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contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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

 

Pat Buchanan - Obama leading us into war in Syria

"The United States is being sucked into a new Middle East war," says The New York Times. And the Times has it exactly right.

Despite repeated pledges not to put "boots on the ground" in Syria, President Obama is inserting 50 U.S. special ops troops into that country, with more to follow.

U.S. A-10 "warthog" attack planes have been moved into Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, close to Syria. Hillary Clinton, who has called for arming Syrian rebels to bring down Bashar Assad, is urging Obama to establish a no-fly zone inside Syria. Citing Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus, John McCain is calling for a no-fly zone and a safe zone in Syria, to be policed by U.S. air power. "How many men, women and children," McCain asks, "are we willing to watch being slaughtered by the Russians and Bashar al-Assad?"

Yet, if we put U.S. forces onto sovereign Syrian territory, against the will and resistance of that government, that is an act of war.

Would we tolerate Mexican troops in Texas to protect their citizens inside our country? Would we, in the Cold War, have tolerated Russians in Cuba telling us they were establishing a no-fly zone for all U.S. warplanes over the Florida Strait and Florida Keys?

Obama has begun an escalation into Syria's civil war, and not only against ISIS and the al-Nusra Front, but against Syria's armed forces.

Mission creep has begun. The tripwire is being put down. Yet, who authorized Obama to take us into this war? The Russians and Iranians are in Syria at the invitation of the government. But Obama has no authorization from Congress to put combat troops into Syria.

Neither the al-Nusra Front nor ISIS has an air force. Against whom, then, is this Clinton-McCain no fly-zone directed, if not Syrian and Russian warplanes and helicopters? Is America really prepared to order the shooting down of Russian warplanes and the killing of Russian pilots operating inside Syria with the approval of the Syrian government?

In deepening America's involvement and risking a clash with Syrian, Russian and Iranian forces, Obama is contemptuously ignoring a Congress that has never authorized the use of military force against the Damascus regime.

Congress' meek acquiescence in being stripped of its war powers is astonishing. Weren't these the Republicans who were going to Washington to "stand up to Obama"?

Coming after Congress voted for "fast track," i.e., to surrender its constitutional right to amend trade treaties, the capitulations of 2015 rank as milestones in the long decline into irrelevance of the U.S. Congress. Yet in the Constitution, Congress is still the first branch of the U.S. government.
Has anyone thought through to where this U.S. intervention can lead?

This weekend, the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan regained full control of the parliament in a "khaki election" it called after renewing its war on the Kurdish PKK in southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq. Erdogan regards the PKK as a terror group. As do we. But Erdogan also considers Syria's Kurdish fighters, the YPG, to be terrorists. And Ankara has warned that if the YPG occupies more territory along the Syrian-Turkish border, west of the Euphrates, Turkey will attack.

Why should this concern us? Not only do we not regard the YPG as terrorists, they are the fighting allies we assisted in the recapture of Kobani. And the U.S. hopes Syria's Kurds will serve as the spear point of the campaign to retake Raqqa, the ISIS capital in Syria, which is only a few dozen miles south of YPG lines.

Should the YPG help to defeat ISIS and become the dominant power in northern Syria, the more dangerous they will appear to Erdogan, and the more problems that will create between the Turkish president and his NATO ally, the United States.

Not only does a Congressional debate on an authorization to use military force appear constitutionally mandated before we intervene in Syria, but the debate itself on an AUMF might induce a measure of caution before we plunge into yet another Middle East quagmire.

When Saddam fell, we got civil war, ISIS in Anbar, and a fractured and failed state with hundreds dying every week.

And, as of today, no one knows with certitude who rises if Assad falls. The leading candidates are Jabhat al-Nusra, the front for an al-Qaida that brought down the twin towers, and the butchers of ISIS, who captured another town on the Damascus road this weekend.

Monday, The Wall Street Journal wrote that Erdogan's regrettable victory is "a reminder of what happens when America's refusal to act to stop chaos in places like Syria frightens allies into making unpalatable choices."

Now there's an argument for America's plunging into Syria: Send our troops to fight and die in multisided civil war that has cost 250,000 lives, so Turks will feel reassured enough they won't vote for "strongmen" like Erdogan.

America needs an America First movement.

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 795

They need not contend that evolution is true, only that it's 'science'

To The Daily Sun,
E. Scott Cracraft is less than straight forward in his Oct. 27 column "Faith, philosophy and science". He reminds us that, "The scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th Centuries was not 'anti-faith'". In fact, these breakthroughs in science were, in large part, due to changes in thinking brought about by the Protestant Reformation. If you teach people to read the Scriptures for themselves, the logical conclusion is that people should think for themselves and reach their own conclusions."

Absolutely. I've said as much in past letters. But the revolution of Lyell and Darwin and the theory of evolution is not the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th Centuries. They hardly resemble each other at all. Yet apologists for the theory of evolution will almost always defend it by associating it with the Copernican and Newtonian revolution. Did you ever wonder why that is? It is that it needs that association to hold it in public esteem. Newtonian physics has been confirmed by observation and precise mathematical calculations. The theory of evolution has nothing like that. It is a theory that has been in search of supporting evidence for more than a century and a half and none is forthcoming. All the evidence that they ever present is evidence of variation in kind. They don't even really know what determines a species. Every experiment that they've performed, in trying to induce biological changes, I understand shows a resistance to change beyond variation in kind. They have no incontrovertible fossil evidence. The only thing that would seem to qualify it as science is that itseems to be that the changes that they theorize to have happened would have been in the physical realm if they had happened.
Scott claims, "Intelligent design only emerged as an attempted end run around court decisions that teaching creation "science" was an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into taxpayer-funded schools." Being a college professor Mr. Cracraft should do a better job of doing his homework on finding out what I.D. is if he is interested in people thinking for themselves, for to do so requires having accurate information. Otherwise you're not really teaching people to think for themselves but merely to repeat your misinformation. What happened in a court case in Pennsylvania is not a history of the emergence of I.D. or a description of what I.D. is, as it seems Scott would have us to believe.
Intelligent Design is a concept held by scientists and philosophers of science who hold that the scientific evidence cannot be explained by the theory of evolution. These scientists hold that the best explanation for the evidence is that there must have been an intelligent designer. They cite the complexity of a cell, the information present in DNA, the sudden appearance of complex life forms in the Cambrian explosion and the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record do not support that we are here through "the common decent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection." They make a pretty compelling case that the evidence just does not support the theory of evolution, but an intelligent designer. (I'm afraid Wikipedia is not much help here, for the article is written by an I.D. skeptic. To be fair, an article about I.D should be written by an I.D proponent and if progressives really were concerned about people being able to think for themselves it would have been so written. YouTube has a number of videos done by proponents of I.D for anyone who is interested.) If science cannot consider where the evidence leads, perhaps it is the wrong venue for teaching on our origin.
The theory of evolution is taught in our schools as settled science, the authoritative truth of our origin. Yet in college courses that teach how scientists know what they know, the instructor will admit that science makes no claim to have the truth, but only that scientist agree that a thing is science. So on the one hand they need not defend evolution as to be true only that they agree that it is science, it might be wrong but it's science — it is sophistry fully matured — on the other hand to students in our school system it is authoritative truth. Have you not read that, "differing weights are an abomination to the Lord." For in this case their reasoning goes that man is the measurer of all things.
Mr. Cracraft reminds us of Galileo's persecution at the hands of the Catholic Church. Yet scientists who are bold enough to mention I.D. in a positive light in public suffer similar fates at the hand secularist evolutionists who now represent the establishment, as the Catholic Church did in the 17th Century. They do not have the power to put someone under house arrest, but to fire teachers and editors of scientific journals, to shut down online labs which are scientists fund raising tools, to black ball college professors so that they can't get jobs teaching, to basically excommunicate a scientist from the scientific community. These are some of the persuasive tactics evolutionist use to reign in scientists "who think for themselves" and are bold enough let it be known publicly.

John Demakowski

Franklin

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 691