Merry Christmas

The Fire Commission

I want to thank Mayor Gallo for appointing me to the Kingston Fire Commission.  The fact that the Mayor appointed me despite the fact that I actually ran against him in the past election speaks to his character.

I took notice of Frank Dart saying that my appointment was a "slap in the face" and profess myself disappointed and confused.  I was unaware that Mr. Dart possessed such a low opinion of me.  I guess part of his reaction must be sour grapes because he was not reappointed.

I must also point out that Mr. Dart's contention that he was not reappointed because he supported Hayes Clement in the Democrat primary seems flat since I was appointed in his stead and I actually ran against Mayor Gallo.  Certainly, if Shayne Gallo was being politically vindictive, he would not have appointed me.  My so-called political offense was much greater than Mr. Dart's.  He supported an opponent whereas I was an opponent.

Nevertheless, I thank the Mayor for the faith he has shown me and for his kind words in the paper.  I will try to honor his choice by doing the best job I can.

Stop Politicizing the Death of Children

Like millions of Americans, I was horrified at the slaughter of innocent children at the elementary school in Connecticut.  The idea of 5 and 6 year old babies being killed before they could even get a real taste of life is beyond shocking.  Still to be determined are the terrible effects psychologically on the children who survived but saw their teacher, principal, and classmates murdered before their eyes.

The families of the dead still mourn their loved ones and the pain remains fresh and raw, but this does not stop immoral political hacks from descending on Connecticut determined to use this tragedy for political gain.  These disgusting opportunists appear from both the right and the left.

From the right, a group of people intend to protest or picket the funerals of the children claiming this slaughter is the judgment of God.  Leave the grieving families alone.  Certainly, God does not offer his judgment in the form of the death of innocent children.

From the left, we have the gun control zealots who insist that stricter gun laws would have prevented this heinous abomination.  One Congressman, Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) actually had the gaul to say that President Obama should "exploit" the Connecticut tragedy in order to get the edge on the gun control debate.  Joining Nadler in such thoughts are Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo who have both started using this tragedy to support their gun control agenda.

One should not exploit the death of children.  Moreover, if a person is so evil that he plans the killing of as many 6 year old children as he can, do you really think such evil would hesitate for even one second because of a gun law?  Please also further keep in mind that Connecticut has some of the strongest anti-gun laws in the country.  This crime was not the result of the lack of gun laws.  It was the result of an evil and deranged mind.

Here is my suggestion to the politicians and the political zealots from both sides of the aisle.  Get out of Connecticut and leave these people alone.  Let them grieve and bury their loved ones.  They do not need to be exploited or chastised.  They need to be left alone to heal and to try to gather their shattered lives back together.  The last thing they need is some attention seeking politician or zealot appearing in their town seeking personal or political grandeur over the deaths of their beloved children.

Gallo vs. Sottile

The Daily Freeman ran 2 stories today about Gallo and Sottile bickering over an obvious conflict of interest caused by former Mayor Sottile taking a job with a developer who had business before the city.

Sottile responded (as he usually does) by personally attacking Gallo claiming that his criticism was because the Mayor refused to appoint him Special City Judge.  Sottile even denied something that those of us on the political inside have known about for some time, i.e. that he threatened to fire Gallo from his city attorney position if the ran a primary against Judge Larry Ball.

My prediction is that we will continue to see more of the so-called Sottile iceberg over the next year.  Expect the personal attacks from Sottile to get nastier as the allegations mount.  For years, I questioned the Sottile administration about its lack of ethics.  Finally, someone else has come forward to prove the point.  Go, Shayne, go !!

And So It Begins

I warned of upcoming efforts to limit our freedom and end our constitutional republic.  Well, now Hank Johnson, a Congressman from Georgia, is calling for an amendment to the United States Constitution to allow for governmental control of free speech.

At this point, he is only looking for governmental control over free speech rights of corporations.  He was quoted as saying, "We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations."

I know many who are anti-corporation will think this is great news.  I counter by quoting a famous movie character, "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny".

Once we take the first step of limiting rights under the first amendment to one group, what stops the inevitable next step?  The Constitution is there to protect the rights of freedom.  Let us not start down the path of eliminating those rights.

Once we eliminate the right of free speech to corporations, why not have governmental control of a church's right of free speech.  Then maybe we can eliminate a political party's right to free speech.  Where does it end?  I think liberals or "progressives" are absolutely full of it on many issues.  Yet, I would fight to the death for their right to express their thoughts and theories.  Is that not what America is all about?

An Ongoing Debate

Right after the election, I posted a brief article wherein I expressed my concern over the demise of the American Republic.

I was contacted by Mr. Champ-Doran of (http://kingstonbarn.wordpress.com) first by a response and then by a phone call.  He asked my permission to post the article and our responses on his blog to start a debate back and forth between our blogs.

I gave my permission and we agreed as gentlemen to offer an insightful, intelligent, and respectful debate.  Our topic is the potential demise of the American Republic and, as an internal and secondary topic, the constitutionality of socialism or redistribution of wealth.

Thus far, the debate has been excellent and I have enjoyed it.  I urge you to look at the comments and the updates in the RIP article below.  You can also look at Mr. Champ-Doran's web site listed above.

I urge you to join our debate with comments on the RIP thread, on this thread, or on Mr. Champ-Doran's blog.  All I ask is that your comments be respectful, on point, and intellectually stimulating.

"The Tip of the Iceberg"?

A very interesting article appeared recently in the Daily Freeman.  It deals with a significant dispute between the current Gallo administration and the former Sottile administration.

By way of background, the Director of the City Community Development Office, Jen Fuentes, and the Corporation Counsel, Andrew Zweben, reported to the Common Council Finance Committee that $30,000 needed to be transferred to the Development Office.  This money will go to the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and will eventually be returned to the city.

It seems that HUD has made a determination that two projects completed with federal community block grant money during the Sottile regime were not eligible under the program.

Alderman Hoffay, the Finance Chair, suggested that Ms. Fuentes and Mr. Zweben were lying and demanded a written letter or order from HUD before he would allow a vote on the subject.  This is not unexpected as Alderman Hoffay has gone out of his way to undermine the Gallo administration.  His motives rest upon his refusal to properly accept and deal with the fact that the candidate he supported in the 2011 Democrat primary for Mayor was defeated by Shayne Gallo.

Nevertheless, the response from Jen Fuentes was really shocking.  She said that if the Council refused to appropriate the money, it could result in HUD doing a full audit of the use of federal money during the Sottile administration.  She said that HUD already determined 2 improper uses of federal money by the Sottile administration and that they would be "the tip of the iceberg".

Alderman Hoffay accused her of "smearing" Sottile, and the former Mayor of course offered his own comments saying that he had done nothing wrong and that HUD was wrong.  (How many times I have I heard Sottile over the years denying wrongdoing?  I wish I had a nickel for each time).

The question occurring to me is what did Ms. Fuentes mean about the "tip of the iceberg"?  Are there other instances of misuse of federal funds?  Would a formal audit reveal malfeasance of some kind by the prior administration?  

Sottile said he "welcomes" an audit.  Perhaps he should be careful what he wishes for.  He might just get it.

R.I.P.

The constitutional republic known as the United States of America

July 4, 1776 to November 6, 2012

********
UPDATE
********


My response to the recent comments of Mr. Champ-Doran require a more lengthy response than permitted in the comment section.  I am therefore placing it here in the original article




Mr. Champ-Doran,

Allow me to correct your errors on the Constitution and constitutional law.

First, under Article IV, section 4, the United States guarantees a republican form of government.  Thus, any attempt to take one clause of the Constitution out of context to justify a socialist form of government is in direct violation of said article.

The power of Congress to lay and collect taxes and provide for the "general welfare" does not give constitutional authority to fundamentally change our basic form of government.

By its very nature, the federal government is a limited government.  In fact, this point was so strong in the minds of the founding fathers that they drafted the 10th Amendment making it crystal clear that any power not expressly given to the federal government is expressly reserved to the States or the people.

Second, where do you see the power to redistribute wealth in the Constitution?  By definition, redistribution of wealth is taking from the wealthy so as to redistribute it to whomever you wish, usually the poor.

Under the very same section you site, it is stated that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform.

Additionally, the power to levy an income tax is not in the original Constitution.  That power comes from Amendment XVI which was ratified on 2/3/1913.

Third, there is no reference to a "social contract" in the Constitution.  The Constitution was the joining of the States into a limited federal government.  Not one single member of the men who debated and wrote this Constitution ever envisioned the federal government running private industry or becoming cradle to grave financial security.

Now, let's discuss your non-constitutional points.  First, class warfare.  You argue against my point of class warfare with a blatant class warfare argument.

Nevertheless, looking at your discussion of a wealthy man (you say white man, though race and gender are not relevant because there are wealthy men and women of all races in this country), you fail to mention something important.  The man in question EARNED his money.  Income taxes were paid on his money at the top level long before he invested said money into various companies.  Now, his money was taxed for the second time as capital gains.

That is not enough.  Now, you want that money taxed a third time at the maximum income tax level even though it was already taxed.

I take further note that you seem to express contempt for someone who inherited money from their father or parent.  What is wrong with that?

A man works his entire life, pays taxes, and succeeds.  He then passes his legacy to his children.  The children have to pay inheritance taxes on that money even though it was already subject to income taxes.  Your comment regarding Mr. Trump suggests that somehow his inheritance is not justified.  I see nothing wrong with a man or woman passing on their financial legacy to his or her sons or daughters.

The big part of class warfare is this irrational hatred of successful people and the idea that somehow that they do not deserve to be wealthy despite their personal or familial success.  Success is to be encouraged not mocked.

Then, to justify this irrational hatred, the wealthy are attacked for resenting those who live off the public dole even when they have the ability to work.

The various public assistance programs exist to help those who cannot help themselves.  Unfortunately, these well intended programs have been inundated with claims from people fully capable of working but who would rather live off the dole than go out and earn a living.

This is unfair to those who actually require the assistance and unfair to those who are working and have to continually pay higher taxes to support those truly undeserving of public support.

Finally, your comment that feeding the poor and educating people should not be our responsibility is pure straw man.

Of course we have a moral obligation to care for the poor and down trodden.  However, if you read the Constitution carefully, it is not the federal government that bears that burden.  It is the burden of each of the States or the people per the Tenth Amendment.

The bottom line is that you are taking clauses of the Constitution out of context to justify socialism as some form of contractual or moral obligation.

Is it not ironic that people such as myself who are pro-life are told we cannot force our morality upon people?  Yet, you seem to be arguing that your sense of morality is actually written in the federal Constitution albeit in invisible ink.

*****
SECOND UPDATE
*****

Mr. Champ-Doran,

While I disagree with your constitutional points, I am enjoying our debate.  I am going to extend an invitation to some people I know through Facebook who are knowledgeable on the Constitution and ask them to join by posting comments.  To be clear, the people I speak have varying interpretations.  Some are conservative, some liberal, and some are libertarian.  Libertarians' interpretation of the Constitution are often the subject of fascinating debate.  (I mean that in a positive way).  I am not seeking to stack the deck, but rather extend this thoughtful and respectful debate.

To your comments ...

I admit that my initial article is hyperbole to a point.  The country is not dead, though I believe we are heading full speed toward being a socialist democracy.   One of the methods being used to further this unworthy goal is redistribution of wealth. 

The basic definition of "redistribution of wealth" is the transfer of money, wealth, or property from one of means to one of limited or no means in order to right a perceived social wrong.  In theory, there can be the reverse which is sometimes referred to as "regressive redistribution".  I suppose one might actually refer to my definition above as "progressive redistribution".

You argue that redistribution is constitutional because it can be accomplished via taxes or social welfare programs that the Supreme Court has upheld.  I respectfully submit that the means may be constitutional, but the ultimate goal is contrary to the United States Constitution.

We can both agree that the term "redistribution of wealth" does not appear in the Constitution; however, I think it apparent that the intent of the framers of the Constitution makes clear that redistribution was never intended or desired.  Allow me to provide some examples.  I know Thomas Jefferson was not part of the constitutional convention, but he is largely regarded as a "founding father".  I have therefore included some of his quotes and writings.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that is the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” -- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” --Thomas Jefferson

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”  -- James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in a letter to James Robertson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” -- James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

 On another point, you stated that you selected Donald Trump because he has suggested a revolution.  I can understand your concern over his use of the word revolution.  However, I close by quoting James Madison from his speech to the ratifying convention of Virginia on June 16, 1788.  He said, "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

I believe the last four years and the re-election of Barack Obama, as well as the push for redistribution of wealth, constitutes "gradual and silent encroachments" of the freedom of the people of the United States of America.

I await your reply, sir.

No More Live Public Access

As people are now aware, pre-taped shows of a very limited nature are being broadcast on channel 23 out of Esopus.  There are 2 things; however, that most do not know.

First, any tapes submitted are being reviewed for content.  Anything controversial will not be aired.  Basically, if your opinions are considered out of the mainstream, they will not be aired.

Second, all of the equipment for live broadcasting is gone.  The Public Access Commission never paid its bill at the storage company.  They left all of the live studio equipment in the storage unit and it was auctioned off in October.  I have been unable to learn who bought it other than that the person was a dealer who promptly sold off all of the equipment.

Thus, there is little chance of ever seeing live shows again unless money magically appears to buy  new equipment.  Given the terrible economy, it seems unlikely.  One must wonder why the commission could not have found a closet somewhere to store the equipment.  There is storage space in the upper levels of City Hall where the stuff could have been stored.  Why did the Commission do nothing?  I suspect they wanted to eliminate live programming.

A valuable community resource has been lost.  Whether it was lost through incompetence or by design may never be known.

The Race for the White House -- Prediction

The race for the White House has 2 required predictions: the national vote and the Electoral College.  A week ago, the race looked over, but President Obama has had a minor surge likely due to the Hurricane and his appearances in New Jersey.

The polls have been all over the place.  The problem is the turnout model.  Many polls are using a D+7 or D+9 model.  In other words, the polls assume a greater Democratic turnout than Republican by either 7 or 9 points.  In 2008, the turnout was D+8.  I do not believe that the President will have the same turnout and enthusiasm as 2008.  I think it more likely that turnout will be even or perhaps R+1 or 2.  If the turnout is D+3 or better, President Obama likely is reelected.  Based on my presumption concerning turnout, I make the following predictions.

I believe Romney wins the national or popular vote.  I think that difference will be clear.  Romney gets 53% and Obama gets 47%, ironic in light of Romney's infamous 47% comment.

As for the Electoral College, let's look at the battleground states.

1.   Colorado goes Romney +2

2.   Florida goes Romney +5

3.   Iowa goes Romney +1  (will be called late at night)

4.   Michigan goes Obama +3  ( I know polls show this close, but I just do not buy it)

5.   Nevada goes Obama +2

6.   New Hampshire goes Romney +4

7.   North Carolina goes Romney in a blow out (+10 or +11)

8.   Ohio goes Romney +2  ( I know the polls tend to lean Obama, but based on enthusiam and recent turnout to rallies {30,000 for Romney, 2,500 for Obama), I think Romney wins the State.

9.   Pennsylvania goes Obama +1 or +2.  Polls show this State is tight.  If turnout in Philadelphia is weak, Romney could win the State.  I think Pennsylvania will disappoint Republicans yet again.

10. Virginia will be called at Romney +2, but when the military votes are counted, it will increase to +3

11. Wisconsin goes to Romney +1 or +2

12. Minnesota goes Obama +2


Based on these predictions, the Electoral College goes 295 Romney to 243 Obama.  Based on these projections, Governor Romney could lose Ohio and still get 277 and the win.

I predict the Governor Romney wins the White House with a clear and easy win in the popular vote, but a relatively close win in the Electoral College.

Predictions on the Local Races

Here are my predictions on the local races to be decided on Tuesday.

U.S. Senate -- Although I like Wendy Long, she is not going to win.  Gillibrand wins with 62% of the vote.

Congress -- Chris Gibson wins with 57% of the vote.

N.Y. Senate -- George Amedore wins a nail biter with almost 51% of the vote.

Assembly -- Kevin is unopposed.  Obviously, he wins.

Supreme Court -- Richard Mott comes in first, Bud Malone second, Mike Kavanagh an extremely close 3rd with Albany County being his achilles' heel, Schick fourth, and WFP candidate Weissman a distant fifth.

An Empty Suit

The Daily Star, a left leaning newspaper from Oneonta, endorsed Congressman Gibson today.  What is striking, however, are the comments by the newspaper about Julian Schreibman.  The paper wrote:

"This year, the 19th District leans a bit more Democratic. However, any opportunity the Democrats might have had to defeat Gibson has been severely hampered by the quality of their candidate.

We have listened to the arguments of Julian Schreibman and have come away with the impression that he is — to put it bluntly — an empty suit.

Rather than come up with any specific proposals for what he would do as a member of Congress to help our area and the nation, Schreibman’s campaign has consisted almost entirely of ad hominem attacks against Gibson.

In debates and his television advertisements, Schreibman seems content to tell voters what he thinks they want to hear rather than offer a vision for the future. It’s not enough to tell people you are for gun rights and against fracking. It’s not enough to tell folks that your opponent is a bum.

While we are far more comfortable with Schreibman’s positions on social issues, the political adage of “you can’t beat somebody with nobody” applies in this election."  

{emphasis added by me}

You Cannot Make This Stuff Up

Around 1:15 pm today, the winds were picking up considerably and the first rains of Hurricane Sandy were falling.  I looked out my office window into the Family Court parking lot and saw a man clearing the parking lot with a leaf blower.

Imagine that.  Using a leaf blower as the winds of a hurricane approach!!  Yikes!!

Lee Iacocca (a Democrat) Endorses Romney

 Lee Iacocca, a prominent Democrat who was once offered a seat in the United States Senate from Pennsylvania, has endorsed Mitt Romney for President.  I think his words ring true.  I have therefore posted them below along with a link to the Detroit News website where it appears officially.

"I've seen a lot of situations that needed a turnaround in my time, and I know one when I see one. Trust me, America needs a turnaround.
America is in deep trouble. After four years, economic growth is still anemic, our annual deficits were not cut in half as promised, and our staggering $16 trillion federal debt hangs over us and our kids like the plague. Our people are hurting, they can't find jobs, they have lost a major part of their net worth, the number of Americans living in poverty is at unacceptable levels, and we just aren't doing the things that would get our country back on the right track.
Like any turnaround it must begin by honestly facing our problems; hope and speeches won't get our people back to work. It will require experienced leadership that can create and lead policy change that will enable a more robust and competitive America. We need leadership that understands that government, just like American families, can't continue to spend beyond its means. We must find leadership that won't pander to the people, but rather will speak honestly to them about our situation, explaining in simple terms what we have to do to get back on the right track. And we need leadership that can bring us together in a sense of shared responsibility so that we can move forward as a team. All of us. As Americans.

America needs new leadership

Mitt Romney has successfully led both public and private sector turnarounds. He is a bright and successful man; he is a good man, a caring man, a man of integrity, family and faith. Importantly, he recognizes we are in a tough situation. With dozens of years of real world experience in the public and private sectors, he knows what he's talking about. His policies will enable a stronger America, one in which all Americans can share. He was groomed and trained for this moment.

The future of our country is at stake

If you are out of work or worried about your job, having trouble making ends meet, are worried about your kids' future or your own, or if you just have a nagging sense that as Americans we can do better than this, it's time to wake up and stop just hoping it will all work out in a few more years. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it won't!
It's time for straight talk.
I'm asking you to vote for change that will get us moving in the right direction, and to be ready to be part of the solution. Everything depends on it. We don't have time to waste. It's time to make America great again.
Vote for Mitt Romney for president."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121019/OPINION01/210190325#ixzz29mDQVpDq

5 Big Lies from the Second Presidential Debate

1. President Obama: "I told you I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and I did. I told you I’d cut taxes for small businesses, and I have."

Truth --The few tax cuts that Obama did enact, such as the temporary payroll tax holiday, were short-term, or conditional.  Moreover, Obama has raised taxes on the middle class.  The largest of these is Obamacare.  Keep in mind also that his so-called Millionaires tax will decimate small businesses.

2.  President Obama:  Romney "was asked, is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver . . . and he said, yes, I think that’s fair."

   Truth:  Obama was referring to a 60 minutes interview where Romney said that capital gains should be taxed lower than other income because it has been taxed once already.  According to his tax policy, Obama agrees with this principle.  Thus, Obama's claim was a deliberate distortion.

3. Obama (referring to Romney's intention to limit funding to Planned Parenthood)  "They rely on it for mammograms."

    Truth:  Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms.  That has been confirmed by various fact checkers.  This was just a nasty cheap shot by the President intending to get women to believe that Governor Romney is anti-woman.


4. Obama:  "And the production is up....What you’re saying is just not true."

    Truth -- Romney's statement that oil production on federal lands is down 50% is not completely accurate.  It is actually closer to 60%.  Obama's statements were just plain wrong.

5.  Moderator Crowley: "He did call it an act of terror."

    Truth -- No, he did not.  His reference to "acts of terror" in his Rose Garden speech was in a general, abstract sense, and came long after he had described the 9/11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions as demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video.  Obama also went o the United Nations days later and again claimed the attacks were due to a video and not as a result of terrorism.  Crowley later walked these statements back.  One must ask what business a moderator has in fact checking the candidates, especially since she got it wrong.

One of the Best Campaign Ads I Have Ever Seen

Biden Giggles His Way to a Loss

Reminiscent of Al Gore's sigh's and groans which cost him a debate with George W. Bush in 2000, Joe Biden smiled, laughed, and giggled his way to a loss in a debate with Paul Ryan.

If you read the transcript or listened on the radio, you would think Biden did well.  If you watched on television, you could not help but be appalled at the juvenile behavior exhibited by the Vice President.  For the first 2/3rd of the debate, Biden smiled, laughed, giggled, and interrupted Ryan 82 times.   His behavior was not only juvenile, but also extremely disrespectful.

Here are some of the comments from journalists about Biden's behavior.

Phil Klein of the Washington Examiner:  "“Biden’s strategy seems to be to laugh at Ryan constantly. Will it work to infantalize Ryan, or backfire like Gore sighing?”"

David Gregory of NBC: “Biden’s smile is out of control.”

Ben Smith of Buzzfeed:  “So did Biden practice laughing at Ryan?"

Rick Klein of ABC:  “Biden on verge of breaking down in laughter when Ryan talks.”

Former Eric Cantor staffer Brad Daysping:   “Joe Biden needs to realize this isn’t a Senate Foreign Relations Hearing. His laughter and condescending attitude is a disaster.”

Guy Benson of TownHall:  “Will Biden laugh his ass off at the terrible economy, too?”

S.E. Cupp of MSNBBC: “Biden needs to laugh a little less through the Libya, Middle East, nuclear Iran segment.”

 

Roger Ebert:   “Joe! Stop smiling and laughing!”

 

Emily Miller of Washington Times: “Biden laughing when he disagrees with Ryan is so annoying. Like a child in time out.”

 

Jennifer Rubin of Washington POst:  “Biden’s laughing is losing the debate- obnoxious”

Chris Wallace of Fox:  "I don't believe I've ever seen a debate in which one participant was as openly disrespectful of the other as Biden was to Paul Ryan tonight," Wallace said.

 

Gloria Burger of CNN: "He was condescending at times to Paul Ryan. I think I could have done with a lot less eye-rolling and chuckling on the part of Joe Bide."

 

Below is an ad that the RNC released based on Joe's constant laughing, giggling, and smirking.

Gibson Destroys Schreibman at Debate

Earlier tonight, at M. Clifford Miller School, I watched the most lopsided debate I have ever seen.  It was truly no contest.  What is unclear to me is how much of the difference was the positive performance of Chris Gibson or the dreadful performance of Julian Schreibman.

Now, I know some of you are thinking that I am exaggerating for the purpose of partisanship.  If you think that, then go the Freeman web site and watch the replay.  I kid you not.  Chris Gibson destroyed Schreibman.

In fact, during Schreibman's closing statement, his over the top attacks against Gibson caused most of the crowd to groan, boo, and hiss.  No exaggeration. 

To give some detail, Schreibman kept making false charge after false charge.  He rarely answered questions and instead used his time to verbally assault his opponent. It came off very poorly.  Even his own supporters were confused as to his strategy. 

Finally, Gibson had enough.  After a nasty attack wherein Schreibman claimed that Gibson lacked the ability to appeal across the aisle, Gibson pointed out that Julian was once the County Chairman of the Ulster Democrats.  If you are so good at motivating people and bringing them together, then why are so many Democrats in Ulster County publicly supporting me?  I am paraphrasing the quote, but he got a loud laugh and long round of applause after that retort.

The biggest hand of the night went to neither candidate.  When retiring Congressman Hinchey entered the room, he got a loud ovation.  (Not from me)  However, not even the warm reception for Mr. Hinchey could help Julian Schreibman.  He was outclassed.

One of two headlines describes this debate.  The first is "Gibson Kicks Schreibman's Ass" or the second is "Schreibman Makes an Ass of Himself".  Either fits this debate.

This Says It All

Barack Obama, 2008:  “If you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.”


Barack Obama, 2012: Big Bird! Big Bird! Big Bird!

Romney Wipes The Floor With Obama

Last night, Governor Romney completely destroyed President Obama in the first Presidential Debate.  But, do not take my word for it.  Let's look at comments from prominent Democrats and Liberals.

Andrew Sullivan of The Beast:  " Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.

Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn't there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.

The person with authority on that stage was Romney - offered it by one of the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change tonight. It's beyond depressing. But it's true."


 Chris Matthew of MSNBC:  "I don't know what he was doing out there. He had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it. Romney, on the other hand, came in with a campaign. He had a plan, he was going to dominate the time, he was going to be aggressive, he was going to push the moderator around, which he did effectively, he was going to relish the evening, enjoying it."


Bill Maher:  "“Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney.”


Michael Moore:  "If Romney keeps this up . . . Obama is going to vote for him."


A CNN poll found that 67 percent believe Romney won the debate, compared to only 25 percent for Obama.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you think this was just a bad night for the President, you are mistaken.  This is how Obama debates.  Four years ago, his opponent was John McCain, a very weak debater.  Now, Mitt Romney, a strong debater, is running circles around the President.  In 2 weeks, it will happen again.

Time For A Change

On October 2, 2012, I filed paperwork with the Ulster County Board of Elections changing my enrollment from Republican to Conservative.  By law, this will not take effect until the week after this year's November election.

Though I would be permitted to retain my Republican committee position until the enrollment change is official,  I also know from experience that insisting upon maintaining my position would cause a significant and unnecessary distraction for the committee.  We are just over 30 days away from an important election and the focus of the party must be on the election.  Therefore, effective immediately, I resigned my position as County and City Republican Committeeman.

This was a very difficult decision for me.  I have served on the Republican committee for the better part of 20 years.  My Dad served nearly 55 years.  His father before him served many years as well.  Between the 3 of us, we have provided almost 100 years of service to this party.  Nevertheless, I believe this decision is necessary and the right thing for me at this time.

As for my reasons for changing enrollment, I have chosen to keep them to myself.  Discussing them publicly would serve only as a distraction and would require discussion of internal party business.  I still have many friends in the city and county committees.  Having worked with them side by side for so many years toward a common goal, I have no intention of publicly attacking the Republican Committee for the county and/or city.  To do so would dishonor the fine work we have done together.  I will continue to be involved with local politics albeit with the Conservative Party. 

A Bump in the Road??

On a 60 minutes interview, President Obama was asked about his Middle East policy in light of the deaths of four people including an American Ambassador.  President Obama replied, ""But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because, you know, in a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam. The one part of society that hasn't been controlled completely by the government. There are strains of extremism, and anti-Americanism, and anti-Western sentiment. And, you know, can be tapped into by demagogues."

Governor Romney immediately  replied saying, "What's happening in the Middle East is hardly characterized in my view as a bump in the road. Not with Egypt electing a Muslim Brotherhood president. Not with Libya seeing the assassination of an American ambassador. Not with Syria, with 20,000 people killed by Mr. Assad. Not with Pakistan in tumult and of course, not with Iran on the verge of becoming nuclear capable. This is a far - far from a bump in the road."

Later, Governor Romney told ABC NEWS, "I can’t imagine saying something like the assassination of ambassadors is a bump in the road.”

 Look for MSNBC, CNN, NBC, and CBS to claim the remarks were out of context or that Romney is "jumping the gun", or some other such nonsense.  They will twist this to benefit President Obama in any way they can.

Harry Reid Owes Romney an Apology

Harry Reid has been accusing Governor Romney of not paying any taxes.  Today, Harry Reid was proven a liar.

The Romney campaign released Mitt and Ann Romney's 2011 tax return today. The campaign previews a few of the highlights here:

• In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.

• The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.

• The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

• The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions.

• The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

Additionally, the Romney campaign is releasing a summary of 20 years of taxes, between 1990-2009, detailing their tax expenditures during those years:

• In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.

• Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.

• Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.

• Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.

• Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

Let's see if Harry Reid is a man and apologizes for his slander.  My bet is that he says nothing.  In my book, that would make him a coward.

The Lies Are Not Working

For months, the Schreibman campaign has been telling lies about Congressman Gibson.  They have been trying to use "Mediscare" tactics to turn seniors against him. 

A new poll from Siena shows that it is not working.  Gibson leads 52 to 36 thus giving him a commanding 16 point lead.  In actuality, the lead is much higher.  The Siena polls always seem to favor Democrats.  In political circles, it is well known that any results from Siena require an additional 4 to 5 points be added to the Republican total to be truly accurate.  Thus, I suspect Gibson is really up 20 to 21 points.

Some have theorized that Obama being on the ticket will carry democrats.  Not so.  The same poll shows Obama up 4 points in the district.  Using the math that I mentioned before, the race is a dead heat in the district.  (Don't get excited if you are backing Romney.  NYC, Albany, Ithaca, and Buffalo will guarantee that New York goes with Obama.)  In the district though, there appears to be no coat tails from the President.

I guess it is time to tune up the band for Mr. Schreibman and sing, "Turn out the lights, the party's over . . ."

Kingston Then and Now

I post this video every now and then.  It is a nice collage of pictures of Kingston then and now.  Enjoy.

Major Gaffe by Obama

This is one that is hard to believe.

“The most important lesson I’ve learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside,” President Obama told a Univision forum Thursday. “You can only change it from the outside.”

I thought his campaign was about change??!!  Now, he admits that he cannot change government as President.  Not missing a beat, Mitt Romney responded that the voters will give Obama a chance to change it from the outside after the November election.

This is a major gaffe, but is nowhere near as bad as the famous "You didn't build that" comment.  Take a look at the video below to see a funny video concerning that infamous comment.

A Good Ad With No Negativity

Proof

I and many others have stated that President Obama is a Socialist.  Democrats have denied this.  More often than not, the response from liberals has been that Obama is not a Socialist and is a moderate.

Now, there is proof that Obama is indeed a Socialist.  The core of socialism is redistribution of wealth.  Socialists believe that money and wealth should be taken and given to those they believe deserve it.  The idea is forced equality regardless of merit and work.

Take a listen to the comments made by President Obama on the YouTube link below.  Take special notice of President Obama's statement, "I actually believe in redistribution."

United States Credit Rating Downgraded Again

After the Federal Reserve announced it was printing and injecting $40 billion dollars into the U.S. economy (a move seen by many as a way to temporarily inflate the numbers to favor the reelection of President Obama), ratings firm Egan-Jones cut its credit rating on the U.S. government to "AA-" from "AA," citing its opinion that quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve would hurt the U.S. economy and the country's credit quality.

In its downgrade, the firm said that issuing more currency and depressing interest rates through purchasing mortgage-backed securities does little to raise the U.S.'s real GDP but reduces the value of the dollar.

"In turn, this increases the cost of commodities, which will pressure the profitability of businesses and increase the costs of consumers thereby reducing consumer purchasing power," the firm said.

The credit rating of our country was always the absolute best and had never been downgraded.  Now, with one term of Barack Obama not even completed, we have been downgraded twice.

We need new leadership and it starts with a new President.

Talk About Insane

Three news stories have come to light which cause me to shake my head and wonder if any sane person is currently running our country or our foreign policy.

First, it is being reported by various non-partisan news sources that the Marines assigned as security detail for our embassy in Egypt were under orders by our Ambassador to Egypt not to carry live ammunition. Instead, we were relying upon Egypt security (run by the Muslim Brotherhood) to guard our sovereign territory, i.e. the embassy and its personnel. The idea of having unarmed Marines guarding our embassy in Egypt, especially given the current political climate there, is absolute lunacy.

A former Democratic elected official (Zell Miller) once said at the Republican National Convention in 2004 that he was concerned that national Democrats were planning to weaken our national defense. He asked whether our country was to be defended "with spitballs". Apparently, this was the case for our Marines in Egypt.

Second, it is now being reported that the White House was informed of dangerous protests and violent outbursts against our embassies in Egypt and several other countries 48 HOURS BEFORE IT HAPPENED.  Yet, NOTHING was done to protect our embassies or our citizens.  Now, one of our ambassadors is dead along with an aide and 2 marines.

Why was nothing done?  

Third and finally, the official initial response from our country after these attacks was an apology for offending the Islamist terrorists and attackers.  The media did not criticize this at all.  Yet, when Governor Romney expressed his outrage over this abysmal response, the Obama pocket media attacked Romney while giving Obama a pass. 

Sometimes, with this administration, I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone.  Right is deemed wrong and a proper objection is deemed treasonous.  It was bad enough when there was no white or black, just grey.  Now, it has been completely reversed so that anything pro-America is deemed politically incorrect and wrong.  If I say the pledge of allegiance, I am apparently offending people.  If I say God Bless America, I am anti-atheist or anti-agnostic.  The majority of people at the Democrat Convention booed God.  The majority of the media did not criticize this, but instead criticized those who objected to the booing.

After all of this, I am forced to ask some questions.  What's wrong with people?  Has the whole country gone mad?  Am I, as a proud and patriotic American, in the minority?  Is the United States not the greatest country in the world?  Or am I somehow a racist, "Europhobe", or "Middle Eastphobe" for believing that America is the best?

Man, do I need a beer!!

SSDD

Gibson Counters His Opponent's Lies

 We have already documented the lies being spewed against Congressman Gibson by his obviously desperate opponent.  The response from the Gibson camp is set forth below.  You may also click HERE to go directly to the link which sets forth the response with better graphics and fonts.

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


SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Why our opponent has a credibility problem

PAID FOR BY CHRIS GIBSON FOR CONGRESS

Our opponent routinely uses false attacks and distortions to advance his partisan narrative. Devoid of vision and inspiration, his campaign represents all that is wrong with American politics.

Here are just a few of the most egregious and oft-repeated false attacks.

False claim: “[Gibson] quickly began supporting the Tea Party’s radical agenda.” [Julian for NY Press Release, August 14, 2012]…“And his voting record is not one of a moderate.” [Timestamp: 3:30]

Fact: Congressman Gibson enjoys broad support across the political spectrum, from conservative Republicans and pragmatic Independents to moderate Democrats. The Washington Post ranks him as the 3rd most independent Republican in the House of Representatives [U.S. Congress Votes Database, Washington Post, Accessed August 30, 2012] and he was ranked at the center of the House by National Journal in 2011. [Members in the Middle: House Members with Centrist Records, National Journal, March 2, 2012].

False claim: “Congressman Chris Gibson has voted to effectively end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a coupon program.” [Julian for NY Website, Accessed August 30, 2012] “Guaranteed coverage is gone” [Politics of Fear Target Elderly, Times Union, August 22, 2012]

Fact: The non-partisan fact-checker organization, Politifact, called the claim that the Republicans voted to end Medicare the 2011 “lie of the year.” With the nonpartisan Medicare trustees estimating Medicare will go broke in a little over a decade, what ends Medicare is the status quo. That is not an option – Congressman Gibson believes we owe it to those who built this country to fulfill our pledges and commitments we made to them. He has supported two different proposals to date that ensure we honor those pledges. The premium support proposal in the Republican budget would allow future seniors -those 54 and younger - to choose between a variety of federally pre-approved plans (like 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries already do) to pick the coverage option that best meets their needs. Plans would be required to offer coverage to every senior (they could not cherry pick beneficiaries), and lower income seniors and the chronically ill would receive more money from the government while the wealthiest seniors would receive less. Anyone 55 or older would have absolutely no change in their benefits. The most recent iteration of the premium support model would have the option to choose between traditional Medicare or a pre-approved plan, with the government paying the full cost for at least two plan options. This year Congressman Gibson supported the bipartisan budget proposal (Cooper-LaTourette) that incorporates an accountable care approach, broader access to discount drugs, and additional measures to combat fraud, waste, and abuse. Congressman Gibson has demonstrated a willingness to work together with Democrats to ensure we save Medicare from bankruptcy and strengthen it for future generations. [Additional Resources: “Republicans Voted to End Medicare is 2011 Lie of the Year, Politifact; “$6,400 Myth,” Wall Street Journal, August 19, 2012; “Despite Democrats’ Warnings, Private Medicare Plans Find Success,” New York Times, August 25, 2012]

False claim: “…one area where a majority of Republicans went one way and [Gibson] broke with them was support for the small business innovation research fund....He was against it when even a majority of Republicans supported it.” [Timestamp: 3:39]

Fact: Congressman Gibson voted four times (H.R. 366, H.R. 2608, S. 1082, and H.R. 1540) to extend and reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. [Library of Congress THOMAS]

"The Lie of the Year" being spread by Julian Schreibman

It would appear that Julian Schreibman, the Democrat candidate for Congressman, is either out of ideas, desperate, or just following the "Mediscare" play book. Perhaps it is all three.

Over the last 4 days, I have received fliers at my home from or on behalf of the Schreibman campaign containing a massive lie.  The ads accuse Congressman Gibson of "gutting Medicare" and "ending Medicare as we know it".  Now, there is a front page story in the Daily Freeman.

This is of course the lie liberal Democrats have been spreading about Paul Ryan and is plan to save Medicare.  The Albany Times Union, which is a very strong Democrat paper, recently ran an article stating that Julian Schreibman is playing "Mediscare politics". (http://bit.ly/RgFUxB).  When a Democrat rag like the Times Union says that about a Democrat or frankly says anything negative about a Democrat, it is saying something.

It should also be noted that PolitiFact examined the claims of Schreibman and his fellow left wingers that the Romney-Ryan plan would "end Medicare as we know it".  These non-partisan fact checkers concluded that the claim was the "Lie of the Year".  Imagine that. Schreibman is continuing to spread the "lie of the year".  That speaks volumes about his credibility.  What is next?  Will Schreibman and his supporters run an ad depicting Congressman Gibson throwing an old lady in a wheelchair over a cliff like the national democrats did to Paul Ryan?  Here's an idea for Mr. Schreibman.  Try to campaign honestly and stop spreading the "lie of the year".  Stop trying to scare seniors and offer some real plans for the future.  If you do not support the Ryan-Romney plan, then what is your plan to keep Medicare solvent?  Finally, stop sending lying and negative attack ads to my home and the homes of other voters.

In German, "Schreibman" means writing man.  Perhaps we should refer to him as "Schreibliegen" which means writing lies.

The Line of the NIght From Paul Ryan

Here's a Doozy

Marc Benioff, a national campaign co-chair for President Obama's reelection campaign, donated $10,000 to Ryan's political action committee earlier this summer.

Asked about the donation by Cr. Benioff said that the nation's fiscal difficulties must be addressed and Ryan's ideas offer "a lot of the right long-term thinking for the country."

I bet the President was not happy about that quote, especially since it came from his national campaign co-chair.

Which is it?

On a conference call with the Boston Globe, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter suggested that Mitt Romney was a criminal and a felon.

When asked about the comment, President Obama said, "Well, first of all, I am not sure that all of those characterizations that you laid out there were accurate. For example, nobody accused Mr. Romney of being a felon."

So, either the President is not being truthful or he has no idea what his campaign operatives are doing and/or saying.  Either way, it is a sad commentary.

An Extremist??

The mantra or talking point we are hearing from the left is that Paul Ryan is an extremist.  I take note of that because posters on this blog and some of my former political opponents have called me an extremist.

In response, I am reminded of a passage from Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" that discusses extremism.  He wrote, "You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. . . . But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label.  Was not Jesus an extremist for love. . . . Was not Amos an extremist for justice. . . . Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel. . . . Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."

 With the state of the economy and the state of our country, perhaps we do need some creative extremists.

THE ROMNEY-RYAN PLAN FOR MEDICARE

The National Review has released an editorial supporting the plan for Medicare released by Romney and Ryan.  It describes the plan exceedingly accurately.  The piece, entitled "The Return of Mediscare" is below:

On CNN yesterday, Obama strategist David Axelrod claimed that “most of the experts who have looked at this” have said that Paul Ryan’s plan to reform Medicare would put the program “in a death spiral” and “would raise costs on seniors by thousands of dollars.” A day earlier — as Representative Ryan was preparing to accept Mitt Romney’s offer to join his ticket — Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina had said the plan involved “shifting thousands of dollars in health-care costs to seniors.”

None of this is true. Any expert who looks at Ryan’s plan — any intelligent and fair-minded person, really — can tell you the actual worst-case scenario for how much more it could make beneficiaries pay: $0.
The claim Axelrod and Messina are making is based on a hostile interpretation of an earlier version of Ryan’s proposal. Ryan has changed the proposal over the last year, however, and Romney has endorsed the new version. The Democratic criticism, applied to the new plan, is indisputably false.

The Romney-Ryan proposal — which has the support of liberal Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon — would let senior citizens choose a coverage plan provided either by the federal government or by a private company. The government would defray the cost of purchasing the plan selected. The providers would submit bids showing the premiums they would charge to cover the benefits Medicare has traditionally offered. The second-lowest bid would set the amount the government would provide for each beneficiary

Seniors who picked the second-cheapest provider would have their entire premium paid by the government, and seniors who picked the cheapest would get a check for the difference. Seniors who picked a more expensive plan would have to pay the difference out of pocket.

We have reason to be confident that this arrangement would restrain the growth of costs. A study has just shown that applying the second-cheapest-bidder approach to even the much less robust form of competition in Medicare Advantage would have resulted in a 9 percent reduction in Medicare costs in one year alone. The savings from years of real competition could be enormous.

If, however, competition does not restrain costs, the growth of government spending per beneficiary will be capped at a level a bit above the growth rate of the economy plus inflation. That is the exact level that the Obama administration envisions as well. The administration, however, hopes to reach the target by setting low prices for medical providers and otherwise micromanaging medical markets. There have been many past efforts along these lines, and they have always failed.

Under a worst-case scenario, then, the Romney-Ryan plan costs senior citizens no more than current law. It offers the hope of doing considerably better: of reining in the costs of Medicare, the principal cause of long-term debt disaster, without sacrificing patient choice, the quality of health care, or medical innovation.
Republicans should explain that they have found a promising strategy to stave off national bankruptcy while improving senior citizens’ health care, and explain also the alternative of bureaucratic rationing Obama has in store for them. If Obama and his aides persist in claiming that the Romney-Ryan plan will increase costs for senior citizens or shift risks to them, Republicans and fair-minded observers should not hesitate to call these charges what they are: lies.

Time for a Real Debate

Governor Romney made a bold and exciting choice for his running mate.  He chose Paul Ryan, a solid conservative known for backing up his words with solid plans.

Already, the Obama campaign and their surrogates are doing what they do best.  They are spreading lies and allegations against Paul Ryan.  If you have not heard the Democrat talking point already, then allow me.  The Democrats are claiming that Romney and Ryan want to destroy Medicare and let granny die from a lack of care.  In some cases, they have even worded it exactly in that way.

Now, let's discuss the truth.  The only candidate for President who cut over $700 billion from Medicare was President Obama as part of his Obamacare plan.

Second, the Romney-Ryan plan changes NOTHING for current seniors.  The changes are for those down the road who are not even seniors yet.  It is an attempt to save Medicare.  Interestingly, the plan was originally conceived by a bipartisan commission created during the Clinton administration. Is it not interesting that not one word of that has come from the Obama surrogates?


The selection of Paul Ryan sets up a true debate.  The election presents a choice between President Obama/ VP Biden who believe that government is the answer to all our problems versus Governor Romney/Congressman Paul Ryan who believe that government is more often than not the problem itself.  It is big government versus a smaller more efficient government.  It is HUGE entitlement spending versus more efficient entitlement spending.

The only question now is whether the Obama campaign will allow this to be a debate or whether they will continue to run their campaign in the mud.  They or their closely allied Super PAC have been running ads accusing Romney of being responsible for the death of a woman who died of cancer.   They have run ads attacking an African American Congressman showing a computer generated version of the Congressman punching an old white woman in the face.  Yet another ad had a Ryan lookalike pushing an elderly woman in a wheelchair off a cliff.  They have promised even tougher ads.  It is going to get nasty and ugly, primarily because the President cannot run on his record.

Below I have attached a video of the "Homecoming Speech" offered by the next VP, Paul Ryan, when he and Governor Romney traveled to Wisconsin on the day after Ryan was named as the running mate.  Enjoy.

Does this photo bring back some memories?

Here We Go Again

Once again, disgraced former Republican County Chairman, Robin Yess, has decided to level an attack against me.  Most of the attack was utter nonsense.  There are a few points to which I must respond.

First, Robin claims that the Fornino case is not precedent because it has not been published in the official legal books.  According to her, courts cannot not even consider the case because it is not precedent unless it is formally published.

The term "precedent" is defined by Black's Legal dictionary as: "An adjudged case or decision of a court of justice, considered as furnishing an example or authority for an identical or similar case afterwards arising or a similar question of law."

Funny -- there is nothing in that definition that states that decisions of the court that are not published in books cannot be used as precedent or authority.  The reason is that any decision on the merits of an issue may be cited as authority or precedent.

In this particular case, the decision is from the same court, i.e. NY Supreme Court in and for the County of Ulster.  It is therefore considered binding precedent on  "an identical or similar case afterwards arising or a similar question of law".  The only question would be whether the court would consider it similar.

Please refrain from giving legal opinions, Robin.  You are neither trained nor qualified to do so.

Second, I take no position on whether a candidate is viable or not.  The question was whether the petitions were proper as a matter of law.  I believe there was a strong argument that they were not based upon the case law of the State of New York.  I stand by that opinion.  Viability of a candidate is decided by the voters once a candidate legally obtains a spot on the ballot. 

Third, your attacks against the Republican party members have nothing to do with fiscal conservatism.  You resigned as Republican County Chairman rather than face a vote of no confidence by the County Committee.  That threatened vote had nothing to do with "fiscal conservatism".  That vote had to do with the job you did as County Chairman.

When you resigned, you told anyone that would listen that you thought Len Bernardo was somehow behind the effort to remove you.  Thus, out of petty thoughts of vengeance, you launched this continuous effort to attack and destroy any of the Republicans you perceived as being part of the effort to remove you.  You have even started supporting Mike Hein despite saying on more than one occasion that Hein needed to go as County Executive.

If you want to continue these petty attacks, go ahead.  As you pointed out, the First Amendment protects your right to speak.  Do not however insult people's intelligence and claim that you are doing so out of some noble calling.  It is blatantly untrue.  The fact that you have teamed up with the duo from Kerhonkson to spread your poison penmanship reveals a complete lack of nobility in anything you may do.

Finally, you ask, ". . . is there any reason you (referring to me) cannot make your point and express your opinion without name calling?"

I speak the truth.  If the truth is insulting to you, then the fault lies with you not the truth teller.  Moreover, take a look at your own website.  You have a picture of Terry Bernardo superimposed on a nut.  You accuse the Independence Party of "blackmail", a crime.  Your site is full of nasty and personal insults against various different people.

 Just remember, I did not start commenting about you.  For reasons that are still unknown, you started taking shots at me because I agreed to let my name be used to give the party more time to find an opponent against Kevin.  I previously ignored all of your nonsense.  You take a shot at me though and I will respond with the harsh reality of truth.  Clearly, you just love to dish it out, but cannot take it when someone responds with the harsh and painful truth.

Chris Gibson Looking Strong

The Poughkeepsie Journal is reporting on two polls which show a strong lead for Congressman Chris Gibson.

In a poll by Public Opinion Strategies, Gibson leads his opponent 53 to 36.  A poll by Global Strategy Group shows the race 42 to 32 in favor of Gibson. 

On the subject of resources, the Federal Election Commission reports show Gibson with a large cash advantage.  As of June 30th, Gibson has $1.19 million compared to $331,704 for his opponent.

There is a long way to go, but things are looking good for Congressman Gibson.

Kudos to Imre

Recently, a challenge was filed to petitions filed for a Republican Committeeman position in the Town of Rochester.  Imre Beke, Jr. filed the challenge as the person was seeking to run a primary against his father.

As a favor to the party and to avoid a costly court case, Imre Jr. decided to withdraw the objection.  For doing the right thing, one would expect kudos, right?  Well, not from the disgraced former Republican County Chairwoman.  She actually had the audacity to claim that Imre withdrew his challenge because of her posts on her blog / web page.  She also claims there was no legal merit to the challenge which proves that she has no business in law or politics for the reasons set forth below.

Imre is a personal friend of mine,  As such, I have discussed the matter with him extensively.  Had the matter gone to court, I would have represented Imre and likely have won the case given the current case law.  That being said, I commend Imre for his decision.  It took a great deal for man who loves his father as much as Imre to withdraw the challenge especially in light of the vicious and nasty attacks launched against him as part of the primary process.

I feel compelled, however, to discuss the legal merit of the claim since Robin has posted an irrelevant section of law claiming that the challenge had no merit.  The challenge did have legal merit in light of a decision from the New York Supreme Court less than one year ago. 

The objection was filed based upon fraud.  The petition improperly used the same Committee on Vacancies used by the County Committee which included the names Roger Rascoe, David O’Halloran, and Gloria Van Vliet, none of whom gave their permission to have their names used on the petitions.  Roger Rascoe is the Republican County Chairman.  David O’Halloran is the Town of Rochester Republican Chairman.  Gloria Van Vliet is the Town of Esopus Republican Chairman.  All three are members of the Executive Board of the Ulster County Republican Committee.

To quote the specific challenge originally filed with the Board of Elections, the petition "intentionally used the same Committee to Fill Vacancies to falsely and maliciously deceive the voters into believing that 3 members of the County Republican Committee, including the County Chairman, actually supported Manuela Mihailescu a/k/a Manuela Michailescu for the position of County Committeeman in that particular district instead of both Imre Beke, Sr. And David O’Halloran."

Those who opposed the challenge (such as Robin) cited Election Law Section 6-134 (8) which states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the failure to list a committee to fill vacancies or the failure to list at least three eligible voters as a committee to fill vacancies shall not invalidate the petition unless a vacancy occurs which, under law, may be filled only by such a committee.

 However, the challenge was not that the petition should be invalidated because of the failure to have a proper committee to fill vacancies.  The objection was fraud which is always a valid objection to petitions, even if the fraud was concerning the committee to fill vacancies.

There is case law supporting the challenge. 

On August 3, 2011, the New York Supreme Court threw out petitions submitted ironically enough by the same individuals upon the grounds that  the individuals who signed the petition were fraudulently induced into the signing the petition. 

The petitions in that case sought an Opportunity to Ballot for the Conservative line and included three names for the Committee to Receive Notices.  These names were the same three people used on the Ulster County Conservative Party’s official nominating petitions for the Committee to Fill Vacancies.  They included the Ulster County Conservative Party Chairman, Edward Gaddy.  

Again quoting the specifics filed by Imre, "Nevertheless, it is important to note that the petitions in Fornino were not disallowed because of the lack of a proper Committee to Receive Notices.  Rather, the ground for disallowance was fraud.  The Fornino case stands for the clear legal proposition that a person may not challenge candidates endorsed by a county committee through the petition process by using a Committee to Fill Vacancies or a Committee to Receive Notices made up of the same three people used by the County Committee.  To do so is fraudulent inducement because the voters are fraudulently misguided into believing that the candidate on the petition is being supported by the County Committee."

Thus, Imre had a valid challenge based upon binding case law.  Though the Board of Elections would likely have declined it since they do not like to get involved in issues of fraud, there is a strong chance the Court would have followed the Fornino case. 

As a gesture of good will toward the party, Imre Jr. withdrew the objections and Imre Sr. filed a declination.  This saves the Town of Rochester a great deal of money and allows the party to focus on the general election in November.  It was a gracious move on the part of Imre and his father.

Unfortunately, in the world of Ulster County politics, a good deed never goes unpunished or without criticism.  I want to give Imre a symbolic pat on the back for willingly withdrawing a perfectly valid challenge.  He and his father not only saved the Town of Rochester a great deal of money, but they both showed grace and class despite vicious and nasty personal attacks being launched against them by petty and despicable people.

You Didn't Build That

"Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own," says President Obama, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Really?  So Bill Gates did not build Microsoft?  Steve Jobs did not build Apple?  Those of you with a small business, you did not build it?

These comments from President Obama reveal his true feelings.  He honestly believes that people do not succeed on their own.  It is only through government that people find success.  This justifies his belief that wealth should be confiscated and redistributed.  Successful people do not deserve the money they make.  It is the gift of government, and thus government may take it back.

Some will argue that Obama only wants to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for his programs.  This is contradicted by what President Obama told Charlie Gibson of ABC News in 2008, saying that even if those higher tax rates produce less revenue for the government, as has been the case with rate increases on capital gains, the government should take away the money as a matter of "fairness."

I personally believe that this country was created on the idea that hard work leads to success.  It is the American Dream.  Yet, our current President seems to think that the American Dream is a gift of the all powerful government.  Thus, this year's election will decide whether our country will be founded upon personal accomplishment or the advancement of government.  The big question for the voters is, "Is the American Dream dead?"

I found a video and a web site that handles this issues quite well.  The web site is http://didntbuildthat.com.  It applies great humor to this serious issue.  I urge you to have a look.

The video is attached below.  It is a campaign ad for Mitt Romney that really nails the issue.  Take a look.

Hoisted on his own Petard

President Obama and his supporters have been blasting Governor Romney for weeks now about his record at Bain Capital. They have accused him of investing in companies that have outsourced jobs. However, it appears that the President has been extremely hypocritical in this attack.

According to articles now surfacing, including in the New York Times, it seems that President Obama has invested heavily in companies that outsourced millions of jobs. 

Here is a portion of an article from the Washington Examiner:

In his most recent financial disclosure from 2011, Obama and his wife reported having between $200,000 and $450,000 in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund, which invests in the largest U.S. corporations. According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as of Sept. 30, 2011, the fund’s biggest holding was 8,272,039 shares of Apple Inc., then valued at $3.2 billion.

The New York Times reported in January:

    Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas….

    “Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House.

    “If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”

The mutual fund that the Obamas have invested in also held 94,582,281 million shares of General Electric, valued at $1.4 billion, as of the SEC filing. The multinational conglomorate has a long history of outsourcing – according to a new book  cited by the New York Times, in 1989, “G.E. became the first U.S. company to outsource software work to India.” Obama also has close ties to GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, who was appointed as chairman of his outside panel of economic advisers last year.

In addition to Apple and GE, the Obamas’ fund listed 10,655,961 shares of International Business Machines, valued at $1.9 billion. As the Wall Street Journal reported in 2009, “The technology giant has been steadily building its work force in India and other locations while reducing the number of workers based in the U.S. Foreign workers accounted for 71% of Big Blue’s nearly 400,000 employees at the start of the year, up from about 65% in 2006.”


Thus, President Obama has been shown to be a hypocrite.  He attacks Romney for doing something he did himself.

Opening of Gibson Headquarters a Rousing Success

Earlier tonight, I attended the Grand Opening of the Campaign Headquarters for Chris Gibson.  The place was packed.  There were so many people, they actually had to congregate outside.  There was nowhere near enough room inside.  Considering how big the headquarters is, that is impressive.

Congressman Gibson a rousing speech that truly inspired the crowd.  There were nothing but smiles despite the 95 degree temperatures.

If this event is any indication, Chris Gibson is looking strong in Ulster County.

The Hypocrisy of Debbie Downer

For months, the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (aka Debbie Downer) has been attacking Mitt Romney because he once had a Swiss Bank account and because he has not released all of his tax returns.

Yet, in the height of hypocrisy, it turns out that Debbie Downer also had a Swiss bank account and refuses to release her tax returns.  What a hypocrite.

An Interesting New Web Site

I recently discovered a new web site recommended to me by a friend on Facebook.  It is a political right-leaning web site.  I urge my readers to check it out:

http://www.wewillnotcomply.org/

Ads By Obama Campaign are False

FactCheck.Org has reviewed several of the ads from the Obama campaign that accuse Romney of being a “corporate raider” who “shipped jobs to China and Mexico,” asking if voters want to elect an “outsourcer in chief.”   They have found the ads to be completely untruthful.

The ads are based upon an attack piece orchestrated by the Washington Post.  In fact, the Post and the Obama campaign not only coordinated an attack against Mitt Romney, they coordinated a false attack.  The Romney team demanded a retraction, but the Post of course refused. 

Here is the review from FactCheck.Org about the ads.

Bain Capital, the venture capital firm founded by Romney in 1984, is the focus of the Obama campaign’s attacks.  There is no question that Bain invested in some companies that helped other companies outsource work and that some of that work went overseas.  That was the core business for Modus Media and SMTC Corp. — two outsource companies featured in a June 21 article in the Washington Post that has been the basis of recent Obama TV ads.  Bain also invested in U.S.-based companies that sold goods manufactured here and abroad, and some of those companies closed U.S. facilities and eliminated U.S. jobs.

But after reviewing numerous corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, contemporary news accounts, company histories and press releases, and the evidence offered by both the Obama and Romney campaigns, we found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital — shipped American jobs overseas.

One TV ad, called “Come and Go,” claims that Romney “shipped jobs to China and Mexico.”  But two examples cited by the Obama campaign occurred after Romney left Bain.  There’s no clear evidence that a third company shipped jobs to China under Romney.

A second ad called “Revealed” mocks Romney’s tough talk about cracking down on China’s trade practices by saying “all he’s ever done is send them our jobs” and citing the Washington Post article.  But the newspaper article contained no examples of U.S. jobs being shipped to China while Romney was working at Bain.

The “Come and Go” ad casts Romney as a “corporate raider,” but that term, loaded with negative connotations, is simply inaccurate.  Bain didn’t engage in hostile takeovers when Romney was at the helm.

That ad also repeats the claim that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney was “outsourcing state jobs to India.”  But it wasn’t the state that outsourced contracts.  Rather, Romney vetoed a measure that would have prevented the state from doing business with a state contractor that was locating state customer-service calls in India.

*****

Now, those of you who have read my blog and/or followed Dad and I on the Kingston Chronicles Television show know that I was not a big fan of Governor Romney.  I was pushing for Governor Huckabee.  (Dad always like Romney though.)

Though I still have some concerns, I am going to support Romney wholeheartedly against President Obama.  I personally believe this election is about the fundamental direction and purpose of our country.  Will this great country continue to be the beacon of freedom our Founding Fathers hoped for or will be become a socialist republic following the failed models of Europe?

To use an analogy, if you hire someone to repair your house and then find out 90% through the intended time period for the job that the worker has not only failed to make the promised repairs, but also has made the home even worse by adding a poorly constructed addition that you neither wanted nor needed, would you allow that person another opportunity or would you fire him and hire someone new??

I believe that President Obama has failed.  He still blames President Bush despite being in office for three years, five months, and twelve days.  Instead of focusing on the economy, President Obama focused his efforts on his healthcare law.  He should have bee focusing on the economy.  That shows poor judgment.  It is time to hire someone new.

Four years from now, if President Romney has failed to do the job, then he will have to be fired and someone new hired.  One way or the other, we must find someone capable of righting the economy.

The Final Comment on the Matter

I have had quite a few people ask me, “Just who is the nut from Rochester that keeps attacking you?”

It is not a surprise that most people have no idea who Jon Dogar Marinesco is considering his irrelevance in county politics.  Having done a little research though, I will tell you the truth about this questionable individual.

In the end of 2006/beginning of 2007, Jon’s wife, Manuela Mihailescu (whose name is spelled Michailescu in some records) applied for admission to the Rochester Town Historic Preservation Committee. 

On January 24, 2007, during an Executive Session of the Town Council, Manuela was interviewed for the position.  Exactly what transpired during that meeting is somewhat clouded as the Council members refused to discuss it citing the laws on Executive Session.  However, here is what was reported by the Ellenville Journal on February 8, 2007.

“The reason for all of this was due to an incident that occurred on January 24 when Manuela Mihailescu, a 57-year old resident of the town, attended a board meeting for an interview to decide whether or not she would be allowed on the municipality’s Historic Preservation Committee.


As has been reported in other area publications and as Ms. Mihailescu has repeatedly alleged, she was questioned if she was aware that an internet search using her name yielded pornographic websites among the results.  She was then questioned whether she had any association with these websites.  Mihailescu responded that she had no connection with the websites and asked to see the printed pages that the town board had printed out.  What she saw on those pages, Mihailescu claims, was a series of graphic images.  Surprised and distraught at the line of questioning, Mihailescu left the meeting, got into her car and promptly hit another car in the town’s parking lot.


Rochester’s town board, citing that the meeting took place in executive session, will not speak about the interview other than to confirm that it took place.”

After a great deal of public concern and outrage (some favoring Manueala and some opposing), a large meeting was held that erupted into chaos.  Here is the reporting of the meeting and its handling of the issue as reported by the Ellenville Journal.

“After some other town business, the issue of Ms. Mihailescu was broached.  At that point, the town’s attorney, Rod Futerfas, read a statement to the effect that the Rochester town board would be legally unable to respond to any accusations that would be made by the audience due to the fact that the interview occurred during an executive session.  Futerfas then asked Mihailescu if she would sign a release at that time, waiving the confidentiality agreement that an executive session implies.   Ms. Mihailescu responded by saying that she would not sign anything without advice of counsel and proceeded to read a statement where she argued that because she had spoken to a number of local news agencies that she had already waived confidentiality.  The town’s counsel disagreed and said that there could be no comments from the audience about this subject during the public comment session: ‘This board is not a punching bag. If you want to take shots at something I would suggest taking up a different sport.’


At that point, Councilman Alex Miller told the audience that, ‘Public comment is a privilege at these meetings, not a right.’


In fact one resident, Imre Beke, the chairperson of the town’s Conservative Party, did speak and chastised the board and the town attorney saying, ‘You sir answer to us! We will have our say whether you like it or not!’


Mr. Beke’s outburst drew a loud round of applause from the group as well as others that responded, ‘You don’t speak for me, Beke!’


And with that, the board made a motion to close the meeting and reconvene for a special meeting on Thursday, February 8, 2007.”

After this incident (and numerous others), the people of Rochester overwhelmingly voted Republican and changed the administration.  One of the people elected was Manuela, who became a member of the Council.  It should be noted, however, that Manuela had the lowest vote total amongst the Republicans.

Thereafter, Manuela decided that she wanted to run for the Ulster County Legislature.  She asked the Rochester Republicans to wait until after her primary against Terry Bernardo before holding their caucus.  The reason was that Manuela wanted to be able to run for her Council seat if she lost the primary.  When the Republicans refused, she by all accounts threw a fit.  She would go on to lose the primary and her Council seat.

While she was on the council, a major controversy arose.  It was covered by The Shawangunk Journal on 8/6/09.

It seems that Manuela and Dogar Marinesco filed for personal bankruptcy.  A copy of the bankruptcy petition appeared on a local blog revealing detailed information.  As reported by the Journal:

“The petition, a Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy, reveals a combined debt of nearly $1 million, including $400,000 in credit card debt, $6,080 in overdrafts on a Citibank checking account, $10,993 owed to a local excavating business, and $7,815 in unpaid school and town taxes.


Dogar-Marinesco confirmed that on June 8, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York discharged a debt of almost $500,000, ‘out of which about 20 percent consists in credit card late fees accrued after contacting the bankruptcy lawyer.’ “

The sheer magnitude of the bankruptcy was shocking and was cited as a reason why Manuela should not have been permitted to serve on the Council.  While approximately $100,000 of the debt consisted of “credit card late fees”, the real shocker was the remaining debt of nearly $900,000.00, particularly the overdrafts and credit card debt.

Now, there is certainly no shame in filing for bankruptcy.  The law is there to protect people during times of financial crisis.  It is perfectly acceptable, however, for a political opponent to argue that a person incapable of handling private finances is not to be trusted with public finances.  Dogar Marinesco has been blasting anyone and everyone he believes was involved in bringing out the bankruptcy filing, as well anyone who even says hello in a pleasant way to someone involved.

I would respectfully suggest that the true problem is not the prior financial bankruptcy but is instead Dogar Marinesco’s current and continuing moral bankruptcy.

There was another issue of great significance in the bankruptcy petition.  As noted by the Journal, “What has some locals upset is the fact that she listed her Rego Park address as her primary residence in the sworn statement, while her husband, Jon Dogar Marinesco, claimed residence in an apartment that he located in his antique shop.  Under United States' bankruptcy laws, claiming separate residences will allow each to qualify for a $50,000 exemption.  The problem for Mihailescu is that New York State's Public Officer's Law requires that an elected official be a resident of the jurisdiction in which she is elected.”

It was later ruled by the Town Attorney that she could keep her seat on the Council.

Regardless, the blogger who posted the information about the bankruptcy, Jeremy Blaber, has been the subject of Dogar Marinesco’s wrath ever since.  He has posted pictures of Jeremy before he lost weight –usually from behind.  He has called him childish names and engaged in other immature actions.  It was during one of his tirades that he cited one of my comments about Jeremy.  When I said he took the comment out of context and asked not to be dragged into his delusional world, he began insulting me and displaying even more immature behavior.

In Jon Dogar Marinesco’s world, if you do not agree with every single syllable he writes, you are an enemy that must be destroyed.  In his demented mind, I attacked him.  His juvenile mind concludes, “He started it, Mom!!”

You can take it to the bank that even though Terry Bernardo destroyed Manuela in the most recent election, Manuela and her husband will be back to try again.  They are obsessed with Terry Bernardo.  They have so many pictures of Terry on their website with photoshop changes and nasty little comments, it looks almost as if they have built a shrine praying for Terry’s political and likely personal end.  It is sad really.

As we fast forward to the present, we see an angry, frustrated, and vicious Jon Bogar Marinescu desperately seeking either political relevance or some perceived revenge.  His major targets have been Terry and Len Bernardo, Roger Rascoe, Jeremy Blaber, and now yours truly.

Here are a few examples of the attacks made by Jon Dogar Marinesco.  These should give you a good idea concerning his lack of character and decency.

*  He compared Terry Bernardo to Elena Ceausescu. Ceausescu was the wife of the dictator of Romania.  Under their regime, parents were paid to give children to the orphanages.  They planned to create a Romanian Workers Army from these orphans.  Unfortunately, the orphanages had few nurses and had food shortages, causing emotional and physical problems for the children.  The Ceausescus endorsed blood transfusions as the answer.  The poor conditions in orphanages meant that these transfusions were often done with shared needles resulting in AIDS being widespread among the orphans.  Elena Ceausescu was head of the state health commission which concluded that AIDS could not exist in Romania.  She and her husband were later executed by firing squad.  This is not someone that Terry Bernardo or anyone should be compared with.

*  He rejected the term Madam Chair for Terry Bernardo suggesting “Madam Stool”.  Yes, he used a poop joke. 

*  He referred to Terry Bernardo as “an animal”.

*  He accused the Bernardos of committing a felony which is slander and libel per se.  The basis?  A volunteer from Terry’s campaign was getting signatures.  A person who turned out not to be a Republican signed the petition using just her first initial.  A person who lived up the street had the same last name and same first initial.  The volunteer, assumed that the person signing was the other person who happened to be a registered republican.  It obviously could not have been that other person because she had died a few months earlier.  It was an innocent mistake.  Dogar Marinesco accused the volunteer of perjury.  He accused her of intentionally forging / altering the address.  He accused the Bernardos of a felony claiming that they intentionally submitted a petition with the signature of a dead woman. 

*  After the bankruptcy court ordered the sale of a piece of his property, a real estate agent was sent to inspect the property.  Dogar Marinesco put an article on his web site and called her unprofessional.  After he learned that she was a member of a political committee as well, he accused her of “discarding inconvenient paper ballots”.  Discarding ballots done by someone other than a commissioner of the Board of Elections is against the law.  So, he accused her of a crime.

*  He mocked Jeremy Blaber for being overweight.  He used a computer program to alter photos of Jeremy to make him look even larger. 


In summary, I can find only one positive quality about the man.  He clearly loves his wife and will defend her to the death.  I respect that.  Despite that one positive quality, however, I must say as a whole that the man is petty, vindictive, vicious, and generally ill mannered.  I have had no interaction or conversations with Manuela Mihailescu.  Therefore, I express no opinion concerning her personality or moral character.

After much thought, I have decided that this will be my final post concerning Jon Dogar-Marinesco.  Discussing this man truly serves no purpose and just gives him a further stage to exhibit his hatred and general frustration with life.  I have been amused at his attempts to engage me in debate.  In the end, I almost feel guilty about the whole thing because I know I am taking advantage of someone who is truly unarmed in a battle of wits.  I therefore decline to do so any longer.