by Tom Humphreys

In the upcoming Presidential election, our country, our ideals, our philosophy and ultimately our way of life, which has kept America as a world leader and beacon of hope for the past 200+ years face the greatest challenge in our history.

This challenge comes not from an outside threat, although we certainly face those, but from within, from those determined but severely misguided individuals who would like nothing better than to turn America into another one of the socialist states that exist in Europe or other parts of the world.

If we allow the election of Barack Hussein Obama to the Presidency, then we will find ourselves on a dangerous and perhaps irreversible course to oblivion, and the dust bin of history.

• Obama's inexperience and extreme left-wing voting record is more dangerous than any threat we face today
• The Rev. Wright debacle reveals Obama's poor judgment of character and deceitful nature
• It won't be politics of change with President Obama — it will be liberal politics as usual

Obama is the most unqualified and ill-equipped individual that could ever be mistakenly elected as our President. His only qualification (??) comes from his public speaking. In speaking with and listening to those who support him, the common thread one hears is that he is so inspiring and uplifting. Well, so were Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Fidel Castro, but look what they did for Germany and Italy in the 1940’s or what Cuba is today.

DO YOU REALLY WANT SOMEONE LIKE THEM ELECTED AS OUR PRESIDENT?

Obama is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of target groups, following the lead of other like minded individuals in his party such as Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean.

Nancy Pelosi : “ "We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current lower Federal Income tax payers off the roles and increase government income substantially. We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest."

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied ; "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as "Americans".

Howard Dean : In 2004, the current head of the Democratic National Committee, while speaking to a party gathering in New York, told them “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for”

My response would be: “Well Howard, we don’t think much of you and your party of compassion and understanding either”

More on Obama’s qualifications.

One would be hard pressed to find documentable and quantifiable evidence of his contributions to his constituency as either an Illinois or US elected official. In the words of an Illinois resident and voter: “In 2006 we elected him to the United States Senate, and two days later he started running for President and has not done one meaningful thing for the people of Illinois.”

As a US Senator Obama has a reputation for voting “present,” thus avoiding controversial decisions that could be used against him later. In the U.S. Senate, he has missed more than one in five votes. Only one of the measures Obama has sponsored as a U.S. senator was enacted: a bill to “promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Contrary to Obama’s portrayal of himself as a unifier, on every bipartisan effort in the Senate to forge compromises on tough issues, Obama has been missing in action.

In sum, it would be difficult to imagine a more mediocre record. Most candidates for dog catcher have contributed more to society. Yet with the help of adoring reporters, Obama has managed to parlay extraordinary speaking and political skills into a presidential campaign built on sand.

The idea that America might entrust its security and future to someone who has never demonstrated an ability to get anything of significance done is scary.

It is remarkable, and more than a little un-nerving to watch the mainstream media, and note how soft is their touch on Barack Obama. It appears there’s a desire on the part of many in the mainstream media to recreate the Camelot years of John F. Kennedy, in the hope that Barack, his wife Michelle, and their young children can be like the Kennedys of old. And so we will have the rose-colored glasses probably throughout the campaign .

There are those in the media, and the East Coast, West Coast bastions of liberalism who view the upcoming election as an un-necessary formality. Having anointed Obama as the chosen one, these liberal elitists, and their supporters, see no reason why it should be necessary to entrust the outcome to the unknowing masses of voters in flyover country. It began with the presumptive nominee’s trip to the Middle East and Europe. The Obama campaign began referring to the candidate as if he already were president. That, while politically risky, is certainly understandable. What is not understandable is how many in the media went along with what the campaign fed them. They began to treat the senator from Illinois as if he already had been elected president. These are media types who believe that perception is reality. If they can convince the electorate that Sen. Obama already is president the election will become a mere formality. In fact, the election is a sort of tolerated nuisance in their eyes.

The Democratic party, in its quest for power, has created a “Messiah-Like” image of an individual who fails every reasonable test of leadership, other than the fact he is one of most radical, leftist thinking people one could encounter in their lifetimes, and anyone who dares criticize or speak negatively of Obama is either a bitter, gun-toting religious nut or a racist or both, and will be demonized and denigrated for doing so.

In a recent campaign event, Obama stated that his opponent was running a campaign designed to scare voters. Well, I for one, was already scared, and that feeling only grows stronger with the passing of each day.

In the words of Jon Voight, (One of the few Hollywood types who is not afraid to speak out against the prevailing mindset that exists there) “With what Obama has openly stated about his plans for the military, and his demonstrated lack of understanding of the true nature of our enemies, there is not a cell in my body that can accept and believe that as president he would keep us safe from the Osama Bin Laden’s of the world whose only goal is our downfall and destruction. This is a perilous time, and more than ever the world needs a unified and strong America. If, God forbid, we should see Obama elected president, we will find ourselves in a socialist era, the likes of which have never been seen in America before, and our country will be weakened in every way.”

In conclusion, to meet this unprecedented threat, we need to mobilize all of our resources and focus every effort in not only electing Senator John McCain our next president, but in taking back control of Congress. For if we fail, then our future will indeed be bleak. We need only to look to our south to see what not only New Hampshire, but our entire country will become like. That being the “Socialist Peoples Republic of Massachusetts”, where a “State of Oneness” exists. Such a state being defined as “One Citizen, One Vote, One Candidate, One Party, One Way of Thinking.

by Rep Andrew Renzullo (Hills- 27)

“No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” — Mark Twain

Now that the regular session of the New Hampshire legislature has mercifully ended, we can all breath a little easier. Unfortunately, and in spite of the Republican minority’s best efforts, Mark Twain’s warning was especially prescient these last two years as higher taxes, out-of-control spending and nanny-state legislation made significant inroads in New Hampshire.

What happened? What caused this? Well, in 2006 there was a sea change in New Hampshire politics. For the first time, in 85 years, both houses of the Legislature and the Governor’s Office were controlled by the Democrats. Besides the obvious, and reasonably to be expected, inexperience at governing coming into the legislative branch, there was also a pent up predisposition in the newly elected majority toward a big government solution to all real and imagined problems.

Now when the party of bigger government takes control, it doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict that new and expanded programs mean a bigger budget, 17.5% bigger, in fact. It is axiomatic that more spending means higher taxes. Let’s face it. The government, any government, has only one source of income and that’s taxes. So when you spend more, you have to tax more. This session the raising of taxes and fees was the death of a thousand cuts. No one tax would seem significant, but taken together they were substantial, working out to an estimated $150 per New Hampshire citizen. And few things were safe. Besides raising the cigarette taxes TWICE, new taxes and fees were levied on mortgages, deeds, car registrations and court filing fees and yes, even on gasoline and diesel fuel!

But even with the new taxes, last year the Republicans warned the Governor and the Legislature that the revenues being projected were unrealistic to cover the costs of the new and expanded government. They were told that they were inflating the numbers. In my Legislative Update from April 2007, I wrote, “And finally, when you can’t find anything else to tax or bond, just wish that the money will be there. The Ways & Means committee inflated the revenue estimates by $81 million. If you can’t balance the budget the normal way, make up the numbers.”

Now that reality has finally hit and there are red-ink projections as high as $200 million, the wailing has begun. First off, deflect the blame. “It’s the slowing economy,” the spinmeisters bemoan, deliberately ignoring the fact that more, not less, money is coming into the state’s coffers than ever before, just not enough to cover the huge increases in spending. Next, finagle the books. In order to get around rules requiring public hearings, a few weeks ago the Governor called an “Emergency Special Session” (ignoring the fact that the Legislature already was in session) in order to bond millions in expense items. That’s like taking out a mortgage to pay for dinner, but it sure does lower the apparent deficit (just leaves it for our kids to pay, plus interest). And finally, the Governor did use some commonsense and stopped spending money that the state doesn’t have. Unfortunately, this is like closing the barn door after most of the horse has left the barn. All you catch is the tail. Sometimes knowing what you’re doing at the outset is far more effective than you’re best efforts at fixing the mess.

I’m not alone in my opinions. A June 22 editorial in the Union Leader stated, “So Gov. Lynch is cutting state funding for the mentally ill, drug addicts, cancer victims, sick children, and university students. And nary a peep from the liberals. Boy, it sure pays to be a Democrat. Notice, too, that Republicans are not assailing the governor for victimizing the needy and vulnerable. They weren't trained in the Ray Buckley School of Unfair Political Attacks. Instead, they've fairly criticized the governor for overspending in the first place.”

Taxes and spending are issues that affect our wallets and our economic well-being. But there are other issues that touch on our core beliefs and how much control government should have on the lives of individuals. While most conservatives believe you should take personal responsibility for the consequences of your behavior, those in power in Concord believe that the government is responsible for your behavior and has the duty and obligation to regulate your choices and life style. This nanny-state attitude can be comical, like the House-passed bill (thankfully killed in the Senate) which made it a crime to release a helium-filled balloon. But it can be very serious when it bans entire industries and costs people their livelihood. A prime example is the payday loan industry. Payday loans are very high interest, small, short-duration loans intended to tide people over (usually until payday) when they are temporarily strapped for cash, thus the moniker “Payday Loan.” The Legislature capped the interest rate on these loans such that the industry will disappear and with it over New Hampshire 100 jobs.

Certainly the most contentious example where ideology got in the way of common sense was the Democrat repeal of the Parental Notification law which, except in cases of safety or immediate health risk, required notification of parents if their minor daughter was seeking an abortion. Remember, this statute did not give parents the authority to veto, as is the case in Massachusetts, but only to be notified so they could counsel and support their child. The Democrats had argued that the law was unconstitutional, but voted down any attempts to include language upheld by the Supreme Court. Imagine the absurdity of a pregnant 13-year-old being provided an abortion, paid for by her 22-year-old “boyfriend,” without at least notifying the child’s parents? Yet the school nurse cannot give the child an aspirin without the parents’ permission. The issue is not about being pro-choice or pro-life, it is about being pro-parent.

These 2 years have laid the groundwork to transform New Hampshire. Unless the electorate calls a halt to it in the next election, the biggest transformation will be in the tax structure. The dirty little secret is that many costly items are not due to take effect until after the 2008 elections. Unless there is immediate action by the incoming legislature, when these bills come due there will be immense pressure to enact a broad based sales or income tax. If that happens, the New Hampshire Advantage, already severely weakened, will tumble down like the Old Man of the Mountain and be just a fond memory.

By Peter Bearse

MAY DAY! MAY DAY! – The call of people in distress; also, the name of May 1^st, traditionally more of a “Labor Day” than the one in September.

These days, “distress” and “labor” go together. Workers’ work is earning far, far less, either in real terms [their inflation-adjusted earnings have declined] or as a share of earned incomes [in an economy in which the share of the rich has risen by leaps and bounds]. Thus, rising inequality is a sleeper (read between the lines) issue of this 2008 political year, to become a time bomb of an issue if we don’t start to do something about it now.

What’s to be done? First, try to get to the root of the problem. One fundamental source is that garden-variety wage and salary workers aren’t receiving shares of the profits and other wealth that their work helps to produce. Some firms have profit-sharing plans. Others have “ESOPs” – Employee Stock Ownership Plans. The latter are preferable since shares of stock embrace all company assets, not just profits. Several studies have shown that companies with ESOPs perform better than those without.

Another source is that, while paying through the nose as gas prices rise, American workers are not receiving any shares of the considerable profits being accumulated by “Big Oil” from our nation’s (diminishing) natural resource of oil, nor from any other natural resources whose prices are also rising in the commodities markets. The exception is Alaska, whose citizens receive an annual check from the Alaska Permanent Fund, derived from oil revenues produced in the state.

A third source is the negative rate of return on the forced savings that American workers contribute to Social Security for their own retirement.

Anybody seriously concerned with the ability of American workers to earn “living wages” that can support families will do more than claim an increase in the minimum wage as a major accomplishment. The evidence shows that it “helps” no more than a small minority of the nation’s workforce and leads to a loss of entry-level jobs. The next Congress will need to do much more. A good start would be threefold:

(1) In light of a generation of experience, liberalize and improve laws to encourage and enable the spread of employee stock ownership.

(2) Allow more oil drilling on public lands and increase lease rates and royalties that oil companies would have to pay for the privilege. [At the state level, states with considerable natural resources should look at the Alaskan model.]

(3) Require that workers’ Social Security funds are invested to earn a significantly positive rate of return – by putting the funds into a true, secure trust fund in the form of a public/private partnership that would invest them in a broad spectrum of American enterprise. This would negate the need to raise the already high rate of FICA taxation to maintain Social Security.

The bylines of these suggestions are: “Everyman an entrepreneur!” by broadening the base of ownership, “Spread the Wealth!” and “Let’s hear it for the American worker!”

Yet, these points are but a partial beginning of an effort to deal with a long-run, fundamental issue. Let’s get a discussion going. Comments? Other suggestions? Reply to peterj@peterbearseforcongress.com.

Peter Bearse, Ph.D., International Consulting Economist, author of Mobilizing Capital & Services: The New Economy (co-author), and Candidate for Congress, NH CD #1. Released by Supporters of Peter Bearse for Congress on May 1, 2008.

by Anonymous

Like alot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their butts, doing drugs, while I work. . . .

Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

by Orion K. Daley

2008 Presidential Candidate Balanced Party

We are inundated with many distractions such as the question of our privacy, immigration , Nukes getting stolen, camps tucked away where we can be herded to, and the list goes on. Then of course we have consumerism that gets its bandwidth also in our awareness; and then left with our personal lives and its own day to day issues.

But look what happened recently with mortgages. This has to do with our health , safety and welfare. When Candidates talk about our National Security, only second tho Bush, its focus is not on our economy where it should be. As with out this we have no National Security.

In the recent Republican debate, Fred Thomson was asked a very simple question about our Economy. It looked like the rest of the Republican Candidates felt spared the question, and the Democrats were probably thankful for not having it posed to them.

The Dow Index represents a good portion of our stock market, where if high as opposed to low, should indicate a good stock market. But consider the following contradiction.

In short, the question was, 'with a Dow index that is so high as it is, and an S&P 500 likewise, then why in parts of the country isn't the economy better' . That is not a direct quote of the question.

The actors answer, noted that 'although the economy was good, that there were "some pockets" in it that still had issues'. That is also not a direct quote.

The question to you is , would you rather have your investment being managed as in 1999 with a Dow index of 10,000 and the Euro at about 45 to 50 cents, or today with a Dow of 14,000 and a Euro at about $1.40 ?

In the reality of the world markets, the US dollar is roughly about 1/3 of what its value was in 1999. So today's Dow at "14,000" at US dollar value in 1999, would be actually at "4,670" in 1999 Dow Index value, or -5,200 or so from where it was. This is not necessarily very accurate, but is about less than half of when George Bush took office.

This does not really say much about a good economy, but does forewarn us that we must recover it instead. It also forewarns us what incompetent leadership can cost. In other words, our Economy, which affords our health , safety and welfare, which is our National Security.

When we put our economy to work for our nation is when we will recover it, and not before then. Until we do, we also ca not afford OPEC Oil which countries in Europe can easily afford. We are faced sealing it from Iraq instead.

We cannot have our imminent domain on Iraqi Oil, and the manifest destiny of their Country, as this has always failed any nation at the cost of other ones. Yet we are stuck in a black hole that we must embrace as it does not affect just our soldiers, but all of us.

As we are convinced of a world around us that swirls to fast to keep up with on the issues brought to our awareness everyday, it is counted on that we do tune out. In this manner we can then be herded not to camps, but to the will of others desires. The North American Union is one as it obviates any commitments in how things work for us now , such as our Constitution. To what end can only be measured in how Democracy is to serve Capitalism.

But to recover our Economy, Capitalism must serve Democracy. We will be a far richer nation for all, including monetarily as well as being able to minimize our world conflicts through economic solutions when we put the economy to work for our nation as opposed to the few.

--
Orion Karl Daley
Presidential Candidate for 2008
Author - The New Deal ISBN: 1419670948
for the Strategic Future of our nation
Balanced Party http://unity2008.org
New York, NY, USA -