Hey! I Can't See Your House From Here.

As could be expected.

Our favorite “public policy” (read government) organization, The New Hampshire Municipal Association, aka, The Local Government Center since they were swallowed up by the school industry lobby, has come out AGAINST a constitutional amendment to protect private property.

The NHMA lawyer/political activist in this case, Cordell Johnson, is dismissing the seriousness of what happened to private property in Connecticut recently with the decision there that a sub-committee of the city government could draft a plan to take people's valuable waterfront property by eminent domain. The purpose of this taking was part of a scheme to generate more tax cash for their own general fund. In the process, the eminent domain taking kept the local homeowners from receiving fair market value for their property IF THEY WANTED TO SELL IT AT ALL!

It is OK for rich people to make an obscene profit says New Haven Ct. - if you are a pharmaceutical company or developer. But God forbid you are the last holdout in a multi-million dollar project. We will just TAKE your property - toss you a bone – and a developer your property – cheap.

Welcome to NH where the NH State Supreme Court rules that “cherish” means INCOME TAX and there is no longer a balance of power, just a dictate from the court.

Couldn't happen here says NHMA's Cordell Johnson.

Already has fella! Our courts rule on redistricting, education funding, and ballot position of candidates without a whisper of a constitutional right.

That's of course when they aren't cutting deals on who will hear one of their own member's divorce appeal, or sitting in on cases they should recuse themselves from, or using court letterhead to send a letter to a neighbor in Maine over a property line dispute. Sound familiar?

No, our State Supreme Court would never think to re-interpret our NH Constitution to take private property.

So why is NHMA even worried about this? Why bother opposing a do-nothing amendment?

Is it because NHMA is a PRO-GOVERNMENT lobbying group?

Or is it because they don't want the taxpaying peasants to get used to taking things into their own hands with the amendment process?

Voters in NH CHERISH their property rights that is why they will vote YES on Question One on November 7.

Which reminds me: You know how liberals say, “Yes we want tax cuts but how will we PAY for them?”

The NH State Supreme Court says: “Yes we want tax cuts but how will we “CHERISH” them”.

It all makes sense now.

http://nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061030/OPINION02/110300281\

That Vision Thing

I was at the Coburn/Lynch debate the other night to help with signs and had to leave early to get to our NH Taxpayer Radio program (WLMW 90.7FM Thursday evenings 6-8 pm – no commercials) which was being manned ably by CNHT First Vice Chair, Howard Dilworth and Dan McGuire of the Republican Liberty Caucus. I got to our program about 15 minutes into it and did not see the debate until last night on C-SPAN.

No wonder the in-the-tank-for-Lynch papers were saying things like “No knock-out punch by either side.”

Lynch looked like scared little rabbit – Coburn like an adult. Coburn won.

The weirdest thing though was the eye blinking by Lynch. He was batting about three blinks per second. Try it yourself some time. Blink your eyes as fast as possible for a minute and see how strange that really is. Now think about Lynch doing it for the whole debate. Its a wonder he didn't fall off the stage.

Calm down Gov.! You got pitched soft balls for goodness sake. Spradling even popped the old popularity theme into at least one question for ya.

Maybe it dawned on Lynch that night how, if he wins a second term, his own tax and spend liberals are going for his throat if he doesn't support an income and sales tax. I was at a forum in Portsmouth back when Gov. Shaheen was set upon by about four hundred angry liberals. It wasn't pretty. The only people I saw in the place from my side of the political isle were having a grand old time watching Shaheen get spanked by the Volvo crowd.

Lynch is at his highest point in his political career so far. My advice: stop the blinking and enjoy it while it lasts.

Mail-Jamming Suit Hits The Courts

Every dog has his day they say. Love him or hate him you just can't hide Joe Kelly Levasseur's campaign mail in The Manchester Post office until after the election and get away with it - so it seems.

Maybe some judge can find a way to make this situation go away before it starts getting ugly (as in publicized). I hope not.

Recently, former candidate for various political offices in Manchester, Joe Kelly Levasseur, filed a case in Superior Court, in the same city, regarding his mail not being delivered on time last November when he as running for a city office. The US Post Office actually paid Joe back for his “lost” mail.

I have not seen the actual court filings yet but it looks like the bulk mail company which delivered Joe's political mail did so along with a total of 44,000 other pieces. But only Mr. Levasseur's mail “got lost” for a while.

Now I have worked in a facility that shipped US mail and I know that we did not leave piles of mail in closets, containers, or bathrooms when we left in the morning. In fact, we even climbed up conveyor belts, under the auto-belt delivery system and catch nets slung around machinery that caught stray pieces of mail. All the yellow tied-at-the-top mail bags were emptied. So how this happened is going to take some explaining. And a long, long, long, detail-oriented trial. I hope.

Point of note: The lawyer handling the case for Mr. Levasseure is Chuck Douglass, former State Supreme Court Justice, US Congressman, and all-round political fixture here in NH.

Enter a bit of history: Chuck Douglass had his mail “not show up on time” back in 1990 I believe it was (TJ can check that for me) when he ran for Congress. Wow what a coincidence!

I had my political mail tampered with by the Hillsboro post office in 1996. Why I do believe we all have enough in common here to hold a good old boy reunion at a pub every so often. But who else would come!!!!

Let's try some other groups who have complained to me about this “lost mail” scenario since the pattern showed up. Try right-to-life groups for instance. I have heard similar complaints from them as well. It could have been an unsophisticated attempt at bulk mail by the conservative groups that caused the delays in the past but you can bet that from now on we will all be paying close attention to every mail drop we do.

As a bonus in this lawsuit we have the resurgence of "his lowness", Geoff Wetrosky, the out-of-state Democrat campaign thug for hire who was caught stealing signs from candidates and the GOP. As Geoffy was careening towards Democrat Party Chair Cathy Sullivan's home/motel? that fateful night last November futilely attempting to shake the dauntless Republicans on his tail, he was desperately barking into his cell phone. (Or so I am told by one of the guys in the car.)

Just whom was Geoffy, the John Kerry paid for campaign thug, chatting it up with during his attempted escape from the scene of the crime? I would hope a nice long trial would include some discovery of his cell phone records. In any case, we know he landed at his “temporary domicile” 192 South Mammoth Rd., the home/motel? Of Dem Party Chair Cathy Sullivan with his stolen signs. That is where the Manchester cops caught him and let him go. 192 South Mammoth Rd. is same the address he used to steal a vote in the Manchester election several days later before he escaped back to South Dakota.

So what did the Dem. Party Chair know and when did she know it? What about Mayor Baines who Geoffy was working for? Or how about US Senator John Kerry who was footing the bill for Geoff Wetrosky the campaign thug for hire? What did they know about Wetrosky's past campaign problems in other states?

Boy this mail-jamming sure is complicated.

Gay Marriage In New Jersey, Its only Natural

Thank you to the New Jersey State Supreme Court for showing the rest of America how you intend to have the people in New Jersey live under your rules.

And thank you for a beautiful example of something I was trying to put into simple terms anyone could understand when it comes to the education funding lawsuits here in our state. Here is a portion of the New Jersey “ruling”:

“4. Times and attitudes have changed. There has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this State. On the federal level, the United States Supreme Court has struck down laws that have unconstitutionally targeted gays and lesbians for disparate treatment. Although plaintiffs rely on the federal cases to support the argument that they have a fundamental right to marry under our State Constitution, those cases fall far short of establishing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage "deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State." Despite the rich diversity of this State, the tolerance and goodness of its people, and the many recent advances made by gays and lesbians toward achieving social acceptance and equality under the law, the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our constitution. (pp. 28-33)”

So the New Jersey Supreme Court can not find that this new type of marriage (there is a new twist on that as well) is a fundamental right? Funny. That is just like the New Hampshire State Supreme Court which could not find that education was a “fundamental” right. No matter, the Court marches on.

Then we have this other wrinkle. More from the NJSSC:

“7. New Jersey's courts and its Legislature have been at the forefront of combating sexual orientation discrimination and advancing equality of treatment toward gays and lesbians. In 1992, through an amendment to the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), New Jersey became the fifth state to prohibit discrimination on the basis of "affectional or sexual orientation." In making sexual orientation a protected category, the Legislature committed New Jersey to the goal of eradicating discrimination against gays and lesbians.”

Ooops. I thought this was SEXUAL orientation. Now we have AFFECTIONAL orientation added to the mix?

In any case, the hapless New Jersey Legislature is now under an order by nincompoops sitting in the chairs of what once was their state supreme court, to fix this new demand by creating legislation.

But the New Jersey Legislature lost their share as a co-equal branch of government years ago in 1972 when they succumbed to:

Robinson v. Cahill, the New Jersey version of “Claremont”. That resulted in every attempt by the legislature to placate the court being flatly denied until the institution of a 2% state income tax in 1976. After that we have new education funding suits on average every five years with an attempt in 1996 then by Gov. Wittman to DEFINE “thorough and efficient” (for us that would be the adequate trap) being rejected as well.

So it was only natural that the New Jersey State Supreme Court would take the next logical step in social engineering – gay marriage.

The New Hampshire State Supreme Court is following the path laid down by New Jersey almost to the letter, re-invent language, make up new rights, demand funding.

Can New Hampshire skip all the education lawsuits and just use New Jersey's definition of adequate? Not really. I think they are still working on that one.

Hopkinton Spending Hurts

 Hopkinton has been front and center in the assessment bad news game these days. Pity the poor people who have seen their taxes double and triple. Like you couldn't see it coming.

What you can see coming as well is the “we need an income tax” opinion pieces and letters to the editor from the same old crowd. Nice try.

Hopkinton is one of the wealthiest towns in NH. About 50% of its residents have a bachelors degree. These people are not stupid. They are all about their portfolios. The more land you lock up in conservation, the more the land leftover is worth and the more exclusive the stratified community becomes. The bigger library you build, the bigger the community center you have, the more you spend on schools - the more value you get for your tax-and-spend buck. Chip and Buffy (the environmentalists) sell their home to an even more affluent couple and the cycle continues.

So an income tax, sales tax, vat tax, gambling, you name it, no broad-based tax will ever stop the haves in Hopkinton from spending and zoning the middle-class out of THEIR town.

The technique is called “gentrification,” or better yet, by the term that best describes it, “ethnic cleansing.”

Oh the Planning Board will make sure there will be enough “workforce housing units” to satisfy the “community needs”. Once enough portfolio voters have taken charge it is only a matter of time until the locals will be forced to move on.

Hollis has been at this for years. This year they raised money at the town meeting for a study to see why people can not pay their property taxes. Sweet. More taxes and a lame attempt at covering up what is really going on.

Read the tea leaves in Hanover's 2006 zoning amendments. Anybody out there with enough cash for ten acres in Hanover? An income tax won't stop this.

Full Text of Article 17: Amendment No. 16 Article by Petition:

To remove Planned Residential Developments from the Rural Residential (RR) District.

Full Text of Article 19: Amendment No. 18 Article by Petition:

Requiring a Minimum Lot Size of 10 Acres for Major Subdivisions in the Rural Residential (RR)

District.

There may be time for moderate income and fixed income Hopkinton residents to take their town back from the portfolio voters. To do it they must expose the tax and spenders scheme not fall into the trap of asking Concord for help.