Posted on

Sovereign State Or Branch Office of D.C. Inc.

In 1784 the people of New Hampshire formed a government, founded upon the sovereignty of the people. The people shared with that government a limited portion of their own sovereignty which was detailed in Part II of the New Hampshire constitution. Notably, the people retained to themselves rights which could not be infringed upon nor delegated to others. This is known as our New Hampshire Bill of Rights which make up Part I of our constitution.

The people of New Hampshire declared our State to be forever a sovereign state.

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

In 1787 the Constitution for the United States was created. In 1791 the Bill of Rights was amended to the constitution. This included the 9th amendment;

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the 10th;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Note how well those amendments fit with the preexisting NH Constitution Part I, Article 7, [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

In the majority report recommending that CACR32 be inexpedient to legislate three ill-conceived reasons are relied upon.

First, “Nowhere in our US Constitution does it allow the federal government to permit any state to secede.” If one reads and understands the 10th amendment to the US Constitution, one can clearly see that lacking the explicit delegation of the power to prevent secession means that secession is retained to the states or the people. The majority report is self-defeating and lacks any logic.

Second, the majority claims that the ‘perpetual union’ was then ‘perfected’ under the US Constitution therefore it must continue for eternity. An honest look at the historical facts will reveal that we no longer hold to the Articles of Confederation; clearly that union was not perpetual. In fact, one can consider the formation of a new government under the US Constitution to have been an act of revolution.

Lastly, the Civil War settled the question. This argument is the very simple and brutal ‘might makes right.’ This is a bit odd when balanced with the concept of a contract between states. If force is that which holds the union together then there is no state sovereignty. If sovereignty is held by D.C. Inc. one might be forced to consider whence that sovereignty came.

It is quite sad but predictable that a committee named State Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs would be so subservient to the powers of the National government which regards its founding document with such little concern.

With such weak arguements against the proposed amendment to our constitution, the author of the majority report felt the need to move beyond reporting on the bill into the realm of questioning the character of the sponsors. He demands that D.C. Inc. punish those whom question authoritarian rule from the swamp. He even goes as far as threatening those whom might dare to vote for such a proposal.

Still straying from the content of the amendment the writer implies that the General Court should punish those whom follow the State constitution and view the State as the sovereign state that it is.

Insecure in his failed reasoning, he resorts to threatening charges of rebellion for those whom might dare vote to send a constitutional amendment to the people of the state. He further implies that the NH House remove voting rights for presumed rebellion.

REBELLION: Deliberate, organized resistance, by force and arms, to the laws or operations of the government, committed by a subject.

I’m almost disappointed that he didn’t whip out the big one:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Let me end with one more jewel from our Bill of Rights:

[Art.] 30. [Freedom of Speech.] The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any action, complaint, or prosecution, in any other court or place whatsoever.

The authors of our founding documents knew tyranny all too well, if we open our eyes today, we can see it coming back around.

Open your eyes.

CACR 32, relating to independence. Providing that the state peaceably declares independence from the United States and proceeds as a sovereign nation. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Brodie Deshaies for State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs. The committee believes that articles of secession are unconstitutional and therefore impossible. Any attempt to make NH a “sovereign nation” only purports to do so and is illegitimate. There are three main arguments the committee heard. The first legal argument why states cannot secede from the union is reasonably understandable. The federal government is the only legitimate power to admit new states and to extend or retract territorial boundaries. Nowhere in our US Constitution does it allow the federal government to permit any state to secede, let alone for any state to decide unilaterally. Our constitution is quite clear on this issue (see Article IV, Section 3). No state constitution has ever suggested that states hold this power. Constitutions are implicit contracts with citizens that grant governments specific powers. With no power explicitly given allowing secession, no state can ever secede. Another argument lies in the US Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White (1869). In the court’s majority decision, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase explained that the union began during the Revolutionary War amongst the colonies. In his decision, he writes, the union “was confirmed and strengthened… and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation… [and] by these, the Union was solemnly declared to be perpetual.” Justice Chase then says that our current Constitution was “ordained to form a more perfect Union,” which intended to convey the idea of indissoluble unity….” Therefore, the union can never be dissolved. Our form of government and Constitution is predicated upon the union’s “perpetual” existence. Without this “perpetual” existence, we would be throwing away the union, and with it, the US Constitution. The last constitutional argument is straightforward. It does not matter whether or not secession is illegal. What matters is that the union beat the confederacy in the Civil War. Once this happened, the illegality of unilateral secession was de facto established. The legality of secession was answered at Appomattox Court House in 1865 with the conclusion of the Civil War. It also means the repercussions for attempting unilateral secession have been decided too. The federal government must punish states and their leaders who try to secede. Which leads us to another question: can state leaders introduce or vote for articles of secession? This is currently an open question and the NH General Court would decide the answer. Nonetheless, the 14th Amendment, Article III, is very clear: “No State Legislator shall engage in rebellion against the Constitution.” Voting for NH’s proposed articles of secession could be determined by the NH House as rebellion against the US Constitution. It could be casting a vote to rebel against the union and, therefore, the same constitution establishing the perpetual union. Voting for CACR32 is not voting for a referendum. NH does not have referendum. We encourage fellow lawmakers to reject NH’s articles of secession and protect constitutional government. Not only is CACR32 logistically and constitutionally impossible, but NH’s articles of secession may require enforcement of the 14th Amendment by the NH House.

Thanks to Biker Bill for the photo. adventures in the free state

Posted on

2022 Belknap County Budget

Belknap County Seal

The county commissioners are troubled by restrictions placed upon them by the delegation. They have requested to have limits on transfers within the budget removed. Whereas they have a habitude of building into their budgets large surpluses, this would allow for spending far beyond that which is necessary. It is also a typical scheme directed at increasing the fund balance. Such excess taxation without need is egregious in light of the large tax hike coming even if we hold the line on restricting spending to necessities.

The law requires “Appropriations by the county convention shall be itemized in detail.” As such the delegation sets the budget by line items within each department. The commissioners’ request would have us violate the law by giving them a simple bottom line budget for the entire county operation.

The law allows the delegation to appropriate a contingency fund of up to one percent of the budget, ~$300,000, to meet unexpected expenses. As you will see in the 2022 budget, (and this is consistent with past practice) the commissioners use the nursing services department as a buffer for additional spending or for increasing the fund balance. This, in practice, creates a pool of money in the order of 3% of the county budget, which gets redirected to areas perhaps not contemplated for appropriation by the delegation. This unjustly increases taxation.

The Covid crisis, created by a manufactured virus and blown out of proportion by a government propaganda campaign, has taken a toll on people around the globe. It has broken our medical care industry. All nursing homes in the county are all struggling to find nurses. The county nursing home, funded by taxation, has the ability to outbid all others to acquire nurses at the most inflated costs. The unseen cost, should we choose to drive pay rates higher, is that we would steal nurses from other homes. Will it force the closure of a privately run nursing home? The adjustments made by the executive committee smartly balance the needs of our facility with the needs of all the county nursing homes.

The commissioners consider limitations on spending authority (appropriations) to be “a tool to try to bend the Commissioners to a small number of individuals’ political will.” The delegation has elected an executive committee to do the work of assuring adherence to the budget as passed by the delegation. When the executive branch of government seeks to remove oversight by the legislative branch, red flags should be flying. They are seeking a rubber stamp delegation. The executive committee is not interested in playing games of ‘political will.’ Instead they seek to hold the commissioners to following the law.

The commissioners are lobbying for the restoration of $650,000 which was trimmed from their bloated request. This is ~2% of the budget. If we look at the past decade we can see that the budget passed by the delegation – NEVER enough to satisfy the commissioners – supplies enough on average to leave ~7% to be returned to fund balance. This means that even after ‘cutting the budget to the bone,’ taxpayers were hit with a bill 7% higher than was needed.

Your memory need not be exquisite to recall that just last year, after the executive committee finished its work, the commissioners requested the restoration of $444,824 to the budget. This request was rejected by the delegation. At the end of the year over $800,000 was returned to fund balance. The delegation clearly made the right choice in approving the executive committee’s recommendation.

If you want to check my ability to forecast a budget, you can check my comments from last year. “Using such a sensible method will put spending for 2021 at ~$28,900,000.” In fact, the actual (unaudited) spending for 2021 (minus ARPA funds) is ~$29,138,000.

The delegation has high expectations for our department heads, and they always match their performance to that high standard. Our system of government is wisely divided such that the executive branch is not unrestrained. The legislative branch (the delegation) has a duty to appropriate only those monies necessary for the proper operation of the county. The law allows a contingency fund of 1%, yet the commissioners and delegation have allowed budgets with an excess of 7% more than necessary.

The executive committee has, once again, reviewed the commissioners’ budget and done their best to match the budget to real world needs. Their years of experience have served the taxpayers of the county well. The commissioners’ condescending remarks are contemptible and unnecessary. The delegation chose the members of the executive to do the work of carefully examining the commissioners’ budget and bringing a prudent budget for the full delegation to vote upon.

Posted on

Citizens for Gunstock

In the age of misinformation and mass formation psychosis rationality and reason are hard to find.

The shadowy group known as Citizens for Gunstock (CfG), aided and abetted by The Laconia Daily Sun have been busy politicking against those whom seek integrity in the operation of our beloved little ski area.

They falsely claim that the public will not be heard regarding the selection of a replacement Gunstock area commissioner. The truth is that Monday’s meeting will begin with public comments. In fact, all delegation members’ contact information is public and we listen to the people daily.

Some claim that our selection process is in some way nefarious and unnecessarily rushed. It is hardly a secret that commissioner Gallagher resigned. The request for applicants has been advertised in the newspaper for a couple of weeks. At this point we have applications from three very well qualified candidates. All delegation members have received those applications and they will have 4 days to review them, and if they wish, contact the candidates. If you have not been following the issue, there is in fact a need to fill this position without delay. The current board is set in a deadlock with a strong possibility of 2 to 2 votes. Delaying to fill the void would be irresponsible. The delegation can override my position but it is my duty to give them that choice expeditiously.

The “sneaky Petes” of CfG misdirect the public with a charge that due process is being denied. Using that term invokes feelings of violation of constitutional protections. Marxists love to yank your ‘feelz.’ Due process is a protection for someone accused of wrong doing. Candidates for a position are due equal consideration. They will receive such at our meeting as they always have had in the past.

Speaking of due process, all of the controversy regarding Gunstock arose from the commission’s zeal to rid itself of one of its own. They did so without giving that commissioner due process, instead they dropped unsubstantiated claims in the laps of the delegation. One is left to wonder why they couldn’t simply operate with perpetual 4 to 1 votes.

The CfG trot out the ‘poison the well’ fallacy, suggesting that the ‘game is rigged’ and condescendingly claiming that your elected representatives are nothing more than political lackeys. Such insults are contemptible and shameful, and are beneath response.

I will note a couple of problems with the advertisement seeking applications. First, it was supposed to read that the deadline for applications be received at the county office on Friday at 3pm. This will allow the weekend for the delegation’s review. Second, it also incorrectly states the position will be a five year term. This is my error. While the delegation has in the past filled a vacancy for a five year term, the enabling statute is clear that the vacancy is to be filled for the remainder of the vacant term. I apologize for that error. Both of these issues with the ad are inconsequential as the law would allow the delegation to fill the position without an application process.

Unfortunately we may need to address the previous improper filling of the vacancy created when commissioner Nix resigned in 2020. Technically the position filled by Rusty McLear would have expired when Nix’s would have ended. Someone might claim him to be a de facto office holder. More drama incoming?

It has been asserted that I am a supporter of privatization of Gunstock. This is simply not true. While I am open to considering such a move, I have not made a commitment to such action. Sadly the leftist are unable to understand nuance.

The Marxists at CfG have selected their choice of candidates for the position, Heidi Preuss. They are lobbying hard to put this Kiedaisch acolyte in place. Fortunately this candidate is easily dismissed; she applied for the position last fall and failed to attend the meeting. She even published a letter in the Laconia Daily Sun claiming to have been railroaded away from the meeting.

In their reporting on candidates The Laconia Daily Sun couldn’t resist putting their thumb on the scale, dredging up old charges of political in-correctness against Doug Lambert. I’m sure they are digging for dirt on Dr. Strang, perhaps he has prescribed hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin!

Behind the scenes it is hard to say exactly what is going on, and this is the source of the problems at Gunstock: secrecy. Commissioner Kiedaisch has a grand plan but only shares bits and pieces with the public. It leaves large areas open for speculation. For instance, he has stated that the plans for a hotel on county property will be locally owned. How can he know that a local owner will provide the best contract for the lease of a site? More questions quickly fall behind that one. Will the developer have a preexisting relationship with any of the commissioners?

Another issue with Gunstock is the local character of the ski area. As a county owned asset many local residents have grown up on the slopes of Gunstock. The vision of commissioner Kiedaisch of the future for Gunstock, although not explicitly stated, is in the image of Deer Valley Resort. The model of Deer Valley focuses on less crowding and higher ticket prices. This is skiing for the elite. If you have attended any recent meeting of the commission, you will know that is their current direction. And where has Ms. Preuss lived for the majority of the last couple of decades? Park City, Utah home of Deer Valley. I wonder if her return to Laconia was coordinated with commissioner Kiedaisch’s appointment?

What the delegation needs to hear from the public is their opinion of this model that is being promoted by commissioner Kiedaisch. Will future generations of local children be welcome, and be able to afford to learn to ski at Gunstock? I have no doubt that the elite will be coming out on Monday to protect their interests, but will we see the hard working citizens of the county?