Skip

I’ve already written a bit out the “lovely” “Republican Republicans for the sake of the Republican Party” (versus, you know, Republican and Constitutional ideals) Betty Tamposi (here, here, here, and here) and her being in thrall with the idea of Hillary Clinton being president.  In her strange variant of the RRftsotRP country club, it is perfectly fine to support a Socialist Democrat, I guess, as long as it keeps “we Constitutional barbarians” (eg. those of us that swear fealty to those ideals instead of the Elite). And the sad thing, I’ve said this before: that the Elite leaders of the NH GOP are perfectly fine with going further and further Left as long as they held the reins of power. I know, I know, broken record time, but what better examples can I come up with than Republicans raising taxes (which they did here in NH with leading that charge for higher gas taxes) and implementing Obamacare (Jeb Bradley, Chuck Morse, Jeanne Forrester all trying valiantly to put lipstick on the very high priced ugly pig).

So Betty, I guess we can safely say, that in supporting Hillary, you also support all of these things she said during the Democrat Convention as solid goals for the country?  Please, I really want to know – HOW are these “Republican” ideals?

Or is it the case that we can no longer tell how Republicans differ from Socialist as well, Betty? After all, you made the case for Hillary as a fine, upstanding, life-long Republican, right?  From Conservative Review:

• Pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United [Get rid of Free Speech -Skip]
• “Create millions of good-paying clean energy jobs,” code for government programs to pick winners and losers in the energy market. [Government directed economy -Skip]
• Pass comprehensive immigration reform [e.g., Amnesty  -Skip]

Read more

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Progressives and Statists can no longer diagram sentences (or so it seems) in determining subordinate clauses and that’s why they just can’t accept that we have an individual Right to bear arms enumerated by the Second Amendment (but preceding its writing).  So let us remind them who the militia really are (and they should also go back in time to learn the definition of “regulated” when the Constitutions were written instead of it now being defined as an action of Government). Thus, as we briefly talked about on the show, I much prefer these two Articles from the NH Constitution:

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

I, once again, direct you to the testimony of Ian Underwood when anti-gunners were deciding to NOT obey our Founding Law themselves (“It doesn’t say ‘some‘ persons. It doesn’t say ‘approved‘ persons. It doesn’t say ‘persons who don’t scare us’. It says ‘all persons’….The first is that a bill like this undermines respect for the very rule of law itself. After all, if the legislature isn’t going to respect the limits placed on it by the NH Constitution, then why should individuals respect the limits placed on them by that legislature… In other words, if you can behave as if ‘all’ doesn’t mean ‘all’, why can’t I behave as if ‘not’ doesn’t mean ‘not’?”).

[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.

And to carry out Art. 10, you need 2-a. In any case, going back to the 2nd, who are the militia?  Is it the National Guard, as Leftists would have us believe?  What did the Founders actually say?  Go ahead, Lefties, let your arguments crash upon their shores (emphasis mine):

Read more

We did talk about about the NH Attorney General Joseph Foster and his filing an amicus brief supporting Obama’s transgender bathroom policy mandating, from Washington DC, that forces itself on schools here in NH.  Defending New Hampshire?  Defending local control of schools by local School Boards?  Defending innocent children and their privacy?

Er, nope.  Once again we see the example of power-greedy centralized-government-or-bust Democrats that are all too willing to cede our power, our responsibility, our American right to self-government to faceless, unelected, and unaccountable bureaucrats that couldn’t care less.  Our elected Political Class (and that includes Republicans like Chuck Morse, Jeb Bradley and Jeanne Forrester who implemented Obamacare).

Here’s the UL article with more info and background (emphasis mine, reformatted):

Courts at odds with NH AG over reporting mental illness for gun-buyer background checks

CONCORD — The state Attorney General believes a new provision in the Medicaid expansion law requires New Hampshire to begin reporting the names of dangerously mentally ill people to the FBI gun-buyers background check database, but the state court system disagrees.  In a July 22 letter to Attorney General Joseph Foster, Judicial Branch Chief Counsel Howard Zibel writes that the newly enacted law is “not sufficiently clear on its face for the judicial branch to begin the reporting that you request.”

Gee, as we discussed,  a decision from the Judiciary that, you know, looks at the actual wording of the Law?

Zibel’s letter comes in the wake of controversy over what the new provision in the Medicaid expansion act really does.

And even the Legislators think that AG Forster has it exactly backwards – and wouldn’t they be the ones to know?

Read more

On today’s GrokTALK!,  brought up that the DNC powers-that-be no longer believe their own words of the past that “Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism”.  The only thing I can say is that like Obama’s campaign promises, the “beliefs” of the Democrats also have expiration dates (except to remove us from the brilliance of the Founders trying to provide us the “safe space” in which we could govern ourselves) as that only lasted until Bush was out and Obama was in.

Noise…white noise – the Democrats would brook no dissent especially from the Bernie Bros during the convention.  Given the faux bravado of “unity” (about as real as the Old Western towns in the movies that were just 2×4 deep facades, I just had to mention this today (emphasis mine, reformatted):

White Noise? What White Noise?

I have no idea whether this video is on the up and up, but it seems genuine enough. This is a California Bernie Sanders delegate who has attended the Democratic Convention all week, allegedly, and like her fellow Bernie people, has been a little vocal in her anti-war, anti-Hillary, anti-establishment sentiments. When this woman and the rest of the Bernie delegation showed up early to claim their seats for the main event last night, Hillary Clinton riding in wearing her white pantsuit, with literally the only thing missing being the white steed on which to ride to the podium, the seats were already reserved by paid seat fillers wearing a Hillary shirt. The price to buy a crowd? $50 a person.

Imagine that – the DNC had to pay for a rent-a-mob for their own convention. Surprised?  Not given recent history of the Left doing this over and over at anti-Right protests and riots, but I digress:

Where the Bernie people were crammed into was a pre-planned section by the DNC that happened to have a white

Read more

And if you have been listening, I’ve been decrying the wholesale demolition of our education system for years, particularly our own country’s history and the reasons behind it.  I’ve posted numerous videos of simple history questions asked in man-in-the-street interviews and pretty much, they are complete disasters, especially when young adults are the deer-in-headlights victims. At such a mass level, it can’t just be a random act here and there.  One teacher’s lament (emphasis mine):

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: “I started giving quizzes to my juniors and seniors. I gave them a ten-question American history test… just to see where they are. The vast majority of my students – I’m talking nine out of ten, in every single class, for seven consecutive years – they have no idea that slavery existed anywhere in the world before the United States. Moses, Pharaoh, they know none of it. They’re 100% convinced that slavery is a uniquely American invention… How do you give an adequate view of history and culture to kids when that’s what they think of their own country – that America invented slavery? That’s all they know.”

And that’s just the first step in how the US is THE evil in the world today.

Read more

From the Washington Post, a headline that just drips Progressivism:

“We need to eat less meat. Should the government step in?”

Uh-huh – got it.  Ah….no.  Certainly it is beyond discussion that to say that the WashPo leans Left is like saying the Tower of Pisa isn’t straight. So this Laura Wellesley morphs herself into a Nanny State – “You don’t need that” (THE tell that screams “I’m a Progressive so you DON’T know what’s best for you”) nag as if she should be the boss of us all (emphasis mine, reformatted):

Meat consumption in the United States — and across much of the Western world — has reached a level that is unsustainable, both for our planet and for our health. We owe it to ourselves to make a change. Our politicians owe it to us to enable that change.

First off, anytime I hear “unsustainable”, I immediately think “Hope & Change” which translates to

Read more

UPDATE: Hillary Clinton just gave her Democrat Prez nomination acceptance speech – in a white pant suit

**************

Sheesh – talk about race obsessed? Emphasis mine:

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist: Dress Melania Trump wore during RNC speech was racist

…According to Elizabeth Wellington, fashion writer at the Philadelphia Inquirer, the dress Melania wore was an example of the racism of both the Republican Party and Donald Trump (h/t Freedom Outpost):

So while Trump appeared flawless on the Cleveland stage Monday night, whether she intended it or not, her all-white ensemble displayed the kind of foreignness that is accepted by her husband’s political party. To many, that outfit could be another reminder that in the G.O.P. white is always right.

Four years ago, Republicans fretted about trying to diversify their base, in the wake of Barack Obama’s clear voter mandate. This time around, with Trump at the top of the ticket, it’s obvious that ship has sailed. On Monday night, Melania Trump was a not-so-subliminal billboard for what’s looking like the Trumpian view of an ideal America.  And if that’s the fashion statement she intended to make, it’s a very scary one.

Sheesh – talk about race obsessed? Just over the color of a dress?  Hey, sometimes, a dress is just a dress – like this one:

Read more

From The Corner – and I have nothing to add other than “Obama wrong again” in talking about Hillary Clinton:

Obama said last night, “I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman — not me, not Bill — more qualified to serve as President…”

A friend writes in: Fact Check

• 1. Father of the Country
• 2. VP, Minister to the Court of St. James, Minister to the Netherlands, Continental Congress, author of the Declaration
• 3. VP, SOS, Minister to France, Governor of VA, author of the Declaration
• 4. SOS, U.S. House, author of the Constitution and Federalist Papers
• 5. Sec’y of War, SOS, Governor of Virginia, Minister to the UK, Minister to France, Senator

Read more