Obama has only poured gasonline on issue of wealth inequality

To The Daily Sun,

Hannibal cleaned up a mountain of crapola while walking behind a heard of elephants crossing the Alps. But not nearly as much as I pick up after Tom Dawson writes to The Daily Sun. The only tool large enough to tackle that monumental job is the " supa doopa poopa scoopa."

The great thing about "cleaning up" after Tom Dawson, there is little worry he will emerge to defend his logic. Liberals like Tom Dawson have been ranting about inequality since the world was thought to be flat. During the French revolution in 1789 people like Dawson were running around screaming " lop off their heads, that will cure inequality." Of course it didn't, but it did result in a sudden drop in the population of France. Inequality in France today is as great as it was then, and as great as it is in America. In fact wealth inequality runs high in just about every country.

We hear the same lunatic, nation dividing, highly divisive "lop the heads of the 1 percent" today, all while donkey hypocrites like Tom Dawson support Hillary Clinton for president. Hillary Clinton is not only in the top 1 percent, she is in the top tenth of the one percent. I guess Tom thinks the really ultra, super rich know how to fix wealth and income inequality.

Loony liberals like Dawson screamed in 2012 that Mitt Romney's wealth surely disqualified him from being president because he was out of touch with the plight of the common man. Now, all of a sudden liberals think gazillionaire Hillary Clinton has the perfect resume to deal with the complex economic and social challenges facing the less well off. All while conveniently forgetting the policies of Barack Obama have sent 20 million people packing from the middle to the lower class over the past seven years while he created the largest demands on welfare in the countries history as he stuffed the wealthiest bank accounts. Barack Obama has only poured gasoline on inequality. He is still doing it with his free money for the rich" interest rates. I ask Tom Dawson when was the last time Hillary Clinton missed her hot rock spa treatment, or her avocado facial? Both perfect places to deliberate on the suffering of the less fortunate.

I wonder if Democrats recognize the two-faced, double-talking, hypocritical, buffoons they look like as they now suggest one of the richest women in the world should be the queen (and I mean queen) to fix to wealth inequality. Hillary and Bill Clinton have been bought and sold by some of the worlds richest and most influential people a dozen time over. They don't own Wall street, they are "Wall Street" in power and influence peddling. The public knows well of it all. If political corruption and scandal have a face it is Bill and Hillary Clinton. Bill and Hillary Clinton have had more scrapes with the law, both civil and moral, and have been involved in more unexplained political "accidents" than Ted Kennedy at Chappaquiddick.

Money mystically appears around them. For the Clintons, "fall guys" for every conceivable bad outcome are paid well, and lined up in advance. The pre-recorded message for the media is "I know nothing". My e-mails are private (I don't care what the government told me to do). Don't think you're going to "pull a Nixon" on me with some tapes or find an e-mail trail on Benghazi. Bill and I are simply smarter than that.

God bless them both. They truly represent exactly what the 1 percent are.

Tom will soon be screaming for someone from the top tenth of the 1 percent to be fixing inequality for the lower 99.9 percent while he condemns, ridicules and demeans everyone in the 1 percent, except Hillary Clinton.

There is no better whacky, comedy found in The Daily Sun. No larger pile of poop to pick up, and no hypocrisy reaching greater heights than reading a letter from Tom Dawson. He makes my day. Keep writing Tom. You are the funniest guy in town.

Tony Boutin

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 269

It is unfair for non dues-paying workers to benefit from unions

To The Daily Sun,

Any individual seeking employment has the freedom of choice to apply for employment with any company whether the employer is unionized or not. Prospective employees have always had a right to work. Recently, letter writers have expounded on the pros and cons of union membership, due-paying employees or non-member.

In our opinion, representation is necessary whenever the employee is not observed by or able to speak directly with the individuals who have the authority to hire, fire, increase or decrease wages or benefits. A representative form of employment is comparable to a representative form of government.

A business may be a union shop or non-union shop. When representation becomes necessary a company is petitioned to form a union. What is optional, but not discussed, as a compromise, is an "agency shop."

Agency Shop Agreements: An agency shop agreement is a type of collective agreement that requires employers to deduct an agreed agency fee from the wages of workers who are not members of the trade union. The aim of an agency shop is to ensure that non-union workers, who nevertheless benefit from the union's bargaining efforts, make a contribution toward those efforts.

An agency shop is a workplace where even if workers do not join the union, they must still pay the equivalent of dues to the union. In collective bargaining agreements with an agency shop provision, non-members of a union are required to pay the membership fee or a representation fee for contract negotiations, administration, and grievance processing. Payment of the membership or representation fees often becomes a condition of employment and those who refuse to pay are subject to discharge.

In accordance with the law, the exclusive bargaining agent must represent all employees in the unit whether they are members of the union or not. It is unfair for nonmembers to receive free these few benefits that dues-paying members receive. Under federal law, agency shop fee payers may request a refund of any part of their agency shop fee which "represents the employee's pro-rata share of expenditures in aid of activities or causes of a political or ideological nature only incidentally related to terms and conditions of employment."

A right to work law is a bad law.

Thomas A. Tardif

Life member IBEW


David M. McNamara

Life member IBEW


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 292

Feigned outrage at Indiana RFRA law is attach on Christianity

To The Daily Sun,

Wow, it really riles up some Democrats when you point out Democrat hypocrisy, their hypocritical and partisan attacks against political opponents, and their attacks on the most fundamental right of the American people, the reason many of the first settlers came to this land, and the first right identified in the Bill of Rights, Freedom of Religion. (See Ed Allard's letter of April 8.)

While I am amused at Allard's psychoanalysis of me without ever talking to me, it's as delusional as his response to my letter which apparently caused him to be unable to comprehend the English language.

The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (see: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197) protects religious liberty (It says nothing about gays). Anyone who can read will see that using a religious freedom defense requires evidence that "the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened...." Even then the person has to take his/her chances in court to prove the validity of their claim and that the state's imposition of the burden on the person's religious rights isn't compelling or isn't the least restrictive means of achieving the state's compelling governmental interest.

Indiana's law requires a very high level of evidence, "substantial burden", just like the Federal RFRA (http://www.prop1.org/rainbow/rfra.htm), both of which require a greater burden than some state RFRA laws, e.g., Connecticut's RFRA law "the state shall not burden a person's exercise of religion...." (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/Chap925.htm#Sec52-571b.htm)

This whole brouhaha has been created by Democrats for two political purposes: to take out a potential Republican presidential candidate and to attack our fundamental liberties via an attack on Christians' religious freedoms.

The brouhaha is mostly theoretical, about things that might happen. In this whole country the incidences of people of faith refusing service for gays, or anyone, based on religious grounds are almost non-existent, and, to my knowledge, only for religious related activities, e.g., weddings. But no one ever tried to stop anyone from getting the desired services elsewhere.

RFRAs only exist because federal and state governments forcefully impinged on our Freedom of Religion. In a truly civil society the government shouldn't be involved in most interactions between people; everyone should be polite to each other, everyone should respect everyone else's rights and beliefs (unless substantial harm is caused) and not take actions that intentionally harm or offend people.

If a Black Muslim shop owner displayed a sign, "Christians will not be served", government should not force them to serve Christians. I and most Christians would respect their wishes, and, to avoid offending the Muslim business owners, we would try to influence other Christians to go elsewhere. No one should request, let alone be able to force a Jewish T-shirt maker to create a shirt praising the Holocaust. No one should knowingly request, and certainly shouldn't be able to force another person to violate their religious convictions (that don't harm others).

The uproar about the Religious Freedom Acts is not really about gay rights, it is simply a political way to attack Christianity. There was no uproar and no threats to boycott Michigan when Muslim bakeries refused to create a wedding cake for a gay wedding. In this one humorous video more Muslim bakeries refuse to supply cakes for a gay wedding than I have seen reported in the media; but apparently no one cares when Muslims discriminate against gays. (http://www.mrctv.org/blog/hidden-camera-trying-buy-gay-wedding-cake-muslim-bakeries#.6xvxbo:oK4z)

We are told that business leaders are "appalled" at this "discriminatory" law. Tim Cook (Apple CEO) condemned Indiana, but reports indicate that Apple has more stores in Tehran, a city in a country that executes gays, than in all of Indiana. What a hypocrite!

The people who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights would be appalled at the idea that government could ever force people to violate their firmly held religious convictions such as forcing people to do abortions or forcing Jews to support Nazi hate speech.

Christian principles of liberty and the value of each individual are the foundation on which all our freedoms depend, and protecting those principles are the purpose of our Constitution.

The feigned outrage at the Indiana RFRA law is an attack on Christianity which is intended to help the radical leftists, who have taken over the Democrat Party, undermine our Constitution and its protections of all our freedoms. If Americans don't stand up for their Religious Freedoms, they are paving the way for loss of all their freedoms.

Don Ewing

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 186

Only GOP can roll back dictatorial practices of the Democrats

To The Daily Sun,

Has anyone heard of professor Lawrence Tribe, the nation's foremost, liberal constitutional scholar, according to many in the know? According to Ron Arnold, executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, professor Tribe "literally wrote the book on constitutional law and has argued in front of the Supreme Court at least 34 times."

Well, Tribe was President Obama's mentor, hiring him as a research assistant after being enamored by Obama's intelligence, curiosity and maturity. Interestingly, Mr. Arnold says Professor Tribe has a weird family history that may be more unusual than Mr. Obama's. In November 1989, Tribe's article on "The Curvature of Constitutional Space" appeared in the Harvard Law Review and was subsequently cited by 200 law periodicals and cited by four courts, according to Mr. Arnold. Professor Tribe cited Barack Obama for his "analytic and research assistance", which apparently guaranteed that Obama would graduate magna cum laude, which guaranteed his subsequent selection as president of the Harvard Law Review.

Recently, Professor Tribe has sided with the coal industry due to his utter dismay at his prized students executive overreach by way of the EPA's clean power mandate that he says is unconstitutional. This contempt of law by the EPA appears to violate the Constitution's Article I, Article II, separation of powers and the Tenth and Fifth amendments. This is no surprise to many of the letter writers in The Sun who have complained about the EPA becoming a rogue, lawless agency.

This brings to mind another liberal law professor, one Jonathan Turley of Georgetown University. He spoke out last November about President Obama's executive order, effectively legalizing 5 million illegal immigrants, as Katie Pavlich reminds us. Professor Turley said at that time, "What I'm hearing certainly causes great concern that he will again violate the separation of powers." "What the President is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution." He goes on to remind us that the separation of powers is there to protect liberty and not the three branches of government.

Professor Turley said that he often has told his Democratic Party friends, "We will rue the day when we helped create this uber presidency." "What the Democrats are creating is something very, very dangerous. They're creating a president who can go at it alone and to go at it alone is something that is the very danger that the framers sought to avoid in our Constitution."

Here we have two liberal professors who nevertheless have the integrity to speak out against our "uber liberal" president who arrogantly and boastfully said he has a pen and a phone and will go it alone if Congress won't acquiesce to his every power-grabbing wish (my frustrated words).

Heather MacDonald from the Manhattan Institute writes in Hillsdale College's Imprimis magazine: "The lesson from the last 20 years of immigration policy is that lawlessness breeds more lawlessness". She asserts that the lawlessness has now risen to the point where "we have a constitutional crisis going on". There is the common thread woven by these three people who actually believe that our Constitution is still relevant and deserves our eternal devotion. Article 2, section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Ms. MacDonald reports that our president is fixing the absence of a law granting amnesty by making one up. "Arrogating to himself a function that the Constitution explicitly allocates to Congress."

Compare and contrast these two liberal professors with Vice President Joe Biden who remarked in awe, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American presidential candidate who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." And former Senate majority leader Harry Reid who remarked about Obama having "no Negro dialect". Two leaders of our country utterly lacking in substance and integrity. Professors Turley and Tribe give me hope that Obama and his unbridled hubris will turn out to be the "last madman of progressive liberalism in America."

Paul Revere warned us about the British coming to confiscate our wealth and tax us to death. Paul Revere of the Raiders was known as the "last madman of rock and roll". Hey, just for "kicks" let's elect a constitutionally conservative Republican in 2016 because I'm "hungry" — "for those good times, baby." "And when your world don't seem just right — and life's getting you uptight — you can change that wrong to right" — that would be a "good thing".
Please GOP, only you can roll back the dictatorial nature of the Democrats. That means you too will have to start acting like real honest to goodness conservatives and less like the big central planners that you have been recently.

Russ Wiles


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 166

Public input sessions shouldn’t be held at end of the meeting

To The Daily Sun,

I recently noticed that the public comment item on the agendas for Sanbornton Selectboard meetings, which had always been after the Pledge of Allegiance, is now placed after all other business. Please read the following letter (quoted below) expressing my concern about this decision by the Board of Selectmen. Don Foudriat and I both wrote letters of concern to the board and the media the last time the board took the same action in 2008. Please reconsider and move the Public Comment item back where it belongs.

In 2008 I wrote, "Moving the 'Public Comment' portion of the BOS meeting to the end of the meeting agenda, after all other business items have been discussed, is a disservice to the residents of Sanbornton.

"Average meetings run approximately three or more hours and it seems unfair that residents attending the meeting will now have to wait almost that long before they have an opportunity to express their concerns.

"I would hope that the selectmen's motive in making this decision was not to discourage our elderly, or any other town resident, from having an opportunity to speak out on important issues. I do understand that the BOS want to speed up the business portion of the meeting, but that should not be done at the expense of our concerned taxpayers.

"It is the responsibility of the BOS Chairman to respectfully limit the time allowed for individual public comments and to move the meeting along giving everyone an opportunity to speak.

"Unfortunately the only other option for addressing the Selectmen at a meeting involves having to first schedule an appointment by noon of the Friday preceding the following Wednesdays meeting to get on the agenda. That's not very practical when something urgent has to be addressed.

"Selectmen, reconsider your decision and place 'Public Comments' back on the beginning of the meeting agenda."

Bill Whalen


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 186