To The Daily Sun,
There is sputtering from the far left that people are too hard on Obama. There is a grain of truth in this complaint, but it has to be examined with a wide-angle lens. In order to put the allegation in proper perspective we need to go back in time a little.
If you recall when George Bush was president there was a never-ending donkey chorus of screams regarding his bungling incompetence. There were so many in the screaming far left choir, they became known as the "Bush bashers.". They never stopped barking. If some dog crapped in their yard it was Bush's fault. If it rained on their picnic, it was Bush's fault. If their hemorrhoids acted up, it was Bush 'so fault. Guess what? Bush left office.
For the first five years of Obama's presidency, it is still Bush's fault. So when people like Bernadette Loesch and others say that the right is picking on Obama over zealously, I would suggest to you they are merely trying to balance the scale of attacks leveled unendingly at George Bush and at a high decibel level. Not only during Bush's eight years in office, but during Obama's five years in office.
I am sure people reading this, except for Bernadette and few other far left snow flakes, are saying, "This guy has it dead right." With scale balancing in mind.
There is not enough lipstick at Revlon, to make the oinker Obamacare is, anything other than the pork chop it is. The average American isn't stupid, they know when someone is playing them for a sucker. Obama has consumed the entire energy and conversation of the nation for five years with Obamacare at a very deep cost to the economy. Democrats even admitted it, they had not read the legislation. How could they? It was thousands of pages of legal gibberish still being debated in the courts to this day.
Nancy Pelosi even joked we would know what was in it after we opened the box. Some joke. This nation is discovering all to unhappily what is in the box. Damn few people like it. Anyone can drag out an illustration of someone who benefited. I can produce 10 that have been harmed for every one of them. It takes no Einstein to see that is a poor deal. Obamacare has been discovered to be exactly the crap legislation it was always said to be.
The overwhelming majority of Americas still strongly oppose it. Seventy-five percent of people eligible for subsidies are refusing to sign up. That single fact alone proves the incredible failure of the plan. When asked why, they say the costs are still too high. They are right. The premium costs are going up double digits next year if they think the current cost is high. Wasn't the reason for Obamacare to stop such increases? The vast majority of people are being forced into Medicaid where ever fewer doctors treat those patients and every shred of evidence proves people without any insurance live longer than Medicaid patients. Obamacare patients are already driving up, not down, emergency room demand in many cities because no doctors will treat them. We have 19 of the best cancer hospitals in the world. Fifteen of the 19 will not see Obamacare patients.
Millions have had their insurance canceled, millions more face huge increases in their out-of-pocket deductibles and ultra narrow networks. You tell me how Obamacare improved healt hcare for Americans given that back drop of facts. By the way, Obama has agreed to bail out every insurer if they lose one dollar. If that is not big government corruption, what the hell is?
Last Updated on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 09:04
To The Daily Sun,
Regarding Harry Accornero's letter printed in The Laconia Daily Sun dated March 22. Mr. Accornero is certainly entitled to his opinion, but he does not believe that the Obamas are a real family, questions whether they are married, asks if Michelle is really a Michelle or a Michael and if the girls are really their daughters.
It may be spring but flakes are still falling in Laconia.
Paul E. Trombi
Last Updated on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 09:02
To The Daily Sun,
David Cobb, MoveToAmend.org, spoke Sunday in Canterbury. He's next in Henniker, Durham, Hanover. See his presentation online.
The Sunday Union Leader misleads on this movement: 46 New Hampshire Town Meetings now vote support of a constitutional amendment declaring corporations are not people; money is not free speech.
Remember Granny D's arriving in D.C. in February of 2000, after walking across the U.S., to both Senators McCain (R) and Feingold (D) greeting her. She walked for campaign finance reform. Big money gone. In 2002 both parties passed The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also called the McCain-Feingold Act. Campaign money was now regulated.
In 2010 our U. S. Supreme Court overturned BCRA, against the interests of the American people having clean elections. Back to the drawing board. Founding Fathers never included corporations as people. The 1886 U. S. Supreme Court introduced corporate personhood. McCain-Feingold tried to correct that. Didn't work.
"The Court has legalized corporate bribery of our elected officials" (Move to Amend).
On this fourth anniversary of Granny D's death at 100, remember that she worked on this to her end. Honor that.
Tell our District 2 state Senator Forrester to vote "yes," this Thursday, supporting this constitutional amendment effort. (279-2586 or 279-3407)
Lynn Rudmin Chong
Last Updated on Monday, 24 March 2014 10:04
To The Daily Sun,
I would like to ask Colette Worsman if she owns a copy of "Roberts Rules of Order." Does she know basic procedure? Or, more frightening and dangerous to open, transparent, honest and democratic governance, does she even care? Is she aware that a meeting of an organization, governmental or not, is to be conducted by these very simple rules? And that these are required of governmental bodies specifically to prevent abuses of power? Is she aware of this? Or does she even care?
Bylaws and other governing documents always take precedence over seat-of-the-pants uses of parliamentary power (this is you and your board). If a board has officers who are duly elected by ballot or appointed, this board has the responsibility to hold open meetings, with the exception of executive session. An executive session must be announced beforehand and included on the printed meeting agenda. This is referred to as parliamentary procedures.
Whether a board or convention meeting is run effectively and honestly, it helps to know, or learn, basic parliamentary procedures. Prepare a printed agenda to:
1) Keep the meeting on track.
2) Provide a record of what happened at the meeting.
A clear agenda is the necessary foundation. An agenda should clearly state why the meeting is called, what is to be discussed and what should be accomplished during the meeting time, who will attend, and the time.
Then follow the list of topics. The person who is running the meeting has the responsibility to be prepared, keep things on track, and must be sure everyone who wants to be heard is heard and has the opportunity to contribute. This means not just those who you know support you, and it means more than cutting off those who disagree with you with a dismissive "Thank you for your input." That is like the prerecorded phone messages that tell a frustrated customer left on hold that "Your business is very important to us."
I attended a County Commission meeting where the possibility of building a new county jail was discussed. I was surprised and quite frankly shocked to see how this "meeting" was conducted. This is when I observed how Ms. Worsman runs a meeting. Forget "Roberts Rules of Order." Parliamentary procedures just weren't followed. I left the meeting shaking my head in disbelief and disgust. When it was convenient for Ms. Worsman to follow parliamentary procedure she did. Then when it suited her pre-determined needs she adapted procedures that were totally contrary to any legitimate parliamentary rules of order. Sometimes when I watch the way she "conducts" County Convention meetings, I suspect she is just winging it, as no process of correct parliamentary procedures are followed or allowed.
Last Updated on Monday, 24 March 2014 09:47
To The Daily Sun,
Jon Hoyt: just reciting Democrat talking-points (March 19) isn't a meaningful counterargument to my letter of March 15. Some of your comments, e.g., that people can't have children until after retirement, are just silly.
President Obama and Vice President Biden seem to agree with you and me that a good job is better than welfare, so it should be okay that Bono also agrees.
You misrepresented my statement. I correctly said, "Conservative policies encourage investment ... because they create jobs allowing people to escape poverty and pursue their dreams."
Progressives try to fool people by misapplying the term "investment" to government spending, but progressive policies actually discourage job-creating investment.
President Obama's progressive policies, including frequent releases of numerous oppressive and unpredictable regulations, slow and unreliable permitting, and other unexpected costs, make starting or operating a successful business much more difficult.
Because of Obamacare's odious requirements, businesses will struggle to stay below, or get below, 50 employees.
The Arch Coal Company invested approximately $50 million implementing federally approved plans creating 250 jobs before the Obama administration changed its mind and yanked the permit. Who will invest in the face of such unpredictable actions?
Today's miserable job growth is the result of people making rational decisions in the face of all the obstacles to success that President Obama has put in place.
If they really want the best for people, why don't progressives put less effort into locking people in welfare and more effort into eliminating the policies that kill jobs and opportunities for struggling people?
Our $17 trillion debt and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities exist so politicians can spend on grateful recipients without making current taxpayers (voters) suffer the full cost.
Conservatives oppose deficit spending by Democrats and Republicans. We oppose special privileges for anyone (businesses, unions, the rich, officeholders and their friends, other special interests, etc.).
Progressives condemn these too, so why don't they join conservative efforts to stop them? Why didn't progressives do something about them in 2009 when they totally controlled Washington? Or is progressive condemnation just more talk/lies?
I believe the bigger political divide is between Washington and the grassroots, not between the Democrat and Republican grassroots. The real inequality is between most people and those with Washington connections: Politicians, rich donors, special interests, and family members.
I believe the grassroots want the best for everyone, but they have often been duped by great-sounding promises into electing people who primarily want the best for themselves.
To really help struggling Americans, we must elect people who will eliminate job killing policies, not people who only make false promises.
Last Updated on Monday, 24 March 2014 09:32