Letters to the Editor

 

Entries in Law Enforcement (6)

Friday
Dec112015

Eric T. Rottenecker - Spending Spree!

If you were to go down to any of the Drug Task Force hearings you would see a bunch of state unionized employees who have a special vested interest, testifying, looking to enlarge their departments. The vocal minority, the politician’s voter base. It will be very interesting five years from now when NH is 80% grey and can no longer support all of this big government and state retirees when this year alone there was a mad scramble to find $10.5million for the state employees retirement fund shortfall. Just one more raid on a dedicated fund.

The war on drugs is costing the US $50billion annually in enforcement, judicial and incarceration all of which are unionized. You will not see our politicians threaten to reduce any of our state or federal enforcement agencies. That is why we are not hearing any more on NH becoming a Right-to-work state, the state employee unions wouldn't allow it, the politician who leads that charge would be voted out as fast as Governor Benson.

In 1914 President Wilson signed into law the Harrison act to suppress minority's use of drugs, in 1937 came FDR with the Reefer madness program and in 1971 tricky Dick Nixon jumped into the war on drugs to suppress white anti-war college students, just as all of the previous administrations used it to build up vested departments from coast to coast and suppress minority's. You never hear of any white collar American busted for smoking a joint. But smoke it they do.

 Tobacco subsidies in the US totaled $1.5 billion from 1995-2012. Tobacco kills 6 million people worldwide, our Governors see fit to increase the tax on tobacco any chance they can. Alcohol kills 3.3 million annually, but it is socially acceptable. Tens of thousands of people are killed on our roads by drunk drivers. We are building a new liquor store in New Hampton. Why aren't we fighting the war on socially acceptable drugs that kill? It would mean the loss of revenue from taxation, the loss of social workers, unionized law enforcement don't see it as an Epidemic  and after all, how would our law makers celebrate their spending spree victory without their favorite glass of wine. Wine by the way is a gateway drug. So is beer, but we have to keep marijuana illegal because it is a gateway drug? I ‘Never’ heard of a marijuana overdose. I ‘Never’ heard of any one with withdrawal symptoms from marijuana. We have a shit load of hypocrites in government. 

The US spends $50 billion annually and along comes the NH Senator Forrester with her big $70+ million spending spree and Senator Shaheen with her $600 million, to increase law enforcement to combat opiate misuse, the real goal, to enlarge their voter base. Just more special interest groups with their lobbyists and unions telling our politicians how and what they should be spending taxpayer moneys on. The politicians, who answer to no one when it comes to spending taxpayer moneys, are eager to comply, just so they can stay in office. The outcome will remain the same. Looks like we are going to fight the loosing war on drugs for another 100 years. This is the form of democracy we are pushing around the world and getting rammed down our throats. Welcome to the Unionized States of America. 


Eric T. Rottenecker
Bristol

Thursday
Oct312013

Heather Mac Donald: The Blissfully Unaware Hecklers at Brown 

At Minding the Campus, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Heather Mac Donald lambasts the protestors who shut down Ray Kelly’s speech at Brown, arguing that they “disgraced themselves and their school in silencing a selfless public servant who has done more in twelve years for New York's poorest neighborhoods than decades of the big government redistribution programs that the Brown hecklers most certainly support.”

 

Best,

Judah Bellin

Assistant Editor, Manhattan Institute

Sunday
Feb032013

How the Obama Administration Defies Federal Law on Immigration and Welfare

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?

http://tinyurl.com/b7y7h3t

Tuesday
Jan032012

Regarding HB 514 

Greetings;  Happy New Year

Regarding HB 514

Rep. Gionet sent a copy of HB 514 for my opinion, for it was similar to my bill.  Legislation appears good until section VI and the last section,  EXEMPTIONS.  The exemptions make HB 514 illegal legislation and an outrage.   The bill invites federal, state or local law enforcement onto private property without a warrant.  This is insanity.  You can’t legislate allowing government agent(s) onto private property without a warrant.   Another exemption is to allow real estate boundary surveys onto private property.   The major battle by opponents of Northern Pass is not to allow surveyors on contagious private property of the Northern Pass Right a Way.   HB 514 is direct slap in the face to opponents of Northern Pass, matter of fact, all property owners of New Hampshire.   To legislate allowing person(s) on private property against the wishes of the property owner is a oath of office violation.   This is bad legislation, illegal-against our State Constitution, violation of the Bill of Rights within the Constitution for united  States of America.  Article 19 and the 4th.. Amendment for starters.

Whatever the good intentions of HB 514 is, in reality the consequences are bad, misguided, in violation of the law of the land.  

Attach to HB 514 was a statement by Rep Guida  Rep. Guida states, there are remedies to landowner to recover legal expenses, to fine individuals who knowingly violate this law. I find no such text in this bill, unless it is some where else in the Chapter. HB514 enclosed for your convenience.

"Hey mister, who gave you that shiner?"
"Nobody gave it to me, son – I fought for it."

The House will vote on HB 514 January 4, 2012
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x91rBzNKvlc&NR=1

Live in Freedom

Harold



STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT relative to entry on private land.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Chapter; Entry on Private Property. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 7-B the following new chapter:
CHAPTER 7-C
ENTRY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
7-C:1 Entry on Private Property.
I. Absent a lawfully issued warrant, no person shall enter private property for data-gathering projects, including but not limited to biodiversity studies, endangered species or habitat surveys, sampling, or delineation, whether or not authorized by state or municipal agencies, boards, commissions, or any nongovernmental organization, without first giving written notice to the property owner and obtaining the prior written permission of such property owner.
II. No information gathered without permission shall be recorded, made public, or used for studies or grants.
III. Information gathered with permission may only be used for the purpose stated in the notification.
7-C:2 Notification Requirements. Notice to the landowner shall include:
I. The purpose of the data gathering.
II. The date and duration of the data gathering.
III. The land or environmental features that are being evaluated.
IV. The manner in which information or samples will be recorded and retained.
V. The method by which information or samples collected will be shared with government agencies, third parties, or the general public.
VI. A full disclosure of the potential restrictions that may be placed on such property, and on abutters, as a consequence of such information being recorded.
7-C:3 Exemption. The requirements of this chapter shall not apply to federal, state, or local law enforcement, the fish and game department, emergency services, real estate boundary surveys, emergency response to a public health threat, or animal control.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

Monday
Oct182010

Support for SB 500 from a man on parole.

To the Editor:

There has been much said about the Republicans’ effort to repeal SB 500, the new law that gives every inmate a period on parole with supervision and help in rejoining society. Repeal is a bad idea. Here’s why:

I spent eight years in the New Hampshire State Prison.  I have been on parole for 2 ½ years now. Reentry into the community has been hard, but I had a wife and supportive friends and family on the outside to help in the process.  The prisoners who most need SB 500 are those who have lost everyone and everything while incarcerated.  Frequently these men and women burned their bridges by the crime they committed. Often they were running with the wrong crowd or dealing with addiction or mental illness prior to their incarceration. Their release back into the community is fraught with danger. Without the guidance of a watchful parole officer, their chances to succeed are slim. Repealing SB500 to appear “tough on crime” is short-sighted and contrary to the best interests of the State of New Hampshire.

Let me tell you a true story.  I met a man in prison.  I will not tell you his name because he could be easily located through the sex offender registry.  He was in his 50’s at the time. He had been convicted of incest.  One of the requirements for his parole was the successful completion of the prison’s sex offender program.  But, he has Asperger’s Syndrome.   He keeps to himself, will not make eye contact, and finds interpersonal communication difficult.  He flunked out of the sex offender program and was denied parole. 

The problem was; he didn’t know how long he had to serve.   One day, after more than 15 years in prison, he was called to the unit counselor’s office and told that he was maxing out in one week.   It was January.  He had no one on the outside.  He had no skills. He had no plans. He had no place to stay.  The local homeless shelter would not take him because he was a sex offender.  I heard through the grapevine that the unit counselor drove him to a boarding house and paid his first week’s rent. 

Is this really how the State of New Hampshire wants to handle such cases? Is this wise, or even safe? SB 500 assures that people like this will get released into the community gradually under supervision and will be helped to find appropriate housing and employment.  Everyone benefits. Please, whoever you vote for in November, tell them you want to keep SB 500.  

Philip Horner