Kneejerk Reactions to the Passing of SB 88

Never before have I seen so much kneejerking and factless emotion in political debate then with the veto override on the caste doctrine bill.

With the passage of SB 88 if someone pulls a weapon on you and puts you or your families lives in danger you can respond by shooting the criminal dead and no longer have to fear you'll be charged for defending yourself and your family as a result.

Leading up to the vote there were letters such as the one found HERE that claimed if citizens had the right to defend themselves the letter writer would be worried about going to the movies "that some lunatic might pull out a gun and start shooting because someone has cut in front of him in the ticket line and maybe spoken to him rudely" and that passing this law would turn NH into the "Wild West".  Of course if you read the bill you'd know that any lunatic pulling a gun out in a theater because someone spoke rude to them would be considered a criminal just as they are today, nothing changes in that aspect so if the writer is in fear of something like that this bill/ now law wont make them any safer.

Another article criticises Republicans (justly I might ad) for not making it publicly known they would be voting on the veto override that day, however the first letter above is evident that the public was aware such a vote was coming and the bill in question was public for anyone to read... even though it's clear that first letter writer never took the time to do so.  While I do believe Republicans should have been more open in the fact they were voting that day I will take that behavior over this:

'We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it'- Pelosi March 10th, 2010

As I stated, everyone knew what was in SB 88 prior to its vote.  Can't say the same for Obama and Pelosi's health care plan. 

The kneejerk comments I found the most offensive however came in the article found HERE.

Comments made like the one about the theater and the wild west are somewhat excusable because they are members of the public but when elected officials and even the governor himself make equally uninformed or misleading comments there's no excuse.

“This bill is going to empower the wrong people,” said state Rep. David Campbell, D-Nashua. “What if we have a gang member from Lowell (Mass.) who comes to Nashua and decides that this park bench is what he’s going to defend?”

Rep. David Campbell either never read the bill or he's clearly making things up to make it sound worse.  I would recommend people actually read the bill found HERE before continuing.

In the bill it states:

If a person is convicted of a felony, an element of which is the possession, use or attempted use of a deadly weapon, and the deadly weapon is a firearm, such person may be sentenced to a maximum term of 20 years' imprisonment in lieu of any other sentence prescribed for the crime.

So that "gang member" would most likely not be legally allowed to have a gun in the first place, much less use it to defend a park bench.

The bill also states that you cannot use deadly force if:

with complete safety... Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling [or], its curtilage, or anywhere he or she has a right to be, and was not the initial aggressor

So again Rep. Campbell's example falls apart because in his example the gang member would be the initial aggressor.

And to continue...

nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the [actor] person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter

One more hole in Rep. Campbell's example, if the gang member draws first the law doesn't protect them nor does it justify their behavior.

And then there's Lynch's comment.

Lynch pointed to Florida, which has seen justifiable homicides triple in that state since it adopted a similar law in 2005.

Bolding added by me.

This statement is intentionally misleading and quite honestly if you cannot justify your position using the whole truth then it shows how weak it is.

The fact is that yes, justifiable homicides in FL went up as a result of passing a similar bill however homicides overall dropped by double digit percents and the states over all crime rate dropped to a 30 year low.  The fact that Lynch leaves those details out shows how weak his argument really is and how far he's willing to go to lie by omission to get his way politically instead of debating on honesty and the whole truth.

I guess that's just the way with Democrats, they rule by emotion and how they feel and have little care in the truth and facts.

Is This An Example Of How Lynch Made Us Safer

When SB500 passed by the Democratic majority the argument we heard from John Lynch and the Democratic party is how much safer it was going to make our state.  They claimed it wasn't so much as putting violent criminals loose on the street as much as releasing them with additional supervision.

So I have to ask, now that we've had the law in place for just a few weeks, is this an example of how much safer we are and the quality of how well Democrat's laws work?

Taken from the story found HERE.

One of the first prison inmates released under the controversial Senate Bill 500 parole-reform law was arrested Wednesday and charged with two felonies, including felon in possession of a firearm, authorities said.

...

Early Wednesday afternoon, police arrested him at the Taco Bell on South Willow Street. He was arrested after a Cilley Road homeowner recognized the laptop computer case Ouellette was carrying. The man had reported the laptop stolen from his home less than an hour earlier, said Manchester police Sgt. Dana Langton.

So how did all the extra supervision work out?  If it wasn't for the guy who's laptop he stole spotting him this guy would still be out walking the streets with a gun.

We shouldn't be looking for ways to put these criminals back on the streets earlier, we should be looking for ways to keep them locked up longer.

Lynch Push Polls

Got to love those push polls!

Just received one this afternoon that acted as if they wanted information about candidates then started in on a series of question about John Lynch and John Stevens.

What tipped me off was the first question in which they asked if I'd be concerned if Lynch supported a bill that put criminals on the streets early.  I said I read the bill in question and already knew the information so it wouldn't concern me being I already knew about it.  When the operator on the phone snickered I knew something was up with the call.  He countered saying that the fact is that the bill strengthens protection of NH citizens by increasing supervision on the criminals and does more to protect us.  Then asked my opinion.

He followed up with additional information followed by half truths and misleading "facts" attempting to make John Lynch look fiscally responsible and a solid leader, which anyone who's read the papers knows our state has been riddled with deficits the past few budget cycles.

At this point I asked who was funding the poll to which he stated it was funded by the NH Democratic party, I thanked him and pointed out he was wasting his time because I actually read the news and knew the details of what he was claiming otherwise and hung up.

So I have to ask, how is putting violent criminals on the streets months early making anyone safer by just having them call into parole officers once a week or meeting a councilor once a week?  The fact is they are getting out early and can go back to harming others.  That's not making anyone safer and that's a fact.

And the claim that Lynch has erased the deficit in this state has been proven false before, when lied to over and over like this who still believes him?

As the polls continue to show even the unbeatable Lynch failing further behind and the Democratic parties policies being rejected at every turn I expect to see more underhanded politics like this being used.

Blame or Criticism

Do Democrats not understand the difference between criticism and blame?  The reason I ask is because of a recent letter to the editor in the Telegraph which you can read in full HERE.

The letter states:

Many are trying to blame President Barack Obama for the Gulf oil spill. I would rather look at root causes and blame actor and former GE spokesman President Ronald Reagan.

Moving past the absurdity of pointing fingers at a dead president from over 20 years ago, the author of this letter, John Conaway, seems to think people are trying to blame Obama for the spill.  Now I'm sure you will find some who are pointing to things Obama did or could have done but anyone serious understands that there is enough blame from every side on this one that no one person is to blame.

That said, Democrats control our government.  They control the house.  They control the senate.  And it's their guy right now sitting in the White House and Obama failed to act.

What he's being criticized for and rightly so is that this problem went on for weeks before he actually came out and showed any signs of taking it seriously.

Even liberal James Carville came out criticising him saying:

“And he just looks like he is not involved in this,’’ James Carville, the Democratic strategist and television pundit, said from Louisiana in the video. “Man, you got to get down here and take control of this and put somebody in charge of this thing and get this thing moving. We’re about to die down here.’’

The fact of the matter is he isn't handling this situation as well as people would hope.  He hasn't stepped up and taken control and shown himself to be a leader and even fellow Democrats like James Carville can see he's failing.  The best we have from Obama so far is a bunch of sound bytes saying he needs to find out who's ass should be kicked as the oil continues to spill freely destroying everything in the gulf.

Letters like this one don't surprise me though.  I suspect you will see more and more letters attempting to shift focus away from their failures and absolve them of any responsibility.

Democrats have nothing but finger pointing, deflections and blame to run on in November.

• They ran on Bush's spending but they've gone above and beyond any level of spending even in Bush's worst.
• They ran against the war but now while in full power they continue the wars and they fool some by claiming they are withdrawing combat troops but when people see "peace keeping" troops going back in their place they aren't stupid, they see it as nothing more than smoke and mirror games.
• They ran on closing down Gitmo yet it's still open.
• They ran against Bush's wire tapping but Obama signed it back into law and expanded it's powers.
• They ran for open government but have done more behind the scenes and in private than any administration before.
• They pushed through a health care plan the American public is rejecting which many of them admitted they hadn't even read when they voted it into law.
• Several Democrats like Carol Shea Porter ran claiming those in office with 83% voting records were nothing more then rubber stamps for Bush and unable to think pass party lines but yet now we see them voting 97+% in line with the Democrat party line showing no independent thought of their own.

Even on the state level we see nearly every single major newspaper in the state blasting Lynch for his failing to come up with a level budget and we see our state deficit continue to climb with Democrats pushing for new taxes such as income taxes on top of what we already have taken from us as their solutions.

What do Democrats have other than blame, finger pointing and deflections? Nothing.

Leading Us Where?

Have you seen the new John Lynch ad, "John Lynch Leads"?

Let's take a moment and actually examine what is being said here.

Claim #1 - He's taken action to put people back to work, job training, help for small businesses.

The problem with this claim is unemployment continues to rise.  In January 2009 unemployment was 5.1%,  By March 2010 they've risen to 7%.  That's a 2% increase in little over the past year.  Where is the improvement to brag about?

As for small business, according to the Tax Foundation NH has become one of the states with the higher tax burdens on businesses. 

New Hampshire's Corporate Income Tax System
New Hampshire's corporate tax structure consists of one bracket, with a rate of 8.5% of income for corporations with gross receipts over $50,000. Among states levying corporate income taxes, this top rate ranks the state 11th highest nationally. In 2008, state-level corporate tax collections (excluding local taxes) were $466 per capita, which ranked 2nd highest nationally.

Claim #2 - He cut spending and kept our taxes the 2nd lowest in the nation.

Anyone who's followed politics in the past 5 years know Lynch had no choice but to cut spending.  The budgets have increased so much while revenues fell far shorter then expected NH found itself in deficit spending the past few years.  It's no surprise that he makes this claim because UNH polls show that most people in the state aren't even aware we have a deficit on the state level.

What's also worth a closer look is how exactly Lynch has managed to keep the state taxes at the 2nd lowest in the Nation.  This is done with smoke and mirrors because in many cases the spending has been pushed to local levels where in the past it was done at the state.  Local school boards and Town board are finding state funding for everything from education to police and fire have been cut and they have to either cut their budgets making them the bad guys or increase local taxes.  Meanwhile Lynch by passing the buck can make the above claim showing his leadership.

Lynch also managed to keep the state portion of property taxes down by increasing taxes on businesses (as I linked to above) and increasing or creating a number of sin and/or nuisance taxes and fees.

When you calculate out what NH pays compared to other states for federal, state and local taxes combined we actually rank 28th not 2nd.  Passing the buck is NOT leadership.

Claim #3 He Stopped MA from taxing our businesses.

Well there's something to brag about!  He had no choice, do you honestly think anyone in NH would tolerate it if he allowed MA to violate the US Constitution and burden NH businesses with MA taxes?

Claim #4 Now NH is the safest state and best place to raise children.

Now?  This claim makes it sound like NH was a drug and murder capital of the world prior to Lynch stepping in to office.  Fact is NH has always been in the top for safest states in the country.  It's low crime rates was one of the driving facts of my moving here back in the late 1990s.

As for it being the best place to raise children that's subject to opinion.  Allowing children to get abortions without their parents knowing about it isn't exactly something I consider a qualification for being the best place to raise a child.  That aside though, what initiatives has Lynch driven to make NH better for kids?  Where are the examples backing his leadership?

That's the real picture of Lynch, not a leader but someone who says and does whatever he thinks will continue to keep him in office because he knows most voters aren't watching.