Occupy Senator Shaheen's Office

A new Event just sprang up on Facebook called 'Occupy Senator Shaheen's Office.'  They'd like you to spend some "quality time there today and...

Demand an end to indefinite detention without charge and extrajudicial assassination of American Citizens under the NDAA.

Obama's lawyers have laid out who he can kill. "[T]he confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

This Facebook event was inspired in part by a 16 page memo leaked to NBC news, that outlined the Administrations 'Rules" for using drones to assassinate American's.

So to coincide with Senator Shaheen's staff holding extended office hours this Thursday February 7th (5 pm to 7pm) in New Hampshire, "Occupy Senator Shaheen's office" would like you to avail yourself of the opportunity--to quote Captain Jean Luc Picard--and communicate your concerns about indefinite detention without charge and extrajudicial assassination of American Citizens under the NDAA.

When you get there make sure you tell them..."that you have credible information from an  “informed, low-level” official of the United States citizenry, that the Obama Administration  has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat to the Constitutional liberty of Americans citizens, and that “there is  no evidence suggesting that this Administration has renounced or abandoned such activities."

Trust me they'll love that.

Look Here to find an office near you.

You are reading  "Occupy Senator Shaheen’s Office? "   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

This Isn't Sexist?

Hypocrisy from the left is always on my radar and let me tell you--my radar is always beeping.  Take this for example.  Just imagine if former Senator John Sununu (or any man anywhere) had said this...

Keep the New Hampshire Delegation in men's hands.

I can smell the tar boiling from here.  So who has the feathers?

But it is perfectly acceptable for Daily Kos to lead it's fawning article about New Hampshire's female delegation with this.

NH-Sen: Keep The NH Delegation In Women's Hands, Help Jeanne Shaheen (D) Win Re-Election In 2014

We should re-elect Senator Shaheen because she is a woman?

This may be the double-standard of measure but it should not, even when filtered through the dirty malformed cultural lens of the left, make it any less sexist than if someone with a penis had evoked its misogynistic equivalent.

But then the now famous New Hampshire Female delegation is littered with double standards.

Carol Shea-Porter has said more than her fair share of stupid things and insulting men.  And after the 2010 election, which she lost to Frank Guinta, she never (NEVER) called Mr. Guinta to congratulate him on his victory.   I believe Mr. Guinta called to congratulate her that night when she defeated him this past November.  How does that work when the shoe is on the other foot?

Ann Kuster forcibly took someone's camera from them at a public event when they tried to ask her some questions, and even swore at them.   I know, I know, a Democrat swearing and seizing private property is not all that surprising but what if it was a man taking a camera from a woman?  Scandal!  Drop out or resign you cad!

Governor Hassan, as candidate Hassan, agreed on video that it would be a good idea to 'beat Republicans with a bat, with your feet, with your hands' before a room full of smiling, laughing Democrats.  If you consider that the state Democrat party was plying a "Bringing civility to Concord" narrative at the time, the observant political pundit might question the obvious contradiction.  They might also ask if she meant that it would be ok to beat Republican men, women, homosexuals, or minorities?  Democrats would have made all those connections in a heart beat if a Republican (man) had been so agreeable to the suggestion.

And when an elected female rep (Cynthia Chase) recently declared a willingness to write laws to intentionally restrict the freedoms of political opponents...we get silence.  Is that because they agree with her?

These double standards apply to everything the left does (regardless of sex) including the uneven application of the law, the unbalanced spending, the crony politics, the false moral superiority, the cultural inequality, the purposeful division.  An offhand sexist reference is just more noise in the cultural wind.

Note: I am counting the seconds before some moon-bat calls me a misogynist just for bringing it up.

But I am not interested in whether my elected representatives are male or female.  I am looking for people who express more interest in keeping authority and tax dollars from leaving the state than they are in looking for creative ways to bring it to DC first so they can then take credit for navigating the otherwise impenetrable bureaucracy they erected to keep us from it; who then demand accolades for helping bring money back to the state that would have served us better had it never left.  And have you noticed that it always seems to come back pinpointed to their best political advantage?

I am looking for politicians who go to Washington to defend us from the federal government instead of negotiating the terms of our surrender.  Sadly, the only woman in our "all woman" delegation who might even think that way three days out of five is Republican Kelly Ayotte.

These Democrat women, to the last, are not just disconnected from the idea of a Federal Republic and state sovereignty, they view those ideas as barriers to their accumulation of power.  They are more interested in charging us more for the privilege of their connections in the nations capital than leaving us to make decisions closer to home.  They are more concerned about how to play the game of thrones for sound bites and photo-ops that catalogue the appearance of action, than in acting in the best interests of those who elected them to office.

These are people who prefer a centrally planned, top down, statist economy.   People willing to use their gender, and to have their gender used for political advantage.  Why else the double standard?  "How dare you question my vote, or my competence, or my intentions.  You must be intimidated by women you misogynist pig."

It is always about leverage and intimidation with Democrats and they will happily use women if it advances their agenda.  Even if they have to appear sexist to do it.

You are reading  "This Isn’t Sexist?"   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

Why “Green” Energy?

If you wanted to bring western civilization down, give it a good beating for all its so-called malfeasance, what better way than to make it near impossible to sustain the things that made being a western civilization all it was cracked up to be?

Consider that which makes us or any of our allies any sort of global power?  Wealth and energy.  Commerce, industrialization, transportation, and militarization to protect it or project it.

We can mince the finer points about what makes all this possible but they all share one thing in common.  Cheap, abundant energy.

So if you had a mind to take the average Western Civilization down a notch or two, or even all of them, to make an example of a country like, say America, the fastest way to do that would be to cry wolf about something that would be difficult to dispute and easy to frighten people with; something that would make cheap abundant energy so threatening that no one would pay much attention to the real threats that not having it might present; you’d put forward a theory of global catastrophe that demanded we redirect massive amounts of wealth into expensive forms of energy incapable of sustaining the level of commerce, industrialization, transportation, or defense that we’ve come to enjoy.

You’d invent Global Warming and then blame the people who make the cheap abundant energy for causing it.

It is a simple fact that you can’t run an aircraft (personal, pleasure, commercial or military), a fleet of ships (or any ship), large amounts of ground transportation, an army, or anything meaningful on wind, solar, or even ethanol.  (Without getting side-tracked on how ethanol is actually worse from creation to application).   In fact there are no “clean” energies in the American left’s “solution” to the problem they’ve invented (in America even nuclear energy is not ‘clean’) that would allow us to continue to engage the world in any meaningful way.  The left’s energy plan systematically denies us our commercial/industrial prowess, reduces or eliminates the size and scope of our national defense, forces us to be more reliant on other nations (many of them hostile) for what cheap energy we are allowed, and would inevitably limit our ability to move about our own country and our world with as much freedom as we’d like.

(Fracking and Natural Gas have grown in this void but the left still does not approve.  Even cheap easily acceible energy from friendly Canada (Keystone pipeine) was and is blocked. Why?  Becasue they slow the desired decline.  Only threats to their hold on power soften the negative rhetoric but just the rhetoric–no meanigful concessions are ever given.

And this is how it has been for years.

Fo decades the left has been doing everything they can to make “being an energy rich America” difficult or as expensive as possible.  They have prohibited new development, blocked domestic refining capacity, taxed, feed, and regulated growth in energy to a stand-still, and kept nuclear from being anything but an expensive and frightening proposition.  Every and any reason will do up to an including unsubstantiated threats of planet wide apocalypse.  This has made the energy we can develop more expensive, impacting everything else in the process.  Revenue spent on the rising cost of energy is not spent elsewhere.  This means less growth, lowered GDP, fewer jobs, less choices and opportunities.

The left has admitted that it wants gas to cost more, to end coal as we know it, to control our thermostats (through fear and guilt first, price pressure, or even the law if necessary), so they can make their less useful alternatives comparable in price.

And for what?  A theory that continues to lose support.  And it is losing support because despite pumping CO2 into the air at increasing rates the world just continues to do what it always did.  It gets warmer here, colder there, less ice up north, more ice down south, and after nearly two decades of “boys who cry global warming wolf” the average global temperate is exactly the same.

It can’t be for any other purpose but than to bring us down.  To break us before the global court of opinion and allow other nations to fill the gaps we leave behind. And there is still significant political will in the United States, on the left,  to move forward with the green energy agenda that makes our decline possible.  To continue to deny billions for productive purposes so they can dump billions of public dollars into energy solutions whose only result will be less of everything that makes us an advanced and powerful western civilization.  Into things that would make us just another chess piece on a global board occupied by China, India, and Russia–all of whom are to be respected as global partners but whom have no qualms about the need for cheap abundant CO2 producing energy to keep their nations running and growing; to sustain a military capable of projecting their worldview when and where they will feel the need; to protect their global interests, including those on continued access to cheap, abundant, energy.   So it cannot be a political will to move us into the next century unless it is to do so on our knees.

There is no other excuse for this behavior but to steward the accelerated decline of America as a nation unable to compete, one with a stunted manufacturing base and a small military it cannot afford to project to defend its own global interests, one that might not even be able to adequately defend its own borders.

Yes, we’d be able to lob some rockets about, but everything else relies on fuels that have been demonized, the same ones that allow you to get to work, travel (things the left wants to build public trains to replace), heat your home, and in some cases–like coal–use all the modern devices that run on electricity without breaking the bank.  And consider that reduced production of these fuels would require the state to divert them to the governments purposes as a matter of national priority–to run the things that the government needs that cannot be run without them–leaving the rest of us, citizens, those industries not favored by connected corporatists, to scrabble over the unsatisfying scraps left for us by the state.

Forget sustaining a free and powerful nation that can live without constant fear from its enemies.   You can’t even keep your population comfortable under those terms. Not that the leaders of the socialist left care.  They’ll be very comfortable.

You are reading  “Why Green Energy”   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

Jeanne Shaheen Wants to Ban Guns

Tragedy always attracts a parade of progressive mountebanks, anxious to peddle their faulty wares as cures for what ails us, and US Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D- Utopia) is no different.  In response to the heinous criminal acts perpetrated in Newtown, Connecticut she observed that…

“We need a comprehensive approach that includes improving access to mental health services, better enforcement of our current laws, and we need to get deadly assault weapons off our streets.”

Whatever you do, do not ask Senator Shaheen to describe an ‘Assault weapon’ because I am reasonably certain her talking points palm card did not include that.

The term “Assault weapon” is a lot like the term ‘Social Justice.’   It gets tossed around all the time, flowing seamlessly and with conviction from the mouths of  progressives.  And utopia looks damn good through those talking points glasses as long as you don’t ask them to define “Social Justice” or “Assault Weapons” for you.

If Webster were to transcribe what follows, directly into the pages of the dictionary, there would be more than a few ‘uh’ ‘um’ ‘like’ ‘err’s’ cluttering up the column inches.  And that’s the way the agenda-driven flying narrative monkeys like it.  It’s all about feelings.  “I’ll know love when I find it” is a lot like “I’ll know an assault weapon when I hear it,” or more accurately–what they really mean is that they’ll ban as many as they can until they can ban more.  That’s just how they roll.

So when “No-Maching-Gun” Jeanne Shaheen says get deadly assault weapons off the streets, we know that what she is really after is all the guns because lets be honest…a criminal with any weapon who is engaging in assault is using an assault weapon, and when a deranged coward enters an elementary school intent on killing, almost any firearm will do the job if they are deranged enough and no one is permitted access to equal or greater force in defense of themselves or others.

Jeanne Shaheen can phrase it however she wants but what she wants is to ban guns.  We know she does, even coming from New Hampshire,  because she is all-in on every other left wing, ding-bat, tin-foil-hat idea the left has ever come up with (except corn-ethanol but that is only because she wants to redirect that subsidy-infused-political-power into Jeanne-Shaheen-Shazam-Isis-Power-Hour” BAM! look at all the federal money I got Y’all for wood-chip ethanol” subsidies instead) so we know she wants to get all the guns off the streets.

Who cares if these guns (used in Newtown) did not come from “the streets” (another clue about what Jeanne really wants).  And ‘assault weapons,’ like social justice, (or ‘streets) means whatever it needs to mean to accomplish whatever goal it is the speaker intends.

Here’s another not so secret truth.  A murderous lunatic, who wants to kill and is willing to steal firearms, can and will steal almost any firearm.  And they will then use that force advantage in a place where they are least likely to meet resistance.   You don’t need the word ‘assault’ to ruin the lives of families when the object of your rage is an elementary school.  Or a unarmed university campus.  One with a sign.

Yes, Liberals put up signs.  They advertise.  Hey–no guns allowed, which means people who abide by the law will not enter the area armed.  Murders, mass murders in particular, are not always as inclined to follow the law to begin with and hey, thanks for advertising the best places to exercise a lethal force advantage of legislated proportion.

So unless your goal is to disarm everyone, leaving the murderous lunatics with the overwhelming force advantage everywhere, and anywhere they choose to exercise it, with whatever weapons they can find–because law breakers don’t give a damn what you ban or why–nothing you say is either honest or beneficial to the society you claim to steward.  Such is the mystery that is Jeanne Shaheen, US Senator from New Hampshire.

New Hampshire.  Yes let’s talk about that for a moment.

New Hampshire is consistently one of the safest states in the nation.  We have a great quality of life, low crime, low poverty, very healthy citizens, and a large number of them are walking around armed with what Jeanne Shaheen might call assault weapons.  Concealed “assault weapons.” And that is why we are consistently one of the safest places to live in the nation.  At any given moment there may be one or dozens of law abiding citizens who are armed, trained, and prepared to defend life and property, even when it is not their own.

Despite that Jeanne Shaheen would like to use the power of the police state to limit self-defense everywhere her bony progressive hands can reach.  So it behooves us to inquire on such matters now that she has told us her intentions.   So ask the Senator, “what do you mean by assault weapons?”

“What firearms would not be covered by your restriction, and therefore be deemed–by you–as more suitable for the public to defend themselves?”    (As an aside: Should this class of weapons from this day forward be referred to sub-shaheen guns?) 

Or if you prefer… “Do you think law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves with firearms at all, and if yes, which ones?”

“If someone broke in and stole those ‘Senator Shaheen Approved’ weapons (the sub-shaheen Guns), then used them to commit a murder or mass murder, how would that reflect on your position, or your qualifications to make such judgements?  Would the next step be to ban sub-shaheen guns as well?”

And there are plenty more questions we could or should ask but I’ll end with this: ‘After you’ve disarmed us, if someone should happen to walk into a room and start illegally discharging an approved or unapproved fire-arm at the people there, what would you suggest we do before or until we are shot or killed?”

You are reading  "Jeanne Shaheen Wants to Ban Guns?"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Evil Energy Speculators

by Steve MacDonald 

Thanks to commenter JackL for the reminder; that Jeanne “no oversight” Shaheen, Barack ‘Boondoggle’ FauxBama and the Democrats have always relied on the lie that rising energy prices were the result of “Evil Oil Speculators.”

Evil Speculators…speculators…

Isn’t what Mr. Obama, Secretary Chu, and Senate Energy Committee maven Greene Jeanne Shaheen have done, energy speculation?  Aren’t they energy speculators?  What else do you call investing tens of billions in the future value of green energy?  It’s energy speculation.

Well how is that working out so far?

The Evil oil speculators risk their money on the price of something that goes up and down, but to its credit, actually produces energy we can use and even at its highest price, was still significantly cheaper than any of the green alternatives.

The Evil Green Energy Speculators (Obama, Greene Shaheen, etc.) risked tens of billions in taxpayers dollars (not their own money), during a recession, on extremely expensive, inefficient, limited use technology, made by poorly run companies with close ties to the political party and President who pushed the ‘investment,’ most or all of whom have now spent our money, collapsed, or filed for bankruptcy.

What the Democrats have done is, without a doubt, energy speculation.  But from where I sit, only one of them is actually evil.

You are reading "Evil Speculators"  by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com.(Home)