Frank LaFerriere: What makes Chrisitan theocracy better than Muslim one?

To the editor,

So Della, mimicking Donald Trump's fake news lies, eh? Well, Della, all of my information I wrote about in my last letter is not fake news. I got my information by watching Trump's interviews and his recorded and videoed words. I got my info from my research of all the cases brought against Trump by the N.Y. Attorney General's office, as well as the U.S. Attorney General's case files on him. I got my info from the Mueller investigation and the new investigation started by the N.Y. Attorney General's office against Trump. You can all call this fake news, but that again means you are in fact living in the Twilight Zone.

So, you talk about Christian morals? I guess my morals are much higher than Christian ones then.

See, my morals will not allow me to support and defend treason against the United States perpetrated by President Trump and the Republicans. But I guess yours and your fellow defenders of Trump do.

They will not allow me to support a person who thinks, because he is rich, he has a right to sexually assault any woman he comes upon. My mother taught me to respect women, and she would roll over in her grave and come back and slap me in the face if I supported Trump and his outrageous misogyny against women.

My morals will not allow me to support a person who has surrounded himself with admitted racists, bigots and white supremacists like Stephen Bannon. Or neo-Nazis. See Della, we fought Hitler and his Nazi Positive Christianity movement as he called it, and millions died in his death camps and real brave men and women gave up their lives fighting this evil during World War II. To support Trump and his neo-Nazis would be a slap in the face to each and every brave man and woman who died fighting the Nazis and all those who died in his death camps.

You talk about the innocent Christians who are being killed by Islamists? I have studied the true history of your religion for almost 40 years now — the history that Christians love to either deny or minimize, or justify or lie about. Christianity, in my opinion, is no better than the Muslim religion, and I thoroughly condemn them both. Crusades, Inquisitions, genocides of pagans and Native Americans, and yes, Muslims. Torture tools used by Catholic and Protestant Christians against their fellow human beings. What about modern times? In the last five years in the United States alone, Christians have murdered hundreds of LBGTs, atheists and pagans. In Nigeria and Uganda? Christians there are butchering LGBTs, atheists and those whom they proclaim as witches. Christians committed unwarranted genocides in such countries as Bosnia, Rwanda, Croatia and other countries.

Christians love to persecute others under their moral code of the Christian religion, yet when anyone dares stand up to their crap? Why they cry how we are persecuting them. Funny, the persecutors crying persecution because we will not allow them to bring back their Dark Ages theocratic nightmares of death and brutality, because we will not allow them to turn our secular government and destroy the separation of church and state and put their theocratic government in place. Christians scream against Muslims installing Sharia law here, but have got no problem with installing their version of Christian Sharia law in the United States. What makes Chrisitans any different than Muslims who wish to do this? There is no difference, they are both the same. I know how you Christians do not like the truth or the facts, but too bad, so sad, because I will never stop speaking the truth or the facts about your religion or the Muslim religion.

In closing, Della, my morals are in fact, much higher than those of Christians, Trump or Republicans. My morality means I must fight this, tooth and nail, exposing it and standing up to it.

Yes Della, you and your fellow Republicans and Christians do in fact, live in the Twilight Zone if you think I or people like me — who are the true patriots and fight to keep the words of the Founding Fathers, of freedom and justice for all, of equal rights for all, of each and every person's right to their own pursuit of happiness — are going to lay down for Christians or Muslims. We will not allow the separation of church and state rules of the Founding Fathers to be violated any longer by Christians either.

Yes, Della, my morals seem to be way much higher than yours and your fellow Republicans and Christians, who absolutely do love living in the Twilight Zone of denial and ignorance.

Frank LaFerriere
Berlin

 

Della Cartier: We must work to become an exceptional Godly person

To the editor: 
Response to Frank LaFerriere:
I found myself saddened by a recent letter written by Frank LaFerriere and couldn't help but wonder: What ghosts are walking in his shadow? What is the cause of the meanness in his heart? Why the abject bitterness that serves no good or purpose directed.
Mr. LaFerriere, I do not live in a Republican Twilight Zone, nor do the people I know. We share common concerns and worry about the future of our country and world for our children and grandchildren. We are living in a dangerous and insane world. A world where good and godly menwomen and children are murdered and run down by evil Islamic terrorists in the name of Allah. A world where people are homeless, hungry and can't afford life-saving medical care. A flawed and failed educational system that has no respect for family values and morals. A society where no one has been untouched by the loss of loved ones from the drug and opiate crisis. We are living in a world of self-absorbed madness and shallow and nihilistic people. Crazy dictators with fingers on nuclear weapons waiting to start the third world war. It is an American divide that keeps getting wider when individuals such as yourself spew the hatefulness aimed at your neighbors and fellow citizens.
I chose not to point to paragraphs full of misinformation, accusations, mean rhetoric and the useless opinions that are none of my business. It would be a waste of my valuable time. Time better spent praying that God grant wisdom to our leaders to keep us safe in an unsafe and uncertain world. Time better spent to do good deeds for those less fortunate. Time to pray for the victims of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma who need our heartfelt prayers and help.The untold stories of heroism that we will never hear about as the media gasps and gapes at the ridiculous and vile antics of hollow college snowflakes demanding that historic statues be torn down and destroyed and that conservative values and morals be trampled on.
We like to think that in this day and age of the Internet, 24-hour television news, and other social media communications that we know everything that is happening in the world minute-by-minute. That everyone is an "expert" on the current crisis. We worry and concern ourselves with it when the time could be given to our spouses, children and neighbors. We do not unplug from the noise and never-ending opinions of the so-called experts. Then we argue. It never ceases. We argue with our spouseschildren, family members, friends and even people we do not know. However, the real truth is that we — none of us — are experts, and little is in our sphere of influence or control. Opinions are nobody's business, yet we continue to allow them to harm our relationships and alienate us from doing the better good.
I look around and see the good and loving deeds fulfilled with virtue and valor by neighbors and fellow countrymen for those less fortunate. If we cannot be decent as a collective society, then we must be decent individually.
If our country is to survive as an exceptional nation, then each and every one of us must work to become an exceptional Godly person. Love him or hate him, our President needs all of our collective support. Instead of useless ranting, practice the tenants of Hope, Faith and Charity. The world and our country needs this now, and our only chance is to become it if we are to survive. 
Della Cartier 
Loudon

Bill Dwyer: Money could have been used to lower taxes

To the editor:
Well, I see that our city manager is predicting no raise in taxes. I find that kinda humorous, being an election year and all. Maybe if we would have had legitimate budgets, taxes woulda went down, and instead of “finding” this extra $800,000 we would have had lower taxes. But now we've got this money: What to do, what to do? Let’s spend it on lights and other wish-list items. Coulda lowered our taxes but gotta spend it. And I see that our sister city has finally charged their employee for embezzlement. The way I read it, she did this over a period of seven years and turned herself in as they were closing in after seven years. Seven years? I hope whoever did their audits over the years isn’t the same company that does ours.
Bill Dwyer
Berlin

Dennis M. Tupick: I have concerns over GRS Cooperative withdrawal study

To the editor:

I'm writing this letter to Randolph residents to provide you with an update and to express my deep concern over the status of the Gorham Randolph Shelburne Cooperative Withdrawal Study and forthcoming recommendation it will produce.

At the Aug. 28 meeting, there was a recommendation that a final decision be made in the upcoming meeting, scheduled for Sept. 15. It is my strong opinion that this vote is premature, and I'm asking you to seek a delay for one month to allow for a proper conclusion to the study. Up to now, there has been absolutely no cooperation within the group to objectively look at Randolph’s education options, with the study group focusing only on justifications to maintain the status quo. Sadly, neither Selectman John Turner or School Board member Gayle Ruble have provided any input whatsoever to fulfilling the charter Randolph residents imposed on the cooperative — to conduct a thorough study inclusive of alternatives to the present obsolete and costly cooperative agreement.

Because this is a very complex, costly and emotional issue, I'm asking selectmen to immediately schedule a town-wide school withdrawal status meeting so Randolph residents can be involved in the process. This is a necessary step, and any decision-making going forward made by Randolph’s representatives must consider the will of our residents.

To additionally emphasize how important it is for you to intervene, I want you to consider a new state Senate Bill, signed in June with an effective date of Aug. 28. Senate Bill 8-FN specifically addresses education in small towns that don't have public schools in their district, which Randolph would be eligible to enact. You can find the final version on the gencourt.state.nh.us website. I also want you to consider that left unchecked, it is highly probable that Randolph's cost per student will continue to escalate as state aid to Gorham diminishes and Gorham’s property tax rates explode to adjust for the loss. One Gorham representative even stated that some residents in Gorham do not think Randolph is paying its share — even though Randolph’s actual cost per student is over 100 percent more than Gorham’s actual cost per student absent state aid. It is my conservative estimate that at the current trajectory, our cost per student will reach $30,000 within five years. Unsustainable by any measure, and the study committee has refused to consider any forward thinking whatsoever to discuss how to control these costs, especially when there are alternatives we must consider as stewards of our neighbors good will.

I think we all acknowledge that there's no free ride when it comes to education but one thing’s for certain, costs in the cooperative will escalate disproportionally if left unchecked. Alternatively, if we act today we can put Randolph on a more independent, cost effective and pragmatic course rich in educational alternatives. For example, Milan and Dummer have enacted tuition agreements with SAU 3 in Berlin, but preserved the options of school choice to the benefit of their community. The same is true of other small districts contracting services from SAU 36 (White Mountains Regional School District). Similarly, Randolph could put in place tuition agreements with SAU 3, SAU 36 and SAU 20, and any other educational institution we feel would most benefit our community. Given that SAU 20 services have diminished considerably and now lacks in-house vocational education in its program of studies, it might be suggested that Randolph’s educational needs might be better served through access to other institutions such as SAU 3 and SAU 36, which are rich in vocational opportunities. It is also important to note that throughout this study process, representatives of SAU 20 have sadly threatened to not allow Randolph students to attend school in Gorham should we decide to withdraw — a ridicules threat and unlikely outcome should we withdraw, but attempts to get an answer to this question from the study group have gone unanswered. It is my strong recommendation that this issue be resolved prior to scheduling a final withdrawal study determination.

As for my involvement in the study, I volunteered to be on the study committee for several purposes, one of which was to keep the study process and forthcoming recommendation from being hijacked by the status quo leaving the residents of Randolph stuck in an agreement without any cost controls going forward. Unfortunately, my fears were justified and absent your immediate intervention, we will be delivered an incomplete study biased by defenders of the status quo — people who have made no contribution to researching contract alternatives or investigating school choice options. To the contrary, I have been shut down and viciously attacked by them and others when I have tried to introduce the subject of switching to tuition agreements and the option of allowing school choice.

For example, at Monday’s meeting, my wife and I were wrongfully accused of seeking some form of special financial benefit for our daughter’s education at the expense of the retired residents of Randolph. That is utter nonsense, and these inflammatory attacks are neither warranted nor helpful and provide no substantive input whatsoever to this process. A process started because the Randolph community acknowledged that the GRS Cooperative per-student costs have become unsustainable by any measure. Of even greater concern, there was a conversation between Randolph representatives questioning how the voting process would work and seeking any way that they could somehow exclude my vote from Randolph’s input.

As for the withdrawal process itself, I find it imperative that the residents of Randolph be informed of the mechanics of the withdrawal process and specifically what to expect going forward. Alarmingly, it has been suggested by legal counsel to SAU 20 that Randolph entered into an agreement we cannot vote ourselves out of, even though we’ve fulfilled the 10-year contract terms. State laws appear to require, in a very allusive way, that Randolph must be “allowed” to exit the agreement by the cooperative. Yes, that means that Gorham and Shelburne will control any decision-making given Randolph’s minority status. When this process was discussed in the withdrawal study group, I was told we, “we, the residents of Randolph,” should have asked what the definition of what "we" meant before we entered into the cooperative agreement! I was also told by members from Shelburne that they had no intention of voting to allow Randolph out of the agreement because of the probable financial impact to Shelburne in a two-town cooperative.

Finally, I strongly suggest we — the Randolph we — schedule a special school board meeting as early as possible, next weekend if the town hall is available, to discuss among ourselves our educational needs, what alternatives we have as a small community, the probable costs to exit and operate on our own, the impact of the loss of state aid, and yes Senate Bill 8-FN — school choice. I recommend that you coordinate this meeting with our town legal counsel so they can be present to address the contractual issues associated with the cooperative agreement and the process to exit it, issues which, given the circumstances, will need to be resolved going forward and to ensure Randolph is protected from any further wrongful actions.

Dennis M. Tupick
Randolph

 

Roger M. Clemons: A simple solution: Don’t require voters to declare party

To the editor:

I have read and listened to, with interest, various opinions both pro and con, regarding the issue of voter checklists.

I believe I have a simple solution: remove the requirement for declaring party affiliation and let the parties deal with proposing candidates for various offices.

An individual can still remain a member of a particular party, but it removes the phishing expedition in order to “gerrymander” political districts. This isn’t really a problem in New Hampshire. We have two districts, south and north or, as I prefer to call it, the rich and the poor.

Given Texas’ issue of multiple court appearances and the resultant cost to the taxpayers of that state, it would behoove them to consider the possibility that they might not only save money but make for a more honest vote.

As for Social Security numbers and the current request for them by the president, I would suggest that your number is well-known to many groups both political and nefarious. I say that as one who has had his number hacked.

Roger M. Clemons

Bartlett