A+ A A-

Millions thought their own government would never kill them

To the editor,
Even while admitting his mistake about the "Fast and Furious" program which, as Jay Kennedy pointed out (May 14), James Veverka continues trying to mislead readers into thinking was "a continuation of George Bush's 2006 gun walking program called 'Operation Wide Receiver'." These programs were very different.
The Bush program was a joint US-Mexican program, the Obama program was kept secret from the Mexicans. The Bush program tracked guns via embedded tracking devices. The Obama program didn't track the guns. The Bush program ended when gangsters found and removed the tracking devices. The Obama program ended when the public discovered that Obama had supplied guns that killed Americans and helped kill thousands of Mexicans.
The purpose of the Bush program was to damage the drug cartels. Bush and our country were widely criticized for allowing guns from America to get into the hands of Mexican gangsters.
Considering Bush's results, what could have been the purpose of Obama's gun running program? No credible explanation has been provided. Did the Obama administration think that their program would hurt the drug cartels? That would require a "willing suspension of disbelief."
The likely explanation is that "Fast and Furious" was intended to fuel our country's outrage and sense of guilt for gun violence in Mexico. This "crisis" was intended to justify more gun controls, each control inching towards the liberal goal of confiscating guns from law abiding citizens.
Most crime is prevented by effective law enforcement, not general gun controls and confiscations. Gun controls and confiscations serve another purpose, extending government control of citizens. Some liberals admit they want gun confiscation, e.g., Biden, Schumer, and Feinstein. Others reveal their desire by promoting laws like the Toomey-Manchin bill that will create more victims rather than fewer, and that harass and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens far more than they hinder criminals.
Have governments taken advantage of citizen control obtained by gun confiscations? Yes. In the twentieth century, 100-250 million people falsely thought "my government wouldn't kill me and my family", but they did. Roughly 10 to 20 times as many citizens were murdered by their own governments as were murdered by other citizens.
While liberals ridicule the idea of U.S. government abuse, there are many examples: slavery, Wounded Knee, Japanese internments, Jim Crow laws, etc. Knowing that people are corruptible, America's founders created the Second Amendment to ensure that citizens have the ability to defend their rights and liberties from an oppressive government if the political processes fail. To avoid the unthinkable, Americans must prevent the erosion of each of their constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment.
Don Ewing

Last Updated on Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:30

Hits: 311

Obama considered those who died to be collateral damage

To the editor,
Talking points? Fake scandal?
When military personnel ready to deploy to assist the besieged mission in Benghazi are ordered to stand down for political reasons; when the White House crafts talking points that are boldface lies, not spin, to cover this up; when the president has a closed door meeting with select members of the press concerning these revelations; I'd say this is more than a fake scandal or talking points. The question is, will we deal with this real scandal or have we become so corrupt that we will just go on as if this is just business as usual?
Look, from where I sit it looks like these men who died in Benghazi were considered acceptable collateral damage if Obama could keep the image alive that terrorism was on the decline, through the election. If it was in the presiden'ts power to rescue these men or let them die, and he let them die in order to have a better chance at re-election; that's worth investigating wouldn't you say?
John Demakowski

Last Updated on Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:26

Hits: 356

When it comes to health care, consumers are bad drivers

For years, conservatives have pushed for a health-insurance model emphasizing catastrophic coverage.
It works as follows: Consumers pay the cost of ordinary care, such as a checkup, a blood test or an eye exam. Insurance kicks in only for major crises — a heart attack, cancer requiring extensive treatment, a kidney transplant, intensive care for a newborn.
The Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, goes in the other direction by expanding Medicaid to more lower-income Americans. Medicaid picks up the bills for the "little things."
Catastrophic coverage and other "consumer driven" approaches won't work as the basis for health reform. But before we go into the reasons why, let's put in a few good words for catastrophic coverage — and its cousin, the health savings account. An HSA marries a high deductible (paid before insurance starts picking up the big bills) to a tax-favored savings account from which people can tap money for smaller medical expenses.
What we most fear are medical "catastrophes" leading to bankruptcy or the inability to afford appropriate care. This kind of coverage protects against financial traumas. Meanwhile, asking consumers to dig into their pockets for routine care makes them more careful about spending.
Here's the problem: You and I may nod in agreement over the merits of catastrophic coverage. We are informed, and our financial lives are organized. We make it our business to save for retirement. We budget for unforeseen expenses. We know not to rack up big balances on our credit cards.
Other, perhaps most, Americans don't do these things. Or they would if they weren't supporting families on low-paying jobs. Loss of work, death of provider or punishing education costs might leave no budgetary room for a doctor's visit. If the choice were buying textbooks for your child or skipping a physical, which would you do?
Yes, there are those who could easily afford health coverage and don't buy it, preferring to roll the dice that nothing awful will happen. If they lose, they're still let into the emergency room. The responsible ones will pay for their care.
When they're old enough, they'll have Medicare. And if conservatives have their way, forcing more means-testing into Medicare, those who didn't protect their finances by buying insurance will pay less into the program than those who did.
ObamaCare does not get into the backstory of why people don't have health coverage. What it does is make sure they get it.
At the same time, it addresses the wasteful spending problem that consumer-driven health plans are supposed to solve. ObamaCare just does it in different ways. For starters, the health care reforms promote primary care, whereby family doctors help patients avoid expensive specialists when they don't need them.
And it would start changing the way medical providers are paid. Rather than charging a fee for every service, providers would be paid a set price to cover soup-to-nuts care for a particular condition. That would take away the financial incentive to overprescribe tests and office visits. And because doctors don't earn more if their care is substandard and the patient has to return, they have an incentive to do it right the first time.
Consumer-driven health care is still fee-for-service. Patients are the ones to decide when they are being sold too much or too expensive medicine. But how many of us can second-guess our doctor on what treatment we should have?
Doing so may be wise, or it may be dangerous. Thing is, average, or even above-average, Americans probably don't know which. Consumers do participate in their health care decisions, but if they don't trust their doctors to drive properly, they need to change doctors.
(Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin is the daughter of Filipino Immigrants. She was born in Philadelphia, raised in southern New Jersey and now lives with her husband and daughter in Colorado. Her weekly column is carried by more than 100 newspapers.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00

Hits: 298

Goal of Cafe Deja Vu Pub Mania Team is to raise $18,800, plus $1

To the editor,
The Cafe Deja Vu Pub Mania Team would like to sincerely thank you for your generous donation. With your help we have held three successful fundraisers this spring. We held the Pete Mamos Master Hypnotist on March 2nd, Juston McKinney Comedian on March 30th at The Margate, and we were Celebrity Bartenders on April 27th.
We are on our way to meet our goal of earning one more dollar than last year for the children and families of the Lakes Region. In 2012 our team raised $18,800 of the $165,000 of Pub Mania. With the total raised by the WLNH Children's Auction being $416,000 of which 100 percent of the money raised stays in the Lakes Region.
Brenda, Tony and the Cafe Deja Vu Pub Mania Team

Last Updated on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 12:37

Hits: 302

WRHS Class of 1983 will hold 30th reunion on Old Home Day

To the editor,
The Winnisquam Regional High School Class of 1983 has finalized our 30th year reunion plans. Classmates and their families are encouraged to attend the festivities beginning at the Tilton-Northfield Old Home Day on Saturday, June 22nd. We are planning to have a class of 1983 float in the Old Home Day parade. We will follow up with a gathering at the Northfield Home of Jan (Christi) Harrison on starting at noon. Jan's address is 81 Rand Rd, Northfield. This is a family-friendly event including a barbecue and pot luck luncheon, and rekindling of old friendships.
We are requesting that any classmates who are planning on attending to RSVP as soon as possible. RSVP's can be made to the following committee members:
Mike Bruno: 869-2115 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Doreen (Florence) Plimpton: 455-3213 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Jim Nelson: 520-7512 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Jan (Christi) Harrison: 286-8535.
Please contact a committee member for details.
We are still hoping to hear from the following classmates: Scott Alati, Alison Botka, Cindy (Clark) Hobart, George Davis, Dawn (Edgerton) Calley , Francis Gilbert, Arthur King, Erich Liacos, Fred Love, John Miner, Peter Prescott, Tony Reagan, Lawrence Smith, Jim Virgin, Frank Wadleigh, and Bonnie (Waite) Stiehl.
We have also created a class Facebook page (Winnisquam Regional High School – Class of 1983)
Michael Bruno

Last Updated on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 12:30

Hits: 315

The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register