---by Dave Buhlman
A pack of cigs over five bucks, a budget increase of over 17 percent, increased fees to register vehicles, mandated kindergarten, a planned 83 percent increase in the gas tax, additional tax payer funds to support abortion, gay marriage (Note: I cosponsored a bill a few years ago to get the government completely out of marriage, and end these battles, but it was killed quickly.), and men allowed to use the ladies rooms.
This is a partial litany of what rule of the State House by Democrats has brought, or will bring, to the former Live Free or Die state. The Democrats did not do it on their own, of course. They had help from many pretend Republicans to turn the granite hard island of sanity of New England into the mushy state of NewMass.
And what brought us to this deplorable condition? Republican President George Bush singlehandedly ruined the Republican party by lying us into wars, running up massive deficits, creating the unconstitutional offense of adding signing statements to many of the bills that came to his desk, signing the Patriot Acts, and being just plain smugly arrogant. Do blame me. I voted for him twice. The alternatives the Democrats put forth, however - the Goracle and the Golddigger from OldMass - gave me and millions of others no choice. Maybe Pat Buchanan was right - the two parties have become two wings of the same bird of prey.
So in 2006 the voters of New Hampshire handed the reins to the Democrats, in both the State and federal legislatures, due in part to their disgust with Bush. We are now reaping what we sowed.
It felt good when we moved here from OldMass over ten years ago. We left behind state income taxes and sales taxes, a one-party kleptocracy run by the Democrats, gun laws that would please Stalin and Mao, and higher costs for almost all goods and services. Now, all of that is in the process of changing as the Democrats and the Republican quislings turn the governing philosophy of this state upside down. I don’t think this is what most voters wanted, but it’s what we got.
When the socialist philosophy is creeping in everywhere, I guess you can run, but you can’t hide.
Lets’ turn it around in 2010 by sending legislators to the State House to support the many brave souls now there who are upholding Republican principles of small government and low taxes, and trying to hold in place the granite-hard principles that made New Hampshire the best state in the country.
Dave Buhlman is a former two-term New Hampshire State Representative.
---
3.29.2009
3.23.2009
I met a young Marine
By Ron Dupuis
I met a young Marine and didn’t know just what to say.
The event was a social function that my wife had been looking forward too for some time. Ever the diplomat, and aware of my disdain for such events, I was first approached in a thinly veiled, patronizing sort of way.
“Honey, would you come with me?’
“You’re so good at these things and I want to show you off to all my friends from work.”
My response was such that I knew I was in trouble the minute I said it.
“I painted the basement today and I have to stay home to make sure it dries right.”
Except for the uncomfortable silence, the drive to the affair was un-eventful.
Arriving a little late, we entered the hall as unobtrusively as possible. Playing the role of a supportive, doting husband, I followed my wife’s lead through the maze of tables and chairs leading to our seats, all the while enduring both the formal, polite, handshaking introductions of upper level management, to the girlish squeals of some co-workers who she had not seen in some time.
I dutifully held the chair for my wife and was about to park myself down ready to endure a long boring evening when I saw him.
“My God” I said to no one in particular. “He’s just a baby.”
There he was, standing ramrod straight in the middle of the room among a hundred or so guest. Dressed in Marine Corp “dress blues” complete with white barracks cap, gold buckled duty belt, and white gloves, he was all of 5 feet 2 inches tall and could not have weighed more than 160 lbs. His insignia of rank indicated he was a Lance Corporal and there were three “theater” medals on his chest. To me, he looked all of 15 years old.
“Who’s just a baby” my wife asked? Before I was able to respond she was deep into introductions of the other table guest. I tried being the supportive spouse and show an interest in my wife’s coworkers and friends. I really did. There was even a spark of enthusiasm when the subject turned to politics. That is until one individual declared Ted Kennedy one of the most effective legislators he had ever met. “He’s not afraid to reach across the aisle.”
I made a smart aleck comment under my breath and quickly changed the subject.
“How bout them Sox?”
The memories of another era started to return, first slowly, then at a pace that I had no control over. Chu Lai, Da Nang, Hue and about a dozen other palaces that I chosen long ago to bury in the dark recesses of my mind. Captain Reynolds, Corporal’s Williams and Smith and Sgt Fey names that had not passed my lips in at least four decades. For a reason I still fail to understand, I had to speak with this young Lance Corporal.
As I approached I gave the unofficial signal Marines give each other under such circumstances.
“URAHH!”
The young man snapped to attention and responded with a sincere “How do you do Sir”, “When were you in?” After talking briefly of my experience’s I asked how old he was. He told me he was almost 21 and that he will be returning to Iraq for his second tour next month. I wanted to give some sage advice or at the very least assure him that he will be safe. I couldn’t find the words. He seemed to sense that.
Don’t worry too much about me Sir” “I’ll do what ever is necessary to get the job done and stay alive.” “Kind of like what you probably did in Viet Nam.” He ended with “After all, we’re Marines.”
I’ve been a Republican my entire life. I supported the first Gulf war and I supported the current involvement. I’ve even spoken with two Presidential candidates about my concerns. Both of them advised me to continue my support until the results of the current build up could be evaluated. I promised that I would. I can’t keep that promise. Iraq has had its opportunity for a democratic society. Twice. That young Marine who told me that he would do whatever is necessary to “get the job done” struck a nerve with me. Our leaders in Washington failed miserably in doing “whatever is necessary” and we should stop sending our children in harms way, immediately.
“All this because “I met a young Marine and didn’t know just what to say.”
Ron Dupuis is a long time New Hampshire resident, a former State Representative, and a freelance writer. His e-mail address is drcdupuis@comcast.net.
I met a young Marine and didn’t know just what to say.
The event was a social function that my wife had been looking forward too for some time. Ever the diplomat, and aware of my disdain for such events, I was first approached in a thinly veiled, patronizing sort of way.
“Honey, would you come with me?’
“You’re so good at these things and I want to show you off to all my friends from work.”
My response was such that I knew I was in trouble the minute I said it.
“I painted the basement today and I have to stay home to make sure it dries right.”
Except for the uncomfortable silence, the drive to the affair was un-eventful.
Arriving a little late, we entered the hall as unobtrusively as possible. Playing the role of a supportive, doting husband, I followed my wife’s lead through the maze of tables and chairs leading to our seats, all the while enduring both the formal, polite, handshaking introductions of upper level management, to the girlish squeals of some co-workers who she had not seen in some time.
I dutifully held the chair for my wife and was about to park myself down ready to endure a long boring evening when I saw him.
“My God” I said to no one in particular. “He’s just a baby.”
There he was, standing ramrod straight in the middle of the room among a hundred or so guest. Dressed in Marine Corp “dress blues” complete with white barracks cap, gold buckled duty belt, and white gloves, he was all of 5 feet 2 inches tall and could not have weighed more than 160 lbs. His insignia of rank indicated he was a Lance Corporal and there were three “theater” medals on his chest. To me, he looked all of 15 years old.
“Who’s just a baby” my wife asked? Before I was able to respond she was deep into introductions of the other table guest. I tried being the supportive spouse and show an interest in my wife’s coworkers and friends. I really did. There was even a spark of enthusiasm when the subject turned to politics. That is until one individual declared Ted Kennedy one of the most effective legislators he had ever met. “He’s not afraid to reach across the aisle.”
I made a smart aleck comment under my breath and quickly changed the subject.
“How bout them Sox?”
The memories of another era started to return, first slowly, then at a pace that I had no control over. Chu Lai, Da Nang, Hue and about a dozen other palaces that I chosen long ago to bury in the dark recesses of my mind. Captain Reynolds, Corporal’s Williams and Smith and Sgt Fey names that had not passed my lips in at least four decades. For a reason I still fail to understand, I had to speak with this young Lance Corporal.
As I approached I gave the unofficial signal Marines give each other under such circumstances.
“URAHH!”
The young man snapped to attention and responded with a sincere “How do you do Sir”, “When were you in?” After talking briefly of my experience’s I asked how old he was. He told me he was almost 21 and that he will be returning to Iraq for his second tour next month. I wanted to give some sage advice or at the very least assure him that he will be safe. I couldn’t find the words. He seemed to sense that.
Don’t worry too much about me Sir” “I’ll do what ever is necessary to get the job done and stay alive.” “Kind of like what you probably did in Viet Nam.” He ended with “After all, we’re Marines.”
I’ve been a Republican my entire life. I supported the first Gulf war and I supported the current involvement. I’ve even spoken with two Presidential candidates about my concerns. Both of them advised me to continue my support until the results of the current build up could be evaluated. I promised that I would. I can’t keep that promise. Iraq has had its opportunity for a democratic society. Twice. That young Marine who told me that he would do whatever is necessary to “get the job done” struck a nerve with me. Our leaders in Washington failed miserably in doing “whatever is necessary” and we should stop sending our children in harms way, immediately.
“All this because “I met a young Marine and didn’t know just what to say.”
Ron Dupuis is a long time New Hampshire resident, a former State Representative, and a freelance writer. His e-mail address is drcdupuis@comcast.net.
3.13.2009
For Godless, beatings are okay
Following up on the recent media frenzy about singer Chris Brown's beating of his girlfriend and fellow singer Rhianna, Boston.com reports on a survey of 200 teens in the Boston area to see how they felt about it all. Here is the article. The quick bottom line, which seems to shock even the liberal press, is that a sizable number of the teens saw nothing wrong. Fighting in relationships is normal. Guys beating up girlfriends is normal. No big deal. In the spirit of blame-the-victim, a majority thought she had it coming anyhow.
Why are the liberal commentators shocked? This is EXACTLY what they get when they removed God so completely from everything. If we're not going to follow God's standard, use His rules, and use ourselves as the ultimate guide, THIS is what we get. If the world is able to define "normal" (i.e. acceptable) by our own behavior, the Brown beating Rhianna is NOT wrong. It just is.
For all those liberated, enlightened folks who bemoan about domestic violence, how can you? Why is beating anyone wrong? They're holding up some self-declared standard ("Women should not be beaten,") but it has no more force of power than Brown's standard that women should be beaten and savagely, if he wants to. No big deal.
Why do a majority of teens think Rhianna's beating was no big deal? Because, indirectly, that's what our enlightened humanist society has been teaching for the past 40 years. Do what you want. You are your own guide. There is no God. We write our own rules. That all sound fine as long as everyone was pretty much following God's rules anyhow. That wasn't going to last.
Now we have a majority-rules dictate: Beatings Are Okay. Who do the liberals think they can appeal that decision to? They declared that there is no higher power. Mankind is it.
Face it. For the Godless -- who have no standard beyond their own selfish desires -- Rhianna's beating is just as legitimate as someone else deciding to trim his hedge or ordering a pizza. All just stuff a man is free to do.
This is your brave new world, liberals. You've wanted to push God out of the picture for a long time, and put humans in charge. The will of the majority rules. What if the majority has decided that it's okay to beat women? Apparently, you've just got to accept it. In fact, if you're not going along with the majority opinion, you're liable to be labeled a counter-culture trouble maker. We can't have that.
So, liberal men, you'd better beat your women. Liberal women, you'd better just accept your beating. The majority has spoken. You have no higher standard to appeal to.
I am certainly glad I don't live in their world. God said a husband is to treat his wife with godly respect (1 Peter 3:7). God said it's not okay to beat wives. I would rather appeal to God's standard, than be forced to accept man's majority opinion on the matter. We're seeing where that path is leading.
Why are the liberal commentators shocked? This is EXACTLY what they get when they removed God so completely from everything. If we're not going to follow God's standard, use His rules, and use ourselves as the ultimate guide, THIS is what we get. If the world is able to define "normal" (i.e. acceptable) by our own behavior, the Brown beating Rhianna is NOT wrong. It just is.
For all those liberated, enlightened folks who bemoan about domestic violence, how can you? Why is beating anyone wrong? They're holding up some self-declared standard ("Women should not be beaten,") but it has no more force of power than Brown's standard that women should be beaten and savagely, if he wants to. No big deal.
Why do a majority of teens think Rhianna's beating was no big deal? Because, indirectly, that's what our enlightened humanist society has been teaching for the past 40 years. Do what you want. You are your own guide. There is no God. We write our own rules. That all sound fine as long as everyone was pretty much following God's rules anyhow. That wasn't going to last.
Now we have a majority-rules dictate: Beatings Are Okay. Who do the liberals think they can appeal that decision to? They declared that there is no higher power. Mankind is it.
Face it. For the Godless -- who have no standard beyond their own selfish desires -- Rhianna's beating is just as legitimate as someone else deciding to trim his hedge or ordering a pizza. All just stuff a man is free to do.
This is your brave new world, liberals. You've wanted to push God out of the picture for a long time, and put humans in charge. The will of the majority rules. What if the majority has decided that it's okay to beat women? Apparently, you've just got to accept it. In fact, if you're not going along with the majority opinion, you're liable to be labeled a counter-culture trouble maker. We can't have that.
So, liberal men, you'd better beat your women. Liberal women, you'd better just accept your beating. The majority has spoken. You have no higher standard to appeal to.
I am certainly glad I don't live in their world. God said a husband is to treat his wife with godly respect (1 Peter 3:7). God said it's not okay to beat wives. I would rather appeal to God's standard, than be forced to accept man's majority opinion on the matter. We're seeing where that path is leading.
3.09.2009
Stem Cells: The Fiction of Neutral Science
---by Micheal
President Obama delivered on one of his liberal agenda campaign promises today, and reversed President Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. (Reminder: this was only a ban on embryonic stem cell work, not all stem cell research.) At the same time, Obama blusters about mandating that "science be neutral" -- that is, non-political.
What a lovely fiction. What an outright lie.
Truth is, science can never be truly neutral. Why? Scientists are people. People cannot be truly neutral.
Much about science becomes ethical (and therefore political) issues once the theoretical starts to become the practical. Practical issues -- what to do about this or that -- are entirely the realm of human politics. A harsh reminder of this lives in history (which is, sadly, a largely unknown country).
In the late 1800s and early half of the 1900s, the science of Eugenics was hot. Born of Darwin's theories on evolution, scientists studied ways to improve the human species. Very quickly, the scientific theories of eugenics developed into practical actions. Physically "ideal" humans should breed. Physically imperfect humans should be prevented from breeding. Someone (even a "neutral" scientist) telling you whether you or your children should be allowed to have a family or not, is far from a neutral issue. When, in the early 20th century, it became clear that humans were nearly impossible to regulate, stern government mandates stepped in. The imperfect should be sterilized so they cannot breed. Whole imperfect groups should just be eliminated so they cannot undermine the upward progress of mankind. Does anyone remember how well that worked out last time?
No. Science cannot be neutral. Someone must be keeping an ethical eye on it or it will become ruthless. Ethics cannot help but be political. Should old people be protected or disposed of? Should the poor be fed or turned into food? Scientists are driven by agenda as much as any congressman. The notion that science can somehow be neutral is a total (and self-serving) fiction.
The reality is, Obama and the new liberal regime want embryonic stem cell research and increased abortions for their own political reasons. Scientists who align politically with the new liberal regime are the only ones who will be blessed with the label: "neutral." Opposing scientists will not be allowed if they do not genuflect at the Democratic Platform altar first.
President Obama delivered on one of his liberal agenda campaign promises today, and reversed President Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. (Reminder: this was only a ban on embryonic stem cell work, not all stem cell research.) At the same time, Obama blusters about mandating that "science be neutral" -- that is, non-political.What a lovely fiction. What an outright lie.
Truth is, science can never be truly neutral. Why? Scientists are people. People cannot be truly neutral.
Much about science becomes ethical (and therefore political) issues once the theoretical starts to become the practical. Practical issues -- what to do about this or that -- are entirely the realm of human politics. A harsh reminder of this lives in history (which is, sadly, a largely unknown country).
In the late 1800s and early half of the 1900s, the science of Eugenics was hot. Born of Darwin's theories on evolution, scientists studied ways to improve the human species. Very quickly, the scientific theories of eugenics developed into practical actions. Physically "ideal" humans should breed. Physically imperfect humans should be prevented from breeding. Someone (even a "neutral" scientist) telling you whether you or your children should be allowed to have a family or not, is far from a neutral issue. When, in the early 20th century, it became clear that humans were nearly impossible to regulate, stern government mandates stepped in. The imperfect should be sterilized so they cannot breed. Whole imperfect groups should just be eliminated so they cannot undermine the upward progress of mankind. Does anyone remember how well that worked out last time?
"There's no arguing with science, sir. Facts are facts. Now, step into this gas chamber. You're slowing down our progress."
No. Science cannot be neutral. Someone must be keeping an ethical eye on it or it will become ruthless. Ethics cannot help but be political. Should old people be protected or disposed of? Should the poor be fed or turned into food? Scientists are driven by agenda as much as any congressman. The notion that science can somehow be neutral is a total (and self-serving) fiction.
The reality is, Obama and the new liberal regime want embryonic stem cell research and increased abortions for their own political reasons. Scientists who align politically with the new liberal regime are the only ones who will be blessed with the label: "neutral." Opposing scientists will not be allowed if they do not genuflect at the Democratic Platform altar first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)