Richard Barnes

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson



Punish All For Acts Of A Few

In all my experience working with different colleges and serving as a national president of a fraternal organization, I have witnessed several cases of colleges and universities stripping college students of basic constitutional rights.

The first amendment of the US Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One of the rights protected by this above statement is the right for us to peaceable assemble.  This means we can join organizations and clubs as we see fit, not as the university permits of us.

That brings me to an article I read today found HERE.

West Virginia University has suspended all activities by campus fraternities and sororities hours after a student was found at a fraternity house without a pulse, police and school officials said on Thursday.

Nolan Burch, 18, was not breathing when he was found at the Kappa Sigma fraternity house around midnight on Tuesday, said Ed Preston, the police chief of Morgantown, where the school is located, 75 miles (121 km) south of Pittsburgh.

Police arrived to find CPR being administered to Burch, who was taken to hospital and put in intensive care, Preston said in a statement, adding that fraternity members were being interviewed.

After the incident, the school said it was indefinitely suspending all sorority and fraternity social and pledging activities.

Stop a moment and think about this.

I don't want to downplay what happened with Nolan Burch but what is being said here is Kappa Sigma screwed up so all fraternities will be punished and all students wishing to join those organizations can no longer exorcise their first amendment rights to assemble.

This would be like everyone in an apartment complex losing their license to drive because the person in apartment B was caught drunk driving.

Or trying to strip everyone of their right to own a gun because one person was irresponsible with theirs... oh wait, that actually is attempted but luckily it has been shot down as unconstitutional.

Fraternal organizations in this country, and I include sororities in this classification, have gotten such a bad reputation in this country that they are continually considered guilty until proven innocent and schools think nothing of stripping them of their rights.

Looking back at the first amendment, we do have the right to assemble.  In fact in the case Beta Upsilon Chi v. Machen the court ruled:

"The courts have long understood as implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends."

If members of Kappa Sigma did something wrong, punish their members to full extent of the law, but do not strip away rights of the innocent because of the acts of others.


Carol Shea Porter vs Frank Guinta

Frant Guinta and Carol Shea Porter have matched up already in past elections with each beating the other at least once.  This allows us to see actual records of both candidates to make more informed decisions when voting.  I'm compiling here several details about both candidates to hopefully better educate voters on their choices.

On Taxes

Carol Shea Porter - Carol has continually scored an F rating with the National Taxpayers Union, often ranking nearly the lowest score of all Congress.  In her latest term in office Carol voted for a net of $121 Billion in new spending.  The term before she voted for $262.8 Billion in new spending.

Frank Guinta - Frank scored a B rating with the National Taxpayers Union.  In his last term in office Frank voted for a net of $352.7 Billion in CUTS.

Analysis: Carol's record shows her to be a huge spender and completely fiscally irresponsible.  Frank has proven himself to be more fiscally responsible.


On Gun Rights

Carol Shea Porter - Came out stating she supports "States Rights" in regards to D.C. banning guns.

Frank Guinta - Is supported by the NRA for his pro 2nd Amendment views.

Analysis: Anyone who cares about gun rights has to go with Frank Guinta on this one.


On Women's Rights

Caarol Shea Porter - Voted yes on the "Foreign Relations Authorization Act" which supports funding abortions in other countries.
-Supports public funding of abortions in the US.
- Carol voted yes for the "Clone and Kill Policy", which instead of banning human cloning, requires all human clones created to be killed while still embryos.

Frank Guinta -  Voted yes to ban federal funding for abortions

Analysis: While Carol has attempted to paint Frank as an extremist his voting record only opposes funding of abortions while she has a more extreme view of not only forcing every to fund abortion even if they are religiously opposed to it but in the case of the clone bill requires the killing of human life in some circumstances.



Carol Shea Porter - Voted yes on the "Thought Crime Act" which attempts to create different levels of crime based on the thought of the criminal.

Frank Guinta - Supports capital punishment for certain crimes.
- Supports requiring congress to identify the constitutionality in each new bill.
- Supports banning stock trading on congressional insider knowledge.

Over all I could list, and I have HERE, a number of reason why Carol needs to go.  Once again in this latest term she proved why she is not right for New Hampshire.



When You Have Nothing To Say

One good way to see how well a party is doing is how it motivates its base.  If you look back when G.W. Bush was president Democrats were in full force attacking him at every turn (ironically for many thing Obama is now doing that they are silent on).  After Obama first took office they continued to sound off blaming Bush for every wrong in the country, ignoring that they controlled the house and senate since the 2006 elections.

Now we're about half way into Obama's second term in office approaching the mid-term elections.  If ever there was a time to get excited about your side it's now.  Democrats should be sounding off about all their accomplishments... only problem is they have none.

I look often at the website as a way to see how the other side thinks and to see what their current hot topics are they are railing Republicans about.  Lately it has been nothing more than crickets.

The last posting on their site was made Oct 13th, prior to that Sep 10th.

Do they have nothing to sound off about?  No accomplishments they can brag about?

It seems all their prior attacks against Republicans can now be used against them so that card can no longer be played.  They attacked Bush for his deficit but we see far worse deficit spending under their watch.  They attacked Bush for the wars in the Middle East but now the situation in the Middle East is a complete mess.

The article from October isn't even about current events, it a flashback about Goldwater and Clinton.

Not even a peep about the "war on women" or the Koch brothers.


Ugly As Sin

Steve Vaillancourt, I've disagreed with him a few times on this very site but there are times he's correct too.

He's not a nice person for claiming Kuster is "Ugly as sin" but I'm finding that the media, as it often does, is focusing on a rude comment instead of the over all point he was trying to make.

take a look at the coverage from WMUR, found in full HERE:

A Republican New Hampshire state lawmaker has called a Democratic congresswoman "ugly" and said the GOP opponent in her November re-election race is one of the most attractive women in politics.

Manchester Rep. Steve Vaillancourt called U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster "ugly as sin" in a blog post last week and compared her to a drag queen.


Reading that you would think he had no other point then to blast Kuster for her looks.  I read this and another article someone had shared out on facebook before going to his column to see what he'd actually said and was shocked that he would make such an attack based on looks alone.

Then I read his full column found HERE.

He came off rude and a little childish in his statements but his over all point was that we have a lot of uninformed voters in this country that do vote based on looks instead of facts.

Whether it's a large percent or not is debatable but it is a fact there are people who vote like this.  I've seen it first hand on more than one occasion.

In a local election in Merrimack I was having a discussion while holding political signs on election day with some of those heading in to vote.  One male voter pointed out some of the physical traits of a woman running for school board and flatly stated he was voting for her so he could see more of her on public access.  When questioned about political views, since she was new to the Merrimack political scene, he openly admitted he had no idea where she stood on issues but again confirmed how attractive she was.

And it's not just male voters either.  I have witnessed first hand female voters bragging that they voted for Scott Brown or Barack Obama because of the fact they were "studs".

There are people who voted, both for and against, Obama because of the color of his skin.  And there are voters who will support female candidates over male solely based on gender alone.

Even Democratic Congresswoman Carol Shea Porter made a comment that congress would be much better off if we got rid of all the men.

It would be nice to dream of a world where people are not judged by their looks, color of their skin or gender but there are people who can't see past the surface.

In Kusters case there are a lot of valid reasons to toss her out on her butt.

For informed voters there are plenty of reasons not to support her, her looks are not one of them.  Sadly though, people will vote on looks.  They will vote on gender.  They will vote on a lot of things that may actually put someone in office who is opposite their own views.


People walking around wearing guns

An article surfaced in the Concord Monitor about the Department of Public Safety changing wording on conceal carry permits.  You can read the article in full HERE, but it isn't the article I wish to discuss.

The new wording changes the intent of the form from being a "shall issue" for anyone who meets the requirements to giving the state the power to pick and choose who it feels should qualify for licensing.

It is the comment someone posted to the article though that I find disturbing.  Nelle wrote:

When it comes to guns, some just don't believe in common sense. Do we really want a society where people are walking around wearing a gun?

Simple statement made up of two sentences.

First is that when it comes to guns we should "believe in common sense".  My first though on this is who defines "common sense" because what is common sense to me apparently isn't what the anti-gun left view as common sense.

If you live in an area with high crime and are concerned with your safety, would it not be common sense that you would want a way to protect yourself?

Then there is the second part to this statement, "Do we really want a society where people are walking around wearing a gun?"

Just today there is a story about threatening letters sent to schools in RI.  In response parents and the public are calling for police ("people walking around wearing guns") to be present in the schools in case something happens.

Politicians surround themselves with people with guns, to protect themselves from danger.

In troubled neighborhoods people demand that politicians hire more police (people with guns) to walk around day and night to keep their streets safe.

People constantly want "people with guns" to walk around in their daily lives.

Given this, wouldn't common sense therefore dictate the if you want to be protected by people with guns, wouldn't it make more sense to have a gun instead of waiting several minutes (when seconds count) for someone with a gun to show up?