To The Daily Sun,
In response to Mirno Pasqualis letter regarding Dr. Moneysmith and Dr. Mills:
I need to begin by expressing my full gratitude to Dr. Graham Moneysmith. I have been a patient of his for almost a year and can tell you from my own personal experience that the work he does is legitimate. After suffering for years from debilitating lower back spasms, chronic headaches and fatigue, I can say without hesitation that Dr. Graham has cured my ailments 100 percent. And to touch on the hearing element you mentioned, Mirno, after ONE WEEK of chiropractic care with Dr. Graham, my hearing noticeably improved. It was an unexpected, wonderful bonus to the care. That's the funny thing about the body, you see (and I have taken several anatomy classes myself) ITS ALL CONNECTED. The claim is NOT that subluxations cause disease. Rather, being properly aligned simply allows the body to operate at peak performance, thus providing its best chance at fighting disease.
Kevin Sorbo, by the way, was suffering from blood clots for years in secret before his stroke. My own mother has seen the same chiropractor for 30 years — stroke free. Anyone seeking a natural remedy for their ailments should not be labeled ignorant. I am forever in Dr. Grahams' debt for the work he does; work that most medical doctors would've prescribed an unnecessary pill for to put a band-aid over the underlying cause (I'm not sure if you've noticed how much money goes into the pharmaceutical business).
So just like I tell my five-year-old: before you knock something, try it. That way you don't end up sounding ignorant yourself.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
To The Daily Sun,
An open letter to the president, Congress and American people:
I need to get this off my chest friends. Please bear with me. I didn't write this with great precision. I just want to make a few cursory observations and I hope you will seriously consider my thoughts on the subject. Apparently about 90 percent of the American people agree with me on the decision about war with Syria. Here is my "why".
Let me get this straight. We have a president who mocked his opponent (Romney), in the last presidential election for not caring about 45 percent of our citizens and, who the president alleged, only loves the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Then the president attempts to send us to war/get us involved in Syria's civil war, which about only between 9 and 14 percent of our citizens approve of and says he will do so without approval from Congress (which the pesky Constitution mandates). Then wen the pressure of overwhelming public opinion is inescapably present and unrelenting, the president says he will support a congressional vote but will do what he wants regardless of the congressional vote outcome. And then we learn this week that CNN (with Anderson Cooper), was caught faking riots in Syria with makeup and actors for the purpose of helping the Obama administration build a case for military force against Syria. We also receive stern warnings from Russia's Vladimir Putin that the U.S. had better not get involved or there will be consequences, leading many experts and regulars like me to wonder, could this start a war with Russia or worse, a world war? The president and large contingent of our representatives in Congress still insist we should go to Syria to stop the dictator, Mr. Assad who "allegedly" used chemical weapons on his own Syrian people. Then we learn of video of al Qaeda sneaking chemical weapons into Syria, and even some reports that the U.S. covertly helped stage the chemical attack to frame Assad (who may, nonetheless be an evil tyrant) with the intent to sway U.S. public opinion in support of more war.
This, all from the president who knew little about what happened in Benghazi where four Americans died, including an ambassador, and three brave men (two of which were former Navy Seals), who heroically tried to save the American Ambassador Stevens despite orders to stand down and leave Ambassador Stevens for dead. When pressed, the president said he gets much of his information and intelligence on that matter like we do, from the TV news (e.g. CNN and Anderson Cooper?). Then all these months later, our president seems to know everything in great detail about non-American deaths and suffering and is outraged sufficiently to risk starting war with Russia and potentially a world war on principle. After being pressed about Benghazi and the dead Americans, the president's former Secretary of State Clinton said impetuously, "What does it matter!?" I won't talk about the allegations of our government running guns to terrorists in the "Fast and Furious" operation and unanswered questions that linger about potential coverup that makes Watergate scandal look like a game of Tiddly Winks between member of the Vienna Boys Choir.
But now we are to believe Syria matters. More than our embassy and four dead, tortured, mutilated and burned Americans? More? I am supposed to be quiet? I am too political? What!? Do you really see any solid evidence as to the veracity of this president's word, the evidence that there is a real and clear threat to the U.S. in Syria? Please understand, I really AM a compassionate person. But what I see is NOT a good strategy (if there is one at all to really "win"). Certainly there doesn't appear to be better a strategy than we had when we engaged Iraq on the false pretenses of Saddam Hussein having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's). Remember "Bush lied! Kids died!"?
DESPITE a potentially even weaker justification for war than the Saddam WMD's; DESPITE the growing concern about the origin, source and use of chemical weapons in Syria; DESPITE the backdrop of apparent collusion between the press (e.g. CNN and Anderson Cooper), and the White House; DESPITE no clear U.S. interest aside from humanity and finally, DESPITE the real threat of "another Iraq" or worse yet, world war would any rational person say, "Jeepers guys, let's go for it. Let's try this again. Shucks, maybe it will work this time." Aside from our own fallen, how many non-terrorist Iraqi's are dead as well?
Call me crazy or say I am too political if you want. I don't support this war which has more the appearance of a machination to make some people richer. The industrial military complex — those big corporations that make and market war and weapons of war (the 2 percent Obama said in election season he disdains), will continue to be the people in America who really benefit most. Oh!, and our representatives in Congress and the Executive Branch (White House). In the meantime, my friends, our troops who serve at the president's and Congress's pleasure in the military, and our kids who will join, will pay with their blood and limbs and even their minds. Their families will be missing sons and daughters, mothers and fathers to make rich men more rich. So much for Romney's 45 percent and your despised, wealthy "2 percent" Mr. President! (These 2 percent who you are making even richer with our blood). You have the gall to say, this is a just war? Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. The audacity! Now America, tell me you support this war if you will. I will vigorously oppose it! Our blood will not be on my hands nor will the blood money be in my pocket. Have your "political party" on someone else's dime. I need to be able to make my small business profitable for my family security, and I want to be able to create jobs for other families like mine. But if not, I need to find a job myself.
Oh, one last thought. About a third of Congress was undecided about whether to vote in favor or against war with Syria and Assad. May I suggest you contact your representative and let them know how you feel. They do work for you! Let them know their job is at stake. Here is the link to their website. Just plug your zip code into the box in the top right corner to email or contact your congressperson. http://www.house.gov/
PLEASE LIKE if you agree and SHARE if you care. We are at the precipice.
Thank you for taking your valuable time to consider my thoughts,
Sergeant First Class (Retired)
Last Updated on Thursday, 12 September 2013 02:53
To The Daily Sun,
Holy smoke the blue moon has the moonbats out in force. I'd like to respond to each and every letter but time and space here in the paper just won't allow. So let me focus on the latest drivel from fellow townie Henry Osmer.
Poor, poor Henry asks what the scandal was about Benghazi? Pay attention now Henry, I'll try to keep this simple so even you can comprehend the problem we "nuts" have with Benghazi.
1. For nearly three weeks after the fact, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and all the king's horses and all the king's men (and women) were telling the American people, and anyone else who would listen, that it was a demonstration that got out of hand because of A DISRESPECTFUL VIDEO ON YOUTUBE. Henry, that was a LIE.
2. After all the lying was over came the COVER-UP. Remember Sec. Clinton's now infamous words "After all this time what does it really matter"? It matters Henry when they lie and cover up.
If Henry is trying to build a case, one at a time, that all these scandals are phony scandals; don't bother Henry, the jig is up. The American people are wise to Obama, and you by association. Have you read Newsweek lately? You should because even that liberal publication is telling Obama to "hit the road". It is laying out all the president's failures, lies, and incompetences. All those things the main stream media failed to do, failed to vet the then candidate Obama and wonders how future historians will comprehend how this guy ever got elected in the first place. It's really no puzzle, is it Henry, when the moonbats come out crazy things happen.
Having a little more time and hopping there is space I will attend to the recent deposit of road apples from L.J. Siden.
LJ seems to think that Russ Wiles, myself, and all T-Party types are extremists. Well no wonder, given the far left perspective from which he views the world. If I were Jeff Foxworthy, I might put it this way. Readers be aware if you believe we are taxed enough already (what T-Party stands for), you too may be an extremist. If you believe the government spends and wastes too much money, you may be an extremist. If you believe the tax codes are to big and confusing, you may be an extremist. If you believe government is to big and inefficient, you may be an extremist. If you believe politicians in Washington should pass no laws that exempt themselves from those laws, you may be an extremist. If you believe that 17 trillion dollars in debt is a bad thing, then you may be an extremist. And if you believe that the United States of America is a great country and has done more good for human rights, freedom and humanity, then you certainly are an extremist. God bless you and God bless the United States of America.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 11:58
To The Daily Sun,
Dear Dale Channing Eddy:
I wish to differ with your take on the examples you gave today of voter fraud promulgated on behalf of Democrats around the United States. May I challenge you to answer why the majority of a mostly conservative and Republican-leaning Supreme Court has set back this entire country by declaring that the United States no longer needs voter rights laws and protections?
This has pushed the U.S. back decades concerning voters' rights. Countless millions of people have been and will continue to be affected by this recent Supreme Court decision.
Illustrations of changes:
1. We are witnessing many, many states cut back on the number of days for registering to vote.
2. Requiring a valid I.D. in order to vote.
3. Many voter district lines have been redrawn (better known as Gerrymandering) in order to assure that a particular senator or representative doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of having an honest race with real competition from the other party.
4. Some states cutting back on 'Vote by Mail'.
5. Assigning 'Poll Watchers' to make sure that only people qualified to vote are able to cast their ballot.
Republicans can't win by appealing to a majority of voters so they are now trying to win by eliminating as many voters as they can. If these examples listed above aren't borderline voter fraud on a massive level, then what is? Pray tell.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 11:54
To The Daily Sun,
This past June. Strafford County Superior Court Judge John Lewis ruled that the state's education tax credit program could not provide scholarships to students to attend religious schools, calling that portion of the program unconstitutional. I would like to challenge every parent who would like to send their child to a Christian school, every legislator, every judge, every person who is concerned about liberty, and applying our state constitution appropriately to reflect both its spirit and its letter to take a closer look at this case. The state should appeal this case to the N.H. Supreme court, and the ruling should be overturned.
Judge Lewis bases his decision on what is called the Blaine Amendment to Article 83 of our state Constitution. Article 83, established in 1783, is the one that encourages the state to cherish private and public education. The "Blaine" Amendment to this article, passed in 1877 says: "nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination." Quoting professor Charles Clark Judge Lewis says, "the amendments purpose was simply the protection of the public school system and prevention of diversion of funds away from it." and again "that a discernible major purpose of the No-Aid Clause, when enacted, was to promote and sustain public schools, which, were, over time losing their protestant orientation."
Couched in this vacuum of historical information, the question that needs to be answered is: is Judge Lewis' ruling based on merely constitutional grounds or is there some other bias shaping his decision?
The Blaine Amendment, an amendment that failed to pass as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was taken to the states in various forms to amend various state constitutions. Though there was an element pushing for the purpose quoted by Judge Lewis above, to pass this amendment in N.H. it was necessary to frame the debate for it, in a manor in which the N.H. voters perceived that what they were protecting was what they considered to be the "nonsectarian" protestant nature of public education in N.H. They were presented that the maintaining of the protestant nature of education, which they believed was essential to maintaining a free society — this view had been prevalent since the founding of our republic. You can see its influence in Article VI of our state Constitution. George Washington exhorted the grandparents of these post Civil War N.H. residents on the importance of this type of education for our republic, in his farewell address, and the people of N.H. where still practicing and protecting it some 90 years latter — was being threatened by the growing Catholic community's desire to have their schools receive public funding. The amendment would not have passed in N.H. unless it was understood in this way. In their view the protestant form of education that was the moral essence of their schools was "nonsectarian". That a judge should now make a ruling that strains to find a constitutional imperative to deny the ideological, philosophical and spiritual descendants of these N.H. voters — for public education in N.H. has come to be anything but protestant and espouses atheistic values at its core — from receiving aid, provided freely to them by donating companies, to enable them to exercise their RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE, as magnified in our state constitution, is sinister indeed.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 11:49