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