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?
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
Well, not exactly parental notification, this was a compromise bill that went down in defeat last week. Here is little history on this issue for those of you reading about this for the first time. New Hampshire had a parental notification law on the books that was headed to the supreme court for a landmark decision on abortion. However once the liberals took over every branch of state government the law was repealed. The parental notification law would have required a MINOR to notify her parents before she received an abortion.
The bill came back up for a vote again this year, with a clause in it to protect the life of the mother, again it was shot down. Then, just last week a compromise bill, the “adult” notification law I guess you could call it, was voted down in the state senate. This bill would have required a MINOR child to seek counseling of ANY adult before an abortion. While this bill still thwarted the rights of the parents to be involved in their MINOR child’s decision making, it was at least a step in the right direction.
The bill would have required a counselor or abortion provider to provide advice to the minor seeking the abortion before the abortion could be performed. The counselor could come from a wide range of professions, including psychiatry, nursing and school guidance counseling.
I can’t for the life of me figure out what is so wrong with a child getting counseling before an abortion. Is the pro-death crowd so afraid of this that they feel it could lead to further restrictions? This isn’t even restricting abortions in any way. Is the pro-death crowd afraid that some of these girls will decide not to have an abortion? How twisted would that logic be?
The defeat of the bill leaves the state in a situation where a minor girl can have an abortion with neither of her parents being notified and with no requirement that she get professional advice and referrals first.
“This is not about limiting choice, it’s not about placing obstacles in the path of young women. It is about making sure that a trained, responsible adult is involved in protecting their safety and guiding their decision,” she said.
I haven’t even mentioned the fact that if a fifteen year old girl is pregnant than technically she was raped in the first place. So, on top of the fact that a child can receive an abortion and nobody has to know, a criminal act also goes unpunished. This is just the state of affairs in a world where every one is a victim and nobody is ever to blame or suffer consequences for their actions. It is always someone else’s fault.
Think about this for a minute, my 16 year old son can’t go on a field trip without me being notified and giving him permission. Yet if I had a 15 year old daughter she could have an invasive medical procedure to kill her baby, and I would not have the right to know. I would not find out unless there was a complication and something happened to her. By then it may be too late.
Read the New Hampshire Union Leader article here.
Planned Parenthood in Missouri is facing criminal charges for, among other things, falsifying their records on late term abortions.
Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri is facing 107 criminal charges, including 23 felony counts of falsifying medical documents related to late-term abortions. The felony charges will be examined at preliminary hearings set for April 7 and 8 in Johnson County District Court in Olathe, Kan.
One has to wonder why Planned Parenthood would be falsifying records related to late term abortions in particular. Well it could be that these late term abortions were illegal.
In addition to the felony counts of falsifying documents, there are 26 misdemeanor counts of unlawful failure to maintain records, 29 counts of unlawful failure to determine viability for a late-term abortion and 29 counts of unlawful late-term abortion.
Late term abortions are only legal if a mother’s life is endangered, so why would medical records of these abortions need falsifying if the mother’s life was truly in danger? They wouldn’t. I hop that I am wrong about this, but if Planned Parenthood performed these abortions simply because the mother “changed her mind” in the final trimester of a pregnancy, that the mother and the doctor need to be brought up on murder charges and not just on paperwork charges.
Anybody who has seen the pictures of the dead babies, and that is what they are at this stage of the pregnancy, that were victims of late term abortions know how disgusting this is. I am not going to post the pictures here, but you can find them if you really feel you need to see them. Instead I am going to post a description of a late term abortion by a nurse who witnessed one, it is disturbing enough.
“Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms — everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus . . .
“The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
“The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp . . .
“He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”
Anybody who thinks that a civilized society should engage in this type of activity is sick in my opinion. That is why I say if Planned Parenthood falsified their records because the mother’s life wasn’t threatened, someone needs to go to jail for a long time.
When I think about how my tax money is going to fund these people it makes me sick. Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar a year industry and one third of that is taxpayer money. The taxpayers are giving over $300 million to these people a year. That is also deplorable to me.
It is bad enough to think that doctors are half-birthing these babies and then cutting their spinal cords, it is just as bad to think that I am helping to pay for this.
Read more here.
Oh, by the way JJ Anderson if you are reading this: Do you still think I’m a fucking scumbag babykiller? Or did you call me that because I support the war. JJ, where are you?
Barack Obama has an insurmountable delegate lead over Hillary Rodham Clinton. It would take a collapse of inconceivable proportions for Obama to not head into the convention with a lead in pledged delegate. However, he is trying his best to lose this lead. While losing this lead is improbable, there is still the real chance he will not get the nomination. This is a scenario that I thought inconceivable just a week ago, after all how could Democrat super delegates vote against the people’s choice? But that has all changed. With Barack Obama’s close ties to the racist, anti-American reverend, Jeremiah Wright the real possibility exists that the Democrat super delegates will turn towards Hillary Clinton because Obama will be seen as not being able to win a general election because of his ties to the deplorable reverend Wright.
The theory being floated is that the “all caring” Democrat opponents to Obama (Hillary) will need the black vote in order to win the presidency. Because of this, Hillary can’t go after Obama in a big way because if she were to win the nomination at the expense of alienating the black vote, she would be unable to win the general election.
The next part of this theory is the belief that because Republicans won’t get a majority of the black vote anyway, the Republicans will be willing to go after Obama’s perceived racist, anti-American pastor and in doing so will link his pastor’s opinions to him.
In theory, this may be a possibility, but we must remember that Republicans don’t have a real candidate in this election. They don’t have a candidate who is willing to “go after” his opponent and deliver a knock out blow. Republicans have John McCain. This is what happened to a John McCain staffer who posted a video of the reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermon. The same video which is circulating all over the blogosphere. From CNS News:
A McCain campaign aide has been suspended for posting a racially charged video using the controversial words of Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor on a blog. “We have been very clear on the type of campaign we intend to run and this staffer acted in violation of our policy. He has been reprimanded by campaign leadership and suspended from the campaign,” Jill Hazelbaker said in a statement. The video sent by Soren Dayton to the blog-hosting site, Twitter, was described as a “good video on Obama and Wright.” McCain has already said he does not hold Obama accountable for Rev. Wright’s views. “What Sen. McCain has said repeatedly, is that these candidates cannot be held accountable for all the views of people who endorse them, or people who befriend them,” McCain adviser Charlie Black said recently. “I don’t think Sen. McCain wants to get in the middle of a discussion about Sen. Obama’s former pastor, or his faith. He believes that people who endorse you, people who befriend you are entitled to their own views, but you are not held personally accountable.”
There you have it, John McCain doesn’t hold the words that reverend Wright used against Obama even though Obama heard these comments and kept going to these sermons for twenty years. Surely Obama must have agreed with the words of the reverend because he kept going. Yet McCain doesn’t have the stones to call out Obama on this issue.
That is why I believe that McCain doesn’t have what it takes to take on the Democrat nominee.
Democrat Proposes 50 Cent Gas Tax Increase
Democrats claim that the middle class is worse off than ever before. Democrats claim that more people are living paycheck to paycheck than ever before. Democrats also claim that gas prices are crippling most Americans. Democrats also claim that they care more about the middle class than Republicans. So, how do Democrats show us how much they care about the rising cost of gas?
A Michigan congressman ( Democrat John Dingell) wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans’ consumption.
They propose raising the price of gas to force us to stop driving so much. How is that for compassion? The government is already making windfall profits on gas and oil through taxes, but it is not enough. They know that Americans need to drive and won’t cut back no matter the cost, so this is just a way to raise more money for the coming liberal social programs that are waiting in the wings if Democrats take back the white house in November.
Democrats don’t give a damn about rising gas prices, if they did they would propose a reduction in the federal gas tax. Instead they see a necessity that they can tax and they know Americans will have no choice but to pay it.
And you know what? They may get away with it. According to a poll found in this article:
The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don’t support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.
While 48% are opposed to paying any more gas tax, a majority of people are willing to pay more for gas. This is bewildering to me. Most liberals blame President Bush’s close ties with oil companies for the reason the price of gas is so high. Many Americans even believe that the president can manipulate oil prices. Yet they are willing to give more to the government? I find those numbers hard to believe. Evidently so does Democrat John Dingell:
While Dingell’s idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.
Dingell is smart enough to save his tax increase until after the election. McCain, Obama, and Hillary are not.
If middle class Americans think they have it bad now, wait until we are paying the carbon taxes and the increased gas taxes that loom around the corner. And lets not forget the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire.
That is how Democrats will “take care” of us. Thanks, but no thanks. I don’t need your “help.”
Barack Obama has been trying to dig himself out of the hole he has dug for himself because of his very close relationship with reverend Jeremiah Wright. The more he tries to dig out, the deeper he gets.
In his speech about race relations, Obama admitted that he had indeed been in the church to hear some of Jeremiah Wright’s controversial comments. This is the opposite of what he said just to days earlier, when he denied ever hearing any of these comments. It is also a 180 degree turn from his statement that his church isn’t controversial. Obama has been caught in two lies on this story already.
He refused to distance himself from his racist, anti-American spiritual advisor, pastor, and great friend. Instead he said it was the fault of society that the good reverend was forced into being a racist. He even threw his grandmother under the bus, saying she was a racist. In other words, blame whitey.
Today Obama tried to twist his way out of the fact that he threw ole Grammy under the bus. This is what he had to say:
But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know there’s a reaction that’s been been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that’s just the nature of race in our society.
A typical white person? SCREW YOU Barack Obama. Not all white people are afraid of black people, you bigot. As you can see, I am getting pretty pissed off here. This man is the person who said that he sees not a red state America and a blue state America, but a United States of America. Really? It seems to me that he really doesn’t see a red America and a blue America, he sees a black America and a white America, and not a United States of America.
Barack Obama has obviously taken the reverend Wright’s racist sermons to heart. How can we expect Obama to unite a country while he holds this resentment to white people in his heart.
New Hampshire Named the Nation’s Safest State
I have spent a great deal of time trashing my state. I have done this not because I don’t love New Hampshire, I do. I have done this because New Hampshire has taken a dramatic left hand turn and we are in the grip of nanny state legislators who know what is best for us.
Well, we have recently gotten some good news and I now have the chance to defend my state. New Hampshire has been rated as the safest state in America. Naturally Governor Lynch latched on to this news and took the credit for it.
“Our low crime rate is part of what makes this such a great place to live and work. As a state, we are routinely recognized as a national leader and I can think of no better category to lead the nation than in the safety of our citizens,” Lynch said. “With this recognition, we should take time to thank the hard-working men and women of New Hampshire law enforcement who help keep us all safe.” His office released a statement outlining improvements it has made in public safety, including tougher laws on sexual crimes against children and a budget that included money for extra state troopers and state prosecutors.
“I am committed to ensuring we remain one of the safest states in the nation,” Lynch said.
Evidentally, because this portrays New Hampshire in a good light, the governor thinks this poll is accurate, that was not the case when a survey revealed New Hampshire has the worst state government in the nation. The governor wants to pick and choose which surveys he find accurate. But enough about the governor, I wanted to write about why New Hampshire is ranked as number one in safety, and why two other New England states are in the top five.
This seems fairly obvious to me, New Hampshire was number one in the country, Vermont number two, and Maine number four. These three northeast states have one thing in common. They are gun owner friendly. In New Hampshire you only need a valid ID to carry a handgun, to carry concealed you pay $10, get a background check and you are all set. Vermont basically has no requirements, any resident can carry a gun concealed. Maine’s laws are also gun owner friendly.
The fact that a potential criminal knows that any crime he may commit may be met with the barrel of a gun in his face has to be a major deterent.
Governor Lynch can say what he likes, but that is the major reason that the crime rate in New Hampshire is so low.
What a bunch of cowardly bastards the Democrats are. They are still sitting on articles of impeachment against the president, waiting for the right opportunity to move forward with them. It seems though that they have decided that the right time would be…..after he is no longer in office. This is John Conyers, senator from Michigan:
“Dear friends, this [impeachment] is a decision I am struggling with, and I want to share it here. Do I want to jeopardize the election by taking up this issue?” Conyers asked. “The problem is, this could become the issue of the 2008 election. This brilliant, talented Senator (Obama), who has more delegates and more votes than anybody else, could get derailed.”
That was his answer when he was asked if the Democrats would move on impeachment if a Democrat was elected president in November. Democrats still plan on holding impeachment hearings, but as he said, Obama could be derailed by it. How is that? He is afraid impeachment would become an issue during the election cycle if they attempt it before the election. Really? No shit.
“I am afraid they would raise it in the campaign, and that they will use it against us, and that we would end up getting McCain. I would regret that for the rest of my life,” he said. “That’s the only reason. That would be my fear.”
“We can win this election and go get these guys afterwards. But we just don’t want to jeopardize November 4th,”
This leads me to ask the following question- if Americans want the president impeached, and Democrats have the support to do it, how would this jeopardize the election? Shouldn’t this help them in the election if it is what Americans want?
The truth is that Americans in general, except for the far left moonbats, do not want the president impeached. If they did the Democrats would have already started proceedings. As a matter of fact Republicans probably welcome the hearings so that they can hear the Democrats argue against the president taking measures to protect the American people. Let’s get the Democrats on record as being soft on national defense is how Republicans probably look at it. Democrats realize this also, that is why they will not do it before the election. They realize that this would be a losing battle, yet they want the far left loonies to think they are still going to move forward on impeachment.
They know that the moonbats will turn on them in an instant if they are honest and tell the moonbats that impeachment is not an option. So they tell them, trust us, if we get elected we will finally get the chance for impeachment. We just can’t do it right now. RRRRIIIIGGGHHTTT.
I am not saying that the Democrats will not move on articles of impeachment after the election if they win, they probably will, but this just shows that they either have no balls or they know the truth is that most Americans don’t want to impeach the president. Or both. I say it’s both.
They say that only they can bring the country together again, and this is how they plan to do it?
Democrats, do you wonder why you are considered linguini spined? This is a perfect example. Put your balls where your mouth is and lets go for it! That is, if you really believe it, and are not just pandering to your far left base.
I think we know the answer.
Read more here.
The supreme court heard arguments today on Washington D.C.’s handgun ban. As I wrote about here, it appears that the supreme court is ready to rule that an individual does have the right to keep and bear arms. Opponents believe the second amendment applies only to state militias. Today’s apparent decision is a victory, however the court also appears to be ready to rule that the government can regulate gun ownership. This is where we will see how President Bush’s two supreme court appointees are going to shape the future of the court. How far will the supreme court go in the restrictions that are acceptable?
Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a “right to keep and bear arms” that goes beyond the amendment’s reference to service in a militia.
A good start, but what about government regulations on handguns?
Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution.
The supreme court is going to rule on what is reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, more precisely, the ban on handguns in Washington D.C.:
“What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.
Opponents argued that because only handguns are banned, that is a reasonable restriction.
This decision is huge overall, because whether you realize it or not, this is a case that had no precedent set on which to draw from. This is a case that actually determined that individuals have the right to bear arms. I know it seems strange that this hasn’t been officially adjudicated before, but it hasn’t.
The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
It now looks as if the precedent will be set:
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives “a general right to bear arms.” He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – a majority of the nine-member court.
While this initial ruling is a great sign, we must now look with interest on what restrictions the court feels are reasonable for the government to impose on gun ownership. If this first ruling is any sign, we are headed in the right direction with this new supreme court.
On March 16th I wrote this post about the supreme court hearing a case about gun control in Washington D.C. This is a very important case on the second amendment as the supreme court is going to rule on whether individuals have the right to bear arms, or if the amendment only applies to state militias.
The court heard the arguments this morning and will now have several weeks to make a final decision. It is being reported here, and on Fax News, that the supreme court is prepared to rule that individuals do have the right to keep and bear arms.
The US Supreme Court appears ready to rule that Americans have a constitutional right to keep a gun in their home for self-defence, a ruling that could help Republicans in the upcoming presidential election.Hearing the most important gun rights case in nearly 70 years, the justices on Tuesday spent 98 minutes engrossed in a lively debate about British and American legal traditions relating to the right to bear arms, especially in self-defence.
The court will now reportedly use the next few weeks to decide on what, or if any restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. This is a huge victory for second amendment advocates. This ruling had the possibility of shaking up the very structure of one of the basic rights guaranteed under the constitution. The court actually had to rule on whether individuals have the right to bear arms, and they are reported to have passed this test. Now it will be very interesting to see the type of restrictions that they rule are acceptable.
The supreme court seems to have made a great decision on the first part of the argument, now we will see if they continue to support the second amendment with their next decision, which is due in late May or early June.
I have written before about what I feel President Bush’s most enduring and profound legacy will be when looked back upon many years from now. I believe that his two supreme court appointees will be and have the most positive effects on the country, and will shape the future of the country for many years to come. If this decision is a sign of things to come. we are off to a good start.
