Over 111 people were arrested in a massive and thoroughly coordinated drug sweep throughout Kingston and the surrounding area. Additional arrests are expected on more outstanding warrants.
According to the Kingston Police Department, the sweep --called "Operation Clean Sweep" -- resulted in 536 total felony charges, seizure of over $23,000 in cocaine and heroin, 16 cars, and 2 guns, arrest of 36 members/associates of the Bloods, 3 members/associates of the Crips, and 5 members/associates of the Blackout (a local gang).
This is an operation that took a great deal of effort, hard work, and cooperation between various entities. Participating in this massive effort were 170 people from Kingston Police Department; Ulster Sheriff's Office; New York State Police; the U.S. Marshalls Service; police departments in Ellenville, Plattekill, Lloyd, New Paltz, the town of Ulster, Saugerties, Woodstock, Shandaken and the city of Poughkeepsie; the Ulster County Probation Department; the New York State Division of Parole, and the Ulster County District Attorney's Office .
This raid -- the largest ever in Ulster County-- should send 2 clear messages. First, there is a crime problem in Kingston and Ulster County, but second, the people are ready, willing, and able to fight back.
All I can offer is one big KUDOS!!!
Monday, April 2, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
414-0 ??!!
The House of Representatives rejected President Obama's budget by a staggering vote of 414 to 0. Every single Democrat voted against the proposal. Not even Congressman Hinchey cast a vote in favor of the budget. (To be fair, he could have been one of Congressman missing from the vote).
It is truly staggering that not even one Democrat could support Obama's budget. Could President Obama really be too far to the left for even the entire Democrat delegation?
It is truly staggering that not even one Democrat could support Obama's budget. Could President Obama really be too far to the left for even the entire Democrat delegation?
Friday, March 23, 2012
Natural Born Citizen
Section 1 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution states:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Over the last 4 years, some people have question whether Barack Obama was actually born in the United States and thus eligible to run. Now, with people speculating that Mitt Romney may select Marco Rubio as his running mate, some people are questioning whether he is eligible to be Vice-President.
The 12th Amendment of the Constitution places the same restrictions on the VP as President, i.e. he or she must be a "natural born citizen".
In the case of the President, claims were made that he was born in Kenya. We have all heard arguments about the authenticity of his long form birth certificate and so forth. In the case of Marco Rubio, the allegations are a little different. Marco Rubio was born in 1971 in Miami, Florida. His parents were Cuban citizens and became American citizens in 1975. The argument offered is that a person cannot be a "natural born citizen" unless his or her parents were U.S. citizens.
I do not intend to discuss the situation with President Obama because the basic facts are in dispute, i.e. was he born in Kenya or the United States. In the case of Senator Rubio, the facts are clear and undisputed.
The Constitution does not defined "natural born citizen". We must thus look to case law and commentary from the founders.
Interestingly enough, the prime case is from New York. In Lynch v. Clarke, which dealt with a New York law that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate, the plaintiff had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the country. They were not American citizens.
The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a citizen by birth notwithstanding her parents' foreign citizenship. The court actually cited the Constitutional provision opining, "Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
The Court further wrote, "And further: Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question."
The Lynch case was also cited by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the United States of two Chinese parents was a citizen and actually used the phrase "natural born".
In 2009, the Congressional Research Service offered an opinion that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by or at birth.
Based on this, it seems clear to me that the citizenship of a child's parents is not relevant if the child is born within the United States. A child so born is a natural born citizen. As such, Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen and is eligible to the the "Veep".
For those who may ask, I believe President Obama is a natural born citizen in light of his long form birth certificate showing his birth on Hawaii. I know some contend it is a forgery, but the burden of proving that is upon a challenger. The courts would almost certainly accept the birth certificate as legitimate unless provided with substantial evidence to the contrary.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Over the last 4 years, some people have question whether Barack Obama was actually born in the United States and thus eligible to run. Now, with people speculating that Mitt Romney may select Marco Rubio as his running mate, some people are questioning whether he is eligible to be Vice-President.
The 12th Amendment of the Constitution places the same restrictions on the VP as President, i.e. he or she must be a "natural born citizen".
In the case of the President, claims were made that he was born in Kenya. We have all heard arguments about the authenticity of his long form birth certificate and so forth. In the case of Marco Rubio, the allegations are a little different. Marco Rubio was born in 1971 in Miami, Florida. His parents were Cuban citizens and became American citizens in 1975. The argument offered is that a person cannot be a "natural born citizen" unless his or her parents were U.S. citizens.
I do not intend to discuss the situation with President Obama because the basic facts are in dispute, i.e. was he born in Kenya or the United States. In the case of Senator Rubio, the facts are clear and undisputed.
The Constitution does not defined "natural born citizen". We must thus look to case law and commentary from the founders.
Interestingly enough, the prime case is from New York. In Lynch v. Clarke, which dealt with a New York law that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate, the plaintiff had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the country. They were not American citizens.
The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a citizen by birth notwithstanding her parents' foreign citizenship. The court actually cited the Constitutional provision opining, "Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
The Court further wrote, "And further: Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question."
The Lynch case was also cited by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the United States of two Chinese parents was a citizen and actually used the phrase "natural born".
In 2009, the Congressional Research Service offered an opinion that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by or at birth.
Based on this, it seems clear to me that the citizenship of a child's parents is not relevant if the child is born within the United States. A child so born is a natural born citizen. As such, Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen and is eligible to the the "Veep".
For those who may ask, I believe President Obama is a natural born citizen in light of his long form birth certificate showing his birth on Hawaii. I know some contend it is a forgery, but the burden of proving that is upon a challenger. The courts would almost certainly accept the birth certificate as legitimate unless provided with substantial evidence to the contrary.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Keep Politics Out of Schools
Here is a story that I found truly upsetting, though I cannot say it necessarily surprised me. I have taken the information from a story and link is at the bottom of the article.
A middle school teacher at Liberty Middle School in Fairfax County, Virginia recently forced his students to support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign by conducting opposition research in class against the Republican presidential candidates. The 8th grade students were required to seek out the vulnerabilities of Republican Presidential candidates and forward them to the Obama campaign.
"Liberty teacher Michael Denman, who declined to comment, unveiled the assignment in mid-January when he broke the Civics Honor’s class into four groups, one for each Republican candidate. The students were then to collaborate as a group and research the backgrounds of their assigned candidate."
“ 'I was shocked that a school teacher would so blatantly politicize the curriculum of a middle school classroom,' a parent said. 'I asked [my child] if a similar assignment had been handed out to examine the background and positions of President Obama to see if the teacher was at least being bipartisan.'
No similar assignment was given to research Obama’s history, identify his weaknesses or pass them along to the Republican candidates."
A Big Step for Freedom and the Constitution
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued a significant and unanimous opinion reigning in the EPA. The case was Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 10-1062.
In this case, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, fell victim to the EPA's abusive and overbearing practices. The Sackett family sought to build a house on its half-acre of land, yet after construction broke ground, the EPA interfered, claiming the family violated the Clean Water Act by placing fill materials into “wetlands.” Their property was designated as a wetland, yet their neighbors have built houses on either side of their lot and their lot already has established sewage lines. Their lot does not harbor a lake, pond or stream, yet the EPA is requiring them to obtain a building permit that would cost more than the value of their land. The Sacketts proceeded by filing suit, but the request was dismissed by a federal judge.
Basically, the couple complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order and did not know why the EPA concluded there are wetlands on their lot, which is surrounded by a residential neighborhood with sewer lines and homes.
When the Sacketts sought to challenge the compliance order, they were told by EPA officials and later by a federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that they had no right to a hearing. Instead, they were told to comply with the order first and then seek a permit to resume building. They were not entitled to a hearing until the agency had imposed a fine on them and decided to allow review. The EPA claimed to the Supreme Court that they acted under the Clean Water Act, and insisted that the couple could not sue to challenge the order and had to wait for court review at the option of EPA.
Imagine that. The EPA decided they could force their will upon American citizens without a hearing or due process of law!!
The United States Supreme Court thankfully overruled the Circuit Court. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Scalia opined that the EPA cannot impose fines that could be as much as $75,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions in a court of law.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito offered a thorough and compelling statement:
"The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees.
The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear.Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions.
In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable."
This is a big victory for freedom. The EPA needs to be reigned in and freedom must be protected. However, though the decision was unanimous, there is caused for concern. Justice Ginsberg issued a concurrence. She wrote:
"The Court holds that the Sacketts may immediately litigate their jurisdictional challenge in federal court. I agree, for the Agency has ruled definitively on that question. Whether the Sacketts could challenge not only the EPA’s authority to regulate their land under the Clean Water Act, but also, at this pre-enforcement stage, the terms and conditions of the compliance order, is a question today’s opinion does not reach out to resolve. Not raised by the Sacketts here, the question remains open for another day and case. On that understanding, I join the Court’s opinion."
This is disturbing. Justice Ginsberg agrees that the Sacketts may litigate the question of jurisdiction. She does not appear to agree, however, that they can legally challenge the authority of the EPA in court. On that issue, Justice Ginsberg seems to opine that the Sacketts would have to wait for court review at the option of the EPA. That a Justice of the Supreme Court would so rule should be disturbing to all lovers of freedom.
In this case, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, fell victim to the EPA's abusive and overbearing practices. The Sackett family sought to build a house on its half-acre of land, yet after construction broke ground, the EPA interfered, claiming the family violated the Clean Water Act by placing fill materials into “wetlands.” Their property was designated as a wetland, yet their neighbors have built houses on either side of their lot and their lot already has established sewage lines. Their lot does not harbor a lake, pond or stream, yet the EPA is requiring them to obtain a building permit that would cost more than the value of their land. The Sacketts proceeded by filing suit, but the request was dismissed by a federal judge.
Basically, the couple complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order and did not know why the EPA concluded there are wetlands on their lot, which is surrounded by a residential neighborhood with sewer lines and homes.
When the Sacketts sought to challenge the compliance order, they were told by EPA officials and later by a federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that they had no right to a hearing. Instead, they were told to comply with the order first and then seek a permit to resume building. They were not entitled to a hearing until the agency had imposed a fine on them and decided to allow review. The EPA claimed to the Supreme Court that they acted under the Clean Water Act, and insisted that the couple could not sue to challenge the order and had to wait for court review at the option of EPA.
Imagine that. The EPA decided they could force their will upon American citizens without a hearing or due process of law!!
The United States Supreme Court thankfully overruled the Circuit Court. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Scalia opined that the EPA cannot impose fines that could be as much as $75,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions in a court of law.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito offered a thorough and compelling statement:
"The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees.
The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear.Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions.
In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable."
This is a big victory for freedom. The EPA needs to be reigned in and freedom must be protected. However, though the decision was unanimous, there is caused for concern. Justice Ginsberg issued a concurrence. She wrote:
"The Court holds that the Sacketts may immediately litigate their jurisdictional challenge in federal court. I agree, for the Agency has ruled definitively on that question. Whether the Sacketts could challenge not only the EPA’s authority to regulate their land under the Clean Water Act, but also, at this pre-enforcement stage, the terms and conditions of the compliance order, is a question today’s opinion does not reach out to resolve. Not raised by the Sacketts here, the question remains open for another day and case. On that understanding, I join the Court’s opinion."
This is disturbing. Justice Ginsberg agrees that the Sacketts may litigate the question of jurisdiction. She does not appear to agree, however, that they can legally challenge the authority of the EPA in court. On that issue, Justice Ginsberg seems to opine that the Sacketts would have to wait for court review at the option of the EPA. That a Justice of the Supreme Court would so rule should be disturbing to all lovers of freedom.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
A Little Inside Baseball
By now, many of you have seen the story on the Freeman web page revealing that the shared services agreement between the County and City on tourism --which would save taxpayer money-- has been approved by the County Legislature but has stalled in the Kingston Common Council. Why has it stalled?
Here is the official explanation from Alderman Tom Hoffay, the majority leader.
"At Tuesday’s meeting of the Kingston Laws and Rules Committee, however, Common Council Majority Leader Thomas Hoffay said the matter should be shifted to the council’s Finance/Economic Development Committee. Hoffay, D-Ward 2, who chairs that committee, said that because the agreement would have a financial impact on city taxpayers, it should be reviewed by his committee."
This is hogwash. The Finance Committee must be involved if the proposal requires additional spending of taxpayer money, but not necessarily if money is to be saved. The Alderman-at-Large decided the appropriate committee and it should have been passed.
So, what is the real reason for the delay? The answer involves a little "Inside Baseball". It goes back to the Democrat Primary for Mayor in 2011. Tom Hoffay was the leading force behind the Hayes Clement campaign. As a result, Alderman Hoffay and Mayor Gallo --to put it lightly-- do not like one another.
Consequently, now that Shayne has become Mayor Gallo, we have seen Alderman Hoffay quietly block a few things proposed by the Mayor for seemingly innocuous reasons. Now, Hoffay has temporarily blocked this latest proposal. Kingston taxpayers stand to save about $40,000 while county taxpayers stand to save $15,000.00.
People are largely unaware of the inside baseball within the Common Council. Having served on the body, I can tell you that the real reason things are supported or opposed often have nothing to do with the public comments and are too often personal and frankly silly.
Did I ever play politics on the Council? Sure, I did; however, I never did so in a way that blocked potential savings to the taxpayers. There is a time for political baseball, but never at the expense of the taxpayers.
Here is the official explanation from Alderman Tom Hoffay, the majority leader.
"At Tuesday’s meeting of the Kingston Laws and Rules Committee, however, Common Council Majority Leader Thomas Hoffay said the matter should be shifted to the council’s Finance/Economic Development Committee. Hoffay, D-Ward 2, who chairs that committee, said that because the agreement would have a financial impact on city taxpayers, it should be reviewed by his committee."
This is hogwash. The Finance Committee must be involved if the proposal requires additional spending of taxpayer money, but not necessarily if money is to be saved. The Alderman-at-Large decided the appropriate committee and it should have been passed.
So, what is the real reason for the delay? The answer involves a little "Inside Baseball". It goes back to the Democrat Primary for Mayor in 2011. Tom Hoffay was the leading force behind the Hayes Clement campaign. As a result, Alderman Hoffay and Mayor Gallo --to put it lightly-- do not like one another.
Consequently, now that Shayne has become Mayor Gallo, we have seen Alderman Hoffay quietly block a few things proposed by the Mayor for seemingly innocuous reasons. Now, Hoffay has temporarily blocked this latest proposal. Kingston taxpayers stand to save about $40,000 while county taxpayers stand to save $15,000.00.
People are largely unaware of the inside baseball within the Common Council. Having served on the body, I can tell you that the real reason things are supported or opposed often have nothing to do with the public comments and are too often personal and frankly silly.
Did I ever play politics on the Council? Sure, I did; however, I never did so in a way that blocked potential savings to the taxpayers. There is a time for political baseball, but never at the expense of the taxpayers.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Out of Control Government and a Deterioration of Personal Liberty
More and more, personal liberty is under attack in America. The one doing the attacking? The federal government. You question that? Take a gander then at this article written by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky:
"Since its creation in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has done more harm than good. EPA regulations cost more than 5 percent of our annual gross domestic product - the equivalent of the costs of defense and homeland security combined. Since EPA regulations have expanded, unemployment in America has increased by 33 percent. This abuse of power by the implementation of regulations infringes upon our basic constitutional rights.
"Since its creation in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has done more harm than good. EPA regulations cost more than 5 percent of our annual gross domestic product - the equivalent of the costs of defense and homeland security combined. Since EPA regulations have expanded, unemployment in America has increased by 33 percent. This abuse of power by the implementation of regulations infringes upon our basic constitutional rights.
There have been too frequent reports of individual rights being violated by abusive and power-hungry EPA bureaucrats. These regulations have hampered landowners’ ability to manage their private property as they please and have impaired job creation. Americans are suffering from the overreach of regulatory agencies such as the EPA.
In Pennsylvania, take the story of John Pozsgai, an immigrant from Hungary, who worked as a mechanic and eventually saved enough money to purchase the land bordering his home in Morrisville, Pa. This land was an old auto junkyard, and Mr. Pozsgai, taking pride in his home, proceeded to clean up this landfill by removing 7,000 old tires and rusted-out automobiles. However, the EPA did not view this effort as a clean-up but rather a violation of the Clean Water Act. You see, Mr. Pozsgai’s property was a wetland, ambiguously defined by the EPA as any property that has some sort of connection to a wetland. That connection to a wetland was a small drainage ditch located on the edge of his property.
Mr. Pozsgai did not need a permit to dump topsoil on an isolated wetland. However, the Army Corps of Engineers insisted he apply for one. Next, the EPA set up surveillance cameras to capture Mr. Pozsgai filling his land with topsoil. EPA agents then arrested him for “discharging pollutants into waters of the United States.” These “pollutants” consisted of earth, topsoil and sand. The EPA openly admits that no hazardous wastes were involved in the case, yet Mr. Pozsgai was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $202,000. Mr. Pozsgai spent 1 1/2 years in prison, 1 1/2 in a halfway house, and was under supervised probation for five years. His family went bankrupt and was unable to pay its property taxes on the land.
A similar breach of power can be studied in the case of John Rapanos. Federal officials prosecuted Mr. Rapanos for shoveling dirt around on his property in Bay County, Mich. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers filed charges against Mr. Rapanos for “polluting” the wetlands by leveling the soil on his property. Under the “migratory molecule” rule, the Army Corps claims that any isolated wetland can fall under federal jurisdiction because there is a speculative possibility that a water molecule from one wetland may reach another navigable waterway. In Mr. Rapanos‘ case, the nearest navigable water is roughly 20 miles from his property.
The federal officials had little evidence and U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff threw out the conviction and refused to follow the unjust federal guidelines enforced by the EPA. Unfortunately, Judge Zatkoff was overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Mr. Rapanos later appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, yet the court refused to hear his case. He now faces possible jail time.
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, also have fallen victim to the EPA’s abusive and overbearing practices. The Sackett family sought to build a house on its half-acre of land, yet after construction broke ground, the EPA interfered, claiming the family violated the Clean Water Act by placing fill materials into “wetlands.” Their property was designated as a wetland, yet their neighbors have built houses on either side of their lot and their lot already has established sewage lines. Their lot does not harbor a lake, pond or stream, yet the EPA is requiring them to obtain a building permit that would cost more than the value of their land. The Sacketts proceeded by filing suit, but the request was dismissed by a federal judge. The Supreme Court is now considering these violations.
The repeated abuse of power by the EPA has been noted across the country, infringing on the lives of all Americans. Property rights were once regarded as fundamental to the protection of liberty, and it is time that legislators restore the value of personal property and do something about governmental overreach.
On Feb. 7, I introduced the REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act). This act is designed to increase accountability in the federal regulatory process. By opening the regulatory process to public scrutiny, government agencies will be held accountable by all American citizens. This is a common-sense reform that will increase congressional liability, improve the regulatory process and protect citizens from restrictions being placed on their economic and private practices. The REINS Act ensures that federal agencies cannot destroy jobs, our economy or our way of life by implementing unnecessary regulations. Harmful and abusive regulations must be put to rest.
Seventy-five percent of Americans believe that the size of the federal government must be reduced and with the imposition of such regulatory abuse, it is no wonder why. Americans are being treated as subjects of an administrative state rather than citizens of a free nation. I am certain that the REINS Act will reduce the power of regulatory bureaucrats and place the power in the hands of the people, allowing them to act and operate as they please."
These examples are just a few of many just like it. Personal liberty is under assault. Regardless of whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, I think you will agree that something needs to be done. Our liberty and our freedom are in peril.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)