Skip

There is an old Victorian house in the next town over – it and the plot of land on which it sits was purchased by a Dunkin Donuts franchisee a few years ago.  They really didn’t want the building, just the land located in what I call “Fast Food Alley” where a number of restaurants are located.  They couldn’t sell it and couldn’t lease it either. So now they want to just tear it down – and I can’t say that I don’t blame them.  After all, who wants the liability of a vacant building anymore?

So two object lessons here:

• The hoops that Government makes us all jump through for what should be easy.
• Another proof that “stakeholders” should be a dirty word

This goes back to an argument on expanding Medicaid here in NH (go figure).  I explained it this way:

Read more

I read this article in Pravada-on-the-Merrimack about a “Senior Citizens Bill of Rights” being sponsored by NH State Senator Nancy Stiles (R) and two Democrats, Reps. David Borden and Tom Sherman, read it again, and still can’t reason it out to any kind of a logical form.  No, not necessarily the piece itself (although it left a LOT unexplained) but the items that are supposed to be in this upcoming bill.  Words have meanings and words in legislative bills should have very specific meanings, very sharply set definitions, and very unambiguous context.

Instead, this is a hot steaming pile of a mess that I’m finding to hard to do a cogent post.  And if that it true, if this “goes out into the wild”, the items (posted below) will cause all kind of grief:

The Hampton Republican plans to introduce a bill next year that would require licensed facilities, including retirement homes, senior centers and elderly housing projects, to prominently display a “Senior Citizens Bill of Rights” at all times. The bill would not create new rights but would amass those relevant for elderly individuals, such as the right to organize, the right to use and consult outside services, and the right to receive prompt service from a landlord.

The right to organize?  What, she wants SEIU socialists going in to unionize “the residence” (or patients, the elderly, or whatever other term you wish to use)?  Would that force them to pay union dues out of their Social Security checks?  And what happens if the caretakers are ALSO union members – how’s that gonna work out?

Read more

A few days ago, this topic came up at a meeting I was at – Cafe Hayek reminded me of it so it gives me a chance to comment:

If I am interested in buying GMO-free food (I’m not – I’ve eaten plenty but have friends who care deeply about it), shouldn’t there be a requirement telling people whether a food is or isn’t GMO-free?

No!  Look, this  issue of labeling GMO (genetically modified organisms) foods may be of great importance to you, or a few, especially those of the “natural food set”.  If it is, great – but leave me alone as this is your issue, not mine – I could care absolutely less.  For once, leave those of us who could care less out of it – do not run to Government to put even more regulations into the marketplace that will end up making my food more expensive.  Why do you think that Government is the only entity that “solves” problems?  Or is it simply that you are greedy – that it would be cheaper for you as an individual to have the rest of us pay for your pet peeve? 

Read more

Why? Because we just love that she is talking about GraniteGrok more often lately (like this past Saturday at a hilltop meeting) – and each and every time she does, we get new readers!  Best of all, they keep coming back.  Frankly, she’s one of our best salesmen (er, where have you heard that logic before, eh?)!  Much obliged, ma’am, and we PROMISE you, Jennifer, that your kind words will not go to waste – we shall strive even harder to have content worthy for our new readers!

Read more

Not if you were mine, sonny.  Although the BG post is about the fact that young people are NOT going to get the tax subsidies they thought they were promised (yet another expired Obama campaign promise – welcome to the ‘screwed over Club”, young’uns – you got pwned), it was this smiling fool that caught my attention.

He’s all full of himself – “look at me, I’m still sitting at the kiddie table!“.  That’s exactly what I thought then and thought now – voluntary infantilization at the behest of the Obama ideology (where the more depending on Government teat, the better).

I refused to go along with this nonsense.  When my sons decided that they wanted to be treated like adults, I obliged them. 

Read more

As part of Obamacare, the Feds nationalized the college level student loan programs – and a lot of Leftists complained about the profits that banks and other loan brokers were making (sound familiar – they’ve been saying the same thing about insurers and the healthcare industry).  Too much on a vulnerable population (and we heard calls to make ALL higher learning free).  So, how well has the Obama Administration done in eliminating profit?  Oh, you don’t say (emphasis mine, reformatted)!

Government books $41.3 billion in student loan profits

The federal government made enough money on student loans over the last year that, if it wanted, it could provide maximum-level Pell Grants of $5,645 to 7.3 million college students.  The $41.3 billion profit for the 2013 fiscal year is down $3.6 billion from the previous year but it’s a higher profit level than all but two companies in the world: Exxon Mobil cleared $44.9 billion in 2012, and Apple cleared $41.7 billion.

So, I hear ALL the time from environmentalists about Big Oil profits – large in the aggregate but smaller when you actually look at the profit margin but a discussion that includes profit .  So, how will it be explained that Big Government is making all this profit on the poor, struggling, young students?  A most vulnerable group according to Democrats!  Er, isn’t this the SECOND way that the Obama folks are screwing the young  as Obamacare is making them donors for wealthier Seniors in the Exchanges?

Read more

I mentioned Tom Harvey here on what our first President, George Washington, had to say about Citizens, guns, and their relationship to Government (even ours).  GW made it clear that the purpose for Citizens possessing firearms was not for hunting, not for sports, but for defense.  While many would think that latter purpose is for self-defense (and it certainly is) this defense was that against a tyrannical government “which would include their own Government“.  Also notice the “should have sufficient arms and ammunition” to guarantee one’s freedom.  No, unlike what we hear from gun grabbers, GW made it clear the Citizens need to be prepared to act against such a Government that would remove their freedom (“a state of independence”).

And Tom Harvey is all of that group – the gun grabbers.  He’s just not all that honest about it.  We just met Tom when he left a comment on Grokster Rick’s post about

Read more

This has produced a whole set of conservative punditry essentially lecturing Obama on things like, “Obama, don’t you realize that confiscatory taxation does not produce economic growth?” “Oh, Obama, don’t you realize that by blocking oil drilling in America you aren’t going to create jobs?” “Oh, Obama, may we advise you that Assad, the dictator of Syria, or the Mullah’s in Iran are not our friends?” “Obama, you should wake up to the fact that if we slash our own nuclear weapons this will not inspire the Iranians to do the same.”

Obama subscribes to an ideology that aims to reduce America’s influence in the world. He wants to cut America down to size. He doesn’t want America to be number one. He would be perfectly happy if we were number 18 or number 37.

Why does Obama want to reduce America’s footprint in the world? Because he believes we’ve been stepping on the world. This is his ideology. What Obama really wants to do is redistribute power globally. He would like to see many countries on the world stage – Brazil, India, China, Russia, all vying for power. No single superpower calling the shots.

 – Dinesh D’Souza, author, director

I agree with this.

Read more

When I first was an elected Budget Committee, I was aghast at how much money we spent on ” XXXXX Association of YYY” – each department seemed to belong to two or more associations based on the different levels of government (e.g., NH Association of Fire Chiefs, New England Association of Librarians, American Association of Town Clerks, International Association of Police Chiefs).  It wouldn’t be just ONE Association, but if they belonged to one, they belonged to what seemed to be every level of a possible association.  To boot, each department head also seemed to have their Association dues paid for as well.

In toto, it was not a small amount of money.  Near the end of my Vice-Chairmanship term, I started to ask a most important question:

If the town didn’t pay for it, based on the value you keep telling us, you’d pay for this out of your own pocket, right?

I probably asked that over 30 times over a few years (and they were always incensed when I did).  Only once did I get an affirmative answer – it was only worth it to these folks if someone else was paying the freight. Yes, that’s right – “free money” to them.  Another example is our “sidewalk to nowhere” – with a whole lot of decades to have made the decision to have paid for it ourselves if it had been that important, it was never built.  Well, not until $300,000 of YOUR Federal tax monies came to my town.  Once again, the moral is that unless someone else was paying for it, it just wasn’t near the real priority list.  So let me ask the same question of our NH House and Senate elected officials:

Read more

I am now at the age that I actually would enjoy being in his class – it is a lot of fun to “wind up” this kinds of nutcases (emphasis mine, reformatted):

Noel Ignatiev, a professor at Massachusetts College of Art, has for years advocated the total elimination of Caucasians.  During his final lecture before retirement last Monday, he told his white male students “you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease.”:

NOEL IGNATIEV: If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world! They only murder, exploit and oppress non-whites! At least a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby but what can a white male do? He’s good for nothing. Slavery, genocides against aboriginal peoples and massive land confiscation, the inquisition, the holocaust, white males are all to blame! You maintain your white male privilege only by oppressing, discriminating against and enslaving others!

I don’t even know where to start on this –

Read more

For years I have blogged about internal governance (self-restraint) vs external governance (laws and regulations) and how we are drifting from the former to the latter as a society.  Freedom requires self-restraint and self-imposed responsibility – the hard work of a Free Person.  All we seem to hear is about “I know my Rights!” – seldom do we hear “…and my Responsiblity”.  With the Progressive insistence that Rights are from Government are are “positive” (as opposed to being from Natural Law simply by being human and that “negative Rights” keep Government from intruding on us), we now see the new reality of “It is your responsibility to provide for my Rights” – what a perversion of Freedom and Liberty!  Our second President-  John Adams:

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

At the same time,Progressive movement has been doing all it can to remove that “character governor” for decades – an absence of morality, of absolute values, that one should keep themselves under control.  They call us in the TEA Party “governmental anarchists” – yet they are pleased as punch in creating a “societal anarchy”. Are we now starting to see the end game? From “Knock-Out” at the individual level to the “Knock-Out” at the top, we are seeing the “do it if it feels good” amorality of the 60s now coming to full fruition: “if I want something, and if I want it now, I WANT IT NOW and I will take it from you or hurt you as long as I feel good about it”.  I can commit violence if it amuses me.  I can take your property with no regrets if I can give it to someone else.  And Laws are just guidelines on a whim.

From my co-New Hampshireite, Mark Steyn’s weekend column at the Orange County Register (emphasis mine, reformatted):

…“No justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous,” wrote Lewis – and, likewise, no law can prevent a thug punching an old lady to the ground if the thug is minded to. “A society’s first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions, and moral values,” wrote Professor Walter Williams a few years ago.

Read more

Grokster Steve is wondering if the vampire of NH Medicaid Expansion (part of Obamacare) will rise again; in reading it, I went to the SeacoastOnline link:

…”This has nothing to do with problems happening nationally with the ACA marketplace,” Sherman said. “As a physician, I’m concerned for patients and residents of the state.”

No, not the website.  However, if one looks into the actual law itself, this is like complaining that door lock needs some WD-40 when the only way the car is going to work is on the flatbed of a singlepayer Government system – by design.  Once again, much of the “success” (and remember, Progressives are HAPPY to have more and more people attached to the government teat like piglets to the Mama sow) of Obamacare was predicated on the need for the States to all expand their Medicaid roles.

But I also note his last phrase – “and residents of the state.”  Sorry, but when do Democrats ever really show “compassion” towards taxpayers and say”enough is enough; we’ll leave their hard earned money with their families”?  It’s always SO easy to be compassionate when using other peoples’ money, isn’t it?

I wonder if he is like my doctor the last time I saw him; he was all in favor of Obamacare but had a sign at the receptionist’s desk:

We are not accepting any new Medicaid patients at this time

Read more

Steve has part of it right:

This is about Reid helping Obama add additional liberal judges to the DC Circuit court, guaranteeing a policy advantage in perpetuity.

Certainly that forms a bulwark that will protect Obama’s legislative agenda – any lower court appeals has to run through it.  The Supreme Court gets a whole lot harder to get to and I believe that will bottle up a lot of suits that could be overturned.  Thus, “fundamentally transforming” the judicial system to skew, not just Liberal but as far Left as possible has become much easier.  How best to continue onward to a post-Constitutional Republic than by having judges making rules that will be making us Constitutionalists’s eyes squirt blood when we compare those rulings against traditional Constitutional values.  For example, what Obama’s pronouncement that the Senate was not in session simply on his say so in terms of NLRB appointments?  And then put his Union buddies on the NLRB and crowded out the opposition – he packed that Administrative entity.

And that is the greater and much more serious problem.

Read more