Skip

That would be “a political toy”. NewsBusters (reformatted, emphasis mine):

…That’s why it’s so extraordinary that polling news has practically vanished from the Big Three evening newscasts in 2014 as President Obama’s approval ratings have tumbled and the public opposes defining administration policies like ObamaCare. Just last Thursday, for example, Gallup found Obama’s approval rating at a record low of 38 percent, yet none of the three broadcast networks bothered to mention this on their evening or morning newscasts.

Such coverage is in stunning contrast to how those same newscasts relentlessly emphasized polls showing bad news for George W. Bush during the same phase of his presidency. Media Research Center analysts reviewed every reference on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts to public opinion polls from January 1 through August 31, 2014, and from the same time period in 2006. Eight years ago, the networks aired 124 evening news reports which cited public opinion polls about either President Bush’s overall approval rating or his handling of specific policies. In 2014, those same broadcasts produced only nine reports which mentioned public opinion surveys related to President Obama.

In Bush’s case,

Read more

I think this hits the nail on the head; even though writ small, it really speaks to the massive problem we have as US Citizens that have a Government that has grown too large, too activist, and too intrusive – in short, a philosophy that believes that if we write enough laws and regulations, we will have “a virtuous people”:

SEC Commissioner Daniel Gallagher has given an excellent speech on the titular question. The whole thing is a must read, but this passage jumps out at me:

… sadly, we at the SEC are not doing nearly enough to ensure that small businesses have the access to capital that they need to grow. We layer on rule after rule until it becomes prohibitively expensive to access the public capital markets. Only rarely do we remove any of our rules, even after they have long since ceased to serve their purpose or have become obsolete or worse. And although we have made significant progress in expanding our economic analysis of new rules and rule amendments, we almost never consider how heavily the weight of the entire corpus of rules bears down on registrants.

Too much, and we can never have less when it comes to Government.  While the speech is about how hard the US Government is making it to raise capital, aren’t the bolded parts speaking to the issue in the larger sense?  Rule after rule, law after law (heck, just look here!) – it is never “enough” for those that must keep thinking “just one more and we’ll have it nailed!”.  Instead, we have a deadweight of thousands laid upon us

Read more

Rights, Privileges, Entitlements.  Negative Rights, Positive Rights, Social Justice, Redistributive Justice (and the newest one, Climate / Environmental Justice).

I bookmarked this last week when it appeared on Constitution Day but didn’t get a round tuit at that time.  When I saw this, it was “replace gasket” time.  For our President to make such a blatant redefinition of what the US Constitution stand for, all I could do was sigh and go ‘@($&%&#*’, just another example of ‘Freedom to Worship” instead of the true words and meaning of the First Amendment”:

“Our Constitution reflects the values we cherish as a people and the ideals we strive for as a society.  It secures the privileges we enjoy as citizens, but also demands participation, responsibility, and service to our country and to one another.”

Such GOBBLEDEGOOK!  It really says nothing of the sort.  Obama has complained in the past that  Constitution (and the Supreme Court in its decisions) has not gone far enough in promulgating “redistributive rights” – the ersatz “right” that government, in an effort to be fair (e.g., IMHO, put everyone at the lowest common denominator so no one is any better than anyone else), has the not just the right but the obligation to take from many and give their property to others (and yes, money is property).

These are no slip of the tongue, no flowery words for an occasion.

Read more

So in their effort to divide us and motivate the takers to overwhelm the makers, all to the goal of a permanent socialist state, the Democrats have adopted this meme that inequality of income is huge and growing.

Leftist organizations such as Obama’s thoroughly corrupted Census Bureau and the NY Times have taken up this clamor and now they are claiming that New York City is the worst of the worse. Inequality there, they say, is so extreme that 5 percent of households earned an average of $864,394, or 88 times as much as the poorest 20 percent.  In order to reach this conclusion, they set the average income of a family in the bottom 20 percent at approximately $10,000 a year, thereby claiming the top 5% earn an astounding 88 times the average of the bottom 20%.

Makes you want to vote for the Revolution, doesn’t it?

Read more

Remember, The Rule of Law hold that EVERYONE (no exceptions) is equal before the Law and that everyone is subject to it. Or just another example of answering the question of “public servants or Public Masters”?  From McClatchy (via Overlawyered)

FOIA findings: “Dozens of Justice Department officials, ranging from FBI special agents and prison wardens to high-level federal prosecutors, have escaped prosecution or firing in recent years despite findings of misconduct by the department’s own internal watchdog. … In at least 27 cases, the inspector general identified evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing but no one was prosecuted.” Many cases ended in oral admonishment of errant employees. While various legitimate reasons can underlie a decision not to prosecute, such as a poor prospect of securing conviction, low stakes, or unclear law, the rate at which public integrity cases have been prosecuted has dropped significantly since the previous administration.

So, while you and I must submit to warrantless searches and we’d better have

Read more

Yes, the equivalency / similarities hit just as soon as I read it:

THE NRSC’S WORK PROPPING UP DODDERING NONRESIDENT PAT ROBERTS WORKING OUT AS EXPECTED: In Kansas, Incumbent Pat Roberts Down 5 Points Against “Independent” Candidate. “This all raises a bigger question as to Roberts’ viability. He’s just a horrible campaigner, and doesn’t seem comfortable in his home state. I hope Roberts wins, but someone has to shake him out of his stupor.”

Meanwhile, Roberts primary challenger Milt Wolf comments: “Remember when the GOP establishment said that they, and only they, can win in November? Good times, good times.”

The NRSC is now seen by the grassroots, nationally, as nothing but a “keep the good ole’ boys and girls in the Club” organization.  Making the quality of the Republicans in the US Senate better?  Yeah, for all the talk of “making the GOP more inclusive”, the “in” part only means something if one is already “in” the club.

Same thing here in NH, writ smaller (but no less important).  Smaller scale but the same thing with the NH Senate Republican Majority PAC being the second string stand in for the NRSC.  It threw beaucoup bucks at defeating Jane Cormier

Read more

…then anything now and in the future is merely “er, WHY not?”  Sort of a play on that saying of “if you believe in nothing, you’ll believe in anything”.  My terror is that, time after time of seeing videos, at some point my fellow voting citizens will vote for anything given how little they really know (emphasis mine):

PHILADELPHIA – Americans show great uncertainty when it comes to answering basic questions about how their government works, a national survey conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has found.

The survey of 1,416 adults, released for Constitution Day (Sept. 17) in conjunction with the launch of the Civics Renewal Network, found that:

• While little more than a third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, just as many (35 percent) could not name a single one.

Read more

Among the many other questions raised by the nebulous concept of “greed” is why it is a term applied almost exclusively to those who want to earn more money or to keep what they have already earned—never to those wanting to take other people’s money in taxes or to those wishing to live on the largess dispensed from such taxation. No amount of taxation is ever described by the anointed as “greed” on the part of government or the clientele of government. . . .

Families who wish to be independent financially and to make their own decisions about their lives are of little interest or use to those who are seeking to impose their superior wisdom and virtue on other people. Earning their own money makes these families unlikely candidates for third-party direction and wishing to retain what they have earned threatens to deprive the anointed of the money needed to distribute as largess to others who would thus become subject to their direction. In these circumstances, it is understandable why the desire to increase and retain one’s own earnings should be characterized negatively as “greed,” while wishing to live at the expense of others is not.

– Prof. Thomas Sowell, Ph.D., Economics (“The Vision of the Anointed” (1995))

After all, what gives anyone the “right” to take

Read more

“…Notice of any such meetings shall be mailed to each member at their last known address, at least ten days before the day of the meeting“

Susan’s post pointing out that the NH GOP has royally screwed up by not adhering to its own rules is appropriate.  I have had a number of folks call me and complaining that they did not receive their proper notification in time, especially those that had to wait for their delegate races to become official.  After all, we all know that just because Election Day is over, races are not over (sorta like when Obama declares a war to be over – and it isn’t).

No Susan, the math isn’t hard – it IS easy but only if one pays attention while counting on your fingers (and sometimes, toes).  Obviously, we are seeing the results of New Math in politics (I can’t WAIT to see how Common Core math is going to play out in this arena!).  However, here is the MOST important part: will the NH GOP:

• Own up to its own mistake
• Adhere to its own stated rules and reschedule
• Or try a cover up and CYA it over with this from the same  Rule that Susan quotes:

 “…that when in the opinion of the State Chairman and one-third of the Executive Committee an extraordinary or emergency situation exists requiring lesser notice, a meeting may be called by the Chairman provided, each member is notified by mail at least five days before the day of the meeting.”

Let’s be real here….there has been NO indication that the Chair and 1/3 of the E-Board have voted to declared such an emergency,

Read more

I will not bore the reader with the details of parliamentary procedure as it pertains to conventions; but Robert’s Rules of Order has a great section on conventions and bylaws. As it is, The New Hampshire Republican Convention is called at the will of the New Hampshire Republican State committee; and is subject to the rules adopted; and the Corporation’s bylaws which govern the “Committee, Boards, and Other Groups…”

“ARTICLE VII: Procedures Generally Applicable to Committees, Boards, and Other Groups Hereunder”

“…The following provisions shall govern the conduct of operations of all bodies governed by these bylaws…”

“Unless otherwise specifically provided, notice of any meeting shall be given by mailing a notice thereof to each member at their last known address at least ten days before the day of such a meeting…” Robert’s Rules; specify that the notice shall include the hour, date, and location of the meeting.

What should be concerning to all delegates to the Convention is that

Read more

Late to the party for the NH GOP Platform changes (2014-Platform—Red-Ruled)….should have looked at this stuff before (have now scraped them and will be doing more commenting later).  Didn’t get to any of the meetings and reading the changes for the first time.  Frankly, I blame myself for my lack as, overall, I’m not groovin’ to these changes  Oh well – some quick thoughts on the changes that seem to ditch our history as (as the Dems say) be more “inclusive):

• It seems like the NH GOP wishes to drop formally recognizing traditional families – every current mention of such is to be eliminated.
• Founding Fathers?  Yeah, they’re getting dropped too.  I guess the NH GOP is bowing to the Left’s “dead white men” and trying to distance themselves from our Founding Fathers.
• Overall all, it seems to have gone mushy in order to be less specific – I guess pastels are more the shade of the times.
• Some new clauses, draping itself in verbiage that the Republican Party MUST be supported as the only bulwark against the Democrat agenda (er, did anyone tell them about the NH State Senate Republican votes FOR major Democrat agenda items??).

Read more

Here I gave some of my overall thoughts of the changes proposed to the NH GOP Platform on Saturday (redlined changes here: 2014-Platform—Red-Ruled).  Fair to say, I’m not overly impressed but hey, that’s what happens when you don’t participate in the process (bad on me) but at least I get to vote on them (good for me). In order presented:

We believe that the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions were written by our forefathers to limit our government, not our freedoms  protect freedoms and define the boundaries of our government.

Limit is a much stronger word and puts a better nuance of who comes first when it comes to government and our freedom.  I downcheck this change.

We believe that the Founding Fathers gave the 1st Amendment has its pre-eminent position with intent that religious freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and freedom of redress of grievances, all deserves to be protectedion.

We believe that our founding fathers placed the 2nd Amendment is in a position of prominence with the intent that law-abiding citizens of the United States of America have a right to protect and defend their lives, their families and their property without government infringement.

Why did somebody think that removing mentions of “our Founding Fathers” is such a hot idea? 

Read more