President Bush, One Year Left and Counting
This post is my contribution to the WPBA group post. The WPBA group post was an idea conceived by in2thefray, it is a collection of wordpress bloggers who agreed to post on January 20th as President Bush entered his final year as president. This is a diverse group of bloggers with varying opinions and you can read the other posts here. As you can see I am two days late and I apologize.
I thought that I would use this post to highlight what I feel have been President Bush’s positives, and also his negatives.
I will start with a few negatives.
No child left behind
When President Bush took office the country was sharply divided. After all of the Clinton scandals, followed by a bitter, close, and controversial election in 2000 President-elect Bush promised to be a uniter. To show he was going to try to unite the country he reached across the aisle and teamed with the likes of Ted Kennedy for no child left behind. I am not saying that no child left behind is a negative in itself, what I am saying is that George Bush showed his naivety when it comes to dealing with the left. By extending an olive branch to the other side he wasn’t seen as a uniter, he was seen by the left as having weakness. When a conservative negotiates any position with a liberal, the conservative becomes more liberal by definition. This was a time when President Bush could have pushed through a conservative agenda and he missed his opportunity.
Spending
President Bush has never seen a spending bill he didn’t like. Not including the defense spending (which I am all for) the deficit and spending have increased exponentially. By spreading “compassionate conservatism” he has increased spending to all time highs.
Immigration
This by far in my opinion is the biggest negative in President Bush’s portfolio. This immigration amnesty bill was a disaster in the making. Thank God this was defeated. The American people spoke up and the bill was stalled. Just remember all you Republicans out there who are voting for McCain, he and Ted Kennedy sponsored this bill. If the unforeseen happens and hell freezes over and McCain becomes president, this bill will be back. Sorry about getting sidetracked, back on point now. I really just can’t understand how a President who is great on national security (I will get to that) can’t understand that the borders need to be secured for national security reasons. While we fight to keep terrorists overseas our borders remain open, I just don’t get it.
Now for the positives.
Tax cuts and rebates
In order to stave of the coming Clinton recession, President Bush cut taxes and handed out tax rebates. This stimulated the economy and held off recession and actually grew the economy. When people get to keep the money they earn, they will spend it and keep the economy growing. Democrats have been promising to roll back the Bush tax cuts if they are elected. Rolling back tax cuts is just a polite way to say that they are going to raise taxes.
Proof that the Democrats have been distorting the facts about the Bush tax cuts has come in the last week. With the economy slowing down and a possible recession on the way the president introduced a new plan to stimulate the economy. This plan includes more tax cuts and rebates. Democrats are now on board with these latest tax cuts. Why, because they know that tax cuts help the economy. They have just proved George Bush’s tax cuts had worked even though they have promised to repeal them.
War on terror/national defense
President Bush promised to go after, capture or kill those who attacked us on September 11th. He has kept this promise and has kept us from being attacked again. While Bin Laden may or may not still be alive, he and his network have been crippled. I admire the fact that while the support for the war has waned and President Bush’s approval rating seems to hit new lows every week, he hasn’t been swayed by it. He just keeps carrying on in his belief that he is doing what is right. Some may call this arrogant, foolhardy, pigheaded, and against the will of the American people. In fact many have. I don’t. You can’t run a war based on polls, you run a war based on reports from your generals. You fight to win. President Bush has never wavered from this goal even in the face of the fiercest critisism that any president may have ever seen. He has been called a dictator, a fascist, a muderer, and the names go on and on. But he has never lost focus of the end game, and that is to fight the terrorists and defeat them.
I only hope the next president will take as seriously as President Bush the threats we face every day from the Islamo-fascists, and more seriously than the president before him did.
Supreme Court Judges
Here is where I think the lasting Bush legacy could really lie. It has flown under the radar but Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts may be President Bush’s greatest victory for conservatism for many, many years to come. Long after the war is over, and the next president is sworn in, and even the president after that, Justices Alito and Roberts will still be on the bench. In the end, supreme court justices have the power to shape the country’s future for years. President Bush was able to get two very good constructionist, originalist, constitutionalist judges who will interpret the constitution, and will rule on whether laws are constitutional instead of legislating from the bench.
This, I believe, is President Bush’s greatest accomplishment.
So as you can see, I do have a couple of issues with the president that I disagree with, but for the most part I agree with him. President Bush has probably faced more hatred and contempt than any other president in recent memory. Perhaps I just pay closer attention now, or perhaps the internet has just opened up many more opportunities for individuals to express themselves and that is why I see more hatred for this president than most others. But I don’t think so.
I truly believe that one day in the future, the world will look back on President Bush with more kindness than he was ever given during his presidency. He will be judged well by history. He will be proven right.
Have Americans Become too Sensitive?
Have Americans become to sensitive?
That is the question that I have been thinking about for the last several days. I first started thinking about this when William R. Farr made the following comment meant as a joke at an event:
“I have a telegram from the White House.” Then he added, “They’re going to have to change the name of that building if Obama’s elected.”
To me this remark was not meant as mean-spirited, condescending, or malicious. It was simply a joke. It was a play on words, yet just look at the reaction that it drew:
Witnesses said they could hear people gasp in the ballroom of the Adam’s Mark Hotel. “I gasped,” said Gov. Bill Ritter
People gasped and were shocked. Were they really offended or did they just “feel” like they were supposed to be offended? That is what got to me the most about this. The fact that political correctness has gotten us to the point in this country where anybody can be offended by anything at anytime. Who is to decide what is offensive anyway? And why are we no longer allowed to say anything offensive? Political correctness is a deliberate attack on free speech. Because something may offend somebody doesn’t mean it isn’t true or shouldn’t be said. I am not talking about the above comment here, rather speaking on general terms. Americans have become too sensitive. By this I mean that they are too easily offended. If you think I may be over-reacting, let us look at a couple of recent happenings.
Jada Pinkett Smith gave a speech last year at Harvard University, during this speech she said the following:
“Women, you can have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career,” she said. “They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it.”
This was meant as an uplifting ans motivational speech explaining to young women that they could have a family and career, that they didn’t have to sacrifice one for the other. Nothing wrong with that, right? Wrong. Here is the reaction it drew:
“Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,” he said.
She had to apologize later that week because she was being insensitive to gays by saying you could have a husband and a career. She wasn’t sensitive to the lesbians in the crowd. They were offended and uncomfortable.
Another example, again from Harvard:
Harvard University president Lawrence H. Summers has provoked a new storm of controversy by suggesting that the shortage of elite female scientists may stem in part from “innate” differences between men and women.
This man had the balls to say that men and women might be different. Holy shit, who would have thunk it? This drew a firestorm of criticism as the quote was interpreted as meaning women were inferior to men, when in fact he was listing several possible reasons why women didn’t do as well in science as men. He was not saying men were superior, yet he was forced to resign.
This is where we stand now in this country. Everybody is too sensitive, hell Obama is a smoker yet he is afraid to smoke in public because he is afraid of the backlash. He is too sensitive of his smoking and what others may think of him because of it. So how did we get to this point? Political correctness is how.
The first I remember hearing the term “politically correct” was probably in the early 1990’s. Anything that was controversial or stereotypical was seen as not politically correct. We have been indoctrinated over time to stop saying things that may be unpopular or insensitive. We were told “you can’t say that, it is not politically correct”. There were even times when I was told “that may be true, but it’s not politically correct.” As if I give a damn if something is politically correct, if it’s true its true, regardless of whether it is politically alright to say it. Who the hell does the government think they are to tell Americans what they can and can’t say?
Political correctness started as a means to break down the walls of stereotypes by limiting what people can say around different groups of people, yet the opposite has occurred. The politically correct movement has built more walls around people because when someone looks at another person they now see a gender, race, or sexual preference and immediately put up a filter on what the can and can’t say as to not offend anyone. People see others as a member of a particular group instead of another person.
On top of this, political correctness has also taught people that they should be offended by the words of others. People have become too easily offended by everything. I am offended by people who are always offended and are always playing the victim card. Speaking of the victim card, political correctness has also led everyone to believe they are a victim of something. Nobody is accountable for their own actions because they are taught that the system is unfair and they don’t have a chance.
This has made Americans too sensitive on two issues. First Americans are too afraid to say anything that might be offensive. And I am pretty sure the constitution doesn’t limit free speech to non-offensive speech. Secondly it has turned Americans into a bunch of pansies, yeah I said pansies I don’t care if it is politically correct. People have become too sensitive because they have been taught that nothing controvercial or offensive is ever supposed to be said, so when something is said that they don’t like they can’t deal with it other than to become offended. Their feelings get hurt and instead of standing up for themselves the feel sorry for themselves.
America is being driven apart by the very vehicle that was supposed to bring us together, political correctness. America used to be known as the melting pot, where people of all nationalities could come together as one and join together as one nation. Now however, due to another politically correct ideal, multi-culturism, America is more like a crock pot where the ingredients are thrown in together but instead of becoming one, we stay seperate and “coexist.”
I do believe Americans have become too sensitive, what do you think?
Oprah Under Attack by Women for Supporting Obama
One thing that I have thoroughly enjoyed thus-far in the primary season is watching and listening to the Democrats expose themselves. By this I mean that they are considered the party of all-inclusiveness and caring, yet are dividing themselves by race and gender. Democrats have carefully constructed an image with women and minorities as the only party that will be able to help them, and they have also constructed the false belief that Republicans only want to tear women and minorities down. But now there is an interesting dynamic in the Democrat race, a woman and a minority with a legitimate chance to become president, and that is beginning to expose them.
There has been racial bickering between Obama and Clinton for several weeks now, and the latest “victim” of the increasingly bitter campaign between the candidates is Oprah.
Oprah has come under attack for betraying fellow woman by endorsing a black man. Her website has been over-run with angry liberal women. She has even been called a traitor by women.
It started with a message on her website entitled “Oprah is a traitor” and rapidly expanded to include several discussions that attracted hundreds of comments.
In the original post, a reader called austaz68 said she “cannot believe that women all over this country are not up in arms over Oprah’s backing of Obama. For the first time in history we actually have a shot at putting a woman in the White House and Oprah backs the black MAN. She’s choosing her race over her gender.”
Now here is what gets me. These people are supposed to be tolerant of others, they are supposed to be color blind and multi-cultural, women are supposed to be equal, yet they believe that Oprah should endorse a candidate based on gender. The fact that the woman who wrote this is basing her vote solely on Clinton’s gender rather than looking at the issues is evident. Perhaps if she looked at the issues she would still vote for Hillary, but that is where her decision should come from. What is also evident is the fact that she truly believes Oprah should base her endorsement on gender not race. She is also intimating that Oprah’s endorsement is based on something other than the issues, which is what voters should be voting on.
I find it amusing that those who aren’t supposed to be lumping people into groups are the ones who see race and gender first.
Perhaps Oprah looked at where the candidates stood on the issues and made a decision based on who she felt best represented her beliefs. This would be the responsible thing to do, not vote based on race or gender. Maybe she doesn’t think Clinton is liberal enough so she went with one of the most liberal politicians to have a legitimate chance at becoming president.
Nobody will ever know for sure why Oprah decided to vote for Obama, but as I said earlier, I find it terribly amusing that the most tolerant, caring, all inclusive people in the world are attacking one of their own for not voting for someone who looks the most like them.
Democrats have turned this election into a contest between a woman and a minority instead of a contest about which candidate has the best ideas and most represents them as a party. That is why I say that Democrats are being exposed in this election. Democrats have hyphenated people into different classes of Americans, IE African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and so forth. Somehow Democrats have made the case that by separating Americans into hyphenated classes it is more inclusive to the groups they are separating. Now they have two of the groups with a very real chance at making it to the white house and instead of voting for the candidate that best represents their beliefs, they are voting for the person who looks like them. Democrats have stereotyped Republicans as racist and sexist, yet now they are being exposed as the real racists and sexists.
Read more about Oprah under attack here.
Why all the Democrat Voter Fraud Accusations?
Since 2000, it seems as though every time a Democrat loses an election it is due to voter fraud. It started with Al Gore, and continued with John Kerry. Why is this?
This primary season in New Hampshire Hillary Clinton won even though polls showed Obama with a ten point lead. Naturally the accusations of voter fraud surfaced. How could the polls be wrong? There were claims that busloads of out of staters were being brought in to vote. Many stories were told of there being more cars at polling stations with Massachusetts plates than New Hampshire plates. This is the main reason why same day registration should be stopped and you should need to show an ID to vote. But that is an argument for another day, and another post.
Next came Nevada. First Clinton supporters filed a lawsuit two days before the caucus to prevent what they thought were caucuses that would vote for Obama from having a voice. Next, I turn on the television and I see Bill Clinton telling every reporter that will listen that he personally saw his wife’s supporters not being allowed into caucuses.
It seems that Democrats can’t accept defeat graciously, in Clinton’s case he was setting up an excuse for defeat just in case it happened, now that it didn’t he just looks foolish.
So why is this? Why is it only Democrats? Why do Republicans take their loses and move on without accusations of voter fraud. In 2006, when Republicans were swept out of power, were there any complaints? None that I remember.
I have a theory, and here it is. For the past, I don’t know, 15 years-maybe 20, there has been a mindset instilled into the American children that there are no winners and losers. This mindset has been inculcated into their heads for years and years. On the soccer field parents can’t keep score because we don’t want the losers being sent away in shame. It will hurt them emotionally for the rest of their lives if they lose a soccer game. Over time this thought process of protecting the child has reached levels of absurdity. Some schools are no longer correcting tests in red, they are using purple because red is too traumatising to a child. Red pens will scar children for life.
There are children who can’t read or write being pushed through school anyway. Why. because there is a belief out there that holding a child back will traumatise him or her more than not being able to read or write. So they are sent to the next grade in hopes that they can catch up there. They can’t, they fall further behind. Then there is the whole idea of outcome based education. If a child believes that 2+2=5 than we are to let him or her believe 2+2=5 until they figure out on their own why 2+2=4. This is because telling a child that he/she is wrong is, you guessed it, too traumatising for the child.
All this type of no consequences for you actions, everybody always wins, nobody ever loses attitude has been preached by liberals for all these years. Children grow up and go into the real world unprepared for failure because they have been taught that there is no failure.
My theory is that they have been spouting this garbage for so long now that they have actually indoctrinated themselves into this mentality. They have been teaching children that nobody ever loses, that we are all winners for so long now that they actually believe it.
Now we have had three Democrat contests, we won’t count Michigan because it didn’t count, and two accusations of voter fraud. I believe they have forgotten how to lose with class and dignity all because they forgot that life actually does have winners and losers. What makes this so fun is that all the other accusations were levied against Republicans, now we have two Democrats fighting with each other about who the system is going to fuck over. I love it.
Democrat candidates head into the primary season as unprepared for failure as our children enter society unprepared for failure. Democrats have forgotten that somebody has to lose.
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
A friend of mine, Ryan, who blogs at Pro Patria, sent me this article about George Soros. We already know about how the Democrats are hoping for failure in Iraq because they have their political futures riding on it, but this article sheds some light on a truly insidious hope for economic failure in the United States by the likes of George Soros. The title of the article, “Soros bets on U.S. Economic Collapse”, should tell you all you need to know.
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama favor government support for people losing their homes because they can’t repay their subprime mortgages. But what about the financial wheeler-dealers in the hedge fund industry who may stand to make billions of dollars from this terrible debacle? Foremost among them is billionaire hedge fund operator George Soros, who has committed his life and immense financial resources to bringing the Democrats to power in the White House.
Democrats believe it is the government’s responsibility to bail out the people who should never been allowed to buy houses in the first place. They believe it is the government’s responsibility to reward people who made bad decisions with their money and bought houses they couldn’t afford. It’s not. Yet, do the Democrats have a problem with George Soros making billions of dollars off of these chumps? NO! George Soros is a monnbat’s moonbat and he has made it his mission statement to support all Democrat candidates, the more moonbaterish the candidate, the better.
Democrats say that President Bush’s tax cuts only helped the rich, and that the rich don’t pay enough taxes, yet they remain silent on George Soros making billions, that’s billions with a “B”, off of these poor saps who didn’t realize what they were getting themselves into. If they really believed in the working class getting screwed by the rich, instead of bailing out the people who bought these homes, shouldn’t they be going after people like Soros who are making all this money from these people? Yes, but Soros turns around and takes some of the money he makes from the hedge funds that exploit the working class, and gives it to Democrats. The Democrats turn around and give the working class a big FUCK YOU by taking money from the type of person that they supposedly are fighting against.
George Soros isn’t alone though.
Ties to the controversial and mysterious hedge fund industry could become a major problem for the Democratic Party. Hedge fund money “appears to be tilting toward the Democrats of late,” the New York Times reported last year.
Many Democrats are involved with hedge funds, including a Clinton.
Chelsea Clinton took a job in 2006 with Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund whose founder, Marc Lasry, has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the national Democratic Party and many of its candidates.
John Edwards, champion of the poor, week, and disenfranchised also joined a hedge fund that made money from the sub prime mortgage industry, one of the same entities he vows to fight as president.
“The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign.”
This is amazing, isn’t it? What a hypocrite John Edwards is! He is making millions off of the same people he claims he will help if elected president. Remember what his excuse was when he was called out on it? He said he only joined the hedge fund to learn about poverty. How stupid does he think we are?
But what is equally disturbing if not more, is the way these people benefit from the United States economy failing. Not only do they benefit from it, but they actually bet on it and hope to be correct in order to line their Democrat funding pockets.
The American people should be quickly educated by our media on how very rich people like Paulson and Soros make “bets” on the rise or fall of national currencies and economies. Paulson is now telling investors “it’s still not too late” to bet on more economic problems.
The article goes on to say that Soros, as a major contributor to the Democrat party stands to collect on his debts if any Democrat is elected to the white house. The article also states that Democrats look to be the beneficiaries of an economy that falls apart, that their election to the presidency may be reliant on it, and that they will also be able to blame the president for the downturn in the economy.
That begs us to ask this question, if Democrats and their billionaire financiers are making billions off of the slowing economy, betting on the economy slowing down, and can also gain politically while blaming the Republican president, would they purposely try to kill the United States economy for political gain?
I know how that may sound, but think about this for a minute. These people are willing to surrender a war, and provide aide and comfort to our enemy in order to humiliate a sitting president in the hopes of regaining power. Now we have learned from this article that major Democrat contributors make billions from the sorrow of the little people that Democrats supposedly fight for and then contribute millions to the Democrats so they can fight for the little people that they just fucked over. At the same time they can blame a Republican president and the American people are too blind to see otherwise. It’s the perfect situation. As the article goes on to ask, will the media go after George Soros and other hedge fund managers who stand to profit from an economic recession or even depression? The answer to that question is NO!
Democrats are already manipulating public opinion about the Iraq war, now they may be manipulating the economy to hurt the working people for the cause of returning to power, and they will never be caught.
It seems to me that Democrats and their billionaire financiers are playing games not only with the economy, but with the lives of the people they are supposed to be fighting for. The American people remain blind and even worse, uncaring and apathetic. It is the perfect recipe for the stew that the Democrats are cooking. Coupled with the fact that the Democrat’s answer to everything is bigger government with more government control and regulations, it makes you wonder.
Once again, something bad for America and her people is good for Democrats. So I ask you is it possible that Democrat high rollers are manipulating the economy for financial and political gain?
I think it is.
Iraqi Forces Could Take Control Over all Provinces This Year
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
Democrat candidates for president are not going to like this at all. Major gains are being made in Iraq, and now this story reports that Iraqi forces may be able to take control of every province in Iraq from the United States forces by the end of the year.
Iraq’s army and police could be ready to take over security in all 18 provinces by the end of this year as the U.S. military moves toward a less prominent role in the country, U.S. officials said on Thursday
In an under reported fact, the Iraqi army has taken control of half of the provinces already, as the United States begin to move into a support role. This news,if it comes to fruition, is bad news for Democrats who have based their campaigns on the United States losing the war. With any luck, Iraq will be under Iraqi command in time for the November elections.
The media has already dropped the war from it’s daily doom and gloom top headline production, and hardly ever even mention it. How sad is it that when we were losing soldiers ( even at the incredibly low rate that we were) and Iraq looked to be sliding into a civil war, the media gleefully told us how many Americans died, but with Americans on the verge of transferring power to the Iraqis, the media hides the news for fear it will hurt the Democrats in an election?
Recently, control of Anbar province was handed over to the Iraqis, this was the worst province in Iraq for most of the war. Did you even hear about this? Not unless you searched the internet as I did. The media was strangely silent. As victory in Iraq seems more and more likely the Democrat candidates running for president, and the media, grow increasingly silent on the issue as they now turn their attention to the economy and pray for a recession.
Democrats in congress no longer say we can’t win for fear of how stupid they will look when we do win. The presidential candidates, fearful of being on the wrong side of a United States victory, hardly ever even mention the war. And the media, their willing accomplices, don’t even report the news coming out of Iraq.
We will win this war unless Democrats strap a set on, sack up, and do what they tell us they were sent to congress to do. And that is surrender before we can achieve victory. Time is running out on them, progress is being made every day, and if they don’t end this war the outcome may be good for the United States, which is bad for Democrats.
However, if the Democrats are able to ignore the news coming from Iraq, which is easy because the media ignores it, and cut off funding for the war, they will secure defeat from the jaws of victory, send America running home with her tail tucked between her legs and probably get a Democrat elected to the White-house in November. That is all they care about.
Then and only then will Democrats be able to say:
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Hillary Clinton supporters filed a lawsuit in Nevada to stop casino workers from being able to caucus on Saturday. Once her supporters realized that the culinary union, which represents the casino workers, endorsed Obama, a lawsuit was filed to try to stop them from being able to vote against Hillary. What else would you expect from supporters of a Marxist?
Here is the video of a heated exchange between Hillary’s spouse and a reporter who confronted him about the lawsuit. By the way, today a judge threw out the lawsuit.
The ACLU to Defend Larry Craig
You all must remember Larry “wide stance” Craig? He is now getting support from an organization that usually limits it’s resources to helping Democrats and illegal aliens justify any action that is unjustifiable. The American Criminals Liberty Union, the ACLU.
The ACLU is actually arguing that two men who decide to have sex in a PUBLIC restroom should logically be able to assume they will have PRIVACY.
The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms “have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Does the ACLU not understand how stupid it sounds to say a couple can have sex in public and expect privacy?
“The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom,” the ACLU wrote in its brief.
Let me get this straight (pardon the pun), I walk into a public bathroom and I hear two men “engaging in sexual intimacy” as I try to do my thing, and the ACLU is arguing that this act shouldn’t have called attention to itself because the stall door is shut? Not to go into too much detail here, but the act of doing what you are supposed to do in the stall can call attention to itself to someone outside the stall. Don’t I have the right to take a piss in a public bathroom without being subjected to “sexual intimacy” right next to me.
Nothing says romantic like the public bathroom at an airport, the sights and smells, the erotica written all over the walls by unbelievably talented scribes, the plungers. Hell, there are even condom dispensers there so we can all practice safe restroom sex. Somehow I have avoided the temptation.
If you want to hang out in a public restroom and try to pick up other men that is fine with me, what do I care, but once you find your restroom soulmate can’t you take him to a hotel? I understand it isn’t as romantic as a public restroom, but it should be romantic enough. Or are you just a cheap bastard who isn’t willing to spend a few dollars on your new soulmate.
The American Communist Liberties Union must be torn on this one. On one hand they are fighting for the depravity of public mens room sex, but on the other hand they are defending a Republican. This has got to be the first time they have come out in defence of a Republican.
New Hampshire Fish and “Wildlife” Wants to Tax Hikers?
This is my third and final post today on the idiocy of New Hampshire lawmakers. I have to say that my blood is beginning to boil. It was so nice having our legislators on recess, but now they have come back with a fury and are looking to make up for lost time.
The point of this post is to talk about more new taxes and fees coming to New Hampshire, this time from the New Hampshire Fish and “Wildlife” Department. If you are not from around here you are probable wondering why I put the “Wildlife” in quotations. That is because the department is called the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, at least for now. The department is looking to changing it’s name to the New Hampshire Fish and Wildlife Department in order to be more “inclusive” to people who don’t hunt. Isn’t that nice. More feel good, get nothing accomplished legislation.
Anyway, now on to the new taxes.
The Fish and GAME department is looking at creating a saltwater fishing licence, an activity that is currently free, we can’t have that.
They are looking at making residents get a sticker (at a price) for Kayaks and rowboats, again an activity that is currently free.
And, in my opinion, the most ridiculous idea of them all. A voluntary fee for people who want to go hiking in New Hampshire. Can you imagine the audacity it takes a government to ask people to pay if they want to walk in the woods? Sure, it would start off voluntary and the next thing you know there will be rangers in the woods asking people to see their walking permits because it will eventually become mandatory.
All in all the department is looking at as many as 30 changes, and by changes I mean fees, that could be introduced to the legislature for approval.
With taxes come regulations, and where regulations come more government control follows. With government control comes less and less personal freedoms, and at a higher cost.
Live FREE or Die? Bullshit.
New Hampshire Lawmakers to Debate a Beverage Sales Tax
New Hampshire lawmakers will be debating HB 503. This is a bill that will implement a sales tax on bottled water, soft drinks, energy drinks, and baby formula. Naturally the cowards won’t call it a tax, they prefer the term “fee”, but it is a tax.
They are using a cute little ploy to try and get this past the voters of New Hampshire without them even noticing. Judging by how stupid New Hampshire voters have become, it will probably work. This bill would assess a fee on the makers and distributors of these products. It doesn’t take rocket science to figure out that the additional cost of producing and distributing the product will then be passed on to the consumer. Economics 101. So consumers will still be paying the price that it shows on the bottle, you won’t see the price of the product + sales tax = $$$, but you are paying a higher premium for the purchase of this product, IE, a sales tax.
The sales tax may start here, but it will never stop here. Once they have their insidious little money grubbing hands in your pockets, they will never take them out.
Oh, and by the way, won’t a tax on baby formula disproportionately hurt the poor and middle class families struggling just to get by? Where’s the compassion?
