People are getting excited (with good reason) that Democrat Governor Hassan signed criminal asset forfeiture reform in New Hampshire,

(Forbes) New Hampshire became the latest state to roll back civil forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize and keep property without ever filing criminal charges. Under legislation signed by Gov. Maggie Hassan on Friday, the Granite State is now the 11th state to require criminal convictions as a prerequisite in most or all forfeiture cases. The legislation, SB 522, also raises the standard of proof to “clear and convincing evidence,” which will better protect property owners in court. In addition, SB 522 requires the attorney general to provide “detailed accounting” of grants made through the state’s drug forfeiture fund. The signing of SB 522 means New Hampshire is the eighth state to have reformed its forfeiture laws in 2016.

But she never admits to the civil/criminal asset forfeiture portion of the legislation in her signing statement.

Read more

That would be the “beta males” referenced by Steve.  I have seen a ton of Chicken Little posts over the last few days so let me put up some snippets here.  However, let me quote David French who put it better than I could what has been causing my head to shake (and ache) over the vote taken in Britain last week in describing what the “Side of History” really means to Progressives and what their version of “progress” has been these last few decades

I’m old enough to remember when history had a side. History, you see, had chosen to progress toward an international order that de-emphasized international sovereignty, elevated a bureaucratic and technocratic elite, and sought to solve international conflict through a combination of moral and economic pressure. Nations caused wars, so nationalism (and even patriotism) had to be set aside. Democracy unleashed bigotry, so “the people” mattered mainly when they agreed with the elite. It was a system that worked remarkably well for the international upper class. Men and women dedicated to commerce enjoyed unprecedented access to international markets. Activists dedicated to social justice could engineer their societies without ever truly facing the accountability of the ballot box. The logic of the system was self-proving. It would triumph through the sheer force of its virtue.

Read more

Yesterday I observed that there was a high probability that Republican Executive Councilor Chris Sununu was going to vote to fund Planned Parenthood retroactively with your taxpayer dollars. As a Republican and the deciding vote, this has attracted some attention but not necessarily for the reason that it should.

Regardless of how you may feel about whatever it is that Planned Parenthood does they do not need your money to do it, and no matter what is in “the contract” Councilor Sununu should know that.

Read more

https://www.facebook.com/MDRFs.King.Henry/videos/10153557451811210/

How many things are wrong in this video? Let me mention at least a few.
1) If guns were still like Muskets the folks in this room would have a pistol or rifle at hand or nearby. Citizens bearing their arms would surround him. They would prevent further action by threat of force or actual force.
2) He would have known the facts in item 1 and would have weighed that against his urge to do violence.

Read more

From the Union Leader:

Kuster said Congress must act to expand background checks for gun sales at shows and online, and if a suspected terrorist is considered too dangerous to fly, they should not be able to buy a gun.

No, it is NOT that “they should not be able to buy a gun” – Annie Kuster is just the latest to be quoted saying it.  Certainly, Kelly Ayotte has been saying it (but Jeanne Shaheen thinks we’re all bad for buying guns and have ill intent). All these self-adoring, pandering, power-hungry “that Constitutional thingie is just dried parchment” control freaks are doing is using the most horrific terrorist acts in recent history (9/11).

They should be tarred and feathered.  All of them.

First, for being said

Read more

No one has an official nomination but for our purposes, the field is set. We got Trump and Clinton. For the sake of argument let’s pander to all the haters and assume that both of them intend to run roughshod over the constitution. Just play along, please.

In our Constitutional Republic, the power granted the Federal government is divided among three branches. Under Mr. Obama, the Executive Branch has exceeded its authority repeatedly with nary a whimper from Congress. Looking forward which of the two likely Constitutional roughshod-riders to replace him is more likely to be reigned in by Congress? Hillary, or Donald?

Read more