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.

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

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. Continue reading

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. Continue reading

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

Sununu and His Attorney General Hang Secretary of State Gardner (and the President) Out to Dry

This is the third in a series of posts about a lawsuit the ACLU-NH has brought against Secretary of State Bill Gardner that is intended to prevent New Hampshire from participating in President Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Continue reading

The ACLU-NH Lawsuit Versus Secretary of State Bill Gardner: Is Sununu Just Playing “Matador Defense”?

The phrase “matador defense” refers to basketball players who do not put much effort into playing defense.  Defense is played with your feet in basketball.  Matador defense occurs when the defensive player makes a great show of waving his arms, but doesn’t move his feet and the offensive player dribbles right past.

These tweets have me concerned that Governor Sununu and his Attorney General are planning on putting on only a “matador defense” against the ACLU-NH’s lawsuit against Bill Gardner, which as I discussed in detail here is intended to prevent New Hampshire from participating in President Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity:
So apparently, without even seeing the decision, Sununu has already ruled out an appeal.  This is significant because the odds highly favor the case being heard by a Democrat-appointed judge who will not rule based on the law -which as I discussed here requires that the lawsuit be dismissed because the plaintiffs lack standing– but based on his or her political inclinations -that is, in favor of the ACLU-NH. Continue reading

The ACLU’s Lawsuit Against Secretary of State Bill Gardner is Total Bullcrap

The New Hampshire Democrat Party has brought a lawsuit against New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, Bill Gardner, which effectively would prevent New Hampshire from participating in President Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.  (Yes it was nominally brought by the New Hampshire chapter of the ACLU, but the ACLU-NH is as a practical matter a surrogate for the Democrats.)

As I will discuss in more detail below, the law in New Hampshire is that in order to bring a lawsuit the persons or entities brining it (the plaintiffs or petitioners) must have “standing.”  That is, they must be able to show that they will suffer a definite, personal injury from the unlawful conduct alleged in the lawsuit as opposed to suffering in some indefinite way in common with people generally.

The petitioners in this lawsuit are State Senator Bette Lasky, State Representative Neal Kurk and the ACLU-NH.  None of them have standing.  Indeed, none of them even allege they have standing.  The lawsuit, therefore, is total bullcrap and should be dismissed. Continue reading