Exposing the Granite State Fair Tax Coalition (GSFTC) as just another left wing front group for Christian Socialism and the Democrat party tax and spend agenda was easy. (Here, here, here, here, here, maybe here,  here as well, and don’t forget here.)

But will it be any easier to unmask their newest facade?  That’s right, the GSFTC is dead but not gone.  It has been replaced by the exact same organization, all the same Liberal/Progressive players, but with a shiny new name.  GSFTC is now Granite State Priorities (GSP).

How do I summarize this transition in a nut shell?  Same old whore, new dress.

The NH Fair Tax may be dead but the mission is the same, the left wing partner organizations are the same, they just changed the name, the color scheme, and added some flash features to the web site.  Fortunately for us the stupidity remains.  Check out the text from their “about” page.

Granite State Priorities is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)3 organization that began in 2006 in the name Granite State Fair Tax Coalition as a public policy project of the NH Council of Churches, out of concern that New Hampshire’s inadequate and inequitable revenue system is eroding the foundations of our state and quality of life for more and more people.

Granite State Priorities believes that the foundation of a thriving economy and shared prosperity is a sound public sector.

We bring concerned citizens together to achieve common-sense revenue reforms necessary to sustain our state and communities and make taxes affordable for all.

…

Follow me here.

New Hampshire has an inadequate and inequitable revenue system.  We need to work together to achieve common sense revenue reforms to sustain our state and communities and make taxes affordable for all.

Do these idiots realize that even throughout the Worst Recession in History™ New Hampshire has consistently had the lowest poverty rate, highest standard of living, one of the highest average wages, lowest crime rates, lowest unemployment rates, and lowest overall tax burdens in the entire nation? Who isn’t bright enough to know why?  You guessed it.  Granite State Priorities.

So how does that press release go?

‘We at Granite State Pick-Pockets (GSP) ask you to ignore the fact that New Hampshire is, overall, one of the safest, and best places to live on the planet.  Despite having more opportunity to succeed here than almost anywhere, we’d like to scrap the ‘inequitable’ revenue system that has consistently produced these opportunities, and go for something like what Massachusetts, New York, and California have; a system with a larger  public sector, funneling more of your tax dollars into Democrat campaign coffers–something we like to call the shared prosperity of a sound public sector.

We need to help put people into office who will make New Hampshire Great the way California is Great.  Great big deficit, Great big taxes, Great Big state Government, and a Great migration of business, jobs and people, as far away from here as possible.   In this way, more of us will learn to become dependent on the state, dependent on our thriving public sector unions, and on groups like ours.  And as more people become unemployed, overtaxed victims of crime and poverty, we promise that we will sit on our high horses up in Concord and not just tell you how to live, we will also tell you how we’re going to fix “it,”whatever “it” is, by simply raising your taxes.

We didn’t even know we were the victims of success.  Thank God the Greedy Socialist Progressives (GSP) are here to tell us about it.  So Granite State Priorities “priorities” must include every mistake every other state made to make all of them less desirable than New Hampshire.  Their priority is a broad based tax, same as it always was.  Same old whore new dress.

And before we forget.  Stop lying.  You are not non-partisan.

So that’s round one.  At the end of the day, Greedy Socialist Progressives is the same  UCC/NHCC/NHCA Democrat party front group it was as  the GSFTC.  Which brings us to the final question.  If the people and the priorities and the member organizations are all the same, why did they have to change the name?

cross posted: Why Has The Granite State Fair Tax Coalition Changed Its Name?

There is a new narrative in New Hampshire.  This narrative infers that, despite the Democrats own treacherous policy record they are still a better gamble than those other people who are just plain scary.  Really scary.  Extremists.  Those… Free Staters.

This is the politics of fear we always hear about, also an invented left wing  narrative, executed by the same progressives who simultaneously claim to be victims of it.   But facts are stubborn things.  And when you can’t run for State office (or any office) on what you actually believe in–big spending, huge deficits, nanny-state policies, and all the stifling taxes and fees you enacted the last time you were running things–well, fear is all you have left.  So fear it is.

Their Goal is to make you fear Free Staters and then tie all New Hampshire Republicans to them.  Organized efforts by the left to begin the narrative have always been there but only began to look viable after the Liberty movement helped New Hampshire kick the Democrats to the curb without cab fare like some one-night stand we woke up with after a long night we can barely remember, or more accurately, just wish we could forget.

The Narrative itself started to appear publicly  as an intimidation tool during Honey Puterbaugh’s campaign for an open NH House seat; and unless you are deaf or blind, you will have noticed that  it keeps coming up.   “So and So” is a Free Stater.  Extremist.  Fringe.  Bad!!!

Free Staters may actually replace TEA party activists in New Hampshire as the new bugbear “keyword” of the left.  I can see it now.  Limousine liberals with their one genderless designer child, telling them stories about how if they do not behave like good little propagandized, big government, central planners, that the ‘Free Stater under their bed will come out while they are sleeping and turn them into a self reliant, free market capitalists.

“No Mommy, I don’t want to leave the collective.  Don’t let them make me think for myself!  No! Aaaahhhhhhh!”

So that’s the new deal, and it is only here in the Granite State.  If the New Hampshire left views you as a thorn in the side of their collectivist agenda, you might be a Free Stater.  (Having visions of a new Jeff Foxworthy routine…If you favor liberty and self reliance…yoouuu….might be a Free Stater.)

The Democrats are, of course, assuming no one really knows what a Free Stater actually is.  Lord knows they have no idea, nor do they care to know.  Liberty is a threat to their agenda, that is all they need to understand.  But their narrative vision of a Free Stater (for general consumption) is that of some risky,  extremist, pot smoking, anarchist, who exposes their breasts in the park.

But when I think of extremist, pot smoking, anarchists, who expose their breasts in the park I think of sixties radicals whose offspring (biologically and ideologically) are now fishing for votes by dissing their own “speaking truth to power” political heritage.  Isn’t big government liberalism the new establishment and isn’t it the Democrats who are defending a status quo; the large, cumbersome, income guzzling welfare-industrial complex, oppressing us with their power hungry tax and spend-a-genda, and a goal of turning everyone but them into the little guy.  Progressive, my ass.

My second vision of extremist, pot smoking, anarchists, who expose their breasts in the park is filthy, obnoxious occupiers, aided and abetted by the same Democrat party organs (as small as they may be), but with the added bonus of violent crime.

While some Free State Project advocates have been known to subscribe to loose drug and public exposure policies (which many hypocritical democrats might defend as free speech),  none of them–even those legally carrying firearms–ever tried to start a riot like those prevalent among the sixties radicals now driving establishment left wing policy; whom desperately desire a fresh round of civil disobedience (from the occupy movement) on the same scale as that of their inspired youth.

Not only do you have to be un-informed not to see the layers of hypocrisy for what they are, you have to be stupid as well.

But every successful left wing narrative requires the average voter to be at least half as stupid as Democrats believe them to be.  Yes, fair citizen, they think you are stupid.  Give me a better excuse for why they feel compelled to run every aspect of our society and our lives from some central location populated with the ‘brightest “left wing” minds–(more accurately described as a room full of dim compact fluorescent bulbs.)

These are people who are convinced that you have no idea how to earn or spend your own income.   You don’t know what is good for you.   You have no idea what you should stay away from.  You do not know how to eat, heat your home, get around town, or fight off the darkness.  You can’t be trusted to find the right insurance plan that meets your needs.  You have no idea what speech is, free, or otherwise.  And you shan’t (Shan’t? No Kidding) be permitted to donate to charities of your choosing, because damn it–you never choose planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Council, green energy boondoggles, democrat candidates campaign coffers, or any of those other left wing water carriers.

You are  just a paycheck for them to tap.   Just an average voter.  And if you object to their goals or their methods, at least in New Hampshire in 2012, they might have to call you a free stater.

So what about that?  What do Free staters really want?  Here’s their oath.

 I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Wow that does sound risky.   A government like the one the Founders wanted; whose intrusions are limited?  States, cities, towns, even individuals, free to manage their own affairs in their best common interest?  That’ll never work.

Do you know what this oath is about?  It’s called ‘Choice” (aka: freedom).  Not the choice made for you by people who claim to know what is best but one made by you and your family, friends, and neighbors–even the neighbor who borrows your tools and never brings them back–in the close proximity of a limited common interest.  That’s it.  That’s the whole deal in a nut shell.

But the Democrats wouldn’t want that to get out to the public.  For them that is risky.  If the average New Hampshire resident knew that the Democrat Party of New Hampshire was instilling fear of a state government limited to protecting life, liberty, and property, well….we might rightly assume that they were advocating the opposite.  Oh Snap!  They are.

So while the liberty movement is trying to give you back more power over your income and your life (Your money, your voice, your choice), the New Hampshire Democrat party is trying to take more of everything (it’s their money, no voice, their choice).  No.  Stick to the narrative.  The Free Staters are extreme.

They are? Are you sure this isn’t just more Democrat projection?

The same Democrats wailing at the Free State Project are also  trying to run Democrat  Maggie ‘The Red” Hassan as a moderate for governor.  Take note.   If the Democrat parties definition of a political moderate is Maggie ‘The Red’ Hassan, then moderates want socialized medicine, higher taxes, less personal freedom, bigger deficit ridden government, the end of home-schooling and education choice, statutory regulation of political speech, the rights of criminals over home owners on matters self defense, and the right to execute unborn babies from conception until live birth abortion.  They also do not want you to have any say in whether or not you should pay for it.  All of it.

So is a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property” look better or worse than the petri-dish sample of reality that is the lefts fantastical moderate-narrative of one Maggie Wood Hassan?  And if Hassan is their idea of a moderate, what about the rest of the Democrat party?

/whisper… it is the Democrats who are the extremists.  (And even they know it.)

That might explain why they think it a good idea to declare Speaker Bill O’Brien a member of the Free State project.  Speaker O’Brien stands up for what he believes.  He does not back down.  I suspect that he is not the least bit interested in compromising with liars, thieves,and baby killers.  And I think Bill O’Brien may be more conservative than I am.  Which means that conservatives, who get along fine but still have policy differences with the Free State Project, should expect to be lumped in with Free Staters as well.

Sound’s like Left wing prejudice to me.  So Democrats are Bigots?  (I knew that but I’m glad we had time to talk about it.)

Because if sharing an interest in a government that does not meddle or micro-manage the average persons life, sells as a negative on the left, the question we should be asking is why wont Democrats admit publicly that their idea for government is exactly the opposite and not much different than that of progressive icons like Hugo Chavez, the Castro Brothers, Mao, and even Stalin?

Oh…that’s right.  They can’t run on what they believe.  They’d lose.  So like an abusive spouse they have to lie.  “Don’t worry baby.  I’ll buy you something nice.  And I’ll never hurt you again.  I promise.”

Whack!

Cross posted: So When Will Democrats Start Calling Me A Free Stater?

The Union Leader reports that HB 1533..

“….would allow the Attorney General’s Office to investigate allegations of bullying in the Legislature, rather than current rules that allow such allegations to be investigated by an ethics committee.”

The paper claims the bill has 97 Sponsors, while the bill as submitted has just a handful of support; moderates pretending to be Republicans, pining no doubt for the days when more people voted for their spineless ilk and they actually had some kind of voice in State government?   (Too harsh?)

This bill does not fix that problem, no bill could.  What it does do is create an atmosphere built on tension and self imposed censorship, where healthy debate and disagreement becomes almost impossible without fear of being branded a bully backed up by the threat of a $2500.00 fine (per incident) and the stigma of criminal proceedings.

Mom!  He’s Bullying me!

So why bother?  We got through four years of Democrat majorities and all kinds of reported bullying of Republicans and Democrats (also here) without Emerson creating the boo-hoo bill.

Well, you see,  this bill is “necessary” because of a he-said she-said disagreement from a year ago between Emerson–who wanted to add 27 amendments to last year’s budget Bill, and Speaker O’Brien–who didn’t.  Whatever happened after that, Emerson has had time enough to listen to the little blue devil on her left shoulder, the one who keeps whispering about how she probably had more power and influence when Democrats were in charge.  I guess she couldn’t afford Gloria Allred; instead we get fuel for the left wing narrative and a piece of legislative-dung worthy of Maggie “The Red” Hassan’s brand of statutory intimidation and Kathy ‘Lawsuit” Sullivan’s Kitchen Table.

(a)(1) “Bullying” means a single significant incident or a pattern of incidents involving a written, verbal, or electronic communication, or a physical act or gesture, or any combination thereof, directed at another member which:

(A) Physically harms a member;

(B) Causes emotional distress to a member;

(C) Interferes with a member’s legislative opportunities;

(D) Creates a hostile environment; or

(E) Substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the general court.

(2) “Bullying” shall include actions motivated by an imbalance of power based on a member’s actual or perceived personal characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs, or motivated by the member’s association with another person and based on the other person’s characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs.

Emphasis mine.

So does the bill come with tissues and a blankie?  (I admit to being surprised that there is no prohibition on brandishing a firearm.)

Interesting progression. The Blue Dog Republicans send Emerson into the budget fray (undercover?) carrying fiscal water for the left.   (She did get .0075% of the votes for House Speaker.)  They want to debate over two dozen proposed budget amendments that no one in this legislature is going to pass–probably as roll call vote campaign fodder.  The speaker and House Leader see it as the waste of precious time that it is, try to get her to combine or whittle the list down to just a few  amendments, but Emerson says no.  She says no.? Not one of those proposed amendments was worth debating unless the other 26 were?  Not one? All or nothing? To quote Admiral Akbar…’It’s a Trap! ‘

The actual House Speaker says no deal, no thanks.   Emerson goes for the boo boo towel.

But what did she expect?   Every single elections since 2006 has seen the decline of moderate Republicans in the legislature.  No one is interested in their squishy left leaning legislative agenda.  We have Democrats for that.   (Been there done that.)  And the only reason she is probably still even in the House is name recognition.  This was clearly a set up.  And now she’s back with the Emerson ‘Boo hoo’ bill.

Susan, when back-benched Democrats have had enough “bullying”  they suck it up or just quit.  You can quit the House.  We don’t mind.  I’m sure we can replace you with a real Republican, or more likely a real Democrat.   At least they stand on their lack of principle.   As for back-benched, tax and spend moderates, acting like cry baby Democrats is not going to win you any points with real Republicans or even real independents.   And writing an in-House bullying bill?  Really?  Waaaahhhhhhhh!

Wait, here’s an idea.  Instead of marketing left wing pabulum and writing pointless intimidation legislation that will make it almost impossible to disagree with someone with any degree of passion or enthusiasm for fear of being charged with being a bully by some relegated cry-baby, try finding more people to sell your political priorities to the people instead.  If they elect enough like minded legislators you can get back the power you so desperately crave.  If they don’t, suck it up or get out.

cross posted Order Your Susan Emerson Commemorative Boo Hoo Towels Today!

During the 2000 election 19 people claimed residence at #159 Bear Brook Road.  Nineteen people, all living and voting from one address?  Yes, all 19 registered to vote in New Hampshire, all from the same address.  As it turns out, none of them were actual New Hampshire residents.  In fact, there was no #159 Bear Brook road.  There was no #159 Bear Brook Road because there was no Bear Brook road.

The mandatory voter list purge that followed the 2000 elections produced 19 returned voter list letters, with 19 names of registered ‘NH’ voters, all for the same non-existent address, registered to vote in the November 2000 elections. They were all long gone by the time the letters were returned, votes cast and counted eight months before.  No charges were ever brought.  No one was ever tracked down.  Not by the NH AG at least.

Local activists, the real grass roots in NH, have been tracking and cataloging voter fraud for more than a decade.  They’ve done the hard work of compiling, reporting, and exposing these kinds of people when the state and the AG have shown no interest.  Some of those vote stealers have been in touch.  Apparently their names have turned up on Google, attached to accusations of vote fraud, falsifying  addresses on registration documents, that kind of thing.  I guess that can make it hard to get hired in certain professional circles when there are documents with your name on them attached to accusations of vote fraud.  Of course they do not all have to use real names.  They can just borrow them from dead people

And stealing 19 votes in some of these small towns is more than enough to steal a local election.   It is enough in plenty of larger towns and cities as well.  In many cases, one vote is one too many.  So vote fraud matters.

And this story is neither new nor unknown to the people responsible for protecting the integrity of the NH Ballot.  And it has only gotten easier since 2000.  The Democrat party’s record on watering down the process is well know locally.  Thanks to recent events it is about to become well known nationally.

And while dead people are not the only ones who get to vote illegally in New Hampshire, for some reason it is only the Veritas folks–none of who actually stole a vote–who are threatened with any kind of legal action.

Those  19 people from out of state who registered at the same non-existent address- they were never charged.  Here are three examples…

Joseph M. Gallagher - No Such address

Meredith J Benson - No such address

Christine A Kelly - No such address

Voter Fraud and Vote fraud are not a new problem.  But Democrats, and some Republicans, have treated it like the red-headed step child for long enough.  No more hiding behind misleading statements about the integrity of New Hampshire elections.  Your votes and your elections are being stolen from you, and have been at risk for some time.  Voter ID would eliminate most of the easiest ways to steal your vote.

But Democrats have been against voter ID all along.  They have also made it not just easier to register and vote without proving who you are, they have made it increasingly difficult to challenge same day registrants that might prevent illegal votes, and made tracking fraud after it has happened almost impossible.  This explains why they seem so confident in their claim that there is no voter fraud in NH.  When you have made it almost impossible to stop it, or spot it, how can anyone challenge you on it.

But vote fraud exists.  And it took an extreme act of courage to expose it for all to see.  An act that has Democrats and their fellow travelers scrambling for the rhetoric and crying for justice.  Justice they have never bothered to seek despite plenty of previous examples of how vote fraud can and has been committed in the state of New Hampshire.

But we shouldn’t be charging the folks with Project Veritas, we should be thanking them.

The only reason we do not have a voter ID law in New Hampshire is because Republicans didn’t vote to override a veto.  We don’t need Lynch to like the bill.  We don’t need one single Democrat in the entire legislature to like it either.  We just need a few more GOP House members to like it and to vote to override any new veto.

So while the Democrats (and RINO’s)  help us keep this in the news with talk about pressing charges, dust off HB356-FN (it is waiting in the Election Law Committee) and get it to the House floor.

Figure out how to tweak it to get enough votes to override a veto and pass it.  Ask those Republicans who refused to override the Lynch veto if they might now see a reason to tighten up the process.  And at the very least, make them vote on it again (Roll Call) so we can have a list to work with come November (for both parties).

And a quick note to the Democrats and their so-called non-partisan, non-profit fellow travelers (who only support Democrats and left wing causes); if you charge the Veritas folks with a crime, the simplicity with which people can use the names of dead people to obtain a ballot and corrupt the vote…that might keep coming up.

So by all means, please continue to not give a damn about that huge hole that was just exposed in statewide ballot integrity.  Nothing says you support the ability to steal votes than…um…supporting the ability to steal votes.  And everyday you run away from it or refuse to fix it is another day we get to talk about it.