Category — New Hampshire

You won’t here it often but I am happy Hillary won last night. Nothing pleases me more than the possibility of Hillary and Obama beating each other up for the next couple of months. I hope she ends up winning the nomination if only because I think she is more beatable in November.

As for the Republicans, I haven’t decided who to vote for yet but it was a definitely a disappointing night for Romney. Having said that, don’t believe the hype that he is severely wounded by this. He is actually leading the GOP delegate count at this point and has a lot more money than any of the other candidates. Even Michigan isn’t a make or break state considering it is an open primary where democrats and independents can skew the vote. In the end Republicans will decide who the nominee is and we will have a much clearer picture on February 5th.

Of course I will probably support whoever wins the nomination because almost any of the Republican candidates (excluding Ron Paul) would be better at defending this country than Hillary or Obama. As you can tell, National Security is the issue I care most about. Without that, the other issues don’t even exist.

A campaign thought on Iowa and NH.

Forget the early bird getting the worm.

The second mouse collects the cheese!

Abra-cadabra, Bibbity-Bobbity-Boo and Presto-Chango too!

Noted at another blog, and not verified for accuracy….the Donk debate at St Anselm’s in Manchester on Saturday tallied this use of the word “change”.

Edwards - 162 times

Clinton - 102 times

Obama - 108 times

Richardson - 31 times

All political oratory, especially of the campaign kind, is a dense aggregation of obtuse and prejudicial expressions and locutions. It isn’t intended to inform; its purpose is to confuse, generalize and to motivate people from the gut rather than the head.

As a conservative, I find lib-speak to be something other than language, a kind of incantation with infinitely flexible forms. “The people”, for instance, is broadly utilitarian to liberals. Used prudently, and in connection with what the people “want” (e.g. universal coverage), we can skirt the fact that “the people” also showed up in Red Square, at Kristallnacht and in Selma. They responded to the same compulsions, flogged along by the same sense of entitlement and deprivation manipulated by the flattering demagogue.

The people are a mighty beast, except, of course, when they respond to the siren song of liberals. Now people want “Change”, which is the boxed-and-released word-zombie in the progressive lexicon, because Change shambles out from time to time when the pheromone of discontent is in the air. Disgruntled? Worried about the future? Here’s your chance to sanctify your discontent. Ideologize your personal concerns and call for virtuous political “change”, not for yourself, but for all “the people”. Rot.

Progressives flutter over the idea of “change”, because they’ve appropriated all the successful social changes of the past 250 years as their own, even though the actors in those long-gone dramas wouldn’t abide the soft, mendacious poltroons who now claim to be their heirs.

Change is simply movement from one state to another; it means nothing by itself, but Hillary can get away with saying: “I’m not running on a promise of change. I’m running on 35 years of change”. There are more conceptual idiocies, lies and conceits per word in those two sentences than should be allowed by law, but leaving that fact alone, the sentences stand as a type of aspiration, a credential, a purple robe. Her husband had the same skill.

For that reason, Hillary Clinton will be the Democrat nominee. She can get away with such crap because the Donk Establishment is hypnotized by its own mumbo-jumbo, and because the guy who might actually CHANGE something, is Obama. They can’t have that. So stasis will become petrification, and the Democrats will lose next November.

This Suffolk University poll shows Mitt Romney up 29/25 on John McCain in NH. If it represents truth on the ground, Mitt’s commercial blitz against McCain might be having an impact. But keep this important fact in mind, the poll projects that more than 25% of the votes cast in the Republican Primary will actually come from independents. Those independents are projected to break overwhelming for McCain.

If this were a party only primary, McCain wouldn’t be a serious threat to anyone. Sadly, if McCain wins, the media will proclaim its favorite RHINO the front runner when in reality, his Republican support is thimble deep.

A McCain ticket might trounce its rival for the independent vote in November, but can it drive its own party to the polls? I don’t see the prospect of 4 more years of “compassionate” conservatism rebranded as the Straight Talk Express driving a huge turnout in November. And if the specter of another President Clinton isn’t lurking, say hello to President Barack Obama.

This is a new day, this is a new state!

This is the same old S***!

By the way New Hampshire, Seig Heil!

Anatomy of a political hangover

Listening to the promises made by the candidates, most overstep presidential powers and violate the Constitution. Tax law belongs to the House as does all money bills. Susurrations to the contrary, the President isn’t a King which makes the MSM anointments a futility in progress.

On Clinton–
Rush Limbaugh said last night was the worst night for Hillary since Bill’s second term. Not even close, people, for Communist Hillary, the election of Nixon crushed her ideals. Last night, this Alinsky drone’s pyloric valve seized in the open position, showing her true color.

You will never hear her expound upon her vision for the US. With Clinton, as Yoda said to Luke, “With you, it’s change, always change.” Her idea of change, abolishing the Constitution, doesn’t sound good on the hustings. Afterwards, the loud noise heard off screen was a boomer exploding.

On Edwards–
He wants to make your life better, but not quite the way he made his better. An envious man, he wishes to have more money than the collective you. To accomplish this end, everything will be free on his watch. Wait till you see what that costs. You will be verrucose in short order, waiting in line for universal medical relief. Then again, it would be kinder if he merely sued you. Under current tort laws, at least you keep your dignity.

On Obama–
Same droning sounds as from Silky. Different words used. Obama likes the word hope. We have hope. Hope we can make changes. Change is good for it gives us hope. He has no idea how the real world works. That will never prevent him from lurching into the breech. To give us hope for change, hopefully.

On Huckabee–
Having prodded GOP caucus goers with his RINO horn to get what he wanted, let us see how he dolls up the message for low denomination voters. I do not believe many NH voters place hands on the TV. Anyway, Huckabee is calling the NH primary, the Big Camp Meeting, can I get an AMEN.

On Romney–
Many questions need be asked of the Mitt. Does the U.S. deserve the type of government foisted on MA inmates? Do we need a “Big Dig” in every state? Why is the working population of MA shrinking? Why isn’t the illegal immigration population shrinking?
More to the point, which Mitt is running for office?

On McCain–
He is in the wrong party. That speaks to his good points. There isn’t room for the thought on the dark side.

On Paul–
Collaborating with the Donk moonbat Kucinich, both are investigating the appearance of illegal aliens at Groom Lake aka Area 51, instead of along the border and in meat packing plants. Art Bell is chairman of this primary of two.

On Thompson–
Not running hard while running, this makes one wonder, Wassup! If he keeps dissing the lame stream media, he may become the front-runner rather quickly. More of a Washingtonian politician (person, not place) he says it is about duty, not desire. We’ll see if this reaches fruition.

On the usual perennial weeds–
After signing up for campaign matching funds, they cash the check; spend a minimal amount on electioneering and pocket the rest. This is a common trope for most politicians, usually seen as groveling for power and re-election, and by the older politicians, sex in strange places with alien DNA types. Their attendance is for obfuscating purposes only, this heterophony helps shield the front-runners from real questions.

John McCain has real chutzpah naming his tour bus the “Straight Talk Express” with voter exchanges like this:

But at a campaign stop in Merrimack yesterday, a woman echoed the Romney attack, saying that she had heard McCain wanted to grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants already in the country.

“I’m not,” McCain told the woman.

“I was informed you were,” the woman said.

“You were misinformed,” McCain replied.

The mostly sympathetic crowd of several hundred people broke into applause.

There’s one little problem, John. You’ve embraced the amnesty term yourself a number of times:

The Politico reported that “McCain himself embraced the term [”amnesty”] during a news conference a few years ago in his office in Tucson, Arizona. “McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” reported the Tucson Citizen of May 29, 2003. The senator is quoted as saying: ‘Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it.’ The newspaper also quoted McCain as saying: ‘I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible and at the same time make sure that we have some control over people who come in and out of this country.’”

They don’t come much more pro-amnesty than John McCain. It’s only recently that the amnesty crew started playing semantic games to market this white elephant better. Now they prefer to call it “comprehensive immigration reform”. And if you still correctly refer to it as amnesty, they’ll call you a racist.

Hopefully, NH conservatives won’t setup another bruising immigration battle like we just had in the Senate by voting for McCain. Remember who the co-authors of that bill were? Now ask yourself, if John McCain and Ted Kennedy are on the same side of the immigration debate, how is McCain not pro-amnesty again?

The Boston Globe endorsement of John McCain should scare most conservative voters off his candidacy. But even if you didn’t have the damning evidence in the form of this endorsement, McCain is on the wrong side of too many big issues. He’s an enemy of free speech with his unwavering support of campaign finance reform laws. He’s pro-amnesty and will revive those disastrous proposals the second he’s elected. And he wouldn’t harm a hair on bin Laden’s to get valuable intelligence information out of him.

You can make electability arguments for McCain all you like, but like the 2 Bush’s before him, he’ll harm the conservative agenda far more than he’ll advance it.

The Boston Globe endorsement of Barack Obama isn’t surprising. However, if you’re a person who believes in electing a president with experience and accomplishments, the Globe endorsement is embarrassingly light in those respects.

As a public service, I’ve provided a moonbat to English translation for our readers:

America needs a president with an intuitive sense of the wider world, with all its perils and opportunities. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has this understanding at his core.

He’ll suck up to the UN.

Many have remarked on Obama’s extraordinary biography: that he is the biracial son of a father from Kenya and a mother who had him at 18

He’s an affirmative action hire.

that he was raised in the dynamic, multi-ethnic cultures of Hawaii and Indonesia

Oh, the many splendors of diversity!

the gritty and often thankless work of community organizing in Chicago

He was a moonbat without a job.

Similarly, his exposure to foreign lands as a child and his own complex racial identity have made him at ease with diversity - of point of view as well as race or religion.

I’ve been to Canada. Apparently, that would qualify me to be Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

He speaks with clarity and directness, and he is also a listener, a lost art in our politics.

Instead of waterboarding the terrorists, he’ll “listen” to them.

“I don’t oppose all wars,” he said in the fall of 2002. “I’m opposed to rash wars.”

Not exactly a deep thinker that Barack fellow.

His support for merit pay for teachers, or a cap on carbon emissions, suggests a healthy independence from the established order.

And since teacher pay is a local issue, he’d never get to implement it anyway. But thanks for the independence, Barack.

Obama’s critics, and even many who want to support him, worry about his relative lack of experience.

If you think the presidency is a good place for on the job training, then Barack’s your man. If putting a wholly unqualified moonbat in the White House scares you, then he’s not.

When the Democrats and RINOs tell you they need more tax revenues, ask them which tax they want to raise.

Not everyone pays all these taxes in every state; some states tax unprepared food, others like New Hampshire tax the scenic view you have from your property. To insult you further all tax, at some level, your view of the coffin lid. Politicians will look you in the eye and tell you most of these aren’t taxes, they’re fees for allowing you to exist.

This list is by no means definitive. Many more state and local “fees” are in place, limited only by the imagination of the “Elected Elite.”

• Accounts Receivable Tax
• Building Permit Tax
• CDL license Tax
• Cigarette Tax
• Corporate Income Tax
• Dog License Tax
• Excise Taxes
• Federal Income Tax
• Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
• Fishing License Tax
• Food License Tax
• Fuel Permit Tax
• Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
• Gross Receipts Tax
• Hunting License Tax
• Inheritance Tax
• Inventory Tax
• IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
• Liquor Tax
• Luxury Taxes
• Marriage License Tax
• Medicare Tax
• Personal Property Tax
• Property Tax
• Real Estate Tax
• Service Charge Tax
• Social Security Tax
• Road UsageTax
• Sales Tax
• Recreational Vehicle Tax
• School Tax
• State Income Tax
• State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
• Telephone Federal Excise Tax
• Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
• Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
• Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
• Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
• Telephone State and Local Tax
• Telephone Usage Charge Tax
• Utility Taxes
• Vehicle License Registration Tax
• Vehicle Sales Tax
• Watercraft Registration Tax
• Well Permit Tax
• Workers Compensation Tax

When you are unemployed, the tax on your unemployment check is a tax on a tax you all ready paid, same with worker’s comp.

Lock and Load!

 36 million drivers would flunk drivers tests

 Is it just your imagination, or do many of your fellow motorists lack even a rudimentary grasp of traffic laws?

Well, if a test administered by GMAC Insurance is any indication, one in six people cruising our highways and byways — roughly 36 million licensed drivers — would flunk their driver’s test if they had to take it today. Not only that, but based on the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test data the state with the most road-going dummies is New York, while the most knowledgeable ones are out West to Idaho. [snip]

Also of interest from the GMAC Insurance test:

• Drivers 35 and older were more likely to pass
• Illinois, Georgia, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Massachusetts were the least knowledgeable states overall, with average scores under 75 percent
• Fifty-five percent of the respondents didn’t know how many feet before making a left or right to signal. [snip]

The following state rankings were released for the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test:

• 1. Idaho.
• 2. Alaska
• 21.Vermont
• 36. Maine
• 37. New Hampshire
• 40. Connecticut
• 46. Pennsylvania
• 47. Rhode Island
• 48. Massachusetts
• 48. New Jersey
• 51. New York

After analyzing the article, before glancing at the list, I thought population was the key. That would place Wyoming first and Vermont second. Not so.

Perhaps, I reflected, the political belief system of the states held a clue. That appears to work for the bottom states, but didn’t vindicate Wisconsin at 4, Washington at 6, Oregon at 9 or Iowa at 10.

Given that the 2007 failure rate doubled to 18% from 2006, a reason exists. Combining both posits advances one conclusion.

I’ll let the reader ponder the possibilities for others.

Here’s an interesting AP headline: “Income gap increases fastest in New England”. Surely the AP jests. The benighted Northeast socialists wouldn’t allow such a thing to happen. I’m sure they really meant Florida. With no state income tax, they couldn’t be doing much for the poor, right? But the article confirms it:

The University of New Hampshire study found that Vermont had the second greatest change in income disparity in the country after Connecticut between 1989 and 2004, although the state was not among those with the largest gaps.

“It surprised me,” said the study’s author, Ross Gittell, of the Vermont data. “I think there has been a takeoff at the top and a hollowing of the middle class,” said the professor at UNH’s Whittemore School of Business and Economics.

It must be the shrinking middle class’ fault because it couldn’t be liberal policies, right? The Northeast states just haven’t “helped” enough. Their next suggestion will be more taxes to even out the disparity. But Mr. Gittell missed an alternate cause that is far more compelling.

Perhaps the “hollowing out of the middle class” has more to do with the fact that they can no longer afford to live in the Northeast. Just maybe those liberal tax policies aren’t all that helpful, and their negative effect on economic growth and regional affordability drove the middle class to greener pastures. The 2000 Congressional reapportionment certainly adds credibility to my argument:

See any pattern for liberal and conservative states? The so called Blue states are losing Congressional seats and population as the middle class moves to economically vibrant and growing areas of the country. The states benefiting from the shift just happen to be the so called Red states. The New England middle class is voting with its feet as regressive New England tax policies make the region unaffordable and unattractive. Get used to it. It’s a trend that won’t be reversing itself anytime soon.

This group of “orators” will delay winter by 2½ months and may trigger a minor case of global warming.

“Obama Will Win Iowa Caucus,” says he.

Everyone says Hilary will win in NH. The poll surveyed 1,512 registered New Hampshire voters, which is ¾ of the state’s population, giving no margin of error.

Edwards says all voters love him, except for those that don’t.

Dodd says he will sweep up in the primaries as soon as he can find a broom

Kucinich says, “I can bankrupt the country faster than any other candidate!”

This chain of hotels dedicates space to these presidential cadets for twice the price in all primary states, but includes inoculations against hepatitis A, hepatitis B, tetanus, diphtheria, influenza, Dengue fever and Lockjaw, plus STD’s.

Kucinich averred, “The shots for the STD’s are most important since we’re screwing everybody.”

In the non-primary states, they will stay at the “Pile Inn.” Probably all in the same room.

The Illiberal College
Elite academia doesn’t like oversight.Sunday, September 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

One of the more momentous cases in Supreme Court history, Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), involved an attempt by the state of New Hampshire to wrest control of the privately chartered school from its board of trustees. But a corporate charter like Dartmouth’s, the Marshall Court ruled, is the same as a private contract; the state could not simply annex the school.
The sanctity of contract has preserved the independence of not a few colleges and universities. But institutions of higher learning now shy from the same oversight their faculties have demanded of the corporate world, and some of the lessons learned in that 1819 case are being unlearned. [snip]

The candidates for elected trusteeships have traditionally been vetted by a small committee, ensuring quiescence. Over the last four years, however, no fewer than four reform-minded candidates won seats on the board using a provision allowing nomination by petition. They include Silicon Valley CEO T.J. Rodgers and Virginia law professor Stephen Smith, who have raised the profile of such issues as academic standards, bureaucratic bloat and free speech.

Their presence has proven to be a tremendous offense to Dartmouth’s inner circles. Like administrators at most universities, these academic elites expect only money–not opinion and oversight–from their alumni donors. A year ago, the administration worked with a small committee of alumni to alter the petition process to make it less likely that outsiders could win. They lost in a rout in an alumni referendum. [snip]

Should the board decide to vitiate Dartmouth’s own experiment in democracy, it…will be one more sign of a widening crevice between the real world and life on the nation’s campuses.

The endowments of the 25 wealthiest institutions of higher learning total $178 billion, and a college education is one of the largest investments a person will ever make (in tuition and donations as an alumnus). It isn’t a surprise that alumni stakeholders have begun to show interest and exert influence. The only surprise is the lengths to which academic elites will go in order to keep out the light of day.

The pointy-heads feel they are exempt from any of the strictures controlling mortal individuals.

With the sniffing pomposity of a cart pushing baglady, they’re offended when the secular see them for what they are, not as they see themselves. Comeuppances discombobulate the nobility when the serfs divulge they’re sans culottes.

Having the faculty’s caskets open when the sunlight of outside governance streams into council chambers produces the ambiance of a Vermont outhouse seat in February.

If only they freeze it off!

Getting Licensed to Death

The Reason Foundation just issued a state-by-state study on the number of occupations that require a government license.

The regulatory intrusion in the free market is evidenced by the lead paragraph of Reason’s press release:

Do you want to be a fortune teller in Maryland? Your future better include a license from the state. How about being a hair braider in Mississippi? You’ll need 300 to 1,500 hours of training and government permission. Want to sell flowers in Louisiana? Only licensed florists can do that. And almost every state requires certification if you want to move furniture and hang art while calling yourself an interior designer.

These are not licenses, they are fees (taxes) placed on various businesses. Those businesses that truly need certification have licensing boards set up composed of members of the specific profession or trade. Some require specific schooling (college is not specific schooling) such as Medical or Dental apprenticeship, while some require passing an exam. Most are arbitrary, bordering on state sanctioned scams.

Anecdotally, when I had my construction company in NY, the county instituted a licensing program to “protect” the public. What I could competently do on the 31^st of the month, I was unable to do by fiat on the 1^st of the next month. No test, no questions about acumen or duration of the business; pay the $100 and they mailed the license. The license covered banging nails, sheetrocking and taping, etc. Additionally,I held a Master Electrician license presented by a board of electrical inspectors. That required oral and written presentations.

Here are the top hostile states and the number of occupations requiring a license:

1. California (177)

2. Connecticut (155)

3. Maine (134)

4. New Hampshire (130)

5. Arkansas (128)

6. Michigan (116)

7. Rhode Island (116)

8. New Jersey (114)

9. Wisconsin (111)

10.Tennessee (110)

12.Massachusetts (107)

15. Vermont (107)

“Most of these licensing requirements are completely arbitrary,” said Adam B. Summers, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and author of the report. “You see that clearly when examining neighboring states. California has 177 job categories licensed. But if you take one step across the state line into Arizona just 72 careers are licensed. In North Carolina you need a license to do 107 jobs. Next door in South Carolina, only 60 jobs require certification.”

Proponents claim these licensing requirements are needed to protect the public from unscrupulous, incompetent, or dangerous practitioners. However, numerous studies show these laws actually reduce consumer protection and public safety, according to the Reason Foundation report.

“These laws are created under the guise of ‘helping’ consumers,” Summers said. “In reality, the laws are helping existing businesses keep out competition, restricting consumer choice, destroying entrepreneurship, and driving up prices.”

Full Report Online
The full study, Occupational Licensing: Ranking the States and Exploring Alternatives, is available online at www.reason.org/ps361.pdf.