To The Daily Sun,
Wasn't that a lovey speech the president gave at the State Of the Union the other night. Problem is we have heard it all before, promise after promise, but he has made so many promises unkept in the past, how do people still buy into what he says instead of what he does? For five years now he said he was going to create jobs but those he has created have barely kept pace with the population growth and those hurting the most are the very folks he says he wants to help. All those social programs mean nothing without a road out of poverty and dependence on the government, unless dependence is the objective itself.
Republicans and Conservatives haven't a lot of room to puff themselves up and pat one another on the backs either, at least not the leaders who are failing to lead but are content to go along to get along. Not easy for me to say but that's the facts as I see them. I still fail to see anyone of them coming up with a complete plan to get the economy rolling and the poor off welfare and into jobs. Sure over-taxation and regulation could and should be rolled back but is that going to get families on welfare motivated to get a job? I doubt it because making that kind of change can be a huge risk for them. Look, as soon as they get a job all government help stops. No monthly check, no food stamps, health care goes, so why take that kind of risk, heck the whole family could be devastated.How long will a job last, what if for some reason the person fails in a new job for whatever reason? A bird in the hand being worth two in the bush is what happens here in my opinion. Republicans should put forth a plan that includes tax and regulation reform and a route out of poverty. I suggest passing a law that would allow long-term unemployed to get a job and taper off government support. We can and will argue about how long and how much support is enough but unless some kind of viable road map is designed we may as well stop complaining about entitlements and just pay up.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 11:02
To The Daily Sun,
In Saturday's issue of The Daily Sun, Professor Cracraft went to great lengths to paint Joe Kenney as an "extremist". He made that judgment, among other things, based on the fact that Mr. Kenney is pro-life. Now I don't know about you, but I never went to the class that taught believing in life was an "extreme" viewpoint. I was taught that taking someone's life was not a good thing . . . and people who did often went to prison for having done so. Perhaps the professor went to a different class.
He then thought Senator Kenney's opposition on funding for Planned Parenthood also made him an extremist. As I have pointed out previously, the federal government grant to that organization this year was $540 million, which amounts to 45 percent of planned Parenthood's $1.2 billion budget. I think most folks would consider that taxpayer contribution to be "extreme", especially considering that no government funds are legally allowed to be used to fund the 350,000 abortions done each year by that organization. Cracraft also thought it "extreme" that Kenney would vote for parental notification. Evidently, the professor believes that life and death decision is best left to a teacher and not the child's parents. By the way, isn't there a law against statutory rape?
Among the other things the professor labels as "extreme", is Kenney's position that New Hampshire should be a Right to Work state. Evidently if one doesn't believe that the signature on the bottom of their paycheck isn't that of a Union boss, but of the owner or manager of the company, then he is again, extreme. Oy vey!
In a number of other ways, the professor felt comfortable labeling anyone who didn't agree with his positions as "extreme". I guess professorial civility had a vacation day. If the professor is on the hunt for a person with "extreme" positions, he only need check out that image in his mirror.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 10:56
To The Daily Sun,
Why is Michael Cryans running as a shadow of Ray Burton? Who is the real Michael Cryans? .
Ray Burton did not support Omer Ahern, a Republican who was running for re-election in District 2 for Grafton County Commissioner in 2012. Omer has been a great advocate for reigning in Grafton County spending and keeping Grafton County property taxes LOW! Burton and Cryans have consistently opposed Ahern's pro-taxpayer initiatives.
My question again is who is Michael Cryans? Is he for We the People? Is he for lower taxes?
I read an article in the Examiner.com the headline was, " Disturbing: Ray Burton sending e-mails for Michael Cryans from the grave" The e-mails backing Michael Cryans are sent from Ray Burton's e-mail account. The question in the article was why would someone use Burton's e-mail and contacts to push Cryans or any other candidate? Is this ethical? Hundreds of people are getting them! Some voice concern because they were close to Ray and find this in poor taste! A quote from this article is as follows: "Burton cannot speak from the grave and no-one should be sending e-mails in his name to anyone, let alone supporting a candidate that no-one knows for sure Burton actually supported given the choices. Cryans should do himself a favor and ask that the e-mails cease. It would be interesting to know what other information Democrats have gained from whoever is sending these e-mails. Burton most likely had different contacts than Cryans as he was a Republican". Is this manipulation by the Democrats? This is unethical and immoral!
In 1996 Cryans ran against Ray Burton and lost. Clearly Cryans is no Burton. This unethical and unconscionable behavior is unacceptable and the voters should reject this candidate!
Joe Kenney who has led a life of service USMC, selectman, state senator. Please vote the candidate with proven constitutional service and strong ethical principles. Vote for Joe Kenney March 11th!
Last Updated on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 10:53
To The Laconia Sun,
I am writing to express my opinion on House Bill 492 which would legalize the use of a certain amount of marijuana. I am opposed to any type of legalization of this use and hope the governor sticks to her word and vetoes this bill.
Marijuana is a "gateway" drug which can and does lead to the use of a stronger drug such as cocaine or worse, heroin.
We spend tens of thousands of dollars on people who must go through rehab, sometimes a number of times, on education in our schools, such as the DARE program, and other initiatives.
I grew up with a father who was a police officer in the 1950s, whose last assignment was commanding a small group of people committed to investigating illicit use of drugs. As a result, I had the opportunity to see first-hand the results of what can happen to the human body. Because of this I became strongly opposed to the use of illegal drugs.
I will never change my opposition to any type of legalization.
Please Ms. Hassan, stick to your principles and veto this bill if it gets to your desk
Last Updated on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 10:47
To The Daily Sun,
This letter is in response to Mr. Bob Meade's column of Feb. 6, 2014 entitled "Planned Parenthood: A Government Funded Oxymoron."
Mr. Meade opens his column by pointing out Margaret Sanger, whose work in women's reproductive services paved the way for Planned Parenthood, was a supporter of eugenics. This is true. He goes on to state that her opinions on eugenics were shared by Adolf Hitler. This is false. Ms. Sanger advocated for denying reproduction to the severely disabled ("negative eugenics"), but was outspoken in opposition to Nazi Germany's forced extermination of those Hitler deemed racially impure. While I join Mr. Meade in opposing eugenics, to lump Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler together is misleading to say the least.
Mr. Meade's central argument seems to be that Planned Parenthood's mission to provide family planning and health care services is mere pretext to providing abortion services to women who are confronted with an unplanned pregnancy. He assumes (inaccurately) that Planned Parenthood does not counsel patients on all their options concerning contraception, pregnancy, parenting, and adoption in addition to abortion, and argues that the approximately 350,000 abortions provided by Planned Parenthood annually is actually the central focus of the organization, and that the other 10 million services provided are administrative fluff (including staff answering questions over the telephone) not on par with an abortion, which Mr. Meade considers an "outrageous" deception.
Mr. Meade's column prompted me to review Planned Parenthood's 2012-2013 Annual Report (available online). Here is what I learned:
1. Planned Parenthood provided over 3.7 million STI/STD tests and almost 700,000 HIV tests (to both women and men).
2. Contraception services were provided to over 3.7 million people, including emergency contraception to over 1.5 million patients.
3. Planned Parenthood provided over 1.1 million pregnancy tests.
4. Over 1.1 million patients received cancer screening and prevention services, including almost 500,000 pap tests and over 500,000 breast exams. It is estimated that 85,000 women were able to detect their breast cancer early or have other abnormalities addressed because of the screening services Planned Parenthood provided them.
These are critical (and in some cases life-saving) services that are very difficult to perform over the phone. In my mind, Mr. Meade's argument that Planned Parenthood is a de facto government-subsidized abortionist providing other services as window dressing is completely invalid. For many women (and men), Planned Parenthood is a critical provider of information, support, and care, standing by to provide services to those who lack insurance or are afraid to seek support or treatment through their family doctor.
Additionally, Planned Parenthood and our elected officials who support its continued funding do not "literally, throw the unborn under the proverbial bus" as Mr. Meade claims. For one, I don't think it's possible to literally throw anyone (born or unborn) under a proverbial anything. For another, Planned Parenthood and their supporters in government understand there is far more to providing women health care services than abortion, as Planned Parenthood's annual report demonstrates. These are the services our tax dollars help pay for, and they are services that can save, prolong, or improve patients' lives.
Mr. Meade and I fundamentally disagree on the issue whether a woman has the right to make her own health care decisions free from government interference. In my opinion, if a woman makes a choice to terminate a pregnancy after careful consideration of all options available, it should be done safely under the care of competent doctors and nurses, with respect for her life and her constitutional right to privacy. This is the true legacy of Margaret Sanger and all those who have supported Planned Parenthood throughout its history, and I am proud to count myself among them.
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 10:39