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



Being Liberal

I'm sure many of you out in cyberland have come across postings on facebook shared out from "Being Liberal".  If you have, I'm sure you've also found how easily most of their information can be debunked.  I'm likewise sure you most likely have heard of, if not personally experienced how easily they ban anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Until recently the face behind the page had remained unknown, going only by "W", but the New Haven Register posted an article found in full HERE interviewing the person behind the page.

Wojtek Wacowski, who lives in Fair Haven, is coming out from behind the screen. But, he insists, "Being Liberal" is not about him.

"It doesn't matter who I am, it doesn't matter what I think. I have accidentally created a soapbox. It gives me the unique opportunity to interact with people in Tulsa, Okla., or St. Louis, Mo.," or those in the Bible Belt, who feel isolated from others who see the world the way they do.

So far it sounds fair enough, after all the web is where people are able to find others sharing their interests and interact.

And he backs up his popularity with numbers from his page: "570,574 Likes, 1,001,546 Talking About This."

It's not the "likes" that matter, he says. Plenty of pages have more of those, and they can be inflated by advertising. It's the second number, which is the total of those who are somehow interacting with the page -- commenting, tagging it, sharing it or mentioning it in their own posts.

I find this a bit humorous.    When you look at Being Conservative, they have 2.7 million likes with only about 500,000 "taking about this"  What that says to me is that the liberals on this site are more prone to repeat what they see posted without really questioning what it is they are repeating where as "Being Conservative" has more people who agree with its ideas but instead think for themselves without simply repeating whatever is posted.

I will have more on the concept of thinking for themselves in a moment.

He says 87 percent of his followers are American. During the Arab Spring, however, he suddenly attracted Egyptians.

Again another interesting statistic.  13% of the likes are from people outside this country.  That comes out to be 74,175.

I'm also curious as far as which side of the conflict those from Egypt who started linking the site came from considering the "Arab Spring" was a clash between anti government protesters (tea party types) and the government and the pro government groups. 

Wacowski, 52, was born in Gdansk, Poland, and immigrated to the United States in early 2001.

Came to America from a socialist leaning European country and now seeks to make America into the same type of country he left.  No surprise there.

When he asks what being liberal means to people, he gets many answers. He considers the best one to be a quote from President John F. Kennedy:

"Someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad."

Someone who looks ahead and not behind.  It could also be said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

That said, I always found it interesting that liberals always attempt to equate not supporting government controlling of health, housing, schools, jobs etc as not caring about them as Wacowski does ever so subtlety here.

He encourages two-way conversation, which isn't easy in social media. Pointing to his laptop, he says, "We have the communication power to get the whole world working together," but instead people look at "smiling kittens."

This brings us back to the point of thinking for yourself.

In the article he points out he encourages two way conversation but "Being Liberal" (similar to Blue Hampshire) is notorious for banning anyone who dares disagree with their views.  If you look back at the original article there are dozens of commenters pointing out they were banned from the page.  One even points out he was banned for asking why the moderator uses FDR as the pages profile picture.  Anyone points out they were banned for daring to ask where all the anti war liberals went.

Among the popular "Being Liberal" topics lately are health care policy, right-to-work laws and immigration. One of his personal issues is the high number of people in prison, with the U.S. incarcerating one-fourth of the world's prisoners.

Another popular topic is "gun safety regulations." He prefers the term to "gun control," which he said evokes a negative reaction.

Have they ever stopped to think that more government equals more people in prison?

The second paragraph here is also very telling and something I've discussed many times with friends.  Liberals are very skilled at using vocabulary to attempt to win arguments.  Think about it, who would be against "gun safety regulations".  It says right on it's name that it's all about "safety" but he openly admits here that it's not, it's about control.

And what does being liberal think of our dear leader Obama?

"I think that he's extremely effective and a very good politician, but he is very much willing to compromise ... to be president of all Americans," so he doesn't push for liberal positions.

"My little bleeding liberal heart would like to see him as being more liberal," Wacowski says. He does credit Obama with holding "Fireside Hangouts" on Google Plus, emulating the "fireside chats" of the president Wacowski sees as our most liberal: Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"America got great in my opinion because of FDR," Wacowski says.

So Obama isn't liberal enough?  And he compromises too much?

What exactly has he compromised on?

Remember folks Obama is so far left that he can't even get the majority of Democrats to support his budget.

And as for FDR, does Wacowski care about the internment camps where they rounded up Japanese Americans during World War II?

FDR in actuality was a lot like Obama.  He appeased Stalin and helped foster situations that allowed World War II to happen.  He appointed many communists/ anti Semites into higher offices which later refused asylum to Jews who were escaping the Nazis.

Over all the exposing of Wacowski isn't exactly a shocker for anyone.  New England liberal who bans anyone who disagrees with them, who isn't originally from America and now wants to change everything about the country...  oh yeah real shocker.


Are we free

This week I had the opportunity to listen to Senate candidate Bob Smith speak at the Merrimack Republican meeting.  During his engagement with us he brought up an interesting point about central planning, government is slowing taking over the running of our lives.

He was able to highlight this pointing out the lie Obama originally made that if we like our insurance we can keep it, which taken at face value is lending the credibility to the concept that the government has any say in what we do in the first place.

Now we know we can keep our insurance only if it meets the criteria set out by the government in the first place.  So it's we can keep our insurance if they say it's ok.

That's a slippery slope and we've already started down it.

We already accept that we can eat what we want... if the government says its ok.  We've seen certain foods (trans fats) banned, sodas larger then a certain size banned etc.

We now accept that the government can tell us what we must have in our insurance policies, even when the don't apply to us.  For those who believe this started with Obamacare, it didn't.  We allowed government to control our choices once auto insurance was made mandatory in certain states.

Fewer and fewer of our choices are actually being left to us.  Others who feel they are wiser and smarter then the rest of us seek to continue to limit our choices to keep us from harm or making the wrong choices in life, but isn't that what freedom is?

If we are not free to make both bad and good choices are we truly free at all?


Kuster and Shea Porter Vote to Allow IRS Targeting

Last week congress voted on a bill that would prevent the IRS from targeting based on political beliefs, H.R. 3865.

It passed 243 to 176 but that's not the story here.  The story is that both Annie Kuster and Carol Shea-Porter voted against this.

Both NH representatives apparently feel it is ok for the IRS to target based on political belief.  I wonder if they would feel the same way if we currently had a Republican president and he used the IRS to target them and their supporters?  Since they choose not to support any laws against this, perhaps we will eventually get to find out.


Why Should We Work

For those of you who go to work, pay taxes and struggle to keep a roof over your head, I'm going to share a couple facts.  Read them and try not to get your blood boiling.

Fact #1 The average individual income in NH is $33,969 a year.

This is a good thing because we rank #7 in the country with the national average being $30,413.

Fact #2 The average welfare payout in NH is $39,750 a year, making NH the 9th highest paying state in the country.

Think about that for a second.  The average person working in NH could see an increase of $5,781 a year by not working, sitting back and living off the rest of us.

Fact #3 The poverty rate in NH for an individual is $11,170.

In fact, poverty in NH for a family of 8 is $38,890.

So by quitting your low end job and living off the tax payers you would put yourself three times higher then the level of poverty.

Of course those wishing to live off the backs of others could fair better in most of our neighboring states.

Massachusetts ranks the 3rd highest payout state in the country coming in at $50,540 a year.

#4 Connecticut $44,370

#5 New York $43,700

# 7 Rhode Island $43,330

#8 Vermont $42,350

Of the states in the North East only Maine finished lower then New Hampshire, finished 43rd on the list averaging $13,920 a year.

What does that say about a society when we are willing to give someone who produces nothing and gives nothing to society more on average then those who do work and do produce and those who are expected to have their income taken from them to give to this first group?

And what does it say about the rest of us who are willing to vote and elect representatives who would create such a situation?


States with fleeing populations

Massachusetts came out as the #8 state people are fleeing from in the 2014 list from Forbes.  56% more are leaving then moving in.  Connecticut finished number 5 on the list with 59% more leaving and New York finished 3rd with 61% more leaving.

Michael Graham asks the question on his blog site, why are people leaving MA.

According to his poll right now, "The crazy liberal government chases them away" leads with 49.57% and "Taxes are too high" is 2nd with 35.22% and "Not enough Jobs" is 3rd with 12.17%.

I'm not sure I agree with his poll results.  Many MA refugees move to New Hampshire and if it were the crazy liberal government chasing them away, why then do they turn around and start voting for all of the same things that just drove them away from Massachusetts when they get here?

Having lived in both New York and Connecticut (#3 and #5 on the list of states people are fleeing), I believe it's taxes driving people away.  That was what drove me out of both of those states and many I know who have moved here from Massachusetts argue the same.

As those earning and producing leave, what is going to happen to states like Massachusetts?  They can artificially inflate salaries by continuing to increase the state minimum wage but that will only result in driving away more businesses who will find the cost of doing business to be cheaper in New Hampshire or other states.

I was going to state eventually they will run out of money but Massachusetts as with many of the states in the list are already out of money.  They are the state with the 8th largest state deficit in millions right now.

What are your thoughts?