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

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

Some Takeaways From the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies’ Recent Study on Education Spending in New Hampshire

The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies recently released a study titled Education Finance in New Hampshire – Headed to a Rural Crisis.  The Center is decidedly left of center, but the study is well worth the read because it contains a lot of useful information.  Here are some takeaways, albeit probably not the takeaways the authors intended. Continue reading

Sununu’s Silence on Religious Bigotry in New Hampshire

I previously posted about Senate Bill 8 here.  The bill was a response to the Department of Education’s and the Attorney General’s jihad against the Town of Croydon’s policy of using tax revenues to send some of its public school students to private schools in other school districts.

While well-intentioned, as I explained here, Croydon’s policy was not authorized under State law and a legislative fix was needed.

Senate Bill 8 was intended to be that legislative fix.  However, the State’s attorney general and certain RINOs in the New Hampshire House amended Senate Bill 8 to expressly discriminate against religious schools. Continue reading

Sununu’s Supreme Court Pick – Even Worse Than We Feared

I previously posted about Governor Sunna’s nomination of Bobbie Hantz Marconi to the New Hampshire Supreme Court here and here.  In brief, I was of the opinion that Sununu was playing identity-politics along the lines President George W. Bush played when he nominated Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court because Marconi has no experience in or interest in constitutional law.

I truly hate to say I told you so, given how rare and crucial supreme court appointments are, but I told you so. Continue reading