Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

There are over 50 Muslim countries that offer compatible cultures

To The Daily Sun,
One has to wonder if Todd Welch's comments (see his Nov. 3 letter) about immigration/refugees and the people who oppose uncontrolled immigration or accepting more Middle-East refugees is a simple misunderstanding or a standard leftist ploy to shut up people who have a different opinion.

Welch seems a little too accusatory and a little too self-righteousness for my taste. He feels good about himself that he would take in a refugee and because he thinks other people, whose struggles he knows nothing about, should take in refugees, but he just isn't able to do it.

Or, perhaps he feels our federal government should borrow even more money to support hundreds of thousands more refugees/immigrants. Apparently he is willing to further sacrifice the future of his and your children, grandchildren and future generations who will bear this extra burden on top of our already outrageous $19 trillion in operating debt which grows daily by more than $1 billion. How willingly Welch sacrifices others so he can feel good about himself.

Welch wants everyone to have equal rights. Did he support the war which was partly an attempt to provide those rights to Iraqis? I haven't noticed any of his letters critical of President Obama's Iraq policy, which has dashed any hope that Iraqis might have had for those rights.

One major lesson we should have learned from the Iraq war and our subsequent study of Islam is that many Muslims either don't want the same rights as we do or don't value them very highly. Muslims weren't willing to cooperate to ensure such rights in Iraq. They wouldn't even fight to defend their country, their cities, or these rights against ISIS. Although few of us can understand it, many Muslim women want to live under Sharia where they, from our viewpoint, have few rights and are, essentially, property.

I oppose illegal immigration by all people, race is not a factor. Illegal immigration must not be tolerated from Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, the Americas or any place else.

Immigration must only be allowed which benefits American citizens and only to people who want to assimilate into our American way of life. We have a right to protect the way of life which has made us the freest, strongest, fairest, and most prosperous people on earth and pass it on to future generations of Americans. The best we can do for ourselves and other peoples of the world is to protect our successful society for others to see and emulate to obtain similar benefits in their countries.

Most of the world's roughly 6 billion people want to come here; some to become Americans, some to make money to send or take home, some to take advantage of our welfare system, and some for criminal and/or terrorist purposes. Obviously we can't let everyone come here, so we must select carefully; we must exclude all those who don't benefit our current population and way of life.

Does our country have an obligation to help less fortunate people in foreign nations? Many nations do nothing to help foreigner poor. President Obama and other leftists tell us America isn't a Christian nation, so leftists can't claim we have a Christian obligation to do so. Nor is there any constitutional authority to forcefully take money from Americans to give to others. Nevertheless, we are the world's most generous nation, both privately and publicly.

Are we obligated to jeopardize our own people's safety, prosperity, freedom, and way of life to help others by bringing people here who jeopardize our way of life? No. I wouldn't let such people come from Great Britain, Germany, Japan, or anyplace else.

The idea that we have an obligation to bring many thousands of Syrian and Middle East "refugees" here is sheer lunacy (it is estimated that perhaps 70 percent don't even originate from war zones). If nothing else, the example of the flood of such refugees in Europe, their ingratitude, their demands, and their lawlessness should keep us from repeating that folly.

There is no way to vet these people to ensure they are not criminals or terrorists. Most don't speak English, have skills needed to be self-supporting, or even want to live the American way of life; their culture is incompatible with ours. In addition, Muslims have a 1,400 year history of violence among different Muslim sects and against people who won't submit to Islam; do we want that violence here?

There are over 50 Muslim countries that offer more compatible cultures where Muslims would fit in better than here. However, the best solution, better for them and better for the rest of the world, would be for coalition forces to create safe zones in Syria and/or Iraq for these people to restart their lives or wait to return home.

If we were to accept any refugees from the Middle East, they should be Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims who are a threat to no one but are being exterminated by Muslims. The cultures of these people and ours are a much better match.

Because of the American way of life that provides freedom, the opportunity for achievement and prosperity, equal (as humanly possible) justice, and a very tolerant society, the American people are free and prosper. It amazes me that some people are willing to casually throw that away so they can feel self-righteous.

Don Ewing
Meredith

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 457

Selectmen should not pretend it will cost $5,000 to hold a town meeting

To The Daily Sun,

The Sanbornton selectmen, in their attempt to deny the right of voters to petition for a special Town Meeting, cited the cost of $5,000. This, at best, is a disingenuous statement. When asked, one experienced municipal attorney simply stated the alleged cost is "outrageous".

In the past, the town has conducted several special town meetings. One, in which I was the lead petitioner, was to change voting hours; another was convened by selectmen in 2008 and the current chairman was on the boat at that time; another, a budget committee member. Never was the issue of cost or concern raised. Based on previous experiences, the cost of a special town meeting is several hundred dollars, not $5,000 — nor can selectmen use this as a reason to deny citizens of our community the right to vote.

Hopefully, the selectmen have learned that thee is a higher authority in town — Town Meeting.

Tom Salatiello

Sanbornton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 390