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contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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

 

Article 6 bans religious test as prerequisite for public service

To The Daily Sun,

Besides being wrong about the Indiana RLRA, Don Ewing is wrong about the foundation of our nation. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Judeo-Christian values do not underlie this supremacy in any way, shape or form. There is no mention of God, Jesus or Christianity. They ignored God in writing the Constitution. It is a godless and secular document.

Article 6 not only states that the Constitution is the supreme law, it bans religious test-oaths for public service which clearly places the Constitution in neutral territory regarding religion. It is not Judeo-Christian in the slightest. Don Ewing is part of that Christian reconstructionist crowd that keeps trying to revise history so they can use the government as a policy tool. Also mentioned in Article 6 is that treaties made in pursuant to the Constitution are part of this supreme law. The Treat of Tripoli stated unequivocally in Article 11 that"the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." See treaty image here.[1] I highly recommend the book, LIARS FOR JESUS by Chris Rodda which delves into all the ways the revisionists lie about our founding era.

We all know about Thomas Jefferson's letter that declared the First Amendment to be a wall of separation. Jefferson meant both ways, but Liars for Jesus say he just meant keeping the state from interfering with the church. This is more nonsense which tries to keep alive the ancient and medieval relationship where the church could dictate religious matters to the state. Destroying the one-way wall of the fundamentalists is a letter written by one of the main architects of the Constitution.

On March 2, 1819, more than 30 years after leading the way in drafting and framing the United States Constitution, James Madison's wrote to Robert Walsh, "The civil government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." See letter here.[2]

Read it again. TOTAL separation FROM the State, Don.

[1]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif
[2]http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-01-02-0378

James Veverka
Tilton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 376

Obama plainly called for a powerful national security force

To The Daily Sun,

If Ms. Loesch wants to defend President Obama, that is her right. However, it might be nice if she got her facts straight, or didn't make assumptions that were simply not true. I stand by every word I wrote in my column.

First, way back in 2008, shortly after the election, the president-elect was being interviewed by a reporter. I watched and listened as he said that we needed a national police force equal in strength to our military. Subsequently, when he was in front of a teleprompter, he said, "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to the achieve national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." For those who would like to view a video of him saying those words, copy this link into your web browser: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=--Barack+Obama%2c+July+2%2c+2008%2c+campaign+speech+in+Colorado+Springs%2c+Colorado&FORM=VIRE6#view=detail&mid=EE668B8C92412B6A150BEE668B8C92412B6A150B

Ms. Loesch might also want to check out the "posse comitatus act", (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act) which prohibits the federal government from using the military against the citizenry. She might take note of a few instances concerning the domestic use of the National Guard. First, each state has control over its own National Guard unit. If you recall, Governor Blanco of Louisiana was late in releasing control of her state's National Guard troops to the federal government during Katrina. The feds could not simply take over control on their own, the state had to grant that authorization. More recently, we saw that the State of Maryland could not impose that state's National Guard Unit on the City of Baltimore, until requested to do so by the city. Clearly, the intent is to prevent the larger government units from interfering with lower level administrations, unless their help is asked for.

As I said . . . Beware!

Bob Meade

Laconia

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 623