New Hampshire: so much for live free or die, NH Prefers AOC to clinton. New hampshire advantage for trusts?

New Hampshire Democrats prefer Socialist to Clinton – and Clinton to Trump in the 2016 election. So much for “LIVE FREE OR DIE.” Perhaps New Hampshire needs to change their motto to “Free stuff or die”.

One other question about the so-called “New Hampshire Advantage” in trust law. If you are considering setting up a trust in New Hampshire advantage, make sure you have a flee clause in there because if the state goes left, “free money” from trusts domiciled in NH will no doubt be a big target.

Attorneys and clients who want to use NH for their trust, make sure you are prepared.

However, it should be noted that the same philosophy that is behind Warren’s quest for a wealth tax, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s quest for a 70% top marginal rate is the same ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it’ philosophy that Lincoln fought in the old Democrat South. Likewise, the same promise of ‘free’ stuff was at the base of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, and Hitler’s promises when they came to power. (Obviously not the concentration camps.)

2019 New Hampshire motto: “Free stuff or die”

NIMBY for illegals, trump’s ace? … ZERO Democrat lawmakers volunteer to have them released into their districts

“I have had zero Democrat lawmakers volunteer to have them released into their districts, states and I think they know that. And that’s what we’re going to be discussing over the next three weeks.”

That is a threat – I have the power to do the catch and release where and when I want to.

Do you want your constituents to be the ones who see the illegals in your district? Do you want to be seen as weak on drugs and security? Do you want to be seen as Pelosi’s pawn? When busloads of illegals are released there, your people will be the one’s paying the price instead of some other faceless people “somewhere else.”

It is NIMBY applied to illegals.

President George H.W. Bush’s death – GHWB got us to where we are today – Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton

GWHB’s heart was in the right place, but not his head and that got him into trouble.
In many ways though he got us where we are today. After the “read my lips” promise being broken and and appointing Justice Souter, he lost a lot of Republicans and their votes. Not to mention giving Sotomayor her start on the Federal bench didn’t help his standing since he appointed a judge that is a racist and sexist by her own statements. And she is anything but unbiased.

His loss of votes due to his betrayal of his promises, gave us Clinton. If he hadn’t betrayed the Republican voters, Clinton would’ve had a hard time winning (if he ran again) in 1996. Perot probably wouldn’t have been as successful in 1992 because Bush would’ve been true to his word and likely he wouldn’t have run in 1996. Likewise, then we probably wouldn’t have had President George W Bush in 2000, and almost definitely not 1996 – the odds of a father-son President in direct succession at that time (or now) seems unlikely. That would’ve meant an 8 year term from 1996-2004 and likely an 8 year term from 2004-2012 which would’ve meant we wouldn’t have had President Obama. And in that case, we probably wouldn’t have a President Trump right now.

Is that how it would’ve panned out? Perhaps, perhaps not, but “little” things like breaking a promise to the nation, no matter whether you are being lied to about it being “good” ripple on down through the decades.

If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. Reagan

What is disgusting is that when Reagan said “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.”, the US was #1 in freedom around the world, last year the US was #17th! (Or 18th depending on which you follow). A very sad state of affairs. The Founders would be disgusted. (See e.g. Cato or Heritage: )

The scam? is sending me emails (spam, unsolicited commercial emails) saying I’ve signed petitions that I didn’t sign. Contacting their customer support is useless, but even more disgusting is that they are fraudulently using other people’s email address to sign petitions.

One wonders how many people who sign their petitions are legitimate and how many a fraudulently done like the one below.

One sample today:

We Just Took Back the House of Representatives! It’s Time for Democrats to Step Up and Finally Impeach Trump.
Let’s all take a collective sigh of relief.

People like you and I have been waiting for this moment for two years. We fought for it, canvassed for it, phone-banked for it, and now it’s finally happened — Democrats have won back the U.S. House of Representatives, changing Congressional politics in a major way.

“What now,” you ask?

2018 Florida Amendments Voting – for Freedom in Florida

Voting for Liberty on Florida’s Constitutional Amendments​, 2018:

Amendment #1—Increases the Homestead Property Exemption Vote YES

Amendment #2—Limitations on Property Tax Assessments – Vote YES

Amendment #3—Voter Control of Gambling in Florida Vote YES (take it from the lobbyists)

Amendment #4—Restoration of Voting Rights Vote NO

Amendment #5—Super majority required for tax & fee increases Vote YES

Amendment #6—Rights of Crime Victims; Judges – varies

Amendment #7—1st Responder and Military Survivor Benefits; Public Colleges & Universities – Vote NO

Amendment #9—Prohibits Offshore Oil & Gas Drilling; Restricts Vaping – Vote NO

Amendment #10—State& Local Government & Operation – Vote NO

Amendment #11—Property Rights; Removal of Obsolete Provision; Criminal Statutes – Vote YES

Amendment #12—Lobbying and Abuse of Office by Public Officers – Vote YES

Amendment #13—Dog Racing – Vote NO (should be up to the legislature and individuals in a free country).

(some of the “no”s because they belong in the legislature, not the Constitution.)

Florida Voting 2018 – vote freedom for Florida

In general if you are voting for freedom, you should not be voting Democrat in Florida 2018.

You have a socialist – you work, I’ll eat – running for Governor and it continues on down the Democrat side of the ticket. The socialists, fascists, and communists – any authoritarian – can’t stand freedom and a President who is rolling back taxes, regulations, and government. It might cut off some of their “free” stuff. Here is a clue, nothing is free, you are either paying for it for yourself or using force to make someone else pay for it for you. The Democrat party fought a civil war to defend that in the old South and are still peddling the same abuse of one group for the benefit of another today.

The collectivist authoritarians – fascist, socialist, communist, it doesn’t matter the label – of the left have one goal and it is power over people and their lives. In short, enslaving people to fund their choices and do their bidding at the point of a gun. Their goal is Venezuela, Cuba, Mao’s China, the USSR, Eastern Europe of the 1950s through 1980s etc: anti-liberty prisons where the masses of people are forced to fund a small elite.

Don’t be one of the Left’s useful idiots. Vote freedom.

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please – Lincoln

“Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.” Abraham Lincoln

How FactCheck, Snopes et al try to confuse data manipulation in global temperature data

Snopes, FactCheck and other fact checking type sites love to use weasel works. For example, in the “global warming” or “climate change” debate both attempt to deal with the question as to whether NOAA has manipulated the raw data. Clearly the answer is yes. Yet both sites come out with the answer as now even though they admit that it was “standardized” or “manipulated” in the text.

For example:

“no undue manipulation of temperature data” –
“NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data” while stating “procedures for the standardization of which datasets to use” – Snopes

None of this is the language of science. Once you have massaged the data, it is no longer data, but a hypothetical. Sure, models may be good, but they may not be – garbage in, garbage out. And a model is no longer data, it is a model projection of data. Depending on your manipulation, you can achieve many different results.

Snopes continues:

“Karl et al might reasonably be criticized for having been less than rigorous in their data documentation, their findings have been independently verified, “

First of all, if it is impossible to independently verify a revision in data processing. Sure, if you put the same input into the same process, you should get the same output. But the process here is key. If the assumptions used to “standardize” the data are biased or faulty, it doesn’t matter if it is repeatable.

“they also released a revised land record based on data” – “the old NOAA record spliced together warmer ship data with colder buoy data without accounting for the offset between the two; and the new NOAA record puts more weight on higher-quality buoy records and less weight on ship records (versus the old NOAA record which treated ships and buoys equally). ”

A “revised” data set based on changes in weighting of the data from equal to weighting one that is unequal is purely subjective. It is no longer data, it is, again, hypothesis.

So, when reading the fact checking from many of these sites, watch out for the weasel words to twist a statement into something it isn’t.

Look at the “Did Hillary Clinton Steal $200,000 in White House Furnishings?” article on snopes which they label as “mostly false.” Yet Snopes states at the end of the article:

All told, the Clintons paid back or returned approximately $136,000 worth of furniture, artwork, china and other household items they had kept upon leaving office, with $86,000 of that total consisting of personal gifts they would presumably have been allowed to retain but decided to pay for to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
About $50,000 of the total comprised items they had removed but were later determined to belong to the government. To say the latter were “stolen” is to say more than we know — the removal of the questioned items could have been based a clerical mistake — but in any case an accurate accounting of those items’ worth puts it at only a quarter of what has been alleged: $50,000, not $200,000.

Just be sure to read the words because they could’ve ask the question “Did Hillary Clinton Steal $200,000,000 in White House Furnishings?” And of course as a percentage $50,000/$200,000,000 is de minimis.

How the question is phrased, and how the answer is presented is key.

Did NOAA manipulate temperature data? Unequivocally yes as everyone admits when you read what is written.

Snopes and others tried the same thing with the “Al Gore invented the Internet” claim. By changing the claim from what Gore said to something else, they claimed it was false.

Individual Rights and Today's Issue