Worth A Constitutional Amendment?

Ever hear of a CACR?   The legislature in Concord are considering a number of bills with this label.  What is a CACR? 

Short for Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution, it is one method of making amendments to our New Hampshire Constitution.  Once a CACR is introduced, it is assigned to a committee.  That committee will hold a public hearing, make a recommendation of Ought to Pass or Inexpedient to Legislate.  The CACR then goes to the floor of the introducing body, and requires a 3/5’s vote of the body membership in each House.  Passing these hurdles the CACR is placed on the ballot for the biennial November election.  In order for the CACR to amend the state constitution 2/3’s of those voting in that election must approve the measure.  The earliest the people of New Hampshire will see a new CACR is November 2012.

So if a body member is to amend a document shouldn’t that body member understand the document?  Especially, when the document is the New Hampshire Constitution and the members are the elected Representatives and Senators who took a vow to uphold and defend this document. 

Additionally these members swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.  The logical conclusion by the ordinary American is that these members have read and understand these founding documents.  After all, in Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville observed:

“Nothing makes me admire the common sense and practical intelligence of the Americans more than the way in which they avoid the countless difficulties arising from their federal constitution. Seldom have I met an ordinary American who could not distinguish with surprising ease between obligations stemming from laws passed by Congress and obligations originating in the laws of his state…”

Why would a legislator in discussion with an “ordinary” New Hampshire citizen be unable to discuss a question on the wording in a CACR?

“I can’t speak specifically to Article 6, as I have not heard that specifically mentioned with respect to this amendment.  I am happy to share your thoughts with those that are working on this language and how it is affected by Article 6.” NH Senator.

Neither Constitution (of the United States or of New Hampshire) is a lengthy or complicated document to read.  In the simplicity of the language is depth of meaning.  This is where definitions and debate are valuable. 

It is not too much to expect elected officials to be able to defend these documents to the ordinary citizen. 

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States limits the power of the federal government to those that are delegated to it or prohibited by it by the people (you!).  This means that unless it is stated in the Constitution, the federal government does not have the power.  The federal government is limited.  Likewise in New Hampshire the state is limited.

For example in education the NH State Constitution Article 6, Part 1 states:

“...the several parishes, bodies, corporate, or religious societies shall at all times have the right of electing their own teachers, and of contracting with them for their support or maintenance, or both”

This section clearly puts the authority over the schools at the local level.  That is the people who are physically closest to the children who will be educated have the choice who will educate the children and set the standards.

One of the CACR’s before the General Court wants to amend the State Constitution with the following wording.

Art. 5-c "In fulfillment of the provisions with respect to education set forth in Part II, Article 83, the general court shall have authority and full discretion to define reasonable standards [curriculum] for elementary and secondary public education, to establish reasonable standards of accountability [assessments] therefor, and to mitigate local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity. Further, in the exercise thereof, the general court shall have full discretion to determine the amount of, and methods of raising and distributing, State funding for education."

"In fulfillment of the provisions with respect to education set forth in Part II, Article 83," doesn’t that say we are attempting to resolve Claremont by attributing this new section as the "fulfillment" of those obligations established in Part II Art. 83 as described in the Claremont decision.  The term "fulfillment" indicates that we are attempting to satisfy, not overturn, the Claremont decision.

Authorizing the general court to have the "full discretion to define reasonable standards" for K-12 is very explicit.  It allows the legislature, not the local communities, to define a statewide curriculum and establish assessments to make sure this  curriculum is being fully implemented.  This section will override Art. 6 Pt 1 where local control is guaranteed to the people on NH within their local communities.  In practice, parents may be able to appeal to a school board for remedy, but they cannot reasonably expect any remedy from a state legislature of 424 members and a governor.

This section will enable the state to standardize our curriculum and enable the state to take federal money to help balance the state budget in exchange for implementing a national curriculum, or even an international curriculum under UNESCO as is being done in Canada and many other countries.  As budget problems loom on the horizon, these solutions may appear more and more expedient in resolving the state budget.

The reason Art. 6 Pt. I was put into our NH Constitution was to prevent Acts of Uniformity like those implemented in England in the 1550's or those now planned by UNESCO.  To control education is to control the people.  Education is the foundation of all state power.  A reread history will confirm how state control over education is critical to all regimes and antithetical to all free peoples.

This CACR will not limit the state government in our lives, but it will enable them to encroach upon our inferred constitutional right to direct the education of our children. 

Now is that so difficult to understand and debate?

Assisted Suicide - - -A rose by any other name

Recently, the House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing for HB 513 relative to end of life aid in dying for certain persons suffering from a terminal disease. Aid in dying is another name for assisted suicide is another name for death with dignity and so the rhetoric goes.  As I read through the articles and testimony presented . . .  elder abuse, death panels, terminal, self-administered . . . were words with meaning, but do these words have hidden meanings?

Where did this concept of “physician assisted suicide” originate?  Back in 1980 following the publication of “Jean’s Way,” in which Derek Humphry relates his story of helping his “terminally ill” wife kill herself in 1975.  Red flags! Red flags! 

What happened the principles in the Declaration of Independence?  You know where it says “we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator to certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, . . .”  Suicide was murder albeit self-murder.  People who attempted to kill themselves were considered ill and put under medical care.  And yet, here is a man who admittedly assisted his wife in killing herself.

Was she really given a “terminally ill” prognosis?  Did Mr. Humphry have other reasons to help his wife murder herself?  Did he stand to benefit monetarily upon her passing?  Was he abusing her is some manner?  Isn’t he at minimum an accomplice to murder?

Be that as it may, in 1980, Derek Humphry began selling Americans on the idea that life had no value and that individuals who could be convinced that life was not worth living, should be allowed to terminate their lives with the help of a physician or other person as he founded the Hemlock Society.

Over the years, the names have changed to End of Life Choices, to Caring Friends until today where they are known as Compassion Choices.  I wonder whose “choices” they reference.

Reading about Oregon and Washington, the only two states that currently have “physician assisted suicide” laws, causes one to shake the head.  How is “terminal” defined?   In HB 513 it refers to a prognosis of less than six months until death.  What if the doctor is wrong?  As in the case of Jeanette Hall.  She states:

“I wanted to do our [assisted suicide] law and I wanted my doctor to help me.   Instead, he encouraged me not to give up . . .   I had both chemotherapy and radiation . . .

“It is now nearly 10 years later.  If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead.”

Or what about Barbara Wagner, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer.  Her doctor offered her hope in a new chemotherapy drug, Tarceva.  The Oregon Health Plan denied her request for coverage, but instead offered her comfort care and physician aid in dying, aka assisted suicide.

Barbara told them, “Who do you guys think you are?  You know, to say that you’ll pay for my dying, but you won’t pay to help me possibly live longer.”

According to Dr. William Toffler, a critic of assisted suicide, the state has a financial interest in offering death instead of life.  The Chemotherapy drug such as Tarceva costs $4,000 per month while drugs to administer death cost less than $100.

Maryanne Clayton was diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer and given two to four months to live.  She was eligible for Washington States “Death with Dignity” law.  However, Maryanne chose to participate in a clinical trial with a new drug called Pemetrexate.  That was four years ago.

Other areas of concern with this bill include the administration.  There is no provision in this bill to allow the patient to opt out or rescind their request for a lethal dose.  Once the medication is prescribe there is no supervision provided or required.  Hence the so called “patient choice” is not really available and can be abused.   Some third party could administer the dosage to the unaware patient or it could be administered through an IV.  In fact, “patient control” is a misnomer.  The claim that they are in control because they are being allowed to “self administer” is mere word play.  “Self administer” is defined as the patient’s act of ingesting the medication. . .

Someone else who places the lethal dose in the patient’s mouth qualifies as “self administration.”   Someone else placing the lethal dose in a feeding tube or IV nutrition bag qualifies as ingesting or absorbing and thus is “self administered.”

Ultimately, a rose by any other name. . . Physician assisted suicide or death with dignity or aid in dying are all other names for legalized murder.

New Hampshire would benefit the most IF the Judiciary committee and the full House of Representatives vote to kill HB 513.

Is It About Our Children?

Oft times over the years, teachers have expressed that they are professionals.  (By the way, I was a teacher.  I taught at all levels from pre-school through college, in public and private schools.)  Over the years teachers have told parents that they are interested in doing what is best for our children.  They are the trained professionals.

Please know that I know and am aware that there are many honest, hard working, quality teachers who want to do what is best for our children.  I am not talking about these professionals who really make a difference in the lives of their students.

However, there are those who are looking for the paycheck and the summer vacations.  And then there is my next observation professionals do not go on strike when they encounter barricades in agreements.  They do not need to join unions.

On the other hand, the teachers in this video may have told you their primary focus is in the best interests of your child, the speaker says otherwise.  Is it really about our children?

What do you think about the actions of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker?

Civility or Censorship?

In the coverage of the Arizona tragedy where six Americans lost their lives at the act of one individual, "civility" and a call to limit our rhetoric has dominated.  But is it really a call for “civility” or a disguised move towards “censorship?”  

We the people prosper when there is an open exchange of ideas.  This is what we the First Amendment of our Constitution protects...our right to free speech.

This is the beauty of America.  Our ability to discuss openly and freely on any subject, even when we view the words, tone and discourse as inflammatory, disrespectful or mean-spirited.  Take for example the desecration of our symbol of liberty, the American Flag by groups or individuals.  We who believe in freedom will defend the right of those who take such actions the ability to express themselves as long as there is not harm to life, liberty or property.  It is challenging at times to restrain ourselves, but we allow this expression because we believe that liberty of expression is more important.

Discussion furthers understanding.  The open exchange of ideas is based on the understanding that truth will emerge victorious.  Instead of pointing fingers at the tone, attitude or words, the high road is to find ways to continue the discussion.  After all when a finger is pointing, there are three more pointing back at the accuser.  

If we are to protect our liberty to free and open discussions, we, as individuals, we must not be intimidated by rhetoric and  be willing to stand and courageously enter into the discussion.

Cody Alicea of Denair Middle School in California, is an example.  While Cody rode his bike to school last fall he did so with an American flag.  Under the “concern for safety” he was told during Veterans Week he could no longer display the flag on his bike.  After public outcry, Cody is now allowed to continue to wave the flag proudly on the back of his bike.  

This is just one instance where our liberties are being challenged in the land of the free.  It takes courage to stand for what is right and to secure that freedom.  Cody should be an inspiration to all.  Read more.  As word spread, Cody also received support from fellow citizens in the form or e-mails, phone calls and letters to the school officials. The American Legion veterans helped him celebrate the return of his right to display the American flag.  

Once in A Lifetime

Recently one of the wonders of science occurred on December 21st.  A lunar eclipse where the full moon passes through the shadow of the earth was to be visible to us here in America.  For the first time in some 372 years.  As seems so typical we here in NH would be able to see this once in a lifetime event at 3:15 AM.  So as I departed for bed with the alarm set the sky was clearing.  However, at that wee hour of the morning, the snow clouds blotted all views of the eclipse.

But this morning, due to the wonders of technology, William Castleman, caught this wonderful observation.  What wonderful Creator made the heavens to declare the glory of our Maker.  And thanks to Doug Philips of Vision Forum, I am able to share it with you.  Enjoy - Goodnight Moon


Winter Solstice Lunar Eclipse 2010 from William Castleman on Vimeo.

Regarding the TSA and Airport Security

I understand that the Transportation Security Agency is not the enemy.  I also understand that they are using methods to protect the public and our country.

But here is my question.  Each time I book a flight to travel, I am asked to verify my birth date for validation that I am who I am.  Additionally, over the past several years, I have been cleared by the FBI, the US military, the OSI, etc. to represent my country both in the USA and abroad.  I have also obtained a security clearance to work for the State Department and been cleared numerous times to be in the presence of Presidents of the United States and other dignitaries.  All of which include extensive background checks. My husband and other family members who have and are serving this country as military members, and their families, have been cleared multiple times as representatives for this country. Why are we continually subjected to any of the full body scanners and/or pat downs?  Why are we continually required to be humiliated and harassed?

I have other questions, but time and space do not permit a full discussion.

However, it is time to stop all the politically correct nonsense and follow the advice of the consultants our tax dollars employ.  According to these advisors, body scanners do not reveal the information we need to stop bombings such as the most recently prevented attempt at the tree lighting festivities in Portland, Oregon.  Employing techniques like those tried and proven in Israel that profile and observe behavior work.  

For true security we should profile and observe behavior while asking questions, more questions and still more questions.  We should coordinate the information we have on individuals and focus our effort on those people whose profile is questionable. This will deter and protect the traveling public with the minimum hinderance on their ability to transit through our country.

What do you think?

SECULAR SANCTUARIES

I’m tired of hearing from Christians, pastors and lay people alike, who buy into the fantasy of the separation of church and state.  Sure they all can quote the First Amendment that says the government should stay out of a church’s business and all can rail about attacks on Christian beliefs by our government, but they are missing the point.  No where in the First Amendment does it say that churches should leave the battlefield to non-believers and politicians.

What is today’s secular sanctuary?  Where do the secular worship?  I’ll tell you where, it’s in the halls of government.  It’s in the Statehouse in Concord and in our Congress.  It’s in our schools.  It’s in a multitude of government institutions.  To use a familiar phrase, “What Would Jesus Do?”  We don’t have to speculate.  All we have to do is read the story of Jesus rampaging through the temple and over turning the money changer’s tables.  If he were alive today (and when he returns), I believe that’s what you would see him do.  He’d rampage through all these secular sanctuaries, overturning the tables and chasing the scoundrels out.

So what are our pastors and lay people doing?  We are called upon to be Christ like, but what do we do?  We hide in our homes and behind our pulpits, not engaging and rampaging in the secular sanctuaries.  We rant about the horrible politicians and what they are doing to our freedoms and our families, but for the most part, we do this behind our Christian walls.  We’ve ceded the battlefield to the enemy and the enemy is having a great romp!  Maybe we should think, “What WILL Jesus Do?”  What WILL he do when he returns and sees that all we’ve done is wait for his return behind our walls?

In the recent elections, it was clear that we are playing it safe and staying home while non-believers are rampaging through the secular sanctuaries.  Our voting record, both in quantity and quality is abysmal.  It’s time that we do what Jesus did and rampage through the secular sanctuaries!

Immigration - The Rule of Law

I hear a lot of rhetoric about immigration.  Let’s be clear, the issue is not immigration.  With very few exceptions, all of our ancestors are immigrants, and all of them came to this country under a variety of conditions, whether they were in the cramped quarters of a sailing ship or on an airplane.  We are a nation of immigrants.  We are a state of immigrants.  This is what makes this country great. When we become the melting pot our forefathers envisioned, the whole society is greater than the sum of the individual citizens. 

The real issue is not immigration, it is the rule of law and whether or not we are a nation of laws that respects these laws.  My grandparents came to this country in the early 1900’s under the laws of that time.  These laws were not always easy, but they were the laws of their new country and they abided by them.  During WWII, my grandfather worked with Governor Carr* of Colorado to resettle many displaced Japanese in Colorado.  All during that time, they lived according to the laws of their chosen country.  Whether we like the law or not, the way to change laws is not by mass violations as we see happening today all along our borders.  The way to change our laws is through the legislature and courts that adhere to the constitution.  I want to reframe the argument on illegal immigration and address the rule of law.  It’s quite simple:  If you come to this country (or this state), you follow the law. The New Ipswitch case a few years back was a travesty.  The officer should have been encouraged, rewarded, not reprimanded.  Our Courts and the Attorney General should have backed the law enforcement officers who were enforcing the rule of law.

Like a lot of issues, some people like to frame the issues with terms that fit their argument.  Or, place bogus arguments on the table such as “... how can we deport 20 million illegal immigrants?”  The answer is actually simple... arrest the employers and show them in handcuffs on the seven o’clock news.  The illegals go home and our business ALL compete on a fair basis.  Too many of our small businesses who follow the law are forced to compete with businesses who break the laws and hire illegals.  Too many of our skilled citizens are unemployed because employers who follow the law can't compete with those who do not and are going out of business.

 As your Governor I will enforce the laws, and I will work with the legislature to pass requirements for proof of citizenship before receiving State aid, including health and public education, and I will seek prosecution of business owners who hire illegal aliens.  It is time we remember that we are Americans and we must follow the law.

*P.S. If you want to know my model for a great Governor, read the book "The Principled Politician: The Ralph Carr Story."

Transparency

Many politicians like to talk about transparency but really never understand or define it in a meaningful way to you.  I’m going to change that.  It’s simple.  Transparency means that you, the person paying the bills, know what you are getting for your money.  As an example, take the Financial Resource Mortgage Ponzi scheme.  Friends of mine called all the agencies responsible for overseeing companies like FRM before they invested.  The response from these supposed "watch dogs" of the health of companies like FRM: Don’t worry, we have no issues with FRM ... this, despite the fact that there were nearly ten years of reports about the vermin.  Based on this "clean" report of FRM’s health, my friends proceeded to invest and lose several hundred thousand dollars!  I just looked online at the Manchester Health Department’s inspection record of eating establishments and found that on March 11th, one restaurant had “...openings [that] have not been tightly sealed to prevent the entry of vermin.”  Why couldn’t all the financial regulatory and oversight agencies of FRM put what we now know was years of similar findings about “...the entry of vermin” into FRM?  At a bare minimum, we should know that there are "pending investigations" on these institutions.

As your governor, this practice will change.  We will post all findings from agencies, regardless whether they are inspecting restaurants or financial institutions online immediately so you, the person paying the bills, know what you are getting for your money.  This is true transparency.

While we are on the subject of transparency, let’s talk about checkbooks (or more likely today, credit card statements).  Most of you can go online right now and find all your charges or checks for any given period-of-time, in most cases up to yesterday, if not sooner.  Why can’t you do this for all the expenditures by all the departments in the State?  Sure we can find a copy of the budget on line, but that is just how those in Concord plan to spend of our money.  What you really want to know is who receives that money, why and when.  And, I want you to know this because you are the best auditors we have.  That’s how vigilant Windsor citizens found discrepancies in the town’s property tax system.  As your Governor I will put our state’s checkbook online.  Well run companies know this level of detail, and so will you.  Join me in bringing real transparency to New Hampshire.  

See you at the polls on September 14th!

Scouting... Our Next Generation of Real Men

At a time of celebrating the Centennial of the Boy Scouts of America, President Obama just thumbed his nose at the Boy Scouts and decided an interview on “The View” was a more valuable use of his time.  In 1988 my husband and I had the honor to watch our youngest son, Matt, receive his Eagle Scout award at the World Jamboree in Australia as a "Lone Scout."   A few years before that our oldest son, Pat, earned his Eagle award while we were stationed in Ohio.  Today three of our five grandsons are in Boy Scouts and in a few years all of them will follow in the foot steps of their father, grandfather and great-grandfather.   Without a doubt, the Boy Scouts is a beacon of light in a dark sea of political correctness. 

Scouting helps dads mold their sons into men in a society that tries to feminize and degrade them.  When was the last time you watched a sit-com on TV that didn’t portray the husband or father as a doofus who but for the smart females, or children would be a complete failure?  This is what Hollywood believes.  We can do better.  

We need to change this and make organizations like the Boy Scouts an important part of our son’s lives.  When we do this, we raise them to be responsible men.  When we do this we strengthen our families. When we strengthen families we reduce fractured families and the cost to our citizens and our state.  Help me do this.  Become a Scout leader and enroll your sons in Scouting.  As your Governor I will be honored to pin the Eagle Scout award on your son’s chest.

Guest Blog on the Second Amendment by Robert Jursik

Karen Testerman was a guest this past Saturday at the Tri-Rivers Friends of the NRA dinner in Franklin, which affords us an excellent opportunity to reflect a bit on the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment and her uncompromising support of it.

In New Hampshire, the politician who would publicly disdain the 2nd Amendment is rare to the point of non-existent. The campaign websites for three of New Hampshire's arguably most liberal candidates - Paul Hodes, Carol Shea-Porter and Anne McLane Kuster - are utterly silent on it. Perhaps wisely so, as the orthodox liberal opinion of gun rights is almost universally negative. Conservative candidates such as Karen happily proclaim their defense of gun rights from the rooftops, and are rewarded with significant voter acceptance. It is a perennial conservative issue.

The reason for this is that the 2nd Amendment has greater sophistication than words on a page. The philosophical foundations of it constitute the essence of American liberty, the very soul of the ardent Constitutionalist. The leftist's skepticism of individual liberty is revealed in the sorry catalog of his policies, one government-run purgatory after another: health care, housing, energy, education. It is no different with the self-defense of Americans. To limit or even remove the ability of the citizen to arm and defend himself creates a corresponding dependence on the state to defend you, in the form of law enforcement. Although conservatives are second to no one in respect for our police, we insist on the right to determine for ourselves the circumstances of our defense: its timing, its degree, its target, its duration. No one - least of all the orthodox leftist - can appreciate those circumstances better or more quickly than we can.

If these facts seem obvious to us, they would have certainly been obvious to the Framers as well. Why then include the obvious in the Constitution? In the Bill of Rights? Second only to freedom of speech and religion? It is because the Framers understood that the necessity for bearing arms referred to more than just confronting a mugger on a sidewalk. At the time of the Ratification, the first police force in world history would have still been decades away - and on the other side of the Atlantic. Defending against local crimes would not have been nearly as important to them as defending against the abuses of an overreaching government, something with which they would have been painfully familiar. Keeping and bearing arms of at least comparable power to those employed by the state would be the citizen's last, surest stronghold against tyranny. Such an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be in perfect harmony with the letter and spirit of the entire Constitution, the most government-limiting document ever devised.

No one should be surprised that conservatives - with their fondness for rule of law, stability and tradition - embrace the amendment as written and in its larger meaning. The question, rather, is why the left does not. This is, after all, the same crowd which finds constitutional justification for abortion hidden deep in the misty "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Constitutional jungle. Yet they are woefully blind to the high-visibility, reflective surface of the 2nd Amendment billboard standing directly in front of them. There is no escaping the conclusion - they don't see it because they don't want to.

NOYB?

A few years ago my husband, Dave, went to his doctor in Amherst for an annual physical.  At the end of the examination the doctor was going through a series of questions that seemed reasonable until the doctor asked, “Do you have any firearms in the house?  Are they under lock and key? Are their children in the house?” and several similar questions.  Dave’s response was universally “None of your business!”  

Since when did these kind of questions become acceptable for your family doctor to ask?  When did this kind of political correctness become standard fair?  It was not that many years ago that firearms safety and marksmanship were taught in our public schools.  My father had rifles in the house and Dave still has the original shotgun he bought from money he earned mowing lawns when he was 11.  Firearms used to be part of what you found in every home, just like you found tools to repair the car.  Today too many homes don’t even have tools to repair the family car (if they could). The idea of your family doctor asking the questions like Dave was asked would have only happened if the Doc wanted to borrow a rifle to go hunting.

Isn’t time we tell people and groups like this that it’s “None of Your Business?”  When did our right to bear arms become a health issue?  

So parents. . . what will you do to teach your children about firearms?  Are you going to let your family doctor assume your role?  You may want to take advantage of programs like Eddie Eagle, or those taught at your local fish and game club.  But, most importantly don’t let your precious Second Amendment disappear into the grayness of political correctness.  I can promise you that my family won’t let this happen and when I’m elected your Governor I’ll fight for your rights as parents to do the same.

Guest Blog on NH Jobs by Robert Jursik

It is not surprising that all of New Hampshire's Republican gubernatorial candidates would be required by today's circumstances to address the issue of job creation, or that their responses to it would trend generally to free-market capitalism. The surprise is that it is the non-politician, non-entrepreneur candidate who possesses the strongest grasp of the issue and therefore the best chance to pursue the appropriate policies.

This past week, I had the great pleasure to join Karen Testerman at a dinner table, discussing how New Hampshire could generate new business and also attract established industries to relocate here. As a thunderstorm rumbled on the other side of the window panes, our twenty-minute interview left few stones unturned in a quest to find lasting, practical strategies for growing the economy and developing jobs. 

Immediately, Karen directed our attention to an important point: providing incentives for new businesses must take into account the TYPES of businesses our state needs. Every candidate, no matter the party, will pledge to create jobs - but as has been seen from the Obama stimulus, a nation does not prepare itself for the 21st century by laying down hundreds of miles of asphalt. "Shovel-ready" is not the equivalent of microprocessor-ready. The contemporary marketplace will need to strongly favor newer, clean-technology industries to compete successfully with the global manufacturing universe. Karen correctly identifies education as a critical component for this but also understands the serious "brain drain" being experienced by New Hampshire, as information technologists and engineers pursue dreams elsewhere.

New Hampshire's lack of an individual income tax allows for a personal accumulation of wealth, and the parallel lack of a sales tax allows for the free transfer of that wealth - both are indispensable for a state's economic future. However, that is not why the entrepreneurs are sitting on their wallets or taking them over the borders. New Hampshire still retains among the highest unemployment insurance taxes in the country, among the highest corporate property taxes in the country, and is the undisputed champion of corporate profit taxes. The message from the "Live Free or Die" state to businesses is unmistakable: get out and take your jobs with you. With a state population less than a fifth of New York City, why does New Hampshire's government require so much capital?

The beast needs to be fed. When Right-to-Work legislation failed to pass years ago, state employee unions were able to close their government shops tight and bargain for ever-higher benefits and pensions. The money had to come from somewhere, and since the Democrats in Concord were loathe to cut spending, their favorite money tree became businesses. The state is now among the country's worst in "value-added" manufacturing (producing things of higher value than the resources used to create them) and "export-focused" manufacturing (producing things for the purpose of selling to extra-state markets). In short, New Hampshire is making cheaper stuff and selling to ourselves. That probably also explains why our state has been among the worst in the number of IPOs created for the last five years.

It does not explain why Karen's primary opponents, who continuously trumpet pledges to create "jobs," fail to match her corresponding pledge to create industries - or more precisely, to pursue market-based government policies which will allow industry to create itself.  Can the former head of a government agency, who oversaw higher budgets and benefits to his union employees, be credibly expected to successfully resist them once he occupies the corner office?  Can an executive for a service sector corporation - without union employees - be credibly expected to appreciate the necessity for Right-to-Work legislation, or technology-based entrepreneurship? Karen Testerman, having been an educator herself for many years, is prepared to take them both to school.

The unborn are not potential persons, but human persons with great potential.

In the coming weeks, you will hear me discuss the topic of the sanctity of life many times.  It is my firm belief that a respect for life is the fundamental principle that is the bedrock of our constitutional republic.

“Respect for life is the belief that human beings have a value that transcends all our human capacity to count or measure, which confers upon them an elevated status that must be honored or revered.” (Gushee)

That is a mouthful, but absolutely critical to understand. Even firm Christians and pro-lifers waver at times to uphold this ethic one hundred percent of the time. To love thy neighbor - this includes “the weak, the enemy, the disabled, the stranger, the unborn, the sinner, the poor, the ex-friend” (Gushee) - is one of the most difficult commandments to keep.

While we must remain cognizant of the entire spectrum of the sanctity of life, let us look at abortion. Since Roe v. Wade, there have been an estimated fifty million aborted children. What is the rational? Simply, the right (convenience) of the woman outweighs the right to life of the unborn child.  This supposition is based on a warped definition of personhood.

From a scientific point of view, there is no doubt life begins at fertilization and ends at natural death. For supporters of abortion, personhood only begins at some defining moment after fertilization. For some, it is when brain waves are first detected at around the forty-day mark. For others, it occurs when the baby gains the ability to feel and sense as a conscious being, which occurs as early as the second week of the second trimester. Some have even taken it to extremes, such as pro-abortion feminist Mary Anne Warren, by defining that moment when life begins as when the child is able to engage in sophisticated communication, has problem solving skills, performs self-motivated activity AND has developed concept of self!

The moment of personhood MUST be established at fertilization.  The unborn are not potential persons, but human persons with great potential. If we deviate from this view, we devalue life and move down that road into that “brave new world” envisioned by Huxley in which future generations become disposable commodities.

According to Republican leaders, it is just fine to endorse a candidate who agrees with the party 80% of the time over a candidate who aligns completely with the principles of the party.  The 20% of the equation that is almost always excluded is LIFE.   No more 80% Republicans!  Just another Republican is not good enough. 

As governor of New Hampshire I will fight to restore a culture of life in this great stat.  I will work with the legislature to reinstate our Parental Notification bill.   I will request my attorney general examine end of life laws and be a voice for personal responsibility and a culture of life.  To become the governor who will work to restore a respect for life, I need your help.  Together we will make a difference.

Works Cited

Gushee, D. P. (n.d.). The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity. Retrieved July 18, 2010, from http://www.cbhd.org/content/sanctity-life-0

Letter in the Union Leader - Linda Twombly

In the July 14th edition of the Union Leader (page C4) you can find this article by Linda Twombly:


"I met Karen Testerman in February when she spoke at the Nashua Republican City Committee meeting. I was impressed by her manner of speaking. She has a gentle spirit and I wanted to know more about her.   She is credible both morally and on issues facing fiscal responsibility. I know that I can trust her to do what she says she will do. Our Governor has not stayed true to the promises he has made to the people of New Hampshire.

Over the last four years New Hampshire has lost its NH advantage due to the out of control spending in Concord. It concerns me as a grandparent that our grandchildren are already in debt from the excess spending.

It is time for New Hampshire’s voters to step up to the plate and support Karen Testerman for Governor, both by your vote and financially. She is a fiscal Conservative and will bring spending back to a reality. She will also work to bring our state back to the type of state the founding fathers would be proud of."

Thank you Linda for your kind words!

Is our motto “Live Free or Die” or “Live Off the State and Wither”?

New Hampshire has been a hotbed  for free thinking, independent minded people since our very foundation – so independent, in early American history we tried to conquer Canada whenever the mood took us and all but allied with Great Britain during the War of 1812.  While most of us do not look back at these moments with pride (especially since our best effort at invading Canada only resulted in one of our own shooting himself in the foot), these examples are indicative of the spirit of New Hampshire which has until recently imparted our state with enormous prosperity often referred to as The New Hampshire Advantage. 

So what happened to us?  Why do we continually cede our will to the government’s will?  Why can we not see that dependence on federal, state and local handouts inevitably leads to a decline in personal responsibility and to a culture of entitlement?  Why can we not see that the more government taxes those that succeed the more it reduces the incentive to succeed?  When government interferes with the engines of industry through overregulation and onerous taxation to the extent that the Lynch administration has the result is general decline.  Entrepreneurship declines.  Successful businesses stop hiring, freeze wages, slow development and research and are often forced to either close doors or leave town.  Our children are forced to leave the state to find rewarding careers.  Ultimately we become financially and morally bankrupt.

The evidence is clear: under just five years with a progressive minded yes-man in the corner office our business friendliness rating has dropped from #14 to #34 in the nation, unemployment is at its highest point in twenty years, the budget deficit is $300 million dollars despite over 100 proposed additional taxes, and the younger generation is leaving the state en masse.  If we are to bring back The New Hampshire Advantage, we must redevelop that uniquely New Hampshire spirit of independence.  This revolution has to start at the home, in the families and in our schools.  As a civil servant who wants to see her grand children inherit the state we once knew, I will fight to let you reclaim your independence.

Service Above Self

A Great Lady Passes

Pamela Murphy, widow of WWII hero and actor, Audie Murphy, died peacefully at her home on April 8, 2010. She was the widow of the most decorated WWII hero and actor, Audie Murphy, and established her own distinctive 35 year career working as a patient liaison at the Sepulveda Veterans Administration hospital, treatingevery veteran who visited the facility as if they were a VIP.

Any soldier or Marine who came into the hospital got the same special treatment from her. She would walk the hallways with her clipboard in hand making sure her boys got to see the specialist they needed.

If they didn't, watch out. Her boys weren't Medal of Honor recipients or movie stars like Audie, but that didn't matter to Pam. They had served their country. That was good enough for her.  She never called a veteran by his first name. It was always "Mister." Respect came with the job.

"Nobody could cut through VA red tape faster than Mrs. Murphy," said veteran Stephen Sherman, speaking for thousands of veterans she befriended over the years. "Many times I watched her march a veteran who had been waiting more than an hour right into the doctor's office.  She was even reprimanded a few times, but it didn't matter to Mrs. Murphy. "Only her boys mattered. She was our angel." 

 Audie Murphy died broke in a plane crash in 1971, squandering millions of dollars on gambling, bad investments, and yes, other women.  "Even with the adultery and desertion at the end, he always remained my hero," Pam told me.  

She went from a comfortable ranch-style home in Van Nuys where she raised two sons to a small apartment - taking a clerk's job at the nearby VA to support herself and start paying off her faded movie star husband's debts.  At first, no one knew who she was. Soon, though, word spread throughthe VA that the nice woman with the clipboard was Audie Murphy's widow. It was like saying General Patton had just walked in the front door. Men with tears in their eyes walked up to her and gave her a hug.

"Thank you," they said, over and over.

The first couple of years, I think the hugs were more for Audie's memory as a war hero. The last 30 years, they were for Pam. 

 One year I asked her to be the focus of a Veteran's Day column for all the work she had done. Pam just shook her head no.

"Honor them, not me," she said, pointing to a group of veterans down the hallway. "They're the ones who deserve it."

The vets disagreed. Mrs. Murphy deserved the accolades, they said.  Incredibly, in 2002, Pam's job was going to be eliminated in budget cuts. She was considered "excess staff."  "I don't think helping cut down on veterans' complaints and showing them the respect they deserve, should be considered excess staff," she told me.  Neither did the veterans. They went ballistic, holding a rally for her outside the VA gates.  Pretty soon, word came down from the top of the VA. Pam Murphy was no longer considered "excess staff." 

 She remained working full time at the VA until 2007 when she was 87.  

"The last time she was here was a couple of years ago for the conference we had for homeless veterans," said Becky James, coordinator of the VA's Veterans History Project.   Pam wanted to see if there was anything she could do to help some more of her boys.  Pam Murphy was 90 when she died last week. What a lady.

 Dennis McCarthy, Los Angeles Times on April 15, 2010 

Strong Family Support Needed

More than forty years ago I watched my husband go off to the Vietnam war.  He spent two of the next four years flying combat missions over Viet Nam.  During that I and our two sons waited anxiously for the letters and infrequent calls, but most importantly we waited for his safe return.  During this time, we and the other military families kept the home fires burning.  We supported each other. We didn’t expect much from the rear echelon staff at the base.  What we did though was work very hard to keep our families together because we knew it was this stability that gave our husbands strength to continue.  In fact, of over 30 B-52 aircrews deployed from our base and in the four year period I do not remember one divorce.  Was this just a fluke?  I don’t think so.  I believe it was because we knew we were responsible for our own decisions and actions.  We knew it was about commitment.  We did this in the face of protestors at the gate and across the nation.  We did this in the face of losses as some of the husbands went down over North Vietnam. We did it because we knew in our hearts that an intact and supportive family was critically necessary.  The same is true today.

Fast forward to almost 30 years later and our two sons were flying combat missions over Kosovo.  There were still SAMs to dodge, but times had changed.  There were no protestors at the gate and our military was being honored and respected.  The internet was alive and well and almost daily contact with home was possible.  What did not changed was the need for strong families. What also did not change: our daughters-in-law and other spouses kept the home fires burning.  These families supported each other, and later, as the wars in the Gulf ensued, they did the same as their husbands and wives went back to war.  They did it because an intact and supportive family is as critically necessary today as much as it was then. 

But what has changed is the uncertainty of divorce.  Commitment to our oath of marriage changed.

But the foundations of our society did not change.  We still need strong stable families.

I am not saying that better pay and care of our troops is not necessary.  I am not saying that we don’t need to honor our troops.  I am not saying that caring for our veterans is not necessary.  What I am saying is that what makes our nation secure are the dedicated troops backed by strong, intact families.  And it is not just the families of our troops that are critical.  It is every family in this country.  

The single most important factor that defines the success of our country is an intact family.  This is true no matter what you use to measure it.  To paraphrase an old adage, intact families are by any measure, healthier, wealthier, and wiser.  

Here It Comes Folks...

Thank You to Mark Vincent, Chairman of Amherst Republican Town Committee.

These are Federal taxes!!!  

July 1, 2010

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect.  They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:
First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.  These will all expire on January 1, 2011:
Personal income tax rates will rise.  The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed).  The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.  All the rates in between will also rise.  Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.  The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Higher taxes on marriage and family.  The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.  The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.  The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.  The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.
The return of the Death Tax.  This year, there is no death tax.  For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.  A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.
Higher tax rates on savers and investors.  The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.  The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.  These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.
Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare.  Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011.  They include:
The “Medicine Cabinet Tax”  Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
The “Special Needs Kids Tax”  This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit).  There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year.  Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike.  This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.  The major items include:
The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year.  According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million.  These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level.  The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.
Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear.  Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000.  This will be cut all the way down to $25,000.  Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment.  In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”
Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses.  There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place.  The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others.  Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.
Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced.  The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available.  Tax credits for education will be limited.  Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses.  Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.  Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed.  The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.
Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed.  Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA.  This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.”  This ability will no longer be there.

Separation From or Separation Of...

           Loyalty to God, country and family (in that order) are not incompatible with proper governance but rather increasingly necessary.  The issue of separation of church and state in America, or the difference between ‘freedom of’ and ‘freedom from’ religion, is one of the most complicated and debated subjects in United States history, going back to before the drafting of the Constitution.  Therefore, let us agree that we, as ordinary citizens not Supreme Court justices, are imperfect arbiters and should  not be condemned for holding or having held onto a particular understanding of this subject. 

            During our nation’s formation and pre-founding history, the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights was interpreted strictly to mean that the national government should be prohibited ‘from’ establishing a formal religion.  In fact, prior to, and even after the Constitution’s ratification in 1788, the majority of states had established religions, or at least religious requirements, for holding office (Rhode Island, as a safe-haven for religious dissidents, being one of the major exceptions).  New Hampshire in particular required state legislatures be Protestant until 1877.  Two landmark events completely eroded this strict interpretation.  The first was the Fourteenth Amendment which expanded the protections of the Bill of Rights to the state level, and the second was Supreme Court case in 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education) in which two justices appointed by Franklin Roosevelt established a broad interpretation of the establishment clause to mean the separation of church and state, a term borrowed from Thomas Jefferson which was meant only to apply to the federal government.  In recent years, freedom from religion has been the mainstream understanding of the establishment clause (felt to be implicit in freedom of religion) leading to attempts to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency, any mention of God in the pledge of allegiance, prayer groups in public school and the Ten Commandments from courtrooms, not to mention creating an odd situation where oaths of office and military creeds such as Semper Fidelis [to God, country and corps] are considered acceptable while requirement of belief in God to hold office is considered unconstitutional.

            Regardless of current interpretations of the First Amendment, there is one important element America needs remember: this country is founded on Judeo-Christian values.  Belief in God is the very basis for our Republican form of government.  The founders believed that God is the source of moral standards and unalienable rights for which governments are instituted among men to secure.  It is written in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Whereas communist nations view the state as sovereign, dictatorships view their dictator as sovereign and anarchies view the individual as sovereign, the system of government created by the founders views God as sovereign.  In my opinion, the correct understanding on this issue is that there must be a jurisdictional separation between matters of church and state, but our philosophy of government does require that moral standards which respect human life, liberty, and property be enforced to protect and secure these rights among all people. 

            The worry that religious conviction will interfere with a public servant’s civic duties is not new (there was fear John F. Kennedy would make The United States subservient to the Pope and even Thomas Jefferson was careful to take heed of Jesus’ words, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”).  I sincerely believe we as a people, as a state and as a nation, need to understand and respect the philosophy of the government God inspired the founders to create.  Like our founding fathers acknowledged “our Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, we need to retain the phrases “under God” in our pledge and “so help me God” in our oaths so that we do not lose sight of what we as a society have in common, our respect for life, liberty, and property.  For further reading I would highly recommend this link http://iblp.org/iblp/news/2004/06/001/.