The New Media Militia

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

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

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

You have got to be kidding? 

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

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

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

Hypocrats. 

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

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

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

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

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

Ever go on a blind date?  Or maybe you’ve heard stories from your friends?   Sometimes you do it as a favor, or maybe it actually sounds like you’ll have a good time.  And maybe you do.  Maybe you even feel pretty good afterwards.  But later on you discover something that makes you want to puke in your boots. 

Well say hello to the ONE campaign, a media darling, politician attracting, anti-poverty organization that held a recent confab at Saint Anselm college,  and whose fundamental purpose should make anyone on the political right want to puke in their boots. 

How to break this gently.  Remember Senator Barack Obama’s 2007 Senate Bill S 2433?  That billwould require the US government to give a percentage of total US GDP every year to fight global poverty.  Obama wrote the bill to satisfy his socialist desire to (tax) redistribute America’s wealth through federal legislation to meet the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG).  And ONE campaign is part and parcel to that mission.

Here’s where that comes from, courtesy of MGD monitor.

8.1 Net ODA, total and to the least developed countries, as percentage of OECD/DAC donors’ gross national income.

MDG’s objectives run contrary to most if not all conservative principles, cloaked in third world initiatives.  That’s not to say that some of the objectives are bad, or that most of the people associated directly even see the contradictions, but what people think they are doing by supporting—or being seen to support—groups like ONE, ONE vote, and any of the other social justice organizations is giving them credibility and expanding their reach.  What they want is good, but how they want to do it is bad. 

And ONE is nothing more than the culmination of Social Justice Groups peddling poverty to advance the UN’s Millennium Development program.

 Is it a big deal?  It is.

ONE brags about how it, in conjunctions with Global Call To Action Against Poverty (GCAP), milked a promise of 25 Billion from western countries to advance their efforts.   GCAP is at the top of the list of non UN groups pushing the MDG.  Groups that Senator Obama was prepared to fund through federal legislation with a mandatory tax on American GDP, whether we liked it or not. 

That bill never got out of committee but the effort has not ceased.  Groups like ONE continue to attract politicians who want to be seen as or associated with “ending poverty,” and working “with them” to develop goals (legislation) that will eventually tax gross national income and divert that wealth into the UN’s social justice initiatives.

And US politicians continue to propose bills to that end.  In 2009 US House Rep Adam Smith D-WA took up Obama’s spear of redistribution and sponsored HR 2639, The Global Poverty Act of 2009, for the purpose of  “promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal…” 

I’m sure there’s a 2010 version brewing somewhere as well.  And I know Obama has not stopped wanting it.  But to facilitate the smoke screen groups like ONE campaign, in conjunction with organizations like GCAP and others, haveto work the political will, cloaked with high profile celebrity endorsements, by focusing on poverty, without revealing the contradictions.  Their agenda is more than it appears to be, and they have no problem hiding behind world hunger to advance their socialist redistributive solutions.

Conservatives understand that the only thing that lifts people out of poverty is a stable government committed to rule of law, the right to own property, the right to self defense, free markets and open trade, and some form of representative government.   These are things we should support and strive for.  But the UN MDG does none of these things, nor do they or the associated groups(Like ONE) seem to desire them.   And why would they.  The despots and dictators at the UN only want the money.  They want to balance out wealth and resources courtesy of taxing or guilting the US to part with it, and then throw it at the “problem,” hoping that brute force and the appearance of good will, can make it better.  But without fundamentalrights, protected by law, no amount of money will solve these problems.

So if you were at that ONE event, you might want to start working on your plausible deniability.  ONE is part of the UN MDG and  seeks to divert wealth (Social Justice), institute global environmental regulations and the control of CO2 emissions (environmental justice), as well as creating mandated funded mechanisms for the UN which also seeks to implement the rights of the child, rights to development, UN education mandates, international Human rights laws, and even a global ban on hand guns.  

And you thought you were just shining up your “feed the hungry” creds by showing up at the ONE confab?  Talk about a blind date gone bad.

ONE campaign is a poison pill for conservatives and small government republicans, and they’d do well to keep their distance in the future.

Harry Reid, the Grand Moff Tarkin of the Senate, has nixed the bi-partisan jobs bill, calling a do-over to get rid of any annoying provisions that rub his liberal cohorts the wrong way.  Bernie Sanders (D-Kremlin) for example, wasn’t too keen on the Patriot act provisions.  Harry removed it, and not because he’s against pig piling things onto legislation that would fail the Sesame Street “one of these things is not like the other” legislative litmus test.  He’s actually a huge fan of stapling dictionary sized amendments to anything that stops moving, with about as much in common with the original intent as the void between what comes out of Barack Obama’s mouth and reality.  Harry has never been big on original intent anyway so this may seem too obvious to bother mentioning but since that ship has now sailed let’s get to the point.   He removed it because his dictionary defines compromise as: ‘an act that only moves to the left.’  So giving in to Comrade Sanders was a no-brainer—which given the echo chamber between Senator Reid’s ears ties up all the loose ends nicely. 

This brings us to the greater issue of “compromise” under the umbrella (a fruity drink sized umbrella barely large enough for a spear with a cherry and an orange slice on it)  of bi-partisanism.    Obama likes to wave that idea around like an air freshener, but the stench coming from congressional democrats can’t be hidden by a few well-meaning words with predictably measured pauses between them.  The Liberals in congress could care less about compromise.  They are happy to give it lip service, but little else.  So Reid’s actions suggest another Star Wars reference, this time from Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes back. 

Lando:  “That wasn’t part of our deal!” 

Vader:  “The deal has been altered.  Pray I do not alter it further.”

Reid is actually just tweaking the Jobs Bill to make sure he’s got enough slush fund money to continne building his new Death Star.  The one the liberals are using to destroy the country with.

So compromise is still dead, but expect “bi-partisan” to keep popping up like a serial slasher movie-villain that just won’t die.  Bi-partisan will appear in the context of how Republicans’ have been unwilling to work with democrats to craft bi-partisan (insert name of country killing policy here) legislation, without a word about the hundreds of Republican alternatives the democrat majority has shot down annually in their quest to socialize the country.  This refrain will increase in frequency until November of 2010.   At which point the word compromise will return as the new liberal minority party starts a tinnitus like shrill refrain about how Republican’s won’t compromise on anything and how it’s destroying freedom and wrecking middle class families—which is exactly what got the liberals tossed out of office in the first place. (Left wingers love projection)

Even without a change in majority, at least Harry Reid will have gone the way of Grand Moff Tarkin (politically speaking).  But that’s what happens when you try to destroy the economy with your evil death ray.  The survivors use the force of the ballot box to kick you sorry ass out of power.  And it can’t happen soon enough.

Jeff Goley is afraid to debate David Boutin.  He has been offered three different opportunities to face off against his Republican opponent and refused them all.  WMUR offered to host a debate, as did WGIR, and a third could have been held at Saint A’s.  But Goley has refused all three.

You would think that the man Ray Buckley and the NHDP described as a guy who “has a proven record of fighting taxes and building a job friendly New Hampshire,”would want to stand up and defend his positions.  A man who could prove that in this economic and political climate could bury an unworthy opponent in a debate.  And then all the  money the NHDP spent on those mailers for Goley would be justified.

So why is Chicken Goley running scared?  He’s a committed liberal tax and spender, and he can neither defend nor support one single claim the NHDP made.  And I think it would come up.

So he has been directed by Ray Buckley to lay low and keep his mouth shut becasue th eonly hope he has of getting elected is to fool the electorate.  How do you feel about that District 16?

So you are expected to beleive that Jeff Goley can stand up for New Hampshire tax payers and small business, he just can’t do it in public, in front of a camera, or into a microphone.  Again, comforting?

What this amounts to is the NHDP lying for him so he can have plausible deniability.  But he’s the same  grow government first, job crushing, business taxing liberal spendaholic he has always been.

Vote David Boutin on Tuesday February 16th.

Are the New Hampshire House democrats censoring or deleting GOP blurbs—committee member comments on the House calendar that inform other House members why they voted the way they did in committee?    That seems to be the case.  And the House Republicans are prepared to make a statement about it. 

So today may prove to be an interesting day in the House. Rumor has it things are going to slow down a bit to address this problem.

But you have to wonder why the democrat leadership would ‘edit’ or remove comments from the opposition?  Even if they were imperfect.  Wouldn’t that make their opponents look like dopes?  If they were long meandering thesis, how many people would even bother?  Are the lefts ideas so weak, their grasp of them so tenuous, and their insecurity so great that they cannot stand up to to even the slightest public scrutiny?  I can draw no other conclusion. 

They are either incapable of defending them, or they are simply indefensible.  So much so that even members of their own caucus might be swayed to vote in opposition were they by chance to see a paragraph of dissent. 

So my suggestion to Norelli and the House democrat leadership….If you can’t take the dissent get out of the legislature.  And if you won’t get out, we’ll just have to replace enough of your colleagues to make sure you are not in leadership anymore.

 In the mean time…enjoy your Wednesday

A letter has surfaced, purported to have been written by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) in response to Mr. Obama’s invitation to begin discussions on health care legislation.  Most center right observes view the offer as strictly a political move, and some in  the GOP House leadership–based on the content of the letter–would seem to agree. (I wonder how many F-Bombs Rahm tossed around after reading this?)

February 8, 2010
The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats. Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.

Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people?

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.

Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.  If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency. Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?

As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills. The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such “experts?” Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?

Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of transparency and openness?Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.

These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks. For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May. The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Link:
 

Just this past week NH House Rep Jeff Goley refused to prohibit lobbyists from serving on a public agency or public body where the lobbyist gains from the activity of the public agency or body.  He also refused to return revenue to the towns, and voted against returning the revenue sharing rules back to pre 2009 levels. That would be the rules before the state spent so much in two consecutive budgets that they had to screw the towns out of even more revenue to try and balance their bloated state budget. 

What does this say about Rep Goley?  That he is all in on spending without knowing how to pay for it, but all out when it comes to giving money back to the people who earned it.

But that’s what tax and spenders do.  They have no idea how to cut government to save you money, just how to grow and spend.  And even in the midst of a smoke screen campaign to portray him as otherwise, he’s still voting from the heart.  Protect lobbyist’s interests, and keep ever-increasing amounts of your money in Concord where he thinks it belongs.

I think I just found some of that violence Chaz is always talking about.   But it comes from the left. We are not surprised.  The left did the Obama-hitler posters and beat up a conservative black man.   Most political violence comes from the left, so why not this?

The Climate Progrss Blog over at the Center for American Progress–a wildly left wing project–includes a comment where a poster asks “when the assassinations will begin” for the people who work for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 

The desire to kill comes because Chris Horner at CEI is actually expecting NASA to follow freedom of information act rules to fulfill his years long request for information on their climate science activities.  He thinks there might be some data manipulation going on.  Wonder why?

But Hansen and Nasa have been loathe to part with it. 

One has to wonder what is in data that a government agency refuses to release, and which left wing ‘climate bloggers’ who have never seen it either (we assume) would kill to keep hidden from CEI and the public?

The truth, is my first guess.  It’s been such a horrible few months for climate denier-deniers if we get too much more truth out the whole business might collapse under the weight of its own deceptions.

Now normally we wouldn’t make much out of one commenter on some left wing net-roots blog.  Keeping up with all the hate would be practically impossible.  But we know for a fact (thanks to Mo Baxley) that one bad apple doth spoil the whole bunch.  So Baxley rules properly applied makes every liberal or left winger who does not denounce this kind of language as guilty as if they had said it themselves. 

But apologies from the hypocrats will not be forthcoming because they hold themsleves to a different standard on everything.  Just ask John Edwards.