Monopolies Are Always Bad…Except When They’re Not

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The website, Inside Business wrote: “A monopoly is bad for the economy and allows one business to set the prices for a certain product or service virtually eliminating free-trade. If one business is the only provider of a product or service, the consumer is forced to pay whatever price they demand. This can also lead to the company providing a low quality product or service without fear of losing business.”

In 1890 the Sherman Antitrust Act was even enacted to make monopolies illegal and for a time it was considered a felony.

The Internet is awash with lefty bloggers railing against corporate monopolies. One such blogger wrote, “One of the fundamentals of free-market capitalism is that the consumer benefit from competition is plentiful. If a business is selling a week or inferior product, consumers can turn to the competition for a better deal”.

He continued by describing that the patron Saint of big government, FDR, stressed antitrust as a “key element of the New Deal” and “that large companies should be forced into a competitive environment whether they like it or not”. read more

Democrat Voters Are Lazy and Stupid

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

Why does MoveOn.org have such a low opinion of Democrat voters? It appears they think Democrat voters lack patience, are lazy and stupid.

 

You might say; those are pretty strong accusations. What proof do you have to back up such incendiary claims?

 

Just this. I receive alerts from time to time from our friends at the reasonable, middle-of-the-road group, MoveOn.org.

 

A few days ago I received one asking me to stop by Democrat Congresswoman Carol Shea Porter’s New Hampshire reelection campaign headquarters in Manchester to support their fight. What fight?

 

Well, the alert stated that MoveOn recently, “Launched a Defend the Vote Campaign”. That sounds nice. Who wouldn’t want to defend the vote? Naturally, being a voter, I too would like to defend my right to vote. So what do they feel the need to defend exactly? read more

Destination Tyranny

by: the Common Constitutionalist

I have stated for years and still contend, socialism is not a destination. It is merely a direction on a compass or a stepping stone on the path toward an eventual destination. More often than not, that final destination is some form of despotism, such as fascism or communism; certainly tyrannical.

Well, it seems my once conservative state of New Hampshire appears to be leapfrogging socialism and is making a beeline to the despotic.

cynthia-chaseA New Hampshire state representative, Cynthia Chase, feels free state conservatives are the states, “single biggest threat” and assured her constituents she will attempt to, “pass measures that will restrict the freedoms of granite state conservatives”.

Evidently conservatives are more of a threat than is terrorism, the crumbling economy, lack of jobs or even, dare I say it, Global Warming.

She recently posted a blog on the lefty website Blue Hampshire.

In her December 21 blog post she wrote:

“In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the ‘freedoms’ that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming.”

For those unfamiliar, “Free Staters” are conservatives that, as part of the “Free State Project”, move to New Hampshire, as well as other states, and settle into Live-free-or-diecommunities. There they run for local office in an attempt to further the conservative cause. They, the Free Staters, claim New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” motto should actually mean something. What a novel idea!

Ms. Chase, on the other hand, would prefer to use the power of the state to target certain individuals. That’s the American Soviet way.

She has evidently learned a few things from the union thugs and “Occupy Wall Streeters” that no doubt support her, when Chase stated she would like to, “shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming”.

What could she mean by the bright light of publicity? Might she wish to encourage fellow leftists to visit, picket and otherwise harass peaceful freedom loving citizens in their homes and places of business? You can bank on it. Richard Trumka would be proud.

Seriously folks, is this not the definition of tyranny?

Just imagine if after winning his recall election, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker posted a blog stating he would target blacks and homosexuals. The governor’s blog post would reflect his scott walkerdesire to make blacks and homosexuals so uncomfortable that they would pack up and leave Wisconsin.

The post would end up on the front page of every newspaper and be the lead story of all news outlets; Internet, television and radio four weeks, as well it should. Have you seen the Chase story anywhere?

Would the governor have every right to write the post? Absolutely, and I would defend his right just as I defend Ms. Chase’s right to say what she actually did say. Freedom of speech is a much different thing than the desire to bring the force of the state against its citizens.

We have a serious and growing problem in America. Supposed Constitutional law professors and Nobel Prize winners wish to scrap the very thing that made America different and better than all others in history; our Constitution.

With the reelection of a president by a country filled with citizens completely devoid of any understanding of history, we should expect more Cynthia Chases, or worse.

If a state becomes too oppressive, one can always move to a freer state.

What happens when a country becomes tyrannical?

Attribution: Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh

Those Trees are for the King

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Practically everyone knows of the “Boston Tea Party”, that occurred in 1773. It is recognized as the action which began America’s revolution.

There was an event that predates it, although few have heard the tale.

When the first shipment of masts from Portsmouth, New Hampshire to England occurred, in 1634, England had already suffered deforestation. In order to dominate the high seas, new sources of abundant timber for shipbuilding were needed. No ships, after all, could set sail without as many as twenty-three masts, yards, and spars varying in length and diameter from the bulky mainmast to its subordinate parts.

Although New Hampshire’s white pine was not as hard as Europe’s, its height and diameter were superior. It also weighed less and retained resin longer, giving the ships a sea life as long as two decades.

When granting lands in America in 1690, King William prohibited the cutting of white pine over two feet in diameter. In 1722, under the reign of George I, parliament passed a law that reduced the diameter to one foot, required a license to cut white pine, and established fines for infractions.

This law was basically ignored until John Wentworth became governor in 1767. Appointed Surveyor of the King’s Woods, he recognized the revenue potential and appointed deputies to carry out the law. He conducted his own inspections of mill yards in the Piscataquog valley by having a servant drive him around in his coach.

Before settlers could clear the land or build cabins, barns, or meetinghouses, the king’s sanction, a broad arrow mark, was required on trees reserved for the Royal Navy. The deputies charged them a “good, round sum” to mark the trees and for the license required to cut the rest. Small wonder the law was unpopular. The consequences involved arrest and fines. Contraband white pine already sawed into logs could be seized and a large settlement required; if not paid, authorities sold them at public auction.

In the winter of 1771-72, a deputy Surveyor of the King’s Woods found and marked for seizure 270 mast-worthy logs at Clement’s mill in Oil Mill (now called Riverdale), in South Weare, New Hampshire. He fined the log-cutters from Weare and those from nearby towns where illegal logs were also found. Men from other towns paid the fines, but those from Weare refused. Consequently, the Weare men were labeled “notorious offenders.”

The county sheriff, Benjamin Whiting, Esq., of Hollis, N.H., and his deputy, John Quigley, Esq., of Francestown, N.H. were charged with delivering warrants and making arrests in the king’s name. On April 13, 1772, the sheriff and his deputy galloped into Weare and found “Major Offender” Ebenezer Mudgett, who promised to pay his fine the next day. The officials then retired to nearby Quimby’s Inn for an overnight stay.

News that they had come for Mudgett flew through town, and a plan was hatched. The following morning more than twenty men with blackened faces and switches in hand rushed into Whiting’s room led by Mudgett:

Whiting seized his pistols and would have shot some of them, but they caught him, took away his small guns, held him by his arms and legs up from the floor, his face down, two men on each side, and with their rods beat him to their hearts’ content. They crossed out the account against them of all logs cut, drawn and forfeited, on his bare back….They made him wish he had never heard of pine trees fit for masting the royal navy. Whiting said: “They almost killed me.”

As for Deputy Quigley, the Weare men wrested the floorboards from the room above his, and proceeded to beat him with long poles. With “jeers, jokes and shouts ringing in their ears” the sheriff and deputy rode toward Goffstown and Mast Road (about a mile from my office, I might add), named for the logs that were moved overland to the sea and off to England for the king’s ships.

The Weare men were ultimately arraigned and paid a light fine, but their rebellion against the crown, which preceded the Boston Tea Party (1773), helped set the stage for the Revolution.

And thus the event became known as the Pine Tree Riot, April 14, 1772.

Attribution:  Weare Historical Society, William Little’s History of Weare, New Hampshire 1735-1888 (Lowell, MA: published by the town, 1888), 185-191.
Information about the masting trade came from New Hampshire Crosscurrents in Its Development by Nancy Coffey Heffernan and Ann Page Stecker
(Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1996), 32-36

Election Analysis by a Brit

The following is a post election anaylsis by british reporter Toby Harden of the UK Daily Mail. Sometimes it’s fun to see if their prospective is any different from our own. I think he is fairly spot on. Pip Pip, Cheerio!

He titles the article:

THE FIGHT IS ON! NEWT GINGRICH VICTORY IN SOUTH CAROLINA MEANS NO MORE MR. INEVITABLE FOR MITT ROMNEY

Turnaround: Mr. Gingrich’s victory came after an amazing fight back over the past week.

What a turnaround! A week ago, it looked like Mitt Romney was going to head into the Florida primary with three victories under his belt. Then it turned out that Rick Santorum won Iowa after all and South Carolina voters backed Newt Gingrich, delivering a message to Romney and the media: ‘Not so fast!’

So, for the first time in Republican history there’s been a three-way split decision between Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Next up, in 10 days’ time, is Florida, where Romney holds a solid double-digit lead and has the money and organisation that should ensure he wins a large state with nine separate television markets.

Of course, Romney’s emphatic 16-point win in New Hampshire and consequent double-digit poll lead here in South Carolina should have delivered him victory tonight so no one in Romneyworld will be taking anything for granted in the Sunshine State.

What did it for Gingrich here? Two very strong debate performances were key. His best moment was his exchange with Juan Williams of Fox in Monday’s Myrtle Beach debate in which he gave full-throated voice to the conservative philosophy of self-help and free enterprise as well as casting aside political correctness and racial tiptoeing.

Then, the much-ballyhooed ABC News interview with his second wife Marianne backfired spectacularly. CNN gave Gingrich a gift by asking him about the ‘open marriage’ allegation right at the start of Thursday’s debate in Charleston. Savaging the ‘liberal media’ is almost invariably a winner in Republican primaries and Gingrich took full advantage.

More generally, however, South Carolina voters decided they did not want a coronation or to send an unvetted nominee into battle against President Barack Obama, with a billion dollars in campaign funds behind him, in November.

He remains the favourite for the GOP nomination but it is now clear that Romney is no shoo-in. And nor should he be. Obama’s long and bitter primary contest with Hillary Clinton in 2008 ultimately meant that he was battle-tested for the general election. Whoever emerges as the Republican nominee in 2012 needs to be the same.

Romney, uncharacteristically, was vague and halting in the two debates this week and need to turn in a strong performance in Tampa on Monday. In his ‘concession’ speech (I never heard him concede to or congratulate Gingrich) he was fiercely combative, indicating that he will go for Gingrich’s throat in Florida.

Previewing a key line of attack, Romney compared Gingrich to Obama: ‘Our party can’t be led to victory by someone who also has never run a business and never run a state.’
Gingrich still has a mountain to climb. By every measure, he is significantly behind in Florida and one lesson of this race so far is that momentum from one victory matters very little. But tonight has burst the bubble of inevitability in which Romney had been enveloped.

Romney’s opponents have long suspected he has a glass jaw. Now we will see whether he can take a punch, get up off the floor and keep fighting.

George W. Bush recovered from a drubbing in
New Hampshire in 2000 at the hands of John McCain. Barack Obama overcame a stunning defeat at the hands of Clinton in the same state in 2008. Romney now has the chance to prove he is made of similar stuff.
Gingrich, the early December front runner, has already sunk once in the polls under sustained negative attack from Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Perry. He’ll need to brace himself for a Romney onslaught in Florida with every detail of his ethics violations, marital infidelities, House leadership stumbles and activities on behalf of Freddie Mac laid bare for all to see.

Live Free or Die, Then Vote

I hope everyone is already aware of this outrage. If not, here is a quick recap.

New Hampshire has no voter I.D. law, which means that theoretically, anyone can enter a polling place, claim they are someone else and legally vote. The more remarkable thing about the law isn’t that the poll workers don’t have to ask for I.D., it is that the law states the poll workers are required to NOT ask for I.D.

Live free or Die, my ass.

Well, it has to come light nationally, via a video that has gone viral, that this is exactly was has occurred, with remarkable ease, I might add.

The people that made the video evidently checked the obituaries, walked into the polling place, claimed to be the dead person and were handed a legal ballot.

The first video is more of a fun showing, but certainly drives the point home. The second video is the actual raw footage. It’s a little long but worth the watch.

As you watch these, keep in mind, New Hampshire is a tiny state with a small electorate. Imagine what will happen & undoubtedly has happened in large states like New York, Pennsylvania or California.

A few of the clips in the next video were at the polling place where I voted. Ugh!!