No, Steve, it is NOT “not… intentional“:
I’m not saying that any of this was intentional, by the way. I’m saying that the sponsors are probably too blinkered by their own arrogance, trapped in the tunnel-vision of their own circumstances, to realize the destructive power of what they are trying to do.
I believe SB120’s resurrection is BECAUSE of the Conservative base’s outright ANGER over Medicaid Expansion – while NH State Senator Chuck Morse is up front, the whisper behind his throne is that of NH State Senator Jeb Bradley – an attempt to insulate this crime against Republican ideals by locking down a Cone of Silence. In essence, “I will use the Force of Government to shut up my opponents!”
I cannot think of any other reason to do such a thing contra “abridging the freedom of speech“, one of our foundational Pillars.
I believe it and will declare it: the actions of the NH Senate Republicans (especially two of the SB 120 sponsors: NH State Senator Jeb Bradley and NH State Senator Sharon Carson) ARE INTENTIONAL. Those that are sponsoring this bill are not dumb (mostly). Several are actually rather bright – they just believe that they can close this barn door behind them to keep the rabble (that would be anyone that disagree with their Highnesses) out. Deliberate? – I do believe that there is Malice aforethought, – after all, elections are coming up for all of them. In this case, and in my humble opinion, a craven attempt for personal gain over what the Republican Party stands for – from the Platform:
- We believe, above all else, in the founding principle that all people are created equal, endowed by our Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unimpeded by intrusive government regulation and control.
So here we have Republicans intentionally inserting MORE Government intrusion into the speech (er, against the speech) of we ordinary schlubs who can’t afford the expense of the experts to argue against their actions. Here we have Republicans intentionally placing more control over their speech. I remind you – the Founders believed that the Freedom of Speech was amongst the most important of our natural rights and among the most important tools of the Public to keep their representatives in line with the Constitution.
- We believe that the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions were written by our forefathers to limit our government, not our freedom.
SB 120 flips this on its head – by its own words, by Jeb Bradley’s and Sharon Carson’s own words, they seek to limit OUR Freedom (by limiting our speech) and free Government from its limitations. After all, if we are not allowed to call out and criticize our Representatives, have we not already lost our freedom?
So ask yourself, how Republican are these Republicans if they are doing EXACTLY what former NH Democrat Party Chair Kathy Sullivan tried to do a few years (and again last session as well?) – until we at GraniteGrok caught her at it? That we even rallied people from her own Party to stop it? Think of the irony – do we (or I, as an elected State Committee member of the NH GOP) have to do that again, rally those from the Democrat Party, to defend Free Speech against Republicans? Why is it being left to GraniteGrok to defend the Republican Party’s brand (such as it is) and Platform?
I do agree with the rest of what Steve writes – a clear case of “watching out for Number One’ instead of abiding by the words and the philosophy of these:
NH Constitution:
Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.
This act does nothing for the general good – in fact, I believe that this is contrary to the general good as is make it more difficult for the general public to make its mind known about their representatives.
[Art.] 4. [Rights of Conscience Unalienable.] Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.
Implicit in the Rights of Conscience is the Right to Free Speech – after all, if something has happened, or if someone has caused something to happen (like SB 120 being used to protect those implementing Medicaid Expansion), if one no longer has the freedom to complain
[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.
We are to have the Freedom of Speech – yet these Republican politicians wish to restrict it at the most critical time at which we can have the most attention and response from our fellow citizens to either express our joy, our remorse, or our sense of betrayal from the last election.
Why do they wish to hide? Is this the “new normal” from the Republican Party Elite?
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
No, I am not referencing the Right to Revolution – but to bring your attention that these Republican politicians, Jeb Bradley and Sharon Carson, ARE trying to use Government for the benefit for a certain, very small, class of men – incumbent Politicians. Once again, are we seeing our politicians, as Ian Underwood pointed out so well, that if our Politicians feel free to not abide by our Constitution, that we should also have the freedom to not abide by their laws? Especially if it is for their own selfish self-interest at the expense of the rest of us?
[Art.] 22. [Free Speech; Liberty of the Press.] Free speech and liberty of the press are essential to the security of freedom in a state: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.
Free Speech – again, we see self-serving Politicians, Republican Politicians, abridging our Free Speech. There is no explanation or excuse that can cover this egregious activity. Again, just when we are about to select our Representatives to govern us, they are turning around as if to say “How DARE you criticize us?!?! Therefore, we will take retribution upon you serfs!”. This is not the act of “public servants” – this is an incremental act of Tyranny, for one step of tyranny is generally followed by another – those in seats of power just cannot seem to help themselves.
[Art.] 38. [Social Virtues Inculcated.] A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government; the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their officers and representatives, and they have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of government.
And in that observance of them comes the right to apply correction. After all, we do not bow down to Kings and royalty by any name – yet, are these faux courtiers demanding that of us? Are we to come to them in supplication, as the peasants did to the Nobility of old?
Or is it time to say “Screw you – start following the Law just like the rest of us!”!
You know, these politicians (and lawyers) think themselves of higher status than the rest of us by wrapping our primary Rights in much language – much of it like SB 120 that seeks to not to enhance but to obfuscate the true, simple meanings of what the Founders meant for the generations to come – and for us.
US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Simple – 10 words. An entire philosophy readable even by the farmers of the time of the Revolution. So why can’t these bright (mostly) politicians seem to internalize that simple message: Let the People speak as they may wish to. Period.
And why do we let them get away with it when they don’t?
