Richard Barnes

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson



Lauren Canario's Stand Against Papers to Travel

Lauren Canario has been fighting to expand our freedoms for some time now.  She was one of the leaders in the eminent domain battles down in CT. which turned into a national event leading to NH Amending it's state Constitution to prevent such a blatant abuse of Government from happening here.  Lauren rented one of the homes that was being taken and given to a private corporation for the "greater good" of that community.  Refusing to leave her home, Lauren was later arrested and hauled off by the police for sitting on her porch and reading a book.  You can view the video of her being arrested here.

Based on her past it was no shock to me to hear she was arrested again last week, reason because she refused to show her papers when stopped and questioned by the police.


(That's actually Lauren in the picture to the right)

Lauren is now questioning whether or not we should need the governments permission to own a car and to drive that car in the form of a Drivers License and Registration.

When stopped for speeding (see my thoughts on speed limits here)  Lauren refused to show her papers.  It was found she already had a suspended license so she was handcuffed and taken to jail treated no differently then a murderer or rapist.  The arrest video can be seen here.

Her arrest has since triggered protesting outside her jail.

If nothing else this latest arrest by Lauren the freedom fighter begs to open the discussion of when "papers" are necessary.  Clearly we have progressed to such a state as satired in the attached photo in that we cannot freely travel about this country as free citizens and we are in fact forced to show our papers or pay tribute to the government (tolls) in order to travel from point A to point B and maybe it is time we open discussion and reexamine if we've allowed the government to grow too overbearing into our every day lives.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Patrick Henry

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial … the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. – Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928



Who are "The Rich" Democrats always talk about?

Yesterday I had a conversation with a democrat friend about Hillary's idea to give every child born in this country $5,000 upon birth.  I asked him the same question I posted in my article about it, who will pay for this plan being as it would cost this country $20 BILLION dollars annually?  While he admits to not being a fan of Hillary he still tried to defend her plan, his first comment was that clearly she needed to work out her statement as not all children would need the $5,000.  After all a child from a rich family wouldn't need it nearly as much as that of someone from a poor family.  Now aside from the fact that this already from birth would create a completely unconstitutional situation in that all men and women born into this country would no longer been seen in the eyes of the government as being equal (not that they are now) it still did not answer the question of who would be paying for it.  So I pushed back again, who will be paying for this.  Then came the answer all Democrats love to give... the rich!

Like Robinhood, democrats continue looking for ways to rob from the rich and give to the poor.  The fact remains any way you look at it though, Robinhood was a thief. 

But who are these rich they keep looking to reap more and more from?   Top 1%?  5%?  10%?  One NH Democrat suggested anyone with a household income over $72,000 in NH wasn't paying their fair share in taxes.  Others such as my friend somehow believe that we can continue to push these multi BILLION dollar programs off on the top 1%.  Over all however most democrats believe that the rich is anyone in the top 10%.  The best I can find is figures from 2003 which show the top 10% being anyone with a household income over $82,000.  The top 1% in 2004 were those with household incomes of $850,000 or more. 

Now keep in mind living in New England has people believing that the rich are making far more then they really are as the top 10% in the north east due to the big cities Boston and NY is $185,000 a year.  That's nearly double the rest of the country.  When you look at the mid west and deep south people on average earn far less, but then again the cost of living is far less (which is another issue about federal income tax, it doesn't take cost of living into account).

Now let's think about this in number of people, the US currently has a population of roughly 300 million people.  The top 1% would be 3 million people.  If we were to tax only the top 1% for Hillary's baby program that would be a little under $7,000 in new taxes per year and that's for this ONE SINGLE PROGRAM.  That's $700 a year in new taxes on the top 10%, which is the family with the household income of $82,000 a year.

How many new programs that Democrats dream up will it take before that top 1% or even top 10% start looking to move to areas with lower taxes?  Or maybe shift their businesses over seas to help mask their profits?  Who will that burden be pushed to then?

If you think that doesn't happen, you're wrong.   Like myself, I know many others who have moved to NH because local states taxes continue to climb in places like NY and CT.  People who can afford to move do move leaving that burden on the lower and lower income groups below them.

That is why social programs do not work and also why every socialist country has failed over time.  Of course Democrats fail to understand this and continue looking for socialistic ways to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor when in reality all they are doing is continuing to squeeze out the middle class.  The dream of "the rich" paying for everything is just that... a dream.  So if Democrats wish to be taken seriously they need to push back when people like Hillary within their party comes up with these grand schemes that will be pushed off on "the rich".  Do yourselves a favor and ask for once who "the rich" really are and just how many social programs they can have thrust on them because it's too much.


Who will pay for it?

Hillary Clinton never ceases to amaze me with her blatant socialistic views. 

This past Friday she passed expectations once again by suggesting at a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus that every child born in this country should receive a $5,000 bond upon birth.

Let's take a close look at her actual statement, "I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home"

Every baby born in America... not every American citizen baby but every baby born here.  Can you see it now?  People from all over the world coming here to give birth to get their hands on that $5,000 check taken from yours and my pocket of course.

And what about the total cost?  Let's see 4 million babies a year are born into this country... that's 4 million times $5,000 comes out to be $20,000,000,000 every single year.  That's $20 BILLION annually this plan would cost this country.  So much for saving for retirement!

Let's add to that some discussion about the most recent ad she has running here in NH.  Next time it comes on TV listen for this line in particular, "And she changed future generations by pushing the drug companies to lower the cost of vaccinations."  What exactly does that mean to you?  I'll tell you what it means to me... it means she is forcing companies to charge a low price which lowers their chances to profit from their research.  Those who are slow witted cheer because they simply see lower cost drugs, but they miss the big picture.  Companies don't develop new drugs because they are kind hearted and want to invest billions of dollars in time and labor just because they have it laying around and want to help.  Companies are there to make money for those who work for them and own them.  Take away profit and you take away the motivation to develop new drugs.

Canada has already started forcing drug companies to lower their prices and as a result companies have raised the costs here in the US to make up the difference.  What do you think will happen when the US likewise forces companies to charge lower costs?

Can this country afford Hillary Clinton? 


Higher Priced Tolls But Are They Needed

As Merrimack continues it's fight with the state over the unfairness of tolls Gov. Lynch came out backing an toll increase which in the case of some of the current toll locations would result in a 100% increase over what you would currently pay.  I guess this is what you get when the state government goes on a spending spree like drunken sailors increasing the budget by 17.5%.

But does the state really need all this extra money for the highway department?  Let's take a look at a point raised in a Union Leader article found HERE.

"A new report from the Legislative Budget Assistant's office finds that 62 percent of the gasoline taxes collected by the state is spent on things other than roads."

So only 38% of the money collected from the gas tax goes toward roads (this includes state and local, if you take out local only 17% is used for state roads). 

And yet the state finds the need to collect tolls from motorists on top of this and they are claiming the highway department is running into a funding crisis?  Well no wonder!  More then half the money never makes it to where it was meant to go in the first place.

I would now like to draw your attention to Article 6-a of the NH Constitution:

[Art.] 6-a. [Use of Certain Revenues Restricted to Highways.] All revenue in excess of the necessary cost of collection and administration accruing to the state from registration fees, operators’ licenses, gasoline road tolls or any other special charges or taxes with respect to the operation of motor vehicles or the sale or consumption of motor vehicle fuels shall be appropriated and used exclusively for the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of public highways within this state, including the supervision of traffic thereon and payment of the interest and principal of obligations incurred for said purposes; and no part of such revenues shall, by transfer of funds or otherwise, be diverted to any other purpose whatsoever.

It's things like this that make you go hmmmm....


Watch What You Say to The Press

Maybe it was my article from September 12th expressing my disappointment with the Union Leader's front page from the 11th or maybe it was their attempt to build up a story to be more sensational then it really was but in today's paper I was butchered.

I was called by a reporter at the Union Leader regarding last Thursday's events in Merrimack which ended in the result of the chairman of the Merrimack town Council being removed as chair.  During the call I stated that there were phone calls being made before the meeting suggesting people show up to support the idea of removing Dave as chair over his actions.  I knew this was true as I know people who received the calls, however the calls were being made to my knowledge by one person.  I gave the reporter the person's name and suggested they contact him.  Further into the conversation Dave's political "enemies" came up.  Again, it is well known that Dave is often on different political sides with a number of people and often seen campaigning either against or supporting opposing candidates with a number of political candidates.  I mentioned the previous selectmen chair who had a number of public disagreements with Dave as well as members of the school board also known to disagree with Dave on occasion.   From this, the Union Leader wrote as if it were me saying it, that a "rudimentary telephone tree was set up to draw his opponents" then listing the past Selectmen Chair and the school board as his opponents.  This seems to imply that I believed the school board not only to be in on the decision to remove him as chair but also were involved in calling people which isn't the case.

I wish this was the first time I had been either taken out of context or had things printed not quite as they really were but unfortunately it isn't so.  A while back when I ran for School Board I came in 3rd out of 4 people.  It was a close race and the two women who won turned out to be very good members of the school board.  During the race, I was lumped together with one of the two women running and viewed as running mates while the previous school chairman was lumped with the other.  We never officially created the two sides but never the less that's how the race was broken down.  After the election I was at an after party to hear the results.  The woman viewed as my running mate was also there.  She won, the other woman running came in second winning the second seat.  I however lost coming in third but I did beat the out going chairman.  A reporter also from the Union Leader came up to me asking me my feelings about losing.  Clearly I was sad in that I didn't win but I commented that I did like the two women who won.  While I was talking to the reporter someone came up to me and said not to feel too bad as I was able to beat out the chairman who'd served on the school board the previous 10 years.  I nodded and agreed that yes I guess that does count for something, I beat the chairman and that's what matters.  I said this back to the person in the bar and I said it more to cheer myself up after losing the election but what was quoted in the paper?  Not me saying the two women who won were good choices... nope.  Me saying I beat the chair and that's what matters.

So be very careful of what you say to reporters folks.  Not only that watch what you even say when they are around as you never know how they will use your words or which words for that matter they will choose to use.