To The Daily Sun,
Responding to a recent article entitled, "Tea Party Takes Aim at Alton Workforce Housing Initiative", I am inspired to respond.
First of all, this title is WRONG. This meeting was a citizen forum of over 70 people strong, who came together to hear about Alton and workforce housing. This event was hosted by the Alton Business Association and was NOT a Tea Party event. To imply it was not an honest forum to discuss an important town issue is deliberately misinforming the public. Indeed, it was the Alton Town Planner, Ken McWilliams who requested this meeting! It had NOTHING to do with the Tea Party.
Now, the Tea Party has long been the "whipping boy" of the progressive left. The largest divisions of our government have demonized all liberty groups, as is the case with the current ONGOING IRS scandal. Using its governmental power with a complicit media, the ultimate goal is to marginalize CITIZENS VOICING THEIR CONCERNS against an ever-encroaching federal government into our local communities.
I agree with everything I have heard from the Tea Party movement. I am not a "member". But, perhaps I will become one in the future. In the meantime, I suggest we hold our local press accountable to the standard of not participating in the lefts' mission to marginalize and propagandize what is an honorable organization, borne of a grassroots movement against government overreach.
I invite all citizens who are interested, to join the Alton Business Association on Sept. 25, 6 p.m. at the Gilman Museum to discuss the issue of Workforce Housing in our communities. We welcome ALL discussion and hope to see you there.
Rep. Jane Cormier
Belknap District 8
Last Updated on Friday, 20 September 2013 10:21
To The Daily Sun,
The City of Laconia held a Primary Election on Tuesday September 10 in Ward 5. Only the incumbent, Robert Hamel. was running for the City Council Seat for Ward 5 and had his name printed on the ballot. The Laconia Charter, Section 2:06 THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION states: "The printed municipal ballot shall contain the names of the two candidates for each office who received the highest and second highest number of votes in the primary election and no others."
At the Primary Election Carol and David Gammon wrote in Tom Tardif for Ward 5 City Councilor. After reading the City Charter I went to City Hall on Friday September 13 and requested a copy of the Municipal Primary Election Results asking why Tom Tardif hadn't won a spot on the ballot. The results showed Robert Hamel received 39 votes out of 47 votes cast but the results didn't show any write-in votes. The Laconia City Clerk Mary Reynolds told me that Tom Tardif would have to request a recount but didn't say it would have to be on that day, September 13th. At that point Tom Tardif didn't even know anyone had voted for him.
On September 16, Tom Tardif and myself went to City Hall to talk to Laconia's City Clerk Mary Reynolds about Tom requesting a recount. The City Clerk said that she was advised that all recounts had to be requested by Friday, September 13. Tom filed the request anyway. We also requested a copy of the computed print-out of the election results. Contrary to the "Municipal Primary Election Results" which didn't show any write-in votes for the Ward 5 Councilor seat, the "Election Results Report" showed 3 write-in votes.
On September 16, I received a call from Sylvia Metivier saying that she also wrote-in Tom Tardif for Ward 5 City Councilor, which accounts for the three write-in votes and awards Tom Tardif a spot on the ballot in November, if he wishes to accept.
This could be solved by talking to the Ward 5 clerks who signed the "Election Results Report, Primary Election Laconia, NH 9/10/13 for Ward 5". The signatures of "Nancy Merrill, Alice Ortakalas and Sarah Weeks" were included.
Every person has a right to vote and have their vote counted according to the USA and New Hampshire Constitutions.
Last Updated on Friday, 20 September 2013 10:16
To The Daily Sun,
Funny thing happened a couple days ago, Henry Osmer wrote he would no longer respond to my letters. No big deal but that doesn't mean I won't respond to his. In today's paper Henry has a letter where he claims we (the U.S., I presume) sold weapons of mass destruction to Iraq.
Let's be clear on what WMD's are. Henry and I were both in the military during the same era. Every branch of service were universally given CBR training. C = Chemical (poison gas), B = Biological (germ warfare) and R= Radiological (nukes or dirty bombs). For five decades these three categories were Weapons of Mass Destruction. Only in the last decade did some in the media and political fields started referring to conventional weapons as WMD. Sounds so much more dramatic you know, better to bash America with.
Back to my first paragraph regarding Henry's WMD statement — in his first attempt to deceive folks he use the "poison gas" as his term. Called out on that he then resorted to WMD's as his next best smear term. Both he and I know what the true definition of WMDs are. So Mr. Osmer can expect me to roll up a paper and smack him on the nose and say "bad" every time he tries to fool the people.
Last Updated on Thursday, 19 September 2013 10:44
To The Daily Sun,
Do you want to keep your doctor? Do you want to keep your health insurance (the insurance that you understand, that meets your needs, and that you can afford)? When President Obama wanted your support for Obamacare, he promised these things.
Are you unhappy that your health insurance premiums are skyrocketing (on average more than $2,000), although President Obama promised your premiums would go down by $2,500?
Millions of Americans are suffering because so many Obamacare promises are false. But now, if you object to President Obama's broken promises, you are called an "extremist".
Obamacare is destroying jobs, suppressing job creation, and turning millions of full-time, into part-time jobs. Many employers who are struggling with increased, rather than lower, health insurance premiums are cutting workers, cutting spousal insurance coverage, or passing on increased costs to employees.
Facing new Obamacare regulations, restrictions, and taxes, many hospitals, clinics, and companies working on new medical devices and techniques are cutting jobs and services ... which means poorer future healthcare for patients.
Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean and others now admit that Obamacare inserts, between doctors and patients, a government bureaucrat who determines if life-saving (e.g., cancer drugs) or life-enhancing (e.g., hip replacements) treatments can be provided.
Obamacare taxes raise the cost of health care, especially for people with high medical expenses.
To provide insurance for 5 percent more Americans, Obamacare is harming the insurance and health care for the 85 percent of Americans who already had health insurance.
One of its authors, Senator Baucus, called Obamacare a "train-wreck". Our country was far better off without Obamacare.
Are you afraid to be called an "extremist" for wanting to help avoid this train-wreck which harms so many Americans? If not, sign the petition at dontfundit.com and call or e-mail Senators Ayotte (202-224-3324) and Shaheen (202-224-2841), and Congresswomen Shea-Porter (202-225-5456) and Koster (202-225-5206) and tell them to vote to defund and repeal Obamacare.
Last Updated on Thursday, 19 September 2013 10:40
To The Daily Sun,
Concerning Strafford County Superior Court Justice John Lewis' June 17 ruling, in Bill Duncan et al. v The State of New Hampshire et al. and Network for Education Opportunity et al:
Let's take a look at the Tax Credit Education Program, SB-372, a law passed in 2012 by overriding Governor Lynch's veto. It enabled businesses in N.H. to contribute to scholarship organizations which in turn would offer scholarships to qualified families who would use the funds to help defer the cost of sending their child to the school of their choice be it private or public, some could even receive funds for home schooling. The donating company then receives a state tax credit for up to 85 percent of their donation.
Let's take a look at some applicable articles of our state Constitution. In Part 1, Article IV it says, "Among the natural rights, some are in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received of them. Of this kind are the RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE." This right of conscience cannot be overstated for it follows directly after Article III, which explains the need to surrender some natural rights in order to protect others. It is therefore making it clear that this right of conscience should not be surrendered up to that society in that trade off. You can read it for yourselves at http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html. Part 1 Articles V and VI should be read for they encourage the practice of religion and recommends it as a support for good government.
We have in the education tax credit program a bill that takes up the cause of the poor and extends the freedom of conscience, which our Constitution considers unalienable, to those of lesser means and Judge Lewis doesn't even mention it in his decision, in denying funds to religious schools. He instead works long and hard to find precedent to call the tax credits provided to donating businesses, taxes. He is not bound by our Constitution to do so, but he works it hard to come to that conclusion. Judge Lewis can't have it that the state is acknowledging the donations from these companies as fulfilling their obligation toward education and offering a tax credit for doing so. He has to have it that this donation is tax money, because it would have flowed into the tax system otherwise. The bill itself claims exemption from the codification into law of the precedent of counting a tax credit as tax money. This precedent seems to have risen from convenience, rather than having the company pay the tax and the state then reimbursing them, and barring an ulterior motive, constitutionally need not be considered as an unalterable principle.
Considering the actual history of the passing of the Blaine Amendment in N.H.; SB-372 should be seen as an honest and upright provision for not forcing our poorest citizens to pay double, therefore making it beyond their means, to choose an education for their children that falls within the dictates of their conscience, which would comply with Art. IV, Art. VI and Art. 83 of our Constitution. Rather than admitting the circumstance of the passage of the Blaine Amend. to Art. 83 (noted in my Sept. 12 letter that the Blaine Amendment was adopted to preserve protestant education) and honestly assessing the current state of public education, the judge turns a blind eye to the historical evidence and waves it off as indiscernible.
Judge Lewis then injects his own bias into it: Quoting professor Charles Clark saying, " the amendments purpose was simply the protection of the public school system and prevention of diversion of funds away from it." and again "that a discernible major purpose of the No-Aid Clause, when enacted, was to promote and sustain public schools, which, were, over time losing their protestant orientation." As if that shift, which has abundantly manifest itself in the 20th and 21st Centuries, implies neutrality. With the wave of the the wand of professor Clark, Judge Lewis severs the Blaine Amendment of Art.83 from the rest of the Constitution, and from the essence of its purpose as understood by the N.H. voters who passed it. In doing this he makes the Blaine Amendment to our Constitution a bait and switch provision, as our public schools are no longer protestant in nature. In fact they teach values that are quite the opposite of protestant values, which the voters of N.H. voted to preserve in 1876, in voting for the Blaine Amendment. In fact Christian and even Catholic schools, as they have moved closer in America to the Protestant model, resemble more closely the education model which the voters in N.H. in 1876 were trying to preserve, than that which our public schools have become.
In making this decision, Judge Lewis has moved from his role as one who's job it is to rule according to our Constitution, to that of a politician playing hardball, cleansing our citizenry of "improper" religious bias. Our N.H. Supreme Court should overturn this ruling, for even if most of N.H.'s citizens do not know the history of our Blaine Amendment, God knows and He will judge rightly. To our good if we judge rightly ourselves, and to our hurt if we judge corruptly.
Last Updated on Thursday, 19 September 2013 10:34