Republicans who voted to Kill HCR 6

	Party	County	District	Vote
Belvin, William	Republican	Hillsborough	6	Yea
Bergin, Peter	Republican	Hillsborough	6	Yea
Bolster, Peter	Republican	Belknap	5	Yea
Brown, Julie	Republican	Strafford	1	Yea
Case, Frank	Republican	Rockingham	1	Yea
DeSimone, Debra	Republican	Rockingham	6	Yea
DiFruscia, Anthony	Republican	Rockingham	4	Yea
Dokmo, Cynthia	Republican	Hillsborough	6	Yea
Gargasz, Carolyn	Republican	Hillsborough	5	Yea
Gleason, John	Republican	Rockingham	5	Yea
Gould, Kenneth	Republican	Rockingham	5	Yea
Hunt, John	Republican	Cheshire	7	Yea
Jasper, Shawn	Republican	Hillsborough	27	Yea
Kidder, David	Republican	Merrimack	1	Yea
Lockwood, Priscilla	Republican	Merrimack	6	Yea
Millham, Alida	Republican	Belknap	5	Yea
Pilliod, James	Republican	Belknap	5	Yea
Rowe, Robert	Republican	Hillsborough	6	Yea
Veazey, John	Republican	Belknap	4	Yea
Wells, Roger	Republican	Rockingham	8	Yea

So now you know. 

Left hook takes out HCR 6

At about 11:00AM this morning the New Hampshire House voted along party lines (Final vote 216 to 150) to kill Don Itse’s amendment, HCR6 that essentially reminds the Federal government that their powers are few and limited, and that the peoples are many, clarifying New Hampshire’s sovereignty based on the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. 

A packed gallery booed the final vote, some observers promising to make those who voted in favor of the ITL committee ruling pay for their failure to stand up for New Hampshire’s Live Free or Die motto.   The cat calling was so prolonged that the State police assigned to monitor the gallery had to remind people to quiet down or leave the gallery.

The Republicans did request and receive a roll call vote, wanting very much to have this vote on the record. 

For those of you interested in seeing which way your reps went, you can go to the state web page and check it out once its posted.  Remember that voting yes to an ITL means you want to kill the bill.  So a yes vote on HCR6 was a vote against the amendment.

How Obama will put Bush and Cheney on Trial.

It is no secret that the desire to convict Bush and Cheney of crimes against humanity is near if not on the top of the To-Do list for Obama’s liberal supporters.  Liberals have been chewing at the edges for years proposing various resolutions that recommend impeachment or worse.  So as a favor to even the not so far left fringe, and as a balance for any reality checks that prevent rhetoric from becoming reality, Obama will give them the checkbox they so desperately desire by signing America up to the oversight of the international criminal court.

 

Much the way he allowed Pelosi to create a stimulus full of left wing handouts but lacked the strength to call it what it was, much the same way he can claim to be against the fairness doctrine yet will still allow the FCC to enforce the local programming rules that accomplish the exact same ends, I beleive Obama will sign us up for the ICC, and let the World Court bring Bush and Cheney to trial.

 

 

The Supreme’s are back

The Supreme Court is back in session, and their first decision of the 2008-2009 US tour lifted a lower court ban on sonar use off the California coast.   This from Yahoo news.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

 

Six justices agreed with the outcome, although Justice John Paul Stevens did not join the majority opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer would have allowed some restrictions to remain, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter said the prospect of harm to the whales was sufficient to justify limits on sonar use.

 

The court did not deal with the merits of the claims put forward by the environmental groups. It said, rather, that federal courts abused their discretion by ordering the Navy to limit sonar use in some cases and to turn it off altogether in others.

 

The overall public interest tips “strongly in favor of the Navy,” Roberts wrote. He said the most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals

.

“In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet,” the chief justice wrote.

 

Ginsberg’s dissent favors the emanations of the penumbras of the unknown quantity of marine mammals over those of the US Navy and the American Republic.  No one is or should be surprised.  Even a young liberal would be better than Justice Ginsberg.  She has clearly wanderd off the plantation.  Souter sold out to the Georgetown liberal celebrity circuit early on and has long since lost constitutional credibility.

For the record I happen to consider most of Ginsberg’s (and Souter’s) opinions to be harmful to a known quantity of land mammals living in the Constitutional Republic of the United States.

 

So maybe the Navy can point some Sonar in their direction?

Talk radio as performance art.

The  ‘Fairness Doctrine would force private businesses to use their money and their time in a manner defined by the federal government.   If station owners with right leaning content did not include political content that toes the Democrat party line, they might not be allowed to broadcast any political content at all, could get fined, taken to court, or have their license pulled or denied by the FCC.

 

 So what’s the big deal?

The first amendment was written to protect exactly this kind of political speech from oppression by the government.  So have the liberals overstepped their bounds when it comes to Talk radio–which is nothing but political speech?