Possibly as soon as today the New Hampshire congress will vote on the “Dog Protection Act” This is a bill that claims dog racing is abusive and inhumane to the dogs, and will shut down privately owned dog racing tracks. The organization Grey2USA, a Massachusetts based group is behind this bill. It’s bad enough that ex-Massachusetts residents are coming up here and ruining our state, now their liberal organizations are coming up here and interfering with our businesses. All to help ensure the Nanny State.
If this bill passes about 500 New Hampshire residents will lose their jobs. The state will lose about $2.4 million taxes.( guess where that will be made up. Can you say sales tax?) This is another instance of our state government interfering with private business owners.
Of course, Gov. Lynch won’t say if he supports the bill or not. He wants to keep his approval rating at 75%. When it comes to making a decision on a tough issue he won’t take a side, therefore no side will get mad at him. He’s afraid of hurting his approval rating.
So New Hampshire is saving the dogs, so what about the consequences, but what about our children?
They don’t seem to be too concerned about the children.
While these other penny anti bills like the smoking ban, the cell phone ban, are being debated time is running out on the school funding emergency. For those of you not from around here, the state supreme court interfered in the education funding system and told Gov. Lynch he had to define the term adequate education by July 1st or the court would impose a funding solution. This would probably be a sales or income tax or both.
The biggest problem here is the court doesn’t have the authority to do this. But Gov. Lynch, afraid to take on the courts because of the possibility of hurting his approval ratings won’t do that. So while we dilly dally on this the clock is ticking on almost a definite new tax.
While this is going on, the legislature repealed the parental notification law. This law required parents to be notified at least 48 hours before their minor daughter has an abortion. MINOR DAUGHTER.
Now, for the sake of this argument, I am not discussing whether or not abortion should be legal. But for the record I am anti-abortion. Abortion is legal as we all know so I am making this argument in the name of parenting. This is a case of taking parenting away from parents. The government is stepping in where the parents belong, they believe they know what is best for our children.
They are taking away the chance that maybe a child and a parent can sit down together and work out an issue as serious as abortion on their own. Maybe the parent would want the child to have an abortion, maybe they wouldn’t. But shouldn’t the parent have some say in this aspect of their child’s life?
If a child can participate in bad behavior and not have to face any consequences, wouldn’t that just embolden the child? If the child had to go to the parents with the news of a pregnancy, might they think twice about their action?
It’s bad enough having unprotected sex with the possibilities of STD’s., now they would effectively use abortion as birth control and a parent has no say.
So as they debate banning ADULTS smoking in bars, ADULTS talking on cell phones in cars, manditory seatbelts for ADULTS in cars, you’re CHILD can have an invasive surgical proceedure, and as an ADULT, you don’t have the right to know.
But don’t worry, the dogs will be treated humanely.
The supreme court is being asked to overturn the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. This piece of legislation banns organizations form airing issue related adds 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. That is the most important time before and election and adds are not allowed to be shown on television right before an election that shows you where candidates stand on the issues? Sounds like an attack on freedom of speech to me.
A loophole in the bill allowed the forming of the 527 organizations who were then allowed to pump as much money into the campaigns as they could. This loophole actually enabled more money to be spent on the races, totally undoing what the bill was meant to do.
If you want to read about the supreme court possibly hearing arguments about this legislation, read here.
Summing Up The Iraq War Emergency Spending Bill Vote
The article below sums up the truth behind the Iraq war emergency spending bill. It illustrates how Nancy Pelosi was more concerned with what the headlines would read after the vote than what was best for the country.
Here is the article from opinionjournal.com:
BY JAMES TARANTO
‘Congress Is Standing Up to President Bush’
By a vote of 218-212, the House has approved a $124 billion supplemental spending bill to fund the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill includes a promise that the U.S. will surrender in Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008.
This morning’s New York Times explains that passage of the Democrat-backed measure was in doubt because some ultraliberal lawmakers objected to spending one more dollar supporting the troops:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, used an array of persuasion techniques–some hard, some soft–as she walked through the House chamber on Thursday, seeking out undecided legislators in hopes of securing the 218 votes needed to pass the measure. Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia and a former civil rights leader and chief deputy whip, told Ms. Pelosi this week that he would oppose the bill because of his commitment to nonviolence and his unwillingness to devote more money to the war. “Let’s pray about it,” he recalled Ms. Pelosi saying. Ultimately, he added, “she respected my decision.”
In the event, 14 Democrats–a mix of far-left types like Lewis, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Maxine Waters of California and antisurrender moderates like Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene Taylor of Mississippi–voted against the bill. Just two Republicans, Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones of North Carolina–voted “yes.” California Democrat Fortney Hillman Stark Jr. voted “present.”
That Times piece has a revealing explanation of Democratic motives:
In conversations with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks, often in her Capitol suite or in a late-night telephone call, Ms. Pelosi argued aggressively for the bill, even as she empathized with their anguish over how to vote. But in the end, participants said, her argument often boiled down to this: Did they want a headline saying, “Congress is standing up to President Bush,” or “Congress gives President Bush free rein?”
Mission accomplished, Nancy: See the top of this item. But this tells you all you need to know about Democratic “leadership” in Congress. It doesn’t matter what’s good for the country or whether America defeats its foreign enemies, only that the headlines make the Dems look tough on their domestic adversaries.
Sen. Jim Webb(D-VA) Aide Arrested For Gun Possession
An aide to Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) was arrested for trying to bring a loaded weapon into the Senate office building. Of course we are being told it’s just an oversight. Just like it was an oversight when Sandy Berger stole classified documents. The aide says he forgot he was carrying a loaded weapon. If you were carrying a loaded weapon, would you forget? I don’t think so.
Thank God Sen. Webb is a Democrat or the Senate would get bogged down with more hearings and investigations. After all didn’t Jim Webb and President Bush have a confrontation in a hallway whin the president asked how Sen. Webb’s son was?
You can read the article here.
Celebrating Diversity On College Campuses?
It seems we hear the terms celebrate diversity, and the free expression of ideas alot when it comes to colleges and their alums. We are free to and should embrace diversity when it comes to race, culture, sexual orientation, and the list goes on. While people shouldn’t be judged on race and culture and such, it appears as though there is one area where colleges are a little less willing to celebrate diversity. That is in the field of politics.It seems if you are conservative your viewpoints are not welcome.When it comes to politics, the free expression of ideas, and a free an open debate, fall by the wayside.
There is an article you can read about here about this issue, and about a college student who is trying to release a documentary about this subject. Unfortunately he is having a little trouble getting it released.
Dick Cheney Says The House Is Undermining The Troops
Dick Cheney comes out fighting and says the Democrats are undermining the troops. I couldn’t agree more with his statements. I wish the president would come out and attack the Democrats about this issue. Democrats are trying to say they support the troops, but then put them in harms way by sending a bill to the senate they know the president will veto, possibly delaying funding until it is too late to help the troops. For details on this see here.
To read about Dick Cheney’s comments, read this.
‘Surge’ Cuts Killings In Baghdad
Below is an article about the surge form philly.com. It has some very good points and statistics. The last two paragraphs are very critical of Donald Rumsfeld, saying he was the one in favor of the lower troop numbers. He was opposed to any troop surge. Now that we see it is working we can only wonder what would have happened in November’s elections if Rumsfeld was replaced before the elections, and the surge and it’s progress were seen before the elections.
Here is the article:
By Jonathan Last
Of the many problems in Iraq, one of the most frustrating has been the Bush administration’s belief that democracy is the prerequisite to liberalism. It is not. Security, not democracy, is the sine qua non of a liberal society. Without it, elections are useless, or worse. While the administration labored to deliver Iraqi democracy, it seemed to believe that security would take care of itself once the purple thumbs were counted.
The Baghdad Security Plan (commonly known as the “surge”) is the administration’s first serious attempt to grapple with security in Iraq. The results so far are not discouraging. Read more…
“You and your smarmy pundits — and the smarmy pundits you have in your pocket — can take your war and shove it,” Penn said. “Let’s unite not only in stopping this war, but in holding this administration accountable.”
“Let’s make this crystal clear: We do support our troops, but not the exploitation of them and their families,” he said. “The money that’s spent on this war would be better spent on building levees in New Orleans and health care in Africa and care for our veterans. Iraq is not our toilet. It’s a country of human beings whose lives that were once oppressed by Saddam are now in Dante’s Inferno.”
These two brilliant quotes are from the one and only Sean Penn at a town hall meeting in Oakland. Rep. Barbara Lee, a Democrat from Oakland also attended the event.
Why is it that because these people can act that they think they can speak for the American people? These people are so out of touch, they can’t possible know how the average American feels. They believe they are so smart that than can speak for us.
There are two points that he made that I find interesting. The first point is when he says “Let’s unite not only in stopping this war, but in holding this administration accountable.” What I find interesting is how he, and all the anti-war people, want to hold the administration accountable. Why don’t these people want to hold the terrorists that killed 3000 Americans on September 11th accountable? George Bush is trying to protect this country from another attack, if you want to hold him accountable for that I say fine. It’s not a bad thing to be fighting terrorists, especially after they have attacked us. Nobody wants to be at war, but sometimes it’s unavoidable. Maybe if we had a president in the 1990’s who wasn’t too busy hiding a stained dress to combat terror, or had the guts to combat terror, September 11th wouldn’t have happened. I say we hold President Clinton accountable. Wasn’t Clinton’s National Security Adviser Sandy Burger caught stealing documents that showed Clinton’s ineptitude when it came to terrorism? Sandy Berger was not held accountable.
The second point I find interesting is when he says “The money that’s spent on this war would be better spent on building levees in New Orleans and health care in Africa. ”
The United States spends billions of dollars in Africa, more than any other nation. The war on terror is money being spent in the national interest. Any money we spend in Africa on humanitarian issues is not in the nations interest. While it may be a very worthy cause, our national security is not at risk. The president, as commander in chief, has a duty to protect the people of the United States. These Democrats would rather spend money and deploy troops on humanitarian missions, instead of military missions to protect the country.
Our country and the security of our country comes first. If it doesn’t we will have no country to protect.
Maybe we should pull out of Iraq, then when all hell breaks loose, and the slaughter of civilians takes place, or genocide if you prefer, the Democrats will say we have to intervene. We have to stop the genocide in Iraq. Iraq will become a humanitarian cause, and then and only then will they be in favor of war in Iraq.
UPDATE: I forgot in my original post to mention that I do not believe it when he says he supports the troops. The fact that these people have to keep coming out and telling us they support the troops leads me to believe they know they don’t. The audience that Sean Penn was speaking to is the same type of people who burned a US soldier in effigy last week. You can read more about that here.
This article you can read here is from the New Hampshire Union Leader points out some of the hypocrisy of the left on the Iraq war. It tells how Obama voted against John Kerry’s bill to set an arbitrary timetable because he said it make Iraq worse. Now that he needs the anti-war vote he voted for the timetable. Everything is done for political reasons with the Democrats,not what might be best for the country.
One point I disagree with in this article is when the author says the withdrawal date wasn’t picked for a reason. The article goes on tho say they just picked any date. I believe they picked August of ’08 because it is only a few months away from the election. They want to gain political points just in time for November and the consequences on our troops be damned.
Duncan Hunter In New Hampshire
Click here to read a small article on Duncan Hunter’s stop in New Hampshire. This doesn’t bring about the fanfair that the first teir candidates bring. But at least it will give you a small idea on where he stands on immigration, and trade.
