GraniteGrok

Does your New Hampshire town list the names of all town & school employees with salaries and benefits in your Annual Report?

Posted by Doug at 11:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Doug's post inspired one of our readers to send this as an indication of his handy work here in NH:

Alas, I never got past intermediate stick figures in Art class....

And then I was sent an additional verbal commentary from the NH National Committeeman, Sean Mahoney (who did NOT send the above).  Click here to listen.

Scary thought....even before Halloween!  Or after the election..... 

Posted by Skip at 5:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Scary, eh? If the elections go wrong in '08, EVERY day will be Halloween...

Posted by Doug at 9:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

VETERANS day WEEKEND 3 GUN benefit SHOOT
Co-hosted by Major Waldron Sportsmen’s Association and
Pioneer Sportsmen Club
HELP US SUPPORT
New Hampshire Military and Their Families
ALL PROCEEDS GO TO THE CHAPLAIN EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND

• SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10 – action SHOTGUN AND RIFLE competition
  MAJOR WALDRON Sportsmen’s ASSOCIATION BARRINGTON, nh

• SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 11 – idpa/steels handgun competition
  Pioneer sportsmen Club, Dunbarton, NH

It remains as shocking today as when I first learned that when our National Guard and Reserve members are activated for deployment their families are often forced into the additional sacrifice of trying to maintain their daily routines but on the significantly lower income of military pay.  Increased heating cost, emergency repairs for homes or autos - handling such issues alone, absent the support of a deployed spouse is one thing.  Attempting to manage on significantly less income because the spouse is fulfilling their military service obligation to our country is a sacrifice our service families should not have to make.  It is unconscionable that no form of relief exists except for private donations through private charitable organizations such as the CHAPLAIN EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND. 

The CHAPLAIN EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND (CERF) was created to provide quick, temporary financial help for military members and their families facing financial need. The CHAPLAIN EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND is managed by volunteer trustees, all New Hampshire Army or Air National Guard Chaplains.  Because it is administered directly by the Chaplains, expenses are minimal (stationary, stamps, annual filing fees) allowing at least 99.5% of all monies received to go directly to families for emergency assistance for items such as rent, mortgage, home heating fuel, utilities, etc.  CERF is a private, not for profit fund registered with the IRS as Tax-Exempt under 501c3 (ID# 02-0445602).   Again, CERF operates with minimal overhead – no trustee or administrative salaries, no dedicated offices, no places for donations to be diverted from their intended purpose.

.

To assist CERF’s necessary mission, members of Major Waldron’s Sportsmen’s Association  and of the Pioneer Sportsmen Club (Barrington and Dunbarton, NH, respectively) are joining together to host a fund-raiser on Veteran’s Day weekend (hence, Task Force 11-11).  Both organizations enjoy in their respective membership many veterans as well as current Reserve and Guard people, and   both associations believe there is no more important effort at hand than to send a strong message in support of our own troops and their families.  ALL proceeds go to CERF and, again, at least 99.5% of the funds CERF receives end up in the hands of the service families who need our help. We are asking for you to show your support for them by supporting CERF. 

.

The Pease-based 157th Air Refueling Wing is a most visible reminder of the commitment of the New Hampshire Guard to all Americans.  Their mission is ongoing and they provide refueling operations in the North Atlantic corridor servicing the fighter wings engaged in fly-over security for Boston, New York City and the northeast.  They help keep your airspace safe.  Additionally, the 157th’s ground security element has experienced multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Posted by Doug at 7:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Check it out! Skip will be joining me from 8:50-9:00 am on 99.7 wntk morning show that I'm co-hosting this week. If you're out of range, go to wntk.com for a live stream of the broadcast.

We'll be talking about the educational system.

Posted by Judy at 4:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

...

I was wondering when the “Bush Caused the Wildfires” mantra would start. I just didn’t think it would start in my Granite State of New Hampshire and that it would come out of the mouth of former New Hampshire Governor and current Democratic Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen, who is normally very disciplined and not prone to saying silly things.

Nevertheless:

Speaking to an audience of committee members and elected officials, Shaheen and Buckey discussed their qualifications for the Senate and their stance on global warming, the economy, and the health care system.

Buckey said he would focus on decreasing America’s dependence on petroleum and increasing research on renewable energy technologies. He said it’s an issue that’s vital to both national security and the economy.

“If we don’t take action, we are going to lose control of America’s future,” Buckey said. “Ten years from now, do we want to be importing solar-powered systems and other technologies from elsewhere or do we want to be building them here?”

Shaheen agreed with many of Buckey’s points, but criticized the Bush administration on everything from the war in Iraq to health care. Shaheen also blamed Bush for the wildfires in California.

“Those wildfires are the direct result of the failure of this administration to do something about global warming,” she said.

This is a pretty remarkable and irresponsible statement on Shaheen’s part, for as even the MSM has acknowledged by now: “Authorities in Southern California said they believe two of the fires that recently ravaged the area were intentionally started.”

As readers no doubt know, Shaheen is running against Sen. John Sununu, whom you can contribute to through the Rightroots contribution interface HERE.

UPDATE: More than a few readers have e-mailed to say that Gov. Shaheen’s gaffe is the consequence of a major party going loopy–otherwise smart, rational people start saying loopy things just to win their approval. Sigh. I suppose so.

This, of course, follows a similar pattern demonstrated by none other than Bill Clinton. Remember when he blamed "right wing talk radio" (Rush Limbaugh- Clinton's number one detractor) for the OKC bombing?  Long a New Hampshire version of the "triangulator" Bill Clinton, it is no surprise that Ms. Shaheen would choose this path of thoughtless demagoguery as she seeks to curry favor with the left wing loons of her party.

Those following the career of Jeanne Shaheen know that this wouldn't be the first time Ms. Shaheen said or did something loopy in the process of seeking approval. Let's review one incident in particular...

As we experience near drought conditions this summer here in NH, it is refreshing to recall Gov. Shaheen’s famous canoe trip with Al Gore- you remember that, don’t you? Billions of gallons of North Country water was released to safely accommodate Shaheen and Gore for a photo-op.  Hopefully this river excursion will be remembered often, should she decide to run for the Senate. Perhaps some intrepid reporter, recalling her and Al’s voyage, will ask the Gov.’s opinion of the denial of water to Klamath Falls farmers due to the Endangered Species Act’s protection of the Suckerfish. …

My neighbour, Adair, is director of the Connecticut River Joint Commission and, when Mr Gore and New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, decided to stage a canoeing photo-op on the river, Adair and her pals at the CRJC mulled it over and thought they'd do their guests a favour. The water looked a little low - much of America is undergoing a severe drought at the moment - so they asked the electric company to open the floodgates of the Wilder dam, to make sure Al's canoe didn't run aground. As usual, the photo-op lasted just long enough for the press to get their photos, at which point Al stopped pretending to be a canoeist and got out of the river. It then emerged that 4 billion gallons of water had been released in order to ensure that Mr Environmentalist could float his boat. Vermont's natural resources director, a Democrat, grumbled, `They won't release water for the fish when we ask them to, but somehow they find themselves able to release it for a politician.'

. 

The Gore office then did their usual trick of keeping the story alive by quibbling. It wasn't 4 billion gallons, or 180,000 gallons per second, they said. It was 'only' 97 million gallons, or 'just' 27,000 per second. The electric company, whose statements have been almost as unreliable as Mr Gore's, countered with their own figure: half a billion gallons. While the VicePresident, his obliging dam owners and the press were arguing about precisely how much water he'd wasted, Bill Clinton declared drought emergencies in five midAtlantic states.

.

Most other politicians could have got away with it, but Mr Gore is not a man who can afford to blow even a mere 97 million gallons. He's been the most enthusiastic proponent, for example, of Federal toilet regulations, which restrict the amount of water you can use to flush and which has led to a roaring trade in toilet smuggling from Canada. Big Brother is watching your big cistern because on the environment, we were told, the Vice-President knew best. It wasn't long before the American press were producing statistics, in this parched summer, showing that an average homeowner would have to water his lawn 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for 75 years to use as much water as Mr Gore did on the Connecticut. It would certainly seem to be at odds with his book Earth in the Balance in which he quotes approvingly the 12th-century Sri Lankan king, Parakrama Bahu: `Let not a single drop of water that falls on the land go into the sea without serving the people.'

.

Unlike Mr Gore's earlier stumbles claiming to be a dirt-poor Tennessee farmer and inventor of the Internet -'Floodgate' (as it's known) would also seem to be illegal: `It would have cost New Englanders up to $7 million to use the same amount of water that was used to float Vice-President Gore's boat,' said Steve Duprey, chairman of New Hampshire's Republican party, announcing that he was asking the Federal Elections Commission to investigate this `illegal campaign contribution'.

Posted by Doug at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

If you want the Executive Sumary for this post, try this:

"I'd be ticked," Madore said. "They're telling you what to do with your kid."

No, not the teachers - the School Board. I still cannot believe the chutzpah! 

My outlook is that government functions for the people and not the other way around.  Lincoln had it right in his Gettysburg address "...government of the people, by the people, for the people..."  Too often, we find ourselves in the situation where we, the people, end up having to fight our government because there are those in government believe they know better than we and wish us to behave the way they wish us to (and mostly, Democratic Liberals).  This is a real basic reason to change the law to yank the ability to change tax policy away from politicians (think FairTax).

They have forgotten that they, elected and appointed officials and all they that make government work, should all serve at the pleasure of the taxpayers and citizens.

Instead, we get this (bold emphasis is mine):

Parents in Connecticut might be the ones getting the report cards if a proposed plan makes the grade at a Manchester public school district.

Steven Edwards, a Republican member of the Manchester (CT) Board of Education who’s up for re-election Nov. 6, wants parents to be evaluated on a handful of what he says are objective measures — including whether their children have done the homework and eaten a good breakfast.

"I tried to design something modest [measuring] things that virtually everybody would agree parents should do to help their kids," Edwards said. "We don't have our staff making any subjective evaluations."

The idea has angered parents, and the local PTA vows to fight the plan.

"People are going to be extremely offended by it," said Jackie Madore, president of the Manchester Parent Teacher Association Town Council. "I don't feel the report cards on parental skills is the way to go. ... It's going to be the parents against the Board of Education, basically."

Heh!

I blogged about the brouhaha when Senate Majority Leader Reid falsely accused Rush Limbaugh of slandering the troops.  Well, Rush's reaction was appropriate, rightous indignation, especially when 41 Senators, our government, wrote "an official government Letter" in an attempt to persuade his syndication company to ditch him.

His response - eBay the Letter.  Thus, turning a lemon into 4 million gallons of lemonade for the Marine Corp - Law Enforcement Foundation.  

Well, another attempt at pure partisanship has just happened here in NH is along the same lines (and Doug blogged it here).  Jeanne Sheheen is making the claim:

“These Wildfires Are A Direct Result Of This Administration's Failure To Do Something About Global Warming.” 

You know, lots of stupid things get said and done as one tries to get elected - Doug points out her boneheaded attempt with Mr. Global Warming himself - Al Gore.

Well, Fergus Cullen, the Chair of the NH Republicans is repeating that lesson of liberals not getting it right:

Jeanne Shaheen should be ashamed of herself for politicizing such a historic catastrophe. Here in New Hampshire we have had our share of natural disasters in recent years, specifically flooding.  It is an act of hyper-partisanship to blame President Bush for accidents and arson-driven natural disasters.

This is not the time for finding partisan blame.  The victims of this tragedy in California deserve better than political rhetoric.  They need our help.  New Hampshire Republicans encourage New Hampshire residents to keep the people affected by the California wildfires, and the brave first responders who are fighting them, in your thoughts and prayers.

If you would like to take further action, we encourage you to support the American Red Cross in their disaster relief efforts, you can contribute at www.redcross.org.

On this, I will agree with Doug and Fergus.  I have to wonder if Shaheen got some bad advice to go negative so quickly on this topic.  I realize that this is the season to bash Bush, but even as people are still out of their homes (and some of my co-workers in San Diego were evacuated and are just returning to their homes), this goes over like a lead ballon.

Plus...

...in a way, continuing that ill fated and ill advised canoe ride with AlGore and making this slam from that aspect shows an ignorance that one has to comtemplate as we choose a person for Senator.

My take is that while the world is warming up, it is due to natural cycles (one only has to review actual history to know that the Earth has warmed and cooled over the epochs all by itself without the need for humans to do so).  Whether or not we are adding to it and making it worse really is under discussion, and there is no "consensus" - no matter those that call we who disagree "deniers" as if it were a curse worse than death.

Like I care!

Here's just two points that have to be considered:

• AlGore's movie has been proved wrong in a British court and now requires a notification before it can be shown to students (sorta like our law that requires packs of cigarettes to be labeled - ha!)
• The models that are showing doom and gloom may not be all that accurate

To blame the California fires and the devastation they caused on a natural process that has raised, perhaps, a degree and a half over the last 100 years on an Administration that has been there just 6 years is inane from a scientific, rational basis. As NRO pointed out, what about the fires in 2003 and earlier?

This was done strictly as a partisan poke....nothing rational at all in this (as I am rapidly learning). 

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

..

Last year, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws. These “minimum” provisions are much more restrictive than any of those on the books anywhere in the U.S. and would almost certainly violate the Second Amendment of our Constitution.

Throughout modern history, the forced disarmament of people by its government has often been accompanied or followed by that government’s commission of often massive human rights abuses. In fact, no genocide in the 20th century occurred when the victim population still possessed small arms, legally or illegally, with which to defend themselves.

.

So now the UN wants to disarm civilians? Where was the UN when the massacres in Rwanda occurred? What did the UN do to protect the victims of ethnic massacres in Bosnia? Disarming civilians under the guise of international human rights law will only lead to more such genocides by ensuring that civilians can never defend themselves! It would be funny if it weren’t so perverse.

Posted by Doug at 6:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Since I'm substitute co-hosting the wntk morning show this week on 99.7 FM (wntk.com for live steam), I asked Doug to join me starting at 6:15 am Tues. to discuss various subjects including Prez politics, the toll issue, blogging in general, the loss of the NH advantage and possibly other subjects as time allows.

Since it's talk radio, please feel free to call in on the toll free line 888-299-3151.

We should have alot of fun not to mention, I'm sure, an interesting discussion on some important issues that affect all of us. Lady Radio signing off...

Posted by Judy at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

..

looking at the latest NHGOP signs plastered along roads after the toll increase (for verification that these are the work of the Republican State Committee, view a close-up shot), I'm stumped on which of the two frauds being perpetrated here is more egregious.

.

The fact that the toll increase garnered the support of two Republican Executive Counciliors (including one, who, now realizing he just ruined the state elephant's theme song against Lynch, is pretending to claim that he has no idea why he voted the way he did and wants a do-over)?

.

Or the fact that the signs, by their design, color, and font, are meant to trick unsuspecting folks into thinking that "higher taxes" is Lynch's new campaign motto?

.

Both deceptions rely on the ignorance of potential voters in order to be effective.

Posted by Doug at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Congress had the power to specifically outlaw “waterboarding” and they didn’t do it.  Why?  Because they know that in some cases it works.  That’s not to say it’s always an effective technique. In fact, most experts say that it’s not.

But in some cases it might be, and to declare it “torture” takes away the option, which in some cases might be the best way to get information.  But of course the Democrats, and some Republicans, don’t want to do it directly, because then they might actually have to answer to people in case something horrible happens in the future and it turns out that our intelligence services didn’t have all the tools at their disposal to stop it.

Folks, this quote by our buddy Lindsey Graham pretty much sums up a good bit of our problem in fighting the war on terror:

I am convinced as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding … does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute, and is clearly illegal,” Graham told “Face the Nation.”

The first problem - Graham’s a lawyer.  We need to keep the lawyers as far away as possible from deciding how best to fight this war, especially as it pertains to illegal combatants and terrorists. And that’s what people like KSM and many of those at Gitmo are - terrorists.

I agree. Dress them in ladies underwear. Let them get frightened by snapping, snarling German Shepherds, too. Flush their Korans down the toilet. Stuff their heads in the toilet, for all I care. Just get the information...

. 

..

Posted by Doug at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 7:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

[I]t is said that if the Republican Party wants to be competitive in California in presidential politics, it must nominate a pro-choice candidate, of which there is only one -- Rudy Giuliani. This is almost certainly true. It certainly is irrational because pro-choice Californians have next to nothing to fear -- just as pro-life Californians have next to nothing to hope for -- from a right-to-life President. The practical consequences of such a President concerning abortion would not differ significantly from Giuliani's consequences. Here is why.

.

Abortion policy is almost entirely in the custody of the U.S. Supreme Court, and will remain so unless or until the court decides to restore moral federalism regarding the issue.

in 2007 we have, by any reasonable historical standard, a fine Republican field: One of the great big-city mayors of the last century; a former governor of extraordinary executive talent; a war hero, highly principled and deeply schooled in national security; and a former senator with impeccable conservative credentials.

Posted by Doug at 6:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was talking with TMEW about the San Diego fires (I have co-workers in that area - some were under mandatory evacuation.  Fortunately, they have all been able to return to their homes, and had homes to return to).  My question to her was "Gee, I wonder who [what nation] is going to offer to assist us?" thinking that the answer would be, as usual "no one".

Very few times do I see other nations, even our closes allies and friends, offer the kind of assistance that we offer to them.  Even to our "enemies', we are generally quick and with lots to offer.  Even today, I've not heard of any of them offer anything (at least, anything I have seen in the MSM).

Until this over at StopTheACLU:

Iraqi Army in Besmaya collected a donation for the San Diego, Calif., fire victims

Iraqi men that are risking their lives everyday and barely have the money to feed their own families are donating to the fire victims of San Diego.

Where is the MSM?

From OpFor, via memeorandum featured posts.

We hear so much of what goes on in Iraq, unless of course it is good news. Then the silence is deafening.

What we do not hear is the generosity of the Iraqi’s towards Americans, their gratitude, their acts of incredible kindness.

Thanks to OPFOR for making sure this story gets some attention.

It may not be much - it might be hardly a pittance in our eyes.  I bet that it is not for them.  Here's what I found over at OpFor (a milblog I read every day):

Iraqi Army Col. Abbass, the commander of the complex, presented a gift of $1,000 to U.S. Army Col. Darel Maxfield, Besmaya Range Complex officer in charge, Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq, to send to the fire victims in California.

The money was collected from Iraqi officers and enlisted soldiers in Besmaya. In a speech given during the presentation, Col. Abbass stated that he and the Iraqi soldiers were connected with the American people in many ways, and they will not forget the help that the American government has given the Iraqi people. Abbass was honored to participate by sending a simple fund of $1,000 to the American people in San Diego, to lower the suffering felt by the tragedy.

Often, however, that is the best thanks.  And often, that's all we Americans want to hear - a heartfelt thanks.

From this Dad of a now discharged Iraq deployed Marine - thank you.  We appreciate it.

Posted by Skip at 6:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

.....

       ..Pat Hynes                                           Skip Murphy              Doug Lambert

***LIVESTREAM IS WORKING!!!!***

....,.

• Vern Wuensche is from Texas and he's running for president. He's a self-made man that has made his living as a small businessman for thirty one years. I challenge any real conservative to review Mr. Wuensche's positions on the issues and find something you disagree with. His main issue is the judicial system and its impact on small businesses. There are many people other than those at the top that run for President every cycle that we often never hear about, but they're there. We'll find out what motivates someone to pursue something that is without a doubt, the longest of long shots. Says Vern: "Skill in achieving a result is a practiced art. An American leader must clearly picture the desired result and then each day exercise discipline and determination to be certain he or she is moving toward it." This is his second appearance on MTNP. He'll report on his activities this week as he officially filed for the NH primary and visited Laconia and the surrounding locales.
• All Politics are local... Doug & Skip talk about why the salaries of the town and school employees should be printed in the annual report. The Gilford Budget Committee has raised the issue and might ask the Selectmen and School Board to do so. Are there any other towns out there in NH that do this? Phone in and let us know, or drop us an email. Belmont denied funding to one of those so-called "outside agencies." This is a debate that is happening in many towns and cities lately.
• Liz Mair, our favorite "progressive" Republican joins us to talk about her latest piece in the American Spectator where she floats the possibility that McCain is "Running Interference for Rudy." We'll also chat about private equity and carried interest. We'll ask her what she thinks about the Democrats' Mother of all Tax Hikes. Bloomberg reports: "The House will approve a bill raising taxes for buyout firms and hedge-fund managers next month, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said." I don't like the sound of that. Liz will explain why we should be concerned. She'll also bring us up to date on the state of RomneyCare in Massachusetts.
• Charlie Arlinghaus of the Josiah Bartlett Center checks in. The big news for him this week was the announcement he's joined the Fred Thompson campaign as a "senior advisor" (unpaid). As noted in this post, this is a significant catch for Mr. Thompson. We'll find out why Charlie chose Fred. Says Charlie, "The burning issue isn't Fred or an [education funding] amendment or tolls but the emerging fiscal disaster the state faces." He'll let the listeners know why he's still sounding the alarm. Is it the end of the "NH Advantage?" We'll touch on the Swiss elections if we have time.
• William Blake is the Press Secretary for The Interfaith Alliance & The Interfaith Alliance Foundation. They don't want religion to be part of the presidential campaign. We'll have a discussion about the value of religion in the public square. (Hint: the Interfaith Alliance might not be in agreement with the MTNP gang on this) "Separation of Church and State?"

Posted by Doug at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I attended both forums on the Dover Tax Cap initiative. In the first one moderated by Councilor David Scott, he laid out the ground rules and how it was an information gathering event for citizens paneled by: himself, three Dover city employees and four guests from Franklin and Laconia (including two mayors), who had experience of a tax cap in their communities. It was therefore balanced with those from the private sector who pay taxes to government and those from municipal government who increase their ranks and compensation through tax hikes and whose earnings are the result of taxes. Two of the first people to break the ground rules and start the ball rolling toward mild anarchy were the tax and spend liberals Betsey Andrews Parker and Mr. Glenn Grasso himself, who felt that they should grandstand rather than ask questions. And no cap opponents asked a question of the Dover staff. The audience was packed with Dover city union employees, some of whom also threw their rhetorical weight around with great melodrama, and warnings of doom, generating far more heat than light.

.

The second, calmer forum, run by unlimited spending advocate Mayor Scott Myers had six panelists all from state agencies and local government; people whose compensation increases and whose jobs are more secure when taxes go up not down. This is objectivity he says, not stacking the deck to achieve a desired outcome. There were no private sector representatives and no one who'd personally experienced first-hand a tax cap…how helpful.  He then coached the panelists how to respond when he felt the need.

.

On the same day that Foster's ran its editorial against the tax cap, the Union Leader editorialized in favor of it. On Thursday, Foster’s editor publishes an unhinged, "infuriated" diatribe playing the class warfare demagogue’s card, then denying it in the next paragraph…truly embarrassing.  As if renters don’t pay increased rent when landlords’ property taxes go up. Foster’s editor must really believe all its readers are dupes.

.

It really comes down to this: those who favor increasing the size and scope of local government regardless of the people’s ability to pay oppose the tax cap; and those who believe government should be limited, and grow within the means of the people, will vote "Yes" on Question 2. 

.

If recent Dover councils and managers had been prudent and reasonable with spending, then there would be no ballot initiative, but we know emphatically this has not been the case. Councils led by Wil Boc and Scott Myers have spent with abandon and have piled on city debt. Dover's bonded debt load is more than twice what other cities it's size in NH have, not to mention the interest we pay on it. Has extravagant taxing and spending been put to good use repairing cracked Dover streets? Take a drive.

.

Councilors Dede, Trefethen and Ciotti, led by Myers have repeatedly thwarted reasonable attempts to curb spending and increase transparency in city hall, and have approved "severance packages" for people who've gamed the system out of over $500,000 upon departure, as there was no accountability over the city's top managers for over a decade on their use of sick and vacation time. Talk about “greedy” Mr. editor.

.

No city budget in NH has ever been cut under a tax cap as inflation doesn’t go to zero and there’s always new construction which also counts in the formula. Nashua just strengthened their cap in 2005. Manchester is considering one.

.

A mild approach, this cap is by no means a panacea, and only one additional council vote can override it for urgent reasons. Unfortunately it’s become necessary, as a safety mechanism for when people like Scott Myers and his ilk cannot be trusted to do in office what they promise while campaigning. This cap will hasten a more deliberative approach to budgeting, where the administration has to set real priorities based on city needs, not the carefree desires of a few. And most importantly, the city government will finally have to be accountable to the taxpaying public who pay the bills out of what’s left over after DC and Concord get their cut.

.

William Asbell

Posted by Doug at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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

..

“The Clock Is Ticking, Placing Internet Tax Freedom In Real Jeopardy. This National And Global Communication Network And The Economy That Surrounds It Deserves The Certainty Of A Permanent Ban To Ensure That Resources And Sustainable Business Plans Can Be Put Into Action. Taxing The Information Superhighway Is Short-Sighted Policy That Will Discourage Innovation, Slow Broadband Deployment, And Raise Prices For Consumers.”

Join us in signing this petition to tell John Sununu, “I Support Keeping the Internet Tax Free.”

It is not over until Nov 1. They have already voted on a number of the Democrats' measures which are only temporary bans with loop holes. The Sununu permanent ban will come to the floor for an up or down vote either today or Monday. If that fails they still have one more shot to re-introduce it under rule 14…there is still hope!

Thanks to the hard work of New Hampshire’s own Senator John Sununu, the ban on internet taxes that was set to expire next week will be extended. Reaching a compromise yesterday, Senator Sununu was able to help secure a seven year moratorium on internet access taxes.  

.

Seven years is a great start, but not a permanent solution. The fight is not over! Democrats in Washington are fighting to keep the door to future internet taxes open.  They continue to support vague half measures that could leave the internet open forms of taxation that were previously prohibited.  Taxes on internet access, taxes on email services, taxes on internet purchases…  

.

An expert on technology policy, Senator Sununu has been at the forefront of this issue, having led the fight for a permanent ban on internet access taxes in the Senate. The original author of the “Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007” Senator Sununu has articulated clearly why the eventual passage of a permanent internet tax ban is critical.

Join us in thanking Senator Sununu for his hard work on this issue and to support his call for a permanent ban on internet taxes! If you agree that the internet should stay tax free, then Senator Sununu needs to hear a message of support from you!

Join us in signing this petition to tell John Sununu, “I Support Keeping the Internet Tax Free.”

Posted by Doug at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a shameless plug...I'm substitute co-hosting the morning show starting today from 6-9 am through next Friday on wntk.com out of New London.

It's live streamed so check it out if you can't get it on 97.7 fm. Call in number is 888-299-3151.

Fergus Cullen is on from 7:35-7:45 am this morning. He'll be talking about the RNC's executive committee recommendation to strip half of NH's delegates at the convention.

Go Sox, eh?  

Posted by Judy at 4:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen Calls On Representatives Paul Hodes And Carol Shea-Porter To Demonstrate Their Independence From Their Democratic Leadership And Oppose Representative Charles Rangel’s Nearly $1 Trillion Reform Plan For Higher Taxes 

“If There Was Ever A Time For Paul Hodes And Carol Shea-Porter To Show Independence From Their Democratic Leadership, It Would Be To Oppose This $1 Trillion Tax Hike.”

Posted by Doug at 9:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

I thought all Americans were guaranteed their rights to religious freedom, but apparently unless we support the gay agenda, even though it goes against many people's religious beliefs if nothing else, we will continue to be pressured to ignore our own religious convictions and be ridiculed by homosexuals unless we jump on their bandwagon.

A case in point is the pressure that Barack Obama is receiving from the gay community, click here for the story.

Since there is no scientific consensus that gays are born that way and many scientists believe our sexuality IS a matter of choice, McClurkin has said absolutely nothing wrong in the story above. However, the gay community continues to use fear tactics to attempt to silence any opposition to their agenda of full marriage for homosexuals. Many homosexuals are striving diligently to be legitimized and validated, but many religious people believe God does not condone homosexuality, and therefore many of us will continue to believe that marriage should exclusively be a union between a man and a woman.

Does this mean we're homophobes? No, it does not mean that we hate or want to harm any homosexual. In fact, I agree that what anyone does in their own bedroom is their business as long as whatever they do is between consenting adults.

Based on my own 10 years of ministry experience, every homosexual counseled had a history of being sexually abused as an innocent, helpless child. In essence their sexual clock was turned on way too early in their life...sometimes by a same sex person and sometimes by an opposite sex person. This is not God's devine design for children. While we are all sexual beings and God's design is that we enjoy our own sexuality...it is a sacred joining of two people's spirit, soul and body, but it is supposed to be a union only after the sanctity of a joining of two opposite sex people after marriage. The Bible is very clear on the issue. That's the ideal for reaping God's blessings upon the union. Of course, I know that this devine standard is about as practiced today as I'm practicing to become the next woman astronaut.

From my own experience, I have received more hate-filled correspondence from homosexuals and their supporters, then from any other group of people. So, how is it that gays can spew their hatred and anger toward heteros who don't agree with them, but heteros who love the sinner, but hate the sin of homosexuality as God commands are subjected to being pressured by fear tactics and name-calling to change their belief system or else? You either support our lifestyle or we'll call you a bigot, homophobe, hate-mongerer, divisive, etc., etc.

Oh how weak would our faith and conviction be if we did what any man commands simply because they attack our belief by calling us names and becoming angry with us and pressuring us to legitimize a lifestyle with which we do not condone? Since the homosexual community cannot prove that they are "born that way" aren't they the ones who are trying to force heteros into believing a lie rather than following the truth of our own convictions and faith?

We are entitled to our religious freedom here in America but are we becoming the new victim of reverse discrimination simply because of our belief that marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman and believe that all children deserve a mother and a father for the child's ultimate benefit? Children reap vastly different things from a man and a woman since men and women are vastly different in many ways. Can we at least get a consensus on that?

Knowingly robbing children of the ideal influence of both a mom and dad is not in the ultimate best interest for any child's natural development to become all that they are designed to be by God.

Attacking McClurkin because he has apparently personally found God and has dealt with the extremely difficult knowledge of having been sexually abused as a child and what it did to him personally seems to be completely counter-productive to the supposed loving homosexual community. While the homosexual population demands equal rights, by their own actions and agenda they don't support equal rights for especially anyone who believes in God or even for anyone who simply disagrees with supporting civil unions or marriage for homosexuals.

The anger and hatred used to attack anyone who won't jump on supporting gay rights, I believe, will ultimately lead to it's own self-destruction. Attempting to Reject and demanding McClurkin be removed from participating in Obama's campaign is a violation of McClurkin's civil rights and violates his religious freedom and demands that he admit that he was wrong to be honest about his own life. It's just more proof that the homosexual community discriminates and supports divisiveness and inequality although they talk about equality for everyone...their actions betray their own cause. They talk the walk but they don't walk the walk yet they demand that they be respected and accepted yet they won't accept or respect other people who disagree with them. 

If you're willing (the key) you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free! A movement based on lies, misconceptions and the use of fear and threats to silence people is doomed to failure. The pro-gay agenda is full of hypocrisy. The black civil rights movement was successful because rightfully so the truth supported the cause...the gay-rights cause is on a foundation based on False Evidence Appearing Real (FEAR!) and therefore it does not stand up to honest scrutiny. 

Posted by Judy at 6:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBacks (0)

When I first became aware of what decision the Portland School Board was about to make, I was rather incensed that authority figures that are supposed to act in loco parentis would go for it - providing birth control (pills, patches, condoms) to 11 - 13 year olds. Being under the age of consent in Maine, effectively setting the stage to make it easier for statutory rape to occur without the threat of pregnancy.  Morally I find this repugnant.  So, if something "goes wrong" later on (indeed, a pregnancy or possible heightened cancer risks from the hormonal changes in these kids where puberty may have just started - or not), can the employees or School Board be held responsible?

Nope - they cannot be held accountable for any adverse reactions in the future under law.  And not being their kids, who cares what the long term results might be?

What I found rather sad was this additional information:

One might presume that since the Portland school district folks have found the time to focus on giving 11-year olds birth control pills without parental consent, the schools already have achieved a 100 percent success rate in meeting academic standards. Wrong.

As the Portland, Maine education gurus are pushing condoms, pills, skin patches and implants onto middle school kids, more than half of its eighth graders — some 57 percent to be precise — either do not meet or only partially meet state standards for reading. Those same middle schoolers fare even worse in math and science — with 71 percent of eighth graders failing to meet, or only meeting in part, math standards; a figure that rises to 85 percent for science subjects. You get the picture. Portland's middle school students may not be able to read or do math real well, but they'll be able to tell you all about condoms and birth control pills.

It doesn't get much better for Maine's students after they leave middle school and take on the challenges presented them in the state's high schools. The Pine Tree State's SAT ranking is as bad as it can get. Maine is dead last (three places even below Georgia) in a list of all 50 states showing how their students scored on the SAT. One might suppose that if the "SAT" stood for "Sex Aptitude Test" rather than "Scholastic Aptitude Test," Maine might rank considerably higher. However, that would hardly be a foregone conclusion. Despite the attention and resources devoted by "educators" in Maine and in other states to sex education, research indicates no correlation between dispensing birth control to students and greater use of contraceptives by those students. In other words, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him wear it; or perhaps I have mixed metaphors.

Posted by Skip at 9:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We hear all the time of the separation of church and state.  The ACLU makes quite the living from either threatening to sue or actually suing different towns and districts to prohibit not the establishment of religion but seemingly the free expression of religion.

I generally want the latter - not squelching of the expression of any religion but allowing more (i.e., more speech is generally better than less speech!).  The only time that I would have a problem with the free expression of religion is in those cases where their free expression and insistence of theirs infringes on mine....Islamofascism comes to mind.  But ignoring that for the time being, more is generally better. 

Also, as far as we are talking about "in general", I'm not in favor of what is often governmental hypocrisy.  Being of the Christian faith, often I see the removal of any artifact of my faith removed from schools on the idea enforcing the prohibition of religious establishment.

Imagine my surprise when I saw this in one of my local papers:

Does now calling a Halloween party (from the Christian All Saints Day eve or the pagan All Hallow's Day) the "Fall Festival" make it non-religious?  Does this inclusion of the occult - Tarot Reader / Fortune telling, even if just "a fake for the party" - not meet the level of "religious"?

Just asking and just a thought..... 

Posted by Skip at 9:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

A Big Thumbs Up for Sununu & Gregg! Keep up the good work...

Posted by Doug at 8:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 3:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

McLean, VA - Fred Thompson's Presidential campaign announced today that Charlie Arlinghaus will be joining the campaign's New Hampshire operation as Senior Advisor.   

.

Charlie Arlinghaus served as the Executive Director of the New Hampshire Republican Party from 1994-1996.  From 1999-2002 he served as a Regional Political Director for the Republican National Committee and worked on Bruce Keough's 2002 Gubernatorial campaign and Senator John Sununu's 2002 Senate campaign.   Since 2003, Arlinghaus has served as president of The Josiah Bartlett Center, a non-partisan, free market think tank.  He writes a weekly column on public policy for The New Hampshire Union Leader. His policy research covers a broad range of state policy including health care, prescription drugs, tax and budget policy and education funding.  He has been interviewed on public policy issues on the major domestic networks and in the 25 largest newspapers in the country.   Arlinghaus holds degrees in American History from The College of William and Mary and The University of New Hampshire. 

.

"Senator Fred Thompson has the conservative values and principled leadership that we need in the White House," said Charlie Arlinghaus.  "He will fight to protect our free markets, keep our taxes low and provide for the safety of this nation in the face of growing global threats.  Fred Thompson's message of smaller government and more personal freedoms is directly in line with the voters of the Granite State.  I am honored to join his organization and look forward to spreading his message throughout New Hampshire."

.

"Charlie Arlinghaus is one of the brightest and most experienced political minds I've ever known," said Randy Enwright, National Political Director.  "His experience and knowledge of New Hampshire specific issues will be a great asset to our organization in the 'first in the nation' state.  We are very pleased to have him join our team."

Posted by Doug at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

The kick off fund raiser for the NH Gold Star Mothers was a huge success. While the final numbers are not yet calculated; it's in the thousands of dollars. We bikers gathered at Nault's Honda in Manchester around 8 am. Registration was brisk, perhaps it was the free coffee and donuts provided by Dunkin Donuts of Manchester, with approx. 100 motorcycles registering (many of whom couldn't ride but paid for registrations regardless)...most bikers are affiliated with a veterans motorcycle association, not "club" as reported by WMUR. There's a difference. Nam Knights are a true motorcycle club, but Combat Veterans is a motorcycle association. Hubby and I belong to the Combat Vets Motorcycle Association where serving in combat is the only requirement to join. The Nam Knights have alot more stringent requirements to join and require alot more commitment; i.e., helping handicapped vets at the VA play bingo twice monthly, etc. All of the groups, however, are highly commited to veterans causes and spend countless hours for charities. There were the US Marine Riders, Rolling Thunder, Patriot Guard Riders, and American Legion Riders in attendance as well. 

A safety briefing was held and "blockers" volunteered. Kick stands went up about 10 am, and we roared out with a police escort from Nault's. There's always a leader and a tail gunner, in this case two, on these rally rides. Gunner's stop to assist if someone breaks down, etc. Luckily no one did.  Bikers were told to ride in staggered formation as it's the safest way to ride. We use automatic and hand signals for turns and to warn of road debri if there is any. We kept under the speed limit and luckily kept together with police escorts from the various towns and blockers keeping traffic stopped at intersections as we rode through the various towns.    

While it rained early that morning, the weather could not have been nicer during the 70 mile country road ride starting at Nault's and ending at Veterans Park in Manchester. A fire truck and police escort led us down Elm Street to Vets Park. Many along our route waved and saluted...many bikes proudly displayed large American flags. It's very touching to be riding in a group with flags waving and the patriotism displayed is palpable and heartwarming.

So many people and organizations donated their time or talent which contributed greatly to the successful fund raiser. T-Bones, www.t-bones.com, Cactus Jack's provided free food, the blue's band Smokehouse Lightning, www.smokehouselightning.com,  rocked the crowd at Vet's Park...the 15-year old lead guitarist and singer was unbelievable as was the rest of the band...Pepsi and Coke provided free beverages, chairs were donated by Cornerstone Ministries, raffle items were donated by various individuals and organizations. A hearty thanks to all...you know who you are!

The Mayor of Manchester's speech was sincere and impressive. Mark my words, he will one day be Governor of NH and beyond. He spoke for 10 minutes without notes and kept the focus on the Gold Star Mothers. If you closed your eyes, you wouldn't even have noticed that he's in politics...now, how refreshing is that! The only other speaker was Chair of the NH Gold Star Mothers, Bill Trueheart, who also kept his remarks short. Of course, the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer was spoken both at Nault's and at Vets Park. The flag at Vets Park is high and huge and proudly waved. Yep, I'm proud to be an American and honored to be a part of these extraordinary, selfless people.

Here's the story WMUR Channel 9 printed on its website (hopefully you caught the vido coverage Sat. and Sun. on Channel 9):

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Dozens of motorcycles escorted by a Manchester fire

engine roared into Veterans Park on Saturday to raise money to honor

the families of servicemen and women who have sacrificed their lives

for their country.

The riders traveled to Manchester to support the New Hampshire Gold

Star Mothers Memorial Association. The group honors the mothers of

children who died while serving in the armed forces.

"These veterans from motorcycle clubs throughout New Hampshire are our

first major event to get money," said William Truehart of the

association.

The fundraiser was held to help pay for a statue to honor local Gold

Star mothers.

"It's going to be one of four throughout the country done by

international sculptor Andrew Chernak," said Debbie Murphy of New

Hampshire Gold Star Mothers. "Everything is in place. We just need the

fundraising to really happen."

The group is hoping to raise $250,000. The statue would be placed

across the street from Veterans Park at Stanton Park on Elm Street.

Organizers said that the placement was decided, in part, so that the

motherly statue could look over lost veterans.

"The other reason for having it over there is to educate the public on

what is a Gold Star Mother -- a mother who lost a son or daughter in

service of the United States," Truehart said.

The group said it hopes to install the statue in March.

Here's the pics from the ride Mary Drego posted: http://community.webshots.com/album/561113649OaaWOV 

Since some of you couldn't attend in person, please contribute to this very worthy cause to honor the mothers who have lost a child to war and let's get this statue erected. Click here for the official NH Gold Star Mothers Memorial site for the address to send in your welcome contributions.

Other dedicated and helpful sponsors include: Nault's Honda, The Common Man Restaurants (The Airport Diner), and of course Dunkin Donuts, Eddy Road, Manchester for the yummy donated coffee and donuts.

Ride on and God Bless everyone who participated!

Posted by Judy at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 6:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Call Senator Gregg's office at 224-3324 as he has not committed to voting no on illegal immigration. They're voting today so please call before 11 am.

   From:   Roy Beck, President, NumbersUSA 
Date:   Wednesday 24oct07     2 a.m. EDT 
 
 
Use this for your final phone calls to stop DREAM Act amnesty this morning 
 
PHONE SENATE SWITCHBOARD AT:
202-224-3121

THIS IS A SHOW-DOWN MORNING, FRIENDS.

The vote on amnesty may be before noon.

I have a simple paragraph you can use on the phone if you have never

called a Senate office. It is so easy.

"Hi, my name is xmxmxm xmxmxmx. I am calling about S. 2205, the DREAM

Act amnesty. I urge the Senator to vote NO on cloture today and kill

this amnesty. Thank you."

It is going to take a lot of first-timers to pull out a victory when

the Senate is expected to vote by mid-day. How about calling and saying

something like:

"I would like for you to tell Senator xmxmxmxm that giving the DREAM

Act amnesty to 2.1 million illegal aliens will send the wrong message

to the rest of the world. Ask him to please vote NO on cloture on S.

2205. We don't need to entice a larger wave of illegal immigration."

Or this:

"There should be no amnesty of any kind until Congress passes laws to

stop the hiring of illegal foreign workers. S. 2205 would just invite a

lot more illegal aliens to come. Please ask Sen. xmxmxm to vote NO on

the DREAM Act amnesty."

CAN YOU MOVE A VOTE AND STOP THE AMNESTY THIS MORNING?

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Durbin (D-Ill.) said he would be

working tonight to find the final YES votes to have the 60 needed to

pass his DREAM Act amnesty later this morning.

I don't know what he found.

But even if he did go to bed with 60 votes, you can knock him back to

59 (or lower) and stop this amnesty if collectively you swamp the

Senate offices with phone calls between 7 a.m. EDT and the vote which

could come as early as 11 a.m.

PHONE SENATE SWITCHBOARD AT:
202-224-3121

THE MOST IMPORTANT SENATORS TO CALL

Your influence is always strongest with your own two Senators.

Posted by Judy at 5:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Kevin Appleby, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

In case that isn't clear enough, anybody who "would benefit from the DREAM Act" is an illegal alien.

Should anybody in the world hold back from trying to come here illegally now that they see that illegal aliens can hang around our Capitol itself with no fear of arrest -- and be embraced by our elected officials.

Last week, the Senate voted to protect Sanctuary Cities and their policies to shield illegal aliens. Today, some Senators apparently are declaring the Capitol an illegal-alien sanctuary!

We have now reached this point where the immigration lawlessness that has characterized the border for 20 years, that has suffocated our Southwestern states, south Florida and hundreds of neighborhoods across the country has now moved into the federal Capitol itself -- invited by U.S. Senators!!!

If you think the champions of anarchy have gone too far this time, pick up a phone over lunch and call your two U.S. Senators and demand that they commit to vote NO on cloture tomorrow on S. 2205.

PHONE SENATE SWITCHBOARD AT:
202-224-3121

You can get all the direct phone numbers (in D.C. and in the state) for your own two Senators at:
www.NumbersUSA.com/myMembers

I will be sending you more specific figures soon, but you probably should note to each office that the DREAM Act amnesty potentially rewards millions of current illegal aliens, as well as enticing millions more to come.

Instead of passing legislation to improve the lack of enforcement in this country that allowed at least 12 million illegal aliens to settle here, Senators are trying to just continue the 21-year pattern of giving rewards to illegal aliens.

THANKS FOR PHONING RIGHT NOW.

TOMORROW WILL BE TOO LATE.

SENATORS NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU BEFORE THEY MEET WITH THE ILLEGAL ALIENS AT 3 P.M. TODAY.



P.S. Yes, many of these illegal teenagers have compelling stories. And those stories may warrant some special consideration at some time. But only after Congress passes the laws necessary to keep the next million illegal teens from arriving, and only after the Administration shows that it can implement those laws.

Tell Senate offices "No more talk of rewards for illegal immigration until enforcement laws are passed."

Posted by Judy at 1:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Yes, former Gov. Mitt Romney was once again trying to stake his claim to being the “real Republican” in the race. Well, no question Romney’s positions on issues have evolved since his 1994 race against Sen. Ted Kennedy. Fine. In this bluest of blue states we understand how that happens.

.

But the one thing we will not let the former governor do is to rewrite history.

Posted by Doug at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Doug,
. 
I thought I'd share with you a column I've submitted to the Foster's Daily Democrat regarding the proposed tax cap in Dover.  I know you'll never agree with me, but at least you can see where I'm coming from.

Opposing the Tax Cap Proposal in Dover, NH

by Ron Tunning

No one enjoys paying higher taxes, and it’s safe to say that everyone would prefer a lower tax bill. That is why ideas such as the tax cap being proposed in Dover garner immediate public support. But if voters are honest with themselves they’ll oppose the measure.

.

Let’s be frank. We all know “there’s no such thing as a free lunch“, and experience has taught us that “you get what you pay for.” Those maxims should guide us as we evaluate the sensibility of imposing a tax cap.

.

So, too, should careful consideration of the methodology proposed for determining how much municipal spending will be permitted to rise. The Dover plan mirrors the language adopted in Franklin and Laconia, limiting the annual increase in spending to the annual rise in the U.S. Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index (CPI). After all, proponents of the tax cap argue, why should the cost of government rise more rapidly than the costs of consumer goods?

.

For an honest answer one need only look at what goods and services the Department of Labor uses in measuring consumer prices and how that compares to government spending.

.

The CPI focuses on consumer spending, breaking it down into eight basic categories. Those categories, and their percentage of total household spending according to the most recent Consumer Expenditure Report released by the U.S. Department of Labor, include food and beverages (13.7%), housing (32.7%), apparel (4.1%), transportation (18.0%), medical care (5.7%), recreation (5.1%), education and communication (2.0%), and other goods and services (20.7%). Included in other goods and services are insurance, pensions and social security, which account for 11.2%. The computations for education and communication, however, do not include the costs of public education.

.

It’s important to note that our municipal budgets do not reflect consumer spending. Food and beverage, apparel, housing, transportation, and recreation can not be counted as significant municipal expenditures. Wages and benefits for our teachers, police officers, fire and emergency personnel, public works employees, and other public servants account for most of municipal spending, with capital and infrastructure maintenance and improvements representing the bulk of other expenditures.

.

As we’re all aware, the costs of health insurance have risen at astronomical rates over the past few years. Those increases are not reflected in the CPI which only measures out-of-pocket spending by consumers -- in other words, the amount consumers directly contribute out-of-pocket to their insurance premiums, co-pays, doctor visits, etc. Not included in the CPI are employer paid insurance premiums, nor medical costs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Charitable care provided by hospitals and other medical providers, which amounts to millions of dollars annually in Dover, are also ignored by the CPI.

.

But it isn’t just the municipal cost of health care that is rising disproportionate to consumer costs. The cost of construction materials utilized in infrastructure repairs and improvements has ballooned over the past five years. Steel prices have risen by over 70 percent, and other building materials have experienced similar inflationary rates.

.

And all of us are quite sensitive to the painful rise in energy costs. As consumers we can reduce those costs by driving less, carpooling, or even walking shorter distances. Yet I dare say we wouldn’t favor reducing police patrols, garaging public works vehicles, or constraining our fire and emergency service vehicles even to save the cost of fuel.

.

In other words, government has responsibilities that it cannot neglect. It has costs that it cannot avoid. As a community, the people of Dover have a right to expect government to provide certain services, and should expect to cover the costs of those services.

.

The alternative is to follow the lead of the federal government. During the Reagan and Bush I administrations, the national debt rose from $997 billion to $4.4 trillion, a 341 percent increase, or an average of 28.5% per year. While it’s true that Reagan cut taxes, he wasn’t able to cut spending, adding an average of $155 billion annually to the nation’s debt during his two terms in office.

.

Bush I, also an opponent of tax increases, averaged annual deficits of $388.5 billion during his four years in office. Again, he wasn’t able to cut spending, instead relying upon the national credit card to cover costs.

.

Clinton, who by the end of this two terms managed to achieve a budget surplus by raising taxes, nevertheless piled on another $1.4 trillion in debt, averaging $175 billion in deficit spending per year. Bush II, however, cut taxes further, squandering the surplus and adding another $3.25 trillion to the national debt, an average of over $540 billion annually.

.

The point is that cutting taxes does not equate to cutting expenses. Capping taxes will not cap expenses unless a corresponding reduction in services can be achieved. That means fewer police, fire and emergency personnel, teachers and other municipal employees. It means neglecting infrastructure needs.

.

If indeed, voters wish to see a reduction in services, and a neglect of infrastructure maintenance and improvements, by all means they should vote for the tax cap. Otherwise, they’re only fooling themselves, and the long-term costs will accrue to their detriment.

Posted by Doug at 7:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

This is a true story from yesterday. Me, hubby and a girlfriend, all of us on our motorcycles stopped at the Hooksett tolls. Since I have an ez-pass on my bike, I could have flown through and waited for the gang...except that hubby motioned to me that he forgot his wallet and I'd have to stop and pay the tolls for them. No problemo!

I pulled up to the booth, my ez-pass activated for me but I told the toll worker I was paying for the other two bikers. Dick left and pulled over to wait for us. The toll worker was extremely upset that Dick went through already. I pointed out that my ez-pass charged for one and I was paying for the other two, so it didn't seem to be a big deal.

It's a pain to have to stop your bike, put it in neutral, kick-stand down, take off your gloves and get your money which is why I have an ez-pass. Hubby doesn't want the ugly, larger-than-car-ez-pass thing on his chopper, and I don't blame him. Mine is connected to my handlebars with plastic thread ties since the genuises who came up with bike ez-pass transponders, didn't anticipate that not all bikes have saddle bags to put them in nor is it convenient to carry one on your person...they're simply too big.

I only had a $50 on me as we were going to breakfast at the VFW to meet up with other veterans for a probable last ride to the beach for the season. I gave the toll worker my $50; he looked in the drawer and handed it back to me and said: "no change, forget it and may you NEVER come back through here again"! He was rude, I wasn't, but I held my tongue. This ying, yang wasn't going to ruin a beautiful day for me.

No change at 10 am?...puhleezze! So, while some of you are paying higher tolls, our three bikes went through and paid only one toll, ha, ha, ha! This is what your tolls increases are paying for people...incompetence, oh yeah, and other wasteful spending by the DOT. I just knew you'd love this story, Doug, although I fear I may have sent you over the edge with it! Call me if you need to vent!

Posted by Judy at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

....

To date, O'Leary testified the department has spent $230,000 to clean and investigate the two sites, one on Range Road and one on Route 127 called the Bailey Bridge facility, with $109,000 in direct fines to the DES Hazardous Waste Cleanup fund, $34,720 on a site in Ashland where lead paint chips were removed from a bridge, and $45,000 on two other sites, one of which is in Stratford where O'Leary believes much of the waste originally thought to be in Franklin is now located.

Time to add hundreds of state troopers?

Posted by Doug at 9:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

To my darling husband,

Before you return from your business trip I just want to let you know about the small accident I had with the pick up truck when I turned into the driveway.

Fortunately not too bad and I really didn't get hurt, so please don't worry too much about me.

I was coming home from Wal-Mart, and when I turned into the driveway I accidentally pushed down on the accelerator instead of the brake. The garage door is slightly bent but the pick up fortunately came to a halt when it bumped into your car.

I am really sorry, but I know with your kind-hearted personality you will forgive me. You know how much I love you and care for you my sweetheart. I am enclosing a picture for you.

I can not wait to hold you in my arms again.

Your loving wife.
XXX 

P.S. Your girlfriend called.

Posted by Skip at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

..........

Posted by Doug at 9:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Choose life...

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

Posted by Doug at 9:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I don't think that I have to do a detailed rehash of how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid misquoted Rush Limbaugh, got 41 other Senators to swear to it, and then how Rush turned that attempt at Government to squelch free speech by eBaying the Letter to the benefit of the Marine Corp - Law Enforcement Foundation.

The Letter went for $2.1 Million to philanthropist Betty Casey.

Rush then personally matched it - another $2.1 Million.

Harry Reid then tries to horn in to take credit while being guilty of attempted First Amendment Rights violations.

Best way of describing this?  From Captain's Quarters, I found this absolutely descriptive snippet:

...CapQ commenter PackerBronco observed that the entire story arc of the letter and its auction showed a clear difference between liberals and conservatives:

The conservative thinks of a free-market way of raising private funds to aid a worthwhile causes and backs his commitment with his own money.

The liberal asks other people to donate funds, doesn't donate any of his own money, and tries to take credit for the generosity of others.

Well said.

Posted by Skip at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

• All politics are local, part 1. The Gilford Budget Committee began its work this week. The selectmen have taken steps to get all employees contributing to health insurance benefits. What about the school board?
• All politics are local part 2. Colonial Theater in Laconia. Agreed, it's a fabulous "gem in the rough", but should taxpayer $$$ get spent to do something with it? When is enough enough when it comes to tax expenditures?
• Former NH Supreme Court Justice Charles "Chuck" Douglas, III will join the gang for some discussion of the ongoing McCain/Romney flap as to who's a better Republican. He'll also answer some questions we have concerning the NH Right to Know statutes and perhaps give some insight that might help with our ongoing Supreme Court case involving that law.
• Birth control for "tweens"?
• Pelosi's Turkish spanking fails to pass muster. Can the Dems get anything done, really?
• Greg Swaney of Nexcess.net, the awesome folks that are the "men behind the curtains" here at the 'Grok. We'll talk about the technology that makes blogging happen. You know, "cyberspace" where all the bits and bytes actually reside. Electronic voting seems like a good thing to ask Greg about. Does he think it can be made to be foolproof?
• Land Warrior battle gear gets a second look. The high-tech soldier hits the battlefield.
• Time to winnow the presidential field? Duncan Hunter raised a whole sixty bucks here in NH in the last reporting cycle. Don't spend it all in one place, Dunc! Who should follow Brownback as he exits, stage left?
• GraniteGrok featured again... This time, it's the newstand edition of Campaigns & Elections magazine!
• Don't forget-- TOLLS GO UP MONDAY!!!

There you have it! It all starts at 11AM EST Saturday. Tune in if you're in Central NH at NewsTalk 1490AM WEMJ or live on the 'Net here... WOW!!!

Posted by Doug at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

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

A little while ago, our new friend Cosmo from New Hampshire Presidential Watch, sent me an email:

Hi Skip,

 

I hope all is well. I'm not sure if you know this, but your website is featured in the new issue of "Campaigns & Elections" magazine

-Cosmo

Posted by Skip at 11:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I am embarrassed for the teachers in our Dover school system for the salaries that tell them they are not honored or respected or appreciated. I am embarrassed that so many of them have to spend out of that money to support their classroom activities. They have to send lists to the stores in August of what they require their students to bring to school: Kleenex, pencils, paper, pencil sharpeners and on and on and on. If there is composition paper, it is always in short supply. Just imagine a student's using scrap paper to write a rough draft or drafts of an essay and then using the good paper only for the final copy. And what about books?

Now, what has this to do with taxes?

.

We shortchange our children's education every year by not allowing our municipal government to raise our taxes. We let experienced teachers leave because they cost more. We don't give those teachers enough books or supplies to run the classrooms. Even our elementary school students go door to door to sell wrapping paper and candy to the people of the city to raise money for class supplies and extracurricular activities. Our Green Wave football team dons uniform shirts to go to each house with $20 discount tickets for fun items. Good grief! That is embarrassing.

Raise out taxes. We haven't stopped using gasoline even though it is now consistently close to $3 a gallon. We haven't stopped eating beef or drinking milk or smoking and our attendance at restaurants rises each and every year. I'll buy one less chrysanthemum; I will borrow a book from the library instead of buying it; I will cook dinner at home instead of taking the family out; I will buy one fewer DVD; I will share that basket of apples with my neighbors instead of allowing them to spoil and throwing them out; I will buy fewer lottery tickets; I will buy less expensive dog food for Fido who wouldn't know the difference from Iams; I will buy fewer Christmas presents for grandchildren who are surfeited.

.

We should with great joy raise expenditures on our children's education without penny pinching or whining. It is not only the smart thing to do; it is the right thing to do.

Posted by Doug at 7:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 6:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 5:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

...

Looks like Sam Brownback has realized he’s not going to be President.  He’s dropping out of the race.  He never had a shot anyway.  Some might say he never had a shot because of supporting the Amnesty Bill.  I don’t buy that.  He didn’t have a shot because he had no name recognition or any noteworthy record of accomplishment.  Honestly, did anyone ever really see him as having a chance at being President, or if you did, of actually being the President? Me neither.

Additionally, he notes that he can't think of

anything or any issue that he championed that forced the other candidates to address.

Me? I never really gave much thought to him at all lately till I read Skip's post looking to give him the 'ole heave-ho. When I learned that he was looking to make a push for the federal government to apologize for...

SLAVERY,

well, let's just say that's when he "lost" me-- not that he ever "had" me, mind you. Can you believe this guy? This is what he was offering just mere days ago in his bid to add life to his campaign, according to the Boston Globe:

Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican trying to inject new life into his beleaguered presidential campaign, plans to offer a resolution this week for Congress to apologize for slavery and segregation.

Brownback, of Kansas, told The Boston Globe's editorial board yesterday he will join an unnamed Democrat in sponsoring the proposal. He said he expects a tough fight on the resolution, even though it will not include any call for reparations.They were federal policies," he said. "They were wrong. The only way for us to move forward . . . is at the end of day acknowledging those, taking ownership for it, and asking for forgiveness."

Er, message to Mr. Brownback: We fought a war that ended slavery, sir. Over 600,000 souls died to help put an end to the repugnant practice.

For him to bring this issue forward as somehow being relevant and important in this presidential cycle shows the extent of the delusion that was the Brownback campaign...

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

This, I thought was rather interesting:

OVERVIEW: An underappreciated accomplishment of the past six years has been the continued reduction in the number of people on welfare.

The welfare caseload, after declining dramatically in the first four years after Welfare Reform was enacted, might have been expected to level off, or even rise slightly with overall population growth, after the initial impact of the 1996 law wore off.

After all, the reduction in the number of welfare recipients during the 1990s was stunning. From a peak of over 14 million in 1994, and over 12.5 million at the end of 1996 (over 4.5 million families) when the new took effect, the number of those receiving welfare came tumbling down to about 5.5 million by the end of 2000 — a decline of nearly 2 million per year.

There are those amongst that need almost total support.  When we ran our day-care, we had them and their children as customers.  For a few, no matter how hard it seemed that they tried, things just never seemed to give them a break.  Good, decent folks but just either couldn't get a bit lucky at the right time or continually made bad decisions. 

And then there were those that were scamming the system...

When welfare reform started to kick in, I knew that it was a good thing - society is lessened when those that could be productive are so coddled and protected that they feel it is their right to do nothing.

Well, I guess there were a lot more of "eligible to work" than I thought.  From the article:

I’m not sure that anyone expected the numbers to steadily fall after the first four years of reform, but that is exactly what has happened. Here are the details for families and recipients on welfare as of the end of each calendar year beginning with the turn of the century (000s omitted):

Dec. 31, 2000: 2,155; 5,527 (from year-end 2001 reports)
Dec. 31, 2001: 2,101; 5,276 (from year-end 2002 reports)
Dec. 31, 2002: 2,045; 5,014 (from year-end 2003 reports)
Dec. 31, 2003: 2,003; 4,844 (from year-end 2004 reports)
Dec. 31, 2004: 1,970; 4,695 (from year-end 2005 reports)
Dec. 31, 2005: 1,863; 4,386 (from year-end 2006 reports)
Mar. 31, 2006: 1,808; 4,223 (from year-end 2006 reports)
Dec. 31, 2006: 1,740; 4,093 (from interim 2007 reports)
Mar. 31, 2007: 1,696; 3,971 (from interim 2007 reports)

The reductions in families and recipients on welfare over the last 6-plus years are over 21% and over 29%, respectively, which the country’s overall population has increased by about 6-7%. The percentage of the population receiving welfare benefits has dropped from 1.95% at the end of 2000 to 1.32% in March 2007 — a per-capita drop of almost one-third.

It’s also worth noting that since reform took effect, the ratio of recipients to families has gone down from 2.56 to 2.34 — perhaps indicating a significant slowdown in the “babies making babies” phenomenon.

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

12 Knox County officials ousted by open-meeting ruling Jury finds officials selected secretly

By DUNCAN MANSFIELD
Associated Press

KNOXVILLE — In a striking verdict against government secrecy, a judge and jury threw out a dozen Knox County officeholders because they were handpicked behind closed doors.

.

It was the largest housecleaning of public officials ever in Tennessee for violating the state's Open Meetings Act, and open government advocates hope it serves as a warning to city councils and county commissions around the country.

that the 19-member Knox County Commission violated the spirit and intent of the state's open-meetings law when members filled vacancies for eight term-limited commissioners and four countywide officers, including the sheriff, on Jan. 31.

The jury found that commissioners secretly deliberated and voted on whether, when and under what rules to hold the meeting for new appointments.

Loren Cochan, director of the Freedom of Information Service Center at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va., said a national trend may be developing at the local level. "We are seeing that the public is standing up and complaining when they are shut out," he said.

Posted by Doug at 7:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, don't ya know I warned about this in previous postings, click here.

Wake Up New Hampshire...this is where civil union legislation signed by Gov. Lynch is heading in our state and rather quickly if people don't wake up out of their apathy and take a stand now!

Personally, if I still had children in the public school system, I would have yanked them out 30 seconds after Gov. Schwarzenegger signed this prepostorous legislation.

Since alternative lifestyles and pagan religions are already being taught in our public schools here in NH...with YOUR tax dollars...and your children are being indoctrinated possibly against your beliefs, you may just want to seriously consider yanking your children out now if you still want to be their Mom and Dad or your're a Husband with a Wife and vice versa.

This is where America is heading...FRIGHTENING isn't it? Just think, your little girly girl gets to share her bathroom and change her clothes in gym class in front of a little boy who thinks he's a girl...or maybe he just tells everyone he's really a girl to sneak a peak at your little darlin!

And you thought I was over-reacting in my previous postings when I warned you where the civil union slippery slope legislation here in NH was headed. Now what do you think?

Posted by Judy at 7:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Please click here and read about this extremely important kick-off event for the NH Gold Star Mothers Memorial to be erected in 2008 in Manchester.

Even if you're not participating in the ride, please join us at Veterans Park in Manchester at 1 pm. There will be food, music, raffles, etc.

Bring the kids! This is a family friendly event to honor the mothers of our fallen military and the best thing is that there will not be any long political speeches, just a couple of short ones honoring the Gold Star Mothers. Then you can enjoy the food, music and fun from 1pm until 4 pm...rain or shine!

PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDARS! If you can't attend, please think about sending a tax-deductible donation in any amount to help build this memorial for our generation and future generations. Make us proud New Hampshirites! Skip a cup of coffee, and send the money instead to support this worthy cause run totally by volunteers so every penny goes to the actual cause. There are no professional fund raisers to take their cut of your donated money. Thank you for your help. It is sincerely appreciated.

Posted by Judy at 4:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

See my original entry here, then click here for the update.

Oh, how I would like to have been a fly on the wall when Richard Roberts met with the Board of Regents. While Pastor Roberts has supposedly asked for a leave of absence, I'm guessing that it was at the prompting of the Board. I guarantee you that there is alot more going on in the background that we may never hear about.

With a university's survival on the line, not to mention the entire ministry begun by Oral Roberts, trust me when I tell you that the Board won't hesitate to throw Richard and Lindsey Roberts under the bus to save the university and the ministry...not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations at stake! Yep, the love of money is the route of all evil, but I'm confident that God's will shall prevail eventually although we may never know the entire truth...unfortunate since it IS the truth that sets you free!

H/T: Doug

Posted by Judy at 4:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I was talking to Doug on the phone and multitasking by surfing some of the sites I hit on a daily basis.  A must read for me is Weekend Pundit - DCE has become of good friend of the 'Grok and a frequent guest co-host on Meet The New Press show of ours.

Anyways, I'm talking away with Doug on a story he found that had to do with the Right-to-Know case he's involved with (I'm quite sure it will rate a post in the near, near future) and I started laughing to just about crying.  I told Doug, he went over, and went "so?".

If you're an engineer, I guess you will appreciate it this just a bit more:

How You Know You've Pissed Off An Engineer

I received this at work today.

What's so funny?  Go here!  Please! 

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

First thing off the top of my head was outrage and "what the heck are they thinking?!?!?!"

Students who have parental permission to be treated at King Middle School's health center would be able to get birth control prescriptions under a proposal that the Portland School Committee will consider Wednesday.

The proposal would build on the King Student Health Center's practice of providing condoms as part of its reproductive health program since it opened in 2000, said Lisa Belanger, a nurse practitioner who oversees the city's student health centers.

If the committee approves the King proposal, it would be the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to some students in grades 6 to 8, said Nancy Birkhimer, director of teen health programs for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. Most middle schoolers are ages 11-13.

Then, the more serious side kicked in and the four letter word came out: RAPE!!!  The age of consent is 16 in Maine - far older (in many ways) than these KIDS!

What are these two chuckleheads thinking!?!?!?!  They are making it more possible for an 11, 12, or 13 year old kid to be raped!  It doesn't matter to them, does it?  They have an agenda and are willing to ignore the fact that even if it is with those of the opposite sex their own age it is still RAPE.

Although students must have written parental permission to be treated at Portland's school-based health centers, state law allows them to seek confidential health care and to decide whether to inform their parents about the services they receive, Belanger said.

And so much for keeping parents involved - let's continue to point out that they can be excluded! 

Proponents say a small number of King students are sexually active, but those who are need better access to birth control.

Of 134 students who visited King's health center during the 2006-07 school year, five students, or 4 percent, reported having sexual intercourse, said Amanda Rowe, lead nurse in Portland's school health centers.

"This is a service that is totally needed," Rowe said. "It's about very few kids, but they are kids who don't have the same opportunities and access as other students."

I wonder if the parents of these 'few" kids, if they ever get wind of this, would sue the pants off these "professionals".

When it all comes down to it, free love is not free.  The payment may not be monetary, but somebody will eventually pay for it. 

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (1)

Hillary wasn't kidding when she said that the country couldn't afford her ideas...and good for her, she's not going to stop talking about more of them.  My previous post was mostly about Brownback and pandering for votes.

The nice thing about him, however, is that he wasn't reaching out for my wallet when trying to get my vote - she is and is making no bones about it!

ABC News' Eloise Harper Reports: Senator Hillary Clinton wants to make a connection.

At a campaign event at the YWCA in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Tuesday, Clinton, D-N.Y., reminisced about her days as a young working mother while unveiling her "Helping Parents Balance Work & Family" agenda.

"I remember one time when I had to be in court when I was a young lawyer," Clinton recalled, as part of a week-long focus on the women's vote dubbed "Women Changing America Week", "Chelsea was a baby and we had a young woman who did come in and help me; she'd come in early and then I'd come back and she'd go home. And Chelsea was sick and my babysitter wasn't there and she called and she was sick too. It was just that gut wrenching feeling and I was lucky enough to have a friend who would come over and watch Chelsea while I ran to court and ran back home."

You both decided that careers came first...

[snip]

In her remarks on the details of her policy plan, Clinton asserted that "women can be fired just for being pregnant if an employer has a no leave policy."

The Democratic contender said she would ban this policy as president, adding, "I assume that I will have 100% of support from the Republicans."

According to a statement released by her campaign, "Hillary's plan would set an ambitious goal for all states to implement a paid family leave program by the year of 2016 and offers $1 billion per year in grants to encourage innovative paid family leave programs at the states level. Hillary would also extend the Family Medical Leave Act to cover 13 million additional workers across the country and guarantee every American worker seven days of paid sick leave to help crisis faced by themselves or their children."

I have used the Federal Family Medical Leave Act.  I did not expect, or ever think of, of having my neighbors forced by government to ante up to help me out.  Voluntarily - that is the NH way - friends helping friends.  But never by force. 

And that is the larger problem - people with seemingly nice ideas that make their originators feel good about themselves are more than happy to have other people pay for them to feel good.

Campaign advisors said that the program would cost an estimated $1.75 billion dollars a year.

Brian Deese, Clinton's Deputy Economic Advisor, said these funds would be covered "without increasing the deficit by taking a important common sense anti-tax tax sheltering reform" which "is establishing a uniform definition of what a tax sheltering activity actually is."

The Clinton campaign cites estimates that such a change "will raise about $2 billion a year".

Note the careful avoidance of "raising taxes" but that's what it is.  So $2 billion here, $20 Billion for the Baby Bonds, and who the heck knows about the Hillary 401(K) matching funds.

A Bill here, a few more there.....it adds up pretty quick.  Glad to see that the NH Constitution has the mandate of being frugal in it as....oh wait, the Dems control NH now too........crap....

Posted by Skip at 7:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

OK, it IS time....for those candidates that have absolutely no chance at winning to winnow them down. First to go for me?

Dr. Ron Paul.  He's been amusing during the debates, and on some issues I believe he is right but his portrayal of them is, well, different.  His followers, however, have been an absolute pain online.  And then, when identified, or called out, or catching anyone (including this post) they think is  "dissing" Dr. Paul, well, they will let invective flow.  There is no mildly supportive with these folks - if you like him, it's pedal to the metal, throttle to the firewall, full ignition time.  They will swamp the online polls, but then get upset when the real life polls show him barely a blip.  Sure, he raises millions, but as far as convincing actual real voters to fork theirs over for him....zip chance.  And his supporters really have hurt his chances with those of us on the 'Net.

Next on my list - Brownback.  Especially with this.  I at least can say Dr. Paul stands ever resolute on his stances - Brownback is now proving to be nothing but a panderer for votes:

Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican trying to inject new life into his beleaguered presidential campaign, plans to offer a resolution this week for Congress to apologize for slavery and segregation.

Sorry, but this is a non-starter for me. 

I wasn't here, my parents weren't here, and my grandparents weren't here.  I haven't traced it back, but I would not be surprised if my Swedish / Viking ancestors had some of my Irish ancestors as slaves from raiding parties.  I do not expect any apologies from Sweden to Ireland any time soon.

Such a wonderful thing, this white guilt - not.  But it isn't about guilt - it is about getting votes. 

Brownback, in a wide-ranging interview yesterday, conceded that his campaign has languished since finishing a disappointing third in August in the Ames straw poll in Iowa. The 51-year-old Kansas senator remains in the trailing group of Republicans in the polls and in fund-raising, and says he will drop out of the race unless he places in the top four in the first-in-the-nation caucuses in Iowa.

And not a moment too soon.

He divulged his plan for a bipartisan slavery apology just days after reaching across the political aisle to join a Democratic presidential hopeful, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, in pushing a proposal for a federal system in Iraq - with strong Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia regional governments - as a way to end the bloodshed and allow US troops to withdraw from combat patrols.

Great - one non-starter reaching out to another hoping to start a fire.  Sure, this will get you points with the base....on either side of the aisle.

"This softer approach may make a Republican candidate more attractive," Graham said. "But in a partisan political world, I'm not sure how much resonance these issues are going to have among a Republican constituency."

"Brownback finds himself in a failing campaign with no hope under the sun of being elected and he is reaching out and exploiting blacks and using them to try and get a few votes," Massie said. "It's not going to work."

Brownback also praised Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, for helping lead the push for the immigration bill.

"It's been very hard," he said. "I have never been beat on so much in my entire life as during this immigration debate."

Posted by Skip at 7:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

The Democratic war against Wal Mart moves on. With the socialist-leaning party in power, one wonders if the assault on the premier American retailer/ logistics giant will intensify and begin to cause the company real damage.

Wal-Mart represents the latest target in the left's war on successful American businesses.

Participation in the campaign, which is organized by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), the AFL-CIO union with primary jurisdiction for employees of retail stores, was approved by the NEA Executive Committee in May 2005 and endorsed by the 2005 Representative Assembly in July 2005.

Of course, just because those on the outside looking in say something is bad, it turns out, sometimes, when you consult people actually having firsthand information, the real story turns out to be quite different. In this post about a group comprised of Wal-Mart employees (Working Families for Wal-Mart), I pointed out:

I know several people that work for Wal Mart, and they genuinely like their jobs. Nobody forces anybody to work there.

Followed by this:

Nobody forces anyone to shop there. Imagine that- willing employees serving willing customers- What a concept!

Indeed. Did you know that Wal-Mart, under constant attack by those who always claim to be for "the little guy," saves the average American family who willingly patronizes them more than $2,500 per year? And now, for those willing customers, there's a way to get involved and help defend the company that provides such a level of satisfaction: Wal-Mart New England's Customer Action Network (CAN).

Wal-Mart's Customer Action Network is a program to keep customers informed about government issues that affect Wal-Mart and its ability to provide good value for your shopping dollar.

.

When government tries to limit your shopping choices, or interfere in Wal-Mart's ability to offer Everyday Low Prices, Customer Action Network members can help by expressing their opinion.

.

CAN members can get involved in a variety of ways. Opportunities to participate in petition drives, public hearings, letter writing campaigns, or even just going to the polls on Election Day can help ensure your access to the savings that Wal-Mart provides.

Screw them!!!

I couldn't agree more. I'm mad as hell and am not going to take it any more!

Posted by Doug at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

..

Hello Skip,
.
Thanks for the information.  We have restored this data and are now processing logs to bring it current.  It should be current within the next couple of hours.
.
Thank you,
.
Andy
SiteMeter Support

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

Well, my turn!  Chaz has started the debate off with two points:

• He's not a socialist
• Universal Healthcare is not socialistic

Well, I tend to be a "fisker", so let me go through his thesis and let the air gently out of his ballon.  So let's dive in!

Formatting note:  indented and bold is the person who has presented the Point (in this case, Chaz).  The person doing the Counterpoint will have the full width, regular text (me for now). 

As you may have noticed I endorsed Hillary Clinton for President this week.

Well, that doesn't bode well for your argument!  But hey, given your earlier posts on Universal Healthcare, it is not unexpected.

That has kept me occupied on the blogosphere. That plus building and preparing for winter is keeping me in "catch up" mode. I do think this is a great project though and one that I will commit to. So let me start with a short opening statement:

In my endorsement of Senator Clinton I called healthcare my number one domestic issue. No matter your vantage point, its a big one that isn't going away. I think we all agree on that, correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh no - on this point we do agree (uh-oh, does this bode well?).  I agree that healthcare is one of the biggest domestic issues, but I think that illegal immigration is the number one domestic issue.

Given that, healthcare is my third issue for the Presidential race.  In fact, a twofer:

• Healthcare and how it should be managed
• Government and its perceived role in society.

The combination of the two, and how they are handled, have tremendous ramifications on how our society undergoes its next metamorphasis. In fact, in a way, it may have a tremendous impact on personal choice and self-responsibilities.

Health care is of course a huge economic issue.

Indeed.  The economic make up of our GDP is 16% and will only grow, and grow faster, as the Boomers age and pass into retirement.  Costs will spiral as more advanced technologies come into vogue in keeping the most narcissistic generation ever.

Healthcare has always been rationed - no matter what road America chooses, this will remain constant.  The question is by "how".  We have two diametrically opposing models:

• Free market capitalism
• Government control 

Far be it for us to decide which will win out - but let us argue, rant, and rave as if we did. 

Industries in the western world have a capital advantage over us because of either universal or single payer systems. All you have to do is watch what is happening in our auto industry to see how crucial the difference is.

It all depends on how the definitions play out.  As far as individual companies may be concerned, that is probably true enough as our model has the employer paying.  Why?  You touch upon this in your next paragraph, so I will address it there.

Suffice it to say, under the current model, GM has about a $1500 healthcare cost impact on each car - I have read that the Japanese is only $200 / car.  I'm not sure that this can be classified as a capital advantage in the truest definition of capital, but it certainly is a cost advantage.

However, the level of taxation in those countries is much higher in those countries than here in the US.  Thus, one might think that one would cancel out the other.  Unfortunately, our chucklehead political elites, mostly on the Left, have decreed that our corporations should pay the second highest level of taxation worldwide. Thus, not only are they hit with higher healthcare costs, they have an artificially higher level of cost of business as well (my definition here of artificial is that anything that is not related to the cost of material, direct labor, capital equipment, indirect labor, and the like (I would included outsourced services as well) is artificial. 

Taxes are artificial - they are not connected, except by the force of government, to the actual cost of creating and delivering the service or product that a business offers consumer. 

Our hodgepodge system began when I was born shortly after World War two.

You are correct, and it began the initial distortion of the insurance marketplace by government interference.  During WW II, wage freezes were in force, making it harder for the marketplace to compete and attract talented workers.  American ingenuity being what it is, the marketplace figured out a loop hole - offer insurance at a time when consumers normally had to pay their healthcare providers direct.  So, this was the start of the paperwork model and the beginning of the disconnect of the direct consumer-provider link.

Thus, realize this - the start of our current mess was government.  Chaz believes that more government will fix this.  I believe that the removal of governmental interference will be a better solution and let us again gain that direct consumer-provider link.

After all, in the abortion issue, isn't it the pro-choice folks (again, mostly members of the Left) that scream and yell that government should not come between consumers and their doctors?

All I want is for THAT model (no government) to become universal and not that government becomes universally entrenched.

Employers at that time were able to sustain health care premiums for its steady workers.

 Of course - we were the manufacturers to the world.  Untouched by WW II's devastation, our factories kept humming right along through the 50's and 60's.  The world's economic model changed little during that time while our productivity went up in comparison to other countries.  That hightened productivity, as it has the last few years, supported the increases in costs and inflation.

We got lucky with respect to history.  That is no longer the case, as globalization and the lowered cost of shifting labor, communications, and information technology has lowered the barrier to entry in many fields.  Too, with the ever increasing rate of change, the introduction of disruptive technologies has thrown previous competitive models to the wind. 

That system became outdated thirty years ago, but we still use it. Lose your job, lose your healthcare. If you don't work for a major corporation chances are you won't have ANY healthcare.

Lose your job, lose your healthcare.  Once again, why is this? Two basic reasons:

• Our healthcare insurance system is not insurance, it is a healthcare payment program.
• The meddling of government in two fundamentally cost raising (and not cost containment) areas:
• Constant insertion of mandatory coverages
• Tax policy inequalities

Let's consider my first point - a payment plan vs an insurance plan. 

The payment plan is one where we do not know what our health care costs actually cost, and let me give a personal anecdote.  I suffer from two chronic diseases - hypertension and high cholesterol.  Each requires its own medications.  Even though my pharmacy types the retail cost of the drug on the label, I could care less - I am dissociated from the cost as I concentrate, like many, on what my co-pay is.  I do not go and comparison shop, and why should I?  I derive no financial benefit in taking the time to find a lower retail cost (and studies have shown that different pharmacies CAN and DO charge different prices for the same medications in a geographically localized area).

All I care about is whether or not my cost is for a generic or a proprietary medicine.

Contrast that with car insurance - I DO care about the price of gas and I do pay attention to gas prices as I travel around my local area.  In my case, with a Suburban with a 45 gallon tank (yeah, do the math), it pays for me to comparison shop.  It IS in my self-interest to watch prices.

On to the second point - governmental interference.

One reason is that government continually mandates that insurance companies cover more and more things.  One simple example is here in NH - the legislature just mandated that children up to the age of 26 can now be covered by their parents' insurance.  This change was to cover the possibility that a child in college would continue to be covered if they had to drop out due to illness.  Now, the college requirement can be waived.

Now, that can add security to older parents, but what does that do to a young childless couple.  Regardless of their status, they end up paying for coverage that does not pertain to them.  My single son has to pay for that as well.  Add in coverage cost for alcoholism for a someone like me who drinks no alcohol - is that fair?

The simple fact is that these mandates stem from our political chuckleheads pandering to  voters to seemingly offer something for nothing.  As this is the 'Grok, let me quote from Robert Heinlein, from his book "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress":

TANSTAAFL

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch 

Somebody has to pay, somewhere, and some amount.  And this becomes truer and truer as government supplies more and more "free" services to its citizens. 

Look, some coverages I can understand - we can all have accidents, we can all get cancer, we can all suffer from many of the same diseases.  But why can I not decide on what coverage I want and that pertains to my situation?

I cannot, and I have to pay for that privilege of not having choices.  And I have no choices to purchase coverages from states that have lower costs.

Most self-employed people can't afford it, or if they are paying it their operating costs become so thin that its hard to stay motivated. These are just a few of the problems, but from where most Americans sit, this is a broken antiquated system that needs fundamental change.

Tax inequality.  

Chaz rightly says that many self-employed cannot afford to purchase health insurance.  Very true, but he does not state why - I am.  In addition to the mandated coverage, the other major reason is tax inequality.  Large and mid sized corporations can take this off their taxes as a cost of doing business.  Self-employed cannot.  That huge cost difference is the major reason why health insurance is int he state it is.

So, again, we see again that government inteference in the marketplace has not helped to contain costs but have actually help to raise the cost of insurance and the way it is used and deployed.

...needs fundamental change..."   Yes, a colossal change is needed. And so far, I believe that I have shown that government has been responsible for much of the changes.  Yes, medical technology and pharmacuticals have also contributed to higher costs, certainly what I have shown has validity as to why I point the Fickle Finger of Fate award towards government as the main cost raiser.

I also believe that the American people, through the American government should be able to use the most powerful capitalistic tools available to bring down the cost of health care. In other words I don't see "buying in bulk to drive down costs" as anything remotely socialistic. I'm happy to go into any of this in detail when the time comes. End of intro.

Look at the knee jerk reaction - let's have government solve the problem!  This alone, however, does not make Chaz a socialist.

Let's start with the question of whether I am a socialist. Let's deal with me personally ( some people think I'm a liar, but I'm not) and then deal with the definition of socialism Personally, I know I'm not a socialist. I love capitalism and think its the engine that drives the western world to great achievements.

The only reason why this may be important is that one's frame of reference colors the discourse.  While labels often can be wrong with respect to individual topics, they often are helpful in describing someone's over all outlook in life and how they see, or hope to see, the different entities in society interact. 

I am a conservative - some say just to the left of Attila the Hun.  I believe in free market capitalism and in having the most amount of freedom possible.  There are things that are properly relegated to government; however, I often see things put on the back of government by those with "good ideas" that wish to take the easy road and not work within the capitalistic system and make it happen themselves.  We thus end up with bloated government with all of the attending inefficiencies.  So now you know where I stand. 

Every time I get on one of my motorcycles I marvel at the development, history and engineering that allows me to fire the things up and ride. I admire the people who were the driving forces behind all this. One of my bikes is a Norton a company with a hundred year history of winning races. Norton was originally the dream of one man. My other bike is a BMW. BMW is also a company with a storied history including the darkest days of Germany. It is an industrial giant, and I love their machines. So I'm a capitalst, but I'm a capitalist that believes that every great engine is worthless without a steering system, brakes and a suspension. So in that regard I am NOT a Lassaiz Faire capitalist.

 Without getting ahead of ourselves, I think I see the first twinges of a "managed economy" discussion coming up.  For me?  I believe that consumers, with the knowledgable direction of their precious dollars, make wonderful decisions in the aggregate.  Notice that I used in the aggregate - individual or even small groups of consumers can be "had" or make rash / uninformed decisions that are not in their best interest (oops, I bought too much of a car, too much house, overpaid for this gadget, and the like).  But there is no better mechanism for the conservation of resources or creator of wealth than our free marketplace.

From all of the history I remember (I'm 58) and have read, unfettered capitalism ends up in exploitation--the predators win out.

OK, I'm 8 years behind you.  In some ways, in the same generation and in some, a vast chasm.  I believe that Viet Nam was the defining event during the 60s - and I believe that it has colored our generation's outlook for the worse.  I also believe that we are the most selfish generation that America has birthed - more rich and more educated than any before us, the Left of our generation threw out all traditions in the name of progress, even those that keep societies on an even keel.

I disagree about the exploitation, especially today.  Part of the problem was the lack of mobility - earlier generations did not move from the locales where they were birthed.  Now, we are the most mobile folks in the world.  Don't like your situation?  Move.  Think the bosses are jerks?  Move.  Don't like the products that are offered?  Move (your dollars).

And we can now do that as information is so much more available.  Information means that decisions, if that information is used and used wisely, are made for the better.  

You are only exploitable if you allow yourself to be exploited.  While this was an issue (a real and true issue) for previous generations, it does not have to apply to us now.

That said, Enron happened. Smart people who lost their moral compass did things that they should not have.  They got caught, and government caught them (good!).  And the guilty should get everything that they so richly deserve. 

From the Gilded age to the present day all you have to do is read history. ( I keep asking my libertarian friends to name a country or culture where unfettered capitalism has delivered the kind of society they think we are missing out on, but I am yet to hear of a concrete example. Not one, unless we want to examine Milton Friedman, the Chicago School and Agusto Pinochet. Certainly no one brings that up. So I'll rely on history as these debates develop.

I will ask that you expound on this point, as I haven't the foggiest what specific examples in your mind are driving this paragraph, nor your point (other than I have a sneaking suspicion that you are leading up to having Government leading / managing our economy). 

Now for definitions. Here's how Dictionary.com defines socialism: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Here's the one that I used here from Wikipedia along with my discussion of it:

Just for the record, a socialist can be defined as:

...social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies.

If he [Chaz, that is -Skip] is advocating for Universal Healthcare, then according to definitions, universal healthcare is a socialistic policy.  After all, even if government may not technically own the means of "production", if it controls the decision making of how the "means of production" will be used, regulated, rationed, and funded, isn't that the same thing?.  If that isn't a grand example of a socialistic policy?

There are things that government should be responsible for its citizens in the aggregate.  Defending the country is one, and since the government controls all aspects of its use of the military in carrying out its primary duty, I have no problem in saying that this could be viewed as socialistic (the problem comes up when a Monarchy controls the military in a kingdom -  the King (being the government) controls that, but one would be hard pressed to define that as socialistic).
   

I don't think you can make the case that universal healthcare, especially Hillary Clinton's or John Edward's plans are socialistic without broadening the definition.

Sure I can.  Effective control of an industry by government can be viewed as socialistic, especially when one's frame of reference normally precludes that industry from the purviews of government.  I have no problem with government controlling the military. Or taxation, or the court system, or a bunch of other things.  

Healthcare is not an individual right but a responsibility.  In this area, the move to have government completely take over control for healthcare fulfills the above definitions. When John  Edwards comes out and says that one HAS to see a doctor, that is government dictating behavior - anathema to me!  Tell me that this aspect of what this Democratic Prez wannabe isn't socialist (actually, I believe it is more dictatorial myself). If I am told to go, and I do not, there will be penalties that government will assess.

I notice that Doug printed his own definition, but that is so broad that everyone who votes Democrat becomes a pinko. (sorry Doug; had to take a shot a it. we can look at that too later.)

Hah!  Taking on both of us at the same time may be a full time job! 

So sticking with the definition above and Wikipedia neither of the plans being discusses are socialist because neither invest the control of the "means of production".

The above statement is wrong - even if it does not own the actual means of production, Universal Healthcare invests ALL control into the hands of the State. And if you control something absolutely and can tell those that own the things that you are controlling what can be done with those things, you effectively own it. 

Now, while that control is not complete at the beginning, government control is always that bad penny of project management - scope creep.  In this area, I can easily see that the current level of control, along the present and future time line, will never be enough for those "managing" my healthcare.

And looking at Canada and Britain, for two examples, we can easily see where a totally government run system fails. After all, look at that case in Britain where the guy with broken bones in his ankle has been told that he has to stop smoking before they agree to surgery.

Remember, healthcare will always be rationed as there is a cost to providing it.  With our system, the marketplace will end up with a reasonable cost based on competition and knowledge of pricing. 

One great example, even in the healthcare industry is Lasik eye surgery.   Outside of government distortion and outside of  most insurance  programs, the cost has plummeted, competition is rampant, and the quality and ability to handle  "harder" cases has gone up.

Both plans will also leave private insurers intact.

Not so fast, Kimosabe!   Hillary's plan will compete against private insurers, and will effectively drive them out of business.  Sure, her plan will leave them alone - and will cause the private marketplace to wither and die, and the government plans will under sell them.  Just for Hillary's plan forces private insurers to a bad competitive spot right off the bat.:

This plan will eventually put private health care insurance companies out of business:

• They cannot discriminate against anyone for any condition.  Why bother paying for insurance until you get sick?
  
• Forcing private companies to compete against the Government that will undercut their prices.
• Giving the impression that private endeavors are ripoff artists ("excessive pemiums" and "fair" drug prices are not fair).
  
• Will be highly regulating insurance and drug company revenues, profits, and free speech - "not excessive profits and marketing".
  

Intact?  Changing the entire business model is not leaving things "intact". 

I wish more people would read these plans so I didn't have to continue repeating that fact. In both plans you keep your doctor and go to the same hospital. essentially the government plan would compete with private plans. This competition is why I argue that the people, through government, should be able to chose. So.by definition I am not a socialist.

That's your problem - I DID read it - right from her website.  And given my advancing years, extrapolated a tad given what I have seen happen with "government creep".  When the competition is rigged such that logical people will vote their pocketbooks based on a playing field where private insurers are not able to compete one on one with government plans, they will abandon their private insurance.

The outcome will then be that only government plans will exist, thus ensuring that only government will prevail.  A socialist system. 

And as for the second step towards communism. You'll just have to trust me when I say once more that I am a capitalist who believes controls are necessary, as opposed to a capitalist who sees creeping socialism as a stepping stone to communism.

Elaborate please - who gets to create and manage the controls?  Define what are needed and unwanted levels of controls and regulation?

See, that IS the underlying question - how much is too much and how much is too little? 

In my view communism was one of the biggest disasters of the twentieth century. I agree, actually that many European Countries are too far along that path. Actually, let me adjust that.

Agree with the first statement.  Second - if you believe that they are too far along, then you will agree with me that their decision to let government take over and manage / control more and more what should have stayed in the private marketplace was the first step along that path!

Otherwise, how did they get into the messes they are in? 

Some things that work in Europe would never work here.

Like what, and why? 

But what is undeniable is that we lag behind most industrialized country in providing high quality health care to all our citizens.

Prove it.  Prove that overall care is higher elsewhere than here.  And please do not cite studies whose mechanism relies on "universal healthcare / access" as one of the criteria.  Let's stick to actual healthcare outcomes.

And let me add, let's subtract out those studies / numbers (or, at least account for them) of illegal immigrants that distort outcomes. 

So I think that's enough from me right now.

Naw, more speech is better than less speech. 

Let me sum up:

1. Personally I don't think of myself as a socialist.

1. By definition, I am not a socialist and universal healthcare is not a socialist system

2. What's in a word anyway? Well in this case I think that the word socialist is simply a scare tactic.

Overall, maybe not.  Advocating for UH in this specific field, I still say yes....we will continue to debate.  I still believe that UH is a socialist system - even in Britain and Canada where they have this they call it socialist, even in those democratic states.  You have failed to convince me that it is otherwise, as it will be government that will control it.

No, not a scare tactic, and words DO have meanings.  It is the failure to establish strict definitions of those words that cause problems.  Tossing it off as "what's in a word" is sloppy and intellectually dishonet (i.e., I cannot defend it, so let's get it off the table - quickly!).

Posted by Skip at 9:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Ok Thanks for your patience Skip et al. As you may have noticed, I endorsed Hillary Clinton for President this week. That has kept me occupied on the blogosphere. That plus building and preparing for winter is keeping me in "catch up" mode. I do think this is a great project though and one that I will commit to. So let me start with a short opening statement.

In my endorsement of Senator Clinton I called healthcare my number one domestic issue. No matter your vantage point, its a big one that isn't going away. I think we all agree on that, correct me if I'm wrong. Health care is of course a huge economic issue. Industries in the western world have a capital advantage over us because of either universal or single payer systems. All you have to do is watch what is happening in our auto industry to see how crucial the difference is.

Our hodgepodge system began when I was born shortly after World War two. Employers at that time were able to sustain health care premiums for its steady workers. That system became outdated thirty years ago, but we still use it. Lose your job, lose your healthcare. If you don't work for a major corporation chances are you won't have ANY healthcare. Most self-employed people can't afford it, or if they are paying it their operating costs become so thin that its hard to stay motivated. These are just a few of the problems, but from where most Americans sit, this is a broken antiquated system that needs fundamental change.

I also believe that the American people, through the American government should be able to use the most powerful capitalistic tools available to bring down the cost of health care. In other words I don't see "buying in bulk to drive down costs" as anything remotely socialistic. I'm happy to go into any of this in detail when the time comes. End of intro.

Let's start with the question of whether I am a socialist.

Every time I get on one of my motorcycles I marvel at the development, history and engineering that allows me to fire the things up and ride. I admire the people who were the driving forces behind all this. One of my bikes is a Norton a company with a hundred year history of winning races. Norton was originally the dream of one man. My other bike is a BMW. BMW is also a company with a storied history including the darkest days of Germany. It is an industrial giant, and I love their machines. So I'm a capitalst, but I'm a capitalist that believes that every great engine is worthless without a steering system, brakes and a suspension. So in that regard I am NOT a Lassaiz Faire capitalist.

From all of the history I remember (I'm 58) and have read, unfettered capitalism ends up in exploitation--the predators win out. From the Gilded age to the present day all you have to do is read history. ( I keep asking my libertarian friends to name a country or culture where unfettered capitalism has delivered the kind of society they think we are missing out on, but I am yet to hear of a concrete example. Not one, unless we want to examine Milton Friedman, the Chicago School and Agusto Pinochet. Certainly no one brings that up. So I'll rely on history as these debates develop.

Now for definitions. Here's how Dictionary.com defines socialism: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

I don't think you can make the case that universal healthcare, especially Hillary Clinton's or John Edward's plans are socialistic without broadening the definition. I notice that Doug printed his own definition, but that is so broad that everyone who votes Democrat becomes a pinko. (sorry Doug; had to take a shot a it. we can look at that too later.) So sticking with the definition above and Wikipedia neither of the plans being discusses are socialist because neither invest the control of the "means of production". Both plans will also leave private insurers intact. I wish more people would read these plans so I didn't have to continue repeating that fact. In both plans you keep your doctor and go to the same hospital. essentially the government plan would compete with private plans. This competition is why I argue that the people, through government, should be able to chose. So.by definition I am not a socialist.

And as for the second step towards communism. You'll just have to trust me when I say once more that I am a capitalist who believes controls are necessary, as opposed to a capitalist who sees creeping socialism as a stepping stone to communism. In my view communism was one of the biggest disasters of the twentieth century. I agree, actually that many European Countries are too far along that path. Actually, let me adjust that. Some things that work in Europe would never work here.

But what is undeniable is that we lag behind most industrialized country in providing high quality health care to all our citizens. So I think that's enough from me right now. Let me sum up:

1. Personally I don't think of myself as a socialist.

1. By definition, I am not a socialist and universal healthcare is not a socialist system

2. What's in a word anyway? Well in this case I think that the word socialist is simply a scare tactic.

Posted by Chaz Proulx at 9:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Another, cruder way to put the title is:

Pelosi OKs American Marine and Soldier deaths to score political points.

There, that's more in line with what I really think. She and the other Democrats in the House are just going gangbusters in approving this silly, obnoxious resolution that condemns the Turkish genocide conducted against the Armenians over 100 years ago.  So much for fostering multi-lateralism (hey, tick'em all off and we will only have "cowboy" unilateralism left).

Bottom Line - the Dems, against EVERYTHING that they publicly say about their efforts to reach out to other countries, are going to WILLINGLY forment anti-American sentiment in a foreign country that will hurt our resupply efforts for mere political points (re: sheer political power).

Imagine that - they hate Bush so much that they are willing to anger an ally that might well result in more American deaths (making it harder to move supplies and troops might be a last straw in a critical moment).  May their deaths be heaped on Pelosi's head (yes, my son was in the Marines in Iraq for almost a year, so I take this PERSONALLY). 

HOW DARE THEY PUT OUR FOLKS AT RISK!

Let's see if our NH Congressional Reps, Hodes and Shea-Porter, support our American Military or Pelosi's foreign policy that undermines American needs, allies, and Military.  They have made the point locally over and over that they support our Armed Forces.  Let's see what they actually do - will their actions support their words?  (I'll call their offices later)

Frankly, this stems from the fact that the Dems haven't had the stones to publicly vote on yanking the funding for our troops in Iraq.  Sure, the bluster has been as fast as the wind in a New England Nor'easter in Feb.  Sure, the anti-war war crowd has been egging them on. 

Face it - once again, they haven't had the courage to actually do what they say they want to do.  Why?  If they voted what they said, if they voted how they have led us to believe they feel, they'd be tossed from office like rotten tomatoes in a food fight.  This is not about honoring our troops - this is a back room power move under the guise of a feel good resolution. 

They have failed at the front door, so now they are going for the back door.  Under a show of showing solidarity of peace and "what's right", they are going to use this Resolution to try to achieve via their own twisted version of diplomacy in what they think is a slick political move.

And this has already been addressed twice before - this is just a "stick in the eye" moment.  And it  sure is - "if we cannot win the war of ideas in the public square of America, let's do it in Turkey!") Let's incite the Islamist leaning government in Turkey (one of the few democratic nations in that area that actually likes us) by ticking off their legislatures by offending their nationalism.  Watch as they decide that we cannot use our air base at Incirlik for troop and material transport.

Look what happened at the beginning of the war when the 4th ID was not allowed to cross Turkey - it held up their deployment for months and helped to create the situation that we are in now.

Supporting the troops?  Far from it.   

Congressman Hodes and Congresswoman Shea-Porter, please do not vote for this nonsense.

Posted by Skip at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Of all the casualties of the past election, the loss of John Bolton as our UN ambassador is the one that I regret the most. To have had a plain spoken person advocating first for what's best FOR AMERICA on the world stage during the last year or so has been refreshing indeed. Unfortunately, the Senate confirmation that eluded Mr. Bolton while the GOP was in charge was rendered utterly impossible with the Democratic takeover and he duly ended his quest for permanancy in the position.

I think next year is going to be a very consequential election for President and it's perfectly appropriate for the full range of domestic issues to be discussed. You do that in a presidential election, but I want to make the point that we should look at national security issues as the highest priority -- because the threats from international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have not diminished. They're still very real and we need a President who is going to view protecting the United States internationally as his highest priority.

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

The MTNP Podcast page is (gratefully) brought to you by:

And we thank them very much!

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.

Hour 1 here                                                Hour 2 - here

Hour 1:

           MTNP had the pleasure of having former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, on the
                show this weekend (H/T: NH GOP).  The interview can be heard

HERE!

or click this handy player:

powered by ODEO

         Other clips from the show should be up tonite, including Jeb Bradley running to reclaim his
                NH Congressional District 1 seat from Carol Shea-Porter.
 

Hour 2:

           Coming soon!
 

SchlubCam:  None this week...sorry!

Posted by Skip at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Has Fred Thompson given up on New Hampshire?

Posted by Doug at 8:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

[M]any of the administration's present problems derive from squeamishness about ideological confrontation that any effective Long Telegram would have to address. When President Bush declared a "war on terror," cynics understood that he had no particular interest in the IRA or the Tamil Tigers, but that he was constrained from identifying the real enemy in any meaningful sense: In the fall of 2001, a war on Islamic this or Islamic that would have caused too many problems with Gen. Musharraf and the House of Saud and other chaps he wanted to keep on side. But it's one reason, for example, why the Democrats, as soon as it suited them, had no difficulty detaching the Iraq front from the broader war.

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

...

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following remarks to the New Hampshire Republican Party in Manchester today, Saturday, October 13th:

.

Thank you for that kind introduction.  It is an honor to speak to you. 

.

I don't usually do this but I'm going to depart for a moment from the issues I want to talk to you about today.  One of the other Republican candidates made an extraordinary statement yesterday.  Former Governor Romney yesterday proclaimed himself the only real Republican in this race.  As we all know, when he ran for office in Massachusetts being a Republican wasn't much of a priority for him. 

In fact, when he ran against Ted Kennedy, he said he didn't want to return to the days of Reagan-Bush.  I always thought Ronald Reagan was a real Republican.

When Governor Romney donated money to a Democratic candidate in New Hampshire, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans.  When he voted for a Democratic candidate for President, Paul Tsongas, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans.  When he refused to endorse the Contract with America, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans.  And when he was embracing the Democratic position on many major issues of the day, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans.

.

So you'll understand why I'm a little perplexed when Mitt Romney now suggests that he's a better Republican than me, or that he speaks for the Republican wing of the Republican Party.

.

I think I've gotten to know the people of New Hampshire pretty well.  I know that before I can win your vote, I have to win your respect.  And to do that, you expect me to be honest with you about what I believe.  You might not always agree with me on every issue, but I hope you know I'm not going to con you.  The most important thing we have in this life is our self-respect.  And I'm not going to trade mine for anyone's vote or for any office.  I'm going to tell you what I believe and let the chips fall where they will.  I'm confident New Hampshire Republicans feel the same way about your self-respect as I feel about mine. 

.

Americans have lost trust in their government to do the essential things and to get out of their way in enjoying the freedom to make their own choices in their everyday lives.  We Republicans have been slow to offer bold solutions in the areas of health care and the environment, and our silence has eroded American's trust in our party and made Democrat solutions that would do more harm than good seem attractive.  I want to restore that trust by reforming the way we do business in Washington and trusting the American people by giving them back the freedoms to make important choices, particularly in health care.

.

We are approaching a "perfect storm" of problems that if not addressed by the next president, will cause our health care system to implode.  Here is what we know: First, we currently spend 2.2 trillion dollars-16 cents of every dollar we spend -- on health care.  By 2015, just seven years from now, that number will nearly double to four trillion dollars.  Second, by 2019 Medicare will be broke.  We are currently spending more on Medicare than we are collecting in payroll taxes and cashing in the few IOU's left in the trust fund.  In the meantime, more and more of our retirees' social security checks will also go to pay for Medicare leaving our seniors with less money for their everyday expenses.  Third, by 2017 more money will be going out of social security than is coming in.  The next president must act to avert the impending "storm."  I won't leave office without doing everything I can to fix these problems that threaten our future prosperity and power.

.

This week I offered my plan to reform and strengthen our health care system.  It's a plan built on a simple premise: bringing spiraling health care costs under control through market competition will benefit consumers and patient care, increase coverage by making insurance more affordable, and strengthen American economic competitiveness across the globe.  My plan puts the needs of individuals and families first, not government and insurance bureaucracies.  For example, it provides all individuals with a refundable tax credit of $2,500 and families with a $5,000 credit toward the purchase of health insurance, and rewards innovative insurance by allowing any money remaining to be deposited in tax-free Health Savings Accounts. 

.

It promotes robust health care markets by, among other things, allowing families to purchase insurance across state lines and through any willing provider such as an association or a church.  It focuses on tort reform to stop frivolous lawsuits which enrich trial lawyers while raising health costs for everyone else.  My plan harnesses market competition to lower pharmaceutical costs by fostering a more efficient process for bringing cheaper generic drugs to consumers sooner and developing a workable system that permits the safe reimportation of drugs to keep competition vigorous. 

.  

I am running for President to restore the trust of taxpayers in their government.  Americans have lost trust in their government to spend their hard earned money wisely.  Today, the government spends more money than ever before.  Since Ronald Reagan left office, government spending adjusted for inflation has increased $2,500 for every man, woman and child in the country.  Wasteful spending has gone from irresponsible to indefensible.  When Congress sends a pork-laden spending bill to my desk, I will veto it.  The Congress just passed a Water Resources and Development Act with 900 earmark projects.  If I got that bill, I'd veto it in a heartbeat.  No is always the right answer to wasteful spending. 

.

I believe we must also address the issue of climate change now just as Republican Teddy Roosevelt had the vision a century ago to preserve many of the natural treasures our families enjoy today.  Today, the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere, altering our climate with the potential for major social, economic and political upheaval.  The world is already feeling the powerful effects of global warming, and more dire consequences are predicted if we let the growing deluge of greenhouse gas emissions continue.  A group of senior retired military officers warned recently about the potential upheaval caused by conflicts over water, arable land and other natural resources under strain from a warming planet.  I'm not about to ignore this challenge by spouting empty words of concern without offering any course for real action.  This is why I have joined with Joe Lieberman to pursue a market-based, cap and trade system that will bolster our economic competitiveness and achieve appropriate limits on greenhouse gas emissions as efficiently and effectively as possible without harming our economy.  I will ensure that such a system is harnessed as a means of diversifying the nation's energy mix to make us less dependent on foreign oil so our dollars don't flow to tyrants and terrorists, like Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

.

But even with all these challenges, I believe defending our nation against attack from Islamic extremists must remain the top priority of the commander in chief.

.

I stand before you at a perilous time, a perilous time for our party but, far more important, a perilous time for our country.

.

We face an implacable enemy dedicated to our destruction.  We face criticism at home and abroad.  Some doubt that we can prevail against our enemies -- Islamic extremists that operate in Europe, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.  Just last month, terrorist plots were uncovered in Denmark and Germany that had the potential to kill hundreds or thousands demonstrating how serious the threat is, yet much of Washington remains mired in irresolution and defeatism.

.

I would like to speak to you about a leader of our party whose roots of leadership and wisdom we should also remember and rely on.  Three decades ago, a visionary politician described the dangers in the world.  It was, like today, a time when some doubted America's goodness and greatness.  Many argued for reconciliation with our global adversary.  But this man held firm.  He did not care what editorial boards wrote about him.  He did what he thought was right.  He criticized the liberal Democrats' foreign policy of weakness and vacillation.  He called for resolve and firmness in dealing with the Soviet Union.  And, he refused to condemn millions to perpetual Communist tyranny in the false hope that accommodating the Soviet Union would contribute to America's security.

.

Fortunately, this man, Governor Reagan, became President Reagan.  How different would our lives be had he not won election in 1980 and 1984?  Does anyone believe a liberal Democratic President would have called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" or would have stood up to the nuclear freeze movement?  Can you imagine a liberal Democratic President saying communism should be left on the ash heap of history, or calling on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall?  While many Democrats tried to defund weapons systems and freedom fighters, Ronald Reagan was steadfast -- and he was right.  Thanks to his leadership, the Soviet Union dissolved and the Cold War was won on our terms.

.

Today, the challenges are at least as severe as they were when Ronald Reagan stood tall.  And, today, the differences between Republicans and Democrats on national security are every bit as stark as they were 30 years ago.  Today, leading Democratic presidential candidates vote against funding for our troops engaged in war in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Today, leading democratic presidential candidates question whether there is a war on terror, offer to enter into unconditional negotiations with our worst enemies, and talk about countering the forces of radicalism by advocating surrender to them in Iraq.  If the Democrats get their way in Iraq, if we cede Iraq to al Qaeda, how long will they stay the course in Afghanistan? 

.

We face grave challenges in the Middle East: halting Iran's nuclear ambitions; protecting our democratic ally, Israel; supporting moderate voices against the killers of Hamas and Hezbollah; defending Lebanon's sovereignty against Syrian and Iranian aggression.  Does anyone seriously believe that we can better meet those challenges in the aftermath of an American defeat in Iraq?  It is irresponsible to think so, and any man or woman who does isn't prepared to lead our country in the struggle against Islamic extremism.

.

The world Ronald Regan faced was a dangerous one, but more stable than the world today. It was a world where we confronted a massive, organized threat to our security.  Our enemy was evil, but not irrational. And for all the suffering endured by captive nations; for all the fear of global nuclear war; it was a world made fairly predictable by a stable balance of power until our steadfastness and patience yielded an historic victory for our security and ideals.  That world is gone, and please don't mistake my reminiscence as an indication that I miss it.  That world, after all, had much cruelty and terror, some of which it was my fate to witness personally.

.

Today, we glimpse the prospect of another, better world, in which all people might someday share in the blessings and responsibilities of freedom.  But we also face a threat, and a long war to defeat it, that is as difficult and in many respects more destabilizing than any challenge we have ever faced.  We confront an enemy that so despises us and modernity itself that they would use any means, unleash any terror, cause the most unimaginable suffering to harm us, and to destroy the world we have tried throughout our history to build.

.

Ronald Reagan warned of the need for firmness and vigilance in the 1970s.  Unfortunately, we did not heed his wisdom and we paid a horrible price for weakness and inattention toward the threat posed by Islamic extremism in the 1990s.  

. 

I have many responsibilities to the American people, and I try to take them all seriously.  But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others and that is to use whatever meager talents I possess, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.  And that I intend to do, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion.  I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war then we must not choose to lose it.  That is how I construe my responsibility to my country.  That is how I construed it yesterday.  It is how I construe it today.  It is how I will construe it tomorrow.  I do not know how I could choose any other course.

.

In 1974, Ronald Reagan gave his famous "Shining City Upon a Hill" speech and concluded by saying:

"We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so.  The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us in the little hall of Philadelphia.  In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all the stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, 'The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions.  Into the hands of America, God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.'

.

We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth."

It was my privilege to hear Governor Reagan deliver that speech.  I had recently been released from a long involuntary captivity and was seated as Governor Reagan's guest.  His words ring true today when, once again, it falls to America to lead the world against a global threat, to remain the last best hope of man on earth.

.

It is a privilege beyond measure to live in a country that has sacrificed so much for the cause of freedom.  I have lived a long, eventful and blessed life.  I have had the good fortune to know personally a great many brave and selfless patriots who sacrificed and shed blood to defend America.  But I have known none braver or better than those who do so today.  They are my inspiration.  And I pray to a loving God that He bless and protect them.  Thank you.

Posted by Doug at 2:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

....

• ****Former UN Ambassador John Bolton at 11:50am !!!****

• GraniteGrok blogger Judy Paris sits in with the gang for the full two hours. She'll bring her usual wit and insight to the discussion as it unfolds...
• Frank Emiro stops by to tell us about the NH Gold Star Mothers Memorial Association and their efforts to construct a memorial monument honoring the Moms. They have an event planned for next Saturday to help the cause.
• Skip is at the NH GOP State Committee Meeting. I'm sure he'll be advocating for adherance to Republican values and principles.
• Jeb Bradley checks in with MTNP for an update on how the quest to retake the congressional seat now held by Democrat Carol Shea Porter is proceeding.
• Joel Turtel, author of Public Schools, Public Menace: How Public Schools Lie To Parents and Betray Our Children, holds a degree in Psychology. For the last ten years he has served as an Education Policy Analyst, studying the climate of today's public schools and its effect on children and parents. He warns listeners not to be shocked when they learn what he has uncovered about our public schools. We will discuss his latest article for NewsWithViews.com, "Public Schools--Pagan Religion Indoctrination Centers". We'll also talk about options parents have available to them in removing their children from the government schools.
• Dan Gilgoff is the politics editor for Beliefnet.com. We'll discuss the Beliefnet God-o-Meter's news that Mike Huckabee is picking up new Christian Right support after Fred Thompson's stumbles and Mitt Romney's failure to close the deal with the movement. We'll also talk about the website and the mission of Beliefnet.com.
• Jen Rubin, whose work appears in all the bigtime punditry places including the American Spectator, NRO and ABC News, as well as Human Events, The Weekly Standard, and others.
•  More to come-- check for updates!

There you have it! It all starts at 11AM EST Saturday. Tune in if you're in Central NH at NewsTalk 1490AM WEMJ or live on the 'Net here... WOW!!!

(Don't forget to sing happy birthday!)                  

[UPDATE: Trouble w/ livestream]

Posted by Doug at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The political horizon for conservatives is bleak and will get worse before it gets better, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey said Thursday.

.

In an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, Armey predicted U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton will win the presidency next year, saying no Republican candidate is strong enough to beat her.

.

"The Democrats will win," Armey said. "I don't see any way that Hillary Clinton won't be president.

Posted by Doug at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)

............

Many public schools have become pagan religion indoctrination centers. These schools now teach children anti-Judeo-Christian beliefs and pagan religions, and try to mold children's minds through the latest techniques in behavioral psychology.

By teaching religious mysticism, public schools throughout the country are filling impressionable young minds with group think, multiculturalism, paganism, Earth worship, astrology, polytheism (belief in many gods), and pantheism (belief in spirit gods that exist in trees, rocks, and water). The God of Moses is out in our public schools, and Earth worship is in.

.

Many teachers in public schools across the country now stress feelings and mystical experiences, not facts and reason, much less critical reading and thinking. Their behavior modification techniques indoctrinate children with emotion-driven group think and anti-Western, anti-Judeo-Christian values.

Author Aldus Huxley wrote about ‘new-think’ indoctrination in Brave New World, his frightening novel about a future totalitarian society. In his book, school authorities molded children’s minds so that as adults, they lost their ability to think critically or judge the policies of their leaders.

.

Indoctrinating children with pagan beliefs in our public schools could have a similar effect. If a child believes he or she can turn into a bird or pass a math test by rubbing a voodoo necklace, then facts, reason, hard work, and dedication go out the window.

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

I grew up in Oklahoma City when Oral Roberts was on TV.

My siblings and I used to make fun of him. When he would ask people to come and put their hand on the TV, we'd jokingly do what he said. He would holler, "heal, heal, heal!" We'd all laugh and practice saying the same thing as we held our small hands on the TV. We thought he was nuts!

Well, the institution that Oral Roberts built in Tulsa, Oklahoma is awash in scandal. Click here to read about what's going on.

I have had friends whose children attended ORU. Many of them thought there was something "wrong" with the teachings at ORU. Some told me that it appeared that they cared more about "right appearance" rather than "right belief."

I have no idea whether any or all of these accusations filed against Oral's son Richard and his second wife Lyndsey are true, but the fallout has certainly begun with students leaving in droves. I certainly do hope that the truth will come out much like it did during the Jim & Tammy Faye Baker, PTL scandal, and the Catholic Church scandal when known pedophile priests were merely moved to new parishes rather than being prosecuted.

The Bible talks about False Shepherds and False Prophets, and I believe we are in an age when God is beginning to expose them. I'm certain it will not be pretty, but I sincerely believe that it is necessary for God to cleanse HIS Church. Those of us of faith will not be shaken since we don't follow men anyway since it's fraught with danger when people follow men rather than following God. Jesus died so that we all can communicate directly without man's intervention or interpretation.

I do believe that it's not up to me to judge Richard and Lyndsey Roberts as they will answer to God not man. They may, of course, suffer some severe consequences when they have their day in court and man does judge them by our legal system. However, as 2Th 1:8 states:

"He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus."

If they are guilty they will be punished for their indescretions by a much higher authority than man. Leaders are held to much higher biblical standards than ordinary church going people, and as a leader, you do not want to be guilty of leading any of God's children astray in anyway. I'm sure you've heard the term "the wrath of God!"

Click here to read one of the responses by the Roberts to the above piece. I read through many of the comments on a website left by tons of ORU students who freely talked about some other very disturbing allegations and situations at ORU involving the Roberts' three daughters. Let's just say that the students weren't very flattering in their assessment of the Roberts' children and they were referred to quite often as haughty, spoiled brats, etc.

The New England papers haven't printed much about this story, but I will continue to follow it and post updates. I am deeply sadened when all of Christianity gets a bad rap because of some leaders indiscretions although I certainly understand that it's very easy for worldly, non-christians to think that all of Christianity is hypocritical. Unfortunately, all of the good that is done in our churches around the world is many times overshadowed by high-publicity scandals.

Pastor John Hagee is apparently on the Board of ORU and says that a full investigation will be conducted. My problem with Pastor Hagee is that while he is morbidly obese himself, he's always telling smokers, drinkers, etc. that they're "sinning" all the while he certainly appears to be a glutton. While the bible warns of gluttony, it does not say anything specific about smokers other than warning that all things should be done in moderation, and that while all things are permissible, not all things are beneficial. So, is it any wonder why many people see so many hypocrits preaching the gospel? I have faith, however, that the true shepherds and prophets, etc. will rise up in the appointed time and hour and the false shepherds will be exposed and punished.

God Bless and help all of us in these very trying times, and I'll leave you with something that the Apostle Paul, who killed Christians before he was converted, says in Philippians 1:15-18 from the NIV version:

"It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of good will. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice..."

PPS: Has ownership "shifted?"...here's a couple of poems I wrote about 15 years ago:

Sanctification

My Church is hurt, she's wounded, she's caught

in a manmade prison of shame and fraught.

But if she'd just look to Me,

I have the answer on My tree.

It isn't one of hiding things

but illuminating them to see,

The darkness only makes them grow,

like mushrooms captured in dung below.

You think I'll turn and blame and point!

That's men whom I did not anoint.

My ways are grace and love and knowing

of things you think you are not showing.

But I see already all your debt,

don't go away again with needs unmet.

Confess those secret things inside of you,

and I will catapult you to life anew!

Come with your baggage all to Me,

I paid for you on Calvary.

TRADITION

My Church I call again to Me

She's marching out unprepared to see

The foundation she's on

is slimy and askew.

She's gone beyond what I told her to!

She must get fortified each precious one inside,

Before she stumbles because of her pride.

I am the Head, One flock, One shepherd...

Not many men all filling needs

of ego and power and their security.

Await with patience My direction,

Then we'll march out all in section!

Posted by Judy at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

(H/T: Trouble)

IDIOT SIGHTING: My husband and I had to have the garage door repaired. The Sears repairman told us that one of our problems was that we did not have a "large" enough motor on the opener. I thought for a minute, and said that we had the largest one Sears made at that time,  a 1/2 horsepower. He shook his head and said, "Lady, you need a 1/4 horsepower."  I responded that 1/2 was larger than 1/4. He said, "NO, it's not. Four is larger than two." We haven't used Sears repair since.
_____________________________________________________________________
IDIOT SIGHTING: I live in a semi-rural area. We recently had a new neighbor call the local township administrative office to request the removal of the Deer Crossing sign on our road. The reason: "Too many deer are being hit by cars out here! I don't think this is a good place for them to be crossing anymore."  From Kingman , KS
______________________________________________________

IDIOT SIGHTING : The stoplight on the corner buzzes when