To The Daily Sun,
My husband and I moved away from the Lakes Region five years ago so we could live near our children and grandchildren. We do enjoy spending time with our family, but we also miss many wonderful aspects of living near Laconia.
We are close enough to visit from time to time, and I like the idea that I am able to tune into Laconia's WEZS (1350 AM) to listen to the live stream of "The Advocates" program on weekdays from 9 to 10 a.m., and on Saturdays for four full hours — 8 a.m. to noon. Although it is a "local" program, Niel Young receives calls from many other locations, due to the fact that there is no formula for his program and he covers many different subjects while hosting some very interesting guests. Some of his guests and have been well-known personalities, authors or politicians, both nationally and locally. He's also hosted those who may not be famous, but are very well informed on the subjects about which they speak. One day he might bring in a local chief of the fire department, and another day it might be a journalist, or a U.S. representative from another state.
Niel doesn't spend all of his air time promoting himself. If he is promoting anything, it is the Constitution of the United States. He takes calls, and thoughtfully listens to the callers, being especially attentive to a first-time caller. Only when a caller becomes abusive does he call a halt to the conversation, knowing that most listeners don't want to listen to that.
I'm very thankful for the businesses that sponsor "The Advocates" program. If I must miss a weekday program, I can listen to the podcast before the next day's program, and the podcast of the Saturday program is available for an entire week. If you have never listened to "The Advocates," do yourself a favor and tune in. You never know who you might hear, or what you might learn.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 03 June 2014 09:46
To The Daily Sun,
Regarding an article by Gail Ober in The Daily Sun on May 10 about vandalism to my mail box, several individuals and Tilton Home Depot responded.
Thanks to Nanette Carpentaer, store manager; Jason Wright, assistant manager; and Lisa Nachbaur, a post was delivered, set in concrete, mail box attached, and paint given to me for my use. I am appreciative of their time and effort as they really did a good job.
As to the vandal, there was no response, and the U.S. Post Office laid my mail aside daily so I could go stand in line for a month to receive it. If the post mistress wishes to encourage others to put mailboxes at curbside, working with individuals might be a better alternative. Now, others who continue to have their mail brought to their door have no incentive to change.
Thanks again Laconia Daily Sun and Tilton Home Depot.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 03 June 2014 09:43
To The Daily Sun,
Alexandria and Danbury took up the issue of Community Rights on March 11, 2014, by adopting a Community Bill of Rights Ordinance asserting our right to local self-governance and banning unsustainable energy projects such as industrial wind.
Alexandria and Danbury, were the host towns for the 23-turbine Wild Meadows industrial wind project proposed by Iberdrola Renewables. It has been almost two years since Iberdrola held its first local meeting to discuss the project. Since then, all towns surrounding the Wild Meadows project have unanimously voted in opposition of industrial wind turbines.
Citizens of Alexandria Rights Effort (CARE Group) and Danbury Residents Against Wind Turbines (DRAWT) petitioned Alexandria and Danbury to take their opposition a step further by adopting a Community Bill of Rights. The Community Bill of Rights Ordinance strips corporations of their supposed Constitutional "rights" at the municipal level when they violate our Community Rights as declared within the ordinance.
Iberdrola Renewables announced on Tuesday, May 27, that they have abandoned its plans for the Wild Meadows wind project proposed for Alexandria and Danbury. Iberdrola stated their reason for abandoning the project is due to the political and regulatory environment in New Hampshire being unfavorable, but Citizens of Alexandria Rights Effort (CARE Group) disagrees.
Iberdrola withdrew their ISO-NE Interconnection Queue Request for the Wild Meadows project on March 12 without any apparent press release — the day after the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance passed in Alexandria and Danbury by wide margins. CARE Group feels one of the main reasons for Iberdrola abandoning the project is local assertion of our rights to democratic local self-governance through the adoption of the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 03 June 2014 09:40
To The Daily Sun,
I write on behalf of Laconia Police Officer Brandi Enis.
I believe that Officer Enis is being unfairly treated based on what I read in The Sun in the issue dated May 29.
I am a licensed security officer, employed by Northeast Security Agency. I am often assigned to patrol the two Irwin Motors yards, one on Messer Street and the other on Union Avenue.
A year or so ago, that is where I met Officer Enis. We had a nice chat, mostly about my responsibilities and I felt at our parting that I had an effective backup while Officer Enis was on duty. In short, this experienced law enforcement officer was protecting me, a real backup, the kind of officer who will be there if I need her. One never knows the kind of person who may cause problems during the overnight at either Irwin location, especially on Union Avenue, and especially on the weekends or holidays.
The two LPD officers who I had ultimate trust in were Officer Brandi Enis and now retired master patrol officer Katheen Yale.
Officer Enis is good at what she does. I've never criticized the LPD for anything. In fact I've wished that the LPD would offer a training course to to area police departments on good manners with the public.
I now have a problem with LPD management's treatment of what I to be an outstanding representative of the LPD, and one who will help keep this security officer safe.
William F. Carberry
Last Updated on Tuesday, 03 June 2014 09:36
To The Daily Sun,
Laconia Sun frequent letter writer Steve Earle has gone and done it again. Does he really expect us to believe more of the half truths and outright lies about Benghazi? Please take this time to read the following. It's the actual exchange between then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). It comes from the hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which took place on Jan. 23, 2013.
Why would Mr. Earle intentionally ignore the facts. President Obama said the day after that attack that it was a terrorist attack.
(You probably remember that Mitt Romney claimed in one of the 2012 debates that Obama had not said it was a terrorist attack, the President said that he had said that just the day after the event, and the debate moderator pointed out to Romney that the president had indeed said it was terrorist attack).
"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference — at this point, what difference does it make?" This infamous quote has been taken out of context countless number of times. We must ask to what end?
With Benghazi back in the news and renewed attention being paid to Clinton's comment, it is time for a contextual review of the testimony.
Based on a C-SPAN video of their six-minute exchange, here is a transcript of what Johnson and Clinton said during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013:
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary. I'd like to join my colleagues in thanking you for your service sincerely, and also appreciate the fact that you're here testifying and glad that you're looking in good health.
Clinton: Thank you.
Johnson: Were you fully aware in real time — and again, I realize how big your job is and everything is erupting in the Middle East at this time — were you fully aware of these 20 incidents that were reported in the ARB (State Department Accountability Review Board) in real time?
Clinton: I was aware of the ones that were brought to my attention. They were part of our ongoing discussion about the deteriorating threat environment in eastern Libya. We certainly were very conscious of them. I was assured by our security professionals that repairs were under way, additional security upgrades had taken place.
Johnson: Thank you. Did you see personally the cable on — I believe it was August 12th — specifically asking for, basically, reinforcements for the security detail that was going to be evacuating or leaving in August? Did you see that personally?
Clinton: No, sir.
Johnson: Okay. When you read the ARB, it strikes me as how certain the people were that the attacks started at 9:40 Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to — or have you ever spoken to — the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?
Clinton: I've spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation.
Johnson: How many people were evacuated from Libya?
Clinton: Well, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends. . .
Clinton: Approximately, 25 to 30.
Johnson: Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?
Clinton: There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli — which, I think you're talking about Washington, right?
Johnson: The point I'm making is, a very simple phone call to these individuals, I think, would've ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. This attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time and it was an assault. I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. But I'm going back to then-Ambassador (Susan) Rice five days later going on the Sunday shows and, what I would say, is purposefully misleading the American public. Why wasn't that known? And again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing, but why weren't we transparent to that point in time?
Clinton: Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS (Diplomatic Security) agent at Walter Reed seriously injured — getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not — I think this is accurate, sir — I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC (Intelligence Community) talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren't reached initially? And I appreciate the. . .
Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn't have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?
Clinton: But, Senator, again. . .
Johnson: Within hours, if not days?
Clinton: Senator, you know, when you're in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one. . .
Johnson: I realize that's a good excuse.
Clinton: Well, no, it's the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown. . .
Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that — an assault sprang out of that — and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn't know that.
Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they'd they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we'll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
Johnson: Okay. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
Last Updated on Monday, 02 June 2014 10:01