A+ A A-

Where is the conservative perspective in MSNBC’s reporting?

To the editor,
I would like to respond to L. J. Siden's remarks on Thurs. May 2 in this wonderful free newspaper — the statement made that MSNBC and Fox News are not fair and balanced. Comparing the two in the same light as unfair is ridiculous.
First off: Fox's ratings have jumped 30 percent and is in lead of all other news broadcasting's. ChaCha on 24/7!
Politico reports "Of the 1,180 people surveyed, 36.1 percent chose Fox News as the "best" network, compared with 27.8 percent choosing CNN and 16.6 percent picking MSNBC.
To continue my defense of Fox News, please note that Fox has liberal voices speaking the liberal point of view. They are Bob Beckel, Juan Williams. Alan Coombs, Susan Estrich and others. They are not once in awhile voices or guests for the liberal point of view, they are part of the Fox News team. I ask you, who are the conservative voices on MSNBC refuting the insane ranting of "thrill up my leg" Chris Matthews?
I ask you why have MNSBC not covered Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Abortion clinic trial and the atrocities performed by him and others hired by him on unborn and mind you those born in botched abortions. The only news forum that followed his trial, and reported and following up on it is FOX NEWS.
Where has MSNBC, et al, followed the Benghazi, Libya atrocity and reported on the inconsistencies of testimony as to what really happened there. President Nixon was impeached for the cover up of Watergate and I remember one Chuck Colson who was jailed because of his cover up. There is obviously now a cover up of the Benghazi massacre. The difference between Nixon's cover up and our present government's cover up: there were NO deaths in Watergate. In Benghazi, we need to have justice for the four Americans who were killed, one of whom was Christopher Stevens our ambassador, who was tortured and finally murdered. As I see it Fox News is the only news medium reporting and following up on it. Only two senators, Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham are fighting for the truth and justice in the Senate for those murdered at Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
We all know that MSNBC drinks the Obama Kool Aid and they are his propagandists. Obama wants us to believe, (and therefore MSNBC, CNN, etc) that the terrorists are not a threat to America anymore; that they are on the decline. Well the Boston bombing is a red flag telling us they are NOT on the decline they are very much active and they want to kill us. An example of President Obama's downplaying of terrorist also is in the killing of our Marines at the Marine base in N.C. Obama declared it a "work place violence". It is not so when the perpetrator cries out before he does his dastardly deed on our armed forces "Allah Akbar". Terrorism is alive and in full force against us.
It angers me very much that in our culture today it's okay to use the words "Allah Akbar" and to read and respect the Koran and study the Muslim faith in our schools, but we are NOT allowed to mention Jesus Christ in our schools. Christians are not even allowed to express their faith in Jesus Christ in our schools.
Watch out America, when we diminish and disrespect the Christian faith and we can't say God or Jesus Christ, or even Merry Christmas in America anymore, we are in trouble. God is aware and very patient. He will not hold his anger for long. God have mercy on America. Bring back your protection for America. America, you want terrorism to stop? It is imperative we come back to God, the God of the Christian faith of America's founding Fathers and the God of the Bible and God's Holy son Jesus Christ.
Florence Shealy
Laconia

Last Updated on Tuesday, 07 May 2013 01:32

Hits: 384

Electorate rarely speaks as clearly as it did on background checks

To the editor,
An open letter to Senator Ayotte:
In view of your recent vote regarding background checks for some persons seeking to purchase firearms, I am moved to seek your views on this important question: what is your understanding of the proper role of an elected official in a representative democracy?
Our Constitution provides the people with a voice and allows no sovereign agent to dictate to us his or her personal views. I realize that sometimes this can place a burden on our representative to act against her party's or her own preferences, but that comes with the office.
The electorate often does not come to a well-defined view on many issues. But sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they speak with a substantial majority that transcends party, region and demographics. It is at such times that I see three options for our elected representative: 1. vote the will of the majority regardless of personal preference; 2. persuade the electorate that your opposing viewpoint is correct, or 3. resign.
Perhaps you have another view of your role as a senator representing the people of New Hampshire. If that is so, please take the time to respond so that I can understand the rationale behind your recent vote.
Regardless of one's view on the issues of background checks, it seems to me that all New Hampshire voters have an interest in knowing that their elected officials hear them when they speak in substantial majority. To accept otherwise opens the door to dictatorial governance.
Louis R. Lieto
Groton

Last Updated on Tuesday, 07 May 2013 01:22

Hits: 380

SB-2 is nearly five times more democratic than Town Meeting

To the editor,
SB-2 would be unnecessary in Sanbornton if the 570 residents who voted in the general election had bothered to attend the 2012 Town Meeting. Sadly only 149 residents attended Town Meeting which is the reason SB-2 is on the Sanbornton ballot again this year.
For those who say "to eliminate Town Meeting is to eliminate the last bastion of direct democracy in the U.S", I respond that if SB-2 allows nearly five times the number of residents to vote on the town budget, questions, and warrants etc. in the privacy of the voting booth then S-B2 is nearly five times more democratic than Town Meeting.
For those who say "if people are really interested in The Town they would attend Town Meeting", my response is that this attitude denies the vote to those who work in the evenings, can't find or afford a baby sitter, are not comfortable driving at night, can't physically sit through a 3-5 hour meeting, aren't comfortable speaking up in public, or are away in the military.
Today Town Meeting is not the bastion of democracy it once was, rather is the rule of the many by the few.
Roger Grey
Sanbornton

Last Updated on Tuesday, 07 May 2013 01:13

Hits: 309

Unlike Obama’s, Ayotte’s plan would have made a difference

To the editor,
So now after months of full throated debates and super heated rhetoric, our politicians are pontificating about the necessity of keeping our 2nd Amendment intact. Democrats, liberals and other assorted progressives claim such talk is tantamount to conspiracy, "black helicopters" nonsense. Which is rather humorous when you think about it since they have been so busy micromanaging every aspect of the lives of citizens while putting the brakes on their freedoms and independence. You know, not so unlike "helicopter parents".
Getting back to that "black helicopter" distraction tactic by the progressive Democrats, let's just see how crazy, off the wall, it really is. Senator Diane Feinstein is on record as having said that if she had the votes, she would confiscate the guns right now. John Lott, an academician who was on the University of Chicago faculty with Barack Obama, offers the following insight about our president: While he was on the law faculty, he apparently expressed his opinion that he did not believe anyone has the right to own a gun. You don't suppose there are any other Democrats who privately express similar sentiments do you? It is pretty clear to many, including Ted Cruz, that this "gun control bill" was about assaulting the 2nd Amendment and had nothing to do with protecting our youth, and that is why it was defeated. President Obama pretends to be honoring the grieving of parents while selling their tears for political power and that is truly unconscionable.
Senator Ted Cruz reminds us about that which is often left unsaid about universal background checks. He reports the Department of Justice's take on this issue: "the only way you can have universal background checks work is to have a national, federal gun registry list of every firearm owned by every law abiding citizen". Ted assures us that this is clearly inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment. More ominously, he reminds us that historically this move has led to taxation, regulation and finally confiscation. We do need to revamp our mental health system which has been a critical component in these mass killings. However, a national registry where a bureaucrat could decide you can't have a gun because you once took a medication for anxiety or depression or were given a diagnosis of adjustment disorder so your insurance would pay for you to see a therapist, would be right up the alley of our "nanny statists" and their dream goal of firearm confiscation.
Here's a succinct query from Thomas Sowell directed at the anti-gun crowd: "since there is no compelling evidence that tighter gun control laws actually reduce crime rates, why are we being stampeded toward such laws after every shooting that gets media attention?" Thomas goes on to assert that "gun control has become one of those fact free crusades, based on assumptions, emotion and rhetoric".
This brings me to the elephant gun in the progressive room, where one might think the Democrats would rather play Donkey Kong while smoking a bong than bring to light that which they would prefer remain unspoken for all eternity. The CATO Institute estimates up to a hundred thousand defensive uses of guns per year. Untold lives are saved every year by trained, legal gun owners. The Democrats and their water-toting media mules only let you know about the small minority of cases where the defensive action failed. Also left unspoken is the numerous lives saved just because the criminal element left citizens alone cuz they knew they were packing heat.
President Obama had a real chance to make a difference in the lives of children after the sickening Sandy Hook murders. Instead, he chose to add to our gastrointestinal distress by using the deep, emotional turmoil of the grieving parents to attack the GOP and the NRA as he put forth a gun bill that would, more than likely, do absolutely nothing to prevent another massacre of school children. A bill that was almost 800 pages in length, the details of which he kept us all in the dark about, illuminating only his shameful, political posturing.
Kelly Ayotte has presented a plan that actually could make a difference in potentially saving the lives of children and getting criminals off of our streets. The "Protecting Communities and Preserving the 2nd Amendment Act", that she has sponsored along with Ted Cruz and Charles Grassley, would actually help law enforcement officers perform proper background checks, allow for harsher penalties for illegal gun activity, while increasing prosecution of gun crimes, and thereby offering a greater degree of security and safety in our schools. It is painfully clear to me that our dear leader is not really concerned about curbing human caused violence, but rather exacting political revenge by coercing grieving parents into believing they can make a difference by hitching their pain to his pandering train of power politics.
Yet, Kelly gets a "shame on you" from the likes of Bernadette Loesch, Lynn Rudmin Chong, James Veverka and the gang at Moveon.org, while our "Performer-in-Chief" gets yet another pass, even after his adolescent tantrum on national TV when he didn't get his way. Your actions in this matter have been sad, shameful and potentially deadly, Mr. President. Congratulations to Kelly Ayotte for taking positive action by offering real solutions in a transparent fashion and showing an ability to put the health of our schools and communities ahead of politics Now that's some real community organizing.
Russ Wiles
Tilton

Last Updated on Tuesday, 07 May 2013 01:07

Hits: 337

People only believe in evolution because they’ve been brainwashed

To the editor,
Does Darwinian evolution belong in the science textbooks? Science is based upon observation and experiment,and evolution hasn't been observed nor can it be experimented with. That means its a system of faith, i.e. a religion. And I thought religion wasn't allowed in school? It's stupid,has anyone ever seen a crocoduck? It's dangerous Adolf Hitler used it to implement his final solution and one of the Columbine killers wore a T-shirt the day of the massacre with the words "Natural Selection" on it. People only believe it because they are brainwashed or because they are intimidated into doing so by things like lawsuits brought on by the ACLU.
Science once believed the Earth was a flat disk, but now we know it is a sphere,and yet the Bible, also not allowed in school, said this years before we discovered it (Isaiah 40:22). And Christopher Columbus gets the credit in the history textbooks. Why should we pay for such things to be taught in public school? Isn't it time we stood up and said something against this intellectual terrorism?
Leonard Hanley
Barnstead

Last Updated on Friday, 03 May 2013 09:50

Hits: 372

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN