News – Politics – Opinion – Podcasts
Well, at least the Committee chuckled at Ian’s jokes – most of the audience, with sour pusses on their collective visage, was not amused. Why? Given that one was Laurie Melanson (Superintendent SAU 23/Haverhill and with whom I had a light “jousting match” before the meeting).
SideNote: She made it clear that she felt that all of the standardized tests that are mandated SHOULD be part of their grades.
Who knew that there was a Bangkok climate change conference, not to talk about climate change, but to talk about our Benjamins? It seems this whole thing is about “your money becoming our money, you greedy developed nations!”. So who is really surprised at this….at all?
Meet fails to agree climate change rules
…Espinosa [UNFCCC Executive Secretary] said there was “limited progress” on the issue of contributions from developed nations to developing countries, adding that she is “hopeful” that future discussions will be productive because of the importance of the issue.
“On the core issues of forward-looking climate finance and the degree of flexibility developing countries should be given on the information and reporting requirements for national commitments under the Paris Agreement, negotiators were stalemated in Bangkok,” said a statement from Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a US-based activist group.
So it really wasn’t all about emissions (if you’ve been keeping up with this clap-trap, you already knew all this. After all, the US has been lowering its emissions for years WITHOUT Govt or pseudo-treaties that international groups have been using like Lilliputians. And here’s the main “gimme, gimme, gimme”:
The left works hard on their corporate speech, corporations aren’t people, campaign finance reform song and dance narratives. But here’s a quick and easy way to explain to friends and family why it’s all just a bunch of left-wing hooey.
Are corporations – which are just a bunch of people working collectively toward a shared interest- subject to taxes and regulations? Yes?
So, who’s next?
“Nothing’s Free” is not a phrase in the budgetary lexicon of progressive liberal Democrats. We know this because they are constantly talking about Government-run programs to provide “social infrastructure” to the masses.
The latest “free” goodies to hit the narrative mill are Free College and Medicare for all. Medicare for all is single-payer healthcare. College professors are not giving up their paychecks. And a guaranteed government jobs program can’t pay someone with ‘free.’
The Urban Institute, a left-wing outfit (under) estimates that it will cost (meaning it is not free) someone (meaning you) forty-two trillion dollars to fund “free” for just the first ten years.
Democrats squeal like greased pigs about money in politics, but this chart makes them smile.
Democrat congressional incumbent Ann(ie) Kuster has nearly three million cash on hand. And she’ll have more.
Her competitors have nothing by comparison. And no, this is not a new development. Democrat Incumbent Kuster has always had exponentially more cash to spend on elections than her competitors.
It’s not indicative of anything other than that she is there and entrenched in the swamp, doing swampy things that make lobbyist cronies smile.
Democrat Jenn Alford-Teaster, a first-time candidate who is running for State Senate District 8, recently reported over $63,000.00 in campaign contributions. The seat is currently held by Republican Ruth Ward, who raised less than $15.000.00 over the same period.
Alford-Teaster’s massive haul piqued my curiosity, so I reviewed her filing. It’s really interesting.
Yeah, Democrats are all about getting money out of politics – until they aren’t. From billionaire Tom Steyer in Steve’s post to this one:
All In: Mike Bloomberg To Dump $80 Million To Try To Buy The House For Democrats
Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, has decided to throw his political clout and personal fortune behind the Democratic campaign to take control of the House of Representatives this year, directing aides to spend tens of millions of dollars in an effort to expel Republicans from power.
Skip has been sounding the alarm on Democracy Spring, the latest (no-doubt well-funded) progressive-barbarian horde sent to pillage your constitutional rights.
But Justice Clarence Thomas, quoted here in Luis v. United States, also makes a case (IMO) for WHY the progressive left’s get-“outside”-money-out-of-elections fraud would violate those rights (emphasis, mine).
Constitutional rights protect the necessary prerequisites for their exercise.
The image above (no longer available), is the exercise of political speech by people trying to get the money out of speech. I don’t believe that is desirable, so naturally, I have some questions.
I can picture the ruling class progressives telling a bedtime story to their one, adopted, Eastern-European, designer-child. It’s about the evil Koch Brothers and how they used their ‘dark-money’ magic to battle the brave Obama and his Knights of the redistribution round table.
If alleged gun violence is what really makes her tick, why isn’t/hasn’t Mizz Hawkins taken up the fight on behalf of murdered children in Chicago? Might lead a skeptic to wonder whose parents make larger contributions…
(H/T: loyal reader)
A lot of people avoid politics because it seems so complex. And there are plenty of people who make it that way on purpose to keep those very same people from getting involved. If you are not involved you are more likely to buy into the nonsense or not pay much attention. But I’m here today to make it as simple as I can. It’s Friday. Things should be simple on Friday.
So here we go.
New Hampshire Democrats want to raise your taxes. (Just look at 2007-2010 if you doubt me.) They are convinced that the government needs the money more than you do and with Democrats the government always comes first. So the first thing they do is spend it, then find ways to tax it out of you.
Most New Hampshire Republicans would disagree. While there are some things government could do, can do, and maybe even should do, none of them take priority over you and your family, or your job or your business. And that is on the good days. In this economy we really don’t need to add to the cost of unnecessary government which is why the Republicans cut spending and the deficit, and cut unnecessary taxes and still balanced the budget, rather than taking money from you to do it. They wanted you to keep more of your own money, especially in these trying fiscal times.
A movie with a revolutionary, true, good, strong message, for a change. From Silver Circle, the Movie: “The problems of the world lay heavy on many shoulders. We hope to bring even just a tiny sliver of hope. Knowledge is power and we are spreading plenty of it…. ” [jwplayer mediaid=”21187″]
“Why does it get so complicated to do this? I mean, this is page after page of legalese,” Mr. Colbert lamented. “All I’m trying to do is affect the 2012 election. It’s not like I’m trying to install iTunes.”
…you can make excuses, legislate give backs that will only grow the taxpayer funded bureaucracy to manage them, tie our exit to yet another outside power (like some other state), or just bend over and kiss King Reggies….ring. Yes. All hail king Reggie. Long may he tax us without fear of retribution.
The Granite State Fair Tax Coalition, discovering that it’s "percentage of income model" argument against property taxes really applies to all things, and that lower income people pay a higher percentage of their income on everything, (a problem resolved through hard work and perseverance to which we apparently do not have a right) has announced that it is looking for a way to make "Rich BastardsTM" pay more for everything.
One example?
How about Marriage. Now that we’ve determined that Marriage is a civil right, (unless you are too young, too closely related, are already married, to uncivil to be or stay married, or want to remain single) why does a decent wedding (or any wedding) have to cost low income workers as much as 100% of their annual income while "Rich BastardsTM" only have to pay 25% to as little as 2% of theirs? The answer is of course a Statewide wedding tax on higher income wage earners to subsidize the constitutionally protected right of marriage–because you can’t help who you fall in love with.
The plan could create a State Bureau of Weddings and Funerals, staffed by at least a dozen bureaucrats, (with taxpayer supported wages, benefits, pensions, office space, paid vacations, supplies, and protest signs that actually come with sick notes attached; for days when they need to go the State House and make demands of the taxpayers elected-officials on matters of workers rights etc,). These fine individuals would be charged with handling questions and processing the paperwork and fees related to the weddings and funerals tax placed upon job creators, and the Rich Bastard population in general, (“Rich” to be defined by the collectors of the tax based on their perception of revenue needed) for the distribution of said revenues to those less fortunate seeking lavish weddings that have nothing to do with love, everything to do with impressing people whom you never see, and who are really just there for the free meal, and with any luck, an open bar.
One potential issue to the new Bureau’s mandate, however, is the rights of single people who would not benefit from the tax, or maybe this is just a rhetorical device on my part to segue into my next sarcastic rant.
I was just thinking back to all the loose talk from the left about ending the gun ban in the New Hampshire State House. How they imagined someone just unloading over testimony supporting same sex marriage–to use one example–kids getting cut down in the cross-fire. And how they fell over themselves trying to scare parents into keeping their children from ever visiting the place because it was now just too dangerous.
Then I look at the way the union run leftists in Wisconsin are acting. How they are storming the state house, climbing in through windows, and forcing people to flee for fear of their well being. These pro-union forces are pushing against state troopers trying to get past them. Maybe being let in by union cops. Just because they demand the ability to collectively bargain for benefits (not wages–they still have that privilege as far as I know.)
What is perhaps more instructive is that the left in New Hampshire supports them. I’d bet money you will not hear a peep in opposition to any of this from the state leadership of the democrat party. Nothing about State Senators running away like spoiled children. Nothing about the hate speech, the Hitler signs, the threats or the aggressive mob tactics and intimidation. They support that–and by their own rules support it through their silence.
So what of it?
My previous post on the pending investigation of Mike Brunelle was to poke fun at the lefts hypocrisy on the influence of money, anticipate the caterwauling, and suggest a course for clarifying the meaning of the text. In the intervening days, it seems obvious that I left some points out, some made by democrats.
The democrats are probably already crying like a toddler who just lost their balloon. (Ironic that they wont have to pay a fine.) But we should look at this seriously and in a context that the progressives understand.