Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.

 

Hillary is a lifetime unrepentant serial liar, as is Bill

To The Daily Sun,

I read the article from the liberal left with comments on leadership written by Robert Miller and it and prompted me to relate here what I and a legion of others had to put up with during the last administration. This also gives us a look at what we would have had to endure had Hillary been elected. I would have to write a treatise to cover only a portion of the history I have become aware of over time. I offer only one small sample here. This is not just for Mr. Miller.

Betrayal of our nation, deception and serial lies at Benghazi: On the night of Sept 11, 2012, Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and foreign information officer Sean Smith. Shouts of Allahu Akbar echoed through the compound. Also attacked was the CIA annex where Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by mortar bombardment as they defended their position. It was known by staff members that security at the two sites was inadequate and several requests over time were made to beef up security, but a decision was made at the State Department to keep a “low profile” and so these requests were denied.

The terrorists attacked using hand-grenades and rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns, assault rifles, truck mounted artillery, mortars and diesel canisters, the latter used to set the compound ablaze. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recognized right away that this was a pre-planned coordinated attack to coincide with the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. But President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brushed aside Panetta’s assessment and briefed the nation the next day that the attacks were simply a spontaneous reaction to a video that dishonored Islam. During the next two weeks the president and his secretary of State continued to attempt to deflect the blame for the attack away from Islamic terrorists while blaming the attack on a reaction to the video. It was two weeks after the attack when Obama finally officially acknowledged that the attack was pre-planned by terrorists (but not Islamic terrorists, in spite of shouts of Allahu Akbar). Yo, Hillary and Obama, Listen! The attacking party was an Islamic terrorist group called Ansar al-Sharia. Both of you knew all along what it was; you just wanted to protect the image of Islam.

It seems that the most important thing on the minds of Obama and Clinton was to punish the maker of the video, not to address the real issue. Hillary lied to the mother of Sean Smith on the tarmac when they met the plane carrying her son’s body, telling her that the video caused a spontaneous reaction and the administration would see to it that the person who made the video would be punished. He indeed was. The whole scenario was a betrayal of our nation characterized by deception and a series of lies as the president and secretary of state attempted to shift blame away from the Islamic terrorists and to cover up the root cause, the tenets of fundamental Islam.

When Hillary testified under oath at a congressional hearing on the Benghazi attack, she lied when confronted with her insistence that a video was responsible for the attack and during the course of the inquiry made her infamous statement, “What difference does it make?” Yo, Hillary! You mean there is no difference between a known Islamic terrorist group pre-planning a heavily-armed attack on U.S. personnel on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks compared with a scenario of peaceful Muslims minding their own business and then spontaneously reacting to a derogatory video? No difference? The amazing thing here is that the liberal press and half our people, including educated people, bought this nonsense as serious wisdom.

Serial lying is a serious Clinton modus that has manifested itself repeatedly over time, in my opinion. I believe that Hillary lied repeatedly while expending extensive and perpetual efforts in her decades-long attempts to cover up her husband’s sexual excursions and perversions. She lied about Benghazi. She lied repeatedly when asked about whether her email contained any classified material, and lied on countless other occasions in between. It appears to me that Hillary is a lifetime unrepentant serial liar, as is her husband.

George Brunstad

Meredith

  • Written by Mike Mortensen
  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 283

Congress should enumerate what kinds of weapons citizens may posses

To The Daily Sun,

At the risk of seeming unaware of the deeper meaning assigned to the Second Amendment, I will offer here my own interpretation. The first part appears to me an authorization to the states the permission to set up a guard unit under the direction of the governing body of that state. At the time of its writing our “nation” was a mix of states and a somewhat disorganized territory that was yet to be formed into statehood. It truly was, “the wild west.”

So, the states each created or already had a volunteer army. The objective was to achieve domestic tranquility. The members of the state militias were permitted to keep their guns at the ready, that is, at home. As time passed, the states created additional law enforcement entities. Cities created police forces and lesser cities and towns opted for a sheriff and some deputies. The federal government established a federal system of marshals to help govern the territories or, at least, keep the peace.

Law enforcement has never been easy. Crimes against persons are the main reason for the existence of police forces. It should be plain enough for any thinking person to understand that not all motives are pure. Permission granted by the amendment caries with it a responsibility. Infringement not withstanding, there are some arms that should not be in the hands of those outside the armed forces.

If one reads the entire Constitution, a case could be made for some limits to the Second Amendment exist in the Tenth Amendment. It clarified the “right to bear arms” a bit. We seem to forget that there is an intent of the Constitution to better govern than that which existed under the Articles of Confederation. In other words, power was given to the federal system, the state system and lastly to the people. That is the key, the republic was set up with three branches, the states were granted powers not reserved to the national government. Since we have an elective government, the people govern within the laws authorized by the Constitution.

When I read Article One, Section Eight, I find some sub-sections that relate to “bearing arms.” In sub-sections 15 and 16, the intent seems to be to control. There is no mention of the rights of the individual in organizing, arming and disciplining of the militia. I think the phrase was that it was that it should be done “according to the discipline prescribed Congress.”

Now, what can Congress do and what should they prescribe? Can they enumerate a permitting process that takes into account what types and numbers of weapons can be held by an individual? What is infringement? Is it the golden rule of guns? Are some guns that have been invented since the Second Amendment was written in need of a set of restrictions on their possession because of their danger to the to peaceful assembly of the general public? At this time in history, can peaceful people assemble without having their rights abridged by the all-encompassing right to bear arms? Have weapons of mass destruction been supplanted by a group or an individual armed with the lethal ability to destroy? The short answer is, yes! But, aside from rescinding Amendment Two, we can pass some legislation to address the identification and the use of military-grade weapons. It seems to me that access to the conversion kit identified recently has no justification. Any implication, due to neglect of our legislators, that those kits are necessary or legal should be clarified. Simply put, they should be illegal and those in existence should be destroyed.

Bill Dawson

Northfield

  • Written by Mike Mortensen
  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 433