To The Daily Sun,
At the conclusion of the Patriots' football season last year this realization that sports had taken me away from what is important. That would be the "unchanging" of Obama's "changing of America". The real reasons for the Obama second-term victory was due to, of course, protecting a woman's right to dispose of her unborn baby, and being guaranteed a free living for fraudulent Americans who find it easier to live off the hard-working Americans who are the makers/producers of wealth.
In my early years, "the government man" (Mr. Davis, a nice guy) would call upon my grandmother and me to see how I was doing as the recipient of my father's benefits for losing his life during battle. I was removed from my mother's lack of care at the age of 4. If, at age 69, a person who did sign up for their Social Security is still working three small jobs, nearly 40 hours a week total, why do we not have a Mr. Davis who visits the disabled and EBT card recipients to find how many have chosen to not seek any type of employment?
Now, Obama wants to further ruin this country by giving those jobs to people who broke our immigration laws. How long before we are issuing entitlements such as the EBT cards, free health insurance, and "early retirement" to those lawbreakers? Let's have a show of hands (letters) of those who get my point. Means testing for those takers.
Last Updated on Monday, 09 June 2014 09:01
To The Daily Sun,
I am so thankful that I have had the opportunity to spend some time at Bert Southwick's farm over the past month. Bert is a treasure. He is such a kind, caring, very humble man who is very quick-witted and has a terrific sense of humor. It has been a privilege to see how hard someone can work at his age — 90 years old — seeing him spending a day on his tractor harrowing his pumpkin fields, and harvesting and sorting and packaging over 14 dozen eggs each day. He was born on that family farm and he continues to work his farm today. He really is amazing.
It was a sad day last Friday when police officers and people with animal trailers came and pretty much "took over" Bert's farm. Four horses were removed, none of which belong to Bert. From what I understand, they had been abandoned by their owner more than three years ago. Bert was able to give the horses room and board, but he is a poor, elderly farmer and could not afford vet care and vet bills, especially for someone else's animals.
As I drove down the hill and watched the scene that was unfolding, I started to cry. There was a sea of blue lights flashing and police cruisers up and down Zion Hill. Bert's driveway was blocked off. I felt a sense of panic for what was happening to Bert. I was initially told "not today" when I told the officer I was a volunteer and I was coming there to help. Thankfully, after I told him that my sole purpose was to check on the well-being of Mr. Southwick during this incident, I was allowed to park my car and walk up to Bert's.
I saw some of his friends and supporters and volunteers there with him, and I was so thankful they were there. Bert was sitting in his chair looking quite discouraged. I pulled up an empty five-gallon bucket and turned it upside down and sat next to Bert. His friends Loretta, Paul, Kathy, Amber, Dan and Carl were there by his side. Harold, who has lived there with Bert and has been a faithful friend and caretaker and farmhand for many many years, was very upset, and I was glad were were there for him as well.
We are all surprised when the woman who had allegedly abandoned her horses showed up. She caused a fuss and the police kept her in check. We sat there and watched the animals being trailered out, including Bert's two huge pigs. The animal rescue workers I'm sure were well meaning volunteers, but based on my limited knowledge of horses, they were not well trained in handling stallions. The stallions put up quite a fuss and the workers had their hands full. They also put two stallions side by side in a small horse trailer, which is extremely dangerous for those animals. Anyway, after it was all said and done, we sat there with Bert. Kathy had packed a cooler and brought lunch meat and thankfully fed us all lunch. We continued to stay there with Bert and Harold for most of the day, decompressing from what had taken place.
It has been very upsetting to read and hear what that the rescue farm has been saying about Bert. And it is extremely uncalled for. I was asked to be interviewed by Channel 9 news. My sole purpose was to stand up for Bert. He has been vilified by the Live and Let Live Rescue Farm, and their supporters on-line. I am thankful that such an organization exists, and I am glad that the abandoned horses are now getting great care. But some of the things people are saying about Mr. Southwick are just disgusting. Please stop.
Bert did provide room and board for them, and they were not even his animals. But he showed kindness like he has done for everyone in this community for decades. If it wasn't for his efforts in caring for those horses, you may not have even had horses alive to rescue. It is also upsetting to hear that the rescue workers are saying that they were "heckled" by us. That is not true. We sat there peacefully to keep things low key for Bert. A senior citizen visited the farm this past Saturday, and she recalled times when she was a poor single mother of three children, and Bert gave her eggs and fresh vegetables for her family. How many other stories are there like this one?
Instead of judging a kind old Yankee farmer, can people give him a helping hand? It's time for all of us to give back to Bert, for all he has given to us all over the years. There are fund-raising efforts in place. Visit Bert's Angels on Facebook. There will also be volunteer work days on the farm. Join Bert's Angels and we will keep you posted.
One last final thought, I am wondering where are Bert's pigs? Bert had a 600 pound boar and a 400 pound sow. The market value for pigs is $1 per pound. That is $1,000 of farm income that was taken away from Bert. He had a buyer (who was present) to buy the pigs, but they were confiscated. Bert needs to be compensated by whoever ended up with his pigs. That is not right and that is stealing from Bert.
Last Updated on Monday, 09 June 2014 08:58
To The Daily Sun,
What kind of state representative says "No" to accepting $2 billion in Medicaid from the federal government to expand New Hampshire's health industry, or fails to raise education standards so our children can compete in the global economy? How about failing to raise our state's minimum wage, the lowest in New England, or letting our roads get so bad that some are impassable?
I am alarmed that reactionary policies, Tea Party rhetoric and corporate money are dismantling our freedoms and degrading our quality of life. Conservatives in Washington have also cut food stamps to families, failed to raise the federal minimum wage and rejected "women's equal pay" legislation. These have had a terrible effect on mothers who are trying to survive and keep their families together. That burden has put more pressure on our state to aid those families.
As a publishing entrepreneur, who founded and ran a successful educational software corporation for over 25 years, I know that state initiatives to bring jobs and investment into our region are crucial in rebuilding our local economy. We have to act and provide a vibrant infrastructure to support business expansion that brings more income to New Hampshire's working families.
In the words of Bobby Kennedy, "The future belongs to those who can blend passion, reason and courage in a personal commitment to their ideals. After all, the future is not a gift, it's an achievement."
I contend, if New Hampshire is to enjoy a prosperous future, we must recognize that state government is the catalyst that raises our standard of living and helps our people and businesses succeed.
Last Updated on Friday, 06 June 2014 08:49
To The Daily Sun,
First out of the gate here on Tuesday is Ms. Loesche with her almost accurate spin on Benghazi. I say almost accurate because since the event it has been testified to by the IC that they knew within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack and told the administration so. Still, the cock and bull story of a demonstration that got out of hand because of some obscure video was promoted for more then two weeks. In Obama's speech the next day, he never once, never once, equated Benghazi with a terrorist attack only mentioning terrorism in general terms in his summation.
Now as to the Romney debate where the moderator from MSNBC jumped in, she at the end of the discussion acknowledged this fact, though the damage to Romney had been done.
Now on to Mrs. Clinton. Months later now, at the hearings which you give us an accurate account of, Mrs. Clinton was being peppered with questions she did not want to answer. (My opinion.)
In frustration, she blurted out, emotionally, her infamous " What does it matter" statement. She also said, and I quote your transcript, "But what was going on and what they were doing is still unknown...", (Was she kidding?) It's coming up on nearly two years and another statement by Mrs. Clinton was it was more important to find and bring to justice those responsible. So what has happened to finding and bringing to justice those responsible?
Keeping in mind this attack took place about six weeks before the election, it is my opinion that the events of the Obama administration after the attack were a cold, calculated political plan to keep voters from focusing on the president's failed foreign policy. It was a very effective plan, too. It worked well with the help of the left-leaning media. (Again, that's my opinion.)
As to my motive as to keeping this, and other, lies, screw-ups, and blunders by Obama, Clinton, and so many others of this administration is in the hope that voters do not lose track of these events and will not make the mistake of voting for another incompetent, left-wing president and the assorted rubber stamp enablers that will drag down our nation and economy any further than these people already have.
Last Updated on Friday, 06 June 2014 08:46
To The Daily Sun,
The defense of parents to direct their children's education and of free speech isn't over in Gilford.
The Gilford School Board met Monday and announced a new (and illegal) parental "opt in" policy for English, social studies, and humanities classes next year.
This is in response to a situation that erupted early last month when a parent, Mr. William Baer, spoke out against a controversial book, "Nineteen Minutes", that was assigned to his 9th grade daughter's Honors English class. This book contains a school shooting and a graphic sex scene. The high school principal admitted that the school failed to provide advance notification that this book would be required reading, which had been provided to parents in previous years. Mr. Baer attempted to speak with school officials before bringing it to the Gilford School Board, but was told there wasn't sufficient time to arrange a meeting. Consequently patience on both sides was already frayed by the time the School Board met.
On May 5, Mr. Baer addressed the School Board and was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct.
The original incident was widely reported across the state and even hit the national news. School Choice for New Hampshire's initial post about this event is available. An unedited video of the May 5 meeting is also available, as well as a statement by Mr. Baer's daughter.
This situation seems far from over. Mr. Baer believes his First Amendment right to free speech was denied when the board had him removed and arrested at the May 5 meeting. The disorderly conduct charges still stand.
At the June 3 Gilford School Board meeting, local parents expressed their frustration about how the board handled the situation. Many parents stated that they believe board members were "arrogant." One board member countered by saying critics were "disrespectful." One board member, Mr. Kurt Webber, stated that "the right to free speech is not absolute," referencing that the public may not interrupt a court hearing or a legislative session. He continued: "the School Board meeting is not an open forum to have an argument," and that it was an appropriate action by the board to have Mr. Baer arrested when he failed to obey their rules.
The new parental consent policy announced at the latest Gilford School Board meeting is a mixed bag. Instead of an "opt out" procedure that required parental notification of any controversial material in the classroom, next year the district will use an "opt in" consent requirement from parents. Additionally, the district will provide a list of all fiction reading materials that will be used in their English, social studies, and humanities classes prior to the start of those classes. Gilford parents will be able to decide which books their child will read before the classes begin. These are significant improvements in its policy.
If a parent objects to any of the material, parents will meet with the teacher and other school officials to find an alternative. However, the Gilford School Board gives the school final authority in determining a substitute. The new policy further states that parents may not appeal to the School Board if they disagree with the school's decision. These two provisions are in direct contradiction to state law.
The parental opt-out law — RSA 186:11, section IX-C — reads as follows: "IX-c. Require school districts to adopt a policy allowing an exception to specific course material based on a parent's or legal guardian's determination that the material is objectionable. Such policy shall include a provision requiring the parent or legal guardian to notify the school principal or designee in writing of the specific material to which they object and a provision requiring an alternative agreed upon by the school district and the parent, at the parent's expense, sufficient to enable the child to meet state requirements for education in the particular subject area. The name of the parent or legal guardian and any specific reasons disclosed to school officials for the objection to the material shall not be public information and shall be excluded from access under RSA 91-A."
It is clear that the RSA intends to require the school district representative and parent/guardian to reach a mutual agreement. It does not authorize any party to have overriding final authority.
Additionally, this Gilford School Board policy specifically denies parents the right to appeal to their elected officials. It is a grave concern that a district and School Board would approve any policy that tries to remove their accessibility or accountability to their citizens.
Also, it appears that this policy change was given little to no public vetting. The Gilford citizens should be given an opportunity to review and provide input on such a significant change.
Further, the Gilford board member's comment that "the right to free speech is not absolute" should be immediately and emphatically corrected.
Free speech does not have limits. It has consequences, but not constraints. Free speech is absolute. Restrictions on open, public debate are more akin to a kangaroo court than one appropriate to a representative government.
Public hearings that permit only brief discussion will not adequately address controversial or critical issues. Those are exactly the issues that may need additional time to resolve. Effectively, these speech limits stifle discussion, debate, and the views of the public.
When there are contentious issues, any organization representing the public must serve the public by not trivializing people, their views, or input. It seems the Gilford School Board has lost sight of their proper role as servants to their community.
School Choice for New Hampshire
Last Updated on Friday, 06 June 2014 08:35