News – Politics – Opinion – Podcasts
“Even though I’m a leftist. I think the left eats its own.” —Ted Rall
“Liberal” Democrat Robert C. Lamb Jr. of Holderness has declared his candidacy for the Senate District 2 seat now held by Jeannie Forester.
Lamb skylined himself back in February when he argued in favor of keeping Holderness in District 2 with Ashland and Plymouth, as opposed to moving it to district 3 with Moultonborough and Wolfeboro. Ashland and Plymouth? Democrat leaning…Moultonborough and Wolfeboro? not so much.
One of the major themes of the New Hampshire Democrats is that the current New Hampshire Republican majority is not focusing enough on the budget and the economy, and spending too much time on other issues. But this is an understandable position for leftists.
When the Democrats ran the entire state for four years, every session (almost every week) was about the budget, and how they had to raise more revenue. The reason for that is that their estimates were always so distant from reality, and their over spending so profligate, that they could not help but be obsessed, at every opportunity, with trying to fix a mess of their own making. The budget (and the economy)–how they might milk more taxes and fees out of the taxpayers or regulate and tax local businesses–was always on the agenda, often into the small hours of the morning of the day after the day they were supposed to have this all worked out by law. So Democrat stewardship of the budget and the economy was one long, constant, cluster-***k. (With what time they could spend ducking their budget woes wasted on trying to stomp out free speech, socializing medicine, scaring off more business, and a long laundry list of other nonsense too long to regurgitate here.)
The Republican majority, on the other hand, doing what you do at the grown-up table, already took care of all that business in the first session. Budget, estimates, revenues, done. No last minute nonsense, no late night sessions. No passing bills without hearings or making up taxes or fees they would later have to rescind–whose revenue they would then also have to “find” again and again… and no Rube Goldbergian accounting tricks, or counting money from this year for that year, or adding in the potential sale of things like land that you will never actually sell. None of that.
The Democrats hate the Republicans for that.
Yes, this is the way the majority Democrats legislated—converted to an artistic, musical rendition—a veritable ode to what they did in New Hampshire from 2007 through 2010: [jwplayer mediaid=”20289″]
There’s an article about the Republican-sponsored bill to allow medicinal marijuana use with a doctor’s counseling and prescription in today’s UL HERE.
So where does our 8-year Democrat Gov. John Lynch stand on the bill? He promises to veto the thing! Idiotic. Here’s my comment at the bottom of the Union Leader article:
Democrat Gov. Lynch is an idiot for supporting the failed and extremely harmful “war on some drugs”…
Democrats are, as a party, against requiring an ID to vote. Everyone knows that. They argue that the poor, or minorities will be intimidated, or unable to engage in the electoral process if we expect them to have a photo ID. Not only do you need a picture ID to apply for Food Stamps in … Read more
This from former state representative and former Dover City Council member Dave Scott, a Harvard MBA and bilingual former CEO of a multi-national corporation:
I am certain we have illegal registration in towns near the University of New Hampshire in Durham. We identified over 100 that voted improperly in Dover three years ago. We sent out letters to about 1,000 who voted for the first time. The post office returned those they were unable to deliver. Stamped on the envelope were such phases as No such street number, No such street address, No such person living at that street number. We sent them to Bud Fitch at the office of the Attorney General. No action.
That is, after the 2008 election, letters were sent out to 1,000 “first-time voters.” And are you surprised….?
This morning’s Union Leader features State Democratic Chairman Raymond Buckley calling for “bipartisan support” for prosecuting those who used the names of dead Granite Staters to receive ballots during the presidential primary.
Not at all surprising. In fact, many have wondered how long it would be before we heard from “Buckles the Clown” regarding the ongoing saga of Democratic advocacy of Vote Fraud in the Granite State. Just another punchline from “Buckles.” Seriously. When has Raybo ever done anything for a higher bipartisan purpose?
The Union Leader has given Ink to the Shrill Kathy Sullivan for yet another inane senseless rant.
I told my friend Steve Vaillancourt it might be a New Year’s Resolution to simply ignore her. But in ignoring her, I think a final analysis is in order.
For all of the useless Pablum The Shrill Kathy has written, she is never lost on attacking anybody with a “R” attached to their name. The Shrill Kathy never criticizes the asinine or silly policies of her liberal friends. The Shrill Kathy never details anything positive coming from the Democratic Party as a juxtaposition to conservatives or Republicans.
The Shrill Kathy quips,
I also hope that 2012 is a year in which common sense, and not ideology, return to center stage, both in New Hampshire and the country as a whole. That is the only statement arguing for common sense in the whole rant.
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?
Twitter’s Link service automatically shortens links when you put them into Twitter, and even identifies 
the untrustworthy ones for the recipients. An example of this comes courtesy of Harrell ‘Jersey Shore’ Kirstein, who sent me a direct message with a link that produced such an alert.
Twitter’s link service at http://t.co is used to better protect users from malicious sites that engage in spreading malware, phishing attacks, and other harmful activity.
A link converted by Twitter’s link service is checked against a list of potentially dangerous sites. When there’s a match, users can be warned before they continue:
Why would the spokes-model for the New Hampshire Democrat Party be sending me a Direct Message on Twitter, linked to a dangerous web site, at 2:45 AM on a Sunday morning?
As reported in the Union Leader Ray Buckley and the State Democrat party would like people to call members of congress and encourage them to support Mr. Obama’s tax on investors and job creators so Democrats can fund public sector union jobs and keep the dues-donations rolling in. They also support the push to defer millions in social security revenues on to the shoulders of our children, though Buckley words it differently.
The plan would cut the payroll tax that 30,000 New Hampshire small businesses pay, provide tax relief for families, funding for police, firefighters and teachers, school building improvements and transportation projects in the state.
This entire effort is another organized scam to fund unions and Democrat campaigns, in the run up to November 2012, at taxpayer expense. The payroll tax cut is a useless gesture, not a cut but a deferment, so what we have is more of the same catastrophic economic policy that has kept us in a recession and on the brink of collapse for three years now.
In the waning days of New Hampshire’s leftist experiment of 2007-2010, in the months leading up to the crackling heat of the 2010 election, the Democrat-lead state legislature attempted to pass the Sullivan/Hassan speech intimidation amendment attached to NH HB1459 .
This kitchen-table Frankenstein was strung together by Democrat party Committee creature Kathy “Lawsuit” Sullivan and then Democrat state Senator Maggie “The Red” Hassan, from dead bits of left wing jack-booted policy dreams. The goal was to quickly replace the gag that the Supreme Courts Citizens United v. FEC ruling had removed. They would require businesses to get permission to engage in political speech if they intended to spend over a certain sum.
Assigning government regulated speech limitations based on some arbitrary, government defined value was hardly the worst of it. The democrats also wanted to empower third parties to intimidate political speech for them as well. Anyone with the money and time could file a lawsuit against any business that it thought could have violated the law. This would give every out of state funded left wing non-profit the ability to pay its left wing, democrat supporting lawyers, to cast a chilling anti-speech pall across the New Hampshire Landscape. Fear of litigation would instantaneously exclude thousands of voices from the political debate simply because they could not risk the time and expense of being sued, even erroneously, should they fail to dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s.
From square one this was a partisan, prejudicial and intentionally unconstitutional act.
Government can do nothing without first denying someone of their legally earned income, so this bill established that it was acceptable for 51% of those doing the taxing to define what constituted free speech. When that happens free speech is no longer a protected right, it is a legislated privilege regulated by a democratic mobocracy. It no longer mattered that every business pays some kind of tax, in most cases dozens of them, to finance government. It did not matter that the right to free association can take the form of a business or group that might have an interest in it’s relationship to how government exercises power in their name. All that mattered to New Hampshire Democrats was that free speech continues to be a barrier to their political success, and if they could silence any class of persons they could find a way to silence any dissenter they chose.
Ask yourself, which party is forever trying to limit free speech and the answer is Democrats? The war on business, the fairness doctrine, the war on new media and Fox news. The insults and slurs hurled at the TEA party. These are all efforts to intimidate or limit speech to which the left objects. They have no interest in fairness or equality of message. They seek to control the message.
The New Hampshire Democrat effort to complicate, regulate, and even intimidate anyone out of having free reign to speak about how or how often they are taxed, about how those taxes are used, and to actually sanction random intimidation by entities outside the government, should have immediately disqualified them from every holding another elected office. We came just a few votes shy of passing a bill that Governor Lynch said he was prepared to sign.
This is not something we can forget. It defines the character of everyone who voted for it, sanctioned it, or supported it. This thinking permeates everything about their grasp of your relationship to government. They still think this way, and they will continue to argue in support of it, even though their actual justifications for it, are fatally flawed.