The OTHER 1%

--- by Micheal

When I walked to South Station in Boston on Monday, I noticed all the "Occupy Boston" folks, and tents and signs were gone. All there was were policemen, barricades and fresh green sod.  I'd seen the crudely made cardboard signs on my evening commute. "We are the 99%" some said.  Since they, the 99, seemed to have nothing to do with me, and I wasn't the evil rich 1%, I had to wonder what percent I was. Zero maybe?

The whole "Occupy" movement was crafted to resemble the popular uprisings in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.  What was totally lacking, however, was any kind of a similar coherent message. As demonstrators, they had no demand that could be granted. The arab youth demanded that Ben Ali, or Mubarak or Kadafi be removed. The old anti-war protesters of the 60s had a demand: stop the war.  There was something the authorities to could do. Some action to satisfy the protesters. The Occupy groups, had no collective demand.  The could never be satisfied.

Instead, they seemed to have had a bunch of pre-existing demands -- Capitalism is Bad, Stop Greed, Free Healthcare For All, Legalize Marijuana, Stop Global Warming, End Nuclear Power, Stop Wars, Stop Supporting Israel, etc. etc.  Google "OWS Signs", and see some for yourself.  There is no coherence to them.  There is also nothing new to them.

It occurred to me, riding the bus back home, that these were all the old "Progressive" agenda items from the past forty years. These people have always been with us. There has always been some small percentage of our population which rants about something or other. 

They are the other one percent. Not the richest 1%, but the angriest 1%. 

They don't agree on what their issue d' jour is: whales, nukes, healthcare, war, weed, greed, whatever. What they agree on is that they're angry the world isn't doing things the way they want. These are the vocal, angry one percent who were sufficiently funded from somewhere, to camp in city squares, chant and hold cardboard signs.  When they held up their signs declaring they are the 99%, they were apparently very wrong.  They are not the 99%, They are just a different 1%.  The lack of any popular uprising, as in the Arab Spring countries, should prove this out. The real 99 did not rally behind this other 1%.

Speaking as one of the real 99, I don't mind that this other 1% are submerging again.

Who Is Responsible?

--- by Micheal

A recent article in the Union Leader titled "Suit dropped over defective deer stand" (11/22, p B1) raises the critical question of Who Is Responsible?  In the article, we learned that a man fell from a "defective" tree stand and was "permanently injured."

Tragic, right? Someone's got to pay for this injustice. Right? So, whether on his own gumption or pursued by lawyers eager to become the 1%, the land owner was sued. How dare he have defective personal property? How irresponsible. Make him pay!

Trouble was, the man who gave the hunter permission was not the property owner. In fact, the real property owner never installed tree stands. Oops. Sorry. Suit dropped. Nevermind.

But wait. If the land owner isn't responsible, who is? Someone has to be responsible, don't they? Whenever anything goes wrong (or at least not the way we wanted it to), someone (else) must be responsible and so should pay big-time.  That's what's made America what it is today!

Problem is, Mr. Jasmin is still "permanently injured" (whatever that means). Whose fault is it? By dropping the suit, the lawyers seem to be admitting that it might just be Jasmin's own fault. He climbed the tree. He sat in the stand. Did he check it out to see if it was sturdy enough first? Does Jasmin have a legal right to go hunting and never get hurt? What if he tripped and hit his head on a rock? Who do you sue then?

Admittedly, I don't have all the background facts, but simply dropping the suit is evidence enough. Mr. Jasmin was responsible for himself. His "permanent injury" is his own problem, no one else's.

This is a legal decision that needs to be applied all over our litigious quagmire of a culture. You are NOT a ward of the state. You are an adult, responsible for your own actions -- and the results of them. If you put hot coffee between your legs and get scaled, that's your problem.  If you use your lawnmower as a hedge trimmer and cut off your finger, that's your problem. If you are too obese to fit into a fast-food booth, that's your problem.

Want to stimulate the economy? Stop accepting the stifling culture of frivolous litigation. The law can protect us from swindlers and malice, but it should never be used as a substitute for our responsibility for ourselves.

Seeking Non-Romney

-- by Micheal

What is it about Romney that makes the larger GOP keep looking for anyone else to be their front runner?

First it was Bachmann. Best thing since sliced bread. Then she faded out. After some muddled anticipation that it might be Palin, Perry jumps in. Almost instantly, HE is acclaimed as Sliced Bread.

After a bit of exposure, and some foot-in-mouth trouble, Perry loses his Sliced Bread crown. Almost as if the GOP power brokers didn't want Romney grabbing it, they quickly bestow it upon Herman Cain. HE is the new Sliced Bread.

After a bit of exposure, and some pesky accusations, Cain had the Sliced Bread crown yanked from his hands too.  Again, there seemed to be an awkward silence in GOP land, as if trying to decide who else to crown. (but not Romney)  Now it seems like Gingrich is being given his turn as Sliced Bread king.

After a bit of exposure, will Gingrich have the crown yanked from him? Most likely.

The open question is, why is the GOP machine trying so hard to NOT pick Romney?

It all reminds me of 3rd grade and picking teams for softball. The pool of kids has narrowed to Robin, the fat girl who just could not run, Miller the special needs kid, and myself.  The two team captains squint long and hard at the three of us. Finally, the one captain picks Robin.  Then it's down to me and Miller. The other captain takes even longer to decide between me and Miller.

Seriously? It's that hard to decide? Miller, nice kid in his own way, but could not put his two hands together without a half-hour of practice with the teacher's aide. Catch a ball? Not a chance.

But the other captain picked Miller over me.  The "losing" captain rolls his eyes and whines that he got me. Solid leadership material, that captain.

I have to wonder if Romney feels like I did.  The GOP seems eager to pick ANYONE else but him, no matter how bad. Why? What bones does he have under HIS bed? Or is it that he's as charismatic as, say, a slice of bread?

If the GOP is forced to pick a slice of bread to run against Obama, it would seem Obama will probably win.

Where are the atheists?

--- by Micheal

They should be crawling out of the woodwork, but I'll just bet they won't.  Just this week I attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony to dedicate a new federal building. For the most part, it was your usual government "event." Agency managers and directors were on hand. A city official was there, as was the expected congressman and staff from other congressmen. Each gave the usual congratulatory speeches. Nothing for anyone to care much about.

It was the last part of the ceremony that should have spawned howls of violated civil rights, but did not.

A chief of a local native american tribe, and two of his cousins, conducted a "blessing" ceremony. After "cleansing" the two cousins and the drum with smoke, one cousin took the smoldering (whatever it was), walked around the group, then smudged the ribbon with smolder soot. The other cousin sang loudly a prayer of blessing and banged his hand drum. The words of the song, the chief told the crowd, translated to "Our Creator, we give thanks."

Now, I would venture that most of the assembled crowd did not believe that the tribe's Creator was real, nor share their native faith. I didn't share their faith, but was not particularly bothered or offended.

Where were the atheists feeling uncomfortable at someone pushing a faith on them? Where was the zealous ACLU lawyer bemoaning a government (apparent) endorsement of a religion?  Only time will tell, but I predict that will be no atheist outrage. There will be no ACLU action on this -- ever.

Can you imagine if the local manager (a good woman, really) had invited the pastor of a local church to give a prayer of blessing? If a local priest had sprinkled the ribbon with holy water? The outrage would rattle the rafters.

Of course, this local agency, being well steeped in political correctness, would never have even asked a pastor or a priest to speak, but what if they had? Some atheist in the crowd would have had their psyche wounded deeply. Some ACLU lawyers would have waved their pitchforks about the separation of church and state, blah blah blah.

The obvious truth is that the fragile atheists who run to their lawyers are not really atheists, but anti-God-ists. More particularly, they are anti-christian.  The proof of this, is exposed in what they complain about, and what is allowed -- without a peep of protest.

Stop political campaign contributions!!! What a great idea.

By Jerry McConnell

Just don’t count on it ever happening though; there are too many greedy fingers in that pot of lucre.

What prompted me to write this column advocating that well-intentioned people who start with an idea that they would like to serve their fellow citizens in a government position, elected or appointed and the next thing you know they are hardened political fixtures in a dog eat dog arena.

Whatever happened to the good thoughts and ideas of trying to help one’s neighbors by performing public service? It probably all started many years ago in a relatively small town that was in need of people to take the lead in gathering the groups of people who came to America to get away from foreign despots who ruled cruelly and uncivilly.



Eventually some did step forward, unsolicited and took charge of a situation that was for the benefit of all of the people who had gathered there, wherever ‘there’ may have been. Those who volunteered their own time to see to the needs of others were the first appearances of what we today call politicians.

But Oh Dear God; where did we go wrong? Was it when the first settler forced a few pennies into the palm of the unelected leader for doing such a service to his friends and neighbors; or was it when those settlers found that there was a great need for someone to lead them and show them how a community should operate? Or both?

At any rate, the politicians were born of those circumstances; they just didn’t know that they were politicians until someone else among the group decided that the first fellow who stepped forward seemed to be doing quite well with the small amount of gratuities that he received for “helping” his fellow man.



It was then that the lust for some of that gratuitous lucre, be it in pennies or other ‘in kind’ materials of value such as food, clothing or other hardware goods. And as custom would have it, those services became a standard part of daily living, so the spirit of competition got embedded in others to step forward and offer their services, as they preached that they could do a better job than that first fellow. Sound familiar?

Well you can see where this is going and you know where it went and how the politician was born. As is so hugely apparent today the dominating factor then as it is today was greed. Only today, it is totally out of control to the point where individuals become different people from what they were with pre-political persona.

On August 17, 2011 FoxNews.com published an online report titled “Starbucks Claims Widespread Support for CEO’s Call to Boycott Campaign Donations” authored by Judson Berger in which the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz claimed that the company has “rallied ‘hundreds’ of people to support a call by Schultz to suspend campaign contributions until Congress and the president produce a long-term deficit reduction plan.”

Now that’s what I call ‘high-level’ clear thinking and not just more of ‘let’s see just how much we can give this guy to do things our way’. Schultz has clearly become a leader in trying to “cut off the fundraising spigot.” Berger says Schultz even wrote in a memo, “This effort is not concerned with helping or hurting one party or another - it’s about applying pressure on all those now in office to compromise for the good of the country.”

Of course, the sticking point is that if both sides of the mess in Washington were to compromise, we would essentially be in the same sad and sorry spot as we are now. Looking at the big picture, the Democrats want more revenues coming in; that is exactly why they wanted the debt ceiling raised. To spend more money they HAD TO HAVE the debt ceiling raised. And to get more revenues they want to raise taxes.

Their compromise is to cut as little as possible of their spending habits, and raise taxes while continuing “business as usual” meaning, continued deficits and additions to the national debt.

The Republicans have nothing to compromise as they favor higher amounts of reduced spending and no increases in taxes. These are not compromises they are necessities. If they, the Republicans, compromise it has to be to agree to tax increases and no cuts in spending, both of which contribute to a continuation of a higher national debt.

Maybe Starbucks can convince the Democrats that excessive spending has to stop and taxes should not be raised as that takes a toll on businesses resulting in job losses.

The real answer is Term Limits; one term not to exceed six years. It would save money by not having to hold national elections every two years. And our Congress would not be mired down in reelection campaigning which, now in the House, is a continual process and the fountainhead from which corruption and greed are born.

No campaign funds are needed if there are no reelections. One six-year term and we have returned to the Founders dreams of a civilian legislature.

Why the Lust for Revenue?

--- by Micheal

Throughout the protracted debate of raising the debt ceiling, it became clear that the two parties disagreed most on the question of taxes. The Republicans -- especially the new Tea Party representatives, vowed to oppose any new taxes. The Democrats, Obama and the congressional leaders, were equally adamant that trimming the deficit required increased revenue. More taxes.

As Obama and the various Democrat leaders gave their speeches, they kept beating the old drum about making the top 1% of Americans "pay their fair share". That certainly sounds reasonable enough, but it presumes that they're not.

So, I did a little online research. Who is paying the bulk of the income tax in America. Are middle Americans shouldering the lion's share and the top 1% skating? The answer wasn't hard to find, but it was surprising. The top 1% pay about 38% of the nation's income tax revenue. The top 5% pay over half of it. The top 50% of income earners pay over 97% of the nation's income taxes. That means the bottom 50% pay less than 3%. What do we get to label as "fair"?

Now, from figures like this, it's hard to understand what the Democrats are so angry about regarding those top 1%. They ARE paying, and more (percentage of income-wise) than the lower 99%. What's the problem?

The problem, I think, is that the Democrat mindset just cannot abide by anyone having more money than they (the Dems) feel is proper. You may recall President Obama chatting (hypothetically?) about him having a hundred thousand he didn't need which he could use to put a poor student through school, etc. The revealing part of that comment was the notion that wealth above a certain line is "unneeded," and therefore ought to become property of the state. (The Dems don't speechify for more philanthropy, but for most taxes)

In reality, the Dems can't hate the top 1% like the pretend to. There are quite a few very wealthy Democrats, after all. Instead, this faux hate is a mask for an addiction. The Democratic leadership are addicted to spending. There just isn't a social program out there that they can't love and want to pour millions of your dollars into. Any program created simply MUST be continued and funding increased. To make ANY cut is bemoaned with dire "grandma in the snow" consequences.

But that's just tough. Imagine some average working 'stiff' going in to his boss to demand more money -- maybe double his previous wage. Not because he gets more work done, or landed a big contract. He comes with the excuse that he had run up huge credit card debt and needs more money to support the debt AND the lifestyle that keeps up the spending. "Well, stop spending so much," the boss might justifiably say. "That's cruel and insensitive," our stiff replies. "I HAVE to buy all those things and MORE! I just do. Give me more money or my grandma will have to sleep in the snow!"

No, this independent voter has come down on the side of the cutters, not the taxers. No revenue raise for YOU, Congress, just because you can't handle your credit card. Live within your means. I have to do it. You should to.

Kelly's corner

News from Senator Ayotte's Office


Dear Friends,

With the Senate in session this weekend, I write from Washington to share a quick update on the latest from Capitol Hill.

As you know, debate continues here regarding the nation's debt ceiling. With Tuesday's deadline just days away, members of the Senate and House are working to find a solution that can pass both houses of Congress and be sent to the president.

I thought it was unfortunate that Senate Democrats blocked consideration of the only two serious proposals - which had been passed by the House - to avoid default. We need to enact significant spending cuts and budget reforms to end business as usual in Washington, and prevent default and a downgrading of America's credit rating. I still firmly believe that this difficult moment provides an opportunity to place ourselves on a path to a balanced budget to preserve our country. We can no longer afford to kick the can down the road if we want to protect our economic future.

Last night, I appreciated the chance to discuss the debt ceiling debate on Sean Hannity's show. Click here to watch.

While America's fiscal crisis has been the main focus of attention in Washington this week, read on for additional news from my office.




Senator Ayotte: Pentagon Spending Must Be Scrutinized to Find Savings That Won't Undercut Readiness

During an Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee hearing this week, Senator Ayotte underscored the need to find savings within the Department of Defense (DoD) budget by identifying wasteful and duplicative spending at the Pentagon. The Senator, who serves as the panel's Ranking Member, noted that DoD is one of the few agencies in the entire federal government that cannot pass an independent audit of its finances; she expressed concern that DoD needs more reliable data and financial management processes necessary to fully evaluate areas of potential savings.

In her opening remarks during the hearing, Senator Ayotte emphasized the importance of obtaining reliable financial data to ensure that proposed spending reductions do not undercut warfighters or endanger military readiness.

"With our nation facing a serious fiscal crisis, we must closely scrutinize spending at every federal agency, including the Pentagon. DoD must be auditable to ensure that we're responsible stewards of taxpayer money," said Senator Ayotte. "However, as we reduce defense spending, it's critical to ensure that reductions don't undercut America's warfighters or compromise our military readiness. To distinguish between necessary defense budget cuts and reductions that would harm our troops and threaten readiness, we need reliable financial data and effective business processes and systems."


Senators Ayotte, Brown Renew Call for Stronger Contracting Oversight in Wake of Alarming Reports

Senator Ayotte and Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) on Monday renewed their call for strengthening oversight of U.S. funds for reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, following two recent reports that found U.S. taxpayer money had been indirectly funneled to corrupt powerbrokers and insurgents, including the Taliban.

Senators Brown and Ayotte introduced the "No Contracting With the Enemy Act" in February, aiming to make it easier for U.S. contracting officials to void contracts with contractors who funnel taxpayer resources to enemies of the United States, such as the Taliban. At a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, General David Petraeus highlighted the urgency of legislation that would achieve the goals of the Brown-Ayotte bill, testifying that it was needed "the sooner the better."

"These reports highlight troubling shortcomings that must be addressed," said Senators Brown and Ayotte in a joint statement. "Our military in Afghanistan has taken steps to develop better oversight of contracting, but more must be done. With better oversight and with the authorities provided by our provisions, DOD contracting officials will be able to more effectively ensure our money does not end up in the hands of those attacking our troops. The Senate should move quickly to address this issue and pass our provisions that are critical to the mission in Afghanistan."

According to a report in Monday's Washington Post, a year-long investigation conducted by the U.S. military uncovered definitive evidence that taxpayer money intended to fund a $2.16 billion transportation contract in Afghanistan ended up in the hands of the Taliban through fraud, kickbacks, and money laundering. Another report released last week by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) found that, "While U.S. agencies have taken steps to strengthen their oversight over U.S. funds flowing through the Afghan economy, they still have limited visibility over the circulation of these funds, leaving them vulnerable to fraud or diversion to insurgents." Echoing General Petraeus' September 2010 Counterinsurgency Contracting Guidance issued to U.S. and alliance military forces fighting in Afghanistan, the SIGAR report called on all U.S. agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, operating in Afghanistan to improve visibility of subcontractors, integrate intelligence, plans and operations, and ensure that contracted funds are not used to empower insurgents.


Senator Ayotte, Colleagues Urge FCC to Conduct Cost-Benefit Analysis of Proposed Net Neutrality Rule

Senator Ayotte, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, this week urged the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the agency's proposed Internet regulatory rule before it goes into effect. In a letter to Chairman Julius Genachowski, Senator Ayotte, along with Republican colleagues on the Commerce Committee, requested that the agency conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of its proposed net neutrality rule, pursuant to a recent Executive Order issued by President Obama.

Executive Order 13563, which the President issued on July 11, directs independent and executive agencies to conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations prior to their adoption, with the intent of reducing onerous regulatory burdens on the business community and the public. Although the FCC approved the rules in December, the Senators are requesting a retrospective review, as the net neutrality rule is not federal law yet.

"All federal agencies, including the FCC, must weigh the economic impact of proposed regulations on America's businesses," said Senator Ayotte. "I have serious concerns that the pending net neutrality rule stands to discourage private sector investment and prevent cutting-edge products from reaching the marketplace. Government shouldn't get in the way of entrepreneurial innovation, and that's why I urge Chairman Genachowski to conduct a retrospective review of the rule."

Why Every American Should Receive an ObamaCare Waiver

By Michele Bachmann

Since its passage last year, over 1,300 ObamaCare waivers have been rewarded exempting nearly 3.1 million Americans out of the monstrous health care overhaul. With several hundred more waivers pending, the Obama Administration has decided it will no longer accept waiver applications after September 22 of this year. These waivers are extremely telling; if ObamaCare was truly the reform our healthcare system needs, why is the Administration allowing so many to opt out of the program?

It comes as no surprise that hundreds of companies are applying for waivers from ObamaCare. Business owners across the country continue to voice concern over how to implement the new ObamaCare rules without paying fines, laying off workers or even going bankrupt. As the book Why ObamaCare is Wrong for America points out, “ObamaCare will lead to slower wage growth, fewer job opportunities, and more businesses going under.”

Yet, the waiver-granting process became increasingly questionable as companies applied for exemptions. It seemed that ObamaCare regulators were passing out waivers mostly to friends of the Administration. For instance, of the 204 waivers granted by the Administration in April, nearly twenty percent went to some of the finest restaurants and businesses within House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district. Even more jaw-dropping, of those 3.1 million individuals exempted from ObamaCare through waivers, over half – 1.55 million – are union members.

President Obama’s health care reform grows the size of government and increases its impact on our lives. According to Why ObamaCare is Wrong for America, ObamaCare sets in motion a massive federal bureaucracy with at least 159 new federal agencies, creates more than $500 billion in new taxes and will take $575 billion away from Medicare. In my view, it is time that every American, regardless of their relationship with the Administration, receives a permanent waiver from ObamaCare. I remain committed to working towards the complete repeal of this legislation.

Michele, My Belle

By Ron Dupuis

Granite Staters are fiercely independent when it comes to politics. That is one of the main reasons we get involved early. Of course protecting our first in the nation primary status is another.

Michele Bachmann, "in my humble opinion", seems to be on the side of every issue that concerns me. For example, Bachmann has stated that the number one issue in the coming Presidential election is the economy and job growth. Her plan is to reduce the role of government and "placing the trust in the real job creators, the private sector." This is something every small business owner in New Hampshire should applaud.

On the debt ceiling Bachmann has said " I will stand firm against an increase in the debt ceiling and as President, fight for a renewed vision of Constitutional government and reforms resulting in deep cuts in federal spending so that we never face this situation again." This is something our children, grand children and, believe it or not, our great grand children should be thankful for.

Obama care has been an unmitigated disaster and Congresswoman Bachmann has promised to repeal it. " As President, I will not rest until Obamacare is repealed, and will work to unleash the power of medical innovation and personal choice in producing better treatments and more cures that mean better outcomes at lower cost. And I will push for greater competition in the health care market - because competition both lowers prices and improves outcomes." Hear, hear, applaud applaud.

Bachmann's stated positions go on and on covering everything from national security to drilling for oil. All of which my agreements are wholehearted.

Since this is my column here are some of my thoughts that the Bachmann people should consider.
My feelings on:
Foreign aid; Not one dime to governments that are not representative or duly elected by the people. If Russia or red China want to support such entities let them do so. It has nearly destroyed us in the past and will do the same to them.
National Security; Pakistan is not our friend. President Bachmann should at the very least have our computer experts send a killer virus to affect their nuclear facilities and destroy their missiles. If that doesn't work, I understand Seal Team 6 is free.
Running mate; Ohio is an important state. Congressman Mike Turner (R) of Ohio's 3rd district would be a great choice. That way your theme could be
BACHMANN, TURNER IN OVERDRIVE
and the campaign song could be the Bachmann, Turner, Overdrive hit
"Taking care of business"

Obama and Holder show Supreme Arrogance

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Operation Fast and Furious


By Jerry McConnell
Friday, July 8, 2011
The unbelievable audacity of this Obama Administration is enough to rattle a man’s brain it is so brazenly full of chutzpah. It’s as if all of them from the Usurper-in-Chief on down think they not only can walk on water but they can use that water to cleanse all the dirt and mud that sticks to them from their dirty dealings.

They all feel that they are above any criticism or judgment for their nefarious or improper conduct; the order of the day is just forget and find someone to investigate for something else to take the spotlight off of them. It would be interesting to know just how many incidents or issues are being “investigated” by Congress into Obama accomplice miscreantic endeavors. Perhaps Congressman Issa can tell us.

Case in point: Our Secretary of the Department of Justice and Attorney General the highest appointed justice purveyor in our government, Eric H. Holder, was recently on a hot burner attempting to defend himself and his immediate superior, Barack Obama from involvement in the mass gun supply activity to criminals in Mexico who bring drugs into the United States and many other illegal activities.

To escape the heat emanating from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) launched Operation “Fast and Furious”—an illegal pipeline for shipping guns into Mexico Holder and his (un)Justice Department suddenly announced that they were going to launch criminal probes into CIA interrogations where alleged deaths were perpetrated during the Bush Administration.

That’s Slippery Ops 101; take the heat off yourself by aiming heat at someone else. I have a feeling Holder is an expert in dodging guilt or exculpation by deflecting it in another direction.

Much of what I have written here was derived from information gleaned at website FireHolder.com established by the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), from an article titled, “Help Stop the Conspiracy and Cover Up!” by Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President (NRA) and also FoxNews.com “Justice Department Launches Criminal Probe Into Deaths During CIA Interrogations.”

The LaPierre article contained a Petition circulating as a National Campaign to fire Attorney General Eric Holder and gives a detailed explanation of the BATFE program to assist Obama and Holder’s arguments that “your Second Amendment rights are to blame for the drug crimes and killings in Mexico.”

Obama is so intent on getting our Second Amendment gun rights taken away from us that they blamed the killings at the U.S.-Mexico border on the fact that “our Second Amendment rights are to blame for the drug crimes and killings in Mexico.

LaPierre continues, “Holder and other top-level Obama Administration figures—even the President himself—claimed that 90% of the guns used by violent drug cartels were coming from American gun dealers. In short, they blamed our Second Amendment rights for the violence of the Mexican drug cartels. But leaked U.S. State Department cables have exposed this as a bald-faced LIE.”

He further explained, “These Obama Administration cables proved beyond a shadow of a doubt what the Mexican government already knew: That the drug cartels were getting guns—along with fully-automatic weapons, grenade launchers, anti-personnel mines and other military hardware—through Central America, NOT THE U.S.”

But you’ll notice, Obama and Holder did nothing to let us know about the findings of the State Department and the cables that exposed them. They would rather lay a guilt trip on the good citizens of America in false accusation that their Second Amendment gun rights were to blame for the weapons.

The LaPierre report added, “While these leaked cables exposed the lies propping up Obama’s gun control agenda, administration officials at the highest levels pushed a strategy to fit their gun control aims.

“In a display of corruption and arrogance that’s shocking even for this Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) launched Operation “Fast and Furious”—an illegal pipeline for shipping guns into Mexico.

“With our government’s full knowledge and complicity, BATFE higher-ups ordered firearms dealers to sell these guns illegally to straw purchasers. And it wasn’t just a few guns… It was over two thousand.

This exercise in arrogance and impropriety in high government officials wound up costing the life of one of the BATFE men, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry who was shot and killed in a gunfight with a group of armed Mexican “illegal entrants. And when the bandits fled, they left behind two AK-style rifles that were traced to sales made under the Fast and Furious operation.”

As stated above, Congressman Darrel Issa ( R-CA) as well as Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) are holding Congressional hearing into Operation “Fast and Furious” the ID given to the expedited sales operations that BATFE forced on gun dealers with the Mexican criminals. During these hearings Senator Grassley questioned Holder according to LaPierre asking, “How did guns that were allowed to ‘walk’ our of gun dealer shops during Operation Fast and Furious end up at a U.S. Border Patrol Agent’s murder scene?” Holder’s evasive answer, “I frankly don’t know.”

This synopsis of potential career ending story of illegalities committed by Justice Department officials was covered more completely in The Examiner on July 06, 2011 that these guns that were being practically given to Mexican criminals were part of the idea that they would be traced to “higher-ups” in the drug cartel for stronger evidence in future investigations.

But as Republican Chairman of the House Oversight Panel discovered, the planned ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ didn’t work as intended.

Several of the weapons sold with ATF approval have been used in nearly two dozen murders on both sides of the border, including that of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. After that killing the program was shut down with Justice Department officials denying any knowledge of Fast and Furious. But ATF Director Kenneth Melson has described multiple oral and written communications he had with senior Justice officials about the program both before and after Terry was murdered emphasizing the relevance of the cover-up.

Chairman Issa’s panel has run into a solid wall of obstruction and resistance Justice Department on requests for information and documents. In a letter to AG Holder, Issa said that ATF Chief Melson told congress that ATF’s senior leadership would have preferred to be far more cooperative with our inquiry but Justice Department officials directed them not to respond and they took full control of replying to Congress.

Obstructing congressional investigations is illegal, as is threatening to discipline or otherwise hamper or prevent any federal employee from cooperating with a congressional inquiry. As The Examiner stated, “We look forward to hearing the explanations of Justice Department higher-ups who told Melson not to respond to the Issa panel’s requests and who, according to Issa, thereby “sent over false denials” and “distorted the truth and obstructed our investigation. We might also find out what they were so determined to keep Issa from learning.”

NOW can we get the impeachment proceedings started?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amessage from Kelly Ayotte

To help support breast cancer survivors and advance breast cancer research, I'd like to tell you about two events this week that I committed to supporting.

Last night in Washington, I played in the 3rd Annual Congressional Women's Softball game, which benefitted the Young Survival Coalition, an organization that supports young women who have breast cancer. For charity, I played on a bipartisan team comprised of women members of the Senate and House, and we squared off against female Capitol Hill reporters. It was a fun way to support a very worthy and important cause.

And this Sunday in my hometown of Nashua, I will run in "Rosanne's Rush for Research" - a 5K run/walk that will help benefit triple negative breast cancer research and treatment.

On Capitol Hill, I continued an effort of great importance to many North Country residents: getting the federal prison in Berlin up and running. Read on for additional news about my work this week in Washington on behalf of New Hampshire citizens.

During a meeting Wednesday in her Capitol Hill office with top officials from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the Justice Department, Senator Ayotte reiterated her request for the department to activate the federal correctional facility in Berlin, which has been vacant since it was completed in 2010 despite the nation's federal prisons being 38 percent overcrowded.

Senator Ayotte discussed her request with the Bureau's Assistant Director, William Dalius, and other BOP and Justice Department officials. Mr. Dalius told the Senator that the Berlin Prison is a high priority, and that BOP officials are committed to working with her to ensure that the prison, which is the only existing federal correctional facility in Northern New England, is opened and staffed as soon as possible.

"I am encouraged by Mr. Dalius' comments that the Berlin Prison is a high priority for the Bureau and that he is eager to find a solution," said Senator Ayotte. "I will continue to work with BOP officials to ensure that the facility in Berlin is opened, providing needed jobs in the area, and helping address the dangerous overcrowded conditions at federal correctional facilities throughout the country."

Because of Congress' failure to pass a budget last year, the BOP is being funded under a Continuing Resolution that does not include funds for staffing the Berlin prison. As a result, the facility remains vacant and unstaffed, costing taxpayers an estimated $4 million a year. Senator Ayotte wrote to BOP officials and Attorney General Eric Holder last month, urging them to redirect sufficient funds within the Bureau's budget to allow for the opening and staffing of the prison.

Senator Ayotte, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, met this week with the commanding officers of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, and the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group, along with two pilots that participated in the F-15 pilot rescue in Libya. The Navy and Marine team provided a briefing of their nine month deployment, which began in August of 2010 and included humanitarian flood relief assistance in Pakistan, combat operations in Afghanistan, counter-piracy operations near the Horn of Africa, and support to operations in Libya.


Senator Ayotte's Statement on President's Plan to Withdraw Troops from Afghanistan

Senator Ayotte on Wednesday released this statement following the President's address to the nation regarding his plan to begin withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan:
"While our troops should not stay in Afghanistan a day longer than our interests require, I don't believe we should impose arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such timetables encourage the terrorists to wait us out, and dissuade average Afghans from supporting their government and opposing our enemies."


Senator Ayotte Renews Call for Limiting Detainee Transfers Following Escape of Al Qaeda Militants from Yemen Prison

Following reports that as many as 60 al-Qaeda militants escaped this week from a prison in Yemen, Senator Ayotte renewed her call for a stronger U.S. terrorist detention policy that includes permanent limits on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to foreign countries.
"While it is unclear whether any of the escapees are former Guantanamo detainees, this alarming news is further evidence that future transfers of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to countries like Yemen are unwise. Such transfers pose the risk of escape and recidivism, representing an unjustifiable security threat to our nation and the world," said Senator Ayotte, who personally inspected Guantanamo during an official visit in March. "Today's news also further underscores the urgent need for the U.S. to develop a responsible detainee policy that establishes Guantanamo Bay as the location for the long-term detention of current and future terrorist detainees."

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Ayotte has worked to keep open the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility, keep terrorist detainees out of the United States, and limit the transfer of detainees from Gitmo to foreign countries.

Last week, Senator Ayotte successfully worked to include in the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization bill a provision she authored that permanently prohibits funding for the construction or modification of facilities in the United States to house terrorist detainees. The measure was approved by the full Committee last Thursday.

In May, Senator Ayotte introduced the Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act (S. 944), bipartisan legislation that would keep open the Guantanamo Bay facility for the detention and interrogation of current and future terrorists. The bill would also permanently limit the transfer of detainees to foreign countries.


Senator Ayotte Continues Efforts to Cut Federal Red Tape

Continuing her efforts to reduce burdensome federal regulations on New Hampshire's small businesses, Senator Ayotte this week introduced legislation that would protect employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) from a costly new regulation proposed by the Department of Labor (DOL). If implemented, DOL's rule would expand the definition of "fiduciary" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to include appraisers of all private ESOPs.

The proposed rule would result in new compliance and regulatory costs for private companies offering ESOPs (nearly all of which are small businesses) and could jeopardize the availability of these plans in the future. It also would force appraisers to purchase expensive fiduciary insurance, employ specialized counsel, and could expose private ESOP companies to frivolous litigation.

Senator Ayotte's legislation would reverse DOL's rule by explicitly exempting ESOP appraisals from the law's stringent fiduciary requirements.

ESOP Association President, J. Michael Keeling, said, "We're very pleased to see Senator Ayotte take the lead on this issue. The DOL needs to wake up to the fact that private company ESOPs have tremendous positive records of creating jobs that are locally controlled in high performing companies. ESOPs are good for employees, companies, and our communities."

Last night, Senator Ayotte played in the 3rd Annual Congressional Women's Softball game, which benefitted the Young Survival Coalition, an organization that supports young women who have breast cancer. Ayotte was a captain of the bipartisan, bicameral women members of Congress team, which played against a team comprised of women of the Capitol Hill press corps. Senator Ayotte went 1 for 2 with a line drive to right field in helping the women members of Congress win by a score of 5 to 4.

Tough choices

By Jeb Bradley:

On Wednesday, both the House and Senate passed a comprehensive two year budget that Governor Lynch has said he will not veto. Some have praised the budget’s fiscal responsibility while others have criticized the cuts it makes to services. From my vantage point, it is a budget that makes tough choices, establishes priorities, and makes long overdue reforms so that government services will be delivered in a more cost effective manner – all of which will enable NH’s competitiveness and future job growth.
Six months ago NH confronted a gaping $800 million projected budget gap. Despite a languishing economy, the previous two budgets had increased spending 23% from $9.36 billion to $11.5 billion. Prior budgets had relied on inflated revenue estimates that never materialized, borrowing for operating expenses, and one time federal stimulus dollars. Alarmingly, despite nearly 100 tax and fee increases, an $800 million gap loomed. Voters said enough last November.
The 2011 Legislature established two goals: NH would not raise taxes that would harm economic recovery and NH government would live within its means -- just as working families and small business owners have been forced to do in the current economic climate. Budget writers knew great caution was necessary in predicting future revenue and certainly the last six months have proven the wisdom of that caution as revenue has not met expectations. They also knew continued borrowing for operating expenses was unsustainable. Lastly, budget writers knew that with a $14 trillion dollar federal debt and trillion dollar deficits stretching as far as the eye can see -- federal largess was neither possible nor warranted.
Extraordinary tough choices had to be made and priorities established, which meant programs – many worthy -- were cut. Governor Lynch initially proposed significant reductions to hospitals for uncompensated care, cuts to programs that serve troubled youth, catastrophic aid for schools districts’ special education costs, Healthy Children, and to the Post Secondary Education Commission, as well as cuts to virtually every state agency except prisons. The Governor also proposed complete elimination of the 35% state assistance for cities and towns’ retirement costs which would have the effect of increasing property taxes by $85 million annually.
Governor Lynch also presumed that revenue growth would be a relatively healthy 3.5%. Unfortunately as winter turned into spring, revenue in the current budget was $42 million less than projected. Legislative budget writers had to make further spending reductions than those proposed by the Governor. NH has learned the hard way: spending that depends upon revenue that may never materialize is foolhardy.
When the budget reached the Senate, the chair of the Finance Committee, Chuck Morse, effectively established priorities. Senator Morse added funds back in to the budget for mental health programs, the developmentally disabled, Service Link, troubled youth, adoption initiatives, and catastrophic aid for special education. Morse proposed key reforms including allowing up to 600 inmates to be incarcerated at private prisons to create savings to pay for some of these adjustments. The Governor’s proposed elimination of retirement assistance to cities and towns was mitigated by pension reform legislation – benefitting hard pressed property taxpayers.
Given the significantly under-performing revenue, funding could not be restored for the University System or to hospitals. Some people have asked why then was the tobacco tax lowered and why were net-operating-loss provisions expanded. Supporters of the tobacco tax decrease believe there will be no net revenue loss as an increase in cross border sales will occur that will help small businesses. If there is a revenue loss, then the budget calls for the tax decrease to be removed in two years. The net-operating-loss provisions will only take effect in the next budget. These provisions allow business to better carry forward losses against future profits. This will improve New Hampshire’s business climate and has been an important priority for chambers of commerce across the state.
In total, spending has been reduced to $10.2 billion -- an 11% cut. Taxes have not been raised, borrowing for operating expenses has been eliminated, no federal bailouts have been assumed, and rosy revenue projections have been rejected. This budget does what small businesses, working families, and taxpayers have been doing for some time: making tough choices to live within their means.
While much has been written about the budget’s bottom line and the impact on particular programs, less discussed are the reforms that will enable state government to deliver services far more effectively and efficiently.
Medicaid – the largest cost item in our budget – will be delivered through managed care as a result of legislation I sponsored and Governor Lynch recently signed. Managed care will save millions without sacrificing quality. A new education funding formula maintains funding levels, holds communities harmless, eliminates donor towns, while mitigating large spending hikes in Concord. Bipartisan legislation I sponsored will curtail the practice of revenue auditors assessing what in essence is an income tax on the salaries small business owners pay themselves – a key reform to enhance NH’s competitiveness. I also sponsored bipartisan Shoreland Protection legislation which protects our shoreland while also simplifying the permitting process and helping homebuilders create jobs. Prison and retirement reforms will also clearly benefit taxpayers.
Voters sent a clear message last November – government had to live within its means and stop reaching ever further into taxpayers’ pockets. This budget makes the tough choices to do exactly that. By doing our job in the Legislature ending the climate of spending hikes, unsustainable borrowing, inflated revenue projections, and ever more tax and fee hikes; the stage is set for further job growth –and when job growth is sustained --- revenue will grow.
Tough choices, priorities, necessary reforms that will grow jobs -- or as President Kennedy said a rising tide that will lift all boats.

The Smell

By Jerry McConnell

The smell of partisan politics is in the air; must be getting close to election time again, if you can describe 18 months as being ‘close’.

Democrats are, as usual, up to their old tricks again; rolling out the ancient and war-weary clichés and charges that Republicans are racists and geared up to prevent the “poor blacks” from getting to the polls to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Only in these modern days, they now include the “depressed Hispanics” as well.



My God, what phonies they are. Election cycle after election cycle they trot out all the tired and disbelievable small-minded people like Donna Brazile, former DNC Chairman, one of the most bigoted racists ever to lie with a straight face. When it comes to politics the truth is such a stranger to this woman that she wouldn’t recognize it if it came directly from Barack Obama. Come to think of it, that’s not a good citation as I wouldn’t believe it either coming from him. But you get my point. :-)

Some people have dubbed Brazile as the female ‘Ragin’ Cajun’ in deference to James Carville the original at spreading the “Big Lie” with dripping venom, so adept that she rose all the way to the top of the Democratic National Committee, but only as an ‘Interim’ Chairman. But these days she appears relatively docile, particularly when compared to the ‘beast’ that copped the title of Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Wasserman Schultz is an elected Representative to the U. S. House of Representatives from Florida’s 20th District nominated to the DNC Chair by President Obama and assumed that position in May of this year. She has not been impressive in the early moments in her lofty position as DNC Chair.

In fact, as Ricky Kreitner of Business Insider – Politix “Democrats Are Already Fretting About Gaffes By Party Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz” states in his June 10, 2011, column: “Democrats are privately fretting after a rocky start by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee.

“She has been called out repeatedly by non-partisan fact-checkers for stretching the truth on a number of points, Politico reports: ‘The congresswoman’s latest blunder came Sunday, when she said on television that Republicans ‘want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally — and very transparently — block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates.’

Kreitner explains it “The equating of state legislatures’ efforts to require voters to show identification with laws that required separate schools and water fountains raised hackles, particularly in racially sensitive Democratic circles, prompting a quasi-retraction from Wasserman Schultz. In a statement, she said, ‘Jim Crow was the wrong analogy to use. But I don’t regret calling attention to the efforts” of GOP legislators “to restrict access to the ballot box.’”

I wonder what she would say about the Black Panthers at the polls in Philadelphia in the 2010 elections. Now that’s what I would call REAL “restricting access to the ballot box.”

As Quin Hilyer of Center for Individual Freedom stated in his June 09, 2011 column DNC Race-baiting Camouflages Vote Fraud “Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat, has ripped the scab from a deep wound in American politics. The Left has spent years slinging at conservatives the calumny that we want to block access to the polls by minority groups. The charge is a vile slander. Yet in the space of just two weeks, DNC chiefs have twice gone public with the allegation – race-baiting for all they are worth – in a raw attempt to foment racial tension. Beneath the surface, it’s also an attempt to provide a smokescreen for fraudulent voting.”

Hilyer reported that “She was parroting former DNC Chair Donna Brazile, who on May 17 wrote in USA Today that “from coast to coast, the GOP is engaged in what appears to be a coordinated, expensive effort to block voters from the polls. The motivation is political — a cynical effort to restrict voting by traditionally Democratic-leaning Americans. In more than 30 states, GOP legislators are on the move…. What the GOP is attempting to do is change the rules of the game, leaving only their players on the field.”

What both Brazile and Wasserman Schultz are referring to are the efforts of the Republican Party to require voter-ID at the polls in order to prevent the prevalent illegal voting that has taken place in recent elections fostered mainly by the Democrats – (think ACORN.)

Democrats are frightened and energized by the efforts of the Republicans to get voter-ID as a threat to their “vote early and often” campaign so effusively used by ACORN and other voter fraud groups. Frightened that they’ll lose all those extra votes they will not be getting, and energized to keep that sort of illicit operation in action at polls all across the country.

Just ask yourself which political party vehemently opposes the fair-mindedness of Voter-ID and why?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apocalypse Revised: Lemmings Beware

-- by Micheal

Harold Camping was wrong about the date of the Rapture, again. He let his overconfidence in his cleverness paint him into a corner. How could he now just admit he was flat-out wrong? True to form, he has fudged on the event that took place on May 21st, rather than admit his convoluted numerology was wrong.

Now, Camping claims that May 21st was the deadline for salvation. The world will be destroyed on October 21st. Anyone who wasn't saved by May 21st, is just plain doomed.

This is far from the first time that date-setters have spiritualized their (apparently) failed predictions. When William Miller's prediction of the Rapture occurring in 1844 didn't pan out, those Millerites who did not drift away in The Great Disappointment spiritualized it. Christ didn't return to EARTH, but he descended from one level of heaven to one closer to earth. See? The date wasn't wrong. Miller just misunderstood Christ's travel plans. Christ would make the next step closer to earth in the near future. Please stand by.

A disappointed former Millerite, Nelson Barbour regained his zeal for dates. He predicted that Christ would return in 1874. Christ did not appear. Instead, this "event" was spiritualized. Christ did not APPEAR, you see, but instead set up his invisible "millennial" kingdom in which he rules the earth -- invisibly. The Rapture, Barbour said, would occur in 1878. When this did not happen, there was yet another great disappointment among his Adventists.

Many fell away, including C.T. Russell, who, disappointed and angry as he was, carried on the doom banner with his new splinter group, later named Jehovah's Witnesses. Russell, keeping Barbour's date of 1874 as the start of Christ's invisible reign, figured it would last 40 years (not a thousand, per Revelation 20:2-7). Therefore, the world would end in October 1914. While 1914 was not a good year, the world didn't end. This date, too, got spiritualized. Something ended in October 1914. It just wasn't the whole world. Russell's successors would predict the end(s) many more times. 1925, 1941, 1975, etc. Something, we're told, really did happen on those dates. It just turned out to be spiritual (and invisible) and not fire falling from the skies, moon turning to blood, or ANY of the stuff in the Book of Revelation. Don't any of these guys read the whole book?

Now Camping is following in the tradition of failed date-setters. Keep the date, but move the goal posts. Now the date to watch is October 21st. He says it's the end of the world, but as we've seen, just what happens on a particular date is very much ripe for revision.

Doom For Dollars?

Fox News reported that Camping's organization took in $18 Million in donations in 2009. His organization has a stated worth of $104 million. $34 million of that is socked away in securities. If the world is going to end soon, why would Camping be buying stocks and securities? Think about it. How many thousands of hapless lemmings have given Camping their life savings (I mean, who needs it if the world is ending, right?) to pay for Camping's ad campaign?

Lemmings Awake! Turn back! Don't give Camping and his organization any more of your money. It smells like a cruel scam. Even if Camping were sincere, (and he's been sincerely wrong twice now), it's still pointless. If the world is going to end in October, your money won't do any more good in HIS stock portfolio than it will in your scanty checking account.

If you think the world is ending soon. and are truly worried about the lost souls around you, tell them what you know about Christ. That's what Jesus said to do (Matthew 28:19). Of course, now that Camping has made the gospel look incredibly stupid, this will be an even tougher job than it was before. Thanks Harold.

How many thousands has Camping actually convinced to stay aboard the train to hell because he made salvation look stupid?

Another Apocalyptic Failure

-- by Micheal

Harold Camping was absolutely sure, this time (not like last time) that May 21, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., the Rapture would occur. Hundreds of thousands of Christians would be miraculously taken off the earth, followed by five months of tribulation before the end of the world on Oct. 21st.

It didn't happen...again. That's not a surprise. Harold has been wrong before. What is surprising is how many people gave him even a scrap of credibility. Granted, we did not have people selling off their possessions and waiting on their rooftops, as was done in centuries past. But, Harold had mustered an awful lot of money from people who apparently believed him. All that advertising, full-bus decals? None of that comes cheap.

This week's scenario was not new, as I'll review in a moment. But, it has been awhile -- over a decade -- since the last end-of-the-world brouhaha, so perhaps we were due.

We all recall the Sturm und Drang over Y2K. End of the world, or at least massive chaos and reversion to the dark ages. Didn't happen.

Before that, our same Harold Camping had predicted that Christ would return between Sept. 15-17th, 1994. Didn't happen.

Before that, a Korean church plastered posters all over (I see one every day at I-93's Exit 4) announcing that the Rapture would come on October 28, 1992. Didn't happen.

Before that, a self-taught "bible scholar" named Edgar Whisenant published a book announcing that he had 88 reasons why the Rapture would happen in 1988. He sold 4.5 Million books! 4.5 Million! Didn't happen, but made him a lot of money.

Before that, the leader of the Jehovah's Witnesses church announced in 1974 that 1975 would be the end of the world. Wrap up your earthly affairs. This is it. Didn't happen. But then, they'd been predicting the world would end in 1914, 1925, 1941, etc.

I could go on and on, but I think you can see the pattern. This predicting the end of the world has been going on for hundreds of years. It was big in the 1800s. 1844 was supposed to be "It" or then again in 1874. The point is, people keep predicting the end of the world using bogus numerology to "unlock" prophecies in the book of Daniel and/or Revelation. Each doom-sayer is totally convinced that his (or her) calculations simply cannot be wrong. Whisenant even had the hubris to declare that "Only if the Bible itself is in error am I wrong." Way to go, Edgar. Take the Bible down with you.

All these geniuses burning the midnight oil to crack the Bible's code, yet each manages to come up with entirely different dates. Is no one learning from history? Is no one really reading the rest of the Bible? Quite a few times, we are told that no one will know the date. Read Matthew 24:36, Acts 1:7 and 1st Thessolonians 5:1. We're not going to know because we're not supposed to know. It's a "need to know" basis and we've been told repeatedly that we don't need to know.

Yet, every few decades, we get a new genius who can't read history nor reads all of his Bible and thinks HE is just smart enough to tease out the truth AND cannot be wrong. Such confidence inevitably attracts a crowd of people. We lemmings are suckers for a confident lemming who says "Hey, go THIS way!" It never ends well.

If you're a believer, I'm sorry, but we'll have to clean up Harold's mess. He's made the Bible look stupid along with himself.

If you're a smug atheist who thinks this is a good time to tweak your believing friends, chill out. A fool jumping off a building with feathers glued to his arms does not prove that man will never fly. It just proves he's a fool. You're still going to have some 'splainin' to do when your end comes.

Education take over--URGENT-URGENT

URGENT: NH Bill Would Allow Federalization of Education
Posted by Admin in News, State Legislation on 04 29th, 2011
There is a Bill before the NH Senate Education Committee giving the Legislature the authority to vote on the adoption of National Standards. (HB 164)

Last year the APPOINTED NH Board of Ed. voted in favor of adopting National Standards. This Board is not representative of the people in NH however the Legislature is an elected body representing the voters in NH.

The national take-over in education is no different than the national take over in health care. With a Republican led Senate, this should be an easy decision for the Senators.

This Bill was presented to the Senate Education Committee a while ago but has not been voted on. I think this is a good time to write YOUR Senator and the Senate Education Committee letting them know we do NOT want a National take -over in education.

-Not only will this erode even MORE local control, this could cost an enormous amount of money. Some states are predicting the costs to be in the millions. CA is predicting 1.5 BILLION (Source: EdSource_CommonCore_2010-06-1.pdf pg. 18, starting in the third full paragraph)

-The Legislature should vote on National Standards not an unelected/appointed Board that does not reflect the will of the voters.

-Nationalizing Education is similar to Nationalizing Health Care, where EXACTLY does your State Senator stand on this issue?

Send an email to the Senate Education Committee members, you can find them here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/sencom.asp

Make sure you send a copy to your State Senator, you can find their e-mail address here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/senatemembers.asp

Kelly's Kornor

News From The Office Of Senator Kelly Ayotte


Dear Friends,

Please allow me to share an update on some of my recent work representing New Hampshire in the United States Senate.

As you know, with over $14 trillion in debt, our country continues to face a significant fiscal crisis. Before the Senate's recent adjournment, I was pleased to join with my fellow Republican senators to highlight the urgent need for bold action to put our fiscal house in order. If you missed it, I outlined my approach to this critical issue in a Union Leader op-ed piece last Sunday - "No more borrowing without some cuts."

During the Senate's state work period, I've traveled across New Hampshire to meet directly with Granite State citizens. The feedback I've heard from workers and small business owners is critical to helping me effectively represent the interests of the people of New Hampshire in Washington - and I will bring their concerns to Senate debate in the weeks and months ahead.

Please read on for recent news from my office.


On The Road With Kelly

Understanding that the best advice and input comes from Granite Staters, Kelly has spent time traveling across New Hampshire visiting business owners, talking with groups, and meeting with public officials.

Continuing to make stops up and down the state, last week her list of visits included appearances in Portsmouth, Exeter, Durham, Londonderry, Manchester and Bedford. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she delivered the keynote address at the New Hampshire National Guard's Annual Convention and later in the week visited the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

Kelly was honored to be named as a "Champion for Children" by the Child Advocacy Center of Rockingham Country.

At a recent ceremony in Exeter, the group highlighted her work to improve the investigation and prosecution of child abusers, as well as the treatment of child abuse victims - including her efforts as New Hampshire's Attorney General to help establish and support Child Advocacy Centers to investigate child abuse across the state.



Kelly Says Debt Crisis Requires Presidential Leadership

Continuing her efforts to cut out of control deficits and debt, Kelly recently joined several Senate Republican leaders for a press conference in the Capitol to call on President Obama to put forth a serious debt reduction plan.

Putting the stakes into perspective, she highlighted the reality that failure to put America's fiscal house in order will have serious consequences for future generations. She said, "We're ready to work with [the president] to put our country on a responsible path, because it's not just about us. It's about my six-year old, my three-year old and parents across this country that are concerned about what we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren."

Kelly Tells CNN: No Tax Increases

Appearing earlier this month on CNN's John King USA, Kelly made it clear that President Obama's recent call for tax hikes is a non-starter.

Standing up for small business owners in New Hampshire and nationwide, she made it clear: "Many small business owners, in fact, a huge chunk of them in this country, those taxes go through their personal incomes and we're talking about taxing small businesses at a time when we need them to grow and thrive. So, I think it would hurt our economic growth and I wouldn't support that."

Kelly appreciated the opportunity to appear on the show with Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), the former director of the Office of Management and Budget.


Standing Up For New Hampshire's Fishermen
Kelly recently brought the concerns of New Hampshire's fishermen to the Senate Commerce Committee. At a meeting of the panel's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, she highlighted the burdens that federal catch limits represent for local fishermen.

Questioning NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, Kelly noted that, "The catch limits and sectors established by NOAA for the Northeast multispecies fishery management plan have represented significant obstacles for the fishing industry and my beautiful home state of New Hampshire."

In sticking up for the state's fishermen, she explained that NOAA has been measuring fish stocks and catch limit history in New Hampshire based on insufficient records. She pressed the Administrator for answers on how NOAA plans to correct its policies so that fishermen aren't robbed of their livelihood.

Another U.N concoction!!!

By Jerry McConnell

Hillary Clinton’s eyes must be lit up like seldom before; the United Nations is preparing a Treaty for her to sign off on that will place the United States even further down the totem pole of world importance.

The UN debate is already underway to bring to the world a monster new RIGHTS agenda that will, if finally adopted and ratified, bring grief and misery unequalled ever before in planet history.

As stated in a Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise article written by the Conservative Action Alerts on April 22, 2011 online, “Mother Earth is about to get RIGHTS! Startling?. It will be if Bolivia gets its way. Bolivia’s Socialist President Juan Evo Morales Ayma (Evo Morales) actually wrote the draft of a United Nations treaty that will give nature - “Mother Earth” the same HUMAN RIGHTS worldwide as humans.”

Can you believe that you would ever see the day when a pile of dirt has equal values to a human being? In my estimation that does not speak very highly or glowingly about us humans, except perhaps those that have proposed this extravagant piece of dung.

Oh I will quickly agree that there really are SOME other humans who fit that description; in fact I have even met some that could never measure up to a handful of the soil that once graced the basis of my well fertilized vegetable garden. But the entire universe; including all socialist liberals? Nah!

But believe it or not, that is what has been proposed not only by Senor’ Morales of Bolivia but a small host of other socialist nations, not one of which is anywhere near the caliber or qualifications of being a world leader, in ANYTHING except radical and aberrant behavior.

These whiz-bang hotshots of wannabee world leaders starting with Bolivia are joined by of course the biggest and foulest mouth-in-the-south, Venezuela’s Chavez, along with Educador, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent, and the Grendadines, Antigua, Barbuda and seemingly our of their geographical element, Syria.

How a contingent of those countries could have the ambition to even want to rouse themselves to put forth the efforts involved in bringing an honest to goodness piece of literate and wildly thoughtful proposed literation for a potential world wide treaty is almost unimaginable or comprehendable.

This treaty, if enacted by the almost totally corrupt and self-serving entities of socialist, communist and despotic nations, will give the earth the same “rights” as a recently passed law in Bolivia does for bugs, trees, and other “natural” things in that south of the border country. It’s president, Evo Morales, wants, according to CAA Alerts, “the UN to recognize the Earth as a living entity which humans have sought to ‘dominate and exploit’ to the point that the ‘well-being and existence of many beings’ is now threatened.”

Can air, rain, sunshine, thunder and lightning be less important or that far behind that they won’t be included after the inauguration of the first ceremonial piles of dirt? And here we thought we had it bad with the narcissistic fruitcake in our White House. Then again, come to think about him, yeah, we do have it worse; but you can bet he will revel over this piece of foolishness.

And Al, the goracle, Gore will be dancing in his monstrous sized carbon footprint mansion in the wilderness over this piece of dictating legalese that will make it easier to force more global warming wacko-ism down our throats. This dumb-headed treaty will make Cap and Trade global warming, even while it is global cooling, much easier to slip by the many know-nothing governments that believe in witchcraft, voodooism and pure bunko as well.

CAA further explained that “Mother Earth Day”, April 22 each year, is the anniversary of the UN General Assembly’s voting unanimously to declare that date “to guarantee the “balance” between human rights and the other members of Earth’s ‘community’ - animals, plants and the terrain itself.”

Does not that make you feel so much closer to the earth to know it has an equal ‘balance’ with your meager and selfish desires? Does not that make you feel much closer to the ‘tree huggers’ among us who also have now been upstaged by the dirt lovers as well as the wind and fire zealots?

And doesn’t it make you feel grand just to know that the new earth rights treaty will also establish and employ a Ministry of Mother Earth to provide planet earth an ombudsman whose job, according to CAA, “will be to hear nature’s complaints as they are voiced by the world’s most extreme and radical environmental activists and the eco-alarmists within our own government?”

Maybe this farcical charade of fatuousness is not all negative; Pablo Salon, Bolivia’s Ambassador to the U. N. states, “We’re not saying. you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow.” (Can you believe this?) And he also so graciously acknowledges that “you need a mine to extract iron or zinc, but there are limits.” Salon did not elaborate on what those limits might be or who would be the sole arbiter to define them.

As might be expected from ANYTHING devolving from the United Nations, nothing will be etched in concrete until the high level officials decide what benefits will first enrich themselves and then what’s left over for the serfs.

KILL THIS BEAST AT THE SOONEST OPPORTUNITY

Kelly's Korner

LAST WEEK, all Americans got a stark reminder of something citizens in New Hampshire have known for some time: Our nation’s fiscal crisis is poised to wreck the country’s economic future.
Skeptical that Washington will reach agreement on a long-term debt-reduction plan, the Standard & Poor’s credit-rating agency took the extraordinary step of downgrading its outlook for U.S. Treasury securities to “negative.” Hard to believe, isn’t it? The greatest nation on earth — and the global economic engine — has essentially been declared a risky bet by experts who evaluate risky bets.

S&P isn’t the first to pull the alarm on Washington’s inability to put its fiscal house in order. The International Monetary Fund has raised concerns about America’s debt load and implored us to clean up our act. And Moody’s, a firm similar to S&P, continues to entertain the prospect of a downgrade.

These ratings aren’t just inside baseball for Wall Street financiers. When Treasuries become a riskier investment, higher interest rates inevitably follow.

The result? It will be more expensive for individuals and businesses to borrow money — discouraging investment, growth and job creation.

Nothing less than our quality of life is at stake.

And yet some in Washington continue to believe that bold action is unnecessary. President Obama is chief among them. Having refused to acknowledge the magnitude of the challenges we face, the President has so far declined to lead a substantive debate on how we can put our nation on a path to solvency.

A few days before S&P announced its downgrade, President Obama focused on deficits and debt in a major address — but avoided the opportunity to initiate a serious discussion about America’s entitlement programs, which account for about 60 percent of federal spending. While he was quick to demagogue House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s substantive plan to address Medicare, the President failed to propose a credible alternative.

According to the Government Accountability Office’s most recent report, entitlements face a $99 trillion unfunded liability. That means these programs will eventually grow to consume every dollar of revenue the government takes in — and stand to drive our country into bankruptcy. Rather than address America’s spending problem at its root cause, President Obama instead issued a call for higher taxes — continuing to antagonize already skittish job creators in the private sector.

It should come as no surprise that the Obama administration is in denial over the state of our country’s deteriorating fiscal condition. The President kicked off 2011 by announcing a budget that would put public debt on a path to reaching $20.8 trillion — or 87 percent of Gross Domestic Product — in 2021. Under his budget, net interest payments alone on the debt would rise more than four-fold over the next decade, from $214 billion this year to $931 billion in 2021.

Having voted against it when he was a senator, the President is now asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling (the amount of money that the federal government is legally allowed to borrow). By the way, a statement from the Treasury last Tuesday indicated that we’re currently about $25 billion shy of the existing $14.29 trillion limit.

No one wants to see the government default on its obligations. But with Congress having raised the debt ceiling 11 times since 1997, it’s clear that both parties have failed to take the necessary steps to rein in runaway spending.

I cannot in good conscience raise our debt ceiling without Congress passing real and meaningful reforms to reduce spending. Those reforms should include a balanced-budget amendment, statutory spending caps with sequestration if Congress fails to meet deficit-reduction targets, spending cuts to eliminate waste and duplication, and entitlement reform.

It’s not too late to make the tough decisions that will signal to investors — and to the world — that America is serious about addressing its fiscal crisis.

Congress and the President must make the tough decisions that will preserve the greatest nation on earth. We owe our country nothing less.

.

Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, represents New Hampshire in the United States Senate. She lives in Nashua.

Questions and answers. SB-3

By Jeb Bradley April 15, 2011

Over the last few weeks, many people, especially public employees, have called, emailed or spoken with me at the State House about the pension reform bill, SB-3, which recently passed the Senate. Many of these people have received misinformation about what the bill actually does and how it affects them. Reforming the pension system to ensure its long term viability has been an emotional discussion for some folks, and that’s why I believe it is so important for everybody to have accurate information on the exact changes that are called for in SB-3. It is my hope that this column will help provide clarification. As always, I remain open and available to discuss concerns or share thoughts on this issue.



Background

As of June 30, 2010 the unfunded liability of the New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS) was $4.7 billion – approximately $3500 per person in NH. On July 1, employers -- meaning taxpayers -- will pay 13.95% of salary for teacher’s retirement, 25.57% for police officers, and 30.9% for firefighters. In two years those rates will escalate to 29.2% for police and 33.9% for firefighters – rates that are unsustainable in my view. Without SB-3, the entire unfunded burden will be borne exclusively by taxpayers. This will price employees out of jobs, drive up property taxes, make growing and attracting businesses to NH more difficult, and may lead to a downgrading of the state’s bond rating.

Impact of SB-3 on retired public employees -- There will be no changes in the pensions of people already retired.

Medical subsidy eligibility -- The medical subsidy is a payment to a retired teacher or municipal employee that allows them to stay on their former employer’s health plan. Legislation several years ago froze the 8% growth rate in the medical subsidy. SB-3 continues that freeze, but if a retired employee is eligible for the subsidy payment he or she will continue to receive it without a growth factor. The medical subsidy is now funded by employers.

Impact of SB-3 on COLA’s – SB-3 does not change COLA status. Legislation several years ago established a 1.5% COLA in 2010 on the first $30,000 of pensions. SB-3 does not alter that but it also does not authorize additional COLAs.

Gainsharing—“gainsharing” is the practice of diverting revenue from the main pension fund into the Special Account to pay for COLAs and the Medical Subsidy. Gainsharing is one of the primary reasons the NHRS has an unfunded liability of $4.7 billion. Pension systems rely on good earning years to balance poor earnings. Gainsharing diverted $900 million from good earning years leaving the NHRS with no cushion for poor years. No pension system is viable when diversions occur. Legislation enacted several years ago eliminated gainsharing for the foreseeable future and SB-3 ensures gainsharing does not return. COLAs in the future will have to be funded from a different source.

Impact of SB-3 on employees who have worked for 10 or more years and are vested into the NHRS -- Contribution rates will increase from 5 to 7% for employees and teachers; public safety employees will increase from 9.3% to 11.3%. Overtime, unused sick and vacation time, end of career payments will still count toward retirement calculations, and current multipliers will be used. Special detail pay will still be included in retirement calculations provided it is not higher than the average of the previous 7 years. Also, effective in July of 2016, no one will be able to retire at a level higher than 100% of their base pay.

Impact of SB-3 on employees who have worked less than 10 years and are not vested -- Contribution rates will also increase similarly. Employees will not be able to count unused sick or vacation time or end or career payments toward retirement -- though overtime will count. Retirement will be calculated over 5 rather than 3 years. Public safety employees will have to work somewhat longer depending upon years of service. Currently these employees can retire at age 45 with 20 years of service. Under SB-3 an employee with 8 or 9 years of service can retire at 46 with 21 total years. For someone with 6 or 7 years they will be able to retire at 47 with 22 years. Someone with 4 or 5 years of service could retire at 48 with 23 years. Someone with 1-3 years could retire at 49 with 24 years. For newly hired public safety employees, they will be able to retire at age 50 with 25 years of service with a pension multiplier designed to achieve 50% of base salary after 25 years.

For more information about SB-3 and the NHRS – SB-3 can be found at www.nh.gov and the NHRS at www.nhrs.org

More loser than leader

By Jerry McConnell
Having been there himself on occasion, Oliver North, former U. S. Marine Corps Lt. Colonel, sees Barack Obama in “serious trouble.” The good colonel, never shy with comments on current events or, I might add, bravery in military or political actions, says in an online column for Townhall.com. “Laureates and Leaders” on March 25, 2011, “Nobel laureate Barack Obama, fresh from his Latin American spring break, is in serious trouble. Globalists and Utopians who once lauded his constant contrition now want POTUS to return his Peace Prize.”

North sees Washingtonians including all the classifications that are so abundant in that self-anointed “swamp” such as libertarians, progressives and conservatives as being outraged that our U. S. military forces were committed to combat in the Middle East without Congressional participation.

And the Colonel is correct, except for one who, though known for always picking the absolutely wrong time to speak up, and has been boisterously silent on Obama’s very possible illegal actions, and that is stone-headed, flap-jaws Joe Biden, Obama’s VEEP.

Joe “the Lip” Biden once declared loudly and clearly to Congress, the lamestream Media and just about anybody who would listen that any president who placed our military forces into a combat attack on a foreign country without Congressional authorization should face impeachment.

Newsmax.com in its Insider Report online on March 27, 2011 reported that “a videotape has surfaced from the 2007 campaign trail showing Biden threatening to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran without the approval of Congress.” Biden, according to Newsmax, communicated with legal scholars, the “best-known Constitutional scholars in America because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.”

Joe, the inept, went on to say “And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record if he does, (attack without Congressional approval) as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and former chair of the Judiciary Committee, I will move to impeach him.”

Can’t you just see the angst at the White House right now, the picture of a 24-7 vigil with perhaps even some large labor union thugs keeping a ‘closer-than-skin’ physical monitor action on Joe Biden to prevent his granting any conference time to ANY news media, and in particular, not one from outside the mainstream media. Old Joe just might forget who the president is right now and make a similar statement to that in the preceding paragraph.

Getting back to Colonel North, he insists to the Insider Report that “The commander in chief’s approval ratings are dropping faster than a JDAM (procedure to convert unguided bombs into controlled directions.) And no matter what happens to Moammar Gadhafi, the turmoil in the Middle East is likely to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. For all of this, President Obama has nobody to blame but himself.

The President, according to North decided on his own that “what was needed to be done and finding allies to support it, a process employed by American leader for two centuries, Obama turned over to the United Nations and the Arab League to build an ‘international coalition’ to determine the outcome.”

But by the time the U. N. Security Council got a Resolution passed, North says that “our military forces were ready and French President Sarkozy was ready to lead; our president was not; and when the first airstrikes to be launched against targets were beginning in Libya, Sarkozy seized the moment and delivered his message that French aircraft was headed for action in Libya on March 17th..

Of course by the time this was taking place our fearless leader was thousands of miles away in Brazil where he bravely announced that the U. S. forces would contribute “unique capabilities” at the front end of the mission, as Lt. Col. North explains, in the form of intelligence, surveillance, signal jamming, and other logistical capabilities. And at that time he repeated his pledge that ‘we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground.’

The Newsmax Insider Report went on to state that this promise was “modified” on the night of March 21-22 when a Marine Expeditionary Unit launched an air-ground force from the USS Kearsarge to rescue an Air Force pilot who had bailed out of his damaged F-15.

Of course all of this activity in and out and around Libya was carried on while Obama was enjoying the South American sunshine in Brazil and other vistas. To paraphrase Lt. Col. North, Obama’s dithering and trying to avoid offending any of the nations in the Middle East while others such as Bahrain, Yemen, Syria get deeper involved in tumult and citizen unrest can not replace leadership.

And as North states, “This is no time for artful rhetoric and equivocation. Even a Nobel laureate must know that a leader who tries to placate everyone ends up pleasing no one.”

That’s why I said at the top, Obama is more loser than leader.

Union political campaign contributors

1990-2010

Democrat- Republicans

Ame Fed.of State,County Municipal Employees $40,281,900- - $547,700

Intel Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 29,705,600- 679,000

National Education Association 27,679,300- 2,005,200

Service Employees International Union 26,368,470- 98,700

Communication Workers of America 26,305,500- 125,300

Service Employees International Union 26,252,000- 1,086,200

Laborers Union 25,734,000- 2,138,000

American Federation of Teachers 25,682,800- 200,000

United Auto Workers 25,082,200- 182,700

Teamsters Union 24,926,400- 1,822,000

Carpenters and Joiners Union 24,094,100- 2,658,000

Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union 23,875,600- 226,300

United Food and Commercial Workers Union 23,182,000- 334,200

AFL-CIO 17,124,300- 713,500

Sheet Metal Workers Union 16,347,200- 342,800

Plumbers & Pipefitters Union 14,790,000- 818,500

Operating Engineers Union 13,840,000- 2,309,500

Airline Pilots Association 12,806,600- 2,398,300

International Association of Firefighters 12,421,700- 2,685,400

United Transportation Workers 11,807,000- 1,459,300

Ironworkers Union 11,638,900- 936,000

American Postal Workers Union 11,633,100- 544,300

Nat'l Active & Retired Fed. Employees Association 8,135,400- 2,294,600

Seafarers International Union 6,726,800- 1,281,300

Tinkering won't do it

by Dave Buhlman


There appears to be noticeable slippage in the American way. It's been going on for some years, but has become more noticeable during the Obama presidency, and Democrat control of the House and Senate from 2006 until the November 2010 elections.

The wild spending, the czars, the giveaway of taxpayer money to the banks, more bureaucratic regulations, the high unemployment, jobs going overseas, high gas prices, losses in retirement accounts, the refusal to exploit our own natural resources, coddling of terrorists, inflation beginning to rear its very ugly head, wars in countries where most people hate us, illegals slipping in and out of our country at will, and a president who seems aloof to it all. There is more worry about the future, even among those who planned for it the best they could. And the thoughts of what life will be like for our children and grandchildren can cause nightmares and paroxysms of guilt because, really, it is our fault.

With the regular stumbling going on in Washington, DC, it seems we are adrift. We are in desperate need of one real leader - a Reagan, a JFK, even an FDR.

All of the candidates thus far, with the exception of Ron Paul (who I regret to say may be too old), talk about some tinkering around the edges. They will cut spending and taxes, win wars in various ways, increase our exports, hold government accountable, create jobs, reduce regulations, solidify relations with our allies, and, generally, just do a little trimming of the ship of state, and all will be well. But they will not deviate meaningfully from the basic themes of the past fifty years.

It's been tried; it's not enough.

Donald Trump has stepped up and been a pleasant surprise with his straight speaking and innovative approaches. One of his ideas, to pay us back for all we did in Iraq by keeping control of the oil wells until we are paid the trillions we spent, sure sounds sensible. No amount of money will make up for our many brave soldiers who gave their lives there, of course, but getting paid back in these and other situations would sure help reduce our $14-plus trillion dollar debt. This approach can be applied to many of our foreign commitments and activities. Let other countries pay us for our efforts to reduce a load of the debt we now have.

He has had the courage to bring up the Obama birth controversy and he's not backing down, no matter how much he is scoffed at. That shows leadership qualities. And Trump has produced his birth certificate while Obama continues to spend millions to prevent many aspects of his background from being exposed. Something is amiss, and Trump is raising the questions at a high level on the national stage when no other candidates or potential candidates have the courage to do so. Of course, true to form, Whoopie Goldberg immediately called Trump a racist. The prospect of being accused of racism scares others, but it doesn't scare Trump. I like that.

To this point, I am quite impressed with Trump, and want to hear more.

Dave Buhlman is a former New Hampshire State Representative

Give it up!!

By Jerry McConnell

What’s going on, Mr. Speaker? Are you becoming another Nancy Pelosi double talking, slick acting puppet of Obama? Why are you obstructing the efforts of two House members, Utah’s Steve King and Minnesota’s Michele Bachmann to eliminate the ObamaCare slush fund?

It seems as though every time the GOP gets control of an important part of our government they go soft and languish while the things that the liberals like to do are allowed to keep slipping out of their hands; why are you
letting that happen, Mr. Speaker?

Whatever happened to the spirit of November 2010 where the goal was to stop Obama dead in his tracks at bankrupting America? We started off with high ideals and seemed to be making progress but somehow or other the wheels kept coming off the tracks and reform suddenly took a back seat to appeasement. I really do hate to use that word, appeasement, but that’s what you are making it look like.

Obama alone does not have the power or the smarts to know how to block an entire political party from being effective, so who is it that is calling the shots and getting the leader of the party in control and his once-eager
lieutenants to back off any weighty achievements of stoppage of the ObamaCare disaster? Has the Soros consortium of Bilderberg billionaires put down its mighty and collective foot bringing shivers of fear to our 2010
elected representatives?

How many more Continuing Resolutions are we going to use to play pat-a-cake games with the spendthrift liberals?
How many more Continuing Resolutions are we going to use to play pat-a-cake games with the spendthrift liberals? How about shutting them off just once? If the government comes to a halt maybe that would be a blessing in disguise; with no government there would be no spending. Geez; even a one day stoppage could save a few bucks.

Are our new House leaders afraid the voters in 2012 will blame them or will they understand that continuing the lofty stratospheric spending that this Administration has committed itself to just had to be stopped if we were
ever to have any hopes for salvation?

According to the The Prowler, March 16, 2011 “Hand’s Off the ObamaCare Slush Funds” in the American Spectator online, the alibi for the unopposed new CR as an aide to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is “There is no way we can include their [Bachmann and King’s] amendment; it would just bog us down and undercut the leadership goal of getting real cutting done through negotiations with Democrats and the White House.”

When will these people ever learn that you CAN’T get real cutting done through negotiations with ANY Democrats
When will these people ever learn that you CAN’T get real cutting done through negotiations with ANY Democrats. As I’ve said here many times in other columns, bipartisanship to Democrats means, ‘Do it our way.’ They
will never get “negotiations” from those people; they only negotiate on one-way streets; those that lead to THEIR goals and away from the peoples’ goals. These liberal Democrats must first get the pound of flesh they need for whatever reasons they may have; after that they’ll concede to talk about the peoples’ needs.

The Prowler goes on to state that “Bachmann and King have been pressing to zero out the $105 billion that funds the Obama Administration’s implementation of the president’s health care plan. Despite broad support
among the American public for Congress to draw back spending on ObamaCare, it has done nothing to remove the $105 billion that the previous Congress had allocated. Under the terms of the funding allocation, about $5 billion is budgeted for implementation purposes in FY2011, while another $100 billion has been appropriated for FY2012 through 2020.”

The Rasmussen Reports frequently post their findings on the subject of ObamaCare repeal and spending curtailment. The most recent one of these Reports is dated March 11, 2011 and it tells us that the number of voters
advocating for outright full repeal of this ruinous legislation is now up to 62 percent of all voters! That is approaching two out of every three voters in favor of scuttling this onerous law. How can we keep ignoring the
wishes of nearly two-thirds of our populace?

Here we now have the dichotomy of one side saying we have to approve the Continuing Resolutions so we can get some “real” cutting done through negotiations, while the other side gets on his big Air Force One super jet and wings if off to South America ostensibly to communicate with those leaders, but which smells more like a vacation in warm and sunny climes with Socialist buddies and like-thinkers of wealth redistribution. Be sure to note how many billions he offers to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador. Those Socialists are probably singing, “Hey, Big Spender, Spend Your Billions Here.”
Give it up; let the cutting begin
How good are you at internationally long distance negotiations for “real” cutting, Mr. Speaker? Do you even remotely suspect that the man will be listening? He has you over a barrel, Sir, and you continue to cry “Uncle”
when it should be “traitor.”

Give it up; let the cutting begin