Why We Can’t Have A Discussion With New Hampshire Democrats

My Fridge mag cross-post elicited the following response from Democrat Jim Splaine on the matter of gun ownership, which exemplifies the reason why any discussion with Democrats on any subject is unlikely.

Why can’t we have a real discussion about this issue? Just like the myths of an “$800 million deficit,” or that “Obamacare is socialized medicine” (whereas it’s mostly privatized), or that “gay marriage is a slippery slope,” there a new myth a-brewing among the Tea Partiers and right-wingers that President Obama and the Democrats are after everyone’s guns.

We cannot have a discussion because the 800 million dollar deficit is not a myth, the goal of Obamacare is a government-run single-payer system, the slope is slippery because Democrats lied about their goals and intentions, and Diane Feinstein has legislation right now that includes gun grabbing language.

Real discussions begin in reality.  Democrats refuse to begin in the real world preferring the one they’ve created to explain what they claim to believe.  And you can’t negotiate with madmen.

Deficit?

The 800 million dollar deficit “myth” is very real.  Just aks Democrat Finance committee member Cindy Rosenwald, who not only explained why it existed, but that Democrat leadership knew about it and intended to cut the budget to address it.

This extra money, $802 million in total, helped maintain essential safety net programs for vulnerable residents hit hard by the recession. The federal money was one-time assistance. The Democratic majority knew all along it would not continue, and that budget cuts would have to be made during the following biennium so that there would not be a deficit.

Rosemwald is no disgruntled back-bencher.  The Deficit was real.  But no one seems to have told Jim Splaine, who is apparently reading from the NHDP hymnal without question, where the words..”The Democratic majority knew all along it would not continue, and that budget cuts would have to be made during the following biennium so that there would not be a deficit,” do not appear.

ObamaCare

As for Obamcare being socialized medicine, anyone who understands how markets work and has ears to hear, knows that the Patient Affordable Care Act has but one purpose; to corporatize insurance under the jackboot of the Federal government.  Jim can choose between Fascist state control or Socialist/Communist control, but state control is the goal of Democrat leaders– unless collapse is an option for debate.  Are Democrats trying to collapse the Insurance system?  I’d enjoy a discussion about that.

Marriage

There are more than a few slippery slopes on the Gay Marriage issue the biggest of which is that marriage is a civil function of which religious marriage is but a part.  Splaine may have never used those words himself but it is out there, just like the myth that gay marriage is about equality.  As I so often say, marriage is a rite not a right.  Churches deny the rite of marriage every day.  Marriage also existed long before the state so it cannot possibly be a construct of it.  It was meant to tie a man to his childbearing wife for the benefit of their children, but seeing as those are also concepts are generally regarded as myths by Democrats it is a short walk to where Splaine’s narrative lives and breathes.

The state’s only real interest in marriage is to defend the property rights of the couple and their heirs.  Where a non-religious pairing is preferred, because the state cannot force you to be religious, the state also recognizes unions by judges and other civil persons for similar purposes.  Civil unions were afforded to same sex couples, and there was much rejoicing.

There are other slopes for us to slip on.  Civil unions were heralded as adequate until they were not.  Democrat John Lynch promised not to pass a Gay Marraige law  until he did.  Lynch lied about parental rights when he repealed them so with liars like this who needs the truth?

Guns?

All of which brings us to guns.  Mr. Splaine insists Democrats don’t want to ban all guns or even take them away except for some guns.  And Obama Care doesn’t socialize medicine it just makes socializing it inevitable.  And Civil Unions don’t redefine marriage until they do.  And there is no 800 million dollar deficit, except there is.

Given the arc of every other left wing policy we have no reason to believe anything they say or believe.  I certainly don’t.

There is the lefts enthusiasm for UN treaties that do their dirty work for them and just happen to include language requiring the registration, tracking, and inevitable confiscation of privately owned firearms; and the recent revelation of gun grabbing legislation from Senator Diane Feinstein (here and here for starters), show us that Mr. Splaine is mistaken.  Democrats do want to grab and or ban guns.  Should I look forward to his objections in public print to belay my fears?  Probably not–he still wants us to think there was no 800 million dollar deficit.

So we can talk about all of that if you’d like but Democrats don’t want to unless we begin from a starting point of their choosing.

Nor do they want to discuss how generational welfare and fatherless children are a greater threat to life than ‘assault weapons’ they cannot begins to describe.   (You might want to read this Jim before you open your mouth again about guns.)  I know you’re a smart enough guy, I’m just not sure you can see past the massive encumbrance of your pre-programmed worldview.

Other Nonsense

There is a good deal more nonsense in Jim’s NHI comment, a cow whose udder is fat for more milking, but I’ll leave that for others to explore.  My point is made.  Given the scope and consistency with which the New Hampshire left believes it’s own lies, and the lies themselves (like that they are civil for example- Ha!),  discussion is impossible.   It is impossible because it cannot begin until Democrats stop believing so much that is not true.

You are reading  “Why We Can’t Have A Discussion With New Hampshire Democrats”   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

JP Marzullo Comes Out of the Closet?

Note to the world: even if one of my three children turns out to be a homosexual--and no I will not love or care for them any less if they do--I still would not publicly prostitute myself and my principles to the progressive agenda.  NHGOP Area 3 Vice Chair J.P. Marzullo, on the other hand, does not have a problem with that.  And it is not so much the topic that suggests a progressive thread in the fabric of his otherwise pro-liberty, family values life, as it is the way in he attempts to make his argument.

The vehicle is a November 1st editorial in the Concord monitor in which Marzullo pokes at our 'Tiny Tim' gland, pleading with New Hampshire Republican legislators to vote against any change in New Hampshire's current homosexual marriage law.  And like any seasoned social justice Democrat, we get both barrels from the empathy gun.  How God was showing him his own personal need to be more understanding and tolerant nineteen years ago.  He provides suicide estimates for gay teenagers (I have no idea why).   He fingers divorce as a greater danger to the family than Gay marriage (without reminding you that similar left wing social engineering and meddling in 'marriage' is almost entirely responsible for the divorce problem).   We even get the 'Gay Americans are legal citizens and productive members of society who fight in the military" routine.

Democrat Chairman Ray Buckley could have wrote this. So has JP come out of the progressive closet?

To be fair he may be an outstanding Republican by every other measure, and that's great, but he's clearly got a blind spot when it comes to this issue and the idea of rights, and it invalidates his entire testimony.  He is emotionally compromised.  So much so that he ignores the real problem.  The push for "Gay marriage," like most other Democrat campaigns, has nothing to do with the contractual union of two people who think they love each other.  It is just the latest war machine in a centuries long siege on the language and any institution that could detract from the dominant role of government in our daily lives.  As a Republican Area Vice Chair, he should know better.

But even if we ignore that, Marzullo does not even try to explain why civil unions, which have been a perfectly acceptable foundation for heterosexual marriage, and are readily available to any couple, are somehow incompatible with his social vision when the couple happens to have matching genitalia?

Is the Area 3 GOP Vice Chair telling us that anyone who has ever been joined in a civil service (a civil union) cannot provide our state with an equal foundation upon which to build strong family values? Are we to understand that they do not have the same civil protections as couples who were were joined in a traditional marriage?

Does the Area 3 GOP Vice Chair know that the House bill defends the civil union provision of the existing statute?  Civil service unions for anyone unwilling or unable to seek a traditional marriage are not hampered in any way.  As a matter of principle, the state continues to represent its interest in protecting this civil and legal contract regardless of whom you think you love. (with exceptions for age, relationship to would-be spouse...etc.)

So where is the injustice?  There isn't any.  It's all a lie, coated in crocodile tears, and served on a cold plate to make the uneducated sympathetic to a problem that does not even exist in New Hampshire, and JP Marzullo is selling that lie. 

People joined in a civil service are just as legal, just as productive, and just as willing to lay down their lives in the military as people who are joined in a traditional marriage.  There is no difference.  So returning the definition of traditional marriage to its rightful place will do none of the supposed harms the left or their new GOP spokesperson suggest.

And if it matters, if ever I have a child who believes deep down that they are a homosexual, and they find someone they love and want to be with, I'll still love and care for them just as I always have, but I'll tell them another secret we Heterosexuals only seem to know about...

When we seek a civil service to form a legal union, we don't storm the State House, or make a scene, or insist that we change the laws or the language...we just call it a marriage and no one is the wiser for it.

Cross posted: JP Marzullo Comes Out of the Closet?

Ask Ray & Kathy...About Incest

Our latest question for Ray Buckley & Kathy Sullivan (NH Dem party Chair and former Chair) relates to the case of David Epstein, who conducted a consensual, three year, sexual relationship with his own daughter, starting when she was 21 years old.  (I'll toss this one out to those of our more libertarian and socially liberal independent friends as well).

Question: If consensual sex (without coercion) between any two adults is a protected right, (gay sex is defended on these grounds) does the state have a right to prohibit sex between adult relatives, regardless of how closely related?

The pat answer (beyond the infamous ick factor) is that the risk of genetic mutation is too great.  Children of close relatives are more likely to be born with more or more severe mental or physical defects, or so the story goes. We should not risk  future generations to these kinds of physical and mental burdens (as if these folks had never heard of government run education.)  The best course is to simply prohibit contact, and that has more or less been the statutory position in the US.

But hey, you can't help who you are attracted too, right? So what about abortion?

The acceptance of abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancy (by all classes of the socially liberal) make this genetic defense difficult to sustain with a straight face.  Life is already viewed by these folks as a potential mutation to be removed when the risk is no greater than an inconvenience to the mother.  If relatives want to have sex, there is no need to fear an unwanted pregnancy on those grounds.  If the birth control fails, just abort it?  Or is that too much responsibility for government to allow?

In New Hampshire, democrats, and some people elected as Republicans, already supported this solution.  The removal of parental notification laws to extend abortion rights to minors, without consent of a parent or guardian, always came with the risk of hiding acts of incest or rape, so this "solution" should not challenge their morality in the least.

Many of these more socially liberal folks are quite comfortable quantifying abortion by the number of weeks in the womb as if a pregnancy in the first two trimesters would never see the third, and then survive to see daylight, if left to its own devices.  Removing it prior to any defined marker is simply arbitrary so if life is arbitrary there can be no moral conflict.  Of course, life at conception creates human beings who have actual rights whether they want to admit it or not because conception leads to taxpayers if selfishness and technology do not step up to intercede with support from Rube Goldbergian morality puzzles.

But the puzzles are there, as are the semi-moral hi-jinks you get when people want sex to be more about pleasure than responsibility.  But abortion removes that responsibility so pregnancy resulting from incest, which is already almost universally accepted as justification for abortion, removes that objection to it.  So then, why do we still object?

Not every country objects, and that is the crux of David Epstein's defense. That and civil support for gay sex.

So what about gay incest?  Democrats and the socially liberal should ask themselves about that as well.  If you can't control to whom you are attracted, what about consensual sex between a father and son?  How or why is that situation different if there is a moral objection to a father having sex with his own adult daughter?  Wouldn't it be sexist to be offended by heterosexual incest and not homosexual incest?

And while we are at it, why is there a prohibition on age?  What right does the state have to limit pleasure to anyone willing and able to engage in it?   We know that parents have no say when New Hampshire democrats are pulling the levers of power.  So what prevents them from admitting publicly that they have no moral objections to underage sex with whomever they are attracted to, or whomever is attracted to them?

Are democrats prepared to answer any of these questions? If there needs to be restrictions, age, relationship, then the next question has to be on what grounds, and if any of them are moral then the question of gay sex and gay marriage as a right are equally suspect.

I encourage a debate on the matter, and not just because it will piss off progressives.  I do not believe the left capable of reconciling all these questions under their umbrella of rights and equality.  Human rights are universal.  We all get them or none of us do.  When you start creating carve outs for political reasons you begin to create contradictions.  I think this presents a big one.  Which of course would mean that sex based on attraction is not a right, it is a privilege-which we know to be true because sex against our will is still crime if either party does not consent, regardless of attraction.  But what about incest?

Are democrats the party of incest?  And how will they defend themselves if they are not? Inquiring minds want to know.

cross posted

Anyone Know Where Governor Lynch Was Last Weekend?

Dateline Miami: It's Miami, this years four-day staycation destination for governors in hock to Tim Gill and Political Outgiving. 

Last year New Hampshire Governor John "out of state political money is bad" Lynch was outed for attending the 'secret event' in Chicago.  It was later divulged (under duress I suspect) that he just gave a lunch speech and was not there to fund raise.  He must have left that part out of the speech.  Many of the wealthy attendees at the conference--none of whom live in New Hampshire--collectively coughed up over $100,000.00 for Governor Lynch's re-election campaign in the usual fashion;  individual, personal contributions, over a number of weeks or months so as not to attract suspicion.  But no, he wasn't fundraising.

This year the event was in Miami from March 3rd to the 6th, and once again, it's all about secrecy.  To some peoples credit, there are a few folks in the gay community (here, here, and here) who object to the Gill Foundations ongoing obsession with the secrecy of this annual conference; no press, secret guest list, no agenda, and no transparency.  It bothers them and it should. They decide what states and elections to "invest" their millions in to advance their agenda.  Not everyone is privy to that agenda and this bothers some folks.

But that's not my problem.

I'm wondering where New Hampshire's governor was between the 3rd and 6th of March 2011?  Was he somewhere in New Hampshire, or off on other business?  Maybe dropping off a Hallmark card of thanks?  The donors from Political Outgiving ponied up about 10% of the Lynch campaign haul for 2010.  Sometimes an email or a phone call just isn't enough.

So no idea if Lynch was there but one thing I do know, selling the lifestyle as a "right" is on the back burner. They (the gay lobby) have a new political campaign, and Mo Baxley from NH Freedom to Marry just used it on March 3rd. It is all about implying shared values.   The New narrative is LOVE.COMMITMENT.FAMILY.

March 3rd, AP (day one of the conference by the way)

Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry, said that as people live with the law they realize it has no impact on their lives.

"They understand that gay and lesbian couples share the same values of other couples, like love, commitment and family," she said.

Eugene Sepulveda, reporting/blogging from the 2011 Outgiving conference in Miami...

LOVE.COMMITMENT.FAMILY – this is how we need to lead going forward. Others don’t connect with rights & benefits as well.

Interesting timing.  Revealing admission.  "Others don't connect with rights & benefits as well."

So get used to it.  You'll be hearing that a lot from the gay activists from now on.  At least until next year.

Maybe we'll even hear it from John Lynch.

Cross posted

Why Just One?

I know we are supposed to be focusing on fiscal issues but when an idea raises it's hand and asks a question, sometimes....I just have to find an answer.

Question: If refusing to let one man "marry" another man violates his or their 'civil rights' then why is it not a violation of said same civil rights to then refuse to let one or both of them marry a second, third or forth man?

If marriage serves no other purpose than to provide a legally protected state contract based on sexual attraction, then how do you justify limiting the nature or number of attractions under the rubric of civil rights?

You should, based on this rights claim, be able to create "homosexual" marriage corporations, with harems of men all married to each other, pooling resources, sharing hospital visitation rights, all on the same insurance plan....probably an HMO...based strictly on the requirement that the state enforce shared legal rights, simply because you can't control who you are attracted to.

So what's the deal?

Note: I have advocated civil unions and same sex marriages performed by recognized churches.  I do not support the political hijacking of marriage by the state with exception of for protection of minors, which in my mind is a state interest.

Image credit: Oak Park Jewelers