To The Daily Sun,
We want to thank everyone who has helped CASA of N.H. in this past year.
First and foremost, we are incredibly grateful to our volunteer advocates who are meeting with children and youth in our communities who have been abused/neglected. They are showing these children that there is a caring adult who wants to get to know them and is working diligently to help get them into a safe and permanent home. Our advocates are making a positive difference and we are so proud of all they do for children in need. Due to the strict confidentiality of these cases, they can not share the heartbreaking stories nor can they tell you about the happy-endings that they helped create, so their incredible efforts and work often goes unrecognized.
Thank you to the generous support of area businesses that have helped us with raffle items for fundraising, meeting and interview space and accommodations. There are also many people who have attended one of our events, donated, grabbed a brochure, purchased our merchandise, told someone about CASA, followed us on Twitter or "liked" us on Facebook. These are great ways to help us spread attention to the hidden and often overlooked issue of child abuse/neglect that occurs right in our communities.
Finally, thank you to our new and future volunteers. We will be offering several trainings in the upcoming year as we still have a critical need for more advocates out of the Laconia and Plymouth courts. For an application or more information call Jen at 536-1663.
CASA of NH Staff
Last Updated on Friday, 03 January 2014 11:39
To The Daily Sun
Considering the nearly unbroken record of misrepresentations, diversions, and outright falsehoods from their national leaders, it is not surprising that other Democrats use the same techniques. An example is Representative David O. Huot's column on December 17 titled, "Medicaid expansion good for all our pocket books."
New Hampshire Democrats want to expand Medicaid to cover another 58,000 people. The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies indicates that 34,000 of those people already have private insurance. Providing Medicaid to people who are already insured is wasting taxpayer money!
More importantly, if Democrats really wanted to help people, why replace good insurance that people already have with Medicaid that an increasing number of service providers refuse to accept? Moving people from private insurance to Medicaid isn't good for taxpayers, doctors, hospitals, or the insured... only for the politicians and the special interests.
The Republican alternative helps the uninsured get good private insurance using federal funds. Rollout could have started January 1, 2014. Unlike the Democrat plan that provides poor insurance at increased taxpayer cost, the Republican plan is a win-win-win-win for the uninsured, doctors, hospitals, and for taxpayers. Nevertheless, Democrats rejected the Republican plan.
With the Republican plan, New Hampshire taxpayers aren't burdened when the federal (taxpayer) funding ends. During the three years of 100 percent federal funding, the N.H. Legislature can consider what to do afterwards. Hopefully the economy will improve so people can get insurance from an employer or afford to buy their own.
The only explanation for rejecting the Republican plan is if your objectives are something other than helping the poor and protecting the taxpayers, e.g., if your objective is to increase the size of government and your own political power, to reward special interests, and/or to create a major new state expense that forces adoption of a state income or sales tax.
Frankly, I object to both plans. Our legislators spend too much time on band-aids (welfare and other programs) to hide people's pain caused by destructive progressive policies that have been killing good middle-income jobs for decades.
Unfortunately President Obama has accelerated those progressive job-killing policies and, consequently, he has increased the gap between rich and poor every year of his presidency.
If they wanted the American people to really prosper, politicians would replace job-killing progressive (primarily Democrat) policies with policies (tax, regulatory, immigration, energy, etc.) that encourage people to invest and create millions of good American jobs.
Only conservatives are committed to enacting policies that encourage the economic growth that enables every American to get a good job so they can purchase the things they need and want, and to pursue their American dream.
Last Updated on Friday, 03 January 2014 11:33
To The Daily Sun,
Issa vs. the Post Office: Another typical Republican who follows the GOP guide lines. Smaller Government, less taxes (for the wealthy) and less regulations. His Postal Reform Bill has less services, you pay for some services, no union negotiations or imput, possible 100,000 layoffs, post office closings and more.
This will NOT work, especially in this day and age where people, in many respects, do NOT need the PO. Almost everything can be done online. The reputation the PO has is that their service is excellent. Since the early 2000s, I have averaged about 600-700 or so packages per year. About 90 percent were under 4 pounds with most envelope sized around 1-2 ounces. So, believe it or not, have had NO claims and maybe less than 10 were "late" — but no serious complaints. The other main advantage the PO has is that they are cheaper than both UPS and FedEx.
The PO does have its share of problems, most of which were created by the Congress by having to fund some programs years in advance. Almost like making you fund your IRA no matter if you have the cash or not. By re-arranging the post office is NOT the way the you creates jobs and stablize an industry. It might be the Willard Romney way, especially with all that money put aside for pensions waiting to be split up, but not by the PO employees, but maybe by somebody else. I would think the PO should be the ones, maybe with some outside help, to solve the problem Congress got them into in the first place. There are a lot of people in every community who rely on the post office so they should be given every opportunity to fix there own problems instead of being forced by a power hungry member of the do nothing Congress.
Most of the following info came from Wikipedia. Oddly enough Issa got his start in the auto alarm system early on by stealing cars all the way up to grand theft. I wonder if he is legally able to vote. This is how Issa made his fortune. He is the richest person in Congress, with a auto security alarm company he worked for. This was Quantum Enterprises and a side company called Steal Stopper. This one he ended up owning after foreclosing on his friend, the owner, who he had lent money to but had missed a payment. He is more like Romney every day. From there the cash came rolling in by devious means, I might add, at least after the fire. But he is a smart guy because BEFORE the fire, he had raised the fire insurance coverage by around 462 percent and had moved all the computers and related material out of the building. The fire was suspicious in nature with accelerates like gasoline found in the area. He wasn't convicted.
Now it was on to politics and after losing his first race in 1998 after spending $11 million of his own money things changed. The districts were re-drawn so from 2002 on he hasn't lost — there is a message in there someplace. He has become the head of some powerful committees and is on a constant witch hunt.
If Issa spent as much time looking for WMD's in Iraq as he has spent trying to ruin Hillary through Benghazi, we NEVER would have gone to war in 10 years ago. He has a one track mind and that is to take down as many Democrats as possible in any way possible. Every time he asks for and gets any sensitive but un-classified high level information, the first thing he does is release it to the media. He makes Snowden look like a saint.
Last Updated on Friday, 03 January 2014 11:29
To The Daily Sun,
More than a decade of bloodshed and sacrifice took place in the rugged terrain of Iraq. President Bush's successful surge brought a chance for real democracy for the Iraqi people. Al-Qaeda had been decisively defeated and actually "was on the run". All this was accomplished remarkably, with an historically low casualty rate for a war of this length and with a terrific effort by our dedicated troops.
Fast forward to the end of 2013, and the final days of President Obama's 5th year as our Commander-in-Chief. Thirty-seven killed in a Christmas Day bombing in Iraq. Accomplished by two targeted bombing attacks. One at a Christian neighborhood and the other during a Christian mass. Four-hundred people have been killed in Iraq in December alone and over 6,000 this year.
During his year-end speech, President Obama cited as one of his accomplishments, the success in Iraq by virtue of ending the war in Iraq. There is a good chance that these deaths would not have happened had President Obama been willing and able to put together a "status of forces agreement" which would have left a small contingent of U.S. forces in Iraq to ensure stability within the country and avoid the kind of bloodshed that has occurred this year.
Iraq is now considered, by most experts, to be a client state of Iran. Al-Qaeda and it's many affiliates, rather than being on the run, has had an inspired revival. It now controls most of Iraq and Syria and according to most Middle East experts, is now a dominant force in that part of the world. People in those countries are wondering, "just where is the United States?" Charles Krauthammer says the answer lies in "Obama's foreign policy of retreat". "And when Americans retreat, the bad guys fill the vacuum". Our influence has been diminished and with it, lost opportunities for peace around the globe.
Egypt and Libya have been disasters for the United States as we all know. Syria could have been a worse disaster if Putin had not stepped in to save Obama's red line ultimatum. West Africa would be under al-Qaeda control if not for the French stepping up in Mali. Steve Hayes reminds us of how our president dithered and dallied for weeks on end while the Green Revolution was sparking in Iran and the whole world showed concern and looked for that "bright beacon on the hill" to again light up the cause for liberty. Apparently, the White House did not want to meddle in the affairs of others and Dennis Rodman was not available.
Now, we are supposed to believe that the new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's speeches for peace are believable? Have we learned nothing from Hitler's peace speeches? If there is anyone who has a clue what our president's foreign policy is, could they please enlighten the rest of us. Steve and Charles believe that there is not now and never has been a coherent foreign policy under this administration. I suppose it's possible that our president is inspired from a song of harmony. That song is probably not from Beyonce, Jay Z or Kanye West, or even his favorite song for singing in the shower, Al Green's, "Let's Stay Together". No, I believe it is "Give Peace a Chance", by John Lennon, Yoko Ono and the Plastic Ono Band.
Sometimes it seems as though America's soul has gone to sleep. How to awaken citizens from our complacent slumber? Is repeating, "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Hare, Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare", the answer to awaken our soul? Or should we reread the history of Ronald Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, Pope John Paul II and Lech Walesa and their indomitable spirits that brought down the Soviet Union? As Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel reminds us, "Indifference to me, is the epitome of all evil". Should we not demand a coherent foreign policy from our president and proper accountability for how our tax dollars are spent on defense? I think so. What say you?
Last Updated on Friday, 03 January 2014 11:26
To The Daily Sun,
The column by Michelle Malkin in the January 3rd edition of The Sun was a perfect reminder of the sactity of Life. Her words prompt me to remind everyone that coming up in just three weeks is the anniversary of the terrible Roe v. Wade decision. Now, 42 years of horrific abortions have been committed in the United States since that decision was made. Many New Hampshire residents will be traveling to Washington on January 21st to protest that decision and encourage lawmakers to change the law. However, choice is still the law of the land; I urge pregnant women to take the choice for Life, as Michelle said, Life is precious.
Last Updated on Friday, 03 January 2014 11:23