To the editor,
By the time this is published, the United States may have taken military action against the Assad regime in Syria. After one hundred thousand people have been killed there in the last two years via conventional munitions, the West has suddenly deemed the use of Sarin gas a casus beli for air strikes against the Syrian government. Really?
Assad has shown himself to be a ruthless dictator and oppressor of his people, of that we can be certain. He may have ordered that his military use nerve gas against rebel forces, the evidence is unclear.
Let's assume that he did issue such an order. Before we fire a shot some questions need to be answered. First, we need to know why the use of American military assets against Syria is in the strategic interest of the United States. Syria has done nothing to our country. It is not a threat to the United States, nor has it threatened us prior to our threat against it. I can see no strategic reason for our initiation of bombing.
Additionally, when nation-states use military force against other nations there should be an achievable outcome in mind before hostilities are commenced. There has been no achievable goal articulated by the Obama administration for bombing the Syrian regime. If we think that a limited campaign will deter Assad we are likely to discover military force simply makes him more determined. It also gives his allies new reasons to target us and our allies. That is not an outcome we need to risk, especially when there is no nationalistic reason for acting.
Secretary of State Kerry seemed to imply in a statement issued on August 26th that we had a moral obligation to act because weapons of mass destruction may have been used by Assad. Senator McCain has echoed Kerry. Malarkey! It is not our job to punish Syria for using chemical weapons on its people. The world is filled with nasty actors who commit unspeakable crimes against their citizens. Mao killed millions of his people in China during the 1950's and 60's and Pol Pot did likewise in Cambodia in the 1970's. We didn't go on a moral crusade when those genocides took place. There is no reason to do so now.
U.S. presidents have lately been guilty of misusing our military in adventures overseas. Our forces were badly mismanaged in Vietnam and our nation building campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven disastrous at great cost. Our military needs to be used more traditionally for defending our sovereignty, our citizenry, and our national interests when they are threatened. If an enemy wishes to make war on us we need to be fully capable of a lethal response.
The situation in Syria doesn't affect our sovereignty, citizens, or our national interests. We need to stand down and let the Syrian civil war play out without our intervention. As odious and evil as Assad is, it's none of our business.
Last Updated on Thursday, 29 August 2013 08:21
To The Daily Sun,
I checked the Bristol Energy Committee meeting minutes on the town website; there has only been one official meeting this year. The minutes indicate that the committee, without a vote, will be seeking a grant to study a large scale solar installation in Bristol.
Is this a project that the town as a public entity is pursuing? Or are we obtaining funds to benefit a private concern? Will this study be made available to said private concern? It seems odd to me that the Town of Bristol should be seeking public funding for a private business without the knowledge or consent of the Selectboard, or a vote of the taxpayers. If a private concern wants to build a large scale solar power plant on town property the taxpayers of that community should be consulted.
I would think that the best interest of the town would be served if a private company funded their own project and leased the property from the town with a bond in place to insure reclamation of the land at the end of the project.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
To The Daily Sun,
This is a reply to Dale Channing Eddy's letter in the August 6 edition of The Daily Sun:
Mr. Eddy, your talk to Democrats allowing ineligible voters to vote, rigging ballot boxes, and allowing the deceased to cast a vote is quite ridiculous. Rather than berating Mr. Hoyt for not producing any proof, maybe you could provide the readers with something substantial to back up your claims.
I am also bemused that your are pinning voter suppression/unfairness on the Democrats only. You couldn't possibly believe that only the Democrats have dirty laundry. Both sides throughout the past, during the present, and indubitably in the future, have and will take part in underhand tactics.
In reality, you and I really have no idea of the specificity of each transgression, or rather alleged transgression. We may never know. The only people that do are the accuser and the accused.
Furthermore, I expect that Mr. Hoyt is talking abut the bill that Republican Bill Cook introduced that would raise taxes on families that have students, typically in college, register to vote in the town they are living in, for college, rather than their home town. These are the students that are more inclined to vote Democrat.
I also expect Mr. Hoyt is talking about the Republicans plan to eliminate half of the forms of an ID that the person can show to cast their vote. This means a student must register in the town they currently live in, raising a tax on their family. You should be ashamed to talk about unfairness when Republicans in North Carolina are effectively make it tougher for people to vote them out of office.
What difference does location make? A vote is a vote, through and through. The location, within the state, is irrelevant.
Lastly, I wonder how on earth you could blame the Obama Administration for failing to get the economy moving again. America was thrown into an economic hole. What some people fail to realize is that the economy is not a machine that can be fixed by replacing it with new parts or oiling old ones. It is a complete and alive system that reacts to everything we do. Thus, it cannot be simply fixed.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 11:58
To The Daily Sun,
Dear Mr. Earle:
From your latest letter to the editor: 'The Tea Party wants our federal government to reduce the national debt, follow constitutional law, live within our means, lower taxes, reduce excessive federal regulations, stop waist and corruption and have an open, honest government".
You have saved me so much time in trying to write some of the many examples of what has been accomplished by Pres. Obama since he has been in office. You have brought to light some of the best, remarkable and outstanding milestones of the president's tenure in office.. Thank you so very much.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 11:51
To The Daily Sun,
The Legacy of Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton
Does a pregnant woman represent one life or two?
The January 22, 1973, simultaneous sister Supreme Court rulings, Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, based on a women's right to privacy, took away the personhood of the unborn and opened the door to unrestricted abortion on demand. At the same time the court dehumanized the unborn and took away their legal right to life and liberty. Roe petitioned for the right to first trimester abortions but the court voluntarily extended that right to a vague "viability" that they were unwilling to define. This was made moot because Doe, in effect, sanctioned abortion on demand at any time for any reason up to full term. This latter case law "full term" edict has been modified in certain cases by federal and state legislative action. Almost all of those who support unrestricted abortion on demand quote Roe as their case law authority and are not aware that it is Doe, not Roe, that gave the original full term authority. Liberal groups know quite well that the courts can and do override legislative action as well as the will of the people, and the courts are their weapon of choice.
The 14th Amendment states that any person under the jurisdiction of the United States cannot be denied life and liberty without due process of law and is also entitled to equal protection under the law. To circumvent these constitutional protections, the court has dehumanized the unborn and denied their God-given rights to life and liberty. Our nation's founding document singled out these two as our most important rights and identified our Creator as their source.
Justice Blackmun wrote into the majority opinion in Roe that the right to abortion collapses if the personhood of the unborn could be established. This is why pro-abortion advocates (our president included) and such liberal groups such as the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have fought tenaciously against ANY action leading to the recognition of the personhood and right to life and liberty for the unborn.
So does a pregnant woman represent one life or two? Most women pregnant with a WANTED child would say they are carrying a living human being, and would claim the right to life for their unborn child, their baby. They would also claim the right to legal protection for their unborn from harm by others during their pregnancy. The edicts of Roe and Doe preclude this right. Most women pregnant with an UNWANTED child would claim that the contents of their womb is just tissue with no right to life. This creates a paradox because the condition of a person being wanted or unwanted otherwise has no legal bearing in jurisprudence when another human is harmed or killed. After Roe and Doe, legal protection for the unborn, wanted or unwanted, from harm or extermination was non-existent because of the Supreme Court case law denial of personhood for the unborn. Here are two examples among many:
In Wisconsin, Tracy Marciniac was expecting delivery of a son, already named Zachariah, in five days. Her estranged husband assaulted her, causing the death of a perfectly formed full term baby boy. Her husband was convicted of assault on the mother, but was not punished for the death of the child (his son). In the eyes of the law, nobody died that night in Tracy's apartment; there was no murder. Zachariah was just non-human tissue with no right to life. There was no law to protect her unborn from harm or to protect Tracy's CHOICE to carry her pregnancy to full term. Tracy's ex-husband is up for parole in 2014 from the assault conviction.
In West Virginia, Christina Alberts was pregnant with her second child and was expecting a baby girl in about two weeks. She was shot and killed during a home invasion. The unborn baby girl, Ashley Nicole, perished along with her mother. The man who shot Christy was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of Christina but was not culpable for the death of Ashley Nicole. In fact, the jury was not allowed to be told that Christy was pregnant at the time of her death.
These two cases demonstrate the legacy of Roe and Doe Supreme Court case law that has dehumanized the unborn and ruled that they have no legal right to life.
Graphic pictures of Tracy with Zach in her arms at his funeral and Christina with Ashley beside her in their coffin were included with other evidence presented before Congress during the debates over the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act (passed in 2004 on the fourth try). The federal statute is valid within Federal jurisdiction ONLY and the U.S. military. The punishment for harming or killing the unborn is the same as if they are living, breathing human beings. Twenty-seven states to date have enacted statutes providing full legal protection for WANTED unborn children and nine states after "viability." Fourteen states have left the door open for anyone to injure or kill unborn children and escape culpability.
There are a number of similar cases but not enough space to present them here. Just one recent example: Kidnapper Ariel Castro pled guilty to the charges of AGGRAVATED MURDER for his assaults on Michelle Knight resulting in at least two miscarriages. He accepted life in prison without parole to escape a possible death sentence. He knew the Ohio statute had already passed a challenge in the courts that attempted to strike down the precept of human life in the womb and also knew that Ohio Attorney General Timothy McGinty was determined to uphold the law.
The Federal Unborn victims of Violence Act and the related state statutes clash directly in principle with Roe and Doe. The authority for termination of the unborn on demand is CASE LAW and the legal protection of the unborn from harm is LEGISLATED LAW. There have been a number of cases in states with protective statutes involving attacks on pregnant women resulting in death to their unborn children that have been tested in the courts. The cowards that assaulted the pregnant women tried to hide behind the dehumanizing principles of Roe and Doe. They claimed that since our Supreme Court has denied personhood to the unborn they should not be held responsible for killing tissue that is not a person. In each case the courts have denied their pleas and held them culpable the same as if they had killed a living, breathing human. Examples of this will have to wait until another time.
The principles of Roe and Doe case law dictate that the unborn are not human beings, do not have the right to life, and it leaves them legally unprotected from injury or death, wanted or not. In the absence of counter legislation this means under ANY circumstances, even when the mother has CHOSEN to carry her unborn to birth. The principles of the various unborn victims of violence acts grant personhood and protection by law for the right to life for the unborn. The opinions of women can be diametrically opposed on this issue and almost always depend on whether the unborn is wanted (a beloved child) or not wanted (a blob of disposable tissue).
Last Updated on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 11:48