A+ A A-

Anyone can compile a list of quotes from the Founding Fathers

To The Daily Sun,

Gene Danforth seems to think there is either ignorance at the root of it or possibly a conspiracy. In regards to what? God? Natural law?

Anyone can put together a collection of founder quotes to make their case and folks on the right try exceedingly hard to use such quotes to establish a case for religion in government. The problem with that agenda is the foundation on which our laws are built, the United States Constitution, is godless and secular. There is no mention of God, Christianity, Jesus, or Moses, yet the folks on the right put much energy into using quotes, some spurious and many without citations, to advance a religious political agenda. But Article Six of the constitution bans religious tests for oaths of office. This clause makes one's religion irrelevant for the functions and purposes of the state. The Constitution also puts a barrier between the free exercise of religion and lawmaking with the first amendment's establishment clause. The state can not promote any religion in any official manner, thus making religion not only irrelevant in matters of governance but actually saying your free exercise ends at a specific point. Furthermore, in a blow to those who would specify Christianity as the religion the founders based their ideas on, the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli stated unequivocally in Article. "as the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". The treaty was crafted and negotiated by Joel Barlow during the Washington administration and signed into law by President John Adams after it was ratified unanimously in the U.S. Senate. But who were these men? They were prestigious men who did not see their nation or its founding in any way similar to the view held by today's religious right.

At one time or another, 17 of the 23 Senators were delegates to the Continental Congress (Congress of the Confederation). Three of them attended the Philadelphia Convention of which two signed the Constitution. One signed the Declaration of Independence and most of them served in some important way in the Revolutionary War. Nearly all of them served in their state legislatures. Five of them helped frame their own state's Constitution and four of those supported the ratification of the federal Constitution at their state's convention. Blount signed the U.S. Constitution, framed his state's Constitution and was a driving force behind his state's ratification of the federal Constitution. In the ratification convention, Livermore urged New Hampshire to affirm the federal Constitution and was later a framer of the second and third New Hampshire Constitutions.

Most were attorneys educated at either Harvard, Yale, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania, Brown, or the College of William and Mary. All of these school were bastions of liberal thinking during the American Enlightenment. One was a physician and some were wealthy shipping merchants or planters. Most had "Ivy League" education steeped in enlightenment thought and in the writings of classical antiquity. Universities were also strongholds of Deism, the religion of the enlightenment. Six of the senators were judges of which five became the chief justices of their state supreme courts. Two of these judges also served as U.S. District Court judges. One was also a probate judge and another a naval admiralty judge. One of them served as chief justice of their state's highest court and then as justice of the U.S. Circuit Court. One was part of his state's war council, one was deputy governor and six became governors of their states.

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." You can view the Treaty that was voted on at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif

James Veverka
Tilton

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 2014 09:50

Hits: 202

Sharpton has been responsible for riots and deaths for decades

To The Daily Sun,

Another "unarmed" black man shot and killed out in Pennsylvania. That's how the left will frame the story, I have no doubt. But even though he had no gun he did have a deadly weapon, his car, with which he tried to run over police who were trying to arrest him.

He had posted on line that he was going to kill police and FBI agents and thus a warrant was obtained but when police tried to enforce the warrant this man decided to try to kill them instead. Bad idea. Wonder where that idea came from? Right from the folks on the extreme left like Al Sharpton. That's right Obama's "Go to guy on race relations".

Nothing new here, Sharpton has fomented hate police, hate whites, hate Republicans, hate anyone who doesn't see things his way. He has been responsible for riots, deaths and mayhem for decades. I'd also put a tag of assists on all those who pushed the false narrative that the police are racist, this is a racist nation, and anyone who doesn't conform to that ideology are racist.

Sharpton has made himself rich and important to those people while he throws his own people under the bus. What a vulture. Another extremist, Professor Lamont-Hill, during a debate (read shouting match) made the false charge that an unarmed black man is killed by police every 28 hours. Guess where he got that? It was from the Malcolm X Grass Roots Research Movement (or something like that). The researcher was a non-academic who took considerable leeway with facts and numbers to arrive at that solution. And let's not kid ourselves anyone associated with the organization in question can hardly be regarded as objective or professional. Face it he had an ax to grind.

So to all the "Hands Up — Don't Shoot" crowd, are you proud of yourselves now?

Steve Earle

Hill

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 2014 09:41

Hits: 111

Roundabouts will improve Meredith for drivers and pedestrians

To The Daily Sun,

I read Rosemary Landry's letter in the Dec. 30 Laconia Daily Sun with great interest. As as a member of Meredith's 3/25 Advisory Committee, I believe some clarification and additional information might be helpful. In particular, it is incorrect to say that "no one is claiming the change will positively impact traffic congestion." It might not totally solve the "problem", but it certainly will improve things. But first, let's ask:

What exactly is causing the problem?

At first, most committee members thought that the 3/25 intersection itself was the problem. However, many of us spent hours at the intersection watching traffic on heavy traffic days and also on some not-so-heavy days. We saw traffic stopped in the intersection, even when the light was green. In other words, we realized that if the traffic is blocked beyond the intersection it does not matter what we do with the intersection itself. Traffic will not flow. A bit of observation made us realize that the real problem was caused by pedestrians, cars making left turns, and cars trying to regain speed after stopping at the light.

In other words, we learned that we had to deal not just with the main intersection, but with the entire corridor as a system of interacting roads and pedestrians.

We all know that traffic signals deal with these issues very inefficiently. First, by their very nature they stop traffic. This means that traffic needs to restart and some cars (and giant logging trucks) take a long time to get restarted. They deal with left turns very inefficiently. And finally, they are terribly inefficient in dealing with pedestrians.

Roundabouts deal with all of these issues. Their goal is to keep cars moving at a steady 15-18 mph. There is minimal stopping. Vehicles can easily make left turns without blocking the entire intersection. And most importantly, they deal efficiently with pedestrians.

With a single-lane roundabout, pedestrians can cross one lane at a time with minimal impact to traffic flow. Remember that this traffic is traveling at about 15 mph, which means that often cars can let pedestrians cross that single lane with little if any delay. Contrast this with the present situation which requires two traffic officers to stop up to five lanes of traffic before a single pedestrian can even start to cross.

It is true that this will not completely solve the summer peak traffic problem. However, the three roundabout solution will improve things for residents, cars driving through town, and pedestrians. Here's how:

1. The proposed two right turn lanes onto Route 25 will largely reduce congestion which now ties up Route 3 and Main Street on summer Friday nights and Saturday mornings.

2. The proposed roundabout at Pleasant Street will reduce or eliminate congestion from left-turn traffic from Route 25 into the Hannaford shopping center. The roundabout will provide a new entrance and exit to and from the shopping center and bank.

3. Delays caused by pedestrian crossings on Route 3 will be reduced by the proposed central safety zone and single lane crosswalks at Dover Street. At Main Street and Lake Street, roundabouts will include single lane pedestrian crosswalks at every approach.

Why not just do whatever it takes to "solve" the problem completely? Early in our investigations, DOT presented a two-lane roundabout "solution" at this intersection as the way to move the most traffic through town. Nobody on the committee liked it. It would be too large to fit the character of the town. It would also require taking a lot of land — and probably a building or two. In addition, it would have the effect of preventing traffic on Main Street from easily reaching Route 25. Route 25 would have to be widened to four lanes, taking a large part of Scenic Park. Further, a two-lane roundabout would be dangerous for pedestrians having to cross two lanes at a time at the intersection.

The committee therefore concluded that the best solution available is a system of three, single-lane roundabouts. It will deal best with pedestrians, left turns and slow steady traffic flow. It offers the best possibility for improvement over the existing traffic signal.

I agree with Rosemary that we should all "do our homework". The committee certainly did. Please learn as much as you can from those of your fellow citizens who served on this committee. Remember that we spent many hours observing traffic flow and discussing alternatives. Several of us had been on a previous committee and have therefor been studying this for eight years or more. At the end, we came to a unanimous recommendation.

I am not asking anyone to blindly accept this recommendation, but I am asking everyone to take seriously the work this committee has done, to study our recommendation carefully, and to make sure you have correct information before coming to a conclusion.

Warren Clark, Member

Meredith 3/25 Advisory Committee

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 2014 09:34

Hits: 237

I’m convinced that writers are submitting under multiple names

To The Daily Sun,

The letters written to the editor in the past month has made me remember letters from the past. I have a pile of prior Daily Suns, plus an envelope full of clippings written by different writers.

The letter written by Mr. Hoyt on Dec. 19 needs a answer. He wonders who writes these e-mails sent to The Daily Sun every day. Is it one person sending them in using different names? I will give some examples; you can decide for yourself.

I wrote a letter March 21, 2013, suggesting everyone watch the documentary "Hubris." I mentioned to Mr. Earle that he watch it, etc. In between the 21st and 28th of March Mr. Wiles wrote, "Henry Osmer from Hill suggests the readers, and Mr. Earle in particular, watch the documentary "Hubris." Then he writes his usual stuff until (I quote), "Before you pick on Steve again, Henry, you might want to take off your rose-colored glasses, put down your cup of utopian tea avoid MSNBC etc."

I answered his letter March 28, 2013. In response I wrote, "In reply to letter from Russ Wiles I found it interesting that Mr.Wiles was chosen by his right-wing party to write concerning my letter to Steve Earle, as he cannot speak of anything he writes," etc., etc. On Dec. 2, 2014, I read articles by Mr. Meade and Mr. Wiles on Page 4. Decide for yourself whether they could be a coincidence or collateral. (Clue, Hmmm)

I have to give Ms. Loesch a lot of credit. When she criticizes, every parrot in the pet shop starts in. However, it always seems to be Mr. Wiles at top of list. In the letter dated Dec. 20, 2013, which by the tone I believe Mr. Earle wrote, he complains of a letter written by Mr. Veverka and goes on the scandals and all the things he hates about President Obama. A letter written by Ms. Loesch on Dec. 23 asked the correct question: What did president do to you personally? This same question should be asked to every writer of hate and discontent. Yes you're correct. Here comes Mr. Wiles. His letter, dated Dec.24, starts right out the gate, "Bernadette Loesch claims she has no idea why Steve Earle hates president Obama."

I swear to the heavens above I have no idea what makes this guy tick. He has as much time to do nothing as the past administration. I could write a column on this, but realize not many would be interested. I am convinced that Mr. Hoyt has hit a homer with his letter and plenty of evidence in my opinion that some writers are using names of others in order get more letters printed daily.

My thanks to all who work at The Laconia Daily Sun for job they do in keeping us all informed of local and national news. I do find it sad that the parrots can't read as they can only relate to what they hear on Fox News. I will be looking forward to my first parrot newsletter.

Henry Osmer

Hill

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 2014 09:28

Hits: 187

Incoming County Commissioners won’t be civil working partners

To The Daily Sun,

Shame on you Dave Schwotzer for writing about things you know little or nothing about and not telling the truth about others. You have seen a case of someone taking their bat and ball home as recent as in the past couple of years, as someone in your household resigned their position to avoid confrontation.

The employees who signed the letter supporting the firing of the (Belknap County Nursing Home) administrator had cause. You are not privy to their injustices, and rightly so. The family members of the residents in the nursing home and the residents themselves had cause.

Your comment about residents being pressured by staff to sign a petition shows your ignorance of nursing home residents. Nursing home residents are not all cognitively impaired; they have minds of their own and voices to let their opinions be known. They have even been to some of the meetings. They read the newspapers themselves and when they read your article they will, without a doubt, take offense to your insinuation that they don't have minds of their own.

You do not work at or even visit the nursing home to understand what goes on between the delegation, the commissioners, the residents and their family members and the employees of Belknap County. I do, as I am not only a taxpayer but, also an employee who has been to meetings and seen the childish behavior of the delegation in person. I may not have been present for the foul language used against Mr. Nedeau by a member of the delegation who will be coming in as a commissioner this new term, but I heard about it the very next day and then read about it in the newspaper. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that the incoming commissioners would not be civil working partners for Mr. Nedeau.

I again remind you of your own family experience with this behavior and the decision your family member chose to make. If you choose to write incomplete truths, be prepared to be called out for them. As you can clearly see, I only write about what I know as fact as opposed to the ranting of someone who feels they have a score to even, truth or not.

Kim Richardson

New Hampton

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 2014 09:18

Hits: 119

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