Recent elections have seen the issue of outlawing private gun ownership avoided entirely, but it has not and never will be lost as a main goal of all liberals. It is who they are.

Liberals don’t mind local or state police forces becoming militarized with automatic weapons and assault vehicles. That never seems to bother them for some reason, makes you wonder why?

Thank you to NY City Mayor Bloomberg and Mumbles Menino of Boston for bringing the issue back big time. And of all the venues they could have used money which might have gone to a good cause, these two opted to buy anti-Second Amendment time during the Super Bowl! It shows just how important gun confiscation is to liberals.

http://news.yahoo.com/special-report-bloomberg-reloads-push-gun-control-075206659.html

Obama, during a second term, would love to have his Attorney General prosecute law abiding gun owners. So would the mayors of most major cities. He would have no re-election constraints during a second term.

Liberal mayors never change their spots because liberal politicians in cities thrive in their left wing vote ghettos, free to express their contempt for the US Constitution in the name of “safety.” And city liberals win re-election, over and over.

National Democrat candidates have learned to tread lightly around gun confiscation because the public in fly-over country has turned against them. An anti-Second Amendment candidate for president would never be elected in a general election, a fact they finally understand.

Once again, thank you Bloomberg and Mumbles for being yourselves for all to see.

American news sources can not criticize or question Obama during a critical election year but I think we have a right to some info regarding Obama’s war in Africa. Newt’s ex wives get pretty boring after a while.

Here is one web site I found with some current info on the subject of Obama’s secret African war:

http://allafrica.com/stories/201202031286.html

My wife works as a flight attendant on US commercial aircraft and is currently on a ten day trip shuttling US troops between Germany and Kuwait. She brings me English language papers from Africa as well as other parts of the world. I try to keep up and enjoy reading about things the US media will never report.

Too bad a lowly blogger such as me has to crack open the real news about Obama foreign policy and secret wars.

Any one else notice that?

It makes me wonder about the anti-war signs I see on lawns in Concord and Henniker for instance.

Do they mean no war in Uganda as well as Bush's wars?

She stopped by Egypt TV to show her contempt for America with her kernel of socialist ideology. Freedom starved people in that country should read between the lines of Ginsburg’s comments:

“You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”

Ginsburg didn’t offer to help Egypt set up an ECLU?

She must know that if an Egyptian version of her ACLU was to crawl up on its hind legs the offending lawyers would be shot, raped, and thrown in a sandy ditch.

But then again, maybe Ginsburg thinks brown people are not compatible with the US Constitution.

She touts the South African Constitution as a prime example of a progressive document - really?

The South African Constitution is amended about every six months. So that is a prime example of a good constitution?

Why not just say you hate America Ruthie, we all know it.

Gardner puts out an election manual with all the non-enforced laws in it. You can find at:

http://www.sos.nh.gov/EPM-10-Online-2.8%20for%20website.pdf

Here is a portion of Page #8 where he makes reference to deceased voters – you know, like the ones the Project Veritas journalists uncovered in their now famous video sting.

I have highlighted and underlined the laughable part of Gardner’s manual.

“CHECKLIST CHANGES: REMOVAL OF NAMES

Only those persons legally qualified to vote should have their names maintained on a town or city checklist. Inaccurate checklists which list the name of a person who has moved from town, died, become an incarcerated felon or who has otherwise become ineligible to vote make it easier to commit voting fraud. While there is evidence of this occurring rarely in New Hampshire in the recent past, historically in the United States one common form of voting fraud is the use of the name of a dead or absent person, whose name is still listed on the checklist, by a person who is not qualified to vote. The public confidence in New Hampshire’s election system may be diminished when a voter reviews the checklist, and finds the names of people who the voter knows are no longer alive or no longer qualified to vote. Over time, the Secretary of State plans to cooperate with other Secretaries of State in exchanging information on voters who have moved and registered in other states. The legislature has authorized supervisors to automatically remove a voter from the checklist if that voter notifies either the United States Post Office or the Department of Safety (driver’s license/vehicle registration) that he or she has permanently moved from that town or ward. RSA 654:36-b. These steps will significantly reduce the number of names on the checklist of people who are no longer authorized to vote.”

Mr. Secretary of State. You failed to mention same day voters!

Same day, non-resident voters vote in NH by the thousands every election cycle, steal NH residents votes, and are never heard of again.

You know this.

You monitor this.

The AG investigated it in 2000 and collected dozens of names in Durham of same day non-residents who re-registered back in their own town, within a week, cheating the same day system you protect.

Recently, according to RSA 654:39, NH purged the voter lists of all municipalities of 160,000 non-existent voters.

Here is the relevant part of the law:

“IV. For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed reregistered and need not appear before the supervisors if:

       (a) The person voted in any election within the 4 years immediately preceding a 10-year verification; or”

In reality, the thousands and thousands of same day voters who registered in 2008 and 2010 are still UN-PURGED because they voted within the four years of the so-called purge.

This leaves thousands of names on checklists of people who might as well be deceased because they are not, and never have been, NH residents - so much for the phony NH voter purge. All you have to have to steal all the votes you need to win any NH election is a list of who left NH after registering same-day. Have a surrogate say the name of the long gone voter and no one will challenge them.

Now where would one find a list of non-resident college students who graduated and left NH in the last four years…hmmmm?

I have been reviewing DRA files since former Commissioner Phil Blatsos told his underlings back in about 2004 to let Mr. Naile see files when he comes in.

In one fell swoop I can see from reviewing some documents, what is behind some perceived or real problems taxpayers in any given town may come across, such as the DRA recently making a simple math mistake on Newmarket's tax rate. No big deal.

Yesterday I was told that I could no longer see any complete file. I now have to submit a written request and have to ask for exactly what I want to see. In essence, I must participate in a fishing expedition.

Too bad. Things could have gone so smoothly as before this new "change."

Now I have a suspicion there is something the DRA does not want me to see and they fail to understand that I may have the other side of some DRA inter-office correspondence.

This means if I ask the DRA for any information regarding a specific issue or letter they will never know if I have the town's side of the correspondence in my possession. Should they deny me the document related to the one I have they look foolish or like liars with public documents to hide.

Is this the best use of the DRA's time - to screw around with taxpayers over documents which are clearly public in nature?

I understand that the Town of Windsor's files are under currently under criminal seal because the DRA never let out a peep regarding the Windsor "Friends and Family Program" where certain property owners did not have to pay property taxes for ten years or more. But I was only asking to see Newmarket's file jacket.

How scarey is that?