Will New Hampshire Democrats Vote for Indefinite Detention?

It's not every day that you get the opportunity to discover whether or not your elected officials are more interested in government power over the people or in using their own authority in the defense of liberty.  But HB399, the New Hampshire Liberty Act, may provide us with a window into the heart of those currently serving.

HB399 seeks to prohibit federal enforcement of indefinite detention without due process.  This should seem like a no-brainer.  No matter who happens to be in the majority, no one should ever want their leaders--no matter how unlikely--to have the power to sweep people up in the dark of night and detain them without due process, for as long as they like.

Or are New Hampshire Democrats OK with that?

The bill's language is very specific about the source of the authority it seeks to protect Granite Staters from (more here on NDAA 1021 and 1022) so any argument about misinterpretation is a non-starter.

HB 399 would make it a crime in the state of New Hampshire to aid or abet the execution of indefinite detention without due process.

If indefinite detention is so unlikely as opponents might like to argue, or may never produce the results HB 399 exists to prevent, then this is a simple step and a very low maintenance bill designed to ensure that no one in New Hampshire is ever denied this basic constitutional right.  Being such big fans of civil rights, proactive prevention, and legislative action to those ends, Democrats in particular--and their progressive Republican counterparts--should be more than willing to embrace this....constitutional safety net.

Voting against the measure might be rightly interpreted as a willingness to allow the Federal government the power of indefinite detention over New Hampshire residents, even under the most likely of circumstances.  It also suggests that letting the federal government trample on our state sovereignty is permissible and encouraged.

You wouldn't want to be on the record as being against your own citizens constitutional rights would you?  Or would you?

I guess we'll find out.

Will New Hampshire Democrats vote for indefinite detention without due process?  The hearing for HB399 is this Thursday, February 21st, at 10am in LOB 203.

You are reading  "Will New Hampshire Democrats Vote for Indefinite Detention?"   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

Gambling? Seriously?

The success of any move to add Casinos to New Hampshire will hinge on the Libertarian Republicans currently crowding the House and their ability to override a likely Lynch veto.  While I am on their side in almost every other case, when it comes to casinos we part ways, and not for the reasons you might think.

This is not an issue of social conservatism for me, not exactly, not the way it is a social issue for some Democrats like Governor John Lynch or the left wing social justice cabal at the New Hampshire Council of Communist Churches (NHCcC).   I see this as a matter of personal restraint, not becasue I object to people gambling, but becasue I am willing to pay a personal price, and forgo the risk of casino revenue, to ensure the liberty and freedom that I am convinced a casino culture in the halls of the State House would inevitably destroy.

Before I proceed, let me give credit where it is due.  Yesterday the Union Leader, in a staff editorial, asked an important question.  Why would Republicans embrace the need for Casino revenue when they just demonstrated exemplary fiscal prudence with what can only be called a historic New Hampshire budget?  The answer to that question is quite simple.  The Republican influence toward casinos is motivated by RINO’s whose progressive tendencies seek new revenue with which to grow the influence of government, and the Libertarian Republicans who typically object to the RINO premise but seem willing to discard their good judgement about the dangers of money and politics in an obsessive  pursuit of things they insist are personal freedoms.

But the danger has nothing to do with personal freedom and everything to do with human nature.  While we could debate the potential risk of someone smoking pot and then wandering out of their house in pursuit of Twinkies, a Big Gulp, pork chops, Rasin Bran, an Egg Mc Muffin, Doritos, Donuts (say it like Homer Simpson), or anything even remotely edible that is not nailed down, the casino question is entirely different.  While there is some measure of risk of Jonesy making a public nuisance of his or herself in a motor vehicle, it is less than the long accepted risk of alcohol.  These are personal choices we accept becasue we have enacted laws whose purpose is to limit irresponsible behavior and punish those who refuse to learn self control.  The most serious problem with gambling has little to do with the recreational right to gamble, what it might do to people or neighborhoods, or the laws designed to limit its social side effects (all still relevant objections), and everything to do with  the long term risk of irresponsible behavior from elected officials legislating under the influence of casino revenue.

At no point in the relationship between citizens and their desire for a limited government, if you are serious about keeping that government small, locally controlled, and suitably cowed by the people whose interests it is meant to represent, should you embrace significant amounts of revenue  that by-pass the people on their way to central planners.  This invites all kinds of liberty killing practices that Libertarians should run from screaming and yet, for some reason, human nature as it relates to government abusing power is no longer a concern…as long as people can go to Casino’s in New Hampshire.   How short a vision is that?

Are we next to hear a promise (the lie) of property tax relief?  That would be a sure sign that someone had turned to the dark side.

Pro-liberty legislators, if anyone, should know what happens when you  funnel that kind of cake directly into the maw of the state capitol.  It filters vast sums past the gore of the voters palette allowing politicians to expand government based on outside interests and influences. Direct Casino revenue would empower central planners and bureaucrats in Concord in contradiction to the libertarian idea of small government and local control.  It would encourage the proliferation of more lobbyists and influence peddlers capable of further superseding the interests of voters on all state matters.  And it would grow government in excess of any preconceived fiscal advantages.    It always does.  That is why the left always wants more revenue and I used to think that was why Liberty Republicans objected to it.

Any Republican or Libertarian should be suspicious of ideas with this kind of potential danger to long term liberty, simply becasue you cannot trust human nature in the context of government.

We must accept that the influence peddling will not stop once we let Casinos in the door.    We must believe that the Gambling lobby will continue to use their deep pockets to affect the make up of the legislature, its policy priorities, contrary to the benefit of the traditional goals of a citizen legislature, and in direct opposition to Libertarian political orthodoxy.

Years of Casino ‘revenue’ in Concord would inevitably create the opportunity for entrenched incumbency and make every race about money, and who can spend it.   The special interest money would favor those who support Casino interests and central planners, reducing the citizen legislature to a farce that would inevitably retool itself into a smaller professional body of politicians that is easier to manipulate and buy off.  Something the Democrat party In New Hampshire has been after for years.

Libertarians, by their very nature, abhor this unjust relationship, so why would they ignore vice for the sake of vice, unless their desire to tilt at gambling windmills has blinded them to the inevitable outcome?  Is it possible they have simply failed to see the future?   In their quest for one “token freedom” have they forgotten that a government run by men and women will inevitably fall prey to professional brigands seeking to rob the taxpayers of their power?  That the Casino industry and gambling lobby, once in the Granite State, will be a relentless influence on all future policy decisions?  It is much to risk for that which we can obtain just a short drive away.

It is ultimately a matter of character and thought.  Enduring freedoms require sacrifice so I will repeat what I said earlier:  I see this as a matter of personal restraint, not becasue I object to people gambling, but becasue I am willing to pay a personal price, and forgo the risk of casino revenue, to ensure the liberty and freedom that I am convinced a casino culture in the halls of the State House would inevitably destroy.

This is a basic conservative principle of the relationship between a citizen and its government.  The sacrifice of small freedoms in defense of much larger ones.  But some people cannot see past the small freedoms.   So what happens when the legislative pursuit of those small freedoms could put every other personal freedom and liberty at risk? Casino’s could change everything about how state government works.

We are left to wonder if the libertarian Republicans who support gambling can look far enough down the road to see that danger; that this “personal freedom,” while providing a fleeting and transient victory, could burden millions of future lives with an intractable and uncontrollable State government like those everywhere else in New England.

Be A Force Multiplier For Freedom

As important now as ever, whatever the results of the New Hampshire primary and beyond, is that Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, and Independents coalesce at the state and local level to greet our opponents on the field of battle.  Our opponents are the institutional left and their mobocracy agenda.  To that end I offer a link you should follow and make time to read.

Prepared by LaborUnionReport.com, this is a power point overview of what we need to do to battle the Democrat ‘Machine;’ the complex of left wing groups and organizations already fully functioning and working together to put or keep Democrat politicians in power.   The presentation is mean to help you become a force multiplier for freedom, or perhaps just a more efficient one than you already are.

Colorado Model

While you are at it you might want to take a few moments to reacquaint yourself with the Colorado Model, used against us in New Hampshire in 2006 and 2008-along with the negative coat-tails of an unpopular president–to seize the entire state government.  The befuddled GOP was caught flat-footed and still has no plan to counter them.  Without the TEA party and liberty movements who knows where we’d be?

But the left will not be taken by surprise twice.  It is imperative that we use the activist nature of politics in New Hampshire, in cooperation with all the TEA party, 9-12, Gun, Life, Tax advocacy, and other groups, to build on the foundation of the 2010 midterms.   And we’ll need to put the partisan presidential primary politics aside to keep New Hampshire steered toward Liberty.

We are on the Right side of Liberty…if we are willing to continue fighting for it.

Follow the links.  Share them with your friends and neighbors.  Continue the fight for freedom.  Think of it as a New Years resolution.

And stay tuned…

Cross Posted: Be A Force Multiplier For Freedom

Old Establishment Scared...The Liberty Wing Needs To Double Down

(originally posted Sept 6, 2011)

The liberty and freedom part of the NHGOP is already winning the war.  We just lost one battle.  The establishment is scared.   We are only a few votes away from preventing what just happened and they know it. The old moderate establishment is desperate and on their way out.  So stand up for your new GOP and be patient.  Keep electing your pro-liberty Republican candidates to office, to town committees, and as local committee chairs. You will be victorious in the end. And that end is not so far away as you may imagine.

But not if you abandon your party now.  And it is your party.

Despite that majority presence and influence some have insisted that the ouster of Jack Kimball is proof they need to leave the GOP.  Some folks are just looking for a reason to quit.  But I disagree as much as anyone can disagree about anything.  This is a sign that we need more liberty minded folks in the GOP. 

There are plenty of people in the party structure now who are looking for more back-up.  People who would love to get away from the old guard way of doing things.  Even folks who got strong-armed last week. 

We already have the votes to elect a Jack Kimball as state party Chair.  Even if we could agree that Jack was not the perfect guy for the job, we still have the votes to give it to someone who is.  But if you start backing out now, that will never happen.  The existing insiders looking for help will stop looking.  The old guard town and city committee chairs, beholden to the old way of doing things, will never get replaced.  We'll have given up when we had them on the run.

It is time to double down. Secure the victory. 

The Conservative, liberty, and TEA party movements in this state elected most of the conservative and pro-liberty members without old-establishment help last time around.   What makes anyone think we need it now?  We don't.  They need us.  So dig in, hit the ground, support your candidates, work together, and continue the revolution toward a new NHGOP.  The old one is already dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

We need to commit ourselves, with or without the party to keep democrats out of office, to retain the Republican majority, to add more pro-liberty Republicans to the ranks, and to elect a Republican governor. 

Besides, I now know who the ring leader behind the removal of Jack Kimball is.  I'm just looking for a few more pieces to the puzzle before I start exposing them.  And yes, it is about as establishment as you can get.

No Gambling

In the smoldering ruin of SB 489--this years gambling bill, even after a massive campaign by Millennium gaming and its big-money FixItNow NH campaign quarter-backed by their Public relations goo-roo Richard Killion, (whom I suspect is this guy), we get comments like this, from this morning’s Union Leader.

 
“What’s clear is that today’s vote runs contrary to the will of the people, who, overwhelmingly support expanded gaming and see it as the only acceptable new revenue option,” he said. “The people do not want higher taxes.” 

The people do not want higher taxes.  But nothing else he says makes any sense unless he means the will of "the minority of" people who overwhelmingly support expanded gaming, and see it as the only acceptable option."  Isn't language fun?

Richard really should have been around New England long enough to know that the one thing you can count on in New Hampshire is for voters to contact their state reps and let them know how they feel about an issue.  So from square one this statement is at the very least disingenuous.  Before we even get to square two we know that that is exactly what the people did, and the product of that opinion (how the House voted) is clearly represented in the roll call.  Consider the following.

The liberals burned a giant hole in the budget by spending first and looking for revenue after in two consecutive budgets, which Mr. Lack of leadership John Lynch just let them get away with.   They did it while the economy was in a nose dive, so those rosy revenue projections couldn’t possibly compete with their over spending.   

With very little intestinal fortitude available in an election year to go back after the democrats goal of one or more broad based taxes, the ‘desire’ to appear to do something else instead has been ratcheted up significantly. 

The gambling lobby dropped some serious cash—millions?—into a public relations campaign to shift popular opinion towards a pro-gambling solution to our democrat majorities budget problem.  There was clearly some cash and promises swirling around in Concord to get the votes in the House on both sides.  

And as always they had to fend off pressure from the “just let me do what I want crowd,” some of whom would happily ignore the sale of their legislature to a deep pocketed lobby for the short term goal of personal pleasure politics hiding under a thinly veiled cloak of improving liberty.  

So the House Reps could have easily avoided the “really hard choices” now needed to deal with a 250 million dollar and growing liberal/Lynch deficit by simply finding the will to vote for gambling. They didn't.

Can we argue that a veto proof majority was unlikely, and that colored the vote?  We could.  But I think that shows up to some degree in the number not voting.   But if you consider that the veto threat has not been a real concern lately, and Lynch is a squish, I don't think this mattered. 

Given all these factors, the House still voted it down.  That is not a legislature acting on its own.  They had every reason and opportunity to take the quick and easy path, even if only for the sake of what Killion should assume to be a vote for a positive public perception (remember, he says people overwhelmingly want this) in the face of a veto, and they still chose not to.  The people of New Hampshire did what they do.  They contacted their legislators, who then voted to kill SB 489 by a vote of 212 to 158.  Even if the 30 not voting cast votes for gambling, it still would have failed.  New Hampshire does not want expanded gaming.  Killion is wrong.

As to the second part of his remarks, let’s call it the “only acceptable revenue” clause, it assumes that we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem and that the only acceptable revenue option is gambling.  This is the kind of thinking only a liberal, a RINO, or a lobbyist could love.  Hey Mc Fly, we have a revenue problem because we have a spending problem. 

Our “problem” is the result of allowing the party of Dan Eaton, democrat from  “you have to know how much you want to spend before you look for revenue,” to make budgetary decisions with other people’s property based not on the needs of the state, but the desire of a party to create the shortest possible path to a broad based tax.   Gambling does not solve that problem.  The solution to our revenue problem is fewer democrats and Republicrats in the legislature, and someone with a spine in the governor’s office.  

My guidance--if you've read this far--when looking at revenue is this: The shortest path to small efficient government runs alongside revenue streams obtained via a bill for the amount of the taxes alone, delivered to the taxpayer, who must then write out the check to pay for them.  The more taxes you collect by other means, fees, fines, sales or income, phone, utility, gaming, and so on, the larger your government, and the bigger your “Revenue Problems,”  forever and ever, Amen.  The fewer of these you have the smaller the government, and the greater the liberty. 

Broad based taxes, sales taxes, gambling, utility taxes and programs like RGGI, they all funnel revenue in small amounts, from many places, into the state coffers without the burden of any one persons intimate knowledge of a large transaction.   That is exactly what the spenders need to grow government without your permission.  It’s money most people will barely notice until it’s gone and the politicians are asking for more. 

If all your phone or utility taxes and fees came in one separate bill twice a year you’d be calling your State Rep in a heartbeat, every six months. Which brings us back to gambling. 

Gambling builds big government, run more and more by lobbyists and unaccountable politicians, and it builds it quickly with less or no accountability to the taxpayers.  If you don't care about the potential crime and social risks of gambling addiction, you had best start caring about the addicts in the state house.

So while I agree that gambling is a decision that grownups should be free to make in a constitutional republic, grownups need to understand what they are trading for that particular personal liberty because it comes at the cost of our ability to ensure liberty for our posterity.  We’d be selling out the privilege of local control for the “privilege” of gambling.  Given what we already know about government, is that ever going to be a risk worth taking?