Rep. Bob Kingsbury Is Turning In His Grave

How does a public servant who has been an Attorney, Judge, and Representative of the NH House, come up with a “tribute” editorial for a fellow representative which offers such profound prejudice?  Serving with Rep. Huot, I can only hope he “misspoke” in his recent Letter to the Editor dated Tues., Sept. 10, “Bob Kingsbury Served His Country Well”. I tend to think, however, he did not.

While the sentiment in Rep. Huot’s letter started out gracefully, it quickly descended into partisan hell.  “Although some of us did not think it wise that a person with his views should serve in public office…” is an immensely derogatory statement, not only on Rep. Kingsbury’s service (Rep. Kingsbury was a PATRIOT – or was that the problem?), but on our Constitutional Republic and how it is set up to function.

I have two questions for Rep. Huot:

Read more

This week on GrokTALK! our guests are Ashley Pratte, Executive Director of Cornerstone Policy Research, author and SNHU Professor Kevin Kervick, and New Hampshire House Rep Jane Cormier, and of course Skip and Steve co-host.

The Topics, in no particular order…  Gene Simmons and Tim Tebow, NH Listens, Parental Notification, Screwing with the Delphi Technique, Common Core, the IRS and Eric Holder, Joe Biden and Syria, the objectification of women–by other women, Professional Therapy,  uncivil progressive Democrats,  the Belknap County Jail, Marriage and Family, Obama Care, central planning, Robert Kingsbury…All that and everything else we could squeeze into two hours. It’s not your typical political talk program, it’s GrokTALK!
Listen here

Download or listen to the full podcast here

You can help to support this program by making a donation here.

More detailed segment descriptions and links to individual segments follow.

Read more

Progressives – they are just so SMUG when they use one of the classic phrases that just screams “I an intellectually and morally superior than you – *I* will make the decision for you (moron, evil, uneducated, politically incorrect, or conservative) sub-human.  Here, take my hand and I will lead you to the Enlightened Utopia we have planned for you  (because, pretty much, you’re too dumb to do it on your own)”.

That phrase, by the way, is “you don’t need that” – or in this case at TreeHugger (they are still so much fun to poke, even though I’m still banned from the comments), the plural “we don’t need that“.  The signature thought run concurrently:

• I have no idea why someone would want that
• You would abuse that
• I don’t know anyone that has that or wants to do that
• Or in the space that TreeHugger occupies intellectually – “how DARE you do something that would violate the orthodoxy of our environmental Religious vows”

It was in a post concerning the “GE Kitchen of the Future” and while the author liked some things and didn’t like others, this one seemed to be a show stopper on this feature:

Read more

Piers, Piers, Piers – you of all people should know the phrase containing “and dispel all doubt”.  A recent tweet on his favorite hobby horse (the Socialist / Statist mantra that citizens should be disarmed) shows a serious lack of understanding of the underlying philosophy of the US Constitution.  The Founders were careful with their words and careful with their construction of that document – and Morgan just continues to flail away

I'd like to suggest a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines the right NOT to be shot/killed by a gun.

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) September 12, 2013

I’d like to suggest a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines the right NOT to be shot/killed by a gun.

Certainly, he is of the “Safety & Security should be primary over Freedom” crowd.  Right there, he goes cross purposes to the fundamental meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution as the intent was to put a fence around Government to prevent its intrusion into the natural self-evident Rights imbued to us simply for being human. They knew that this fence HAD to be constructed by negative liberties – the Bill of Rights spells out what the Government CANNOT do so as to safeguard those Rights.  The Constitution spells out what is allowed and more importantly, outlines that everything else for “powers” is not allowed to the Federal Government.

For the sake of argument, what would this take?

Read more

Update: Fixed Link to case

In early August a firearms/right to carry case was settled in the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts that has some significant ramifications but that has been grossly under-reported, if it has been reported at all.

Nashua, New Hampshire resident and Federally Licensed Firearms dealer Jay E. Simkin (Attorney Penny Dean), successfully overturned a lower court decision that had sustained the revocation of his unrestricted non-resident Massachusetts firearms carry permit.

Long story short, the state revoked his temporary nonresident Class A unrestricted license to carry firearms in Massachusetts on the grounds that he was no longer a “suitable person” because he had, in their view, exceeded his stated purpose for claiming to need the license and because…employees of the medical office where he sought treatment, and where the complaint leading to revocation originated, were “alarmed” and “concerned for their safety” at the sight of his weapons.

Let’s review the facts of the case.

Read more

Democrat Terry McAuliffe is running for Governor of Virginia.  His position on the ‘second amendment’ is the standard, liberal, I support hunting and skeet shooting (which have nothing to do with the 2nd Am) but we need to do something about gun violence answer.  (And he is certain that the increase in law abiding gun owners–who submitted to background checks–is irrelevant to the fact that in conjunction with the surge in legal gun ownership, crime in Virgina has gone down.)  What should we do about gun-violence™ despite these facts, candidate McAuliffe?

Read more