Newest Democrat House Member Bill O’Neil – No New Taxes in the Budget

Fresh off his 37 vote special election win, Democrat Bill O’Neil has already made a mark in Concord. He’s gone on the record to state that there are no tax increases in the Democrats new House budget.

Oh yeah.  Doing Manchester Ward 2 proud.

H/T Citizens For A Strong New Hampshire

Carol Shea-RUNAWAY!

Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter continues to endear herself to her constituents by running away from questions she has not been taught how to answer.  Today’s example comes from Citizens for a Strong New Hampshire…

(Manchester – April 2, 2013)  Yesterday afternoon at a local senior center, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01) repeatedly avoided questions on two important issues that, if implemented, would severely impact Granite Staters. 

 In particular, the Congresswoman refused to respond to multiple attempts of whether she supports local Democrats’ efforts to raise the gas tax by fifteen cents[1] or whether she holds similar positions on a New Hampshire income tax as her District Director and former New Hampshire gubernatorial candidate Jackie Cilley had been vocal about in 2012.[2] Both of these pieces of legislation would have devastatingly negative effects on middle-class families.

Christmas Carol was singing her song and dancing her dance, less than thrilled at the idea of having to speak out against her own party even though the Porter-ala-Shea has never been afraid to “call out” big oil for the middle-class-raping-price-gouging-capitalist-profit hounds she was told they were.   Now that the very people with whom she must rub ideological elbows with in the Granite State are trying to gouge more profits per tankful in taxes than those evil oil companies we are supposed to despise, what is a puppet of the peoples republic of pilfering progressives to do?

The correct answer is to just ignore the question and pretend there’s no one asking.  ”Is this place haunted?  I think I just felt a cold breeze.”  Wait…my phone is ringing.  (I didn’t hear it ring…maybe it was just me?)

“Congresswoman Shea-Porter had multiple opportunities to use her voice to encourage like-minded New Hampshire officeholders to oppose legislation that would devastate middle-class families. Sadly, the Congresswoman refused to take such a stand. We encourage Granite Staters to call Congresswoman Shea-Porter at 603-641-9536 and ask her stop ignoring her constituents and voice her opposition to an increase in the gas tax and a New Hampshire income tax.”

When asked a question answer….your phone.  (Must be part of that new civility we were told so much about.)

Yes there is video.

And then I couldn’t resist adding this.

You are reading  Carol Shea-RUNAWAY!   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Ruth Gulick – A Belknap County Democrat Morality Tale

Democrats say the darnedest things.  Take NH House Rep Ruth Gulick (D- Aesop’s Fables), whom Skip from GraniteGrok recorded at a recent Belknap county budget meeting.  Ruth shared a little morality tale with those present, with regard to budgets and responsibility.

In Ruth’s version the county taxpayers have a moral responsibility to the employees whom they pay.  That responsibility includes ensuring that the employees continue to enjoy the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, regardless of any other circumstances.  Put simply; she objects to taxpayers (or any of their elected representatives) asking those employees to pay more for their own benefits.

Not a surprise coming from a Democrat, until you hear how she went about it.

To make that point, as Skip observed here, she compares paying for county employee benefits to how she is “…a superb parent because I give them an allowance and I pay for their food and clothes.”

So in Ruth’s analogy, as a” mother,” we have an obligation we are not permitted to shrug regardless, presumably, of how painful that might become.

We also have to assume, for her analogy to have any relevance at all to the debate at hand,  that the money for the food, clothing, and allowance Ruth gives her own children did not actually come from Ruth.  She will have had to go door to door and extracted it from her neighbors, using the looming authority of the law and the backing of the power of the police state, to guarantee her “superbness” as a parent.  And this shall have occurred without regard to the neighbors rights or needs, their right to their own  labor and property, or whether Ruth’s “shakedown” could in any way affect their own ability to be as superb a parent as Ruth.

Such is the nature of the Left’s morality.

Taken to its extreme, Ruth’s ”children” (or government employees) have more rights than anyone else, including Ruth, so it would be acceptable for them to cannibalize her should the need eventually arise, to ensure that they do not see any decline whatsoever to the lifestyle to which they feel they have become accustomed (see also “entitled”).   And that consumption is inevitable as the state grows larger and more demanding at the expense of those with dwindling resources with which to feed it.

And therein lies the real morality tale of Ruth ‘Aespo’ Gulick.   The needs of the state outweigh the needs of the many, even up until there are no longer any resources left among the “many” to feed and clothe them.    The state is nothing more than a fire we feed, incapable of starting itself, unable to even sustain itself without the resources of others, but entitled to demand a never-ending escalation of those resources until it has consumed them all, leaving nothing left, including itself.

Sorry, there is no happy ending to this tale.

You are reading  "Ruth Gulick – A Belknap County Democrat Morality Tale"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Is Ann Kuster Happy We Violated the US Constitution?

Ann Kuster is excited that the House Republicans decided not to change the Senate version of the Violence Against Women’s act.    I’m not sure what the House had in mind but Tax dodger Ann Kuster is happy to assume it’s because they hate women.

What a difference a day makes! On Wednesday, Speaker Boehner had big plans to limit the protections for women who are victims of domestic and sexual violence. Apparently, House Republicans believe that some women – namely lesbians, immigrants and Native Americans – do not deserve equal protection under the law.

Problem.  This bill violates the US constitution in it’s effort to protect women from domestic and sexual violence.

Heritage dissects the details but here’s the synopsis.

The bill would authorize Indian tribal courts to adjudicate certain domestic violence criminal charges against non-Indians and to enter a final judgment authorizing the confinement of convicted offenders. At present, tribal courts cannot exercise that authority because, as the Supreme Court held in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe in 1978, tribal courts lack criminal authority over non-Indians.

Oliphant said that Congress could empower tribal courts to adjudicate criminal charges against non-Indians, but to do so, it must pass legislation giving tribal courts that power. Congress could do that by passing VAWA, but the problem with the Senate version of the legislation is that it violates Articles II and III of the Constitution in the process.

Any Tribal court that tries to exercise this unlawful authority could expect to find itself on the way to Federal Court or even the  Supreme court, complete with all the costs and time associated with such a journey, at the end of which they might find that the White man (and woman) has just screwed them again.

Personally, men who beat or abuse women are at the top of my sh*t list next to people who abuse children.   If there is a hole in the law that allows people to get away with either I’m happy to support legitimate efforts to correct that.  But Ann Kuster (and very likely everyone else cranking out the Democrat fund raising form letter-o-false victory) thinks they just won a battle in defense of women.  A noble cause.   But all congress really did is set a trap.  A trap Kuster is using to bash Republicans and raise campaign money.  And guess what?  Whoever you are, you helped.

But you made a difference. Your voice was heard. Thank you for joining our petition to protect women across America from violence.Today, the House voted to defeat the GOP bill and instead to pass, overwhelmingly, the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act.

Yes we did.

Annie

PS: I hate to ask but we are facing a big deadline tonight, can you chip in a few dollars and help us meet this vital deadline today? (Link removed)

So is Ann Kuster happy we Violated the US Constitution and set a trap for the tribal courts?  I doubt she has the slightest clue. Nor do I think she cares.   She just want’s to hear the electronic clink of digital silver in her little virtual tin cup.

Note: I have not seen the House version.  If anyone has a link, I’d love to know why House Republicans joined the senate in approving this mess.

Nashua NH Democrat lets Out of State Campaign Worker Register to Vote from Her Home

Nashua New Hampshire Democrat Cindy Rosenwald is back in the spotlight.  If you recall, she's the one who admitted that her party not only knew it had left an 800 million dollar hole in the budget, but they planned to cut spending to fix it.  Well, now we find out that she knew there were out of state voters voting in New Hampshire, because at least one of them has been voting from her Nashua Address since at least 2007.

Ed Nail, here at NH Insider, recently reported on the voting history of a professional Democrat Campaign lackey by the name of Paolo Cozzi.    Mr. Cozzi lived on Clement Street in Sommerville, Massachusetts (Update- He is now currently living in DC).  But they had more than enough Democrats living in MA, so in 2007, 2008 and 2012, Paolo Cozzi hopped on the commuter rail (hey, that's why Liberals want rail service to Nashua), or got in his Obama-mobile--(Cozzi is employed in the service of OFA)--and put his vote to better use by claiming to live at 101 Wellington Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, the home of Democrat House Rep. Cindy Rosenwald.

Cozzi did vote from his Massachusetts "home" in 2010--remember 2010?  That was the year that a Republican actually had a slim chance to win in Massachusetts.  So OFA campaign animal Paolo Cozzi voted where it mattered more that year (in MA), but he mostly votes in the Granite State, from the home of Cindy Rosenwald at ...where was that again?   101 Wellington St, Nashua, New Hampshire.

I wonder if Ms. Rosenwald has ever taken in any other "stray cats" from the liberal campaign apparatus and allowed them to claim residence in her home for "voting purposes."

I'll guess we'll have to keep looking into that.

So!  Given these developments what do you think Ms. Rosenwald's position and voting history could be on domicile and voter ID in New Hampshire?

Thanks to our good friends at Granite State Progress (yes I cached the page) we know exactly how she voted.  She voted to make sure that her domicile-mate of electoral convenience Paolo, could continue to live in Sommerville,  Massachusetts (or anywhere else), and still vote in Nashua, New Hampshire--whenever the urge struck him, without fear of in-state interference.

Voting Rights

• Rep. Rosenwald voted against requiring every registered voter to sign an affidavit and be photographed before being allowed to cast a ballot if they do not present a photo ID. This legislation was anticipated to discourage voter participation and create long lines at polling locations. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB289, Roll Call #244, 5/15/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against placing potentially unconstitutional and certainly unfair restrictive prohibitions on the voting rights of individuals who serve in the military or pursue college course work, whether full or part-time. This bill also would not have allowed elected officials to move from their present domicile to another, even when that domicile is in the same district. (HB176, Roll Call #73, 3/15/2011)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against making it more difficult for college students, military personnel and visiting professionals to participate in the democratic process by limiting their access to the voting booth. *ALEC Model Legislation* (HB1354, Roll Call #80, 2/8/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against allowing a person to arbitrarily challenge a voter at the polls without reason. Previously, an accusation had to be accompanied by a signed affadavit (sic) attesting to the reason for the challenge. Election law experts testified against this bill, citing potential increases in challenges based on racial profiling or political gamesmanship; they also anticipated longer lines and wait times at polling locations as challenges are freely thrown around. (HB1301, Roll Call #99, 2/22/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted Not Voting/Excused eliminating open primaries, which are a key part of the first in the nation primary. An open primary allows undeclared voters to participate in either the Republican or Democratic Primary as they see fit. (HB1595, Roll Call #139, 3/8/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against limiting voting rights to those with particular forms of photo ID. For example, a person could use a Massachusetts or Maine driver's license as a valid photo ID to vote, but not a municipal photo ID issued by Raymond or Londonderry. The requirement would cause confusion and frustration at the polls and is bound to result in preventing some voters from casting their vote on Election Day. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB129, Roll Call #214, 6/1/2011)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against placing language on voter registration forms that would intimidate students and other from voting in New Hampshire. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB318, Roll Call #286, 6/6/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against requiring voters to show specific forms of photo ID when voting, a requirement that will disenfranchise voters who cannot meet those requirements (such as the elderly and disabled). This bill did not provide for any voter education of the new provisions, which could lead to people being turned away from the polls when they go to vote. (HB1354, Roll Call #306, 6/27/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against overriding Gov. Lynch's veto of a bill requiring registered voters produce photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot. Voting rights advocates were opposed to this legislation. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB289, Roll Call #307, 6/27/2012)

All very interesting.

So now we have to wonder...will Ms. Rosenwald take to the Internet to explain this to us?  What crazy story will she concoct?  Should we expect another "myth" post explaining away her complicity?  And will any of those "excuses" bring up questions that create new problems for the Democrat House Rep from Nashua?

We patiently await a response.

You are reading  "Nashua NH Democrat lets out of state OFA campaign worker vote from her home"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012