Fool Time Job

Apparently, some of our friends on the extreme Left here in Town have been resorting to some rather nasty tactics in their desperation to get their candidates re-elected to the Supervisor's seat and the Town Board. I've gotten several reports from people who say that people have been calling them under the guise of doing a survey and asking who they were supporting for Supervisor. When the person being queried responds "Carl Chipman," the so-called "pollsters" launch into a diatribe against Carl, focusing on whether or not Carl will have the time to work full time as Supervisor.

This is a classic example of political operatives trying to frame the debate according to terms which are favorable to them. However, referring to the Supervisor's job as "full time" brings to the forefront a far more important question:

How competent can the current Supervisor be at her job when she needs to dedicate full time hours to performing her duties? No previous Supervisor has had to do so. The people of this Town were never asked if we wanted to pay a full time Supervisor. This is a Town of under 8,000 people. What on Earth could have changed in the job from 2003 to today that would turn the job from a part time, small town public service position to a full time, big money burden to the person currently holding the office? Our population didn't double in four short years. The job is no more difficult today than when the Supervisor's predecessor ran our Town.

The previous Supervisor kept our taxes down, with zero tax increases for several years. The current Supervisor inflates her salary immensely amidst out of control tax increases. The previous Supervisor had time to make sure that we all felt like neighbors (except for those who chose not to for political purposes). The current Supervisor takes the time out of her busy schedule to intentionally divide this community into "us" versus "them." The previous Supervisor knew almost everyone by name. The current Supervisor wants to force out everyone she is unfamiliar with and many whom she happens to know. The previous Supervisor didn't speak of Open Government but made sure that we all had our say. The current Supervisor believes in "Closed Open Government" and censors the Townspeople in public forums, forcing many of our elderly and even some disabled neighbors into the winter cold before suspending a Town meeting because she didn't like what we were saying.

By her actions, the current Supervisor has defined her job as full time, abusive, intrusive and dictatorial. What we need is someone who will refrain from defining the position according to his own ideas, someone who understands that the position of Supervisor belongs to the people of the Town of Rochester and wants us to define the office. What we need is someone who, rather than Supervising the Town, will be the Town's Supervisor, someone who will do the people's work rather than working over the people.

The Supervisor's challenger, Carl Chipman, has been endorsed and is supported by not only the Conservative and Republican Parties, but by a coalition made up of members of both those Parties and of Democrats, Independence Party members and those who have chosen not to join a political party. He has former officers of the Democratic Party in his corner. When the Democratic rank and file was denied the opportunity to choose between Supervisor Duke and Carl Chipman, over half of them walked out of the Democratic Caucus.

The support he is receiving transcends party lines and political philosophies. It is a sign that the people of this Town both trust his ability to run our Town as we would have him do and that we recognize the fact that our current Town Board is tearing this Town apart and doing so intentionally.

At a recent Public Hearing, we were told by the supporters of the extremists on our Town Board that we don't need to take our Town back, we need to take our Town forward. Very clever, but what do you do when the ship you are taking forward is headed for the rocks? Do you refuse to admit that the course on which you embarked is a course towards disaster? Or do you accept your responsibility for the catastrophic path you have taken, stop and find another way?

There is no choice, we need to take our Town back and there is only one way to do so. This Town needs Carl Chipman as our Supervisor and his running mates, Tavi Cilenti and Manuela Mihailescu, on the Town Board. We need to turn to a sane, sensible course and become rural, neighborly, friendly once again.

The question is not one of how many hours the Supervisor spends in Town Hall, it is whether we want divisiveness and dictatorial disdain or unifying public service.

You decide.

Next, They'll Say the Earth is Flat

My recent post on Civil Disobedience garnered the following comment:

Anonymous said...

Between your love of Lincoln and your admiration for Thoreau you seem to be hinting at something much deeper than politics.

Imre, it's ok to come out, you're not alone.

Number one, the extremists still don't have the courage to own up to their comments, insisting on anonymity. Doing so is not only childish but cowardly. Apparently, no amount of open discussion and debate on our part will convince them to act in a civilized, adult manner. I don't know if they are simply embarrassed by their own statements or if they're joining Jane Fonda in declaring "I am Viet Cong" while lobbing guerrilla remarks at their opponents. Either way, there is a distinct lack of willingness to engage in mature political debate. Ironic that the commenter should say "it's ok to come out" [sic] when he or she is unwilling to do so.

As to the crux of the comment, it seems to me that there has been an attempt over the past few weeks to make something of a certain remark that "there is nothing straight about Pam Duke." It is being alleged that that sentence is an allusion to her private life and that her lifestyle choices are her own and do not belong in the political realm. I, for one, happen to agree. Personal aspects of one's life should not be up to public debate even if one is a public figure. The other side of the equation, of course, is that "nothing straight" may not have anything whatsoever to do with sexuality and everything to do with the inability demonstrated by the Supervisor and the Board to be open with the people of this Town. The remark seems to have been in answer to a particular headline ("Straight Talk from Pam Duke"). Given that the word "straight" first came out in support of the Supervisor, wouldn't it be fair to use the same word in rebuttal? Sometimes overly sensitive people see boogeymen in every closet and under every bed.

That having been said, it strikes me as more than a bit hypocritical that a critic of this blog (who, one would assume by extension, is a supporter of Supervisor Duke and her Board) would use a remark about homosexuality, even if the intent was humorous, as an insult or attack. Apparently, comments on homosexuality meant to be denigrating or belittling are fair game if you're a Liberal but "bigoted" or "homophobic" if you're a Conservative.

With regard to the historical accuracy of the statements, they are dubious, at best. Henry David Thoreau, although disdainful of women in some of his writings, asked a woman (Ellen Sewell) to marry him. He exchanged poetry with a second woman and fell in love with a third (albeit married) woman. Furthermore, all his male acquaintances were happily married with no indication of any proclivities towards other men.

The allegations that Abraham Lincoln was a homosexual are completely ludicrous. The primary "evidence" cited by homosexual activists is that he slept for many years in the same bed with another man. Reputable historians, however, have roundly discounted this so-called proof. In the period in question, men often roomed together for years and, as many boarding house rooms had but a single bed, had little choice but to sleep in the same bed. This was no more an indication of homosexuality than sitting in the back of a car together would be today. All other "clues" by which certain persons have tried to prove that Lincoln was gay have been similarly shown to be nonsense. There simply is no historical indication that Lincoln was ever attracted to men.

I find it odd that activists would need to grasp at straws in order to justify their lifestyle. The re-writing of history with claims which do not even stand up to minimal scrutiny seem to indicate a fundamental lack of confidence in their own ability to stand up for their choices without need for explanations. Historically, tyrants and despots and their quislings are the ones who re-write both history and current events. Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Pinochet and Saddam come to mind. A recent example is Ahmadinejad's attempt to claim that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Nice company our friends on the Left have put themselves in.

Interestingly, the writer of the comment on this blog did not go on to point out that of the vast majority of those whom I have quoted since starting this blog, no allegations of homosexuality have ever been made and that that must be evidence that I am perfectly straight. I feel no need to defend my own private life, but find it heartening that the other side must resort to personal attacks against us. This is a sure sign that they have nothing substantive to say in refuting our claims with regards to the Town Board's disgraceful behavior since taking office. Thank you, Liberals, for proving our points for us with every word you utter.

At any rate, if it were to be determined conclusively that either Lincoln or Thoreau were inclined towards their own gender, that would not change the fundamental truth of their positions. It is only in recent history that sexuality and political philosophies have become so intertwined, largely because of the intolerance towards homosexuals who hold non-Liberal positions, people such as the Log Cabin Republicans. One could take such intolerance as being a further sign of insecurity, as one who is certain of one's positions has no reason to feel threatened by those who hold an opposing viewpoint.

Then again, the leadership of the Democratic Party has always taken for granted its unwavering support among certain segments of the American population. Their operatives have always gone out of their way to clamp down on any prominent (and, in some cases, not so prominent) member of one of the Party's captive groups who strayed from the Party Line, including those Democratic voters who would like to challenge the leadership's choice of candidates.

Tolerance would seem to mean "You must accept me, but I have no obligation to accept you." Considering the fact that one of our neighbors has publicly forgiven Supervisor Duke and the Board and all we hear from the other side is hate and venom, one question must be asked: Which side is, in reality, the tolerant one?

Taxpayer money to fight political damage

The Kingston Freeman published an article (October 9, 2007, click here to read) stating that the Rochester Town Board was appealing the Court decision awarding Manuela Mihailescu damages for the emotional distress she suffered at their hands (so the Court has found). The following is a response I submitted to the Freeman's online forum:

While I am outraged by the Rochester Town Government's willingness to use taxpayer money to appeal this case, I am not surprised. The self-serving attitude of this Town Government has been flaunted in our faces since these people took office. The accusations leveled at Ms. Mihailescu by the Supervisor and her cheerleaders are nothing but political mud-slinging. The Town Government wanted to keep her off a Town Committee simply because she was deeply involved with the local Republican Club and because her husband, as webmaster for the Club, is one of the Board's most outspoken critics. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at violating one of our neighbors' Freedom of Speech. Nothing more, nothing less.

This Town Board has turned its entire term in office into a political purge, removing those who disagree with the Board, filtering out new applicants who are critical of the Board's actions and appointing those who toady up to them to the positions thus emptied.

One important question: Why on Earth would the Town Government spend so much money to defend this case, especially given that the costs likely outweigh the actual award? Simple. They are using taxpayer money to deflect the political damage caused by their own actions. They are desperate to retain their seats in November, regardless of the expense to the hardworking people of the Town of Rochester.

Shame on them.

If they are so intent on fighting this case, they should reach into their own pockets to pay for it. The excuse that they were acting in their official capacities just doesn't fly. Barely a handful of people, even among actual supporters of the Board, think that what was done to Ms. Mihailescu was justified. The Board simply was not acting on behalf of the people of Rochester. They were acting to further their own, selfish political agenda.

They did NOT do this despicable thing in my name and I, for one, should not have to pay a single cent towards its defense. Nor should any of my neighbors.

You pay the piper for the acts you commit. It's called being a responsible adult. Then again, the only meaning of the word "adult" the Town Board seems to understand is the one meaning "porn."

Absentee Ballot Applications

As anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis realizes, it is absolutely imperative that we rid our Town of the bullies who are now running our municipal Government. In the event that you cannot be here on November 6, you can apply for an Absentee Ballot by downloading the application (click here) from the Ulster County Board of Elections.

The following are the Absentee Ballot deadlines for this year's General Election:

• Oct. 30 Last day to postmark application or letter of application for ballot.
• Nov. 5 Last day to apply in person for ballot.
• Nov. 5 Last day to postmark ballot. Must be received by the Board of Elections no later than Nov. 13th.
• Nov. 6 Last day to deliver ballot in person to the Board of Elections.

Please try to beat the deadlines by a few days, just in case.

ELECTION DAY THIS YEAR IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6

The following are legally acceptable reasons for requesting an Absentee Ballot:

• unavoidably absent from your county on Election Day
• unable to appear at the polls due to illness or disability
• a patient in a Veterans’ Administration Hospital
• detained in jail awaiting Grand Jury action or confined in prison after conviction for an offense other than a felony

Useful Board of Elections Links & Contact Information:

• Board of Elections Home Page
• Absentee Ballot Application
• Political Calendar for 2007
• Phone Number: 845-334-5470
• Address: 284 Wall Street, Kingston, NY 12401

Critique of Democratic Chairman Zali Win's Letter

The letter written by Democratic Chairman Zali Win and published on the Accord-Kerhonkson.com website on October 3, 2007 (click here to read) is, without any doubt, an excellent example of political spin. Chairman Win is obviously trying to defuse the criticism of the way in which the Democratic Caucus was run by employing the "Best Defense is a Good Offense" strategy, which involves blaming everyone else rather than acknowledging responsibility for mistakes made. Believe me, I've made mistakes myself in running Caucuses and have always taken the blame and apologized for them. It's not hard to do, it just takes an honest look at oneself and a bit of humility, but I digress.

The points made in the Letter, however, are easy to counter because we do not employ the "Best Defense" strategy, choosing instead to use the lesser known and rarely utilized "Tell the Truth" strategy. Then again, we have the luxury being able to do so.

A frank and honest reporting of the Democratic Caucus' events can be found on this blog (click here to read), and I'm going to spare you a complete re-telling in this Critique. However, I will respond briefly to a few of the points Chairman Win attempts to get across, endeavoring to misdirect the attention focused on the Democratic Machine by his own members, among others.

1. We are confident that these candidates, if elected by Rochester’s voters, will serve our community well and make difficult decisions fairly with the best interests of the Town at heart, rather than the best interests of a small minority.

Really? The evidence to date is that they are incapable of serving the Town as a whole and that they do, in fact, represent the interests of a small minority. Remember: Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats, Independence Party members and non-enrolled voters have all spoken out in great numbers - loudly and repeatedly - against the actions of the Town Board which are supported by a very small minority in Town. The numbers speak for themselves. In addition, HALF of all Democrats who attended the Democratic Caucus stood up and walked out in anger at the way they were treated.

2. To assert that the purpose of the caucus was to select their Republicans’ candidates instead discounts our party’s objective of putting forth well-qualified, intelligent, and civic-minded candidates.

Nice try, but no one ever said that the purpose of the Democratic Caucus was to nominate Republicans. The issue at hand is whether or not the majority of attending enrolled Democrats should have the right to amend the rules of the Caucus in order to give them a true, democratic choice.

3. Perhaps these challengers genuinely believe that the only way they can win this November is if they deprive voters of choice and win by default.

Ironically, Chairman Win is accusing others of depriving voters of a choice when enrolled Democrats were denied that very choice by their own leadership. Tony Jarvis made a Motion to amend the rules of the Caucus in order to give just such a choice to his fellow Democrats, a Motion which was ruled Out of Order before anyone even had the chance to Second it. Where's the choice given to Town Democrats by their own leadership?

4. Rochester’s Democratic candidates are prepared to campaign on the basis of their qualifications and dedication to our community, a positive vision for our region’s future, and solid ideas derived from a free and open exchange of ideas. Accordingly we have invited the Republican candidates to a Meet the Candidates night; unfortunately they have decided not to respond to our invitation.

That is a completely inaccurate description of the exchange regarding the proposed Meet the Candidates night. The Candidates were told that they would not be permitted a discussion on issues nor would there be an Open Microphone for questions from the voters. The Conservative-Republicans responded asking to have these opportunities added and to have the night moved to a more convenient point in time, when all could attend. "Free and open exchange of ideas," indeed.

5. This election will be one in which we expect a continuation of the falsehoods and misrepresentations that have been put forth in recent months by our challengers will be the norm. By contrast, our Democratic candidates will continue to articulate positive ideas and rational discourse.

Notice Chairman Win has not detailed a single "falsehood" or "misrepresentation" in his letter. This is par for the course with the supporters of the current oligarchy. They are unable to give any such details because no such "falsehoods" have been uttered by our candidates or those of us most vocal in shining daylight on the reprehensible acts of the Town Board since coming to power. The Democratic candidates cannot "continue to articulate positive ideas and rational discourse" because they have never done so!

6. We urge voters to ignore the distractions and to focus on fact and truth this November.

Finally, a point on which we do agree. If voters ignore the smoke and mirrors used by the Town Board, their supporters and the Democratic leadership, they will see the facts for what they are. We have a Town Board which is so full of its own power, so intent on its own selfish agenda, so contemptuous of the rural character of our Town and the people who live here that it cannot ever do the right thing. It is simply incapable of true leadership, of sacrifice, of understanding the desires of the people of Rochester.

Unlike the Democratic leadership, I trust the people of this Town. Our neighbors are intelligent, discerning people who see the Town Board for the bullies they are and will send them packing in November. We have no need of spin to make our message clear. The events of the past two years speak for themselves.

A new day is about to dawn for our Town, one where neighbors will once again reach out to one another in friendship. We will never again allow people like the Board and its supporters to destroy that small town spirit.

Letter from Democratic Chairman Zali Win

The following "Letter to the Editor" was published yesterday on the Accord-Kerhonkson.com website run by Rochester Democratic Chairman Zali Win. The letter was written by the same Zali Win and addressed to the Editor who is Zali Win. The letter may or may not appear in print publications. We'll have to wait and see.

My critique of this letter will be found in a separate post.

*************************************************

Dear Editor:

On September 23, Democrats in the Town of Rochester assembled to select our candidates for Town office for the November election. The Town’s Democratic Committee interviewed every candidate who expressed an interest in receiving the Democratic nomination and endorsed the best of those candidates based on the candidates’ vision for the future, their experience, and qualifications. And Democrats who attended the nominating caucus overwhelmingly supported the endorsed candidates: Pam Duke for Supervisor, Francis Gray and Donna Ragonese for Town Board, and Paul Shaheen, Esq. for Town Justice. We are confident that these candidates, if elected by Rochester’s voters, will serve our community well and make difficult decisions fairly with the best interests of the Town at heart, rather than the best interests of a small minority.

We have been surprised by allegations put forth by political challengers that the nominating process was unfair. The purpose of the nominating caucus was to select Democrats and candidates who support the Democratic agenda, and that we did. To assert that the purpose of the caucus was to select their Republicans’ candidates instead discounts our party’s objective of putting forth well-qualified, intelligent, and civic-minded candidates. Perhaps these challengers genuinely believe that the only way they can win this November is if they deprive voters of choice and win by default.

Rochester’s Democratic candidates are prepared to campaign on the basis of their qualifications and dedication to our community, a positive vision for our region’s future, and solid ideas derived from a free and open exchange of ideas. Accordingly we have invited the Republican candidates to a Meet the Candidates night; unfortunately they have decided not to respond to our invitation.

This election will be one in which we expect a continuation of the falsehoods and misrepresentations that have been put forth in recent months by our challengers will be the norm. By contrast, our Democratic candidates will continue to articulate positive ideas and rational discourse. We urge voters to ignore the distractions and to focus on fact and truth this November.

Zali Win, Chair
Rochester Democrats

Resistance is Freedom

There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.

-Henry David Thoreau

Some months ago, when the Town Board decided that it's just authority extended to the attempted devastation of the reputation of one of our good neighbors, I stood at a Town board Meeting and declared that "The Tea Party starts tonight." Since that time, I have heard the supporters of the Board ridicule that statement, asking "Where's your Tea Party?" Trying to explain the love of freedom to these people is like trying to describe Mozart to one who has been denied the sense of hearing. They have no frame of reference by which to judge its beauty, its value, its immeasurable import to the souls of men.

They don't understand. They cannot understand.

The ideal of civil disobedience is one of the most important institutions of democracy. It is the basic statement made by the people that they consent to be governed, not to be ruled. It is a declaration that all who are given the authority to make the rules by which we live can be denied that authority at a moment's notice. Just laws are not obeyed because they are laws, but because the people agree with them. Laws which must be enforced through brute force because the majority of their subjects reject them are, by definition, unjust. They are not, in fact, laws at all, but decrees made by those in power whose authority has been withdrawn by the people.

Elected officials are given a term of office by the people who elect them, but being in office and having authority are two very different things. Being in office means having the power to enforce your will. Having authority means justifying your every action, day in and day out, to the people from whom your authority comes. Government has authority through the trust of the people. Once they lose that trust or intentionally trample it underfoot, they cease to be a Government and become instead a band of thugs.

It is at such times that the people of all democracies have the moral right and obligation to resist the decrees set above them. They have the ethical means to shout out loud to the charlatans who still consider themselves to be a Government that such decrees are illegitimate and will not be obeyed. They have the ability to turn thugs into lame ducks until such time as the next election allows them to say "You're fired."

Civil disobedience has a long, proud history in this country. From the Boston Tea Party where by Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty cast British Tea into Boston Harbor to the Underground Railroad which gave human beings their freedom from the blight on our past called slavery. Suffragettes and civil rights protesters all practiced civil disobedience and brought about change. More importantly, each one of those changes broadened the personal liberties enjoyed by Americans.

Around the world, civil disobedience has been practiced far and wide to bring freedom to those who, although they had never experienced it, hungered and thirsted for it. From Gandhi's India to Stephen Biko's South Africa, refusal to submit brought about the changes the people both needed and demanded. At this very moment, it is being practiced in nations such as Burma, where those who refuse to give up power are assaulting their own people, inuring them, maiming them, killing them.

We can thank people like Rosa Parks and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for showing us that, with courage and conviction, power can be defeated. It is immaterial if the reason one's freedoms are restricted is because of skin color, ethnicity, gender or simply because certain people in a Town want to drive their fellow Townsfolk out. When an official body wants to take freedom from us (and they always say that it's for our own good or that of the community), they must be shown that we will never acquiesce. Their laws will be thrown on the rubbish heap and allowed to rot from disuse as we will not obey. There can be no question, no room for doubt.

Laws forced on us will never govern us, not if we decide otherwise.

Henry David Thoreau wrote an essay entitled Civil Disobedience in 1848, in which he tells us:

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them?

Where is the Tea Party? Just look at the last two Public Hearings. The Tea Party is alive and well in the Town of Rochester and we are ready to cast all they have done to us into the sea. As for the Town Board, they will be removed from office shortly. Never again will we allow anyone to interfere in our homes and our freedoms. Our civil rights will be preserved and those who hate them will be marginalized.

Would you like some sugar with your Tea?

Post on Another Blog

Another blog has been started in Town recently, so I went to check it out. Lo and behold, it is an "Anonymous" blog. Now, as anyone who has read this blog knows, I do not believe in anonymity. I take responsibility for what I write and it is my firm belief that the Freedoms of Speech and Press not only protect us in expressing our opinions, they give us the responsibility to own up to our publicly expressed thoughts and ideas as that is the only way to maintain those two very precious freedoms.

The rules of the other blog in question require that all posts be made Anonymously, so when I posted the following, I was unable to attach my name to it. However, I am owning up to my comments here, just so there is no misunderstanding about who wrote them:

While it's always good for people to have a forum in which to discuss and debate, it seems to me that we have had too much anonymity in this Town. If we really are all "equals here, neighbors, residents and stakeholders in our town," as the Moderator believes, there is absolutely no reason to hide our identities.

Anonymity in a Town which has been so badly divided through the willful acts of those we elected to represent us is simply an invitation for abuse and mudslinging. Anyone who is posting something responsible should have no problem taking credit for it.

I will respect the Moderator's desires as this blog is his/her property and there is very little I respect more than one's right to do as one wills with one's own property. Consequently, I will not post my own name here, much as I dislike the idea. I will, however, post a copy of this comment on my own blog, where it is clear who wrote it, lest I be accused of being inconsistent in my views and actions.

Need I say more?

The Viciousness Continues

Three new comments appeared attached to Sunday's review of the Democratic Caucus. All three were, of course, posted by Anonymous (it seems these ultra-Libs are less than courageous). All three were vicious, nasty, personal attacks which were completely and utterly devoid of any actual content. Once again, the supporters of the Town Board are showing not only their level of intelligence and maturity, but their absolute inability to counter a single argument made by us that the Board's disregard for the will of the people of the Town of Rochester make them unfit to sit where they do.

By the way, they apparently never learned English as the comments are full of spelling mistakes and bad grammar, as well as foul language. Did you expect any better?

Yet again, I invite my critics to take credit for their remarks. I have no problem putting my name to my words. What could they possibly fear?

Just so you know what is being written (I'm censoring the obscenity a bit, but the misspellings are all theirs):

Anonymous said...

you are slime and you will see what happens to your scum group.
You and your pig group are deparate
to continue to dump your illegal activties on all your neighbors.

Everyone has figured out your crime group.. Self gain .. You are total losers and the ulgiest group one has ever seen. YOU WILL LOSE A**H***S

------------------------------------

Anonymous said...

dogar is a porn king and both he and his wife make a living trafficing in porn

------------------------------------

Anonymous said...

RIGHT WING PSYCHO'S

Just a few questions to my critics:

1. To which "scum group" are you referring? The Conservative Party, which has consistently stood up for the rights of the people of this Town? Or the Republican Club, which links to my posts on a regular basis and of which I am not a member?
2. Desperate? When it's plain that the Democratic leadership and their handpicked candidates are in trouble with even the Democratic rank and file?
3. Illegal activities? You mean the one where the judge ruled that Conservatives and Republicans caused Manuela Mihailescu's car accident when we accused her of porn? Oh, wait. That was the Town Board. It's a bit confusing when one group smears someone and another stands up for her.
4. Crime group. Yes, you've found us out. We're all part of the Mafia and we're channeling John Gotti to provide us with campaign strategies.
5. Total losers and ugly to boot. Another zinger in this battle of wits. I think I'll run into a dark room, listen to folk ballads and cry my eyes out.
6. Dogar is a porn king? Well, if he is, none of his friends (including me) know about it. This silliness about porn has been put to rest. There is no porn site. The Board never had any proof. It simply doesn't exist. The whole thing is a made up fairy tale designed to keep Manuela Mihailescu off the Historical Preservation Committee and to ruin her good name to boot. It backfired and caused the Socialist Town Politburo irreparable harm. Give it up, all you're doing is making a laughing stock out of the people you're backing. Better yet, keep saying it. Maybe someone will hear you and Jon and Manuela can sue you for defamation. They're not making money off porn but at least then they'll make some money off the rumors.
7. Right Wing Psychos. Notice, I left the apostrophe out. In English, the apostrophe denotes the possessive. When you're writing in plural, you leave it out. Just a tip for the next time, as I hate to see such clever remarks ruined by a grammatical error. I not only admit that I am a Right Winger, I wear the badge proudly. We preach the philosophy of liberty, less government and fewer rules and the standard bearers of the ideal that everyone should keep more of what they earn rather than giving it to the most wasteful organizations mankind has ever witnessed: local, state and national governments. As to the psycho portion, sorry all wrong. Not a single irrational thing about us. Try not to fall off the edge of the Earth while trying to come up with a more intelligent comment, the Tooth Fairy is off this week. She can't catch you.

Come on, guys. You're taking all the fun out of this. If you could at least give me one criticism where you try to prove me wrong, I'd be happy to debate you and show you where you fall short of the mark. This stuff, however, is far too easy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Maybe I'll just let my 5 year old respond to you from now on. At least it would even the odds.

More Anonymous Criticism

I love it when they criticize me. It just goes to show that they're not only keeping tabs on us, but also that we're getting under their skins. As long as we keep telling the truth, they keep getting angry. Isn't that a coincidence?

I don't know if Anonymous is just a popular name among Liberals or if they refuse to name their kids in order to allow them to choose their own when they get older (sort of like not giving them a religion when they're young), but Anonymous commented:

You are obsessed with the Democrats. That shows how lost you angry little people are.

Once again, I extend my invitation to anyone who dislikes what is on my blog to identify themselves. Whether you have issues with my style, my content or just the fact that I refuse to write anything but the truth, I promise I won't bite. I only bark.

Woof.

Now, as to the contents of the comment:

First, notice that nowhere does the writer say I'm wrong. He or she cannot do so, because that would require proving it, something impossible to do when the person you are criticizing has done nothing but furnished the unvarnished truth. However, I would welcome the attempt. As I say, I love to be criticized. If nothing else, it gives me material for the next post. More importantly, if I am wrong, I sincerely hope someone can prove it to me so I can change. Nobody is perfect and I don't pretend to be. Of course I make mistakes, just like everyone else. Show me what they are and I'll be glad to make a public mea culpa.

Arrogant refusal to admit one's flaws and missteps is a character trait of ultra-Liberal politicians.

Second, my issue is not with "Democrats" in general. It's not even with all Liberals. It's with those closed minded Liberals whose only concern is their selfish pursuit of their personal desires. In point of fact, anyone who carefully reads the post to which Anonymous is responding will see that I have taken a stand to defend the rights of rank and file Democrats against their own leadership. Apparently, I hit a nerve.

After all, the Democrats who walked out did so without any prodding from republicans or Conservatives. They were angry all on their own.

Finally, am I angry? Absolutely. We live in a Town whose Government has decided that the people of the Town are an unnecessary distraction. I am angry in the same way that our Founding Fathers were angry at the British Crown.

At the same time, I am always amused at the comments made by those who defend the Town Board. They tend to be personal, subjective, insulting and, when all is said and done, childish.

We must be doing something right.

Democratic Caucus Fun

This afternoon at 1 PM, the Town of Rochester Democratic Committee held their Town Nominating Caucus at the Accord Firehouse. I must admit that it was a very well organized affair, for which Chairman Zali Win certainly deserves kudos. They had a sign in sheet and nice ballot packages for those qualified to vote. They also asked the veterans who were present to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, which is laudable, even if some present kept quiet during the phrase "under God." All in all, the advance scripting was more than evident. But...

(There's always a "but")

By my estimation, roughly half of those who packed the room were there because they wanted an alternative to the slate endorsed by the Democratic Committee. Chairman Win announced the "Rules of the Caucus," which he did not characterize as "proposed" and didn't tell those present that there would be a vote on them until after he had read them. They included provisions to exclude any candidates who were not either registered Democrats or non-Democrats endorsed by the Democratic Committee from the nominating process. The Chairman seemed to want to get past the rules vote as quickly as possible. This was apparent because of the way he handled the issue of discussion, as raised by Democrat Tony Jarvis. Tony asked that Republican candidates be allowed to participate, as Supervisor Pam Duke had been permitted to seek the Republican nomination two years ago. Chairman Win stared at Jarvis frostily and asked if there was any further discussion. Then, Win and Jarvis spoke just about simultaneously. Jarvis made a motion to Amend the Rules and the Chairman called for a vote. As soon as he said "All in favor," Win turned to Jarvis and told him his motion was out of order.

From that point on, just about every motion to nominate a Democrat was either preceded or followed by a motion to nominate a Republican. Each such motion was ruled "out of order" by the Chair.

As disgusted and angry Democrats left the Firehouse, the extent of the rift within their Party became exceedingly evident. Where a few moments before the room was filled to capacity, with some being forced to stand as there were no seats left, now about half of all the chairs were empty. Many of those who remained were grumbling about the way in which the nominating process was handled.

Now, obviously every Party has the right to limit its nominating process to prevent a takeover. However, not allowing the rank and file a vote on whether there should be an alternate method for managing that process seems a bit (pardon the expression) undemocratic. The real issue here isn't that the Republican candidates were prohibited from seeking the Democratic nomination. Rather, the problem is that many Town Democrats were excluded from participating fully and democratically in their own Party's decision making processes.

Aside from the questions such heavy handedness raises about commitment to democratic principles, what does it say about their confidence in their choice of candidates? Think about it: if they thought their candidates would win resoundingly, they would have no reason to exclude others. The only other reason they might have to force their rules through without an opportunity for an alternative to be offered is if they thought their candidates would win, but by a margin so slim it would be embarrassing. Either way, it reveals a stunning lack of certainty on their part in the ability of their slate to carry the day.

If they need to resort to procedural games to prevent either a humiliatingly close vote or an outright loss among their own Party members, how do they expect to win in November? More importantly, what does that indicate about the alienation all of us, Democrats included, feel with regard to the Town Board?

In point of fact, the current Democratic leadership does not seem to represent the opinions of the majority of Democrats in Town. Just as the Town Board is dedicated to advancing the interests of an aristocratic few throughout the entire Town, the Democratic leadership is pushing hard to bring that same elitist agenda to fruition within its own Party. Of course, the goal is the same because the same people are pushing that agenda on both fronts.

By the way, are these the same guys who were indignantly proclaiming that "Every vote must be counted" in 2000? Apparently, votes need only be counted on questions which dovetail with their goals. Propaganda aside, the only ones disenfranchising Democrats today are Democrats.

Anyone else find that ironic?

A Civil Response to an Uncivil Critique

Author Robert Heinlein once wrote that writing is a dirty habit best done in private. Consequently, I usually limit myself to one blog post per day, if that. I try my best not to subject the few readers I have to more of my writing than a reasonable person can handle.

However, after I posted my last piece, I went through some of my recent essays and found the following comment submitted to the Ralph Nader piece (naturally, the author remained anonymous):

Anonymous said...

Oppressive Regime? Where do you think you are, North Korea?

I wonder if you believe your own gas. I am glad I found this site, however, because now I'll know exactly who not to vote for.

I love criticism. It shows that Freedom of Speech is still alive and well, despite the best efforts of our local elected officials. Moreover, rather than censor it, I am overjoyed to leave it on the blog and answer it. That is the essence of public debate. Town Board, take note.

Aside from the poor grammar (ending a sentence with a preposition), the writer reveals his utter lack of understanding of both local issues and global events. North Korea is not simply an Oppressive Regime (capitals as per the comment), it is a genocidal maniac's fun park. Would the writer truly have us believe that anything short of unimaginable starvation, capricious torture and the pursuit of a nuclear holocaust is acceptable government?

The word "oppressive" encompasses conditions which, although they may fall short of Kim Jong Il, are a clear violation of civil rights on an ongoing, systematic basis through the official acts of a governmental body. That is exactly what we have in the Town of Rochester.

Given that I have repeatedly covered the civil rights abuses we have been enduring in this Town since the current junta took office, I will refrain from repeating all the specific examples. However, the nutshell list of basic rights violated by our local government and/or its supporters is as follows:

• Freedom of Speech
  
• Freedom of Assembly
• Criticisms of the local papers in an attempt to violate Freedom of the Press
• Property Rights
• The right to not have one's good name smeared for political reasons
  
• Right to petition government officials

Do I believe my own "gas"? I can answer that in two ways:

(1) Yes, I absolutely believe what I write. It is the complete, factual truth, unadulterated by the Liberal penchant for denying the absolute nature of our human rights. Unlike so-called "Progressives," conservatives say what we mean and mean what we say. The practice of saying something in order to get your way is something invented and perfected by Liberals. It is not one I embrace.

(2) The only "gas" in this Town is the hot air we get from the Liberal propaganda machine which is doing a very poor job at muddying the waters, although they try. Not a single criticism leveled by them against the opponents of the Town Board has any validity whatsoever. One can only hope the "carbon offsets" they are buying is sufficient to counterbalance the global warming they are causing every time they open their mouths.

Finally, I'm glad this lady or gentleman found the blog, as well. Maybe he or she will learn something. However, given the publicity local events have gotten throughout Town, it's hard to believe that this person did not know which side they supported long before Word One was written or read here.

Unless the writer is from elsewhere becoming involved in something of which he or she has no knowledge. Nah, no outsiders ever come here to change our Town. Things like that just don't happen.

Stay Tuned

Turn on the TV any night of the week and you’re inundated by half hour comedies, full hour dramas and two hour movies, all designed to package reality into a time release capsule. The medicine you’re being force fed over and over again is the idea that not only can all the trials and tribulations you encounter be resolved in a matter of no more than a couple of hours, but you can have anything you want, any time you want with no regard for what others may want or need.

Sound familiar?

It certainly seems like many of our problems with government stem from the fact that our representatives have jumped right out of the TV set, talking to us in one liners packaged for cable news, thinking of nothing but their own immediate self-satisfaction. We’ve gone from Thomas Paine telling us that “These are the times that try men’s souls…” to Bill Clinton discussing his choice of underwear. Where once George Washington warned us that “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force,” we’re now being promised by Hillary Clinton (in between shrill screams sharp enough to shatter glass) that government will solve all our ills, from health care to the environment.

Abraham Lincoln assured us that “you can’t fool all of the people all of the time,” but what we’re finding is that in this age of democracy by Nielsen Ratings those who thrive on governance by fraud only need to fool those few who will tip the balance. They count on our short memories to obscure the promises of the past which they have failed to uphold. Like your typical sit-com where what happened last week is forgotten by the time the next new episode comes around, politicians will promise whatever they think will win them the most votes but delay delivery until enough of us have lost track of the original promise.

On a local level, this is the disease we’re facing in our own Town Government, but on steroids. We have a Town Board which was elected on the idea of Open Government. Not only do they completely ignore their own promise, they think we’re stupid enough to accept their lame explanation centered on the idea of “Closed Open Government.” They take an oath of office that requires only two things of them: to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the New York State Constitution, both of which guarantee that none us will lose our right to our own property without due process of the law. The laws this Town Government has passed and wants to continue passing are a direct violation of their oath of office.

We can talk until we’re blue in the face, but they’ll never listen. You see, we’re not in the script. We’re not the cute but goofy girl next door. We’re not the nerd who becomes a jock overnight. We’re not the trendy, witty friends hanging out in a Manhattan coffee shop. We’re not even the redneck farmers whose every financial hardship is suddenly solved because the rain has finally come, accompanied by music by John Williams.

As far as they’re concerned, we’re nothing but a reason to change the channel.

Well, we’re no TV show. We won’t be giving them instant gratification. They can’t get a team of writers to delete us from the screenplay.

On the other hand, Election Day is coming. The Supervisor and her Board are about to get cancelled.

Update on Ulster County Press Letter

My letter responding to Steven Fornal's attack on "longtimers" (among others) appeared in yesterday's Ulster County Press. Unfortunately, due to space restrictions (understandable, as I tend to be long winded), an edited version was published.

To read the original version, click here.

Hometown Security

“Power has to be insecure to be responsive.”

-Ralph Nader

I found this quote from Ralph Nader quite accidentally. It hit me as being immensely appropriate to our struggle in Rochester to retain our civil rights in the face of an oppressive regime which insists on making their goals more important than our freedoms.

At the same time, I find it ever so ironic that someone as unabashedly Liberal as Ralph Nader would be the one to come up with a 100% accurate description of the symptoms of our local disease. Then again, maybe it isn't so ironic. Those Liberals who have actually taken the time to truly think about their ideals have as little trust in government as Conservatives. Liberals for whom the principles of civil liberty form the foundation of their philosophy would be horrified to witness the abuse of power being perpetrated by the Town of Rochester's town Council, supposedly in the name of "progressivism."

The fact is, our Town Board is not insecure, it is arrogant. Never considering the possibility that they might face not only traditional minded townsfolk on Election Day, but many of their own who are becoming more and more disgusted by the rejection of their own values, this Board has decided it need not listen to anyone.

This was apparent from the first moratorium Public Hearing in early 2006. It was apparent when they appointed someone who had never served on the Planning Board previously to be its Chairman. It was apparent when they refused one of our neighbors a position on a Town Committee simply because his expression of his First Amendment rights didn't sync with theirs. It was apparent when they accused another neighbor of running a porn site in order to keep her off another Town Committee. It was apparent in many other Town Board meetings and Public Hearings. It is apparent in their claim that "Closed Open Government" is their way of living up to their campaign promises of 2003 and 2005 (with a straight face, no less). It is apparent in the way in which they have been running the current series of Public Hearings on the Zoning Code.

How can the Town Board possibly claim to be responsive to the people of the Town when the majority of speakers at Public Hearings are met with the Supervisor making faces and rolling her eyes? It doesn't take much in the way of introspection to realize that she is not listening, that she has rejected what is being said before it was ever uttered.

This complete and total lack of insecurity has convinced them that they can do as they please with no consequences to be considered. Their conviction that they can never lose has made them believe that they can simply walk all over half the Town as if we don't exist. Their rejection of the possibility of a loss at the polls is one of the most dangerous attacks on the principles of democracy one could ever perceive.

It makes no difference why a Government believes it will remain in power forever. It matters not one iota whether they are convinced they are invulnerable because of guns and tanks or because they think their supporters will vote them back in no matter what. What matters is that when such arrogance is what governs their actions, they will do as they please and damn the voters.

I never thought I would agree with Ralph Nader, but my only disagreement with his quote is that it doesn't go far enough. Insecurity on the part of those in power is the single, solitary factor which makes democracy work. The moment they lose that feeling of "What if I lose?" we are all in very serious trouble.

Don't take my word for it, just look at that brick building on Scenic Road. You'll find all the proof you need.

Little Gods, No Morals

For several decades, it has become obvious to anyone paying attention that something is happening in our country. Words which once meant something very specific have taken on meanings which are not only different, they are sinister.

For instance, the First Amendment of our Constitution very clearly protects our right to worship as we please, free of governmental interference, when it speaks of the “Freedom of Religion”. Certain very vocal and treacherous elements in our society have taken those three simple words, which can only have one logical meaning, and turned them into “Freedom from Religion.”

Not satisfied with redefining the English language, they have embarked on a path to make their new version of the First Amendment a reality, in a direct attack on the Constitution as framed by our Founding Fathers. In order to achieve this goal, they have sought to convince the American people that the phrase “separation of Church and State” is a Constitutional principle when, in fact, those words never appear anywhere in the Constitution. They even go so far as to redefine their own words by turning “separation of Church and State” into “subjugation of Church by State.”Now, these facts have been covered amply by writers and radio and TV talk show hosts, by priests and ministers and rabbis. The real question is not that they want to destroy Freedom of Religion. That is unarguable in any serious manner. The real question is why they want to destroy Freedom of Religion.

The most extreme wing of Liberalism is characterized by narcissism. Their most controversial political goals are all based on the idea of “I want” even when it is to the detriment of those around them. When one’s idea of reality stems from pure humanism, the idea that the only God one need worship is oneself, one’s sense of omnipotence would tend to overwhelm any sense of duty to others. Similarly, the New Age philosophies which have become increasingly prevalent since the 1960s tell us that we are all part of God, that we are, in essence God ourselves. A different way of saying the same thing: “I am God, therefore I owe explanation to no one but myself.”

Of course, there’s a little fly in the ointment. When religions which have been around for thousands of years and stood the test of time – Christianity and Judaism – tell us that there is a God, one single, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Creator of everything and everyone, that sort of makes the humanistic, New Age view of theology seem just a tad selfish and egotistical. When those same religions make it clear that there is a clear line between the Creator and His creations, people might wonder where Liberal presumptuousness comes from. Could it be a psychological self-delusion? Is it just wishful thinking? Or is it an excuse to do what they wish, no matter the consequence?

So, if you want to be a God unto yourself, what are you to do when religion tells you that you cannot do something you badly want to do? You have two options: either hijack religion and change its rules to suit your wishes or destroy it completely. So, Marx and Engels declare religion to be the “opiate of the people” and condemn its very existence. Hitler carries off any clergy who oppose him and condemns them to death in his concentration camps. Stalin does his best to co-opt the Russian Orthodox Church.

In America, the Liberal successors to Marx, Engels, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini are working feverishly to obliterate the Constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of Religion. At the same time, they have infiltrated the major Christian churches and Judaic communities in order to make it seem that there is legitimate debate as to the morality of such acts as abortion and homosexuality.

Naturally, a society has the right – and even the responsibility – to debate what they will and will not allow. A community can – and, indeed, must – tolerate and even encourage dissent in its quest to grow and advance. Societies and communities are secular creatures created by man to serve man’s needs. A Church, on the other hand, is a gathering of people who not only have similar values but are convinced that their values come not from themselves but directly from God. One can disagree with the principles a Church preaches. One cannot, however, try to change those principles. Morality cannot be determined democratically. It is not subject to headcounts or opinion polls. A ballot initiative can no more change the moral principles of a Church than it can change gravity.

One can only truly be the member of a religion if one is convinced that that particular religion is being led by the God one worships. Anyone who believes that the principles of his or her religion can be changed through the process of convincing other members does not, by definition, believe in the divine foundations of that religion’s principles.

If that is the case, that person should find a religion which better suits his or her view of morality. The right to stage a coup against the moral order of one’s religion simply does not exist.

What is even worse is when outsiders try to change a religion. That is not simply misguided, it is a vicious attack on the fundamental human rights of those who worship within the framework of that Church. It is a complete betrayal of the American principle of tolerance for differing understandings of reality, both natural and supernatural.

For any one person to be so arrogant as to tell another what he can or cannot believe about subjects on which the other’s Church has spoken definitively is reprehensible. It makes no difference whether you are for or against abortion rights or homosexuality or the death penalty or any one of several dozen topics of moral judgment. You can act politically to advance your agenda, we all have that right. To attack someone because he is true to his Church’s views on subjects which are clearly moral (at least in part) is unacceptable in the extreme. It is a prime example of the very intolerance against which Liberals rail publicly but practice religiously when they think no one’s looking.

Churches have an irreplaceable role in society: to give their believers a moral framework within which they can work with their neighbors and in a manner which does harm to no one. Every time a Liberal (or anyone else for that matter) attacks someone for their beliefs – even beliefs which are politically incorrect – the attacker is not only practicing intolerance and bigotry in its worst form but is taking a step towards creating a society which has lost all cohesiveness, a society based on the idea of “every man for himself.” That is a society in which no one can possibly be safe.

That is no society at all.

Deja Vu, anyone?

"People are tired of liberty. They have had a surfeit of it. Liberty is no longer a chaste and austere virgin…. Today’s youth are moved by other slogans…Order, Hierarchy, Discipline."

-Benito Mussolini

One of the favorite tactics of the Socialist Liberal Left in both America and Europe is to accuse those who oppose them of being "fascists." They count on the fact that people lacking in a well-grounded knowledge of history consider fascism to be simply the extremist right wing movement in any given society. In point of fact, it isn't. To understand the Leftist nature of fascism, one must understand its roots.

The word "Fascism" comes from the Italian word "fascio" which means bundle of sticks, the idea being that it is much more difficult to break sticks when they are gathered together than singly. The original Italian Fascist movement believed in using State power to unite the various elements of society into a single cohesive unit in order to strengthen the State. Naturally, individual rights were an unacceptable obstacle to those who held such beliefs.

The founder of the Fascist Movement (later the Italian Fascist Party), Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini, was born into a family of staunch Socialists. His parents named him, respectively, for Mexican Socialist Benito Juarez and Italian Socialists Andrea Costa and Amilcare Cipriani. Mussolini's parents were both Socialist activists. He and his sister were members of Marx and Engels' First Socialist International and he became one of the top leaders of the Italian Socialist Party by the age of 30.

Mussolini fled military service in Italy by escaping to Switzerland, where he again became deeply involved in Socialist activism. He was almost deported from Switzerland, but for the intervention of Socialist members of Parliament. He soon found work in Austria-Hungary, in the ethnically Italian city of Trento, where he became the editor of a Socialist newspaper, L'Avvenire del Lavoratore ("The Future of the Worker"). Again, he began working on behalf of the local Socialist Party and soon switched to another Socialist newspaper, Il Popolo ("The People").

After being deported from Austria-Hungary back into Italy, Mussolini joined the staff of yet another Socialist paper, Avanti! ("Forward!"), which called itself the "Central Organ of the Socialist Party."

In 1919, Mussolini formed what became known as the Fascist Movement and was elected to the Italian Chamber of Deputies in 1921. In October of 1922, he was elected the youngest Prime Minister in Italian history. In 1925, all semblance of democratic freedom was dropped and a complete dictatorship ensued throughout Italy.

Mussolini's policies included direct attacks on private property ownership through the establishment of 5,000 government owned farms and the settlement of peasants on "redistributed" land. He introduced a program called "Gold for the Fatherland" in which the people were called to "donate" their gold jewelery (including wedding rings) to be melted down into ingots. In exchange, they received steel armbands inscribed with the "Gold for the Fatherland" slogan.

By 1935, Mussolini made the claim that 3/4 of all Italian businesses were under government control. He instituted wage and price controls and forced Italians to give up any shares they owned in foreign businesses.

Il Duce, as he became known (meaning "The Leader"), undertook a propaganda campaign early on. Using any and all organs of communications, he sought to convince the Italian people that Fascism was the only true philosophy for the Twentieth Century. Anyone who opposed the Fascist way of thinking was belittled as being backwards and part of a very small minority which was trying to stop progress.

Italy entered world War II as one of the three major Axis powers, but was patently unsuccessful in most of his military campaigns, leading to abandonment of Italy by German forces and an American invasion. In 1943, he was deposed and arrested. He was moved around for several months to keep the Germans from rescuing him but was eventually taken into German custody. In 1945, as he was on his way to board a plane to Austria, he was captured by Italian partisans and executed. His body was taken to Milan, where it was hung from a meathook in a public square, where it was left for days for the people to abuse and spit on.

Fascism was clearly a Socialist, Left Wing philosophy. There is very little on which Mussolini and modern day Socialist Liberals actually disagree. Both in Italy and in Nazi Germany, the persecution of Bolsheviks and Communists of all types was not a struggle between Right and Left. It was sibling rivalry. For American Liberals and Socialists to call their opponents Fascists is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy, considering that they themselves are the philosophical brethren of Mussolini and his cadre.

Many of the the principles espoused by and tactics used by Benito Mussolini sound suspiciously like the goals set forth by the Rochester Town Board and the means they are using to achieve them. History has proven, however, that such philosophies can only win out through the ruthless annihilation of individual civil rights. It has also proven that, eventually and inevitably, human rights will win out and dictatorships will fall.

Fortunately, we have a far more peaceful way of ridding ourselves of our local despots. We have the ballot box and the great American tradition know as "Throw the scoundrels out."

Come this November, the people of the Town of Rochester will rid ourselves of those who believe a bundle of sticks is more important than the rights of the people.

Far more than an "empty mantra"

"The moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist."

-John Adams

Our Founding Fathers believed, with great justification, that when government is given power over the property of the citizens, all other rights belonging to them became null and void. Real property was (and is to this day) not only a place to live, but the source of the ability to survive. Farmers produced food not only for themselves but others as well. Merchants bought and sold. Manufacturers created products. And all of them provided jobs. Without the economic activity stemming from private property, people would starve.

History has proven our Founding Fathers right. Socialism, that grand experiment in denying the very existence of the right to own property, was a dismal failure in every single nation where it was tried. Whether we consider the Marxist-Leninist version of the Soviet Union and its slave states throughout Eastern and Central Europe, Maoist agricultural Communism, the National Socialism of Adolph Hitler or the social democracies of Western Europe which are in the process of moving towards true market economies, socialism has never worked. Socialism can never work. People need the incentive of getting ahead on their own labors. They need the goal of owning something significant. Without those two factors, the economy will eventually collapse.

Beyond the economic implications, giving Government the right to take away one's property or just take away the right to determine what one can do with it effectively gives Government, if taken to the extreme, the power over jobs, food and even life and death. All other rights then become meaningless.

Of course, many live in Neverland and will say, "Oh, local Government would never use its powers for anything but the benefit of the community." Really? Let's ask the property owners in New London, Connecticut whose properties were robbed from them by the municipality with the Supreme Court's blessing. Or ask Jon Dogar-Marinesco, whose exercise of free speech kept him off a Town Committee. Or ask Manuela Mihailescu who was accused of running a porn site in order to keep her off another Town Committee. Or myself, given the floor at a Town Board Meeting only to have the Town Attorney interrupt me after two sentences after which the meeting was adjourned before I (or anyone else, for that matter) had my say.

Government is, and always will be, abusive by nature unless forced to be subservient by its constituents. Government is never an instrument of service out of the goodness of the hearts of our politicians. If it serves us, it does so because it is forced to do so, no other reason. Thomas Jefferson told us that "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." That is one of the most profoundly accurate statements ever made about the nature of freedom. We will only be able to exercise our rights as long as we do not allow government to encroach upon them. We must maintain a watchful eye over every single act of government because politicians will, inevitably, try to increase their own powers at the expense of our freedom. History offers evidence of this principle being one of the few absolutes man has experienced. It is just short of being a Law of Nature.

Censorship and the trampling of our property rights are just the beginning. The Town of Rochester Town Board will be seen by future generations as one of the most repressive municipal governments in American history. The only question is, will we be known as those who fought it or the ones who let it happen.

Behind the Curtain

The following letter was sent out to the Ulster County Press today in response to Mr. Steven L. Fornal's letter in the current issue:

To the Editor:

Mr. Steven Fornal's Letter to the Editor (August 29, 2007) is a gourmet serving of demagoguery with a pinch of sleight of hand and a dash of smoke and mirrors thrown in. While I have often disagreed with Mr. Fornal's positions, I had been under the impression that he was above resorting to ad hominem statements which seem aimed at belittling those with whom he disagrees. Apparently, I was mistaken.

He refers to a previous letter writer's personal relationship to an elected official as if that should disqualify her from having or expressing her own opinion. The unwritten implication is that a woman's opinion is not her own but is, instead, her husband's. Hardly a "liberal" or "progressive" viewpoint.

Mr. Fornal also refers to another letter writer as "an ever affable but clueless former supervisor." That "former supervisor" has served in almost every elected town position and, as Supervisor, kept our property taxes from increasing for several years, an achievement the current Administration has not come close to matching. He also did not use his position or influence to have his job re-defined as full time, complete with a horrendous pay raise. Nor did that Supervisor divide this Town into two classes, with differing categories of rights and abilities to participate in the definition of their own destinies. The latter two "achievements" came from the Supervisor Mr. Fornal goes on to praise later in his letter. In point of fact, there are few (if any) in the Town of Rochester whose knowledge and understanding of the way a municipality operates matches that of the former Supervisor in question.

Of course, Mr. Fornal fails to mention his own lockstep political relationship with certain members of the Town Board and its backers. Likewise, he does not see fit to reveal that he owes his position as Chairman of the Planning Board to Supervisor Duke and her Board. Apparently such revelations are only important when criticizing those with whom he finds fault.

Mr. Fornal then proceeds to criticize the current Tax Assessor by citing a property tax example wherein two similarly priced homes were levied with broadly differing tax burdens. This is where the smoke and mirrors come into play. One would expect Mr. Fornal, as Chairman of the Town's Planning Board, to understand the difference between a property's assessed value and the tax burden levied thereupon. First and second homes are treated very differently. Between basic STAR exemptions and other differentials created by the State in order to owners of primary residences from a tax auction, similar homes may be taxed at a very different level, even assuming the assessment is also similar. Rather than speaking of whether or not the assessed values were dissimilar, Mr. Fornal would have the reader jump to the conclusion that the discrepancy between tax burdens is the responsibility of the tax assessor. It most certainly is not. The tax assessor simply determines the assessed (roughly market) value of the homes in the municipality. The rest comes from State Law, our School Board and the County and, yes, Town
Governments.

Similarly, Mr. Fornal's claims with regard to a townwide revaluation are nothing but sleight of hand. He would have us looking in one direction while the real action is taking place in another. Tax revaluations are not set or scheduled by the Tax Assessor, but by the Town Board. If Mr. Fornal has problems with the manner in which revaluations are being performed, he should turn to the Town Board, not the Tax Assessor.

So why would Mr. Fornal make such wild and easily refutable claims with regard to responsibility for taxation and revaluations? Simple. He is part of the cheering section for a Town Government gone wild with power. The Tax Assessor who is the target of Mr. Fornal's nonsensical fairy tales has been denied a new contract by the Town Board less than two years before she is eligible for full retirement. The "compassionate" liberals running our Town Government have seen fit to deny her a significant portion of her retirement benefits for the rest of her life. The reason? That, too, is simple. The Tax Assessor happens to be a member of the Conservative Party. Her husband is a Past Chairman of the Party in the Town of Rochester.

The Town Board has made it amply clear that all such positions must be filled by their philosophical brethren. Such metaphorical Liberal nepotism is now (practically speaking) the only factor in filling Town positions. Time and time again this Town Board has made administrative and operational decisions based on how they can best attack their opponents and strengthen their political ramparts, not on basis of what is best for our Town. As more and more people are becoming aware of this mean spirited, Machiavellian strategy, Mr. Fornal has taken it upon himself to advise us all to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Mr. Fornal also all but admits that there are now two classes of people in Town when referring to "longtimers." In point of fact, many of the current Regime's opponents are not "longtimers" in any sense of the word. Manuela Mihailescu, who was found to be victimized by the Town Government by a court of law recently has been a resident of the Town for less than a decade. My parents moved here from Eastern Europe by way of New Jersey. A major portion of those who are fed up and disgusted by the behavior of a Town Government Mr. Fornal views through rose colored glasses have been here no longer than the majority of his political allies, having come from places like New York City, New Jersey, Long Island, other parts of the Hudson Valley and places much farther away. The difference is, however, that when we moved here we decided that we wanted to become a part of what was already here. Mr. Fornal's crowd came here and decided that they were far more intelligent than the "banshees" who are "shrieking their shrill complaints." They decided that the redneck hicks need to be taken in hand and forced to change the Town for the "better," as they see it.

The fact that Mr. Fornal claims that his "sector of the population" is subsidizing the other "sectors" shows just how patronizing he and others like him are. We never asked to have them come into our Town and "subsidize" anything. In fact, I don't see them subsidizing our Town at all. On the contrary, 300 years of work, heart, spirit and money have gone into making this Town what it is today. It is the legacy of the "longtimers" which is "subsidizing" Mr. Fornal's ability to live in a beautiful, rural atmosphere. The Liberal aristocracy which has come into Town of late has done nothing to make us what we are. Those who lived here for three centuries did it all.

Finally, Mr. Fornal repeatedly refers to "residents." His allies have formed a "Residents' Association." This is the ultimate proof that they do not understand rural life in the slightest. Country families are not residents of a Town. We do not define ourselves by where we live. We define ourselves by those who surround us, by those who help us when the need arises and those whom we, in turn, help. No, we are not residents. We are neighbors. It is truly sad that Mr. Fornal, the Town Board and their supporters and allies seem to be incapable of comprehending this simple truth.

Respectfully,


Imre Beke, Jr., Chairman
Town of Rochester Conservative Committee