Refusing to make loans to unqualified people isn't discrimination

To The Daily Sun,

The economy hasn't even fully recovered from the 2008 housing induced recession and Obama is already making the same, loud politically motivated noises that led us off the last cliff to economic destruction. Obama says, home ownership percentages are now at 25-year lows, while banks are making it too darn tough for people with little money and poor credit to qualify for a home, so let's loosen credit band wagon again. Of course his remarks are saturated in innuendo the "unqualified" are being discriminated against by mean banks.

The financially unqualified are now the heart and soul of the Democratic Party voting base, so this offers a great opportunity for political grand-standing. No one can spew drama, division and divisiveness like the great orator himself. It is impossible for a man like Barack Obama to consider businesses might simply making good lending decisions founded in logic. Nothing distresses the Democratic mind any more than than knowing someone, some where is making a profit.

These are the same housing discrimination allegations Democrats have been making since Ted Kennedy roamed earth. I can assure you it was never the banks or Wall Street's idea to loan to unqualified buyers. Those Harvard guys are simply smarter than that. But when government, underpinned by political motivation, began raising quota percentages regarding how many less-fortunate people (financially unqualified) had to be given a mortgage Wall Street got creative. They designed some of the most toxic and dangerous financial instruments ever seen. So complex it was hard to determine just how dangerous they were.

When government demands businesses shoot themselves in the head, making loans to financially unqualified borrowers, why would anyone wonder why Wall Street devised a bomb that would be hard to detect, and impossible to measure until it had exploded?

If you don't want another financial disaster in the exact image of 2008 we have to stop Democrats from screaming mortgage discrimination which is underpinned with one single purpose which is to buy elections, forcing banks to make loans to their voting base of unqualified people using a gun to their head from government.

Refusing to make loans to unqualified people isn't discrimination, it is common-sense lending. The same common sense logic that underpinned bank lending rules for the last 100 years. Banks demanded a 20 percent down payment. They always demanded it, they still want it. Making loans with less than 20 percent are high risk to both the lender and the borrower. Obama doesn't care the high risk of failure, because the American taxpayer bails out every Democratic boondoggle, asinine mistake.
It is government which wants unqualified people in homes they can't afford because it accomplishes their social agenda, while it wraps itself in screams of discrimination to accomplish it. Obama now channels Kennedy. It isn't toxic loans that are the problem, it is toxic, Democratic economic logic to win elections that bankrupts this country.

We just implemented Dodd-Frank that crammed down thousands of pages of rules and regulations on banks costing tens of billions. JP Morgan had to hire 1,000 new people just to comply with the new Dodd-Frank rules. That is insanity on steroids. Billions that consumers will pay every nickel of in higher bank fees and costs.

Those thousands of pages and billions in costs accomplish nothing compared to one sentence. "We will not make home loans to people who do not have at least a 20 percent down payment and a good employment history". We need to include those words in the Constitution. If we reduce the down payment number to 15 percent, Democrats will still scream discrimination. If we lower it to 10 percent they will still scream decimation because screaming the words discrimination and racism are the two most important words Democrats use to win elections. We have to stop idiots from using the treasury of the U.S. government to buy elections. That is what making loans to unqualified people is, because government backs 90 percent of every home mortgage written as taxpayers sit on the hooks for trillions with ever-poorer credit quality. Thank Democrats.

Tony Boutin

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 247

Thank you for your leadership of Belknap County Nursing Home

To The Daily Sun,

The following letter has been addressed to Belknap County Home Administrator Matthew Logue:

(This week) I visited my brother, Richard Thornton in the Belknap County Nursing Home. I've visited him multiple times, sometimes with Liz McKinley, his wife, sometime alone. At every visit, I've been impressed with how welcoming the facility is, how clean and bright everything is.

Most gratifying, however, is the consistently friendly attitude of the staff to visitors like me and their gracious and considerate manner toward my brother and the other residents. The words and actions of everybody, from health professionals to cleaning staff, from cafeteria workers to the people in social services, bespeak not only their innate humanity but also good training and dedication to their task, which is not always and easy one.

Richard used to be a brilliant teacher and an unbeatable verbal sparring partner. He can't do those things any more, but he's still a husband, father, grandfather, brother and my good friend. Richard can take his favorite seat near the staff entrance; he can walk around at night; he can get an extra glass of milk -- all seemingly small things that, together with the big things of daily care, add up to dignity.

I know enough about institutions to realize that success in work and faithfulness to mission don't happen by accident. Thank you for your leadership of the Belknap County Nursing Home and thank you to the staff that you have assembled.

Bro. Andrew Thornton
Saint Anselm Abbey

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 173

Thank you for the support in the wake of our daughter's death

To The Daily Sun,

The sudden death of our daughter, Parris Lee King, on May 12 has not been easy on my wife, Mary, myself, and her three brothers Duane, Brooks and Shane.

We want to thank our neighbors, family members and friends who have given us strong support. The flowers, sympathy cards and telephone calls are greatly appreciated.

Her passing has also been difficult for her three daughters and their families and her longtime companion, Bobby Locklear.

We also want to thank Pastor Jim White of the Trinity Baptist Church in Angier, N.C., and his congregation members for the support they have given to us and her family.

It has not been easy on any of us, and once again we thank all of you for your prayers and support. The only bright side is that after battling cancer for almost five years, Parris is no longer suffering.

Gordon D. King

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 130

My father always believed he had first right to purchase the land

To The Daily Sun,

In 1978, my family purchased Lakeport Landing Marina. They sold everything they had, including a vehicle, just for the down payment. My father came from less than nothing, but what he lacked in education and money, he made up for with hard work and determination. My parents struggled for years working every day to turn a boatyard, which looked more like a junkyard, into a marina. My father had a vision.

His vision was hindered in 1983 after he rightfully purchased the property located at 21 Elm St. from the City of Laconia for $25,000. An error was made by the city and Irwin Marine sued to block the sale. The mistake resulted in the city having to undo the transaction and return the money to my father. We ended up with a 30-year lease instead, which at the time was our only option.

My father always believed that there was an understanding with the city that he had the first right to purchase the property at the end of the lease. My father passed away on April 10, 2013. For most of my life, I have known how important obtaining this property was to him. I saw how disappointed he was at the end when he realized that his time was running out and this part of his vision from way back in 1978 had not been achieved.

Over the years we invested over $500,000 in the property in the form of improvements, taxes and lease payments. Last fall we offered to purchase the property for $331,400, which is the assessed value. By this offer, we were essentially purchasing the showroom twice. We had made the lease payments for the last 30 years and also paid to build the building, which in 1983 was in excess of $200,000. It was the deal my father had to take 30 years ago, and 30 years later; this is what the City of Laconia felt the property was worth.

I became aware that Irwin Marine also still wanted the property and intended to move aggressively to do whatever it took to obtain it. They are already the largest marina in the state of New Hampshire so obtaining this property, which is a long narrow strip of land less than one acre, was not going to give them any more exposure and very little additional space. I couldn't help but think that it must be some sort of power play when their representatives bluntly told me that they would acquire the property and have much deeper pockets than Lakeport Landing to do so.

They informed me that it "wasn't personal, it was business". After 37 years of being their neighbor it was both personal and business, bad business.

I was shocked when the City Council unexpectedly made their decision during a time where I felt we were still in the negotiation process. I believe there was a rush to judgement and lack of consideration when the final decision was made roughly 30 minutes after looking at the two offers. Sure, the Irwin Maine offer was in excess of any  reasonable value for the property, but I question whether the City Council really had time to consider the fairness of the two offers.

Without committing to a final price, my offer included an agreement to keep a taxable building of the existing size on the property for a period of 50 years. I also agreed to substantially increase the size of another building on Park Street which would have added to the city's tax roll. In the long run, the city would be making much more money with Lakeport Landing's commitment to expand, than Irwin Marine's one time over-payment.

The City Council took something special away from me to give to Irwin Marine, because they felt this was in the best interest of the city. Who is the city? Am I not part of the city? Is my family's taxpaying dollars since 1978 not part of the city? Are my employees who live here not part of the city?

Was it fair to view both parties as identical even though Lakeport Landing has invested hundreds of thousands into the property and Irwin Marine has invested nothing?

The City Council still has the opportunity to "get it right",  if any one of the four councilors (Bownes, Doyle, Hamel or Lipman) would move to reconsider Monday's vote to sell the property to Irwin Marine and acknowledge that the process of our negotiations may not have been properly followed.

Erica Blizzard
Lakesport Landing

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 640

Apparently, if you're not a climate change 'alarmist', you're a 'denier'

To The Daily Sun,

Considering his accuracy record, now that President Obama has declared that global warming is "an immediate risk to our national security," we can be assured that it's not a problem, just a hoax.

James Ververka tells us that it's the politicians, not the scientists that make such climate alarmist statements. I wonder if Veverka and the scientists will speak out and condemn President Obama for his alarmist, and laughable, claim? Or will they, as they usually do, support his alarmist claim overtly or with their silence?

In his last letter (6/3/2015) Veverka resumes his name-calling, providing misinformation, stating as facts things that are still contested, and just a little hypocrisy.

Veverka complains that I cited two magazine articles rather than "peer reviewed" journal articles as if the authors of the articles just imagined all the claims they report, and perhaps even the scientists they quote. Hogwash.

My first reference concerned the global cooling that occurred from the 1950s to the late 1970s. Many peer reviewed articles, including one by Rasool and Schneider, and dozens of magazine articles quoted a variety of scientists expressing strong concerns about possible catastrophic global cooling during 1970-1979. Even the graph referenced by Veverka shows this cooling period.

Nevertheless, Veverka claims that most scientists were projecting global warming during the cooling period up to about 1978. If true, wouldn't you expect those scientists to stop the flood of alarmist global cooling articles that came out over 10 years? Not contesting the global cooling articles at the time indicates at least acceptance of their possibility.

The Lomborg article I referenced was authored by Lomborg himself. Contrary to Veverka's claim, Lomborg is a believer in man-made global-warming, just not an alarmist which apparently makes him a "denier".

Recently, demonstrating their desire to quash any debate or assessment of the proposed efforts to cut CO2, climate alarmists stopped Lomborg's effort in Australia to assess the cost/benefit analysis of various policies "such as fighting malaria, reducing malnutrition, cutting air pollution, improving education and tackling climate change." (See: Since the politicians want to spend many trillions of dollars while making very little progress fighting climate-change, a cost/benefit analysis seems like a very reasonable thing to do; but not if you benefit from that spending.

Veverka complains that I have not addressed his question of what is causing the current warming which he apparently believes is something different from the warming period that has been bringing the earth's climate gradually back from the little ice age. The Lloyd article I cited in my (5/30/2015) letter indicates that Veverka's question is irrelevant since Lloyd's study shows that the "earth's temperature change over the last 100 years is well within the earth's natural variability per century over the last 8000 years".

Lloyd was a "lead author" of the UN's IPCC report. While Veverka apparently agrees with many of the IPCC report's authors, he doesn't accept this author. Veverka insists on "peer reviewed" reports. Lloyd's article is peer reviewed, but Veverka doesn't accept it. I think we have broken the code: if an article supports what Veverka likes its acceptable; if says something else, its author is a "denier".

Veverka's insistence on "peer reviewed" articles is a little amusing since three of the five references he provides are blogs, one is the Weather company website, and one is a stand-alone graph; none is a "peer reviewed" article.

Until recently it has been widely acknowledged that there has been no global warming over the last 18-plus years despite the increase in CO2. (This "hiatus" from the model predictions is perhaps why they changed the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change".) Recently, to save their claimed relationship between CO2 and global warming, new efforts are being made (and are being contested) to explain away the widely acknowledged "hiatus" in global warming. That debate will continue; but not many, if any, models predicted this hiatus.

It should be noted that the models showing increasing temperature caused by CO2 typically overstate heating by several times because the alarmists overstate the effect of CO2 on warming. (Interested readers would benefit from a clear 13 minute video that discusses this and other key areas of contention:

Veverka tries to blame the politicians for all the predictions of disaster that failed to occur. But, that isn't true. Most models over-estimated temperature increases by several times, some scientists such as , e.g., Professors David Wasdell and Guy McPherson, predict runaway global warming and the extinction of almost all human life by 2040. And, at the least scientists have supported, by their silence, all the non-occurring predictions of disaster.

The environmentalists who were the original drivers of many environmental actions began doing some good things, but their extreme and unscientific demands have been very harmful and it's tempting to say anti-America and anti-human.

Their excessive environmental regulations caused millions of good jobs in well operated businesses with responsible, but not "good enough," environmental impact to be shifted from the U.S. to nations with no pollution controls. The result was increased rather than decreased pollution and loss of millions of good American jobs.

Tens of thousands of birds, including protected species, are killed annually by windmills and solar arrays. The alternate energy businesses are subsidized with our tax dollars, increase our energy costs, increase our taxes, and are given a pass for their environmental impact as long as they show proper appreciation to the proper politicians.

The politicians and the scientists saw environmentalism and then man-made global warming as an opportunity to increase their wealth and power. They have done very well. So, they tell us that man-made climate change is a severe, but manageable, crisis that requires action and spending trillions of dollars.

But, despite their claims, neither the scientists nor the politicians act as if they even believe their own story. If President Obama believed that climate change was our biggest problem, he could speak about it from the Rose Garden; he doesn't need to fly around the country to proclaim climate alarmism. But, he has made over 1000 flights as President, each flight creating more CO2 than a small town.

Al Gore, who has become rich off man-made global warming alarmism, flies in private jets and uses more electricity in his home than many neighborhoods. He claims to provide carbon offsets (via his own business) but the CO2 is created now while it takes at least 10 years for a tree to start using lots of CO2.

Have the IPCC and scientists forgone conferences in exotic locations to avoid contributing more CO2 into the atmosphere? Nope.

The politicians and scientists want you to give up your hard earned money and pay more for energy and everything else you buy so they can enrich themselves.

Despite the billions spent to "prove" man-made global warming, the alarmists have failed. The alarmists' models continue to be wrong, the alarmists continue manipulating or hiding their data, the alarmists make fake claims of "concensus," and they try to prevent peer reviews and printing of research that doesn't support the man-made global warming myth that benefits the politicians and the scientists who have been bought. The man-made climate-change debate is not over, it still rages. (For an in-depth education:

Some scientists and politicians are probably true believers. But the actions of most don't support their words. Remember that no matter how much money is spent, no matter how much poorer people are made to fight climate change, no matter how many more millions of people die because money is spent on climate change that could be much more usefully spent, none of the spending will have much impact on the earth's climate.

Don Ewing


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 218