To the Editor;
If there is one bit of hypocrisy that irks me the most, it's the charge from the progressive camp that 'outside groups' are interfering in NH's business on behalf of the conservative agenda.
When Rep. Susan Almy held a 'tax summit' in 2009, she invited outside, Soros-funded groups to come speak to the legislature on behalf of a state income tax, while excluding real grassroots taxpayer groups such as GST and CNHT. Her excuse? "You have FOX News" she wrote to me in response to an email I sent asking where the local advocacy groups fit in and why they were not invited to participate in the discussion about NH's taxes. From there, her conversation became even more bizarre and disconnected from the real issue, I suspect, because she HAD no excuse.
And now it has come to our attention, as predicted, that one of the PR firms being used by the Regional Planning Commissions to shape the debate and guarantee that the outcome of NH's towns will be their full acceptance of the federal government's HUD/EPA/DOT commitment to Agenda 21, is now apparently showing up at town meetings.
In this case, it is to lobby for all day kindergarten, something that only the locals should be able to decide, according to a letter in the Laconia Daily Sun:
This is even more reason to get out to your town meetings, a few nights or Saturday mornings, where your taxes may be raised by those who represent the agendas of wealthy corporations and their foundations.
Letters to the Editor
To the Editor;
Some people, including you, have claimed that I'm “not libertarian” because I called for the censure of a State Representative who stated that she wishes to restrict freedoms in an attempt to target a specific group of people. You called this “witch hunt to deny free speech to a duly elected representative.”You don't specify how a censure denies anyone's free speech. Censure is defined as, to “express severe disapproval of (someone or something), typically in a formal statement.” When a legislative body censures someone, they are formally expressing disapproval of a statement or action of an elected official. There is no removal of that person's freedom of speech, simply a formal statement that the body disapproves of what was said. Impeachment is “a formal document charging a public official with misconduct in office.” Again, nothing about removing free speech in that definition either! [NH RSA's do not define either term, so I am using the definitions from Google]
There are now three unanswered questions:
1) Since no action was taken on the petition against Cynthia Chase, am I to believe the official position of the New Hampshire General Court is that “Free Staters” are not welcome in New Hampshire and that laws must be passed that make us leave or not move here to begin with?2) Since the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to uphold the ruling of the Speaker of the House that a petition for redress can not be heard absent a legislative sponsor filing said petition during a small window in November and December, am I to believe that the people have no right to have their petitions heard outside of a small window in November & December?
3) How does that decision fit with Part 1 Article 32 of the NH constitution which recognizes the right of the people to “give instructions to their representatives… by way of petition…” AND Part 1 Article 31 states, “The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances…”?
[I am sending this open letter to NHInsider.com & Rep. Vaillancourt before making it publicly available on FreeKeene.com]
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
1995 – 2001. The Tax Collector would not tender tax money from the years of 1995 through 2001, which amounts to more than $27,000 in bank checks. This is in complete violation of NH RSA 80:71.Question: Since when does a Tax Collector refuse tax money from a tax payer?
May of 1999. The same Tax Collector, Joan Savina, tax deeded the property to the Town in complete violation of NH R.S.A. 80:76. Look at paragraphs IIa & III. This was done in complete defiance of the Board of Selectmen. All property deeds need an informed grantee. This never happened in May of 1999.
July 1, 2002. The Town of Londonderry won a restraining order against me, claiming I was a trespasser on their property.
August 1, 2002. The Town sent me a Notice to Quit.
August 19, 2002. The Town of Londonderry’s Lawyer, Barton Mayer, changed his mind about who really owned the property. In his answer to the same Court he told in July that the Town did own the property to obtain a restraining order, he backtracked and stated in his letter that the Town did not actually have ownership of the property. The Town also violated NH 80:91.
August 19, 2002. The same day, the Town hired a junk dealer (S&S Metals) who showed up with an army of Londonderry Policemen that held me at bay and spent a number of days stealing my equipment: trucks, bulldozers, cranes, backhoes, cars, welding machines, and thousands of dollars in hand tools.
New Hampshire Law states unambiguously in RSA 80:91 that the Town has a three-year window from the date of the Tax deed to be in compliance with RSA 80:91.Do the math: The three-year window was over in May of 2002. That is assuming the Town of Londonderry had a legal deed in the first place.
September 5, 2002. After having me arrested for Criminal Trespass on my own property, the Town (through their lawyer, Barton Mayer) offered me a bribe if I would sign over a Quit Claim deed to the Town of Londonderry, he would drop the Criminal Trespass charges. As a result of not signing a Quit Claim deed, I was put in jail for 17 days without bail.
December 2002. The Town of Londonderry’s lawyer (knowing full well that the Town didn't own the property) gave the case to the Londonderry Prosecutor, Kevin Coyle, who signed an affidavit swearing that the Town owned the property.
January 31, 2003. This case somehow made its way to Rockingham County Superior Court as a structuring conference with a Docket number of 02-C-1074 (Town of Londonderry VS. Robert Saulnier).
February 24, 2003. Barton Mayer, the first lawyer for the Town of Londonderry, filed a motion for entry of judgment that was granted by the Court. As a result, I was found in default by the Court.
April 18, 2003. Back in the Derry Municipal Court, the judge signed a notice of judgment against me for not paying $5,889.14 in back rent.
April 24, 2003. I filed an appeal in the Derry District Court, pursuant to NH RSA 540:20.
May 9, 2003. I was evicted from property, in complete violation of NH 540:20, which says I had 30 days to complete the appeal.
22 Highland Green
Merrimack, NH 03054
How the Obama Administration Defies Federal Law on Immigration and Welfare
Immigration is in the news, and legislation is being proposed that relies on the Obama administration to execute, in good faith, the nation’s laws. But the Obama administration doesn’t do that. Instead, the administration arrogantly ignores laws it doesn’t like, in violation of Barack Obama’s constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This is most notoriously the case with respect to immigration and welfare. We have written about this on several occasions; Jeff Sessions, ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, sums up the administration’s sorry history in a press release titled: “Immigration And The Welfare State: How The Obama Administration Defies Federal Law.”
It is an explicit and unambiguous tenet in federal law that those granted entry into the U.S. must be able to support themselves financially. But the Obama Administration has aggressively defied this strict federal statute. What are new promises worth when existing law is unilaterally waived?
Last year, the Ranking Members of Budget, Finance, Judiciary, and Agriculture Committees wrote an oversight letter to Secretaries Napolitano and Clinton that said in part:
The [Immigration and Nationality Act] specifically states: “An alien who…is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.” … We were thus shocked to discover that both the State Department and DHS exclude reliance on almost all governmental welfare programs when evaluating whether an alien is likely to become a public charge….Under your interpretation, an able-bodied immigrant of working age could receive the bulk of his or her income in the form of federal welfare and still not be deemed a “public charge.”
DHS even has a website, WelcomeToUSA.gov, that features a page promoting welfare benefits to newly arrived immigrants. (Some of these benefits, under law, should automatically disqualify the applicants from entry into the U.S. The page is also being updated to promote free coverage under the President’s health law.) Yet DHS has completely stonewalled the Committees’ oversight efforts—not replying to a single inquiry. Initial data from the State Department shows that just 0.068 percent of visa applications were denied in 2011 on the grounds of being a welfare risk. (The rate is even less—0.003 percent—when one takes into account those who are able to overcome public-charge denials in subsequent years.) In other words: Despite laws to the contrary, virtually no one is being turned away from the United States for being welfare-reliant.
Relatedly, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has stopped complying with efforts to learn more about his Department’s efforts to enroll immigrants and non-citizens on 15 USDA-administered welfare programs. The Department has even produced and broadcast soap opera-like “radio novelas” featuring individuals who were pressured into accepting benefits despite insisting that government assistance was not needed. USDA has also entered into a partnership with Mexico to boost welfare enrollment among non-citizens. Thanks in part to such controversial tactics, food stamp usage among immigrants has quadrupled since 2001. Vilsack missed deadlines in October and December to answer questions about USDA’s activities.
Against this backdrop, it should come as no surprise that a recent Center for Immigration Services study found that 36 percent of immigrant-headed households received at least one welfare benefit in 2010 (including public housing). The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector offered this mathematical analysis in 2007: “On average, low-skill immigrant families receive $30,160 per year in government benefits and services while paying $10,573 in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $19,587 that has to be paid by higher-income taxpayers… It takes the entire net tax payments (taxes paid minus benefits received) of one college-educated family to pay for the net benefits received by one low-skill immigrant family.”
As Ranking Member Sessions has explained, “Encouraging self-sufficiency must be a bedrock for our immigration policy, with the goal of reducing poverty, strengthening the family, and promoting our economic values. But Administration officials and their policies are working actively against this goal.”
The Obama administration actively conspires to violate existing immigration laws. So why would anyone vote for a new statute that relies on a lawless administration to enforce the law?
by Seton Motley
“Immigration reform” as proposed by both sides nearly always includes some sort of amnesty “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. And no real reform of the way we decide who gets to come here and who does not. Not to mention the wide-open borders we make but a feigned attempt to enforce.
All of which will lead to increased taxes on us, and increased debt on our children. Because immigrants are on government programs far more frequently than native born Americans.
Clearly the answer is not to make illegal aliens legal. Because that actually increases their use of government programs. Which makes sense - once “out of the shadows” they are then free to get in the sunshine-washed government money lines.
Nearly everything anyone is proposing as “immigration reform” should be preempted by something simple and rational - a financial means test.
If you are going to be on one or more government programs when you get here - you don’t get here. And if you are already here and on one or more programs - you can’t advance your residency status.
Applying to be a guest worker? A resident alien? A citizen? Illegally here and want a path to citizenship? Means tests all round.
Some pro-amnesty folks will respond:
“That’s an argument for welfare reform, not opposition to ‘immigration reform.’”
To which we respond:
“Fine - go first reform welfare, and then get back to us on your definition of ‘immigration reform.’”
We simply cannot afford to continue being the blank check to the planet.
Seton Motley is the founder and president of Less Government. He is a writer, television and radio commentator, political and policy strategist, lecturer, debater, and activist.