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.”  

The numbers Braynard are talking about are not insignificant:  “New Hampshire’s going to be, probably, the state we advance to next,” Matt Braynard, Executive Director of Look Ahead America, said. “We’ve identified maybe 15,000 inactive voters who we would consider disaffected, patriotic Americans. And potentially 100,000 or more unregistered adults we’re going to reach out to.”

This was enough to unhinge Buckley who was quoted by WMUR as calling these disaffected voters white supremacists:

“The organizing and activating of these extremists, these white supremacists, really could have a detrimental effect on the entire culture of New Hampshire,” New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said.

As noted at the outset, Buckley was deservedly taken to task for his vile comments.  From Look Ahead:

“New Hampshire Democrat Chairman Ray Buckley’s “White supremacist” slur against disaffected rural and blue-collar Americans is despicable and unhinged. His suggestion that these patriotic citizens exercising their right to vote would be “detrimental to the culture” is fundamentally un-American.

From New Hampshire Political Buzz:

Apparently, anyone who supports Trump or who may actually agree with his policies and agenda, are white supremacists. Since Braynard is specifically talking about reaching out to rural, patriotic, disaffected voters, given Buckley’s statement, he believes these people are actually white supremacists and extremists.

What Buckley seems to forget is these are people who are members of his own party and Independents, not just Republicans. Or people who aren’t registered to vote at all. And to say anyone who agrees with Trump’s agenda, no matter what party affiliation, is a white supremacist is not only vile but shows how Democrats feel about those who disagree with their failed policies. Rather than have a discussion about those policies, Democrats would prefer to label these people with a disgusting moniker.

Clearly, Democrats still haven’t learned why they lost the last election. They spent eight years calling anyone who disagreed with Obama’s policies a “racist,” now their switching that up with “white supremacist,” further proving they literally have nothing to offer voters other than contempt, vitriol and hatred.

What’s been overlooked, however, is that it was WMUR -specifically Adam Sexton- that started the vile white supremacist slur:

Sexton asked if the group has a way of weeding out extremists, saying: “We’ve seen extremism rearing its ugly head lately. What happens if you’re able to identify potential voters but you do see some extremism there – perhaps white supremacism, things like that.

“Is a vote a vote or are you guys going to try to keep those people separate?”

Obviously, Sexton shares the same mindset as Buckley.  If you don’t ascribe to the progressive agenda, that makes you a white supremacist.  Sexton is the husband of Amanda Grady Sexton:Sexton is not alone in using his position at WMUR9 to advance the agenda of the New Hampshire Democrat party.  The late State Representative Steve Vaillancourt told me years ago that Buckley considered Sexton’s colleague, John DiStaso, his go-to guy to get his message out.

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.

Here is the key part of the Guare case:

For the purposes of this appeal, the State has agreed that the 2012 law that added the challenged language to the voter registration form, Laws 2012, 285:2, does not alter the statutory definitions of “domicile” and “residence.” The State has also acknowledged that the statutory definition of “domicile” and the statutory definition of “residence” differ. Further, the State has agreed that, to vote in New Hampshire, a citizen need only have a New Hampshire “domicile,” and need not be a New Hampshire “resident.”

By “the State has agreed,” the New Hampshire Supreme Court means “the Attorney General has agreed.”  But the Attorney General’s agreement that the “2012 law” was not meant to change the statutory definition of domicile: (1) assured that the State would lose the case and (2) was undeniably not what the Legislature intended.

An op-ed by then Senate President Peter Brandon in response to the filing of the Guare lawsuit shows that the legislative intent of the “2012 law” was to clarify that the statutory definition of domicile required voters to manifest a present intent that New Hampshire is their home State:

The league’s lawsuit raises a very important question: Should a student who attends college in New Hampshire, but who lives in Nebraska, gets a scholarship based on residency in Nebraska, is claimed as a dependent for tax purposes by parents in Nebraska, has a driver’s license and car registration in Nebraska, and intends to return to Nebraska after graduating from college be allowed to vote in New Hampshire? The League of Women Voters thinks she should be able to vote here with no consequences. I think the student should vote in Nebraska. What’s more, she can do so easily by simply requesting an absentee ballot from her home state.

The bottom line here is that the student has choices. She can register and vote here — if she is also willing to change her driver’s license and car registration. Or she can vote absentee in her home state. She simply needs to pick one and accept the requirements either way. And either way she is not being disenfranchised. …

…, here is the political reality in New Hampshire. In 2007 Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Maggie Hassan, passed a law that said everyone should vote — wherever they want. Four years later, Republicans repealed that law, returning to the previous requirement that in New Hampshire everyone should vote where they live. It is worth noting that the U.S. Department of Justice approved these most recent changes prior to voters going to the polls on Sept. 11.

When Republicans repealed the 2007 law, the registration requirements returned to where they had been prior to 2007; people were informed that if they chose to vote here, they were also required to change their driver’s license and car registration to New Hampshire. …

In short, it is indisputable that the position the Attorney General -a Democrat appointee- took in the Guare case was the opposite from the Legislature’s.  By doing so, the Attorney General intentionally tanked the case.  From the Guare decision:

… it is undisputed that even though Guare, Blesedell, and Healey are not New Hampshire “residents,” they are entitled to vote in New Hampshire because they are “domiciled” here. … the challenged language is confusing and inaccurate, and … could cause an otherwise qualified voter not to register to vote in New Hampshire, … the burden it imposes upon the fundamental right to vote is unreasonable.

Stated more succinctly and accurately, the Attorney General, instead of defending the law, litigated the case in a manner that guaranteed the Democrats would prevail.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court -all Democrat appointees- was just as politically-motivated as the Attorney General.  Consider the following from the Guare decision:

Although the State Constitution does not define “domicile,” the legislature has defined it as … The legislature has defined “residence” differently from “domicile.” … The basic difference between a “resident” and a person who merely has a New Hampshire “domicile,” is that a “resident” has manifested an intent to remain in New Hampshire for the indefinite future, while a person who merely has a New Hampshire “domicile” has not manifested that same intent.

The State Constitution does not define “free speech” either, but courts would never defer to a legislative definition of free speech.  To understand why the Supreme Court did so in the Guare case, recall Bragdon’s op-ed.

Prior to the Democrats taking total control of State government in 2007 the “2012 law” had been the law in New Hampshire.  Then the Democrats changed it to allow drive-by voting.  In other words, the Democrats changed the definition of domicile in 2007.  The Republican-controlled  legislature passed the “2012 law” to restore the prior definition, but the Attorney General claimed just the opposite.

Rather than undertaking an authentic constitutional analysis of the “2012 law,” the Supreme Court instead framed the question as whether the “2012 law” was consistent with the very laws it was intended to clarify, which of course guaranteed that the “2012 law” would be struck down.  In other words, in Guare the Supreme Court, far from being a neutral umpire, made up rules that guaranteed the Democrats would win.

In sum, it is fair to say that the State judiciary and the State Attorney General are as a practical matter taxpayer-funded subsidiaries of the State Democrat Party.



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.


So let’s start by defining voter fraud.  Here is the definition I have suggested:

Voter fraud occurs when someone who shouldn’t legitimately vote in New Hampshire votes in New Hampshire.  Only permanent residents of New Hampshire should be considered legitimate voters.  If a person is residing here only for a  temporary purpose, he or she shouldn’t be allowed to vote here.

What’s important to understand is that the definition of voter fraud should determine whether voter fraud is being committed.  While that sounds self-evident and noncontroversial, the Democrats and their allies in the press have taken to arguing that voter fraud should be defined as whether the practice in question is “legal” under New Hampshire law.

The problem with that argument, of course, is that it is all sail and no anchor.  For example, if the law treated domicile as a subjective concept then any out-of-Stater could drive to New Hampshire on the morning of election day, fill out an affidavit attesting to domicile in New Hampshire, vote, then drive back to his or her home State and have nothing further to do with New Hampshire, yet have his or her vote count.  Fair-minded people would call any votes cast in this manner fraudulent, despite the votes being “legal.”

What I just described, however, is what the state of the law in New Hampshire was in 2016.  From the Deputy Secretary of State:

According to the Secretary of State’s Office, the law allows a pretty wide interpretation of who’s eligible to vote. Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan said that in theory, a person could move into the state a day before an election, establish domicile in the state, vote and then leave the next day.

This type of voter fraud -commonly called drive-by voting by its critics- was legal in New Hampshire in 2016 because Democrats held the governor’s office from 1997-2003 and 2005-2017 and appointed politically-minded judges and attorney generals who interpreted the domicile requirement so laxly as to essentially eliminate it.

While the example I gave of driving to New Hampshire on election day is extreme, there is no serious question that drive-by voting by campaign workers and volunteers who move to New Hampshire in the months, weeks and even days before an election happens.  The most famous example of drive-by voting is perhaps Joe Biden’s niece, who did so in 2012:

Joe Biden’s niece Alana Biden and seven other Obama campaign workers voted in the November election in New Hampshire – but she lives in New York.

Another example of voter-fraud is voting by out-of-State college students who continue to treat the States they came from as their homes.  I can understand a first-year student not having a New Hampshire driver’s license, but for any other college student the lack of a New Hampshire driver’s license is prima facie evidence that the student is not domiciled in New Hampshire.  If your ties to New Hampshire are so tenuous that you choose not to obtain a New Hampshire driver’s license then you should not be able to claim you are domiciled in New Hampshire.

The Democrats and their surrogates in the press have been arguing that because it is “legal” for out-of-State college students to vote in New Hampshire then voting by out-of-State college students cannot be deemed voter fraud.

But as demonstrated above even if it is “legal” for someone who isn’t a permanent resident of New Hampshire to vote in New Hampshire elections, that doesn’t mean that such voters aren’t committing voter fraud.  It simply means that New Hampshire law allows voter fraud, or more precisely that judges and attorney generals appointed by Democrat governors have said that New Hampshire law allows voter fraud.

Taken to its ultimate conclusion the argument of the Democrats and their surrogates in the press would mean that if certain types of sexual assault were legalized they would not constitute rape.  That, needless to say, is nonsense: rape is still rape, and voter fraud is still voter fraud.


Whether voter fraud affected the 2016 election depends, of course, on the vote tally.  So let’s start there:So Hillary won by 2,736 votes, while Maggie won by only 1,017 votes.

It was reported previously this year that on election day over 1,400 persons were allowed to vote with no ID at all while over 5,900 were allowed to vote using out-of-State licenses.  As noted at the outset, the Speaker of the New Hampshire House has released a report he requested on this data:  As reported by Kevin Landrigan:

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.

So even defining voter fraud to not include out-of-State college students who are not domiciled in New Hampshire, there is still a serious question whether Maggie was elected by fraudulent voters.

Speaking of out-of-State college students, the report also showed that over 5,500 of the voters allowed to vote with out-of-State driver’s licenses had not obtained New Hampshire driver’s licenses.

So when voter fraud is defined properly, as I have defined it here, the number of drive-by voters exceeds 6,600 … which means there can be no serious dispute that a majority of true New Hampshire voters cast votes for President Trump and Kelly Ayotte.

(3)  SB 3

Senate Bill 3 does improve New Hampshire’s porous voting laws.  For example, it attempts to make domicile a less subjective concept by requiring persons registering to vote within 30 days of an election to “identify and provide evidence of a verifiable action” taken to maintain a domicile in the state.

Unfortunately, the list of “verifiable actions,” which includes renting or purchasing a home in the state, obtaining a driver’s license, enrolling a child in a public school also includes attending a college or university.  As a result, Senate Bill 3 continues to allow drive-by voting by out-of-State college students who by an objective standard are continuing to maintain domicile in other States.

The other problem with Senate Bill 3 is that it continues to allow drive-by voting by transient campaign workers and volunteers in that it allows voting without evidence of a “verifiable action.”  More specifically, it continues the present practice of allowing “drive-bys” to vote simply by signing an affidavit.

While the affidavit requires the voter to agree to provide evidence of a “verifiable action” within ten and sometimes thirty days, a drive-by may opt to vote and take his or her chances that he or she never gets caught.

Unless and until these problems with Senate Bill 3 are fixed, there will be a question whether close elections were decided by legitimate voters or drive-bys.

New Hampshire’s Governor Chooses Placating the Leftist-Elite Over Facts

Governor Chris Sununu, in response to President Trump’s impromptu news conference at Trump Tower, which was supposed to be about infrastructure, but quickly became all about Charlottesville:

Sununu’s tweet essentially parrots the elite-Left’s Charlottesville narrative.

In a nutshell, that narrative is that ALL the “counter-protesters,” including Antifa, were there to oppose the “racism and hatred” of the neo-Nazis, white-supremacists and anti-semitics (from here on, white-supremacists for short); that Trump was engaging in “moral equivalency” when he said “many sides” shared blame for the violence in Charlottesville; and that this “moral equivalency” emboldens white-supremacists.  And explicitly in some cases, but more often by insinuation, that Trump engages in this “moral equivalency” because he is sympathetic to white-supremacists and/or does not want to alienate his base, a sizable number of whom are white-supremacistss.

There is so much wrong with this narrative that it is hard to know where to begin.

To begin with, Trump did not say that there was a moral equivalency between the white-supremacists and all the counter-protesters when he blamed “many sides” for the violence in Charlottesville.  He was referring to violent counter-protesters, such as Antifa.  From Daniel Payne in the Federalist:

Trump appears to separate the generalized violence of that Saturday afternoon from the vehicular homicide a white nationalist perpetrated on Charlottesville’s mall near the end of the whole affair. In the press conference, Trump stated in no uncertain terms: “The driver of the car is a murderer. What he did was a horrible, inexcusable thing.”

It is, rather, the periodic violence that occurred throughout Charlottesville’s downtown area to which Trump was apparently referring. And he’s right: both sides committed violence on that day.

There were numerous eyewitness accounts of Antifa engaging in violence in Charlottesville.  From a New York Times reporter who was present:

In other words, to the extent that Trump was drawing a moral equivalency it was between the white-supremacists and Antifa.

Nor in the interest of completeness -although I do not think that Sununu’s tweet repeated this particular calumny- did Trump say that some white-supremacists were “good people.”  From David Limbaugh:

… When you cut through all the clutter and noise, it seems that Trump’s main sin was saying that both sides were at fault and that there were good people on both sides of the protest.

If I thought that by this Trump meant that there are good people among neo-Nazis and white supremacists, I would join in the strong criticism. And I admit he could have been more artful. …

But I don’t believe for a second that Trump is a racist or that he approves of white supremacy, neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism or any other form of racism or bigotry. I think that what he meant was that there are good people among those defending the monuments. And it appears that most Americans agree with that, despite the media’s conscious effort to suggest otherwise. Recent polls show that some 62 percent of Americans support preserving the monuments as historic symbols, and 67 percent of Republicans approve of Trump’s statement on Charlottesville. Do any of you really want to claim that 62 percent of Americans or 67 percent of Republicans are bigots?

Next point.  There clearly is a degree of moral equivalency between the white-supremacists and Antifa.  A mark of fascism is limiting speech by any means, including violence and Antifa regularly employs mob-violence to shut down any -not just white-supremacist- speech that it does not agree with.  From Guy Benson at Townhall:

A national discussion about political violence must include the obviously relevant fascistic thuggery of Antifa Leftists. … Antifa’s brutality and violence hasn’t merely been limited to the horrible spectacle in Virginia.  They’ve assaulted Trump supporters at political events, they’ve rioted to prevent others’ exercise of free speech rights, and they’ve used threats and intimidation to cancel civic events in which Republicans planned to participate.

Yet the elite-Left and Sununu are adamant that there is no equivalency at all.  That one side wears a black hat and the other white hat.  The reality is nothing like that.

Stated somewhat differently, just because someone fights Nazis does not make that person a good person.  Stalin fought the Nazis.  Stalin also was a mass-murderer who killed millions of his own people and oppressed hundreds of millions.  Are we supposed to overlook that Stalin was a mass-murderer because he fought the Nazis?  Nor should we overlook that Antifa is composed of anarchists who use violence to suppress any speech they disagree with because Antifa fought white-supremacists in Charlotte.  Yet that is exactly what the elite-Left’s Charlottesville narrative and Sununu’s tweet does.

Final point.  If you say Trump is emboldening white supremacists, then you must say that the elite-Left and Sununu are emboldening Antifa and groups like Antifa.  From David Harsanyi at the Federalist:

None of the president’s shortcomings, however, change reality. If you believe his comments emboldened white supremacists, your insistence that leftist violence doesn’t exist does the same for other groups — who, while perhaps not always as ugly, are far more prevalent.

Insurance Commissioner Sevigny’s “Reinsurance” Plan for Obamacare Isn’t Reinsurance; It’s a Bailout

Health insurers in New Hampshire have requested rate hikes of, in some cases, more than 40 percent for 2018.  In order to mitigate these anticipated increases, Insurance Commissioner Roger Sevigny has proposed what he calls a “reinsurance” program:

a pool of money that carriers in the individual market could dip into as needed. The program would have been primarily funded via a $32 million assessment on all of the insurers operating in New Hampshire, along with some federal money.

Sevigny’s proposal is not reinsurance as that term has been historically understood.

Reinsurance does not require government intervention.  It is a voluntary transaction between private insurers.  An insurance company insures part of the policies it has written with one or more other insurance companies.  The insurance company that wrote the insurance is protecting itself against claims being higher than anticipated.  The insurance companies reinsuring the policies are essentially betting that claims will not be higher than anticipated.

What Sevigny is talking about bears no resemblance to true reinsurance.  He wants to force insurance companies to pay into a government “pool of money” from which he will make payments to Obamacare insurers to cover their losses from Obamacare.

Sevigny’s faux-reinsurance proposal is wildly popular among the Democrats because it moves us closer to their ultimate goal – European-style single-payer.

Sevigny’s faux-reinsurance socializes –that is, hides– the true cost of Obamacare.  Insurance companies sell Obamacare insurance to certain demographics at a loss, then Sevigny covers these losses from the “pool of money.”  Of course, the “assessments” to fill the “pool of money” are funded by charging other insureds higher-than-necessary premiums.

Sevigny’s faux-reinsurance moves us toward single-payer because [o]ver time, the tendency will be to socialize more and more of the cost of health insurance and claim that the cost of health insurance is being kept under control.

Three Takeaways From the ACLU’S Bogus Lawsuit Against Secretary of State Gardner

I previously blogged about the ACLU-NH’s lawsuit against Secretary of State Gardner here, here and here.  A hearing had been scheduled for this past Monday (August 7th), but at the last minute was canceled because:

Three takeaways:

(1.)  The ACLU-NH Capitulated Continue reading

Maggie Hassan’s “Bipartisan Health Care Solutions” Are Neither Bipartisan Nor Solutions

New Hampshire’s drive-by Senator Maggie Hassan (whose margin of victory was less than the number allowed to vote without ID) is out with an op-ed on how to “solve” healthcare:

Hassan’s op-ed comes on the heels of the Senate GOP’s failure to pass “skinny repeal” of Obamacare and the news that health insurers in New Hampshire have requested rate hikes of, in some cases, more than 40 percent for 2018.  Hassan’s “solutions,” however, are neither truly bipartisan nor really solutions.  Rather, they would move us further toward single-payer –that is, government-controlled and government-rationed– healthcare. Continue reading

True Bipartisan Compromise on Obamacare is Impossible

RINOpublican Senators Collins, McCain and Murkowski were barely done stabbing the voters who gave the GOP control of the federal government in the back when Senate Minority Leader Cryin Chuck Schumer was bloviatweeting about the need for a “bipartisan” “fix” for the mess that Obamacare has made of healthcare:Schumer’s fixes for Obamacare, however, would move us closer to a “single-payer,” that is Wetsern-European style, government-run healthcare. Continue reading

Quick Takeaways from the Special Election in State Senate District 16

Unofficial results have Democrat Kevin Cavanaugh defeating Republican David Boutin by a very comfortable margin of 55% to 45% in the Special Election for State Senate District 16.

The result should serve as a wake-up call to the NH GOP because Boutin held the seat from 2010 to 2016 and Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton essentially battled to a draw in 2016, with Clinton eking out a 15,150 to 15,040 win.

The difference in performance between Trump and Boutin is even more striking because Trump had to contend with hordes of out-of-State college students from Southern New Hampshire University and Saint Anselm voting in his election, while Boutin had the benefit of many of these students being home for summer break.

So why did Boutin so underperform Trump? Continue reading

BREAKING NEWS: Democrats Win Special Election in State Senate District 16

Yes, I know the election is not until July 25th.  And, actually, I expect the candidate running as a Republican, former State Senator David Boutin, to come out on top.  But while the Democrats may lose this particular battle, they have won the war.  More specifically, the Republican Party in New Hampshire has moved so far to the left that the Concord Monitor has endorsed Boutin.

In other words, the political divide in New Hampshire is no longer about small government versus big government, which I believe is the essence of the conservative versus liberal divide.  It’s about who can run big government better. Continue reading