Articles tagged as

Freedom

Guest post by NH State Rep Jane Cormier – “Bad Bill of the Month”

Bad Bill of the Month

HB 135 Bill Sponsored by Rep. Stephen Shurtleff, Merrimack 11

HB 135 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE….

1. Eliminates the provision allowing a person to use deadly force anywhere he or she has a right to be. (If you are in a dark parking lot, just be ready to run, I guess…)

2. Amends the definition of non-deadly force. (The bill amends by removing, “The act of producing or displaying a weapon shall constitute non deadly force.”)

3. Repeals the provision granting civil immunity for the use of force in certain circumstances.  (Be careful about showing your gun in a possibly dangerous situation or you could be in serious trouble…?)

 The sponsor of this bill, Rep. Steven Shurtleff, is a retired U. S. Marshall and law enforcement officer. As a “qualified retired law enforcement officer”, he is covered under (LEOSA) the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States. This means Rep. Shurtleff is immune from the provisions of his own bill! This bill seeks to restrain law abiding citizens from carrying under their Second Amendment rights. However, Rep. Shurtleff will have the right to carry anywhere – anytime. Hypocrisy at its finest? You bet it is. But, our story continues…

At the public hearing of the bill, on Jan. 22, according to Andrew Hemingway (recent candidate for Chairman of the NHGOP),

Read more

The real differences between Republicans and Democrats – Tyranny #2

I stumbled on this post over at PowerLine – where they had abstracted an entire post by David Horowitz: “How Republicans can win” that talks about the severe differences in how Conservatives / Republicans view life vs how Progressive / Democrats do.  Since Horowitz was heavily involved in the New Left in the sixties, he knows intimately how they think and how they act – and why they are starting to take the rest of us to the political cleaners in their religious zealotry in marching with Obama to “fundamentely transforming America.”  For this is no “this way is better / no, that way is” battle we face – as Progressives truly believe that they are in a political Civil War to beat and overthrow the Founders / Constitution vision of Liberty and Freedom in which WE get to decide for ourselves and replace it with the Progressive brand of socialism / “social justice” in which Government will provide for all our needs (er, but never mention the “strings chains attached” to allow that to happen).  I have abstracted a few paragraphs that point the major differences (emphasis mine):

…The Democratic Party has been moving steadily to the left since the McGovern campaign of 1972. It is now a party led by socialists and progressives who are convinced that their policies are paving the way to a “better world.”

This vision of moral and social progress has profound consequences for the way Democrats conduct their political battles. Unlike Republicans, Democrats are not in politics just to fix government and solve problems. They are secular missionaries who want to “change society.” Their goal is a new order of society— “social justice.” They think of themselves as social redeemers, people who are going to change the world. It is the belief in a redemptive future that accounts for their passion, and their furious personal assaults on those who stand in their way. When he was president, Bill Clinton once told Dick Morris he had “to understand that Bob Dole” – a moderate Republican – “is evil.” It is the same missionary zeal that allows Democrats to justify a campaign ad accusing a decent man like Mitt Romney of causing the death of a female cancer victim.

This should set the table.  Take Zandra Rice-Hawkins, Exec Dir. for Granite State Progress for instance (yes, a major Progressive parachuted in with the Colorado Model supported by major Progressive $$ – no native Live Free or Die in her!).

Read more

We all know the Preamble…

…but here’s the rest of the story:

‘…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Read more

We force you to wear a seatbelt because it will save your life.

SeatBelt - its the Law!As stupid an argument as can be said as in “since you OBVIOUSLY won’t take responsibility for yourself, we shall make you take responsibility for yourself”.  And if you do not, the force of Government will take away your money (via a fine) or take away your time (with jail time).  I am glad to be in the Live Free or Die State that still, at least in this respect, has told the Nanny Staters (both those in-state and those in the Federal Govt that has tried, over and over, to bribe NH officials with our own tax monies) to go pound sand – let adults make this decision for themselves.  However, many States have not treated their citizens this way – and started the slippery slope in motion.  The slippery slope didn’t start out that way – it was first a mandate to the car companies “you will put seatbelts in cars” rather than letting the marketplace make that decision and proceeded downward from there.

And we see it happening again.  As I wrote here, gun control is merely the symptom of a greater disease – those that govern believe they rule instead.  They are all too willing to breach the fidelity of the Constitution and the Declaration that Government is instituted by men, and not Government over men (a large difference, in my mind).  Government was to protect an Individual’s Rights – and not take them away simply because there is a problem at hand.  They have faced the problem – and answered wrongly.  They see not an Individual but the collective – and proceed to solve problems from that perspective,and in many cases, throw away and walk away from the ideals on which this Constitutional Republic was born.

We hear all the time that the Slippery Slope doesn’t exist – or that it will not happen.  B.S. on that – for here is a prime example of “oh it will never happen because we didn’t want that!”.  Cool, bucko, somebody else decided to drop that horizontal negative 70 degrees.

Read more

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 – Senator Diane Feinstein’s push to disarm the United States

She unveiled her renewed Assault Weapon Ban that not only is going to hurt two vibrant companies here in NH (are you listening Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) – Sturm Ruger and Sig Sauer – but effectively render civilians unable to defend themselves in a multi-person home invasion.

“We have tried to learn from the bill. We have tried to recognize legal hunting rights. We have tried to recognize legal defense rights. We have tried to recognize the right of a citizen to legally possess a weapon. No weapon is taken from anyone. The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time. Therefore, there is no sunset on this bill,”

Once again, we see a Progressive MORE than willing to punish law-abiding citizens as if they were criminals. No mention of the REAL reason for the Second Amendment – self-protection against a tyrannical government (as Progressives cannot even begin to fathom that their policies will end up as such as they are eroding individual Liberty and Freedom.  After all, as US Senator Schumer (or was it Durbin?) said “this isn’t about the Constitution”.

Of course not, it never is, is it?

The bill has not yet hit Thomas (it was supposed to be filed and online today) but here are some details.  The list of banned firearms are after the jump.  The Low Points:

  • Manufacture, transfer, or importation of new assault weapons
  • What is an assault rifle (redefining a real military term)?  Detachable magazine.  One of the following military features:
    • pistol grip
    • forward grip
    • adjustable, detachable or folding stock
    • barrel shroud
    • threaded barrel
    • grenade or rocket launcher
  • And yes, we now have a NEW “weenie legislator legal term” – an “assault pistol“: detachable magazine.  One of the following military features:
    • barrel shroud
    • threaded barrel
    • second pistol grip
    • accepting of a mag other than via the one allowed pistol grip
    • semi-automatic (if this is a “copy” of an automatic version)

    Read more

Comment Doodlings: What does “Why to you Need that?” have to do with Freedom?

Over at Bloomberg, Ramesh Pnnuru has piece on “Sensible Gun Legislation”.  A ‘fair enough” piece that brings up some items that an uncle of one of the slain kids at Sandy Hook Elementary that included a legal requirement to report a imminent threat (or suffer jail time for remaining silent), a standard for how guns are secured in the home (disregarding it could result in a felony conviction / large fine), Federally paid for security reviews and upgrades and a national team of grief counselors.

This post is not about the above (other than to point out “why the heck is it the duty of the Federal Government to pay for a local school – especially the grief counselors”? If it is THAT important, why isn’t the more local level of government doing these things?  But there was one comment that I did respond to:

Asked by “Leo”:

I just have one question for Matt A: Why?

Why do you own an AR-15 and 30-round magazines?

This is a 100% serious question. I’d appreciate a frank and full response. In legal terms, “the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Since “Matt A” had not left a reply, I left one:

Your “worthiness” evaluation of my Need is irrelevant in a Free Society.

If we truly live in the “Land of the Free”, then the phrases “why do you need that?” or “I have no idea why anyone needs <insert whatever here>  are based on an irrelevant premise.  In a Free Society, perceived “need” is only based on the what the acquirer believes to be a need – or even a want.  Not anyone else’s perception of such.

Read more

Data Point: Democrats beware – 2 of 3 Americans believe Second Amendment is to protect Freedom

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

…and not just the “hide the truth” by gun controllers that it is for “hunting, sport, and self-defense”.  Rasmussen has the data (emphasis mine):

  • 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure.
  • 72% of those with a gun in their family agree with the premise.  Even without gun ownership, 57% still believe in that purpose.
  • Agree?  54% of Democrats, 75% of Republicans, 68% of Independents
  • 60% would rather live in a neighborhood where they can own a gun and most would feel safer if their children attended a school with an armed security guard
  • A plurality believes dealing with mental health issues will lead to more effective results.

Read more

Drinkin’ his own booze

Back in my coal mining days in southern Appalachia, there was a saying folks had: “He’s drinkin’ his own booze” and it was not a compliment.  In those days, good stuff could generally be defined as spirits that wouldn’t make you go blind and the way to tell was by putting a dibby dab in a … Read more

“I don’t know WHY anyone NEEDS an AR-15”. Wrong premise, Progressives!

True Freedom means not having to have a Need to order justify having something

assault weaponRemember that the next time somebody demands “Why do you need that?” (unless it is your spouse or your Mother – then forget what I’m saying here.  Steve is busy and I am having another one of those “paralysis blocks” that bloggers sometimes have.  Not exactly “writer’s block” (during which you can’t think of a thing to say, and worse, if you did, can’t type two words that lie together well) but a case of “there’s too much going on – what to take on first (or best) and not sound like a me-too schmuck”.  But sometimes, when in that mode, it’s like you are the shooting guard in basketball and you go into a 0 for 20 shooting run – the only way out is to keep shooting.  So, here’s a shot in the dark.

We are, as a nation, at a cusp.  The vast majority of Americans were outraged at the tragedy in Newtown.  True to form, Progressives jumped on this crisis with both feet – hey such a chance to advance a fundamental Progressive ideal – an unarmed citizenry.  After all, their belief system demands fealty to the notion that Government is there for YOU and that their Government (and make no mistake, no limited government is any Government of theirs) will take care of you.  Thus, no guns, and certainly no guns of any consequence.  You don’t need them to defend yourself (call 911) and you really don’t have to hunt (that’s cruel to animals, and besides, we grow them in that plastic wrap).  They really don’t believe in guns, even as many of these Progressive elected officials make utter fools of themselves concerning the vocabulary concerning the descriptions of firearms and accessories (we’ll let you off the hook – we’d laugh less at you if you just said “ewww, you can’t have them because they’re ICKY” than when you can’t get the basic nomenclature right).

So, from their Olympus like heights of Enlightened Morality, they proclaim “You don’t NEED that!” – and they do mean it; they have no idea of why something would be important to you – and they don’t care to know.  In their worldview, where the rest of us need guidance, this is one of those supreme moments of applying Progressive Guidance (yes, upper-case chosen deliberately to show the height of Progressive Reaction of those that they have allowed to go astray for too long – they are done with “our foolishness”.

Any time you hear Liberal or Progressive (yes, you can be the former without being the latter but with the way that the New Left is hollowing out the Democrat Party, that person is seldom is a moderate Democrat) say that, here is your reposte:

So, Jackass, what does Need have to do with Freedom?

Read more

The true meaning of the Second Amendment – and it isn’t for sport or hunting.

Self-defense?  Yes, but not just for personal defense.  As I said here, I often run out of time in commenting on others’ posts.  Here, Kevin Williamson (whom we have interviewed in the past) talks about the real reason that the Second Amendment exists – the very uncomfortable reason, for Progressives and Big Government types that believe Government can only be for good, is that the Second Amendment is to be able to fight Tryanny – from without OR from within:

Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.

There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:

Read more

Whatsa matta John DiStaso, don’t like the ‘Grok much?

“As New Hampshirite Steve MacDonald notes, “this sounds like tyranny.”

Given that Rush Limbaugh brought up NH Democrat House Rep Cynthia Chase’s name (AND STEVE MAC DONALDS!!) this past Friday, it was expected that the local NH media would be FORCED to also give a few column inches as well.  And DiStaso of the UL does so (reformatted and emphasis mine) – reluctantly.  But guess who he left out?

FRIDAY, JAN. 4: GOING VIRAL. A Democratic state lawmaker’s recent web post critical of the libertarian-leaning Free State Project has gone virtually viral in the past few days and, as one might expect, has drawn criticism.  Reacting to reports that the Free State Project is aggressively trying to bring 20,000 supporters to live in the state over the next two years, Rep. Cynthia Chase, D-Keene, wrote on BlueHampshire.com:  “In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today.”

She went on to write that while there is “legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal,” she proposed making “the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave.”

Chase continued, “One way is to pass measures that will restrict the ‘freedoms’ that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming.”

…The post this week was picked up by the Breitbart.com website, the creation of the late conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, with columnist Warner Todd Huston opining:

Warner – a long time Samsphere blogger buddy of mine – got the story from GraniteGrok which he reads often as we are the leading Conservative / Libertarian leaning blogsite in NH.  He and I think a lot of like, and he likes what we do, commenting on local politics.  Anyway, see these next lines from DiStaso’s post quoting Warner’s?

Read more

Laconia Daily Sun’s “journalist” Mike Kitch decides to make sport of newly elected NH House Rep Mike Sylvia

I met Mike Sylvia a couple of years ago now.  Being a Big “L” Libertarian, his outlook on the size and role of Government is different than mine (not in direction but in a matter of degree; same page, different paragraph).  Which, however, puts him in the cross-hairs of the local Hobbessian believing scribbler Michael Kitch (not same page, not just different paragraph – a completely different book) who has a major problem with anyone that doesn’t acknowledge the Primacy of Government in the smallest affairs of individuals (lots of samples of similar behavior after the jump).  He has this thing for anyone that attacks his belief that only Big Government can maintain peace AND demand equality (including redistribution of political and financial capital).

Laconia Daily Sun Michael Kitch Makes Sport Of Michael Sylvia

Now in this case, reporting on how the Belknap County NH House reps voted on the rules that have now reversed the ability of people to protect themselves (and now have to rely on the State – a Liberal denial of the Right to self-defense), could Kitch just have reported the news (which would have been just the vote count)?  Sure.  Did he? Nope. He decided that he had to take a poke at Micheal Sylvia, who sits on the side of Natural Rights (including that of self-defense).  Did Kitch add anything of like manner from any of the Democrats?  Nope – not even a whisper (and I bet there would have been an opposing view).

Read more

A tale of Opportunity – it isn’t where you think it is.

From Cafe Hayek (emphasis mine):

Not only capital but also people move to where there is opportunity; and this is an essential part of creating new wealth and prosperity. This was dramatically illustrated for me in 1978, during a taxicab trip from the Wellington, New Zealand, airport to my hotel. The driver was friendly, and I asked, “Tell me about your country.” He replied, “It’s really wonderful. I don’t like paying half my small salary in taxes, but we receive so much that is free: health benefits, prescriptions, free education through college and advanced graduate study. I am just a cab driver, but my son is going to be a medical doctor. He has finished his medical degree and internship, and will begin practicing next year.”

Isn’t a socialized society just grand!  I bet his son will have have a lovely career where everything is free (after, ahem, large chunks of your wages for taxes).

Oh wait – no!

In recognition of his obvious pride, I said, “How wonderful. You have every right to be proud. Is he going to practice in Wellington?” He replied, “Oh no, he’s going to Australia. You can’t make any money here.” The New Zealand economic crisis hit about two years later. New Zealand could not compete in world markets – and could no longer afford socialism.

Read more

Notable Quote – F. A. Hayek

Wherever liberty as we understand it has been destroyed, this has almost always been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people.

– F. A. Hayek, the Road to Serfdom

 

Certainly, Progressives believe that they have new “freedom not to be bankrupted from illness” with Obamacare – but are destroying the First Amendment Right to expression of religion (the HHS mandate, and opposed to Obama’s “freedom of worship”)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

and making others indentured servants to pay for it:

Read more

Notable Quote – Plus!: On Restraining the ‘Passions of Men’

Quintin Hogg - Author of The Case for Conservatism
Quintin Hogg

“For Conservative thinkers believe that man is corrupt, that his appetites need restraint, and that the forces of custom, authority, law, and government, as well as moral discipline, are required to keep sin in check.”

-Quintin Hogg

 

 

 

John Adams
John Adams

“Experience has ever shown, that education, as well as religion, aristocracy, as well as democracy and monarchy, are, singly, totally inadequate to the business of restraining the passions of men, of preserving a steady government, and protecting the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”

-John Adams

 

Read more

Well what do you know, there may be hope yet?

Seen over at The Corner:

So the question is, can you have a liberal, progressive America without unions? History says no. For 200 years the existence of the union movement has been wedded to the rise of democracy, to the rise of liberalism. We saw this here, in South Korea, in Spain, in Africa. But now America is moving toward an experiment with whether it can have liberalism without unions. I think the answer is no. But we’ll see.

Interesting thought.  Certainly we have seen, more and more, the major unions (especially the SEIU) forming alliances with Progressive / Socialist organization that are certainly in step with Obama’s “fundamentally transforming” the United States.  Their stated goal is to move away from the democratic Republic of the Founders and to that Progressive version of ruler-ship first begun by Von Bismarck as he rolled up the Germanic city-states into a unified Germany (and in the process, creating the foundations of the trappings of the modern welfare state to “sidestep” the real Socialists).  The unions, once focused on improving unsafe working conditions, have gone well beyond that to the acquisition of power and the enrichment of a few relative to the many.

Read more

Paul Harvey: “If I were the Devil”

“In times like these, it helps to recall that there have always been times like these.” —Paul Harvey

DATELINE: April 3, 1965. Yes. These very words spoken by Paul Harvey were spoken  nearly 48 years ago.

http://youtu.be/H3Az0okaHig

Paul Harvey, as we knew him, was born Paul Harvey Aurandt, September 4, 1918 in Tulsa Oklahoma. Paul Harvey, was a true conservative, something absent these days from the ABC Radio Networks. Anybody that ever listened to the radio in the 80’s and into the 90’s knew who Paul Harvey was, his distinctive voice. and the tenor of his messages.

Read more

Bob Costas – showing that he is a true Liberal with a single phrase

We’re not done covering sports broadcaster Bob Costas and his outburst for gun control during Monday Night Football.  In trying to “explain” his MNF soliliquoy, he let this sally forth as some kind of an explanation.  Now, there are a lot of folks that are just concentrating on the talk specifically about guns; my beef with him is how he phrased it (see if you can catch it).  From the Washington Post (via Breitbart):

“Here’s where I stand: I do not want to see the Second Amendment repealed. … People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. … Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia [by] mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? … Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That’s what I was focusing on.”

Part of the culture is the proliferation of weapons, he said.

“There are those who believe that denying a semi automatic weapon or an assault rifle is the first step down a slippery slope in denying an old lady a gun for her own protection,” Costas said. “There are people who honestly believe that in Aurora [Colo.] if only a dozen or so people there to watch the Batman movie had been packin’, they would have been able to take down the nut job in full body armor with military-type guns

No, you didn’t leave much open for interpretation, sir.  You said one of the magic Liberal phrases:

Read more

Seasoned Greetings

The Holidays are upon us.  It’s that special time of year when atheism gets more Constitutional religious freedom than any actual religion, the lefts devotion to separation of church and state does not prevent union government employees from enjoying paid days off for…religious holidays, and we get to remind ourselves that what believing in a power greater than yourself really means is trusting a godless government that fears no power greater than itself to act as our moral compass.

I don’t have to give you examples, the social and economic decline that has paralleled my life (at least) is evident all around us….but I will anyway.

Read more

Guest Post by Ken Eyring – Why the Henniker Zoning Board believes it owns your property

“If someone else controls your private property, you do not own it.”  – Skip Murphy.  Six days ago, Steve had this post concerning the trouble that Stephen Forster (Forster’s Christmas Tree Farm) is in with the local zoning members concerning the way he wishes to use his own property (to hold weddings as “Agro-Tourism”, a perfectly legal use of his private property with respect to State law).  He asked, in that post, that you go support Stephen keep his innate freedom to use his own land for his own purposes.  Well, a bunch of people showed up with their virtual flashlights to show their support – and made the Henniker Zoning Board rather uncomfortable.  You see, when we, the citizens, hold elected and unelected officials to account, they become very uncomfortable – they hate being held to account for things that they are not allowed to do.  Here is the  message from Ken concerning that meeting (emphasis mine):

Dear Friends,

Here is a link (at GovernmentOversite) to the Henniker Zoning Board meeting on Nov. 15th — and I urge you to watch and pass it onto others.

[Note from Skip – watch the closeups very carefully;  see how uncomfortable they are, knowing that they are being watched because of their actions?]

Why? Because it represents the type of attack on our property rights that will be coming from elected people that don’t respect our Constitution — but have unfortunately been empowered to make decisions as to what we can and can’t do on our property.

As you view this video, you will find that it is painful to listen to the Zoning Board search for a reason to justify how they can place a restriction on Steve Forster regarding the usage of his farm property. The board’s struggle occurs after it is clear they agree that holding weddings on a farm (the issue at hand) is considered to be agri-tourism… and that agri-tourism is included in the definition of agriculture. The board also agreed that the practice of agriculture is allowed on a farm under state statute.

So where is the problem you ask? They wanted to overturn the citation that was issued — which threatened fines if Mr. Forster held any events, but at the same time… they wanted to attach restrictions even though the activity in question has been occurring on Mr. Forster’s farm since the early 80’s.

Read more

Share to...
BufferCopyFlipboardHacker NewsLineLinkedInMastodonMessengerMixPinterestPrintRedditSMSTelegramTumblrVKWhatsAppXingYummly