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

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 168

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

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 145

Mayor of Baltimore asked police to 'give (rioters) space to destroy'

To The Daily Sun,

America, our great country, used to be the "last best hope for mankind" for oppressed people all over the world. That is, up until the massive influence in our culture by liberals and leftist progressives to our way of life during the last few decades. We are now witnessing it being "transformed" right before our eyes. When Barack Hussein Obama campaigned for president in 2007 and 2008, he told us, flat out, that he would "fundamentally transform America!" Not many people really knew what that meant at that time, but because they didn't want to be thought of as racist, they voted for him anyway.

At a time when we have a black U.S. president and two consecutive black U.S. attorneys general, the black mayor of Baltimore says on video tape last Saturday night that she wanted the police to "give them space to destroy", referring to the rioters and looters who attempted to burn down the city Monday night. It still remains an unanswered question whether the Baltimore (black) police chief and black police commissioner, or anyone on the black city council gave orders for the police not to engage the rioters and looters, but rather, to "stand down". If we find that they, in fact, did that, then the major question regarding why this whole incident happened will be answered, that they too have bought into the un-American idea that we need to "fundamentally transform America".

Because there has been very little in the way of condemnation by the president, or anyone else in local "leadership" positions in Baltimore, many people all across this great country have begun to realize just what Obama meant by "fundamentally transform America".

Blacks make up a total of about 13 percent of this nation's population, yet over 90 percent of all young black deaths in inner cities are perpetrated by other young blacks, mostly by black criminal gangs. And almost every major city in this country is headed by black leaders, black mayors, black police officials, etc. The problem is, all these young black youths hear from those "leaders" is, "You are a victim, you have cause to be angry and violent."

If you think that what happened in Baltimore this week was justified, or even, according to some, long overdue, then you simply need to stay on the sofa and do nothing. Keep making excuses for this violence at all levels, but you also must then start counting the days before this great country completely collapses in on itself.

However, if you are disgusted and outraged by the permissiveness of parents and municipal officials in almost every major city, who allow this sort of thing to happen, then you must begin to speak out, and keep speaking out, and do not be intimidated by people you know, who, because of their leftist ideology, continue to make excuses for them, who think that our problems can only be solved by putting massive amounts of more money into larger and larger government.

It used to be that if someone, white or black, was seen looting, they would be shot on sight! But because of their "rules of engagement" the Baltimore police were under, all they could do was throw the rocks that were being thrown at them back at the looters and rioters! This is a very sad state of affairs. The mayor of Baltimore denies having said what she said, but every cable and TV news station in the country has her words on video tape, and please know this: her words were not taken out of context, not withstanding what the left-wing media is saying about it.

As of midday on Tuesday, not one word of condemnation of the violence and destruction had been spoken by any elected Baltimore official.

That is an outrage...

Jim McCoole


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 378

N.Y. Times & Washington Post are now part of right-wing conspiracy?

To The Daily Sun,

I've been waiting and watching all week to see how Hillary Clinton's supporters were going to try to defend her from herself? Mostly I hear and read the same old, same old, it's all a vast right wing conspiracy thing; there is no proof. By proof I guess they mean she hasn't made a tearful full confession and thrown herself on a flaming pyre because there is sure a lot of circumstantial evidence.

As for some right wing conspiracy, this reporting is all coming from the N.Y. Times, Washington Post, and all the rock solid Democratic supporting sources. According to them, the Clinton Foundation has reaped millions from doing quid pro quo favors for all kinds of nefarious foreign sources including the sale of one fifth of the U.S. uranium production to the Russians for which about $135 million flowed into the Clinton Foundation and Bill got a $500,000 speaking fee to speak over there. Now these are not proof but damning evidence none the less of wrong doing. Add to that Hillary destroying all her "private information" on her servers makes Richard Nixon look like a choir boy. (And we thought it was all just to cover up her Benghazi incompetence.)
Can't say the Clintons are ever dull or boring. Decade after decade, year after year, and lately week after week, it's one dubious thing after the next. In the old days it was the Rose Law Firm and White Water questions. Bills numerous women problems, quickly dispatched, until Monica's little blue dress, on and on until here we are. Now it's not just indiscretions and blunders, now it may be criminal? So stay tuned for future episodes of the Clinton Soap Opera folks, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Steve Earle


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 223

Only 20% of HHS dollars go to clients in form of direct services

To The Daily Sun,
I am writing in response to a letter from Susan Michaels Gunther, which was printed on April 23. I would like to say that I understand her angst over having to advocate repetitively for a loved one's disability services. Ms. Gunther shamed the House of Representatives and accused them of "trying to eviscerate the state" because of the lack of funding for services to the disabled. This year, the House of Representatives appropriated a total amount of $5.5 billion dollars for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for the 2016/17 biennium. This represents an increase to the total funding for DHHS of $141 million over the current biennium! Where does all that money go? Not to those with disabilities you say, Ms. Gunther? Well you're right. I was told about 20 percent goes to direct services for those living with disabilities and an estimated 80 percent goes to salaries, benefits, retirement, raises, vehicles, cell phones, and the list goes on and on.

The people "eviscerating" the budget are those who are employed to ensure people with disabilities get their services! The taxpayers are paying handsomely to be helpful to those in need. I don't know any taxpayer who would delay funding to those who are truly in need. Both the taxpayers and the people with disabilities are seeing the short end of the stick. When you think about $5.5 billion dollars being allocated and all the while people are on wait lists for funding to get their needs met, it's beyond awful. Ms. Gunther, you are correct that something is drastically wrong however, the fault does not lay at the feet of the House of Representatives.
Barbara Howard

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 245