A+ A A-

Up here a promise is a promise — and considered a contract

To the editor,
The global warming crisis is now being run by publicly traded companies? And environmentalists are on their side? Talk about two worlds crashing into one another.
I bet you can relate back to when an environmental protest meant something. I bet you can even relate to how, over the years, they lost their meaning. Well now their meaning is completely upside down. You see, environmentalists are now siding with the very same companies they originally fought so hard against. So I ask myself, have publicly traded companies really changed?
I do not consider myself an environmental activist. I'm simple folk, I was born and raised to speak the truth and I stick to my word. Up here a "promise is a promise" and up here in many cases that's considered a contract. I mention this because when these wind developers first approached our towns  they said "we would not build here if the people didn't want us to". So we took them on their word.
Well the towns took to vote and voted overwhelmingly to oppose their wind farms developments. In my eyes "the majority spoke" through a legally binding Town Hall ballot vote. We did our civic duty and voted "No to wind turbine developments in our area". It's really that simple.
The next logical step would be for these developers to move on. Not a chance, in fact they're now claiming there are more people in favor of them developing to those that oppose them. What? Wait a minute, did I miss something? Sounds familiar doesn't it — publicly traded companies haven't changed.
This legal process has left a bad taste in my mouth. So this is why I am against these projects: 1. These projects will generate excessive profits for publicly traded companies; 2. These profits will not help our community and will hold us accountable; 3. They are passing the costs of "green energy" development to people who have the smallest carbon footprint through deforestation in our area; and 4. They are vilifying me. I question the developers strategy: is their strategy to alienate people by "pitting us against each other". That doesn't sound very neighborly to me. It's no wonder why we overwhelmingly voted against you.
We need to stop and consider the welfare of our small communities, small ecosystems, small people and the small pleasures in life. Don't allow them to silence you or others around you. Demand representation by your elected officials — you pay your taxes... they are your employees!
We voted: Now I think it's time every New Hampshire politician and every department tied to the environmental services should make an official statement on wind turbines. Are they in favor of them or are they not in favor of them and then make a public statement as to why. Everyone should be held accountable form here on out. No more skirting around the issue and now more finger pointing. Now is the time to identify your true intentions and alliances.
Ray Cunningham

Last Updated on Tuesday, 09 April 2013 12:13

Hits: 425

Most crimes are committed by people with a record: lock them up

To the editor,
How many more innocent lives are progressives/liberals/Democrats willing to sacrifice to further their political goals of controlling people and making them dependent on government?
While Democrat gun control proposals in Washington and Concord wouldn't have stopped the Newtown massacre, they would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves from assault, rape, robbery, murder and other crimes.
Similar delusional Democrat policies, e.g., their counter-productive "Gun Free Zones" and highly restrictive gun controls that leave people defenseless, have already sacrificed far too many children and adults.
The failures of liberal counter-productive policies do not justify more counter-productive liberal policies.
Experience shows that criminals get guns if they want them, regardless of the law. Registrations, universal background checks, magazine size limitations, gun bans, etc., don't effectively restrain criminals, but they interfere with the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Making people defenseless does not protect them from criminals.
In other countries gun controls and confiscation don't reduce crime, some crimes increase significantly. E.g., there are more armed robberies in Britain now than before their gun confiscation, British citizens are more likely to be crime victims and are being attacked in their homes six times as often as U.S. citizens.
Most crimes are committed by people with a criminal history. Rather than restricting the rights of the people who are almost always the intended victims, politicians should focus on locking up the people who actually harm others.
There are about 780,000 violent crimes annually. Estimates are that between 1,500,000 (Clinton Justice Department number) and 2,500,000 crimes are prevented annually by armed citizens. Guns are used 150 to 240 times more often to stop a crime than to murder. Homeowner's guns are a far greater threat to criminals than to homeowners or their families, despite false claims to the contrary. Armed law abiding citizens save lives.
Democrats frequently justify gun controls by claiming that an intended victim or helper might shoot innocent bystanders. If someone is shooting people around me, I'd be happy for anyone who shows up to try to save us. And, according to a Newsweek article by George Will, the police are five times more likely to shoot a bystander than a civilian trying to stop a criminal.
Tell politicians in Washington and Concord not to make more defenseless victims. Tell politicians to do things that actually reduce violence: lock up hardened criminals and stop returning them prematurely to the streets, ensure that the mentally ill who pose a threat to others get help, stop illegal immigration because illegal aliens disproportionately commit crimes, and encourage more law abiding people to prepare to defend themselves.
Don Ewing

Last Updated on Tuesday, 09 April 2013 12:09

Hits: 438

Ms. McElroy using her right of free speech to try & infringe on other's

To the editor,
The recent letter from Barbara McElroy of Rumney about the decision from the Supreme Court about Citizen's United makes it appear that this was merely a ruling about giving cash to political organizations. The fact is that this was a case about the 1st Amendment protection of Free Speech.
The federal government and the Supreme Court have recognized corporations as an identity that is afforded the protection of Free Speech but the McCain-Feingold legislation that limited Free Speech was struck down when a non-profit corporation, Citizens United was not allowed to broadcast a commercial bringing voters attention to the voting record of an incumbent candidate because it was within 90 days of the election. The court found that this was an unconstitutional infringement on the 1st Amendment and struck down that portion of the law.
The ruling also says that individuals or a corporation donating money to a group or individual is also an expression of Free Speech. I am surprised that someone would use their 1st Amendment right to Free Speech to try to rally people to infringe upon the 1st Amendment protection of Free Speech.
As to your other claims about how evil corporations are, I can only say that if people don't buy the products or services that kill people then they will stop selling those products or services. It's called the Free Market, unless you are talking about corrupt politicians that over-regulate business in this country? You make it sound like all corporations are evil and that automotive safety standards would not have happened without Big Brother helping out the poor unfortunate souls that don't know how to protect themselves. What about corporations like Tucker that tried to start an automobile company? All of the safety standards in our cars today are the same ones that Preston Tucker introduced in 1948.
The rest of your rant about wicked politicians sounds like you are talking about the Monsanto legislation that was initiated by an amendment to legislation and passed in the Democratic controlled U.S. Senate, which protects Monsanto Corporation from any lawsuits over people killed by their products. I don't know anyone that feels this legislation was right but it won't change unless we hold our legislator's accountable for their votes.
Greg Knytych
New Hampton

Last Updated on Tuesday, 09 April 2013 12:00

Hits: 338

Harlem Ambassadors thank Lakes Region for warm hospitality

To the editor,
On Friday, April 5, the Lakes Region Habitat for Humanity hosted the Harlem Ambassadors professional show basketball team for a night of high-flying slam dunks, hilarious comedy, and feel-good family entertainment.
The Harlem Ambassadors would like to extend a special thank you to event organizers Laura Brusseau and Marilyn Deschenes who planned and promoted the game. The Winnipesaukee Warriors proved to be an energetic, enthusiastic and challenging team and we thank all of the players for their good sportsmanship. The event would not have been possible without the support and generosity of local community sponsors, the Lakes Region Habitat for Humanity members, and the event volunteers.
The Harlem Ambassadors thank the community of Laconia for its warm hospitality and look forward to returning to Laconia in the future!
Dale Moss
Harlem Ambassadors President
Fort Collins, Colorado

Last Updated on Monday, 08 April 2013 11:53

Hits: 492

Scalia: 'Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited'

To the editor,
Recently Greg Knytych told us, "Barbara Perry of Moultonborough actually said what all liberal progressives think when she wrote "I hate guns and I believe that the person who invented guns should be shot!". While it is very unfortunate that Barbara voiced her warranted anger and contempt towards the gun nuts and enablers that way, Greg reveals how brainwashed he is by the right wing's fake outrage media machine. All liberal progressives? What planet is he on? I am a proud progressive liberal and I certainly don't hate gun nuts nor do I wish them harm. Disdain is a better word for gun nut ideology. I support gay marriage, reproductive rights, and the strict separation of church and state. I also support a public option in health care. But I also support the right to self-protection with firearms, too. That includes concealed carry in warranted circumstances. Its just, like the Supreme Court, I don't see any right as unlimited. The laws that exist already prove that.
Kevin Leandro also has not considered the restrictive laws that exist. He tells us that his right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". Well, they already are for some because felons and those adjudicated as dangerous and mentally ill are denied this right. Your right to carry is also infringed, as it should be, in sensitive places like courthouses. All the rights of the first amendment are limited, too. People are subject to libel and slander laws in speech and press matters. Permits are sometimes denied protesters so the right to assembly is also limited for various reasons regarding public order. "Disturbing the peace" laws also limit people. There is no free pass as the gun nuts think. No right is unlimited.
As to the silly analogy that since cars kill people we could ban cars that reminds me of the TeaPublican logic on gun control laws which translates to "since we can't stop rape, we shouldn't have rape laws". Well, we have banned some cars. If Corvettes had gas tanks like Corvairs, they would have been banned just as the Corvair was. Since the 1960s we have been on a long wise trend of safety regulation, yes that evil of regulating. Everything having to do with how cars are made, who can drive them and how we are to drive them is regulated and this saves thousands of lives a year. As with regulating guns, we can only hope to reduce the death toll. Regulating cars, guns, or booze will not save every life but it does save lives.
Steve Earle makes some good points in the first half of his letter but then reality slips from his grasp when he gets to hammers; yes hammer control! Well, Steve, if hammers need to be regulated, then we should regulate them. Mr. Earle also appears to have bought in to the paranoid delusional extremist point of view that the real intent of gun control is to take away guns. Sure, that is likely to happen! And where did "The experience in other nations which confiscated guns is that there is not a reduction in murders but there is a significant increase in other crimes" come from? Ann Coulter! The fact is that in the latest 2012 OECD report on gun murder rates in these "civilized" nations, excluding the warring nation of Mexico, shows that the USA has 20X the gun murder rate of the average of the OECD nations. Only Chile even comes close.
Mr. Earle's notion that "there is no evidence that the Founding Fathers intended to limit the arms available to citizens" is thoroughly naive. That notion certainly is not as the Supreme Court sees it. Antonin Scalia, Mr. Wackadoodle Wingnut himself doesn't even agree with that. In the most recent important gun rights case — Heller v. District of Columbia, 2008 — the court ruled in favor of Heller and struck down DC's gun law. But in Scalia's holding are precious gems of reason. And since case law and precedent is all-important in deciding cases, I would not bet on much of the new gun laws in Colorado, N.Y., Delaware, Maryland or Connecticut getting overturned at the USSC. The majority of these laws are constitutional no matter how loud the NRA leadership and its mobs scream. Scalia wrote: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
James Veverka

Last Updated on Monday, 08 April 2013 11:49

Hits: 1061

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

Login or Register