Tag: SB 0120

Hey! Dufus! Why the Hell Aren’t You Covering “This!?”

September 26, 2018February 12, 2013

by Steve MacDonald

Shawn Millerick, the head of the political fiction section at NH Journal, wanted to know why we at GraniteGrok were not covering the real world story about Ann McKluster Kuster not paying her property taxes. The appropriate response was to provide a link to the story I actually wrote on February 5th about how Ann McKluster Kuster was not paying her property taxes. A story I updated with additional comments from the Chairs of both political parties and a bit of exposition with regard to the sources.

It was a story posted the same day as the first story at NH Journal about how Ann McKluster Kuster was not paying her taxes, at roughly 6 am, perhaps even before NHJ pushed out their version; a story with the eponymous title…”Annie McKluster Doesn’t Pay Her Taxes?”

How hard could that be to find? I’m pondering a pithy epithet for the NHJ Political Fiction Department that involves an ass, both hands, and a flashlight.

SB 0120 – Bride of HB 1704 (2012) Political Speech For The Privelaged Few Makes A Come-Back

September 26, 2018February 5, 2013

by Steve MacDonald

SB 0120, sponsored by three New Hampshire Senate Republicans, a House Republican and a House Democrat, is nothing more than the free speech killing bride of the amendment to HB1704 proposed last year.

It is the same language, placing the same similarly complex, overly demanding, ambiguous bureaucratic horse collar on political speech, which last May prompted me to ask…

How does one define the “value” of the ‘distribution’ of the speech for the purpose of determining the need for compliance, and therefore registration; and then jumping through hoops to exercise your right to free speech?

(and) Using the internet as an example, how do we prevent lawsuit-filing opponents from manufacturing complaints of violations–simply to intimidate or stifle speech by ensuring it (that speech) never happens…

That was just the beginning of the problems with HB1704, all of which have been reincarnated in SB0120. So let’s get this out of the way right now. I don’t care what ‘good’ you think you will be doing by sponsoring, supporting, or passing this bill. It will, intentionally or not, silence political speech and I can’t believe you can think yourselves Republicans while doing it.

SB 0120 – Let’s name the names, shall we? Jeb Bradley (R), Sharon Carson (R), Bob Odell (R), Shawn Jasper (R), Gary Richardson (D)

September 26, 2018February 5, 2013

by Skip

Let me get this off my chest: I am now ashamed that GraniteGrok, Meet the New Press (our former radio show), and I, did all we could to help Jeb Bradley, the prime sponsor of this Act, beat “Bathroom Bud” Martin in that special election that seems so long ago. I was told he was a moderate Congressman – boardering on “squish”; I heard it but thought “well, that was ‘before my active time” and he’s sounding a whole lot more conservative now” and beat the drum. Stupid me – he’s drifted Leftward ever since that first year. And no, not happy with the results of the NH Senate last session either.

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.

One of my pet peeves lately is why is it that normal people can read the plain language of the Constitution and can understand it literally as written – and yet lawyers and politicians cannot? How simple are the words “… no law….abridging the freedom of speech” – what is there to not understand? Five single syllable words, one with two, and one with three; this is elementary school level English. Yes, while the Constitution is supposed to be binding on the US Congress, it is the Law of the Land, the foundational philosophy of our Constitutional Republic. The ordinary person who is NOT a lawyer keeps thinking “isn’t it about time to get rid of the lawyers, get rid of the prancing around with “case law” and nuances and penumbras that seem to emanate from black robed creatures when looking upon these words – and just read the words as written?