The Media’s New Peep Show

Posted on July 29, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

Several in the New Hampshire dead tree press, and their digital protrusions, are jumping on the latest trend in information sharing (or lack of it, actually), the registration wall.  The registration wall is similar to the pay-wall except that you can receive limited access (or metered) content for free, but only up to a point.  It’s the velvet rope that leads to another velvet rope from which you can see through the open door, but no more.  It’s like a peep show. People who want more will have to pony up their PayPal account (or any approved credit-card) for unlimited access.  It’s the front page viewed through the bin.  Drop in some change and you get to see what is inside.

NYT graph -defamer.com.auThis old frontier on the new frontier has or is being embraced by many of New Hampshire’s media ‘titans.’  Before you get to peek they want you to register, give up your email so they can tease you with headlines, and a password; six or more characters, letters and numbers, no tildas or ampersands or pound keys–oh my!  “Sorry that password is already taken.” The goal?  It can’t be traffic or money.

Take a look at the New York times for a clue.  The graph pictured here gives you some idea as to the likely path to failure from a meter based viewing scheme with the option to buy.

Want to see something else startling, look here.

OK.  So it won’t work for one of the worlds most well know left wing rags.  But is local news compelling enough content to attract more people than might already be bothered to purchase the dead tree edition, (or a full boat digital subscription), on a platform that has little if any tolerance for distraction or delay, and trillions of other choices just one caffeinated-energy-drink-A.D.D-twitchy-mouse-click away?

They don’t even have to be better choices.  Five seconds is five seconds too long and a death knell to your life-expectancy as a viable content provider.  I’m wondering if they considered that?  Or how about this?

Will the people doing the most sharing, bloggers and media junkies like us here at the Grok,  offer up a locked box to their readers that asks for some information before they can peek inside? Speaking from experience, I’d say no.   I’m not about to aggravate my readers by linking to something that may only frustrate them.  When was the last time I linked to an article by Pindell?  Never?  It’s not a reflection on his work or it’s quality, by the way.  It’s the nature of the medium.

Hey! Reader!  Go here, fill out a form, maybe drop some scratch, and then check out this piece of news I found!  It’s great.  Just take care of the paperwork, you might be asked to sign up for an annoying newsletter, or a “round up” of some sort, and then you can read what I just told you about…again. 

Our devoted readers might take the time to register for the free stuff, or they may stop taking interest in what we choose to share.  They might even stop taking interest in us.  New readers, the mothers milk of any growing internet foot print, could be turned off entirely.  So rather than aggravate them on a chip shot whim that they are already a registered user at “insert source of content.com,”  I’ll look someplace else myself, or just nab a fair use quote, attribute it, and remark on it.  No link.  No cross traffic.  My free content becomes THE content.

Will a few people follow up and seek the peep show/lock-box source?  A few, but not many.  Mostly people who are already registered or paying for access.  Why? I’ll use the trusted adage of lonely bachelors who refuse to get married. “Why pay for the milk when you can get it for free.”  The internet is too big and too busy to even waste time signing in to an account you bothered to set up, unless you have a vested interest in the source or the content, or are some kind of addict for that content.  And even then, my own interest is diminished. I will be spending less and less time on those pages myself.

So the registration wall, in my opinion, will only turn off readers, much the way the pay-wall has.
The social media universe is grounded on sharing content.  Free content for the most part.  If we in Social Media had commandments, and in some corners we do, Thou Shalt share the content of others, would be near the top of the list.  As much as 60-70% of your content should be shared–as in someone elses stuff.  This allows you to keep a fresh stream of information that not only provides your audience with a broader palette but encourages the content creators you share to share your content with their audience as well.  You share, they share, we all share–and that drives page views.

Multiply that by the number of bloggers and content sharers who pump out information to hundreds of millions of more casual readers every day and the numbers get large very quickly.

I can expect thousands of views every day for things I’ve linked to, written, or commented on.  And on the internet, this is not a large number, unless you are talking about content from a local news source.  I add my thoughts to their news and create something new.  Something that may bring a new or casual reader to their web space.  But if I know a source is less accessible, or in the case of pay walls inaccessible, I won’t link to it.  Ill find another source or I’ll quote it, attribute it, and leave it at that.  There will be no cross traffic. No potential new fan of their site.

And that’s fine.  It is a business decision.  But as someone who produces content for free (as a hobby), I’m not sure I see a future for it.  How does this add page views or new unique visits? I don’t think it does. The registration screens themselves, having to stop to log in to sites I have registered at, is more time than I want to spend to access whatever it is they have to offer.  And if a blogger and news-junkie can’t be bothered, how much further is the average web surfer going to go?

Follow nhstevemacd on Twitter

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Can We Agree On The Value Of Broadband?

Posted on July 25, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

Broadband access to the remote parts of the nation, including New Hampshire, have been a topic of much debate over the years, so whenever major service providers of internet or wireless services start moving the chess pieces around the curious take notice.
The most recent such move is the purchase of T-Mobile by AT&T.  (Would T-Mobile Girlthat make them AT&T&T?) The debate is on whether or not this is good for broadband.  Potential competitors say no, obviously, but most almost everyone else seems to think yes.

T-Mobile seems not to object, which under the application of letting “grown-ups do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else,”  should be good enough for most of us.

At least 26 state governors have noted their approval.  This is a reasonable sample of states to suggest that local governments are not against the idea.

AT&T has promised to expand 4G service into remote rural areas sooner.  We have some of those remote areas here in New Hampshire.

Broadband really is the modern highway of commerce.  It brings growth opportunity and stimulates small business start ups and expansion everywhere it goes, even places less accessible by other means. It has become a way to create or add jobs, and modern business now relies on it.
Expansion of any infrastructure, paid for by private business, is preferable to the taxpayer funded kind; it also creates real jobs supported by consumers using a product they want or need.

And wouldn’t you know, there just happens to be a federal goal to get Broadband to most of the country (98% of all Americans within a few years).   The government’s participation to date, predictably, has been of little or no help. (See Heritage.org here and here and here for starters.) So why not allow a private enterprise to accomplish some or most of that through its own investment, and the pressure it puts on competitors to reach those markets?  It could accomplish that goal in a fraction of the time without bumbling Federal regulators and bad investment decisions by DC power brokers who know nothing of your rural broadband needs or market competition.

Chambers of Commerce, Immigrant Groups, in fact a wide cross section of groups, elected politicians, and organizations like the idea because they believe it will make broadband more accessible, incentive small business growth, create jobs, and expand the economy (which, for the benefit of our liberal friends is a real net revenue increase: more tax revenue realized without spending any taxes–or creating any new ones–in the process.)

And this will sound odd coming from me, but Unions love the idea as well.  Though I do have two points here.  First they love it because T-Mobile is anti-union and AT&T is more union job friendly. That’s fine.  This is a private sector union and if the free market supports those jobs I’m good with that.  But, and this is my second point, we should keep an eye on folks like David Lang of the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire, (Public union) who is getting quoted in PC Mag about it.  Based on his PAC’s donation history he is less concerned with jobs and the economy and more concerned with union power.    Color me amused if we agree here on the larger points at least. The union could kill the deal. I like the potential benefits of the deal so far.

Finally, T-Mobile does not appear to be in a position to move to 4G with purpose so it would get stuck midway in an evolving technology war it can’t win.  That means that be it now or next year, someone will try to buy it merge with it, or pick up the pieces should it collapse.  This merger makes it part of a competitor without the sloppy side-effects.  It incentives competitors to speed up access.  And broadband in general has shown the ability to bring opportunity, growth, and private sector jobs as small business owners take advantage of their ability to interact with the world.
We know the government will just get in the way.  The FCC is in the midst of doing that now.  I say let the market drive the growth and innovation to expand coverage.  Let them fight for customers.  We’ll get to the goal faster and more efficiently, and Uncle Sam?  He can just sit on the porch and enjoy the view.

Follow nhstevemacd on Twitter

 cross posted from http://granitegrok.com

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

GSFTC Member Organization Spotlight -NH Citizens Alliance

Posted on July 23, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

There are a number of groups that the Left wing Granite State ‘Fare’ Tax Coalition highlights on it’s web site.  It’s your typical collection of “non-non-partisan” interests like the State Employes Union of NH (That’s the local SEIU 1984). The AFSC-which is the NH Chapter of a global leftist movement supported by all the nicest left wing foundations.  The League of Women Voters of course.  And there is even a who’s-who of left wing, NH social justice churches and their political arms, all promoting socialist activism and statist policy from the pulpit down to on the ground left wing activism.

Socialism- Making everyone poor...
All of these groups warrant, and will receive, a proper vetting, but today I would like to focus on a special cog in the leftist machine of the so-called non-partisan GSFTC, one that happens to be very active in New Hampshire on its own; the NHCA.  The NHCA is the New Hampshire Citizens Alliance.  (You may remember their executive director, Sarah Chaisson Warner?  She received some unwanted attention after some remarks she made back in March of 2010. See also Here from the NHTPC.) The New Hampshire citizens alliance is…(drum-roll please)

…a statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan organization devoted to social, economic, and political justice.

A Non-partisan organization devoted to social, economic, and political justice?  Too bad that’s just not possible.  There are no right wing groups seeking these ethereal ends.  These are buzz-words, Orwellian constructs, created by statist agenda-driven socialists to mislead people.  So the NHCA couldn’t be “non-partisan” if they tried. But you don’t have to take my word for it.  Just look at who they associate with and what they support. 

In the 2010 election-cycle this “non-partisan” group spent over $15,000.00 in ‘independent expenditures’ to elect Carol Shea-Porter to congress.  That was it.  No one else. Just one left wing democrat.  (Here is the FEC page and their latest Jan 31st 2011 filing.  Note the address and that Sarah Warner is cc;d by the lawyer presenting the filing for the NHCA.)  Note also that everyone was working to elect Carol SEIU-Porter.

For the sake of remaining a non-profit these expenditures were made to pay canvassers and on other indirect expenses but just happen to all be in support of just one left wing democrat for congress. Non-partisan my ass.

And like most left wing/democrat front groups in New Hampshire the NHCA is not the product of local activism but a state affiliate of USA Action planted in the Granite state by another group with ties to out of state money.  USA Action is referred to as the Nations Largest Progressive Activist Organization, and views itself as the place where they create the nations leading progressive coalitions. And they are connected to, and engage in community organizing (social and economic class warfare-intimidation tactics) and are heavily supported by George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

This, at least, explains why the GSFTC likes them so much.  They have the same goals, and similar financial supporters. And it is all partisan, left wing activism in support of the democrat party agenda.
It is not non-partisan and it never was. 

Follow nhstevemacd on Twitter

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

The Very Partisan Granite State Fair Tax Coalition Part II

Posted on July 20, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald
modify remove organize post follow up  
GSFTDNC%202.jpg

The Granite State Fair Tax Coalition (GSFTC–Greedy Socialists Frisking TaxPayers Cash) is a partisan non-profit, which for years has insisted it is a non-partisan group advocating an income tax in New Hampshire.  But the GSFTC is non-partisan the way MSNBC is.  They use the dark side equivalent of the Jedi mind trick.  ‘The force can have a strong influence on the weak minded.” And while there is nothing wrong with being a left wing partisan group, started by a social-justice driven religious organization, to advocate for a top down income tax, there is something wrong with acting like this is a non-partisan effort.

Our first look at the partisan make up of the GSFTC (God Says Fleece Taxpayers for Christ) was a rundown of their advisory board.  This revealed a panel of progressive and left wing water-carriers, who provide cover and material support for a specific leftist agenda: a state income tax.   They are democrats and democrat supporters, willing to use class warfare and a faux-morality-cum-guilt complex media campaign, to advocate for that state income tax.  Fish swim, birds fly, democrats spend and so must tax.  To insist they are non-partisan suggests a mental state that is non compos mentis.  Or to be a bit more colloquial; They are just a bunch of typical leftists.

In part II we look at the GSFTC board of directors; looking for some sign that there is someone in this cabal who is not just another statist stooge pimping for a broad based tax. Don’t hold your breath.  The Board of directors is stuffed with “off the rack New Hampshire democrats,” party chairs, candidates, donors, or leaders of left wing advocacy groups.  It is all partisan, top to bottom.

We begin with the GSFTC President is Laurel Redden.  Ms. Redden has run for the New Hampshire state House as a Democrat and is listed as a member of the Chair of the Salem Democrat Party. And, naturally, she has donated to her party.  The likelihood that she is not just another tax and spend democrat is very slim.

Redden is also a Public Policy Associate for the New Hampshire Council of (Social Justice) Churches (NHCC) where she pimps seminars about government budgets and ‘morality’ as a tool for wealth redistribution; where God and Jesus are used as props to soft-cell the social-justice/statist agenda.

The GSFTC Executive Vice President is Reverend William Exner of the New Hampshire’s Episcopal Diocese, which is (also naturally) associated with the NHCC.   He is a part of an Episcopal church in which (apparently) it is not a sin to confiscate property if you can get the temporal state to pass a law which takes it from certain folks and gives it to someone in government, whose job it is to decide who gets the rest.  That someone is probably a big state bureaucracy run by left wing experts, and peopled with state union employees who spend half of it trying continually to re-define “the less fortunate” for whom the money is supposedly meant.

The new role of the leftist church (UCC, UU, NHCC members, and so on) includes seminars on how to organize folks to advocate left wing theft by making a-moral state budgets about moral issues to justify a confiscatory tax policy agenda.  After all, how the heck do you add new government dependents and state union workers, (the other government dependents) who must pay regular tribute to left-wing union leaders and democrat political campaigns, who then lobby for more taxes, and vote for more democrats, so we can have more state workers, who pay more dues to unions, who need to confiscate more and higher taxes and….

This is all some leftist thespian escapade abetted by folks like Reverend Exner, that ignores histories harsh lessons regarding the negative consequences of statist rhetoric, broad based taxes, and socialist-redistributive polices by top down governments.  And it is a problem a member of the clergy should understand.  Given the very essence of human nature, “Distress always expands to meet the supply of publicly funded services available to reduce it.”  So no matter who or how much you tax, no matter how compelling your argument, you will eventually come up short.  There will always be more people willing to sacrifice freedom for a free ride than you can provide for, so you will always need to ask the productive classes to give more, but when you ask the government to do it by force, you are advocating a downward spiral until there is nothing left but dependents and a sliver of a well-connected ruling class.  Social justice is a Marxist idea spun with Orwellian linguistics that actually seeks this division so we can only assume it’s advocates are either ignorant to the eventual outcome or are planning to be in the ruling class.
Whatever the outcome, there is no morality in facilitating a dependency culture whose foundation is a Ponzi scheme doomed to collapse.

The Groups Vice President is Mark Fernald.  Enough said?  Fernald is another New Hampshire Democrat and perennial left-wing candidate for (insert name of office here).  He supports democrats, donates to democrats, pimps their causes, and deals the class warfare rhetoric every chance he gets.  Just Google him and bask in the glory of social justice rhetoric.  Again, nothing remotely non-partisan about it.

Treasurer Peg Fargo is the VP of the League of Women Votersin Manchester  and their Legislation Co-President.   As I pointed out in the first installment, the League itself is a left wing front group that useds women’s issues to advance the lefts agenda.

Next up, Director John Hatten.  Mr. Hatten is the Co-Chair of the Concord Democrat Party and the occasional democrat campaign donor.  Still looking for that non-partisan tilt.

Director Sally Embley is active locally in Webster NH.  She has participated on Webster and Hopkinton Solid Waste, Conservation and recycling committees.  She Supports pay to throw and does not like to see state programs get cut; she also supports a broad based tax. Small chance she is not a democrat? Not sure, but not likely.

Director Carol Backus is a Retired Public Relations director for the NEA, the largest teachers union on the planet.  She also gives to the cause.  Not exactly small investments in the left wing agenda and not remotely non-partisan.

Director Tim Dunn (J Timothy Dunn), was the Democrat NH House rep who co-sponsored compulsory school attendance until the age of 18, as well as advocating hell-on earth for home-schoolers.  Mr. Dunn has also both endorsed and supported the scumbag John Edwards.  Still not feeling the Non-partisanship.

Director Sandy Issacs is with Compassion and Choices– assisted suicide and similar related interests put up primarily by the left.  Sandy is also a member of the Dublin/Jaffrey/Rindge Democrat committee.

And finally, we have Director Helen Schotanus.  Helen is with the NH Department of Education and a reliable democrat donor as well.

So is it possible for an abundance of prominent and active democrat and left wing activists to run a non-partisan group that just happens to advocate for their tax agenda?  Sure, it’s just not actually non-partisan.

But as I stated in part one, there is nothing wrong with that if they are upfront about it.  The GSFTC is not. So the people deserve to know who they are dealing with when the GSFTC comes knocking.

Follow nhstevemacd on Twitter

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

How About This For Morally Bankrupt?

Posted on July 18, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald
The Christian-Socialists are at it again.  This time local religious leader Gray Fitzgerald heads up the charge,  arguing in this mornings Union leader for higher taxes on the “rich.”  He opens his ‘thesis’ thusly;’To tax the richest at such low rates is morally bankrupt.”  The rest is predictable and easily synopsized.

Some people, you see,  have the good fortune to earn too much.  Let’s not discuss how they got that way or the fact that they pay most of the taxes already.  This is not about dealing with Tax-law breakers (like Obama’s cabinet and Czars) it is about making laws to confiscate more.   So Fitzgerald believes we should take more by force (of law), and that faiing to do so is somehow immoral.

Posted in Local NH Politics | 1 Comment

The Little Governor Who Couldn’t

Posted on July 15, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald
Governor Lynch, in a fit of impotence and self contradiction, confused his role as the states chief executive today, as reported in a Union Leader column by Tom Fahey.  In regard to the passage into law of New Hampshire HB 601 and SB 148, Governor Lynch remarked on one hand that…

He allowed the bill (HB 601) to become law, he said, “because I did not want New Hampshire to default into federal oversight.”

and then claimed that…
…SB 148 has no practical effect on New Hampshire residents because there is no way to enforce it.
 

“ The assessments for not obtaining health insurance will not be administered through the state but through the Internal Revenue Service. Legislators and the public should understand that this legislation would have no impact on the capacity of the state of New Hampshire to block the individual health insurance mandate or the federal assessments for not obtaining insurance,” he said.

HB 601 (in short-hand) prohibits accepting pump-priming federal dollars for Obama Care–which must be returned to lower the federal deficit) and gives the NH legislature oversight of all state agencies on the matter before any part of it can be implemented.   SB 148 basically states that we will not enforce any purchase mandate fine or imprisonment related to the Health Care law.
As a matter of semantics Lynch is not wrong to suggest that if the IRS barges in and arrests us for failing to comply that no state agency is interposed to prevent that.  But isn’t that exactly the point of SB 148.  It deems to interpose the law enforcing branch of the New Hampshire government–the executive and his Attorney General–between (in this case) the IRS and the people on the matter of  the Patient affordable care act.  SB 148 draws a line over which our chief executive is meant to stand in defense of his state and it’s people.  The same line, by the way, that he draws (at least rhetorically) with regard to HB601.

So according to Lynch, while he does not want to default to federal oversight, the IRS can just reach over the Governors office and snatch whomever they please.

 Read the rest here:  Cross posted

Follow nhstevemacd on Twitter

 

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Meet Bob “Bathroom Bill” Perry

Posted on July 13, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald
Robert ‘Bob’ Bathroom Bill Perry is the democrat candidate in the Strafford County district 3 special election coming up on August 9th.  Bathroom Bill Bob has been in the New Hampshire House before, so Bob has a record.  And my, what a record he has.

Just the same old DonkeyI’m sorry.  Forgive me.  Some people might be offended by the use of the term “Bathroom Bill” to describe Bob.  Of course Mr. Perry did support the Bathroom bill (HB 415 – 2009) which would have allowed any man who at any given moment felt so inclined, full access to the same public “accommodations” as your wives, sisters and daughters.  Hey, the ladies room was the closest door, right?

How about we call him Bob ‘Soda Tax’ Perry? In a democrat majority House Bob was one of only 65 reps to try and save this tax by voting no on the ITL for the bill. (HB 1679 – 2010)

Follow nhstevemacd on Twitter

Read the rest of it Here!  Cross Posted

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

How Did Your NH House Republican Rank In 2011?

Posted on July 11, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

NHHRA Banner

The New Hampshire House Republican Alliance has released its July 2011 score card for the entire first session of the Republican House majority. NHHRA Score Card PDF  file.

I’ve culled my reps from the list (Hills 19) below.  I’ve also generated a list of the Republican bottom feeders for 2011.  These are what we would call RINOs, moderate democrats who could never survive the bullying from the left, or might never get elected if they admitted that they have little or no interest in supporting the Republican party platform.

They are folks who are incapable of finding the 80/20 rule, or to be more precise the 70/30 rule, and in one instance (Ken Gould) we have a (r)epublican who only voted against the party 70% of the time.

The NHCP (formerly the NHDP) will call this a purity list, which is amusing when you consider how they treat their moderates, but let me assure you that it is no such thing.  It is more like an intervention.  Many of these troubled souls are in denial.  Trapped in Republican leaning districts they are pretending to be something they are not.  I’m just helping them (and their constituents) to accept that they may be democrats, actual independent moderates, or just missing the boat often enough to get lumped in with people who have little or no interest in the goals of the party.

There’s nothing wrong with that.  But it’s time to come out of the closet and stop pretending.  To embrace your “independent” or democrat roots, and run as what you are instead of pretending to be something you are not.

Here is the Hills 19 list first (Merrimack).  For the list of bottom feeders, just follow the jump.

Last name First name County Dist % of Bills voted HRRA Score
Peterson Lynette Hillsborough 19 93% 99%
Notter Jeanine Hillsborough 19 97% 98%
Barry Richard Hillsborough 19 98% 94%
Hinch Richard Hillsborough 19 100% 92%
Pellegrino Tony Hillsborough 19 95% 90%
Christensen Chris Hillsborough 19 82% 86%
Stroud Kathleen Hillsborough 19 89% 83%
Thomas Joe Hillsborough 19 92% 83%

Bottom Feeders or moderate democrats in denial? (With the exception of Gould who is not just a democrat, he is a good one)

Last name First name County Dist % of Bills voted HRRA Score
Gould Ken Rockingham 5 100% 30%
Kiddder David Merrimack 1 74% 42%
Brown Julie Strafford 1 77% 45%
Gargasz Carolyn Hillsborough 5 94% 50%
Lockwood Priscilla Merrimack 6 97% 51%
Remick William Coos 2 95% 51%
Case Frank Rockingham 1 90% 53%
Perkins Lawrence Rockingham 14 65% 53%
Milham Alida Belknap 5 90% 56%
Messier Irene Hillsborough 17 96% 60%
Bolster Peter Belknap 5 94% 62%
Perkins Amy Rockingham 14 64% 64%
Dowling Patricia Rockingham 5 90% 66%
Pilliod James Belknap 5 99% 66%
Copeland Tim Rockingham 13 95% 67%
Emerson Susan Cheshire 7 95% 67%
Wadell James Rockingham 15 87% 69%
Drisko Richard Hillsborough 5 82% 69%

And finally the 70-79% Crowd-folks who could make the grade with just a few more votes or who might fall off the bus altogether with the wrong votes.

70-79% Lowest to Highest
Knox 71%
Allen 71%
Kurk 73%
Quandt (Marshall) 73%
St. Cyr 73%
Hess 73%
Johnson (Jane) 73%
Emerton 73%
Dwinell 74%
Proux 75%
Ladd 75%
Moran 76%
Day 77%
McKinney 77%
Umberger 77%
Solanti 77%
Graham 78%
Quandt (Matt) 78%
Fredete 78%
Hawkins 79%
Richardson 79%
Buxton 79%

Follow nhstevemacd on Twitter

 Cross posted from http://Granitegrok.com

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Rockingham 14 Has RINO Written All Over It

Posted on July 9, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

RINO'sI have no end of respect for Firefighters and their commitment to others, but politically there is very little evidence that when they run as (r)epublicans in New Hampshire they have any intention of supporting the party or the platform.

The latest example is in Rockingham 14 where Veteran Firefighter Kevin Janvrin has won the low-turnout GOP primary for an upcoming special election.  While I’d be more than happy to have Kevin working as an EMT in my town, I have serious doubts about him working for Republicans in Rock 14.  

Mr. Janvrin’s reported largest primary contributor was David Lang, the President of the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire.  Mr. Lang’s PAC, of which he is the chairman, has a very specific union agenda.  It donates almost 100% of its campaign dollars exclusively to democrat committees and candidates. (Through the PFFNH PAC and another PAC the union runs, Middle Class NH PAC.)  So why support Mr. Janvrin with a personal donation when the only other one I could find of similar value was to Democrat Jackie Cilley?

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment

Dangerous Democrats

Posted on July 8, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

Democrat DangerDo you know someone who is “always right?”  Nothing is ever their fault.  Someone else is always to blame.  Have you realized that this describes todays democrat party?  Think about it.  No matter how much power they wield their impotence or incompetence is the fault of their opponents.  No matter how much they spend it is because of something someone else did.

The “crimes” of others become their “only way to get things done.”  Transparency is for the opposition and they have the propaganda press to help them prove it.  Laws are to keep their opponents in line.  Contradictions are a distraction from today’s goals.  Promises are to convince dupes to elect them, not a place from which to govern once in office.  Morality is a cross for someone else should have to bear.  

Do you understand how dangerous that is?  They feel no sense of accountability.  They are above reproach.
Let’s look at a worst case scenario.  Iran.

Obama and the democrats can let Iran build nukes because it is a no-lose situation for them.  Inaction is action.  If by chance Iran does not nuke up, they will take credit.  If it does, and then kills millions, they will blame George Bush, or obstructionist Republicans.

I’m not saying they want Iran to kill millions or that they would even encourage it, but if it happens we know how they will respond.  False patriotism.  Platitudes for lost lives.  Pause – It’s someone else’s fault.  Nukes or spending, it is all the same to them.  Every issue turns on what the political gain is at the moment, and how it can be used to their advantage. 

And they are committed to making you pay for it.  Literally.

Follow nhstevemacd on Twitter

 Cross posted

Posted in Local NH Politics | Leave a comment