In one of those eponymous political moments we all cherish, the NH House Education subcommittee, charged with reviewing legislation to retool the states Bullying Laws, says it was bullied itself.

Rep Judith Reever (D-Laconia) Vice Chair on the Education Committee does not disagree with the idea that the subcommittee bowed to prejudice, this quoted from the Sunday Union leader. 

Rep Rachel Burke (D-Strafford Dist # 3) also on the committee, is reported by the UL to have been crying during a phone interview as she claimed to have been intimidated by the idea that opponents would defeat the bill if controversial language was not removed.

You have got to be kidding? 

All of this posturing from the party that lost the gay marriage vote in the House?  They were so upset (no word on whether Rep Rachel Burke actually cried) they called for another vote and proceeded to intimidate (that’s “bully” for the linguistically challenged) their own caucus members—until they knew a second vote would pass the legislation.

But the Liberal caucus leadership is known for pressing spineless democrats, and demanding purity on the left wing agenda.  Democrat legislators have even jumped ship, retiring from the House to get away from the constant peer pressure (that’s bullying) to conform to the left wing agenda regardless of what they as candidates ran on to get elected. 

Bullying is their stock in trade.  So this looks suspiciously like a political theatre. They know full well the liberal wing of the party will try to re-inject the language before a final vote.  So these whiners are probably acting like this is the first time someone used the system to change a bill or affect a vote, and playing the bully card on their latest bully pulpit to discredit objectors in advance of an effort to put the magic words back in the bill.

Hypocrats. 

The “controversial” language, by the way, made specific reference to the potential targets of bullying, as if the act of bullying itself required us to know who might be bullied before we could even begin to identify it properly. 

Naturally this specificity had to include gender identity and sexual orientation, which would ensconce gay rights agenda ideas into the handbooks and anti-bullying training procedures, again as if the bully might not ever be a “gender identity” person themselves.  (Ask opponents of the “agenda” in Califronia for clarification)

We can also be certain that the hypocrats had no intention of using these ‘words’ to protect people who gender identify with heterosexuality, (yes, you can still do that) who might be bullied for things like, still being a virgin, or for not seeking an abortion; the proscribed liberal treatment for underage girls who are pelted endlessly with sexuality and identity politics from the bullies in the state house and the education establishment.  

The gender language was removed after the proper function of the political process made its continued inclusion untenable, along with the other specific references to race and so on.   These were replaced with broader language that we will also protect tall kids, short kids, and kids who climb on rocks.  Future “moderate” democrats—if not extinct by then–can also feel assured that they are now afforded a general sense of protection from politically savvy classmates with a goal of being a future democrat speaker of the New Hampshire House.  

There is one more lesson to be learned from this.  No, not the one where left wing dingbats wear their hypocritical emotion on their sleeves.   It’s about why the liberals are having such a hard time these days.  Failing to listen to the electorate has consequences.  Just ask congress.