To The Daily Sun,
Remember Benghazi? I am asking because I have not heard anything new lately in the news, yet a report just came out saying it could have been prevented.
Prevented how? The Citizens Commission on Benghazi is a group of people who think Benghazi should have been investigated. They are concerned citizens, in which some have held high positions in the CIA and military.
Their report stated that the U.S., which had a blockade around Libya, allowed a shipment of arms into Libya. The arms were supposed to be delivered to Gaddafi but instead went to the rebels. The U.S. was supporting the rebels.
In the report, it stated that Gaddafi volunteered to step down, but the U.S. declined. Gaddafi was a brutal dictator, but he did all that he could to suppress Islamic extremists, which also happens to be in the interest of the U.S.
One member of the group thought that Benghazi was supposed to be a kidnapping. Instead, our ambassador and three other citizens were murdered. Murdered by these weapons?
Where are these weapons now? With Syrian rebels, which are predominately extremists?
Who cares about Benghazi? I do. For a time, other countries feared us, and our citizens were safe overseas, or the wrath of the U.S. government would be on them. Now we want to be friends ... and our citizens are not safe.
Who cares about Benghazi? I do. Do you?
Last Updated on Thursday, 24 April 2014 08:47
To The Daily Sun,
Why are the Town of Tilton taxpayers paying for officer Matt Dawson's services, while he is not working? He has cost the Tilton Police X amount of dollars on house searches that have been totally meaningless. Also, pleading the 5th Amendment on a case that involves himself makes him not fully cooperating with the investigation, yet he is getting a free ride on our tax paying expense, while others struggle to get by!
John W. Sanborn
Last Updated on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 10:24
To The Daily Sun,
In response to E. Scott Cracraft's letter of April 8, "Biblical stories belong in Humanities class," Scott finds it hard to believe there are people who still oppose the teaching of biological evolution in our public schools. On the contrary, I find it appalling that every Christian is not up at arms about it.
The rule observed in science, that you cannot consider God's supernatural activity when studying science is neutral and works fine when you are examining nature in the present. It has the effect of focusing the scientist on nature and learning of nature so he does not get sidetracked to giving supernatural explanations of a thing, when he has the thing in front of him and it's his job to find out how it works. This is the reason it was instituted.
It takes on a whole new meaning and has a much different effect when it is applied to a theory that projects back into time and tries to tell us how things got to be as they are. In this case it is not neutral toward God. It is in outright opposition to Him. For if God is anything He is the creator. If God is our creator, then He did supernaturally create all things. Then it is appalling to use a methodology that excludes the consideration of the creator in a discipline that seeks to tell us how we got here.
To call macro evolution science is to say we are dealing with an actuality here, this is real and that biblical stories are myths, we all know that myths are merely fanciful stories that contain perhaps a grain of truth. To agree with Scott on this point, that evolution should be taught in science class and creation in humanities is to say, ya, evolution is fact and well God is mythological. Or that evolution is true and God, ya, well we don't know.
Now if this were just a matter of saying, "You know, we believe in God we just don't know that the Hebrew account is true," then why is there a refusal in the scientific community to acknowledge intelligent design? I'm a Christian and a Creationist, but it is my understanding that proponents of intelligent design are from many different faiths and most do not hold to the biblical creation account. But they see in the complexity of nature and of life the need for an intelligent designer. If this is not a rebellion against God, then why are proponents of intelligent design not received by the scientific community and the method of not considering God, even when trying to explain our origins, held to rigidly, stubbornly, and beyond reason?
Scott says creationists deny plate tectonics. I can't speak for other creationist's, but I am a firm believer in plate tectonics. I don't believe in the millions of years that scientists subscribe to, for the continents to have separated; yet plate tectonics is an observable scientific phenomenon that does happen and I believe it is a necessary fact in explaining how the Earth was repopulated after the flood. Also ring species could provide a solution to evolutionist objection to how Noah fitted all known species of animals on the ark. The answer is there weren't that many species back then.
Six thousand years or millions of years who was there except for God, to know?
If I choose to believe an account transcribed by men who had a peculiar inclination to meticulously transcribe an account given to them letter for letter stroke for stroke rather than scientists who will not admit that in this endeavor they have moved out of the area in which their method can be applied and are clearly in rebellion to and are running away from God; how is that not reasonable? Any time I've challenged a so-called evolutionist with the unobservableness of macro evolution, the conversation ends like this: It takes millions of years and you can't see it. They don't know. They're just believing what they were taught. It's not about if your view is reasonable or not. It's about peer pressure. They will laugh and snicker at you if you don't believe what they do.
Scott says, "It seems that a fundamentalist religious minority is trying to force its beliefs on our students and on the American public as 'science.'" Please, who is in authority in education in America today? And who is forcing whose children to be taught as truth a doctrine they do not believe and calling it science?
Scott commented on many other things, most of which are baloney, and because this letter has already gotten quite long I will not comment on them, but will end with this. Jesus said in Matthew Chapter 24:9, of His followers, "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of my name."
This is coming to a neighborhood near you. Yet those who hold fast their faith to the end will be vindicated when Jesus wins in the end, in a comeback that would make sports fans green with envy. Yes, Jesus is the answer.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 10:21
To The Daily Sun,
On April 17, I was at the Belknap Mall in Belmont about to do some shopping. Lying on the ground in the parking space directly beside me, I found a 10kt gold wedding band. I had no way to tell how long it had been there, but it appeared to be undamaged.
It is very distinctly textured with a wave-like design and has a name, date, etc., written on the inside. I would love to be able to give it back to its proper owner. If the person can tell me correctly what is written on the inside of the band, I will be more than happy to return it to them. I am sure they are devastated to have lost it.
My phone number is 603-630-5745.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 10:16
To The Daily Sun,
Nevada Rancher Clive Bundy has become a "hero" and a "patriot" to many on the far right. In reality, he is neither. He is a lawbreaker with a "fringe" agenda.
Mr. Bundy is not in trouble for grazing his cattle on his own property. He is in trouble because for two decades, he refused to pay fees for grazing them on public land. Mr. Bundy does not recognize the right of the federal government to own and regulate land, but the Constitution does give it that right. It also has the right to ask for fees and fines if the fees are not paid. After all, it is public land that actually belongs to all of us.
Many ranchers have used public land for grazing and have had no problem complying with the law. But, Mr. Bundy decided to thumb his nose at the law and that is why authorities sought to confiscate his cattle. He has lost his cases in the federal court and has been given many opportunities to pay the fees.
People who ignore court decisions and the law often face sanctions. Mr. Bundy's case is no different. It is really no different than if I go camping in a national park and have to pay a camping fee. That is quite reasonable. Do I have a right to demand that the park rangers give me a campsite for free at the point of a gun? I don't think so.
The "militia" members who showed up to intimidate law enforcement are also lawbreakers. The Constitution does speak of militias, but our Founders envisioned a "well-regulated" militia. A well-regulated militia is one that is established lawfully, is subject to a legitimate chain of command, and is subject to legitimate civilian authority including a state governor and ultimately, if called into national service, the President of the United States. Today, we call these state militias National Guards.
A well-regulated militia is not a bunch of extremist adults that never got over "playing army" as kids who run around with weapons threatening law enforcement. While many of these "militia" groups (and other extreme conservatives) accuse the president (or anyone else with whom they disagree) of "treason," groups that arm themselves to fight a legitimate government are coming mighty close to the Constitutional definition of treason themselves.
Is armed insurrection ever justified? Perhaps it is in countries where people have no legal, legitimate, and non-violent avenue for change. But, in the USA, we can still vote and our courts are still operational. There are still plenty of non-violent alternatives to affect change in our country. Even in America, civil disobedience is sometimes justified, but never violent insurrection. In Mr. Bundy's case, he is not challenging an unjust law but a reasonable one that most comply with.
Mr. Bundy's supporters are calling this a victory and gloating that the authorities "backed down." No, they did not back down. They should be praised for exercising restraint in a potentially violent situation.
The last thing anyone wants is for Mr. Bundy or his supporters to become martyrs of the far right. At the proper time and place, when his "militia" supporters are not around, he will be arrested for his actions along with others who participated in this standoff and have his day in court. The courts will give Mr. Bundy and his supporters due process even though they do not recognize the legitimacy of the courts.
E. Scott Cracraft
Last Updated on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 10:13