I am attempting to restart the blog.
Part of the reason is to highlight some of the corruption that is going on in New Hampshire.
The voter fraud that was assisted by a state rep has to be the first thing to be tackeled. More later.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Letter to BATFE on restricting importation shotguns
To whom it may concern
Determination of whether a firearm is generally accepted for use in sporting purposes is the
responsibility of the Attorney General. This line of the study should stop the ATF form doing this study right at this point . This also brings up the point that when the Gun Control Act of 1968 was implemented, the climate about guns in the USA was to regulate them into extinction. The climate today is closer to what the 2nd amendment to the constitution says, "... the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". The effect of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was to limit the lawful citizen's access to a firearm and did nothing to stop a criminal from attaining or using a gun in a crime. The Gun Control Act of 1968 did not attack the root of the problem, it targeted a tool whose purpose was perverted to be an instrument of a crime. This act made as much sense as outlawing cars because they facilitated bank robberies. As to the SPORTING PURPOSES there is a new sport in the US, three-gun competition. This is a highly skilled competition that uses specialized equipment to perform at the peak levels. Not unlike NASCAR.
Just because a firearm can be used to commit a crime, does not mean that it needs to be more regulated than any other firearm. Just because a firearm looks different, does not mean that it needs to be more regulated than any other firearm. Just because a firearm is not liked by certain people, does not mean that it needs to be more regulated than any other firearm. A firearm is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. What is done with that tool is where we should be looking for solutions not demonizing the tool or restricting the tool.
As to the Gun Control Act of 1968 that you say limits the importation of firearms to those that only have a sporting purpose is wrong what it says is "Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue
or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title."
The part of the senence that states "and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes" is exactly the opposite of what you are proposing to do. You want to limit the importation of firearms that do not have a 'sporting purpose', but that is not what the act was intended to do.
This study is a perversion of the gun control act of 1968 and it should not be allowed to continue.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Subject: MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON US!!!
I was sent this in an e-mail and I thought that it might generate some interesting comments.
Do not scroll down if you do not want to see "Muslim law" being carried out.
Do not scroll down if you do not want to see "Muslim law" being carried out.
This is 'not' for the faint hearted!
And OBAMA wants to give them their rights under the "freedom of religion"
And OBAMA wants to give them their rights under the "freedom of religion"
to practice their religion in the United States ?
What will this do to our country, our courts and to society?THERE ARE NO WORDS TO DESCRIBE THIS!!!!!
MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON US!!!
No religion can ever justify such hideous crimes.... What sort of a civilization is this?
Pass it on ......let the world know what's happening in the name of Islam...
Pass this to all , for public awareness. It must be sent WORLD WIDE! Even if this message is sent to you more than once, just keep on passing it on!.......................These people are animals.....IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ: If you forward this email, please delete the forwarding history, which includes all email addresses prior, including mine, & please adopt the use of Bcc.
It is a courtesy to all of us who may not wish to have their email addresses sent all over the world. Erasing the history helps prevent Spammers from mining addresses,as well as viruses being propagated.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
shaheen is out of touch
I herd back from shaheen a couple of days ago.
Dear Douglas,
Thank you for contacting my office about campaign finance reform. I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue.
While elections in the United States are among the freest and most democratic in the world, I believe that our campaign financing system needs reform. The amount of money needed to run a viable campaign is constantly growing and candidates are forced to spend more and more time fundraising. We should work to make the campaign fundraising and reporting process transparent and accessible to the public and consider other ways to bring campaign financing under control.
That's why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act. The bill would fundamentally reform the way elections work in our country by allowing qualified candidates to receive grants and matching funds to run competitive campaigns. Under the new system, candidates would receive public funding by voluntarily limiting their fundraising to low-dollar donations from individuals.
Also, as you probably know, the Supreme Court recently struck down a long-standing prohibition on corporations using their funds on election activities such as airing television ads aimed at influencing voters immediately before an election. I was very alarmed by this decision. As Justice Stevens said at the end of his dissent, "[w]hile American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." That's why I am a cosponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill crafted in response to the Supreme Court's decision. The DISCLOSE Act will help curb the influence of corporations and special interests in elections by requiring the head of any organization sponsoring a political ad, including corporate CEOs, to appear on camera during the ad, as is currently required of candidates for federal office; prohibiting political expenditures by federal government contractors and foreign corporations; and mandating more transparent political spending disclosure by corporations and advocacy groups.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me and please do not hesitate to contact my office with any future concerns.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Shaheen
United States Senator
I originally posted (and sent) this, again it proves that she does not know how to read.
July 22, 2010
Dear Douglas,
Thank you for contacting my office about campaign finance reform. I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue.
While elections in the United States are among the freest and most democratic in the world, I believe that our campaign financing system needs reform. The amount of money needed to run a viable campaign is constantly growing and candidates are forced to spend more and more time fundraising. We should work to make the campaign fundraising and reporting process transparent and accessible to the public and consider other ways to bring campaign financing under control.
That's why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act. The bill would fundamentally reform the way elections work in our country by allowing qualified candidates to receive grants and matching funds to run competitive campaigns. Under the new system, candidates would receive public funding by voluntarily limiting their fundraising to low-dollar donations from individuals.
Also, as you probably know, the Supreme Court recently struck down a long-standing prohibition on corporations using their funds on election activities such as airing television ads aimed at influencing voters immediately before an election. I was very alarmed by this decision. As Justice Stevens said at the end of his dissent, "[w]hile American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." That's why I am a cosponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill crafted in response to the Supreme Court's decision. The DISCLOSE Act will help curb the influence of corporations and special interests in elections by requiring the head of any organization sponsoring a political ad, including corporate CEOs, to appear on camera during the ad, as is currently required of candidates for federal office; prohibiting political expenditures by federal government contractors and foreign corporations; and mandating more transparent political spending disclosure by corporations and advocacy groups.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me and please do not hesitate to contact my office with any future concerns.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Shaheen
United States Senator
I originally posted (and sent) this, again it proves that she does not know how to read.
What obama wants us to forget
"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.
I will post later in Aug who we can trust to do our biding after Nov.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.
I will post later in Aug who we can trust to do our biding after Nov.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Shaheen should of read it.
From the Wall Street Journal
In a Monday letter, even Democratic Senators Mark Begich (Alaska), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) and Evan Bayh (Indiana) denounce this new "burden" on small businesses and insist that the IRS use its discretion to find "better ways to structure this reporting requirement." In other words, they want regulators to fix one problem among many that all four Senators created by voting for ObamaCare.
This is what you get when you do not read the ill that you are voting on. These senators are Idiots.
In a Monday letter, even Democratic Senators Mark Begich (Alaska), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) and Evan Bayh (Indiana) denounce this new "burden" on small businesses and insist that the IRS use its discretion to find "better ways to structure this reporting requirement." In other words, they want regulators to fix one problem among many that all four Senators created by voting for ObamaCare.
This is what you get when you do not read the ill that you are voting on. These senators are Idiots.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Just sent this to Jeanne Shaheen a senator from NH. If they want to actually do some good, they should require all donors to be made public and no one seeking a Federal elected position can spend more than they will make in office. The second thing that needs to be done is that campaign funds can not be converted to personal use, ie library, gift, or anything that would have their name attached or could benefit them.
Greetings Senator.
I am writing today to express my displeasure at seeing that you would go against the Supreme Court and sponsor S.3295 Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act.
This bill is a bad attempt at reinstating the Mcaine-Finegold law that limited contributions and restricted free speech. Please rethink your sponsorship for this bill and do not vote for it. I will be watching and posting what happens. Do not violate the First Amendment (that you took an oath to uphold) by allowing this bill to become law.
Douglas Lyman
26 Memorial Drive
Troy, NH 03465
www.nhnobody.blogspot.com
Greetings Senator.
I am writing today to express my displeasure at seeing that you would go against the Supreme Court and sponsor S.3295 Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act.
This bill is a bad attempt at reinstating the Mcaine-Finegold law that limited contributions and restricted free speech. Please rethink your sponsorship for this bill and do not vote for it. I will be watching and posting what happens. Do not violate the First Amendment (that you took an oath to uphold) by allowing this bill to become law.
Douglas Lyman
26 Memorial Drive
Troy, NH 03465
www.nhnobody.blogspot.com
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Immigration
If RI has the same basic law that has been on the books and has been litigated up through the US Court of Appeals, why is the DOJ trying to sue AZ? If AZ just puts into evidence the RI cases then the DOJ looses and the people that brought the lawsuit should face charges for "Waste, Fraud, and Malicious Prosecution". As the RI Gov. said on Fox Saturday morning this is black letter law. The other question is, why is the DOJ not going after the sanctuary cities? This is against the law as written and it to has also been adjudicated. From a Fox news report " Since 1996, it has been illegal for states and municipalities to take any action that prevents the reporting of illegal immigrants to federal immigration authorities. On July 23, the New York Times (search) ran a 1355-word article (which used the term "illegal alien" exactly four times) on New York City's response to a recent Federal Court ruling that compels the city to change a policy it has had for more than a decade. That policy prevented city agencies from reporting illegal aliens (search) to federal immigration authorities." So the DOJ is violating a Federal Court ruling that has been in place for 14 years by trying to stop AZ from reporting illegals to ICE. These people in the DOJ are corrupt or incompetent. I vote for corrupt. More on this in a latter post.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
New Tyrant to take down
The White House has gone from interfering with the media to censoring it. In a move to stop the truth from getting out the White House has put a new rule into place. It states that no one can be within 65 feet of any oil containment boom or cleanup effort. The clinton news network reported this,
"CNN's Anderson Cooper reported that evening, "The Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers and reporters and anyone else from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches -- 65 feet." "
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/07/03/white-house-enacts-rules-inhibiting-media-covering-oil-spill#ixzz0sf3sIzpw
"Q For Admiral Allen, can you talk about this new 20-meter safety zone, and if that was done at BP’s request, or what the reason is to do this at this stage in the crisis?
ADMIRAL ALLEN: Can you be more specific?
Q The safety zone for vessels around plumes and other oil response.
ADMIRAL ALLEN: Oh. It’s not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish either safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities for public safety and for the safety of the equipment itself. We would do this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, cruise ships going in and out of port.
Q Right, but we’re so far into this disaster now, why do it now and why the new --
ADMIRAL ALLEN: I actually had some personal complaints from some county commissioners in Florida and some other local mayors that thought that there was a chance that somebody would get hurt or they would have a problem with the boom itself -- had not presented itself before, but once presented with it, the logical thing to do.
Q So it wasn’t a BP request?
ADMIRAL ALLEN: Not at all."
"CNN's Anderson Cooper reported that evening, "The Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers and reporters and anyone else from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches -- 65 feet." "
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/07/03/white-house-enacts-rules-inhibiting-media-covering-oil-spill#ixzz0sf3sIzpw
"Q For Admiral Allen, can you talk about this new 20-meter safety zone, and if that was done at BP’s request, or what the reason is to do this at this stage in the crisis?
ADMIRAL ALLEN: Can you be more specific?
Q The safety zone for vessels around plumes and other oil response.
ADMIRAL ALLEN: Oh. It’s not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish either safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities for public safety and for the safety of the equipment itself. We would do this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, cruise ships going in and out of port.
Q Right, but we’re so far into this disaster now, why do it now and why the new --
ADMIRAL ALLEN: I actually had some personal complaints from some county commissioners in Florida and some other local mayors that thought that there was a chance that somebody would get hurt or they would have a problem with the boom itself -- had not presented itself before, but once presented with it, the logical thing to do.
Q So it wasn’t a BP request?
ADMIRAL ALLEN: Not at all."
Friday, July 2, 2010
The problem in the Gulf
I got this from the Christian Science Monitor
Some of this is a no brainier. If you need the equipment, go get it. EPA get out of the way. Put the local people in charge, if they aren't corrupt. Have the government provide supplies not control. A command post 1500 miles away can not act swiftly, it can only get in the way.
Ever hear of Radio Shack?' In a recent fly-over of a spill area near Perdido Bay, BP official Doug Suttles expressed amazement that spotter plane pilots couldn't communicate directly with skimming boats on the surface to direct them to oil patches. "We need to get the skimmers to the oil,"
EPA says no, then yes. Three days after the accident, the Dutch government offered advanced skimming equipment capable of sucking up oiled water, separating out most of the oil, and returning the cleaner water to the Gulf. But citing discharge regulations that demand that 99.9985 percent of the returned water is oil-free, the EPA initially turned down the offer. A month into the crisis, the EPA backed off those regulations, and the Dutch equipment was airlifted to the Gulf.
Who's in charge here? President Obama has said "the buck stops" with him. But the actual incident response command structure is a Gordian Knot for local officials requesting help and resources. Frustrated by red tape, some officials have been warned they'll be arrested if they take matters into their own hands. The lack of a clear command structure has hampered the ability to move resources like booms and skimmers quickly, especially in a still-growing spill that's at the whim of the Gulf's ever-changing tides, currents and winds.
The Jones Act. It's unclear to what extent the Jones Act, a 1920 protectionist law that mandates only US vessels and crews operate within the US three-mile maritime border, has really affected the ability to move foreign oil skimmers into the spill theater.
Enough life vests? The Coast Guard has not eased any of its safety regulations and will likely continue to refuse to do so. A Louisiana effort involving 16 oil-sucking barges was shut down for nearly a day on June 18 by the Coast Guard, which wanted to make sure there were enough life vests and fire extinguishers on board.
Some of this is a no brainier. If you need the equipment, go get it. EPA get out of the way. Put the local people in charge, if they aren't corrupt. Have the government provide supplies not control. A command post 1500 miles away can not act swiftly, it can only get in the way.
Ever hear of Radio Shack?' In a recent fly-over of a spill area near Perdido Bay, BP official Doug Suttles expressed amazement that spotter plane pilots couldn't communicate directly with skimming boats on the surface to direct them to oil patches. "We need to get the skimmers to the oil,"
EPA says no, then yes. Three days after the accident, the Dutch government offered advanced skimming equipment capable of sucking up oiled water, separating out most of the oil, and returning the cleaner water to the Gulf. But citing discharge regulations that demand that 99.9985 percent of the returned water is oil-free, the EPA initially turned down the offer. A month into the crisis, the EPA backed off those regulations, and the Dutch equipment was airlifted to the Gulf.
Who's in charge here? President Obama has said "the buck stops" with him. But the actual incident response command structure is a Gordian Knot for local officials requesting help and resources. Frustrated by red tape, some officials have been warned they'll be arrested if they take matters into their own hands. The lack of a clear command structure has hampered the ability to move resources like booms and skimmers quickly, especially in a still-growing spill that's at the whim of the Gulf's ever-changing tides, currents and winds.
The Jones Act. It's unclear to what extent the Jones Act, a 1920 protectionist law that mandates only US vessels and crews operate within the US three-mile maritime border, has really affected the ability to move foreign oil skimmers into the spill theater.
Enough life vests? The Coast Guard has not eased any of its safety regulations and will likely continue to refuse to do so. A Louisiana effort involving 16 oil-sucking barges was shut down for nearly a day on June 18 by the Coast Guard, which wanted to make sure there were enough life vests and fire extinguishers on board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)