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


Entries in Democrats (107)


Democrats Defense?

I've been witnessing a strange occurrence here in NH.  Democrats control all branches of the state and federal government.  They are 100% in control and have the ability to get all the things they claim this country has needed put into place.

With their being 100% in control of every level of government they also are running out of ways to blame Republicans.  Sure we'll see Democrats continue to blame Bush for every problem for the next four years but how long before people say, enough with the blame, where's the solutions?

Look at NH.  When Benson left office NH had a surplus in the state budget, we had a decent economy and life was good.  People had little to complain about however Democrats found ways to complain anyway.  They complained the state wasn't property funding its infrastructure and education.

Since Lynch has taken over and Democrats gained control of both houses, we've seen our surplus disappear and our state government has gone into crisis mode because of deficit spending which is due mostly to the double digit spending increases Democrats have implemented.  And while it's no longer the front page story the education funding "crisis" has yet to be fully solved.  The poor, whom Democrats claim to help, are getting shafted now more then ever with the state having increased meals taxes to 9% and several other fees across the board.  The increase in minimum wage implemented last year has directly corresponded to a decrease in the number of minimum wage jobs available.

Obama admittedly had an economic meltdown already started under Bush (and the Democratic house and senate) but he assured the American public that his stimulus package would give us the boost needed to turn things around.  Not only has he failed to deliver but things have gotten worse then he said they would be if he did not act.

Democrats have meanwhile pushed legislation that continues to fail and create bigger and bigger problems.  They passed a law requiring kids under the age 18 to be kept in school even if they do not want to be there and cause disruptions for those trying to learn.  This was an attempt to curb drop out rates which it hasn't.  They continue at around 4%.

Democrats passed legislation that now allows children, little girls, ages 14 or 15 to walk into a planned parenthood and get an abortion without their parents even knowing about it.

And while all this is happening they continue to point the finger at the republicans saying see they caused the problems we're trying to fix.  And yet the problems continue to grow.  At what point will they say, the Democrat solutions aren't working?


Democrats Fear of Open Carry Part 2

Is there any logic to the fear most liberals have of guns?

The citizen who open carried this week at a health care event in Portsmouth has sparked national debate about the concept of open carrying a gun.  The discussions I've had and read have two parties objecting to the behavior.

The first are the liberals who object to all guns and would see to ban all guns if they could.  These are the same people who also attempt to claim the 2nd amendment does not apply to citizens or that the Constitution is out dated and needs to be rethought, or worse yet the ones who consider it a "living document" that should be reinterpreted over time.  There isn't much to debate with that group as they are fixed in their ways and will never see eye to eye with those who feel we do have a right to own and carry a gun.  They are the ones who do not understand that gun laws wont take away guns from those seeking to break other laws but instead only disarm those seeking to protect themselves from those criminals.  Not to get off focus but a perfect example of this is the fact there is no discussion about the SECOND person who showed up at the Obama event in Portsmouth with a gun.  The difference between the two is this second guy had his gun and a knife hidden and attempted to sneak into the forum where Obama was.  He didn't alert or panic anyone because he hid his gun, the only reason there was any alert at all was because he was caught going where he wasn't allowed and from what I understand his gun was illegal.  But I digress.

The second group are more reasonable people who do agree that we have the right to own and carry guns but they feel there are places that are not appropriate.  This is the group I hope to reach out to here.

The event that started debate is that the gun was open carried at a political event which was attended by the president.  The same argument is used to prevent guns from school, government offices and a number of other locations.  But is this logical?  Should rights be limited to certain locations or prevented from others?

Let's start with the idea of law abiding people legally carrying a weapon near or around an event where the president is attending.  If you search the web I would be willing to bet $100 that you will find pictures of not only Obama but Bush I & II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter and other presidents surrounded by US citizens carrying guns.  Of course these citizens are wearing either military uniforms or police uniforms but they are armed citizens of this country never the less.  They are citizens first and working men and women second.  No one fears the military or the police yet there have been cases of police officers and military personnel attacking the innocent yet there are numerous cases of people impersonating police who in turn cause harm to others.   Just because someone is in a uniform does not mean they would not harm you.

Now let's go further, if we do over all trust the police and military with a gun on their side while in uniform then what changes when they retire or take off the blue shirt and badge for the day?  If someone is wearing jeans and a tee-shirt while walking down the street with a gun at their side we don't know if they are a police officer by day.  Is there logical reason to fear that same police officer who was handing trading cards to kids in the park earlier that same day with the same gun because he's no longer in his uniform?

It would make no sense.  If someone can be trusted with a gun then it doesn't matter if they are in a uniform or wearing jeans and a teeshirt.

Going even further think about this... when you walk down the street and pass 100 people do you have any reason to fear them?  When walking in the mall do you panic over people passing you?  It is very plausible that at least some of those people walking past you were carrying a weapon.  Most who carry do conceal so you aren't even aware of their doing so but it doesn't change the fact they have weapons.

The key difference is when someone carries the same weapon where you can see it.  Then suddenly people panic.  Police are sometimes called in and in at least a few cases in NH the people who have done nothing wrong are stopped and questioned by the police.  Why?  That same person could walk by you in the same way or attend the same political event with the same gun but somehow your knowing about it makes it wrong?  We've become conditioned over the years to trust police and distrust our fellow American.  That is wrong and we need more peaceful, lawabiding people to show that Americans can be trusted and that simply walking down the street with a gun is not something that should cause panic.

I'd like to leave you with this short piece that can be found HERE:

Hoplophobia, n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns (c. 1980, coined by Col. Jeff Cooper, from the Greek hoplites, weapon; see his book Principles of Personal Defense). May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, nondescript fears, more, at mere thought of guns. Presence of working firearms may cause panic attack. Hoplophobe, hoplophobic.

Hoplophobes are common and should never be involved in setting gun policies. Point out hoplophobic behavior when noticed, it is dangerous, sufferers deserve pity, and should seek treatment. When confronted about their condition, hoplophobes typically go into denial, a common characteristic of the affliction. Sometimes helped by training, or by coaching at a range, a process known to psychiatry as "desensitization," a useful methodology in treating many phobias.

Hoplophobic behavior is often obvious from self-evident irrational responses to real-life situations, and is frequently seen in the news media and public debate. When a criminal commits a crime using a gun, hoplophobes often seek to disarm, or make lists of, innocent people who didn't do anything, an irrational suggestion.

The idea of creating an enormously expensive government-run 90-million-name database of legitimate gun owners -- which by definition would not include armed criminals -- is a prime example of an irrational hoplophobic response to the issue of crime. How the writing of your name in such a list would help stop crime is never even addressed. (See, "The Only Question About Gun Registration")

An effort is underway nationally to have hoplophobia recognized in the DSM, the official directory of mental ailments. Resistance from elements in the medical profession suggest this may be quite difficult, but that does not reduce the importance of recognizing a widespread, virulent, detrimental mental condition commonly found in the populace. The actual number of undiagnosed hoplophobes is unknown, but believed to be in the tens of millions.

Read Dr. Sarah Thompson's brilliant essay on the medical nature of this afflicition, the article that got the ball rolling on serious medical study of a condition affecting millions of Americans.

Hoplophobes are dangerous. They should not be involved in setting public policy.
Hoplophobes are victims. They are sick and need help.
Hoplophobes deserve sympathy. It's not their fault they are afflicted.
Hoplophobes should seek treatment. Help shoot for a cure.


Obama's Free Pass

We're continually told time and time again that Republicans do not care about the environment and only Democrats can save us from Global Warming and world pollution.  Most people assume Democrats are the party that is better for the environment after all they are the party of Al Gore, Mr Environment himself.

Even I started at one point to buy into the Democrat's hype that Republicans don't do enough, that is until I started reading up on what both parties are actually doing.  One classic example is forestry.  Democrats continue to push for new laws to "protect" our forests and leave them untouched which if you don't really think too much about it sounds like a good idea on the surface.  Forestry however clears away the underbrush and dead trees that allows easy spread of forest fires.  It also creates logging roads which allow for quick access points by fire departments should fires actually break out in remote forest locations.  The laws passed by Democrats to leave the forests in CA and other states around the country untouched are directly responsible for massive forest fires that claimed thousands of acres of forests and a number of lives.

This brings us to Obama's free pass.  Bush was slammed during his 8 years in office by environmental groups for not doing enough to clean the environment and superfund sites.  Nearly every major news source in the country wrote about environmental groups that criticized Bush for cutting back spending on clean ups of superfund sites.

Now if you listen to what these same environmental groups are saying, who for the past 8 years slammed Bush, you'll find them oddly quiet.  The reason is explained in the AP new article found HERE.

During the eight years of the Bush administration, the agency finished construction at 38 sites a year on average.


In Barack Obama’s first two years in office, the Environmental Protection Agency expects to begin the final phase of cleanup at fewer Superfund sites than in any administration since 1991, according to budget documents and agency records. The EPA estimates it will finish construction to remove the last traces of pollution at 20 sites in 2009 and 22 sites in 2010.


The explanation by the Obama team is the same one put forward by Bush officials: The sites on the list have become increasingly complicated, contaminated and costly.


When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson explained this trend to a Senate committee this year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, replied: “That’s the same answer the Bush administration gave us, and I don’t buy it.”


Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and some Democratic lawmakers who highlighted how little the Bush administration did on hazardous waste cleanups are now silent.

Of course don't let the above fool you, Obama and Democrats have a plan...

The Bush administration “didn’t make an investment. They weren’t willing to increase the tax and they weren’t willing to shift general funds. They were just willing to limp along,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat who is sponsoring legislation to restore the tax. [on petroleum, chemicals and large companies]

When this tax originally expired under the Clinton administration one of the reasons was that it unfairly burdened companies that comply with environmental protection laws and that we already have other laws in place that put the burden of clean ups on those responsible.  Not to mention it also places unfair burden on tax payers in general.  The Corporate Environmental Income tax, which is also part of Obama plan also incorrect assumes a correlation between income and pollution.  If your company makes more then another company then it assumes your company therefore pollutes more, which is of course hogwash.

So as with most other things we see the same basic trend from the Democratic party... do less, tax more and blame the Republicans for everything.


Cash For Clunkers Hurting The Poor

The news has been beaming about Obama's Cash for Clunkers program and the government is even considering extending it, is this a good thing? Sure if you are well off enough to be able to afford a new car.  If your a lower income family however its making things harder.

You can read the details of the program on the government website, but to sum it up you trade in a car 25 years old or newer that gets 18 MPG or less and you can collect anywhere from $3,500 to $4,500 for a trade in.  The government then takes the cars traded in and crushes them so they cannot be resold.  It also prevents the engine and drive train from being sold off as parts.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the eventual result due to supply and demand of the market.

The soccer moms driving big SUVs with duel income families will trade their cars in for new ones.  Those used SUVs that would go to the used car market are now being destroyed so lower income families looking for larger vehicles to transport their families around in have fewer options on the used car market.  With fewer options and the same level of demand, the used car prices will go up.  This makes it harder for the poor families to afford any cars.

Oh and here's the double wammy, since the program requires the cars be crushed and not used for parts the parts market likewise has lower supply which in this case since fewer people will be able to afford even used cars, this will increase demand making it even more expensive on the poor.

Now since the left claim to hold the monopoly for caring for the poor I wondered if they've considered the effect they are having on the car market so I stumbled over to the left leaning site and found a discussion about just this subject:

Will Cash for Clunkers hurt poor people?  As old gas guzzlers get demolished, critics warn that prices for used cars will rise

Depends on what you define as poor
I remember being in a car driven by what we called a liberal back in the day. My friend was arguing against a ballot initiative that would have added a five cent per gallon tax to gasoline to fund public transit. His argument was that higher gas prices would "hurt the poor". I asked him to exit the freeway and drive along West Capital in West Sacramento. After looking around, he agreed with me that the poor generally neither own nor drive cars. However, he still opposed the gas tax.

Likewise, higher used car prices would not hurt the truly poor since they still do not own cars.

Depends on what you define as poor?  Clearly this is the party of Bill Clinton aka meaning of is.



Democrats Growing On Trees?

There is an interesting article posted this week on Blue Hampshire discussing growth in Democrat voter registrants.  They discuss the double digit registration leaps in several NH counties between 2002 and 2008.  Now this of course only accounts for the time under Bush when let's face it, he turned a lot of people off from wanting what the Republican party was selling, mostly because he did not represent what it means to be a Republican, but I digress.  They do not get into what has happened with registrations since Obama took office.  But we'll ignore that for this discussion and move on.

In Rockingham county they site that Republicans grew 17% but Democratic registration in that same period grew by 65%.

In Merrimack County Republican registration increased 9% but Democratic registration lept by 74%.

Their article (found in full HERE) goes on to list a few other NH counties that saw the same type of double digit registration growth from Democrats.

My first question is where did all these people come from?  Merrimack County for instance only increased it's population by 8.71 percent from 2000 until 2009.  And that increase includes many underage children who are not yet eligible to vote.  Rockingham County increased by just 6.82% during this same time.

While I don't doubt that Democrats gained more voters due to Bush from 2000 to 2008 I have to question the size of the leaps, could we be seeing evidence of voter fraud as we've seen time and time again in NH?