Guest Blogs



by John Clark  Peterborough NH

At first glance there does not appear to be a connection between  Environmentalism and  Socialism, however after even a basic analysis the "commonality" becomes apparent.

The primary objectives of Socialism are "Control of the Means of Production", and the "Re-distribution of Wealth". These being accomplished under a "Central Government" to the detriment of individual rights and freedom of choice. Socialism is the Far Left wing of Democracy.

The primary objectives of Environmentalism are " Control of the Use of Land", and the "Re-distribution of Land Ownership", also to the detriment of individual rights and freedom of choice. Environmentalism is the Far Left wing of Conservationism.

What Socialism is to Democracy, so is Environmentalism  to Conservationism.

Both are synomymous with restriction of individual rights and freedoms, both posit the premise that the "State, and/or Local Government" can make better decisions than individuals or private businesses. 

Both originate and have their "Power Base" in the same psuedo-intellectual, upper-middle class of our society.  

Whilst Socialism is essentially more of a "National" issue, the same is not true of Environmentalism. Take a good look at your local Land Use Ordinances, Building Codes, Planning Boards and all of the various Commissions, Committees, etc which control our Towns. Most are "appointed" by elected Officials. Many "local" elections do not generate very large turn-outs and so become relatively easy targets for "activist" factions with a cohesive Local, National, and even International, agenda.

The large population centers, of which there are only a few in our particular State, are not really affected as much as smaller Towns of which we have MANY. In the name of "preserving our country way of life" and "protecting the environment for future generations", we face mandated Lot sizes of 1,3,5 and 10 acres, residential sprinkler systems, excessive wetland clearances and "building style review", to name just a few restrictive measures we deal with on a daily basis. We tend to accept these Regulations blindly since they are recommended by representatives we expect to be "looking out" for our common interests. 

The people who settled our the land and built our Towns did a pretty good job of keeping them compact and picturesque. They built to emphasize the features of the countryside, along the rivers, hugging the hillsides, among the trees. the house lots were small and neighborly. The regulations demanding huge Lots, and up to 100 foot set-backs from rivers, do NOT "reduce urban sprawl" they ENHANCE it !  Furthermore, such things tend to increase the house prices to a point where "normal working people" can no longer afford to participate in the American Dream of "home ownership" -- Part of the reverse logic of Environmental philosophy.

Social Engineering is very much a part of Environmental activism. Fortunately the main proponents of this activism are fairly easy to identify. Conversation becomes the "give-away". their  interminable pronouncements are almost always started with  "Our Studies absolutely prove -----",  or "The Best Science states ----".

Frequent rallying points are "Open Space" and residential pollution, with "houses bring children, and children mean added schools, so your taxes will go up" ! 

As a primary Objective, Environmental activists wish to control Land Use, using local Ordinances and Building / Zoning Regulations.

ONLY local "citizen" participation can preserve our way of life and the heritage of our children.  

Having read this "Primer" your next step should be to attend your local Town Board and Committee Meetings, usually held in the Town House, to find out what is happening in the name of the "Environment". Local Government is where Your Lifestyle, Your personal Liberty and Your Freedom of Choice are subject to the most insidious attack. Awareness is the first step, Please take that step. GET INVOLVED  !!



By Edward Mosca

Was the 2006 election a realignment of the New Hampshire political landscape or just an aberration? The answer is: it depends.

If the Democrats overreach and pass an income or sales tax, then the Democrat majorities in the Statehouse certainly will disappear in 2008. The voters overwhelmingly rejected an income tax in 2002, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that, since then, they’ve changed their minds about new taxes.

What has changed, however, is that the Democrats finally understand that taxes are the proverbial third rail of New Hampshire politics. The Arnie Arnesens and Mark Fernalds have been benched in favor of John Lynch, whose theme-song since the 2004 election has been "we will not have a sales or income tax." In 2006, many of the Governor’s fellow Democrats joined the chorus. Given the success of this strategy, it’s reasonable to assume that the Democrats will not propose new taxes in the near future.

The Republicans, therefore, hold their fate in their own hands. Early indications are not promising. Senate President Ted Gatsas has been selected by Republican state senators to continue as their leader for the next two years.

Gatsas is the quintessential “same-but-less” Republican. Consider his education plan, which was rejected by the State Supreme Court this past September. There are no substantive differences between it and the Lynch plan. Both are merely “targeted aid” plans like the Augenblick plan similarly rejected by the State Supreme Court in the 1997 Claremont II decision. Neither contains any new approaches to reforming public education.

There also are no substantive differences between the Gatsas approach to health care and the Lynch approach. Both are based on the antediluvian assumption that increased government regulation of the current system will make health insurance more accessible and affordable.

So, on the three major issues upon which state elections turn –taxes, education and healthcare– Republican state senators will offer an echo, not a choice, over the next two years. Republican state representatives have yet to elect their leaders. But they suffer from the same paucity of ideas as their senate colleagues. At this point, then, it appears that the 2008 election will be a rerun of the 2006 election.

Republican legislators will spend the next two years governing like Democrats and then make the 2008 election just about the income tax, which once again will keep the base home, the independents turned off and the Democrats in control.

While Iraq, phone-jamming, and the incompetence and selfishness of the party’s leaders contributed to the “thumpin” the State GOP received in 2006, voters will still need a reason to vote Republican in 2008. “No income tax” is not enough when the Democrats are singing the same tune, but in addition and unlike the Republicans, claim they will reform education and healthcare and better protect the environment. So how did the State GOP become so intellectually enervated?

The income tax has been a double-edged sword for Republicans. As long as the Democrat message to voters was that they were a bunch of knaves too ignorant to understand that they would benefit from new taxes, especially an income tax, Republicans cruised to victory. But these easy victories allowed Republicans to ignore other issues important to the voters. As a result, today there is no Republican plan for education, the environment or health care.

Some GOP conservatives see no need for such plans. For example, some prominent conservatives have formed a PAC called the New Hampshire Coalition, in order to promote traditional Republican themes such as local control, limited spending and low taxes. I think this misreads the State’s political climate. While the electorate continues to oppose new taxes, it does not oppose activist government. It wants government to address matters such as education, health care and the environment.

Many commentators have opined that the federal elections were a repudiation of Republicanism, not of conservativism. I think this assessment applies equally to the state elections in New Hampshire since the State GOP certainly did not run on a conservative platform. The challenge for GOP conservatives is twofold: they must develop conservative policies that address the issues that concern the people of New Hampshire and they must get the party on board.

The second part will be the hard part. Many of the leaders of the State GOP oppose an income tax not as part of a philosophy of governance, but for exactly the same reason the Democrats now oppose it –merely to win elections.


Election fraud in NM and WA

Ladies and gentlemen, I have an announcement. There is a crisis afoot in American democracy. It is not a crisis to do with the American electorate disengaging from the electoral process. It is not a crisis to do with a two-party system that looks bizarre to so many in the world.

It is, in fact, a crisis to do with clean and fair elections. Yes, ladies and gentlemen. In at least two of our states, our elections have become as dirty and fraud-ridden as elections are in many third world countries. And we need to stop it. Now.

Democrats in New Mexico and Washington have now proven themselves to be thugs and hypocrites who have absolutely zero interest in clean, fair elections.

We, as the party that stands for ballot integrity, the party that believes in ensuring free and fair elections by requiring voter ID, so that no one who is not entitled to vote can vote, and so no one votes twice, need to stand up and put a stop to this. Whereas many years ago, Democrats lost votes due to unfair voting practices in Southern states, today it is Republican and independent voters whose rights are being violated in these two states, and probably countless others across the US, due to outright efforts to rig elections by partisan officials whose remits unfortunately (for us) involve ballot distribution and ballot counting.

Though I generally do not favor federal intervention in state matters, when election-rigging is alleged to be taking place and the allegation looks reasonable, when voters are in effect being denied their Constitutional rights, when the Voting Rights Act (so hugely touted by Democrats as an essential piece of legislation) is being violated, we have no choice but to demand that the Feds move in and prevent crooked partisan officials from delivering the result that they, and not voters, want. It's our democracy, damn it, and if we don't protect it, who will?

Read the rest here:

Liz Mair



Maine fights back

By Craig Benson

The old saying goes "there are only two certainties in life -- death and taxes."

Sadly government is the only entity that can take as much of your money as it wants and spend it any way it wants. With that awesome power should come responsibilities. First among them is the duty to spend our money at a slower pace than our income grows. Otherwise, each year a taxpayer would have less and less real income. Our quality of life declines as taxes increase. The reality is taxes really do grow faster than paychecks meaning quality of life IS declining.

The problem has gotten so bad in Maine that voters are poised to weigh in on this issue and threaten New Hampshire's traditional economic advantage.

New Hampshire's economic success has been built on the competitive tax advantages we enjoy over neighboring states. Fifty years ago Maine and New Hampshire had similar tax postures and similar economic situations. Since that time Maine's taxes have grown at a more rapid pace than New Hampshire's. As a result New Hampshire's economy is more robust than Maine's.

Two facts demonstrate New Hampshire's economic success. Maine's unemployment rate is much higher than that of New Hampshire, and wages in Maine are much lower than in New Hampshire.

That difference also matters a lot to businesses making decisions. When we moved Cabletron to Rochester, the choice to move to New Hampshire not Maine was easy because of the significant tax differences. How your state contrasts with states thousands of miles away may not matter as much but there is significant tax competition between neighboring states. It's just as easy to be in Kittery as Portsmouth, in Rochester as Berwick.

In making site decisions, the tax impact on the company's bottom line is critical. Management's obligations to shareholders or investors can not ignore saving thousands or millions of dollars simply by moving a few miles across the state line. Moreover, employees benefit because they get to keep more of their paycheck.

This year, Maine is poised to compete more seriously for jobs in Northern New England. On election day, Maine voters will decide whether or not to support a Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) - a proposal to force the state to live within its means by holding spending growth and tax growth to the change in population and the rate of inflation.

Even in New Hampshire, spending has grown faster than people's ability to pay and creates pressure for higher taxes. Maine's adoption of TABOR has the potential to turn the tables on New Hampshire by keeping tax growth rates below that of New Hampshire creating an economic advantage for Maine which will grow over time.

Government spending acts like a ratchet. When tax collections are strong in good times, spending increases. The problem is that those bills become difficult to pay during economic slowdowns. Moreover within a state there is more than one government entity that may be raising taxes independent of one another.  State, county, and local taxes all must be added together to calculate the real tax burden.

Those higher taxes hurt people who can least afford to have more money taken out of their pocket and damage economic development.

The danger to New Hampshire's economy is that if Maine passes TABOR, they will begin to lure jobs to Maine which might otherwise go to New Hampshire. A spending and tax cap gives business the certainty it looks for in tax policy, especially over the long term. Furthermore, it sends the signal that taxes in Maine will not grow as fast as they do in other states in the region, making Maine more and more competitive each year.

In the short term, we should continue to look for areas where we can improve our competitive edge. In the long term, we should consider our own fiscal discipline to ensure we don't spend faster than New Hampshire's paychecks grow. New Hampshire should adopt its own taxpayer bill of rights.


This crime must be reported 10-27-06

by Peter Macdonald

Paul Revere (the man that road through the night to tell the people that the British are coming) is a terrorist. All the men that took up arms against their government are terrorist. Carle Drega is a terrorist because he dare defy judges, town officials and police that he believed were violating the Constitution. Our Constitution grants us the power to take up arms against our own government officials when all other means of redress fail. The Madbury NH selectmen used the power of their elected positions to seek personal revenge on a local family. The selectmen did not deny this criminal act under oath. I want you to listen to the facts.

People that I had never met called me to ask for help. I volunteer at least 1000 hours/year to help people. I have done this for over 30 years because I came back alive. I use names in these facts because the truth is a powerful weapon. The newspapers censor the truth to protect the powerful. Judge Peter Fauver violated the Constitution at least 29 times to protect the Madbury selectmen. Fauver appointed me as an attorney (knowing that I was not qualified) to represent this family. Fauver found me guilty of a crime with no charges, witnesses, evidence or trial. I got fined over $20 thousand. Judge James O’Neill ruled what Fauver did constitutional to protect a brother judge. The NH supreme court ruled the case moot to protect the NH bar. The NH government declares me a terrorist to scare me. The federal courts ruled judges have immunity to protect the legal monopoly. When I take this to federal court the NH state police arrest me as a terrorist under the Patriot Act. I lose my freedom for 6 months. Taken my freedom did not shut me up so the NH governor informs the Veterans Hospital that I am a Terrorist to get my VA medical stopped. This is a crime of the highest magnitude. I am put back in jail and fined because I dare write the governor to ask why? Next the state police go to my wife’s work place to scare her into stopping my free speech. Governor Lynch offers a 30 minute unrestricted coffee break to high bidder to raise money for the Portsmouth little league. I am high bidder so the governor takes back the deal. I run for public office and the newspapers censor my words. The NH governor interferes with a free election. Have all means of redress failed? Does Paul Revere ride again?

What is next. I am a 100% disabled Veteran from the Vietnam era. I did 31 months over seas. I receive two of my three injuries in combat support missions. I killed other human beings for your freedom. You the state of NH and the United States of America have allowed this Madbury NH family to be destroyed by corrupt officials. The VFW, American legion and Elk’s clubs allow this. You have allowed the State of NH to use a 100% disabled veteran’s health to stop his free speech. The facts are documented. The records exist. Every one is afraid to speak for fear what is happening to me, will happen to them next. The United States is the people. We the people should not be afraid of people that are there to serve. I have violated no laws. I volunteer my time to help other United States citizens. The people of the United States must speak up. If NH can do this to a 100% disabled veteran, what is next, WAR? What Paul Revere did was to start a process to make the world a better place for all the people. I ask any newspaper across the nation to print my story. We as United States citizens must help each other. E-mail this letter.