VLog: Rudy defends tax cut claims

“We wanted to reduce taxes and be able to accomplish some of that with the Democratic City Council, overwhelmingly Democratic. We ended up reducing taxes … 23 times successfully …” (Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Interview With WOKQ Radio’s Don Brian, Portsmouth, NH, 3/12/07)

You can always tell when a candidate is rising in popularity by the growth in the number of negative news stories and, if you're in political circles and on everybody's email list like we are here at the 'Grok, the number of "urgent" correspondences detailing how really awful and wrong he/she is.

.

So it goes right now with Rudy Giuliani. Often stating his support and promotion of tax cuts while Mayor of NYC, citing numerous examples, Rudy makes the case that he has a true record of accomplishment in this area that is unmatched by any of his competitors in the primary race. This week, certain media have started to take issue with some of his claims.

.

What separates the proverbial "men from the boys" in politics is the ability to deal with negativity and tough, persistant lines of questioning. Rudy is definitely NOT a "boy" when it comes to dealing with media, often stating that the New York press is the toughest anywhere. Here is a YouTube featuring a brief exchange following the town hall style meeting Rudy conducted last night here in Gilford. The reporter engaged Rudy about his tax cut claims. Rudy didn't shirk from answering and stuck by his claims...

.

The following is a list, provided by the campaign, of the twenty-three tax cuts Rudy Giuliani spoke about in the quote at the top of this post:

.

GIULIANI’S 23 TAX CUTS

ONE: Expiration Of 12.5% Personal Income Tax Surcharge. First proposed in fiscal year 1995 budget and enacted in fiscal year 1999. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Summary, p. 17; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Summary, p. 18)

TWO: Hotel Tax Reduced From 6% To 5%. Proposed and enacted in fiscal year 1995 budget. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Summary, p. 17; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary, p. 18)

THREE: Reductions In Commercial Rent Tax. Proposed and enacted in fiscal year 1995 budget. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Summary, p. 17; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary, p. 18)

FOUR: Unincorporated Business Tax Reforms And Credits. Reform package was first proposed and enacted in fiscal year 1995 budget. Increase in the UBT tax credit was first proposed in fiscal year 1995 budget and enacted in fiscal year 1997. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Summary, p. 17; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary, p. 18; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 42)

FIVE: Commercial Revitalization Program. A variety of tax benefits that delivered incentives to commercial property owners. First changes proposed and enacted in fiscal year 1997. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 43; see also,City of New York Tax Forecasting Documentation, p. I-12)

SIX: Banking Corporation Tax. Tax cuts for banking corporations doing business in New York City effective for tax years on or after 1996. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Message Of The Mayor, p. 62)

SEVEN: Co-op/Condo Tax Relief. First proposed in 1994. Enacted by fiscal year 1997 and later extended. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Summary, p. 17; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary, p. 19; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Summary, p. 14; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 42)

EIGHT: Business Tax Reform. A number of tax reforms first proposed in 1996. Enacted in fiscal year 1998. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Summary, p.14; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 42)

NINE: Sales Tax – Misc. Exemptions. Several different sales tax exemptions first proposed in 1994. First sales tax exemptions enacted in fiscal year 1996. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Summary, p. 17; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary, p. 19; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Summary, p. 14; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 42)

TEN: Sales Tax – Clothing Exemptions. Several different sales tax exemptions. First proposed in 1994. First clothing exemption passed in 1997. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Executive Budget Summary, p. 17; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary, p. 19; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Summary, p. 15-16; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 42-43; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 24-25; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Summary, p. 18-19; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Summary, p. 42; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

ELEVEN: Resident UBT/PIT Credit. For tax year 1997, unincorporated business owners were allowed to take a partial credit against their City personal income tax liability. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Mayor’s Message, p. 67; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 25)

TWELVE: Real Property Transfer Tax Exemption For Assumable Mortgages. First proposed in 1997. Tax relief provided in fiscal year 1998. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 43; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 24)

THIRTEEN: Elimination of Vault Charge. First proposed in 1996. Eliminated by fiscal year 1999. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Summary, p. 15-16; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 24)

FOURTEEN: Elimination of Tax on Coin-Operated Amusement Devices. First proposed in 1996. Eliminated by fiscal year 1999. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Summary, p. 15-16; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 24)

FIFTEEN: College Tuition Deduction Credit/PIT. Proposed and eliminated in 2000. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

SIXTEEN: Marriage Penalty Reduction. First proposed 1999 and passed in 2000. (Mayor’s Tax Reform Task Force, Report To Mayor Rudolph Giuliani On The Recommendations Of The Tax Reform Task Force, 12/99, p. 13; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

SEVENTEEN: Sales Tax Exemption on Utility Transmission And Distribution. Grew out of 1999 utility tax reform proposals. Passed in 2000. (Mayor’s Tax Reform Task Force, Report To Mayor Rudolph Giuliani On The Recommendations Of The Tax Reform Task Force, 12/99, p. 2, 5, 23-24; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

EIGHTEEN: Web Hosting And HDTV Equipment Sales Tax Exemption. Grew out of proposals from 1999 examining tax treatment of new media industries. 2000 Legislative Session. (City of New York Mayor’s Office, “Mayor Giuliani Announces Initiative To Transform Unused Water Main Into Conduit For High-Speed Telecommunications Network And Digital NYC Program To Expand Silicon Alley Citywide,” Press Release, 4/3/00; Mayor’s Tax Reform Task Force, Report To Mayor Rudolph Giuliani On The Recommendations Of The Tax Reform Task Force, 12/99, p. 28; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

NINETEEN: A Reduction In Taxes On Bank Mutual Fund Companies. First proposed in 1999. Passed in 2000. (Mayor’s Tax Reform Task Force, Report To Mayor Rudolph Giuliani On The Recommendations Of The Tax Reform Task Force, 12/99, p. 20; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

TWENTY: Cut In 14% PIT Surcharge. Proposed in 2000 and enacted by fiscal year 2002. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Summary, p. 43; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

TWENTY-ONE: Borough Development Program. Proposed and created in 2001. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

TWENTY-TWO: STAR Personal Income Tax. Proposed in 1998. Tax benefits provided in fiscal year 1999. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, The City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 46-47; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, The City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 27)

TWENTY-THREE: STAR Property. Changes benefiting New York City proposed in fiscal year 1998 Executive Budget. Tax benefits provided in fiscal year 1999. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, The City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 46-47; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, The City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 27)

Posted by Doug at 6:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Rudy comes to Gilford, NH - blogging a town meeting

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy wows 'em in Gilford

Once again, the 'Grok crew is at a Rudy event....this time in our own backyard of Gilford. Being held at the Margate on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee ("the Big Lake"), it's nice to have an event that working folks can come to. Due to kick off at 6pm EDT, both the TMEW and I are in the back row (where there was electricity for the early birds - the NYT reporter that just came in [I remember him from the Rudy event in Nashua] and is scurrying for an outlet).

Room is already 1/2 filled at 5:45. Given that this is a resort / vacation destination at this time of year, not bad at all.

As with all other places where I live blog, these will be rough notes. Pics will have to wait, as I forgot the trusty digital camera.

==============================================

9 x 14 gives me a head count of about 126. Now it is filling up fast.

I've spotted several people from Gilford here, local Republicans (Dave Horvath, Jim Fizgerald). Other spottings include Wayne Semprini, former Senator Bill Zeliff (I met both outside). Ray Wieczorek from Manchester is seated behind and to my left.. None of the "dias" is filled as of yet. Our friend Ed Engler from the Laconia Daily sun is here.

=========================

6:00 Almost full...I see the suits running around so it must be close to starting time. I've noticed that a lot of the faces that I am seeing are not the usual ones that we have been seeing at these types of events. Rudy seems to be drawing a different kind of crowd - that might portend well for both the primary and the general election. New faces may not translate to new votes, but it does represent new interest.

Certainly the workers (paid and volunteers) are almost ALL wearing suits. Many in the crowd are business casual or resort / dressed (take your pick). Dais is now filled (really, just a row of chairs that will be looking at Rudy's back). Hopefully, the will announce them and I'll try to catch as many as I can (the slow typist that I am)(can you tell that I like)(side)(comments?).

6:10pm Still waiting. Just aw Richard Juve from Meredith talking with Bill Zeliff chatting as if they are old friends. This place is now packed! ANd getting hot now that they've turned on the lights for the cameras. Oy! Now they are starting in with standing room only...pretty much maxing out the room.

My friend, Kevin Conroy who is a paid staffer for Rudy here in NH (thanks to him and to Katie Harbath for getting us in on the press credentials!) is running around like a mad man

Cell phone announcement just went over the PA....time to get started at 6:15pm

============================

Jim Fitzgerald is now intro-ing Rudy! Lots of clapping with a standing "O". Cheers, whistling abound. Literally everyone is standing.

===========================

Wants to spend most his time taking questions......silence......about the Yankees. Notes that they are 8 games behind the Red Sox.

He is running because he feels this country want strong leadership with an optimistic outlook. This is a country built on personal responsibility and nowhere better said than in NH with "Live Free Or Die". Contrast that with the Dems with pesimssion and where they want big government / socialism where everyone has to be taken care of.

Socialized medicine in France - Rudy is reading Sarkozy's book where Sarkozy want to move away from socialism. Contrasts that with Obama and Hillary. Sensing from Rudy - "Some decisions are too important for you to make them" - he attributes to Hillary. Michael Moore wants even more - go to Cuba!

============

America is best when each generation does better than the previous one - and that is achieved when people have more and more power - not the government. That's why lowering taxes makes sense - Dems believe they can spend it more wisely than the taxpayers....and that's why they are wrong.

35% - 36% income rate increase if Dems take over. Edwards wants to raise capital rate from 15% to 28%. These people just don't understand how private economies work. Last time that it was done, Feds lost $40 billion bucks per year.

Dems - none have a single day of executive experience - running something substantial like a state, city, big business, or group. They don't have the knowledge of what the ramifcations are. Capital will flee the country and the poor will have MANY less jobs to have.

If healthcare becomes free, you will see how expensive it will become. And how bad it will become - lines waiting for service. Let's use American principles to fix it. Look at hi tech stuff - very big consumer prices, now cheap - TVs, cell phones, computers. Free market fixed the quality and prices and not government help to buy one. There is no government mandate involved in setting the price. Lower prices means more customers. And that's what we need in healthcare.

Talks about his $15K tax deduction for a policy, keeping the difference between that and an insurance policy. HAVE to create a marketplace like this to save healthcare. Prices will fall, as those buying at 15 will drive it to 12K, to 10K, et

====================

Starting to take questions

Missed the first question, but is about helping adoptions. He increased adoptions in NYC 135% by adjusting courts system, getting lawyers to do pro bono, did adoption fairs, did advertising via radio, tv, print. Arranged for help for adopting families

Of all of the Repubs running - why you?

He has the most executive experience than ANY one else. The job is beyond anyone...and if you think not, you don't have enough humility. He has more in the biggest than anyone and in difficult circumstances (like the day he took over) with 2000 murders a year, 1.1 mill welfar, slashed taxes by 25%, 60% wanted to leave.

He has been tested. He was also an AG with a history going after corporate and drug crime. Served as #3 in Reagan's administration

He has the longest record - lots of wins but also some failures, which teaches humility.

He can also compete in every state...he is viable.

=====================

Take on radical Islam, Iran, Iraq, and if Israel cede terrority to Palestinians?

Dems haven't even mentioned radical Islam or other some such. At one point, Dems said that N. Korea was number one threat, yet Islamic terrorists have killed people twice in NYC. This is our number one enemy. Not saying so is political correctness gone mad. You have to name the enemy and you have to be on offense as they take advantage of a show of weakness.

Israel - the burden is ont he side of the Palestinians. They ahve to show that they can control terrorism, that Israel has the right to exists, and tha tthe PA on the West Bank (Gaza is under Hamas) can move forward to be peaceful. Israel is one of our 3 or 4 biggest friends in the world. But we have to wait for that to happen, or we are back to Arafat days.

Obama missed the word "pre-condition" when he gave his answer. Rudy said he studied history, and saw that meetings were cancelled when preconditions were not met. Reagan, called them the Evil Empire,

China - has $400 billion in our bonds and a large trade deficit.

Rudy - to correct the balance was to sell them more things. Not as worried about what we are buying - we reap the benefits of low prices. If we were more energy independant, we could sell them that (France is 80% nuke, we are 20% - we have coal and have better). We could sell windmills to China at 2.5 mil each. India is the same thing.

Both are at a lower of development than we are, but they want to reach our level. We have what they need to get to us. Let's sell it - food efficient, acquiducts, sanitation. DOn't think of just "they are more than us" - think of how to sell higher priced stuff. We are Americans - act

Next to last - our all voluhteer army is doig great - but getting over extended.... how fix, and what about a draft and include women.

He prefers volunteer and history shows we can have more. After Vietnam was a draw down. We should have 20 - 40,000 quickly and then expand now. The Clinton cut armed forces and intelligence by 25% and it was a TERRIBLE mistake. We have not rebuilt our forces. Bush started but not completed

Given the nature of the threat, their job is much more complex - have to win a war and then win a peace in cultures that are not like those we have fought before. He met with some in Iraq....how do you keep your moral up. The answer is that we volunteer, and nobody's forces us to be here. We know why we hare here. This is NOT Viet Nam

We decided in the 90s that the world was peaceful and the military was not needed....just like after WWI, and WWII

A threat from within - both political parties are getting more extreme and politicians are egging each other on. An executive leads, so how can you make it better?

I do not come from Washington. He ran a gov't that was 45 Dems and 6 Repubs. He is a tough and determined guy, but he learned how to compromise to get compromise. His model was Reagan - not ideological, but practical. If he can get 60%, its a win. 80% a home run.

Example: proposed 54....got 23. Horsetraded to give away to get the important ones. Getting all your way will never happen. How to give up so they get somehing to get what we want. We need to get out of the personality conflicts. Tax policy - it is not personal. He wants parents to have vouchers, Dems want centralized gov't schools. He wants lower taxes, Dems want higher. Hamilton and Burr didn't do it any better. Hamilton and Jefferson, not good - learn your history!

Posted by Skip at 5:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Shoot the B#*!#^+s!

Ruger Mini-14. The "ranch rifle" of choice here at the 'Grok

.

Okay, much has been made of the upcoming GOP fundraiser so click here to read about it first,and then I'll tell you why I love my right to bear arms!

My father owned a .22 rifle when I was a kid. He made sure that I, and my brother and sister, knew proper gun safety; how to safely handle weapons, load, unload, clean and everything connected with gun safety that he knew, he passed along to us. I will be forever grateful to him for his teachings, and he may have even saved my life.

I have great memories of growing up in Oklahoma City and going out to some remote location where our family would spend a day hiking, picnicking, finding a stream, floating cans and bottles and taking turns shooting at them or at targets. It was a very different time in America (yeah, I know, but nobody was concerned about the environment in those days), and we did not live in fear, as do many people today.

From a very young age thanks to my Dad, I became comfortable and confident in handling any weapon and did not grow up in fear of guns because of it. I did grow up respecting firearms and always handle a firearm assuming it’s loaded. Years later, my later father-in-law and I went out so he could show me how to handle a gun. I didn’t have the heart to tell him I already knew, since he took great pride in instructing me.

After I put six rounds pretty much in the bullseye, he beamed that he had done such a good job teaching me how to shoot. Years later, we shared great laughs about it when he learned about my background with firearms from my Dad when they had an opportunity to meet.

When I lived in Fairbanks, Alaska during the pipeline project in the 1970’s, when there were an over abundance of men compared to woman, I spent many nights alone. I always felt secure knowing I had a loaded handgun on my nightstand. While I always hoped I’d never have to use it, I was happy to have it when one night someone attempted to break into my home in the middle of the night.

During that period, many men stayed in the bush for months at a time. When they came into Fairbanks, many of them had two things on their mind, getting drunk and finding a woman, willing or otherwise. It was a scary time for many women, and I carried a handgun in my purse since I had to walk home a few blocks from the bus stop where I rode to and from the University of Alaska where I worked. I always had my purse open and my hand on my gun while I was walking home in the dark (it was always dark when I walked home in the winter) ready to defend myself if necessary. I was not terribly fearful as I knew I had the edge should someone approach me motivated to do me harm since most men were unarmed except perhaps for a liquor bottle.

Back to the middle of the night story….as I had been taught, when I heard my front door handle rattling, I positioned myself in a somewhat protected space crouched on the floor in the dark with my handgun pointed at the front door ready to shoot if someone broke in. Thankfully, it was not necessary after I told the person at the door that I had a loaded .357 magnum pointed at the door and that I was an expert shooter and I would not hesitate to shoot to kill should the potential intruder succeed in getting the door opened.

Whoever was at the door obviously believed me, probably because I spoke confidently because I was confident, and fled faster than a jackrabbit. I thought about calling the police and decided it wasn’t necessary as I did not feel threatened or vulnerable and suspected that I would not be bothered again, at least by that person.

I had another occasion to defend myself while living in Columbus, OH and a similar scenario played out. Again, I was thankful that I did not have to shoot someone.

Since that time, I have fired a variety of weapons (including an AK-47) over the years for target practice and even hunted with a bow and rifle for several years although I never killed anything. I realized I wasn’t the hunting type although I still have fond memories of sitting in various tree stands and walking through the woods looking for game. My husband is an avid successful hunter, and we share many memorable times in the woods together.

When our children were young, we taught them proper gun safety from an early age, and my husband took all of them hunting at one time or another to expose them to the sport. Hunting did not appeal to any of them, but they all have fond memories of hunting with Dad. Now, he takes the grandchildren, and he’s hoping one of them may learn to love the sport as much as him.

Here’s my point: Those of you who are afraid of guns do not need to be if you will educate yourselves.

While the GOP fundraiser may perhaps be in poor taste according to some opinions, I would encourage, especially women, to attend and get some instruction and take the opportunity to shoot in a controlled, safe environment.

Guns are not evil. For me, they may have prevented me from being raped or worse because I had proper instruction and experience with them.

Have I ever shot anyone or anything? No, and I sincerely hope I never have to. However, these are scary times and violent crime is, unfortunately, a part of today’s society.

So, instead of boycotting the GOP event and complaining about it, show up and get educated about gun safety in a controlled environment with some expert instructors and then you can talk about your right to bear arms and perhaps defend yourself properly if the occasion ever arises.

Most people who complain about firearms do not know much about them. I’m thankful that my Dad taught me proper firearm safety, and my husband and I taught our children. Fear is a terrible thing and education helps dispel fear. So do something about it and perhaps you may learn that you can exchange feeling vulnerable for a feeling of confidence and security. I’m glad I took advantage of my opportunities to become educated about firearms.

Yeah, don’t bother showing up at my house because, yes, I still will shoot to kill rather than let you take advantage of me or attempt to steal my property, pal. I personally disagree with the shoot to disable tactic especially when someone else has an equivalent equalizer! At a petite 5’3”, sorry, but I’m not willing to wait to perhaps be physically overpowered by a 6’, 200 lb. guy. I’ll take my chances in court, ladies.

As Joyce Meyer is fond of saying: "Do it afraid!" I say, if you do, you likely won't be afraid anymore.

Posted by Judy at 7:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Free Will

We have a "nutty professor" up here in the central part of NH. A lot of time, not a lot of respect flows from him. Just thought I'd let him chew on this, as even the "little people" deserve as much, if not more, than the "important people".

Life is all about "Free will", which I call one of God's gifts.

Using the animal kingdom as an example, the species were formed in such a
way as to have to prey on other, more vulnerable creatures in order to
survive. Big fish eat little fish. Lions and Tigers eat Wildebeests. The
strongest survive because they get more of the creatures to eat. They also
survive because their birth rates are geared to meeting those needs. Fish
spawn with thousand and thousands of roe, that turn into fry, that turn into
fish, that become meals for bigger fish. The more wily, and luckier small
fish survive and then they become the predators who eat the small fish.
Lions don't spawn but they do have multiple births. Often papa lion will
kill the male cubs because he doesn't want future competition, and because
it is the mama lions who go out and get his next meal for him. You can fill
in the rest of the animal kingdom, it's almost all the same.

What does all that have to do with "Free will"?

Imagine, if instead of free will, we were all made exactly equal. Everyone
was a smart and as ambitious as everyone else. We were all equally strong
and no one had an advantage. Without free will, how would we survive? Would
we be like the fish?, the lions?, or some other creature?, where, for our
survival, we had to do the other person in. If we don't have "Free will" and
we're all "equal", who is going to plant and harvest the garden? Who is
going to mine the coal or drill for oil or water? Who is going to work at
the grocery store or the service station? Who is going to mow the lawn or
take out the trash? And, oops, who is going to pick up the trash? Who is
going to humble himself for the benefit of his equals, because then he would
not be "equal".

"Free will" is a gift because it lets man, for the most part, determine his
position in the food chain - not to be eaten by others, but to survive as
best he can. In some societies, tribal "war lords" prevail because they're
the meanest and the toughest. In more civilized societies, a person's mental
capacity, education, ambition, willingness to take a risk, etc., determines
their ability to earn a living; where he or she will fit in the human food
chain.


Bill Gates is the paradigm on how to get to the top of the food chain. Or is
he? For his personal values, he exercised his free will to achieve his
contributions to the world (which I believe are even greater than his
accumulated wealth), and to satisfy his appetite. You, I assume, used your
ability to achieve what would satisfy your personal appetite. I know that I
did. The achievements one attains do not confer lack of achievement on
another. It is "free will" that is exercised by that other person that
determines their achievement. The fact that Bill Gates became the wealthiest
man in the world does not diminish the automobile mechanic, or the
dishwasher in a restaurant, or any other relatively unsophisticated human
being. In fact, look at the most important job in a restaurant. Is it the
owner, the waiter, the sous chef, the chef, the waiter, the hostess, the
cashier. It is none of the above -- it is the dishwasher. Just envision what
would happen if you went into a diner or an elegant restaurant and were
served your meal on "used", unclean dishware, glasses, and silverware. Would
you eat the food? Would you go back to that diner or restaurant? No matter
how tasty and nourishing the food might be, no matter how reasonable the
price, no matter how attentive the waiter, you would leave. Why? Because the
most important, and the most menial job wasn't done well. In man's version
of the animal food chain, all jobs have a value and, hopefully, bring
satisfaction to the doer of that job and pleasure to those who are
beneficiaries of that labor. 

Before going to a class reunion of some many decades, I reread my yearbook
in the what do you want to be when you grow up section. One of my classmates
wanted to be a Teacher. Another a Physician. Another a Gas Station
Attendant. I, a Businessman. We all had a vision of what we wanted. None of
us had a more noble selection that the other.

Our job is not to muck up the food chain. Not only can't we all be Bill
Gates, for any number of reasons we don't want to be. We may just want to be
a dishwasher, the most important job in the restaurant.

God gave us "Free will". He knows better than we what we need.

Posted by BobM at 7:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The "un-campaign" continues...

..

.

This week, the two formidable Republican "non-candidates" of the '08 Prez race were both in the news-- together in the same story. That, of course, IS the story. Jonathan Martin, writing at the Politico, provides the details:

Newt Gingrich's long, slow striptease over whether he will seek the presidency in 2008 looks like it might come to an unexpected conclusion: a date with Fred Thompson.

This is a rather interesting turn of events, although not altogether surprising. Back in May, I had the opportunity to hear Newt speak at an event in Manchester where he made it quite clear that if the right person touting the right issues were to join the race, he might not feel as pressured to make a run for the White House himself. He mentioned Fred Thompson as one possible example of who might be such a candidate. He also said several positive things about Rudy Giuliani and some of his ideas for building efficiency in government. In fact, I have been thinking for quite some time that a Giuliani-Gingrich ticket might have some merit. In the past 3 or 4 months, I have noticed that Newt almost always mentions Rudy in a positive way during TV appearances.

.

If this story turns out to be correct, and Newt casts his lot with a Thompson campaign, it will be a big score for them. Newt remains very popular with many conservatives (including me) and will certainly help Fred gain credibilty within that group of Republicans. Having Newt on the campaign trail speaking on his behalf is something that could very well be priceless in terms of helping to sell a program of positive change and obtainable solutions to the issues of the day.

.

Click here to read the entire article. I still think, despite the case Martin lays out, there's still a chance for a Rudy/Newt team. "But Doug, Newt wouldn't settle for VP, would he? He just doesn't seem like he could be the second banana." You mean like Dick Cheney?

Posted by Doug at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Carol Shea Porter & Paul Hodes: Taking credit where none is due.

..

.

In a July 5th post for a left-wing Granite State blog touting all of the "accomplishments" and promises kept for the people of NH by our two freshman Congressmen, Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley wrote,

Rep. Shea-Porter and Rep. Hodes also fought to raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade.

Sounds good, right? They did all they could to make this happen, right? Well not really. Our friends at the Majority Accountability Project (MAP) have helpfully reminded everybody that despite claims to the contrary, they didn't really do everything that they could have done to make the new Federal minimum wage increase a reality:

In one of the most brazen displays of political chutzpah since the start of the 110^th Congress, a slew of freshmen Democrats this week held news conferences, made speeches and issued press releases to claim credit for a new law the majority of them voted against, research by the Majority Accountability Project (www.majorityap.com) has found.
This week’s increase in the federal minimum wage was hailed by New Hampshire Democrat Chairman Raymond Buckley, who attended a news conference hosted by U.S. Representatives Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter at the Merrimack Valley Day Care Service in Concord.
“While Representatives Shea-Porter and Hodes are being a voice for New Hampshire families, it is a shame that (U.S. Senators Judd) Gregg and (John) Sununu voted to eliminate the federal minimum wage entirely,” Buckley said.

Heh. There's only one slight problem:

Buckley seemed unaware that Hodes and Shea-Porter voted against legislation that allowed the minimum wage hike to become law, while both Sununu and Gregg voted in favor.

Click here to read the rest of the story. Seems that the minimum wage increase was tacked on as part of the war-funding bill-- the one with no deadline for troop withdrawal that gained so much attention some time back-- and, as we all know, Hodes and Shea-Porter both voted against the measure. Now they tout something they voted against that passed anyway as one of their "accomplishments". Have they no shame?

Ray Buckley says,

The people of New Hampshire should be incredibly proud of Rep. Shea-Porter and Rep. Hodes for all that they are doing...

Or not...

Posted by Doug at 7:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Meet The New Press - Podcast for 7/28/07

Meet The New Press
Radio at the speed of the Blogosphere!

(A radio show by bloggers about the goings on in blogosphere)
WEMJ 1490 Saturdays 11am-1pm (EDT)
Streaming Live!

Meet The New Press Podcasts

To play (or "stream") a clip now, just click on it. To download it to your PC, right click on it and tell the process where to save the file for you.

Week of 07/28/07

Hour 1 here Hour 2 - here

SchlubCam:

We had Pat McKenna of the New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association discussing
alternative energy and conservation techniques.

Pat's business's website is located here.

Posted by Skip at 7:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Radio today! It's Meet the New Press-- 11AM EST. Broadcast or Livestream...

.

Once again, this week's broadcast version of the New Media brings an array of items and guests for your consideration. As always, thanks to the technical wizardry and analytical skills of Skip, if you are beyond the broadcast area of Newstalk 1490 WEMJ, simply click here for instructions on how to connect and listen on the Internet via livestream. (Podcasts here)

Gilford, Moultonboro, the School Board, and the Right-to-Know. This week we witnessed yet another example of why this law is so important. Left to their own devices, government will almost ALWAYS choose closed-doors. What did the Gilford School Board members have to say about the Gilford Budget Committee that couldn't be said in public under the watchful eyes of the video cameras?
Guest Liz Mair of LizMair.com and GOPProgress. We'll talk about what's happened to GOPProgress. Also, the state of the Prez '08 race-- Some Fred, Rudy-- That Big, Bad social liberal... Why Churchgoers still love him. and the "Romney Straw Poll". Also the Manchester GOP machine gun shoot fundraiser. What's up with that? Romney's strange remark on the affair. We'll talk about the state of some US Senate races and, time permitting, Liz's column in the Washington Times about the home-loan financing.
In studio guest Patrick McKenna. A Gilford resident, Pat is active in the energy saving/ alternative source realm. He is a member of the New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association and advocates market solutions to today's energy and pollution concerns. We'll discuss the statewide movement towards energy-related committees and groups in many towns and cities. We'll discuss the proposed Gilford Energy Committee. Patrick is familiar with the efforts in Plymouth with their energy/ pollutant-contol program, which is rather extensive. Whether you believe man-made global warming exists or not, saving $$$$ by saving energy is something we can all embrace.
Guest Michael Brady of the Majority Accountability Project (MAP). He'll tell us about our two Democratic Congressmen Hodes and Shea-Porter and how they voted against legislation and yet, now that it's passed, they take credit for it. We'll also get an update about how Shea Porter is still getting campaign funds from a group she told NHerites she would NOT accept monies from...
We'll give a quick update on the new Right-to-Know lawsuit we filed this week against the Belknap County Convention. These guys (state representatives all) still don't get it!

What a show! It all starts at 11AM EST today. Tune in if you're in Central NH at NewsTalk 1490AM WEMJ or live on the 'Net here...

Posted by Doug at 8:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Diplomacy is war by other means.....

Seems that the current crop of Democratic Presidential candidates, especially Mr. Obama, need to learn this basic lesson. Diplomacy is merely using up air unless you mean what you say and are willing to back it up.

(H/T: MilitaryMotivator)

Posted by Skip at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

This is disturbing....

The Politico is reporting the Senator Schumer (D-NY) has decided that he and the Senate should have the ultimate say on who is on the Supreme Court:

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

Judge, jury, and executioner? It is once thing to have the power to confirm a Presidential candidate or not based on their merits; it is another to announce well ahead of time that it matters NOT what the person's qualifications are or are not. In effect, is Schumer setting up a Constitutional crisis by hamstringing the other two branches of government? He, in effect, is telling the President that power granted to him by the Constitution has just been revoked. He is telling the Supreme Court that they may have to function without a full bench.

For years, I have heard of the "Imperial Presidency" and how bad it is for the country for the Executive branch to have too much power. Given what I have seen from this Democratic Congress, the phrase "Imperial Congress" has already arrived. Ever since the Dems took over the Congress in November (due to poor stewardship of the Republican leadership at all levels), they have attempted to run roughshod over the Administration and making pronouncements of inevitibility. While it is a good thing that some of the Republican leadership finally found a spine and true leadership qualities to put a kibosh to many silly things, the attitude of the Dems in this case will come back to haunt them.

Hyperpartisanship flows both ways when needed, and the divisiveness shown by Schumer is simply outrageous.

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Given how long the Court has been liberal, in my opinion, it is a correction well overdue. But it also brings to the fore a feeling that there should always be a "balance" between conservative and liberals....which is nonsense. Elections have consequences, and losing a Presidential election has ramifications on Supreme Court nominations.

It is one thing to vote down an unqualified candidate - it is another to only say "no" to ANY candidates because they don't fit one's sense of liberalness (and later, conservativeness).

I'm no lawyer (and I'm not going to play one in a blog either), but if the person is legally qualified, the Senate should affirm a President's nomination - even if I hate the philosophy of that nomination.

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.

“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Congress should ascertain if the candidate meets the legal requirements of the position, not their political leanings. And once on the bench, that's it.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.

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

It's nice to be able to thank Sen. Gregg for doing the right thing (finally) on border security.

.

Thursday's dead-tree version on the Union Leader newspaper had the good news:

Sen. Judd Gregg is leading a push to resurrect a portion of last month's failed immigration reform bill that would tighten security along the nation's southern border.

Good for Senator Gregg! I have said many times during the weeks of debate and argument over the so-called "comprehensive " immigration bill that there were many good points to it-- they just need to be considered separately. People were wise to the fact that a whole lot of bad provisions were mixed in with the good. And besides, as Gregg is quoted as saying in the Scott Brooks piece:

"The American people will not move forward... in the area of comprehensive immigration reform until they are confident that we have regained control over our borders."

What the amendment, which at the time of this writing has passed, does, is add monies for additional border agents, fences, and other measures designed to finally secure our border with Mexico. The amendment was, rightfully, added to the homeland security apprpriations bill currently in the Senate. I like it when a politician actually listens to the people. It sounds like Judd has gotten the message from the recently ended "shamnesty" bill. Apparently he's not alone. Reports the Concord Monitor:

The Senate overwhelming approved a border security amendment today that was written by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

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

The sky is falling...the sky is falling...we're #2 and not #1

The Union Leader ran this story yesterday, and the local papers ran it today:

State drops to second in Kids Count report

New Hampshire fell from its first-place perch of the past four years, but only to second nationally in the annual Kids Count report released today on the health and well-being of children and teenagers.
State-by-state Kids Count report cards have been filed annually for 18 years based on Census Bureau statistics in 10 categories, such as low birth weight, children in single-parent households, high school dropouts and infant mortality.
Overall, New Hampshire ranks second behind Minnesota in the report, funded and compiled by the Annie E. Casey Foundation based in Baltimore, Md.
The state led the nation in two categories: child poverty and teen births.

So far, not so bad! I actually went out to the actual data for NH (found here); take a look at BOTH the percentage and raw numbers data presentation.

Although the state's child poverty rate jumped 50 percent between 2000 and 2005, from 6 percent to 9 percent, New Hampshire's rate remains the nation's lowest. Mississippi's rate of 31 percent is the country's highest.
Still, that 9 percent equates to roughly 28,000 New Hampshire children living in poverty (income below $19,806 for a family of two adults and two children) in 2005, the latest year for which statistics are available.
Maria White, director of public affairs at the Children's Alliance of New Hampshire, said the state's high cost of living is largely to blame.
"Income and wages for many families in New Hampshire haven't been able to keep up with the increases in cost of living, and more children in our state are falling into the ranks of the poor," she said.

This part, I disagree with. Frankly, while costs are rising, this was a political statement. Looking at the numbers.

Nativity (where born) - a growth 4K to 8K in 5 years

Face it, most illegal immigrants are not well educated - most lack the equivalent of a high school diploma. Without skills on the part of the parents, of course these kids will be in poverty. And that pool of children, from the study, is above 10% of the native born children population.

New Hampshire also led the way with just 18 births per 1,000 females ages 15 to 19. Texas had the most young mothers, at 63 births per 1,000 teens.
New Hampshire's number has fallen significantly in recent years, from 23 births per 1,000 teens in 2000.
Ann Larney, a public affairs director for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, said keys to keeping that number low are knowledge and communication.
"Planned Parenthood emphasizes education, prevention and good health care," said Larney. "I think our new efforts have been focused on parents and teens and the need to talk about healthy relationships and encourage their teens to delay sexual activity until they are mature enough."

I have a hard time philosphically with her statements, given that Planned Parenthood led the charge to get the parental notification bill repealed. Often times, statements uttered by their representatives talked about women and that the right to an abortion had to be maintained.....when the discussion was about 13 year old girls! How many abortions did they participate in during those years - and yes, I would add that to the death rate (sure, my bias is certainly showing...proudly).

The largest improvement in any category for New Hampshire was its high school dropout rate, which dropped 33 percent between 2000 and 2005.

This is a good improvement as well!

But the Granite State ranks better than only Indiana and Montana in graduating students with disabilities. Those students leave school at nearly three times the rate of their non-disabled peers.

[snip]

"There's still kind of a resistance by many schools to want to serve kids with disabilities adequately," said Cohen. "There are some schools that actually encourage kids to drop out."

He said New Hampshire's reliance on local property taxes to pay for education has fostered a poisonous atmosphere toward students with disabilities and the price tag for their education.

"There's almost a mean-spiritedness among some officials in schools and some communities," said Cohen.

OK, snark time...it seems that when those in public debate use "mean spirited", it is generally in terms of people who are balking at spending other peoples' money as the person uttering "mean spirited" wants (think liberals, as I never hear conservatives use that phrase except sarcastically or in satire). In other words, if a community isn't instantly ready to open the pocketbook, we're selfish.

I looked at the data, and did come up with a conclusion: The most important thing, once I switched to raw numbers and all years available, were the last 4 data sets:

Teens not attending school and not working (2001-2K to 2005-4K)
Children living in families where no parent has full time year round employment (2001-69K to 2005-82K)
Children in Poverty (100%) (2001-21K to 2005-28K)
Children in Single Parent families (2001-63K to 2005-70K)

If I were to casually sum these all up (and I am not a statistician), it shows to me that as the number of single parent families grows, so does the number of children living in poverty. I believe that there is more than a casual connection between poverty and dropping out of school and then having kids of their own. This is a serious problem and is only going to grow.

Why? We seem to denigrate marriage rather than supporting it. According to Dr. William Cosby (and proved by a number of studies), it only takes the following to keep from falling or staying in poverty:

Get a high school diploma
Get and hold a job
Get and stay married
Then have kids - not before

Thus, how to fix the problem?

Strengthen families so as to make divorce less prevalent, then kids stay out of poverty and will probably have better outcomes in school. The poverty numbers will go down as well as the other data set elements in this study (teen deaths, low birth weight rates, et al) will continue to trend downward.

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

If the results are nil, why bother?

From the San Francisco Chronicle

SAN FRANCISCO Supervisors approve tough gun measure

San Francisco's already tough laws on firearms will get even stronger -- becoming some of the most restrictive in the country -- after a vote at City Hall Tuesday....

They don't like the military (one supervisor believes that all the country need to defends itself is the Coast Guard and police), they don't like the Blue Angels, they don't like....well, you get the idea.

Being one of the most (if not THE most) liberal cities in the country, they certainly don't like guns - they're eeevvviiillll. Hey, ban the guns and crime will go away. Restrict peoples rights to own or carry guns should work, right?

Er...

...But even new restrictions won't do much to stop the gun violence escalating on city streets, one sponsor of the new laws said after the vote.

The violence that has been generally confined to more crime-plagued neighborhoods crossed into a major tourist area Monday afternoon, with a shooting that left one person dead and put bullet holes through the front window of a popular restaurant.

Gun-related homicides, injuries from shootings, and gun crimes in and around schools are becoming increasingly common, according to the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice.

Well, THAT notion seems to be working real well - in proving that old saw of "if you make owning a gun a crime, then only criminals will have guns"...

Yes, the come back is "well, the guns are coming from outside the city!". Well, of course. But look what has happened in Britain....restrict guns and they'll use something else. And yes, Britain now has a terrific problem - knives have replaced guns.

The laws -- which gained final approval from the Board of Supervisors -- would restrict both the sale and possession of firearms.

Specifically, they would prohibit the possession or sale of firearms on city property, require firearms in residences to be in a locked container or have trigger locks and require firearm dealers to submit an inventory to the chief of police every six months.

The last provision is intended to allow city officials to know how many guns are sold, though there is only one gun shop in the city.

Please answer me one question - if it isn't helping to combat crime, if the restrictions that have been passed have effectively done nothing....why?

Despite the laws, however, Mirkarimi said he doubts they will quell the kind of violence that erupted on Monday afternoon, which police suspect may be tied to a feud between a San Francisco gang and an East Bay gang.

"Nobody should be surprised about the migration and proliferation of gun violence in San Francisco," Mirkarimi said. "We've been saying this for two-and-a-half years, that the murders, homicides and gun violence that have been occurring in the more routine areas ... have now migrated into other areas."

Sure thing! No deterrence (gee, someone else might have a weapon to use on me as I rob or assault them!) only emboldens some. Add to that the fact that they are a sanctuary city and the police are hamstrung with politically correct regulations, what would you expect?

Voters passed the proposition with 58 percent in favor, but it is tied up in court after the National Rifle Association challenged its constitutionality. Newsom said the vote amounted to a "public opinion poll."

Conservative - a liberal that got mugged....if they survive.

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

Mitt Romney at Jack's

Mitt Romney (GG file photo)

Jack’s in New London was a happening place this morning, July 25, when I arrived about 10:15 am. It helps to know the area, so I didn’t even try to park at Jack’s since I assumed the lot would be full. It was.

So, I scooted directly down to the Kearsarge Regional Middle School which is behind Jack’s and parked the ole’ gal and walked up to Jack’s. The place was full when I arrived with some spillover outside.

Since I’m an “undecided” at the moment, I was asked to give an interview for the local Argus-Champion paper. The nice young reporter, Phillip, diligently wrote everything down I said so check it out next Wednesday. Hopefully, he won’t misquote me on anything, but then, hey, I’ve been called names and misquoted before. Likely, I’ve misquoted people as well. I hope I don’t do that here, but I’m a lefty, took some notes in shorthand and longhand and wrote a lot while I was listening to Mitt.

I really wanted to ask him if his father was a baseball fan and that’s why he named him Mitt. However, it seemed there were much more pressing issues to address during the Q&A so I refrained. But, I’m still curious. Does anybody know?

I spoke with one of the nice young staffers, Christy I think, first and queried her on some war issues. She was well-prepared and knew her stuff. I had previously been sent some info on Gov. Romney’s stance on major social issues, immigration, and protecting traditional marriage from the very nice, Emily Cantin, one of the field reps, whom I also had the pleasure of meeting.

Please take all of this with a grain of salt, but I think this is the gist of what Gov. Romney had to say about a lot of different things.

I met him outside first and introduced myself and asked him if I could ask him a question about the war. He said, of course, I’ll call on you during the Q&A.

One thing for certain is that he definitely looks like Presidential material and has the demeanor, a strong handshake, and seems very comfortable in his own skin. He was tan and perfectly coifed, of course. In fact, with temps in the 90’s and high humidity my long, thick, rather coarse, just washed hair was starting to frizz a bit and I wanted to ask him what hair product he recommends for smoothing out one’s hair since his looked so sleek and smooth with just the right amount of graying so as to look distinguished.

After pressing the flesh outside for awhile…I was impressed that he seemed to remember a lot of people’s names, discussed things of interest to them, etc….he made his way just inside the door and grabbed a chair and stood up on it and started talking.

He told a cute little story about turning 60 last March and that his five boys had talked about giving him something special for the milestone birthday like a car. He was given keys to a car on his birthday and said he was hoping to go outside to find a new Mustang, Dodge Viper or Corvette.

Well, they gave him a 1962 Rambler American because Mitt’s dad (George) made Ramblers until 1962. They took the car for a ride and he pointed out to his kids how big the steering wheel was (necessary to turn the darn things since there was no power steering back then, no armrests, etc.) It actually brought back some found memories for me of the cars I grew up with in the 60’s.

This led into a discussion of the US auto industry. He talked about the once great industry and I sensed his true love of automobiles and he seemed to be fondly reminiscing about his childhood. He mentioned that foreign auto makers used to represent only 1% of sales and now represent 50% of US auto sales. According to him the reason that Detroit can’t compete is due to the huge “leg”….hmmm….okay that’s what I wrote down and I’m currently drawing a blank on the word…pensions, health care costs of retired UAW workers, etc. which foreign auto makers aren’t saddled with so they can be much more competitive. Then I was a bit surprised that he said he wasn’t going to reveal his ideas on how to solve the problem, but that it was between the White House, manufacturers and the Unions.

I did get the sense, however, that he did have a plan and that it would take some sacrifice on the part of the retired UAW workers. Hmmm, I wonder how anxious they’d be to have their pension or healthcare cut to make Detroit successful again?

He mentioned that Washington’s “broken”…ya think?...and the challenges are great, but the democrats have taken a sharp left-turn toward Europe and basically, that it won’t work; i.e., big government rather than his belief in small government.

His three main points were 1) military 2) economy and 3) strong families. I liked what he said about strong families and that people should get married before they have babies. He also believes that the military needs more and better care and sincerely seemed to appreciate our troops sacrifices, both past and present. And, yes, of course, war questions came up during the Q&A, but I haven’t gotten to that point in my notes yet, plus I’m still trying to think what that word is that I wrote as “leg.”

He talked about kids today being improperly exposed to an ocean of filth and being in a cess pool environment. He wants better enforcement of obscenity laws, etc. He quoted that Myspace had caught 29,000 convicted sex offenders on its website and kicked them off. He was very direct in saying that the first time a sex offender is caught: “you’re ours” and that long prison sentences should be mandated. No argument from me on this one either.

He believes in state and local control of schools, better pay for better teachers, and when asked by a teacher what he thought about No Child Left Behind, he said that he believed in it in “concept” but that the law needs improved. I’d agree. He did say that it provides a forum to see what school’s are failing etc. so that they can be improved.

So, the war question came from someone and it was a great set up for me to follow up with my questions. As he had promised, he called on me next. He supports the troop surge and believes we need to give it time to work and evaluate it in Sept. Based on the information available at the time, he supported the President although he rightly said that the war was not well planned.

He believes that we should set some clear milestones for the Iraqi government, etc….pretty much the usual so I won’t bore you with a lot of details. I specifically asked him if he thought we could win the war and while he didn’t give me a “yes” or “no”…not that I was expecting him to; he did seem to understand the complexity of the situation not only in Iraq, but the mid-east overall. When I asked him if he was in favor of a date certain for withdrawal of our troops, he said the obvious answer that he wants the troops home as soon as possible but basically it just isn’t that simple to set a specific date.

He mentioned that the VA is chronically under funded and when pressed on how he’d solve the issue, he mentioned that additional funding should come from the discretionary non-military spending budgets. He specifically said that there are 342 economic development programs and that we don’t need that many. A stem-to-stern review of military spending needed to take place to cut waste, etc. and that the federal government in general needed overhauled.

A question on health care arose, of course, and he said that 10-15% of citizens no longer have health care and that Medicaid needed reformed and that everybody needed to get “in”, but that he wasn’t for the federal government handling it because they already waste way too much money. I didn’t really get any details about what his plan is to solve this major issue, but I think I may just have neglected to write good notes at this point.

He wrapped it up with reinforcing his three positions about the military, economy and strong families.

When I got home my husband asked me how it “went” and asked if all of his answers were “canned.” I did say that his 10-15 minute speech prior to the Q&A was perhaps “canned” he definitely fit a lot in, concisely in a short period of time and answered a lot of questions already in my head. So, he did a good job.

While some of his answers during the Q&A were certainly well-rehearsed, others seemed to be a bit less so and he spoke very well extemporaneously and overall he was well-prepared. But, there were absolutely no “unexpected” or “outlandish” questions from the crowd either. There were moments of applause, but nothing earth shattering in anything he said.

I did notice a real estate agent I know from NL from a distance, in my similar age bracket, who seemed to literally be almost girlishly drooling over him. It was kinda pathetic, but maybe she’s single and drools over lots of men not just presidential candidates.

I like Gov. Romney’s apparent morals, and the last thing I want in the White House again is some unfaithful womanizer, liar or his wife, not that I was voting for Hillary anyway, so the bottom line is that Gov. Romney is still on my list of contenders, but I am still “undecided.”

I’m going to read more on him from his website, and I do have someone from his campaign sending me some info on his war and military policies so I can review them. Darn, I still can’t think of the “leg” word….somebody help?

Mitt’s Mormonism isn’t an issue for me, since he’s been long-married to the same (and only one) woman for a long time and his kids that I’ve seen on TV, all seem very nice and well-adjusted too. I also like that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and he’s against civil unions and he doesn’t make any apologies for his belief either.

I met his communications director, Craig, and he had some nice things to say about Meet The New Press and he said that having Gov. Romney on the show is in the works. So, whenever that happens, be sure to listen in and perhaps it will help you decide whom to vote for in the upcoming election. I haven’t ruled him out, but then I haven’t ruled anybody “in” yet either; it’s just too soon, and I need to educate myself more on all of the candidates and make a wise choice just like you need to do also. I do know I won’t be voting for any democrat, since I’ve seen what they’ve destroyed already in NH in a short period of time.

Amazing what a night’s sleep will accomplish. The word “leg” is for legacy. The foreign automakers didn’t inherent any legacy like the U.S. auto makers so it’s easier for them to be more competitive. Whew, I hate it when that happens.

Posted by Judy at 6:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I like this....I really like this!

GraniteGrok file photo - Rudy at an NH house party

I have not yet "declared" for ANY of the Presidential candidates. It should be rather obvious that I won't be voting for any of the Democratic candidates (although if I HAD to settle for one, I'd probably pick either Biden or Dodd -> at least that are not openly socialists).

On the Republican side, the only person in my house that has made a decision is TMEW - she has decided for Rudy. Thus, she thought this from NRO was rather amusing:

Rudy, Nixon, and the Toilets at Yankee Stadium [Peter Robinson]
Traveling over the last few days, I’ve only just caught up with the Corner. May I add a note to the Giuliani versus Nixon thread?

Richard Nixon gave us a rich profusion of federal bureaucrats and regulations, creating, to note just one of innumerable items, OHSA, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Below, Rudy Giuliani on such bureaucrats and regulations. (The passage, which is drawn from an interview I conducted with Rudy while he was still mayor of New York City, comes from It’s My Party, a book I published in 2000. Used copies, I burst with pride to note, now command a penny apiece.)

As I was about to leave his office, Mayor Giuliani said there was something he wanted me to see. He stood, walked to his desk, riffled among some papers for a moment, then found what he wanted and picked it up. He showed me a bound report. “This is hilarious,” Giuliani said. “You’ll love it.”

The federal government, he explained, had just conducted a study of Yankee Stadium, checking it for accessibility to the disabled. The inspectors had found some three thousand instances in which Yankee Stadium failed to meet federal standards.

"Listen to this stuff,” Giuliani said. He read one item after another. The path of travel out of the Yankee dugout was accessible only by steps, not a ramp, making it impossible to get a wheelchair onto the field. The dressing bench in the Yankee locker room was forty-five inches long by sixteen inches deep instead of the required forty-eight inches long by twenty-four inches deep. The toilets in the locker room had a seat heat of sixteen inches, one inch below the required seventeen inches. The spout of the drinking fountain in the weight room was forty-two inches off the floor instead of the required thirty-six inches.

"The urinals are too high,” Giuliani continued, laughing...

“The toilet paper dispenser is incorrectly mounted on the back wall of the toilet. Do you believe anybody does this? I mean, people get paid to do this.”

Giuliani tossed the report back onto the desk.

"The federal government sent people here from Washington to do this. This is the stupidity they use. They are pointy-headed stupid morons. This is ridiculous! This is ridiculous!”

For a while, TMEW and I ran a daycare - talk about silly regulations! For instance, the State inspector cited us for not having a thermometer in a freezer - that was unused. Now to be fair, there were some that were advocates - here's where you are lacking, can you fix this, here's the impact. Others - check mark - you're screwed. One was a help, the other a gotcha.

Small businesses everywhere have to face this same nonsense day after day after day, costing lots of time, money and angst. While many of these regs were first to set up to solve real problems, they morph into silliness (think our missing thermometer) and are, in my estimation, used to justify body / staff headcounts.

If Rudy has continued along in this vein, this would make me a happy camper. Taxes hurt a lot of small business....not only the actual money but the time spent in record keeping and compliance work. BUT! Adhering, especially when the owners WANT to comply with regulations ("we want to do things right!"), takes a lot of time. And often, getting caught between competing and completely opposed regulations is extremely frustrating.

If he's willing to cut regulations that do not make sense as well as his promise to to cut taxes....well...

I'm thinking.....real hard, real hard....

Posted by Skip at 9:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Breaking News: Second Right-to-Know lawsuit in Belknap County in less than a month!

Petitioners assert that the Chair of the Belkap County Convention & administrative assistant violated NH's Right-to-Know law on Monday, July 23rd.

.

Following on the heels of being found guilty of Right-to-Know (RTK) law violations, the chairman of the Belknap County Convention and the official keeper of the records conspired, according to petitioners Thomas A Tardif and Doug Lambert, to deny them immediate access to unsealed meeting documents as required by NH's Right-to-Know law RSA 91A.

.

On Monday, July 23rd, Mr. Tardif and Mr. Lambert submitted a written RTK request for three specific documents referred to in the May 29th non-public session minutes of the Belknap County Convention regarding the appointment of the replacement sheriff. After confirming that they were in her possession, the Administrative Assistant to the Belknap County Commissioners, the official record-keeper for the County Convention, denied Tardif and Lambert the opportunity to inspect the requested public documents. Upon the insistence of Mr. Tardif, the Administrative Assistant called Convention Chair Stephen H. Nedeau who instructed her to deny us access.

.

The RTK law notes, in RSA 91-A:4, I,

Every citizen during the regular or business hours of all such bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such bodies or agencies, has the right to inspect all public records, including minutes of meetings of the bodies or agencies, and to make memoranda, abstracts, and photographic or photostatic copies of the records or minutes so inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5.

It further states, in 91-A:4, IV,

Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any public record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such public record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release.

Once again, within a span of under four weeks, the Belknap County Convention, in this case its chair, finds itself facing charges of violating the law. Once again, it is alleged, the

LAWMAKERS HAVE BECOME LAWBREAKERS.

One has to wonder when they are going to "get it?"

.

Here is the petition as filed today in Belknap Superior Court:

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

BELKNAP, SS.                                                                     SUPERIOR COURT
Docket #______________                                             July 23, 2007

Thomas A. Tardif & Doug Lambert
v.
Stephen H. Nadeau, Chairperson and
Angela Bell, Clerk Belknap County Commission

PETITION FOR DELARATORY JUDGMENT

            NOW COMES, Thomas A. Tardif, ProSe and Doug Lambert, ProSe, in the above entitled matter says as follows:
Parties
1. Mr. Thomas A. Tardif, Petitioner is a resident and taxpayer in the City of Laconia, Belknap County, having an address of Laconia, NH 03246
2. Mr. Doug Lambert, Petitioner is a resident and taxpayer in the Town of Gilford, Belknap County, having an address of Gilford, NH. 03249.
3. Stephen H. Nadeau, Clerk Belknap County Convention a resident and taxpayer in the Town of Meredith, Belknap County, having an address of 46 Pleasant Street, Meredith, NH.
4. Angela Bell, Clerk Belknap County Commission, records keeper of the Belknap County Convention having an address of 34 County Drive, Laconia, NH. 03246.

            NOW COMES Thomas A. Tardif, ProSe and Doug Lambert, ProSe, the Petitioners in the above entitled matter say as follows:

1.              On 29 May 2007 the Belknap County Convention held a meeting. The 14 member quorum, by roll call vote, entered non-Public session per RSA 91-A-2. No Exemption cited, in violation of RSA 91-A:3, II.
                   The minutes, as published, states on Page 2 that:
       “Chairman Nadeau announced that the applications for seven candidates have been sent to each Delegation member, and that letters of recommendation are on file in Angela Bell’s office, and will also be sent out. The Delegation agreed that all seven should be interviewed, and asked specific questions. Each Delegate will have a score sheet for each candidate.” (Emphasis added)
(Attachment #1)
2.              On 11 June 2007, Belknap County Convention held a meeting. On or about 6:35 p.m. the quorum entered non-Public. No exemption was cited, in violation of RSA 91-A:3, II. They interviewed seven applicants and using score sheets rating applicants, voting by majority reducing the field of seven to two.
( Attachment #2)
3.              On 23 July 2007, the petitioners having read the County Convention meeting minutes, knowing that the non-public meeting minutes and documents cited were not sealed, desired to review the afore cited documents.
4.              On 23 July 2007, on or about 11:45 a.m. the petitioners presented a written Right-to-Know Request per RSA 91-A to Angela Bell, the pronounced records keeper for the Belknap County Convention.
5.              On 23 July 2007, Ms. Bell read the RSA 91-A request and stated “she was working on the payroll and could not copy them”, clearly indicating they were immediately available. The petitioners clarified the request; “We only wish to review the documents”. “Ms. Bell stated she would have to make a call and would let us know”, absent any definitive time or day. The petitioners asked if the documents were in fact available? Ms. Bell’s answer was in the affirmative. At this point the petitioners suggested that it was she who was denying access to documents that were admittedly immediately available, and that she should make that call ASAP. She directed us to take a seat.
6.              On 23 July 2007, Ms. Angela Bell returned from making the call cited in paragraph 4. She stated to the petitioners “that Mr. Nadeau told her not to let us have the document requested”. She followed by saying “He said,” he “would have to call the County Solicitor”. Ms. Bell returned the Right-to-Know request. (Attachment #3).
7.              On 23 July 2007, on or about 12:30 p.m. returned to the Belknap County facility so that Ms. Bell would know who to call with an answer. The petitioners gave Ms. Bell a signed original. However, Mr. Lambert had failed to affix his signature and Ms. Bell came out into the parking lot to obtain his signature, which he willingly complied.
8.              On 23 July 2007, on or about 12:35 p.m. the petitioners requested Ms. Bell in kind, give us a receipt or sign the other original as a receipt. Ms. Bell refused.
9.              On 23 July 2007, at the close of the normal business day the petitioners did not receive a call informing them of when they would be able to review the documents that are or should have been immediately available for review.
.
                  NOW THEREFORE, according to the ongoing violations of RSA 91-A. such as but not limited to:
a)    Ignoring the Right-to Know’s Preamble. –“ … The purpose of this chapter is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people”, then
b)   Denying a citizens right to inspect records clearly embraced by RSA 91-A:4, II. After the completion of a meeting of such bodies or agencies, every citizen, during the regular or business hours of all such bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such bodies or agencies, has the right to inspect all notes, materials, tapes or other sources used for compiling the minutes of such meetings, and to make memoranda, abstracts, photographic or photostatic copies, or tape record such notes, materials, tapes or sources inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5, Then
c)    In spite of a clear, well described request to review certain records, the designated keeper of the Convention’s records denied access to documents that in fact, were as they must be immediately available. RSA 91-A:4, IV. Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any public record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such public record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release. …”, Then
d)   RSA 91-A:3 I, (a) Bodies or agencies shall not meet in nonpublic session, except for one of the purposes set out in paragraph II. Both the meeting of 29 May 2007 and 11 July 2007 ignored the requirement of RSA 91-A2,2
e)    RSA 91-A:3, III. Minutes of proceedings in nonpublic session shall be kept and the record of all actions shall be promptly made available for public inspection, except as provided in this section. Minutes and decisions reached in nonpublic session shall be publicly disclosed within 72 hours of the meeting, unless, by recorded vote of 2/3 of the members present, it is determined that divulgence of the information likely would affect adversely the reputation of any person other than a member of the body or agency itself, …”.
f)    RSA 91-A:8, I,. If any body or agency or employee or member thereof, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, refuses to provide a public record or refuses access to a public proceeding to a person who reasonably requests the same, such body, agency, or person shall be liable for reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in a lawsuit under this chapter provided that the court finds that such lawsuit was necessary in order to make the information available or the proceeding open to the public. Fees shall not be awarded unless the court finds that the body, agency or person knew or should have known that the conduct engaged in was a violation of this chapter or where the parties, by agreement, provide that no such fees shall be paid. In any case where fees are awarded under this chapter, upon a finding that an officer, employee, or other official of a public body or agency has acted in bad faith in refusing to allow access to a public proceeding or to provide a public record, the court may award such fees personally against such officer, employee, or other official.
.
           III. In addition to any other relief awarded pursuant to this chapter, the court may issue an order to enjoin future violations of this chapter, I-a. The court may award attorneys' fees to a board, agency or employee or member thereof, for having to defend against a person's lawsuit under the provisions of this chapter, when the court makes an affirmative finding that the lawsuit is in bad faith, frivolous, unjust, vexatious, wanton, or oppressive.
g)   RSA 91-A:9 Destruction of Certain Information Prohibited. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor who knowingly destroys any information with the purpose to prevent such information from being inspected or disclosed in response to a request under this chapter. If a request for inspection is denied on the grounds that the information is exempt under this chapter, the requested material shall be preserved for 90 days or while any lawsuit pursuant to RSA 91-A: 7 - 8 is pending.

       WHEREFORE, the petitioners pray the following:
A         Declare the Belknap County Convention on 29 May 2007 and 11 July 2007 met in nonpublic session in violation of RSA 91-A, and

B         Order Belknap County Convention Defendant to make immediately available documents in its “File” regarding the appointment to fill the unexpired term of Sheriff Collis, and

C         On 23 July 23, 2007, the defendant, with malfeasant or miss-feasants violated RSA 91-A, by denying access to public records not sealed and immediately available. In fact intentional knew or should have known was a violation of RSA 91-A, and

D         Order that the defendants comply with RSA 91-A, now and in the future, and

E          This honorable court order the defendants to pay petitioners all out of pocket expenses incurred in bring this action.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        _______________________
                                                                        Doug Lambert, ProSe
                                                                        Gilford, NH


                                                                       ______________________
                                                                        Thomas A. Tardif, ProSe
                                                                        Laconia, NH

If only they would simply comply with the law and always default to a position of sunshine and openness. Why do they do this? What are they trying to hide? Or is it just a matter of ignorance of the law? Not a good thing when you fancy yourself a lawmaker...

Posted by Doug at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Aiding the Enemy

Okay, I just returned from a 9-day vacation in California, baby. When I left, I said: "I'll be back" (use your Arnold voice) and here I am tanner, relaxed and ready to take on the world.

I didn't realize how exhausted I was until I rested. You guys know what I mean. Sun, fun, reading, movies, swimming, motorcycling, doing nothing....ahh...the perfect vacation alone with absolutely no responsibilities. First one I've ever taken all by myself although hubby has taken many hunting trips over our many years together; I usually stay home alone, but then that's kind of a vacation although I still have my many chores, etc.

This was a real vacation, and I did absolutely only what I wanted to do and felt like at the time. I'd highly recommend it for everyone since as you know, you're the only person who will never leave you. It's good for the mental health.

However, it's back to business including blogging. I did send in something to the Monitor after reading Mary Beth Bryant's ramblings about how wonderful Shea-Porter is and apparently how stupid Republicans are, yada, yada.

In response to Mary Beth Bryant's Letter of July 19 printed in the Monitor, and yes, I'm looking for the link to post, the Concord Monitor printed most of my reply here. Since I used my friends, the Gilmans' computer who were vacationing in NH, well, and used their pool, car, motorcycle, house, etc., hey, but I fed their cats....I'm still trying to find all my stuff I sent myself from there and see what the Monitor left out...I don't think it was much though. I'll update later perhaps.

Do you think I was too hard on Ms. Shea-Pompous? Let me know what you think, okay? It seems now I want to be around people again and chat....alot.

Thanks to Skip for all of his hard work getting us back up and running. I would have thrown the computer through my office slider if I had to do everything he did. No thank you, I do not want to become a techie!

Posted by Judy at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

McCain Bloggers call - 7/24 (Bloggers driving Bentleys!)

Arizona Senator John McCain in Franklin, NH (GG file photo)

Once again, Senator McCain holds another call. This time, he sounded a little bit tired today. However, as always, willing to take all comers and questions - still the "best blogger caller holder" that I get invited to. In fact, when Pat Hynes announced that there was time for only two more question, Senator McCain said "let's do five more"...he does enjoy this!

Best line was when he was asked about the Fair Tax by Captain Ed:

"...Do we tax milk, bread? We'll end up only taxing Bentleys (which all bloggers drive)..."

As always, rough notes (mis spells, cracked grammar) after the jump - will fix it later.

Note: I got most of the names but the blogs were not announced. I recognized most of them and will do the fill ins later

McCain blogger call

Pat Hynes intro

McCain:

St Joe's Michigan
a couple of thousand people
need line item veto
he will veto pork barrel bills
protectionism doesn't work
need a better displayed worker programs instead of the failed programs that we have so far.

Publicity Stunt - the all nighter (1:30am-4:30am). It was the Dept of Dod authorization (training, education, pay raise). It had the Wounded Warrior legislation. The bill was taken down, first time in 45 years - this is disgraceful. Is blaming this on Reid for attaching the retreat from Iraq on that bill.

Robert Bluey - Barack committed to meeting with Iran, Syria, Venezula - no preconditions.

   It is naive....they have an agenda and this will give them prominence. Face to face to is overrated. What is the first topic with the Iranians - wiping Israel off the map, IEDs found in Iraq.
Have to have a prepared agenda that will bolster the

Jennifer Rubin - last call - suggestion that his rivals were going soft on Iraq.

   Doesn't know if they are or are not - he doesn't pay that much attention. SUggested that Romney had a secret (not so) plan to get out. He wants to win....

Philip Klein - Newt suggested that you are on the verge of dropping out once Mc gets the FEC money

   Respects Newt, but he has no knowledge of what Mc is going to do.
Followup - still considering taking FEC matching funds?
   Still considering....Newt has no idea of what Mc is going to do. Has to do whether it will

Ed Morrissy - AMT - elimination of it - both parties have talked about it but have done nothing. Will Mc be putting legislation forward in the Senate?

   30 mill afftected by 2010. He is talking about setting up that legisilation....a huge problem. This year or next

ME!- Are you willing to cut taxes on smaller companies, as other countries are cutting them and seeing revenues rise - a competitive edge against the US

   Reduce tax burdens is something we should examine. Not support the Dem tax increase.....would leave it around for now. Shown that tax cuts raises revenues. Wants to simplify the tax code without increasing rates - have Greenspan do a blue ribbon panel to present to congress. 140 Bill is spent to do taxes

Garrity - preventing a genocide in Iraq is not a reason to stay - Barack

   How can you advocate for stopping genocide in Darfur and getting out of Iraq and allowing it there? "Curious logic to say stop it in one place in the world and allow it in another." DOes not understand how    Dems could say this. How can they say Darfur is more important than Iraq (my paraphrase).

   One has to take into account OUR national interest. Period.

Betsy Newmark - importance of AMerican freedom and private property. Two years since Kelo - lots of talk, no action. Any ideas on getting this going?

   It is beyond him as to why this can be done (taking of someone's private property). American have not truly appreciated the impact of this decision. He thinks it is a sleeper issue and will be giving a speeach on it.

Chris Stuart - Hillary is in NH at an energy roundtable....should we expect to see the same for you and why are the Rs giving this issue to the Dems.

   Global warming is a huge issue. Energy independence has to be part of a national security issue. Mentioned Saudi refinery attack, Chavez, Putin in restoring the Soviet empire.

   He has talked

Pat - time for 2, Mc says 5 questions

Missed the question and asker.

Ed Morrissy - Follow up on my simplicatifan - FairTax - useful

   Do we tax milk, bread? End up only taxing Bentleys (which all bloggers drive)
   That's why a panel and an up/down vote in Congress (uses BRAC as an example).
   Fairer, flatter - has to happen - this is abominable.
   Estonian - 22% flat tax - 99.9% tax compliance. Can't we do better if they are

Paul Mirengoff - SOX act, critical for the burden on IPOs and driving captial out of the country. DO you support reform, especially the double audits for smaller companies

   Yes, reform...would support DeMint proposal to help small companies. What do we need to preserve as it has had a severe affect on small compainies. He voted for it and rues the quick action (whenter Congress acts in haste, get bad stuff).

Posted by Skip at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The Rising Cost of Healthcare: Chronic Disease

.

As the presidential campaign heats up, so does discussion of the issues. While I believe that at the time the votes are cast, most will be based on feelings and perception rather than purely on the important issues of the day, the primary still allow for a good amount of actual discussion on matters that otherwise might never get any real consideration. As we follow the various campaigns during their visits here in the still first in the nation primary state of NH, we have observed at most of these events supporters of the numerous causes vying for "collateral attention" that might be gained as the candidates interact with the regular folks of the Granite State.

.

The interest groups and causes are not strictly from one end of the political spectrum. Indeed, they come from every possible political stripe. The Ostrich Girl (YouTube here) promotes social security reform from what I would characterize as a decidedly conservative point of view, while others I've run into come from the farthest reaches of lefty-looneyville.

.

I'm pretty sure I don't agree completely with these folks, but I have to give them credit, they are present at every event. Like it or not, the subject of health care is important, and these folks are raising it...

.

.

It is my personal belief that the main issue first and foremost that must concern the next President is that of the war followed by homeland security and an element of border control that must be a part. Many Americans, I'm sure for the most part, agree. There is no doubt, however, that right on the heels of those is the matter of escalating health care costs. Liberal or conservative, the ever growing amounts of hard-earned dollars consumed by basic medical/health needs hurts. Whether it can be said an American President should somehow "control" one seventh of the US economy-- the health care industry-- is an argument I'll hold for another day.

.

As a conservative, from a global perspective, I see this debate as a struggle between traditional American free-markets versus a socialist model found in some European countries and Canada. This is one part of the debate that remains pretty much in the open and can be almost always heard discussed by the various candidates. Hillary, Obama, Richardson, Kucinich and the rest all promise one variation or other of "universal" health care while Rudy and other Republican wannabees want to increase free market involvement by independent consumers with maximun choices available. This is where I come down. I am sure that this aspect will be debated over and over again as the season rolls along.

.

Beyond the grand debate over what shape the health care industry and delivery system might take, there are other points to ponder and consider,

.

... number one being costs-- and what drives them upward. I have covered some factors driving expenses upward from the delivery end of the spectrum in past posts here, here, and here. What about other causes? What about the overall health of the sum total of all Americans? And how much of a say does the government have in this area? What can a president do? SHOULD a president do anything in a Nation of free markets?

.

According to a recent press release by the New Hampshire Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, (NHPFCD) found at NHInsider, the

"#1 cause of death, disability, and rising health care costs in the U.S. [is] chronic disease."

The web site of their parent group, the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) tells us that

Chronic diseases are among the most prevalent and costly illnesses that affect Americans. They are also among the most preventable, according to the CDC.

With the discussion from politicians of all stripes about healthcare in America being a basic right for all people that, in many instances should be paid for by the government-- with everybody sharing a piece of the cost-- doesn't it then follow that, at some point, we all have an interest in controlling some of the costs? Does it make sense, knowing as noted above, that if the number one cause of rising costs is "chronic disease", and it is among "the most preventable", we should be attacking it and the root causes with much vigor? I say it does. The only question is how much of what can be done can should be government-dictated in a free society?

.

Here is a brief YouTube (just over a minute) of an example of what some Presidential wannabees are saying on the subject. This is Bill Richardson, during a discussion about health care, mentioning "preventable" health care matters, in this instance, nutritional meals in schools and the elimination of junk type foods. While I am certainly not a Richardson voter by any means, I would say he's onto something. After all, if the government is going to pay for something (school meals), then it very well deserves a say in some of the details. While I'm generally NOT in favor of government involvement, there is something to say about getting into the prevention side of the equation rather than simply paying for the "fix" after it's too late...

.

Hillary Clinton also mentioned the child nutrition topic as well, I believe. And I may have heard Republicans talking about promoting healthier lifestyles at one or two events also-- from the position of insurance breaks for healthy living. The bottom line is this: The cost of health care is rising astronomically. Also rising is the number of instances of chronic disease. Unlike other illnesses and conditions, these, as noted above, are in many instances preventable. The PFCD tells us further that

Many chronic diseases are caused or exacerbated by poor nutrition, lack of exercise, smoking, and other lifestyle choices.

At the end of it all, in today's system, WE ALL PAY FOR THOSE POOR LIFESTYLE CHOICES OTHERS MAKE. The question as we move forward is WHO we want in control of how we approach this problem-- the government, or ourselves? It seems to me that a Nation of free people ought to be responsible for their own health and well-being. The best way for this to happen is through information and education so that people will know what choices are best. Otherwise the government will do it. Given the potential impact to the overall economy as we move down the road, SOMEBODY'S going to have to do something!

Posted by Doug at 6:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

But what if it had been a prayer?

.

Several weeks back on our radio program, "Meet the New Press", we interviewed a recent grad from Laconia High School (NH) involved in a mini-flap over a speech given at her graduation ceremony. (click here to listen to the podcast-- approx 11mins. long) Brittney Hamilton, a self-admitted conservative (which, at 18 years old is rather unique) wrote a letter that appeared in several local newspapers. The commencement address was given by the outgoing school librarian, also a member of the Lakes Peace and Justice Group, host of the weekly peace protest in downtown Laconia. As you might imagine, it was this influence that appeared in her speech to the graduating class. This caused several people to pen letters for the local papers stating their displeasure, including Brittany. (Click here to read the story that appeared in the Citizen back at graduation time. It alludes to the speech and notes Ms. Stuart's peacenik affiliation within the story.)

.

This is what she wrote:

I am a graduate of the Class of 2007 from Laconia high school. I was president of the National Technical Honor Society and Health Occupations Students of America. I am proud to say that I accomplished many great things while at Laconia High. On the long-awaited and much-deserved day of graduation I was looking forward to a memorable day of commencement festivities.
.
The day of June 9th, 2007, was about US! This day was about our valedictorian and his very thoughtful and original speech. It was about the accomplishments of all of the members of the Class of 2007 whether it was for sports, art, musical talent, or simply because those graduating had applied themselves and stuck with us to make it to the day of graduation. I can honestly say to the Class of 2007 that I am very proud of all of you and honored to call you my classmates. This day was about each and every one of us walking across that red and white theme stage to receive our diploma that we all worked very hard for.
.
This day was ruined for us and for that I apologize to the class of 2007 because obviously we are not going to receive any form of an apology from Ruth Stuart, the woman we called our librarian for four years. Mrs. Stuart's commencement address was an absolute embarrassment. As soon as I heard her speech begin to turn from inspiring to political personal agenda I was astonished at her audacity to put the Class of 2007 in the position she did. I was dreading returning to the arms of my family waiting in the audience to congratulate me because I knew they would feel the same way I did and I knew there would be one heck of an uproar.
.

Mrs. Stuart, I can assure you that you did nothing, but embarrass us. You did not inspire me nor did your words sway me in my beliefs of the activities of this country. In other words, you insulted your audience and did not gain anything personally. I agree that you have the freedom of free speech, but your freedoms stop where my freedoms begin. You disrespected me and you took away my freedom.
.
There are documents, that are most likely in your library, called the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, as well as the Constitution. Read them. We all had to memorize them in order to pass U.S. history, in order to go to graduation to receive our diplomas and be insulted by you. You did not have the right to infringe on our graduation celebration with your political views. Are you aware that there are many members of the Class of 2007 headed off to the U.S. military to serve and protect this country so that you can protest and mock them in the park every Saturday? You are an educator and you should respect your students and the speech you made was a blatant disrespect to the majority of your audience who will serve for this country, has served for this country, or has had family members serving this country.
.
You tried to inspire the Class of 2007 to speak up, to have a voice, and not to let life pass us by. That part was effective, but your political views were inappropriate. I am speaking up and exercising my right to freedom of speech, but I know when the time is right and what place is appropriate. The paper and the news are very effective tools that everyone should use to form their own opinions and views on the activities of our country. This is the United Stated of America, if you don't like it, if you want to disrespect it and take it for granted, then go live elsewhere.
.
Class of 2007, don't listen to Mrs. Stuart. Listen to your heart and do what you feel is right. Never, ever let someone tell you what you should believe or feel. Read the paper and watch the news. In a previous letter on this subject someone said to pray for our troops every night for one minute at 9:00pm, this is not enough. Pray for them all day if you want and never stop. The reason you can go and assemble at the church of your choice is because every day the troops of the U.S. military fight to protect your freedoms. Please, do not take your freedoms for granted. Be polite and respectful, follow your dreams, and never ever stop learning. Good luck to everyone, I am so proud of all of you.
.
Goodbye, Mrs. Ruth Stuart. I would have expected that after what you did you would at least have the decency to apologize to the class of 2007, if not everyone in attendance at our graduation, but I guess that would knock your right off your high soap box. Peace.
.
Brittany Hamilton

Interestingly enough, there were several other letters, some agreeing with and supporting Brittney, and others supporting Ms. Stuart and her words. Since that time, Brittany, as noted at the start of this post, has appeared on our radio program.

.

Well, according to the usual liberal suspects here in the Lakes Region and the Granite State, this story is over and THEY have won. Writing in today's Citizen, John Koziol reports

The debate over the propriety of the Laconia High School commencement speaker mentioning her opposition to the Iraq War has largely subsided.
.
At issue was the allusion by Ruth Stuart to her participation in a weekly peace vigil which has been held since soon after the events of 9/11.
.
Stuart, who was retiring as the school's librarian, was tapped to give the main address at the June 9 commencement exercises.
.
In her remarks, Stuart told the audience how with education comes responsibility, and hopefully, the ability to think critically and be able to stand up for one's convictions.
.
She gave a personal example, noting that as a member of the Lakes Region Peace and Justice Group, which has held Saturday afternoon vigils in the downtown since December 2001 to promote non-violent responses to conflict, she was initially scared about what others would think.

The story goes on to interview Ms. Stuart, who doesn't see what the big deal is all about. The School Board chair Chris Guilmett also feels the matter is finished. When asked about the content of the speech, and the fallout, the Citizen notes

While aware that what Stuart said wasn't popular with everyone, Guilmett said there was no ongoing issue on the School Board about it.
.
"No, there really isn't," said Guilmett who took a philosophical view of commencement speeches and of the speakers who give them.
.
"You have good ones, you have bad ones, you have controversial ones and we're not going down the road of censorship with them."
.
"This is a freedom of speech issue. The men and women in the armed forces are fighting for our freedoms and one of them is the First Amendment which unfortunately may not sit well with some people when that right is exercised."

Free speech? Sure, why not? Heck, the newspaper even contacted the NH ACLU on this matter!

Claire Ebel, who is the executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, said the fact that some people were upset by Stuart's remarks — as well as the subsequent back-and-forth of letters-to-editor-editor about them and even this article — are proof that the First Amendment is alive and well and doing what it's supposed to do.
.
"There is, I would think, no ability, nor should there be any ability for school administrators to censor what a guest speaker says. "The range of topics that a speaker could touch on is fairly broad and the question of censorship is rather preposterous."

She then went on to point out (correctly, actually) that

Disagreeing with a speaker is "perfectly fine," said Ebel, but to suggest that an individual's rights are violated when someone uses his or her right of free speech, isn't.
.
"The answer to speech that you don't like is more speech. That is how you counter the speech with which you don't agree."

Er, but Ms. Ebel, what if the speech had included a prayer?

I'm sure that would have been different. "Peace" is certainly fine at a graduation, but prayer and God, well, you know how well THAT goes over these days... Thanks in no small part to the actions of Ms. Ebel and her comrades throughout America...

.

Another point to consider-- The school leaders claim that they don't want to go down the road of censorship. That apparently isn't true in all instances regarding commencement speeches. I have been told that the Valedictorian's address was vetted by perhaps as many as three people before it was given the OK to deliver on graduation day. Sound a little like "free speech for me, but not for thee" going on here. Stay tuned...

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

As usual, guess who will pay? Yep. You're right. Us.

.

The big news here in NH this week was the revelation that the state's highway fund is short on dollars, causing a rollback of expectations and plans for major road construction projects in the Granite State. Reported the Citizen (Laconia, NH) this week:

Not enough money and too many promises sums up the sad state of New Hampshire's 10-year highway plan, says Transportation Commissioner Charles O'Leary.
.
Projects need to be eliminated, he said, including widening a section of Interstate 93 between Manchester and Londonderry.

And why is it we're short on highway construction monies? I thought that the point of the taxes we pay at the pump was for this? As you might have guessed, the excuses sound like the standard fare offered up by government mouthpieces as they lay the groundwork for raising taxes. "It was my predecessor's fault." And, the usual drying up of "federal dollars" once again rears its head. Again from the Citizen,

O'Leary said federal highway aid will drop 30 percent starting in fiscal 2009. The drop is compounded by a 45 percent increase in costs over the past three years due to inflation. Federal highway dollars also have been diverted to turnpike projects, which should rely on tolls for construction and expansion.
.
"Someone should have turned the lights out long ago" on new turnpike construction, not backed by adequate toll revenue to pay for it, he said.

Give Mr. O'Leary credit for publicizing a problem that has been a long time in the making. The prior DOT head spent much of the final time in her tenure denying problems existed, until it was too late, blaming much on the antiquated methods and technologies used by the department. I recall reading someplace that the NH DOT was akin to stepping back in time to the 1950's. Using fifty year old procedures is certainly no way to run a multimillion dollar enterprise, public or private.

.

While I can appreciate Mr. O'Leary's explanation, I think he left out a few of the other contributing causes...

.

While EZ Pass is convenient for motorists, the fact remains it costs much more to operate and administer, thus removing dollars that might otherwise go for roads. Then there's the matter of the "fine" paid to the state's DES for the dumping of hazardous waste by the DOT bridge crews, which has been amply covered here, here, and here. Scratch another 350K from the paving budget. And let's not forget all the dough wasted on so-called "public transportation" programs in rural areas. There used to be a time when, if you needed a multitude of "services" and the such, you lived in an urban area, places where the sheer numbers of folks make certain things more sensible and affordable. Watching the empty busses trundling back and forth on the roads and byways here in the Lakes Region of Central NH makes me want to cry. Why do MY taxes have to fund such waste?

.

How many jobsites do you travel past and wonder, "Why are they doing this?" Last year the state replaced every perfectly good sign on our local "bypass" road with identical signs on really expensive looking posts, erected right next to the "old" expensive-looking posts. This year, they're removing perfectly good traffic signals at one end of the road with another setup that is the same. Additionally, they're removing weathered granite curbs with new ones that are exactly the same. Why? Does somebody need weathered granite at their private residence? My point is that many projects appear to be of the "use it or lose it" nature, not based on any apparently obvious need. Let's not forget parking lots at historic homesteads, restrooms at remote locations, and needless sidewalks (like the second one we're building here in Gilford with "matching" highway funds).

.

The bottom line is that the 10-year plan members of the travelling public have been waiting for (and paying for) for many years-- the one with the truly needy stuff-- isn't gonna happen. All of this just piles on as the amount of "transportation" projects at the feeding trough multiply. Don't worry, though, because helpfully, as usual, our Executive Councilor, "Republican" Ray Burton has the answer to all of this. Again, from the Citizen:

Councilor Raymond Burton, R-Bath, said the gas tax needs to be increased and tolls raised to have a realistic construction plan.

Of course they do. Writing in the July 19th Daily Sun (unavailable online) Chris Dornin of Golden Dome News further quotes Burton, on the demise of the 10-year plan and the elimination of long-planned projects:

"We'll have to take this plan to the people in our districts and explain to them what the real world looks like," Burton said. "It's no secret we have to increase tolls and taxes. That isn't going to be good news. But that's our job. And we have to stop using the highway fund as an ATM for other state agencies. Health and Human Services, the court system and the state ploice tap into it for $69 million a year."

He's right about that-- although most of it gets done with his help and blessing. One has to wonder if Ray's simply uptight about this simply because the highway funds are supposed to be HIS ATM...

.

Oh, and what does he mean by, "That's our job"? To raise taxes?

Posted by Doug at 3:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Reid: The soldiers will pay for this!

.

Writing at Townhall.com, Amanda Carpenter reports:

If Majority Leader Harry Reid can't start pulling troops out of Iraq, he doesn't want to start paying them anymore either.
.
After an amendment to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days failed to receive the 60 votes needed to proceed, Reid set the entire defense authorization bill aside. By doing so, he shelved a 3.5 percent pay raise for all uniformed service personnel, $4 billion in equipment upgrades and a new program to treat traumatic brain injuries.
.
To increase pressure on Republicans to support the measure, sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.) and Sen. Jack Reed (D.-R.I.), Reid threw the Senate into an all night session on Tuesday evening that lasted through Wednesday morning. Levin-Reid fell eight votes short, 52-47.
.
“There are two things that I want to accomplish,” Reid told reporters immediately after the amendment vote. “One is to pass a defense authorization bill, but with a deadline dealing with Iraq. Once we put that together, we'll move forward on it.”

This didn't sit too well with our friend, Blue Star Mother Sue Peterson who sent me the link to the above story (read in its entirety by clicking here). She had the following note in her email:

What is wrong with these politicians?? Again, this war on terrorism is not a game - it is for our future and the future of our great America. Why do they want us defeated? Can the hatred for this administration be so strong?? I just cannot comprehend their lack of intelligence and reason.

Do they ever read the positive stories from the soldiers and the many blogs (Michael Yon for example)? May God have mercy on our soldiers and our country.....now, even more, we must be united and support our troops and their mission. Please, for those that do email and call your senators, please continue. Their ratings are in the 13-14% and the President is at about 32%.
.
We have polls stating unbelievable statistics....when you hear these numbers, google the poll and see how many they actually ask the questions to and what is the sampling. Too many times we just blindly believe the numbers.
.
As a Mom of a soldier, if asked if I would want him home....of course, I would want him home....really who in there right mind wants war???? So how are the questions asked?? Leading questions, slanted, polling 500-900 people out of how many millions that live in the United States???
.
Most of the comments and actions from those like Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, etc. and those that stand behind them would have been treason....they have done more to embolden the enemy, lengthen this war (because of having to be PC), and I hold them personally accountable for the deaths of so many of our soldiers by their reckless disregard.
.
Thank you for all your support that you have shown to our family during Alex's deployment. Again...May God Bless America!!!
.
PLEASE DO NOT LOSE HEART...WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE....
.
Blessings,
Susan
1DC
Proud Blue Star Mom of SPC Alex Peterson

Posted by Doug at 9:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Funny Ha-Ha....but...

Frankly, after trying to take care of 'Grok techie failures, then customer assistance necessary after the MTNP radio show, a little family matter....no time left and nothing ready to post for tomorrow. At least real serious, real deep...until I saw this over at Gates Of Vienna:

“Fred Thompson and Hillary were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.

The Republican, Fred Thompson, gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Thompson’s pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.

Now, do you understand the difference?”

Conservatism vs Liberalism

Individual responsibility vs collectivism

Volunteerism and boot-strap vs coercian and stick a hand out (and out, and out, and...)

One is teaching fishing....the other simply hands out the fish. Which is more compassionate?

Go ahead - tell me, where you stand?

Posted by Skip at 8:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Meet the New Press airs Saturday at 11AM EST.

.

Once again, this week's broadcast version of the New Media brings an array of items and guests for your consideration. As always, thanks to the technical wizardry and analytical skills of Skip, if you are beyond the broadcast area of Newstalk 1490 WEMJ, simply click here for instructions on how to connect and listen on the Internet via livestream. (Podcasts here)

.

Dow hits 1400. Maybe there is two Americas? Maybe we all get paid enough and it's because Tax Freedom Day was July 11th this year that we don't feel like we're in the same boat as those enjoying a 1400 DJI. Also, how can George Bush's economy do this, anyway?
Doug reports on seeing NM Gov. Bill Richardson this week
NH HB 404-- One of the most onerous bills you've never heard of! We'll interview the empty chair that we'll pretend is occupied by the bill's sponsor-- Lilly Mesa, Manchester Democratic state rep.
Skip will talk a little about the technical meltdown we suffered here at the 'Grok beginning last weekend, and the fix. Hint-- we're gonna bag bigtime on Yahoo! Oh, and how about that SunRocket phone? Or Yahoo! photo albums?
Tom Tardif will join us in studio to discuss the ongoing litigation involving the Belknap County Convention's violation of the NH Right-to-Know Law. As reported first right here on the 'Grok, despite the fact that we "won", we have filed a motion for reconsideration. We'll explain why.
Stowaways in jetliners? Missile launchers in NJ? Are we really safe? We chat about this and talk about spy agencies reading Internet cafe emails. Good or bad?
Guest Jenneifer Rubin. Her work can suddenly be found in numerous places, including the American Spectator, Human Events, The New York Observer and ABC News. In "lightning round" fashion, we'll discuss Rudy's lawyers-- Ted Olson & Steven G. Calabresi, why judges matter, possible troubles for Fred Thompson with campaign financing and pro-choice lobbying, the contrasts between Fred & Rudy, McCain, Romney updates, some Democrat talk, and Jen's American Spectator article, "Little Things Mean a Lot", which I agree wholeheartedly with.
Enough? Phone in at 603 527 1490.

What a show! It all starts at 11AM EST today. Tune in if you're in Central NH at NewsTalk 1490AM WEMJ or live on the 'Net here...

Posted by Doug at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

HB404 - the sponsors and refusal to defend it on MTNP

HB404 here in NH is an attempt to make it illegal for our local law enforcement to ask if someone is illegally here in the state. Make sense to you? Certainly not to me, and I blogged about this bill earlier here.

I tried to get the two sponsors of this bill to come on Meet The New Press for the last couple of weeks to discuss the WHY and the RAMIFICATIONS of the bill. At first, the answer was yes, then it turned to silence, then yes, and then quickly to "nope". So, we will be talking about it on the show today, but for those of you who cannot listen to the show or to the podcast (it will be here after the show), here's the primary info.

I was first alerted to this bill by a loyal reader (H/T: Mike) who emailed me (I've edited):

I just listened to rMichael Graham interviewing a NH legislature who claims to want to make NH into something like a sanctuary state.

She represents Manchester West according to her. Her name is Lilly Mesa and she has introduced a bill to not allow police in this state to ask any questions regarding immigration status. I think the bill is HB404.

Since I was kind of half listening to the radio at the time I noticed what the subject was and who the host was talking to I'm not sure of the above facts, but I got the gist right.

What do you guys know about this one?

Well, I knew nothing about this, so I figured that I would listen to the show (podcast here). Now, my own opinion is that is not how we do interviews on MTNP, but it did perk my interest, and then, bluntly, my ire. I am a conservative - the idea of combating illegal immigration by making it illegal to ask was nonsense.

In fact, it forces law enforcement to not enforce our nation's law. I have little tolerance for foolishness like this. It is one thing to not like a law, but if we are to maintain one of the greatest things about this country, all must obey the laws and not single out a class of people that would be immune from that law.

Especially if they are here illegally. In fact, my take on this law is to not make it illegal to ask, but make it illegal to NOT ask! That way, there is no racial profiling, there is no pre-judgement, and all are subject to that law. Anyways, back to the story.

I invited Lily Mesa onto the show:

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:06:52 -0400
From: skip@GraniteGrok.com
To: Lilly Mesa
Subject: House Bill 404

Dear Ms. Mesa,

This email concerns House Bill 404, of which you and Susi Nord are sponsors. It is currently retained in the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. I have reprinted it below.

I have a radio show, Meet The New Press, here in Central NH that is broadcast on WEMJ 1490AM (and we also live stream and podcast as well). I was wondering if you would be willing to come on the show and talk about this bill? While I and my co-hosts are conservative, we try hard to be a "no sandbag zone" - we are not out to be a Hannity-Colmes where shouting is the norm - we want to talk about the issues and the philosophies behind them.

Kindest Regards,

-Skip

Skip Murphy
Meet The New Press
GraniteGrok.com

Her answer was (6/27):

I will be more than glad to come to your show because I want to have the opportunity to talk about all the issues behind this since the interview that I had this morning it was just a set-up from someone in NH to cruxify me. I'm coming back to NH on Sunday because I am right now in Atlanta attending the US Social Forum. I will give you a call on Monday the 2nd. Thank you.

Representative Mesa.

So far, so good....but then the prevarication started...

So I answered back on 6/28:

Good evening!

If I might, I have a question:

>> I will be more than glad to come to your show because I want to have the opportunity to talk about
>> all the issues behind this since the interview that I had this morning it was just a set-up from
>> someone in NH to cruxify me.

Would you be willing to share with me with whom you had the interview? Would it be possible to get a copy of it so that I could be well informed for ours? Again, we are not a "sandbag zone" - we may end up disagreeing with you, but we are not looking to intentionally embarrass anyone..

Thanks!

-Skip

After all, even though Mike had tipped me off and I had listened to the podcast, by asking Ms. Mesa I was trying to make sure that the podcast I had listened to was the right one. I also wanted to let her know that we are not out to embarass anyone - we will ask hard questions but we do not want to humiliate anyone on air.

Next up - background and homework. Time to find out who Lily Mesa was. First up, if she was a State Rep, she must be listed there. Swoop on over and found this:

(Please note: I have edited the original screen shot to make it fit here)

In looking at many other reps info, there was always information for the business / job selection. When I saw nothing, I raised my eyebrows and wondered. After all, a Rep only recieves $100 / year plus travel expenses (essentially) - how would she be supporting herself?

Next - google time. First hit - MySpace (I have chopped the screen shot to make the relevant parts fit).

Now, sometimes I read a lot into things that perhaps I should not...but keep in mind that I believe that illegal immigration and the lack of assimilation. When someone puts in a bill that makes it illegal to ask about immigration status, I wonder why. It did raise eyebrows when I saw not an American flag but a Columbian flag. That her leanings are still to a culture that she left 20 odd years ago (from the podcast).

I also continued to wonder about the Occupation - one cannot make a living from being a State Rep. I also noted her Heros: people that work and advocate for peace and justice. This phrase, to me, generally means that she believes in general overall oppression of some class or classes of people by the majority, and somebody had better feel guilty about it. Frankly, I know very few people who are against "peace" and justice is so much a maligned word nowadays, for ills that are so often a result of being alive, is mere pap.

Also, last night I realized that something had been removed from the first time I had visited her MySpace page (glad I screen scraped it):

Notice the last line "I am becoming a professional protester too." OK, here's my bias - I see that phrase and immediately I think Left. This is a person who will protest for bucks. Probably only for issues and groups that she would be already in agreement, but to make that one's profession? What does that pay? More importantly, it does show a leaning toward a mind set.

Next on the journey was determing who Lilly Mesa is and growing an understanding of why she would write such a bill. I also found this by Googling her at PeaceWork magazine:

When people outside the USA live in extreme poverty conditions, and there are no opportunities to better themselves or their families, they see the USA as the greatest country in the world, where they can accomplish all their goals, provide for their families, and give their children a future.

We are fortunate to live in a country that has a government built on the rule of law. There is also a lower level of corruption and a society that is less "class oriented" than in most other countries that allow that striving for better to be achieved.

But the reality is totally different when they arrive here and get hit with it in their face. The so-called “freedom” doesn’t exist. They cannot walk on the streets without feeling fear of others looking at them differently because they think they don’t belong here. They cannot find a good job because of their legal status or because of the language. So, they end up having two or three odd jobs to support their families. They don’t have time to go to school to learn the language because they are always working.

Yes, freedom is here, but it is not free. It is not a free ride. Of course illegal immigrants have a fear of people looking at them - they should as there are here illegally! If I were to go somewhere knowing that I was not legally supposed to be there, I'd be looking over my shoulder too! And no, they are not entitled to a good job; heck, according to our laws, they should not be working period.

And what a straw man argument - "or because of the language" - for not having a good job! Logical? Sure, if I go to Germany, would I get a good job if I did not speak the language? Get real!

They are always working because the wages are so low that they can hardly meet the needs of their families. The children are always home alone, and they cannot be enrolled in any after school activity either because they cannot pay or because there’s nobody to take them. And because they don’t have someone at home to help with the school chores they don’t succeed in school. The children end up doing the same thing as their parents, working at two or three jobs in order to provide for themselves from a young age so they won’t be a burden for their parents. And when they try to go to college they cannot afford it. That’s a vicious cycle that we need to break. And this is only one of the situations. There are many different situations. Every immigrant has his or her own story.

Again, the non-use of the word "illegal" shows much of how Ms. Mesa views this country. It is alright for people without papers to come to the US. The expectation is that a good job should go to them, before a legal citizen, even if they cannot communicate with anyone.

THe emotional appeal of how their families are suffering because their decision, freely made, to illegaly come here.

Maybe they should be blaming their home countries' governments for doing such a lousy job of g creating an environment that does not allow them

We need a comprehensive immigration reform that allows families to reunite in a matter of months, not years, that makes employers provide a safe environment for workers, and that allows migrants that want to come to work temporarily to do so without waiting two or three years and paying an extraordinary amount of money. We need a reform that respects our cultural differences and appreciates our contributions to this country.

Well, I had not heard from her in response to my last email, so on 7/3, I sent another:

Good Morning!

I just wanted to take a moment to touch base to see if you were still planning on coming on our show this Saturday? If so, would you be able to come up to the studio here in Gilford (right next to Laconia) or would a phone interview be better? If the latter is preferable, is there a phone number (a landline is preferred) at which our engineer can call you?

I have also seen that you are a Bill Richardson for President supporter - would you want to talk about his campaign for a little bit as well?

Kindest Regards,

-Skip

By 7/6 having not heard from her, I finally sent another email out to the other co-sponsor: Susi Nord, another Democrat.

   Dear Ms. Nord,

    My name is Skip Murphy and I co-own a radio show out of WEMJ in Gilford called Meet The
    New Press" on Saturdays 11am - 1pm. I had been emailing with Ms. Mesa about coming
    on the show this Saturday (which two weeks ago, she agreed to do) to do a couple of
    segments on HB 404, but have not been able to reach her. While I, and my co-hosts, are
    conservatives, we also try to run the show as a "no sandbag" zone - we are not a Hannity and
    Colmes show, preferring to have a honest back and forth (heated can be ok, no shouting and
    not talking over others). I was wondering two things as you are a co-sponsor of the bill:

    -   Do you have a way to contact Ms. Mesa to see if she is still planning on coming
        (last contact I had was an email saying she was going to the US Social Forum)

    -   If not, would you want to come onto the show yourself? Either into the studio or
        by phone?

    Kindest Regards,

    Skip Murphy
    Meet The New Press

Now, Susi responded the next day (7/7):

   Dear Skip,

    Lily did ask me if I would be willing to do the interview since she would not be    available. I
    told her that since the point of the bill is to highlight the relationship that the
    legal immigrant population has with the police that I would not be the appropriate person to be
    interviewed on your show. I apologize for not getting back to you sooner, but I was away from
    my computer and did not receive your email until this morning.

    Susi Nord

A small quiet, but persistent alarm went off. Someone decides to write a bill, someone who is sworn to uphold the law, that effectively says "don't uphold the law"? And then tries to dodge it with the argument of "oh, I'm not an immigrant so I cannot talk about this - find an immigrant"? Such pap! My first indication that something is just not starting to smell right about this bill.

If one writes it, they should be willing to defend it anywhere and any time. If not, it falls into that special catagory of "oops, we got caught doing a special interest deal".

Oh, I forgot - the US Social Forum. Held in Atlanta, it very much is a Left leaning gathering. I went to its site and found this:

The US Social Forum is more than a conference, more than a networking bonanza, more than a reaction to war and repression. The USSF will provide space to build relationships, learn from each other's experiences, share our analysis of the problems our communities face, and bring renewed insight and inspiration. It will help develop leadership and develop consciousness, vision, and strategy needed to realize another world.
The USSF sends a message to other people’s movements around the world that there is an active movement in the US opposing US Policies at home and abroad.

Ms. Mesa's comment about becoming a professional protester seems to take on a different light here. After all, everyone is repressed by the Man, right? After all, it is not about SUPPORTING your country (with gentle corrections as needed) but OPPOSING it.

Sorry, but when I see words like that, the first thing that pops in is "Anti-Americanism" - the Hate America First crowd....so let's put things on a path to make it non-American.

We must declare what we want our world to look like and begin planning the path to get there. A global movement is rising. The USSF is our opportunity to demonstrate to the world Another World is Possible!

"Another US is necessary"....thus, it becomes quite clearer the circumstances for this bill. The highlighted line in Ms. Nord's email also gave me concern. It obviously is the case that these two just do not want our law enforcement officials to be able to enforce our nation's laws. They are being quite "politically correct" and show an open borders mentality.

Be that as it may, everyone is entitled to their own opinion (except when it is directed to harm to others or the overthrow of our government).

Ms. Mesa did write back:

Hello Skip,

I apologize for not contacting you earlier but I had too much work this week and my computer wasn't working well. Besides that I had someone in the family very sick. I would definitely like to go to your show with Rep. Nord, but as of right now the only Saturday that I will be available would be the 28th. Please let me know and I'll give you a call to confirm that. Thank you.

Representative Mesa

OK, things are finally looking up...we would still have the debate! I replied:

Good Afternoon,

The 28th would be fine (Lilly, I will consider you as confirmed) and BOTH of you are invited to come into the studio if you wish (by phone if not). Susi, we believe that you ARE appropriate, as you are the co-sponsor of the bill, and we are interested in the bill from a legislative viewpoint as well.

Let me know who this works for you both.

Kindest Regards,

-Skip

I may disagree philisophically with them, and be opposed to the bill, but I can be polite, right? As I tell my two sons, try to always take the high road.

Uh-oh, then it started. From Ms. Nord on 7/10:

Dear Skip,

I will not be participating, but thank you for your kind invitation.

Susi Nord

followed quickly by:

Skip,

I am really sorry but I was advised for my family, friends, and my lawyer not to participate in this interview. The last interview that I had caused a lot of trouble to my family because I got all kinds of threats, that I even had to go to the police and we are afraid of the consequences another interview might bring. I hope you understand.

Well, I could understand the latter, but not the former. Yet, the thought kept going through my mind that if two people who wished to radically change the landscape here in NH would not be willing to defend their bill, they should pull it. This is not something that you throw out there and let stick!

Time to try again.

Good Morning,

I am quite sorry to hear that you have chosen not to participate. I am even sorrier about the threats made against you - one should win in the discussing of ideas in the public arena and not by physical intimidation.

Ms Nord, while I understand that you felt that Ms. Mesa was the better person to have represented the bill that both of you crafted, would you be willing to reconsider your decision not to appear on the show? I would think that you would want some representation, for fairness sake, to discuss your reasoning behind the bill?

Immigration, legal and illegal, pro and con, is one of the topics of the day - being a talk show, we have and will continue to address it. I'm sorry to see that the sponsors of this bill that would have such a large effect on law enforcement in New Hampshire are not willing to defend it publicly. We strive to be a "no sandbag" zone - we are about the reasoned discussion of ideas and not about humiliating people and their ideas.

Kindest Regards,

-Skip

While Ms. Nord did reply, I was none too please with the condescending attitude:

Dear Skip,

Having seen the kind of treatment Representative Mesa has received at the hands of listeners to conservative radio shows, I will once again refuse your kind invitation. The people she has encountered have already made up their minds, and I have no desire to disturb their worldview with reason and facts that they won't listen to anyway. I choose to defend HB 404 in venues where those in attendence have open minds and do not openly threaten people with alternative viewpoints to their own.

Susi Nord

In other words, politely, go pound sand you bunch of cretins! We know better people to talk to, so we will do so - after all, you are all close minded and not willing to listen!

Yeah, I got ticked - just as not all liberals act the same, neither do conservatives. There are rational and loonies at both ends of the spectrum. However, exactly what Ms. Nord was claiming for "my side" (closed mindedness) was exactly the same behavior she was exhibiting.

And I told her that:

>> I choose to defend HB 404 in venues where those in attendence have open minds

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment - are you not, then, preaching to the choir on the liberal side? Whose minds have also been made up? Are you not already stereotyping us, being closed minded about us and our audience, just because of the label "conservative" that we attach to ourselves?

I listened to the Michael Graham interview....THAT is not us, even if we are more conservative leaning than you both. We may disagree with our guests, but we are not out to humiliate them. If anything, we are trying to be more of the late David Brudnoy style (albeit, a bit livelier, less libertarian) than a Michael Graham.

I do not wish to belabor the invitation that has been extended. The bill will be discussed even if there is merely an open chair to defend its philosophical underpinnings.

-Skip

I think I raised some hackles, to wit:

Skip-

I was referring to venues such as the NH House of Representatives where our hearings are open to the public and the legislators are supposed to be open-minded. I have little interest in participating in any radio call-in program period. A program such as NHPR's The Exchange is no different from what happened to Lily on that other program other than its tone. It still reinforces the dualistic us versus them mentality that predominates in our society. We seem to think that offering only two points of view means something is "balanced". To be honest in a way I respect you for at least owning up to your ideology.

Unfortunately the discourse in this country has become so polarized that I am afraid no one listens to what the other side has to say. We don't try to change people's minds anymore, we try to come up with the sound byte that will appeal to the most people. We try to win the media battle of who gets to frame the debate. I have no desire to be a "talking head" "spinning" my position. I co-sponsored a bill that is similar to laws in another state, as well as many counties and municipalities. It is a perfectly reasonable and not terribly radical piece of legislation. There are many people who disagree with my approach to solving this problem and I respect their right to differ from my opinion. I am not so arrogant as to think that anything I have to say on a radio program will be any different or more effective in changing the court of public opinion. Until policymakers are ready to put aside ideology and craft a solution that acknowledges reality, there will be little real progress on this issue.

I am sorry I won't do your show, but stereotyping or not, Lily received very real and very ugly feedback from those who disagree with her views. I have no desire to fan those flames, and I ask that you keep this in mind when you do your show. There are many more people like Lily who bear the brunt of this debate firsthand and they don't even have her very limited protection of being an elected official. What is a theoretical debate to you and me is the day to day life experience for the thousands of legal immigrants and new citizens who are here in New Hampshire. Very few people consider the fallout that this debate and the hatred it engenders has on their lives. Don't forget that your show does not occur in a vacuum and that whipping people into a frenzy is wonderful for ratings, but not so good for those who have to live with the consequences.

Representative Susi Nord

The radical agenda, politely stated (I have to be honest) starts to show.

Please note, however, that in these emails was the kind of debate I wanted on the show! No nasty words, no "hate" speech. Just ideas. Of COURSE I replied! And being a blogger, of COURSE I fisked it:

>> We seem to think that offering only two points of view means something is "balanced".

Well, HB404 lends itself to either two points of view in the end - either law enforcement CAN ask or they CANNOT. There is another way to look at this?

>> To be honest in a way I respect you for at least owning up to your ideology.

Thank you

>> Unfortunately the discourse in this country has become so polarized that I am >> afraid no one listens to what the other side has to say. We don't try to change
>> people's minds anymore, we try to come up with the sound byte that will
>> appeal to the most people. We try to win the media battle of who gets
>> to frame the debate. I have no desire to be a "talking head" "spinning" my

>> position.

And here I am trying to give you the opportunity to NOT do that, to move beyond the sound bite, to speak plainly and not "spin" the issue - just try to convince "the folks". I was not intending on just one segment (about 15 minutes) - I was hoping to truly debate this.

And you are turning it down.

>>I co-sponsored a bill that is similar to laws in another state, as well as many

>> counties and municipalities.
>> It is a perfectly reasonable and not terribly radical piece of legislation.

Yes, there are other states with this. However, I do not believe that is is "perfectly reasonable" and I do believe it is "radical" - come, let us debate it in an open manner!

>> There are many people who disagree with my approach to solving this problem >> and I respect their right to differ from my opinion.

Agreed, from the other side....

>> I am not so arrogant as to think that anything I have to say on a radio program >> will be any different or more effective in changing the court of public opinion.

And that is where you would be wrong....it should be debated on radio, on TV, in newspapers, in magazines, on websites, on blogs, and on the corner on soap boxes.

The issue is of importance, for it is one that on one hand extols Federalism, but on the other denigrates that central Federal authority at the same time. This isn't just about illegal and legal immigration.

Only with much debate should this issue be resolved. Removing yourself, especially as the primary proponents of starting the debate, does no one any good.

>> Until policymakers are ready to put aside ideology and craft a solution that
>> acknowledges reality, there will be little real progress on this issue.

One could state that it is your very own ideology that has led you to craft this bill. You both are the ones that have started this debate.

I do not believe in "alternate" realities - there is a problem and it must be solved. Oh, there will be a solution - one that will be voted on by a majority of the NH governmental system. The public has the right to be a part of that via debate and holding its legislators accountable for their actions - as was seen in DC this past month.

The same hue and cry that was there may soon be here in NH.

>> " I have no desire to fan those flames"

What I will say next will probably drive those that believe as I do kinda nuts!

"Evil men succeed when good men do nothing". By doing nothing to defend your bill, you will allow those that you consider to be evil to win the day. Even though I am on the opposite side on this issue, I believe you are doing those that support your position no good by remaining silent. If you truly believe in what you say, I would think that you would be standing up at every opportunity for the courage of your convictions in order to convince those that believe otherwise that your's is the wiser path.

In closing, I thank you both for your time, and wish you no ill will and will not badger you any longer. I am extremely disappointed that neither of you will defend your thesis - the offer will stay open until the bill is either passed or voted down.

-Skip

Well, Reps Lilly Mesa and Susi Nord dropped out - they are the writers of HB404 that would turn NH into a sanctuary state. They have now refused to come on.

Given the public "trail" that Lilly Mesa has left, and the other organizations of which she is apart, it is obvious that she is of the open borders crowd and wished to radically change the mores of this country as she fights for "social justice" (whatever that hackneyed phrase is supposed to mean!). Susi Nord, belong to a few of the same organizations, is in the same camp.

While I use the saying "Evil men succeed when good men do nothing" with Ms. Nord, it also applies to the conservative side of this argument as well. I have not comradeship with those that would lessen the worth of living in this country and being a citizen. I have severe problems with those that dispense with the important idea of US soil being sovereign and that it should be protected.

I have a large problem with the overthrow of the Rule of Law just because it does not fit the emotional appeals of "social justice" notions of the Left.

Posted by Skip at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Breaking News: Petitioners file "Motion for Reconsideration" in Belknap County Right-to-Know suit.

.

The petitioners in the Right-to-Know lawsuit filed against the Belknap County Convention, despite having "won" their case, today filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the ruling. As noted in this prior post, some of the words contained within Judge Bruce E. Mohl's decision, if allowed to stand, could make matters worse when it comes to tarnsparency and openness in government. His ruling, while declaring the plaintiffs position to be correct-- that the Convention violated the law-- unfortunately reaches out and creates a new, smoother path for governemental bodies to conduct business behind closed doors. Additionally, by allowing the result of the law-breaking action to stand, namely for the illegally-appointed Sheriff to assume his duties, the judge has denied the petitioners injunctive relief, effectively rendering their action moot.

.

This is the motion as filed today in Belknap Superior Court:

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BELKNAP, SS
SUPERIOR COURT
Doug Lambert and Thomas A. Tardif
v.
Belknap County Convention
No. 07-E-0140
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
            NOW COMES the petitioners Doug Lambert, ProSe and Thomas A Tardif, ProSe motion for reconsideration in the above entitled matter, and in support thereof, the Petitioners say as follows:
            “A motion for reconsideration allows a party to present ‘points of law or fact that the court has overlooked or misapprehended.’” Barrows v. Boles, 141 N.H. 382, 397 (1996)
            The parties provided the Court with all relevant dates and documents pertaining to Petitioner’s right-to-know request in its petition and at hearing. For the following reasons, the motion for reconsideration should be granted;
Fact and Law
1.      The court acknowledged that ‘On 29 May 2007, the Convention met to discuss the vacancy created in the Office of Belknap County Sheriff, occasioned by the resignation of Sheriff Dan Collis. The Convention voted to go into a nonpublic session pursuant to RSA 91-A:2 to discuss the process for filling the vacancy.(Emphasis added)

The honorable Court erred when it overlooked or misapprehended the fact that this is a violation of the right-to-know, and is clearly indicative that an injunction was in order to restore the major flaws in appointing an interim Sheriff, which is the contributing action that brought about this action. RSA 91-A:2 is not relevant to “nonpublic sessions”. However, it is clear that the purpose for entering nonpublic was to discuss the “process”. The process, synonymous with strategy or plan intended and in fact, was how to proceed with the appointment of the elected official. Clearly, a process, strategy or plan is not embraced by RSA 91-A:2, nor RSA91-A:3, I,(a) Nonpublic Sessions. “Bodies or agencies shall not meet in nonpublic session, except for one of the purposes set out in paragraph II”.
1.      The court acknowledged that ‘On 11 June 2007, the Convention met again and conducted interviews of candidates for the position in a nonpublic session, and determined two finalists for the position of sheriff.
          The honorable Court erred when it overlooked or misapprehended that for a second time, no motion was made to enter nonpublic session in accordance with RSA 91-A:3, I, (3). Nonpublic Sessions. Further, the minutes of both nonpublic meeting are not separate from those of the public meeting, as required. Further, the list of questions and answers is not inclusive to any minutes, such as they are. This is a clear and unambiguous violation of RSA 91-A:4, I-a, RSA 91-A:5. All applicants, upon filing to fill the unexpired term of Sheriff Collis, contemporaneously waived all rights to nonpublic session. This is an appointment. Once elected, no “official” can be fired by the electorate or its representative convention. Nor, if impeached are they eligible for unemployment benefits. Whoever an appointee may be, once appointed, the appointing body cannot terminate that official.
2.      The honorable court erred when it overlooked or misapprehended a fact that it is unknown what the votes, in nonpublic session, were to ratify or authenticate the list of seven, which was reduced to two finalists that ultimately were announced in open session.
3.      The court erred when it denied the petitioners motion for injunctive relief. In so doing the court overlooked or misapprehended the fact that the petitioners were denied a fundamental remedy afforded them per RSA 91-A:8, II to invalidate an action the Convention took at not one, but three meetings held in violation of the provisions of NH’s Right-to-Know Law. The derelict helter skelter circumstances in fact justify such invalidation. Absent the injunctive relief, it has the effect of rendering the petitioners’ action moot.
4.      The honorable Court’s fatal flaw is overlooking or misapprehending the multiple violations clearly identifiable in the petitioners’ attachment and subsequent exhibits which clearly document a majority of the members, being ill advised-- led or with premeditation, had placed themselves above the Law. Rather than being Law makers, they became Law breakers. This body acted in bad faith in refusing to allow access to a public proceeding. Clearly they felt it would be easier to ask forgiveness after the action than to comply with the Law.
5.      The court erred when it overlooked or misapprehended the legislative intent of RSA 91-A:3 II, which states, “Only the following matters shall be considered or acted upon in nonpublic session …(b) The hiring of any person as a public employee” (Emphasis added).
          RSA 91-A does not allow a nonpublic session to make appointment to fill unexpired terms of elected “officials”. TITLE VI, PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES CHAPTER 91-A, ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS AND MEETINGS is not ambiguous. The title makes a clear distinction between “Officers” and “Employees”. Section II (b) does not embrace Officers because they are either elected, or appointed to an elective position, when a vacancy in an unexpired term arises. A Belknap County Sheriff is no,t and never has been, “hired”. The County Convention is not empowered by the legislature to hire any employees.
          The legislative intent is clear when viewed in total: RSA 21:34 Filling Vacancy. – The term ""vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term'', when used in connection with appointments … shall be construed to mean that the successor shall be commissioned for a term equal in length to the unexpired balance of the term of his predecessor …” (underline emphasis added)
6.      The honorable court erred when it overlooked or misapprehended that the Convention, the appointing authority, cannot remove any official, much less the Sheriff, even for misconduct. Only the Superior Court may do so and only for misconduct. The Court or Convention has no jurisdiction over employees who may be hired and fired by “officials”. RSA 661:9, IV
7.      The court erred when it misapprehended that “the Convention went further than the Right-to-Know law required, conducting interviews with the two final candidates in public and voting at the public session, albeit by secret ballot.” A succinct and concise summary of the events in this most egregious action is as follows:
a.    29 May 2007,6:30 p.m. the Belknap County Convention held a meeting. Following the Close of a Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m. by motion of Rep. Boyce and second by Rep. Pilliod to enter a non-public session per RSA 91:A-2. This is an undisputable violation of RSA 91-A:3, (a) and (b).
            The minutes of the non-public session, which are included within the public session minutes- again, in conflict with the Right-to-Know law, indicate strategy and actions regarding the seven applicants. They further describe that a sub-committee was established to prepare questions and a score sheet and intend to have a meeting on Monday, June 11, 2007 at 6 PM at the County Complex. The document referred to—the questionnaire-- is not attached to any public record. The Convention came out of non-public session but did not seal its minutes or any documents discussed
b.    On 11 June 2007, 5:00 p.m. the Sub-Committee met to prepare procedures and questions for interviewing applicants. No record indicates a vote was taken by the committee to adopt the proposed questions and process.
c.    On 11 June 2007, 6:00 p.m. the County Convention came to order to interview Sheriff applicants.
             A motion by Rep. Millham of the sub-committee was made, but did not receive a second. In spite of the absence of a second, the motion was discussed. The list of Questions was amended to include four items: 1). Ask each candidate if their name may be announced. 2) Wait a week to accept public input. 3) Change finalist to not less than two. 4) There shall be a public in-put period of at least a week.
             Following the unanimous vote, absent any reference to RSA 91-A, the NH Right-to-Know law, the Convention entered Non-Public Session, a clear and unambiguous violation. The body commenced interviews at 6:35 p.m. The interviews concluded at 9:15 p.m. They deliberated in secrecy till 9:45 p.m. and then unanimously voted to come out of non-public and adjourned the public meeting at 9:45 p.m.
8.      The action of 25 June 2007, regarding the “secret paper ballot,” has been clearly defined by this honorable Court as a violation of the Right-to-Know. The minutes of June 11^thstate, under the described “Interviewing Process”, point number 5 that they will “Appoint a person to fill the unexpired term of Sheriff.” (Emphasis added)
9.      The honorable Court erred when it overlooked or misapprehended the answer to the petitioners’ motion by the Belknap County Convention, Stephen H. Nedeau, Chairman (not his or its representative) entitled MOTION TO DISMISS, paragraph “G”. “The County Convention specifically proceeded in the manner provided by RSA 91-A:2, II. There is a good public policy reason for the process to be exempted. The process protects and limits animosity being created in which an elected individual chosen to fill the unexpired term may not personalize their election in subsequent engagements between that official and the County Convention which authorized the … .”(Emphasis Added)
          This statement, effectively under oath, strikes at the very heart of the Right-to-Know law. At no time, on any occasion or meeting, has the Convention cited the required RSA 91-A:3, II exceptions to enter non-public session. No supportive documentation supports any good public policy reasoning to override RSA 91-A.
          What is clear is that the only intent of these elected individual was to protect themselves from any animosity from constituents and, most importantly, the appointee. No proof supports that the convention “went further than the Right-to-Know law required.” Clearly, their actions were to conceal and keep secret how each voted. Not one of the exceptions allowed under RSA 91-A: 3, II is intended to protect or prevent animosity upon or by any member of any board. To the contrary RSA 91-A:3, II, (c ) clearly states “Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the body or agency itself,… .” (Emphasis Added).

          Therefore, this Court must first determine if the methods used by the Convention to establish the process were in accordance with RSA 91-A, and:

a)         Differentiate if a Sheriff is a Public “officer” or an “employee”?

b)        Based on all the evidence in its possession determine if, in fact, the Convention “went further than the Right-to-Know law required” or instead violated RSA 91-A at every occasion relating to making the appointment to fill the unexpired term of a Belknap County official-- the Sheriff?

c)         Determine if either this honorable Court, petitioners or respondants are empowered or able to predict that “the convention would reach a different result if the matter were to be revisited” or if they, or any other appointing body, would continue to shun the Right-to-Know law. Would the vote count change from 10 to 4 or would it have been 8 to 7 or even unanimous?

d)        The honorable Court injected a question not put forth by the petitioners or the defendants. The honorable Court must restructure the facts and laws cited, and determine if it interfered with US and State constitutional separation of powers when it overlooked or misapprehended that “the Convention would have been well within its rights to conduct the entire process of selecting the sheriff in nonpublic session RSA 91-A:3, II(b)”?
e)         Whether RSA 91-A:3, II, (c ) in this instance has a force of law greater the RSA 91-A:2, II or 91-A:3, II, (b) in the above entitled matter?

            WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Petitioners respectfully request that this Honorable Court:
A         That because there is no basis for the honorable court to inject that “the Convention would have been well within its rights to conduct the entire process of selecting the sheriff in nonpublic session RSA 91-A:3, II(b)” in its order that it be stricken from its FINDINGS, RULINGS AND ORDERS.
B         In the event the Court is inclined to deny the motion for reconsideration, that the honorable Court schedules a hearing for oral arguments.
C         Grant the Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration;
D         Grant such other and further relief as justice may require.

Respectfully Submitted,

Posted by Doug at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

True Ugliness

This guy has got it right!

With the Democrats voting down Rep King's (R-NY) "John Doe" amendment (that would protect the public from lawsuits when they inform authorities of "suspicious activity"), this is just plain politics. From MilitaryMotivator

(smirk) So ask yourself, why are the Democrats acting so divisive? Why can't they just agree with the Republicans?

(concerned) The "Flying Imams" (the Imams who acted so suspiciously that they were hauled off the USAirways plane) are suing, along with CAIR, the simple passengers that were reporting activity that aroused fear among them (like acting like the murderers that flew the jets into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon).

Ask yourself, why are the Dems siding with known Islamists with ties to terrorist organizations?

And they believe they have our National Defense as our first priority? And don't understand why the American people don't believe that?

Posted by Skip at 1:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

True Beauty

(H/T: Karen)

USA at night on a composite clear night.....simply beautiful.

USA at night

'Nuff said

Posted by Skip at 12:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Details on our Right-to-Know lawsuit [UPDATED]

.

[UPDATE]: The Citizen newspaper ran an editorial further describing what this all means. Click here to read it.

.

One of the stories we missed while we were in technological meltdown this week here at the 'Grok was the victory/ non-victory handed down this week by the judge. Writing in his decision, Presiding Justice Bruce E. Mohl stated:

"the violation of the specific command of RSA 91-A is plain and indisputable. The county delegation should have known that a secret ballot vote in a public session violated that Right-to-Know law on its face."

That was the good news. The citizens have been vindicated. Their government INDISPUTABLY violated the law and it has been so stated in public, for all to hear. Unfortunately, the judge continued in his ruling, reaching out and, in error, created a new, less restrictive means for government to head for the cloak of secrecy offered by the infamous "non-public session." This is not good at all. Some have said we won the battle but lost the war. Wrote Judge Mohl, in his decision:

While the Convention has, without question, violated the Right-to-Know law with respect to the secret ballot decision to appoint Wiggin as Sheriff, the Convention would have been well within its rights to conduct the entire process of selecting the Sheriff in nonpublic sessions. RSA 91-A:3, II (b). The exeption for hiring public employees allows those matters to "be considered and acted upon in nonpublic session..." (Emphasis added.) In this sense, the Convention went further than the Right-to-Know law required, conducting interviews with the two final candidates in public and voting at the public session, albeit by secret ballot.

Except that the Sheriff is NOT an "employee" being "hired"-- click here to this post for the explanation. And the Convention, in their own pleadings to the Court in the case stated

The County Convention specifically proceeded in the manner provided by RSA 91-A:2,II. There is a good public policy reason for the process to be exempted. The process protects and limits animosity being created in which an "elected' individual choosen to fill the unexpired term may not personalize their election in subsequent engagements between that official and the County Convention which authorizes the individual department's budget. Further, as the Convention is a partisan group of representatives, the authorized exemption of the secret ballot election takes the taint of partisan politics out oof the process.

This flies in the face of the very foundation of the Right-to-Know law that calls for openness in government. RSA 91-A:3, II, (c ) clearly states

“Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the body or agency itself,… .” (Emphasis Added).

Click here to read our original case presented followed by the memorandum of law as submitted to the Court. What follows is the judge's complete decision that has us so concerned:

.

Here is the text:

Posted by Doug at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

NH a nuclear state?

.

So I'm re-reading today's dead-tree edition of the Union Leader following a tip-off from one of my friends. In reviewing a page A7 report by Gary Rayno entitled "Executive Council defends $2.3 million dollar security pact" for the State Military Reservation in Concord, I learned something that one might think would have gained far more attention than it has thus far: there are weapons of destruction right here in our state's capitol! Rayno writes of District 3 Executive Councilor Beverly Hollingworth, D- Hampton:

Hollingworth said she continues to have concerns about the hiring criteria in the contract for people guarding a facility that
includes weapons of mass destruction.

Say what?! Has New Hampshire joined that elite group of nations possessing nuclear weapons? Has Saddam had them hidden right here the whole time, cleverly fooling George Bush? Are we grinding anthrax spores down at the 'ole ammo dump downtown?

What exactly does Councilor Hollingworth know that few others don't?

If anybody out there can add to this story, or explain it further, I would sure appreciate it. I haven't seen anything online as of the time of this posting. If indeed there are such weapons here in the Granite State, should we apply the solution as proposed by these ~~brainwashed~~ cute little innocent kids? Should State Adj. Gen. Kenneth Clark be sent to jail, per the kids' plan?

.

First came the "A-Bomb". Then the "Islamo-bomb" and the "Dirty-bomb." Do we really want to add the "Yankee-bomb" to the list of things that keep us awake at night?

Posted by Doug at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Friday Humor

Methods from Human Resources...

1. Put 400 bricks in a closed room.

2. Put your new hires in the room and close the door.

3. Leave them alone and come back after 6 hours.

4. Then analyze the situation:

If they are counting the bricks, put them in the Accounting Department.

If they are recounting them, put them in Auditing.

If they have messed up the whole place with the bricks, put them in Engineering.

If they are arranging the bricks in some strange order, put them in Planning.

If they are throwing the bricks at each other, put them in Operations.

If they are sleeping, put them in Security.

If they have broken the bricks into pieces, put them in Information Technology.

If they are sitting idle, put them in Human Resources.

If they say they have tried different combinations, they are looking for more, yet not a brick has been moved, put them in Sales.

If they have already left for the day, put them in Management.

If they are staring out of the window, put them in Strategic Planning.

If they are talking to each other, and not a single brick has been moved, congratulate them and put them in Top Management.

Finally, if they have surrounded themselves with bricks in such a way that they can neither be seen nor heard from, put them in Congress.

(H/T: Trouble)

Posted by Skip at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Friday Humor - More!

A Senior Moment

A very self-important college freshman attending a recent football game, took it upon himself to explain to a senior citizen sitting next to him why it was impossible for the older generation to understand his generation.

"You grew up in a different world, actually an almost primitive one," the student said, loud enough for many of those nearby to hear.

"The young people of today grew up with television, jet planes, space travel, man walking on the moon, our spaceships have visited Mars. We have nuclear energy, electric and hydrogen cars, computers with DSL, BPS, light-speed processing .....and," pausing to take another drink of beer, the senior took advantage of the break in the student's litany and said,

"You're right, son. We didn't have those things when we were young, ...... so we invented them. Now son, tell me what are you doing for the next generation?"

(H/T: Wilma)

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

Friday Humor - pile it on! (It's been a long week)

One of our closest friends sent this to me, tongue in cheek, hoping to get a rise out of me. See my question back to her at the bottom.

WHY MEN should be happy:

Men Are Just Happier People-- What do you expect from such simple creatures? Your last name stays put. The garage is all yours. Wedding plans take care of themselves. Chocolate is just another snack. You can be President. You can never be pregnant. You can wear a white T-shirt to a water park. You can wear NO shirt to a water park. Car mechanics tell you the truth.. The world is your urinal. You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky. You don't have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt. Same work, more pay. Wrinkles add character. Wedding dress $5000. Tux rental-$100. People never stare at your chest when you're talking to them. The occasional well-rendered belch is practically expected. New shoes don't cut, blister, or mangle your feet. One mood all the time.

Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat. You know stuff about tanks. A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase. You can open all your own jars. You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness. If someone forgets to invite you, he or she can still be your friend.

Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack. Three pairs of shoes are more than enough. You almost never h ave strap problems in public. You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes. Everything on your face stays its original color. The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades. You only have to shave your face and neck.

You can play with toys all your life. Your belly usually hides your big hips. One wallet and one pair of shoes -- one color for all seasons. You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look. You can "do" your nails with a pocket knife. You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache.

You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives on December 24 in 25 minutes.

No wonder men are happier.

My question back to her was: so why are women so insistent on making their lives harder?

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Kicking the tires." Checking out candidates, NH style: The Democrats

.

As a New Hampshire resident and an active citizen journalist sharing my observations and opinions here on the 'Grok, on the radio program "Meet the New Press", and in a weekly newspaper column in the Laconia Daily Sun, media pass in-hand, I have had the opportunity to see a fair number of presidential wannabees live and in person. With the future of the New Hampshire “first in the Nation” primary uncertain, it has been my mission to partake of as much of what could very well be the last of its kind in its present form. Whether Republican or Democrat, I have found it both interesting and enlightening to get up close to listen to what these guys (and “gal”) actually have to say directly to real people, without the benefit of the normal filters in place throughout the old-fashioned mainstream media. As the wags like to say, I have “gone out and kicked the tires.” At the end of it all, one of these people is going to be our next president. Given the dangerous reality of the present times, it’s of paramount importance we choose wisely. In this post, I will focus on the Democrats.

.

.

So, what have I learned? Well, first of all, as a conservative, ordinary-thinking and involved citizen, fairly well-informed, the prospect of a Democratic-controlled White House scares me above all else. When listening to their (mostly) big- government, socialistic sounding ideas and themes, I wonder how it can possibly be made to work. To hear them speak so freely of using the powers of government to dictate, regulate, and outright take from the private sector in the form of mandates and new taxes ought to frighten anyone that still believes in the right to keep a portion, no matter how small, of the fruits of their labor. Fuel efficient cars? We’ll just mandate them, and they shall be so. Oh- if it’s been that easy, why didn’t we just do so a long time ago? Let’s review…

.

Listening to Dennis Kucinich wasn’t as bad as it might sound. While he has far-out notions and ideas, having heard his fellow Democrats on the campaign stump, I’ve learned that they’re not much different than what his more “mainstream” comrades are offering. The difference is that Dennis is more direct, and leaves no room for wiggling. He is completely honest in his plans for introducing wholesale socialism in America. Government-run healthcare? Definitely. Government run and OWNED energy and other resources? Definitely. It’s not much different than what Hillary’s peddling, other than Dennis is being honest with the voters.

.

When I saw Hillary in Manchester last week with hubby Bill, unlike all her counterparts, she took no questions from the crowd. There will be no spontaneity or unscripted interaction from her campaign. All we get is what she decides to give us, which, last Friday, wasn’t much. Aside from the usual pap about universal health care, she had nothing to say about illegal immigration. At nearly every event I’ve attended this year, almost without fail, the first question is about just that. While she shouted for better pay and benefits for cops, teachers, and fireman, she also included, believe it or not, lawyers. In Hillary Clinton’s world, lawyers are among the downtrodden. What did she say about the most vital issue the president has responsibility for: homeland security? Not one word. Who has time for that when there’s a class- war that needs to be ignited?

.

While Joe Biden’s rhetoric might match that of his fellow Democrats pandering to that party’s far-left base, he definitely doesn’t cause me as much worry as some of the others. Buried in his meandering, detailed talk (nirvana for the policy-wonk types) was a lot of realism and honesty. Too bad he doesn’t have a prayer of a chance. After all, the liberals in the crowd picked up on the same things I did.

.

Barack Obama held the most interest from me as an observer of the presidential political scene. I have often stated that politics, especially the higher up you go, is less about the actual issues, and more about emotion and style. The office of president is the pinnacle of this sad, but true reality. People as a rule, are going to vote for the guy that makes them feel good—about the candidate, and about themselves. (This is not only true for Democrats. It works both ways—i.e. Ronald Reagan) Barack did just that. He was an excellent speaker that uses the language with grace and ease. While delivering his message and theme, by no means conservative in any stretch of the imagination, he never once said anything openly negative or derogatory about the current president and administration. I, for one appreciated that. Considering the whole package weighed against Hillary Clinton, if forced to choose, I’d take Obama any day. He took questions, including one on illegal immigration, head-on- saying we must close the borders first.

.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson made that very same point during a house party in Wolfeboro I attended Tuesday. Like Obama, he promised to crack down on those who illegal employ people. What’s troubling is that he promises a massive shift in mandated energy requirements in the name of global warming, noting that it might be a real sacrifice that we’ll all have to share. A candidate that offers “pain” instead of “feeling your pain” doesn’t stand a chance. Other than guns and the aforementioned immigration stand, what struck me about Bill Richardson the most was how truly liberal he actually is. As president, he will propose a mandatory $45,000 minimum entry wage for public school teachers. Can anybody tell me how this works in NH? Can the President of the United States order the Gilford School Board to simply raise my property taxes?

Posted by Doug at 8:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

VLog: Bill Richardson on Illegal Immigration

I had the opportunity to attend a house party in Wolfeboro featuring Democratic presidential wannabee Gov. Bill Richardson. Touting a long resume of government service, he claims to be the most experienced man for the job. Following a lengthy list of promises bound to make many a hard-core liberal quite happy peppered throughout his stump speech, the New Mexico Governor took questions from the 40 or so people present. Wouldn't you know-- even at a Democrat event, the first question that came up was about illegal immigration.

.

His solution to the approximately 12 million illegals involves what he calls "earned legalization" which is NOT citizenship, or amnesty. He calls for learning English, payment of back taxes, a fine up to nine thousand dollars, backround checks, following the laws (isn't that hard for an ILLEGAL immigrant?) and what he calls "embracing American values". This YouTube VLog captures Gov. Richardson detailing his thoughts on the matter. In my opinion, he sounds like a politician trying to be on every side of the argument. It runs just over six minutes...

.

Posted by Doug at 8:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Great Comebacks...

General Douglas MacArthur promised the Philippino people: "I said, to the people of the Philippines whence I came, I shall return. Tonight, I repeat those words: I shall return!"

And he did. "I have returned. By the grace of Almighty God, our forces stand again on Philippine soil."

The Terminator promised, "I'll be back!"

And sure enough, he was... (again and again in many sequels, actually)

We thought he was gone for good...

"Heeere's Johhnny!"

Everybody thought this guy was toast:

But the "Comeback Kid" came back!

And so it is. Now we can add another great operation to the great comebacks of all time:

GraniteGrok. Yep... We're back! After two days of wandering in the wilderness of technology-- lost in a veritable no-man's land of Yahoo! abandonment and neglect-- and a whole boatload of work by Skip and our new server host, we're "sorta" back posting again. We apologize to those who have been waiting with bated breath for several days for fresh words and material from the 'Grok gang. Since Sunday morning, we have been unable to access or do anything with our blog other than look at it. (Which, while we admire it, we want new material every day)

We will undoubtedly experience many more goofs, gaffs, and glitches along the way, but in the end, it will be better than it ever has been... At least that's what we hope!

NOTE: many comments have been lost. At this point, since we are still reloading the database, it may be a while before I get back to them. Also note (mostly to the other Authors here) - it looks like I am the sole author....we'll fix that later.

Posted by Doug at 7:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

VLog: Rudy on the war (not just the Iraqi front)

At a town hall meeting in Concord NH on 7/10/07, Rudy Giuliani discussed the war from a broad view. He emphasised that the war with Islamic terrorists goes far beyond Iraq. He also counsels we wait for the September reports from the military leaders in Iraq before making any conclusions about defeat. I agree. He discusses the need for honesty with the American people in decribing for them the seriousness of the problem posed by Islamic fundamentalism.

Here is a YouTube that sums up what he said on the subject in about four minutes. The first part was from his actual discussion during the town hall style meeting at Concord's NHTI, followed by words on the topic while answering a question from the media immediately following the event.

.

Posted by Doug at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

VLog: Hillary Clinton- "The Face of America"

Here is a video of Bill Clinton speaking to a crowd of about 1000 people gathered in Manchester's Victory Park on Friday the 13th of July. His introduction speech was riddled with references to all the "hard work" he did as president, which in turn forced him to send Hillary packing around the globe as the "face of America." He then asks the crowd to just imagine the future with Hillary as president...

.

Posted by Doug at 8:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Notable Quotes - disgrace

Was just doing my normal run through of all the blogs / sites I try to hit every day (around 80 on various and sundry topics) and saw this over at Op-For:

Just because....
A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.
-Alexander Hamilton

Given how the Democrats in Congress are so hell-bent to remove our troops from Iraq and repeat the disgrace to the US and the harm to the Vietnamese and Cambodian people when the Democrats forced us to retreat from Vietnam, it fits - it just fits.

We once saw ourselves as the protectors of freedom anywhere - the first and greatest champion of liberal democratic (notice the little "d") ideals of any country in the world. President Kennedy proclaimed "...pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any enemy..."

How far we have fallen from that lofty rhetoric...

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

Howie Carr update

Like many folks throughout New England, I too was stunned by the news that longtime afternoon talk show host Howie Carr- the "franchise" of WRKO radio these days, is jumping ship to another station to do a morning drive time slot. Many believe he's making a play to replace Imus as the "king" of morning talk.

.

Searching for some more info on the matter, I found this detailed story from the Boston Phoenix. Apparently, there's a lot more than meets the eye. And it turns out, the divorce between Carr and RKO might be a rocky one. Writes Adam Reilly:

Howie Carr’s jump from WRKO-AM (680) to WTKK-FM (96.9) isn’t a done deal just yet. Carr’s new morning drive-time show is supposed to begin in October. But after the Herald reported this past Monday that Carr was poised to bolt WRKO, station spokesman George Regan released a statement hinting that WRKO might take legal steps aimed at keeping Carr from leaving — or, barring that, at making his exit as unpleasant as possible.

Click here to read the whole thing. In addition to some details on the Howie saga, it's a fascinating inside look at what's happening at one of the legendary broadcast icons here in the New England market.

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

VLog: Hillary Clinton on homeland security

.

When studying the varied presidential wannabees from both parties, and attending their campaign events one comes to appreciate the type refered to as a "town hall meeting" versus the more typical rally type of event. (click here for an overview of a town hall meeting as demonstrated by the master, McCain)

.

The town hall event has at the beginning what might be called the standard "stump speech" one might find at any basic campaign rally, followed by what makes it so much better: audience questions. This is where those in attendence really get a feel for how a candidate does in a less rehearsed situation. Additionally, some questions draw out information and facts that might otherwise go unknown or stated. (A great example of this is the immigration question asked of Barack Obama as reported in this prior post.)

.

During Hillary's campaign rally in Manchester, NH this past Friday the 13th, she unfortunately didn't take audience questions, instead only speaking on the topics, issues, and themes of HER choosing. With that in mind, this YouTube captured her words on the great threats currently faced by Americans here in the homeland and her plans to defend the country:

.

Posted by Doug at 8:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Oh no, It's Ann (Not Dennis) Miller Time!

Have you ever watched “Miller Time” on the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News? If you have, you know that Dennis Miller is not just one funny dude, but he’s smart as a whip.

I listen to Dennis on WTPL, 107.7 FM from 10 am until 1 pm every chance I get. While he talks about very serious subjects, he always approaches them with his unique sense of humor. He’s one of the few people I know who can slam someone or some cause yet, because he’s always laughing and does it in such good humor, it’s difficult to take offense to his position even if you don’t agree with him.

Then there’s Ann Miller, Executive Director of NH Peace Action. Not only does Ann not seem to have much of a sense of humor, she’s also lacking in the smart as a whip department.

Click on her letter recently published in the Monitor, Giuliani’s Offensive Foreign Policy here, and you’ll see why she’s no pie in the face comedian and just not too bright.

My personal history with Ann goes back several months. After I read an article she wrote published in NH Magazine and after reading several stories from several newspapers, I wrote Ann and she called me. The first words out of her mouth were that I had “disrespected her” by referring to her as Tokyo Ann.

For you youngins out there, here’s a bit about Tokyo Rose whom I based my Tokyo Ann comment on:

“She had the best music on her station. During World War II; the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces. Psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work.

They gave the script to their famous broadcaster “Tokyo Rose” and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways.

The Japanese hoped it would have a negative impact on American GI’s morale.
     What was that demoralizing message? It had three main points:
     1. Your President is lying to you.
     2. This war is illegal.
      3. You cannot win the war.
     Does this sound familiar today?
          It is because we are being bombarded by Tokyo Hillary, Tokyo Harry, Tokyo Teddy, Tokyo Nancy, Tokyo Murtha, etc., and they have picked up the same message and are broadcasting it on Tokyo CNN, Tokyo ABC, Tokyo CBS, Tokyo NBC, etc., to our troops.
          The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they demoralize them. Come to think of it, Tokyo Rose told the troops she was on their side, too.”

The truth is that there was an amalgam of about 20 Japanese female broadcasters who were known as Tokyo Rose, but that’s not really the point. You may also want to read up on Hanoi Jane, aka Jane Fonda, for information on other well-known traitors against the United States of America.

Ann and I talked for approximately an hour. During that time I asked her the three questions above and kept insisting on a “yes” or “no” answer. Finally Ann reluctantly agreed that her answer was “yes” to the questions.

So, Ann, I said, I haven’t really disrespected you at all, I’ve just been somewhat of a messenger of truth to you and you can still shoot the messenger, but it won’t change the truth.

Ann was getting ready to lead an anti-war protest scheduled for March 17 in front of the State House in Concord where she had the brilliant idea…NOT…to collect used shoes and line them up on the sidewalk with names of Iraqi civilian citizens who had died in the war. She did not want to hear about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who had been murdered by Saddam Hussein before his government was toppled.

This is part and parcel of Ann’s usual unwillingness to face the truth. She insists on staying in her state of denial and she’s always “right” unlike Dennis who says things like “I could be wrong” and I’m open to being convinced of that fact. Unlike Dennis, Ann is not open to being convinced of anything except what she insists on believing whether it’s truth or not.

By the way, I haven’t heard anyone provide convincing evidence to Dennis why he’s wrong in supporting our troops and their mission in Iraq. He, like me, realizes that many Americans just don’t “get it” and insist on staying in their denial about what’s really going on in the global war on terror.

I strongly suggested that Ann’s shoe idea was a bad one since it showed irreverence and disrespect to our military that show honor to a fallen soldier by using empty combat boots. Ann’s always right according to Ann and, of course, she still used her empty shoes although she didn’t have her little protest on March 17 because there was a snowstorm and these peaceniks are very fair weather protestors.

Many of us still showed up at the State House on March 17, click here, in a Support the Troops and their mission rally regardless of the weather. We’re a much hardier group of people probably because we have truth on our side and are passionate about true patriotism.

Ann later, when the weather was pleasant, used her shoes and not only that, she and others disgracefully dressed up as Iraqi civilian mothers holding bloody cloths attempting to signify dead Iraqi babies and by reference call our military “baby killers”...something commonly used to taunt and attack our men when they returned from the Vietnam war and were spit on and treated with the most disgusting show of poor behavior by their fellow Americans whom they had been fighting for to keep free at their own personal sacrifice.

Ann is a coward. While I asked her to pass along my letter to her fellow anti-war people outlining her inappropriate bad ideas, she did not. Not only that, she did not share her Iraqi mother dress up idea to any of her constituents and caught them unaware. She also displayed a pair of empty combat boots and put the names of NH’s fallen soldiers on the boots completely outraging some of the Gold Star Mothers whose children had willingingly joined the military and given their lives in America’s fight for freedom against the global war on terror.

How do I know this? Because I subsequently spoke with the President of a High School peace club who had been at the rally and had been slammed for attending this disgraceful display of unamericanism and he was completely unaware of the correlation of the empty shoes and was never told by Ann upfront about her pathetic dress up display.

He felt terrible that he participated in something so outlandish and didn’t quite understand why he would be associated with approving of Ann’s actions. Yikes! I warned him to be careful and find out ahead of time what Ann’s plans were because people automatically assume that you approve of everything that happens when you march in an anti-war protest.

I told him I was proud of him for getting involved regardless of the fact that I completely disagreed with his position. I also encouraged him to call me to perhaps get the other side of things any time he wanted to do so. I have not heard back from him, but I’m guessing he’s a bit more cautious about what he participates in and hopefully attempts to question Ann about her plans before hand….not that she’d tell him the truth as she likes to be in control and take advantage of youth by hiding her motives from them.

Ann just doesn’t seem to get it nor does she want to get it. She thinks negotiating with terrorists is the way to go as though it’s as simple as a high school debate where both sides are willing to negotiate. Who's the 7 year old here?

Ann lives in a lah, lah peace state of mind and is completely unwilling to believe that religious fanatics such as the islamofacists merely want to kill her, her family, friends and every single American regardless of her or anyone’s belief in peace.

No, Ann, Rudy’s completely right: “They started it.” You’re so wrong, Ann, about a lot of things whether you want to admit it or not, and you’re a traitor and have committed treason against the United States of America and our military who still courageously fight to protect even the likes of you.

Ann told me she believes in globalism rather than Americanism. Ann, you’re allowed to say anything you want because you’re living in a free America. But, why the heck are you still here since you obviously hate America and our American military and more closely associate with Iraqi civilians?

Please, feel free to leave and in fact many of us would be happy to help you pack and even buy you a one-way ticket to Baghdad and you can dress up for real instead of pretend as an Iraqi mother. That would be really courageous on your part and that’s exactly why you won’t leave your safe, peaceful home in the great US of A now isn’t it?

PS: Here's my Letters to the Editor at NH Magainze:
Letters to the Editor

Rubbing Salt?

After reading this Q&A [with Ann Miller, director of N.H. Peace Action, March 2007 issue], I almost gagged from a sugar high.

I’ve never read anything more naive than Ms. Miller’s opinion that everything in today’s violent world can be handled by finding “common ground” and using “diplomacy.”

Unfortunately, what Ms. Miller fails to understand is that it’s absolutely impossible to find common ground or a diplomatic solution when we’re dealing with terrorists and others who place absolutely no value on their lives (or anyone else’s, as we Americans do) and are willing to blow themselves up and take innocents with them.

The other side of the story about many of these supposed “peace” groups is this: There are mothers of soldiers currently serving in Iraq who have received “death threats” from “peace” groups; Groups led by Cindy Sheehan, etc. have made it clear that they intend to throw red paint on our sacred war memorials in Washington, D.C., on March 17 at noon, and the Concord High School Peace Club (affiliated with Ms. Miller’s organization) have asked that “old shoes” be donated to “represent Iraqi civilians whose lives have been lost in the war” at their event in Concord on March 17. (See Concord Monitor, Letters to the Editor, 2/25/07.)

Not only is this not an “original” idea, it virtually spits on the graves of the very American soldiers who protect their freedoms by disrespectfully encroaching on a very sacred military tradition of empty combat boots signifying respect and honor for our fallen soldiers.

These groups (in my opinion) are completely insensitive and continue to attempt to rub salt in wounds, re-traumatize and re-victimize the very American soldiers (past and present) who protect them and their cushy way of life!

In my opinion, Ms. Miller is attempting to live in an unrealistic la-la “peace” land and many cowardly people continue to hide behind “peace” agendas while waging their own war against our beloved soldiers and country.

Judy Paris
Bradford

Salt II Treaty?

Thank you, Rick Broussard, Editor, for printing “Rubbing Salt?” in your April edition.
News outlets many times only report “peace” agendas and “against the war” stories, although personally I’ve written (and know of many others as well) many rebuttal articles to many newspapers who don’t print “the other side of the story.”

While peace groups spent a year organizing their March 17 march in Washington, D.C., according to the National Park Services, only 5–10,000 showed up. Pro win the war, support the troops and various veterans’ groups organized in only six weeks and, according to the same source, had an estimated 30,000 people in attendance.

It’s disconcerting that so many people believe what they read in their newspapers and hear on TV, although much of it is very biased and inaccurate. It’s too bad that so many people are so naïve, and it certainly makes me wonder about the “polls” taken about “get out of Iraq,” etc. Fox News was the only news station that actually reported the numbers of Americans who showed up in support of winning the war and how few peace supporters showed up.

This is journalism at its finest and you and your magazine should be very proud for printing all sides of a story.

Judy Paris
Bradford

Posted by Judy at 5:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Meet The New Press Podcasts - 7/14/07

Here's the podcasts from today's show - Enjoy!

Podcasts

To play (or "stream") a clip now, just click on it. To download it to your PC, right click on it and tell the process where to save the file for you.

Week of 07/14/07

Hour 1 here Hour 2 - here

Hour 1

          Intro - 7/14/07 - Pat is back! Dan McGuire is our special guest (Murphy's Taproom,
                 Republican Liberty Caucus, NH Reagan Network, Granite State Taxpayers,
                Coalition of NH Taxpayers, and lots more!).
                Webcam - not live but will post the video here later.
                Special Election in Hookset won by Dave Boutin (R) where Dan McGuire assisted,

         Discussion - Doug's Hillary Press Pass on the Mic - the 'Grok goes to the Bill and Hillary
                        event in Manchester.
                Barack event mentioned.
                The advantages of the NH Retail Politic reality.
                Differences between campaigns, Repubs and Dems - issues and details vs issues and
                        emotions. Hillary's oratorical style.
                We want the campaigners to come on in!
                Pat's Barack story (funny!).
                President Bush's lack of ability of communication and leadership on a consistent basis.
                Comparison between Barack, Rudy, Hillary, Huckabee for speaking styles.

Dan starts a discussion on Pat's political activities as a political blogger.

         Interview - Dan McGuire - political start in life was upset by taxes, MassCare, bad government
                causes poverty, Republican activities, Free State Project, NH Republican Liberty
                Alliance, discussion of the Republican Party platform (big tent and numbers vs
                principles and platform support) and the NH Reagan network.

Hour 2

      Interview - more with Dan McGuire
                Republican Party Platform (big tent vs principles), "quality" of Republicans via
                        measurements,
               Pat's question - Party platform calls for no money for those that support partial birth
                        abortion - how will this affect Rudy? Skip - accountability to the platform with
                        consequences.

         Senator Talent - Supporting Mitt Romney's run for President.
                        The more people hear about Romney, the polls go up.
                        Need change in DC - Romney will do it as he embraces the Republican principles                                 and can energize the base and attract the center in the general election.
                        Change agent discussion.
                        Wants to replace the UN with a more relevant organization
                        Mitt will veto to cut spending - history in MA was turning a deficit into a surplus in a
                                Democratic state
                      Look at the debates - Mitt can communicate
                        Democratic base "oomph" vs seemingly Republicans' apathy
                      MassCare - how does that play against Dems universal healthcare

Dan - web sites, playing Bridge (card game)

          Presidential - Democrats - the 'Grok is seeing all the campaigns, Repub and Dems, to bring
                        a focus on the retail politics. Who has the greater enthusiasm (D or R)?
                        Differences between Dem or Repub supporters, emotional vs details, and why.
      Email - One person's thoughts on "why the difference between Dem & Repub supporters

Discussion - the MTNP crew discusses the Pope's remarks this week. A layman's dicussion of
the differing theologies between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians.

Webcam: coming soon!

Posted by Skip at 7:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What's Healthcare gotta do with war?

Is this Ghoulish? I was wondering about the word choice then actually pondering some of what this letter to the editor states and forgot about the word choice after I read the last paragraph:

"We need to stop thinking in terms of killing and how to make us even more lethal. We need to think in terms of peace and to provide a higher quality of life to the citizens that pay into this country with their hard work."

Yahwee, there's alot a thinkin' goin' on here, huh? I guess all we need to do is think "'peace" and it just ahh happens. Perhaps some people just don't quite understand it yet, but the terrorists aren't gonna think peace or act in peace. They are out to kill us, and it doesn't matter whether you have health insurance or not, or your male, female, straight, gay, purple, atheists, Catholic or 2 years old.

And, how can everything (do ya mean everyone?) chase a buck?

Yes, I agree, we need to provide a higher quality of life to the citizens that pay into this country with their hard word. Now, don't ya know that the military pays into this country with undoubtedly more hard work than those of us who can take advantage of peace here at home 'cause we're here and they're there.

No doubt insurance companies and drug companies are making a killing. This guys comment about the "bloated military" however has me stumped for sure. Plus, how do you solve the cost of a doctor's education....now there's a high-priced ticket item.

Heh, I'm one of those people that just recently let my health insurance lapse because the premiums were raised so high that it seems to make more sense to me to bank the money and hope for the best. While I do have a chronic illness requiring meds every day for the rest of my life, I can buy 3 months supply of them for one month's premium. And, yes, they're very expensive but staying active for me is certainly worth the cost.

Okay, so apparently America needs to wake up and stop thinking that capitalism is the answer for everything. So, pal, what's your solution? You know the saying, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Posted by Judy at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Meet the New Press- Today at 11 [UPDATE]

.

Once again, this week's broadcast version of the New Media brings an array of items and guests for your consideration. As always, thanks to the technical wizardry and analytical skills of Skip, if you are beyond the broadcast area of Newstalk 1490 WEMJ, simply click here for instructions on how to connect and listen via livestream. (Podcasts here)

.

Pat will be with us today, following a string of family matters that has kept him away for the last few weeks. Welcome Back, Pat!

.

Also joining us is Dan McGuire, who, when looking over his resume/bio, fits the description of what a NH "renaissance man" might be, if there was such a person. This should be an interesting and wide-ranging discussion.

Special in-studio guest Dan McGuire. In addition to recently helping a GOP candidate win a special House election in Hooksett, he is an active Republican serving on the Merrimac County Committee, the State Committee, the Platform and Bylaws committees, and belongs to the Republican Liberty Caucus. He is also active in a long list of conservative/ small "L" libertarian causes, including: NH Reagan Network, Granite State Taxpayers, Pre-engineering Technology Advisory Council (promotes and advises pre-engineering education in NH), NH Parents for Educational Freedom (school choice), Your State House (weekly public access TV show in Manchester), Epsom Planning Board, NH Liberty Alliance, Free State Project, Coalition of NH Taxpayers, Club for Growth (National fund raising and lobbying group for lower spending & taxes. Also, he is active (beleive it or not!) in several non-political groups as well-- He is president of the NH Bridge Association, Granite State Ambassadors, an "angel" investing group in Nashua and, according to him, Murphy's Tap Room. Hmmm. He's not Irish, is he?
A REPUBLICAN wins a special election here in NH?
As a Free-Stater/ libertarian, why stay in the GOP?
What is the Reagan Network?
Republican Liberty Caucus
Update on the Right-to-Know lawsuit here in Belknap County
Pre-engineering education? What is that?
Educational freedom in NH? It doesn't look good, considering the state is ready to MANDATE kindergarten
Ron Paul-- He wins online polls and straw polls, yet he doesn't register on any "regular" polls. Idealism versus reality?
Guest Senator Jim Talent will discuss the Romney campaign
Prez '08- Skip and I will talk about what it was like to see the Clintons yesterday
Latest statement by Pope Benedict
State rep Lilly Mesa- She sponsors a bill to create an illegal immigration sanctuary here in NH--- and then goes into hiding, choosing NOT to defend her proposal
Whew! Etcetera!

What a show! It all starts at 11AM EST today. Tune in if you're in Central NH at NewsTalk 1490AM WEMJ or live on the 'Net here...

[UPDATE:]

.

Several MTNP programming notes:

.

(1.) We apologize for not getting to half of the topics on the list. As usual, we got off on multiple tangents (which was OK, BTW) and ran out of time. We have offered Dan an opportunity to come back again soon. (2.) We will make a concerted effort to put the schedule up on Fridays from now on. This morning, due to a server error, we were unable to post it much before the start of the program. (3.) The number of Internet listeners continues to grow. We thank all of you listening in all formats and would appreciate any feedback you might have. We hope to begin a virtual parade of presidential hopefuls beginning in the next few weeks. From both parties. While tough, we are not a "shout" show and promise to be a "sandbag-free zone" for all guests-- even ones we disagree with. Our aim is to provide an enjoyable, informative and ENTERTAINING program every Saturday. We want you to feel smarter by the end of each show.

Posted by Doug at 3:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Blue Star Mom's opinion - NH Congressional Reps do not support the troops

From a loyal listener and Blue Star Mother (reprinted with permssion):

On Thursday, July 6th, I was at the deployment ceremony for the 34th Rear Area Operations Center (RAOC) that is deploying to Iraq. It brought back memories of a year to the date when my son, along with the rest of the 3643D, had their deployment ceremony. We had honored guests a year ago that spoke of the support of them, their mission and their families.
At this recent deployment, we had those that truly support the troops. From the Chaplain's prayer to the Commander's talk – they know their mission – a mission that can achieve victory. Most of those that were on the stage support our troops to victory and believe it can happen and know that we are in a war – war for our future and war on terrorism. Then you have Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter. Paul Hodes was asked previously if he thought this war could be won and he would not answer, but his wife did – she said "No, it can't be won" and Shea-Porter avoids the families that have tried on several occasions to meet with her. They both make me think of one thing – cockroaches. They, like the cockroach, run away when exposed to the light and if really disturbed – run rapidly. Paul Hodes and Shea-Porter gave lip service, but as they spoke, there was emptiness to their words…because it is hard to sound sincere when you do not believe what you are saying. They have nice exoskeletons – that external feature like the cockroach – the supports and protects their true feelings.

So, the light is on and Hodes and Shea Porter are nowhere to be found. Sorry military families – but at least you know where NOT to go for help!!!

Susan Peterson
Weare, NH

Posted by Skip at 8:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

VLog: Rudy on energy independence and its importance

.

During his town hall meeting in Concord, NH this week, America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, spoke about energy independence. Other than ethanol, which I think is a waste of perfectly good eatin' corn, he's just about where I'm at on the matter... nuclear, clean coal technology, some solar & wind, dependent on future advances in battery technology (I would add trash-to-energy to the list), and the two biggies (at least for me): Build more refineries and

take advantage of existing oil deposits in the US...

As he says, in the short term, while we're fighting Islamic fundamentalism, we'll reduce our reliance on the Middle East- home to a number of our enemies. At the same time, Hizzoner notes that energy independence and the attendant technologies will be good for America in the global economy- it's good for business.

.

Here is the video. It runs about three and a half minutes.

.

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

Dope of the Week - Prince Charles

Yeah, we have been rather sparing in giving this award out lately. Looking over the just the political scene, one could rightly conclude that simple sloth explains the inactivity in this area as there have been so many deserving would-be-honorees.

So, I've off-shored the award this time - off to the UK for this one. I give you - Prince Charles!

Why (this time)? For someone who is supposed to be the Defender of the Faith (titular head of the Church of England), he seems to not be all that willing to be loyal to his own faith. This story talks about this:

London - Muslims and Christians have far more in common than they have differences, Britain's Prince Charles said at the opening of an exhibition of Islamic art in London Thursday.

'So much attention is paid to the outward differences between faiths. Almost reflexively, this becomes translated into seemingly impenetrable divisions between people,' said Prince Charles, who has made the promotion of inter-faith understanding one of his main interests.

'People who - if they did but know it - are in fact linked by much and separated by little,' he said.

Clues...clues....someone hand him one. If one does only even a surface examination of the basic tenents of each faith, there is nothing in common - they are diametrically opposed to each other theologically (why else does many of the Islamofascists believe that we are of the Dar Al-Kufr - land of infidels?). Not a nice way of referring to kindred spirits, eh?

And this is the person that probably still is hoping that one day he will be King?

God save the Queen...

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

Friday Humor - techno-kitty?

Leave my mouse alone,

or

Time for speech recognition software?

Glad I have dogs...

[Doug note: speak for yourself, Skip. Cats rule!]

[Skip retort: furballs! Uppity creatures!]

[Doug: Dogs-- landmines in the yard, and on a rainy day-- oh the stench! And it's on their owners, too-- trust me Skip... ;-p ]

[Skip rebuttal: furballs and stinky kitty litter trays in the house]

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

Shea-Porter - Did she ever take an economics class?

When I started at BU, my floor at 700 Comm Ave ("the Zoo") consisted of 40 freshman guys who were primarily bio, chem, and engineering majors. Pretty much, we were all in each other's classes. When it came time to take electives, like all undergrads, we looked for easier courses. Most of us picked Economics 101 & 102, where we met a lot of the Business majors. Now, this is NOT a crank on Business majors....it IS a crank on those that do not understand basic economics, seemingly like my Congresswoman, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH).

Now, what I remember most was the first couple of classes of EC-101 and how hard it was to not burst out laughing as the poor TA was trying to teach a lot of my classmates what I and my floormates was elementary school stuff - how do you describe a straight line on a graph (hint: Y = MX + B anyone?). Our mirth knew no bounds when we saw kids dropping out right and left because they "didn't get it" (sorta like the Physics and Math majors did, in turn, when we had problems in Multi-Variate Calculus).

When I saw this over at NH Insider, all those EC-101 memories came flooding back (and actually, I believe everyone should be exposed to basic micro- and macro-economics => ESPECIALLY if you are a legislator. Heck, I believe you should have a number of years as a private sector employee and employer to boot to be a legislator or Governor or President).

Anywho, let's launch into this analysis:

Congresswoman Shea Porter announces House Passes College Cost Reduction Act

Right off the bat, this is absurd just from reading the title and reading the rest of this post. Please tell me, WHERE does it put forth any items that would deal with the real cause of why college education - such as cost limitations? Isn't that what the title says? Cost reductions? Naw....

Bill Includes Shea-Porter's Amendment to Increase Pell Grants

Washington, DC - Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) today applauded the passage of a bill aimed at expanding access to higher education. The House passed the College Cost Reduction Act, which included language offered by Congresswoman Shea-Porter to increase funding for the Pell Grant program, by a bipartisan vote of 273 - 149.

Let's see if I get this straight - increased funding at no cost to tax payers? Last I knew, we all pay taxes and fees to the Feds - if spending increases, it has to come from the taxpayer - the government cannot just print money (otherwise, as the money supply increases, inflation increases if all other things remain constant).

Let's remember this, shall we? I looked over at her Congresssional site for any further explanation but found nothing.

The legislation marks the single largest investment in college financial aid since the GI Bill - and does so at no new taxpayer expense. It pays for itself by reducing excessive federal subsidies paid to lenders in the college loan industry by $19 billion.
"The new Congress is keeping its promise to help lower and middle income families pay for higher education," said Congresswoman Shea-Porter. "Not only will this bill increase the funding for Pell Grants to allow more students to attend college, it does so without any additional cost to taxpayers."

Excessive federal subsidies, eh? In other words, just not pay those that process and service the applications. Well, basic economics says that if there is less profit, companies will leave that sector of the marketplace.

Possible Law of Unintended Consequences - let's see if it becomes more difficult for students to get the loans due to paperwork backups?

You know, the type that has fouled up the passport system lately?

During the committee mark-up of the bill, Shea-Porter, along with Representatives Joe Courtney (D-CT) and Danny Davis (D-IL), introduced an amendment to increase funding for the Pell Grant program by approximately $860 million. As a result, the maximum value of the Pell Grant scholarship would increase by $500 over the next four years - a full year sooner than timeline put forward in the original bill. This will bring the total Pell award to $5,200 by 2011, up from $4,050 in 2006, when combined with other Pell increases already passed or pending in Congress.

So what Shea-Porter has helped to do is to make it easier for students, at the lower end economic scale, to get into more debt faster. Again, while on an individual student level, paying for college can be expensive, the real problem is skyrocketing costs at colleges.

When there are no incentives for colleges to rein in their cost structure, tuition and board / room costs continue to rise. When the Feds simply throw money into the hopper at one end without making the outflow smaller, enlarging loan amounts will only exacerbate the problem - not make it better.

In addition to the Pell Grant increases, the legislation will cut interest rates in half on need-based student loans, reducing the cost of those loans for millions of students and their families. The House passed similar provisions earlier this year to cut interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over the next five years. Once phased-in, this would save a typical student borrower $4,400 over the life of a loan.

One question - if interest income was helping to fund the loans (lenders have to reap a return on their investment somehow), they have now made it harder to keep that program going - unless John Q Public forks it over.

The College Cost Reduction Act also includes a number of other provisions that would help ease the financial burden imposed on families by rising education costs, including:
·       Tuition assistance for excellent undergraduate students who agree to teach in the nation's public schools;
·       Loan forgiveness for college graduates that go into public service professions;
·       Increased federal loan limits so that students won't have to rely as heavily on costlier private loans; and
·       New tuition cost containment strategies.

In other words, let's discriminate against students that wish to go to the private sector. Let's artifically pump up the size of government by making it more attractive over the long haul. What's not to like? Better pay in the middle to lower end of government, great benies, and a good defined retirement program.

In other words, again distort the marketplace by by 'good intentions".

I looked at the CRS Summary for the bill over at Thomas and found this gem:

Provides student loan forgiveness to borrowers who serve in areas of national need as early childhood educators, nurses, foreign language specialists, librarians, certain highly qualified teachers, child welfare workers, speech language pathologists, National Service participants, and public sector employees.

[snip]

Forgives the balance due on DLs by borrowers who have been public sector employees for 10 years and made 120 income contingent payments on such loans.

In other words, nothing more than a new entitlement that you ONLY get if you work for government. Looking at the list, the only early childhood educators and nurses seem to have much of a role in the private sector.

Look, a college degree is not a right. It is not a privilege either. This is a payment for services - cash for knowledge and training. There is an economic worth to a degree and that worth is determined by the success in earning that degree (i.e., grades), where the degree is obtained (Yale or the local community college), and the field of study of the degree.

Example: a chemical engineering degree from a top tier school may have a graduate having $50,000 of debt but with a starting salary of $70,000. Contrast that to an early childhood graduate with $35,000 of debt - but who may have an income expectation of a salary of $15-$20,000.

One is smart in determining that the long term cost is worth it - the other just plain stupidity.

Cost containment they say?

Withholds specified HEA funding from states that reduce their current higher education funding.

One one hand, this makes sense - why have the Feds ante up more just for the States to rein in their costs? BUT, does this help to rein in overall costs? Course not - it just makes sure that the college income stream stays at a higher level.

Note: the Thomas site is currently reporting that it does not have the actual text of the bill as of yet so I could not parse it to see what these "cost containment" features are.

Additional Background on the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 (H.R. 2669)
Increase the Purchasing Power of the Pell Grant Scholarship
· The Courtney, Shea-Porter, Davis Amendment increases the maximum Pell Grant scholarship by at least $500 over the next four years, ultimately reaching a maximum scholarship of at least $5,200 - a full year earlier than the original timetable.
· Expanding eligibility to include and serve over 600,000 new college students.

When a provider of services sees that the consumers of their services have more to spend, it is to their own economic benefit to extract that extra money from their consumers. As I said before, unless there are restrictions on colleges to limit the growth of their cost, this bill is not going to do much to "make colleges more affordable".

All in all, this is an economic dud in the sense that this is NOT a way to make college more affordable. That will take a process by limiting the growth in the expenses of colleges that are passed on to students.

This bill does not do this; it only provides more money to students that not only feeds their debt but also only provides more income for their colleges. For Carol Shea-Porter to claim that her amendment makes college more affordable only by providing more money (instead of reining in costs) such is a shame.

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

BUY A BOX OF TISSUES!

Grab the tissues first and then click for one of the most heart touching videos you will ever watch!

I will be blogging from the left coast starting tomorrow for nine days. I'll let ya'll (for you, Sue) know whasup in Cali dude! Surf's up!

Bon voyage!

Posted by Judy at 6:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

NOT from partisan pols, but from the General-in-Chief

I am so tired of listening to the "cut and run" pols in DC. For the most part, I believe that they are not of the opinion that they truly believe that the war is lost in Iraq but flap their gums for political position and BDS.

Having said that, I do believe that mistakes, many of them in fact, have been made in the war in Iraq. That's what happens in war. But when Reid, Pelosi, and others outright state that the surge has failed when it has only been two week in operation, one has to logically think of "political opportunism" rather than assessing the actual results-in-progress.

Just pure politics, and nothing more. Want the real story? Read the MilBlogs (see our blogroll to your left) to see how things are really going. Real changes are happening. Not from the top down as first thought, but with the added troops taking and then holding (big mistake was to only do the former and not the latter at the same time), the locals are turning agains AQ.

And listen to the real dude in charge (you know, the ones that the pols agreed to change our strategy, and now want to pull the rug out from underneath him before his plan actually starts to get rolling?). From the NY Post, Ralph Peters interviews General Petraeus:

July 10, 2007 -- GEN. David Petraeus, our nation's senior soldier in Iraq and the commander of Coalition forces, this week took the time to ex plain to Post readers where he believes we are right now - and where Iraq is headed.
Ralph Peters: The current military operations in Iraq appear comprehensive and tenacious, part of a long-term, integrated plan. What can we realistically expect to achieve?
Petraeus: Our primary goal is to work with our Iraqi counterparts to improve security for the Iraqi people. This is intended to give Iraqi leaders the time to resolve the tough political issues they face and to pursue internal reconciliation.
We're working to eliminate the capability for al Qaeda and any other extremist groups to plan, assemble forces and mount attacks. We're clearing extremist sanctuaries in Baghdad, as well as in the belts around the city and in Diyala Province - while pursuing terrorist and extremist leaders throughout Iraq.

More after the jump...

Petraeus: Our primary goal is to work with our Iraqi counterparts to improve security for the Iraqi people. This is intended to give Iraqi leaders the time to resolve the tough political issues they face and to pursue internal reconciliation.

We're working to eliminate the capability for al Qaeda and any other extremist groups to plan, assemble forces and mount attacks. We're clearing extremist sanctuaries in Baghdad, as well as in the belts around the city and in Diyala Province - while pursuing terrorist and extremist leaders throughout Iraq.

As to reasonable expectations, we can expect a reduction in sectarian deaths and the gradual spread of Iraqi government authority. The level of sectarian deaths in Baghdad in June was the lowest in about a year. Nonetheless, extremists still have been able to carry out car bomb and other attacks. Obviously, there's considerable work to be done to reduce that ability.

Q: There's a strong focus on going after al-Qaeda-in-Iraq in this offensive. How are you bringing our strengths against their weaknesses?

A: Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq's key weaknesses are an ideology that does not resonate with Iraqis and an indiscriminate brutality that alienates the people. Popular sentiment has begun to shift against them.

To break al Qaeda's grip on troubled areas, we employ the full range of our combat and support capabilities, as well as interagency assets. At the end of the day, though, it's a Marine or Soldier on foot who does the final clearing, and our troops have been magnificent - as have, in many cases, our Iraqi partners, though their performance remains uneven.

Wherever we operate, we try to reconnect Iraqi ministries and local governments to meet the needs of the people. Finally, we provide opportunities for Iraqis to use their local knowledge to help root out al Qaeda. Successful operations of this nature have played out in recent months in Ramadi, Hit and Baquba. In each case, Iraqis turned against al Qaeda and sided with the Coalition.

Q: After more than four years of often frustrating operations in Iraq, troop morale remains remarkably resilient by historical standards. Even re-enlistment rates are impressive. How do our men and women in uniform remain so committed?

A: They know they're engaged in a critical endeavor, one that's "larger than self." They recognize the mission's importance not just to Iraq, but to the entire region and to our own country. Despite multiple tours and separations from loved ones, not to mention the impatience, frustration and other emotions we all feel at times, our men and women in uniform want to see Iraqis succeed - and, of course, they have a fierce desire not to let down their buddies. The bonds of those who have served together in combat are particularly strong.
We celebrated the 4th of July with a wonderful ceremony in Baghdad. It included what may have been the largest re-enlistment ceremony in history: 588 of our men and women raised their right hands and signed up for another tour in the Armed Forces. Following that, 161 soldiers and Marines became United States citizens, reciting the oath to the nation they had been serving in combat, but that had not yet been their own. They were proud Americans, and we were all proud of them.
Q: The performance of Iraqi security forces still seems to be a mixed bag. What are their strengths and weaknesses? Do they really have a national identity?
A: There is a national identity in the Iraqi security forces, though it varies in intensity and some units still exhibit the sectarian behavior that was so destructive in late 2006.
The Iraqi security forces often reflect the quality of their leaders. There are some very good units that are largely operating on their own, and there are some that need considerable Coalition assistance.
Of course, their strengths include a level of cultural awareness that no amount of training can give us. They have knowledge of the local areas that's particularly helpful, and their human intelligence networks can be of considerable value. Beyond that, they've been willing to fight - especially when their leaders set the example. Their losses in June were three times ours.
Their key weaknesses are a lack of logistical self-sufficiency, heavy weaponry shortages (improving) and the lack of the infrastructure so important in modern warfare - all of which we're helping them build up.
In the case of the local police, recruits and their families can be vulnerable to intimidation and coercion, if the situation where they live gets tough.
We celebrated the 4th of July with a wonderful ceremony in Baghdad. It included what may have been the largest re-enlistment ceremony in history: 588 of our men and women raised their right hands and signed up for another tour in the Armed Forces. Following that, 161 soldiers and Marines became United States citizens, reciting the oath to the nation they had been serving in combat, but that had not yet been their own. They were proud Americans, and we were all proud of them.
Q: The performance of Iraqi security forces still seems to be a mixed bag. What are their strengths and weaknesses? Do they really have a national identity?
A: There is a national identity in the Iraqi security forces, though it varies in intensity and some units still exhibit the sectarian behavior that was so destructive in late 2006.
The Iraqi security forces often reflect the quality of their leaders. There are some very good units that are largely operating on their own, and there are some that need considerable Coalition assistance.
Of course, their strengths include a level of cultural awareness that no amount of training can give us. They have knowledge of the local areas that's particularly helpful, and their human intelligence networks can be of considerable value. Beyond that, they've been willing to fight - especially when their leaders set the example. Their losses in June were three times ours.
Their key weaknesses are a lack of logistical self-sufficiency, heavy weaponry shortages (improving) and the lack of the infrastructure so important in modern warfare - all of which we're helping them build up.
In the case of the local police, recruits and their families can be vulnerable to intimidation and coercion, if the situation where they live gets tough.
Q: The defection of Sunni tribes in Anbar from their alliance with al-Qaeda-in-Iraq to cooperate with Coalition forces is one of the most encouraging developments we've seen. Can this be sustained and expanded? Are there risks?
A: The "flipping" of the tribes in Anbar has been a very heartening development, and we do believe it can be sustained and expanded. That's precisely what the Iraqi government and our units are striving to do as Sunni tribes in Diyala, Salah ad Din and Ninevah Provinces turn against al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates.
We're beginning to see a revolt of the middle against both extremes. That's potentially decisive. Of course, there are risks involved, should these groups turn on one another or on government forces after they're done with al Qaeda, but the risk looks manageable. Key to all this is to incorporate those who want to fight extremists into Iraqi government institutions as quickly as possible, so that they're responsive to a government chain of command (and get their salaries that way, too).
Q: While there's a feel of military progress just now, there hasn't been corresponding progress within the Iraqi government, whose members continue to squabble. Why should Americans believe the Iraqis can get their act together?
A: The political dimension is the most significant current challenge. Iraqi leaders are grappling with first-order questions - akin to our own debates at the birth of our nation over states' rights and so on. And the progress has been less than what all of us - the Iraqis as well as Coalition leaders - had hoped to see.
There have been some encouraging signs, such as progress on some critical legislation and the rise of opposition to extremists in many areas, but, ultimately, the political issues must be resolved by Iraqis in an Iraqi way. Our role is to create an environment in which political compromise becomes possible - by breaking the cycle of sectarian violence and lifting the pall of fear.
Q: Now that the surge is fully in place, what's your sense of the positives and negatives thus far? If you could have more of any one item, what would it be? Troops? Time? Iraqi unity?
A: I can think of few commanders in history who wouldn't have wanted more troops, more time or more unity among their partners; however, if I could only have one at this point in Iraq, it would be more time. This is an exceedingly tough endeavor that faces countless challenges.
None of us, Iraqi or American, are anything but impatient and frustrated at where we are. But there are no shortcuts. Success in an endeavor like this is the result of steady, unremitting pressure over the long haul. It's a test of wills, demanding patience, determination and stamina from all involved.

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

Blogging tools - he started it!

Our good buddy over at Right Wing News, John Hawkins, put up a post about what his toolbox looks like for blogging. Being a techie by training, I find it interesting to see what other bloggers are using.

Copycatting here? Not really - we realize here at the 'Grok that John / RWN is one of the big dogs in this world. But I figure that even if we are not professionals like John, we are ardent about this new media type that regular folk can adopt and use for fun, enjoyment, and (at times) put up serious stuff. And we let our readership sort it all out, which is as it should be. And maybe someone will benefit by seeing what is in our toolbox

Software

Hosting platform: Yahoo
I just don't have the time to do our own system management

Web Server: Apache

Blog software: Moveable Type 3.32 (I do some tweaking but not 'full depth' yet)

Tracking: Sitemeter on GraniteGrok and GilfordGrok
I also check Technorati and BlogNetNews/NH.

Tools for postings: OpenOffice 2.1 for text set up, spell checking, spreadsheet, and some
                                        graphics which I should use more often for spell checking)                                              MS WordPad (simple text)
                         Adobe Photoshop Elements (graphics)
                         MS Paint (graphics)
                             MS FoxPro (database management)
                             SmartFTP (File transfers)

Misc:                      Thunderbird (email)
                             FireFox (browser)

Part of what I also do is handling the audio live streaming and subsequent podcasting of our radio show, Meet The New Press. For that ->

Live Streaming: AOL Winamp and DSP add-on (takes the radio station feed into my laptop and
throws it to our live stream server).

Live Streaming Server: AOL Shoutcast

Audio Editing: Audacity (audio editing for the resulting MP3 files)

We also do video streaming via YouTube, but Doug handles that - if he wishes, he'll clue us all in.

Hardware

AOL Shoutcast Live audio stream server

Laptop Dell D820 - Intel Duo 2Ghz, 2Gb RAM, 120GB disk, CD/DVD burner
15.4" screen running Win XP

Mouse: Logitech trackball

Second Monitor: Dell 19" LCD

KVM switch Belkin OmniView SE 4 port

Desktop Dell Dimension 8400, 2.8 Ghz Intel, 1GB RAM, 160GB disk running Win XP
(used for backup)

Monitor NEC MultiSync LDC 15" (just an old one I have around the house)

Camera: Kodak EasyShare Z650 with a 1GB SD card

Digital Voice Recorder: Edirol by Roland with a 1GB SD card

SD Card Reader:    SanDisk MobileMate SD+
                                   This is the cheapest of all of my tools, but really speeds up transferring
                                    files from the camera and the DVR...I love it.

Thumbdrive: SanDisk 1GB stick - U3 capable

Web Cam Logitech QuickCam (the one on the long stalk, used for video
during Meet The New Press studio guests)

Scanner: HP Scanjet 5400C

Headphones: Sony MDR-NC20 noise cancelling headphones.
Originally bought them for air travel to cut down the noise, but are great for MTNP studio use and audio editing.

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

Barry

Barry Bonds

"Take me out to the ballgame, take me out to the crowd. Give me some peanuts and Cracker Jacks.....lah, de, dah, dah.....give me some steroids and heart attacks! Oh, Take me out to the ballgame.....NOT!

Well, apparently Randy Hill for Fox Sports just doesn't seem to get it in my book, but click here and see if you agree. Personally, I think pretty much the entire piece is rather poorly written and a bit confusing about what he's really trying to say here. It seems that many contradictions abound, but one thing seems clear and that's that he's most certainly a Bonds' fan....poor Barry, it seems has been picked on.

He mentions that baseball has rallied a bit from the strike of 1994 and asks: "Why has this happened?" According to him, "the biggest reason is baseball's commitment to power." "commitment" you say, huh?

Here's a little diddy from a Bonds' Biography for your enlightenment.

Duhh....yeah, cheating's ok as long as we see more power and if it takes cheating, well, so what? The real bottom line of course is MONEY and baseball's "commited" for sure.

With Bonds now 4 homeruns behind Hank Aaron's amazing record, what's it all mean? For me, absolutely nothing since the playing field is definitely not level and Bonds' "accomplishments" mean nothing as far as I'm concerned. Sorry, but we'll never know the truth about whether Hank's record could have been beaten without Bonds' drug use, etc. Nor will we ever know what Bonds could or could not have honestly accomplished in his career if he hadn't cheated.

Many place Bonds in the company of many of the game's greatest hitters such as Pete Rose, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Rogers Hornsby and Ted Williams. Puhlleeeze! I had the pleasure of going to many a Cincy Reds game during Rose's career and they didn't call him "Mr. Hustle" for notin'....I'm thinking betting on baseball is a bit less serious than injecting power-inducing drugs into your body, but then, hey, I'm no longer a baseball fan partly because, let's face it, the game's not really America's past time anymore for many of us who believe that honesty's still the best policy. The Babe must be turning in his grave and Williams probably would be too if he weren't frozen!

I hate to tell all you sports' junkies, but many sports are dishonest these days along with much of society unfortunately. From personal experience allow me to share a story of just one example.

My son Ryan, a professional snowboarder, was competing in the slopestyle event (think ski slope containing 4-5, 60-80 foot jumps off of which riders spin, flip, etc. (yes, all at the same time) and hit rails doing other tricks while speedily going down the hill) at his Second Winter X Games. Twenty riders are invited who have won a major pro event during the previous year. Ten riders advance to the finals. Well, Flyin' Ryan was the bubble boy in 10th place with one rider to go with a chance to knock him out of the finals. It was an Olympic Year and I nervously watched as Olympian Danny Kass (a great guy by the way) started his run. There's no slopestyle yet in the Olympics but Danny competes in the half pipe as well, Ryan does not.

Danny was very good right up until the last "money booter"....the biggest jump in the course. Unfortunately, Danny fell which usually automatically disqualifies a rider from scoring well or advancing....stomped landings are very important criteria along with amplitude and technical difficulty which the judges' score on.

After Danny fell, while I was sorry for Danny, I "knew" Ryan would be in the final since he had a run with similar difficulty (I traveled with him for 3 years until he turned 18 and quite simply know alot about the slopestyle event) but stomped all of his landings except for a bit of a "wiggle" on the last "hit's" landing (no hand down or fall, etc. like Danny) after spinning a corked cab (think spinning your least favorite and hardest way depending on which foot forward you ride on) 1080 (3 spins), the same trick Danny successfully completed except for the landing.

The Winter X Games is a huge ESPN media event and represents big bucks for at least the top three finishers in the variety of events and making the finals puts you in a position to hit the big money. ESPN makes a ton of money as well with world-wide broadcasts. I ran into a few ESPN guys at the airport the previous year, started talking snowboarding, moto-cross, etc. who said they laugh in the booth many times and even know when things have been "fixed" and they'll shout fix, fix, fix when poor-judging is so very obvious. They were talking about an event I happened to miss that year, but I certainly knew the general idea of the conversation. Ahh, but I digress...

Much to my surprise, Danny's score goes up on the jumbotrone and he narrowley scores higher than Ryan bumping Ry out of the finals. I know it's not "right" and alot of the crowd seems to agree as they start booing. Now, you could just say hey, it's mom and she's biased. But wait....there's more to the story.

Ryan licks his wounds, understands Danny "needs" to be in the finals especially with the Olympic's just around the corner and this final event is on TV all over the world. Great publicity, of course, for the pre-Olympic athletes and events. Ryan knows life's not always "fair" and neither is snowboarding.
.
Simply by accident while on my way to the athlete's tent, I run into one of the announcers I've known for several years. He tells me how he was in the judge's booth and the judge's realized they scored Danny way too high and that Ryan should have made the finals. Okay, so I stupidly ask: "are they going to correct the scores?" He looks at me with the "you know better than to even ask that question" look....I'm disgusted, again, that sometimes people can't make a mistake, correct it and move on.
.
Well, it's not that I haven't seen other snowboarders "robbed" at any given time at various events over the years, so it just happened to be Ryan in the precarious position this time. What bothers me is that this sport, like many others, just poo-poo's things with the ole' hey, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose and if you can't take it, go big or go home attitude!
.
I'm not very happy, and even recommend that Ryan file a protest. "Yeah, right, Mom, then they'll just blackball me and not invite me to some of the other big events...you know how it is", he says as best as I recall.
.
Good for Danny as he ends up 2nd or 3rd in the finals behind probably the best known snowboarder in the world, Shaun White. They both go on to the Olympics and Ryan goes home to Utah with $250 for 11th place and no automatic invite to next year's Winter X as it's only the top 10 re-invited...so he "pays" twice for doing a better job. Since Ryan had suffered 3 major injuries in the 3 previous years and was counting on a good finish to keep him in the gameand had previously decided to retire after the season he reluctanly decides that this will probably be his last year competing at the pro level. Basically, he says he's just had enough of the politics of the sport.
.
While I digressed, although it's just an example of "cheating", I hope you thought about Barry Bonds and what you think about Hill's story "Disdain for Bonds is overblown."
.
Me....I participate in alot of different sports, but I watch few on TV since I'm always questioning whether or not the real "winner" was really the real "winner" in many sports that are subjectively judged. Think Olympic Ice Skating from a few years back for another good example of what's wrong in sports.
.
So, yeah, Mr. Hill, I'm one of the "But most of you would prefer lobbing credit (poor choice of words?) for baseball's problems at steroids and their liaison, Barry Bonds.
.
I'd like to go back to a society where, yes, maybe winning is everything, but it's done with honesty and integrity, no cheating allowed, and politics are left to the politicians who are much more adept at lying with straight faces.
.
We're not doing our children any good by our example, now are we?
.
"Please remember that you didn't invent nearly as much passion when his (meaning Bonds) calling cards were a high average, the stolen base and great defense" said Hill.
.
Yep, again, sorry, but I'm not going to give any credit to a cheater offensively or defensively in a cheat-to-win at any cost baseball game or society. It's how you play the game and that's what we need to teach our children. I'd rather play my best and lose, then cheat and win at any sport or in life. The ends do not justify the means. I have no problem looking at myself in the mirror, how about you, Barry?

Posted by Judy at 6:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

VLog- Question for Rudy: NYC a sanctuary city?

Rudy Giuliani with reporters. Concord, NH 07/10/07

.

Here is a YouTube featuring Rudy Giuliani's answer to a questioner at today's Concord, NH town hall meeting, who, implying New York City was a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants during his tenure, asked,

"Weren't you a contributing factor in the illegal immigration problem?"

The video, just over four minutes long, features a somewhat detailed explanation of the city's policy, and the rationale behind it. Rudy confronts it head on, noting the questioner had

distorted into this view I gave sanctuary to illegal immigrants.

I'm not sure Rudy's answer will satisfy the hardliners on this matter, of which I'm one, but his answer must be taken in his context of what he needed to do as Mayor versus the responsibilities of the Feds. At least he has an answer that appears to be an honest one, which is better than pandering. Watch for yourself. In it, he plainly proclaims,

New York City was not a sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

.

Rudy discussed illegal immigration from the presidential/Federal perspective in another part of his talk, which I will post as a YouTube soon.

.

Posted by Doug at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Blogger call - Duncan Hunter

John Hawkins of Right Wing News is moderating the call (at least starting it off) and started with the roll of who was on the call. I should get a techno-whatis so I could record the call - just an adapter so I could push the call not only into my headset and into the new Edirol DVR the 'Grok bought (btw, very nice - I put a 1GB SD card into it for a LOT of talk time, stereo mics [ was built for musicians not bloggers] - really nice quality recordings too!. With an USB reader to take the SD, a nice tool to have...

Playing phone tag - John got off to call Duncan, and Duncan got on, and then John got back on. The problem is that Duncan Hunter was just joining from a floor vote.

Note: the following is raw text - spelling, typos, et al are present...will be fixing over the next little while.....

Overall impression - seems to want to engage the bloggers (actually, this was the first call where the bloggers were kind of shy!! Imagine that! Shy bloggers! Almost a silent version of 'after you, we're being polite!" kind of deal going on).

I think it through Rep. Hunter a tad off at first, but I have to give him credit, he kept on asking for more questions. First time I've EVER had the chance to ask multiple questions. AND I believe he wants to be engaged - he truly wanted to make sure everyone had their chance. Next time, I'll have a whole slew of questions and won't be shy to ask. Hey, if he's willing, I'll start talking more!

Opening statement:

Just finishing up a vote on the floor to follow up the Dubai Port problem (where a foreign based company had control over our marine ports) - Foreign investment Act. Wanted the SecDef to trigger an investigation - Senate took it out and then the House passed the bill without the investigation.

Was in NH, did some media events and parades, spending on Iowa, then to CA. He son is running for Congress, but was called back to Iraq by the Marines (he is a Captain) so they are doing a fundraiser for him in his absence.

Border enforcement front - great expression of the American will to kill that bill. He is restarting getting the already authorized (last year) fence built.

Skip from GraniteGrok - Me! -What do you think about the FairTax and its ability to replace our cumbersome IRS code?

He is a sponsor of the bill! It gets rid of the bureacrcy and the time spent filling out forms. Get rid of the $250 billion overhead that is now required to be compliant. It also has the side effect of leveling the field for US exports here (as we pay double, taxes here and most countries have 15-20% VAT tax on our stuff hitting their shores. And then their manufacturers get their taxes rebated).

What is the chance for that it will pass?

Slim or none due to the Dems. None of them have been talking about this.

Erica from Human Events - What are your thoughts on success of the surge and why does the MSM calling it a failure?

There are some folks that are predisposed to already call it a failure - even on the first day (a single car bomb and a talking head was calling the surge a failure). From Speaker Reid on down, this kind of talk is bad for our troops morale. They don't think we can spread freedom around the world. Brought up the example of socialism and Soviet Union and that some thought that "it was inevitable".

John from RWN - a question asked of him on Meet The New Press - What your stance on the POW naming / reclassification issue?

Talked about the ramifications on length and pay and the like. [I pitched in to further explain the diffence between POW/MIA and , being a co-host, much obliged to John for bringing it up as he promised]. Duncan went on to talk about the Geneva and the responsibilities of countries that are signatories. He believes that it is needed.

[note: the actual question asked during Meet The New Press is below:

As President Mr. Duncan Hunter will also be Commander in Chief...Today if an American Serviceman/woman is captured they are known as "Missing-Captured"..which is the designation the DOD and Pentagon have changed from POW/MIA, a term all Americans understand and the term used under the Geneva Convention..shouldn't our Service personnel have the right to be classified as the Convention ask to guarantee them all help and protection possible?

-Skip]

Duncan was a little unsure of the specifics but assured the bloggers and John Hawkins that he would find the right people to get the right answers and get back to us.

Dan Spencer from RedState - What should we do about Iran and its meddling everywhere?

Iran is marching to assembling a nuclear device. They are being helped by Russia and CHina who want their money. The Sancations are not changing teir behaviour....mention the tunneling near the centrifuge areas. We have to stop them. His recommendation is that we have a policy that stops them before they go to the cliff. Nations can move very quickly, faster than we realize. We have to stop them (not getting into details).

Kathy (missed her organization) -Hillary was speaking about Iraq - there is no military solution to the situation. Comment?

That is her position and she is consistent. She doesn't have the ability to stop the war, only leave the battlefield. Look at Britain - the jihadists are waging war there.

When you give people self-determination, sometimes actions are delayed and inept. It takes a while. There are political deals that the Iraqis have to make. We have to stand up a military that protect the weak political politicians. They need 129 battalions about 3-4 month rotations in full military action - logictics, leadership, and the like. Once that is done, then we can leave.

The politics will take years to fully develop.

Dan Spencer - Red State -What is your assessment of your campaign right now?

Thinks it is going well, has a compact campaign. Lots of activities. Trying to resonate with folks who don't know Duncan Hunter, as he is starting with a low

Skip from GraniteGrok - What was the effect on the Republican leadership of the results of last months bill (the shoot down of the amnesty bill)?

The millions of communications have had a huge effect. Usually politicians pay attention to as little as 25 communications (letters, calls, faxes, emails). Despite their protestations, they appreciate hearing about it [Me thinking to myself - calling Trent Lott or Lindsay Graham anyone??].

He believes that the leadership was afraid of the bill in the first place and that the House was relieved that it didn't come over. He believes that some Senators wished that it had never come up [Me - amen to that!]

7 months and the already authorized wall is still not built. Time to kick start it!

Posted by Skip at 2:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Blogging at Rudy's!

Rudy Campaign poster

LIVE!

AT Rudy's!

Actually, not really Rudy's place, but The Mayor is giving a speech here in Nashua and the 'Grok is here. Doug did an earlier event in Concord (Manchester) and has video that he will be putting up later on.

As normal, am early. So this:

will look far different later on.

=================

Updates will be chronological in order - earlier first. Please know that these are "rough notes" - spelling, grammer, and typos may well abound during the event! If I get the time, I will fix them later.

Hmm, about 10 minutes from show time. Had a quick chat with Wayne Semprini (former NH GOP chair and currently State Chair for Rudy's campaign here in NH). I don't think that there will be much time for questions after the event as The Mayor has to be "wheels up" by 8pm. However, I did remind Wayne that he still has our certificate from the Belknap County Republican Winni Cruise to appear on our radio show, Meet The New Press. Thus, am hoping that any time we don't get with The Mayor now will be made up later on as he will be a guest co-host for the day.

The event so far as a different feel to it....all of the staffers are running around in suits as not. The place is now (6:26) filling up quick - most of the general audience chairs are filling up pretty quick and the dais is starting to as well:

More after the jump.

Well, just met the NH Priorities lady, Christine.

Funded in part by a foundation set up by one of the very liberal founders of Ben and Jerry's ice cream, the cookie she gave me was rather good. The ideas - not so much...they try to portray a picture that the Military budget should be cut a lot in order to fund social services. Maybe we'll have her on MTNP as well. as her pie chart on the cookie is wrong....most of the Federal budget is already set for social services......

================

This will be starting soon....just had the announcement to turn off pagers and cell phones....

============================

Starting now.....275 chairs full and standing room only

Hillsboro Repub Chair Vahrij Manoukian (heck, I cannot pronounce it let along spell it) starting the Town Meeting

He intro'd Rudy...standing O.

He joked - get you out of here on time to see the All Star game...one of the few times he can actually root for some Red Sox players.

Mentioned that on the literature were his 12 points (Doug blogged it here) - this tells you what it is about him that you can choose to vote for him or someone else. He is stressing that he really wants to tell you what he is REALLY about....THEY are HIM.

Two big things that this election is about:

The terrorist war on us, as it will continue year after year after year, even if Iraq gets resolved. But that will NOT end the war. This is a long term committment and the way to win is to be on offense which will reduce the time and the casualties. He promises to not to back down to terrorists (lots of clapping). Big difference between voting for him and for a Democrat
Number two - another difference between him and the Dems - the economy. Dems - much bigger government. Reagan and Bush 1 held them back, Clinton started to build it (no mention of Bush II).

He thinks the Dems want European style government - Hillary, Barack, John Edwards - to solve our health care problems. Noticed - when is the last time someone asked to get into a French / British / Canadian hospital vs an American one. He thinks that capitalistic ways are the way to go - tax deductions to allow people to buy / own their own policy instead of by employers. Most people know little about their health insurance compared to their auto or house insurance.

Rudy proposes a $15K deduction for a family insurance plan - if you get one cheaper, you get to keep the difference and put it into an HSA (Health Savings Account) where WE get to make the calculation of the amount of the premium and WE get to determine the risk for ourselves - a MARKET driven process.

THe problem is that we do not have a large enough market for insurance - too regulated. Consider plasma screen TVs and how fast they dropped in price and higher quality over very few years.

Uninsured? Give them a voucher and not mandate a solution. "DO NOT LOCK THEM INTO PATERNALISM" as we did with welfare...let them make their own choices. THAT'S what makes America great...The greatness of America does not come from a big government but from great people able to make choices for themselves.

Q&A time.

Had friends that joined AmeriCorp and expanding universal service

Thinks that people should voluntarily choose to serve - military, AmeriCorp. We don't call upon people often enough (9/11, Katrina)

Stance on the illegal immigration. Mentioned the amnesty bill and What will you do to send them home and keep them from taking jobs from Americans

He will do everything he can to end it. Will stop people from walking across the border without identifying them. Congress already passed a law for a physical and virtual fence and enlarge the Border Patrol. If Bush doesn't start, he will. If Bush does, he will continue it. Mentioned his record in NYC - 11K crimes / week. Reduced it to 3K/week. Will use the Comp Stats program.

Try going to any other civilized country in the world and try to get in without identifying yourself (large applause). If we do not regularize immigration and stop the illegal type, we will only have more. If the President had done some of this earlier, the comprehensive bill might have had a better chance.

All immigrants should have a tamper proof bio metric ID.

Wants to know how he will keep members of his government accountable?

Best way is with his Administration, that they are doing what the President wants them to. Sent goals, measure them, and put them out on the Web. He did it in NYC - once the 'bugs" in the Police and Welfare systems were worked out, he opened it up.

He brought up the State Dept as an example. Mission - represent us to the world. Then, tell us what the world thinks of us. If people don't like us, hold the State Dept accountable. He mentioned that as he traveled - many people don't know what the US really is about (ed. -thanks to the MSM). Our own excess of politics are taken as truth. Our State Dept should be rectifying this as well as other items. Again, metric, goal, and change.

The cost of higher Ed is increasing esp for middle class. Do you have a plan for that cost?

We have to do better - better rates / terms and scholarships. Keep improving the economy so that when you graduate and can get a good job, you can pay it off. The answer is private industry and not government. Reduce taxes means more money to you...and he did that in NYC....lowered income taxes by 24% and got more revenue on lower rates as the economy expanded and better jobs were available.

Dems have promised to raise taxes - all o fthe leading Dems will do this. Raising taxes will send jobs offshore or lower salaries. We need to give companies a better environment to keep and grow jobs here.

What did you think that the 9/11 Commission believed that the attack came from our foreign policy?

Rudy disagreed that is why they attacked us....talked about the $10 million from the Saudi prince he refused because of that reason. It is because of a distorted Islamic ideology that is against women, freedom, democracy, religion. We have to face reality - they despise us, they hate us, they want to kill us. Only if we accept their version of religion would this go away. This war will go on for a long time. We did not respond in the 90s (think of USS Cole).

Attacks of 9/11 have nothing to do with our foreign policy - go back to 70's and 80's. It has to do with what we represent.

We can speak softly and carry a big stick EVEN when things are very complicated.

The guy keeps insisting on this point in a follow up...Rudy said he was just wrong.

Wants all young girls to get an education, especially in 3rd world nations.

If we can empower women more in those societies. It works even in Islamic countries - empower that and education and opportunity happens.

He says that K-12 is in trouble while upper is fine? Why? Two different models - consumer driven for colleges and there is competition. For public education, it is basically an authoritarian model - you have to go under force of law and police. The only way out is if you have the money to opt out.

[WOW! he just took on the NEA union]

Give the money that we spend on public education to parents as a voucher! Let them choose - empower women to make the decisions for their children.

All in all, both TMEW and I enjoyed ourselves. While I have not yet picked someone to support, TMEW pretty much has....Rudy. And this, this early, from someone who is rather apolitical when compared to me.

Posted by Skip at 5:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A question for NH Reagan Network

.

At the CNHT picnic this past weekend, I picked up a brochure from the NH Reagan Network off a table and stuffed it into my folder of "goodies" from the various causes and organizations participating in the event.

.

I have now had a chance to look over the NH Reagan Network brochure. It says, in part,

Our mission is to advocate and advance the principles of the New Hampshire Republican Platform in the spirit of Ronald Reagan. We will preserve and protect these principles by encouraging citizens who believe in the core values of the Platform--low taxes, less government, personal responsibility, family values and personal liberties---to run for legislative office in the Republican Primary.

I agree with that. Let's toss the bad Republicans out in a primary. That's exactly how it should happen. In addition, the pamphlet notes

Potential Candidates who meet the criteria of the NH Reagan Network will also have the opportunity to attend campaign and issue training academies.

Obviously they are not just taking anybody who shows up-- they will be quite discerning as to who qualifies for their help. So what do you suppose some of the standards a "NH Reagan Network Republican" ought to uphold? Helpfully, the NH Reagan Network lists ten "priciples to think about" that presumably reflects their litmus test. This one in particular, Number 10, caught my eye:

X. Transparency and Accountability in Government-

Hmmm. Given that the many members of the Belknap County Convention, who we are suing for Right-to-Know law violations, (using a secret paper ballot while in open session, which is specifically not allowed) are Republicans, this must mean that, because of the fact that at every step of the Sheriff replacement process, this bunch chose closed doors over sunshine, the NH Reagan Network must be seeking primary challengers for everyone, right?

.

While at the CNHT picnic, I ran into NH Reagan Network founder Representative Fran Wendleboe, a member of the very same Belknap County Convention we are suing in Superior Court over Right-to-Know law violations. While she was not present during the meeting where the secret ballot was, in our opinion, illegally used, she was at prior meetings where questionable "non-public" sessions were held. I asked her about the Right-to-Know law violation flap and the County Convention:

Why can't these people, especially the Republicans, just automatically default in the direction of transparency and openness when questionable "grey areas" (their claim, not mine) arise? Why do they circle the wagons?

I then asked the NH Reagan Network leader:

Don't you agree that this action, if unchanged, has turned our lawMAKERS into lawBREAKERS?

She shrugged and walked away.

.

A long time friend has an old saying he likes to repeat:

Silence is concurrence.

Will the NH Reagan Network, believing in "transparency and accountability in government" come to our aid in this matter? I sure hope so.

Posted by Doug at 9:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Operation America Rising Update

So, what were you doing last Saturday? If you didn't attend the Operation America Rising (OAR) event at Greeley Park in Nashua, let me tell you my little rockers, you missed out big time!

Gov. Mike Huckabee and his Capitol Offense band were too cool, dude! Perhaps I particularly enjoyed it because they played some of the oldies but goodies from my era....Elvis, etc., but the classic rock songs played seemed to have universal appeal and most people were stomping their feet and clapping their hands.

I personally could not keep from dancing on the grass, most of the time by myself, but thanks to one of the Blue Star Moms, Mary, I wasn't always alone and it appeared that everyone in attendance had a really great time. Hey, at my age, I dance when I can 'cause who knows when I won't be dancin' again!

I was very impressed with Gov. Huckabee...no, not just his guitar playing either even though he's very good and seemed to be thoroughly enjoying himself as well. Why? He did not seem like a politician at all, but a very sincere man of honesty and integrity. While I hadn't thought about it before, I'm taking a closer look at him and his campaign for President. I liked what I sensed and felt from him......a God fearing man.....someone who will do the right thing regardless of stiff opposition and politics.

But, like I said, I need to study up on his policies, etc. since I have not made up my mind who I'm voting for to run the country....except, DEFINITELY NOT FOR ANY OF THE DEMOCRATS running. And, no, don't blame me for the last election, I didn't vote for the cowardly, follower rather than leader Gov. Lynch or Rep. Hodes or Shea-Porter-Pompous!

And see there were other dancers, so see the pics here from organizer Jennifer Horn's link as she 'splains it all very well. And, yep, as always, I teared up when Maj. Loring sang "God Bless the USA."

I liked what Cmdr. Paul Galanti said who spent seven years at the Hanoi Hilton...something to the tune that any day's a good day when you have a door handle on the inside....he knows the price of freedom for sure.

You peaceniks out there could have learned some very valuable lessons from the event, well maybe not, if you had bothered to attend. Oh yeah, you weren't the only no shows. Carol Shea and Hodes didn't bother to attend either. They were probably busy serving you unpatriotic peaceniks milk and cookies instead of getting behind real Americans.

Hmmm, where's my old 8 tracks or reel-to-reels (ask your parents) 'cause I feel like dancin' again since I have a ton of door handles on the inside of my home. GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS AND FAMILIES AND ESPECIALLY OUR BLUE AND GOLD STAR MOTHERS who, as always, were incredible at the event. They, too, know the true meaning of sacrifice and support the troops and their mission!

Blue Star Mother Karen Thurston addresses those gathered...

More pics after the jump...

Blowing Bubbles...

Moms on a mission

Moms on a mission

Posted by Judy at 7:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Obama Campaign Conference Call: Stoneyfield's Hirshbergs Endorse Obama

.

A conference call hosted by the Obama campaign has just concluded. It featured the announcement that well-known NH Democrats Gary and Meg Hirshberg have officially thrown their support to Barack Obama. This comes over their second choice of John Edwards in the current field- originally being with Tom Vilsack, who dropped out early on in the race. According to a press release issued by the campaign,

Gary and Meg Hirshberg, business and community leaders and veteran Democratic campaigners, have endorsed Senator Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency. The couple stressed the importance of choosing a president who can bring refreshing and unifying leadership to begin to heal our divided nation.
.
“America is badly divided and in desperate need of new solutions, new ideas, and a new way of conducting politics,” Gary Hirshberg said. “Barack Obama is the candidate who can best help Americans focus on our common strengths and dreams, rather than our differences. We must move forward into the 21st Century and not back to old divisions and Barack will catalyze the change we need—in our disastrous policies, but also in the way the world sees us, and how we see ourselves. Meg and I are thrilled to get to work for Barack here in NH and across the US.”
.
Hirshberg added: “As a CEO of a multi-hundred million dollar company, I have come to appreciate the leadership qualities needed to inspire and empower successful organizations. Barack Obama possesses all of the characteristics to be a superb and effective chief executive.”
.
Gary Hirshberg is Chairman, President, and CEO of Stonyfield Farm Yogurt of Londonderry, New Hampshire. At the helm of the world’s preeminent organic yogurt producer, Gary has developed innovative programs to bolster economic growth, environmental conservation and public health, which are among the top challenges facing the next president. Meg Hirshberg, a writer and activist, has served on the boards of numerous charitable and educational organizations. Outside of work they have dedicated themselves to supporting progressive causes and candidates.

When you look up "liberal" in some dictionaries, there's a good chance that if not there already, Mr. Hirshberg's picture ought to be. As a long time conservative...

...living here in NH, I have watched the Hirshberg's embrace one liberal cause after another through the years. One could not, however, call the Hirshbergs strong members of the "establishment" wing of the party. It is no real surprise that they have gone elsewhere besides the Clinton camp.

.

During the telephone conference call with Mr. Hirshberg, currently at some global-warming confab in France, he spoke mainly of Obama's qualities as a uniter and one who can listen and learn, with a healthy helping of energy transformation talk mixed throughout.

.

Some key points made by Hirshberg:

"No campaign in my memory has been as well organized as this one."

I concur with Gary on this. As a conservative blogger here in NH, my contact with the organization and observation of last week's event here in Laconia bear this out. While the McCain campaign is in freefall for other reasons, they are tops when it comes to organizing the retail political machine on the ground. Obama's team strikes me as amazingly similar in their prowess.

Worried about the growing gap between rich and poor.

What card-carrying liberal wouldn't be?

"As a CEO, I look for someone who can manage and administer.

This, of course, plays well with persons of all stripes, especially in the post-Katrina environment

Mr. Hirshberg claims he knows and hangs out with many Republicans who are "embarassed by past support of the incumbent", have no interest in other Democrats, and have decided they could support Obama.

One must not forget to consider the types of "Republicans" a far-left liberal like Hirshberg must have in his circle of friends...

Looking ahead to the general election, he feels Obama could get us away from having a one-state balance in who gains the White House and gain a 60% majority. Hirshberg noted a broad appeal among those left out and disenfranchised by the current political climate.

Certainly this is higher than anyone might predict of a Hillary victory. Is it really achievable? Perhaps if the Republicans see that unavoidable rout some are predicting.

Another major point raised as his reasoning behind supporting Obama is that the private man and the public man are one and the same.

One laughs when wondering if the same can be said of Hillary...

.

Peppered throughout the call were continued references to Obama's willingness to learn and admit making mistakes, vis a vis environmental issues, which those who follow this stuff closely know this is Hirshberg's number one issue. This was an obvious reference to Obama's vote supporting liquefied coal/ diesel in the Senate, which runs counter to Hirshberg's beliefs. (He said during the call that the US receives enough solar energy in a day to power the nation for a year) The phrase "renewable energy" came up again and again.

.

I asked about nuclear energy and both Hirshberg's and Obama's position. He admitted that it is a piece-- but just a piece-- of a transition between our current situation and a future of new, as yet unknown major sources of energy. What is amazing is hearing liberals actually admit a role for nuclear power at all, given the past history in this area.

.

All in all, it was rather interesting as a conservative to listen in on a true blue liberal like Mr. Hirshberg. He believes that Obama has the liberal credentials so dear to him and his wife, while at the same time able to "heal a divided America." It's my opinion that in order to do so, a Democratic candidate can't be too far to the left, otherwise he/she risks even further dividing the country. As Hirshberg stated today, "Responsible Democrats must think about not only the primary, but the general" election as well. He sees Barack Obama as the candidate that can, at the least, "turn red states purple."

.

That all depends where Senator Obama falls on the left-right scale. It's still rather difficult to discern where he is at this point. Hirshberg's endorsement perhaps helps to get a better fix on that point-- remember, he is considered one of the more far to the left people here in NH. We'll have to watch and see as we move closer to the voting time and learn more about Barack Obama, and all of the other candidates looking to pick up at the end of the Bush era...

Posted by Doug at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The State of the '08 Race

Our buddy John Hawkins (frequent guest on our MTNP radio program) of RightWingNews has an excellent analysis of the present state of the '08 race for the White House. He bases much of his take upon the recent fundraising reports from the presidential campaigns, both Republican and Democrat. I'm still not totally worried about the slower fundraising shown thus far by the Republicans. It is historically early for them, and as John notes, the "Fred Factor" looms large-- undoubtedly causing some donors in the GOP to wait. As reported in these prior VLog posts, I saw Barack Obama last week in Laconia and have seen firsthand why he is such a strong contender. If all goes well, I will get to see Hillary Clinton later this week...

.

Click here to read John's report.

.

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

More on our Right-to-Know lawsuit...

Gavel

.

As we continue to wait to find out if the words written in NH's Right-to-Know law (RSA 91-A) actually mean what they say or not, another long-time citizen-activist of Laconia has weighed in with an observation that we can only hope the judge reads before rendering his final decision on our suit in Superior Court.

Letter to the Editor,

After reading the Citizen's article, "Judge won't block Belknap County Sheriff appointee" and Laconia Daily Sun's article, "Judge won't stop Wiggin from becoming sheriff but wants time to determine if process was proper", it appeared obvious to me that there's some confusion between a "public officer" and a "public employee".
.
In the Laconia Daily Sun it says that,
"Mohl interrupted to point out the Convention could have treated filling the vacancy as making an appointment or hiring an employee and, while complying with the Right -to-Know law, held all its proceedings in non-public session. "Given that they could have done that, if I'm right," he asked, "what's the harm of doing part of it by secret ballot in public session?"
In the Citizen it says,
"Mohl did say that if the process was an appointment, as Lambert and Tardif contend, the delegation would have been well within their rights to enter a nonpublic session for the vote."
The position of Belknap County Sheriff is that of a public officer as defined in "TITLE LXIII ELECTIONS Chapter 661 vacancies among public officers elected at state elections" "RSA 661:9 County Officers." Officers are elected positions like, City Councilors, Selectmen, County Delegation, County Sheriff, Governor, etc. these are not employees. The Right-to Know Law RSA 91-A "TITLE VI PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES Chapter 91-A Access to public records and meetings Section 91-A:3 Nonpublic Sessions." Section II says what matters may be acted on in NONPUBLIC SESSION. Section II. (b) says, "THE HIRING OF ANY PERSON AS A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE." The title of 91-A "Public Officers" and "Employees" makes a distinction between the two. Section II (b) doesn't included Public Officers because they are either elected, or appointed to an elective position when a vacancy occurs. BELKNAP COUNTY SHERIFFS ARE NOT HIRED.

David Gammon
Laconia, NH

Dave really nails it. The lawmakers of Belknap County, with their actions in the replacement of our sheriff, have essentially and effectively become lawbreakers...

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

GraniteGrok

Blogroll

Favorites

NH Conservative Bloggers

Local News

Think Tanks

Activists

Friend or Foe?

Sam Adams Alliance blogs

Free Market, Limited Govt

News

Islamic World

Pure Politics

MilBlogs

Environmentalism (or not)

Geeky Stuff

Education

Blog Commentaries

Radio and TV Shows

Design - Architecture - Stuff

Humor

July 31, 2007

VLog: Rudy defends tax cut claims

July 30, 2007

Rudy comes to Gilford, NH - blogging a town meeting

Shoot the B#*!#^+s!

Free Will

July 29, 2007

The "un-campaign" continues...

Carol Shea Porter & Paul Hodes: Taking credit where none is due.

Buckley seemed unaware that Hodes and Shea-Porter voted against legislation that allowed the minimum wage hike to become law, while both Sununu and Gregg voted in favor.

July 28, 2007

Meet The New Press - Podcast for 7/28/07

Radio today! It's Meet the New Press-- 11AM EST. Broadcast or Livestream...

Diplomacy is war by other means.....

This is disturbing....

July 27, 2007

It's nice to be able to thank Sen. Gregg for doing the right thing (finally) on border security.

"The American people will not move forward... in the area of comprehensive immigration reform until they are confident that we have regained control over our borders."

The sky is falling...the sky is falling...we're #2 and not #1

State drops to second in Kids Count report

July 26, 2007

If the results are nil, why bother?

Mitt Romney at Jack's

July 25, 2007

I like this....I really like this!

July 24, 2007

Breaking News: Second Right-to-Know lawsuit in Belknap County in less than a month!

Petitioners assert that the Chair of the Belkap County Convention & administrative assistant violated NH's Right-to-Know law on Monday, July 23rd.

Aiding the Enemy

McCain Bloggers call - 7/24 (Bloggers driving Bentleys!)

The Rising Cost of Healthcare: Chronic Disease

July 23, 2007

But what if it had been a prayer?

Er, but Ms. Ebel, what if the speech had included a prayer?

July 22, 2007

As usual, guess who will pay? Yep. You're right. Us.

Reid: The soldiers will pay for this!

Funny Ha-Ha....but...

July 21, 2007

Meet the New Press airs Saturday at 11AM EST.

July 20, 2007

HB404 - the sponsors and refusal to defend it on MTNP

Breaking News: Petitioners file "Motion for Reconsideration" in Belknap County Right-to-Know suit.

True Ugliness

True Beauty

Details on our Right-to-Know lawsuit [UPDATED]

NH a nuclear state?

includes weapons of mass destruction.

What exactly does Councilor Hollingworth know that few others don't?

Friday Humor

Friday Humor - More!

Friday Humor - pile it on! (It's been a long week)

July 19, 2007

"Kicking the tires." Checking out candidates, NH style: The Democrats

VLog: Bill Richardson on Illegal Immigration

July 18, 2007

Great Comebacks...

July 17, 2007

VLog: Rudy on the war (not just the Iraqi front)