New Hampshire Democrat Party Ad – Mostly False…According to Politifact

Posted on July 24, 2012 by Steve Mac Donald
by Steve MacDonald

Let me state upfront that most ‘Fact-checkers,’ those of leftish media entities in particular, are not much different than so-called ‘non-partisan’ groups set up by Democrats.  They exist to mislead people by reinforcing a progressive narrative.  So I provide these observations about this report with a large grain of salt, even though ( in this case) it tends to favor my potions on the issues presented.

PolitiFact has awarded a recent New Hampshire Democrat Party Ad with the distinction of being ‘Mostly False.‘  This would be important if not for the fact that almost everything Democrats actually believe is false to begin with, but let’s play along and see why, in this case, “mostly” proves both PolitiFact and myself correct.

The Mostly False declaration matters because the actions of the Republican Majority and of even Speaker O’Brien himself, do not at all match the narrative being hoisted by Ray Buckley and his merry band of income plunderers at the New Hampshire Debt-o-Crat Party.

“Bill O’Brien’s Tea Party legislature tried to repeal kindergarten and compulsory education,”
Members of the House Education committee, made up of 13 Republicans and four Democrats, recommended killing the bill with a 12-3 vote, and once it reached the House floor Feb. 23, 2011, representatives voted 213-134 to shoot it down, including 126 of 260 Republicans who voted against the bill.
There is actually more evidence that the “anti-gay marriage bigots” in the New Hampshire Democrat Legislature denied gay couples their so-called “right” to marriage.  That’s a fact.  Gay Marrigre failed in the Democrat Majority NH House.  Only on the second vote, after a number of “Democrats” were “convinced” to not vote against it–by not voting at all, and a few more were strong armed into voting for it, did it finally pass.
In its original form, H.B. 542 included provisions proposing to repeal attendance requirements in public schools. But, that proposal drew heavy criticism and the House Education committee amended the bill to focus on objectionable material in the classroom.
So the bill the house passed…
As it stands now, … makes no mention of compulsory education or attendance requirements.
The legislative process, controlled by Republicans, produced a Bill that has nothing to do with the attack being  made and yet New Hampshire Democrats are still making it.  Why?

“The Planned Parenthood part of the claim may be closer to the truth.”

There was a bill to stop taxpayer money from going to Planned Parenthood.  I agree with this.  Planned Parenthood does not need the money and by not providing it we have protected the right of conscientious objection.  There can be no conflict if there is no public money.  People who disagree are more than welcome to donate all the private money they want to Planned Parenthood.  I would call this a “Choice.”

The fact check states that the original bill was doomed in committee.  Only after a compromise amendment did the “TEA party” controlled legislature find reason to support it.
On Jan. 18, 2012, the House approved the amendment, which proposed to allow hospitals to use public dollars to fund emergency abortions, and the full House reversed the committee’s recommendation and passed the bill by a 207-147 vote.
The Republican Super-Majority Senate (probably also TEA Party to the left when it needs to be?) set it aside  to die a quiet death.  So yes, the legislature tried to make a case for stopping the flow of taxpayer dollars–which might better be spent on other priories–to a business that does not need them.  I’d like to see the Democrats who claim we need different spending priorities to defend giving taxpayer dollars to an organization that does not even need them instead of using them for other more pressing local priorities.

 Eliminate Insurance Coverage for Birth Control

Democrats think that you should pay for other peoples birth control so why not insist you or your employer provide similar coverage to pay for it even if it could make your premiums higher (tax by mandate), regardless of any objections you might have to just having to pay more.
H.B. 1546, the bill referenced in the ad, didn’t start as a birth control proposal. Initially, it intended to re-codify laws relating to religious groups, including membership, donation and corporate powers. But, after O’Brien and several other House Republicans reworked it, the bill provided an exemption for groups with religious objections from providing insurance coverage for birth control and contraception.
I would like Democrats to defend their position here, because Democrats talk about rights the way gangsters talk about rights.  If they want it, they have a right to it.  Gangsters use intimidation and illegal  threats of force against your life and property to get their way.  Democrats use intimidation  to codify threats of force against life and property into law, to get their way.  When that doesn’t work they try to find an unelected judge to declare in their favor, and whenever possible legislate from the bench in violation of separation of powers and the Federal and State Constitutions.

In this instance, the bill became a defense of a religious right of conscience.  The TEA Party and Speaker O’Brien want people who have a religious objection to contraception, to not be forced by law to pay for that coverage.   The New Hampshire Democrat Party is claiming that Republicans  want to eliminate insurance coverage for birth control.

PolitiFact calls this mostly false.  I call it an opportunity to ask why New Hampshire Democrats want to use the police power of the state to force people to do things in opposition to their religious beliefs?  And why are they misleading voters and willing to lie to them to get their votes?
Not just once, but repeatedly.


Steve Mac Donald

Blogger/Editor- GraniteGrok.com 
email: steve@granitegrok.com

Twitter – @nhstevemacd
Facebook.com/nh.steve

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Endorsement: Andy Sanborn for New Hampshire State Senate District 9

Posted on July 19, 2012 by Steve Mac Donald
by Steve MacDonald

Andy Sanborn - Candidate NH Senate Distric t#9
Thre are fundamental problems with the way the New Hampshire government conducts its business, from the glut of agencies, the redundancy, inefficiency that has grown over the years, and the inability to coordinate information that was built into the system, not out of forethought or malice, but simply because that is how disparate empires grow when left unattended for too long.

The result is millions, hundreds of millions, perhaps even a billion dollars in waste annually that could be better spent, if not used to relieve any of the scores of business taxes that like inefficient government, chew up resources that could be used on more important things like jobs and people.  It would also simplify the way taxpayers and citizens interact with their government, freeing up hundreds or thousands of wasted man hours annually for both taxpayers and State employees, a sum whose savings are (for me at least) incalculable.

More efficient government, reducing waste, and making it more convenient and user friendly, are ideas embraced by almost everyone but not everyone has an adequate grasp of the problem, a plan for improving it, or is even qualified to lead the reform movement.

I believe that  Andy Sanborn from Bedford, New Hampshire, aside from being a solid Republican and an advocate for conservative and pro-liberty interests, is one of the few people with experience in elected government who has the skills, knowledge and experience necessary to help lead the effort to reform our administrative state.

In tough economic times it is essential that you seek solutions that will not raise the cost burden of government, while maintaining those few but necessary state jobs and programs that attend to essential services and to those truly in need.  Serious and even sweeping administrative reform provides a potential gold mine of long term sustained savings from inside the existing state budget, but you need the knowledge, and the will to not just tackle the problem but to take point.

Given  his unique skill-set toward that end and a continued commitment to a less intrusive unelected administrative state, one that is less of a burden on the rights and freedoms of taxpayers and business owners alike, I am endorsing Andy Sanborn in the Republican Primary in New Hampshire Senate District #9.

Note: This is a personal endorsement.  I do not at present speak for anyone else at GraniteGrok.

Steve Mac Donald


Blogger/Editor- GraniteGrok.com 
email: steve@granitegrok.com

Twitter – @nhstevemacd
Facebook.com/nh.steve

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Democrat NH House Rep Cindy Rosenwald – About That 800 Million Dollar Deficit

Posted on July 18, 2012 by Steve Mac Donald

Nashua Democrat House Rep Cindy Rosenwald (Fiance Committee) recently penned an op/ed entitled ‘The 800 Million Budget Deficit Myth, in which she attempted to demonstrate that that evil rumor about Democrats leaving a huge hole in the State budget were not true.

Rosenwald’s entire premise turned on the fact that the State has to balance it’s budget so how could there be a deficit?  But then she tries to explain it and things go horribly wrong.
[so] how did the Republicans turn the reality of the Democratic surplus into the myth of the Democratic deficit? Well, the answer lies in the additional federal stimulus money that flowed into New Hampshire for two and a half years through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  This extra money, $802 million in total, helped maintain essential safety net programs for vulnerable residents hit hard by the recession. The federal money was one-time assistance. The Democratic majority knew all along it would not continue, and that budget cuts would have to be made during the following biennium so that there would not be a deficit.
Wait a minute?  You said the 800 million dollar deficit was a myth.  Then you admit that democrats needed $802 million in one time money the state did not have to pay for their spending.  Then you say the Democrat majority knew that budget cuts would have to be made during the following biennium so that there would not be a deficit.  Not be a deficit. Not be a deficit?

So…..If Democrats knew there was going to be an 800 million dollar deficit how can the 800 million dollar deficit be a myth?

And if Democrats knew we would have to cut (because of the 802 million in one time money), to make sure there would be no deficit, why did Democrats freak out when Republicans cut that spending so there wouldn’t be a deficit just like you claim Democrats wanted?

Now might be a good time to quickly revisit the NH Democrat Parties spending history of which Cindy (as a Democrat House rep) was an integral part, because that “helped maintain essential safety net programs for vulnerable residents hit hard by the recession,” that’s only remotely true if you understand why they NH Democrats needed the money in the first place.

Prior to January 2007, the New Hampshire’s State Budget was just over 9 billion.  The State budget Republicans inherited when they won the legislature back four years later was 11.5 billion.  So Democrats, when given complete unrestricted stewardship of the budget and a Democrat governor willing to sign off on it, ballooned the cost of your state government by 17.5% in the first biennium (before the fiscal crisis) and by as much as 25% over four years, without any consideration for how to pay for it before hand–unless they had something else in mind all along.

So to put that in perspective, it took 219 years (2628 months) to get the New Hampshire budget to just over 9 billion dollars a year.  New Hampshire Democrats added 2.5 Billion to that in just 48 months.  And Democrats had been warned in 2006 that business revenue estimates had probably peaked.  Despite that the Democrats piled on new spending.

Democrat leadership was quoted as saying things like “It makes sense to know how much you’re spending before you decide how much money to raise,” And “look to the sky when you do revenue estimates because we need the money.”  And still, Cindy would like us to believe that the Democrat Leadership knew there would be a Democrat driven deficit in the following 2011-2012 budget and that Democrats were prepared to cut the budget to close the gap.  So the deficit can’t possibly be a myth, can it Cindy?

You want to know what the real “myth” in Cindy’s story is?  The myth is that Democrats were ever planning to cut the budget.  The myth is that Democrats were responsible stewards of the peoples money.

The facts are clear as day.  New Hampshire Democrats needed the one-time money because they had over-spent, added over 100 new fees and taxes,  had crammed down pension costs to towns and cities, had raised the rooms and meals tax–and were trying to denying local municipalities their existing share of Rooms and meals revenue, all because they couldn’t balance the budget…and STILL needed another 800 million to hide the massive hole they had created.  The people of New Hampshire had finally rejected their tax and spend agenda.  They could not do what they wanted to do–raise even more taxes.

The Democrats began losing a handle on things well before the November 2010 wipe out.  Taxpayers were in revolt.   Democrats had to cut their own bloated budget, layoff state employees, and find new fiscal hoops to jump though to satisfy state law, which demanded the budget be balanced.

And Democrats never planned to cut anything.  No one adds a hundred taxes and fees, and then tries to pass a new broad based business tax with the intent of cutting spending.

They were planning to stay in power.  And the plan was to blame the economy and the wealthy, and greedy business owners, and then insist that the only possible way, the only “fair way” to close the large structural ‘deficit’ they had intentionally made a feature of every future budget, would be to institute on a broad based sales or income tax.  They would even promise tax relief in other places to sell the lie, but just like every other coven of leftist tax and spenders, it wold never quite work out that way, because it never does.

But that all fell apart.   Without one-time Federal money New Hampshire Democrats would have never even come close to balancing their last budget.  And without recurring one-time money or any plan to pay for the spending they left us with, there was a structural imbalance of at least 800 million more than we were ever going to take in without either raising taxes or cutting spending.  It actually worked out to be closer to 1.2 billion, but whose really counting.  Certainly not the John Lynch or the Democrats.

So Republicans cut spending, which according to Cindy, is what the Democrats had planned all along.

So maybe in her next op/ed Democrat Cindy Rosenwald will explain why the left lost their minds when Republicans did what Democrats–Cindy included–had planned all along?  To cut spending to eliminate the Democrats 800 million dollar structural shortfall.  Or is she lying about that?  Were they really just planning to raise more taxes?  Looking at the Democrat’s history you ought to be able to figure that out for yourself.

(NH Financial report ending June 2006, just so we all know how things were before the Democrats took complete control.)

Steve Mac Donald
Blogger/Editor- GraniteGrok.com 

email: steve@granitegrok.com

Twitter – @nhstevemacd
Facebook.com/nh.steve

Posted in Democrats | Leave a comment

NH Republicans v. NH Democrats – ‘Simplified.’ ((Tag: New Hampshire, Republican, Democrat, Taxes)

Posted on July 18, 2012 by Steve Mac Donald

How to pick pockets- A guide to Governing as a NH Democrat
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.

Now the Democrats will say that this kind of thinking will hurt the “least fortunate among us.”   I suppose it might do that, but what if it makes you less fortunate in the process?   Democrats will tell you that this won’t happen but how do you know they’re not just saying that so they can take your money?   We know for a fact that they want to raise taxes.  All kinds of taxes that affect everyone.
They want your money.

But who is really better equipped to make decisions about your money, you or Democrats in Concord?   I think you are better equipped, and I think most Republicans would agree that you are not only smarter about your money than the Democrats, but that you are more caring than any faceless government and will give or do what you can to help causes you believe in, causes without political agendas, and all without the need for any costly regulations or expensive bureaucrats who just make your donations worth that much less before they ever reach those so-called ‘least fortunate among us.’

So it really is that simple.  Vote for New Hampshire Republicans and you keep more of your money; you can save it, invest it, donate it or spend it on what is important to you, your family, and your community.  Vote for New Hampshire Democrats and they will write laws–lots of them if history is any guide–to pry as much money away from you as they can, so that they can spend it on what is important to them.
So when it comes to your money is it about what is important to you, the person who earned it, or what is more important to them, Democrats who are trying to take it from you?

All that other stuff, the politics,… that is just noise so you wont see them passing laws that make it legal for them to pick your pockets.

Steve Mac Donald

Blogger/Editor- GraniteGrok.com 
email: steve@granitegrok.com

Twitter – @nhstevemacd
Facebook.com/nh.steve

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

No Time To Cross Post – But You can Get Caught Up Here!

Posted on July 9, 2012 by Steve Mac Donald
I’ve been Busy since my trip to RightOnline in June though you wouldn’t know it to look here.

There just haven’t been enough hours in the day to get all the content cross-posted so please feel free to visit GraniteGrok.com, where everything posts first, and go here to see everything I’ve written in the intervening weeks.

And thank you for reading.

Steve Mac Donald

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Evil Energy Speculators

Posted on June 4, 2012 by Steve Mac Donald

by Steve MacDonald

Thanks to commenter JackL for the reminder; that Jeanne “no oversight” Shaheen, Barack ‘Boondoggle’ FauxBama and the Democrats have always relied on the lie that rising energy prices were the result of “Evil Oil Speculators.”

Evil Speculators…speculators…

Isn’t what Mr. Obama, Secretary Chu, and Senate Energy Committee maven Greene Jeanne Shaheen have done, energy speculation?  Aren’t they energy speculators?  What else do you call investing tens of billions in the future value of green energy?  It’s energy speculation.

Well how is that working out so far?

The Evil oil speculators risk their money on the price of something that goes up and down, but to its credit, actually produces energy we can use and even at its highest price, was still significantly cheaper than any of the green alternatives.

The Evil Green Energy Speculators (Obama, Greene Shaheen, etc.) risked tens of billions in taxpayers dollars (not their own money), during a recession, on extremely expensive, inefficient, limited use technology, made by poorly run companies with close ties to the political party and President who pushed the ‘investment,’ most or all of whom have now spent our money, collapsed, or filed for bankruptcy.

What the Democrats have done is, without a doubt, energy speculation.  But from where I sit, only one of them is actually evil.

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Ask Jeanne Shaheen – Where’s The Oversight?

Posted on June 4, 2012 by Steve Mac Donald

by Steve MacDonald

According to this video (from Obama Isn’t Working.com) Mr. Obama has blown through $16 billion ($16,000,000,000.00) on public equity green energy gambles that have cost jobs and lost our money, much of it to Big Obama donors, and cronies.

So here’s a question?  New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen cut her teeth in her first Senate race by raging about taxpayer hand outs to big oil.  These “Handout’s,” as it turns out, were actually incentives that reduced how much of those Oil companies legal profits would be taxed.  Less taxes on the oil companies money, not handing them billions of our money.  Most people don’t know the difference, they just see the spin.

So how does that compare to Mr. Obama and his Department of Energy giving direct grants and loans (of our money),  totaling tens of billions, to companies that are all going bankrupt or out of business?  (No Spin.)  Does it make a difference that Senator Shaheen is a huge supporter of Green energy boondoggles, sits on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, as well as three Energy Subcommittees on Energy, Public Lands and Forests, and Water and Power, who would presumably have some interest in how that money is being wasted?
Where is the legislative oversight Senator Shaheen?  We are out 16 Billion (so far), and I can’t recall hearing a peep out of you about that.

Posted in Energy | Leave a comment

World Premiere of “Hating Breitbart” @

Posted on May 29, 2012 by Steve Mac Donald

World Premiere of “Hating Breitbart” @RightOnline see it June 15th #RO12 http://ow.ly/be7cp

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

And You Were Worried About Bag Fees?

Posted on May 29, 2012 by Steve Mac Donald

by Steve MacDonald


A woman was kicked off a plane for wearing a shirt that read, “If I wanted the Government in My Womb I’d F*** a Senator.”

There are plenty of things wrong with this. First, it assumes that the Senator in question would be both male and adequately equipped to achieve the implied destination.  While many Senators, regardless of gender, could be considered big (you know) as an insult, that does not automatically translate to human anatomy.  In fact, if the goat-entrails of the anecdotal collective consciousness are correct, the bigger the (you know) insult, the smaller the real thing actually is.

Senators also tend to lack ba**s, so this seems like an accurate analysis.  Viability of the “swim team” is a matter of detail we’ll pass on for now, but I will add that Democrat John Edwards “boys” were still swimming when he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife which suggests that the womb is achievable regardless of the size of your…constituency…at least for an Ex-Senator.

We also have here a woman who is not just sexist (Senators in this scenario must be men), but must also be a statist.  Her concept of government interference begins and ends in Washington DC.  Yes, I have to presume that she means a US Senator.  If they were a true believer in Republicanism and State Sovereignty they would have taken the time to add “State” in front of Senator, or more likely would be wearing a shirt on which the word Womb would be replaced with the word Ass.  But this is clearly a woman who would travel all the way to DC to have the “government” interloping in her womb.

Then there’s that whole stay out of my womb sub-culture whose roots come from the EMILY’s List, Planned Parenthood, League of Women Voters, National Organ of Women, all abortion all the time, and while we’re at it, you’d better pay for it groups.  This is pay to play without the play, unless–according to the charming lady in the T-shirt with the word F*** on it–you happen to be a sitting US Senator.  This suggests that this person also promotes or expects Senators to be on the take and that this is the best way to get the government involved in your issue.   The irony of that is too vast to explore at this time so back to the Wombistas.

This is the kind of ignorant thinking that get’s your womb over-regulated by the HHS department of Childless Family Services in unpleasant ways you never imagined–just ask the Chinese.   And the chasm of ignorance  is vast.  The same sort that wears T-shirts with the words F*** and” my womb” on them, who are not a porn star (though they could be), are the same voting sluts that demand the government act as their prevention pimps at taxpayer expense.  And there’s the rub.  You can’t demand the government finance anything related to your lady parts and expect them to not take an ongoing interest in their investment.  In fact, that is how the government goes about the business of taking control of things, be they banks, car companies, small businesses, education curriculum’s, highway spending, bike paths, health care systems, or wombs.  A point I just made three weeks ago here.
Before the government can legally take other people’s money and spend it, even if its on traffic in and out of ‘your vagina’ they have to pass a law.  You need a law to support taxpayer funded abortion, a law for taxpayer funded contraception, and other laws for whatever else it is about your vagina that constitutes “women’s health” and “human rights.” So you should be finding new places in your vagina for more laws not less.   And not to scare “Don’t Tread on my Uterus” but every law requires scores of bureaucrats to write relevant rules and manage the regulations, implement them, and even enforce them, which will turn your vagina into a Law library and result in a uterus that has not only been thoroughly trampled on but will need to lease out space for the ever-expanding bureaucracy.
The Senator is just a facilitator.  He’s not even going to call you after, except perhaps for a cash donation to his re-erection campaign. (That was intentional).  And not that you’ll listen but if you don’t want the ‘Government’ in your womb, stop inviting them in.  They are like vampires.  Say yes once and they keep coming back until they’ve sucked you dry.

So should they have kicked someone this ignorant off the plane for the words on her T-shirt when, after all, they could have asked her to change it or cover it up?   Yes.  People this confused should not be allowed to fly in the passenger compartment.   We should treat them like the fruit or exotic animals people try to sneak in from foreign countries.  The risk of a disease spreading like wildfire after landing could incapacitate the entire nation for years.  Crap.  Too late.  That’s what happened in 2008.

Well, think of it as containment then.  No point letting things get worse.  We’ve actually go a shot at starting to turn this death spiral around.  And no, it’s not free political speech to wear those particular words on a T-shirt in public when there are plenty of others that will get the job done; it is just bad manners.


Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Anonymous Allegations?

Posted on May 29, 2012 by Steve Mac Donald

by Steve MacDonald

Concord Monitor is deleting comments to stories about people who comment there on taxpayer time
Over at the Concord Monitor web site, someone going by the name of ItsaRepublic, has been doing some very heavy lifting for GraniteGrok.  They have gone to bat on the investigation of Public Employees who have been using the Monitor’s web site, during office hours, at taxpayer expense.  Not exactly a friendly environment to promote anything we do here, but we appreciate the effort.

And as I have pointed out previously, the Monitor had begun letting those sorts of comments stand (where in the past they had been known to ‘moderate’ them out of existance), and letting the debate take it’s bi-partisan course.   But when it comes to allowing links back to GranitGrok articles on the investigation itself, a CM Moderator has explained why they wont be doing that any time soon…
By CM Moderator – 05/24/2012 – 8:39 am
We do not post links to websites making anonymous allegations against real people. It does not matter whether the site leans to the right or the left.
That’s curious for a few reasons.  First, I’ve seen what the monitor passes off for news.  Enough said?  Second, Anonymous?  Allegations?

I have a real person (Dick de Seve), who happens to be a real State employee (DES), who admitted to posting real comments during real work hours (In an email to me, personally) (see also here), with corroborating evidence (600 comments posted at the real Concord Monitor, with real times and real dates), along with related posts on the real DES and State DoIT policies, and a series of real Right to Know requests and the results of those so far (far too numerous to link all of them here.)

Can we get real, here?

Admitting by name to the act, with substantial evidence, in clear violation of policy, is an “anonymous allegation?”  Talk about a tough room.

Then there’s GAIA, who is still anonymous, but whom the allegations against are not just substantiated (and twice what de Seve managed in a similar time frame), they too reside (in their greater abundance) on the servers of the Concord Monitors web presence.   This is a 30 year New Hampshire State employee, reading-digesting and posting political comments, during office hours, on state equipment, in violation of the state’s DoIT policy, when they are supposed to be doing the people’s business–that’s all the people’s business, whether they lean left or right.

In case this is too difficult for the left to follow.  You look at the comments, and the times and dates posted, and a calendar, and it all sort of comes together like a puzzle.   You know what else will come together rather easily?  I’m going to go back and look to see if either of these folks posted alleged links to other alleged websites, and if there are any anonymous allegations about real people on them which the Concord Monitor allowed.

Sure hope I don’t find any.  Wow, that could be embarrassing. (Good thing I have given them plenty of time to come up with another excuse.)

Not that it matters to the CM but regardless of their opinion of our investigation, we exposed people stealing taxpayer time and got them to stop.  All things being equal–and we know how much the Monitor like’s “Equality”–dozens or even hundreds of state employees of varying degrees of guilt may well have joined them and stopped wasting taxpayer resources on themselves.   We applaud this sudden, if unexpected bout of conscience but we’re not done.  We’ve got a few more on the burner, waiting to boil over, and we’re still looking.  That just might encourage other taxpayer funded folks to stop wasting taxpayers time and money, on taxpayer equipment and networks, whether the Monitor wants to help or not.

Of course the monitor could help.  We wouldn’t mind at all.   They could do their own investigation and help save the taxpayers some money… or try to pretend there’s no problem so we can later embarrass them with things we know already.  But I don’t think they will.   The overall message being promoted by state employees, at taxpayer expense (on their site or any other), is the message of the Concord Monitor.   It’s a left leaning, Democrat Party, tax and spend narrative.   Besides, if every state employee stopped posting at the Concord Monitor, on state equipment, during work hours, their page hits and unique users would probably take a hit so large you’d hear the smacking  all the way up in Pittsburg, NH. (It’s wayyyyy up north.)

Good thing a lefty, pro-socialist, rag like the Concord Monitor doesn’t give a damn about capitalist motivations like web traffic, and page hits, except for that whole capitalist pig pay wall thing, you know… um… well…awkward.  I guess they can always stick with Anonymous allegations schtick.  At least until we find links to them all over their pages.
I’m actually looking forward to that.

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment