To The Daily Sun,
Here on Wednesday, the 25th, Jon Hoyt answers my letter challenging his clairvoyance as to Obama's openness? I see very little to enlighten us.
First Jon brings up the Bush plan of "Wide Receiver". Yes, Bush tried to trace guns meant for the cartels, but after the cartel's discovered the tracking devices implanted in those weapons Bush ordered the plan stopped. Obama or Holder or whoever set up a similar plan under Obama, (we still do not know who), omitted the trackers, and then ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to allow these guns to cross the boarder unencumbered. So what was the plan there Jon? Who devised it, who supervised, who approved it? Most of all, Jon, where is the results of the Obama-promised investigation and who did he hold accountable as he promised?
Benghazi may never be solved, Jon? Really Jon, is that what you think? No one knows why Ambassador Stevens was sent there in the first place? No one in the Obama administration knows why or who ordered it? Know one planned the mission or knew that the British, French, Dutch or whoever the other western nations with presence there had been attacked there and that they had removed there personal from there? Well guess your right after all at least as long as Hillary Clinton stonewalls Congress ("What does it really matter after all this time?") And by the way Jon, who invented that cock and bull story about a YouTube video being responsible? Who ordered this BS story to be presented to the American people for weeks just before the election by every administration spokesperson and excuse-rs during that time?
To answer your question to me Jon, yes I was concerned about those embassy attacks during the Bush years and the Clinton years and every years, but it was Obama who ran a cover-up, lied to the American people, the media, the world. Why Jon, did he think that was necessary? Bush didn't cover attacks up with lies, Bill Clinton didn't either as I recall. So with your clear insight into Obama and his plan's and policy's explain that to us please.
Jon, I see nothing wrong with your facts, just the spin you try to apply to them. You want to hold Bush and Republicans accountable for all their many mistakes, all the while excusing those of Obama and Hillary Clinton. Excuse the unending list of lies covering Obama's adult life, the deceit and cover-ups, over and over and over. The harm he has done the suffering and hardships his mismanagement has resulted in. These are the wrongs I see Jon. So even though pointed to by a conservative why are these things invisible to you Jon?
Last Updated on Thursday, 02 April 2015 10:42
To The Daily Sun,
Who is stealing American jobs? Some letter writers keep making the incorrect claim that undocumented immigrants are stealing American jobs. It's a curious claim, since, it seems to me, these are the same letter writers who have also claimed that these same folks were overburdening our welfare system.
Anyway, this tale has been refuted by think tanks on the right like the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute and on the left like the Brookings Institute, among others. They actually looked at the facts and concluded that these immigrants neither drive down wages nor reduce jobs.
Let's suppose it's true, however, that these folks are taking American jobs. Those jobs would be lower-wage jobs that require little education and where workers have no protections or ability to protect any of their rights — farm work, housekeeping, and cleaning Walmarts at night, etc. If I understand the argument correctly, American employers are choosing to illegally hire people and face potential criminal and civil penalties rather than hire Americans that want those jobs? Does that make any sense to you?
We have lost jobs, but not to illegal immigrant labor. The loss of many good American jobs is due to American companies shipping their jobs out of the country. Good American jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector in steel, automobile, textile, electronics, and more. These are the jobs that Americans want and whose loss we have lamented for a generation, now. They paid well, had benefits, and provided job security. Let's focus on what's really going on.
Last Updated on Thursday, 02 April 2015 10:36
To The Daily Sun,
The discovery of the drape used at the Lakeport Opera House unleashed many memories for me. I have jotted down a few thinking some of your readers might find them of interest.
My first memory of the Opera House was when I was 5 or 6 years old. I was on a sled pulled by a neighborhood boy when he slipped on ice and fell jerking the sled around and into the snowbank. An icicle, hidden in the snow, punctured my face and slashed from my upper nose to upper lip. The doctor decided not to sew the pieces together as that would leave a bad scar so he taped the edges together (and also most of my face) gave me a dime to go to the Saturday matinee at the Opera House and told me not to laugh or smile. The movie was a comedy and even today at age 96 I have the faint remains of that old scar and lots of good memories of an afternoon at the Opera House.
Every Saturday after that my father gave me 10 or 15 cents for the matinee and 5 cents for candy. The movies were silent and Mrs. Tefft played the piano. She had no music, but improvised for each change of scene on the screen. The movies may have been silent, but the kids were not. We booed the villains, cheered the hero, and giggled at the love scenes. It was bedlam and we kids loved it. The regular fare was westerns, comedies, and serials. One serial about pirates lasted for several weeks and caused me to have terrible nightmares. However, the Tom Mix westerns gave us lots of material for "cowboy and Indian" games all week.
The Mechanic Street School children frequently put on plays and musicals there. I remember being a Russian dancer in one and a police officer in another. Organized groups put on a variety of programs. I vividly remember my older sister dressed as a Dutch girl, complete with wooden shoes, dancing across the stage while singing. "Tiptoe Through the Tulips." Another group put on a play with a Mexican theme. I was asked to advertise it by riding my Welsh Pony through the streets of Lakeport, dressed as a Mexican boy carrying ads about the production.
In the 1950s the theater reopened for a short time. My husband, Dexter Royce a professional projectionist, recovering from surgery decided to visit the new theater. Talking to the owner we found the man very low on funds, actually living in the theater and running the equipment himself. Dexter volunteered to help him for a short time and I volunteered to sell tickets. The theater closed after Dexter returned to his full-time employment at the Laconia Colonial Theater.
I'll always remember climbing that long steep stairway to the theater, hearing the noisy children, and anticipating the excitement and joy that was to come at the Saturday matinee.
Lorraine T. Royce
Last Updated on Thursday, 02 April 2015 10:29
To The Daily Sun,
ServiceLink, a cost effective, critical service to our community is at risk of losing its funding.
In the late 1990's the N.H. Bureau of Elderly and Adult Services (BEAS), in partnership with local agencies, held community conversations across the state to better understand the challenges faced by older adults. At these sessions, the vast majority of seniors identified the complexities of navigating the health care and social service systems. They reported making telephone calls to one agency after another trying to find assistance, which often led to frustration and surrender. Many people said they were unable to get the help they needed. At that time, the N.H. Legislature was discussing their concerns about the aging of N.H. and the impact on the economy. Use of traditional, nursing home care was the service of choice in meeting long-term care needs and due to the high cost of care, was not sustainable. It was clear to them that the health care and social service system could not accommodate the growing needs of older adults. Reform was needed. State legislators and seniors agreed that services must focus on supporting older adults in the least restrictive and lowest cost care . . . that being in their home and in their community.
In 1998, Senate Bill 409 called for reforming the system of long term care. In 2000, ServiceLink was established to provide information, referral and assistance for older adults, adults with disabilities, and people living with chronic illness. The goal was to assist older adults and their families navigate the health care and social service system and link them to services and supports that would help them remain in their homes.
When ServiceLink was established in 2000, 15.1 percent of the population was 65 and older in Belknap County. It is projected that in 2030, the population (65 and older in Belknap County) will exceed 36 percent (Source: NH Office of Energy and Planning) . With this dramatic increase in population, traditional nursing home care at a cost of approximately $230/day, (mostly paid through the Medicaid program) is not sustainable.
Over the past 15 years, ServiceLink has helped thousands of older adults, adult with chronic illness and disability and their families navigate through the health care and social service systems. In fiscal year 2014, ServiceLink Resource Center of Belknap County answered over 5,800 calls for help. Assistance to callers range from meeting basic needs such as a ride to the doctors to complex needs such as dementia, caregiver support and services, housing, and isolation leading to deteriorating health. ServiceLink provides:
• Free, one-on-one assistance for cost-saving options/ resources to understand and access long-term care supports and services.
• Assistance and guidance in Long-Term Care Options Counseling, which helps families apply for needed services and supports to keep loved ones out of nursing facilities and remain in their homes.
• Medicare counseling which provides assistance in enrollment, understanding Medicare bills, reporting suspected Medicare fraud and accessing prescription plans at affordable costs (when a person turns 65 or is disabled).
• Family caregiver supports through one-on-one counseling, education and training. Small respite grants in the amount no larger than $2,000/year are provided to caregivers to extend their ability to continue to care for their loved one in their home.
• Assistance to individuals as they transition from the hospital to their home. These services reduce hospital re-admissions and the resulting costs of these re-admissions to the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
• Home visits to older adults and their families when they are unable to come to the office due to disability or caregiving responsibilities.
• Services and supports to veterans and their family members so that veterans can live as independently as possible in their own homes and reduce the need for hospitalization or nursing home care.
In order to prevent nursing home care and extend the time people can remain in their homes, it is essential that community- based services and supports continue to be available and that Servicelink continue to be a portal for individuals and their families in accessing them.
Our New Hampshire legislators are currently working on the budget for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 which begins July, 2015. The funding for ServiceLink is in jeopardy. Please contact your representatives and senators and let them know how important ServiceLink is to you, your family and to the state economy:
Senator Jeannie Forrester (
House of Representatives (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/wml.aspx 271-3661)
Lakes Region Partnership for Public Health Board of Directors
Maggie Pritchard, Betty Anson, Dr. Richard Wilson, Kathy Berman, David Emberley, Liane Clairmont, John Beland Brian Hoffman, Denise Hubbard, Alida Millham, Andrew Moeller and Karin Salome
Last Updated on Thursday, 02 April 2015 10:18
To The Daily Sun,
A lot has been written and published in The Laconia Daily Sun lately, passing as opinion based on fact. However, just for the record, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, after much debate and several drafts, was finally ratified by the several states on Dec. 15, 1791, and is a part of what is unfortunately known as the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. I say "unfortunately" because it should have been called the "Bill of Limitations", because it was written exclusively and positively to be limits on the power and actions of the federal government, as relates to their power and relationship to the people.
It reads (insofar as it pertains to Freedom of Religion), as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...,"
That's it. Those 16 words have been more misunderstood by more constitutional scholars than any other legal writings in the history of this country (with the possible exception of the Second Amendment, which when read from the "limitations" point of view, is also totally misunderstood and administered). Those who insist that America was not intended to be a "Christian nation" point to the obvious absence of specific directives regarding Christianity in the federal Constitution. The popular, albeit false propaganda since the 1960s has been that "the irreligious Framers did not want the nation to retain any attachment to the Christian religion." Such an assertion is a monstrous lie and an erroneous perversion of historical fact!
The truth of the matter is that the founders were fearful of the potential interference by the federal government in its ability to place restrictions on the free exercise of the Christian religion. Consequently, they desired that the specifics of religion be left up to the discretion of the several states.
Nevertheless, we must not think for a moment that the federal framers did not sanction the nation's intimate affiliation with Christianity, or that they attempted to keep religion out of the Constitution. On the contrary, the Christian religion is inherently assumed and implicitly present in the Constitution. In fact, the United States Constitution contains a direct reference to Jesus Christ! Consider three pesky, but undeniable proofs for these contentions (See Constitution of the United..., 1789).
First, consider the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution. We have been told that, by "establishment of religion," the framers meant for the government to maintain complete religious neutrality and that pluralism ought to prevail, i.e., that all religions (whether Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism), though equally tolerated, must not be given any acknowledgement in the public sector.
But such an outlandish claim is absolutely false. All one has to do is to go directly to the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the First Amendment in order to ascertain the context and original intent of the final wording. The facts of the matter are that by their use of the term "religion", the framers were not talking about the major world religions, rather, they were referring to the several Protestant denominations.
Their concern was to prevent any single Christian denomination from being elevated above the others and therefore made into a state religion — a circumstance that the Founders had recently endured under British rule when the Anglican Church was made the state religion of the thirteen colonies of early America, and wanted to prevent a recurrence at all costs.
The "Father of the Bill of Rights," George Mason, actually proposed the following wording for the First Amendment, which demonstrates the context of their wording:
"All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect, or society of Christians, ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others." (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244).
By "prohibiting the free exercise thereof," the Framers intended to convey that the federal government was not to interfere with the free and public practice of the Christian religion — the very thing that atheists, leftists, and the courts have been doing since the 1960s.
Second, consider the wording of a sentence from Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it...." "Sundays excepted?" The government shuts down and does not transact business on Sunday? Why? Because Sunday, the first day of the week, is the day Christians assemble and worship God. No other day of the week is authorized for Christians to assemble and worship God in all of the New Testament.
If this provision had been made with respect to Jews, the Constitution would have read "Saturdays excepted". If provision had been made for Muslims, the Constitution would have read "Fridays excepted". If the Founders had intended to encourage a day of inactivity for the government without regard to any one religion, they could have chosen Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Instead, the federal Constitution reads "Sundays excepted", proving conclusively that America was Christian in its orientation and that the Framers themselves shared the Christian worldview and gave political recognition to and accommodation of that fact.
Third, if these two allusions to Christianity are not enough for some people, consider yet another. Immediately after Article VII, the Constitution closes with the following words:
"Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....
Did you catch it? Their work was done "in the Year of our Lord". The Christian world dates all of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. "BC" means "before Christ," and "AD" is the abbreviation for the Latin words "anno Domini," meaning "year of our Lord." If the framers were interested in being pluralistic, multicultural, and politically correct (which they weren't, knowing those emotion-based characteristics have no place in the public affairs of men), they would have refrained from using the BC/AD designation. Or they would have used the religion-less designations "CE," Common Era, or "BCE," Before the Common Era. In so doing, they would have avoided offending Jews, atheists, agnostics, and humanists. Or they could have used "AH" (anno hegirae—which means "in the year of the Hijrah" and refers to Muhammad's flight from Mecca in AD 622), the date used by Muslims as the commencement date for the Islamic calendar.
Instead, the framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared. What's more, their reference to "our Lord" does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son, an explicit reference to Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ — not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, nor the gods of Hindus or even Native Americans!
So, let's get this straight once and for all: The Declaration of Independence contains four allusions to the God of the Bible. The U.S. Constitution contains allusions to the freedom to practice the Christian religion unimpeded, the significance and priority of Sunday worship, as well as the place of Jesus Christ in history.
So, according to the thinking of the ACLU and a host of other liberal organizations and educators, politicians, and judges, atheists, the far-left kook fringe, et. al., the Constitution is — unconstitutional! Go figure!
Last Updated on Wednesday, 01 April 2015 10:25