Skip

More and more, Government workers are making us believe by their actions that we Citizens (and Parents) are the problem to be taken care of and solved.  Now, this real story I had seen before, but who can pass up and putting in a line like this from NH’s own Mark Steyn to introduce it?

I’ve written before about the psychologically unhealthy need of every tinpot makework bureaucracy to run around pretending to be Seal Team Six.

I do wonder if there is a large scale case of “projection” that goes on in Government – and they armor, weaponize, and Rambo up, do they project themselves onto ordinary citizens and go “nope, these are too dangerous for real people to have – they must be disarmed” (RE: NH’s Deputy Dawg Shurtleff)!  And then I see a story like this and go “Really?  Whose holsters should be emptied and put on the Barney Fife Bullet Rule”?  Daily Progress (emphasis mine, reformatted):

When a half-dozen men and a woman in street clothes closed in on University of Virginia student Elizabeth Daly, 20, she and two roommates panicked.  That led to Daly spending a night and an afternoon in the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. Her initial offense? Walking to her car with bottled water, cookie dough and ice cream just purchased from the Harris Teeter in the Barracks Road Shopping Center for a sorority benefit fundraiser.  A group of state Alcoholic Beverage Control agents clad in plainclothes approached her, suspecting the blue carton of LaCroix sparkling water to be a 12-pack of beer. Police say one of the agents jumped on the hood of her car. She says one drew a gun. Unsure of who they were, Daly tried to flee the darkened parking lot.

Steyn had it right – tinpots.  You have a college gal shopping and a group of folks look like they are about to attack her.  Gun Time?  What if she had been carrying?  Would it have been justifiable self-defense?  Me in that situation?  Am not sure I would have done much different – but I also carry. Given their Rambo actions (really, jumping on the hood??), you BET I would have been scared too.  And given that TMEW goes with me places most evenings, I would have immediately gone into Protector Mode – what husband wouldn’t?

Read more

National Review:

Fourteen Republicans joined every Democrat in support of the bill: Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Jeff Chiesa (N.J.), Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Dean Heller (Nev.), John Hoeven (N.D., Mark Kirk (Ill.), John McCain (Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Marco Rubio (Fla.).

“This is one of the most divisive issues in one of the most divisive Congresses, but you know what? Our Republican guys showed amazing strength,” Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) told reporters after the vote.

Right. Amnesty.  I don’t care what is SAID, I care what is WRITTEN in the bill and I’ve seen this happen in 1965, 1986, and 2006.  How’d that amnesty stuff work out – pretty good, huh?  How’d that border enforcement stuff work out – what border enforcement?  How’d that “bipartisan compromise” work out, eh?  “Snookered once again” comes to mind.

• When Guinta ran for Congress in 2010, he made a promise, over and over, during his campaign that he was going to DC to cut the spending. Promise made, promise broken (in fact, twice on each of the Continuing Resolutions).  New Hampshire Republicans remembered the promise and the votes.  Look what happened to him.

• When Ayotte ran for Senate in 2010, she made a promise, over and over, during her campaign that she would not vote for illegal alien amnesty. Promise made, promise broken (on this first go around).  New Hampshire Republicans will remember this promise and this vote.  Wat may well happen to her.?

And when one of the most partisan Democrats (if not THE most partisan Progressive) in the US Senate, Chuckie Schumer (D-NY) calls you “OUR Republican”, it gives me cause to wonder what happened to when it was “our (lower case) Senator”?  When Schumer does that, you know:

Read more

I took a vacation day for a specific purpose dealing (second hand) with Government – and a bureaucrat made the time, effort, and gas all for naught.  And a cost to my currently unemployed Youngest a very dear $25 of his money.  For nuttin’.

I have oft been posting about my concern about a growing bureaucracy – and with a growth above a certain size seeming comes with a downward looking attitude or a “so?” attitude that is surrounded by Civil Service protections that can make it all but impossible to terminate bad apples (e.g., NYC infamous “rubber rooms” where really bad teachers spend their time, sometimes for years, on the citizens’ dime because firing them is all but impossible) – unelected, unresponsive, and unaccountable.  Today was a primary example of “So?”

The Youngest was told by a local bureaucrat (names and positions made generic to protect the wrong (no, not the wronged)) that he needed by a piece of paper that could only be researched and completed by someone at NHBHQ (NH Bureaucratic HQ) on Hazen Drive.  It was needed for yet another appointment needed to be able to set up yet a different appointment.  All within the square dance of Govt / NGO / Social Service Organization / Govt complex – one waterfalling to the other.  Heaven help him if he messed up.  And yes, by the end of this, he was appealing to Heaven.

Read more

As I said earlier, I was watching the Scotusblog Coverit feed to see what SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States) and my first reaction was “drat, drat, drat”.  I’ve had a chance to review some of the reviews (no, I have NOT read the actual decisions yet – I’m not a lawyer and am feeling that it would take a long time to understand the nuances so I’m relying on others with superior knowledge in the blogosphere to have picked out the troublesome parts.  It seems that there are a couple of things were OK, a definite No, and some stuff that really should concern anyone that believes in self-government, a Representative / Constitutional Republic, and a tri-part functional government.

OK:

• The small “L” libertarian part of me kinda went “er, not unexpected” as soon as I heard that Justice Kennedy wrote the decision on DOMA and figured that Prop 8 was going to go the same way – seen as a victory for the Gay Movement.  And then I started to read some of the commentary and realized “er, not so much” given the basis for the decisions – see TINGAA, below – my libertarianistic leanings are outweighed in this case by my belief in traditional marriage – and what that portends going forward.

• The idea of Federalism was strengthened. As The Corner pointed out:

To judge from most of the media coverage, today’s Supreme Court decisions in the marriage cases were supposed to give us a final answer on whether the U.S. Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. They did not.

And this:

declaring that the federal government cannot define marriage for its own federal policies and federal laws but must accept whatever the states decide about marriage.

Read more

President Barack Obama vowed to tackle climate change during his second term as President of the United States – and now he has promised to unveil a national climate action plan at Georgetown University on Tuesday. In his upcoming address, President Obama will propose a new strategy to reduce carbon emissions, prepare for the impact of climate change, build a green economy, and empower all Americans to do their part to “preserve God’s creation.”

Inhabit is another TreeHugger type site – environmentalism all the way (and, in fact, there is some cross-over in some of the writers).  We all know that President Obama has decided that tomorrow he is going to tell us how our energy usage is going to look like going forward (emphasis on tell) and Inhabit decided to comment on it; the above is how they started their post.  One of those changes will be, I’m sure, is to fulfill one of his 2008 campaign promises:

“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

The Legislative process in Congress decided to NOT do a Cap N Trade – there just was not a consensus that the benefits were not worth the cost (either to us financially or to them politicially).  However, given the size and the overreach of the Federal Government, the EPA decided that it could be both Legislative and Executive Branches all on it own say so to dramatically change the make up of America’s energy sources.  No Congress, No President, no law, no free market – just regulation.

This is the hallmark of a Representative Republic? 

Read more

Now that Grokster Susan has outlined that you have voted to limit debate on “new and devolved” Schumer Open-Border Immigration bill, it may be too late to note that this is turning into yet another “We have to pass the bill to see what is in it”.  With almost a total rewrite of the original bill with the Corker / Hoeven Amendment of 1200 pages, you only had about 72 hours to read the bill AND UNDERSTAND all of the ramifications (again, is this REALLY how a Representative Republic is supposed to work – by voting for bills nobody understand?  Obamacare redeux!).  A bill that was more convoluted, referencing pages within itself and to existing law and deleting other law, than most code I get to at.  I don’t wonder why that code doesn’t work, and with the worse spaghetti orientation in this bill (so I’ve been told) I will not be surprised in what is in it – or the harm this will cause.

For instance and just like in Obamacare, you and your other Senatorial chuckleheads have delegated much of your “higher level” authority and oversight to the Executive Branch (even as the bill micromanages things that SHOULD be delegated to the Executive Branch).  So, Kelly, did you know that you voted, not for Obamaphones, but for Obamacars??

That’s right – the ability for the Executive Branch to use some of the slush funds you just voted for to purchase “transportation” for our newly “legalized residents” (as that’s what “Provisional” means – instant legality for formerly illegal aliens at the press of your button press and Obama’s signature); from Big Government:

Breitbart News has learned there is a provision included in the immigration bill that could be used to give free cars, motorcycles, scooters or other vehicles to young people around the country over a period of 15 months after the bill passes.  The new provision is a result of the latest addition to the Corker-Hoeven amendment, which is essentially an entirely new version of the bill.

…“The original Gang bill ended with a section designated Title IV, which was headlined REFORMS TO NON-IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAMS,” York wrote on Sunday. “The Hoeven-Corker version of the bill added a Title V, with the headline JOBS FOR YOUTH. The measure would provide $1.5 billion in the next two years to provide jobs for Americans between the ages of 16 and 24…

A provision under that new stimulus program title allows for the use of spending the taxpayer money on the program to provide transportation for youth to and from their jobs.

Read more

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), one of the chief apologists of the NSA domestic spying program, said on CBS’s Face the Nation that oaths are very serious, especially if you’re a would-be whistleblower. When asked about Edward Snowden, Feinstein said, “I don’t think this man is a whistleblower,” adding that he should have stayed and “faced the music.”

“He has taken an oath, and these oaths mean something,” she said.

True – and many are debating that very point – a blanket that stifles the exposure of malfeasance?  Or one that say (I cannot believe I’m about to say this, again) “speak truth to power”.  But I remind the long serving US Senator (Progressive – CA) of this (Matt 7:3):

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

I do remember that she took an oath to defend the Constitution – a “higher calling” compared to that uttered by Snowden.  That that would include:

 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.

Read more

“No”is the answer here.  But we have seen that the Federal Government will retaliate against its Citizens when bureaucrats believe that “citizens have lost sight of their proper place” (IRS targeting TEA Party, Constitutionalists, Pro-Life groups; Dept of Labor and the IRS going after high net worth donors to Romney, and the EPA targeting energy provides that do not bow down to its Environmental alter for just a few examples).  Here in NH, the “Dept of Environmental Services” expand their own reach and set of regulations – go ahead, ask water front owners who really controls their land (for ownership means naught when someone else owns the actual control) and the trouble they can get themselves into if even a wildflower is removed “counter to regulations”.

Seems like its counterpart in Tennessee has the same attitude – “You might be a terrorist if you complain about us!” (emphasis mine):

A Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation deputy director warned a group of Maury County residents that unfounded complaints about water quality could be considered an “act of terrorism.”

“We take water quality very seriously. Very, very seriously,” said Sherwin Smith, deputy director of TDEC’s Division of Water Resources, according to audio recorded by attendees. “But you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there’s no water quality issues, that can be considered under Homeland Security an act of terrorism.”

“Can you say that again, please?” an audience member can be heard asking on the audio.

Smith went on in the recording to repeat the claim almost verbatim.

Hmm, and you thought I was kidding when I said:

Read more

This came over the transom a little bit ago:

tell me what your thoughts are regarding NYC paying for a group that comes to NH and gets space in the House Calendar as a “not for profit type group”? Is this not coercion of NY on the political system of NH?   just a thought.

I thought was a pretty good question, so here is what I sent back for a response:

Well, it wasn’t NYC itself that paid for it – Bloomberg and a couple of other big donors are bankrolling MAIG.  They may have reached out to Deputy Dawg Shurtleff (or v.v; not much matter which way it happened) and those two polls put it onto the calendar.  Coercion?  Not in my mind as Shurtleff and that other person are useful idiots at the least and willing participants most likely.

Outside influence on NH?  Absolutely.  Is it new?  Hardly.  Will it stop?  Not much likely – NH, relatively speaking, has little money of its own.  Thus, there will always be those in NH looking outward for folks to open the spigots where the hose ends in Concord.  You can’t shut it off:  money IS free speech (indirectly).  We may wail about it on this issue and the Other Side will do so on other issues.  Unfortunately, there will be no financial disarmament on either side in the near or mid-term future (if ever).  Why?

Simple – human greed, be it money for capitalists or “Power Over Other Peoples Lives and Behaviors” for politicians and bureaucrats. 

Read more