Guest Blogs


Its About Freedom

by Bill McNally

HB58 is really about Freedom.  Rep. Timothy Robertson introduced HB58 "requiring municipalities to establish volunteer civilian police review boards". Public hearings were held on 1/18/07 in LOB Room 301. Only ONE civilian, yours truly, was present to testify in opposition.  

I found a general lack of knowledge from police officers regarding 'police review boards'. During my testimony in Concord I suggested to the Committee that they take a look at "Behind The Big News" video tape I submitted.  "Mr. Chairman and members, let me provide two (2) sounds bites to encourage you to watch this video.

First incident on tape shows ABC News filming a GM pick-up truck exploding on impact and an un-named fireman at the scene contacts GM and told them ABC had placed incendiary device under the GM truck, punctured a hole in the gas tank and installed an undersized gas cap. ABC was forced to admit this 'criminal' reporting but only said "It was a bad idea from the start and that is our new policy". Hello? 

Second incident was the Rodney King 'beating' by the LAPD. This committee will see what happened  prior to what the general public and you saw on National Television - to wit - that Rodney King was hit by a stun Gun and tackled by four police officers and he threw them off and rose up off the ground and attacked the police - the rest is history.  The jury saw what the News Media failed to show and acquitted all police officers.

The committee was fortunate to have Rep. Mark (Captain, Salem Police) Pearson as a committee member having been recently elected. My sources tell me he gave a masterful testimony to his Committee in closed session in opposition to HB58 - the Bill was voted down by an 18-0 vote as "inexpedient to legislate" which effectively kills HB58.


It's A Civil Matter!

by Tom Suteliffe

I don't know if you have experienced this or not, but likely you will.  When you ask your local police to enforce a civil law of some sort, for trespass or such, and they advise you that "It's a civil matter, you''ll have to get a court order!" Does this ring a bell?  Have you heard this before?  It seems that this is the way to pass the buck of inaction.  It seems that this virus has infected the entire municiple police forces statewide.  Not only that, but the Sheriff's departments as well don't enforce civil law .  In fact you can't get any civil laws enforced in New Hampshire by anyone.  Why, because they only enforce criminal law!  

But wait, now you go to court and get an order..... but they still won't enforce the order..... why, because the order doesn't state specifially how they are to enforce the court's order!  I guess this is their way  of looking out for the public by keeping down your tax rate for their services.  Can you believe it?  Well, that's the way it is.  There are no laws on the books presently, that specifically state who is to enforce any of the civil laws!  Most citizens think that the police are there to enforce the laws, but they aren't.  They are there to enforce criminal law only.  Same goes for the Sheriff's Department. 

Now, is your chance to help change this.  The Criminal Justice & Public Safety Committe is conducting hearings to rectify this.  If you have had any of the aforementioned experiences with enforcement of civil law in New Hampshire, they want to hear from you.  HB 187 is an act establishing a study committee to determine which law enforcement agencies are responsible for enforcing civil judgements.  The hearing will be in Room #204 in the Legislators' Office Building in Concord January 30th, 2007 @ 1:00pm.  Your input will help to correct this untenable condition.  Remember, be civil!



By John Clark

The "Pledge" and the "New Hampshire Advantage" are a steady drumbeat every two years, and at every other opportunity, repeated 'ad nauseum' to a point of total ignorance. As several recent letters appearing in the newspapers have pointed out, even basic knowledge of tax structures clearly indicate the fallaciousness of the premise for either notion.

Federal Income tax is paid by everyone in these United States of America based on annual income, and on a sliding scale increasing as income increases. Other taxes such as State Income tax and local Property taxes are "offsets" or deductions from the Federal Income Tax liability. Put very simply, a State Income tax would not affect the "after-tax" pocket book of either individual or business tax-payers. The Federal Government would be the big loser.

Another loud cry heard whenever School spending is questioned, is that whilst "the Feds" mandate so-called education programs, the funding does not follow. So, if a State Income Tax were to be called a State Education Tax, and the raised amount was really spent ONLY on schools as direct education, then that "bogeyman" could finally be put to rest. The State Constitution would need to be amended to ensure that Property taxes receive total benefit of such an Education tax.

At least twenty six percent of people do not pay Federal Income Tax, various deductions move them below the threshold, All New Hampshire residential and commercial property owners pay Property taxes, Tax-Exempt properties do not pay either local or federal tax. The burden on home -owners in New Hampshire is reaching a crisis for all levels of income.

This question has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, Thinking people must agree that a better balanced tax system is urgently required. A State Education tax based upon a percentage of Federal Income tax would enable the "New Hampshire Advantage" to be neither a State Sales Tax, or having to sell your house to buy food !



by Peter Bearse Ph.D.

What should one expect of a new Representative who has been elected by the media, aided by their relentless onslaught regarding Bush and Iraq? Should one expect a proactive approach, like introducing a House bill to deny financing for a “surge”?, or mobilizing Congressional District (CD) constituents for anti-war demonstrations? Or voting like the previous go-along, get along Congressman, like a good Party regular? Or playing to the media to give people the impression that one is doing things for them?

The answer? -- the last two – the sorts of Congressional activity that has given the U.S. House of Representatives a bad name. Here in New Hampshire’s First C.D., a least, the 2006 Congressional elections have provided another round in the game of musical chairs. The music goes on but nothing has really changed. How sad -- voters sold another bill of goods by a media-made Member of Congress!

The evidence? Look at the Democratic Party’s “First 100 Hours” of accomplishment, including Rep. Carol Shea-Porter’s votes to approve:

Ø new ethics rules

Ø implementation of several 9/11 Commission recommendations

Ø an increase in the minimum wage

Ø increases in federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research

Ø letting the government negotiate the price of prescription drugs under Medicare

What do these votes represent? Let’s look at each one.

The “new ethics rules” are a gloss or band-aid to cover the gaping, fundamental corruption of Congress. They try to lend a new aura of respectability to an institution that is still “the best Congress that money can buy.” Big money continues to dominate Congressional politics. Corporate lobbyists were buzzing around the heads of the Republicans. Now they’re buzzing around the heads of Democrats. Democratic fund raisers that include lobbyist invitees are already going on to pay off 2006 campaign debts and gather funds for 2008 reelection campaigns. The House is the house of big donors, not “the people’s house.” Nancy Pelosi and Carol Shea-Porter are peddling a false populism.

The 9/11 Commission Report was “dead on arrival” at the White House. Passage of a resolution to urge the “implementation” of the Report’s recommendations is nothing more than political posturing, especially since the Democrats had no plan for Iraq to present before, during and after the 2006 elections. A marker as to real performance by Rep.Shea-Porter on the Iraq issue? -- Call and ask whether she has introduced or co-sponsored a bill like that introduced on the Senate side by Ted Kennedy – a bill to withhold funding for the President’s “surge” of additional troops to Baghdad.

The “Yes” vote to raise the federal minimum wage also represents show and tell rather than a meaningful move. First, only 2.5% of the nation’s hourly workforce is affected and 1/4 of these are youth. Second, the attention paid to the issue obscures the fact that the Democratic majority has assigned lower priority to the far more important issue of another adjustment affecting the incomes of many more people – the “COLA” for Social Security payments to reflect true increases in senior citizens’ cost of living.

Shea-Porter and her fellow Democrats also postured on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. They seem to pretend to voters that their left-over good intentions are on the right side. They and their media allies overlook the fact that the vote insulted the moral sensitivities of many others, for no good reason. Scientists have found that stem cells to generate remedies for most major diseases can be extracted from many, non-embryonic sources, including placentas and amniotic fluids.

Asking the Federal Government to negotiate drug prices is another hypocritical farce, playing to the seniors’ gallery while providing nothing but fodder for media editorialists and talking heads. Leave it to Democrats to deny market forces, especially when the “force” they point to, the Federal Government, is not the one buying the drugs in question. Federal bureaucrats as price setters? Next stop: price controls?

Fellow economist Robert Samuelson calls all of this “The Politics of (made for media) Symbolism…mostly about gestures…long on self-promotion...not about hard choices.” So, people may well ask: When is the Congress going to stop playing the media game, move beyond ‘Reality TV’ and start producing real solutions to real, hard problems? When are Nancy Pelosi, Carol Shea-Porter and other Democrats, who now claim to be promoting a “people’s House” in Washington, going to inform and empower us rather than themselves?



by Tom Sutliffe

I did not know of this until it was pointed out to me, that back during the great depression, President Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of all illegal aliens in order to make the jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.

Then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 1.3 million Mexican nationals called Operation Wetback in order that returning American WWII and Korean veterans had a better chance at jobs.

It took 2 years, but they deported them! If they could deport the illegals back then, they can sure do it today!!

If you have doubts about the veracity of this information, just type Operation Wetback into Google and confirm it for yourself.

Reminder: Don't forget to pay your taxes.....12 million illegal aliens are depending on you!