Birth control. No one else’s business or concern except for you, your partner and health care provider. Or so we thought . . .

The diabolical folks who put together their dystopian, conservative, all-controlling plan for American citizens would happily disagree. They plan to either dismantle or get rid of entirely, government entities, organizations or departments whose sole purpose is to keep Americans safe, informed, healthy, educated, accepted etc. They are targeting the Department of Education, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Head Start Program, Immigration, repeal the Inflation Reduction Act and withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement to name several avenues of disaster they would like to take us on.

Why stop there when the decision of family planning should also be an issue controlled by the government only?

Through the Affordable Care Act (sometimes referred to as Obamacare) women had access to no-cost birth control and no-cost emergency birth control. Not surprisingly, the no-cost birth control benefit is one of the most popular features of this law. 

According to the National Women's Law Center, over "62.4 million women now have coverage of birth control and other preventive services without out-of-pocket costs," all thanks to the Affordable Care Act. "Women across the country are using the benefit and reaping the benefits of birth control, both to their health and economic security."

In 2017, Trump's administration weakened the ACA’s contraception part of the law by permitting employers to deny birth control coverage if they personally had a moral or religious objection. 

The Project 2025 mandate also recommends ending funding to Planned Parenthood, an organization instrumental in providing 4.6 million tests and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, 2.25 million contraception services, over 450,000 cancer screenings and prevention services (breast exams and Pap tests), and 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal services. The availability of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is also in question should our democracy fall in Nov. Planned Parenthood provides so much more than abortion services.

Is this what we want for our daughters and granddaughters? If not, be sure your vote speaks for them. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was established in 1970 for the purpose of studying the Earth’s atmosphere, coastal areas and oceans within the regions of the United States. It falls under the Department of Commerce and consists of six offices:

1. The National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, for distributing global environmental data.
2. The National Marine Fisheries Service, for managing and conserving coastal fisheries within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone of the United States.
3. The National Ocean Service, for activities related to the health and productivity of the oceans and coasts bordering the United States.
4. The National Weather Service, for providing weather-related forecasts and warnings for the United States, its possessions, and its marine and freshwater approaches. 
5. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, for performing environmental research.
6. The Office of Program Planning and Integration, for merging and monitoring the performance of the other offices. 

There are seven research laboratories managed by NOAA and about 20 Cooperative Institutes (CIs) allied with over 40 institutions, including Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts, that are also supported by NOAA. 

But let’s focus on the National Weather Service. Did you know weather forecasts here in America (like most other countries) are a convenient government resource? Through this office weather alerts and predictions are issued, we are warned of impending tornadoes and hurricanes along with predicted severity, we get warnings of extreme heat and rainfall. All this instant information is available through our radios, TV’s, cell phones or newspapers, annually costing the American taxpayer about $4.00 per person. How ever you get your weather report it originally comes from meteorologists who work for the federal government. 

For days before Hurricane Helene hit the United States as a Category 4 storm, the National Weather Service was diligently issuing warnings to those who resided in the path of it. Additionally, they were issuing tornado warnings. At last count, 52 people were killed in five states, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. Three firefighters, a mother and her 1-month-old twins and an 89-year-old woman who was struck by a tree hitting her house were among those who did not survive. Property damage is already estimated to be in the billions! 

Could this have been much, much worse without the National Weather Service warning and advising anyone in the path of the storm who was listening? Possibly.

Now for Project 2025 . . .

The authors of Project 2025 have written that an incoming administration should “break up” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under which the National Weather Service operates. They would like to eliminate or privatize most of its functions, claiming the agency is “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity.” (emphasis added)

Page 674 of the mandate is where you will find the information written by Thomas F. Gilman former Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration of the US Department of Commerce in the Trump administration. According to Gilman, the National Weather Service should “fully commercialize its forecasting operations” and sell data to private companies.

The mandate would minimize the research arm of NOAA, which studies events like natural disasters, climate change and the ozone layer. Again, according to Gilman, that branch is “the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism.” (emphasis added)

The real cause for alarm sounds like it should be Project 2025! 

Hispanic Heritage Month celebrates the history and culture of the Latino and Hispanic communities. This year Hispanic Heritage Month runs from Sunday, Sept. 15 through Tuesday, Oct. 15. This annual event commemorates how those communities have influenced and contributed to American society overall. 

A little history first . . .

On Sept. 17, 1968, Congress passed Public Law 90-48, which officially authorized the president to issue annual proclamations declaring Sept. 15 and 16 the beginning of National Hispanic Heritage Week. Additionally, the law requested the “people of the United States, especially the educational community, to observe such week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.” The first Hispanic Heritage Week presidential proclamation was issued the same day by Pres. Lyndon Johnson. 

The Sept. 15 date was chosen because it coincided with Independence Day celebrations of five “Central American neighbors,” as Johnson had called them; Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Those five countries declared independence from Spain on Sept. 15, 1821.

Mexico was also recognized, having proclaimed its independence from Spain on Sept. 16, 1810. Chile also celebrates its independence from Spain on Sept. 18, 1810, along with Belize, having gained independence from Great Britain on Sept. 21, 1981. These countries have been added to the list of nations specifically celebrated during what is now Hispanic Heritage Month. It was in 1988 the celebration was extended to a month by Pres. Ronald Reagan.

Here in New Hampshire, there are celebrations taking place to honor and recognize our Hispanic communities:
Sept. 26 - Sol y Canto performing at the Word Barn Meadow in Exeter from 7-9 pm. They are known for making their music accessible to both Spanish and non-Spanish-speaking audiences. Tickets are available online. The festivities begin at 11 am.

Sept. 28 – International Festival in Keene begins at 11 am. This is an annual International Festival in celebration of cultural diversity. There will be food vendors presenting international food, performances, games, a global market, and various workshops will be available. Free admission with all donations supporting festival activities.

Oct. 6 – Latin Beats and Eats takes place from 5-7 pm in Littleton, where you can learn to dance Bachata and Merengue at the Loading Dock. Authentic food and flavors from Little Grille to enjoy as you dance to Latin music. The admission is free, donations are appreciated.

The current federal SAVE Act is an amendment to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and would require first time voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote. While citizenship has always been required for one to vote in federal elections, this bill would now require states to verify citizen status with a valid passport, REAL ID, military ID or birth certificate. 

Currently, voter registration doesn’t require this documentary proof, instead a signed testament of citizenship, under penalty of perjury for false claims, is accepted. The SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility) would create new election official guidelines for screening voter databases while providing free access to a federal database to confirm a voter’s citizenship status. 

The states are predominately responsible for voter registration processes and county election officials assist in registering people to vote as well as cleaning and screening voter rolls. Enacting changes included in the SAVE Act could require extra training for county election officials and poll workers in states with same-day registration, such as New Hampshire. 

Naturally, the SAVE Act does not authorize extra federal funding for states and local governments to apply these new guidelines. Congress passed this bill in the summer and it now awaits action by the Senate.

Here in NH we’ve had many in our legislature working towards the same goal of voter suppression. HB 1569 was signed into law by Gov. Sununu on Sept. 12th, but will luckily, not go into effect until after the Nov. election. Nevertheless, the New Hampshire Youth Movement (NHYM) have now sued Secretary of State David Scanlan (R) over House Bill 1569. Like the above-mentioned SAVE Act, the NH bill requires documentation of citizenship, which could be a birth certificate, naturalization papers or a passport. Under this new law, signing an affidavit at a polling place will not be allowed anymore, making NH one of the most restrictive voting states in the country. This change has the potential to disenfranchise large amounts of voters in future elections who think they could register in person on Election Day but don’t have this proof of citizenship with them. High school seniors and young college students immediately come to mind.

According to the lawsuit the proof-of-citizenship requirement will cause unnecessary burdens on the homeless, young, elderly and low-income voters. The NHYM argues the new law violates the First and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. They are asking a court to strike down the requirement and bar Scanlan and other election officials from enforcing it.

This is a case that bears watching.

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

14th Amendment, section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Keene City Council is considering a change to our Rules of Order governing whether a member should sit or stand when addressing the Chair during a meeting.

Right now, the requirement is that Councilors stand while speaking, although Councilors who are unable to stand for whatever reason may request that the Chair permit them to stay seated. Though this request for an accommodation is invariably granted, some of us on the Council are trying to change the rule so that asking for an accommodation is no longer even necessary.

Right now, there is a proposal on the table to change the phrasing "shall stand" to "shall stand, if able." However, Councilor Catt Workman, speaking in her role as the Chair of the Monadnock Diversity Equity Inclusion and Belonging Coalition - has recommend that the phrase "shall stand" in the Rules of Order should be changed to "may stand."

Making this change would be a way for the City Council to set an example for the community of how we can adopt changes that reduce barriers to participation in leadership organizations.

The Council will be taking a vote on this rule change on Thursday, September 19. If this issue is important to you - if accessibility is important to you - please reach out to your City Councilors and tell them why you think they should vote for this change.

“To manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.”

The origin of “gerrymandering” dates back to 1812! Elbridge Gerry was a merchant and a politician serving as the 5th vice president of the United States under President James Madison. Gerry was elected to the Second Continental Congress where he signed the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation. After the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, Gerry was elected to the inaugural US Congress. While there, advocating for individual and state rights, he was tirelessly involved with the preparing and eventual passage of the Bill of Rights. He was also instrumental in arguing for Congress’ power to override presidential vetoes. 

In the early1800s he joined a new party, the Democratic-Republicans, which supported a less centralized government. Like many Democratic-Republicans of his time, Gerry believed the Federalists were too close to the British and secretly hoped to restore the monarchy. After becoming governor of Massachusetts, he called for an end to the bickering between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists. However, war was on the horizon with Great Britain in 1811 and Gerry felt the Federalists’ protests against Pres. Madison’s foreign policy was near-treasonous. 

So what did he do? He replaced Federalists in state government jobs with Democratic-Republicans, got his attorney general to prosecute Federalist newspaper editors for libel, and seized control of the Federalist-dominated Harvard College board. 

Things that make you go, Hmmm . . .

Anyway, the majority led Democratic-Republican legislature, redrew the state’s Senate districts to benefit their party. Before that, senatorial districts followed county boundaries. The new Senate map was now filled with unnatural shapes, Federalists criticizing them as “carvings and manglings.” Gov. Gerry signed the bill into law in Feb. 1812. Thus began the practice of cheating and the emergence of a new word describing it. 

Here in New Hampshire, we deal with our own gerrymandered districts. Our population census is taken every ten years so that important decisions about federal spending can be made wisely. The boundaries of congressional and legislative districts are then redrawn according to the population in each one. New Hampshire is one of 31 states in which the legislature passes redistricting plans as regular legislation. These plans are often approved with a majority vote in each chamber and can be subject to veto by the governor. 

This process also determines political power for the next ten years. Now the question is how to make this process run fairly?

One answer is to appoint an “independent election commission” made up of citizens who have no stake in politics other than to see the redistricting process take place fairly and not leave the state looking “carved up and mangled.”

“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.”

Twenty-seven words that have been interpreted in various ways over many decades, usually with the first thirteen left off. Well, let’s review those words as it pertains to New Hampshire. 

What is a militia? Federal and state laws commonly refer to all able-bodied residents between the ages of 17 and 45 who may be called by the government to defend the United States or an individual state a “militia.” An organized militia consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia. An unorganized militia consists of people who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. 
A group of people who think themselves part of the “able-bodied residents” under state or federal law are not legally permitted to activate itself for duty. A private militia attempting to activate itself for duty, outside of the authority of the state or federal government, is illegal. 10 U.S.C. section 246

Are private militias protected under the Second Amendment? No. The Supreme Court ruled in 1886 and again in 2008, the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” District of Columbia v. Heller 2008, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (citing Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)).

Is it legal to act as a private militia in NH? No. All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized militias and military units from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities. Some states, which includes NH, also prohibit paramilitary activity during or by advancing civil disorder. 

The New Hampshire Constitution forbids private military units from operating outside state authority, providing that “[i]n all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” 
NH.Constitution part 1, article XXVI

New Hampshire law makes it illegal for groups to organize as private militias without permission from the state. RSA 111:15 states “[n]o organization, society, club, post, order, league or other combination of persons, or civil group, or any members thereof, are authorized to assume any semblance of military organization or character by bearing or possessing rifles, pistols, sabres, clubs, or military weapons of any kind, or wearing a military uniform of any kind.” The statute has limited exemptions for authorized military units, color guards, and similar entities. 

In NH, it is a felony for any person to “knowingly and falsely assume[] or exercise[] the functions, powers, duties, or privileges incident to the office of sheriff, deputy sheriff, state police officer, police officer of any city or town, or any other law enforcement officer or investigator employed by any state, country or political subdivision of a state or country.” RSA 104:28-a

Sadly, there are groups of people who use their Second Amendment rights to intimidate people who are exercising their voting rights. We don’t really see that here in NH, but just in case. . .

What to do if armed groups are seen near polling places or at a voter registration drive?
First, always document what you are witnessing.
Are they carrying firearms? If so, what type? If not, are they carrying other types of weapons?
What are the armed people doing and wearing? 
Are they wearing insignia? If so, what does it say or look like? 
Are they carrying signs or flags? 
Do they seem to be patrolling as a law enforcement officer would? 
Do they appear to be coordinating their actions, have a “leader?” 
Are they stopping or talking to people outside of their group? 
Do they appear to be provoking or threatening violence? If so, what are they doing specifically? 
Are people turning away from the polling station after seeing or speaking with them?

Don’t engage, just contact your local police or sheriff’s department.

This information is taken from Georgetown Law.

We’ve already referenced Republican candidates for office from four other counties, now we move along to those in Grafton County. 

District 1:
-Littleton, Joseph Barton
-Littleton, Calvin Beaulier, member of Liberty Alliance, is against the same issues as fellow Republicans; stricter gun laws, capital gains tax, increasing minimum wage, no state run stores for the sale of legal pot, but he’s for private sales and school vouchers.
-Littleton, Darrell Louis
-Sugar Hill, Samuel Mealey

District 2:
-Bethlehem, Eddie Qi

District 3:
-Woodstock, Bonnie Ham, surprisingly, she is against school vouchers, not surprisingly she is also against conditional affidavit ballots for new voters and raising the minimum wage. 
-Lincoln, Paul Schirduan, supports and is against the same issues.

District 4:
-Thornton, Stephen Babin, supports school vouchers but is undecided on where he stands concerning a woman’s reproductive health rights. Is against taking action on climate change and conditional affidavit ballots for new voters.

District 5:
-Haverhill, Rick Ladd, incumbent and Liberty Alliance member, is against any legalizing pot, stricter gun laws, climate change action and increasing the minimum wage, however all in for school vouchers.
-Haverhill, Greg Mathieson, lists himself as a Capitol Hill Correspondent; author; farmer; photographer; TV network producer. Is president of Mathieson and Associates, Inc.
-Haverhill, Marie Bjelobrk, is for and against the same issues.

District 6:
-Wentworth, Linda Franz

District 7:
-Campton, Jon Gablinske, supports school vouchers, local immigration enforcement and surprisingly increasing funding for child care providers. Against similar issues as others.

District 8:
-Ashland, Timothy Sweetsir, is against stricter gun laws but supports local immigration enforcement.

District 9:
-Canaan, Kevin Howard

District 10:
-Bristol, John Sellers, incumbent and member of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), supports and is against similar issues.

District 11:
-Grafton, Lex Berezhny, incumbent, Liberty Alliance and YAL member, supports and is against similar issues.

District 18:
-Orange, Donald McFarlane, Liberty Alliance member, supports and is against similar issues.

New Hampshire Primary is Tuesday, Sept. 10th. If you haven’t voted by absentee yet, be sure to take the time to vote in person and do your part to preserve our democracy!

“Every election is determined by the people who show up.”
Larry Sabato, political scientist

Did you know in New Hampshire, according to nhhungersolutions there are more than 66,000 households with children who do not have enough food! 

Did you know NH has the lowest participation in the following Federal Nutrition Programs:
-School meals (free and reduced price) ranked 47th in School      Breakfast Participation
-SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) ranked 39th
-SUN Meals (Summer Nutrition Program for kids) ranked 35th
-WIC Women Infants & Children Nutrition Program, serves 54% a little over half who are eligible 

As recently as June of this year, 46% of NH children and 45% of adults lived in households who reported not having enough food.  Additionally, 32% of older adults in NH reported not having enough food (97,751 adults ages 65+). Nearly 250,000 people are eligible for the SNAP program, but only 77,000 or 31% are currently enrolled. 

Let’s focus on school lunches . . .

National School Lunch Program ○ Federally funded meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions 
○ Provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or no-cost lunches to kids each school day  
School Breakfast Program ○ Federally funded meal program, same as above 
○ Provides healthy breakfasts to kids before the school day begins
○ In NH, students who qualify for free or reduced price school lunch receive breakfast for free
Qualifications ○ Kids in homes with incomes up to 130% of the Federal Poverty Level qualify for free school lunches 
○ Kids in homes with incomes from 130% to 185% of the Federal Poverty Level qualify for reduced price school lunches 
○ In NH, kids in households with incomes up to 185% of the Federal Poverty Level qualify for free school breakfast

HB 1212 was proposed legislation meant to raise the eligibility for free and reduced-price school lunches to 250% of the federal poverty level. Sponsored by a plethora of Democrat Representatives who are bothered by the thought of any child going hungry during the school day because their low-income family can’t afford enough food, this bill was defeated by one vote.

If families qualify, the Medicaid program can also be used to automatically certify kids for free or reduced-price lunches. HB 601 was proposed legislation that would have made all school children who are eligible for Medicaid to automatically become eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Only three Republican legislators voted in support but the bill was defeated by one vote. 

After much work to create a children’s summer food assistance program, SB 499 was signed into law last month by outgoing Gov. Sununu. This is a federally assisted meal program providing free, nutritious meals and snacks for kids in low-income homes through the summer months.

NH can do so much better on all issues ranging from school lunches for low-income families to addressing high property taxes to combatting extreme weather and climate change. Curious as to how your legislator votes on some of these important issues? Click here, then go out and vote accordingly!

Way back in the 1990s, the school districts of Allenstown, Claremont, Franklin, Lisbon Regional and Pittsfield sued the State of New Hampshire for better education funding. Seven years later, the ruling went in favor of the Plaintiffs; the State of NH has a duty to pay for the cost of a constitutionally adequate education for every K-12 student and the taxes that the State uses to pay for this education must have an equal rate throughout the state.

So, what’s an “adequate” education in a NH public school?

English/Language Arts & Reading 
Mathematics 
Science 
Social studies 
Arts education 
World languages 
Health and wellness education 
Physical education 
Engineering and Technologies 
Personal Finance Literacy
Computer science

Let’s use the Allenstown public school as an example:

Allenstown has 511 students (per 2022-23 school year). According to the state, an adequate education for those students should cost $2,418,121 or $4,980 per student in 2022-23. The Allenstown School District budget for 2022-23 was $12,243,949 or $24,197 per student. Uh-oh, what needs to be cut?

All busing (including special education busing) 
All supplies, copy machines, liability insurance, plumbing and heating repairs
All educational materials (including new textbooks) 
All art, music, and PE equipment 
All Chromebook technology and software contracts 
All payments on the school building bond (resulting in default) 
All food services 
Maintaining the grounds (including plowing) 
SAU 53 costs (including superintendent & staff), fees for audits and attorney
All English Language Learner support 
All special education contracted services 
All special education appraisal services 
All special education out-of-district placements 
All co-curricular clubs, sports, field trips, and student assemblies 
All summer programs
Two secretaries and one of two nurses must go
Three of 4 custodians must go 
All school board stipends and fees 
Both guidance counselors and both street crossing guards must go 
Technology support personnel must go 
Assistant principal must go 
Two of 17 special education paraprofessionals (and reduce special education coordinator to half-time) must go 
No more special education speech/language pathologist 
All substitute salaries must go 
Reading specialist, special education secretary, library media specialist and speech language pathologist must go 
Reduce library aid to half-time
Art, music, physical education, behavior and one of 7 special education teachers must go

There are 501 public schools in NH in 314 school districts. This is just one town in a four town school district.  

Got children and grandchildren in public schools? Want them to receive a “constitutionally adequate” education? Vote accordingly.
Voting scorecards - Open Democracy Action