peppercorn in a 10 ton press.

Senate Bill 752, introduced Wednesday, is meant to persuade more families to invest for the future, beginning when their children are infants.

"If we ask people to invest in California, California must invest in its people," said state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who coauthors the bill with Republican state Sen. Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga.

So, give these new families $500 so that they can invest in their kids, thereby investing in California.  And what happens once the bond is given and the family moves out pronto? 

And what about the flip side - have these two figured out that by giving $500 to each newborn and its family, that they are taking that money out of another family's income?  Therefore making it harder for the donor family to invest in their own children?  

So you might have a poor family that is now giving part of its limited income to give $500 to a "Brad and Jolie" (think multi-millionaire) new baby?  Talk about a regressive tax!

And don't get me started on "regardless of...immigration status"!  Right now, CA is losing ERs and hospitals due to illegals not paying their bills, social services are being strained to the limit, and these two want to further up the incentives for illegals to cross the border "without papers"!

The proposed account, Kids Investment and Development Savings, or KIDS, is meant to grow until the child turns 18 and could withdraw the money for a house, education, vocational training or to roll over into a retirement account.

The savings program would cost taxpayers more than $283 million per year.

If the account averaged 5% annually, a $500 state investment supplemented by $50 per month in family contributions would total nearly $17,500 after 18 years, Steinberg said.

Sure, just give other peoples' money to other people...and let those that reap the rewards of wealth redistribution reap even more!

Posted by Skip at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Right Wing News emailed more than 240 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to answer 8 questions.

1) Do you think the surge should go forward?

2) Do you think that a majority of Democrats in Congress would like to
see us lose in Iraq for political reasons?

3) Do you believe that the wall on the border will ever actually be completed?

4) Do you think mankind is the primary cause of global warming?

 

5) Illegal Immigration.

A) Would you prefer an illegal immigration bill that tackled border security and enforcement issues only?

B) Would you prefer a comprehensive bill that tackled border security and enforcement issues, created a legal status for the people who are here illegally, created a guest worker program, and increased the number of foreigners allowed to become American citizens?

6) Which of the following Democratic candidates do you think would be
the toughest opponent for a Republican candidate in 2008?

A) Hillary Clinton

B) John Edwards

C) Barack Obama

7) If you were grading George Bush on his foreign policy for his
presidency so far, would you give him an:

A or B
C
D, E, or F

8) If you were grading George Bush on his domestic policy for his
presidency so far, would you give him an:

A or B
C
D, E, or F

1) Do you think the surge should go forward? YES

2) Do you think that a majority of Democrats in Congress would like to
 see us lose in Iraq for political reasons? YES

3) Do you believe that the wall on the border will ever actually be 
completed? YES

 4) Do you think mankind is the primary cause of global warming? NO

5) Illegal Immigration. A

A) Would you prefer an illegal immigration bill that tackled border security and enforcement issues only?

B) Would you prefer a comprehensive bill that tackled border security and enforcement issues, created a legal status for the people who are here illegally, created a guest worker program, and increased the number of foreigners allowed to become American citizens?

6) Which of the following Democratic candidates do you think would be the toughest opponent for a Republican candidate in 2008? B [I'll explain this one ina another post]

A) Hillary Clinton

B) John Edwards

C) Barack Obama

7) If you were grading George Bush on his foreign policy for his presidency so far, would you give him an:   B

A or B
C
D, E, or F

8) If you were grading George Bush on his domestic policy for his residency so far, would you give him an:   D

A or B
C
D, E, or F

Posted by Doug at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

and another time to call socialized / universal / single-payer medicine by its effective name:

rationed medicine.

While it is nice to be able to say "everyone will be covered", the problem is that coverage will be "thin", as this example states:
 

JK ROWLING yesterday condemned a decision to deny multiple sclerosis patients in Scotland access to a drug on the grounds of cost.

The Harry Potter author, whose mother suffered MS, broke her silence on the Scottish Medicines Consortium's refusal to recommend Tysabri ahead of a debate on the drug by MSPs tomorrow.

Rowling said cost should not dictate the use of a drug which could help tackle a serious illness such as MS.

In December, the SMC said the economic case for Tysabri - which costs £15,000 a year per patient - had not been demonstrated.

Read the whole article....but remember this: 

More than 10,000 people have the illness - about one in 500 people.

THe population of Scotland is about 5 million.  At a cost of about $30,00/yr/person, that is a cost of about $300 million US (round numbers).  That is about $60/person.  For a country whose per capita income is much less than ours ($15,600 in 1999), this is not a small amount of money.

Yes, Ms. Rowling has personally had experience with this disease.  My sister-in-law has it.  Yet, no matter what the tragedy, can or should people expect that high cost treatments should be automatically provided?

And in the case of Scotland, it shows that cost IS a factor, as it is in any country where healthcare is "free".  

And that is the rub - there IS a cost for free.

Posted by Skip at 8:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update on Muslim taxis in Minneapolis

For me, this is war by other means.  And yes, I am one of those that see some of our taken-for-granted values, rights, and responsibilities being used to against us here in the West.  Conquest can be militarily, or societal.

The Muslims taxi drivers are using the guise of freedom of religion to push their agenda upon us all (the same thing that secular liberals accuse the Christian Right of constantly - heck, where are THEY on this issue?  Strangely silent, I do believe....).  I've posted about this before (here, here, and here).

So the MAC had their hearing on whether or not Muslim taxi drivers can legally discriminate about which fares they will or will not take.

To me, this is a case of if Muslims will be held to the same standards as the rest of us?  For if this is allowed, then a whole lot of laws can be done away with (like I can refuse to rent an apartment to an unmarried because it would be a sin in my eyes?).

Read the whole thing (and I have bolded my emphasis): 

Should the airport get tough on taxi drivers who refuse to pick up passengers who carry alcohol?

The Metropolitan Airports Commission heard passionate arguments on all sides of the question during a public hearing Tuesday in Bloomington.

Muslim cabbies, many of them Somali, said their faith prohibits them from carrying passengers with alcoholic beverages. Some drivers also say they cannot take dogs because they believe Islam considers them unclean.

The die is cast...it is ostensibly about freedom of religion.  Really, this is an effort to mask the enforcement of someone else's religion on those that do not believe as they do.  It will legalize certain types of discrimination. 

But airport officials and some passengers argued drivers must not turn down well-behaved customers.

"The cabdrivers have a right to their religious view," said Twin Cities resident Bryan Bjornson, who spoke before a three-member panel of airport commissioners. "But in this country, are they Americans or are they Muslims? (Alcohol) is part of the American society, and if they don't like that, then they can find another job."

[snip]

"It's against the law to discriminate against someone because of his belief," said driver Abdi Fatah Abdi. "I urge you guys to look at this issue very seriously, because you are deciding (the fate of) 600 drivers and their families, their livelihood."

And this is the abuse of the freedom of religion.  Yes, they can practice as they wish, but it is settled law that it cannot be used to discriminate against others.  This goes WAY beyond accomodation. 

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Director Steve Wareham told commissioners his staff has documented 5,222 instances of drivers refusing customers since January 2002.

Most of those have been because fare-payers had a bottle of wine or other alcohol they had picked up on their trips. But some denials have been because of guide dogs for the blind, or because customers presented vouchers or wanted just a short ride, Wareham said.

That can lead to angry customers and heated arguments, Wareham said. No one has been injured, but in some cases, luggage and bottles have been thrown to the pavement.

It doesn't say, but I bet that it is not the owners of such that are doing the throwing.  

This may sound unkind, but if that is the behavioral norm in Somalia, someone needs to pull them all aside and clue them in.  Verbal discussion / arguments may be OK (but may cost you customers!), but physically going after fares and their "stuff" makes you no points at all. 

He also said he feared opening the door to drivers being "officially blessed" to turn down customers. "If taxicab drivers can pick and choose customers, customers will also want to pick and choose drivers for any one of various reasons," including ethnicity, Wareham said.

Good point.   One form of discrimination generates another, eh?

Drivers may legally refuse fare-payers who are drunk or appear dangerous. But airport officials have recommended that the taxi ordinance be changed to slap drivers with stricter penalties should they refuse passengers for any other reason.

On the first offense, a driver would be suspended for 30 days. For a second offense, a driver's airport license would be revoked for two years. If approved, the changes would take effect May 11.

Cabdrivers insisted they did not refuse to take blind people with guide dogs. But they want to be respected for their religious beliefs and for the work they do, said Ahmed Shine, of St. Paul.

"We don't refuse disabled. But we're not appreciated," Shine said.

Respect is earned and not given.  Giving your customers a hard time generally does not lend itself to being appreciated.  And yes, refusing the disabled's dogs is refusing the disabled. 

Maureen Scallen, vice president of government relations for Meet Minneapolis, the official convention bureau, said that how taxi customers are treated sends a message to other visitors.

"In September of 2008, all eyes will be on the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, with 14,000 media reporting on our cities," she said, referring to the Republican National Convention. "If the experience is bad, word of mouth spreads."

A few speakers called for compromise.

"I feel it is important to respect the rights even of a small minority as long as we can do it … without undue disruption of service," said Tom Duke, a retired clergyman who said he was speaking for himself. "I urge you to take more time and come up with a more elegant solution than what's being proposed."

Label him Dhimmi. 

Proposed penalties:

For cabdrivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport who refuse to pick up passengers who are not intoxicated or do not appear dangerous:

First offense: 30-day suspension of airport taxi license.

Second offense: Two-year suspension.

I'm quite sure that if I was doing the discriminating (middle aged white collar white guy), my punishment would be a bit more than the above. 

UP NEXT

The Metropolitan Airports Commission is tentatively set to vote on the driver rules in April. New penalties would take effect May 11.

Posted by Skip at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Was listening to Fox News and they were doing a story about a place where almost everyone there was being intolerant and divisive.  They called this other group "those people" and basically ran them down and slandered them.

Where?  Seattle.  Who was the people with their noses stuck in the air?  The liberal elite of Washington State.  Who was getting slimed?  NASCAR fans.

I just sat in my chair thinking - if this was another group, like blacks, that were getting singled out for this kind of prejudice, it would be ALL over the press, wouldn't it.

The back story is that NASCAR is looking for a subsidy for a new race track.  Fair enough - they don't have to cough it up.  What just seems to be so typical is that while the Libs say that we all have to be tolerant and inclusive, it just seems that this applies only if you think like the Libs.  Their groupthink seems to demand an orthodoxy that all but says "Think, act, and be like us?  You're fine.  Don't - get away from me".  And by the way, they were calling all NASCAR fans nothing but poor, white trash who have beer bellies with no sense of style.  Or at least style like us.

Figures, right?  Well, while the talk is all about San Fran values, or California values, it seems like Washington state really wants to give the former a real run for their money with this story (H/T: TCS Daily):

Some Seattle school children are being told to be skeptical of private property rights. This lesson is being taught by banning Legos.

A ban was initiated at the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of "Rethinking Schools" magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that private property ownership is evil.

 

“The Legislature led by Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin has ridden a wave of good will on its effort to make Vermont a leader in reducing the human impact on climate change. The initiative, launched with two weeks of hearings and backed by a timely U.N. report that links global warming to human activity, has been hailed as the right thing to do that's also good for the economy by branding the state as a green leader.”

“hits hardest those who least can afford it because the cold doesn't know rich from poor.”

“Arlington County is considering an energy tax on residents to help pay for its high-profile initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, officials said yesterday in proposing a $873.6 million spending plan for the coming year. Arlington residents could pay as much as $26 more on electricity and natural gas bills next year if the County Board decides to include $1.5 million for the environmental initiative in its spending package, which the board will consider in April.”

“the money would go toward solar-powered projects, energy audits for homes and an ‘aggressive outreach and marketing effort’ on energy-saving measures for residents and businesses, officials said.”

“A group of 18 scientists from 11 countries is calling on the international community to act quickly to prevent catastrophic climate change. In a report requested by the United Nations and partially paid for by the privately funded U.N. Foundation, the panel warns that any delay could lead to a dangerous rise in sea levels, increasingly turbulent weather, droughts and disease.”

“The panel's recommendations include a series of steps to cut the rate at which temperatures are rising. Chief among them are a global agreement on an acceptable ceiling for temperature rise and finding ways of adapting to cope with the damage already done.”

“even these measures will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. ‘We don't think ultimately society will get it right in terms of the full range and scope of activities needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, until there is an additional incentive in the form of a price on greenhouse gas emissions, either through a carbon tax or a cap and trade approach,’ he said.”

Posted by Doug at 9:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

That's so HARSH, so NOT NICE, it just cripples the argument...it .....it....just shouldn't be used!

Yeah, right.  Let's just say this is another attempt a la "illegal immigrant" to "undocumented migrant".  What maroon would really fall for yet another attempt? 

This one is certainly trying to make it happen! 

TALLAHASSEE -- A state legislator whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants wants to ban the term "illegal alien" from the state's official documents.

"I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children," said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. "An alien to me is someone from out of space."

And frankly, I don't care a hoot if it is offensive to you personally or not.  For I resent and find extremely offensive that a public official will not condemn those that break our laws.  Papering that over by trying to mis-use language to bury a problem.

And she should get a dictionary too.  And then read it. 

She has introduced a bill providing that: "A state agency or official may not use the term 'illegal alien' in an official document of the state." There would be no penalty for using the words.

I'm no lawyer, but...

Essentially what it does it kills off the entire debate about who is illegal and who is legal.  And prevent  serious discussions about public policies of all manners (welfare, social benefits, voting, citizenship, et al).

Oh, and it is toothless ("...no penalty...") to boot -> just like the non-binding anti-surge resolution of the Congressional Democrats.

She said she encountered the situation when trying to pass a bill allowing children of foreigners to get in-state tuition at colleges and universities.

Again, the use of the language to muzzle and muffle the true meanings - let illegals get in cheap; citizens pay full boat.

WHY oh WHY are those that commit crimes given special privileges? 

Wilson, who directs a dropout prevention and education program in Miami, said she politely asks witnesses at public hearings on such issues not to use the term.

You can BET that if I was in front of her, my answer would not be too pleasing to her ears.

"There are students in our schools whose parents are trying to become citizens and we shouldn't label them," she said. "They are immigrants, through no fault of their own, not aliens."

Parents are responsible for their kids, and like it or not, if parents do the wrong thing, yes, the kids will suffer in an area like this.  We cannot, as a matter of public policy, ignore wrong doing just because kids are innocent.  Actions have consequences, and these parents' major action will have major consequences.

Otherwise, why bother to have laws?

"'Illegal,' I can live with, but I like 'undocumented' better," she said.

Now we know where she stands on the issue. 

Asked if her bill (SB 2154) might run afoul of Gov. Charlie Crist's "plain speaking" mandate for government agencies, Wilson said, "I think getting rid of 'alien' would be plain speaking."

Posted by Skip at 8:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)