Articles tagged as

Debate

Pushing the Gay Agenda in NH: Blackmail, Big Bucks

gay men

Last week, in an exclusive story, Now!Hampshire.com revealed, to little surprise, that the out of state gay rights activist network applied the final pressure pushing the same-sex marriage vote over the top in the NH Senate.

Ray Buckley told Democratic state Senators during closed-door negotiations that the Democratic National Committee might revoke New Hampshire’s First-in-the-Nation primary status if they failed to legalize gay marriage, NowHampshire.com has learned.

The vote was 13-11 in favor of legalizing gay marriage. All but one Democratic Senator voted in favor.

According to Democratic State House sources, Buckley told undecided Democrats they had to support the gay marriage bill despite a legislative committee’s recommendation that they kill it because otherwise the DNC’s Rules Committee would punish the Granite State by revoking New Hampshire’s key primary slot.

The Rules Committee makes primary calendar recommendations to the entire DNC, which then votes to accept or reject the recommendations.

When some Senators objected that voting in favor of the legislation might jeopardize their reelection campaigns Buckley retorted that he would be able to deliver plenty of money to help them defend their seats.

Our sources tell NowHampshire.com that the Senators in attendance took Buckley’s remarks to mean he would be able to deliver out-of-state money from gay rights groups.

Buckley’s successful arm-twisting in the days and hours leading up to the final vote on Wednesday drew praise from the Human Rights Campaign, a prominent gay rights organization.

And now we have more evidence that the outside money is already here. HumanEvents.com posted a story Friday that discussed the ongoing battle over gay marriage in NH and provided more proof of what we have known for some time: that the money fueling the Democratic Party here in the Granite State is coming– at least in part– from wealthy out of state donors looking to advance the gay agenda. Writes the author A.W.R. Hawkins,

How are Democrats able to push their hyperliberal agenda in what otherwise appear to be conservative states such as Colorado and Iowa?  Who is behind the sudden rush of laws allowing same sex marriage?

According to Focus on the Family (FOTF), the answer is Tim Gill, a gay multi-millionaire in Denver who has dedicated his time and fortune to filling state legislature after state legislature with Democrats who support same sex marriage. His latest target is New Hampshire

Admitted by none other than Party Chair Buckley himself:

 

Read more

Notable Quote[s]: Interview with Mark Levin

Most nights lately I’ve taken to listening to the talk radio program hosted "the Great One," Mark Levin, author of the important book sweeping the Nation: Liberty and Tyranny- A Conservative Manifesto. About halfway through, I can attest that I have not read anything quite like it with regards to his description of the ongoing … Read more

Who were those guys, anyway?

We don’t often engage in shameless self-promotion, except when circumstances warrant. Both Skip and I were honored to have been asked to address the Tea Party this past Wednesday in Manchester. All my life I’ve wanted to announce the start of a revolution in front of several thousand people. If only I had brandished my … Read more

Democrat-led NH House passes “Bathroom Bill”

From our friends at Cornerstone Policy Research comes the bad news via email, with a call to action: House PASSES Bathroom Bill on Re-vote 188-187! Folks, if you hear the Calliope Music playing again, it’s because the New Hampshire House was in back in session today, and once again, overturned another vote, this time by … Read more

Taxpayer Tea Party Quicky Approaching

If you haven’t signed up yet for next Wednesday’s big Tea Party in Manchester, now is a good time to do so by clicking here.   In addition to being in the company of like-minded people fed up with seeing their tax dollars taken and wasted with reckless abandon, there will be several activities to … Read more

Republican Budget for NH: No new taxes. No raised taxes.

Concord—In response to a state budget proposal from House Democrats that would cost the taxpayers of New Hampshire $133 million in additional property taxes, House Republicans today offered their alternative budget at a press conference held in Concord. “Two years ago we warned that the Democrats were overspending and relying on over- inflated revenue estimates … Read more

Dems fiddle as Lynch burns

The ongoing mess that is the state of the budget here in New Hampshire continues apace. After Governor Lynch proposed his budget short on belt-tightening, and long on new fees and altered long-term revenue-sharing agreements, some locales—especially cities— found themselves in a veritable crisis before they even started their annual budgeting.

Governor Lynch—between a rock and a hard place—given his no broad-based taxes pledge and his loyalty to recipients of state budget funds up and down the food chain, is undoubtedly at the end of the line for the free ride he’s thus far been given. A person can only have his cake and eat it too for so long before there’s no more cake. As long as the economy hummed, politicians like Governor Lynch, the majority Democrats in the Legislature, the big spenders at the local levels, and the bureaucracies they all support could be everything to everybody. There was enough dough coming in from all directions that they funded everything their heart’s desired with a little from here, there, and everywhere. Governor Lynch could practice moderation, “blue-dog” style, and his comrades to the left of him could advance their loony agenda, albeit piecemeal, in order to provide Lynch with enough cover. Thus, a happy medium took place, with neither end of the Democratic spectrum looking to out the other.

Is this an uneasy bargain that, like all things, in due time must pass? To me, the coming crack up is apparent. Lynch knows that the majority of Granite Staters, while not necessarily all hard-core right wingers, are not too far to the extreme left, either. Why else would Lynch’s campaign promise track record include the aforementioned anti-tax pledge, a promised veto of any death penalty changes, and opposition to gay marriage? Because without those specifically stated for the electorate –still wary of Democrats at the time– he might not have won. Here in the present, Lynch finds himself having to put his money where his mouth is unless the Senate acts against their House counterparts. In bold shifts away from long-held social traditions, the liberal majority has handed him a number of hot-button issues he must either allow to become law, or use the veto pen –dashing the hopes of many members of the various special-interest groups that comprise his own party.

I’m sure he knows that when the full measure of what the Democrat-led majority in Concord has wrought is known, the proverbial gig will be up. Sadly, due to a virulent anti-Republican backlash (some of it deserved, I must say), voters didn’t take care to wonder about such matters when it came to electing their state representatives in the past two cycles. Out with the old—in with CHANGE! And, when you look at the record, there is nothing to dispute… it’s change we’ve gotten.

Let’s review. In the last couple of years, we’ve found ourselves with a boating speed limit, new smoking laws (and higher taxes), mandatory seat belt laws—the draconian “primary offense” type, civil unions (“Oh no, this isn’t a first step to full gay marriage,” they said at the time.), same sex marriage, repealing capital punishment for cop killers, crippling health insurer competition to keep premiums high, underwriting and offering “free” health insurance benefits to those that can already afford it, and bringing higher energy costs for all. And of course, the grand-daddy of them all: the so-called “bathroom bill” or, as I would call it, the pervert protection act (Hold on—I’m simply implying this bill, should it pass, would give cover for the occasional bathroom sex-offenders that we all know exist). Indeed. As the economy of the state fizzles, and red ink flows by the barrel, these are the things that the Democratic majority is working on down in Concord. As Lynch walks the minefield with budgetary matters, his fellow Democratic comrades in the Legislature are bringing home the bacon for every outlandish group and cause that helped them attain power. It’s payback time, and they’re not going to like it if Governor Lynch blocks their way. The left know their moment is at hand.

“But how can this be?” you ask? “How could so many people have not realized this would happen?”

 

Read more

Judd Gregg: The budget of the President spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much.”

Judd Gregg

US Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH)

Regular readers know that from time to time, we have been quite critical of Senator Judd Gregg’s performance both as a Republican and as a supposed conservative. We’re happy to note that in the short time since his flirtation with the Magic Obama, the Senator has regained his footing and has been as strong in his criticism of the proposed taxpayer-busting budget as anyone. This week, our senior Senator provided the Republican weekly radio address and provided some much-needed detail and words of caution regarding the Magic Obama’s budget. I appreciate this, and would further add that, given Gregg’s attempts at bipartisan cooperation with the Democrat-led Executive Branch, he has a degree of credibility on these fiscal issues that cannot be tagged simply as partisan rhetoric…

GREGG: Hello, I’m Judd Gregg , Senator from New Hampshire. We all know these are difficult times. People are worried about keeping their jobs, paying their bills, the value of their homes and the cost of sending their kids to college. It’s hard.

Thus I appreciate, as do all Americans, the efforts being made by our President and his seriousness about addressing these issues.

But what concerns many of us are his proposals in the budget he recently sent to the Congress that dramatically grow the size and cost of government and move it to the left.

It is our opinion that this plan spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much.

You may have heard this before that the budget of the President spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much.

What do we mean? Well, let me give you a few examples.

 

Read more

A letter to Representative Robert Thompson of Manchester regarding his ignorance of American history and the Constitution

Constitution

I sent an email to Rep. Thompson reacting to a post at Cornerstone Policy Research about a response Mr. Thompson gave to one of that group’s supporters. From Cornerstone:

So, it seems that once again one of our elected officials are of the opinion that we will just believe anything they write…

The latest case being State Representative, Robert Thompson of Manchester, who recently sent what appears to be a “stock” response to one of our Cornerstone supporters…

After our supporter sent Rep. Thompson an email urging him to not support The Bathroom Bill, HB415, as it would trample on religious liberties among other reasons, Rep. Thompson replied that not only does “religion have no place in government”, but that the founding fathers were so concerned about this, that they added a “separation of church and state” clause into the Constitution.

Click here to read the whole post, including Thompson’s offending note.

This is my response to him:

Rep. Thompson,
How could you be such a boob as to write the following false statement in an email:

"Secondly, I certainly feel that religion has no place in government. Our founding fathers, who wrote the constitution, were very concerned about religion interfering with law making and included a separation of church and state into the constitution. This is a very important part of our constitution that has seemed to have gotten away from us. The Judeo-Christian values our country were founded on are important but do not belong in government."

Robby, You’ve obviously never bothered to read the Constitution, or much of anything one might guess. The U.S. Constitution only refers to religion once in the 1st Amendment where it guarantees freedom OF religion, and that means religion of the public square. Your red-herring concept of a separation was first mentioned in a letter by Mr. Jefferson to the Danbury, CT Baptists who were complaining to him when he was POTUS years AFTER the Constitution had been written and ratified that they thought it was unfair that they had to pay taxes that went to support the CT state religion at the time which was Congregationalism, because contrary to your moronic lack of knowledge about American history, the respective states had official state religions well into the 19th century. That so-called "separation" Jefferson coined referred to government having no power over religious liberty among the various states, including their 10th amendment right to establish state religions which they did in fact have. You shouldn’t even be a legislator, you’re so ignorant of the laws governing this land and even the history of New England where you reside..  It’s uneducated buffoons like you that make our democracy as horribly fragile as it’s recently become.

Furthermore, on religion in "government" as you ridiculously call it, in your attempt to set up a straw man,…John Adams who knew a helluvalot more than I would dare say you do, especially when it comes to the documents he was involved in drafting and ratifying, but even more so on questions of wisdom…political, moral and otherwise, said the following:

Read more

Watch the Magic Obama as he pulls an economic “fix” out of his hat…

Magic Obama

The FreeDictionary.com defines the word “bailout” as “a rescue from financial difficulties.” That was the term used to describe the initial government action and spending that occurred while Bush was still in office. We were told at the time that the $750 billion raised and appropriated by Congress at the behest of the President and his folks at the Treasury was to prime the pump so that cash-strapped banks and other institutions could begin lending again—entities deemed by the government “too big to fail.” And of course, it seemed plausible—and I only use that word with reservation—that because many of the lending institutions were in a jam due to failed mortgages and other similar loans (otherwise known as “toxic assets”) mostly due to government rules and regulations as dictated through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they (the government) help clean up the mess. Of course, when the government gives out money, it comes from you and me.

And once the financial industry got their hands on this “bailout” money, other industries—most noticeably the automobile industry—decided to follow suit and came calling with outstretched hand looking for some, too. A business model based upon endless credit to keep production going to pay for expenses incurred previously and no cushion to fall back on, coupled with labor unions unwilling to give the slightest concession, is nothing more than the proverbial “sword of Damocles,” ready to drop at the first wrinkle. In this case, when the credit markets dried up, so did auto sales, as many people suddenly lost the ability to borrow because there was no money left to lend. At this point, we know that a “small” amount “bailout” funds have been funneled to the automakers, but we still hear that several are on the brink and in need of much more. The question is whether more money will really help fix the problem, or simply perpetuate systemic problems for another day? The same question applies to the financial institutions noted above.

As we moved down the road from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration, it appeared that the word and notion of a “bailout” lost its luster. Time for a new word… The FreeDictionary.com defines “stimulus” as “something that acts as an incentive to (someone).” As you all know, following the bailout came the “stimulus” with a promise to “jump start” the economy. I guess it only seemed right—if “priming the pump” didn’t work, a “jump start” would come next. Of course, what came next was the stock market continued to tank and peoples’ money continued to evaporate—along with even more jobs. It seemed that the only good thing about “stimulus” was that it made for good fodder for jokes.

“Yo, Doug, feelin’ ‘stimulated’ today?” Of course the answer is, “Not really. But I AM getting bleeped…”

Uh-oh– Time for ANOTHER new word… and fast! Enter the term “recovery.” Ah yes, a much more positive word. Maybe this will be the one that gets the job done for Team Obama as they seek to “fix” the economy. Again, let us turn to the FreeDictionary.com, which defines “recovery” as “the regaining of something lost.” How perfect. As the government continues to dole out our children’s grandchildren’s great grandchildren’s money hand over fist, it can now claim to do so all in the name of going back to the way things were. Or something like that…

 

Read more

Manna from Heaven, perhaps, but no dollars…

In your dreams… It is no secret that Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta is one of our favorite Republican leaders in the state. While others pay lip service to the basic tenets of the Party’s platform that includes fiscal restraint, Guinta is actually putting such notions into practice, noting, "We’re not here to fleece the taxpayers." … Read more

2 “Bailout” Proposals we could support: A 30% marginal rate cut, or a “tax holiday”

I cannot help but feel uneasy about the federal government doling out tax dollars like there’s no tomorrow to people who have already demonstrated a failure to adapt and change within their chosen marketplace. It is said that the definition of lunacy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  The same goes for giving people money in the face of future high risk of failure. If the private sector– either through loans or outright purchase offers– fails to demonstrate interest in a business entity, why should the government, in the name of its shareholder/taxpayers, be any different?

I have come to the belief that the only true way to “stimulate” the economy without building more credit debt (adding more levels to the “house of cards” that has been the economy to a certain extent) is by doing it with “real” money. And the only “real” money, when you stop and think about it, is what one has in hand. Instead of printing money–setting the stage for inflation– or taking even more from working and investing Americans and giving it to who Congress and its influence peddlers see fit, how about if they instead simply let working people keep more of what they make each and every week for a period of time?

Take a look at your pay stub. Compare the “gross” pay versus the “net”– your take-home portion. Do the simple subtraction and just imagine what you could do if you were allowed to keep a substantial portion of the difference.

Instead of Senator Windbag taking your money, or mortgaging your great-grandchildren’s futures, and giving it to his favorite banker buddies so they may continue their lavish “hot-tubs and champagne” lifestyles, wouldn’t it be nice to instead use it to purchase something you’ve long wanted? Rather than send that sizeable chunk of your paycheck to states, cities, and counties that refuse to eliminate waste, your money, spent as YOU see fit might be just the “stimulating” boost the manufacturer and retailer of your desired product needs.

Why, given the right incentive, some people might decide to save a little for a down payment on a house or that shiny new Chevy truck that catches their eye in the lot of the neighborhood dealer. Who knows? But one thing’s for certain– more money, if people were allowed to keep more of their “gross” weekly earnings– would be instantly and immediately moving around. Some people might pay off debt, thus infusing badly needed dollars to cash-strapped lending institutions. And yes, some others might simply SAVE the money for future needs- nothing wrong with that, either—and would that not help banks, too? 

The bottom line is that the more the free wheels of the economy spin while satisfying the needs and desires of people with cash, the more it should rise. And you don’t have to take my word for it, all you have to do is take a look back to some fairly recent history, and let it be your guide. I’m talking, of course, about the Reagan era—that brief moment in time when we truly were a “shining city on a hill.” Rather than “redistributing the wealth,” prosperity happened for many people who, following years of high taxation, got to keep more of the fruits of their labor. And, like wildfire, the newly kept dollars made their way across the economy. Oh, and we managed to win the Cold War during that time as well.

To that end, I have discovered two possibilities that could go a long way towards reinvigorating the Reagan economy’s successes.

 

Read more

Unearthing a Culture of Death

Imagine some future archaeologist finding in the remains of a lost civilization the following remnants of an email from a remarkably well-preserved hard drive: What: 36th Roe v. Wade Anniversary GalaWhen: January 27, 2009, 5:30 – 8:00 pmWhere: Capitol Center for the Arts, Concord, New Hampshire Come join us in celebrating the ground-breaking Supreme Court decision … Read more

Follow the law, or avoid a real mess? Left and Right Bloggers weigh in on seating Burris

Regarding the ongoing controversy surrounding Harry Reid’s refusal to seat Illinois Gov. Blago’s Senate pick, check out the latest  National Journal poll of left and right bloggers. It’s rather interesting that a larger percentage of those identified as "right-leaning" answered "yes" to the question Should the Senate seat Roland Burris? One particpating "right-leaner" you might recognize … Read more

Not everyone is happy with this week’s death penalty verdict here in the Granite State. Are you?

NowHampshire.com is reporting that not everybody is happy about this week’s death penalty verdict for cop-killer Michael "Stix" Addison. Briggs family members and law enforcement officials cheered when Michael Addison was sentenced to death on Thursday. But many in New Hampshire’s Roman Catholic community see things differently. Catholics at all levels are chiming in on the … Read more

Who killed the electric car?

EV1

GM EV-1

So our friend Jorge sent us an email:

Guys,

I’ve just seen this movie “Who Killed the electric Car?”   I was familiar with part of the story but did not have all the information presented here.  It covers the period 1970 to 2005 and surveys the status of batteries, hydrogen, fuel cells, solar panel films as alternate sources of automobile fuels/sources and the role of government and car industries in their development  and suppression.

If you have 1 ½ hours, please watch it.  You won’t regret it.  Then, make up your mind as to whether it’s bunk or truth.

Let’s talk after you see it. Watch it by clicking here.

Jorge

I’m an hour into it, and had to pause a bit. Aside from the standard global warming stuff, it is an intriguing movie. This is what I sent to Jorge:

I’ve watched 55 mins so far. This story is similar to the sad story of the Tucker automobile.
 
I don’t really understand the length of time it’s taking to bring out the Volt car, yet all this history exists. I’m to the part about the battery inventor.
 
I’m not prone to conspiracies, but this movie really bothers me. I like to think as an American, I am free, but then you see something like this, and feel manipulated…

To which he replied:

Precisely, Doug, just like the Tucker.

Keep going.  The end will confirm your deduction and wonder what the hell is happening and why we are helping the auto industry survive.

Jorge

Hmm. But then, reminding us that there is more to the story, and that the premise of the film is debatable, Skip noted

 

Read more

The Constitution is not just “a body of suggestions that can be disregarded when expedient.”

Constitution

 

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington

I am not going to talk about how Mr. Obama stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. I am not going to talk about widespread voter fraud involving Acorn in the Obama camp, both in the primaries and general election. I am not going to talk about how all the Obama’s men either had influence in his life or helped him to his meteoric rise to power. I am not going to talk about Obama’s pre-paid Credit Card Fraud problem. I am not going to talk about how Radical Muslims paid Obama’s way through college. I am not going to talk about Obama’s Middle East Studies Mentors. I am not going to talk about Obama’s Voodoo Economics. I am not going to talk about the Logan Act when Mr. Obama did not speak responsibly when he went to Europe, Iraq and also a trip in 2006 to Kenya to meet with Odinga.

No, I am not going to talk about any of them, since none of those issues apparently mattered to those who voted for him. They elected him despite knowing those facts. So, I concede, he won the election by receiving more votes than Senator McCain who seemed he desperately wanted to wrap things up and throw in the towel.

However, I am truly disturbed. I do want to talk about the fears that are rampantly mounting, concerning the question of Mr. Obama being a natural born U.S. citizen, as required by the Constitution, to run for the office of the presidency of the United States. These fears are based on three elements:

  • The failure of the DNC to execute a thorough vetting
       process, ensuring Mr. Obama is a Natural Born U.S Citizen.
  • The failure of Mr. Obama to provide a Vault Birth Certificate.
  • The failure of big media to perform its function as the
       watchdog "Fourth Branch" of the government.

This issue led Philip J. Berg, a long time Democrat and attorney, to file suit against Barack H. Obama, (Lawsuit Continues) challenging Senator Obama’s lack of  "qualification" to serve as President of the United States. He filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting a review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants.

According to Berg, Obama is not eligible to be president. He says Obama was born in Kenya and he carries an Indonesian passport and became an Indonesian citizen when his stepfather adopted him while going to school in Indonesia. In addition, Mr. Obama’s parental grandmother in Kenya, has publicly stated that she attended his birth at a hospital in Mombosa, Kenya, in 1961.

Ironically, Linda Lingle, the Governor of Hawaii, ordered to seal his birth records shortly after Mr. Obama’s recent trip to Hawaii. That begs the question:  What is he hiding?  Why not just open his records, if there is nothing to hide? In an extraordinary gesture, honorable U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick tossed out the suit claiming citizens do not have any standing to challenge the constitutionality of the chargers.

 

Read more

Gay Bishop claims to have hosted secret “gay retreat” for Catholic priests.

gay bishop

I guess there are times when doing the Lord’s work must be done behind closed doors. There was a time when they used to call it confession. I don’t know what you call this, or how the Bible says they can do what they are doing, which is destroying their church.

Today’s Laconia Daily Sun has the story, reporting on Saturday’s appearance (as noted in this prior post, and discussed on MTNP radio) here in Gilford of NH’s gay Bishop Eugene Robinson to promote the movie, "For the Bible Tells Me So" shown at a local "church." Read the whole thing, as what the bish has to say might leave you somewhat dumbfounded, as it did me. "Hatred" for women by Catholics, and in both Testaments of the Bible? I had no idea…

 

 

by Ray Carbone

GILFORD- In a revealing moment during the discussion time following the showing of the documentary movie at the First United Methodist Church of Gilford Saturday night, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, told a group of about 100 people that he led a secret retreat for gay Catholic priests two years ago.

"About half were diocesan priests and half were in various (religious) orders where you have a little more flexibility," Robinson said during the question and answer period after the movie, The Bible Tells Me So," the story of about how Christian families deal with learning that one of the family members is homosexual.

The true purpose of the retreat was kept secret from Catholic Church leaders or it never would have been allowed, the bishop said.

Robinson, who is the first openly gay leader in a large American Protestant church, said he told the Catholic clergy members that there’s such a strong link between the fear of homosexuals and the hatred of woman and that he did not think the Catholic church would ever accept gay clergy members until it first accepted women clergy members.

"I told them, go home and work for women’s ordination and you’re going to be 75-percent of the way there, he said.

 

Read more

More proof the libs can’t take the heat… and have a REAL discussion about the issues they so greatly care about.

Bishop & Nate… Afraid to debate? As noted in this previous post, I linked to Dartmouth senior Nathan’s piece at the Wayward Episcopalian blog where he’s put forth the call for suggestions of what he should ask NH’s openly gay Episcopal bishop Eugene Robinson in an interview he’s conducting with him later this week. Earlier this morning, I … Read more

Share to...
BufferCopyFlipboardHacker NewsLineLinkedInMastodonMessengerMixPinterestPrintRedditSMSTelegramTumblrVKWhatsAppXing