In the “Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media hearing” in the House Wednesday, there was some interesting testimony. Soledad Obrien told the sub-committee; ‘Don’t book liars’ on news programs.
Articles tagged as
Editorials
Editorial Second Guessing And Blind Hypocrisy
“A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood.” —William Shenstone
The Keene Sentinel , last Thursday, featured an editorial, positing the question, “Could an armed citizen have stopped the shooter? But they never really answer the question and instead make an argument that we should move toward more gun control.
The opening paragraph states,
Anyone who has ever aimed and discharged a firearm knows that accuracy depends on a number of things — the eye of the shooter, the weapon in use, levels of training and experience. There’s also the matter of setting. Hitting a target at a shooting range, with pulse steady and trigger squeezed, is not the same as, say, taking down a gunman in a darkened theater that’s filled with tear gas and screaming, panic-stricken movie-goers.
House Bill 1339: Union Leader Editorial Doesn’t Get It
“As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” —James Madison
On Tuesday a Union Leader editorial called House Bill 1339, “preposterous”. In the UL Editorial entitled, “Contract Hunting,” The UL aptly describes why the bill is problematic. HB 1339, sponsored by Representative Paul Mirski, Joe Duarte and Gary Hopper, is an effort to keep access to hunting, fishing and trapping accessible to all, irrespective of economic and social strata.
The Union Leader points out,
Concord Monitor Fisking: Several Bad Ideas On Hunting, Wildlife
“As for editorial content, that’s the stuff you separate the ads with.” —Lord Thomson of Fleet
On Thursday, February 9, 2012 the Concord Monitor‘s Dan Williams wrote an opinion column entitled, Several bad ideas on Hunting, wildlife Williams contacted me personally to talk about his upcoming story. When I read the column, however, I didn’t recognize the lion-share of our conversation. Much was missed in the piece and it took on a rather pejorative tone, versus an analytical tone.
Seeing the text on line, I attempted to clarify with only nominal token success. I had to generate an account, was limited to 1000 characters in my response. and was only permitted one entry. My second one never appeared.
The Shrill Kathy And The Birthers
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” —Benjamin Franklin
Kathy Sullivan is not only dishonest, but she is also a rank charlatan. The Shrill Kathy is the epitome of moral bankruptcy when it comes to New Hampshire politics. In the UL today she quips, Why does Speaker O’Brien not call out his birthers? placing responsibility for the less than savory behavior of a few legislators squarely on his shoulders. So, let’s be clear about this because whatever “this” is, amounts to nothing more than another wanton pedestrian rant of the Shrill Kathy.
In prior writings, The Shrill Kathy calls out O’Brien alleging that he fails to respect the process and ignores long-standing rules. Yet here we see a circumstance where Orly Taitz asked for access and redress (due process) that our rules mandate must be provided. And the Shrill Kathy takes O’Brien to task for not stifling that process. Make up your mind! Sulli-Shrill… Which is it? O’Brien squelches? or O’Brien observes?
Jeanne Shaheen: “Porking” Those Tax Increases Down Our Throats
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is with representation …” —Rush Limbaugh
Today’s Union Leader Editorial, entitled, “Free Cops!” points once again to the ills of having a big-government Democrat like Jeanne Shaheen serving the Granite State in the U.S. Senate. Like her liberal counterpart, former Congressperson Carol Shea-Porter, Shaheen brings home the bacon … To wit: a $1.4 million federal grant to pay for six new police officers; Providing four for Manchester and one each for Pelham and Claremont.
Not a new scheme at all. During the Clinton years we see how well it worked here in the Queen city the last time the Federal Nanny doled out money for cops. And as always, there is an end on the horizon for that funding which only segues the bitter fiscal fight also on the horizon. Police administrators, Union hacks and those in city government with a shameless fealty for tax and spend policies to keep those positions, will seek to have them funded on the backs of local taxpayers. Epic Fail. This latest grant is a mere redux of the same scheme.
Senator Shaheen is the epitome a big-government liberal. She does not respect local government, nor the people who elected her. This is a clear second example of such in just a few short months where Shaheen advocated for the Feds to contract locally with Planned Parenthood in the wake of the Executive Council’s vote not to fund Planned Parenthood services in the Granite State. Now she gives Manchester government a back-handed slap.
545 People Are Responsible For The Mess, But They Unite In A Common Con
“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.”~Plato, Ancient Greek Philosopher
Charley Reese retired July 29, 2001. Who was Charley Reese? He was a columnist, serving 30 of those years at the Orlando Sentinel. Characterized best by his plainspoken manner and conservative views, he was with the Sentinel from 1971–2001, serving as a writer and other such editorial capacities. King Features Syndicate distributed Charley’s column, which published up to three times a week.
On February 3, 1984 Charley originally published the column below. This column additionally republished as his final column. Rightfully so and despite being 27 years removed from its orignal publish date, it is no less relevant.
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
Another Anti-Second Amendment Publication Heard from: Seacoast On-line Editorial decries Open Carry
“Remember the first rule of gunfighting… ‘have a gun’.” ~Jeff Cooper founder, the American Pistol Institute The opening paragraph of the Portsmouth Herald Editorial reads, “A Portsmouth police detective was recently lauded for defusing a July 4 incident in which Stawbery Banke Museum officials asked a couple openly carrying pistols to leave a ceremony attended … Read more
Concord Monitor’s Editorial Shell Games
“For a moment, at least, a nation united” the headline informs in the Concord Monitor. The monitor editorial continues on reflecting on the losses born out of 9/11, on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq and how our lives have changed since, all of which is very stoic and reflective. But leave it to those … Read more
LIBERALS AND FISCAL DENIABILITY
Since the beginning of the year, countless editorials and opposite editorial pages across the Granite State have been one large veritable whine-fest…A seemingly never-ending weeping and gnashing of teeth over cuts in various line items of the state budget. Hand-in-hand with all the pissing and moaning, is the rank demagoguing of New Hampshire House Republicans for the choices they are making. If Liberals are good at nothing else, they are certainly adept at blaming everything bad on Republicans, even after it was they who made the mess.
Noticeably absent from all of this cacophony, noise, caterwauling and fit-pitching is any reasonable alternative or meaningful way to fund all these sacred cash cows that each their loyal patrons willingly advocate for keeping and maintaining. It is as if there is no budget shortfall or structural deficits realized. Call it fiscal deniability.
“Those evil Republicans! They are cutting (“insert esteemed cash cow here”).
And, in predictable fashion, the noisy screeching of the liberal magpies checker the ambience with demagoguery and finger-wagging, replete with the requisite vitriol of class warfare. Like sculptured nails on a chalk board, the tax-and spend liberals still offer no reasonable suggestions even when they run out of steam. We would be remiss to overlook the much-heard faux straw man charges like, “Republicans hate children,” or, “Republicans are stealing from the working class.”
A week ago Friday the esteemed fishwrapper, The Concord Monitor weighed in with an editorial admonishing its’ readers that, Killing ‘car tax’ will make things worse. When House Republicans sought to repeal the motor vehicle registration surcharge, The editorial
Keeping Family Court Simple, Ain’t So Simple
A Union Leader editorial today, entitled, “Keep it simple: Family court rules work,” asserts that HB 259, “AN ACT requiring the supreme court to adopt rules of evidence for the judicial branch family division“, is a bad idea. The Editorial suggests that implementation of evidentiary rules would overburden a system where the majority of the litigants are not represented by attorneys, give an inequitable disadvantage to a party who is represented by counsel over one who is not, and would drum up business for lawyers, making the system unwieldy and inefficient. I couldn’t disagree more with my friends at the Union Leader.
The editorial informs us that About 70 percent of people who use the family courts do so without lawyers, mostly because they can’t afford them. While we might agree that it is desirable to have a court system that is accessible to laymen, not being able to afford a lawyer should not absolve people from the responsibility to be reasonable in what they present to the family court in furtherance of their legal positions. The UL asserts, “Alleged facts can be rebutted by the other side,” and while that is fundamentally true, the UL overlooks the notion that unsubstantiated allegations from a bitter and angry spouse inevitably triggers costly ancillary resources and services.
The UL writes, “The loose rules allow people to, say, introduce a phone bill as evidence instead of have a phone company employee testify, or have a witness present to back up an allegation if it’s challenged instead of having to put all witnesses on the stand.” That notion exists already and is more commonly referred to as a “prima facie” offering; that is, the evidence is presumed true on its face unless otherwise rebutted.
The UL tells us, (the present system allows) cases to proceed swiftly, but most importantly it allows people to get divorced or settle custody disputes without hiring lawyers they otherwise cannot afford. Few would disagree hiring legal counsel to navigate through the twists and turns of a divorce case can be costly. There are a significant number of people who simply do not possess the financial means to retain legal services. But what the UL also fails to point out from a fiscal standpoint, is that in a significant number of cases where children are concerned, a guardian ad litem is frequently appointed and the court invariably generates an order requiring one or both parties to pay for the services of a court-appointed GAL…who is most often, A lawyer. And, whether or not they can afford it is inconsequential when they get that first bill from the office of cost containment.
Streamlined Judicial economy is hardly a credible reason for fast food-style divorces that forego evidentiary standards in favor of expediency. The New Hampshire Supreme Court is chucked full of slip opinions deciding, “what is evidence” and “what is not evidence,” all argued by lawyers, I might add, where the personal philosophies of judges and masters prevailed, triggering those appeals.