Why “Green” Energy?

If you wanted to bring western civilization down, give it a good beating for all its so-called malfeasance, what better way than to make it near impossible to sustain the things that made being a western civilization all it was cracked up to be?

Consider that which makes us or any of our allies any sort of global power?  Wealth and energy.  Commerce, industrialization, transportation, and militarization to protect it or project it.

We can mince the finer points about what makes all this possible but they all share one thing in common.  Cheap, abundant energy.

So if you had a mind to take the average Western Civilization down a notch or two, or even all of them, to make an example of a country like, say America, the fastest way to do that would be to cry wolf about something that would be difficult to dispute and easy to frighten people with; something that would make cheap abundant energy so threatening that no one would pay much attention to the real threats that not having it might present; you’d put forward a theory of global catastrophe that demanded we redirect massive amounts of wealth into expensive forms of energy incapable of sustaining the level of commerce, industrialization, transportation, or defense that we’ve come to enjoy.

You’d invent Global Warming and then blame the people who make the cheap abundant energy for causing it.

It is a simple fact that you can’t run an aircraft (personal, pleasure, commercial or military), a fleet of ships (or any ship), large amounts of ground transportation, an army, or anything meaningful on wind, solar, or even ethanol.  (Without getting side-tracked on how ethanol is actually worse from creation to application).   In fact there are no “clean” energies in the American left’s “solution” to the problem they’ve invented (in America even nuclear energy is not ‘clean’) that would allow us to continue to engage the world in any meaningful way.  The left’s energy plan systematically denies us our commercial/industrial prowess, reduces or eliminates the size and scope of our national defense, forces us to be more reliant on other nations (many of them hostile) for what cheap energy we are allowed, and would inevitably limit our ability to move about our own country and our world with as much freedom as we’d like.

(Fracking and Natural Gas have grown in this void but the left still does not approve.  Even cheap easily acceible energy from friendly Canada (Keystone pipeine) was and is blocked. Why?  Becasue they slow the desired decline.  Only threats to their hold on power soften the negative rhetoric but just the rhetoric–no meanigful concessions are ever given.

And this is how it has been for years.

Fo decades the left has been doing everything they can to make “being an energy rich America” difficult or as expensive as possible.  They have prohibited new development, blocked domestic refining capacity, taxed, feed, and regulated growth in energy to a stand-still, and kept nuclear from being anything but an expensive and frightening proposition.  Every and any reason will do up to an including unsubstantiated threats of planet wide apocalypse.  This has made the energy we can develop more expensive, impacting everything else in the process.  Revenue spent on the rising cost of energy is not spent elsewhere.  This means less growth, lowered GDP, fewer jobs, less choices and opportunities.

The left has admitted that it wants gas to cost more, to end coal as we know it, to control our thermostats (through fear and guilt first, price pressure, or even the law if necessary), so they can make their less useful alternatives comparable in price.

And for what?  A theory that continues to lose support.  And it is losing support because despite pumping CO2 into the air at increasing rates the world just continues to do what it always did.  It gets warmer here, colder there, less ice up north, more ice down south, and after nearly two decades of “boys who cry global warming wolf” the average global temperate is exactly the same.

It can’t be for any other purpose but than to bring us down.  To break us before the global court of opinion and allow other nations to fill the gaps we leave behind. And there is still significant political will in the United States, on the left,  to move forward with the green energy agenda that makes our decline possible.  To continue to deny billions for productive purposes so they can dump billions of public dollars into energy solutions whose only result will be less of everything that makes us an advanced and powerful western civilization.  Into things that would make us just another chess piece on a global board occupied by China, India, and Russia–all of whom are to be respected as global partners but whom have no qualms about the need for cheap abundant CO2 producing energy to keep their nations running and growing; to sustain a military capable of projecting their worldview when and where they will feel the need; to protect their global interests, including those on continued access to cheap, abundant, energy.   So it cannot be a political will to move us into the next century unless it is to do so on our knees.

There is no other excuse for this behavior but to steward the accelerated decline of America as a nation unable to compete, one with a stunted manufacturing base and a small military it cannot afford to project to defend its own global interests, one that might not even be able to adequately defend its own borders.
Yes, we’d be able to lob some rockets about, but everything else relies on fuels that have been demonized, the same ones that allow you to get to work, travel (things the left wants to build public trains to replace), heat your home, and in some cases–like coal–use all the modern devices that run on electricity without breaking the bank.  And consider that reduced production of these fuels would require the state to divert them to the governments purposes as a matter of national priority–to run the things that the government needs that cannot be run without them–leaving the rest of us, citizens, those industries not favored by connected corporatists, to scrabble over the unsatisfying scraps left for us by the state.

Forget sustaining a free and powerful nation that can live without constant fear from its enemies.   You can’t even keep your population comfortable under those terms. Not that the leaders of the socialist left care.  They’ll be very comfortable.

You are reading  “Why Green Energy”   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012
Steve Mac Donald has been recognized as the AFP December Blogger of the month

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Will Terie Norelli And The Democrats Try To Ban My Refrigerator?

My Fridge has a modified magzine in it
I think it is appropriate to add this picture to my friend Susan Olsen’s post at GraniteGrok.  The one with the Journalist’s Guide To Firearm’s Identification.’

It is a picture of my refrigerator door (above), modified by the manufacturer to accommodate an extra magazine capable of holding all manner of ‘lethal’ ordinance.  Soda.  Beer.  Water, in those earth destroying plastic bottles, paid for with a plastic card, slid through a device made of plastic, carried home in plastic shopping bags and yes…that fridge door modification is made of plastic.

And we all know how dangerous plastic is, and soda, and drunk driving, and yes that is beer.  And beer leads to all kinds of bad decisions including those of the relationship variety, which put a massive strain on the arc of our health care existence, and require the state to force everyone to fund contraception, and easy-outs for unwanted pregnancies, even if they need to violate religious freedoms to do it, because sluts vote before or after the beer (wine, hard lemonade, shots, or fruity drinks) and wake up hung over and bleary-eyed next to a Republican (Lord help us) with a little “RINO” in the oven.

If left to its own devices that little treasure will grow up and go to public a public school where no one but criminals will be allowed to carry firearms even if the Democrats manage to convince the other bobble-heads to ban assault weapons or any other sort, because the very nature of law breakers is to engage in the act or acts of breaking laws of which gun bans are but one.

And while some folks are nodding their own heads as the pols and talking heads banter on ad -nauseam for the immediate regulation of “firearms” they can neither identify, quantify, or describe, and whose use is less a threat than that claimed for obesity (evil soda) and alcohol (ruins families, friends, property, people, and lives), when the winds of crisis governance are blowing a different direction,  my refrigerator is as likely a candidate for further legislative oversight and regulation as anything else because it is not really about assault weapons or soda or even children.

If Democrats and liberals really cared about children they’d be against abortion which kills children.

This is about growing government and centralizing power and we have to excuse them their furrowed brows and chest pounding diatribes because this is a regulatory crime of passion and no one should be held responsible for what they do under such duress.

Not the best way to run a government.  But it is a great way to lose control of one.

So while my fridge magazine is fully loaded today, and my choice of ordinance is still up to me, the left has already made it known that they do not approve, and are simply waiting for a convenient Kodak moment of crisis to dramatize for the sole purpose of advancing the regulatory state, which they will then (by the way) insist that you pay for, no matter how far fetched their social math might be.

And even though the war against women would be better met by women less likely to have to ask what they would do if impregnated as a result or rape or incest, because an armed woman is much less likely to find herself a casualty of that front in the war, the left will insist that they make themselves victims because of real tragedies amplified to advance an anti gun agenda rather than to promote an agenda of self defense.

Have you noticed that these lunatics always end their assaults the minute someone arrives with the ability to apply equal or greater force in defense of life?  Imagine if they suspected for a moment that there were already people in that building able and willing to use equal or greater force in defense of life?

Democrats would be talking about something else, possibly obesity, or contraception, or abortion, maybe even about refrigerators.  But banning firearms would be waiting on the shelf for a suitable tragedy.  One that could only be lessened or prevented if perpetrators could not be guaranteed a force advantage, the same one that the same Democrats hope to give them and then some, if they are allowed to have their way.

So who needs a beer?

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012
Steve Mac Donald has been recognized as the AFP December Blogger of the month

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Obama Eulogy for Inouye…about Obama

obama eulogy for Inouye- all about Obama
Everyone knows the fiscal cliff looks better from Hawaii and why not double down and deliver a eulogy for a recently deceased Democrat senator while you are there?

Better yet, how about making that eulogy all about you?

According to Slate, via Hot Air, that is exactly how it went down.  The commander in chief took the opportunity to comfort friends, family, and associates of Senator Daniel Inouye…through the life of Barack Obama.

And why not?  The entire Obama apparatus exists to present all of time and space through the life of Obama.  Earlier this summer we had the Obama tribute to Neil Armstrong–that was about Obama.  In fact, the only things that are not about Obama are those that might make Obama less perfect–things for which Obama and his courtiers have a manifold of scapegoats.

From Slate on the eulogy filtered through the life of the narcissist in chief…
Someone needs to tell Barack Obama—it must get particularly confusing this time of year—that his own birth is not Year One, the date around which all other events are understood. His much-noted, self-referential tic was on cringe-worthy display Friday when the president gave his eulogy for the late Sen. Daniel Inouye, who served in Congress for half a century representing Obama’s birth state of Hawaii.
Noticing that Mr. Obama observes the world the way he does makes for amusing commentary in this context, and if he were anyone else we could saftely say that no one else would be inviting him to provide similar treatment for any one else, ever.  But this is the President of the United states and his obsession with himself is not limited to speeches about deceased pols.  His leadership and application of power are all centered on Barack Obama.

He won.  It’s all about him, and even though he is only one-leg of the Federal government stool it’s all about what he wants, and how he wants to do it.  This is why there was never going to be a compromise on the fiscal cliff.  It is why Harry Reid will never force Obama to sign a budget or see any bill that Obama cannot sign or veto unless it adds another flattering brush-stroke to the historical picture  of the Obama legacy.

The fact that the media even mentions the narcissist is remarkable in itself seeing as they’ve rode shot-gun the whole trip, taking on or taking out anyone who dare challenge the competence or ability of the man, to quote Charles Krauthammer– “whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies — both about himself.

In that same piece Krauthammer closes with this…
Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama’s modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence — yet not of his own country’s.
And not so much Daniel Inouye either, except through the life and times of Barack Obama
.

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

 Steve Mac Donald has been recognized as the AFP December Blogger of the month

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Obama Campaign Never Paid

dead beat Obama Campaign doesn't pay for local security
According to this editorial, Obama never paid for security or other costs related to his campaign visits in New Hampshire.
In a response to this newspaper and a letter to Portsmouth, Obama campaign officials said they had no role in making security decisions, so the campaign should not be expected to pay. After employing that non-sequiter, the campaign directed local officials to the Secret Service, suggesting that federal taxpayers might help defray the burden placed on local taxpayers.
Remember, these are political campaign events.  As I’ve pointed out before, refusing to pay for these forces local taxpayers to make an in-kind contribution to that campaign to cover the costs of partisan political activity.  It is an argument that makes sense but that in the past was met by Obama supporters who demanded to know why I wasn’t bitching about Romney’s visits.

My response was that I would expect Romney’s campaign, or any campaign, to pay.  As it turns out, when asked to pay they did.
The Mitt Romney campaign was pretty good about paying for security costs for New Hampshire events during the general election. Nashua, Milford and St. Anselm College all billed the campaign, and the campaign paid the tab. The Obama campaign, on the other hand, repeatedly refused to pay.
And what did the Obama campaign say when asked?
Obama campaign officials said they had no role in making security decisions, so the campaign should not be expected to pay….the campaign directed local officials to the Secret Service, suggesting that federal taxpayers might help defray the burden placed on local taxpayers.
Not their problem.  Sound familiar?  Spends trillions of other people’s money, can’t pay their own way.  And it’s not just a problem in New Hampshire.
This is a defining aspect of their characters.  It permeates their politics and their leadership, if we can even call it that.   And it aligns nicely with all the tax-cheats in the Democrat party as well.  And the rank and file do not seem to care.  They just keep making excuses and pulling the lever for them, nodding their heads as their chosen few blame everyone else for what ails us, and…while making sure they never have to pay for any of it.

The point of the UL editorial, if you are interested, was to suggest that local New Hampshire towns put plans in place in advance to bill campaigns for partisan political events before they show up.  That’s a great idea, if for no other reason than that it will encourage the leeches to bleed some other town that is not as forward thinking as yours.  And you wont have to shut down or disrupt daily activities if it’s Obama (or some other cheap-skate president) who has come to town.

Note: I’ve previously suggested that towns should send that bill to the State Democrat Party if Obama won’t pay it.  Let them suffer the embarrasement and then chase Obama for the money.

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012
Steve Mac Donald has been recognized as the AFP December Blogger of the month

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Sober Talk From New Hampshire Democrats on Assault Weapons?

Oh No Guns....and magazines...and ammo
The New Hampshire Union Leader has an editorial out (yesterday morning) that quotes some members of New Hampshire Democrat leadership as tip-toeing around the current wave of rhetoric and discussion on what to do about guns.

Instead, they are asking what are probably important questions about mental health services but I suspect that their interest here is more about using Newtown as a way to grow the state budget…for mental health.  Rolling back the right to self defense is not necessarily the quickest route to more government and it is important to keep your eyes on the prize.

State Senate Democrat Sylvia Larsen, however, is reported as wanting to take a more aggressive approach on guns.  She is all in on an assault on assault weapon and would like to roll back stand your ground laws, and restrict carry rights in the State House.  So perhaps this would be a good time to ask?  Do you wait for the assailant to change clips before you draw your weapon (assuming you are permitted to have it with you) or are you just supposed to run away and hope their aim stinks?

Update: The NH House rules committee, now run by Democrats, predictably banned guns from the House controlled portions of the State House yesterday by a vote of 6-4.   The measure must now go to a floor vote.

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012
Steve Mac Donald has been recognized as the AFP December Blogger of the month

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

NHJournal – Maybe I jumped the Gun On the Importance of Spelling…

I may have been a bit premature when I titled my first Blog “NHJournal – Where Spelling Is More Important Than Integrity.

Just for a refresher, Shawn Millerick thought it would be funny to point out how I left a letter out of his first name and misspelled Pat Hynes last name (My spell checker keeps trying to change it to Haynes by the way).  Typos! -Going for the jugular.  And I pointed out that I could fix the typos but that his lying to his readers, for what I can only assume was as a favor to the NH-GOP political establishment power-brokers, might not be so easy to fix.  (And if he just did it for kicks and not the GOP would that be better or worse?)

While integrity is still an issue (now and forever) it turns out he has some other problems as well, and they are pretty damn funny considering.  Pull quotes from Mr. Millerick’s piece please…
On Tuesday, the New Hampshire chapter of Americans for Prosperity bestowed upon GraniteGrok’s Steve MacDonald the lofty title of ‘Blogger of the Month.’
Actually, the news release is dated the 17th, which was Monday, not Tuesday.  Calendars were invented before 1925, right?  It’s also a national award from AFPhq, reported through the New Hampshire chapter if you must know.

And I did mention spelling…
That said, it also seems like we should note who Steve Macdonald keeps company with. It’s really just best to let their words for speak for themselves.
You spelled it MacDonald earlier (a few times) and you spell it Macdonald here.  Which is it?  I don’t care but if you are going to throw stones…and in the very article in which you throw them?  Sad.

More? OK!
Referring to professional women as ‘skirts’ has become something of a trend among MacDonand and his fellow ‘Grokers.
Nitpicking…it’s Groksters not Grokers (unless you are being clever in which case Bravo!).  And in this sentence you spell my last name MacDonand. (The “l” is up and to the right of the ‘n,’ but then a wordsmith like yourself would already know that.)

One more point.  Thanks for inviting me back to your sandbox.  So far it’s been great fun.

(And yeah.  I saved a copy of the web page for posterity.)

Update:  Will Millerick correct these embarrassing errors more quickly than he wrote a retraction for his fabricated story about a meeting with Jack Kimball, Skip Murphy, Joe Barton, Diane Bitter,… and maybe Santa Clause and Bigfoot, I can’t recall exactly?  Wait.  Did he write a retraction yet?

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012
Steve Mac Donald has been recognized as the AFP December Blogger of the month

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

NHJournal – Where Spelling Is More Important Than Integrity (Part I of II)

have to admit that Shawn Millerick got me good when he said I couldn’t spell.  Actually the problem is that I am not terribly adept at typing and I try to squeeze out posts before work and after the kids go to bed.  I’m not always thorough.  But on a positive note, I don’t make up meetings out of thin air to smear my political opponents.

Millerick would also like you to believe that I am insulting a female candidate (Jennifer Horn) when I use the word pimping.   I apologize if I was unclear.  I’m actually insulting him, NHJournal, and whoever it is in the GOP establishment that is yanking his pull string.

They are the ones who cleared the deck in the Chairman’s race and then had Millerick take a cheap shot at the Tea Party side of the GOP with the faux-Kimball-meeting post.  Horn is just the newest chess piece in a game we played with the same so-called Republicans just two short years ago.

By the way, I’d like to commend Millerick on his choice of attack material.  The only other person in my memory to make similar accusations was Harrell Kirstein, in a press release for the New Hampshire Democrat Party.   I threw him under the bus and he left me alone after that.

Shawn!  Just to be clear I didn’t actually throw Harrell under an actual bus.

I do not expect to be as fortunate here but whatever happens let us not skirt the real issue.  I can go back and fix my spelling errors (which I did–my grammar is hopeless so forget that). And AFP can do whatever they want because I don’t work for them and I’ll keep blogging about what interests me whether I am Blogger of the month or not.  But can Millerick and NHJournal go back and undo the fact that they lied to their readers for what appears to be a political favor to GOP power brokers?  And how can anyone ever trust anything they put in print again given this compete lack of integrity?

Wait! Don’t pay any attention to that. I misspelled Shawn and Hynes and used the word pimp.  Now that’s important stuff.

 

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012
Steve Mac Donald has been recognized as the AFP December Blogger of the month

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

A Conservative Solution to The Public School Lunch Circular Firing Squad

Federal mandates made school lunches cost more and forced foods into them most kids don’t care for so the Derry School District Lunch program is pondering why overall receipts are down.
“The food service numbers are significantly less on student sales,” Simard said. She said the food services department is still working to determine the cause and whether it is the result of new meal plans and food choices required under state and federal reimbursement guidelines.
She knows why, she is just being diplomatic.  The Feds have made lunch cost more.  They have made the cost of providing lunch cost more.  They have simultaneously required foods that a majority of the target hot lunch customer base does not enjoy while making foods they do less accessible or unavailable.  The end result is more cost for less benefit.

This particular reporting in Derry NH (NH Union Leader) tells the same sad tale.

“There’s quite a bit of waste.”

To get reimbursed the district must sell a full meal which includes things many students will not eat.

The district has to wait to get reimbursed.

The district can get additional reimbursements if they comply with USDA guidelines…“We are trying to comply with the program so we can generate the additional revenue.
So follow me here.  One set of bureaucrats imposes guidelines that make meals cost more, composed of things kids wont eat, so that local bureaucrats can chase revenue that they have to wait for, all because someone in a far away place, wanted to put “I fixed school lunches” on their political resume.

But they didn’t fix them.  They broke them.

So here’s an idea.  I know, it’s crazy.  Fire all those people.  Eliminate all those mandates and reimbursements, and the bureaucrats needed to write, impose, and manage them.   Instead, let local district food service managers create meal plans with foods their kids will buy and may actually eat, at prices they might be willing to pay, in relation to the actual cost required to deliver them, because they were not artificially inflated by the bureaucrats we no longer need, or include foods that cost too much–but that bureaucrats require–that no one wants, and will only get thrown out.

Is this too simple?

This is, by the way, an example of what I mean when I say we need “small government” and “local control.”

If I only said that the USDA school lunch program is a waste of taxpayer dollars and would be better manged without the Feds in the middle, more than a few Democrats might see that as an opportunity to suggest that I want to make kids go hungry or end funding for free or supplemental lunches.   They say the same thing when you declare that the 72 billion we spend annually on the department of education is a waste–which it is.)  But they are not even close.  What we are doing now, thanks to the feds, is spending more, wasting more, and leaving kids hungry.

What I have outlined is Conservative thinking at its finest.  It saves everyone money and frustration.  My plan empowers local people to make local decisions at a fraction of the cost, with a fraction of the waste, with price points that might well make hot lunch affordable to a wider range of kids, reducing the cost of free or supplemental lunches, freeing up local revenue to pay for kids who actually need free lunches, that may end up inside stomachs instead of trash barrels,  leading to less waste and less hunger, more fed and attentive students, and millions less wasted on a tangle of pointless paper-pushers and man hours exhausted on chasing down reimbursements or cataloging what ended up in the waste bin.  It also places the decision making process as close to the people affected as possible.

People who can make decisions about who in their community actually needs help and how best to provide it.

And by the way, what good is a free lunch no kid wants to eat?

The Conservative position is that local residents know best whom to elect and to appoint, who is most qualified to then hire competent local mangers, who can then run their local school lunch programs effectively, without the need for leviathan government standing over them.  The goal is to provide a decent, affordable meal kids will eat so they are not distracted by hunger, and to provide adequate compensation to those we have empowered to that end.

The alternative (the bizarro world version of how to deliver a lunch) is what we have now.  Federal mandates that strangle everyone, drive up prices, and increase the cost of running a program that provides food no one wants, in exchange for wasting even more of our program mangers time, chasing down the chimera of “reimbursements” to cover costs that only exist because of the mandates themselves.

Remove all of that and people are paying for food they want at a price they agree to, that covers the cost to provide it, without any additional transactions outside the place in which the product and service were provided.

Cost effective, local control, that is limited to only that which is required to achieve the desired goal.  That is a conservative ideal.  It is sometimes (also) a Republican idea.  And let’s be perfectly honest–it is a common sense idea that eliminates all the problems and spends less doing it.

School lunches are getting more expensive.  We are seeing fewer people buying them and those that do waste much of what they pay for.  Kids are going hungry.  Administrators are being forced to waste time and money chasing paperwork.  And it will only get worse.  How is any of that good for our kids?

I would encourage New Hampshire legislators, including Democrats,  to craft legislation that excludes us from this federal bureaucratic maze of nonsense and that returns local control to districts, school lunch managers, and the parents they all answer to.  The end result would be local control, more affordable choices, decent food kids and parents are willing to pay for, and less wasted time and effort.

The left likes to talk about sensible bi-partisan solutions that solve problems.  Here you go.  Have at it.

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Jeanne Shaheen Wants to Ban Guns

Tragedy always attracts a parade of progressive mountebanks, anxious to peddle their faulty wares as cures for what ails us, and US Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D- Utopia) is no different.  In response to the heinous criminal acts perpetrated in Newtown, Connecticut she observed that
“We need a comprehensive approach that includes improving access to mental health services, better enforcement of our current laws, and we need to get deadly assault weapons off our streets.”
Whatever you do, do not ask Senator Shaheen to describe an ‘Assault weapon’ because I am reasonably certain her talking points palm card did not include that.

The term “Assault weapon” is a lot like the term ‘Social Justice.’   It gets tossed around all the time, flowing seamlessly and with conviction from the mouths of  progressives.  And utopia looks damn good through those talking points glasses as long as you don’t ask them to define “Social Justice” or “Assault Weapons” for you.

If Webster were to transcribe what follows, directly into the pages of the dictionary, there would be more than a few ‘uh’ ‘um’ ‘like’ ‘err’s’ cluttering up the column inches.  And that’s the way the agenda-driven flying narrative monkeys like it.  It’s all about feelings.  “I’ll know love when I find it” is a lot like “I’ll know an assault weapon when I hear it,” or more accurately–what they really mean is that they’ll ban as many as they can until they can ban more.  That’s just how they roll.

So when “No-Maching-Gun” Jeanne Shaheen says get deadly assault weapons off the streets, we know that what she is really after is all the guns because lets be honest…a criminal with any weapon who is engaging in assault is using an assault weapon, and when a deranged coward enters an elementary school intent on killing, almost any firearm will do the job if they are deranged enough and no one is permitted access to equal or greater force in defense of themselves or others.

Jeanne Shaheen can phrase it however she wants but what she wants is to ban guns.  We know she does, even coming from New Hampshire,  because she is all-in on every other left wing, ding-bat, tin-foil-hat idea the left has ever come up with (except corn-ethanol but that is only because she wants to redirect that subsidy-infused-political-power into Jeanne-Shaheen-Shazam-Isis-Power-Hour” BAM! look at all the federal money I got Y’all for wood-chip ethanol” subsidies instead) so we know she wants to get all the guns off the streets.
Who cares if these guns (used in Newtown) did not come from “the streets” (another clue about what Jeanne really wants).  And ‘assault weapons,’ like social justice, (or ‘streets) means whatever it needs to mean to accomplish whatever goal it is the speaker intends.

Here’s another not so secret truth.  A murderous lunatic, who wants to kill and is willing to steal firearms, can and will steal almost any firearm.  And they will then use that force advantage in a place where they are least likely to meet resistance.   You don’t need the word ‘assault’ to ruin the lives of families when the object of your rage is an elementary school.  Or a unarmed university campus.  One with a sign.

Yes, Liberals put up signs.  They advertise.  Hey–no guns allowed, which means people who abide by the law will not enter the area armed.  Murders, mass murders in particular, are not always as inclined to follow the law to begin with and hey, thanks for advertising the best places to exercise a lethal force advantage of legislated proportion.
So unless your goal is to disarm everyone, leaving the murderous lunatics with the overwhelming force advantage everywhere, and anywhere they choose to exercise it, with whatever weapons they can find–because law breakers don’t give a damn what you ban or why–nothing you say is either honest or beneficial to the society you claim to steward.  Such is the mystery that is Jeanne Shaheen, US Senator from New Hampshire.

New Hampshire.  Yes let’s talk about that for a moment.

New Hampshire is consistently one of the safest states in the nation.  We have a great quality of life, low crime, low poverty, very healthy citizens, and a large number of them are walking around armed with what Jeanne Shaheen might call assault weapons.  Concealed “assault weapons.” And that is why we are consistently one of the safest places to live in the nation.  At any given moment there may be one or dozens of law abiding citizens who are armed, trained, and prepared to defend life and property, even when it is not their own.
Despite that Jeanne Shaheen would like to use the power of the police state to limit self-defense everywhere her bony progressive hands can reach.  So it behooves us to inquire on such matters now that she has told us her intentions.   So ask the Senator, “what do you mean by assault weapons?”

What firearms would not be covered by your restriction, and therefore be deemed–by you–as more suitable for the public to defend themselves?”    (As an aside: Should this class of weapons from this day forward be referred to sub-shaheen guns?)

Or if you prefer… “Do you think law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves with firearms at all, and if yes, which ones?”

If someone broke in and stole those ‘Senator Shaheen Approved’ weapons (the sub-shaheen Guns), then used them to commit a murder or mass murder, how would that reflect on your position, or your qualifications to make such judgements?  Would the next step be to ban sub-shaheen guns as well?”

And there are plenty more questions we could or should ask but I’ll end with this: ‘After you’ve disarmed us, if someone should happen to walk into a room and start illegally discharging an approved or unapproved fire-arm at the people there, what would you suggest we do before or until we are shot or killed?”

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Is The NH House Ready for More Darth Norelli?

Democrat NH House speaker Norelli - Darth Norelli

Alternate title: May the Farce be with you!

Lord Vader brooked no failure and punishment was swift and final. New Hampshire Democrat  Terie Norelli, as either Majority or Minority leader, has never been one to tolerate dissent either.  And while she’s not (to our knowledge) ever strangled anyone with the force, she has strangled their careers, used inter-caucus bullying and intimidation to bring them around or shut them down, ignored their ideas, refused to teach them, and even driven them from office…and that’s just the Democrats.

So anyone who ever thought Democrat leadership–all the way up to Maggie Hassan–was serious about this “can’t we all get along” here’s a smile and a coke crap the minute the microphones are turned off, has another thing coming.

Inside sources report that Norelli has already begun punishing Democrats who voted against her for speaker, removing them from committees and replacing them with people who don’t even want to serve in those seats.

I’ve got stories about Democrat reps who voted their conscience, and not that of Darth Norelli, and found themselves the object of caucus ridicule and intimidation; they were threatened with or lost seat assignments, parking spaces,  the latter while Norelli was minority leader.

When Lady Sith was speaker in previous sessions, Democrat reps have complained about being ignored by leadership, treated like outcasts if they tried to represent their own district and not just the lefty leadership agenda, and even run out of office.

Sound familiar?

Herding 400 House cats is not easy but it is part of what keeps New Hampshire more free.  So yeah, there is going to be some aggressive movement from leadership to try and get things done.  There are always going to be disagreements, hurt feelings, and conflict.  But  it takes a Democrat to pretend they didn’t do as much or worse, or that they’ll change their stripes if they coo and cuddle and spin some magic phrases.

The next two years will be not much different than any other under Norelli’s heel.  But the irony of it all is this.  The only safe place to be under Darth Norelli’s leadership…is probably in the Republican Caucus.


Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment