Latest News
Weather won't stop Derby
MEREDITH — The 34th annual Great Rotary Fishing Derby opens ...
Car fire threatens garage but is quickly extinguished
LACONIA — Firefighters from Laconia and Gilford quickly exti...
Methadone sales net 2 to 7 years in prison
LACONIA — A former local man was sentenced to two 2-7 year s...
Meadowbrook will test tent camping this summer
GILFORD — Selectmen agreed to let Meadowbrook U.S. Cellular ...
150 people making decisions for Sanbornton not enough; …
To the editor,I am hoping that this year the majority of San...
Let's not run out of ammunition before the law breakers do
To the editor,
I know Ms. Loesch wants Don Ewing to respond to her latest and most urgent request in her recent letter, but I thought I would try and assist her in her search for rationality. Since it is rarely found in the leftist lunasphere, I thought that like Mighty Mouse, I'd try to come and save her day.
As far as I know, folks aren't allowed to "arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction". North Korea has em and Iran wants them desperately. So, other than some far right wing extremists, as identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center, who may be armed with a few nuclear powered rocket launchers, our beloved government doesn't allow us to keep WMD type arsenals. That would be much to the chagrin of unrepentant mad bomber, Bill Ayers and his "perps turned profs" buddies, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin. Those would be just two of the radical 60s, retro "Occupy Wall Street" wack jobs who are teaching our children their anti-capitalist/Christian, secular humanism/moral relativism, collectivist crap. Not content just to seduce men into destructive activities, these femme fatales now are intent on leading our youth into destructive, warped socialist ideologies, but I digress.
Why would folks need "high power weaponry", you ask. Ah, would that you meant that question rhetorically. However, I know you mean that sincerely, which succinctly encapsulates the bizarre world of "modern day liberals" (even if you aren't one). I think Thomas Sowell summed it up nicely in one of his recent columns. Limiting the amount of "firepower" one is allowed to have will only "ensure that the law abiding citizen runs out of ammo before the criminal does". I would suggest Ms. Loesch, that you might want to change your position since you are siding with the likes of Diane Feinstein, N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama and "just shoot your shotgun through the door" Joe Biden. Are you seriously okay with having bureaucrats decide how many rounds one is allowed to have in a magazine? If multiple invaders to one's house enter encumbered with "high powered weaponry", is it fair or rational or safe for the homeowner to be restrained by a certain limited amount of rounds?
So you see, the answer is really just so darn simple and sensible. Let's ensure that law abiding citizens have enough firepower so that they do not run out of ammunition before the law breaking intruders do. President Obama's desire for more unenforceable and ineffective gun control laws has nothing to do with saving the lives of children. As a liberal, socialist, Marxist, egomaniacal central planner or whatever he has evolved to become, he detests the fact that our Constitution is a document of limiting powers. Rather by fiat, executive order or plain old Chicago thuggery, he wants to diminish a vital building block of our secure liberty, the 2nd amendment. How else to ply this constitutional republic into statist putty in order to prepare it for the "fundamental transformation" into an "Agenda 21" entity or some "sustainable" facsimile thereof. You know, like Karl Marx's goal of the "abolition of all private property". Just one of the many Marxist ideals that so tickled our dear leader's fancy during his formative years.
Bernadette, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the media that you likely use to gain knowledge and perspective has deceived you. They no longer work as objective watch dogs in order to keep citizens informed of government shenanigans. Here is a timely example for you to savor. A recent Justice Dept. study has revealed the following statistics: firearm related homicides in the U.S. have declined annually by 39 percent from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. This is corroborated by annual FBI statistics. And this has occurred while gun ownership and concealed carry has increased precipitously. Sadly, your favorite media site has most likely hid this information from you.
So, to summarize, citizens need "high power weaponry" to maintain an advantage over criminals who would seek their untimely demise. Ultimately, the 2nd Amendment must be kept intact to keep a looming, tyrannical government from knocking down the wall of liberty built by our founding fathers. At least that is my answer to your exasperated request for an answer. I hope I have been of some assistance in bringing you clarity or at least some food for thought with regard to this issue.
Russ Wiles
Tilton
I know Ms. Loesch wants Don Ewing to respond to her latest and most urgent request in her recent letter, but I thought I would try and assist her in her search for rationality. Since it is rarely found in the leftist lunasphere, I thought that like Mighty Mouse, I'd try to come and save her day.
As far as I know, folks aren't allowed to "arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction". North Korea has em and Iran wants them desperately. So, other than some far right wing extremists, as identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center, who may be armed with a few nuclear powered rocket launchers, our beloved government doesn't allow us to keep WMD type arsenals. That would be much to the chagrin of unrepentant mad bomber, Bill Ayers and his "perps turned profs" buddies, Bernadine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin. Those would be just two of the radical 60s, retro "Occupy Wall Street" wack jobs who are teaching our children their anti-capitalist/Christian, secular humanism/moral relativism, collectivist crap. Not content just to seduce men into destructive activities, these femme fatales now are intent on leading our youth into destructive, warped socialist ideologies, but I digress.
Why would folks need "high power weaponry", you ask. Ah, would that you meant that question rhetorically. However, I know you mean that sincerely, which succinctly encapsulates the bizarre world of "modern day liberals" (even if you aren't one). I think Thomas Sowell summed it up nicely in one of his recent columns. Limiting the amount of "firepower" one is allowed to have will only "ensure that the law abiding citizen runs out of ammo before the criminal does". I would suggest Ms. Loesch, that you might want to change your position since you are siding with the likes of Diane Feinstein, N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama and "just shoot your shotgun through the door" Joe Biden. Are you seriously okay with having bureaucrats decide how many rounds one is allowed to have in a magazine? If multiple invaders to one's house enter encumbered with "high powered weaponry", is it fair or rational or safe for the homeowner to be restrained by a certain limited amount of rounds?
So you see, the answer is really just so darn simple and sensible. Let's ensure that law abiding citizens have enough firepower so that they do not run out of ammunition before the law breaking intruders do. President Obama's desire for more unenforceable and ineffective gun control laws has nothing to do with saving the lives of children. As a liberal, socialist, Marxist, egomaniacal central planner or whatever he has evolved to become, he detests the fact that our Constitution is a document of limiting powers. Rather by fiat, executive order or plain old Chicago thuggery, he wants to diminish a vital building block of our secure liberty, the 2nd amendment. How else to ply this constitutional republic into statist putty in order to prepare it for the "fundamental transformation" into an "Agenda 21" entity or some "sustainable" facsimile thereof. You know, like Karl Marx's goal of the "abolition of all private property". Just one of the many Marxist ideals that so tickled our dear leader's fancy during his formative years.
Bernadette, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the media that you likely use to gain knowledge and perspective has deceived you. They no longer work as objective watch dogs in order to keep citizens informed of government shenanigans. Here is a timely example for you to savor. A recent Justice Dept. study has revealed the following statistics: firearm related homicides in the U.S. have declined annually by 39 percent from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. This is corroborated by annual FBI statistics. And this has occurred while gun ownership and concealed carry has increased precipitously. Sadly, your favorite media site has most likely hid this information from you.
So, to summarize, citizens need "high power weaponry" to maintain an advantage over criminals who would seek their untimely demise. Ultimately, the 2nd Amendment must be kept intact to keep a looming, tyrannical government from knocking down the wall of liberty built by our founding fathers. At least that is my answer to your exasperated request for an answer. I hope I have been of some assistance in bringing you clarity or at least some food for thought with regard to this issue.
Russ Wiles
Tilton
Last Updated on Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:55
Hits: 11
Ayotte's vote represents the worst of Washington politics
To the editor,
Senator Ayotte:
While I appreciate your response to my note, I find your explanation rather weak. I attended your "town hall meeting" in Tilton, where you said basically the same thing and then failed to respond directly to my and many others' concerns regarding your vote. It was cowardly of you to ignore the "elephant in the room" that one questioner referenced and instead respond to a clearly political question about Benghazi.
What I wanted to ask was how you justify ignoring the will of 90 percent of your constituents? After all, you are an elected member of our representative democracy who has a responsibility to respect the will of the people. When do 90 percent of us agree on anything and what is your justification for ignoring our consensus on background checks?
From your response and your op-ed, you appear to think we are ignorant; we are wrong about background checks and you are right about our "broken" system. But, how is it broken if, 76,412 people were referred to the BATF and thus denied access to guns? Isn't this what background checks are designed for? Don't we want to first make it harder for criminals to get guns and then to prosecute them whenever we can? And, when you were N.H. Attorney General, did you have the resources to follow up on every case referred to your office? Does the BATF have the resources they need to follow up on every NICS referral and do you support providing them with those resources? You write in your op-ed that ads are poisoning this important discussion. Yet, your claim that the Grassley-Cruz amendment is somehow "bi-partisan," lacks the seriousness this issue deserves. What is bi-partisan is the will of the 90 percent of the people that you ignored; 270,000,000 Americans disagree with you.
In Tilton, I wanted to explain that your vote represents the worst of Washington politics; a political system where power begets power, money begets money, special interests always prevail, and the will of the people is increasingly irrelevant. With every day and every vote Washington moves us closer and closer to a Plutocracy. Is this the legacy you want?
Steve Merrill
Meredith
Senator Ayotte:
While I appreciate your response to my note, I find your explanation rather weak. I attended your "town hall meeting" in Tilton, where you said basically the same thing and then failed to respond directly to my and many others' concerns regarding your vote. It was cowardly of you to ignore the "elephant in the room" that one questioner referenced and instead respond to a clearly political question about Benghazi.
What I wanted to ask was how you justify ignoring the will of 90 percent of your constituents? After all, you are an elected member of our representative democracy who has a responsibility to respect the will of the people. When do 90 percent of us agree on anything and what is your justification for ignoring our consensus on background checks?
From your response and your op-ed, you appear to think we are ignorant; we are wrong about background checks and you are right about our "broken" system. But, how is it broken if, 76,412 people were referred to the BATF and thus denied access to guns? Isn't this what background checks are designed for? Don't we want to first make it harder for criminals to get guns and then to prosecute them whenever we can? And, when you were N.H. Attorney General, did you have the resources to follow up on every case referred to your office? Does the BATF have the resources they need to follow up on every NICS referral and do you support providing them with those resources? You write in your op-ed that ads are poisoning this important discussion. Yet, your claim that the Grassley-Cruz amendment is somehow "bi-partisan," lacks the seriousness this issue deserves. What is bi-partisan is the will of the 90 percent of the people that you ignored; 270,000,000 Americans disagree with you.
In Tilton, I wanted to explain that your vote represents the worst of Washington politics; a political system where power begets power, money begets money, special interests always prevail, and the will of the people is increasingly irrelevant. With every day and every vote Washington moves us closer and closer to a Plutocracy. Is this the legacy you want?
Steve Merrill
Meredith
Last Updated on Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:52
Hits: 39
Career Partnership Program not possible without biz support
To the editor,
The Greater Meredith's Career Partnership Program is a collaborative effort between the Greater Meredith Program and the Inter-Lakes School District. The program offers job shadows, internships, guest speakers, volunteer and community service programs and a one day Job Fair.
This program would not be possible without the support of local businesses. We would like to thank one business in particular, Mame's Restaurant in Meredith. John Cook, owner of Mame's, has always been a big supporter of the Career Partnership Program through job shadows at his restaurant and also in the aeronautical industry, as John is also a pilot. Mame's had a "Music Fun Fest" on May 2nd. Local musicians Julia Velie; Phil and Jan Sangueldolce; Chris Mega; Chris Kelly; Dr. Steve Kelley; Julie Krisak and Matt Towle performed that night from 6-10 p.m. Community members came in to enjoy a nice dinner during that time. John Cook donated 50 percent of all dinner proceeds back to the Career Partnership Program to help our local students experience more career opportunities.
We wish to thank John, all of the musicians and community members who worked so hard to support such a great cause. Thank you so very much.
Rhonda M. Hanaway, Executive Director
Career Partnership Program
Greater Meredith Program
Inter-Lakes School District
The Greater Meredith's Career Partnership Program is a collaborative effort between the Greater Meredith Program and the Inter-Lakes School District. The program offers job shadows, internships, guest speakers, volunteer and community service programs and a one day Job Fair.
This program would not be possible without the support of local businesses. We would like to thank one business in particular, Mame's Restaurant in Meredith. John Cook, owner of Mame's, has always been a big supporter of the Career Partnership Program through job shadows at his restaurant and also in the aeronautical industry, as John is also a pilot. Mame's had a "Music Fun Fest" on May 2nd. Local musicians Julia Velie; Phil and Jan Sangueldolce; Chris Mega; Chris Kelly; Dr. Steve Kelley; Julie Krisak and Matt Towle performed that night from 6-10 p.m. Community members came in to enjoy a nice dinner during that time. John Cook donated 50 percent of all dinner proceeds back to the Career Partnership Program to help our local students experience more career opportunities.
We wish to thank John, all of the musicians and community members who worked so hard to support such a great cause. Thank you so very much.
Rhonda M. Hanaway, Executive Director
Career Partnership Program
Greater Meredith Program
Inter-Lakes School District
Last Updated on Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:49
Hits: 7
Millions thought their own government would never kill them
To the editor,
Even while admitting his mistake about the "Fast and Furious" program which, as Jay Kennedy pointed out (May 14), James Veverka continues trying to mislead readers into thinking was "a continuation of George Bush's 2006 gun walking program called 'Operation Wide Receiver'." These programs were very different.
The Bush program was a joint US-Mexican program, the Obama program was kept secret from the Mexicans. The Bush program tracked guns via embedded tracking devices. The Obama program didn't track the guns. The Bush program ended when gangsters found and removed the tracking devices. The Obama program ended when the public discovered that Obama had supplied guns that killed Americans and helped kill thousands of Mexicans.
The purpose of the Bush program was to damage the drug cartels. Bush and our country were widely criticized for allowing guns from America to get into the hands of Mexican gangsters.
Considering Bush's results, what could have been the purpose of Obama's gun running program? No credible explanation has been provided. Did the Obama administration think that their program would hurt the drug cartels? That would require a "willing suspension of disbelief."
The likely explanation is that "Fast and Furious" was intended to fuel our country's outrage and sense of guilt for gun violence in Mexico. This "crisis" was intended to justify more gun controls, each control inching towards the liberal goal of confiscating guns from law abiding citizens.
Most crime is prevented by effective law enforcement, not general gun controls and confiscations. Gun controls and confiscations serve another purpose, extending government control of citizens. Some liberals admit they want gun confiscation, e.g., Biden, Schumer, and Feinstein. Others reveal their desire by promoting laws like the Toomey-Manchin bill that will create more victims rather than fewer, and that harass and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens far more than they hinder criminals.
Have governments taken advantage of citizen control obtained by gun confiscations? Yes. In the twentieth century, 100-250 million people falsely thought "my government wouldn't kill me and my family", but they did. Roughly 10 to 20 times as many citizens were murdered by their own governments as were murdered by other citizens.
While liberals ridicule the idea of U.S. government abuse, there are many examples: slavery, Wounded Knee, Japanese internments, Jim Crow laws, etc. Knowing that people are corruptible, America's founders created the Second Amendment to ensure that citizens have the ability to defend their rights and liberties from an oppressive government if the political processes fail. To avoid the unthinkable, Americans must prevent the erosion of each of their constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment.
Don Ewing
Meredith
Even while admitting his mistake about the "Fast and Furious" program which, as Jay Kennedy pointed out (May 14), James Veverka continues trying to mislead readers into thinking was "a continuation of George Bush's 2006 gun walking program called 'Operation Wide Receiver'." These programs were very different.
The Bush program was a joint US-Mexican program, the Obama program was kept secret from the Mexicans. The Bush program tracked guns via embedded tracking devices. The Obama program didn't track the guns. The Bush program ended when gangsters found and removed the tracking devices. The Obama program ended when the public discovered that Obama had supplied guns that killed Americans and helped kill thousands of Mexicans.
The purpose of the Bush program was to damage the drug cartels. Bush and our country were widely criticized for allowing guns from America to get into the hands of Mexican gangsters.
Considering Bush's results, what could have been the purpose of Obama's gun running program? No credible explanation has been provided. Did the Obama administration think that their program would hurt the drug cartels? That would require a "willing suspension of disbelief."
The likely explanation is that "Fast and Furious" was intended to fuel our country's outrage and sense of guilt for gun violence in Mexico. This "crisis" was intended to justify more gun controls, each control inching towards the liberal goal of confiscating guns from law abiding citizens.
Most crime is prevented by effective law enforcement, not general gun controls and confiscations. Gun controls and confiscations serve another purpose, extending government control of citizens. Some liberals admit they want gun confiscation, e.g., Biden, Schumer, and Feinstein. Others reveal their desire by promoting laws like the Toomey-Manchin bill that will create more victims rather than fewer, and that harass and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens far more than they hinder criminals.
Have governments taken advantage of citizen control obtained by gun confiscations? Yes. In the twentieth century, 100-250 million people falsely thought "my government wouldn't kill me and my family", but they did. Roughly 10 to 20 times as many citizens were murdered by their own governments as were murdered by other citizens.
While liberals ridicule the idea of U.S. government abuse, there are many examples: slavery, Wounded Knee, Japanese internments, Jim Crow laws, etc. Knowing that people are corruptible, America's founders created the Second Amendment to ensure that citizens have the ability to defend their rights and liberties from an oppressive government if the political processes fail. To avoid the unthinkable, Americans must prevent the erosion of each of their constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment.
Don Ewing
Meredith
Last Updated on Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:30
Hits: 27
Obama considered those who died to be collateral damage
To the editor,
Talking points? Fake scandal?
When military personnel ready to deploy to assist the besieged mission in Benghazi are ordered to stand down for political reasons; when the White House crafts talking points that are boldface lies, not spin, to cover this up; when the president has a closed door meeting with select members of the press concerning these revelations; I'd say this is more than a fake scandal or talking points. The question is, will we deal with this real scandal or have we become so corrupt that we will just go on as if this is just business as usual?
Look, from where I sit it looks like these men who died in Benghazi were considered acceptable collateral damage if Obama could keep the image alive that terrorism was on the decline, through the election. If it was in the presiden'ts power to rescue these men or let them die, and he let them die in order to have a better chance at re-election; that's worth investigating wouldn't you say?
John Demakowski
Franklin
Talking points? Fake scandal?
When military personnel ready to deploy to assist the besieged mission in Benghazi are ordered to stand down for political reasons; when the White House crafts talking points that are boldface lies, not spin, to cover this up; when the president has a closed door meeting with select members of the press concerning these revelations; I'd say this is more than a fake scandal or talking points. The question is, will we deal with this real scandal or have we become so corrupt that we will just go on as if this is just business as usual?
Look, from where I sit it looks like these men who died in Benghazi were considered acceptable collateral damage if Obama could keep the image alive that terrorism was on the decline, through the election. If it was in the presiden'ts power to rescue these men or let them die, and he let them die in order to have a better chance at re-election; that's worth investigating wouldn't you say?
John Demakowski
Franklin
Last Updated on Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:26
Hits: 60
More Articles...
