NH’s Own Punxsutawney Phil: Governor Lynch

Like the famous weather predicting rodent from the Keystone State, New Hampshire has its own version of Punxsutawney Phil, and his name is Governor Lynch. But now the only time Governor Lynch seems to emerge from his lair is when most of his constituents are without those pesky modern conveniences, like heat, water or communication with the outside world.

N’er to be seen or heard from during our recent budget woes, Governor Lynch can always be counted on to pop out of his den when it is time to declare a State of Emergency. Putting on his best Timberland Duck Boots and canvas “I am in charge” jacket, Governor Lynch has perfected the illusion of leadership when New Hampshire is in need of being declared a disaster zone.

Bravo, Hopkinton John. While members of your Party are running around imposing excessive taxes and fees, while at the same time declaring war on small business with the recent ill-advised LLC tax, New Hampshire can sleep well knowing you can be found scurrying about the fallen trees and the out-of state line crews, as a fumbling media trips over themselves (and the downed branches) in a effort to get just the “right” action photo of you.

NH: Does Congressman Paul Ryan Deserve Our Fawning

With Congressman Paul Ryan’s recent visit to NH, I could not help but notice how easily some have forgotten how the Republican Party found themselves out as the majority. Everyone wants to get their picture taken with him, and no one wants to ask him the tough questions.

Maybe's its the euphoria of "certain victory" that many believe will come the Republican Party's way this Fall. Or maybe it because Congressman Ryan is young, providing the illusion of a Party newness. And although Ryan in the past, more times than not, has voted as a conservative (which I greatly appreciate), he also has a history of voting for political gain:

• Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
• Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
• Voted YES on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
• Voted against the original stimulus package, but than wrote that he supported the Energy Center of Wisconsin’s grant application, which “intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs.” The funds for this center would come directly from stimulus funding he VOTED AGAINST.

Congressman Ryan was first elected to the House when he was 28 years old, and he is now 40 (that is 12 years……….the longest job he has ever held is in government!). Prior to joining the Congress he worked as an aide to Senator Kasten (1992), then served as Legislative Director for Senator Brownback, and next as a speechwriter for William Bennett and Jack Kemp. Where is the private sector experience? If he were a Democrat, many would be saying he is nothing more than the ultimately political insider! But because many see him as "one of us," they believe it is alright to ignore the fact that Ryan has called DC his home for most of his adult life.

He has little to no private sector experience. But he is young, and he is saying what we need him to say now; so NH welcomes him with open arms, wooed by his youth, and tough talk at the Healthcare Summit. But we have a greater responsibility as NH voters, it is called accountability. NH owes it to the rest of the nation to be tough on not only Democrats, but Republicans. He voted for some of the very things many of us stood against, and frankly has been in Washington far too long not to be tainted.

Some in NH care more about a photo op than holding our elected representatives accountable. I have nothing against Congressman Ryan, and feel in many ways he is far better than most in Congress. But I have gotten to the point that I need to acknowledge that part of the problem in DC is career politicians. Congressman Paul Ryan is a career politician.

The Mount Vernon Statement

The Mount Vernon Statement

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding.Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

* It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
* It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
* It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
* It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010

It is not the Party’s Fault; It’s the “Isms”

This is in response to a Letter to the Editor blaming Republicans for all America’s economic woes throughout our history:

I could not help but response to David B. Munsey revisionist history of the role Republicans played in the economy. But in order to fairly represent the true nature of the discussion, the dialogue should really focus on the difference between the “ism” that controlled the debate at the time of the economic up or down. Was it progressivism or conservatism that was the overall guiding principles? By worrying less about the party affiliation, and focusing more on the reining “ism,” you start see an obvious trend.

First, Mr. Munsey ignores the Great Depression of 1920. That’s right 1920, not 1931. The WORSE economic crash to occur in modern record keeping was the crash under progressive Woodrow Wilson (D). Wilson applied a high tax rate (upwards of 70%) and massive deficit spending (spending outpaced tax revenues X 3). The fastest recovery out of a major economic downturn occurred under the great “forgotten” President, conservative Calvin Coolidge (R). President Coolidge reduced the tax rate to 25% and cut spending by a whopping 50%! It is the combination of a fair tax percentage and STRICT spending controls that resulted in higher tax revenues and unprecedented employment (98.1 % employment). Under Coolidge’s conservative leadership we saw the largest increase of the middle class in history.

The next economic downturn, 1929, which contrary to misconception, was not the start of the “Great Depression.” However, the downturn of 1929 was the result of the progressive policies of President Herbert Hoover (the “forgotten progressive”) (R). Hoover ignored the lessons of the Wilson administration and abandoned the conservative principals established by Coolidge. Hoover initially maintained the lower tax rate, but increased spending to record deficit levels (much like we saw under Bush 43). Also under Hoover, we started to see the heavy hand of government being applied to business. Lo and behold, the economic collapsed, eventually leading to the depression of 1929.

I noticed that Mr. Munsey ignored the next two great dips in our economy, 1931 (the Great Depression) and 1938, probable for good reason; they would not play very well into his argument of Democrat (good) versus Republican (bad). The Great Depression was the direct result of heavy taxation, deficit spending, confusing government control, and lastly, Hoover and the Congress trying to “spend” their way into prosperity (sound familiar?). Policies that would be continued under FDR.

1938, America saw another major economic downturn with high unemployment (19% ), out of control spending , a punishing tax code (67%), the heavy hand of government entanglements within the market, and continued attempts by the US government to spend their way into prosperity. In fact FDR’s attempt to “control” the economic resulted in the comment made by FDR’s Secretary of Treasury, "We've tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work."

I could go on, but why bother. When our government is guided by progressive policies, economic downturn will follow. Whenever the government is guided by conservative principals, true economic prosperity follows. Mr. Munsey is simply reciting from the playbook of the “new progressives,” which currently exist in both major Parties.

40% of all Americans identify themselves as Conservatives, and for good reason. They understand that both deficit spending and a punishing tax code are immoral. They also understand that government should function the same way a responsible household does; with a balance check book and by not stealing from your neighbors to make up for a lack of fiscal responsibility. It is progressive policies that have failed us, and both the Democrats and Republicans are guilty.

Progressivism is Dead – What Next?

Where has the time gone? We are more than a year into the Obama Era, and contrary to what some in media are saying, there is no ambiguity; President Barrack Obama’s first year in office will go down in history as the worse first year of any presidency. Period. This distinction does not rest solely with the President; he has had plenty of help from an inept, Democratically controlled Congress. But also complacent in this great American mistake, was the push into office by an electorate more concerned about “making history,” instead of embracing our historical responsibly.


In late 2008, I wrote extensively about then candidate Barrack Obama (A Rendezvous with Destiny - Obama 2008 Archives), and over this past year I have continued to write about the Obama Administration (A Rendezvous with Destiny - Obama - 2009/2010 Archives). I spent much of the time on my two radio shows (New Hampshire Perspective and Right Here, Right Now ) detailing the disaster that has been the first year of the Obama world. Nothing I wrote or said made any difference. So I have decided to say something I usually avoid when I know I am right….”I told you so…….!” The problem with this “I told you so,” is that it comes at great expense to our country.


Standing before us is tattered country, moving in so many directions, lacking focus and leadership. Go down the list of concerns that many people expressed prior to the election of 2008, and is it any wonder we find ourselves in this collective mess: lack of experience, no real-world accomplishments, governing by theory versus reality, rhetoric over substance, shady associations, sounding moderate - but living/legislating leftist, and demonstrating overwhelming derision beliefs regarding America.


And for those who bought into the hype, and wanted to be part of history……how is that working out for you? When you vote like a “left-winger (caught up in the emotion, ignoring commonsense and a higher intellectual understanding, voting to “make history” instead of voting with an understanding of history, dismissing serious concerns as mere campaigning rhetoric),” than you shouldn’t be surprised when you wake up surrounded by a nightmare of leadership that is currently smothering us.


Have you ever notice that many left-wingers want to talk about “failed” policies, based on their special eyesight, but only if they were Republican initiatives, and based on their inimitable pass/fail system. But left-wingers want to ignore an American landscape littered with their failed policies. And so it goes with our current state of affairs. There is very little truth in media, very little faith in government, and no hope that the two parties can work together. This is the Obama legacy, a failed leader born of failed policies.


Proving once again of their inability to embrace reality, their inherent aptitude for ignoring (and at times, perpetuating outright falsehoods) of our unique American history, and their dogmatic support of anything that ignores our Constitutional foundation, left-wingers have led us to a dark place. Left-wingers have closed their eyes to policies and principals that have been shown to work, choosing to lead by failed theories, and not allowing themselves to be guided by practical realities. Is it any wonder that left-wingers have had to rename their movement several times throughout history (Progressive > Communist > Socialist > Liberals > New Progressives). The left-wingers have managed to destroy another perfectly good word (progressive)…….. again! I have a suggestion to all the left-wingers seeking to rename their delusional movement. Just call it what it is…….Regressivism! I guarantee you that Regressivism rings more true to left-wing propaganda, and will last a lot longer as a moniker for their abortive movement.


Frankly, I do not care what we call those on the left, but I am more concerned with what the left stands for; bigger government and more and more repressive policies. Over time, as government grows bigger and takes on more control over our daily lives, America will undergo a major transformation away from our unique American persona of self-reliance towards a radical change to a self-imposed serfdom. Americans almost seem to be embracing these policies of bondage, where in the past an overwhelming majority would resist the heavy hand of government in our lives with every fiber of their existence. Only time will tell whether Americans wake up from this self induced servitude, or if we fall deeper under the spell of oppressive, leftist policies.


There is one distinction that will be forever part of the Obama legacy. He will be forever known as the most successful underachiever in world history. Ill-prepared for the job he sought, capitulated into that role by a people who forget the consequence that is theirs alone when choosing the leader of the free world.

Heathcare: What Would Dr. King Do?

Over the past few weeks, some in the media, along with many left-leaning groups (such as Progressive Democrats for America, Democrats.com, After Downing Street), aided by easily manipulated, everyday citizens (through a letter writing campaign), have inaccurately been trying to invoke the civil rights movement of the past by declaring that Martin Luther King would have supported the current attempts at health care reform. I strongly disagree with these false assertions. Dr. Martin Luther King is one of my personal heroes; imperfect like all of us, but truly committed to a cause greater than him.


Let me say without hesitation that I believe that health care reform is needed (as it relates to cost and individual control over our plans), but the immorality we have witnessed throughout this current legislative process would not be one that Dr. King would support. One only need to read King’s “Letter from Birmingham” to know where Dr. King’s heart and mind were on the matters of injustice and individual liberty, and his deep understanding of our Judeo-Christian values, which were the guiding principles that led to the creation of our Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, and the birth of our nation.


But more importantly, Dr. King would never support any reform that would not only permit, but fund, a system that would advance the genocide that is abortion. Nor would Dr. King support a law that places a choker and chains of overwhelming debt around the neck of future generations - “The Negro cannot win if he is willing to sacrifice the futures of his children for immediate personal comfort and safety. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”


What we have witnessed this past year with bribes, behind the doors dealings, class envy, and demonization of individuals is everything Dr. King stood against! Dr. King would clearly see that there are no “White Only” signs in the windows of our current health care system, but would see an economic injustice that does not allow the free market to provide a fair and equal service to all; instead a necessary service is being subjected to regulations that are more about control and power, and have nothing to do with providing for those that seek that service. Dr. King would see the heavy hand of government (something he knew was easily corrupted), either immorally subjugating the will of the people, or worse yet, binding them to the chains of a new slavery; governmental dependency that does nothing to lift people up, but only serves to place all of us into a collective misery. Equal maybe, just no.


Portability in health plans, flex plans that roll over, tax breaks for the purchase of the plans, and yes when necessary, “locally-controlled” plans that provide for those who lack coverage. Picture the ability of individual groups: church groups, nonprofits, fraternal organizations, small businesses, and even groups such as bowling league and softball teams, being able to pool their resources and negotiate freely for health insurance coverage. And imagine a system that allows each of us to freely donate, within a community cooperative, to provide for those in need of health insurance. People helping people, without the waste of a defectively constructed, and most assuredly a poorly managed, government plan.


Dr. King would want us to do something to help those in need; but he would more likely to support a systems that promotes self-reliance, over a system that only serves to further support an existence of continued servitude.

Happy Birthday James Madison

Today we mark the anniversary of the birth of our countries 4th President, James Madison. As a kid the only thing I knew about President Madison was his wife’s name was Dolly, and she made great cup cakes.

James Madison was a member of that eternal fraternity we would later call “The Founding Fathers.” At the ripe old age of 36, Madison was the primary author of the united States Constitution; a distinction that would earn him the larger than life nickname of “Father of the Constitution.” James Madison was also the author of many of the Federalist Papers, which many feel was Madison’s efforts to strengthen the true meaning of the Constitution, due in part to early attempts to usurp the Constitutions original intent.

James Madison was an enigma to many because of his political swings back and forth throughout his life. As he wrote the Constitution (based on his participation in the creation of the Virginia Constitution), he originally resisted the need for the Bill of Rights, insisting they were not necessary. He would shift from a strict State’s rights proponent, to a reluctant advocate for a stronger central government, back to his original belief that stronger State’s rights and limited central government should be the order of the day.

Madison opinion of another Founding Father, Alexander Hamilton, would also shift with time. Madison originally looked upon Alexander Hamilton has a threat to America’s new liberty, but would then enter into a restless relationship with Hamilton during the time of Federalist Paper and Madison’s Presidency.

Madison also had an unusually relationship with Thomas Jefferson. At first Madison and Jefferson did not get along very well. But later they would become very good friends, writing numerous, lengthy conversations back and forth to each other. During Jefferson presidency, Jefferson would come to rely on Madison’s advice, especially on matters of the Constitution.

In Madison we find a fair, intelligent, open-mind, yet cautious man. Madison possessed that rare combination of common-sense and intellect, who was not reluctant to listen to others, and when a convincing argument was made, change his mind. Not bad qualities then, or now.
Happy Birthday President Madison

The Super Bowl and Abortion, and Why Scott Brown is Wrong

The past few weeks have lent themselves to the topic of abortion. The anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the Tebow family Super Bowl commercial, Susan Estrich’s recent opinion piece, or the recent comments made by America’s new “man of the people” Scott Brown, have let us blow off a little philosophical steam, without really accomplishing anything. And after the Super Bowl, the topic will be placed back in that dark closet America stores its deficiencies; and that is a shame.


What we do at the moment of a life revealed will determine not only that baby’s fate, but the fate of all humanity. Our sense of not only our compassion towards our fellow man, our kindness to those in need, and our charity to mankind rest with the very first time many of us held the fate of a pure life in our hand, only to realize that it is not our choice to make. It is God’s will, or nature’s vocation, or the stork; whatever method you subscribe to, all of it enviably leads to one concrete fact. Standing before us, safe in the womb, is a living being. Commonsense demands you surrender to fact and reason; it is then your choice to ignore it or embrace it.


When we feel that we have the power over life and death, than we should not be surprised when people choose to use that power; whenever, wherever. The very essence of our communal respect for all existence starts at life’s beginning. Our humanity starts in the womb, the vessel that nature or God deemed to the safest place for our undefined destiny. Each of you reading this was offered the opportunity to make a difference, because you were given the gift of life; ultimately because someone recognized your humanity, and did not succumb to a “truth is relative” concept used to define life.


What some people have lost in this debate is the essential question of fact. Is the baby in the womb a human life? Not, “does the baby have a soul.” Not, “is the baby perfect.” Not, “can I afford this child.” Not, “is this the right time.” Not, “should I bring a baby into this painful world.” Not, “but it is a woman’s body.” Not, “but I wanted a boy.” Nor is the question of how the baby was conceived relevant to the most basic truth. The only thing that matters is whether the baby in the womb is life?


The question of life is beyond reproach; it is mans own selfness and insecurities that opens the door to “debate,” and closes the window to the known genuineness of our being. It is mankind’s own hubris that allows all us to be devalued.


There is no greater hope for humanity than the innocents and purity of a child. Each time we exercise power over another human being in a way that extinguishes innocent life, than we chip away at not only our individual humanity, but our shared empathy.


If you choose to ignore your own humanity, be honest about. Society has deemed, for now, that the practice of taking of an innocent human life (for whatever reason) to be the province of a free-society; not a just society, not a compassion society, not a moral society, but a free society. If you support abortion, then don’t bother with the facade that reduction should be a goal, all while supporting the endeavor that will end the life. If you support abortion as “public policy,” but not as a personal decision you would choose, please recognize that people are keenly aware of your own inconstancies.


And if you support life, put into action a course of kindness and charity that makes people want to choose life. Let all know that they are never alone, and that you value all other life above your own.


Brown, Estrich, and even Tebow are all wrong, but so are all of us. All of us have failed to live up to the promise declared over two-hundred years ago – “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.” Our past failure to live up to the absolute truth that is our Declaration of Independence has been corrected, but our future injustices await our resolve. But make no mistake about it, the issue of abortion is “not settled,” and as with the question of slavery, we only need to recognize that, as a country, we are sanctioning a transparent injustice.

The Reagan Renaissance

As I look around America, I find myself back in 1979. Our economy is falling apart. Government is running up massive deficits. Our place in the world is diminishing. But now is not the time to succumb to the failed idea that government is the answer. No, now is the time for all of us to recommit ourselves to the principals that once saved this country, and can do it again. A commitment to Conservative Principals.

America has lost its way, but the American spirit has not vanished. At the time of our last great despair a leader came forth. Some called him nothing more than a former B-actor; they underestimated his love for our country, and the keen insight he possessed, and his ability to delivery, that would help make America into that “bright, shining city on a hill.”

This Saturday will mark what would have been Ronald Regan’s 99th birthday. The best gift we can give him is to remember how great we were as a nation when he was our President; and how we can move forward by returning to those key principals. Let’s us declare February 6, 2010, a new beginning, a “Reagan Renaissance.”

I encourage everyone to:

Read Ronald Regan’s 1977 CPAC speech ( Ronald Reagan's 1977 CPAC Speech)
View his greatest speech – A Time for Choosing (A Time for Choosing)
View his farewell address to America (Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address )