New Hampshire Governor John Lynch’s Approval Rating (03/23)
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
This article shows us the latest approval rating of Governor John Lynch. These numbers are met with a bit of a mixed reaction by me.
The poll also found 55 percent of voters approving of the way Lynch is handling his job as governor, with 21 percent disapproving and 21 percent undecided.
A 55% approval rating certainly has to be considered a good rating, however when you take into account that last July I posted John Lynch’s approval rating and noted that it had fallen to 64% from 77% in January, you have to begin to wonder if New Hampshire voters are finally starting to understand what is going on here. John Lynch’s approval rating has fallen 22 points in just over a year. It just so happens that this drop has occurred since liberals were swept into office in 2006. Perhaps New Hampshire is starting to turn back to the idea of independent thinking that New Hampshirites pride themselves in. Perhaps New Hampshire is ready to abandon nanny state polticians and return to adulthood.
The bloom is beginning to come off of John Lynch’s rose, he can no longer hide his liberal beliefs and categorize himself as a moderate now that he has liberals in control of all branches of government. He can’t control his spending urges, he can’t control his taxing urges. He is costing New Hampshire dearly, and he is hoping to hold off the $1 billion education spending bill until after the election in November so as to not hurt his candidacy.
The only way to pay for this additional spending is a broad-based tax. Governor Lynch knows that by raising taxes even more than he did with last year’s budget would be the death knell of his governorship, so he hopes to wait on the education funding legislation until after he wins re-election.
So, yes, there are signs that New Hampshire is starting to grow tired of Governor Lynch’s spending and liberal agenda, but the following numbers still represent a sombering view of this year’s election.
ARG also polled 541 registered votes about the potential Lynch-Guinta gubernatorial match-up and found 62 percent favoring Lynch, 20 percent favoring Guinta with 18 percent undecided.
Right now it looks as though Lynch will hold a commanding lead over the candidate who is most likely to challenge him in November. The article didn’t say how Lynch fared againd Joe Kenney, who is also considering a Republican bid at the nomination.
I hope that this is because the campaign has not yet started and the name recognition isn’t out there yet. Hopefully this explains why Guinta trails Lynch so badly. I am not too confident in this theory when you see the numbers that are reflected in the United States senate re-election bid of John Sununu.
47 percent favoring Shaheen, a former governor, and 33 percent favoring Sununu, with 20 percent undecided.
While Governor Lynch’s numbers have been falling over the last year, the questions are, will they fall enough? Can the Republicans nominate a strong candidate? Are New Hampshire voters tired of having their behaviors legislated? Will New Hampshire voters reject irresponsible spending? Will the voters reject more and more taxes? Or will the voters choose more of the same?
I know where I stand. New Hampshire voters, where do you stand?
America's Watchtower 
Many Democrats are also not happy with the Guv – but they have nowhere else to go so will continue to vote for him, in spite of the negative ratings.
LikeLike
http://all_tiesto_here.ifastnet.com
LikeLike
The New Hampshire Attorney General’s office and Governor Lynch have had a longstanding record of failing or refusing to investigate or enforce the laws against civil and constitutional rights abuses, crimes and other violations committed by state employees against its minority citizens in order to protect the state or a municipality against monetary liability for damages. Attorney General Ayotte has relied on this policy in refusing to investigate various state court employees who committed racially motivated acts against Mr. Holder and his minor son during the course of his 2003 divorce and child custody proceedings and subsequently retaliated against Mr. Holder with false criminal charges (dismissed and annulled) for exercising his first amendment right to speak out against the state sponsored racism, corruption and cover-up.
Ayotte and her staff were culpable in the conspiracy not to prosecute the Rev. Dr. Arthur Hilson and Attorney Patricia Frim, the court appointed Guardian ad Litem, for violating Mr. Holder’s constitutional rights and RSA 330-A: 23 by falsely claiming the Rev. Dr. Hilson was a counselor. Frim ordered Holder to attend counseling with Hilson under threat that if he did not participate, she would have the court order him to undergo a costly psychological evaluation. Evidence of unwarranted racial overtones was clear when she deliberately chose Hilson because of his African American heritage, not to mention that he was also her legal client. Frim deliberately omitted any reference to the court or Mr. Holder that Hilson was her former legal client and that he had known Mr. Holder’s ex-wife for more than 13 years. To the court she referred to Hilson as “Doctor Hilson,” thus deliberately misleading the court and father about Hilson’s religious affiliation (Reverend Dr. Hilson as the Senior Pastor for the New Hope Baptist Church). She later represented to the court that Hilson was a counselor who worked out of his office at the New Hope Baptist Church. The misrepresentation prevented Mr. Holder from challenging Hilson’s credentials in court. Frim also deliberately misled the court and Mr. Holder to the fact that Hilson lacked the professional counseling credentials or license. It was subsequently learned from the NH Board of Mental Health that Hilson had never been licensed in the state to provide counseling. Ayotte’staff refused to act on the complaint filed by the NH Board of Mental Health. Hilson, the self appointed civil rights leader for the NH African American community and media, betrayed his professed civil rights beliefs to help his friend and lawyer, Frim, recommend placing the child in an out of state “racially imbalanced” and “academically substandard” school because of his racial classification. It was a denial of equal educational opportunity in violation of federal and civil rights law.
Among other acts of omission and neglect against Frim was that she refused to investigate medical evidence that the child’s mother had a history of treatment for severe depression and record of domestic violence petitions filed against her. Her appointment mandated that she establish the mental health of the parties. Frim also knowingly omitted relevant factual evidence about comparable programs offered in the NH school to that of the Haverhill Public Schools that would also have benefited the child. The bias was obvious from day one, but became even more outrageous when Frim threatened Mr. Holder with having to undergo a costly psychological evaluation but would not request the medical records of the mother concerning her history of mental health treatment. Frim has repeatedly and falsely represented that she was requested to investigate the issue of diversity in the school. Evidence clearly establishes that Frim was appointed to investigate parental custody and which school should the child attend. Nowhere was the issue of diversity ever mentioned by the court. Finally and most egregiously, two weeks before the final divorce hearing Frim lied when she alleged that Mr. Holder threatened her and maliciously insinuated to his attorney that he was somehow involved in his ex-wife’s arrest for assault and battery upon their older daughter, which occurred in the midst of her custody evaluation, by questioning the timing of the arrest. The wanton, reckless and capricious false allegations led to a controversy and eventual breakdown in relationship between Mr. Holder and his counsel, who withdrew following a refusal to seek the removal of Frim for cause. To further add insult to injury suffered by Holder regarding counsel’s action, the Marital Master refused to grant a continuance for Mr. Holder to obtain new counsel and proceeded with the divorce with Mr. Holder being forced to act Pro Se to protect his fundamental constitutional right as a parent. The NH Attorney Discipline Committee rejected Mr. Holder’s complaint against his counsel despite her admitted refusal to abide by his decision regarding representation and misled Mr. Holder about his right to seek administrative redress against Frim for violating the NH Rules of Professional conduct. To any reasonable or prudent parent, Frim’s assignment mandated investigating the quality and success of the educational programs offered by each individual school, not the demographic profile of the school.
The frivolous response by Frim by Holder’s request to the court to compel her to turn over the custody evaluation file knowingly deprived Mr. Holder of his due process rights. As a parent, Mr. Holder was entitled to inspect and review the complete custody evaluation file. Frim asked the court to deny the motion simply because Mr. Holder did not ask her for the file. Given the apparent evidence of lies and bias by Frim, Mr. Holder had very good reasons not to trust Frim would actually turn over the entire file if not compelled by the court. Marital Master Fishman made up her own reasons not to let Mr. Holder have access to the file. To further undermine matters, the NH Supreme Court’s refused to uphold the precepts of its prior ruling in Ross v. Gadwah and Carll, thus demonstrating a conscious decision by the justices to deprive Mr. Holder of his constitutional rights, as was their refusal to even issue an opinion on the appeal despite a challenge to the constitutionality of the ruling and the clear violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Frim should have been permanently disbarred from practicing law and as a court appointed Guardian ad Litem because of her outright lies and egregious professional misconduct. To date, she continues to receive work as a Guardian ad Litem and maintains the ability to practice law in the State of New Hampshire. While Frim may have been legally immune from monetary liability in a civil suit, it does not mean that she was also immune from disciplinary action by the state nor from criminal prosecution for her manifest bias, civil rights violations and involvement in an unlawful conspiracy to violate Mr. Holder and his son’s constitutional rights. Frim, Hilson and others involved should have been disciplined and/or prosecuted.
For the NH Family Court to order the child to attend school in another state based on the unsupported racially biased supposition of Patricia Frim that the child would be too lonely being the only black in the NH school and could learn more about his culture in Massachusetts than New Hampshire, and to have it affirmed by the NH Supreme Court Justices, was racism and a violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mr. Holder sought complaints with the Judicial Conduct Committee, Attorney Discipline Office and appealed the NH Family Court ruling to the NH Supreme Court. He even brought suit in NH U.S. District Court, which was dismissed for a legal technicality. Nowhere in the court’s opinion dismissing the matter would the judge state the true nature of Mr. Holder’s cause of action (Violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) which was unlawful court ordered racial segregation in education. To date, all Mr. Holder’s efforts to seek legal and administrative redress of his grievances against Fishman, Frim, Taube, Hilson and others have been met with complete stonewalling, corruption, cover-up and wrongful dismissal.
We trust our appointed and elected government officials to take prompt and decisive legal steps to eliminate all forms of bias and discrimination by government entities. There is no perception of fairness or justice in this state for minorities, nor does the New Hampshire Attorney General Ayotte or Governor Lynch appear concerned about the prevalence of racial discrimination, civil and constitutional rights violations in the NH legal system or retaliatory acts against minorities by state officials for speaking out against such acts. I proudly wore the uniform of the United States Air Force and spent nearly 27 years in the criminal justice system defending the constitutional rights, privileges and immunities of my fellow Americans. I am disgusted with the fact that I am not afforded the same respect when it comes to equal protection of the law.
LikeLike
I emphathize with him I am going through the same type of very bias case in N.H. courts and can get no one to listen. Everyone is predisposed and I am literally “blackballed” by the judical system. I have been approved by Probono twice and rejected just as fast twice. My daughters GAL is my exhusbands girlfriends lawyer. I recieve notices of hearings 3 days in advance and am told to show up 10 days after the hearing. I am truly sorry for this man and his child. I have for 3 1/2 years now watched the sytem fail my child and she is getting worse. Please do not publish my email because I fear retaliation of which I have been threatened many times.
LikeLike
I know how u feel I am going through this nightmare right now and I am about to loose my 7 year old son. I know the sytem does not always work the right way,I know the lawyer representing my son is very friendly with my sons father attorney and everything is being so twisted and it is such a nightmare. MY husband and I are going broke in the process and I just do not get it. I feel like I have no way of fighting this,my attorney is fighting against so much crap and that is all of it is. I do not know what to do any suggestions?????????? I feel like a piece of my heart everyday and I feel like I am going to loose my mind and I guess I just do not want to feel alone with all of these crappy feelings of injustice. I used to beleve in the court system in this state but I no longer feel that way!!!!!!!!!!! Very scared
LikeLike
I am in the same situation. The NH court system and GAL’s are completely biased towards my husband. I firmly believe that Pat Frim has also been biased and supported my child’s father during this situation. She has been by far completely disrespectful to me and has made accusations against me after only meeting me once. Only to further my lack of trust and faith in her as my child’s GAL. Pat Frim has out and out disregarded my very serious and real concerns about my child in regards to her schedule and instead gives me book titles to read. I believe I know my child and have a lot of experience with children and have been completed offended by this women on many accounts in only one meeting with her. It also took her about a month to get back to me after having countless numbers of communications with my soon to be ex. She is biased, acts unprofessionally and should not be handling any cases where children are involved. she does not listen, she speaks over me, she ignores me, and she cites book references rather than listening to the concerns of a child’s mother. Just because you can read a book regarding the development of a child does not mean that every child fits into the mold of said book and that decisions should be based on that. That would be the equivalent of saying each pregnancy is exactly the same – which we all know, is not true.
I would like to know if there is somewhere that once I am through with this GAL process and my divorce is final, where can I make a proper complaint to file with the state of NH. I want them to know that how they have treated my case and how Pat Frim handles herself is wrong, unprofessional and not in the best interest of my child. If this is the way they handle each case, they are doing a grave injustice to our children and will be the cause of any issues that they will undoubtedly but I hope and pray do not develop.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
LikeLike