• Advertisement

Rep Lambert Who Proposed The Repeal Of Collective Bargaining Now Eyes The NH Senate

As we move towards the 2012 Election there has been a lot of talk about the new NH House and NH Senate districts. There has also been a lot of talk already about new people running for Governor and Senators not running again.  Sen Ray White and Sen Gary Lambert already announced that they will not run for Senate again.  Sen White, says that it is too much for him to be Senator and Businessman at the same time.  Sen Lambert is going back to the Marine Corps. With all these changes added up it is creating new opportunities for many people.  Add this with the new districts and we could see a lot of changes in the next election.  

One of the more scary announcements came today when State Rep George Lambert (not to be confused with Sen. Gary Lambert) announced that: “Litchfield Republican Rep. George Lambert has talked to associates about running for the Senate seat that Manchester Sen. Tom DeBlois is vacating to try to become executive councilor.”(Link).  Ugh that is enough to make me lose my lunch.  I cannot wait until the voters of Litchfield elect someone else in (Rep) Lamberts place.  (on a side note: does anyone remember the Eddie Murphy movie “The Distinguished Gentleman” where Eddie Murphy was elected because he had the same name as the previous representative?)

Rep. Lambert is a true TEA Partier (and Free Stater). He is one of these republicans that was elected in the “red tide” of republicans in the 2010 elections.  I understand people were upset.  The economy nationally was tanking, unemployment was high here in NH, and people thought we needed a change.  I wonder how many of those people wish they had chosen different now?

Rep Lambert has pushed some real “winners” in the State House this year. From labor’s perspective he introduced HB 1645, the repeal of collective bargaining.  He has also supported anything that in his opinion supports “Liberty, and Individual Freedom”.  Many people have noticed his extreme legislation.

“State Rep. George Lambert, R-Litchfield, is behind a number of the bills. He said bills such as his – banning sobriety checkpoints and decriminalizing speeding unless a driver causes personal injury or property damage” 

One of the most sweeping bills Lambert sponsored this session, HB 1531, would have established an affirmative defense for so-called victimless crimes. Affirmative defenses, such as self-defense or insanity, essentially mean a defendant can acknowledge the state’s charges but argue they were justified because of some other factor. 

Under Lambert’s bill, people who are accused of crimes that don’t have a direct victim – such as drug possession, prostitution, driving without a license or dozens of other infractions – would have been able to argue that since no particular individual was harmed, there was no crime. 

“It’s ‘Show me the victim,’ ” Lambert said. “I have a right to a defense and a right to challenge the witnesses against me, and if there are no victims, there is no crime. The state itself can’t be the victim.”(“Proposed bills would expand NH freedoms”)

Really, show me the victim, Really? This is ridiculous and Hillsborough County Attorney Dennis Hogan agrees. He said “the bill would have made it impossible to prosecute many crimes, including DWI, drug cases and habitual offender offenses”. So now we are going to make it ok for people to drive drunk because there is no victim at that time. Why do you think there is no victim in a DUI arrest. Is Lambert suggesting that unless a driver has an accident, causes damage, or kills someone that it should be allowed. I think that the Mothers Against Drunk Driving would have different opinion! In that case why stop there, lets remove speed limits from school zones! Unless someone hits a kid and puts them in the hospital or worse, according to Rep Lambert there is no victim right?

This is why people need to research who they are voting for. We spend a lot of time and energy trying decide who to vote for when it comes to the US House / US Senate or President, but not enough time on local politics. Would you have voted for Rep Lambert if he had said from the beginning that he wanted to take away your rights as union members, allow more drunk drivers on the roads unchecked, and allowed people to drive as fast as they want in school zones? I highly doubt it!

Comments

comments

About The New Hampshire Labor News

The New Hampshire Labor News is a group of NH Workers who believe that we need to protect ourselves against the attacks on workers from the State and Federal Government. We are proud union members who are working to preserve the middle class. The NHLN talks mostly about news and politics from NH. We also talk about national issues that effect working men and women here in the Granite State.
Tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments

  1. badnhlaws says:

    This George Lambert sounds like a great American who respects the constitution and limited government. Hopefully more like him can get elected and restore some of the liberties we have lost due to decades of over-regulation which have made criminals of us all.

  2. Keith Smith says:

    When did Rep. Lambert join the TEA Party or free state project? Oh that’s correct, he didn’t. You are correct though, he is a Republican. He doesn’t seem like a bad one, either.

  3. mrbdross says:

    George Lambert is most certainly not a Free Stater. He’s lived in New Hampshire long before the Free State Project existed.

    The speeding limit bill makes sense. Study after study shows that speed limits alone don’t enhance public safety. When we ignore what causes accidents and tell people that under the speed limit is “safe” but “over” is bad, drivers become complacent and inattentive–which is exactly what causes accidents. When you remove speed limits, drivers can no longer rely on signs to tell them what speed is presumptively “safe”, and drivers actually start paying attention to road conditions.

  4. Curt- says:

    I don’t see how anyone can call “Show me the victim” is some kind of radical legislation.

    It’s a simple truth that if no one was harmed, there is no crime.

    There is also nothing in it against prosecuting direct threats EVEN IF no one was directly harmed, such as barreling trough a school zone at 90mph.

    1. The difference is that when there is a victim in your example, you just hit someones child at 90 miles an hour. What are the odds of that child not being hurt? A little prevention goes a long way.

  5. If I am not mistaken some of the people in the Free State movement were already living here in New Hampshire, while others choose to move here.

    If he is not a free stater, then I will admit that I am wrong. I do not know who is and who is not because they do not wear badges that say Republican / Free Stater / TEA Partier. He is much more extreme than many of the Republicans in New Hampshire’s past elected officials.

  6. mrbdross says:

    “I do not know who is and who is not because they do not wear badges that say Republican / Free Stater / TEA Partier.”

    If you don’t know, why would you publish it as if it were true? Just call him up and ask.

    “He is much more extreme than many of the Republicans in New Hampshire’s past elected officials.”

    Depends what one thinks “extreme” means. I have seen a lot of stupid and short-sighted bills this year. But nothing I would go so far as to call “extreme”. Misuse of that label really waters down what it means.

  • Subscribe to the NH Labor News via Email

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 12,447 other subscribers

  • Advertisement

  • Advertisement