A+ A A-

Sunday, April 27 is Gold Star Mother's Day in New Hampshire

To The Daily Sun,

During the First World War, in May 1918, President Woodrow Wilson approved the suggestion of the Women's Committee of National Defenses recommending that American women should wear a black band on the upper left arm adorned with a gold star. Each star representing a family member who had given his or her life for their country. President Woodrow Wilson first used the term "Gold Star Mother" in his letter to the Women's Committee.

The mothers of New Hampshire's fallen heroes have made the ultimate sacrifice for human freedom, and we owe them the most profound debt of gratitude. More than anyone, they bear the deep emotional burden and loss of those who have laid down their lives for the cause of liberty. New Hampshire owes these dignified and graceful mothers of freedom our deepest admiration and our promise that the sacrifice of their children will never be forgotten.

To assure that their children would not be forgotten, in 1999, Gov. Jeanne Shaheen signed into law RSA 4:13-h: "Gold Star Mother's Day, "calling for ...the proper observance of the first Sunday after Easter which shall be known as Gold Star Mother's Day recognizing and honoring all mothers who have lost sons or daughters while on duty in the United States armed forces. The governor shall urge the citizens of the state to observe this day with appropriate events..."

Each year, this observance is an opportunity to offer our solemn respect to Gold Star Mothers and renew our ongoing pledge that America will always remember those who died while wearing the uniform of the United States and forever honor their families' sacrifice.

In the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944: "There is nothing adequate which anyone in any place can say to those who are entitled to display the gold star in their windows America lives in freedom.

Karen Thurston
Blue Star Mothers of N.H.

Gilford

Last Updated on Thursday, 24 April 2014 09:44

Hits: 16

Renewable energy has become politically correct boondoggle

To The Daily Sun,

Profiles in courage defined John Kennedy. Profiles in cowardice describe Barack Obama.

Once again Obama has kicked the can down the road on the Keystone pipeline to placate environmental advocates who hold sway in key Senate elections in November. The delay has not only drawn the wrath of conservatives, but union construction workers who are the really big losers. They are the ones missing out on tens of thousands of new, high-paying jobs while Obama plays politics first. It is no wonder why working-class Americans by majority have become a key voting segment for the Republican Party over the past 25 years.

If a good job is a key to happiness and security, Main Street knows, who best provides those opportunities (and who stonewalls them).
After an exhaustive two-year investigation, the U.S. State Department issued an exhaustive report suggesting the Keystone posed little environmental threat while giving its approval to proceed. The U.S. has dozens of pipelines that cross the border with Canada.

America has tens of thousands of miles of pipelines that crisscross every state in the country like veins in the human body. These pipelines are the life blood of our economy. They provide the gas for our automobiles and the heat for our homes. Obama uses the Keystone as a "dog bone" to reward deep-pocketed, political donors to the Democratic Party.

Renewable energy has become a politically and socially correct boondoggle. All it has done is killed tens of thousands of high-paying jobs in the fossil fuel industry, increasing our debt through a complex maze of generous federal and state subsidies that obfuscate the REAL and true cost of alternative energy generation. The cost comparison of alternative energy sources like wind and are now at all-time highs compared to fossil fuels, most especially natural gas. Wind energy has never been more expensive that it is today. These billions in hidden subsidies that totally distort the true cost of energy to the consume are going to mega size corporations most all of which are based in Europe.

If global temperatures can rise unabated from carbon emissions (a theory still hotly debated scientifically) then the likelihood we are all headed to be fried chicken without being rolled in the colonels secret batter is a strong possibility, no matter how many wind mills the U.S. erects, or how many thousands of square miles we cover with solar cells.

It took America 150 years to create 1 billion tons of coal burning capacity annually. The Chinese just did it in 10. They are on target to add another billion in the next eight years. China still has hundreds of millions of people who have yet to experience the joy of a single light bulb in their home. Coal is cheap and abundant in China.

Listen carefully. All we are doing with federal subsidies to alternative energy is hiding the real costs, which to this day are uncompetitive with fossil fuels with little likelihood they ever will be. After decades of searching to make them less costly nothing has ever been found to make them practical competitively.

The German government just announced recently it was slashing its renewable energy subsidies because high energy costs from renewable energy are causing them to lose billions in business on global markets. That is what is coming to America.

Lost business and more lost jobs from high renewable energy costs and beautiful mountain tops pock-marked with windmills that only make sense to run if government hands endless billions to their European owners.
Tony Boutin
Gilford

Last Updated on Thursday, 24 April 2014 09:36

Hits: 27

Don't have to look hard to document how left-leaning our press is

To The Daily Sun,

Apparently Bernedette Loesch is not aware or what the rest of the world knows, that our mass media is run by left-leaning editors, programmers, writers, and broadcasters. I should do my homework, she says. Seems because these things are corporations, she thinks they can have no political agendas. So okay Bernadette how's this for homework?

1. Dan Sutter of the University of Oklahoma says, "A systemic liberal bias in the U.S. media could depend on the fact that owners and or journalists typically lean to the left."

2. Of the 20 top newspapers in the country, based on readership distribution, 15 are noted liberal-leaning, three are conservative-leaning and two are considered neutral.

3. On TV, we see ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS and BBC all leaning left, while only Fox is leaning right.

4. James A. Kuypers did a study of 116 mainstream papers and found the mainstream print press operates in a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who express points of view further to the left are generally ignored whereas those who express moderate or conservative points of view were often actively demeaned or labeled as holding minority points of view. In short, if a potential leader regardless of party were to speak within this narrow accepted range of discourse he or she would receive positive press coverage. If however a person of either party spoke outside the accepted range of discourses he or she would receive negative press coverage.

5. Even David Baron of Stanford University provided a theoretic model showing the mass media behavior in which a pool of journalists systemically lean left or right to maximize profits by providing content based on their consumer orientation.
If you care to check the Internet, Bernedette, you too can find hundreds of studies on the subject. Dig hard and you can even find a few that will support your version of reality.

Steve Earle

Hill

Last Updated on Thursday, 24 April 2014 09:30

Hits: 23

When will colleges return to era of free speech & honest debate?

To The Daily Sun,

Are many of the halls of academia filled with cowards and appeasers? Brandeis University appears to be exhibit one. Perhaps Brandeis University is too stuck on the Sandra Fluke, "War on Women," "give me free contraceptives" saga to understand how unconscionable their act of cowardice and appeasement is to most Americans.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somalian woman, born into a Muslim family, now teaches at Harvard. She is a courageous woman and perhaps the most fearless and outspoken advocate for women in the Islamic world. While growing up as a Muslim girl in Somalia, she suffered genital mutilation, horrible "honor" crimes and had to flee from a forced marriage. One of Brandeis's founding principles mentions their belief in the "spirit of free expression." That principle is now on life support as a result of their rescinding of the invitation of Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at their graduation ceremony. CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) marched in, frothing at the mouth while screaming "Islamophobia" until the President of Brandeis, cowering in politically correct fear, meekly acquiesced.

Ali was also involved the the documentary, "Honor Diaries." A moving tribute to nine brave Muslim women who have come forward to tell their stories of savage brutality brought upon them and other females, including girls as young as nine forced to marry men — a coercion called rape in civilized societies. The documentary also praises moderate Muslims. Nevertheless, CAIR again reared its ugly head and screamed "Islamophobia." The universities of Michigan and Illinois, trembling in apparent fear, have canceled their showing of this award-winning documentary.

Though Ali is also an advocate for gay rights and is pro-choice, the feminists have viciously attacked her and tried to de-legitimize her, reports Kirsten Powers, a liberal columnist for USA Today and the Daily Beast. She goes on to say that Anne Rice can quit Christianity and call the Catholic Church hostile and immoral, which is her right in a country so enamored with freedom of speech. Yet a former Muslim is somehow not accorded that same right. How does this juxtaposition grab you?

The leaders of Islam are all men and so according to the Koran, women must acquiesce to their every desires and have no rights. Thus Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who suffered intense abuse at the hands of male Muslims, is not allowed to criticize the Muslim faith, even in this country. So who does liberal academia and the feminists go after? Why Ali of course, while seemingly agreeing and enforcing the misogyny of the male Muslim leaders. Is that not progressive paradox-ism at it's most disgraceful? It is certainly incongruous, hateful, feckless and absurd in the extreme.

I will conclude this shameful moment in the history of an increasingly intolerant and less enlightened college scene with a quote from Jeffrey Herf, history professor at the University of Maryland, who received his Ph.D. from Brandeis in 1981. "That the president of a university that was founded by Jews in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, should have rescinded an honor to a woman who has had the courage to attack the most important source of Jew hatred in the world today is a disgraceful act and a failure of leadership. Instead of appeasing intolerance in your faculty, you should have taken this moment to reaffirm the values for which Brandeis has stood for so long and reconfirm the place of universities as models of tolerance and enlightenment in our troubled society".

It would be nice if this was just an aberration within our hallowed halls of academia. What will it take to get our universities to return to their position as beacons of free speech and honest debate? That would be the core aspects of college life that have been their hallmarks for so long. It would be so great if Professors Maloof and Cracraft could agree with me on this one critical point, by expressing their shock and dismay at this apparent loss of moral and intellectual integrity at Brandeis and other universities.

Russ Wiles

Tilton

Last Updated on Thursday, 24 April 2014 09:25

Hits: 7

Linda Riley (4/24) 240 BENGHAZI

To The Daily Sun,

Remember Benghazi? I am asking because I have not heard anything new lately in the news, yet a report just came out saying it could have been prevented.

Prevented how? The Citizens Commission on Benghazi is a group of people who think Benghazi should have been investigated. They are concerned citizens, in which some have held high positions in the CIA and military.

Their report stated that the U.S., which had a blockade around Libya, allowed a shipment of arms into Libya. The arms were supposed to be delivered to Gaddafi but instead went to the rebels. The U.S. was supporting the rebels.

In the report, it stated that Gaddafi volunteered to step down, but the U.S. declined. Gaddafi was a brutal dictator, but he did all that he could to suppress Islamic extremists, which also happens to be in the interest of the U.S.

One member of the group thought that Benghazi was supposed to be a kidnapping. Instead, our ambassador and three other citizens were murdered. Murdered by these weapons?

Where are these weapons now? With Syrian rebels, which are predominately extremists?

Who cares about Benghazi? I do. For a time, other countries feared us, and our citizens were safe overseas, or the wrath of the U.S. government would be on them. Now we want to be friends ... and our citizens are not safe.

Who cares about Benghazi? I do. Do you?

Linda Riley
Meredith

Last Updated on Thursday, 24 April 2014 08:47

Hits: 21

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN