To The Daily Sun,
Those who support a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy on demand have consistently claimed that those who support a right to life for the unborn are waging a war on women. This battle cry has been forwarded by rank-and-file supporters of abortion, as well as such liberal groups as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. It continues to be echoed unabated by the liberal media and in the political arena. One cannot escape noticing that this concept has been a war cry of the majority of the Democratic Party and has powerful support from our president
A real war has casualties. Many casualties. Since the Roe and Doe decisions were handed down by the Supreme Court, there have been approximately 56 million abortions in the U.S., terminating the lives of the most helpless of human life. About 28 million of these would have been little girls which in time would have become women. This is part (but not the only part) of the true war on females and women with real and palpable casualties. This means that a mother's womb is the most dangerous place for human life in America today. Each child alive today on average has been subjected to a dangerous game of four-chambered Russian Roulette. Out of every three children born alive, another life has been willfully terminated by abortion. This is a high percentage fatal gauntlet each person born since 1973 has faced and been fortunate enough to survive. The most dangerous weapons threatening life in America today are not guns or knives or any other weapon you normally might think of, but instead they are the abortionist's lethal tools.
Ah, but those of you cherishing the principles of Roe and Doe reject the above reasoning because the Supreme Court in its supreme wisdom has denied the personhood and right to life of the unborn. This dehumanization of the unborn has been necessary for the court to dance around the fundamental protections of life and liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. So you can say there have been no human deaths among the 56 million abortions if you base your opinion on the case law precedents of Roe and Doe. But the battle does not end there. Not by any means. By dehumanizing the unborn and stripping them of their right to life, the Supreme Court by case law precedent also left the door wide open for anyone to cause the death of an unborn child and escape culpability.
In Maine in 2003, Heather Fleigelman and unborn son Jonah (ninth months) were killed when Heather was stabbed numerous times during a rage by her husband. Her husband was convicted of murder for killing his wife but was NOT culpable for the death of his son. In the eyes of the law (Roe and Doe case law precedent), he had no son. The growth in Heather's womb was non-human and had no right to life. But the four family cats that Heather's husband killed in his rage were protected with up to one year in prison for each cat killed. In the eyes of the law, the cats had a value, Jonah had none. Nada. Zilch! The dictates of Roe and Doe WAGE A WAR against a woman's right to CHOOSE to carry her pregnancy to birth and have constitutional protective laws providing punishment for anyone causing injury or death to her unborn.
In my letters to The Sun published on August 8 and 29, I described at length the brutal attack in Wisconsin in 1992 on a pregnant Tracy Marciniak by her husband resulting in the death of her (and his) full-term son, Zachariah. Tracy's husband was not held responsible for the death of his son (by court standards, just non-human disposable tissue). Her husband was convicted of the assault on his wife (Tracy survived) but is due for parole in 2014. I also related the fatal shooting of Christina Alberts in West Virginia in 1998 during a home invasion, causing the death of Christy's unborn daughter, Ashley. Christy's shooter is serving a life sentence for her murder, but the jury was not allowed to be told that she was pregnant. Killing Christy's full-term daughter was not a punishable offense. These examples represent A PALPABLE ROE AND DOE INDUCED WAR ON WOMEN and are a BRUTAL INSULT AND INJUSTICE to the memory of the mothers, their unborn children and the families involved.
These two examples plus the testimony of others before Congress finally resulted in the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2004 on the fourth try (applicable under federal jurisdiction and the U.S. Military). Similar state statutes have been enacted both prior to the federal statute and subsequently. Supreme Court and lower case law rulings have affirmed these protective statutes which recognize the personhood and right to life of the unborn, directly opposing the principles of Roe and Doe. But these LEGISLATED statutes have come into existence only after backlash from numerous grossly unjust court rulings and over determined opposition from Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, liberal pro-abortion federal and state legislators, and rank-and file supporters of Roe (most have no clue about Doe). The principle of recognizing the unborn as a live human being with a right to life is now applied in 36 states; 27 in full (ANY stage of gestation) and nine in part (later stages of gestation). The many court case examples of how these statutes have been applied will have to wait for another time. But within the jurisdiction of 14 states, the unborn still have no rights if they are injured or killed by a violent act perpetrated against the mother. Maine and New Hampshire are two of these states.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 September 2013 12:02
To The Daily Sun,
The current Senate battle over Obamacare is really a diversion to take attention away from the real issue, which is, they are raising the debt ceiling again without a word about the continuing massive deficit spending. There is no end in sight and no attempt to curb spending at all.
The real issue is the deficit, not Obamacare. That is a side show,
We are being asked again to co-sign another trillion or two by people who could not tell you how or when this astronomical amount of debt will be paid back. I don't think I want to co-sign another loan that no one can tell me in a language I can understand how and when this money is going to be paid back. Is that unreasonable?
The economy is nowhere to be found. Two percent growth and two percent inflation equals nothing. We have the lowest number of people employed since 1978. Which may not sound so bad if you don't consider that there were 90,196,423 less people in the country in 1978.
So now at least I where the money is going.
But with a real unemployment rate of 12 percent when you count the millions that gave up looking for work, where is the money coming from to pay this back? Anybody?
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 September 2013 08:59
To The Daily Sun,
This letter is in response to Rep. Jane Cormier's recent submission regarding Common Core state education standards. Rep. Cormier made several assertions that are misleading at best and downright inaccurate at worst. As a former member of the N.H. Professional Standards Board and retired educator, I think your readers deserve a more complete picture.
Common Core has been, and will remain, a state-based program. Each state retains full and complete authority to implement Common Core standards for its schools and can withdraw from teaching Common Core standards at any time. It is a set of standards, not a curriculum that is being forced into our schools. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) explained it like this: in football, one example of a standard is a team needs to advance the ball downfield 10 yards for a first down; a curriculum is the playbook each team uses to accomplish that goal.
Assessment is one component of Common Core, as Rep. Cormier states, but it is not its sole purpose. The true purpose of Common Core is to update educational standards so that students can fully engage in our 21st century economy by thinking critically and solving problems. Rep. Cormier also suggests that increased computerization to analyze and grade Common Core tests will cost taxpayers money. Even if this were the case, increased access to technology in the classroom is a sound investment in a student's education. Students will be more capable of entering the workforce or enrolling in college upon graduation from high school, lessening the likelihood that they will need to rely on government-funded entitlement programs, ultimately saving taxpayer dollars.
The claim that Common Core standards are less rigorous than current standards is not borne out by the facts. Common Core standards require teachers to instill a deeper knowledge and understanding of the curriculum to students than current standards in many states. For example, by third grade students will be expected to be able to multiply and divide within 100 and understand the relationship between products and quotients. They must also be able to identify nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs in sentences and explain how each contributes to overall sentence structure. Any third grader who can do all that is in pretty good shape. Because these rigorous standards are "common", students who move to another Common Core state will be on a more level playing field than is currently the case.
Rep. Cormier seems to think that students will be chained to a desk reading federal regulations or government manuals for hours on end. In reality, informational texts will not "take over" literature as part of the English curriculum. Common Core standards require that at least 50 percent of a student's reading curriculum come from works of the great American and English literature texts, including "The Grapes of Wrath" and "Pride and Prejudice". Common Core examples of "informational texts" include Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", speeches by American presidents and the Declaration of Independence. The purpose of teaching students to read and analyze informational texts is to prepare them for thinking critically about original material, which is about 80 percent of the reading and writing required in the workplace.
Common Core does not "data mine" our schools, nor does it retrieve and disseminate students' private information. States retain private information about students now and will continue to do so under Common Core. What is sent to the federal government are data related to overall student body performance and progress on assessment testing, very similar to the current reporting requirements under No Child Left Behind.
Common Core is not a "national curriculum," nor does it attempt to subvert the authority of states and local school districts to teach its students. Rep. Cormier's town of Alton, just like the other towns in Belknap County and statewide, will continue to be able to determine school curriculum (it retains control of the "playbook" as Gov. Huckabee would put it), it simply needs to ensure it is teaching to the standards adopted under Common Core.
Rep. Cormier is under the impression that Common Core is a progressive "power grab," an attempt to subvert local control and implement a federal brainwashing of our students. The truth is that Common Core is a voluntary state-based, non-partisan, performance-driven step forward toward educating our students to prosper and thrive in our modern world. Common Core is backed by, among others, the current governors of New Jersey, Iowa, Arizona, Georgia, Oklahoma, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Idaho (all Republicans), as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable.
Passion about our children's futures is valuable, but distributing misinformation about Common Core standards does not help parents, teachers, and voters come to an informed opinion on how best to teach our kids.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 September 2013 08:54
To The Daily Sun,
I feel the best analogy was made by Jon Stewart last night in regards to the Harvard grad Mr. Cruz and his slightly confusing speech. Cruz's point is up for your impression and interpretation. Cruz was reading from the Dr. Seuss book "Green Eggs and Ham" while trying to fill out his time and gather support to suppress and defund Obamacare. Cruz says "I don't like Green Eggs and Ham". The problem is that the main theme of this children's book is about someone who hates something before he tries it but after tasting it discovers that is isn't to bad after all and actually likes it. Sounds to me like he is promoting the ACA. But then again he would never talk to me as I didn't go to any school whose students would fall into his category of acceptance. I think it was only Harvard, Princeton and Yale grads he talked to.
I will admit there is a lot of confusion on this health care law and as usual it is who you believe. The GOP'ers are throwing a lot of cash at negative ads and my opinion is they will really cash in if it fails. However if it works as advertised then we, the American people, will win big time. So, who has the most to gain with this bill? The GOP has NEVER offered any ideas for health care but only tell us how bad it is. So, what do they have to gain? Somehow I doubt the GOP is trying to protect us. If they were then they wouldn't be cutting or trying to cut help for the disadvantaged like food stamps etc. They only help those who don't need it, like tax breaks for the top 1 percent, Not raising the minimum wage, farm bill benefits for numerous member of Congress who don't need them and so on. Who you gonna believe?
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 September 2013 08:47
To The Daily Sun,
Professor Cracraft, in his Sept. 26, letter to The Laconia Daily Sun, gave us another example of liberal bias in academia. While many professor's argue that their writings do not influence their students, one would think that if the students can read, then his and other professor's biased writings may influence them.
In his letter, the professor states his position about the military draft. He and I are in total agreement about that. However, his liberal bias comes through when, to make his case for a draft, he makes derogatory claims about former President George W. Bush's and former Vice President Dan Quayle service during the Viet Nam war, but he says nary a word about Messrs. Biden, Clinton, and Gore, or any other liberal politician.
We have often heard about the five deferments of former Vice President Dick Cheney, but Cracraft, and others, are loath to mention that hale and hearty Vice President Joe Biden received the same number of deferments, and was not in the service. While the professor demeans Quayle for signing up for the National Guard, and he states that the draft " . . . favored the sons of the rich and influential", he neglects to cite a few facts about former Vice President Gore, whose father was an influential and outspoken Senator from Tennessee who opposed the war. Al Gore enlisted in the army after he graduated from Harvard. Normally, an enlistment is for a three year tour of duty, but he was allowed a two-year tour, actually serving for a total of one year and nine months. During that time, the former vice president also saw five months of service in Viet Nam as an "Information Specialist", but saw no combat. Perhaps Al Gore did, in fact, benefit from being the son of a rich and influential Senator. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2525562/posts).
Cracraft also fails to mention the draft deferments of former President Clinton, or the "draft letter" that he sent to Colonel Holmes. In that letter, Clinton said, "I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, . . .". Here is the link to Clinton's full letter: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html.
Professor Cracraft is free to write as he pleases. I do think however, that those who teach our children have an obligation to give more than half the story.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 September 2013 08:42