The blog is not dead, just resting as not much going on at the local level. Once we get past the 4th the Town may come alive with important matters of which you should be made aware.
Exercise your right to vote on the 4th. Plenty of brave men and women have shed their blood for our freedom, liberty and rights.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Sunday, October 19, 2014
People are smarter than that
In today’s Portsmouth Herald, Kate Murray pulls out the tired old liberal wag that Republicans have a “War on Women.” Kate starts off with saying that “it was not until 1920 that women nationally had the right to vote.” What she fails to mention that it is only through the dedicated efforts of Republicans that a woman’s right to vote ever came about. For years, Congressional Republicans put forth a Constitutional Amendment to allow women the right to vote, and each time Democrats voted it down. When it finally got through Congress, the majority of the states that passed the Amendment had Republican legislatures and Governors. The majority of states that voted it down had Democrat legislatures and Governors.
To support her argument against Republicans, Kate conflates a woman’s right to decide her own health care choices with an employers’ right to provide benefits to their employees. No one denies that a woman should have the right to decide whether to use contraceptives. However, that doesn’t mean that an employer must be forced to pay for that choice if it violates the employer’s religious belief. That is what the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision was all about.
Kate is purposely trying to confuse voters on this issue and, unfortunately, some people don’t understand the difference between the right to choose and the right to not be forced to pay for something that violates your religious beliefs. Hopefully, enough thoughtful people understand the difference and see through Kate's charade.
In today’s Portsmouth Herald, Kate Murray pulls out the tired old liberal wag that Republicans have a “War on Women.” Kate starts off with saying that “it was not until 1920 that women nationally had the right to vote.” What she fails to mention that it is only through the dedicated efforts of Republicans that a woman’s right to vote ever came about. For years, Congressional Republicans put forth a Constitutional Amendment to allow women the right to vote, and each time Democrats voted it down. When it finally got through Congress, the majority of the states that passed the Amendment had Republican legislatures and Governors. The majority of states that voted it down had Democrat legislatures and Governors.
To support her argument against Republicans, Kate conflates a woman’s right to decide her own health care choices with an employers’ right to provide benefits to their employees. No one denies that a woman should have the right to decide whether to use contraceptives. However, that doesn’t mean that an employer must be forced to pay for that choice if it violates the employer’s religious belief. That is what the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision was all about.
Kate is purposely trying to confuse voters on this issue and, unfortunately, some people don’t understand the difference between the right to choose and the right to not be forced to pay for something that violates your religious beliefs. Hopefully, enough thoughtful people understand the difference and see through Kate's charade.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Crabapple Artwork
The recent vandalism on the pillar at the entrance to Swasey Park followed vandalism at a cemetery in Exeter. Both were committed by youths. In the case of the former, the mother gave a conflicted accounting of her daughter's activity. On the one hand she commented that her daughter was only expressing herself in art, while on the other hand she admitted, after learning the crab apple "artwork" did not rinse off in the rain, her daughter should not have done what she did.
Vandalism, the defacing of property, shows a lack of respect for what belongs to the public. Clearly the mother has sent a mixed message to her daughter. To assume vandalism is acceptable if it can be washed away misses the point entirely. Defacing public property or the property of others is a criminal activity. It is unclear what the daughter's special needs are, but it does seem appropriate for her to perform some community service as amends for her act of vandalism.
On a final note, it is disturbing to read that individuals stood around as the young girl defaced the pillar. Did it not bother them that public property was being vandalized?
Vandalism, the defacing of property, shows a lack of respect for what belongs to the public. Clearly the mother has sent a mixed message to her daughter. To assume vandalism is acceptable if it can be washed away misses the point entirely. Defacing public property or the property of others is a criminal activity. It is unclear what the daughter's special needs are, but it does seem appropriate for her to perform some community service as amends for her act of vandalism.
On a final note, it is disturbing to read that individuals stood around as the young girl defaced the pillar. Did it not bother them that public property was being vandalized?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)