Democrats New Budget Will Hurt The Middle Class
If you think the Democrats represent the middle class think again. You might want to read this. The Democrats manage to make people believe they are for working families, but is is simply not true. They are the party of entitlements. While you and your spouse go to work every day and work hard to support your family, the Democrats are giving many capable people a free ride. If you have a job, you are rich, that’s how they feel. They are going to take your money and give it away to people who could work if only the government didn’t pay them so well to stay home.
Here comes the largest tax hike in history, and it hits middle America pretty damned hard.
Mitt Romney: Amend The Constitution To Ban Gay Marriage
There is an article here about Mitt Romney calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Here is a little back-story about how gay marriage was forced on the Mass. residents.
Most Americans know that Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage. And they probably also know that Mitt Romney was governor when gay marriage was legalised. What I’m not sure many people know around the country is how this came to pass. This was not a bill that passed through the state house and senate, then on to Romney’s desk for a signature. This was a case of liberal, activist judges instituting their own personal policy preferences onto the citizens of Massachusetts, where they had no right to do so. They forced Mass. residents to accept something that polls show a vast majority of residents don’t want.
A citizen’s group gathered up more than enough signatures to have this issue go to the citizens for a vote in 2008 on this issue and have the constitution amended according to the vote. This meant that there had to be a constitutional convention,which there was, where a vote would have to be taken to put this issue on the ballet by Mass. law.
The constitutional convention, knowing Romney wasn’t running for re-election, illegally filibustered and the issue was never voted on in committee. Romney then filed a complaint with the state supreme court to have the committee reconvened and force a vote on the issue.
Unfortunately Romney was out of office before the final verdict came down. That is probably where he let Mass. residents down, if he did at all, by not running for re-election.
When gov. Patrick took office, the first thing he did was to kill the whole controversy by basically telling his law makers to ignore the law, and the wishes of the people, and not vote or send the issue to the voters.
An article appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader today about Rudy Giuliani that I found very interesting. You can read it here. I like what he says about keeping taxes low. He claims to be the bet fiscal conservative in the race, which I also like. And he opposes gay marriage.
He appears to be talking more coservative than I believed he was. I will have to pay close attention to him, maybe I can be swayed to vote for him.
There will be a full article in the Union Leader tomorrow, if there is anything noteworthy I will either update this post with a new or additional link, or I will write a new post.
New Hampshire, Welcome To The Nanny State Part 6
The following editorial piece appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader:
Seatbelts good ; gig government force is bad
By JOSEPH W. MCQUAID
New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher
Adults who don’t bother to use a seatbelt each and every time they enter an automobile are either not thinking clearly or don’t have the capacity to think at all.
Elected officials who presume to understand and speak for the Live Free or Die state aren’t thinking clearly if they vote to have the government force people to buckle up. That vote is scheduled in the House tomorrow and it looks like it may pass.
Seatbelts are good for you. But you are more likely to die from too much fat in your diet. Why isn’t the Legislature telling us what we can and cannot eat? Don’t laugh. That may be next.
New Hampshire has shown steady improvement in seatbelt usage and still kept Big Government at bay. That will change tomorrow with this bill, which would allow police to pull you over and fine you if they see that you are not belted up.
Is that the New Hampshire way? Do we want our small government to go down the slippery slope that leads to more and more orders and less and less liberty? That’s what this vote is really all about. New Hampshire citizens will be watching it closely.
Nancy Pelosi has traveled to one of our enemies countries, Syria. She has brought along what the Democrats are calling their alternative Democrat foreign policy. Can someone please tell me how she is able to create a second foreign policy? Last time I checked the president set the foreign policy, like it or not. The Democrats can have an alternative foreign policy if they want, they just have to win the white-house first. They seemed to have forgotten that part.
The war on Bush appears to be a three flanked attack.
Flank one is to cut the legs out from our troops fighting the war on terror. This will insure defeat overseas and give the Democrats a much needed victory in the war on Bush. Defeat overseas is the first and main battle for the Democrats to regain power.
Flank two is to undermine the rest of Bush’s foreign policy by offering our enemies a second, alternative foreign policy called appeasement. This will totally destroy our standing in the world. Having two foreign policies, and each country can sign up for the one they like, I guess.
Flank three is to undermine the domestic agenda with hearings and trials on any subject the Democrats can get their hands on. This includes non-scandals like the Alberto Gonzalez fiasco. This will totally cripple the Bush administration as he will not be able to get any agenda passed.
The three flanks have the white-house surrounded and are moving in on the attack.
This exerpt from the article linked to above sums it up.
Such a drastic and irresponsible step should remove any lingering doubt that the Democrats’ political strategy is to ensure that there is an American defeat in Iraq, in order to ensure their own political victory in 2008.
New Hampshire Voters, Hold On To Your Wallets Part 2
The following article appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader:
It Begins: Here Come The Tax Hikes
HOW DOES $185 million in tax and fee increases sound to you? Good? Well, then you’ll love the latest Democratic budget plan to emerge in the state House.
If the House Ways and Means Committee gets its way, the state will suck an additional $185 million from the economy in the next two years. The bulk of that is a $145 million cigarette tax increase. The plan also raises the real estate transfer tax and several fees, including motor vehicle registration fees.
It’s a bigger pot of money than Gov. John Lynch has requested. Lynch wanted a smaller cigarette tax hike, and he wanted the Land and Community Heritage Investment Program (LCHIP) funded with existing revenues. The Ways and Means Committee raises the real estate transfer tax to fund LCHIP.
But by pushing for his own tax hikes, Gov. Lynch let Democratic legislators know that raising taxes was OK with him. And they are running with it.
It is interesting that they would risk their majority by not sticking to the moderate Democrat script. They are supposed to spend the next two years lulling the voters into false sense of security by rejecting big tax hikes. Then, after the next election, wham!
But as with their counterparts in Washington, who are setting the people up for the largest tax increase in history, Democrats in the New Hampshire House are so giddy in their newfound power that they are forgetting to play it safe.
Taxpayers, take notice. A $185 million hit is just the beginning. There will be more to come. These tax-and-spenders just cannot help themselves.
To read the first part of the hold on to your wallet posts read this, I have a feeling these are just the first two posts of many.
Court Nixes Guantanamo Detainees’ Appeal
You can read about it here.
It’s still amazing to me that these prisoners of war,enemy combatants even got this far in our legal system. Non United States citizens who were captured on the battlefield fighting against us were to have access to our legal system?
Please explain it to me.
This is what Dick Durbin had to say about United States soldiers at Guantanamo Bay,
“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”
Remember he is talking about American soldiers and comparing them to Hitler, Pol Pot, and the soviet gulags. He is accusing our soldiers of torture.
Now Iran has taken 15 British soldiers hostage and Dick Durbin, and the whole congress for that matter is suspiciously silent. Why have they not come out and condemned Iran? These soldiers have obviously been coerced in some manner to offer a confession.
Does Dick Durbin and the congress believe that Iran treats it’s prisoners better than the United States treats ours?
I find it remarkable that these people rushed to judgement on our own soldiers and have nothing to say now.
I can only come to one conclusion,and it’s the same conclusion I have written about many times before on this blog. The Democrats see George W Bush as the true enemy and not the Islamo-facists. Condemning the United States’ troops is the left’s way of attacking our president. If they condemn Iran it does nothing for them in their war on Bush. In fact they probably feel like it might embolden him. So they will not condemn any hostile acts on America or her allies because deep down inside they hope the war on Bush leads them to victory. The white house in ’08. They have sided with the terrorists to gain back their power, just look at Nansy Pelosi going to Syria and negotiating with our enemy if you don’t believe me.
Here is a link to an article about Fred Thompson that appeared on realclearpolitics.com. It is sort of a breakdown about where he stands in the eyes of Republican voters. He will definitely fill the conservative void that is there among the top tier candidates. And while I’m on the subject of top tier candidates, why is it that Mitt Romney is thrown in there with McCain and Guiliani? I like Mitt Romney, having watched him as governor of the state right below my home state, but his poll numbers don’t justify the distinction of a big three candidate. In the latest realclearpolitics.com poll Thompson is ahead of Romney. Thompson has started to gain a groundswell of support without even campaigning or announcing his intentions. In the first New Hampshire poll released with Thomson in it he came in with 10%.
If and when he desides to run, it will really shake up the primary polling season.
New Hampshire, Gov. Lynch Facing Tough Decisions
This opinion piece appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader, in reiterates a point I was making in this post about how Gov. Lynch hasn’t made any tough decisions, which has helped him to keep up his approval rating. But things are going to change, hopefully he does the right thing.
From the New Hampshire Union Leader:
Lynch must decide: Will he align with the loony left
A few months after his party’s sweeping elections victories, Gov. John Lynch may be ruminating over the old saying, “Be careful what you wish for.”
Lynch has been a likeable and popular figure primarily because he hasn’t had many tough decisions to make — up until now. (Where to put the E-ZPass lanes doesn’t really count).
Now, however, difficult issues are on the line. And Lynch’s political life is further complicated by the leftwing loonies who are flexing their power in the Legislature.
Just a year ago, Gov. Lynch was doing his usual straddle, for instance, on the issue of marriage.
He was opposed to gay marriage, Lynch said. But he saw no need to constitutionally protect traditional marriage.
“There is no need to amend our constitution to do what is already set in law,” the governor said. “Our time is better spent focusing on the real challenges facing New Hampshire and working to unite people, not divide them.”
Last week, the House once again refused to let the people vote on this constitutional protection. This time, however, it also moved closer to passing various “civil union” bills.
New Hampshire’s law prohibiting the official sanction of gay marriages is in peril.
What will Gov. Lynch do? Will he approve of these “civil union” measures and the all-but inevitable repeal of what is “set in law?” Has he dropped his opposition to gay marriage, if he was in fact ever really opposed?
Welcome to the world of tough decisions, governor. There will be plenty more coming at you, now that you have a Senate and House full of politicians who think government should meddle with traditional society, mandate our seat belt and cellphone use, and tell the U.S. military when and how to wage war.
