The New Media Militia

I’m struggling to find a Press Release from even one elected New Hampshire democrat in DC on the expiration of unemployment benefits after the entire congress went home for the holiday weekend without passing one.  By all accounts no one was blocking, stopping, or stalling, it just didn’t get done.  But what of the earth shattering consequences?

Back in March Paul Hodes had this to say about failing to pass an extension.

Today, Paul Hodes blasted Senate Republicans as they continue to put the well-being of families across America and in New Hampshire at risk with their Washington-insider tactics and political stunts. Key leaders in the Republican Party have stood up for obstructionism, denying an up-or-down vote to fund critical programs like unemployment insurance

Carol Shea Porter had this to say.   

There should be no doubt that the expiration of unemployment benefits at the end of this month would, in fact, be an emergency for millions of Americans who currently rely on these benefits.  The Department of Labor has estimated that up to 2.7 million Americans could exhaust their benefits by May 1 if an extension is not passed.  For these individuals and families, the loss of a job is an emergency.  Allowing the clock to run out on these benefits while the “emergency” nature is discussed in the Senate is unconscionable. 

Unconscionable.  But not when the democrat leadership lets the deadline slip by unattended?

How about Senator Jeanne Shaheen?   

“Now, there may be some people who don’t realize the damage caused by these lapses.  So I want to point out what is happening to too many people because of this filibuster. 

 

“First, this is about the struggles faced by individual workers and their families.  Right now, with a record number of unemployed workers competing for each job, it’s become harder than ever for people who lose a job to get back to work.  Of the 15 million Americans who are out of work today, nearly six million (more than one in three) have run through the benefits provided by their states.

 

“These six million people are the ones served by federal unemployment, a critical safety net that helps families buy gas and groceries, heat their homes, and pay the mortgage while they look for that next job. 

 

“Now, because of the actions of just one member of this body, actions that I believe are irresponsible, more than 1.2 million people will get their last check during the month of March. 

Yes.  Workers.  Families.  So Jeanne, Carol, Paul?  Now that you’ve failed to find time in your hectic legislative calendars to renew unemployment benefits before they expired, let me just review.   Families at risk?  Unconscionable?  Irresponsible?  Is that crickets I hear?  And how is it you can be apoplectic on the issue one moment, and silent the next?  Are you Hypocrites?  How about pandering populists?  Playing politics with unemployment?

On a postive note–if you are a democrat–failing to renew unemployment benefits will eventually make the unemployment numbers look better on the run up to the November elections.  Of course unemployed people have more time to vote.  Wonder if the democrats thought about that over the long holiday weekend.

The New Hampshire legislature has an opportunity this week to tell us what they think about paid political speech as an amendment emerges from a conference committee to go before both the State Senate and House.  The amendment, written by former democrat party chair Kathy Sullivan, and sponsored by democrat State Senator Maggie Hassan is meant to put speech back in its straight jacket after Citizens United v. FEC risked letting it run wild and naked across fruited plain.   

So a few elite democrats in New Hampshire–already faced with a difficult November–figured they could just use this as an excuse to muzzle paid political speech.  Is that all this was?

In its original form (available at the end one of my earlier blogs here) the amendment included a requirement to register with the Secretary of State, a filing fee for the privilege of engaging in free speech, notification of how much they would be spending, lists of donors, up to five days advanced notice of the intent to speak on almost any matter of a political nature, as well as evidence that the organization or non-profits donors approved; and in the case of a business that a majority of its board and shareholders had given written approval to participate in the political speech.   It also included the prerequisite massive fines for violators and permitted abundant room for lawsuits should the speech displease anyone with the will to file against you. 

Intimidation is one way to describe it.   

Claire Ebel of the NH ACLU called it an “outrageous and unconstitutional attack on free speech in New Hampshire.”   

Even the left leaning Concord Monitor, the paper the public sector state unions and capitol bureaucracy reads with their morning cappuccino’s and latte’s—came out against it. 

Free speech is far too fundamental to democracy to be restricted on the fly by ill-conceived and little discussed measures cranked out in the waning days of the legislative session by lawyers and lawmakers who are over reacting and overestimating their abilities. Legislative leaders are writing laws limiting First Amendment rights with less consideration than was given to limiting boat speeds. When the full Legislature gathers, lawmakers should make quick work of killing the campaign finance amendment tacked onto unrelated legislation by Sen. Maggie Hassan. 

With outrage and objection exploding everywhere the democrat legislative leadership—which currently controls both houses—appointed a committee of conference loaded with democrats, then weeded out the objectors in their own party and replaced them with bobble heads.   But even the bobble heads began to feel the pressure so they watered down the amendment, removed some of the requirements for non-profits and “amounts to be spent,” but left in all the intimidating risk of legal threats and the annoying bureaucracy.   They left those in because in my opinion that was the entire point of Kathy Sullivan’s bill. 

The biggest obstacle Sullivan has faced in recent years, even though the democrats have had complete control of State Government since the anti-Bush backlash of 2006, is her inability to get the AG to follow up on her endless stream of letters and objections about political activity by anyone or anything that presents a risk to the left wing narrative.  If I’m not mistaken Kathy holds the record for the most complaints filed with the New Hampshire AG by any carbon based life form regarding the political activities of others.  Even un-acted upon, the complaints serve to put others on notice—that political speech in New Hampshire could result in a legal challenge by the Bugbears  in the democrat Party leadership.  But if the AG is too busy or simply unwilling to follow through—they begin to lose their effectiveness as a tool to scare off the opposition.   But if you put a rule in chaptered law that allowed someone like Sullivan the ability to file suit without the AG even being involved, you get an awfully big hammer and fewer and fewer nails.

It’s political intimidation at its finest, written by Kathy Sullivan, for Kathy Sullivan.

Fortunately for us Sullivan’s boots were too big.  The amendment was so top heavy in the beginning that it attracted too much opposition, from too many corners, more quickly than it could be rammed through at the end of session free-for all.  And while it may still pass the State Senate—whose earlier 14-10 party line vote is already a gift to democrat opponents this November–the odds of it getting past the 400-seat New Hampshire House are dismal.    

So while Kathy’s long term goal of getting the AG end-around language will have to wait, it is instructive to see who has been party to this assault, and the depth and breadth of their attack.  The people of New Hampshire should take note and defend their rights accordingly, now to ensure this flanking maneuver fails, and at the ballot box this November to deny the left the majority needed to try it again.

In a guest commentary in the Sunday Telegraph Bill Hite, general president of the United Association (UA)–it’s a labor union–advocates for the American Power Act, which is a federal green energy scam you may know as cap and trade.  It taxes energy so the federal government can then fund union labor to build even more expensive energy.  Mr. Hite is very excited.  He says he’s read it.

Here are a few of his selling points.

It returns two thirds of all revenues not dedicated to reducing the deficit back to consumers through discounts and rebates.  Once fully underway 100 percent of revenues will be returned to the American people.

Taken in the proper context you are meant to believe that the extra taxes you will pay on energy will be returned to you.  All of it.  100%.  So are you thinking, wow, I get it all back–sign me up?  Or are you asking why bother?   Why take my money if you are only going to give it all back to me? 

Because they are not going to give it back–to you. 

This is liberal thought-speech.  You might as well say that every tax dollar goes back to the American people in this context, as long as they are in America, and people.  Adding a trillion dollars to the cost of government gives you more government which is your government-so you got 100% back. Get it?  And the discounts and credits come with strings and provisos and restrictions.  Lucky you.

This is actually just a regressive tax on types of energy they don’t like, which will hit lower income people hardest.  They will then give it back to preferred industries and special interests, at union protected rates of pay, and whenever possible, for something that can be misconstrued to be a green job.  And odds are good if this administration creates green jobs the way it created “good paying private sector jobs” restricting free speech will be sold as a jobs bill.

So it’s perfectly understandable that a Union president would back such a thing.

But Bill is ignoring the inconvenient truth.  Stripping revenue out of the entire economy for energy will make everything more expensive, driving up the cost of living while driving down employment and wage growth–except for those nice union jobs which will not be abundant in such circumstances. 

So Bill is excited about a bill and what the government will do for Bill, but he’s not all that interested in green jobes, green energy, or you.

The New Hampshire State Senate has made it’s position clear.  Everything goes better with Gambling.  That pesky Lyme disease thing–probably get that passed with gambling.  And they would be more than willing to overturn any lingering Blue Laws if people could gamble on Sunday.  Want to make sure money is a form of free speech–talk to the casino, problem solved.

The Senate Democrat majority has gotten itself a stubborn streak on the matter of how best to hide their irresponsible spending.  Let them gamble! is the only viable alternative even though the House and the governor have told them no. 

I give them points for persistance but I think it’s time we face facts.  They have no desire to lead they just want to be able to say they came up with a new solution to an old problem.  But the old problem is that they created almost 25% more government on your dime while you were getting fewer and fewer dimes, and there is not a one of them that will be able to answer the question why?  And not just why, but how much more?  Let’s say we let you find a way to pay for all that excessive spending, then what?  You’ll just stop growing the government?

Nut-unh.

We got into this mess because the democrats spent money first and looked for the revenue later.   And we’ve been going through this every year since they took over the legislature.  So they didn’t learn their lesson the first time–they simply did it again.  And maybe you’ve not noticed, but this has proven to be the worst kind of stewardship imaginable.

The Senate loves gambling so much because they have been gambling with your money for years.  And while the house is against it because the people are against it, they’ve been betting long odds on revenue as well–all to excuse a spending binge well beyond the ability of the taxpayers to pay for it.

Gambling is not the answer, fewer tax and spenders in state government  is.

The Ray and Kathy Show has this gag they do all the time, where they complain about outside money, or special interests on the right affecting local elections.  It’s a serious gas because everyone knows it’s actually a projection of their own involvement with deep pocketed outside interests with which they exert pressure upon the local worker bees doing Yeoman’s work at hiding their radical left wing agenda, but they think it works so we try to play along.  

Case in point: Governor John “Liar” Lynch, who was recently taken to task for saying one thing and doing another on the not uncontroversial subject of same sex marriage.  Lynch flip flopped and plenty of us asked if someone put the thumb screws on our diminutive chief executive. 

No, no.  Lynch is his own man concerned about equality and civil rights, Blah blah blah. 

Enter into the debate this article by Lou Chibbaro Jr. from The Washington Blade, which bills itself as “the lgbtq community resource.”  The article is titled, “Rare Peek behind closed doors of secret gay donor confab.”  In the article Lou Chibbaro jr reveals for us the internal happenings at an event on May 15^th to May 16^th (just two weeks ago).  It’s was..

“…the annual Political OutGiving conference, a highly confidential event for a network of more than 200 big-stakes LGBT contributors to political campaigns.” 

Among those in attendance at this secret, confidential event with more than 200 big stakes LGBT contributors (according to Chibbaro) were a select number of democrat Governors including Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Chet Culver of Iowa, Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania  and John Lynch of New Hampshire.

Must have missed this on the governors calendar.  Big country, more than 200 big stakes LGBT contributors to political campaigns, very short list of invitees, and John Lynch is one of the few.  So what does Governor Lynch’s host, OutGiving do? 

“Political OutGiving is a focused, bipartisan state-based strategy that concentrates on delivering resources from dedicated and generous donors to select campaigns in a limited number of states,” 

“Political OutGiving started in 2006 when hundreds of donors contributed around $3 million to targeted campaigns aimed at protecting or increasing the number of pro-LGBT supporters in state legislatures,” she said. “Political OutGiving similarly engaged in elections in 2008 and will be involved in campaigns in 2010.”

The focus of the Article is on Governor O’Malley, who was invited—it appears—to ‘encourage’ him to support same sex marriage, when he is on the record stating that he thinks civil unions are the best Marlynd could hope for.  The Governor of Maryland… 

“He has not supported gay marriage in the past,” he said, adding that while O’Malley doesn’t believe enough support exists to pass a same-sex marriage bill, he feels the legislature “could move and pass legislation on civil unions.” 

Sound familiar?  OutGiving is focused on delivering resources to select campaigns in a limited number of states—to advance the gay agenda.   

How do they do it?  According to Lou Chibbaro Jr.s reporting…

(the) Gill Action Fund assesses candidates running for public office to determine whether they should be supported or opposed. It then sends its recommendations to its “top secret” donor list, according to one source familiar with the group.

The donors then make individual contributions to the recommended candidates. The system makes it difficult to measure which candidates are benefiting from the gay network.

…

 “The fact that it’s being kept out of the public eye — that’s bad news,” said New York gay rights attorney and activist Bill Dobbs. “It’s too much wheeling and dealing behind closed doors.” 

… 

“I think part of it is they don’t want to run the risk that there would be stories that these rich gay people get together and push their agenda and it’s the moneyed gay people that are making things happen,” the donor said. 

But that’s exactly what they’ve been doing, and anyone with the time can probably find the evidence in the donation records of the New Hampshire democrat party and various democrat party campaign arms that have been flooding outside money into the state to affect local elections to sell a special interest agenda.  With more money going to local and state level candidates as well as issue advocay groups and non-profits…?  (2006 out of state contributions were 56% higher than 2004.  2004 -$190,000.00.  2006-$ 427,000.00)

And now, with John Lynch under attack for lying and flip flopping about his position on same sex marriage, and facing declining popularity, he has just spent a lazy May weekend hanging out with a handful of democrat governors and more than 200 big-stakes LGBT contributors to political campaigns. 

How much money do you think they’ll give Lynch to try and keep him in office in 2010?  To what length might they go to hide the tracks? And what was that thing the liberals were saying about “out of state influence peddling” affecting local elections?  
 

“We’re not saying they dosen’t have a right to advocate. We’re just saying we want to know who’s behind the advocacy. If out-of-state or even foreign companies want spend a lot of money to influence New Hampshire elections, we want the voting public to know who they are,” she said. [emphasis mine]

Do Ray Buckley and the New Hampshire Democrat Party Lie?  See for yourself.  Here is an excerpt from an NHDP press release that quotes Mr. Buckley directly.

SB1459, which is before the state senate this afternoon, would hold foreign entities accountable for spending money intended to influence the outcome of domestic political campaigns. …

“There is nothing more un-American than allowing foreign countries and corporations to buy elections in this country,” said Ray Buckley, Chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. “Under current law, a business like British Petroleum could spend tens of millions of dollars defeating a candidate for office in New Hampshire without any disclosure whatsoever.”

Prescott’s ardent opposition to the bill brings up serious questions about where his loyalties really lie.

This is a regurgitation of Obama’s claims regarding Citizens United v. FEC which he made to discredit the ruling.  So is Ray merely repeating what he’s been told?  He seems to need you to believe that without the Kathy “(hate) free speech” Sullivan amendment in HB 1459, that foreigners are going to buy up New Hampshire elections the same way he’s been using out of state special interest money to do it for years.  So what’s the real deal?

2 U.S.C. § 441e bans all foreign nationals from directly or indirectly contributing to a federal candidate or a political party. It also bans all foreign nationals from making any independent political expenditures – and this ban was not overturned by the Supreme Court. The term “foreign nationals” is defined to include individuals, foreign governments, foreign political parties, and corporations “organized under the laws or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.” It is simply not true that Citizens United freed foreign corporations to make independent expenditures in American elections.

2U.S.C 441e explained further…

Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.”

There you go.

Foreigners are not going to buy up New Hampshire elections, in fact they can’t, no matter what Ray says.    HB 1459 is a waste of legislation that simply overburdens the process of political speech, using political power, fees, and fines to dissuade or intimidate people from objecting to their government.  But think about all the money lawyers like Sullivan, or firms with names like Pignatelli or Shaheen could earn while clogging up the NH court system with case after case until no one who owns a business or that runs a non-profit dare speak a word becasue they simply can’t afford to defend themsleves?  That’s intimidation.

Sounds like liberal governance to me.

One more point.  Why does Ray Buckley feel the need to lie outright to the people of New Hampshire?  And is it safe to assume that this is not the first or last time?