“Some laws of state aimed at curbing crime are even more criminal.”  —Friedrich Engels

Joseph Hebert is a criminal. He has a considerable arrest record for everything from assault and drug possession to burglary. Clearly, he is a miscreant.  This Saturday Hebert’s personal illegal fortune-seeking ran aground. He was caught taking other people’s stuff without their permission. We, common folks call this, “Stealing.”

Dennis Fleming is an upstanding citizen, if not a hero. Hebert spotted Criminal Hebert walking down the road after seeing him come out of his neighbor’s window. Dennis Fleming fired a shot away from the direction of of Criminal Hebert, directing that shot into the ground, so as not to hit criminal Hebert or any property or other people. Several of Fleming’s neighbors arrived to restrain criminal Hebert until the police arrived to arrest him.  Fleming subsequently unloaded his firearm and placed it nearby after Criminal Hebert was restrained.

A subsequent search of Criminal Hebert’s backpack revealed possession of personal property from homes broken into by Criminal Hebert.  All’s well that ends well?  Not so fast. 

the 61 year-old grandfather and great-grandfather Dennis Fleming is now charged with Felony Reckless Conduct and could face a prison sentence, as Reported in the Union Leader. The Strafford County Attorney charged Fleming with the class B felony, for discharging his weapon when he fired a warning shot to get Criminal Hebert’s attention, that the shot would provide the incentive criminal Hebert needed to terminate his retreat.

Somehow, we have allowed our legislature the ability to codify in law some basic safety rules, along with the notion that it is not legal to discharge a firearm unless at a gun range.  We simply cannot have people wantonly, indiscriminately and gratuitously discharging firearms in urban areas or residential neighborhoods. The intent of the statute was to curb just that. But this ain’t that!

If we accept the facts as clear based on the press accounts, then we know a couple of things: a) Fleming did not fire his .38 at Criminal Hebert. Fleming fired it away from Criminal Hebert. Why? So Fleming would not hit Criminal Hebert. b) He fired into the ground…the ground will absorb a bullet easily, especially where this is not a high caliber, high velocity round. c) There is nothing in the article that indicates anyone’s person or property safety were compromised by the discharge of Fleming’s gun.

We, as a society have devolved into one where the Police and the criminals have an unintended cooperative relationship. For example, countless community “crime prevention” meetings host law enforcement officials advising citizens what to do to limit ones’ exposure to being a crime victim. Another component of these “community talks” are the police advising, “If you are suddenly faced with a criminal act, do not resist. cooperate…give the criminal what he wants and then call the police.” This is further rationalized and couched in no property ever being worth a human life. In other words, comply with the criminals demands to unlawfully deprive a citizen of his or her property, money or goods they came by through lawful means.

Criminals for their part, understand these principles and actually count on those principles operative aspects to succeed them in their criminal endeavors. And if one is a criminal, that is pretty sound logic because statistically, force of resistance is still the exception and not the rule.

People do resist, however and when they do, there is often a consequence.  That consequence is the citizen ends up broke from paying expensive legal fees to defend ones’ self from the onslaught of charges leveled by often anti-gun county attorneys. Pedantics 101 is following the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit and intent of it.

I think Madonna has a bra just like this.

The singer Adele (Adele Laurie Blue Adkins), has joined the pantheon of modern celebrity -women who believe that flipping the bird in front of alarge public audience (on television) is a reasonable way to behave.

And maybe it is.

Perhaps M.I.A. (and now Adele) will do to the middle finger what Bill Clinton did for the ‘Lewinsky.’   Oral sex isn’t even sex anymore nor is is, is.  So it can only be a matter of time before the middle-finger replaces the handshake–somewhere around 12-21-2012 if the Mayan’s were right.

Adele’s digital communication came during the Brit Music Awards, after her second acceptance speech was cut short.  Must be rough having your second acceptance speech cut short.  It’s always nice to re-thank everyone you thanked the first time.  The little people get so cranky when you forget to mention their tiny contributions to your success.  Wouldn’t want them flipping you the bird the next time you meet. or maybe you do?

Adele did qualify her behavior at least.

I’m sorry if I offended anyone but it was the suits that offended me,” Adele said. “Thank you all very much and thanks to my fans. I don’t want them to think I was swearing at them.”

I guess that was really a private message for the suits, a little making of the sausage inter-office–communication, and Adele was just giving-it-to-The Man!

We are the 99%. Ans why not, she’s only worth about £6 million.

And isn’t this another win for feminism?  A woman worth £6 million can flip off a live television audience.  You’ve come a long way baby.

New Hampshire HB 1342 would prohibit towns and cities from using your tax dollars to hire a lobbyist to send to Concord.  This seems like a pretty good idea to me.   But not to the Committee which rejected it 12-2 sending it to the House floor as Inexpedient to Legislate. (It gets voted on tomorrow.)

I’m a bit puzzled by that.  I had this crazy idea that our selectman, town manager, mayors, or councilors (and bureaucrats galore) are already elected for the purpose of representing our interests.   We also have at a minimum,  two representatives in the actual legislature, one State Senator and one or more House reps, who exist to (what was that again?) represent our interests?   Why would we want to pay an additional third party lobbyist with more tax dollars, to lobby the legislature for our municipality?

As it turns out, House Rep Betsey L. Patten (R- Carroll 04), who appears to be an otherwise outstanding Republican Representative (speaking for the majority) had an answer for me that I didn’t much care for.

Excerpted from the NH House Record

“…to get information stating each viewpoint would we now expect our officials and employees to travel to Concord to testify on each issue or are we advocating that the state and municipal voices be no longer heard?”

But wait one damn minute Betsey!  Isn’t that what I have to do?  Every time I want to testify, I have to take a day off from work, probably lose pay, and bear the cost to travel back and forth to Concord, so that my viewpoint could be heard; particularity if mine differed from my taxpayer-funded-by-state-legislative mandate, Municipal lobbyist.

How unfair is that?  Is the majority on this bill saying that my not having my own lobbyist could be a violation of my right to free political speech or redress of grievances?   That my viewpoint can no longer be heard?  There’s a thought.  I have never testified, and it is because I just can’t  miss work.   They have this thing about me showing up, and I really do need the money.  And if you are correct, then my speech is being suppressed.  So where the heck is my damn lobbyist?

Or does the majority mean to suggest that duly elected officials should get special consideration?   That the legislature should protect their right to freely spend more taxpayer dollars, to hire an additional person(s), to express the “municipal point of view,” so that people who may have actually been elected for that purpose, won’t have to engage in the political process like some lowly, knuckle-dragging taxpayer?

Sounds a bit elitist, eh?

Here’s another thought.    Couldn’t we easily argue that this “municipal voices thing” is part of the actual job of representing the interests of the people who elected them, for which we are probably already paying them?

Someone elected you to represent them.  Do you need a lobbyist to represent you.  How about everyone else on the committee as well?   How about the whole damn New Hampshire House? Is that where this is headed?  You mean we could just pay lobbyists to do this stuff?

Having elected town officials speak for their town does seem a bit old fashioned.  But then town officials who felt inclined to abuse that part of their job description with a few too many day-trips, could be easily brought back into line of simply removed from office by local taxpayers.  That’s a little thing I like to call local control, something that–if we had more of it–would probably mean even fewer trips to Concord to make sure everyone’s “viewpoint was represented.”  Just think.  Fewer lobbyists.  Or do you like lobbyists?

And what if my town hire’s a lobbyist to lobby for things I am against?  Are Republicans now going to claim the state has the right to mandate that towns use taxpayer dollars to lobby for things we might be against?  Can the state also use our tax-dollars for abortions, free contraception, or (as Rep Burt pointed out), why not publicly funded campaign contributions?  Would you like to make me finance a few Democrat campaigns?  Hope not.  Is there a waiver program for this?  Waivers ar so popular these days.  I’d like a waiver please.

And are we, Betsey, really putting free speech at risk?  Do you mean to suggest that passing HB 1342 advocates silencing anyone?  This is New Hampshire.

You know what else? Twenty-first century speech is very dynamic.  We connect in ways the founders never imagined.  I have email.  We have PC’s, Facebook, Web sites, Skype.  I own a phone that I carry around with me.  So does almost everyone else.   Town officials and employees have phones.  Taxpayers are paying for some of them but they are not paying for mine.  So connecting doesn’t seem like it would be an issue. Getting heard is easier than it has ever been.  But I am to believe that with 400 House reps, two dozen State Senators, and thousands of elected town officials, that there is no official process for getting an opinion or position expressed and or onto the official record unless we all travel to Concord or hire a lobbyist?

We’re going to need more parking in Concord and a very forgiving approach to personal days, state wide.

Here is something else that troubles me.  Why would we, as Republicans, want to argue that a taxpayer-supported government hiring lobbyists with more taxpayer dollars, to lobby other parts of the government, presumably for more taxpayer dollars, is the only way to ensure every viewpoint is advocated?  That makes no sense to me.  Neither does forcing taxpayers to pay for a speech right to which they are not themselves entitled.

Every time a taxpayer in New Hampshire wants to testify, many have to take a day off from work, or leave their business, and risk losing losing income, to travel back and forth to Concord, so that their viewpoint can be heard.   Why must you insist that, given all the representation we already have, that taxpayers should have to pony up for lobbyists, on top of everything else?

“All institutions are prone to corruption and to the vices of their members.”  —Morris West

Beatrice Munyenyezi  has resided nearby since 2002  here Manchester.  Like so many others who have come  to the United States as Refugees, Munyenyezi came to raise her children, work and, essentially, “live the American Dream.”  But unlike many other refugees, Munyenyezi presently stands accused of personally participating in the Rwandan genocide, an extremist Hutu who killed and had a hand in the rapes of untold Tutsi victims.  U.S. Immigration in its’ complaint at the U.S. District Court in Concord, accuses Munyenyezi lying  to enter the United States in order to gain citizenship. Currently behind bars without bail, she  is slated to begin trial this Wednesday on fraud charges in U.S. District Court in Concord.

Munyenyezi’s situation is hardly unique. For decades, American intelligence gave  “safe haven” in the States for Nazis and Nazi collaborators following World War II. In November of 2010, a 600-page report The U.S. Justice Department worked tirelessly to keep hidden from the public, details decades of conflicts with other nations over war criminals here in the U.S. and abroad.  Like Munyenyezi, accused of crimes against humanity, Nazi’s lived amongst us, living in nice homes, enjoying the American dream, while questions swirled about their background and past activities. But the similarity ends there. Beatrice Munyenyezi is charged with a crime the U.S. government alleges she committed here. 

Federal Prosecutors  say Munyenyezi was part of an extremist Hutu faction alleged to have killed and  raped countless numbers Tutsi victims.  Authorities further assert she is not the innocent refugee claimed to be when she applied for a visa and citizenship in 1995. She has pleaded not guilty to two counts of lying to obtain U.S. citizenship on her  applications, further denying she had any role in the Rwanda genocide activities.

SO WHAT OF IT?  Is the indictment credible? Does the Government have a case? There is simply no way to sort it out from press accounts. Munyenyezi comes from a place (Rwanda) where everybody lies: The government and the people great and small…everybody or anybody with an agenda, an ax to grind, a score to settle, lies. It is part of that culture. Rwanda gained its independence in 1962 and a series of coups, civil wars and bloody insurgencies. Certainly, we cannot know if some former compatriot is simply throwing Munyenyezi “under the bus” to save his or her own skin or for some other unknown gain because that is, “how they roll” in Rwanda.

In this case, though, it makes no difference. the charge is that she lied on her application. So, even if she is found not to have taken part in the heinous activities alleged, yet did lie on her application, that is the scope of where we are at here in the U.S. And because the Rwandan government cannot  be trusted for credibility.  The only thing we have to hang our hat on is the notion that our Government does not indict people unless credible evidence exists that a crime has been committed…and that is of no comfort.

With all of that said. the larger point to be emphasized is what price are we, the citizens paying for the government’s inefficiencies? I personally think it is huge.

Beatrice Munyenyezi filed for bankruptcy in 2008, hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt: a $222,000 mortgage, $14,125 in student loans, $4,198 in municipal taxes and fees, and $30,000 in credit card and other unsecured debt liabilities. It is believed that she lived in her home for nearly two years without paying the mortgage and it also appears she didn’t pay bills for at least two years.  And now there is this very high-profile trial to take place where defense lawyers had to go to Rwanda to interview witnesses and likely take depositions — on the U.S. taxpayer dime, of course.

How much money did we spend on Nazi’s or Serbs or others from the African continent where there are those who say the committed atrocities? The bottom line is this: The present policy is costly. It is a noble and righteous cause to take in the refugees and persecutees from other places but the reality is that we won’t be doing it if the nation goes broke.  Our own city of Manchester has felt the crush of taking in refugees and the concerns fall only on tin-eared bureaucrats.

Next question (#3) up for Cliff Hurst as he pursues the Vice-Chair position within the NH GOP from your truly was this:

What do you bring to the table as Vice-Chair?

Question 1 and Question 2.

Next question that was asked at the Jeanne Forrester home event for Ovide Lamontagne (and to Ovide) continued on the healthcare topic:

Q2: Where / how to fix the low Medicare / Medicaid payments that will increase private sector costs?

Wha’?

Well, I should have said “especially” if you’re in the Live Free or Die State, you should be taking extra Vitamin D. Thanks to my old libertarian friend Patrick Cox, I’ve been taking 5,000 IU daily for several years now. He explains exactly why HERE.

However…the thing about Patrick is I can’t get him interested in moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project. He likes that warm Florida weather too much. Me? I’ll take New Hampshire’s  Republican liberty and freedom any day of the week. Warm weather? Feh! That’s why God gave us trees to cut down and burn.

All Values are not the same, nor all impulses, nor all men.  A Natural gradation teaches men to hold some sentiments dear and others cheap.  Leveling radicalism endeavors to put all emotions and sensations on the same level of mediocrity, and so to erase the moral imagination which sets men apart from beasts.

-Russell Kirk on Edmund Burke

One of the things that I am proud about the folks that opine here at GraniteGrok is not just that they spend their free time writing here, not just that when they write but that they write well, but that they all DO and not just write.  Each of the authors here get off their butts and go and actively do the politics that they advocate for here on the ‘Grok.  I am no different, as I actively engage at my local level.  For those of you living in Gilford, I ask that you would please vote for Barbara Aichinger, Stuart Savage, and me when you vote next month in our SB-2 sanctioned secret ballot vote.

The following is the Letter that I have submitted to local media outlets:

My name is Skip Murphy and I am running for re-election for the Gilford Budget Committee. I am also endorsing Barbara Aichinger and Stuart Savage for the BudComm and for the following reasons.

Bev Buker correctly identified the spending problem in her Laconia Daily Sun 2/9 Letter “to work with the available money on hand” as for some in Town “the available money “ is never enough; the implicit demand is that the needs of Government trumps that of taxpayers’ need for their own hard earned money. What is rarely is addressed is the important point: what is the cost of Government doing more? Unfortunately, there are those in Gilford that don’t care – they just demand those services regardless of the cost (or the result). They seldom ask “can this service be done better at a lower cost?” nor, “what is the unit cost of providing that level of service”?

Terry Stewart in his Sun Letter (2/14) Letter, honed in on that lament – one cannot reduce budgets without some departmental budgets getting haircuts. I’ve heard the hysterics over the years that services will suffer if even the slightest of cuts are implemented but I’ve heard very few ever raise the issue of “Does Government have to have the best at the expense of taxpayer wallets?”. Two concrete examples are the buying a costly new fire engine vs fixing the current backup one to last a couple more years, and propping up the Planning Dept staffing even as its work load has plunged the last few years.

But the biggest problem is that Labor costs constitute the majority of our budgets and are amongst the highest of NH towns our size. My first meeting on the BudComm, I unveiled a salary study that showed that Gilford consistently paid highest salaries for all the Town related job descriptions of the 32 town surveyed. Nothing I have seen since has led me to believe that has changed. Even the School Board’s own Administrative Salary study found their costs were higher than similar districts. These costs lead directly to a larger tax due price that show up twice annually – unless someone fights to keep that in check.

That was one of the reasons I originally ran to be on the Gilford Budget Committee and why I am, again, asking for your vote to re-elect me to the Budget Committee. Much has been done and in conjunction with others, I helped achieved real financial structural changes benefiting taxpayers with starting the process of employees paying more for their healthcare as in the private sector and moving from COLAs to merit increases to name two specific examples. I’ve also been the only Member that has consistently, over the years, asked for large budget decreases to keep more of your money in your pockets.

I have been accused of having an agenda these last six years and I readily admit such: “why should Government spending rise faster than the ordinary family’s income?” Government does need to serve its citizens but never at a price that puts families second financially. That is why I ask for your vote for me as well as Barbara Aichinger and Stuart Savage; I need their help and I can promise that we will look out for your wallets!

Cross posted at GilfordGrok

Bev Buker’s Letter:

Feb 9

To the editor,

Just where are these idiots who told us that they were saving $94K a year by not filling a top position in the town? Just where have they spent this money? Could it be that they gave some raises and told no one? Could it be that they hired another cop that wasn’t needed?

So I ask you, why we need to raise money for this part-time worker, when it is already in the bank so to speak? It is time to change the whole Budget Committee and put some people in there that know how to work with the available money on hand.

Terry Stewart’s Letter:

Feb 14

To the editor,

I couldn’t help but respond to Bev Buker’s recent letter that suggests the Gilford Budget Committee members should all be replaced. I’d agree that she’s at least half right. The current Budget Committee was comprised of nearly a 50/50 split of those that wish to reduce spending and those that vote for and actually lobby for more spending. If Ms. Buker is truly concerned, then she and other voters should get involved and vote for the upcoming candidates that will attempt to rein in spending. I say “attempt” because the mission is almost stacked against them.

Everyone in town is “concerned about the spending”. Unfortunately, that ends when the reductions or cuts affect their own “Kingdom”. The examples are everywhere. Last year, the spoiled Community Band members worked the process to force us to budget $750 to fund their hobby. During this year’s budget process we had a near mutiny of the Conservation Commission because of staff reductions in the Planning Department. Now we have the recent whining from the Town Clerk to restore a part-time position.

Since the deliberative sessions are 99-percent attended by direct recipients (employees and spouses) of each respective budget, it’s not a mystery how spending cuts to “their own kingdoms” are easily restored. If the citizens of Gilford can’t wait a day to register a car or pay their tax bill, then we truly are hopeless. I would suggest that our small community could easily live with a Town Clerk’s office that is open three days a week instead of five. Especially with the Internet service that allows town transactions on the web. Any resident without Internet service could go right down the road and do these transactions on the library’s computers. This simple change could allow the Town Clerk to accomplish the requirements of her duties without the added position. The individuals I’ve discussed are good people with good intentions but

it’s simply human nature to view things through their own prism and protect their own kingdom.

Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone could set aside their own kingdom’s needs and do what’s best for the entire community? Wouldn’t it be nice if we put as much time into saying “yes we can make changes” instead of “no we can’t”? This is where the Selectboard and School Board are supposed to make the difficult decisions. Unfortunately, there are political agendas and ideology that gets in the way. More often than not, they cave as they did with the wasted money for the band and superintendent. They don’t have to fund the band, superintendent or the Town Clerk’s request. They can simply manage their intended plan and return the savings to the community. With good leadership, no one would even notice these and many other services weren’t funded. The band would play on, the children would still get educated, cars would still get registered and taxes would get paid.

If you are really concerned about removing waste from government then you should start by supporting candidates that have proven that they can make better choices. Unfortunately, several of our elected officials and upcoming candidates directly or indirectly receive money and benefits

from the budgets they will vote on. Do your homework and vote for the candidates who don’t have an agenda or “kingdom” to protect. Once your candidate is elected, you need to support them at public hearings and town meetings; otherwise, the budget is completely in the hands of those whose kingdom depends on it!

In continuing the ‘Grok tradition of citizen journalism in covering events, issues, and people that the MSM won’t (or can’t, but mostly won’t), Diane Bitter good naturedly answered Question #2 from your’s truly (which was asked with a puzzled look on my face): How long have you been on the NH GOP ballot?

Seems like the NH GOP needs to better get the word out about not just the Annual Meeting but exactly who is running for what position (and thus, Diane’s point is a good one – and knowing Diane, she can easily fill this void).

Question 1 here.

Yesterday, Cliff Hurst answered the first question posed by GraniteGrok: Why are you doing this?  Well, we had a number of other questions for Cliff and here is Question 2:  Your background includes being a chaplain – in helping people, right?

Next question will be up tomorrow.

Following on the talk that Ovide Lamontagne gave at NH State Senator Jeanne Forrester’s he opened the floor up to a number of questions from the crowd of about 60 folks that showed up this past Thursday (rainy) night.  This is the first question: What is your solution to the crushing Healthcare expenses in the school systems – especially with Obamacare coming?

If planned Parenthood can market cultural behaviors to children and teens that may inevitably grow their bottom line why can’t anyone else?

Why can’t McDonalds continue to serve the same food, or whatever food it wants (or that its customers want) if it just adds a little pamphlet on safe eating with information on how they offer additional for-profit services and consultation to help people deal with diet, eating disorders, weight, or obesity awareness?  McDonald’s could then promote these services in public schools, just like Planned Parenthood does.

…then why does median household income keep declining?  Overall, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% since December 2007 once you account for inflation.

The only thing rising is debt. (Along with real unemployment, poverty…etc)

Household debt is rising because people are out of work and trying to get by on credit.  The national debt is rising because Obama lied about cutting the deficit and Democrats have added trillions to it in just a few years.  Debt we cannot pay for with more debt.

Only a recovering economy that generates private sector wealth can even begin to deal with the debt problem.  But the Democrats answer is more government.  But government does not create wealth.  The cost of more government just creates more debt.  And more debt weighs like an anchor on the economy, preventing it from doing what it needs to do to help us with the debt problem.

The only viable solution is to replace the political leadership.  Obama and his ‘advisers’ are either stupid or just evil.  Feel free to choose both.

A list of previous post on If the economy is getting better, then…

• If the economy is getting better…(Part 6) February 10, 2012 (More children in poverty)
• If the economy is getting better…(Part 5) February 8, 2012 (Fewer Self-employed)
• If the economy is getting better…(Part 4) February 7, 2012 (Living in extreme poverty)
• If the economy is getting better…(Part 3) February 6, 2012 (More people on Food Stamps)
• If the economy is getting better…(Part 2) February 5, 2012 (Longer unemployment)
• If the Economy is Getting Better…. February 4, 2012 (Fewer Jobs)

Some relevant video on the current failed presidency.

Economic links courtesy of The Economic Collapse Blog

Video by the RNC and NRSC

H/T to Teacheru.us for the Obama toilet pick, and the video links.

Last week I also had the chance to interview Diane Bitter as she is now seeking to be the next Assistant Secretary of the NH GOP (her opponent  is Jeff Newman).  Diane is also the Rye Town Republican Committee Chair as well as an Area Vice-Chair.

This video is of Question 1: Why are you running to be the next Assistant Secretary of the NH GOP?

GraniteGrok has known Diane Bitter for years now, and know her as a tireless organizer of all kinds of events and one that appreciates this state and all that it stands for.  She wishes to make a difference in protecting its citizens Liberty and Freedoms.

Elections, elections, and more elections.  The 2012 Presidential Primary has been taking first slot, but local elections are now starting to wind up as sign ups are over.  Also, the NH GOP will be having a number of elections for offices during its annual meeting as there as been some turnover.  While we at GraniteGrok are Conservatives / Libertarians first, most of us are also Republicans and further, official Delegates to the NH GOP (in other words, we just don’t opine we also DO – and we vote) and are watching who is signing up to run for what office – and as in any elections, who wins makes a difference.  And as always, we are watching to see which individual is being backed by whom or by which factional part of the Party.

Last week I had the chance to interview Cliff Hurst as he is now seeking to be the next Vice-Chair of the NH GOP (Pam Manney is not seeking to extend her interim term as Wayne MacDonald moved up to Chair when TEA Party favorite Jack Kimball was all but ousted by the Executive Board; more on this in the video).  At this point, he is running unopposed.  This video is Cliff answering the first simple question: Why?

GraniteGrok is amused that he is running unopposed – it shows the respect that he has built up over the years working within the NH GOP amongst the “Establishment” Republicans but also amongst the L&F new Republicans (as Tim points out who the L&F folks are).  In fact, we’re rather jovial over this turn of events!

This past Thursday, NH State Senator Jeanne Forrester held a home event for Ovide Lamontagne, a candidate for the NH GOP nomination for NH Gov.  This was an “intro” type of meeting but he also went into some of his philosophy of government.  Following his talk, he took 8 questions (to be posted later).  This video is of his talk.

He also held a longish Q&A session after his talk; the questions that were asked by the crowd were:

• Q1: Your solution to crushing Healthcare expenses in the school systems – especially with Obamacare coming?

• Q2: Where / how to fix the low Medicare / Medicaid payments that will increase private sector costs?

• Q3: In support of insurance a la carte?

• Q4: What to do about those that don’t qualify for Medicaid and too poor to access insurance?

• Q5: Why can’t we make healthcare costs consumer friendly?

• Q6: Additional comments on transparent healthcare costing?

• Q7: Views on State level economic development?

• Q8: Views on restructuring State bureaucracy?

Progressives are hypocrites, doubly so when it comes to women.  Take rape for example.

Based on the gaping void in commentary from the Democrats on more than a dozen acts of sexual assault, including rape, of women at various occupy events around the nation last fall–and those are just the ones that were reported–we can only assume that the rapists were using contraceptives.

What thoughtful, left wing, #occupy-rapist wouldn’t choose to take advantage of a woman’s right to contraception? (Though we cannot say for certain that they did.)  But what other reason could there be for the left-wing new-media blackout on the rapes, which appears to continue in New Hampshire to this day?

My search of New Hampshire’s left wing internet gutters–the places where the most prescient progressive thought collects like standing water–produced zero hits or objection to claims of rape or sexual assault by Democrat supported occupiers; no one was expecting a media meltdown or 24/7 full court presses from the left–which is what we would have had were these TEA partiers–but not even a reasoned objection or prolonged debate?   Even the Granite State feminista, who seem to have plenty of time to comment on right wing blogs about how much we supposedly hate women,  could not even be bothered to rise in defense of those fighting their cause who claimed to have been raped.  The only response the #occupiers themsleves could come up with was to fabricate separate housing.  What was next if that didn’t work, Burqas?

You know who did defend these women?  Do you know who asked for justice?  The right.

#Occupy Burqa?

But how can that be?  Democrats are the party of women. Don’t they defend their rights?  Not really.  And since #occupy the left’s shotty record on women’s rights have taken a turn for the worse.  We have long witnessed the brutal treatment, threats, and violence directed at Republican and conservative women from the “tolerant” protectors of women’s rights, but now they have abandoned their own supporters as well, abandoned them because to defend them–even against sexual assault or rape–might detract from the only thing they really care about, the pursuit of political power.

#OWS was about using class warfare to accumulate power and women are just another tool of the socialist progressives toward that end.  This is no different than the  recent arguments about mandating coverage for contraception.  This has noting to do with women.  It is just another step on the Marxist ladder to neutering a competing authority for control of the masses.  Why else kick this particular beehive when the state has plenty of latitude on this issue otherwise?  Women are just being used again.

Religion has always represented a barrier to socialist collectivism.  No state centric system willingly shares power or attention with anyone.  (Have you noticed that the statists only demand bi-partisan action when in the minority?)  And there is no credibility in claiming to support religious liberty or its constitutional protections, while using federal organs to force faith based groups to do things in opposition to that faith.  So abortion, homosexual marriage, social and environmental justice, and now contraception, are just issues designed to drive a wedge between religion, and the self-responsible moral authority and self-restraint for the betterment of all, to which it lays claim.

Most people will not see that.  They will think, eh, it’s just contraception…no big deal right?  No bigger than adding another trillion to the deficit every year, or adding the stealth tax of inflation through quantitative easing?  No bigger than the Presidents political operatives asking people to rat out those with dissenting opinion?  No bigger than Homeland Security or the FBI or the IRS, creating watch lists, investigating, or filing suits or audits against anyone who opposes the policies of the central government?  Do I need to go on?  These are all acts of control, present and future.  They are intimidation tactics designed to convince people to self regulate themselves toward the central governments goals.   It is what the founders tried to prevent when they crafted our Constitution.

The constitution is meant to keep the government small and at odds with itself, to protect the states and the people from abuses of central power.  And it specifically protects the right of religious groups from acts by the state that force them to act contrary to their faith or conscious–where those acts of faith do not threaten the rights of others.  So the left has now concocted a right to contraception to subvert the First Amendment, which is line with their ideas about your right to sex, or the right to sex with whomever arouses you, which  leads us to the right to be raped when someone else is aroused by us, and the right of the government loving left to ignore or hide that rape when it presents a threat to their more-government is good marketing strategy.

So Obama looked long, then took the short pass (probably the plan all along), forcing insurance companies to force religious groups to cover the costs of things they find immoral.  This is an act of tyranny, and the feministas and their beta-male flunkies are all on board.

Now you can agree to disagree about the appropriateness, need, or usefulness of contraception, but to dismiss yet another abuse of government power and simply assume that the government will never come after something you actually care about, is how tyrants rise to power and how freedom dies.  And it is here where the hypocrisy rubber hits the road.

This is not about condoms or the pills with the little calendar on them.  This is about your government trampling on yet  another constitutionally protected right.  This is not about sex, and it is not about women’s rights.  It never has been.  It is about power.  Just ask any Woman, Black, Hispanic, Homosexual, Jew (or #occupy rape victim) who has ever spoken out against the centralization of power and the Democrat party agenda if the left has any interest in protecting their rights when they are not toeing the progressive agenda?  The left and the media try to bury them.

The only rights the left cares about are the States right to remove any right that obstructs the progressive path to more power.  And that utopia they keep promising you once they have all the power?  It looks  a lot like the average #occupy encampment.  And it is here where we see the folly.  Natural rights subverted by rights of the present majority, are not rights at all but desires, no different than the desire to have sex with whomever you find attractive at the moment, an idea valued by the left, which resulted in repeated instances of rape at #occupy encampments, which the progressives happily ignored for fear that it might derail the progressive-socialist goals of that movement.  By ignoring them, they sanctioned them.  This is the promise and the terror of progressive rule.

One of the largest groups within the New Hampshire GOP is the “Liberty and Freedom” or “L&F” Republicans. This increasingly vocal and effective sub-coalition includes  movement conservatives, libertarian conservatives, free enterprisers, TEA Partiers, and yes, social conservatives. What each group has is common is the crucial centrality of individual liberty versus ever-growing government power.

While the words “liberty” and “freedom” are closely associated, they are not identical. The former suggests being free from arbitrary and/or despotic government power. The word freedom, by contrast, connotes the lack of external control, regulation, and interference by any powerful outside force; thus, “freedom” means having the power to choose one’s own path in life. “Liberty” means the quality of being free from the curse of overweening, self-aggrandizing, metastasizing government power.

If  ”liberty and freedom” is the bedrock principle of any political activist, then every government action, every new law, every regulation, every increase in the power, reach, control, and intrusiveness of government must be measured against that ideal. To the L&F Republicans in New Hampshire, every potential law, regulation, and governmental action must meet the test of whether it reduces, unduly interferes with, or otherwise assaults the fundamental rights of Liberty and Freedom.

To some of New Hampshire’s most powerful political coalitions—including Democrats and other socialists, public employee unions, regressives (they are not “progressives”), and others who instinctively want people to be “controlled” rather than living their own lives as they see fit—the Liberty and Freedom ideal is alien. Such people are reflexively horrified at the work being done by the massive Republican majorities in Concord these days. After all, the L&F Republicans predominate, and their aim to increase individual liberty and freedom is the opposite of what Democrats and their supporters desire.

That much is good.

The thing is, though, the inexorable encroachment of government power on the people’s Liberty and Freedom is a disease that must be fought against with eternal vigilance, generation after generation. Those who seek to expand government power (and usually profit from it) are persistent, enduring, and persevering. They are like termites, forever eating away at the foundations of human Liberty and Freedom. They work doggedly over years, decades and even centuries to expand the power, wealth, reach, control, and intrusiveness of government over the people. Always.

This is why Thomas Jefferson made the astute observation that “the natural order of things is for Liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” It is why I count myself an energetic L&F Republican. Every single existing government power, every single legislative proposal, every increase in taxes or fees, and every single proposed expansion of government must first be tested against the bedrock principle of Liberty and Freedom: There better be a damned good reason—overwhelmingly so—to impinge upon that principle. If that test, with a very high standard, is not met, then government power must give way. The principle of Liberty and Freedom must prevail.

Democrats think that’s just terrible, even scary. I like that.

Theodore Dalrymple (pen name), has produced some of the most compelling work I’ve read about the welfare state and how it creates and sustains the underclass.  If you are still staring out across the crumbling wreckage of the fruited plain, wondering how we got here and where we may be headed, Dalrymple has some very relevant observations.   A doctor with the British Health Service (Blimey Obamacare), he has and continues to write at great length about the victims of government largess, and the sorry state of his country as a result of it.

In a recent article in City Journal, he wrote…”The riots are the apotheosis of the welfare state and popular culture in their British form.”

A population thinks (because it has often been told so by intellectuals and the political class) that it is entitled to a high standard of consumption, irrespective of its personal efforts; and therefore it regards the fact that it does not receive that high standard, by comparison with the rest of society, as a sign of injustice.

We are the 99% anyone?

The #Occupy movement is not the underclass, not entirely at least.  It is more likely the lefts astro-turfed version of the real British underclass responsible for England’s riots.   It is what the left wants, longs for even; what their policies inevitably create, as they have in Britain, but which have not yet come to full fruition in the U.S. despite the Democrat parties best efforts to get us there.   But make no mistake.  A few more years of Obama and we will have completed our journey to the dark side in a fraction of the time it evolved in England.  And Riots?

Left unchecked the Democrats and well funded socialist/Union/labor groups, will not need to organize protests with a goal of inciting class warfare riots to market the unfairness of capitalism to everyone else in America who owns a television.   Forget that it is socialist-welfare state theory in practice which actually creates the conditions needed to blame Capitalism; the people trapped on the cusp of total misery, welfare state slaves on the Obama plantation, will be ready and willing to attack whichever scapegoat the stewards of the dependency culture  blame if they can be convinced it will make them feel better about their lot in life.

But we’re not there yet, and #OWS proves it.  Disgruntled college graduates supported by limousine liberals with union back up?  Not yet.  But Dalrymple must be heeded.  The same way Daniel Hannan warns us that our hold on freedom in America is tenuous, Dalrymple shows us how government creates a class warfare army (intentionally or not) that helps it secure its power.   The underclass in Britain was created by the institutional left, the same left that has been running America into the ground.  It will be no different here unless we slow it, then stop it, and then reverse it.

But you need to truley understand it.  To that end I highly recommend you pick up or download a copy of ‘Life a the Bottom.’  The parallels will astonish you.  It might even remind you why we don’t just need a new President but a new attitude about government assistance and entitlement, and why Obamacare, the kind of socialized medicine Dalrymple covers in all of his earlier works, must be stopped at all cost.