Co-founder of GraniteGrok, my concern is around Individual Liberty and Freedom and how the Government is taking that away. As an evangelical Christian and Conservative with small "L" libertarian leanings, my fight is with Progressives forcing a collectivized, secular humanistic future upon us. As a TEA Party activist, citizen journalist, and pundit!, my goal is to use the New Media to advance the radical notions of America's Founders back into our culture.
David Brooks is one unhappy dude – I would be, too, if I was the New York Times token “Conservative “. Problem is, in order to be Conservative, one has to have a solid belief system rooted in actual conservative values – something he actually doesn’t particularly like (my previous post: strong American values are leading to “incredibly backward-looking campaign”).
Or have. I guess this shows how little one actually has to be right-leaning to be considered “Conservative” when everyone around you at the NYT is a flaming Lib. And now he’s got another strike that confirms that view in his column a couple of days ago: The Possum Republicans. A few things struck me – this first on those in the middle on keeping their political offices:
Still, it is worth pointing out that this behavior is not entirely honorable. It’s not honorable to adjust your true nature in order to win re-election. It’s not honorable to kowtow to the extremes so you can preserve your political career.
So when Brooks, the NYT Mr. Moderate, says that, two things jump out:
In doing my normal surfing before going to work, I include the “Bigs” (Big Journalism, Big Government, et al). They are all noting the unexpected passing of Andrew Breitbart – an uncompromising Conservative that saw the liberal Media for what it was – liberal and anti-conservative, and not the “objective” view that they so desperately wished us all to believe. He was one of the first to “take it to them” and unmask them concerning this and unmask those that they protected (think former Congressman Anthony Wiener taking Twit-pics of his naked self).
We had the opportunity to interview him several times over the last few years – I will pull those together later on today.
Brash, uncompromising, smart, courageous, didn’t care what his opponents thought of him – with the proper dashes of irreverence and craziness. While not a personal friend, I will miss what he did for us all.
One of a kind. R.I.P., sir – you will be missed.
Updated: Some of our recordings of / interviews with Andrew Breitbart after the jump
This is the last of the questions that Cliff Hurst that the ‘Grok asked – one near and dear to GraniteGrok and to many others that brings up the event where Jack Kimball was forced out of the Chairmanship of the NH GOP (even as technically, it was a resignation): What is your message to … Read more
I’ve been doing this blogging schtick for a while now and it shows me one thing: I don’t know as much as I think I do! Moe Lane has a new one on me: Oh, yeah, didn’t you know? Blogger Appreciation Day takes place every February 29th (so, obviously, it’s a leap year kind of … Read more
Not sure why we’re wasting time and political capital on this issue, this year (an election year for God’s sake)…with an almost 100% certainty of a Lynch veto and failure to override…
At first blush, the intent behind the question was correct – the economic issues SHOULD be front forward. I even started off with that thought….and then it hit me: why should we cede all the social issues to the Democrat / Progressives / Liberals? To the Secular Humanists? Why should their morality become public law – why should their’s trump mine (which is far close if not, indeed, traditional American in outlook? The HHS insurance mandate now roiling America’s religious community is a great (and horrific) example of this – Progressives believing that Government has the legal right to so narrowly define what a church is that it can, out of whole cloth, strip their ministries from being “religious” ones to being secular by fiat decision. And then force those newly re-classified secular (formerly religious) organizations to obey Governmental restrictions instead of being accountable to religious ones.
My answer (lightly edited, names redacted):
My take: I, too, would rather see more changes on the economic issues simply if not to allow Democrats to demagogue the “why aren’t you concentrating on jobs like you promised?” (even as Enterasys just moved 540 jobs into NH).
However, there is also the “walk and chew gum” at the same time argument. Thus, I look at this from this perspective – the Republicans did not start the culture wars – the social engineering in recent years has been all Democrat based. We need Republicans to point this out over and over and over and over again (and with better messaging than what has been done to date, I might add).
WHY would we, why SHOULD we, cede the culture war to the Progressives? WHY should we just give up the social engineering side of the war?
Over at Don Surber’s place, he had this post on the observation of a newspaper owner on “why aren’t people going to work?” Short answer: Government. The observation: why aren’t people taking $10 / hour jobs and be self supportive and independent of welfare “strings attached”? Longer Answer: Due to the welfare system, it pays … Read more
“…those who cannot be co-opted are isolated and then destroyed.“
I had seen mention of the use of IRS going against TEA Parties (RichmondTEA Party, Ohio Liberty Council, it seems that others are in process) over at The TaxProf’s blog (via Instapundit, much more here at The Daily Caller on what the IRS is demanding for information), but loyal reader Steven sent this link along from Big Government. Nice to see my US Senator Jeanne Shaheen all too willing to use the coercive force of Bigger Government (the IRS!) to silence her opposition! This proves the phrase that I have been using: “The Bigger the Government, the smaller the citizen”. We already have seen that Shaheen has no problem in using the force of the Federal Government:
Guest post by NH State Senator Ray White on HB437 (the bill to repeal homosexual marriage here in NH):
My email is running 10-1 against the marriage bill. When I get those emails, here is my response, which usually gets me a very ugly, hateful reply:
“Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your email. I must state up front that I am against same-sex marriage, civil unions, or any other relationship that is not traditional marriage as it was understood for the entire history of the human race, at least until the last few years.
Marriage is a special institution that all previous generations understood to be between a man and a woman. There has never been a society, a culture, a country, or a people that defined it any differently until very recent history. Although the argument has been made that my viewpoint is a religious understanding of marriage, the fact of the matter is that even so-called “pagan” or other types of nonreligious cultures have also agreed on this definition throughout history. This is because marriage is about the fundamental building block of society, and it has always been understood as so, regardless of religious beliefs.
It has been only in recent years that the notion has been put forth that marriage needs to be redefined and broadened. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is unbelievable that after thousands and thousands of years of human history, that we think we can turn our backs on this fundamental truth and still prosper as a society. It is complete hubris to believe that we are smarter than the billions upon billions of people who have gone before us. I refuse to subscribe to this thinking. I reject the notion that this type of thinking is discriminatory. It is simply a factual clearheaded statement of right and wrong.
I believe that the breakdown of the traditional family has been a huge detriment to society, producing incredible social ills that government now finds itself unsuccessfully wrestling with to correct and mitigate. It began several decades ago with the general acceptance of divorce, and has proceeded to the general acceptance of producing children without the benefit of marriage and commitment, where fathers are now optional sperm donors, and now to the topic we find ourselves discussing in this e-mail. It is no coincidence that everything I am describing has happened simultaneously, i.e. the rethinking and redefinition of marriage and the social crumbling of society at large.
Next to last question for Cliff Hurst who is running to fill the open slot of Vice-Chair of the NH GOP at the annual meeting April 14th. The seventh question I asked is one similar to that which has been addressed by both NH House Speaker Bill O’Brien and Ovide Lamontagne (who is running to … Read more
Ovide continued answering questions from the crowd which, very much , were concerned about healthcare costs and the government intrusion into that marketplace. They wanted to be in control of their own destiny, but found that Government was more of a hindrance than a help. Here, they kept prodding Ovide on a push to refine … Read more
During my interview with Diane at Liberty Harbor Academy, I had a good time. However, like all good times, they come to an end. The last question for Diane Bitter that I asked was this: Best reason to vote for Diane over someone else? Previous questions: Question 1, Question 2, Question 3, and Question 4.
I just received a lovely email from my old friend, Donna Brazile. OK, we’re not old friends. For some reason she has decided to put me on her email list. She writes:
This week, the Senate votes on a GOP amendment that would let your employer decide what health care you can receive. If they morally object to birth control, it’s gone. If some corporation thinks cancer screening is too expensive, forget it.
This amendment is dangerous, and the people pushing it need to lose their jobs.
It is insane that we get our health care from our employers. That happens because we have given a tax advantage to in-kind compensation such as health care. It’s a horrible idea and it leads people to complain about our employers deciding what health care we can receive. Our employers are just a conduit for government mandates, rent-seeking and inefficiency related to health care. What the government has done is tax-advantage health care via employers and then tell them what has to be covered. So the real outrage is that because of this, the government mandates the mix of my compensation package, biasing it toward a luxury health-care package that is the result of special interest clamoring.
Obama (emphasis mine): “We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance, algae — you’ve got a bunch of algae out here,” Obama said at the University of Miami [yesterday]. “If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be … Read more
Questions? We have questions? The only thing of which we have a higher quantity of than questions is opinions (go ahead, try us – I dare you!). So, in talking with Cliff Hurst, I had a few more questions for him than I normally do ask in these kinds of “micro-interviews” (which, with this question, … Read more
It seemed that healthcare was on the mind of the voters that gathered at the home of NH State Senator Jeanne Forrester who hosted an event for Ovide Lamontagne ( who is running to be the NH GOP nominee to be the next NH Governor). This one, for a change, from ‘Grok friend Henry, asked … Read more
“Iran’s warriors are ready and willing to wipe Israel off the map,” That from the Iran’s Deputy Defense Minister, Ahmad Vahidi. Now, he is saying this in context of Israel attacking Iran to stop the latter from getting the bomb – a terse warning of “don’t try it”. The real problem is, however, is the … Read more
Hillsdale College is almost alone among colleges and universities in making its students take a course on the U.S. Constitution. Now you can take it as well, via Constitution 101, an online 10-week course:
In this course, you can:
watch lectures from the same Hillsdale faculty who teach on campus;
study the same readings taught in the College course;
submit questions for weekly Q&A sessions with the faculty;
access a course study guide;
test your knowledge through weekly quizzes;
and upon completion of the course, receive a certificate from Hillsdale College.
Well, I clicked on the link, and have signed up for the course. They do ask for a donation, but the course itself is free! A quick syllabus after the jump from the Registration site.
Gallup has the latest on the views concerning those who believe that the enumerated First Amendment Right to Religious Freedom should reign supreme, or Obamacare forcing religious institutions to provide “free” contraceptives, abortifacients, sterilization, or abortion services to those they cover. First chart is broken out by sex:
Next is support shown by the religious vs non-religious:
Over at Townhall, Judge Napolitano penned a column that caught my eye:
What if you are only allowed to vote because it doesn’t make a difference? What if no matter how you vote, the elites get to have it their way? What if “one person, one vote” is just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance?…
A charade, a farce, and the meaning of democracy is no more. This country was built on the foundation of one man, one vote; that this one vote is precious and it should count for something. Casting that vote is the culmination of a sovereign citizen deciding how they will be governed by the elected and that includes guidance to the elected when voting on specific issues. The problem here is that the “elected” (School Board) decided that the citizens don’t know what is best for them (or their families). To start things off, watch Kurt Webber, Chair of the Gilford School Board, reaction to the call out of “arrogance” as a town resident takes him to task for ignoring the will of the voters:
Yes, Webber is not a happy camper and it is obvious that he is not too keen at being taken to task. Yes, it is edited, but the context of the full video can be watched here at my blog, GilfordGrok (“all things Gilford”), Part 4, starting at about 5:20). The event was a joint meeting of the Selectmen and School Board held to ‘listen to public input’ as each is having to deal with citizens having brought forward Petition Warrants that, if implemented, would place tax caps on their budgets.
Why? What the Judge is talking about has happened in my hamlet – the resident is trying to get Webber to understand why people in town are upset with School Board. The topic – full day kindergarten (the local communities in NH can make that decision for themselves) and why did the School Board decide to unilaterally implement it EVEN AS THE TOWN FOLK HAD PREVIOUSLY VOTED IT DOWN? Sounds like elitists telling the proles “we don’t care about your vote”.
At this point, most of us are well aware of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (referred to by most, including the ‘Grok, as Obamacare). But did you know that other than the 26 States and other private entities that are suing to block the complete implementation of Obamacare (for mostly Constitutional overreach by the Federal Government), that there is a nascent movement called the Health Care Compact. Instead of being a top-down, DC-centric, command-and-control, one-size-fits-all monstrosity, this is a voluntary, state-level alternative to the Obamacare tax. The essence of it is:
The Constitution established a federal government, but with limited and enumerated powers, and reserved to the states or to the people those powers not granted to the federal government. One power that properly belongs at the state level is the power to regulate Health Care. However, the federal government has preempted state action in this area.
The Health Care Compact is an interstate compact – which is simply an agreement between two or more states that is consented to by Congress – that restores authority and responsibility for health care regulation to the member states (except for military health care, which will remain federal), and provides the funds to the states to fulfill that responsibility.
The Health Care Compact does not conflict with the efforts by state attorneys general, state legislators and members of congress to repeal or modify the health care bill.
Instead of Washington taking the money from taxpayers, having a maelstrom of unaccountable and unelected boards, committees, and bureaus creating regulation after regulation and forcing compliance upon the States, citizens, and healthcare providers, this simply is having Congress block grant
I had a discussion with Matt Murphy on this – and why it matters to NH and why we should consider it to be important:
Part 1:
Part 2:
The bill to implement the Health Care Compact in NH is HB1560 and is sponsored by NH House Majority LeaderDJ Bettencourt and NH State Senator Chuck Morse. It is currently in the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee. It is clear that the Liberals / Progressives / Statists want this to go down in flames to protect Obamacare – they are putting a lot of political pressure both the House Leadership (Speaker O’Brien and NH House Majority LeaderDJ Bettencourt and the committee members. Drop them a line and let them know they have some help behind them!
