To the editor,
So many letters from liberals, so much misinformation; impossible to correct it all.
Ray Corliss apparently thinks a six-shot revolver is an "assault weapon." That's the gun used to shoot Ronald Reagan. No one's gun control proposals (not yet anyway) will take away six-shot revolvers although hand guns were used in 70 percent of all gun murders (rifles which includes the "assault weapons" banned in 1994 accounted for less than 4 percent of gun murders).
Corliss, L.J. Siden and others keep suggesting that the NRA and Second Amendment rights advocates want automatic (assault or otherwise) weapons, M-16s and other automatic capable weapons. Where is the evidence for this? These assertions are false.
Corliss and other liberals keep repeating the ridiculous claim that gun rights supporters want to take Secret Service protection from the president. Of course that is false, the president needs protection, but so do other people. According to census data 13,756 people were murdered in 2009. How many of those were presidents, other politicians or rich people with armed protection? Two? One? None?
Almost all victims were law abiding people like you and me. Don't we deserve to live also? Shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves from criminals?
Is there any evidence that President Obama's or Senator Feinstein's proposals will stop criminals from getting guns with which to commit crimes? Will criminals and the criminally insane comply with these regulations and submit to "universal registration"? No. And, our politicians are not even enforcing current gun laws or ensuring maximum penalties for people who use guns to commit crimes.
Is there a reason to fear government power? In the 20th Century, more than 250 MILLION people, many still trusting their governments, were murdered by their own governments. This is easier if citizens can't fight back.
Might our government violate American citizens' rights? Ask Japanese Americans about the WWII internment camps. Ask New Orleans home owners whose homes were invaded after Katrina, who were mistreated, who had loaded real assault weapons pointed at them by American soldiers, and whose legal weapons were confiscated so they were not able to defend themselves from criminals. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
Only law abiding citizens will comply with President Obama's or Senator Feinstein's gun control proposals if they become law, and that will just make more innocent people vulnerable to criminals with guns. For a safer world, curtail the rights of criminals, not of law abiding citizens.
Don Ewing
Meredith

To the editor,
Hillary Clinton's testimony to the Senate regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack on Sept 11, 2013, has been the subject of a number of apologist letters in this paper, most recently last Thursday. The verbatim quote: "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. If it was because of a protest or if it was because guys out for a walk decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?"
The follow-on "... and do everything we can to prevent it ever happening again" line is only used when one is eager to downplay the past facts or is looking for a large jury award.
The facts are that four Americans are dead. Maybe two can be ascribed to Clinton's and the administration's summer refusal to bolster security as personally requested by the late ambassador and the regional security officer. The other two — Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods — died as a direct result of the president's refusal to authorize a military response as the attack continued, in particular a guided bomb/missile onto the mortar crew target as laser designated by former SEAL Doherty. All of this and their resultant deaths moments later as captured by real-time overhead camera footage, so don't believe the "nobody told me" myths either.
This cowardly action by our pathetic leaders was because of the overriding fear of losing the impending election — a terrorist assault on the anniversary of the World Trade Center attack, clearly exposing the failure of the "Arab Spring" policies and the utter collapse of Obama's "Al Qaida is done, I got Bin Laden" façade. Hoping for the best and relying upon the video riot meme to obscure the failures does not lend itself to using the overt military force. Most unfortunate. And aided and abetted by our leftist east coast–west coast media and our sleazy local party apologists, they pulled it off. Political advantage has always been the guiding policy principal in this group.
So when Hillary says "What difference at this point does it make? " she seems to be alluding to the unrestrained Democrat executive power for the next four years. Can't stop us now.
Many thought that Hillary's ducking of the Senate hearing for the 2-3 months that she did (stress illnesses aside) might have had to do with a quaint conflict about bald faced lying regarding an event in which four honest Americans were hung out to dry by her boss and his political team. Guess not.
Stephen J. Conkling
Meredith

To the editor,
In his most recent letter entitled "Doctors playing games by labeling vaccinations as immunizations," Russ Wiles makes some compelling and challenging charges against vaccinations and immunizations. I would like to address these questions. The answers require complex and detailed answers. Please bear with me as I try to answer.
First he states that vaccinations are not immunizations.
Three months ago I saw a 41 year old female who was applying to nursing school She needed proof of immunity to mumps, measles and rubella, so she could do her clinicals. Her last vaccinations for these disease were almost 30 years prior. I had some labs drawn and she had antibodies against all three diseases at a level which proved immunity. I have done this for a fireman to show immunity t the Hep B virus for his work. Wow, that took all of 30 seconds to prove Russ wrong again. Maybe he can enlighten us on how she came to be immune, if not through vaccinations?
His second statement: "untold millions have died from over sensitivity to vaccinations", is wrong again. Where is the proof of this Russ? He gets upset when I compare him to a child, however, like a child when he cannot argue with facts, he makes things up. That took all of five seconds again to prove Russ wrong.
He then repeats a statement regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations: "there is no significant scientific agreement based upon disinterested clinical trials, that any vaccine is either safe or effective". This is a nonsensical quote. First no one states that vaccines are 100 percent safe. We do know that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Secondly, it is impossible to prove a negative. We can eliminate a disease through mass vaccinations (look at small pox and polio), however, some nut ball can argue something else is responsible for the results. All it takes is a rational, intelligent thinking individual to review the studies and see the benefits. We can show study after study showing the decrease in life-threatening infections with vaccinations yet there are some who fail to acknowledge this. If Russ was not intellectually lazy he could go to PubMed and see numerous studies proving this point.
It seems Russ has become an honorary member of the TFHWS (tin foil hat wearing society). He cites a number of doctors as his sources for his beliefs. One of the doctors he mentions is Rima Laibow. She beliefs That the New World Order is planning to kill off 5.5 billion of the world's population. This was supposed to have begun first on 2009 and then again last year. I guess that did not happen, but she will always accept your money at her website. She is a real credible source in my book!
And about that courageous doctor who wrote the book that Russ took the title of his letter from. Russ fails to identify, a bit dishonestly, Dr. Tom Oshea as a chiropractor. Chiropractors do not believe in science, if they did they could not be chiropractors. The practice of chiropractic medicine is based on a theory, never proven, not on scientific evidence. Of course vaccinations are not part of this belief as scientific evidence is clearly on the side of vaccinations. Science drives public policy, thus we have mandatory vaccination programs to get into school, health professions and the military. It is interesting that most all of the doctors that Russ mentions have websites to try and sell you some unproven magical formula for your health.
Russ once offered me a ladder to climb down from my lofty perch. I would like to suggest that Russ use that ladder to attempt to climb up from the depths of his ignorance. Given the depth of his ignorance this may well be a daunting task.
Mirno Pasquali PA-C
Laconia

To the editor,
Taxpayers of Center Harbor and all other taxing districts in the State of New Hampshire have legal recourse against local government action — without having to prove "significant personal harm". On January 1, 2013, HB-1510 went into effect, which amends RSA 491:22, and gives taxpayers a legal right to challenge local government action in Superior Court if they feel such action is unlawful or unauthorized.
In the past, taxpayers of a taxing district had a difficult time meeting the legal requirements for judicial review of local government action since "significant personal harm" needed to be proved. This left many taxpayers frustrated with the inability to intervene and challenge dictatorial local government administrations. Now, because RSA-491:22 has been amended, every taxpayer of a taxing district has broad authority to request judicial review.
Critics have argued that the change in law will have significant fiscal impacts on the court system, cities and towns, the attorney general and companies doing business with government. They have also argued that the law allows unlimited taxpayer lawsuits and that the implications are broad — where zoning board action, tax abatement rulings and other administrative decisions may be challenged. However, despite such concern and the uncertainty of its implications, the change in law brings an overarching benefit to the taxpayer, which arguably outweighs any of its costs, since taxpayers will no longer have to turn a blind eye in frustration of local government action — they can get relief — and minimize abuse of government.
While there are many uncertainties surrounding the change in law, one thing is for sure — government leaders will be subject to greater scrutiny and taxpayers can get the relief they deserve. Gone are the days of controversial decision-making blamed on a lack of resident involvement or for actions to be based on intergovernmental relations rather than the greater good of the people –at least we hope. The change in law forces government leaders to be more accountable to their constituents and govern in a more responsible risk-averse manner.
Unfortunately, the change in law can also be a recipe for government leaders to depend on attorneys for every decision they make — rather than rely on the sound judgment and common sense they were elected for. Let's just hope that residents take this fact and others into the voting booth this March at Town Meeting. Electing an official with a proven haphazard approach and controversial decision-making record will most likely have severe financial impacts on the town — and that is not in the best interest of any taxpayer.
Derek Kline
Center Harbor