Round about some of the NH Conservative sites - week of 12/26/09 - Granite Grok

Round about some of the NH Conservative sites – week of 12/26/09

Let’s start off with what I would normally file under Notable Quotes; from Ed over at NH Insider:

“A man’s admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him”.

– Alexis de Tocqueville

Tocqueville, in a few exquisitely chosen words, sums up the gut feelings of the uber-eco-communists who gathered in Copenhagen with the infantile demand that the rest of the world is theirs to do with as they please. 

Let us break down the genius of Tocqueville with some borrowed Wikipedia Encyclopedia text describing contempt:

Ed continues on elaborating!

*****

Bruce at No Looking Backwards just has a line for this time of the year that caught my fancy :

The manufacturer of this crappy bargain store wrapping paper. It’s got the tensile strength of mayonnaise.

*****

Chan over WeekendPundit adds his take on why people are angry – and takes on our CongressCritter, Carol Shea-Porter (emphasis mine):

I certainly feel angry, particularly with my Congressional Representative, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH1), who has shown a penchant for dismissing any of her ‘constituents’ who do not ascribe to her particular political beliefs. On more than one occasion she is alleged to have referred to those of us non-Democrats living in her Congressional District as not being her constituents. That’s funny as I thought everyone living in her district was her constituent, whether we agreed with her politics or not. So much for being our representative. Instead she represents only her own points of view and the hell with the rest of us. (I have a feeling Ms. Shea-Porter will have a very rude awakening come next November when she’s booted, bag and baggage, from her seat.)

And adds this on the TEA Party folks (who, again, are WAY out-polling the Democrats):

Is there any wonder why things like the TEA party movement have been growing? Is there any wonder why confrontations between members of Congress and the public have been becoming more heated and less polite? Why are the Democrats so surprised when far too many of them have been ignoring their constituents back home, ignoring their wishes, ignoring their phone calls, letters, and e-mails, and following the lead of Pelosi and Reid, neither of whom has the best interests of the American people at heart. Instead they have their own Leftist Utopia-driven agenda that has nothing to do with what the American people want or need.

And the anger grows…..

*****

Paul from Pun Salad continues the whacking of our Federal Level Democrats with this observation on the Jr. Senator Jeanne and her participation on the utter publicly display of Legislative Malfeasance:

But of course, the ultimate cheap dates were the 54-or-so Democrat senators from other states who got $0 million each for their votes. This includes New Hampshire’s own Jeanne Shaheen. Her vote could have stopped this monstrosity; but despite all her promises, she meekly went along with the rest of her party.

Independence?  Hardly…

To appreciate just how big the lump of coal Jeanne and her 59 pals delivered into our collective Christmas stocking this year, read this Wall Street Journal editorial in its entirety. Sample:

The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that "reform" has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state. An increasing roll of leaders in health care and business are looking on aghast at a bill that is so large and convoluted that no one can truly understand it, as Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted on the floor last week. The only goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later.

The editorial provides plenty of examples that demonstrate how poorly thought out the bill is, and how utterly corrupt the process that brought us to this state.

And I’m not sure at which I am most upset at the most – what’s in the bill or how it past…looks like Paul, Chan, and I are on the same post page.

*****

Jeff at A Rendezvous With Destiny has a couple of great lines about the Democrat Party (you know, the one that is ALWAYS about a woman’s right to choose to kill an unborn child for whatever reason?):

…The first woman tells a tale of shoplifting. The next woman shamefully confesses to driving drunk. The final woman reluctantly confesses to her crime. Is it murder? Nope. Perhaps embezzlement? Not quite. I know,……. espionage. No, the monstrous crime she committed ……not purchasing healthcare. The other two women say nothing at first, but then begin to laugh. Not buying insurance a crime….surely you jest!

…Make no mistake about it. This healthcare reform “debate” is about control, and the very essence of this bill will affect our liberty, as well as the freedom of all future generations. The issue we are facing once again from these agents of subjugation is “Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

If you are hungry, I will lend you a hand. If you need shelter, let‘s work together to help you. If you need aid and comfort, I will help. But do not ask me to steal from another man in the form of counterfeit compassion, whether that theft is in the form of money or the chipping away of individual liberty. I will not do that, and I will resist with every fiber of my being.

…I cannot tell you how many times I have heard Democrats yell – "It is a crime that people do not have healthcare." With the pending passage of the Democratic healthcare reform, the Democrats will make it official. 

*****

As always, Amy at…

AmyKane has the really nice and appropriate picture:

Amy Kane Blowing Snow At Rye, NH 

She also has a good roundup of links about Conservatives concerning the [silly] idea of "Giving up"  against the Democrat onslaught.  My take is that they’ve lost themselves in the beauty of the  the brass ring of supermajority after having snagged it, but are on the cusp of loosing it while they stare at its wonder and fail to see the pitchfork crowd that is going to yank it away from them…

In other words, all of you who voted for this clown and voted for these spineless Democrats and are now upset, have only yourselves to blame. The lesser of two evils is still evil. When are you all going to realize this? What good are Democrats if they are just going to cave to the worst, craven interests controlling D.C.? It’s disgraceful. It really is.

*****

I don’t always agree with Tony at Politizine, but this worked for me:

In other words, all of you who voted for this clown and voted for these spineless Democrats and are now upset, have only yourselves to blame. The lesser of two evils is still evil. When are you all going to realize this? What good are Democrats if they are just going to cave to the worst, craven interests controlling D.C.? It’s disgraceful. It really is.

*****

I think the GraniteGeek does not look favorably upon those new fangled LED Christmas lights:

Having said that, you’ll have to pry my incandescent Christmas lights from my cold, dead fingers!

*****

Tom from Libertarian Leanings has a quick quip on someone else’s line:

Quasiblog put it so well:

One of the most brazenly corrupt pieces of legislation in American history will soon be passed by a Congress so morally compromised that bribery now includes exempting themselves and favored states from their own laws, on a scale which defies belief.

Could there be a more convincing case against this mess called health care reform that congress just passed than the bribery that went into getting it through?  The Senate bribees got their states exempted from provision of it as the price of a vote.

Reader – are you starting to see a theme here?

*****

Bird Dog at Maggie’s Farm notes this from Michael Novak on the role of Christ concerning true Equality, Liberty and Freedom:

Those of us who are of Catholic mind do not
believe that the Enlightenment began with Kant (“What is
Enlightenment?”), or Locke or Newton, or even with Descartes. We
cherish Plato, Aristotle, Cicero. But the first Enlightenment began
with Christ Our Lord.

It was only with the Christ that
EQUALITY meant every human being, barring none. From then on, no one
was “barbarian.” Each bore in his own soul the mark of being called to
be a dwelling of the Father and the Son — being called beyond all other
calls a son of God. Neither mother nor father, neither civil society
nor state, can answer to this call for you or me. None has any deeper
bond or precedence than the relation of Creator and human creature. It
is a bond of Spirit and Truth.

Thus was revealed each human’s
LIBERTY primordial, and in that liberty, EQUALITY with all. No other
but self can say to the the Father “No,” or “Yes.” That choice is for
each single one of us inalienable. That choice brings each into the
universal brotherhood and sisterhood of all who are equal in the sight
of God.

And that is how universal FRATERNITY became a human principle and an object of our striving.

Moreover, a singular feature of the coming of the Christ is that all
have access to him — rich pagan kings riding from the East, Roman
centurions (those who would put him to death, even they), Jew and
Greek, and those of every nation, station, and state of virtue or of
sin. From Bethlehem went out the message of the First Globalization —
the global call to become one human family. But only by the narrow path
of the free choice of each.

This was the First Enlightenment. There has been no deeper nor more all-embracing since.

Not from mere men, but from God!  If only men, our current Political Class / Elites, would leave well enough alone and realize that their ideas are sub-optimal…

*****

Mr. Pink Eyes at America’s Watchtower continues a theme that has been running over at CNSNews – the Democrats trying to ram this healthcare "reform’ down our national throat have clue none where in the Constitution (that is supposed to limit the power and reach of the federal government) it states that Congress has the power to force each citizen to purchase health insurance:

When Diane Feinstein was asked, where in the constitution is the authority to mandate healthcare coverage, she responded that she “assumed it was in the commerce clause.”

Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs.

She “assumes” but she does not “know.” She is making this up, she is either ignorant of the intent of the commerce clause or she just doesn’t give a damn about the constitution. Or both.

She would be wrong in assuming that the commerce clause gives congress this authority, but right in stating that the commerce clause is how congress legislates various programs.

 *****

Richard at NH Insider has a few thoughts about NH 1454 – Parental Rights Bill.  Will it pass?  Dunno – it certainly seems to be the modus operandi that Democrats think that the "rights" of minor children trump the responsibility of their parents for the overall care of such child.  Instead, Big Government should have that right – as he notes here:

It did in NY.

In the most extreme cases, parents unwilling to give their kids drugs are being reported by their schools to local offices of Child Protective Services, the implication being that by withholding drugs, the parents are guilty of neglect.

At least two families with children in schools near Albany, N.Y., recently were reported by school officials to local CPS offices when the parents decided, independently, to stop giving their children medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. (The parents of one student pulled him from school; the others
decided to put their boy back on medication so that he could continue at his school.)

A parent should be the first most authority over what is best for his or her own children.  This bill acknowledges that and should be supported on those grounds.  I hope to see it get the level of discussion it deserves and if properly amended this bill could be a very good thing for parental rights.

Government becoming ever encroaching in what used to be strictly family affairs…my take is that the Democrat majority here in NH will never let this see the light of day…because they (via their role in Government) believe parents do NOT know what is best for their kids.

*****

Steve at NH Insider also has a take on NH HB 1611 that is going to try, again, to implement a 2.5%  Sales Tax:

The bill is sixteen pages long but very interesting reading.  The "Use tax" language adds an exciting dimension, one that will cost the economy more than the state would probably make.  But that is to be expected.   Policies that free up business actually increase tax revenue, so the obvious tack for tax and spenders has to be the exact opposite.

So again we see policy–spending to create a need for taxes–is more about control than cash.  If they wanted more cash, they’d do more to attract business and employment instead of less.  They are committed to doing exactly the opposite at every opportunity.

While they want the cash, Statists (on both sides of the political aisle) crave that control over the rest of us.

*****

Civil Truth at And Rightly So has even more thoughts on what the healthcare "reform" that has passed the House and Senate has wrote – changes that will all but annul the sacrifice of millions of Americans that have given their all in trying to protect our Constitutional Freedoms:

Now that the Senate Democrats (and their fellow-traveler independents) have found their way to pass the current health care bill, we will have seen an historic event presaging the very end of the American experiment in a Constitutional federal republic comparable to the repeal of the 17th Amendment and other events that opened a hole in the Constitution to allow the growth of an all-powerful central government.

Here is what is unprecedented:

1) Both houses of Congress have voted that to annex from states and individuals responsibility for and control of the provision of health care to every American citizen. This is a breathtaking expansion of the Federal government’s claims over the citizens and individuals that will irreversibly alter the balance of power between the Federal government and the states or people, putting a nail into the coffin of limited central government. Having reached a critical mass of power, there will be no limit to future expansions of federal power.

In other words, Congress (in conjunction with the Executive Branch) have now laid claim to health care as its exclusive province.

2) Regarding health insurance, these votes mark a seismic shift in the center of gravity in health care decision-making and allocation of resources – taking them out of the hands of states and individuals and the free market and henceforth making all such decisions political decisions of the Federal government. Having now moved the center of gravity to Washington and decreeing that all decisions relating to health care find their origin as political decisions of the Federal government, there will be no way to shift this control out of the Federal government’s grip.

 

3) What that means is that there will be no way to go back to a pre-national health care system, because all these transformed institutions will create an inertia for a national health care approach that will make impossible attempts to go back. In other words, as with most of the New Deal or Great Society programs like Medicare, once we have substantial numbers of voters and institutions dependent upon Federal largess and regulation, the relationship becomes mutually parasitic and inseparable.

4) The glue to this irreversibility will be the lobbying money that this health care nationalizing will draw to Washington, as the various interest compete to dominate the political process behind health care decisions. (This by the way is what puts the lie to assertions that government-run programs will save money through low administrative costs – instead these expenditures are moved off-books and or shifted to lobbying and regulatory process expenses)

 

5) In brief, the scale and sheer size of this capture threatens to make this action the threshold to a runaway Federal government that will subvert – and ultimately scrap – Constitutional constraints. I see some interesting analogies to the end of the Roman republic, most notably the corruption of the Senate members and the willingness of factions to sacrifice foundational rules and procedures for short-term advantage that opened the door to despotism.

*****

And on the recently decided ban on guns in NH’s State House by the Democrat majority (8-3 vote along Party lines), there was also a number of reactions:

Steve at NH Insider asks the most important question:

This story will develop as more information becomes available, but looking back just what has prompted this move?  What evidence is there that we need this change?

The Dems said it was those crazy people with holstered guns in the gallery that were upset about the votes during last year’s issues.  Yeah, sure….

Richard at the NH Insider does a take down of the worst of the arguments that the weenies have put up:

…I’ve compiled a list of what I feel are the five most foolish arguments in favor of the ban along with the reasoning behind why they are foolish.

1) "Several lawmakers expressed concerns not just for their own safety but for the many children who tour the state house and the members of the public who come to observe to testify in the state house and legislative office building." – Maggie Hassan (one of the 8 Democrats who voted for this ban

2) Maggie didn’t stop at the for the children argument, she also made this claim: "Its our responsiblity and good policy to ensure a climate of civility where many differeing opinions can be safely shared.  These policies are appropriately considered as part of the responsibilities of the Legislative Facilities Committee."

3) "Moreover, the US Supreme Court just ruled in 2008 that its decision to overrule a gun ban in Washington D.C. did not extend to bans in government buildings, so there is no 2nd Amendment issue here."

4) "For every example where crimes were stopped by people having a gun, there are just as many where people failed to stop a crime, despite carrying a gun." – comment made on the Telegraph’s website in response to their article about t
he ban.

5) "If all 304,059,724 Americans were armed, do you think the 16,272 murders a
year would go down or up?" – Also in the Telegraph’s feedback section.

And for each – he blows them up!

Bruce at No Looking Backwards winds it up with this:

They tried and were unsuccessful in early 2008 to enact this gun ban through lawful legislative channels. So, now, in the spirit of open and transparent government (aka: Hopenchange) they’ve decided to pack a committee full of freedom-hating statists and ram it through when no one was paying attention, and with no public notice or legislative hearings.

Gee, why does that strategy sound so familiar?

"…but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."