To The Daily Sun,
I listened to a person telling us that while visiting Greece he experienced a supermarket waiting line of over an hour! What the heck? There were 12 checkout lines with only one open on a Saturday afternoon! What gives? The answer; the government raised the minimum wage to the point where it is prohibitive to hire. Hmmm, high minimum wage causes layoffs and diminished service? Who's surprised? Cause and effect right? Worse, the job loss impact is to the least prepared; people new to the workforce and those who are not ready for higher skilled work.
Makes sense to me, and I'm not a politician. But why then are the Democrats moving to raise the minimum wage if the result will be less opportunity and fewer entry level openings? Might it be that they're already past this effect and looking forward to more unemployed? More people forced onto the government dole? Increasing the minimum wage will force more people into the dependent class — a voting block the Democrat Party can depend upon. What a demoralizing, debilitating, demeaning strategy. Real leaders encourage and build independence, not dependence. Wealth transfer hurts everyone. This is not the American way! Vote conservative.
Last Updated on Monday, 09 December 2013 09:54
To The Daily Sun,
Whatever you want to call it, situation ethics, moral relativity or practicality, it seems to have generated some responses from — you guessed it — the "fringe". I am referring to my letter concerning "the end justifies the means", a title that I did not choose since this newspaper takes it upon itself to change the original titles not only with me but with everyone else who contributes. Of course they will choose a title that is the most inflammatory and provocative to get more readers and to generate responses.
Whatever, it's their paper and they can do what they wish. The title I submitted was: "Motive counts for something" which I wanted to be the central theme of the letter but since a few gullible contributors took the bait they failed again to see the overall focus. As I have said earlier, it is not my intention to debate, refute or mention anyone's name (again, it's still a sucker's game). The opinion pages are not the proper venue to discuss ethics. I would suggest that those who spend their time attacking academia could benefit from an ethics class. I'm sure Lakes Region Community college is accessible to all.
Since a few like to give results of polls here is the latest CNN poll concerning Obamacare. I'll summarize for you. The majority of Americans believe: 1. Obamacare's problems will be solved. 2. It's too early to tell if Obamacare is a success or failure. 3. The majority of Americans do not support Conservative critiques of Obamacare. Republicans have bet everything on "failure" and if they lose that bet it will be an absolute disaster for them in the next election — and deservedly so.
As for moral relativity let's examine briefly if the question is as simple as my detractors imply. If you think the ratification of the 18th Amendment did not justify the ends then your beef is with the Temperance League, John D. Rockefeller and Henry Ford, not with me. Case #2: The U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force Japan to surrender rather than invading. If you don't believe that the means justify the end in this case then your beef is with the U.S. government — not with me. Case #3: Politicians using all kinds of nefarious means to get elected. If you don't believe that the means justify the end in this case then your beef is with them — not me.
And of course the classic Robin Hood who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. If you don't think the means justify the end then your beef is with Hollywood — not with me. I defy anyone that has seen that film to tell me they were rooting for the king! Of course conservatives can be magnanimous when it comes to the "make believe" world but in reality they would prefer that the rich steal from the poor as is the case today in this country. And lastly we have the "good book". If you think that all the horrors and atrocities perpetrated in those pages justify the end then your beef is with your priest, minister or rabbi — not with me.
If one persists in seeing the world in black and white, then I will reiterate my suggestion to take that ethics class. One of the requirements to gain full benefit is to have an open mind, which might eliminate a few. Personally, I would recommend PSU. Don't count on seeing me there since I've been retired for 13 years. By the way, healthcare.gov is working now. You might want to contact Senator Forrester and ask her why she voted against Medicaid expansion while Texas, with all its money, is choosing to negotiate Medicaid expansion.
So in the final analysis — to answer the question about the ends justifying the means — it appears that it all depends on the situation and who you're talking to. I'm sure the citizens of Nagasaki would have a different answer than the more dense contributors to this paper. Lastly, some fatherly advice to a few of the people who contribute to these pages. Try to control your rage. It's becoming a hobby like needlepoint with you guys. Not good for the heart.
Last Updated on Monday, 09 December 2013 09:47
To The Daily Sun,
I have been online chatting with my Norwegian relatives (in Norwegian) about their government and its highly successful health care system. Before I enumerate the numerous differences in the two systems, we need to compare the two countries and their comparative abilities to support such an endeavor. A good comprehensive measure would be the Legatum Prosperity Index (check it out online), which measures such things as national wealth and economy, entrepreneurship and opportunity, governance, health, safety and security, personal freedom and social capital. Each category has a number of criteria to meet and all point to a measure of quality of life and well being within a country. Norway is ranked #1 in the world, the U.S. #11. Norway has held steady at #1 for the last five years.
Now for a comparison of fiscal management. Checking the U.S. debt clock website (it contains an amazing display of running data), the U.S. has a national debt of $17.1 trillion. That comes to over $54,000 for every man, woman and child among our population of 317 million people. Norway has a SURPLUS of over 800 billion U.S. dollars, which is about $160,000 for each of their five million people. With a gross domestic product of about $15.7 trillion, our national DEBT is 1.1 times GDP. Norway's GDP is about $500 billion so their SURPLUS is about 1.6 times GDP. To get a grip on the enormity of this, consider that if our nation had a national surplus of 1.6 times GDP, that SURPLUS would be 25.1 trillion dollars. Norway has displayed a long history of fiscal responsibility and has maintained an average yearly surplus of about 13.5 percent over expenditures for the last dozen years. The surplus was not built overnight. Norway wisely did not join the European Union or else this little country would have been bled dry propping up the several fiscally irresponsible and much larger EU nations. Norway can afford full uniform (meaning it is the same for each and every person) healthcare to ALL of their people. Their government has managed their wealth in an entirely different way than our government has managed ours.
Now for the comparison of health care plans. Norway has a single pay system with the government reimbursing the health providers DIRECTLY. The U.S. system must utilize the trillion dollar plus insurance industry as an intermediary that stands between the government bureaucracy and the health care providers. This intermediary is a big fat cat that must be fed. All these insurance companies add another massive bureaucracy and expense that the Norwegian system does not have. All the many different insurance companies involved must pay for their operations, their management, their employees and show a profit for themselves and their stockholders. If they are not profitable, our system provides for a subsidy at taxpayer expense. The whole scenario is a bonanza for the insurance industry. Participation is mandated (except for those politically granted exemptions) and federal subsidy is provided for those who can't pay.
The Norwegian system is uniform and nation-wide in its application and the U.S. system is a patchwork of an uncountable number of different and complicated non-uniform insurance policies, with fines for non-compliance. The Norwegian system covers everyone, the U.S. system does not.
Here are few other related facts you may consider important relating to the way our government and our nation functions. The Forbes Happiness Index, just out this past week, puts Norway #1 in the world, the U.S. #11. The United Nations Human Development Index has ranked Norway #1 for the last three years running. The U.S. trails but is presently a respectable #3. Norway's life expectancy is listed at 81.3 years and the US 78.7. The Democracy Index, compiled by The Economist Intelligence Unit (google it), ranks Norway at #1 in the world and the U.S. #21. The land of the free has suffered setbacks in our First Amendment rights of free expression and speech at the hands of executive actions and court rulings (legislation from the bench by politically appointed judges) that bypass the electorate and the will of the people. We have a two party system (in function, but not constitutionally mandated), which limits representation choices, and the parliamentary system has room for multiple parties and a better chance for diverse expression at the top. The Scandinavian countries are at the top of the democracy list. Also it is obvious that the functionality of our government at present is not what it was created to be and should be.
In summary, several things stand out. First, we are in such a financial mess that we are not in a position to afford the health care system we (our elected representatives) have voted in. Secondly, the system we have voted in is too expensive and inefficient due to the unnecessary addition of insurance companies and their bureaucracy. It is an unfair patchwork of non-uniform insurance policies that do not cover everyone equally and some not at all. The system is flawed.
George Eric Brunstad
Last Updated on Monday, 09 December 2013 09:43
To The Daily Sun,
In 1920, George Bernard Shaw commissioned a stained glass window in Surry, England. A Fabian coat of arms depicts socialism as a political wolf in sheep's clothing. Socialist pilgrims kneel in worship. The Fabian window shows two figures that resemble George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb wielding hammers over the globe of the planet; operating the bellows is E.R. Pease, who was the Secretary of the Fabian Society. These people have the tenacity to masquerade as reformers or liberals. Their claim of innovators is fraught with fraud. They are but reactionaries with hopes of turning society backwards with despots like Napoleon and feudal chiefs. Murder is not beyond them. Millions of deaths at their hands has attributed to their philosophy. Anything to achieve their goal. Bernard Shaw attests to that.
The Nazis, Fascist, the Argentine dictatorship under Peron and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic under the Bolsheviks were socialist governments. The media never mentions that these tyrannies were socialist and their ideology has infiltrated our universities, schools, law courts, government, churches, unions and media. Their main objective is to set up a centralized socialist dictatorship. They are but wolves in sheep's clothing. The art of deception is their trade. Their views are easily understood in magazines such as Science and Society, The Socialist Quarterly, and the Partisan Review. The History of Trade Unions by Sidney and Beatrice Webb was acclaimed by Lenin as a great "textbook" for socialistic communism.
After their infiltration of our schools they set out altering our history. Thus their early target was to infiltrate the History departments in our colleges. Fabian socialism gained favor at Harvard. Keynes at Harvard became popular. History was perverted into "social sciences" and spread to American schools. They are masters at camouflaging their objectives. Often they refer to sociology as social sciences. These deal with "human grouping", which is easy to observe in most school settings where "group cooperation" overshadows the individual capability. Sociology is the old socialist writ.
The last science the socialists bastardized was the law. And most fundamental to capturing the government. Its start was at Harvard. Harold J. Laski, Morris Cohen and Felix frankfurter were three men who orchestrated the scheme. Roscoe Pound was maneuvered into Harvard Law School where he eventually became the Dean in 1912. Frankfurter states in his autobiography that he was an excellent "Trojan Horse". Under Pound, Harvard began to teach the "socializing of the law'. Harvard indoctrinated its students that "law is a social study". Referring to it as "social jurisprudence". These men later went on to teach future Supreme Court justices. Pound credits George Howard, E.A. Ross and A.W. Small with the inspiration of his theories.
The University of Chicago established the first chair of sociology in 1892. Albion W. Small, a Fabian socialist headed that department. Lester Ward who penned "Dynamic Sociology" worked with Small to put the socialist creed in colleges under the guise of "sociology". William Graham Summer taught the first "sociology" courses At Yale from 1876-1880. Their students then fanned out to teach at Columbia, University of Chicago, Yale, Harvard and Wisconsin.
In 1920 the A.C.L.U. (American Civil Liberties Union) was formed. Felix Frankfurter had much to do in its organizing. Morris Hillquit headed the American Socialist Party and joined the ACLU. Partisans from the Communist Party, such as Elizabeth G. Flynn and William Z. Foster of the Communist Party U.S.A., were allowed to join. Director Roger N. Baldwin wrote: "We want also to look patriotic in everything we do". Baldwin helped pioneer the technique of camouflaging socialism. When Felix Frankfurter was a member of the ACLU he drew up their platform that sought protection to those who advocated violent overthrow of our government. He wrote "the advocacy of murder, unaccompanied by any act, is within the legitimate scope of free speech", also within the text included "the right of persons to advocate the overthrow of government by force and violence." Frankfurter was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1939 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Socialized law got a foot hold over constitutional law.
John Maynard Keynes book published in 1936, "The General Theory of Employment interest and Money", didn't take long to sweep through Harvard. Mrs. Joan Robinson was a well-known international Marxist and highly regarded by Keynes collaborated on the project. Socialist economist R.F. Kahn contributed his skills in writing the book. Mrs. Robinson stated that the differences between Marx and Keynes are only verbal. In the communist journal, "Science and Society", winter, 1947, p. 61, Mrs. Robinson said, "The time, therefore, seems ripe to bridge the verbal gulf. The only real difference between the Marxian's and the Fabians is one of degree and tactics". Felix Frankfurter and Walter Lippman a Fabian who called himself a progressive were key promoters of Keynes theories. They both were friends with FDR. Over 300 0f Frankfurters students worked in strategic government posts. Following his return from Russia in late 1946, Professor Laski stated that the English socialists and Russian socialists were "approaching the same objective by different roads". Harry Dexter White, a communist agent and other socialists worked to create what Keynes favored since the 1930s — The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In 1941 Harvard professor Alvin Hansen and Adolph Berle supported Keynes creation of a new international financial instrument to finance their agenda.
Harvard produced Alger Hiss, who was a protege of Felix Frankfurter. Frankfurter was a close friend of Professor Laski. Frankfurter was a character witness for Hiss during his trials. Dean Acheson, another protege of Frankfurter and former Secretary of State pushed for diplomatic recognition of soviet Russia. Laski wrote, "To take vast powers and legislate under them by ordinance and decree". Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart wrote in his "The New Despotism" 1929, "A mass of evidence establishes the fact that there is in existence a persistent and well-contrived system, intending to produce, and in practice producing, a despotic power which at one and the same time places government departments beyond the sovereignty of Parliament and beyond the jurisdiction of the courts". Sound familiar?
This expansion of bureaucracy aided the communist who infiltrated FDR's administration. The New Deal was Fabian inspired and offered cover for communist agents who worked into the very center of the Roosevelt Administration. FDR took his slogan "The New Deal" from Stuart Chase, an American Fabian, who wrote "A New Deal" and stated, "Socialism can be enforced by firing squads if necessary."
Alger Hiss who clerked for Felix Frankfurter at the Supreme Court was a soviet agent and member of the Ware soviet spy cell. Many of Frankfurters proteges were members of the cell. John Abt a soviet courier entered the Department of Agriculture along with other soviet agents. He worked for the federal government from 1933 until 1937, then represented communist fronts. It was Abt who Lee Harvey Oswald asked to represent him. But he could not be found.
Like a jigsaw puzzle the pieces are many and spread out. They are difficult to put into place. By connecting the dots you will find the same names keep popping up. Study your professors and their professors. Learn their ideologies. Then you might glean the problem's facing this country. Have we seen enough "fundamental changes" in our country to awaken us from our slumber?
Gene F. Danforth
Last Updated on Friday, 06 December 2013 11:55
To The Daily Sun,
To the citizens of Laconia and the Lakes Region:
Thank you for your warm embrace.
The poet Maya Angelo wrote:
"I've learned that people will forget what you said;
People will forget what you did;
But people will never forget how you made them feel."
We leave the city after 4+ years and we will never forget how you made us feel. You welcomed us to the Taylor Community, to your churches, civic organizations, into your homes and made us feel comfortable.
I believe that we helped make the Taylor Community a better place for people to live.
Tim & Peggy Martin
Last Updated on Friday, 06 December 2013 11:46