A+ A A-

Have you noticed that Pres. Obama is MIA as Baltimore burns?

To The Daily Sun,

Baltimore is burning and apparently the mayor is complicit in the violence and destruction. Police stand by and do nothing and when reporters ask why they have been told to "ask the mayor". Is it coming down to this: that elected officials are so politically correct that they fear to confront crime? Is every grievance, real or imagined, to be used as an excuse to riot, loot and burn by mobs of thugs? This is the consequence of liberal policies run amok in my opinion. The rule of law is being disregarded in favor of mob appeasement and the results are clear to see. This is a microcosm of the entire liberal philosophy espoused by Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ed Reed, Nancy Pelosi and all the rest. Appease the Russian dictator, appease the Iranian mullahs, appease the mobs. Then they tell us they want more gun control for honest citizens when they refuse to allow police to control mobs. Then they tell us they want to reduce our military while allowing Iran a path to nuke weapons. Then they tell us we need higher taxes to create more programs that encourage dependence on government, illegal immigration and drugs. Is there anything they will stand against? Oh that's right, the Tea Party. Funny, I have yet to see a Tea Party activity that can be even accused of littering let alone violence.

Am I the only one who has noticed that Obama has been silent, missing in action, as Baltimore burns? This begs the question, what does he stand for? He has a habit of disappearing during critical times. And lets not forget this was the president who promised to bring people together, the post racial president it was advertised. Anything but is the fact. There has been more racial division directly attributed to Obama then any president in modern times. Yes progressive liberals strike again.
Readers be aware if we get another progressive liberal in the White House next year or in the future we will see more and worse here in our country. We will become a second world country with vast unemployment, crime and violence, unable to defend ourselves or effect world events. Destroying a nation is far easier then building one and the fall can be rapid and devastating and it is the poor and working class that will suffer the most.
Steve Earle


Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 10:21

Hits: 211

Paula Trombi is okay with the governor disregarding the law

To The Daily Sun,

In last Tuesday's Daily Sun, Paula Trombi tried again to explain why Hillary Seeger and I are wrong on the nursing homes and home health agencies. The truth is Governor Hassan is choosing to ignore the law that directs payment of $7 million dollars to the nursing homes and home health agencies. By her actions, a total of $14 million dollars will be lost because of the federal match.

From Paula Trombi's letters to the editor, it seems Paula is okay with the governor not only disregarding the law, but doing it at the expense of our most frail and vulnerable citizens.
This letter isn't just to go back and forth with Paula, it is because it is the right thing to do.

L. Michael Hatch

Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 10:12

Hits: 135

Made-made climate change schemes will make society poorer

To The Daily Sun,
I laughed when I read James Veverka's attempt (LDS, 4/24/15) to "easily refute" my assertion that man-made climate-change (previously man-made global warming, previously man-made global cooling, etc.) is a scam promoted by progressive politicians to increase their power and wealth despite the harm to everyone else's freedom and prosperity.
Progressive climate-change policies, like most progressive policies, e.g., education, energy, jobs, welfare, immigration, environment, and big government, are intended to make middle class Americans struggle because desperate people are easily manipulated to support progressive politicians. Except for ignorant or "true believer" progressives, progressive expressions of concern for the middle class are simply deceptions intended to hide their lust for power and wealth.

Veverka's attempt to refute my assertion fails in many ways, consider two of them. First, over the last 30 years man-made global (warming) climate-change advocates have predicted many near-term catastrophes that would occur if we didn't immediately implement all the schemes the politicians demanded. Yet, the promised famines, submerging of islands and coastal areas caused by oceans rising, vanishing polar ice, and the global warming that would kill so many of us hasn't occurred, not even close.
If our positions were reversed, Veverka would (appropriately) ridicule anyone who believed predictions about the distant future from scientists who have been so consistently wrong with their near-term predictions.
Second, no rational person would continue believing the assertions of scientists who have repeatedly committed fraud in order to provide the "science" that the politicians wanted (and on which their future paychecks depend). These "scientists" falsified data, eliminated "inconvenient" data, manipulated data, located sensors to get the desired data, worked to suppress contrary facts, theories, data and their advocates, and falsely claimed the support of scientists who rejected their man-made climate-change claims.
Remember Al Gore's "hockey stick" with which he tried to scare us into spending trillions of dollars (which coincidentally would make him even richer)? A British court declared it false along with eight other claims in Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth".
We were told we needed ethanol to help "save the planet". Now we know that ethanol doesn't help, and probably hurts, the environment. We pay more for gasoline, food, car repairs, and almost everything else that we buy. But, ethanol is apparently is here permanently because it benefits politicians and their rich friends.
Similarly, solar and wind electricity generation won't contribute much to our total energy supply in the foreseeable future but they give the politicians power and make the politicians, crony-capitalists and special interests rich. However, the rest of us are poorer.
We pay more for electricity and taxes to subsidize solar and wind installations and electricity generation. (These costs make it less desirable to do business here and pay taxes and employ people.) Our land suffers scenic destruction and windmills annually kill thousands of birds and bats (far more than were killed by the BP gulf oil spill); you could go to jail for killing a single one.
I appreciate Veverka's confirmation that the earth started coming out of a mini-ice age about 150 years ago. Perhaps more importantly, Veverka reinforces my assertion that although the earth's climate is primarily affected by the sun, many other (known and unknown) factors also affect our climate, making it impossible to accurately model with today's technology and knowledge.

Over the last 2.4 billion years the earth has sometimes been totally covered with ice, but mostly, about 85 percent of the time, it has been ice free. The earth is now in an ice age. As the earth warms we are returning to a more normal earth temperature. Warmer is better for humans. More CO2 is better for vegetation which means more food and other resources.

The key question that the man-made climate-change advocates never seem to consider is: Since the earth's climate will change no matter what humans do, what is essential to successful human adaptation to those inevitable climate changes? Wealth. The wealthier we are, the more easily humans will be able to adapt.

While the politicians' climate-change schemes will make themselves and their supporters wealthy, they will make the rest of us, and society as a whole, much poorer. If we approve their man-made climate-change schemes, then we, our families, our descendants, and our societies will be much less able to survive whatever Mother Nature sends our way.

Don Ewing

Last Updated on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 10:41

Hits: 283

Very special performance of North Shore Acappella on Saturday

To The Daily Sun,

This Saturday, the Winnipesaukee Playhouse will be featuring a very special performance of the nationally recognized and applauded "North Shore Acappella" vocalists, finalists in the network television show "Sing Off". I had the pleasure of following them through many weeks of the competition and was delighted to hear that they are coming to the Winnipesaukee Playhouse this coming Saturday evening for a one night fundraiser to benefit Genesis Behavioral Health.
North Shore Acappella recently opened for Jay Leno and has been an opening act for numerous celebrities around the country The evening is sponsored by Temple B'Nai Israel of Laconia — a community non profit with a mission of community service. The evening will include beverages and home made pastries, cheese and cracker platters, veggies and dips all for a ticket price of $25.
This will be a hard to beat evening of music and delectables. Don't miss it ... the doors open at 7 p.m. and the entertainment begins at 7:45. Tickets are purchased by calling the Winni Playhouse box office at 603-279-0333.

Ken Goodman

Last Updated on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 10:36

Hits: 146

Once, 'religious freedom' was the cry of oppressed minorities

To The Daily Sun,

There's a wise warning about getting into a peeing contest against a man who has a full bladder. But Mr. Ewing's letter is too full of inaccuracies and false claims to let pass. Maybe he thinks that if he says often enough that he is presenting "facts" that will magically make them true. Unfortunately his "facts" are usually twisted, or just not true.

For someone whining about "name-calling", he loves to call those who disagree with him "leftists". He can dog-whistle all he likes, but his frequent attempts at misdirection are a cheap way of avoiding the real points.

Mr. Ewing continues to say that the federal RFRA is the same as the original Indiana law. It isn't, and many of those involved in the passage of the federal law of 1993 have said the same thing. He argues that since the term "substantially burden" appears in the act, it must be equivalent. But the Indiana bill only required that a person think that their religious freedom is "likely" to be violated. That is not in the federal law, which has a stricter standard. It's a key difference.

After an outpouring of opposition, the Indiana law which had been enacted was amended to change the most offensive parts. The outcry came from citizens, including members of the clergy, elected officials (including Republicans, such as the mayor of Indianapolis), and businesses. Hardly a monolithic group of leftists. Mr. Ewing might even say, if he stepped outside his bubble, that it was his beloved free market at work. He also threw in an earlier tangent about Apple having more stores in Tehran than in all of Indiana. Too bad that's not true. Apple has exactly zero stores in Tehran. Mr. Ewing was just repeating one of Rush Limbaugh's falsehoods.

Of course the Indiana law is not the same as the Jim Crow laws, which required discrimination. No one claimed it was. I wrote about the same attitude as the one behind the justifications for segregation.

He says that he is not aware of a successful use of previous RFRAs to get away with discrimination. What he neglects to mention is that's because when a lawsuit has been brought against a business' attempt to claim religious justification for simple discrimination, the plaintiff has won. And despite what he says, "showing serious evidence of their religious convictions" would not be a successful defense. Courts have consistently ruled that a non-religious business engaged in public commerce cannot choose who to serve and who not to serve based on a supposed religious motive. Dipping into his basket of red herrings, he also claims that people opposed to a law like the original Indiana statute think that people must confine their religion to their houses of worship. Not true. I wonder how providing, say, a wedding cake violates anyone's religious beliefs. I question where in the New Testament Christians are taught to discriminate against those they don't like, or to turn someone away. In fact, that all seems rather un-Christian.

He flogs another red herring when he talks about a T-shirt saying that "Muslims deserve to be killed". Of course a printer can refuse to print a T-shirt with a message like that. They don't need a religious belief for that. They can justifiably refuse on the grounds that the wording incites violence or calls for illegal activity.

He writes about supposedly forcing others to endorse and support their beliefs and actions. Again: not true. No one is making anyone change his or her belief or thoughts. The issue is their actions, not their beliefs. He includes a laughable claim that "unintended offenses or (non-harmful) violations should be ignored". There is nothing unintentional about someone refusing to provide their product to a gay couple because they are gay. That would be the whole point of the refusal. While he correctly says that people should have the right to act according to their beliefs "that don't harm others", he forgets, or purposely ignores, that discrimination in itself does harm the person discriminated against.

A quote from a Baptist minister puts it well: "Once upon a time, 'religious freedom' was the cry of the oppressed minority when basic human rights were being denied them by their own government because of their religious beliefs. Today...'religious freedom' is becoming the cry of the privileged and powerful concerning what they can rightfully deny someone else because of religious beliefs. It has been a radical shift, and it is an embarrassing travesty."

Spring is allergy season. Mr. Ewing must have been sneezing a lot while he wrote his letter, because it seems he must be badly allergic to the truth.

Ed Allard

Last Updated on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 10:33

Hits: 125

The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette