To The Daily Sun,
L.J. Siden is at it again, demanding I prove my opinions are my opinions. Okay LJ, I'll call on all the readers who regularly read my letters to attest that what I think is what I believe. There you go L.J., enough?
I was watching TV news the other day and James Carvel and another well known liberal lady, whose name escapes me at the moment, were mutually agreeing that Hillary Clinton has not broken any laws or rules over her e-mail operation. Turning the channel to Fox I see a couple retired judges hosted by a lawyer who arrive at an opposite conclusion. They site Form SO109, which they say all State Department employees leaving the service of the government must sign, swearing under oath that they have given over to the department all communications (which includes personal ones) to be reviewed by the department. That person can request personal e-mails to be returned. The discussion went on for a time and the conclusion was that Mrs. Clinton violated federal law by having personal servers in her home, owned by she and Bill, which contained government communications and which were not turned over at her time of departure from State. Guess Carvel and company didn't settle the issue after all.
So many Democrats are expressing their doubts about the legality and ethics of Mrs. Clinton actions, I'm guessing this story is not over. Many Clinton excuse-rs are on the march to brand this "a vast right-wing conspiracy". Once again they omit that it was The New York Times that broke the story in the first place. Along with this story the Washington Post broke the story that millions and millions of dollars have been donated to the Clinton Foundation by Middle East nations (see WP for list). Every one of these Muslim nations abuse, denigrate, and violate women's rights, and human rights as part of their culture. The Post asks how can Hillary accept money from these people and still stand up and say she is a leader for women's rights? This while acting as our Secretary of State. What was the quid pro quo?
Poor Hillary, it's just one big question after another, year after year, decade after decade. Her supporters never seem to be bothered by it, but will independents finally have enough of her "poor me" act? Her speech the other day "explaining" the personal servers in her home and wide-eyed innocence belies the fact that she's been in Washington, forever it seems, and knows all the rules. Just thinks those rules, and laws, don't apply to her though, too inconvenient?
Last Updated on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 10:39
To The Daily Sun,
Well, now that spring has arrived and the snow is melting and the flowers blooming, I suppose we will also have the billboard signs across from beautiful Hesky park in Meredith, advertising what is available on Main Street. I would think that by now, everyone knows what is on Main Street and if not, just drive up there — or walk.
I notice that as I get older with each birthday, different changes happen to my body. I noticed some liver spots. Well actually a lot of liver spots! Now, if they could only come together, I would probably have a wonderful tan all over and in the winter, people would think I had been to an island. I have, but it's called Long Island and it is in Moultonborough.
I also notice my skin changes, sometimes I might get a little pimple or two but I don't worry about that because my wrinkles hide them. There are some advantages to getting old and one of them is getting old. I was dusting the shelves in my dining room and there is a wedding picture of me and my husband — or my husband and I, whichever you prefer — and I almost didn't recognize myself. How time does fly and believe me it does. So to all you "old folks" out there, God bless you. To the young ones out there, just come to the local hangout, listen to our stories and have a good laugh. Happy Easter to all.
Barbara J. Perry
Last Updated on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 10:36
To The Daily Sun,
I've stated before that the Department of Fish and Game is in the throes of an $3.5 million shortfall in their 2015-16 bi-annual budget and expects to get a $1.5 million bailout from the state's general fund. So where is the rest of the money to come from?
The House Finance Committee's proposed HB-2, directs the department to raid dedicated funds. The proposed budget requires Fish & Game to use the Wildlife Habitat Account, RSA-214:1,F and the Fisheries Habitat Account, RSA 214:1,G, "to support staff costs, wages, salaries, benefits and other expenses of the department employees."
These two accounts are in place for the "management, preservation, conservation, restoration and maintenance of wildlife and fisheries habitat on both public and private lands" with 50 percent of the annual revenue to be dedicated to pay the cost of labor and materials for direct Wildlife and Aquatic management activities. Any remainder of funds in these accounts is to be used for the acquisition of private land to protect critical wildlife and fisheries habitat.
In addition, the $5 boat registration surcharge that is intended for the purposes of the statewide public boat access program, RSA 233-A:13, will now go to offset the operating expenses of the department and its employees.
None of the monies from these three accounts was ever intended to be used to "fund" staff or operating expenses. By diverting this money from its intended purposes the department fails in its primary mission and we might as well change the name to the Department of semi-public Bait Hunting and Fishing Employee Support Fund.
This is just another Band-Aid solution, what happens in the 2017-18 bi-annual budget? What other programs will be gutted?
Eric T. Rottenecker
Last Updated on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 10:33
To The Daily Sun,
Mr. Earle, maybe all the info your looking for are inside that machine you use to type out all those interesting, factual letters to the editor. Amazing the stuff that is in there but what to or not to believe is the hard part. I'll try my best just for you this time and then, with some help, you might be able to find out the answers to your questions.
"Fast and Furious" was a tough one but the machine had lots of articles about it. Back in 2006 under G.W. Bush there was a program called "Operation Wide Receiver", which ran for a year. Under Obama it was called "Fast and Furious" and the general idea was to create mayhem within the drug cartels. This was according to Rush.
Obama wanted to enforce the existing gun laws, restore the existing bans on certain gun. This was started by Clinton but Bush let it lapse. Obama tried to restart it but was unable to. It was also meant to curb border violence. Obama was working with Mexican President Filipe Calderon. They sold about 2,000 guns of which around 700 were recovered, killed around 300 Mexicans but unfortunately this also included a border agent named Terry. Nobody was ever arrested.
Benghazi is a problem that may never be solved to anyone's satisfaction. I went to Google it and only by some luck was able to read any article posted. Then the ads would appear and that ended that. But from what I saw was enough to tell me that the ambassador didn't have to die and should have been saved. I didn't find out why he was there to begin with.
Were you also interested in all the embassy attacks and people killed while Bush was in office? There were 13 attacks on us and 60 of our people killed while Bush was in charge. On Aug. 6, 2001, he was handed a note concerning an impending attack by Bin Laden but the note was ignored. We lost 2,996 on 9/11 which was followed by 2,201 in Afghanistan and 4,491 in Iraq. But Bush will be well remembered for his comments of Mission Accomplished and Treated as Liberators. Most of this information was from the web site of Mark Maynard.
You can do the fact-checking.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 10:30
To The Daily Sun,
Tuesday's Laconia Daily Sun inadvertently contained a great lesson on how individual citizens can influence the legislative process. On Page 5 was a letter from me explaining some disastrous actions taken by the House Finance Committee last week. It included the e-mail address of the Laconia representative who sits on House Finance.
On Page 4 of the same paper was a very brief letter from Johan Anderson, of Gilford, giving a spot-on description of a term much bandied about in the budget process: "We can't afford it". In Tuesday's Concord Monitor, Casey McDermott wrote about how, on Monday, Finance Division III, abruptly backed off the disastrous cuts I wrote about. The reasoning reported by Mr. McDermott: the revenue projections are "a moving target" and when the target "shifted", miraculously money became more available so the cuts were reversed. Don't count on this being the last word on the subject.
It's clear the real reason the cuts were reversed was the reaction of ordinary sensible citizens communicated to the Finance leadership. Want proof? In the same article, Mr. McDermott reported that both Division III Chairman Dick Barry and Committee Chairman Neal Kurk admitted that they had heard directly from citizens concerned about the impact, and that this decision was "the one we were most reluctant to make". Funny how money suddenly became available as soon as the people found out about the cuts.
So if you hear about some legislation you like, or some you don't, don't be afraid to go the state website, nh.gov, and, on the House of Representatives click on "Find a Legislator", and then on "Who's my legislator?" You don't have to wait for an election to influence legislative action.
David O. Huot
Last Updated on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 10:22