GraniteGrok

I know. I get it now. When it doesn't snow and isn't very cold? Global warming. When it snows and IS cold? Global warming. I think I get it now...

Posted by Doug at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs the affairs of men.  And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probably an empire can rise without His aid?  We have been assured, sir, the sacred writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.

-Benjamin Franklin

Posted by Skip at 8:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

...given the latest polling data that I just saw on the 6pm WMUR news.  Their latest WMUR Granite State poll just came out and it is looking as bad for the Democrats running for Federal office as it has for the Republicans did the last two election cycles.  Buckles the Clown (AKA, Ray Buckley, NH Democrat Chair) is thinking "crap" (or, very much stronger language).

First, the real bad news: for a person who is a "semi-incumbent" (having been a Congressman for two terms", Paul Hodes is in REAL trouble against the Republicans (as this chart shows):

I guess that's why the rumors of Gov "Do Nuttin'" Lynch are flying around that he's going to ditch another Gov run and shove Hodes out of the way for that Senate slot - let the bloodletting begin!  While the fact that Ayotte definitely leads Hodes (and her having been in the news a lot lately), it shows that Ovide, Jim, and Bill (Lamontagne, Bender, and Binnie) are competitive.  Sure, Ovide is fairly well known among Republicans having had a history a while ago.  However, to folks like me (a relative newcomer to the political world), he was a blank slate at the very beginning of this process and I'm betting the same is true of the general public.  Bender and Binnie ARE newcomers to the scene - and I think that their ads that are just starting to go up on TV are starting to have an effect (who says money isn't helpful, and those two have lots to use).

The fact that Hodes BARELY beats these last three has got to have the Maalox folks thinking of sky rocketing sales here in NH.

And as they say in the informercial world - "Wait, there's more!"   Indeed! 

When someone who JUST entered the race within the last few days, Rich Ashooh, beats Carol Shea-Porter in the polls, it is a freaking disaster (for the Dems, anyways)!   And it is a delight to see that Bob Bestani (full disclosure - he posts here on GraniteGrok) is leading her (but within the margin of error of the poll which is 4.7%).

And CD-2 is not going to give Buckles and Mike Brunelle (NH Dem. Exec. Dir) any relief either.  With no coattails from Obama (er, start thinking a ball and chain FAR worse than George Bush!) and the base back to normal (instead of an Obama-frenzy), at this point in time, it's looking like flipping time as in only one case is a Democrat leading:

Now, compare that to the campaign funds raised, and it is not a pretty sight either:

I'm betting that Binnie and Bender can match Hodes buck for buck, and then some.  Ovide, having done much more on the non-profit activity side of the ledger, has already stated that he would not win the money race - that said, he is in the process of gathering a lot of high-powered Conservative endorsements that may well stand him in good stead (as well as attracting in and out of state TEA Party / Liberty & Freedom group attention).

The only down side for the Republicans is on the Congressional level - yes, CSP has much more $ in the bank, but certainly not the amounts that a two-term incumbent should have - and will probably have to spend lots to combat all the negative old AND new media press she has garnered via her foot-in-mouth gaffes (think Joe Biden but without the personality or smile) and STILL hope for magic pixie dust to fall on her from on high...

Sadly, it is two Repubs (since DeJoie didn't factor into the poll) that I would tout come up in last place in the money proxy poll.  However, still comparing their stash vs the opposition and their poll numbers, there's still a ray of sunshine that the Obama anti-coattails may still work...

Ah yes, it will be "interesting"....

Posted by Skip at 6:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

 When I read this on Breitbart via Drudge, it gave me great pause:

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday that Iran is set to deliver a "punch" that will stun world powers during this week's 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

"The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned," Khamenei, who is also Iran's commander-in-chief, told a gathering of air force personnel.

This follows on similar words spoken by Ahmadinejad last week.

Mere bluster? Who knows. Isn't it true that often throughout history its various madmen and marauders telegraphed their intentions prior to their deadly actions?

This is a time where I would like the President to stand up and make a clear, concise statement in very unambiguous terms. Call a news conference. Step up to the lectern. Point the finger at the cameras as if they are standing in for Kamenei and his henchmen, and tell them that if they pull anything, we will be ready to take imediate and FINAL action against them to eliminate ANY threat they might pose, February 11th, or forever more thereafter. Recall the words of Roosevelt in his ultimatum to Japan:

“We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war. It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never before been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.”

I think Obama should follow closely along such a plan as outlined by his hero FDR. Finally, I would be in full agreement my president on SOMETHING....

Let us not forget the astute observation of Machievelli shouting at us from the ages:

[T]he Romans saw when troubles were coming and always took counter-measures. They never, to avoid a war, allowed them to go unchecked, because they knew that there is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others. They made up their minds to wage war with Philip and Antiochus in Greece, in order not to have to do so in Italy.

Posted by Doug at 6:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

And that word phrase is "populist constitutionalism".

....Take Nevada and Utah as instances. The states border each other. Yet one state endorses legalized gambling, prostitution, and easy access to liquor. Right next door, teetotaling Utah frowns on all of these "immoral" practices.

That's the way the Founding Fathers wanted America to be. They knew that different people have different needs and values. They realized that they should be free to express those values legislatively on the state and community levels. If an American finds Nevada's laws too promiscuous (or Utah's laws too restrictive), the citizen can either work to change the laws of the particular state...or move across state lines.

There are and will continue to be arguments and dissention within the Tea Party. (The media is already noting this and eating it up.) But Americans are famous for contention and debate. No populist movement (unless it is focused on a single issue, like prohibition) will be in agreement on every issue. Disputation and disagreement in the Tea Party is a sign of health and enthusiasm, not a portent of dissolution.

Populist constitutionalism is the surest and clearest path to saving our republic.  Thank God (and I mean that literally) for that dedicated woman who asked me if she had brought enough copies of the Constitution to the Tea Party gathering. I will close by answering her as I should have when we were standing at that table: "As far as the Constitution goes, you can never have enough copies...and we should never stop learning as much as we can about the greatest political document ever written."

Here in NH, there has been a concerted effort by some politicos (Looking to make points?  Coattails?), journalists (many whom, at the national levels, have proven themselves not to be friends of the movement - looking for dirt?) and the committed Lefties (infiltration?  looking for dirt? (oh wait, already used that), looking to commit subversion?) to "look for the leaders".

There aren't any.  Oh, there is the NH TEA Party Coalition in this state which has many but not all interested groups and individuals involved with it.  However, in many of the states or other locations, it is simply a band of folks that have decided to group together around not a single issue...

...but a single document - the Constitution.

In this, they need no leader.  Being intelligent, they can read - both the actual document as well as the writings of those that wrote it.  They compare that body of knowledge to their knowledge of how our current crop of chuckleheaded politicians, both Democrat AND Republican, have strayed from that intent and have decided "If not me, then who?" 

Now, many folks on the left (e.g., Kathy Sullivan, former NH Democrat Chair) both hold it up for their purposes but also denigrates those who still hold to the original intent and words of that document (IMHO, Progressives seem to want to want to protect that document in the most secure vault ever - but then never printing it out again as it just gets in their way).

However, for those who DO hold to the original intent, and having found like minded folks, they have formed packs (as opposed to the "herds" that Lefties commonly frame in thinking we blindly follow the likes of Rush and Beck) and have decided to hunt down and politically and culturally defeat those Progressive or Statist type politicians that have brought this country to the brink of ruin.

No leader is needed - no Ross Perot, no single issue, no third party either.  Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, has described this as the Third Great Awakening.  

The alarm clock has rung - the people are waking up. And oh, are they ticked!

Oh, speaking of the NH TEA Party Coalition (and others around the state):

Posted by Skip at 5:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Week 5 - Well, I've finally got through my first "plateau" of the diet during the last couple of days - hopefully things will go swimmingly for the next couple of weeks.  The hope still is when the Youngest comes home on leave he'll notice a wee bit of a difference.  TMEW is saying that it is now noticible and the belt is now a couple notches tighter.  The hope is to break 225 this week - pray for me!  Chan is also down a bit more as well - success is not going back up!

Previous weeks after the jump:

Continue reading "The Great New Hampshire Blogger Weight Loss Challenge - Week 5 results" »

Posted by Skip at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

If everything is endlessly up for question and open for change, then everything is permitted and nothing is forbidden...nothing is unthinkable.

- Os Guinness

Posted by Skip at 8:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I often rip stuff out of magazines when I see a passage that catches my eye figuring that even a few words of commenting might get it out of my system.  This passage from Robert Moffit's "At What Cost to Freedom?" in National Review caught my eye back in October (yeah, just going through the pile now):

On “shared responsibility,” the president brooks no dissent. “Unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek — especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions — just can’t be achieved,” he said. “That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance.” This requirement is known as the “individual mandate.” 

The full speech by President Obama can be seen here.

Now, it may seem to some that Obamacare may now be dead in the water; I'm not convinced that this is so.  What bothers me more, however, is the twisting of the language by the President - once more, I see a "hiding" taking place; something that Obama is very good at (e.g., often with his false choice rhetoric).

A responsibility is one that is taken up by an individual on a voluntary basis - if I marry someone, I have the responsibility to uphold those vows; I am responsible for providing and caring for my new family.  If I make a promise, I am obligated to make good on that promise. If I tell someone something will be done, I have the responsibility to do it.  Family matters are one area that may be external to my making that self-obligation,

Yes, as being part of a society, I am obligated to follow its laws, and certainly Obama is trying to pass this new Leviathan of a law known as "healthcare reform".  However, in this case, Obama is trying to use the moral imperative persuasion to conflate the collective need (as he sees it) with the individual sense of responsibility.  Forget the argument that most use in saying that this is an unconstitutional mandate - while I agree with that sentiment, it is not the focus of my post.  What is the focus is that once again, language is being bent to advance an agenda that really is in direct opposition to that language.  In direct opposition to the ideals to which this country was birthed, he places the collective need (in his Progressive eyes) above the freedom of the individual to decide for him or herself to decide whether to select that responsibility for him or herself.  He masks the Founders vision of providing for oneself (as being part of the price of freedom is being self-responsible) for the

Sidebar: wanna annoy a Progressive that believes only through Government intervention in all things can each reach true freedom in a Heaven on Earth Utopia?  Ask them why, in order to achieve such freedom, why are they so willing to restrict everyone else's rights to other matters?  How does the taking of freedom from one actually give it to someone else?

This Hobbes choice of Big Government, this dereliction of self to the group a la Rousseau (both who demanded a Leviathan of a large centralized government who would then dole out Rights, favors, and needs), by Obama is the end game of the Progressives. 

As with Mike Kitch of the Laconia Daily Sun (who seemingly is a devotee of both Hobbes and Rousseau and is of the persuasion that America is bad from the beginning when he is wont to rant or deigns to speak to me on Big Government or in leaving a comment here from time to time), he basically believes that no good can ever come from the rugged individualism and expression of self-governance.  Indeed, for Progressives, when bad things happen, it is never the fault of Big Government, thus the charge of a loss of individual freedom or of local self-government is nothing more than caterwauling by the likes of me and other Conservatives and Libertarians.

Unless, of course, the Party in Power happens to be the Republicans......

Posted by Skip at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

And for those entities that do not have City Charters (like Manchester, Franklin, Concord, Laconia, et al), the voters in each town get to vote on EVERYTHING that goes on in their town each year - setting the budgets, approving what are called Warrant Articles - changes in zoning, the expending of monies, affirming resolutions (binding or not).  Some are settled at a single meeting (the traditional style that has the talking / arguing and then voting by either voice or hand raise [and sometimes, secret ballot]) or in two meetings (what are called SB2 where the Deliberative Session allows for the talking and a month later by secret ballot).

This past Wednesday was our Town's Deliberative Session and an example of one of the topics that is most likely able to torque me up - that of using the force of Government for personal benefit used against your fellow neighbors or citizens.  The example that I use most often here on the 'Grok is that of NH House Rep Doc Pilliod (R-Belmont), by the request of a local "small boat" marina, to limit the speed limit of boats on Lake Winnipesaukee for "safety reasons" where the actual safety data shows no needs.

Well, during the Deliberative session, I ran into yet another example of this behavior.  There is a long standing animus between a business entity called the Ames Farm and a lawyer by the name of Stephen Nix here in my hamlet.  For years now, the latter has tried to shut down parts of the operation of this 120 year cottage / restaurant / boat launch resort by using a number of legal maneuvers.  In essence, he is trying to take away one of our basic Rights, that of Private Property, from this family so as to enhance the value of his property.  Gordon Gecko has no skin on this play!

Here is what I wrote on my local blog, GilfordGrok:

TOWN OF GILFORD

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT

To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

...

For the last few years, it seems that the preponderance of Warrants have been nothing but zoning issues. For those that may be following GraniteGrok, the writings have become more oriented to basic principles - what are our Natural Rights as debated and described by our Founding Fathers and encapsulated in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States (as opposed to the Progressive philosophy that relinquishing those rights to a more and more centralized Government (pick your level) is preferable such that Government can solve all ills and provide for all needs...but I digress.

The question is, what is the boundary between controlling the character of the town and the Right to Private Property?  And this year, which are those that are:

• Concerned with defining the character of the town?
• Concerned with safety issues
• Concerned with safety issues but have, in my opinion, crossed that line of the "common good" vs the individual Right to Private Property?
• Simply using the the coercive force of Government to destroy someone else's Right to Private Property (and the value thereof) so as to facilitate their own well being the value of their Private Property (AKA - the Stephen Nix vs Ames Farm Warrant)?
  

And yes, this is the Article that I stood up in opposition to at the Deliberative Session (the FIRST SESSION, above), that in my belief, is yet more "legalfare (e.g., legal warfare) leveled by Mr. Nix against the Ames's. Let me address this Article first.

ARTICLE 9: Are you in favor of adopting an amendment to the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as submitted by petition to amend Section 5.2.1, Island and Shore Frontage District, of the Gilford Zoning Ordinance by adding a new Section 5.2.1 (g) to prohibit public boat launching ramps and related parking and storage facilities on shorefront lots under certain circumstances, but to allow private boat launching ramps and related parking and storage facilities on shorefront lots as an accessory use under certain circumstances? (The Planning Board does not recommend the adoption of this amendment.) (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

Mr. "no boats for you" Nix, from my viewpoint, would like nothing more than for the Ames Farm to go defunct.  Frankly, his cause is just about the same as the person who JUST moves into either the flight path of the Laconia Municipal Airport (just gotta love that name...given that is located in Gilford) or right near it complaining about the noise.

Er, who was there first (and Ames has been operating for 120 years), Mr. Nix?  And to me, that is a fundamental issue.  He moved to his present residence well after the establishment of the business which, by most accounts, has been a positive venue for tourists in Gilford.

I'd be willing to bet, if his home was on the other side of town near Meadowbrook, he'd be complaining there too (er, still).

In my opinion, this is nothing more than a lawyer than can freely throw up obstacle after complaint after lawsuit after lament (you get the idea) and try to spend / annoy / limit / deny the rightful owners of their Right to the free use of their Private Property strictly for his benefit.

What was important was the question that I asked of John Ayers, Director of Planning and Land Use department: "Would this article, in your professional opinion,  adversely impact the operations at the Ames Farm?"

His answer: Yes

This is NOT, it seems, about the character of the town - it is all about what Steve Nix wants and will not stop until his wants are met.  There's a word that describes that kind of behavior....

I URGE you to vote no on Article 9

After all, what would YOU do if a lawyer or developer felt that his needs came before yours, and he is a "Johnny-come-lately" to the neighborhood?

Posted by Skip at 3:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

We have no government armed with powers capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

- John Adams, President

Posted by Skip at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As mentioned here, Jeff Chidester, radio host of New Hampshire Perspective (Sunday, 11:00AM – FM 96.7 the WAVE) organized a benefit to send a trained EMT, Zachary Bourque, to Haiti to help that devastated nation.  In the end, that single benefit just about raised the entire amount to send Zach.

He had reached out to the number of political folks here in NH to give their remembrances of Ronald Reagan, giving the effort a theme that would resonate with conservatives - and yes, on short notice (the event was thrown together in just over a week after hearing about Zach's desire to go help), they came.  While not a political event, a number of the candidates came and spoke - most of us being of the age where we actually remember Ronaldus Magnus.  Bob Bestani, candidate for Congress in CD-1, was present and was recognized as being the quickest of those invited to respond - about a minute and half.  Jack Kimball, candidate for NH Governor, and Jim Bender, candidate for US Senate, also came and spoke.  In addition, Peter Bearse, candidate for Congress in CD-1 also was there.

To their credit, they all kept to the theme of the night and did not turn it into a political rally, although I do have to award the "Phrase of the Event" to Jim Bender in describing the current national leaders (e.g., Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the other Progressives that are trying to have HUGE Government be able to provide all things to all people - and forgetting that all needs requires more money than the nation has)  with the bon mots of "self-assured incompetence". 

Yup, that pretty much summarizes that whole bunch succinctly.

Anyways, I always have to thank Jeff for his Army service - and he had a very personal story to share concerning Ronald Reagan and how he was viewed by one German lady: "he gets it!"

And it seems that since acquiring the Flip cam, it means that every political event means the ability to get and capture not only someone's exact words (unfiltered by the Press and, um, my faulty (at times) brain cells) but also their emotions and state of being.  YOU get to see how they really feel about a subject.  While I have to edit the vids a tad, you get to see the folks that agree to these micro interviews as they are.  Who are you going to believe; your lying eyes or some biased journalist "objective" views?

Anyways, I get to thank Jack Kimball (once again) for his service and got his views again:

And yes, the man with the "Phrase of the Event" - Jim Bender, also acceded to the request of this ordinary schlub - and decided to expand that with a couple more "turns of phrase" moments":

Posted by Skip at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sorry for the light blogging - yesterday, normal life intruded with TMEW "suggesting" the agenda.  Not all bad - part of her agenda was the almost weekly visit to the range for lighting off a few rounds.  We had previously bought 1K rounds for her Walther P22; this time, it was the same amount for the 9mm (it sounds like a lot, but as I am rapidly realizing, one hour of shooting can mean a whole lot of quarters flying down range at supersonic speeds.  As in other areas, size matters - in this case, the size of the purchase drives down the marginal cost).

Of course, just as they say that a boat is a hole in the water into which one tosses dollars, saving in one area means throwing it into another - this time, a "range bag for two".  She's happy that we no longer have to lug my old wide mouth piece of luggage from Land's End and no longer have to crunch the gear in. Enough room for two sets of headsets, three pistols, two sets of eye protectors, three pistols, and of course, ammo.

And room left over for other stuff to come.  Like I said, she's happy, so I'm contented....

Back to normal blogging the rest of the day....

Posted by Skip at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by Jeff Woodburn

My large frame is hard to hide, but I do my best. I'm scrunched down in the corner of my classroom, a dozen or so seventh-graders are gathered around me. The lights are off, shades down and door locked, or so I hope. If this were not a safety drill, I'm afraid I'd be an easy target even for a poor sighted armed-intruder. I wonder in the uncomfortable silence, what students in Japan are doing while we prepare for this near-statistical impossibility.

In a moment, the principal's voice pierces the quiet and ushers us back to work. If schools are anything today, they're safe; possibly to the point of paranoia. After all, state law requires all schools to be not only “safe,” but also “secure, and peaceful.” Yet when a rare breach of security does occur, like in December when a seventh-grade English teacher was charged with a spree of bank robberies, the authorities wilt providing little candor or confidence.

After Hollis-Brookline Middle School teacher Gail Rasmussen was arrested, Brookline Police Sergeant Michael Kurland reassured parents. "My biggest concern,” he said, “is the speculation that's out there that these kids weren't safe.” He added "This was a non-violent crime.” She was released on $500 bail and required to remain in a live-in treatment center that caters to gambling addicts until she gets her day in court.

Despite this shocking anomaly, schools, as well as society in general, are safer than ever before. By every statistical measure we are safer today than at any other time in human history. Just over a century ago it was common for immigrant parents to bury a child or two. They lived in a time of vast danger, poverty, and cruelty, yet they didn’t wallow in it. They didn’t have the time; they had a slew of other kids to tend to and countless other tasks just to survive.

These parents modeled how to deal with real adversity and they did it with a steel-like resilience and an optimistic spirit, and apparently their offspring learned something along the way. After all, these kids went on to become “the greatest generation” by surviving the Great Depression and winning the Second World War.

Of course, when events like those at the Hollis-Brookline school occur, the lawyers come in and common sense goes out. Certainly, counselors are helping students as they move from shock to anger and eventually to understanding. But more than what kids are feeling, I’m interested in what they are learning. Rest assured, Ms. Rasmussen’s seventh -grade students are learning from this experience. Hopefully, they’re learning that there are always consequences for poor decisions; one must take responsibility for their own physical and mental well-being and finally that redemption can be earned in time.

I put this question to Dr. Jerry Melvin, who led the North Syracuse, New York, school system, during a similar situation. Last year one of their high school’s math teachers was charged and convicted of bank robbery.

Melvin, who has New Hampshire ties having been a principal in Keene and Superintendent at Exeter in the 1970s, couldn’t say much as it was a personnel issue. He did add, that “Initially it was very difficult on the students and staff. It shocked them.”

That teacher, by the way, received a sentence of only four years in prison in part because he had a gambling addiction and that the 12-gauge shotgun, which he used during the robbery, was not loaded and had a trigger lock. I guess this proves once again that being safe is not only smart, but saves time.

Jeff Woodburn of Dalton is a teacher and writer. He's taught in middle and high school settings. Previously, he owned an award-winning real estate firm and was prominent in state politics. He and his wife and four children live on a small hill farm, where they raise poultry. This piece was first published in Parenting NH Magazine and is used with permission of the author.

 

Posted by The Mechanic at 6:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 9:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tyranny, Sir?  No thank you.

Posted by Skip at 8:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have to hand it to the person who is paying for the SECOND sign....

Let's just call it "Truth in Advertising"

(H/T: Instapundit)

Posted by Skip at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Earlier in the week, I put up a number of videos )YouTubes, Blip.TV) about the conference that NH STEWARD put on this past Saturday, "Grassroots Communication in the 21st Century”.  At the same time, I was doing a lot of tweeting here.  I figured that some might find them interesting, so here they are in chronological order (of COURSE!  Spelling mistakes abound.  Emphasis mine).

Fred Tausch starts off the Conference with a brief speech and then introduces Newt Gingrich:

I'm at the STEWARD of Properity event - Fred Tausch, founder is speaking and is WHALING on Liberals 6:11 AM Jan 30th

Fred is easily dellineating the difference between Liberal (who believe in Big Govt) vs Conservative (who believe in the people) 6:12 AM Jan 30th

#NEWT Newt Gringrich is about to speak. CSPAN is here or catch my live stream (poor vid quality) here: http://bit.ly/92QTY3 6:17 AM Jan 30th

#NEWT Newt is talking about what Govt would have gone about controlling the new forms of transportation - and curbs on them 6:18 AM Jan 30th

#NEWT Govt cannot keep up with innovation; it is not that nimble. 6:18 AM Jan 30th

#NEWT Jokes that since lawyers didn't advertise back at the first car accident, Ford was able to start a brand new industry 6:20 AM Jan 30th

#NEWT yes, Govt help the Wright Bros - by furnishing wind data. The Bros. spent years, refining ideas. Success. Smithsonian? 6:22 AM Jan 30th

#NEWT Smithsonian, lots of money, best folks..launched their first plane into Potomic....the difference between Govt and individuals 6:23 AM Jan 30th

#NEWT Entering a period of SOCIAL entrapreneurial experimentation - a turning point in our history. How to use it & who controls it? 6:24 AM Jan 30th

Continue reading "Tweets from this past Saturday's STEWARD conference" »

Posted by Skip at 10:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Certainly a lot colder than when the President came to Portsmouth - but there were still folks there to let PBO know that his policies are not, um, well liked.  From Andrew over at Manuse Media Hub (with permission, as I had to work here):

and then the AFP folks put on their own meeting with Steve Moore from the Wall Street Journal (here):

Posted by Skip at 9:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From a little Pew Research poll, I am not surprised at the results:

(H/T: NRO)

Democrats keep saying that they are the "reality based community" - the question is: are they in touch with reality as well as they think they are?

Speaking of which, I still don't get it - the Dems keep blaming Bush ("and the previous 8 years") for high spending.  Know something?  I agree with him - Republicans lost not only their ways but their minds - and thus, their majorities.

Methinks that the Dems have overplayed the first and underthought the results:

Upping the ante just a day after losing their 60th Senate seat, Democrats moved Wednesday to seek a $1.9 trillion increase in the federal debt ceiling and give the Treasury adequate borrowing authority past November’s elections and into next year.

Republicans were caught off guard by the scale of the increase which follows a $290 billion short-term debt increase approved prior to Christmas. “That’s just escapism of the worst sort,” Sen. Judd Gregg (R.,N.H.) told POLITICO. But Democrats countered that their only alternative would be to give-in to a Republican strategy of forcing multiple smaller debt ceiling increases, designed to bleed them politically before November.

This perception was reinforced by a meeting Tuesday between Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). By going now with the higher $1.9 trillion target, Democrats are making a high-stakes gamble that the party can pull together once more to put the debt ceiling issue behind them for this election year.

“We have to do this. The alternative is worse,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D—Mont.) in a brief interview.

Right - let's not just double down but quadruple up, eh?

It looks like the most vulnerable NH CongressCritters, Carol Shea-Porter voted for this - Paul Hodes has just turned "conservative" in his bid for a Senatorial seat?

Dems - giving us the financial shaft at the national level with nary a whimper - and here in NH.

Yeah, the problem is that the chickens that will be coming home to roost for them are going to drop a BIG load of financial sorrow on us all.

Reality based?  Not "indeed"; rather "uh-oh" on steroids...

(H/T: Sweetness and Light)

Posted by Skip at 6:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sometimes, real life has to take precedence over this cyber-life and last night, I took part in my town's Deliberative session.  Here in NH, we citizens get the chance (other than participation on the official Budget Committee, Selectmen, or School Board), to actually discuss and change the budget that goes before the voters (some, right at the meeting; given that we are an "SB2" town, we will vote on the budgets via the ballot box).  Our friend Chan, from Weekend Pundit, and I chit-chatted about some of the "Warrant Aticles" as the night wore on.  A few posts will proceed from it: how citizen/lawyers decide to use the force of Government to enhance their "home values", the force of Government and Planning Boards in "distorting the Right to Private Property", and forced charity.  And, oh yeah, journalism reporting the news - NOT!

And thus, no blogging last nite.  Normal stuff will start in later on today, but let me leave this with you.

Fred Thompson tweet:

Obama's offering a payroll tax cut, but only for small business. Ok, fair's fair. We pay taxes, but only for small government. #tcot #ftrs

(H/T: Instapundit)

And this from Don Boudreaux over at Cafe Hayek - "Can I at Least Opt Out?":

The long lines at passport control and the post office, along with the indifferent “service” typically rendered there, are too common not to be symptomatic of government supply. When customers neither pay directly for what they receive nor have the option either of not paying for the product at all or of seeking an alternative supplier, government employees have little incentive to respond to the wishes of the people they are allegedly employed to serve.

Posted by Skip at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, Charlie is in the exploratory period - and because of his contacts, is now doing fairly well in the "proxy vote" of money raised. 

As I posted here, we met at a political event and the exchange was cordial.  I do know that as a fiscal conservative, social conservative, and TEA Party movement type, I have a real hard time with some of this voting record:

• was for a state income tax as a NH State Representative.

• was called a "Cap and Trade Republican" by National Review magazine.

• voted "no" on requiring photo ID to vote in Federal elections.

• voted to allow minors to be transported across state lines for abortions without the knowledge or consent of their parents.

• voted to continue the moratorium on offshore oil drilling.

• voted to prohibit oil drilling in ANWAR.

• voted "yes" on starting the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

• voted yes on McCain/Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform".

My take?

1. let's vote for more revenue instead of less spending
2. let's artificially raise everyone's energy costs for about nil on actual results (to be fair, ClimateGate just happened, showing that rising temps have been doctored to a large degree for political purposes) and the money raised right into the Government coffers - you REALLY think that this money would be used to lower OTHER taxes?
3. Photo ID to buy cough syrup, but not to vote?  Hey, vote early and often!
4. Parents?  Who needs parents (except for the aftermath).  Sorry, but to me, abortion is the taking of an innocent life, so this is a two-fer.
5. Moratorium and ANWAR - technology is sufficient to take care of the old problems (and see #2)
6. See #2 again - and raises sovereignty issues.
7. Sure, let's restrict Free Speech.
   

Details to follow...

Posted by Skip at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I also am thankful for Fred Tausch holding the event and bringing in the wonderful Andrew Breitbart, and helping out other GOP candidates...to the extent that the other candidates are real Republicans, and not RINO's. One cautionary note, however: The reason some are indicating hesitation about Tausch has not been clearly explained. It is not simply because he voted for Obama; it is what the vote for Obama (and support for other Democrats, and RINO's) indicates.

That is, Mr. Tausch probably has no underlying political philosophy to guide him. That is, he hasn't done the reading and done the thinking that results from reading, oh, Goldwater, Bastiat, Jefferson, Madison, Mises, Rand, Hayek, Heinlein...those kinds of people. This is the perennial and traditional weakness of Republicans who are not "movement-conservatives." If you don't have an underlying political philosophy that leaders like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan in the past, and Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, and others today display, then you're an "easy kill" for an opponent who does have a clearly defined ideology. John McCain and George W. Bush are perfect examples of the problem: Having no clearly defined conservative ideological underpinning, Bush could easily be talked into signing McCain-Feingold, pushing a senior drug benefit boondoggle, imposing Canadian lumber import tariffs, agreeing to sign the "assault weapons ban" if it were presented to him, trying to protect union jobs by restricting steel imports, doubling the budget of the federal Dept. of Education instead of abolishing it...and on and on and on. McCain was and is similar: He has no foundational political philosophy to be guided by, and is thus easily "turned" to become the darling "maverick" of the mainstream media and other enemies of freedom. Thus his willingness to "reach across the aisle" and become "bi-partisan" by co-sponsoring a direct attack on the First Amendment. Why not? He has no ideological compass that would forbid him from doing so.

This is the perennial problem with Republicans who may "talk conservative" when they're running for public office, but then don't have the foundational knowledge and resulting ideology to "back it up" when they're in the trenches. This is why it is so common for Republicans to "turn" once they are in positions of power. New Hampshire's own former U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter was pushed by Gov. Sununu and nominated by the first President Bush I...as a "conservative" justice. The rest is history, but Souter is just an example. Super-statist Justice John Paul Stevens was nominated for the Supreme Court by Republican President Gerald Ford. The "conservative-to-liberal-statist-switch" so common for "conservatives," on the other hand, is exceedingly uncommon for liberals. Why? Because liberalism is a political philosophy that...oh what the hell. I'm rambling. This is really a subject for a future rant, if ever.

So...that's why I am thankful for Mr. Tausch, for his Republican activism, for the money he's spreading around...so long as it is understood that he is probably not a learned, ideological conservative, and thus may not be able to resist harmful invitations ("post-partisan," "reach across the aisle") and pressures ("work with the democrats," "don't be difficult") in the future if he does find himself in a position of political leadership.

Posted by Tim at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When Mike Castaldo, seeking to be the Republican nominee in CD-2 here in NH, first announced his interest in running, I had a few words to say about that.  He caught up with me at this event and I promised, in the spirit of being fair, to do a little conversation with him concerning his views.  We've met in passing a couple of times now, and FINALLY we were able to connect at the STEWARD event.

Mike, thanks for being patient!

And yes, there will be more to come.

Posted by Skip at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

PLEASE JOIN US FOR A

BIRTHDAY BASH FOR THE GIPPER

To honor our late, great President

Ronald Reagan

and

Haitian Earthquake Relief Fundraiser

Friday, February 5, 2010

6 to 8 p.m.

at Great Bay Gallery

25 Willand Drive, Somersworth NH

This will be a celebration of Reagan’s life

Featuring Videos:

 “The Wit of Ronald Reagan”

and one of his greatest speeches, “A Time for Choosing”

Food and door prize ticket with admission

Cash Bar  -  Raffle

Suggested donation - $20 per person/$35 per couple

ALL PROCEEDS WILL GO TO

EMT Zach Bourque and Vision International Missions

Republican Candidates for

Governor, Senate, and Congress will be invited to speak.

Other Republican candidates will be introduced.

RSVP

If you are unable to attend, donations may be made by email.

Posted by Skip at 9:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bet that got your attention, eh?  There is some logic to it when you ponder "why did the Stimulus bill, that was rushed through the process at the start of Obama's administration, delay its spending until, oh say, elections?"

What the hell? This man says last week that “we acted — immediately and aggressively” and this week says “by design, the bulk of the remaining 50 percent of Recovery Act funds will be deployed in the coming months of 2010.”

That is not immediately and aggressively. He says “one in ten Americans still cannot find work” but also says in his budget, “the Administration moved rapidly to sign into law, just 28 days after taking office, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Recovery Act) to create and save jobs, as well as transform the economy to compete in the 21st Century.” (Budget at p. 8)
Obama is trying to have it both ways. He admits his stimulus money is dragging out and that even after 18 months it won’t all be spent. At the same time, he tells the public at the State of the Union that the reasons there is still 10% unemployment is “bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn’t” and “Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.”

So between that and the sense of companies, big and small, that the prudent thing is to just hunker down and not "venture" out during this recession, no jobs.  That stance has arisen as the Obama Administration has pretty much every thing possible to tell companies "you have no idea what is coming next!".  Demonizing capitalism by bad mouthing the banks, taking over companies and industries, promising taxes up the yinyang, raising this cost and that cost and yet another cost by issuing policy statements and threatening ever more regulation after regulation; if I owned a company right now, the LAST thing I'd be doing would be adding the potential of much higher costs by hiring people.

Companies are not ATMs and they are not social services organizations.  Their one and only mission is to create profits.  

Given his bent towards socialist or outright self-avowed Communist advisers (e.g., Van Jones, those extolling Chairman Mao), what capitalist would want to add more risk to their portfolio with more potential "loss centers" (formerly called "employees")  courtesy of the Federal Government?

I can assure you all that this attempt at proving that a centralized "command and control" of an economy will not be any better than any other attempt in history.  When will the Progressives ever learn that a handful of people, no matter how smart they may be or think they are, can never match that of millions all looking to their own (and family) self-interests.

Posted by Skip at 8:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Once again, the Left wishes to redefine the language, making something to be that which it is not.  Obama at today's Town Hall event in Nashua, NH:

Relevant phrase concerning Cap N Tax Trade:

"...but the concept of incentivizing clean energy so its the cheaper, more effective kind of energy is one that is proven to work and is a market based approach..."

In the words of US House of Representative Joe Wilson: "You Lie!"

The take away that Obama wants everyone to keep in their head is simply a lie.  A market based solution is simply consumers interacting with producers of goods and services.  No one is coerced into either buying at a price that is too high according to their wants/needs or selling at a price that is too low for their costs / profit needs (and yes, without profits, there will be no producers).

What Obama, and other CapNTaxers use, gives the impression that this plan is just a normal function of the larger marketplace.  What Obama is going to do is artificially support, via our taxes, the price of "clean energy" (just like the Soviet Union did for its favored consumer goods to its people) and artificially raise, via higher taxes, the cost of fossil energy sources.

The "market based approach"?  Obama knows the truth - but does not dare to level with the citizenry.  This is nothing more than more obfuscation from Obama - just as he hid his true policies intent during the campaign, he once again is using words to hide the fact that he has no problem is sending the average American's energy costs sky rocketing.

(H/T: Planet Gore)

Posted by Skip at 8:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

And they wonder why much of the Obama Administration is opposed...

A new Research 2000 poll of more than 2,000 Republicans, conducted for the liberal blog Daily Kos, has some eyebrow-raising findings (emphasis mine):

• 63% of them believe President Obama is a socialist
• 53% believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama is
• 39% believe he should be impeached
• 36% believe he wasn't born in the United States
• 31% believe the president hates white people
• 24% believe the president wants the terrorists to win
• 23% believe their state should secede from the union
• 68% believe that Congress should not make it easier to form / join unions
• 55% believe that gays should not serve in the military
• 77% do not believe in gay marriage
• 68% believe that gay couples should not receive state or federal benefits
• 76% believe that abortion is murder
• 91% believe in the death penalty
  

I bet the results of this poll did not warm the cockles of the person who opened the wallet...

Happy campers, I bet!

Posted by Skip at 8:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In addition to Jim Bender (I missed Kelly Ayotte and Bill Binnie), I had the chance to yak with Ovide for a few minutes.  Given that we were pretty much the last people out of the facility, we did get interrupted by the crew as they were doing the breakdown of the gym-o-auditorium.  Thus, if it looks a bit choppy, well, that's how ad hoc interviews sometime go - stuff happens and voices waft in...

However, Ovide took it in good humor, and I appreciated him letting me delay him from going to his next event.

This interview was a bit different; while most of the talk during the day was about fiscal conservatism, I wanted to ask Ovide a more socially oriented question.  While most Conservatives on the right are unanimously in favor of fiscal sanity, it seems that the social issues may be the arena in which people's decisions may be made - else, where is there to make a decision amongst the candidates?  Ovide is a pro-life candidate; to him, the sanctity of life is one of his highest principles - of that he made sure of to let us know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJWKsqeADJo

Update: After putting this up, Ovide called me with what I thought was a valid point - I sometimes have cotton in my ears! His observation was that I may have misinterpreted his first answer on shutting down the hospitals if FOCA was passed. Thus, he has requested a change from "did not answer" (Skip, you chucklehead, he's right!) in the "transition screen" to more of a "clarification". After listening yet again, I'm agreeing with Ovide - which means more work later on tonight!

Apologies to Ovide - I will update the YouTube - when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Certainly, at 1:47 of the recording, he says that if the merger of Dartmouth and Catholic Medical meant that abortions would begin at CMC, he would not be working on this deal. His statement at 2:50 bolsters his claim that he answered the question, and at 4:00 he said it would fight it.

I will admit, being an engineer, I was looking for a simple Yes / No. Mea culpea for not picking it up out of a longer answer.

Posted by Skip at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was able to persuade two of the over 500 activists to spend a moment with me to get their reactions to the "festival" (I can't believe how many folks do NOT want to be recorded!). 

My thanks go to Sue Polidora:

and to Omer Ahern:

Posted by Skip at 11:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yup, just about done with posting the video and presentations; these two an a couple / few more micro-interviews.

Here, in two parts, STEWARD founder Fred Tausch speaks to the assembled crowd for a few minutes and then introduces Newt Gingrich.  I'll be posting up the other recording from the live stream, but beware that this first part (on the Flip cam) started a bit late as I was still struggling to get the live stream working in a stable fashion.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Posted by Skip at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Andrew Brietbart gave certainly gave a different kind of talk (I really can't call it a speech, as it was off the cuff, sometimes double backed on itself, went off into lots of tangents) that just about EVERYONE enjoyed.  Although it could have been called "jumble" (he admits to having ADD, and since TMEW, the Youngest and the Eldest all have diagnosed ADHD which has made life "interesting" at times), it WORKED!

Why? Most Conservatives, deep down and even if they cannot articulate it, know that the media is at cross-purposes with their foundational values - the same values that built this country but ones that the Progressives wish and are working hard to flip upside down (go ahead, ask me how!).  His message of "it is time to fight back and not roll over" hit a nerve - a big nerve; he got more standing O's than anyone else!

BLEG: Anyways, watch the video and listen - you kind of have to listen given that not possessing a nice rig, the Flip camera stayed at table level. And if you hold your nose and go "such poor production values, what a waste", then go to the DONATE button and pop a few bucks into it - and I'll buy the semi-pro rig that will do everything that I want!  AND, for anyone that does, I'll roll a credit post!

Part 1:

Or, keep praying that some day soon that TMEW will let me go bright eyed into the eBay or Amazon store.....

Part 2:

Posted by Skip at 8:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One cannot go to a political activism conference without bumping into those whose living depends on and around the political arena.  And, given the nature of the conference, this was no different.

First up is Mike Dennehy, a well know political consultant based here in NH (who is also serving as a consultant to STEWARD):

Then I had the chance to talk with Andy Leach, Executive Director of the NH GOP - a shy, retiring person who REALLY DID NOT want to be on camera - but relented after all:

Posted by Skip at 7:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had done my micro-interview with Pat here, so now it is time to post the video from his seminar. I have to admit, watching my Congresswoman, Carol Shea-Porter, used as an object lesson did my heart well (as in "politicians should really not be this lame?"):

I have asked Pat for a link to the actual video that Pat used in his presentation (it kinda hammered home the lesson over and over and over and...you get the idea).

In the meantime, to refresh your brain cells, try this.

Posted by Skip at 7:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I said earlier, part of NH Steward's Grassroots Communications Conference had a panel presentation with the four (so far) folks that are vying to be the Republican nominee for US Senate and former Gov. John Sununu moderating that discussion (the last event in the day).

I was able to corral only two of the candidates after the panel for basically a one question interview (there were a lot of folks that, given the nature of the event, wanted to talk to these candidates.  

The first was Jim Bender, a businessman who believes his business skills should earn your vote:

Posted by Skip at 6:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Andrew Hemingway at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)