Tipping the executioner…

In the Elizabethan era it was common for executioners to be well paid, some even being given houses as a condition of their employment.  The common notion is that the condemned were forced to pay their executioner for his services, a tale like almost all others rooted in some measure of truth.  Criminals of the higher classes were usually offered the more humane types of capital punishment (Humane? Go figure) such as beheading, either at the guillotine or with the executioner’s axe.  Payment or tipping was provided to the executioner in the hopes that he’d sharpen the blade of his instrument to ensure a swift, clean application of the sentence.  Less a payment, more a bribe actually.

Your tax dollars at work…

Those condemned to die had the option of paying for swift justice and knowing the cost.   However, those executed during the Boston marathon bombings will never know how much they paid to have their innocent lives snuffed out because the criminals have a right to privacy.  Or in Governor Patrick’s world, we can’t know because “it’s about abiding by the law.”

We’ll never know how much we paid to house and feed these malcontents.  We’ll never know what the living stipend on their state issued EBT cards amounted to or whether it contributed to their ability to fund the annihilation of Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi or little Martin Richard.  We’ll never know how they could afford to go to prestigious schools or drive cars many of us can’t afford, or how much they were paid to scatter the limbs of the countless others across Boylston Street.  How much did the state inadvertently pay them to execute Officer Sean Collier as he sat in his cruiser on the MIT campus?  Too harsh? Or too accurate?

We can’t know because we don’t want to. We certainly won’t know unless we want to.  Unless we hold accountable those who continue to support these programs for reasons other than the welfare of those who truly need our benevolence versus those who help fill quotas and round out the demographic voting blocs, then we will absolutely never know.  Because knowing would put a spotlight on the true reason behind these programs, behind those who subvert them for expediency and political gain and might cause rational thinking Americans to reassess just what we’re getting for our tax dollars.  It may even force us to look at others here, like these two sub humans, who came here claiming asylum from a land they were all too comfortable returning to.  And of course, we can’t assume that all on welfare are like these two, so therefore we shouldn’t look at any of them.  They have rights too.

We have a right to know, we have a need to know.  We have a need to know who has come to this country to kill us and how much it’s going to cost us, both in numbers of dead and the gratuities we’ll pay our executioners.

Potentates and peons…

Call it karma.  Call it good theater, almost of the tragicomedic persuasion.  Call it whatever you like.  I call it arrogance and comeuppance but in any event, our feckless leaders are now trying to shield themselves from a law they never read all the while insisting that it’s good for the country.  Good for us, not for them.  Well, actually good for no one except those who wanted to take control of a large part of the US economy and intrude into the personal lives of every citizen.  Every citizen that is, who are not part of the ruling class of monarchs who lord above we serfs who are here to provide them lifetime employment while funding every destructive whim they seek to push through as law.  All for the benefit of the peons.

They finally found someone to read the bill to them…

Politico started this firestorm reporting that there have been and continues to be high level “confidential” talks between congressional leaders of both parties looking at ways to get congressional members and aides into the mandated exchanges.  You know, the exchanges that the law forces upon us and has prompted many businesses and unions supporting democrats to seek waivers from the act.  Of course, lawmakers are concerned that if staffers, aides and members can’t get into the government subsidized exchanges, they may seek employment elsewhere causing a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill.  Let that thought sink in for a moment.  Go ahead, giggle if you need to.  The irony of those leaving their cushy jobs where they don’t have to read the bills before them.  Oh the horror.

The Washington Post counters the Politico article, insisting that Washington is in fact, not seeking to exempt themselves from Obamacare, just trying to address a flaw in the bill created by the Grassley amendment insisting that lawmakers and staff needed to enter the exchanges like the rest of us.  The Post contends that Grassley’s amendment was just a ploy to embarrass the democrats, at least those who weren’t already embarrassed by not having read the darned thing they voted for.  The amendment follows:

The only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

The Post argues the real issue is that large employers, those with 100 or more employees, aren’t allowed into the state-run exchanges until 2017, and even then only if the states decide to let them in.  Hence, many staffers and aides may be left out in the cold, forced to pay their own premiums just like any other employee of a large company.  Why the Washington Post sees the federal government and its employees differently than any other large employer and its employees is beyond me.  Of course, the Post responds that Washington isn’t looking to exempt congressional members, staffers and aides, just discussing a way that the federal government can continue to make its current contributions for their healthcare insurance.  No mention about the rest of us who may work for a company that employs, oh let’s say 101 employees.  Exchanges for us or you’re on your own.

If it’s good for us, it’s good for them.  And it should be good for any of the unions that have petitioned for waivers as well.  Maybe we should start looking at the potentates we elect to govern over us.   The concept that they could be exempt from any law that they pass affecting any other citizen of the United States is ludicrous on its face.  Maybe this maneuvering will finally awaken the peons to overthrow the potentates.

But I doubt it.

The children in the freezer…

Your opinion on abortion obviously says a lot about your political leanings.  Your view on the trial of “Dr.” Kermit Gosnell says a hell of a lot more about your humanity.  The silence of those on the left, especially those in the media speaks volumes about the depravity that supposes itself to be the mainstream of enlightened thought in the country today.  If true, it doesn’t bode well for the future of this country, or civilization for that matter.  Are we truly heading towards a world where the body parts of our infant offspring are kept in a freezer like some macabre trophy case?  Let us hope not.

Gosnell’s tropy case…

Marc Lamont Hill finally admitted publicly the left’s desire to protect their sacrosanct position at the expense of their decency.  On a Huffington Post live segment he explained the media’s willingness to abdicate their decency and journalistic responsibilities in deference to their abortion preference stating “For what it’s worth, I do think that those of us on the left have made a decision not to cover this trial because we worry that it’ll compromise abortion rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, I do think there’s a direct connection between the media’s failure to cover this and our own political commitments on the left. I think it’s a bad idea, I think it’s dangerous, but I think that’s the way it is.”  If we could get that type of honesty on abortion to begin with, we might possibly come to a position that, while not perfect from either viewpoint, closes the emotionally charged gap that currently divides us as a society.  Or am I too Pollyannaish on this?

From Peter Singer to Barbara Boxer, the left sees no issue with killing fully formed humans outside the womb, ostensibly to keep abortion rights protected.  If your stance is, like Boxer’s,  that life begins when your family decides to take the baby home from the hospital, then Gosnell’s infanticide factory doesn’t bother you one bit.  Life doesn’t begin at conception for the left.  Life and the right to it, starts in the bassinet at home and not a moment sooner.  And quite possibly for some, even later than that.  So, for the political left and the media, there’s no story here other than an attack on a woman’s constitutionally protected Roe vs. Wade given right to an abortion.  Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Exactly who are they afraid of?  This story does nothing to move those, Like Boxer, who are willing to look the other way while these atrocities occur.  It certainly doesn’t change the stance of those on the right who are against abortion at anytime in the gestational period.  No, the concern is for those who harbor a mixed conscience on this as well as those who really don’t care to take a stand one way or another.   It’s these folks who will swing the pendulum in whatever direction they see fit once they are motivated to take a position.  And the fear on the left is that people will start seeing, at least this procedure, for what it truly is: an atrocity and a crime against humanity.  Of course, the left fears that any reasonable restrictions on abortion will lead to momentum for a total ban on the procedure, whatever the gestational period.

How will they defend their stance from the fallout of this trial?  They hope to ignore it, almost to the point of covering it up.  Failure to report on this is in itself, supporting, aiding and abetting a procedure that should be banned in almost any sane, civilized society.  How they can defend this is beyond my comprehension.  It’s more than a lack of shame isn’t it?  Maybe it’s because their abortion zealotry deafens them to the screams of anguish of the victims, the sound that permeates the dreams and conscience of intern Ashley Baldwin who testified to hearing the last pitiful sound of one of the truly innocent.   At that age, the child certainly doesn’t have the cognitive abilities to reason what is about to happen.  The screech must surely have been an autonomic response to the pain of being decapitated alive.

This is what the left seeks to defend.  This is what they choose to ignore.  This is what the women who request this procedure sentence their unwanted offspring to.  For her, it’s convenient.  For others, it’s politically expedient.  For the rest of us, it’s horrifying and hopefully, an impetus for deep soul searching and a call to stand up to defend our own humanity.

Yours, mine, ours and theirs….

So Melissa Harris-Perry has decided that she needed to “double-down” (her words) following the debate that ensued from her “lean Forward” ad where she seems to impugn the quaint notion that kids are the property and responsibility of their parents.  Dismayed and somewhat shocked that anyone could disagree with the benevolent nature of collectivism vis-à-vis child rearing, she expanded on her view while insisting that she’s not going to take your children because her eleven year-old would be greatly upset at gaining all the new siblings.  Typical of the collective mindset, she has no concept (or is just disingenuous) that statist and collective philosophy, policies and practices have done more damage to children through destruction of the nuclear family unit.  No one should strive for “Leave it to Beaver.”  No, parenting should be the domain of the state, through the benevolence of the collective welfare state that brought us the lost generations of Detroit and Chicago, to name a few great communities in which to raise children.  Before you go all “race card” on me, the problem exists in downtown Podunk Cow-Hampshire too. No, she’s not advocating that the “gubmint” come and take your children.  She’s advocating that you’re not responsible, pretty standard thought for those who call themselves progressive.  No need to take them by force if we convince parents to abdicate their responsibilities willingly.

She’s not taking kids, she’s buying them…

Those on the right who got the vapors from her original ad seemed to miss the subtlety here.  This is all the same material, it’s “for the children.”  Everything they do is for the children.  How can you argue against someone who’s looking out for the children?  You know, your 12 year old daughter just has to have that abortion on demand.  Or for her benefit, the school will provide her the morning after pill and she can wash it down with a big gulp, provided she’s not in New York City.  All the things that traditional parents deny their children because we’re not so, well…progressive.

No, this is about expanding the welfare state and the continued destruction of traditional families and values.  It’s about giving up your rights by giving up your responsibilities.   Nasty little things, those responsibilities.  Every act seems to have some type of consequence.  The liberal, or progressive theory is predicated on it’s not your fault.  Don’t worry, we’ll step in and force others to pay for your choices, plain and simple.  Took out a mortgage you couldn’t afford?  No problem, we’ll bail you out.  Student loans far exceed the earnings potential of that “Elizabethan Puppetry” Master’s degree?  No issue, we’ll just tax that retired couple down the street.

The point she’s making and many missed, is that they don’t have to come for your children.  Through the opiates of the welfare state, you’ll just hand them over anyway.  Just like with the other aspects of rights and responsibilities, the left sees no reason for anyone to be “punished with a baby.”   Don’t under estimate how appealing this concept is to those who have been indoctrinated in public schools in their philosophy of entitlement.  You’re entitled to everything you want and you don’t have it only because someone else is keeping you from it.  Or expecting you to earn it.

If everyone is responsible, no one is.  If no one is responsible, then the state must be.  After all, it’s for the kids.  Just don’t think of them as yours and you’ll be fine chasing that check.

Live free but abandon your stuff…

The New Hampshire House recently passed HB135, effectively repealing the state’s “stand your ground law” which was passed two years ago over the veto of then governor John Lynch.  The law allowed the use of deadly force for New Hampshire residents anywhere they have a legal right to be, an expansion of the Castle Doctrine which offered the same immunity for those defending their homes.  It sounds logical on its face: You have a right to defend yourself and your personal property anywhere you are.  Why our legislature finds that concept abhorrent is anyone’s guess, although I have a few suspicions.  If the state Senate passes the bill, New Hampshire effectively becomes one great big “gun free zone”, you know, sort of like Columbine, Virginia Tech, a certain theater in Aurora Colorado, Washing DC, Chicago and Sandy Hook elementary.  Removing one’s right to defend oneself, others and their property worked out real well in those locales didn’t it?

Run Away!!! Shurtleff and the house Dems showing how it’s done…

The bill is a solution looking for a problem at best.  State Representative Stephen Shurtleff is sure the current “stand your ground” law will eventually lead to wild-west style shoot-outs in downtown Manchester, with law-abiding citizens high on caffeine taking pot shots at each over their place in line for scratch tickets.  He doesn’t seem too concerned about the women who were targeted in shopping mall parking lots this year, never mind the increase in violent gang-related crime popping up in New Hampshire’s largest cities.  If only those darned law-abiding citizens would just hand over their stuff and stop exercising that archaic second amendment, the world would be a much nicer place.  Asshat.

Mr. Shurtleff’s law relies on the premise that you’ll be able to make that split second decision that you can retreat.  Retreat to where?  How far, for how long?  And ultimately, you’ll be required to leave your stuff behind, because basically, they’ll chase your ass until they take it, seeing as how that’s what they intended to do in the first place.  Thanks to their buddy Shurtleff, their job just got a lot easier.

Odd isn’t it that those who have the second amendment right to bear arms and lawfully do so are the target of Mr. Shurtleff and his democrat companions in the house? Why is that?  What are they doing about those who are going to prey on the unarmed?  You know, those wonderfully productive citizens he’s trying to protect, usually with lengthy rap sheets and quite often out on probation?

The bill also contains language stating that brandishing a weapon is also considered deadly force.  So now if you scare the puke off by showing him your Glock, you’re hosed. “Officer, that little old lady wouldn’t give me her Oxycontin ‘script, she pulled a gun on me.”  You gotta be kidding me.

The bottom line here folks is that your government is seeking to disarm you and take away your right to defend your persons and property anywhere you are outside of your home, and it won’t be long before they revisit that scenario too.

I’d like at least one courageous lawmaker to introduce a bill in the house as follows:

“No lawmaker, state official or public employee funded by the taxpayers of the State of New Hampshire shall be legally entitled to any protections not afforded to the citizens of New Hampshire, including armed guards, law enforcement details, personal body guards, nor allowed to carry any weapons or devices for the purpose of self-defense, and shall be subject to any laws, federal or state that impose any such restrictions on possession of arms or self-defense devices upon the citizens of the State of New Hampshire.”

Until such time as we find courage in those we elect, we’ll need to band together to remove those who seek to strip us of the rights they swore to uphold.  Or let’s just change the state motto.