New Hampshire Legislator: We Need to ‘Restrict Freedoms’ of Conservatives

A New Hampshire legislator wants her constituents to know that she feels conservatives are the “single biggest threat” her state faces today and she wants to use her powers to legislate to “pass measures that will restrict” the freedoms of Granite State conservatives.

In a blog post made last month on the left-wing site Blue Hampshire, 3rd District State Representative, Democrat Cynthia Chase advised her fellow legislators to use their positions to make New Hampshire less welcoming to any conservative or libertarian planning on moving to her state not to mention those already in residence.

For those unaware, a conservative project of sorts has been underway in New Hampshire since 2001. The idea is that Americans of conservative ideals are to move to New Hampshire, gather in communities, run for office, and work to drive the state toward libertarianism and conservatism. It is called the “Free State Project” and adherents are called “Free Staters.”

These Free Staters figure that the state’s motto, “Live Free or Die,” should really mean something and it is these citizens whose freedoms legislator Chase wants to oppress.

In her December 21 post, Chase wrote that, “Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today.”

“In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the ‘freedoms’ that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming.”

Of course, it is one thing to be a proponent of laws that might have the unintended consequences of restricting others’ freedoms. If one truly believes in such policies, well, they may be disastrously wrong, but at least they’d be honestly wrong. A fine point, to be sure.

But here we have a legislator that doesn’t just want to pass laws that are tangentially restrictive. She wants to purposefully use her powers to write laws to target individuals with whom she disagrees, take away their freedoms and liberties, and all in the hopes that the citizens she is oppressing might move away from her state.

As New Hampshirite Steve MacDonald notes, “this sounds like tyranny.”

Imagine if a legislator had written a blog post targeting the freedoms of gays, or women, or some other minority? One would think that the media would go wild with such a story. But here we have an elected official suggesting that government be used in the United States of America to eliminate freedoms for certain citizens in order to gain political control and the media is silent.

Sounds like tyranny, indeed.

Nancy Pelosi Defends Doctored 'Diversity' Photo of House Democrats
Forget The Tax Divorce, How About The Benefits Divorce?
  • ackwired

    “One way is to pass measures that will restrict the ‘freedoms’ that they think they will find here”

    I guess this could be interpreted to mean that she only wants to limit the freedoms of conservatives and libertarians. But it sounds to me like she wants to restrict the freedoms of everyone in New Hampshire to make it less welcoming to those who love liberty.

    • jim_m

      You’re probably correct. The typical lefty modus operandi is to use the actions of a very tiny few to remove the rights of everyone. Why restrict the rigths of the few when you can do so for everyone and then simply refuse to enforce that suppression on those whom you choose?

      This also has the benefit that your lackeys are enjoying the freedoms that others are forbidden and when hey are no longer useful to you, you can imprison them for violating the law you were neglecting to enforce.

      I just wonder when the left will drop the pretense that they aren’t a bunch of fascists. Last year a dem governor suggested suspension of elections. Other lefties in the media have suggested making obama dictator, now dem politicians are suggesting removing civil rights in order to control political opponents.

      • Hugh_G

        YES!!! The dictatorship of the proletariat shall return!

  • Hugh_G

    Finally, someone has the right idea.

    • Sky__Captain

      You realize that if the moderators felt that way about liberals, you would have been permanently banned long ago.

      And in your cause, that would be “the right idea”.

      However, I do not support that because we should always have liberals post here, if only to serve as a warning to others.

      • Hugh_G

        Oh wow. Aren’t you the righteous, generous one? Thank you thank you thank you for your tolerance.

        • herddog505

          Perhaps you can learn a lesson from it.

          Or… probably not.

      • retired.military

        I disagree about Hugh deserving to be banned. he doesnt cry racism at the drop of a hat. He does get smarmy a lot but if you speak with him decently he generally returns it. At least that is how I have found him.

      • retired.military

        I disagree about Hugh deserving to be banned. he doesnt cry racism at the drop of a hat. He does get smarmy a lot but if you speak with him decently he generally returns it. At least that is how I have found him.

    • Of course you think that. However, were a conservative politician to say something like that about libtards like yourself, your outrage would be palpable.

      • Hugh_G

        No, I’d take is as a sarcastic comment and I’d chuckle.

        But then I’m retarded according to you.

    • And that you’d approve of it tells us a lot about you. “Freedom for me, but take away the liberty of those I disagree with” much? As Sky_Captain posts – following your line of thought would have had you banned a long time ago.

      Freedom is messy stuff. All those ideas floating around – and what do you do if you don’t LIKE one of them? Why, the very idea that someone might disagree with you is so intolerable for some that they seek any means necessary to silence the disturbance. All you’ve got to do is look on the leftie sites like DU, ThinkProgress (a misnomer if there ever was one, not much thinking and no progress…) and HuffPo – shout down and delete those who dare challenge the groupthink consensus.

      The little insular bubble must be kept clean, after all. You can’t just IGNORE them, after all – others might see the dissenting idea and be corrupted.

      So – when you moving into Chase’s district?

      • Hugh_G

        Oh for Christ’s sake lighten up. Geez.

        Do you ever read the things some of your fellow thinkers write about liberals here? Either you don’t, which would make you a liar, or quit throwing stones because you live in a glass house. This place reeks with loathing of anything anyone thinks who thinks differently than the right wing.

        There’s nothing that beats the faux outrage of the likes of you.

        • You seem, like so many, to confuse disagreement with dislike or hate or loathing. They’re not the same – why do you pretend they are? So you can come in like an avenging asshole, demonstrate how morally superior you are, and then leave after insulting others?

          (I’ve never been able to understand that – if liberal positions are so self-evidently superior, how do you think continually insulting people will get them to impartially examine the issue, and even possibly admit you’re right? Seems to me sometimes that you’d rather they be pissed at you, just for the sheer fun of being able to be obnoxious.)

          Or can it be you really CAN’T think that people might disagree with your points of view WITHOUT there being a lot of loathing or hate involved?

          • Hugh_G

            No I don’t. There is disagreement and there is hate and loathing. I guess you really don’t read others posts.

            For what it’s worth, which is probably nothing, you tend to just disagree.

          • I read quite a few of them – but I only comment on those I’m interested in, or find the discussion interesting. – or find the reactions interesting.

            Here’s another question for you – do you think it’s right, moral, and correct for a politician to attempt to control population of a state by enacting laws designed to ‘discourage’ certain classes of people from moving there?

            (I’ll posit that what’s happening in California, with the evil Capitalists pulling up stakes and moving out to more business-friendly areas of the country is more of an example of unintended consequences than any actual plan for an encouraged expulsion.)

          • Hugh_G

            Of course I don’t.

            Here’s the rub. We have goofballs with goofball ideas. You have goofballs with goofball ideas. But fundamentally dishonest writers such as Huston take an issue and make it into something it isn’t. Yes, there are writers on the left who do so also.

            As for California, that’s representative government at its best isn’t it? There are too many people needing too many things for those capitalists to run away. Bottom line, if the FSB folks get enough votes to be the majority they can enact their philosophical ideas of government. That’s what we do here in the USA.

          • “Of course I don’t.”

            Then you forgot to close with a /sarc tag. 😉

            “There are too many people needing too many things for those capitalists to run away.”

            Voting with your feet is always an option. Put in the minimal amount of resources that will supply the need, then pull out everything else that can be moved.

            Relocation Expert Warns California’s Tax Hikes will push out more businesses.


            Report: 254 companies left California in 2011


            Comcast Closes All Call Centers and Moves 1000 Jobs Out Of California


            1000 jobs = 1000 taxpayers. Not all that much (with national annual deficits running in the trillion range, and CA deficits in the billions) but it ain’t pocket change, either.

            And so the law of unintended consequences rears its head and bites hard. “We need more revenue, so we’ll increase state taxes – but then the companies bug out so we can’t collect taxes and now we’ve got unemployment to pay – so we need more revenue! So the only option is to raise taxes again…”

            And express amazement when revenues don’t rise as projected, or even fall because the folks who would pay it just pack up and move out.

            I’m enjoying this conversation, BTW – thank you.

          • Hugh_G

            In the futureI will use the tag. Thanks for pointing that out to me. As you know I am a liberal. My gut reaction was to see the whole idea as funny (disrespecting the FBS folks) and to then make a wisecrack. Point made and taken. By the way I also think the legislator’s idea is goofy.

            I agree that voting with your feet is an option. My only point about California is that’s what they chose. And yes they will live with the consequences. I just don’t think the money will pour out of the state. But I guess only time will tell that.

          • herddog505

            Let’s talk about “hate” for a moment.

            I hate lefty policies. I mean, I f*cking despise them. The sight of many lefty politicians – Barry, SanFran Nan, Trashcan Chuckie, et al – makes my gorge rise. So, one could fairly say that I HATE lefties.

            But here’s the trick: I understand the concept of rights (and a civilized society, for that matter) so that, aside from grousing on a blog or e-mail, I don’t do anything about it. I hope and pray that it would never occur to me to do as this disgusting harridan, Chase, has done and deliberately set out to use the power of government to f*ck over people with whom I politically disagree. Similarly, it would never occur to me to do something like publish the names and personal information of people who vote democrat (something FAR more destructive to our country and people than owning a gun).

            Lefties, it seems, have no such understanding and no such ethical qualms. Indeed, they’ve made something of an art out of their ability to portray their hate as an outright virtue: “We are intolerant of intolerance!”

            F*ck ’em.

            And, frankly, f*ck the people who’ve made “hate” some sort of sin. Hate is normal. It can certainly be ugly (“I hate those people because they look different than me”), but it can also be useful (“I hate nazis and communists”). Demonizing an emotion is just another lefty tactic to get their way, in my opinion, along with demonizing certain words or ideas. In short, it’s not about “free speech” anymore: they don’t even want you to have free THOUGHT.

          • Hugh_G

            Take some meds, it might help. But then again….. I swear I’m not demonizing you.

          • “But here’s the trick: I understand the concept of rights (and a civilized society, for that matter) so that, aside from grousing on a blog or e-mail, I don’t do anything about it. I hope and pray that it would never occur to me to do as this disgusting harridan, Chase, has done and deliberately set out to use the power of government to f*ck over people with whom I politically disagree.”

            That’s the big thing. To use your ‘hate’ as a justification for what you do to discourage or oppress others is reprehensible – no better than folks who hate others because their skin color is different. There’s a big difference between judging someone by their actions and deciding on your response than a knee-jerk reaction to something like being told someone’s a conservative or liberal.

            We’re still a long way from MLK’s dream of people being judged by the content of their character, I’m afraid.

            “Similarly, it would never occur to me to do something like publish the names and personal information of people who vote democrat (something FAR more destructive to our country and people than owning a gun).”

            Because, for all your ‘hate’ – you’re judging the people as individuals, not as a ‘group’ that has to be controlled. I sure don’t like what Obama’s done – he’s showing himself to be clueless as hell. Reid and Pelosi are likely psychopaths who’ve learned the first rule of politics – once you learn to fake sincerity, you can persuade folks to do damn near anything.

            “In short, it’s not about “free speech” anymore: they don’t even want you to have free THOUGHT.”

            Isn’t that what the ‘politically correct’ movement has tried to do? Limit the thoughts that were expressible, in the apparent hope that (as in Orwell’s 1984) if the thoughts couldn’t be expressed, the concepts would eventually die?

            Like I said – freedom is messy, chaotic, and uncomfortable. And the ‘intolerance’ that a lot of so-called liberals show to those who don’t agree with their points of view is hypocritical at best, and at the least shows just how willing they are to give up freedom of speech for a sense of comfort..

          • herddog505

            JLawson[T]he ‘intolerance’ that a lot of so-called liberals show to those who don’t agree with their points of view is hypocritical at best, and at the least shows just how willing they are to give up freedom of speech for a sense of comfort.

            I don’t think it’s a sense of comfort so much as that fact that (to borrow from Tears for Fears) everybody wants to rule the world.

          • Perhaps. As I said, ‘at the least’. There’s a major control element there – and if you want to keep your environment comfortable, you want to be able to control it.

            Most folks are happy with just controlling their thermostats… and their own lives. Liberals just take the concept a whole lot further…

          • Brucehenry

            So it would never occur to you to use the power of government to fuck over people with whom you disagree politically?

            Well, how about if those folks were gay and wished to marry?

          • jim_m

            If gays are feeling screwed over on gay marriage it isn’t because the right has used the power of government to screw them it is because 1000’s of years of human society have already done that.

            Gays are the ones asking to redefine marriage. Ie: THEY are the ones wanting to use the power of government to change that to suit their ideology and screw over people who disagree with them.

            So what you are really telling us is that while many people might think about using government power to screw over the other side, only the left actually seeks to do it.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, “marriage” used to mean, “You give me six goats and I’ll give you my daughter.”

            Then, later, it meant, “Let’s your family and mine form a political/economic alliance. Your son can marry my daughter, I’ll give a dowry, and our grandchildren will be more powerful than we are.”

            Still later, it meant, “I’ll take this girl off your hands. She’ll become my virtual chattel, but will be taken care of. She’s a useless mouth for you to feed anyway.”

            It’s only in the past hundred and fifty years or so that many marriages became matters of “love.” What gay-marriage advocates are proposing is no more a redefinition of marriage than what history has already accomplished.

          • jim_m

            Really? Since when has marriage ever meant anything concerning two people of the same sex?

            You may claim that the social dynamic and societal understanding of the roles within marriage have changed and we would agree, but nothing has changed about who that relationship is between.

            Regardless of the nature of the roles in marriage or how marriage was contracted it has always been between an man and a woman, not between two men or two women.

            No matter how you attempt to twist reality to support your views it doesn’t fit.

            Even if I agreed with you on the marriage definition thing, the point is that it is not conservatives who are trying to get government to impose their beliefs on others. The conservative belief is congruent with the societal norm for millennia. It is the left who seek to use the power of government to impose their new definition on others. The change being forced is from the left not the right.

          • Brucehenry

            Gays are not attempting to make others marry people of the same sex. Conservatives ARE attempting, through state and federal constitutional amendments, to make gay people marry a person of a different sex if they are going to marry at all.

            Also, the conservative belief that was congruent with societal norms for milennia was that chattel slavery was OK. Was it?

          • jim_m

            Once again you deliberately miss the point. Gays are demanding that others change the definition of marriage, that others accept their relationships as marriages, when their relationships have never been considered anything of the sort.

            Gay relationships are just scant decades from being taboo in the US and they are still taboo in most of the world. The change being demanded is from the gay community, to impose upon the rest of society a new definition of marriage that society is unwilling and unready to accept.

            As for slavery, I seem to recall that the GOP was founded on an abolitionist platform and that the dems were the party that composed the entire CSA government. Don’t go telling me who believes what with regard to race and slavery when you are unwilling to acknowledge that basic fact.

          • Brucehenry

            And don’t go dragging dems vs reps into it either.

            Gays are not demanding that others change their own definitions of what constitutes their own concept of marriage. Gays are asking that others mind their own business.

            The civil rights movement demanded that white Southerners accept a new definition of equality that white Southern society was, for the most part, unwilling and unready to accept. The civil rights movement was in the right.

          • “Gays are asking that others mind their own business.”

            Don’t MAKE it my business, won’t BE my business.

            Just sayin’…

          • Brucehenry

            Opposing constitutional amendments which decree that, by law, one does not enjoy the right to marry the person one chooses to marry, as others do, is “making it your business”?

          • There has been a lot of progress in the concept of gay rights in the last 30-40 years. There will be a lot more to come, with patience. It took decades to go from the Emancipation Proclamation to the Civil Rights struggles of the ’60s, to where we are now. In another 20-30 years, it’ll be seen as no big thing at all. Which is as it should be, because it isn’t.

            But patience is a hard thing to learn – so the urge to ‘grab for it all’, so to speak, is strong. Getting in the ‘haters’ faces pisses them off and engenders resistance. And no – I wouldn’t vote for any amendment like that. All our amendments (aside from the 19th, and some procedural/bureaucratic ones) enumerated freedoms – not restrictions.

            Besides – “Slowly, slowly catchee monkey”.


          • Brucehenry

            In a civil rights context, that’s Booker T Washington v WEB DuBois.

          • We need more B.T. Washingtons, G.W. Carvers, and WEB DuBoises (or whatever the plural would be…) and fewer Sharptons, Jacksons and Farrakhans, but that’s just me.

          • Brucehenry

            Washington was considered very dangerous by many (not all) in the white establishment. DuBois was imprisoned several times.

            But I agree that Sharpton, Farrakhan, and Jackson are not of the same caliber as those you mention.

          • And who says we can’t agree on stuff? LOL…

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, but what I meant to say was that many were counseling the “go more slowly” approach as late as the 1950s and 60s, even the 70s. If King and other leaders of the movement had listened to those counseling that approach, I might still be living in the segregated South.

          • You can only hold back social pressure on an issue for so long – and there was a lot building up re segregation and equal rights.

            To use a plumbing/hydraulic analogy, I think there’s a certain point where the actuator (we’ll call it ‘social change’) gets enough pressure from the system to actually move. There was a LOT of pressure for civil rights – and again, rightly so. It had built up a lot over the centuries of slavery and the time after the Civil War. When that pressure was properly directed, the actuator moved quickly (as far as social causes go), with the results we’ve got today.

            But there’s nowhere near the social pressure needed to force QUICK change re gay marriage. There’s no real force behind it, and the actuator’s rather sluggishly inching along. The activists are desperately trying to install legal pumps (or legislation) to raise the pressure or even pull on the actuator – and they’re not worried whether the rest of the system might develop ‘leaks’ which won’t increase the outlet flow, or maybe even keep the actuator from moving altogether.

            (I’m even thinking there’s a good deal of pressure re gun rights, but that’s for a different time. I’ll have to think about this concept a bit more – first time I’ve looked at the idea of social pressures on an issue to be similar to a hydraulic system. (You’ve got pumps, lines, actuators, reservoirs… hmmm….)

            You know, I really prefer an exchange of ideas to an exchange of angry insults… Thanks for doing this.

          • jim_m

            The civil rights movement was in on the right.


          • Brucehenry

            Well, that’s just silly and inaccurate, but also irrelevant.

            Whether the civil rights movement was of “the left” or “the right,” it imposed upon white Southern society a new order which it was unwilling and unready to accept.

            Did it not?

          • jim_m

            Well, that’s just silly and inaccurate

            Only for people ignorant of history. I suppose you really believe that Lincoln was a democrat. I suppose you believe that it was the GOP that filibustered the anti lynching laws in the 1920’s, that filibustered the civil rights act, that opposed the creation of the Civil Rights Commission, whose governors stood in the schoolhouse door, whose people were lynched for trying to register blacks to vote, who created the KKK…

            Yep. Your side has just covered itself in righteousness with regard to civil rights.

          • Brucehenry

            Again, not getting into the whole Republicans=right, Dems=left nonsense. The concepts of left and right weren’t equivalent 150, 100, or even really 75 years ago. Irrelevant.

            If you think Lincoln was a man “of the right” and Hitler was a man “of the left,” fine, I’m not arguing that crap with you anymore. Let’s move on.

          • jim_m

            You know I was thinking about this and it amuses me that you have such an easy time claiming that the right has more in common with the democratic party of 1860 and you still regard as completely invalid the suggestion that the left bears more resemblance to mid 20th century fascism. You accept without question that change in one direction is possible but refuse to consider the notion that change the other way is even possible.

          • Brucehenry

            That may be an argument for a different day, Jim, but I ain’t in the mood.

            However, I WILL ask, did J Edgar Hoover think that the SCLC was a phenomenon of the right, or did he think, as did many conservatives of the time (and since) that it was riddled with Communists?

          • jim_m

            So you are willing to admit that the appellation of “left wing” or “liberal” really is inappropriate for the democratic party and that these appellations are really founded not in their current beliefs or positions but in historical positions that reflect what they believed in and stood for 30 years ago.

            I think he accused them of being communists because that was a useful way to get what he wanted.

          • Brucehenry

            Ummm, no…

            As I said, some other time for the Reps = right, Dems = left thingie.

          • jim_m

            Very well. We can take it up another time. See my comment about equal protection and thanks for the praise on reductio ad absurdum

          • We won’t even talk about the Muslim response to homosexuality – which seems to involve death in far too many cases…

          • jim_m

            Oh, but the left is OK with the muslims putting gays to death. They are also OK with muslims beating their wives and with the muslim slave trade which is at its greatest extent in over a century. They are also OK with selective sex abortion to eliminate millions of baby girls.

            So don’t worry about the left bringing it up. They won’t. The silly thing is believing that they actually give a damn about gays or women or anyone else but themselves.

          • I’m going to disagree with you there. I think they DO care – but they see the Muslim culture as something that they’re not going to be able to change no matter how much they protest. Why waste effort (or even much thought) on something you can’t do anything about… and you’d be accused of cultural bigotry for even suggesting that the problem be examined?

            So they do care – but not enough to take the risk.

          • jim_m

            I would say instead that they see muslim culture as something other than American culture and therefore unassailable since criticism of other cultures is taboo. This exempts them from having to make any critical distinctions about anyone other than the Americans they loathe.

          • As I said… “Why waste effort (or even much thought) on something you can’t do anything about… and you’d be accused of cultural bigotry for even suggesting that the problem be examined?”

            Put a big “Not My Problem” label on it, along with a “Do Not Disturb” sticker.

            See? Problem solved!

          • jim_m

            Except that it points out their hypocrisy. That they really don’t care about the principles of freedom or liberty. What they care about is imposing their will.

          • Vagabond661

            Why not make civil unions equal to a marriage? If one gay person wants to spend the rest of their life with another gay person, so be it.

            Why does it HAVE to be in a church?

          • Brucehenry

            It doesn’t, and nobody is claiming that it does, that I’m aware of. I know of no proposed law allowing gay marriage that DOESN’T include language protecting churches from being forced to bless marriages of which they don’t approve.

            To answer your first question, you should ask the authors of NC’s newest constitutional amendment. It SPECIFICALLY forbids same-sex civil unions as well as marriages.

          • jim_m

            Actually Bruce, your side is demanding that it must be in a church.

            a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on the church’s grounds.

            THey are also demanding that if you have a religious objection to gay marriage that if you are a photographer, or a florist, or a caterer or anything having to do with marriage that you must be coerced through the government to cater to their ideology.

          • Brucehenry

            I see this is a blockquote, where’s the link?

          • jim_m

            I edited the article to include a link, not from where I quoted but from where the article quoted links. It is a fuller description of the issue.

            The point is that these things are happening.

            The photographer case for instance:

            On January 28, 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission heard the case of Vanessa Willock v. Elane Photography.

            Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: “We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!”

            Willock filed a complaint, and at the hearing she explained how she felt.

            “A variety of emotions,” she said, holding back tears. “There was a shock and anger and fear. … We were planning a very happy day for us, and we’re being met with hatred. That’s how it felt.”

            So the approach of the gay community is that even a polite refusal to support their lifestyle choice is a hate crime and should be punished by the state.

            Sorry, but no one has the right to never have their feelings hurt.

          • Brucehenry

            I see your point, but what if the couple in question was an opposite-sex interracial couple? What if the photographer had politely told them it doesn’t take pictures of interracial weddings?

          • jim_m

            What if the photographer had politely told them it doesn’t take pictures of interracial weddings?

            It still isn’t “being met with hate.” A polite response tends to preclude the idea of being met with hate.

            And for right now I would say that race is a protected class under the constitution whereas sexuality is not.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, I certainly agree that it didn’t seem like hate to me, but that doesn’t mean the plaintiff’s whole case is invalid.

            But if a lunch counter owner had politely told black people, “I’m very sorry, but we simply don’t serve colored folks here,” would that be okay? I mean, as long as he was REAL polite, and didn’t raise his voice or nothin’?

          • jim_m

            Of course not because the law precludes that and the law is founded on a constitutional right. The difference is that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, I’m pretty sure that that’s what the argument’s about. Some say there is and some say there ain’t.

          • jim_m

            I’m having a hard time seeing where the Constitution says anything about sexuality. There is nothing about gays, lesbians, trasngenders or anything remotely similar.

          • Brucehenry

            There is nothing in the Constitution about lunch counters, either.

          • jim_m

            But there is about race and you know that was the point.

          • Brucehenry

            There is language in the Constitution about equal protection under the law “for all persons.”

          • jim_m

            Equal protection does not mean that I have the right to marry 13 women, or to marry 9 year old girls and have sex with them because they are my wife.

            I might believe that I have the right to polygamy because I have a constitutional right to equal protection, but equal protection does not mean that I get whatever I want, which is what you are proposing.

          • Brucehenry

            Master of reductio ad absurdum Jim M, ladies and gentlemen!

          • jim_m

            Hey, You’re the one claiming that “equal protection” is the way to justify gay marriage. I’m merely pointing out that if you accept that then you must accept a heck of a lot more. Of course, you being a lefty, you don’t believe in equal application of the law, just in applying it to what you want when you want to.

            It’s important to consider what the ultimate extension of your reasoning could mean. You consider it absurd that a person would turn around and claim that if equal protection can be used to justify gay marriage that they should also be justified in polygamy or pedophilia by the same law. It is not absurd at all. In fact it is hardly an original idea. This is the shaky ground you tread when you start trying to find rights in the constitution that are not and never were intended to be in there.

          • Vagabond661

            Well ok then. I don’t agree with that one in NC. Naturally there should be some restrictions to civil unions. You can’t marry a goat, for example and/or it’s not a good idea to marry a relative because of the gene pool. But if two consenting gay people want to have a civil union, I would attend and wish them well.

            But getting back to to this:” I know of no proposed law allowing gay marriage that DOESN’T include language protecting churches from being forced to bless marriages of which they don’t approve.”

            Why does it have to be labeled as “marriage” when marriage is already defined as something else? Why not push the civil union issue? It seems more palatable than forcing everyone to redefine what already exists. And I have read stories where churches were lambasted for refusing to have have ceremonies in the church for gay churches.

          • Brucehenry

            In my opinion, it only HAS to be defined as “marriage” for purposes of law. If all marriages were also required to be civil unions to qualify for the legal benefits of marriage, I’d say fine.

            In other words, a church “marriage” would be fine, but all couple would ALSO have to be CIVILLY “married” to enjoy the legal rights and benefits of marriage.

            Or, alternatively, enact a law replacing all references to “marriage” in law with “civil union” instead.

          • jim_m

            I think here is one place where the French have stumbled into the truth. All marriages are contracted in a civil service and then afterward the couple may choose to have a religious ceremony. Create everything as a civil union and let religion do what it wants.

          • Vagabond661

            I like that idea but it could be construed as another tax

          • jim_m

            You already pay for a marriage license and there is a separate fee for a civil ceremony in my county. I see no difference.

          • Vagabond661

            If the civil union is included with the cost of the marriage license, yes. But i don’t see it stopping there.

          • Brucehenry


            But yet I hear the French are having their OWN debate about gay unions. Anybody know much about that?

          • $28124218

            It’s too bad there’s no such thing as civil marriage in the United States, eh, jim?

          • Vagabond661

            That’s why making civil unions equal to getting marriage is a good idea. The problem with labeling it as “marriage” opens the door to legal action when churches refuse. we have already seen the mess offering free birth control has called with religious institutions.

          • Vagabond661

            Marriage has always meant between a man and a woman. CEREMONIES however run the gamut.

          • Vagabond661

            To do that they need to screw over the rights of those whose religion prohibits such an action. I eat meat that is not kosher but I don’t demand that Jews eat meat that isn’t kosher.

          • Brucehenry

            And do Jews demand that you eat ONLY meat that is kosher, because THEIR scripture says that it shall be so?

          • Vagabond661

            I don’t follow your point. If I join their religion, I suppose they would.

          • Brucehenry

            Opponents of same sex marriage say that only marriages that fit THEIR criteria are valid. That is parallel to rabbis insisting that ONLY kosher meat should be available for public consumption.

          • jim_m

            That would be a decent parallel only if the only meat ever available for public consumption anywhere was kosher meat.

            The case with marriage is that the only kind of marriage ever available anywhere is between a man and a woman. The kosher parallel does not “meet” the same standard.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, I was attempting to use his analogy. No, not a perfect one.

          • jim_m

            What no credit for the meat pun?

          • Vagabond661

            Well correct in a way. Marriage is DEFINED in the dictionary between and man and a woman so it is society’s definition, not just churches.

            However, if you are going to get married in a church, it has to be by the rules of the church. When I got married we had to find another church because that church didn’t accept the pastor as a real pastor (they had a grudge). Instead of suing, we found another church.

            Maybe the equivalent of that would be instead of eating kosher meat (marriage), I could eat unkosher meat (civil unions).

          • herddog505

            An excellent point.

            On the other hand, I can see how gays would see it differently: “Look, just because we’ve been screwed over for centuries doesn’t make it right to keep doing it.”

          • Brucehenry

            That’s right. To use the admittedly imperfect example of chattel slavery, there were people in ancient fucking Greece who recognized that slavery was wrong. The fact that injustice was permitted to exist for thousands of years doesn’t mean that it wasn’t injustice.

          • $28124218

            So much for that live and let live libertarian philosophy.

          • herddog505

            I’ve stated in the past that, while the idea doesn’t drive me wild and I can see problems with it, what two consenting adults want to do generally is none of my business.

          • As long as they don’t do it in the street and scare the horses, so to speak…

          • Brucehenry


          • Unfortunately, I think a lot are tittilated by the concept of ‘freaking the mundanes’ – which DOES involve ‘doing it in the street’, so to speak.

          • Brucehenry

            And I respect that and applaud you for your open-mindedness. However, you are generally on the same side on most other issues as are those who endorse these amendments.

          • So? Does the liking for chocolate mint ice cream mandate you follow the feelings and beliefs of all the others who like it, regardless of what those feelings might be?

          • Brucehenry

            No, but it contributes to the regrettable tendency on the part of most liberals, including sometimes myself, to lump all conservatives together as benighted neanderthals. Can’t be helped, I suppose.

            But that’s why I come to Wizbang, to demonstrate to myself that conservatives DO have logical arguments to make, and to attempt to refute them when I think I can and should.

          • “Can’t be helped, I suppose.”

            Yes, it can. Do I see you as a benighted neanderthal? I see you as someone I can disagree with, but at least converse with about it.

            If you make an effort, it’s easy to take a supposed monolithic block (like ‘all conservatives’ or ‘all liberals’) and see there’s a lot more variation than you’ve allowed yourself to see before.

            However, there’s the Carls and Lee Wards… which I think are another class entirely. (I sometimes almost see them as exemplars and sheriffs of the left, demonstrating how you’re SUPPOSED to act as a liberal, and how you’re supposed to hate the right because… well, they don’t agree with you. But even then, they’re individuals.)

          • jim_m

            Here, here! Bruce can, for the most part, be conversed with. I am encouraged that Hugh has shown today that he can make an argument and have a reasonable discussion too.

          • herddog505

            On matters of national defense, spending, and law enforcement, I tend to be VERY conservative, and hence would naturally be in substantial accord with the other (mostly conservative) commenters and “owners” here. On things like homosexuality, drugs and other issues that involve people living their lives and not bothering anybody else, I tend toward libertarian.

            It’s mostly a matter of self-interest, I suppose: I don’t appreciate people messing with how I live my life, so it’s only fair to return the favor.

          • jim_m

            I’m still trying to figure out how it is the government screwing the gay community over by failing to impose a change in the marriage laws that they are agitating for. How is lack of government intervention to impose social change been twisted to become an act of oppression by government?

            To my mind this is just lefty newspeak. Society not changing to suit the desires of the left is not an act of oppression. So this cannot be using government to screw over the opposition since society has been set up this way for thousands of years. It isn’t a question of whether or not you agree with the concept of gay marriage. It simply is not a case where conservatives are using government to oppress anyone.

            To be oppressing someone through the use of government you have to be imposing some new sort of change or restriction on that group. There is nothing new being imposed upon anyone. What you are complaining about is a failure to impose something new on everyone else.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m speaking less of the pre-existence of marriage law than of the attempts to impose by statute or constitutional amendment an even more restrictive legal view of marriage, one which cannot be easily overturned in court. This is an active attempt, by conservatives, to impose their religious and social conventions on others who do not subscribe to those beliefs.

          • jim_m

            Marriage is a statutory issue. It is not a right. What you are demanding is to elevate a statutory issue to a right in order to impose your ideology upon a society that is unwilling to accept it on your time table.

            This was the mistake made with Roe v Wade. Society was not ready to make this decision so the left found a way to impose it. This has lead to unrest for 40 years. Of course that is what the left wants. Impose their will and create unrest which they can then use to whip up emotion. Its exploitation. Its deceitful. It is the tool of people opposed to democracy throughout history.

          • Brucehenry

            The ability to walk into any drugstore lunchcounter, as a black person, and be served as any other patron would be, was not a “right” until it became one — by statute.

            The Supreme Court, in Loving v Virginia, declared that marriage IS a right. It was, by statute, a right denied to interracial couples — until Loving v Virginia invalidated those statutes. Did the Republic fall?

          • jim_m

            I agree with your statement that some rights are granted by statute and that was my point. Some rights are inalienable rights and are ours by the fact that we are human beings. Others are not.

            I would disagree with the court if its decision was that only allowing gays to marry would satisfy the court’s sense of what the gay couple’s rights are. I also believe that there should be civil unions that allow for the same basic rights for gay couples in terms of inheritance, HIPAA, etc. I just don’t believe it should be imposed as marriage, especially since gays are using gay marriage laws as a club to punish people who disagree with their lifestyle.

            I do believe that eventually gay marriage will be accepted. I just don’t believe in imposing cultural choices by fiat.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, I find that most Wizbang commenters are less of the unreasoning social conservative variety and more of a live-and-let-live bent.

            So if I’ve implied anti-gay bigotry on the part of any commenter here I retract it. I hope I haven’t.

          • jim_m

            No you haven’t. But you have denied the fact that the imposition of the gay agenda sometimes is thuggish and oppressive and violative of people’s religious freedom.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL, okay, Jim.

          • jim_m

            I think that the problem is that the left sees their rights as inviolable, even the one’s that are not yet recognized and that everyone else’s rights should be subordinated to their own rights.

            That is the case with gay marriage. That is the case with abortion and contraception and obamacare.

          • You can manipulate people easily with emotion. It’s a lot harder to manipulate them with reason.

          • Par4Course

            Yes, marriage was invented and passed into law by people trying to screw over gays. That is certainly an enlightened and historically accurate view.

          • $28124218

            Oh, boy. Talk about the pot meeting the kettle. If the libertarian position is so superior, how do you think continually insulting people will get them to even engage in a discussion with you?

          • That’s an EXCELLENT question, isn’t it? I’m sure you’ve got an answer.

            BTW, I’m not a libertarian. I’m conservative on some issues, liberal on others.

        • 914

          The liberal dementia strikes again!

        • LiberalNightmare

          Its not that we dont like liberal ideas here Hugh.
          In fact, I find most of them to be mildly amusing.

          • Hugh_G

            As do I yours. Most amusing of all is Huston.

      • $28124218

        And you see absolutely no irony in what you just posted? The idea that anyone or any site dare oppose the sainted FSP is so deeply horrifying to you that you are ranting and raving about it in exactly the same way you’re accusing others of doing.

        • “Sainted”?

          These are people lawfully living their lives, and the representative wants to make things so ‘unfriendly’ in her area that folks won’t move there.

          And I’m sure the people already there will be REALLY happy with what she has to do to make sure the ‘wrong people’ don’t move into her area.

          Cause and effect, man. If you fuck things up to keep the riff-raff out, don’t be surprised if you’re out in the next election.

          • $28124218

            Could you point out what, exactly, the representative intends to do, and what rights of the fauxbertarian crowd she intends to eliminate? That’s a good lad.

          • I point to, exactly, what she said.

            “In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the “freedoms” that they think they will find here.”

            You want further plans, you can dive into the cesspool of her mind. That’s a good lad, suck up to those who would ‘make the environment’ unwelcoming to those who might move there, and maybe they’ll throw you a not-so-well gnawed bone off their table.

          • $28124218

            In other words, she has not listed a course of action, nor has she filed any legislation. You’re just whining because HOW DARE ANYONE CRITICIZE THE FSP???

          • I have her stated intentions. What is unclear about them? What – I’m supposed to have a memo detailing her three point plan?

            I’ve got it right here, come to think of it.

            1. Identify people I don’t want.
            2. Fuck up the area so they won’t move here.
            3. Profit!

            That good enough?

            I don’t much give a shit about the FSP – don’t believe I ever heard of them until this thread. (Which shows what a horrible, undercover threat they are, doesn’t it? Covert bastards…)

            What I do give a shit about is ANY elected official who would – in her own words – “make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave.”

            (Come to think about it – maybe that’s what Obama’s trying to do with our economy, to solve the illegal immigration problem. Wow – that’s BRILLIANT!) (/sarc)

            Why would any sane politician think such a thing would be acceptable to their constituency? “Hi – I’m going to make things worse for you folks so these other people I find icky won’t move here,” Man, is that a winning campaign strategy or WHAT?

          • herddog505

            What we’re seeing in your discussion is typical lefty excuse-making. It usually runs along these lines:

            1. Lefty says something outrageous, such as discussing how one can use the power of government to disuade “those people” moving into a given area, killing political opponents, etc.

            2. Lefty gets called on it. Let the excuses begin!

            a. “It was a joke / satire! C’mon, don’t you wingers have a sense of humor???”

            b. “There were no SPECIFICS offered, so it OBVIOUSLY wasn’t meant to be a real threat!” Usually, “specifics” is a highly elastic term: “He didn’t say what time he was going to beat you to death with a Louisville Slugger baseball bat outside your office on Monday the 8th, so he OBVIOUSLY didn’t mean it.”

            c. “It’s only one person. I mean, what can one person do?” (Lefties used similar excuses after 9-11: terrorism is supposedly not an “existential threat” to the United States, and so we don’t need to fight terrorists).

            d. “It’s just free speech! It’s just expressing an OPINION!” (Hilarious given the left’s general disdain for the Constitution)

            e. “Well, Republicans do it, too! Why, look at poor Gabby Giffords, shot because of Sarah Palin’s violent rhetoric!”

            Union hoodlums, anti-gunners, abortion advocates, tax-and-spenders and even lefty politicians engage in “violent rhetoric” all the time; this is how the get out of it while pillorying their opponents who do the same thing.

          • The left gets a pass, always. This woman could call for genocide – and the worst that’d happen is the media would slightly frown in her direction, which would be quickly forgotten if someone on the right says ANYTHING that could be construed as controversial.

            “In an interview, you said you were for law enforcement. Isn’t that just a racial dog-whistle?”

            “No, it means I’m for enforcing the laws as they are written.”

            “You just used the word ‘written’ – considering the lack of literacy in some ethnic communities, isn’t that just a racial dog-whistle?”

            “No, it means the laws as they are presently structured.”

            “You just used the word ‘structured’ – considering the housing situation in some ethnic communities, isn’t that just a racial dog-whistle?”

            “No, it’s not. Why are you referring to everything as a racial dog-whistle?

            “That’s my job. You just used the term ‘racial dog-whistle’. Isn’t that term just a racial dog-whistle?”

            “This interview is over.”

            “You just used the word ‘over’. In some ethnic communities it might be misconstrued as you being ‘over’ them. Isn’t that just a racial dog-whistle?”


            “You just used the word ‘no’. In some…” Door slams. “Man, how am I supposed to do any sort of journalism if you don’t cooperate when I’m trying to interview you?”

          • $28124218

            No, that’s not good enough. What legislation has she proposed? Besides none?

            Of course the FSP’s intent to make things worse for the rest of us doesn’t have any resonance for you – because, of course, you’ve never heard of them. *cough/bullshit*

            As for sane politicians? Last session, a member of the FSP filed a bill to get NH taxpayers to spend millions diverting a riverbed BACK to his property, so his property values would go back up. Another filed a bill to put warning signs at the MA/NH border. Yet another filed a bill to eliminate ALL marriage. (explain that one to grandpa and grandma). Your pearl clutching about campaign strategy is laughable.

          • Lot more to the country than NH and MA. You really might want to look at a map sometime and see just how small that area is in comparison to other states. Your local issues aren’t the talk of the nation, by any means. Wouldn’t have even known about ’em without this post – and I really don’t care.

            Let’s see… Guy wants to flood his land to raise his property values? Divert a river ONTO it? WTF? I’m pretty sure there’s no hope of anything rational from your responses at this point.

            Politician says she wants to do something to fuck up the area so folks she doesn’t like won’t move there and others will leave – and that’s not proof to you that she actually wants to do something.

            Yeah, I’m thinking you’re not rational on this subject.

            I bid you good day.

          • $28124218

            Let’s see. You’re commenting on a story about NEW HAMPSHIRE, but you’re not interested in NH issues. You’re commenting on a story about the Free State Project – which is a group of people invading the state of NH with the intent to take over and dismantle the state government – and you can’t see any relevance.

            You’re not exactly a candidate for Mensa, are you?

            Saying something and doing something are 2 different things. For example, the FSP was created with the intent of moving 20,000 people to NH to take over and dismantle the state government, and threaten to secede from the United States. They’ve begun moving here and getting elected. They said something, they’re doing something.

            Rep. Chase said some things. She hasn’t taken any action.

            Surely even you can see the difference.

          • I’m commenting on a story about a politician wanting to restrict the freedoms of the people in her district. First comes the saying, then comes the doing.

            Don’t tell anyone, but the internet facilitates worldwide communication. I can even look up events in Australia if I’m so inclined, or if something catches my eye.

            (Hmm. Want to buy a camper trailer? $9500AU – what a bargain! )

            If this FSP group is such a threat, organize one of your own to combat it. Slinging insults on-line is a laughable waste of your effort.

          • $28124218

            I finally understand. You don’t comprehend what you read, and you aren’t very intelligent. Thanks for playing!

          • $28124218

            I finally understand. You don’t comprehend what you read, and you aren’t very intelligent. Thanks for playing!

  • Digg34

    I blame jay Tea

    • Commander_Chico

      Nah, he’s still in the can.

      • Brucehenry

        Tell us more. “Jenos Idanian” has been AWOL from OTB’s comment section for some time now.

  • Oysteria

    Stangely enough, she doesn’t say what the threat is. All I can gather is that people enjoying freedom must be a horribly depressing thought for her.

    • jim_m

      she doesn’t say what the threat is

      People who think differently from her.

      Funny, since their stated aim is to bring people to the state that believe in limited government, so her solution is to make government so intrusive that they won’t come. The fascist left always has believed in a scorched earth policy. They’d rather put everyone in a concentration camp than let one political dissident walk free. Sounds like that’s her plan for the whole state.

      • $28124218

        Their stated aim, in the original manifesto written by founder Jason Sorens is to move to NH en masse, take over, and dismantle the state government, and threaten to secede from the union. Pretty stupid to announce your intent to INVADE and take over – and expect everyone to welcome you with flowers and parades.

        • jim_m

          I’m having a hard time finding anything about secession or dismantling of the government. what I do get is this:

          The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire. We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant folks from all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors who agree to the political philosophy expressed in our Statement of Intent,that government exists at most to protect people’s rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.

          Doesn’t sound like a radical secessionist movement. While they do sound a little cracked nothing of what you are suggesting came out in their website or in the Union Leader articles on them,

          Finally, since they have only attracted a little over 1000 people to join them in NH, they hardly represent a threat to take over the local PTA much less the state. It is ever the tactic of the dictator to identify an ineffectual minority/opponent, demonize them and use them as an excuse to impose their tyranny. These people are a side show, but the dems would use them as a pretense to take away rights. Sadly, you would support them in taking away those rights.

        • jim_m

          From the Manchester Union Leader article:

          And what will happen to the FSP once all participants move to the Granite State?

          “The project itself will dissolve shortly after the five-year moving
          deadline, having accomplished its sole mission to recruit 20,000 liberty lovers to move to one state,” according to the organization’s website.

          Invade and take over? Not hardly. Sounds more like the complaints about them are a fascist tactic from the left to lie about their opponents and create fear and use that fear to take away rights.

  • GarandFan

    Just another liberal despot. Must be a fan of Friedman. Perhaps we should just call her Madam Mao.

    • $28124218

      So YOUR freedom counts, but not hers?

      • jim_m

        She is advocating to eliminate the rights of people she disagrees with precisely because they disagree with her. That’s called despotism. Sure she’s free to call for the oppression of other people. She may even succeed. That doesn’t change the fact that she’s a fascist. Perhaps what bothers you is that people are willing to stand up to oppression?

        • $28124218

          Could you point out what rights she has specifically suggested be eliminated?

      • LiberalNightmare

        The irony of your comment is only outweighed by its stupidity.

      • 914


        Is that slang for carl?

        • $28124218

          Is 914 your weight?

  • $28124218

    This story is dishonest. She was referencing members of the Free State Project, whose stated intent is to move to NH, take over, and dismantle the state government. She did not mention conservatives.

    • jim_m

      Actually, they are not advocating the dismantling of state government,but the limitation of that government. That’s a significant difference. Her response is to create a fascist state where rights are limited in order to discourage and punish their efforts.

      I would characterize their position to be libertarian rather than conservative.

    • MartinLandauCalrissian

      Like all liberals, mangee, you are incapable of reading.

    • Hugh_G

      Of course it was.

      By the way are these folks willing to give up their Social Security and Medicare and whatever other government “dole” they may be getting?

      • jim_m

        Wait a minute. The dems are very fond of telling us that they are putting Social Security into a “lockbox” for us and that we are going to get our money back. Since when is Social Security being on the dole? I put my money in, I have the right to get at least some of it back.

        I think you will find a lot of people (teachers for example) who are very willing to forgo Social Security in exchange for being able to invest that money elsewhere. Social Security is something that I have been forced to invest in where I am supposed to get that money back. Don’t tell me that it is now a program where I get money without having put anything in. That may be the case for you and your freeloading family but not for the majority of Americans.

        We are forced to “invest” in Social Security. Don’t go telling us that we are on the dole. Just because you are a freeloading POS, doesn’t mean that everyone else is.

        • Commander_Chico

          Another guy with an “entitlement” mentality.

          • jim_m

            Actually, I don’t expect to ever collect on Social Security. Just don’t accuse me (or my parents who both paid into it for decades) of being “on the dole”. It is essentially a forced retirement savings. People who have the opportunity to opt out often do because the return on this “investment” sucks. It is the crass fascist left who force the American public to contribute, under threat of law, who then turn around and tell us that we are not getting back what we put in (which is what you told us we would be getting) but now you claim that we are getting back something “free” that we have not contributed to. F you Chico. The only entitled attitudes are you and Hugh who think you have the right to dissemble and not be called on it.

          • Hugh_G

            Not going to collect? Sorry to hear that. Best get your guns and head to the hills so you can survive. Or maybe move to New Hampshire?

            Oh my, under “threat of law” Imagine that, actual laws that require things? I truly don’t know why the crazies such as you don’t take to the mountains, or the valleys or wherever and just live on your own.Do the world a favor.

            The only dissembler on this particular website is the author… well person, named Huston.

          • Hugh_G

            Yep. I’m one of those 47%ers. Other than paying lots of taxes – 28% to help out all those other dead beats who pay 28%.willingly.

        • Hugh_G

          Yeah well, how bout you just volunteer to take what you put in? The rest of us “freeloaders” can take the rest of what you’d be freely given otherwise.

      • Dan Flaherty

        Irrelevent… Comparing freedoms to benefits!

        • Hugh_G

          Gee, I wonder what this little quote from their website means:

          “…. government exists at most to protect people’s rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.” Does it mean the Sandy victims should get nothing? The 911 victims nothing? No subsidies of any kind to anyone? Just soldiers and armies and navies ?

          So…..if government shouldn’t provide for the people under some circumstances, then what???

          Now, I know that jim rushed in to straighten me out about social security but that’s a canard. I’ll take far more out of social security than I ever put in. (Interesting he rushed in to defend social security).

          • herddog505

            OK: so what, in your opinion, DOES government exist for? To take from Peter to give to Paul? To tell Peter and Paul how they ought to live their lives? To restrict Peter’s rights because they (somehow) involve something that scares Paul or that he just doesn’t like?

            And how DID the country survive all those years without FEMA and EPA and DHS and all the rest of the alphabet soup of federal agencies? When there were natural disasters a century ago, how DID the country manage to go on without Congress rushing to pass huge, pork-laden spending “disaster relief” bills?

          • Hugh_G

            One at a time:

            1. No



            4. It survived but not as well as it’s doing now.

            5. See 4

          • herddog505

            Given all your “no” answers, then please explain how your philosophy of government differs in any material way from the quote you cited and objected to.

            For example, if you don’t think that government exists to take from Peter to give to Paul, then may I suppose that you object to Sandy relief, welfare, Medicare, etc? After all, some Peters have to pay up in order to give that money to all the Pauls, and the mechanism by which they do this – mostly NOT voluntarily, unless you consider going along with it to avoid prison to be voluntary – is the government.

          • Hugh_G

            Well first of all it’s a canard that government exists to “take from Peter to give to Paul.”

            Lets take Thomas Jefferson’s idea of what government is:

            “The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.” We have had taxation since the formation of our country. And the uses of that money have changed throughout the centuries.

            I for one think the amount of money which goes to the Defense Department is absurd, the amount of money which goes to the TSA is absurd. You believe certain allocations are absurd. I don’t view it as “taking” my money to support operations of the government I don’t care for or for operations that are wasteful or frankly bloated and overdone, i.e the Defense Department.

            But we are a democratic government – I try to express my displeasure by my vote. Sometimes I get things I like and agree with and sometimes I don’t.

            Who gets to decide who your Peters and Paul are? I’m a Peter who doesn’t want to give my money to huge defense contractors. Does that make them a Paul? In your mind it should. In my mind it doesn’t. But you may say they provide us something tangible. Yes, some is, much is waste, graft and corruption.

          • Brucehenry

            Well said.

          • herddog505

            1. Defense is not only a function of government (really, its raison d’etre from the mysts of prehistory when people banded together under some sort of leader to organize them to fend off other people who would rob and kill them) but also a specified, enumerated power in the Constitution. Can you please find a clause in the Constitution (or any state constitution) that gives the government the power to take money from one citizen and give it to another as charity? And please don’t pull that “support the general welfare” crap: by that argument, a constitution could be little longer than that clause by itself, something that the Founding Father explicitly recognized;

            2. Yes, we’ve had taxation since the founding of the government. If we want ANY government, somebody has to pay for it. The liberal position seems to be that, if you can take a penny from a citizen, you can therefore take everything he has: the sky’s the limit! Or are you one of those folks who think that the 2% have it all and owe it to the rest of us?

            3. There’s a difference in taking money from Peter to pay for things (national defense, roads, the postal service) that he can use ALONG WITH Paul and taking money from Peter for no other reason that turning right around and giving it to Paul. The former is a natural and traditional role of government; the latter is nothing but a protection racket that allows politicians to buy votes;

            4. I don’t know what the percentage is, but the answer is yes: I believe that there is certainly a significant fraction of our people who most assuredly are deadbeats.

          • Hugh_G

            1. Charity? That’s where we part ways.

            2. Ummmm, remind me of the last president before Obama? His name was Bush if I recall. How many times did Reagan raise taxes?

            3. We can agree to disagree about that -respectfully I hope.

            4.Of course there are some.

          • jim_m

            On #3 are you disagreeing in the sense that you don’t think that what Herddog alleges actually happens or that you believe that it IS part of government’s job to redistribute wealth along ideological lines?

            On #1 are you saying that government redistribution is not charity? If so how is it different? Or are you saying that redistribution is something government should not be doing?

          • Hugh_G

            That’s the disagreement. I don’t believe in the redistribution of wealth that you believe in. I could argue that paying outrageous sums of money to defense is an ideological idea. But that isn’t the point.

          • jim_m

            I do not believe in government taking money from one person and giving to another for no other purpose than to redistribute wealth in the name of an ideological goal. No one else here is arguing that this is right. My question was whether or not you saw that as a legitimate activity of government.

            Your answer does not clarify that as I suspect that you are defining “redistribution” differently than Herddog and myself.
            So if I can be more specific: DO you believe that it is the job of government to redistribute income in the name of social fairness? Do you believe that things such as the EITC are appropriate when they serve to take money from one group of people and give it to another for no other reason than they did not earn what government bureaucrats believe they should have earned?

          • Hugh_G

            I just don’t agree with your underlying idea that the government redistributes wealth. That’s an attempt at the socialism trap. And no, I am not a socialist. I love our form of government. Though I frequently disagree with things it does – in many ways – it’s a good form of government. Don’t like it? Vote. That’s the beauty of it.

          • jim_m

            That’s what I thought was happening. I am not trying to trap you here. I am trying to get a straight answer. The question is whether or not you agree with taking money from one person and giving it to another for the simple purpose of increasing the wealth of the recipient.

            Either you agree with that activity or you don’t. Either you see this as a legitimate purpose of government or you don’t.

            Now the question of whether this is socialism is a separate issue. And if it is socialism and you support it then it at the very least makes you a supporter of socialist ideas and ideology.

            I don’t think that anyone disagrees with the idea that our democracy means that if the majority of the electorate installs people who enact socialist programs, then that is the way it goes and we can go and vote those people out. I do believe that most of the discussion here has been along the lines of how that is necessary. You won’t hear many people advocating that we need to suspend rights of certain people in order to impose our ideas on them.

          • jim_m

            I just don’t agree with your underlying idea that the government redistributes wealth

            This is why I chose the EITC as an example. If a married couple earns below a certain income they earn a tax credit. If the tax credit exceeds the amount of taxes owed then they get money back. It is possible for a couple to pay no taxes at all but to get money back in excess of their withholding.

            Obama’s famous remarks to Joe the plumber are another example. He indicated that if Joe had made what the government believed was enough money (“at some point you’ve made enough money” I believe was the quote) then it was the purpose of government to take that excess money and give it to others so those others could share in Joe’s success.

            The question is whether these are legitimate aims of government. While government certainly has the power to do these things (that is not at dispute) the question is whether it ought to be doing them.

          • herddog505

            First, what do you mean by you “don’t believe in the redistruibution of wealth”? Do you mean that you don’t support redistribution of wealth, or that you believe that it isn’t happening, or something else?

            Second, then what IS the point?

            Arguing over how much the government spends on this or that is part of what democracy and our federal system are all about. I want more money for defense; other people want less. These people want more for roads here; other people want more for dams there.
            I believe that our federal government has no legal power to engage in “charity”, i.e. giving money to people as welfare, disaster relief, etc., or “managing” or “investing” their money for them (at the point of a gun) as Social Security or unemployment insurance. If the government does things without a legal right to do them, what is that but despotism? And what stops that despotism becoming malignant? The Founding Fathers understood this; hence enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights.

            I further suggest that government spending ON ANYTHING is (or can be) a form of coercion: “Go along with us or the money will be cut off.” Usually, it’s pitched as a sob story: “Oh, we’ve GOT to spend that money or else defense workers / welfare recipients will be out on the street! Boo-hoo-hoo!” Sometimes, it’s more naked: “Go along with us or we’ll cut off your state highway fund.” Hence, I’m increasingly leery of the government spending money on much of anything. At least defense spending has a legal basis; money for charitable purposes, no matter how altruistic, not so much.

            Now, these people in New Hampshire that you seem to deride apparently want to put on the brakes in that state. Given that you don’t think that government should take money from one person to give to another or tell them how they ought to live their lives, it seems to me that you should be, if not in entire agreement with them, then at least sympathetic.

            But the contrary seems to be true: you argue IN FAVOR of larger government. Why? What do you think that government is for or will do? Worse, unless I misinterpret what you’ve written, you seem perfectly fine with the idea that the government there should use its power to make them (ahem) unwelcome. If that isn’t despotism, I don’t know what is.

            BTW, two wrongs don’t make a right: because a past president or Congress did something, this does not necessarily make it good or right for a present or future president or Congress to do the same thing or similar.

            Or can the president toss entire groups of people into camps based on race or ethnicity (FDR), deport entire groups of people based on political affiliation (Wilson), suspend habeus corpus (Lincoln), make it illegal to criticize the government (John Adams), or kill without due process American citizens (Obama)? I’m sure you can make your own list of nasty things that presidents and Congresses have done; does that make it OK for another president to do them?

          • jim_m

            Hugh states below

            I just don’t agree with your underlying idea that the government
            redistributes wealth. That’s an attempt at the socialism trap.

            So his premise is that what we are calling redistribution is, in fact, not redistribution. That taking money from one person and giving it to another in the name of fairness is not redistribution.

            What Hugh is doing is redefining the concept of redistribution to mean something other than what its common meaning is and refusing to declare what that new definition is. According to Hugh whatever redistribution is it isn’t taking money from one person and giving it to another.

            It’s difficult to have meaningful discussion with someone who is not going to even agree with you on basic definitions of words and concepts.

          • Hugh_G

            Oh Boy. So much here.

            Distribution of wealth. It means to me that the government taxes people and organizations. The government (usually by agreement of 2 branches) then determines how that money is to be spent. To me it does not mean just taking from one group and giving it to another. Clearly it is more complicated and nuanced than simply saying the rich give to the poor, or that the government takes from one (the deserving) to give to another(the undeserving). I believe in the social contract where we have obligations and duty to each other. Bottom line if the term is used in the sense of socialism I don’t agree with that in the context of our government.

            With regard to your second paragraph I disagree. I respect your point of view I just don’t agree with it.

            In your third paragraph my first comment on the post was sarcastic.I confess to that type of humor. I’ve seen it here from other people as well. If people choose to move to New Hampshire to engage in a life style that’s fine with me. But it’s the people of New Hampshire as a majority who have the final say. If you mean people in a group have the right to ignore the laws of the federal government I don’t agree. That’s a form of secession.

            You are wrong when you say I argue in form of a larger government. I’ve never said that here. I’d like to see a lot of government trimmed or done away with as I suspect you do. We just disagree about what should be trimmed. And it comes back to what I’ve said before -the vote. The beauty of a democracy.

            You are correct of course about prior admonistrations. I wonder though how you felt about unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan together with massive tax cuts?

            What FDR did is a blot and a stain on him and on this country. And nothing a prior president does should justify anything equally wrong. That includes President Obama and his disgraceful failure to close Guantanamo and his use of drones.

            Hope I answered your questions and issues. If not lets keep talking.

          • jim_m

            I think you are trying to make a distinction between having the government collect taxes and use taxes to provide services to people who need and cannot access or perhaps cannot afford those services, and having the government simply make direct transfers of income from one group to another.

            I think you are saying that you do not believe that the first is redistribution and I think that most would agree with you. I would go further to say that other entitlements such as Welfare and Unemployment, since they were originally intended to be temporary assistance in order to assist people in times of need, while in some sense are redistributive, they are not what people get upset about.

            What people talk about with redistribution is the idea of direct transfers or for perpetual government assistance. These are things that many on the left support and obama has alluded to them in his public statements.

            However, I disagree that refusing to obey laws is secessionism. You would never have said that MLK was trying to secede from the union. His acts were civil disobedience. There is a great distinction between the two.

          • Hugh_G

            Thanks for the response.

            We do have some agreement. And I agree that Welfare and Unemployment were meant to be for temporary purposes. So then what do we do about those who are suffering today – lets say the ones who are in the predicament not by choice? Is there welfare fraud and unemployment fraud and waste? Of course. But I can’t see how you throw out the baby with the bathwater. My wife’s employer, a social services agency, closed in 20010and she became unemployed. She’s fortunate by education and experience that it only took her a few months to find new employment. We are also fortunate that I make enough that she really doesn’t have to work at all. But what about those who are not as fortunate as us. Should an uneducated, manual worker just be abandoned because he/she can’t find work during a time of financial crisis? Or a young lawyer who loses work when very large law firms close or lay off associates. Do you think folks like that are lazy, or want to live off the government ? By the way, my wife is a social worker who are notoriously underpaid. She could not possibly have survived on a limited amount of unemployment were we not fortunate to have what we do. A close friend of hers, another social worker, was not been able to find work for almost three years.

            To be clear I didn’t say refusal to obey laws is secession or I wasn’t clear.

          • herddog505

            RE: Distribution / redistribution of wealth

            I agree with the idea of the “social contract”, i.e. the duty we have to basically be decent to each other, to protect each other from harm, and to extend to each other the same help and considerations as we expect for ourselves.

            Where I have a problem is when the government gets into the charity racket, i.e. when it starts to redistribute wealth in the name of somebody’s idea of “fairness” or altruism. Whether it’s LEGAL for the government to redistribute wealth, i.e. collect taxes from Peter to give a check to Paul* is beside the point: is it RIGHT for the government to do this?

            I say that it is not:

            1. There is no enumerated power in the Constitution that allows the federal government to do this, and I doubt that it’s in many (if any) state constitutions;

            2. The idea that charity – giving to those less fortunate than one’s self – should be compelled by the government not only robs charity of its virtue, but indeed turns it into little more than legalized theft;

            3. Government charity becomes a means for politicians to buy or coerce votes. This is, I think, what Romney was grousing about when he commented about the “47%”: there are a large number of our people who get “charity” from the government. They are hardly going to vote to reduce or eliminate their checks;

            4. While a “safety net” is a noble-sounding idea, the step between a safety net and a way of life isn’t that great. Do we want to encourage people to live on the dole?

            There has been a fairly recent analysis of our welfare state that demonstrates that, if one takes the trouble to learn the system and what benefits are available, it’s possible to earn more net income doing little or no work than actually working for a living. The break point comes at around $29k /year.

            [T]he single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income and benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income & benefits of $57,045.



            (*) Obviously, if Paul is doing work for the government, he should be paid. “A check” in this case means a welfare check of some sort.

          • LiberalNightmare

            How much of the money in that latest emergency relief bill actually went to the victims?

          • Hugh_G

            (Holy Cow I can’t keep up with you).

            My guess is the vast majority unless you don’t count contractors as legitimate receivers of the money.

          • Hawk_TX

            The government shouldn’t be providing for people under any circumstances. Our government exist to uphold the law and defend the nation, nothing more. To confirm this you can read the U.S. Constitution.

            “so…..if government shouldn’t provide for the people under some circumstances, then what???”

            Then people are free to give of their own substance freely to their fellow men. Without the violent coercion of government forcing them to contribute.

      • LiberalNightmare

        >>By the way are these folks willing to give up their Social Security and
        Medicare and whatever other government “dole” they may be getting?

        Is the govt willing to stop ‘forcing’ these to pay for that govt dole you are referring to?

        • Hugh_G

          Well I’d happily give up the TSA and much of the Defense Department. But we live in a democracy where we vote for others to make those decisions.

          • Evil Otto

            You didn’t answer the question, Hugh. Here it is again. Is the govt willing to stop ‘forcing’ these to pay for that govt dole you are referring to?

            Simple enough. Please answer it.

          • Hugh_G

            I thought I answered it.

            But OK here’s more. Government by it’s very nature has authority to “force” (your term) people to do things. I was drafted during a war I didn’t support but I served. I am “forced” to pay taxes to support the TSA which I don’t support in it’s current form. That’s our government. There’s a law that requires you to pay into social security. You don’t like it – move somewhere where you agree with
            what taxes are used for – or remain in a democratic society where we get things we don’t want.

          • Evil Otto

            No, Hugh, you didn’t. In fact, you went out of your way to avoid answering it.

            So what you’re saying is that those people must give up taking any benefits from the government in order to avoid being hypocrites, but must still be forced by law to pay for it. The answer, dragged out of you, is NO. The government is not willing to stop forcing people to pay for the dole.

            I’ve got to say, Hugh, you are a remarkably good ward of The State.

          • jim_m

            Hugh doesn’t want to answer because he is afraid that if he says that he agrees with these policies he will be labeled as a socialist.

            Further he is not willing to make any distinction between what the government has the power to do and what is then a legitimate activity that the government ought to engage in.

          • Hugh_G

            28% tax rate ward.

          • Evil Otto

            Umm… OK. Not sure what that has to do with anything, but it must have made sense to you. Are you bragging? Are you claiming that working over one-quarter of your time just for The State is good? That the federal government is justified in seizing 28% of your income by force? C’mon, State Worshiper, explain.

            In any event, clearly you are not paying enough in taxes. More must be taken from you… whoops, I mean you must contribute more. We’re just “asking” that the “well-off” “contribute” “a little” more. (I’ve run out of quotation marks, but I think I managed to hit all the liberal buzzwords you drones use when talking about taxes. Let me know if I missed any.)

          • Hugh_G

            I’m not bragging. Just a simple reply to the comment that I am on the a “ward” of the state. Wards of the state don’t usually have a 28% tax rate.

            I don’t see myself as a drone. I have a different philosophical view of the role of government. As for the notion of paying more both houses of congress and the executive have just made a decision about that. If I were making $400,000 a year or more I’d be OK with the result.

            I have a serious, non-smartass, question for you. Tell me think what the role of government should be from your perspective and how it should be funded?

          • Evil Otto

            Y’know, you’re right. Perhaps “ward” wasn’t a correct word to use. “Slave?” Too harsh. Well, 28% of a slave, to be precise. That, of course, doesn’t include state taxes, local taxes, Social Security, Medicare, and all of the countless other fees and taxes imposed on us. How much do you REALLY pay, Hugh? What is the percentage? Do you even know?

            A tax on income, in the end, is a confiscation of your labor. You make enough to qualify for the 28% bracket, but with all the other taxes you pay you may be working a third or more of your time for the government… and if you refuse to pay, woe be unto you. Is that money being wisely spent? You complain about the TSA (and are right to do so), but it’s a tiny part of the Leviathan that is the United States Federal Government. The majority of government spending is in entitlements, money either taken from others to be distributed, borrowed, or “created” out of thin air. Those taxes you’re paying? They’re being redistributed to to other people, many of whom have done nothing to earn it.

            If the government was being responsible and genuinely needed 28% of my income, I might not be so bitter about it. But it isn’t, and it doesn’t. The money is being pissed away, more is being borrowed or created, and every day the government hungers for more. 28% of my income isn’t a deal I would ever accept from a private agency for the services being provided. Why should it be acceptable from the government?

            As far as the role of the government, I believe that the federal government should be restricted to its Constitutional limits, and no more. I’m pretty heartless about that. National defense, treaties, interstate issues and commerce (and I mean only that, not the current abuse of the phrase), and federal courts. It should not be involved in health care, providing incomes, banning the use of certain substances, “spreading the wealth,” or any of the millions of abuses it has become involved in on a daily basis.

            The rest is left to states, local governments, and the people. Police, infrastructure, schools (for those who want to send their kids to public school) and the like. However, I will say that if a state wishes to engage in social welfare programs, they have the power to do so… I just think it’s a bad idea. A state or local government can provide health care or Welfare, for example, without violating the Constitution. The federal government can not. It has no authority to do so.

            As far as how the government is funded, I know taxes must be paid to fund that I wrote above. I would vastly prefer a system like the FairTax or a flat tax, with local/state governments taxing in whatever method they choose, preferably things like sales taxes. It is not the idea of taxation I really have a problem with, Hugh, it is the amount and the use. Our government is utterly out of control, and the system is headed towards collapse. Your 28%+ is being wasted… and in the end, that means your labor is being wasted.

          • Hugh_G

            Holy cow. finally we have something to agree on – the flat tax.

            If we just keep talking who knows how we could change the world. N0 sarcasm intended.

          • jim_m

            Peace and harmony reigns on Wizbang.

            What’s next? The Cubs win the World Series?

          • Hugh_G

            There’s a better chance you’d have me over for dinner than the Cubs winning the World Series.

          • jim_m

            LOL. Very true that.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Well then, i dont understand what point you are tryinmg to make. Are they wrong for collecting on the benefits that they are forced to pay for?

            Are you offering to forego the benfits provided by the tsa and dod that you are forced to pay for?

            Your question seems to suggest that there might be something wrong with the way these people disagree with thier govt while accepting the benefits that come from that same govt, yet you have complained several times about govt policies in this post and i havent seen you refuse any benefits from uncle sugar.

            It seems that your criticism is somewhat one sided in this respect.

          • Hugh_G

            What do you mean by “forced to pay”? It’s the law of the land, just like paying income, salsas, payroll and sales taxes. Or having a drivers license.

            Should those who don’t participate get their money. That’s a silly question because it isn’t going to change. Of course they are going to get their money. My comment original comment was an attempt at sarcasm.

            As for the TSA I’d love to see them done away with or at a minimum have some common sense changes.

            When we boil the differences down, your idea of “uncle sugar” is just different than mine. We tend to reflect the current political attitudes in the country. We see things differently and tend not to want to compromise.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Your attempt at sarcasm is noted, but that doesn’t explain why these people are deserving of sarcasm in the first place.

            Your (sarcastic) question suggested that there is something wrong if they are unwilling to forego collecting those benefits. Seeing as they plan to vote for smaller govt.

            When it is pointed out that they have to pay for those benefits, whether they agree with them or not, and thus deserve the benefit, you respond that that that they are not forced to pay, but that it is “the law of the land”.

            (Since laws ultimately are en’force’d by threat of violence I don’t see a difference between ‘forced to pay’ and ‘law of the land’.)

            These people are obeying the “law of the land” by paying for benefits that you (sarcastically) propose that they should forego, since they want band together and vote for smaller govt.

            I simply want to understand a few things.

            Why do you think it is deserving of sarcasm, for law abiding folks to exercise their right to influence govt by voting?

            Do you feel that they give up their right to democracy by accepting social security and medicare, even though they are participating in those programs because its the law of the land?

            This seems like a good example of the concept of ‘democracy for me but not for thee’.

            and isn’t that a pretty good example of Chase’s opinion?

          • Hugh_G

            With all the back and forth here I’ve reflected some and changed some of my view. I was wrong. You’re right, they are not deserving of sarcasm, just disagreement.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Disagreement is fine by me.

          • Hugh_G

            Hope we can have some calm and reasoned disagreement in the future.

  • stan25

    Has Jay Tea been raising a ruckus again?

  • Pingback: LWNJ: Cynthia Chase()

  • herddog505

    In the opinion of this Democrat, Negroes are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the ‘freedoms’ that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming.

    I shall ignore the historically accurate nature of my post and simply ask:

    Does this make what she originally said better, worse, or does it make any difference?

    • I think it makes little to no difference. In both scenarios you see someone determined to hold onto their current ‘way of life’ – and if a group, by their very legal proximity, is threatening it, then that’s not tolerable at all.

  • LiberalNightmare

    It is an interesting hypocrisy

    On one hand, a group of conservatives attempts to import a group of like minded people to live, work (and vote) in a particular area, presumably that would impact the politics for what ever area they settle in. These people are a danger to democracy.

    On the other hand, I doubt that Chase would complain if a few busloads of SEIU members suddenly appeared in her district on election day.

    • Vagabond661

      Conservatives who want the government to follow the Constitution is a threat to the government. Makes sense to me.

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove()