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
To The Daily Sun,
On Friday the 13th, I received a surprise phone call from Vista Supermarket. I was told I had won the football grill raffle from Customer Appreciation Day!.
Thank you Vista. It is wonderful to have a full-size grocery store right in town. This is the kind of tradition we need to keep. Let's keep supporting Vista, so when the snow blows, we have a LOCAL STORE, especially if we are walking.
Last Updated on Thursday, 19 September 2013 10:13
To The Daily Sun,
After reading Nick Vazzana's latest, it confirms my suspicion Sandwich water is contaminated with "liberal lunacy". Nick's well hit the mother load. He informs us he was president of a software company. Being president offers no assurance of advanced insight about anything as we can all have witnessed watching five years of Obama bungling. Watching his Syria escapades suggests the words buffoon and president are now on the same page in the dictionary.
Nick loathes the lack of hikes to the minimum wage. He suggests businesses are mean, greedy people who squash the upward mobility of Americans because they need to turn a profit to stay in business. While Nick was president, I dealt with dozens of companies as a consultant to every kind of business imaginable, service industries, hospitality, manufacturing and retail. So my insight comes with a bit of a broader understanding of the business world than Nick's. I was also the owner of two businesses, one of which employed many minimum wage, low skilled employees. I risked my own money, as all entrepreneurs do, in hopes of creating security for my family while creating jobs for others at wages I could afford to pay and stay in business.
Every business owner, no matter where or what kind, pays the LEAST wages it has to in order to remain competitive and the MOST it has to, to retain a qualified work force. There is no CONFUSION in this MOST BASIC of business logic 101. Liberal wonks like Nick think GOD left them some MORAL AUTHORITY to change this. Changing this dynamic BY WHIM, that is what we are talking about, would do far more harm than good. EVERY arbitrary action to change basic business principles aimed to create equality has led us to one place, financial DISASTER. You want more no-down-payment, no-job homes for the less fortunate? The Nicks of the world were YELLING for that "equality fix " six years ago. Look at the harm and suffering that ONE EQUALITY CONCEPT created.
Nick wants the minimum wage raised for equality and fairness. We have raised the minimum wage NUMEROUS times. In fact if it were adjusted only for inflation (as it should be) the minimum wage today would be $4.50 not $7.25. I ask Nick, did any of the previous increases to the minimum wage reduce the poverty rate? Nope, the poverty rate is at a record as I write this. Did raising it reduce the number of people in need of welfare? Nope, We have 47 million people on welfare, a record number. Did the other hikes in the minimum wage help employment? Nope, we now have the LOWEST PERCENTAGE of the population working today than we have had in 30 years.
Raising the minimum wage kills job creation, increases layoffs, forces job sharing, cuts employee work hours, and INCREASES the PRICES FOR EVERYTHING YOU BUY, further harming the buying power of those most vulnerable in our society. Nick, FDR and Obama are all " equality SNAKE OIL, salesmen". There noble ideas all end in one place, THE TOILET. Any one for another low-interest, no down payment, no-job home to produce EQUALITY? Or for higher wages that produce no more work output but HIGHER PRICES? BOTH ARE CERTIFIED brain dead, losing ideas as we have seen before.
Last Updated on Thursday, 19 September 2013 10:11