A+ A A-

I want to hear a real debate; let's see which candidates shine

To The Daily Sun,

The first of many Republican debates was last week.

I listened to it as best I could on Fox radio on the Internet.

Some candidates were asked more questions than others. I thought it was to be equal time.

Rand Paul was supreme when he told Chris Christie to get a warrant. We could hire more judges and have them work on a 24 hour basis so that the authorities could get warrants. I am not willing to give my rights up so easily.

Trump was asked about his war on women and Hillary. If anyone has a war on women it is Hillary. She smeared anyone who had an affair with her husband. It did not matter that the women were telling the truth and her husband was not. And she knew it.

She also did not pay women employees in her Senate office and State Department offices the same as men employees. So I would not worry about comparing Trump to Hillary in the war on women.

Megyn Kelly has the nerve to talk about war on women when she used her sexuality on cover of a magazine. Since then, all we have heard in the news is about Trump and Megyn Kelly.

Trump did say the Mexican government knows the immigrant situation and why are we not discussing that.

The New York Times stated that first quarter 2015 remittances (that means in the first three months of 2015 legal and illegal immigrants send money home to Mexico in small amounts) of $5.6 billion. Yes folks, $5.6 billion that is helping the Mexican economy. Can you imagine if that money were spent in our economy, how would that help our economy? That is just three months. These numbers came from the Bank of Mexico.

It also stated that Mexico is the largest source of immigrants in the U.S.

So, they take American jobs that Americans once held and then send the money back to Mexico to help Mexico's economy.

Why was this not in the debate?

I heard some pundits say that Trump was not prepared. Isn't that why people like him? He is not spinning stories but telling us what he feels.

I do not want to hear "Secure the border first", any more. I want to know exactly how they are going to secure our border. Fences, walls, a moat ... I do not care; I want to know exactly what they are going to do.

I did not hear from Ted Cruz so much. Fox, are you afraid of what he will say?

Kudos to Ben Carson for his humor as the only one to take out half a brain, but Washington seems to have beaten him on this. I want to hear more from him.

Carly Fiorina seems to have won the first. Let's see more of her too.

The debate was a farce. I do not know any more about the candidates than I knew before.

Since the debate, Bush went down in the polls dramatically and up went Cruz, Carson and Fiorina. Trump is still Number 1. What does this tell us? We the people do not want government insiders and what the media and the Republican National Committee want as our candidate.

Slowly, Bernie Sanders is coming up in the polls and Hillary is going down. But Hillary is the anointed one. But guess what? People really do not want her.

We do not want to pay games and have business as usual in Washington, D.C. We want change but not the hope and change of Obama.

I want a real debate, where the candidates have the time to say exactly what they are going to do? Talk, yell back and forth to each other and see who really shines, so in a discussion with foreign leaders, we will know who can stand tall and on his/her own two feet and strongly represent this country.

I want the candidates to spend more on the answers than the moderators do on the questions.

I want a real debate. I think most people do too but the media and the political parties get involved and it is a reality show. I want the candidates to talk more than the commentators.

I want a real debate. I do not want any fluff. I do not want to know what they are for or against. We know that. I want to know exactly what they will do to get or country out of debt. I want to know how our borders will be secured. Fence, wall, National Guard. I want specifics and you cannot get specifics in a minute.

This upcoming election is important. It could be a turning point for this country and I want to know exactly who I am going to elect.

I do not care about your personal life. What team you like. I want what our future president will do exactly on day one and day two and going forward to get this country out of the situation it is in now.

We the people deserve to really see our candidates in action.

Linda Riley

Last Updated on Monday, 17 August 2015 09:11

Hits: 69

Defunding Planned Parenthood is attack on woman's right to choose

To The Daily Sun,

With hidden camera equipment, anti-abortion activists have surreptitiously recorded hours of video tape with physicians at Planned Parenthood. The group went on to claim that edited video shows that PP sells the body parts of aborted fetuses, a serious felony throughout the United States. As a former news broadcaster, who has watched the video, I can testify that the tape does not demonstrate any wrongdoing, even though it was selectively edited.

Actually, current law specifically states that women who have abortions can choose to donate fetal tissue for research, while providers like PP and hospitals can be reimbursed for costs involved in the process, but cannot profit from the donation.

Despite these facts, Republicans have latched on to the controversy with gusto, calling for the complete defunding of Planned Parenthood. Many have said they would support a government shutdown, if PP is funded in September. Senator Ted Cruz, a radical, anti-abortion proponent, has so distorted the truth that he recently called for the defunding of PP for "profiting off the bodies they have stolen."

Speaking on the campaign trail, Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton said, "It's really an attack on a women's right to choose, to make the most personal, difficult decisions that any woman would face, based on her faith, and the medical advice she's given. I'm hoping that this situation will not further undermine the very important services that Planned Parenthood provides across our country."

Apparently, a vast majority of the people here in New Hampshire agree with Ms. Clinton in a new poll. Seventy-five percent of Republicans, Democrats and Independents in our state have said they do not want the Republicans to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood and 65 percent say the federal government should continue to fund PP.

Nick Vazzana


Last Updated on Monday, 17 August 2015 08:57

Hits: 87

Almost 3X as many people die from auto accidents as gun homicides

To The Daily Sun,

This is in response to Johan Anderson's letter in the Aug. 13 edition of The Sun:

That you believe repealing the Second Amendment will magically reduce the number of gun deaths proves to me that you have little, if any understanding of either who actually perpetrates a majority of the gun-related deaths in the U.S. or the reasoning behind the Second Amendment.

First, if you bothered to look at the crime statistics, something easily found at the U.S. Department of Justice website, you would see that very few gun deaths are attributable to law-abiding citizens owning/carrying/using guns. Of those who do, most were committed during an act of self-defense. Most of those killing other people with guns are criminals, people who already have little or no regard for the law. You'd find that the guns they used are either already illegal to own (fully-automatic weapons, i.e. machine guns), were stolen, or smuggled in to the U.S.

Were gun ownership banned tomorrow and law-abiding citizens were to voluntarily give up their guns, how many homicides would be prevented? The answer: very few. The criminals wouldn't give up their guns. What you would have is a populace no longer able to protect itself and a criminal element give free rein because they know no one other than their fellow criminals will be armed. The homicide rate would skyrocket ... but you'd feel better because there are fewer guns out there.

Second, if you took a closer look at the crime statistics you'd find that states which have the least restrictive gun laws also have the lowest rates of violent crime, including murder. How do you reconcile your suggestion that doing away with the right for the people to own and bear arms will reduce gun deaths when the statistics say just the opposite? Is your suggestion based upon emotion rather than logic and cold hard facts?

Third, if you look at the crime statistics over the past four decades, you'd see the overall violent crime rate has been declining. If you look at the number of gun deaths, not including suicides, in 2013 (the most recent I could find), there were 11,208 gun deaths in the U.S. How many traffic fatalities were there in that same year? 32,719.

Almost three times as many people die from traffic accidents as die from gun homicides. Maybe we should ban cars and trucks because they kill a lot of people. I will admit that the number of suicides committed with a gun that same year were quite high, about 21,175. But if you ask anyone familiar with the psychology of suicide, you'd find that most of the people who killed themselves with a gun would have used other means to do so if guns weren't available.

Fourth, the Second Amendment was put into place by the framers of the Constitution for a good reason: To allow the people to defend themselves against miscreants, and more specifically, against a tyrannical government should ours devolve into such a state. If you think that can never happen, then you have ignored the evidence of history that proves otherwise. The framers knew this was a possibility and made sure we would have the means to defend ourselves against such tyranny.

I will not abridge your right to not own or carry a gun. But don't even think of abridging my right to own or carry mine.

Dale Channing Eddy


Last Updated on Monday, 17 August 2015 08:53

Hits: 68

I believe in 'peace through strength', not in 'give peace a chance'

To The Daily Sun,

I read with mixed emotions, the letter by Lynn Rudmin Chong regarding the 70th anniversary of the bombings on Japan to bring about their surrender. Of course, we do feel bad for all the dead in all wars, and the Japanese people are no exception. Others have written about the well known fact that so many more lives were spared by this country's use of the atomic bomb. Thank God it was the United States that first had a nuclear weapon and has not used it since.

This country has not taken lands conquered, but instead has spent billions to help rebuild those countries. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki today in comparison to our own Detroit, the former Paris of the Midwest. We still have troops protecting Germany and South Korea. We gave the Philippines, a U.S. territory, back its independence on July 4, 1946. This country has attained more power than any previous country on this earth and yet has used it more judiciously than has any previous empire. We give more in foreign aid than has any previous country having attained the status of the most powerful, despite our enormous personal debt.

Lynn and the various groups commemorating this important date in history are calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. I wonder if this group has any idea how to accomplish this onerous task? We could not keep North Korea from developing a nuclear weapon. The deal that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are trying to push through unconstitutionally will not keep Iran from continuing their development of a nuclear weapon.

Why did the Soviet Union not dare to fire a nuclear weapon at us. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) worked with the Russians. They did not want to die in the name of Allah as do the Iranian leadership who are teaching their children to believe in martyrdom and death to Israel and death to America.

Lynn, until all the world peace organizations can come up with a way for all the evil that exists in the world to give up their nuclear weapons in a way that we can verify (forget about trust), I want this country to keep our nuclear arsenal and build back up a strong military. Do you disagree, Lynn?

Surely you don't think that the United States should lead by example and diminish our nuclear stockpiles? To believe that if we "just give peace a chance," the world will see how wonderful it is and put down its arms, is pure folly and potentially lethal.

Demosthenes reminded us, "Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are grim reminders of the devastation that can be wrought by a nuclear war which would be far worse than what occurred 70 years ago. Most countries will understand that and be disinclined to use their weapons, as was the Soviet Union. However, Iran and radical Islam are far different from the West. It is pure evil, and the fact that the leftist doctrine in this country pretend otherwise is a deadly fools errand. Taqiyya is a word best learned by our leaders and very soon.

Remember the 16th century English proverb, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride?" Generally meant to imply that better results will be achieved through actions rather than just "thinkin' and a-prayin', wishin' and a-hopin' and love him and show him that you care" as Dusty Springfield once sang.

That seems to be the philosophy of the pacifist and appeasement crowd. And the philosophy of the left is to hate those who fight evil. That being the United States of America. Just ask Professors Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama's former Green Jobs czar, Van Jones, just to name a few.

Lynn, until the day that those who just want to "give peace a chance" can figure out how to convince all the evil that exists in the world to buy into that concept, I'll just go on believing in "peace through strength" and believing that this country has been and still is exceptional. Until history, for the first time ever, proves otherwise, I will continue to believe in what Dennis Prager says about our survival — "Warriors make peace and peace activists make war."

America's soul does seem to be in the lost and found. Who will come along to claim it and preserve this great Judeo-Christian nation of ours? Yes I know, words from Aretha Franklin's, "Natural Woman". I just love those 1960s female singers don't you?

Russ Wiles


Last Updated on Monday, 17 August 2015 08:47

Hits: 48

Don't include non-recyclable material with your advertising flyers

To The Daily Sun,

(The other day), I received a junk mailing from a Lakes Region business which causes me to write. We receive advertising mailings all the time, and it all ends up in recycling. However, this mailer had a plastic "combination box" attached to it with the instruction to pull out the tab and see if your number matched the winning numbers in the flyer. When the tab is pulled, the number in the "combination box" lights up, indicating a power source is inside.

So what do I do with it? We have recycled as much as possible for years. Even before Gilford had single stream recycling, we'd take our recycling to Laconia. But now, we have no choice. It cannot be recycled. We have throw this into the garbage, and thus the landfill. Perhaps businesses could show a little civic responsibility by not including non-recyclable material with their advertising flyers.

Joel Edinburg


Last Updated on Monday, 17 August 2015 08:37

Hits: 46

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