Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, December 17, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
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 !!
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 !!
Friday, November 30, 2012
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?
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?
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, November 19, 2012
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)