Skip

If you look at my previous post, you will see the name of Republican Herb Richardson who voted for BradleyCare today – the expansion of Obamacare’s Medicaid program.  So much for that Plank of the NH GOP Platform, eh?

Sidenote: does any Conservative in NH have a sufficient amount of scotch tape and glue to put it back together again?  Or even want to?

So, what’s the connection between the post’s title and Richardson?  This (emphasis mine, reformatted)

LANCASTER — Former U.S. Senator Scott Brown, a Republican of Massachusetts, who won the seat formerly occupied by the late U.S. Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy in a special election and is now seriously considering a run against Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, visited the home of Rep. Herb Richardson, a Republican of Lancaster, and his wife Rita on Saturday afternoon…The top issues that Brown believes differentiates the Republican Party from the Democratic Party are its deep concerns about the skyrocketing national debt and deficit spending, the lack of jobs, and Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) that, he says, is crushing job creation….He characterized Obamacare as a “monstrosity” that’s hurting the middle class.

All fine and dandy thus far – it is what got Brown elected his first run for the US Senate from Massachusetts.  But then: 

Read more

I really can’t get my head around what or how US Congressman Keith Ellison (R-MN)  said on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” (yeah, I watch the Sunday talking head programs, mostly, so you don’t have to) about the HHS Mandate and religion.  It is clear that he believes that Government should be able to control one’s expression of religion (e.g. not how YOU believe you should live but by Government’s belief system – and yes, Obama has made it clear there is one) except of course, when it comes to Islam. Such as that corporations MUST give their employees free abortifacients even if it violates deep and long held religious views against it.  How else can one put it that having The State forcing people to act contrary to their conscience is anything BUT Tyrannical?

Anyways, it probably a good thing that the Obama Admin is not letting him anywhere near the Supreme Court to help out; I just can’t logically unpack his paragraph:

Let’s step back from the whole Obamacare Affordable Act debate and ask ourselves what this would really mean. Do we really want a corporation to be able to have its own religious views AND impose them on its employees?  What would that mean for our separation of church and state for individual liberty?  What would it mean for corporate personhood?  This is scary territory and people need to win.

Well, I have no clue what HE means other than he’s with Obama: believe as the Government demands., but I shall try: 

Read more

Big Government:

Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA), a first-term representative whose district includes parts of Ventura County, Simi Valley and the San Fernando Valley, has apparently removed her support for Obamacare from her campaign website. As recently as late February (see cached image above), Rep. Brownley claimed that the “Affordable Care Act…made some much needed improvements to our health care system.” That section is now gone.

Heh!  So I was curious: who from the NH all-gal Democrat Pack has removed Obamacare from their website too (or hasn’t added it, if a new site)?

Read more

“like running a white flag up on a very tall flag pole and saying, ‘We are ready to be walked on,’”

Determined Weakness. That’s right – the Obama Pentagon budget is getting  rid of two of our most potent weapons: the Tomahawk cruise missile fired from US Navy ships and submarines and Hellfire missiles from our aviation assets of all services.  Kaput, gone, no more stocking.  Who needs offensive weaponry, I guess Obama is thinking, when we’ve reset up relationship with Russia, China is building up its military solely for parades, North Korea looks at their ICBMs only as party fireworks, the Middle East has no more Islamist problems, and those Iranian mullahs – such kidders!  And the Socialist government in Venezuela is so showing up capitalism and the crowds in the square are just so peachy keen!  What better way to “fundamentally transform” the United States by taking it from being the lone military Superpower to an also ran way down the list?

Er, not so much (emphasis mine, reformatted) – and it speaks for itself without comment from me:

President Barack Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades.   The Tomahawk missile program—known as “the world’s most advanced cruise missile”—is set to be cut by $128 million under Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal and completely eliminated by fiscal year 2016, according to budget documents released by the Navy.

In addition to the monetary cuts to the program, the number of actual Tomahawk missiles acquired by the United States would drop significantly—from 196 last year to just 100 in 2015. The number will then drop to zero in 2016.   The Navy will also be forced to cancel its acquisition of the well-regarded and highly effective Hellfire missiles in 2015, according to Obama’s proposal.  The proposed elimination of these missile programs came as a shock to lawmakers and military experts, who warned ending cutting these missiles would significantly erode America’s ability to deter enemy forces.

Read more

Neil Cavuto is not everyone’s cup of tea (I like him, TMEW does not); even though he is known as a biz reporter, he has to be up on the politics as Government has put itself into all aspects of pretty much all businesses (after all, we individuals can’t deal with companies on our own – we’re too stoopid or someton).  Given the background noise of a Republican wave that’s starting to crest, he’s got observations that should give some pause to the “Obamacare is gonna take us to the Promised Land” (again) exuberance here’s some of his observations that should give some some pause (emphasis mine, reformatted):

I’m not saying ObamaCare won’t be and shouldn’t be an issue.  But stopping action on any other issue in the meantime looks pretty stupid.  Look, I was the first to say this Affordable Care Act wasn’t affordable and the promises behind it were just an act.  But this Republican act of sitting on the ball and running out the clock, hoping it paves the way to an easy win in November?  Stupid. Beyond stupid.  Leaving aside Republicans have consistently grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory.  What makes them think this is a winning strategy? Seizing on 53 percent not liking a law, and then laying down the law for party members.  It’s healthcare. Only healthcare.

• Who told them abandoning their principles was key to winning back control?
• Who told the Tea Partiers to shut up simply because they wanted to keep forcing spending down?
• Who told the conservatives who were passionate about controlling benefits that it wasn’t to the party’s benefit to try?
• Who told the Grand Old Party to give up its grand old soul?
• Who told them to let the spending go?

Read more

This morning’s CloseUP program’s first segment had NHDP Chair “Buckles” and Republican “strategist” Tom Rath.  The latter had this to say about Scott Brown entering the NH Senatorial campaign:

Of course, the President of the United states has described him as a moderate so that’s something that’s pretty good for us

I dryly note that he worked on the campaigns of those famous moderate Republican Presidents Dole and Romney.  And as I have pointed out before, Brown IS a moderate; he agrees on the important Republican issues and Platform planks of pro-life, full support of the Second Amendment, and importance of limiting government.  Which is to say, he supports pro-choice (and therefore, abortion), the State should regulate “assault  weapons” and such, and voted for Dodd-Frank that certainly is no government limiting measure.  In other words, Rath is saying that Jeanne Shaheen is a moderate.

This is what happens when Republicans give up conservative principles. 

We’ve blogged about the militarization of our nation’s local police forces over the past couple of years where local cops have “weaponed up” with the “free” military goods that the US armed forces have deemed surplus or by using “free” money from the Feds.  Yes, the bad guys have “stuff” that most civilians don’t have and no, stop with the knee-jerk reactions of “What – you want cops killed”?  It just seems, however, that the Powell Doctrine (“Win by applying overwhelming and more advanced forces against your enemies”) has become the norm rather than for the exceptional cases in which it may well be needed (when even the Socialist leanting magazine “The Economist” says it is a problem, that’s sad).

One doesn’t need an up-armored Bearcat or a REAL military vehicle made for war, MRAPs (that seemingly are being handled out like candy for any LE group that asks) and a squad of LEO that are indistinguishable from my son’s 101st Airborne squad other than the latter was in Multicam uniforms and the LEOs are in all black.  Remember Boston – DHS acted just like [Obama’s] army – have we now legigitimized a national police force that we never should have?

The above observations aside, Instapundit has a snippet that tends to support the latter part of this post’s title than the former (emphasis mine):

Do you drive a car in the greater Los Angeles Metropolitan area? According to the L.A. Police Department and L.A. Sheriff’s Department, your car is part of a vast criminal investigation.

Right – we are all guilty ahead of any proof – or crime.  ALL of us.  Period.

Read more

Permission granted to post (and follows along with the words I just wrote:

Jeanie,

I’ve heard that the NH Senate – and quite a few senators – are thinking of voting in favor of SB 244.

I was wondering if you’ve made up your mind and if you’ve had any discussions with other senators about the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution.

My guess is that most of the senators made it out of grade school, so they probably can understand this simple sentence:

“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.”

You get that don’t you? I’m sure you do.

“ … shall not be infringed” means that no law shall ever be passed that does anything to LIMIT, UNDERMINE or ENCROACH on the right to keep or bear    arms. Period. 

Read more