Ray Buckley, Rape and Whataboutism

Yesterday, New Hampshire Democrats held their annual “Kennedy-Clinton Dinner,” which is their major fundraiser.  The dinner is named after former Presidents Kennedy and Clinton.

NH GOP Chair, Jeanie Forester, called on the Democrats to denounce Clinton and remove his name:

When asked about Forester’s press release, Democrat Chair Ray Buckley responded as follows:

Asked by Fox News if the state Democratic party should have a conversation about taking Clinton’s name off the dinner, party Chairman Raymond Buckley said, “I think it would be an interesting conversation right after we see the resignation of Donald Trump.”

Asked again, Buckley responded that “I think that once we see the Republican Party really stand up and represent the real values of America, I think we can have a number of other conversations about other officials. But right now this country, this world, is under assault by Donald Trump and that’s really the most pressing issue.”

Buckley is engaging in whataboutism, a tactic routinely employed by the Soviet Union to deflect criticism.  For example, in response to criticism of human rights violations, the Soviets would criticize race-relations in the United States.  The goal of whataboutism is to avoid addressing the criticism by creating a false equivalence.

Here, Buckley is attempting to create a false equivalence between claims against President Trump and claims against Bill Clinton.  The problem is that the voters were very much aware of the claims by multiple women against Trump and the “Access Hollywood” tape, but elected him President nonetheless.  The voters disbelieved these claims or believed that Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, was even less fit to be President.

Choosing to name your premier fund-raising event after Bill Clinton is completely different from choosing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for President.  The latter is a binary choice.  The former is not.

In choosing to name their dinner after Bill Clinton, the Democrats are saying either that they don’t believe Juanita Broaddrick’s claim that Clinton raped her as well as numerous claim by other women, or that what Bubba did and does to women is just not that important to them.

As to the former, from Michelle Goldberg in the New York Times:

Of the Clinton accusers, the one who haunts me is Broaddrick. The story she tells about Clinton recalls those we’ve heard about Weinstein. She claimed they had plans to meet in a hotel coffee shop, but at the last minute he asked to come up to her hotel room instead, where he raped her. Five witnesses said she confided in them about the assault right after it happened. It’s true that she denied the rape in an affidavit to Paula Jones’s lawyers, before changing her story when talking to federal investigators. But her explanation, that she didn’t want to go public but couldn’t lie to the F.B.I., makes sense. Put simply, I believe her.

Not surprisingly, the #nhpolitics press is just letting Ray Buckley get away with whataboutism.

Since they won’t tell you, this is what Buckley and the Democrats are choosing to honor:

Broaddrick, … said she first met Clinton in April 1978 when he was the state’s 31-year-old attorney general making his first run for governor and she was working as a volunteer for the campaign.

During a campaign stop at her Van Buren facility, she said, Clinton talked with her and invited her to visit his campaign office in Little Rock. Broaddrick, then 35, agreed to do so …

Staying at the now-defunct Camelot Inn, Broaddrick said, she called the campaign headquarters and eventually talked with Clinton on the telephone. She later recalled he said he was not going to his headquarters that day and suggested they meet in the hotel coffee shop instead.

Arriving later in the lobby, he called and asked if they could have coffee in her room instead because there were too many reporters in the lobby, Broaddrick said. “Stupid me, I ordered coffee to the room,” she said. “I thought we were going to talk about the campaign.”

As she tells the story, they spent only a few minutes chatting by the window — Clinton pointed to an old jail he wanted to renovate if he became governor — before he began kissing her. She resisted his advances, she said, but soon he pulled her back onto the bed and forcibly had sex with her. She said she did not scream because everything happened so quickly. Her upper lip was bruised and swollen after the encounter because, she said, he had grabbed onto it with his mouth.

“The last thing he said to me was, ‘You better get some ice for that.’ And he put on his sunglasses and walked out the door,” she recalled.

Shame on them.

Bannon’s Correct: Trump Did Win New Hampshire (When You Subtract the Drive-By Votes)

Former White House chief strategist and current head of Breitbart News Steve Bannon created a firestorm recently when he spoke to a conservative group, the 603 Alliance, in Manchester, New Hampshire and stated that he believed that President Trump actually won New Hampshire:

“I believe strongly, and I’m prepared to put my money where my mouth is, that we won the state of New Hampshire,” he said.

I did not attend the event, but the local television station, WMUR, reported that Bannon reasoned as follows:

“There were 6,540 same-day registers here that had to get a (New Hampshire) drivers license by Jan. 7, 2017,” Bannon said. “The election integrity commission, on Aug. 30 — 10 months afterwards — said only 1,014 of the 6,540 had actually obtained a New Hampshire drivers’ license, and 5,526 individuals never obtained anything.”

… 

Bannon said that if one assumes that one-third of those voters were college student who were legally entitled to vote in the state, “You’ve still got 3,600 votes that really haven’t been accounted for.”

These 3,600 “unaccounted” votes materially exceed Hillary Clinton’s 2,736 vote margin: 

Thus, according to Bannon, voters who were not legally entitled to vote in New Hampshire tipped the State to Hillary.

The problem with Bannon’s reasoning is that it is more sound to assume that most of the same-day registrants who did not obtain a driver’s license were college students.  From an article by Kevin Landrigan:

Last February, [Secretary of State Bill} Gardner reported about 5,900 “new” voters — those not on the pre-election checklist — who cast ballots last November presented out-of-state driver’s licenses at the polls. Among this group, nearly two-thirds of them voted in college towns: Durham (1,608); Hanover (774); Keene (624); and Plymouth (397).

Assuming that these voters were college students, however, merely means that Bannon was technically wrong in claiming that Hillary won New Hampshire based on illegal votes.  It does not mean that a majority of New Hampshire residents voted for Hillary over Trump.

To the contrary, it cannot be seriously disputed that Trump won New Hampshire when the votes of out-of-State, or “drive-by” voters, are backed out.  More specifically, by not obtaining a New Hampshire driver’s license after voting, these college students manifested an intent NOT to be residents of New Hampshire and so had no business voting here.

In response to my assertion that college students who choose to remain residents of their home-States should not be voting in New Hampshire, the Democrats will say that LEGALLY one does not have to be a resident of New Hampshire to vote in New Hampshire.  That technically is true.  As part of its results-oriented election-law jurisprudence, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has created a special voting status for college students where they can vote in either their home-States or in New Hampshire.

But that does not mean such out-of-State college students should be allowed to vote in New Hampshire.  All that means is that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has made voter-fraud legal in New Hampshire.

As I have explained in several posts, most recently this one, it cannot be seriously disputed that drive-by –out-of-State– voters tipped the 2016 election to both Hillary Clinton and Maggie Hassan.  For the reader’s ease of reference, I will run through the numbers here.

Lets’ start with the vote tally:So Hillary won by 2,736 votes, while Maggie Hassan won by only 1,017 votes.

From the same article by Kevin Landrigan which I referenced above:

A new report on the 2016 election found nearly 1,100 people who cast ballots here in New Hampshire were either under investigation for voting in more than one place or signed affidavits with addresses that may no longer be valid, House Speaker Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson disclosed Thursday.

This total of questioned voters — 1,094 — is greater than the 1,017-vote margin by which Democrat Maggie Hassan won her U.S. Senate seat over incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte on Nov. 8.

Here is the breakdown of the 1,094 questionable votes:

• Voting twice: 196 voters. New Hampshire and other state prosecutors are investigating this number who gave the same name and the same date of birth and voted here and in at least one other state.

• Qualified affidavits: 440 voters. Nearly all of these 764 citizens signed an affidavit in order to vote on Election Day because they didn’t have or did not want to present a voter ID card prior to casting a ballot. Among this group, 377 did not return a postcard sent to verify their address and the post office reported another 63 postcards could not be delivered to the address given.

• Domicile affidavits: 458 voters. These were people who registered to vote and signed an affidavit attesting the address they gave was accurate. There were 6,033 domicile affidavits and of those, 458 were reported as undeliverable to the address that had been given.

It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of these 1,094 phantom voters were out-of-Staters who voted Democrat because the New Hampshire Democrat Party has staunchly opposed all efforts to require photo-identification for voting and has staunchly sharing voter information with other States in order to prevent voting in more than one State,

So without even counting the votes of out-of-State college students, we can say that it is likely Maggie Hassan was elected Senator by out-of-State voters.

It is also reasonable to assume that the vast majority of the 5,313 voters who used out-of-State driver’s licenses to vote in New Hampshire in 2016 and then did not subsequently obtain New Hampshire driver’s licenses or register their motor-vehicles in New Hampshire were out-of-State college students who voted Democrat because the New Hampshire Democrat Party has staunchly opposed all efforts to strengthen the definition of  domicile to prevent out-of-State college students from voting in New Hampshire.

In sum, it is reasonable to assume that when drive-by votes are backed out and only the votes of New Hampshire residents counted, Trump likely defeated Clinton by around 3,000 votes.

Jeanie Forrester, How about the NH GOP Giving Voters Something to be Motivated About?

Following yet another loss in a special election to fill a vacancy in the State Legislature -the eight loss in ten special elections- and a resounding defeat for incumbent GOP Mayor of Manchester Ted Gatsas, GOP State Chair Jeanie Forrester told one of WMUR’s #BuckleysBoys that “[w]e have worked hard, but have to work harder on getting the base motivated and getting them out to vote.”

The problem with Forrester’s assessment, in my opinion, is that the State GOP is not giving voters much to be motivated about.  In the same week that Mayor Gatsas badly lost his rematch with Joyce Craig -because Craig increased her vote total from the prior election by more than 2,000 votes, from 10,021 two years ago to 12,068, while Gatsas’ vote total remained roughly the same- and the GOP lost a special election for State Representative in Manchester’s Ward 8 -the City’s most GOP ward-, the GOP-majority Executive Council funded Planned Parenthood while the education committee of the GOP-majority House failed to pass SB 193, a modest education-choice bill.

While Forrester downplays the GOP’s election losses since November, 2016 by pointing to polling showing that a super-majority of voters approve the direction the State is headed, “right or wrong track” is not viewed as a great predictor of election outcomes.  The special election and municipal election results suggest this is the case.

I think the GOP would find it much easier to motivate voters if they use their majorities to pass legislation that the bases supports.  Watering down SB 193 is not the way to do this.

And as always the GOP lags far behind the Democrats in terms of identifying likely voters and getting them to the polls.  Craig’s margin of victory attests to that.

Forrester has her work cut out for her, given the relative lack of resources the State GOP has compared to the Democrats and given that many of the priorities of the GOP leadership -Medicaid Expansion, green-pork, corporate tax cuts- will not motivate likely GOP voters and may actually do just the opposite.

Grounds Exist to Remove #VolinskyAgenda From Executive Council. What’s Lacking is the Political Will.

Article 63 of the New Hampshire Constitution:

The members of the council may be impeached by the house, and tried by the senate for bribery, corruption, malpractice, or maladministration.

Does knowingly violating the First Amendment to the United States Constitution rise to the level of malpractice or maladministration?  I’d say so.

As I discussed in a prior post, the First Amendment prohibits religious discrimination by the government.

Under the free exercise clause: “the government must “maintain strict neutrality, neither aiding nor opposing religion,” Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963).  And the establishment clause “requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of believers and non- believers; … State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them,” Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947).

The equal protection clause also prevents government from discriminating on the basis of religion.  For example, New Jersey providing free transportation to students in all but religious schools, Everson, or New York supplying free secular text- books to all students but those attending religious schools, Bd. of Educ. v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968), constituted impermissible religious discrimination.

As Jennifer Horn explained in a recent column in the Union Leader (aka #StinkyJoe McQuaid’s #DyingPaper), Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky (aka #VolinskyAgenda) has knowingly violated the First Amendment by voting on at least one and arguably two occasions based on animus toward Christians:

Last week, Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky was the sole vote against a contract with a faith-based organization to provide services to recruit foster and adoptive families because he “suspected” they might not be supportive of gay and lesbian foster parents.

In response to Mr. Volinsky questioning the qualifications of Bethany Christian Services to continue to provide services to the state, Attorney General Gordon MacDonald informed the council that the federal government had a long-standing policy of not discriminating against such organizations based on their religious character, and that the Obama administration had issued an executive order saying as much. Health and Human Services Commissioner Jeffrey Meyers confirmed the relationship between the state and Bethany, and reiterated the critical need for their services “in part because of the depth and length of the opioid crisis in New Hampshire.” And yet, Volinsky still withheld his support.

It should be noted, as Horn noted in her column that Bethany Christian services had been under contract with the State for many years and without any problems:

In the case of Bethany Christian Services, Volinsky voted against a contract with an organization that has been providing services for the state since John Lynch was governor, and whose contract was renewed under the Hassan administration without question or concern.

The other instance was #VolinskyAgenda’s opposition to Frank Edelblut serving as Education Commissioner:

Mr. Volinsky’s vote is particularly troubling in light of the fact that he took a similar, if not even more aggressive, line of attack against Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut during his confirmation hearing. Volinsky tried to apply what has become his own anti-Christian litmus test against the then-nominee.

I don’t expect the House to impeach or the Senate to convict, even though the grounds exist to do so.  Too many RINOs.

No, the Alexander-Murray (Obamacare) Bill Does Not Reduce the Deficit

At least one member of  Governor Sununu’s staff is claiming that the Alexander-Murray bill, which restores the Obamacare “CSR” payments that President Trump recently ended, reduces the deficit:CSR -Cost Sharing Reduction- payments are a euphemism for the federal government forcing taxpayers to reimburse insurance companies for losses incurred as a result of Obamacare requiring insurers to charge lower premiums and/or deductibles to lower-income insureds.

As HotAir has explained, CBO basically “cooked the books” in order to claim Alexander-Murray reduces the deficit.  More specifically,  CBO compared spending under Alexander-Murray to spending under Obamacare assuming that Trump would make “CSR” payments.  That is a ridiculous assumption, obviously, because Trump has stopped making CSR payments on the grounds that they are not legal because Congress never appropriated the funding.

From HotAir:

Even the cost savings are more or less reliant on the status quo. Earlier this year, the CBO projected the costs of the CSR payments to reach $7 billion this year, and escalating to $16 billion in 2017. Congress has not appropriated funds for the program since 2014, but the Obama administration paid them anyway, as did the Trump administration until this month. The $3.8 billion in savings for Alexander-Murray results from CBO counting this money as already outgoing rather than as new spending. Given that the purpose of Alexander-Murray was to provide new funding for CSRs now that the White House has refused to spend money that Congress has not appropriated, that is a very, veryquestionable scoring decision.

So Alexander-Murray is hardly a “fiscally conservative health care solution.”

No, Democrats Don’t Want to Have a Conversation About Preventing Mass-Shootings

One of the themes that Democrats and their surrogates in the press have been sounding since the mass-shooting in Las Vegas is that we “need to talk about gun control” in order to prevent more mass shootings.  For example, these two Democrat trolls trolling Governor Sununu:The trolls were picking up on a misleading headline from NHPR -what a surprise- that mischaracterized the following quote from Sununu:

“The focus so early on in a tragedy right now isn’t about what Washington is going to do legislatively,” Sununu told reporters in a telephone conference call Monday.  “It really needs to be about what we are going to do to make sure we are there for those families, to make sure that they have the supports they need to get through this horrific time in their lives.”

as, “Governor Chris Sununu says gun reform should be put on the back burner, …“, under the headline: “Sununu: Not the Right Time to Discuss Gun Control”.  The author of this Fake News is Paige Sutherland.

But the Democrats, and their surrogates in the press, have yet to identify a single law that would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting or further mass shootings.  The only actual legislation they have floated that is relevant is banning bump-stocks.  For example:But the most one can say is that it is possible that there might have been fewer deaths if the shooter did not have a bump-stock.  It is also possible that there may have been more deaths because bump-stocks decrease accuracy.

I am agnostic on bump-stocks.  That is, I think an argument can be made that bump-stocks violate the spirit of the 1886 law banning automatic weapons.

But banning bump-stocks is just the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent.  The next step will be to argue that a “high capacity” magazine is the equivalent or near-equivalent of a bump-stock and ban those as well.  And the next step will be to reduce the number of rounds that qualify as “high capacity.”  Over time, this progression will undermine our Second Amendment right to self defense as there are tens of millions of high capacity magazines in America and there is no way of keeping them out of the hands of criminals.  And even if that were possible, banning high capacity magazines makes it impossible to defend against multiple assailants.

Check out the following twitter-rant from the New Hampshire Democrat Party:Not only is there not a single serious idea for preventing mass shootings, the suggestion that there is a nexus between law-abiding citizens in New Hampshire having a right to carry a weapon concealed on his or her own person -concealed carry- and the mass shooting in Las Vegas is demented.

So, the Democrats do not want to have a conversation about mass shootings.  They want to use mass shootings as a pretext to eviscerate the Second Amendment and to score cheap political points against the GOP.

Why the New Hampshire GOP Keeps Losing Special Elections

Democrats have won five of seven special elections in New Hampshire – one State Senate seat and four State Rep seats.

Unnamed GOP “operatives” say its simply that the Democrats have more money and staff.  As John Boehner famously said: Are you kidding me!

The Democrats always have more money and staff.

There are three reasons. Continue reading

WMUR9 and White Supremacists

Ray Buckley -Chairman of the New Hampshire Democrat Party- was recently taken to task, and deservedly so, for referring to disaffected voters who might be inclined to vote for President Trump as “white supremacists.”

WMUR had interviewed Matt Braynard, the executive director of Look Ahead America, an organization created by some former Trump campaign data-gurus whose mission is to “identify patriotic Americans who’ve become disaffected and cynical, so we can engage them on issues relevant to them, get them registered, get them educated and turn them out to vote.”   Continue reading

The Guare Case Shows How Democrat Judges and Democrat Attorney Generals Have Made New Hampshire the Poster-Child for Voter Fraud

In my last post, I noted the manic reaction of the Democrats and their surrogates to a recently released report that shows the magnitude of voter fraud in the 2016 election.  Here’s what one of those surrogates, the ACLU-NH, had to say:Note the reference to the Guare case.  And from the most powerful Democrat surrogate in New Hampshire, WMUR, again reference to the Guare case:

But the Guare case actually shows how Democrat judges and Democrat Attorney Generals have made New Hampshire the poster-child for voter fraud. Continue reading

Yes, There is Voter Fraud in New Hampshire, and Yes it Likely Decided the 2016 Election

I have posted quite a bit about voter fraud in New Hampshire since the 2016 election.  But with (1) President Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity scheduled to meet in New Hampshire in just a few days and (2) the Speaker of the New Hampshire House recently releasing a report showing the potential magnitude of voter fraud in the 2016 election and (3) the manic response by the press and the Democrats to that report … another post is in order.

In order to assist the reader, I am going to divide this post into three parts.  The first part will discuss how voter fraud should be defined (because the Democrats and the press have attempted to define it away), the second part will discuss the magnitude of voter fraud in the 2016 election, and the third part will discuss the problems with a recent “reform” to voting law in New Hampshire, SB 3. Continue reading