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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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.

 

Religious fundamentalists started the abolitionist movement

To The Daily Sun,

Well by now it must be apparent that white radicals are roaming the land like wolf packs hunting down black people. That's if you believe the narrative being spread by Obama liberals — and who could ever question the accuracy from that source? Never mind the long, rich, proven list of outright lies from them it's different this time. Riiiiight! Lefty will provide readers with numerous references all from impeachable liberal sources of which there are no shortage. (Yes I meant impeachable) But how about we look to an unbiased, independent sources for the facts.

Let's try the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) for a little clarification on the matter. FBI stats collected by them show that where interracial violent crimes are committed over 80 percent are blacks on white. Less then 20 percent are white on black. Kind of blows the liberal narrative out of the water and has to make the honest news consumer question the honesty of our mass media, doesn't it? Well it should but you don't have to believe me just look it up yourselves on your PC, or one at the library.

Moving on, I feel like popping another liberal balloon. To hear them tell it, the Democrats are the saviors and protectors of the black, downtrodden peoples. Really though that's another myth spread by our so very truthful liberal progressive politicians. History says that's not so.

Way back in the 1840s it was religious fundamentalists that started the abolitionist movement (abolish slavery). It was abolitionists who formed the Republican Party, fought a civil war, passed constitutional amendments to give equal rights to blacks. On the flip side it was Democrats who opposed them, divided the nation in civil war, created Jim Crow, separate but equal and it was Gen. Nathan Bedford Forest CSA who founded the Ku Klux Klan. He was also a pledged delegate to the 1868 Democratic National Convention.

Democrats controlled Southern states after reconstruction and saw to it blacks were denied the rights to vote, get an education, kept illiterate and poor. Even back in the 1960s it was primarily Democrats who opposed the civil rights laws that were finally passed. Look to Wikipedia which gives a list of prominent opponents to the civil right laws. Out of a list of 80 only 10 are Republicans the rest are Democrats. Even until today with liberal Democrats constant promises to the black communities to improve their lives and rights while demonizing conservatives the lives of blacks are far far from those promises it seems to me.

In fact it looks as though the KKK in its highest days could only dream of how low black communities have been reduced from their hopes and dreams. How could these villains of old possibly imagined getting so many young black men to go around killing each other. How could they have convinced young black men to father so many black babies then leave their young black mothers to fend for themselves doomed to poverty and dependence. And who is it that glorifies these choices except white progressive Democrats.

And they call the Tea Party radical.

Steve Earle

Hill

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 299

We have repeatedly shown Iran that nukes are only way to survive

To The Daily Sun,

American lies have taught the Iranian government that visible nukes are their only protection against erratic superpowers.

Although Mr. Bush's 2003 invasion didn't make Iraq give up nuclear weapons because we couldn't find any, early in 2004, Moammar Gadhafi, the tyrant of Libya, gave up his nuclear program under American pressure. He had had a lot more nuclear material than we'd thought — he had 4,000 centrifuges and plans for a bomb that were nearly complete.

Mr. Gadhafi was close to having a bomb, but he saw what we'd done to Mr. Hussein. He didn't want to give up the leverage that nuclear arms would give him, but he folded when we told him we wouldn't go after him if he stopped playing with nukes.

When Mr. Obama took office, Mr. Bush's "surge" had pacified Iraq and neutralized Mr. Gadhafi's nuclear threat. Mr. Obama could get back to fighting what he called the "important war" in Afghanistan. He quickly found that making peace in Afghanistan would be a long, hard slog.

Then, as if he hadn't enough on his plate, Mr. Obama went to war against Libya even though Mr. Gadhafi had decided to play nice. What happened? The French urged the rest of Europe and America to take out Mr. Gadhafi because he'd started killing so many more of his citizens. Mr. Obama "led from behind" by supporting European bombing efforts. We also did a lot of the bombing when the Europeans ran short of ammunition. How Mr. Gadhafi must have wished he'd spit in Mr. Bush's eye and kept his nukes!

The Wall Street Journal reminded us that in February and March of 2011, Hillary "was reportedly a leading advocate within the administration of military intervention against Moammar Gadhafi" in spite of our promising to leave him alone if he came clean. Her gung-ho position was the opposite of Secretary Colin Powell's, who warned his boss, "If you break Iraq, you own it."

As we should have learned from Iraq, killing the tyrant who kept Libya stable let it fall apart into warring factions, one of which murdered our Ambassador. ISIS has become active there. Mr. Obama and Hillary broke Libya so they own it, but we've never heard that pointed out in the mainstream media.

By killing Mr. Gadhafi after we'd taken away his nukes and not defending the Ukraine against Russian aggression as we were required to do based on a treaty we signed when we persuaded them to give up their nukes, Mr. Obama demonstrated to all the world that nukes are the only security against lying superpowers.

Our actions in Libya and our lack of action in the Ukraine mean that nothing will persuade the Iranians not to build nukes. The ayatollahs know that not even Mr. Obama would have bombed Libya if Mr. Gadhafi had kept his nukes.

They'll promise anything to play for time, just as we promised the Ukraine that we'd defend them if they gave up their nukes. Based on our irrational attack on Libya and our breaking our promises to Ukraine, the Iranians know that highly visible nukes are their only guarantee of relative safety.

Can you blame them? We can't. Our government is not only allowing an aggressively evil regime to acquire nuclear weapons, we also repeatedly showed them that nukes are the only way they can survive. The true blame is entirely ours. With respect to both Libya and the Ukraine, Mr. Obama lied, and countless millions will eventually die. If you ever hear that pointed out on the news, we'll die too, of shock.

Bill Taylor
New Hampton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 308