The Long Island Source for Conservative Republican News

Archive for November, 2009

, , ,

Stop the trial, Mr. President

In CSA, The 9-12 Project on November 30, 2009 at 10:58 pm

(12-01-2009) ”The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other top al-Qaeda terrorists to New York City for a civilian trial is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious. That it spells unprecedented danger for our security will soon become obvious.”

On December 5, 2009 at 12 noon, the Suffolk 9-12 Project, Conservative Society for Action, and North Country Patriots will be traveling into New York City’s Foley Square to join thousands of other New Yorkers descending on Federal Courthouse area in lower Manhattan to protest the NYC Terror Trial.

The protest is being led by the 9-11 Never Forget Us Coalition. http://911neverforget.us/

Thousands of Americans will stand in solidarity with 9-11 families, first responders, military, and terror victims to call for a reversal of the controversial Attorney General Holder decision.

But is it Holder’s decision? NO!

Holding the Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial in NYC is President Obama’s call

President Obama has said it was Attorney General Eric Holder who decided to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind, and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees in civilian federal court in New York City. Yet, as a matter of law, that can’t be true.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/ksm_trial_it_obama_call_qCVFkytic40EUO6kf107qL

Do these radical muslim terrorists deserve the rights of Americans? NO!

These killers don’t deserve the rights of Americans

As an American, I believe in the Constitution of the United States. I believe that the rights it guarantees are reserved for American citizens — not handed out freely to people serving a destructive ideology. The rights that Americans have fought to protect for Americans should not be gifted to people who seek the destruction of this nation.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/these_killers_don_deserve_the_rights_OkB1SRBOWQeZ1ZsfmOKd8O

Should President Obama or the American people be that confident of a conviction? NO!

Why the government could lose this case

Holder insisted in his Senate testimony that “failure is not an option” — that a conviction in the federal court trial of KSM and his co-defendants is assured. No responsible lawyer in private practice would ever make that kind of statement to a paying client.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_the_gov_could_lose_this_case_qcgYxV9oNmQ6RqCeefoB9M

Which then leads us to the next question.

Is Obama Setting the Stage For KSM Mistrial?

The foundational principal of the American criminal justice system: the presumption of innocence.

President Obama announces to the world that KSM will be convicted and executed.

How quickly do you think the defense team will move for a mistrial on the grounds that the jury was prejudiced by the pronouncement of guilt by the President of the United States of America and the US Attorney General?

http://janeqrepublican.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/obama-setting-stage-for-ksm-mistrial/

So what are we Americans to do?

Let’s first take a look at what the radical muslim barbarians are doing right here in New York.

So what are we Americans to do?

Stand up to these hate mongers, American Patriot style!

SHOW TRIAL OF THE CENTURY — Isn’t This A 9/12er’s Calling?

 It’s my feeling that this sort of nonsense would cease in short order if the average American citizen would just be compelled to stand up to these hate mongers, American Patriot style, and get in their faces and tell them just how it is here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Judging by consistent past behavior, radical Islam is going to crawl out from beneath every rock under heaven in order to attend this trial and sport their prideful hatred of America and western civilization in general. While so-called moderate Muslims will likely not utter one significant word of opposition, every Islamic front on God’s green earth is going to call out their minions to show up in New York City and have their voice be heard.

So I am wondering, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT!?! Was the 9/12 Project not founded on the basis of how we reacted as Americans on the day after 9/11? Could any one of us have seen this slap in the face coming on September 12th, 2001? As we agonized through days, and weeks, and months of bitter loss and astonishment that this could happen to us, did it ever occur to any American that, eight years later our own Commander and Chief and his Administration would one day, rub salt in the wound by using this life altering tragedy in order to give the perpetrators a global stage and a far reaching voice which Islam otherwise would never have had? BHO and company apparently have no regard whatsoever for the sensitivities of their subjects (i.e. American Citizenry) regarding this issue…not when it comes down to getting their point across…or is it rather, not when it comes to aiding and abetting and apologizing ad nauseum to our enemies. Are we 9/12ers going to allow ourselves to be subjected to this affront without so much as a whimper?

I say if ever you’ve wanted to come out in support of our great nation, let it be on this day! Don’t sit on the side lines and cringe while pompous silly arses in Washington and their insane Islamic cohorts make a mockery of our God given Law and our great Republic – MARCH ON NEW YORK CITY‼! Democracy in action my eye! Let’s show them and the world that WE’RE NOT HAVING IT! Let the bold voice of our Republic drown out the fringe voices of murderous Islam and Progressive Liberals who would progress us all the way to hell if we let them. Don’t let them stand on our flag! Don’t let them burn our flag on our own beloved land – ever again! Let us give Eric Holder and Barack Obama more of a demonstration than they ever bargained for. Let us make them regret the vane decision to even tread this ground.

http://www.tcunation.com/forum/topics/show-trial-of-the-century

,

Riverhead Community Blood Drive

In Charity begins at home on November 29, 2009 at 11:31 pm

Give the gift of life!

The Riverhead Community Blood Drive is hosting a drive on Tuesday, December 1, 2009. This drive is being held in memory of Brieanne Reichel.

Join us Tuesday, Decemeber 1st , between 1:00 pm and 8:00 pm at the Riverhead Moose Lodge. Walk-ins are welcome, all individuals or groups (i.e.: churches, fire dept., schools), or you may call Lauren at 369-9136 to schedule an appointment. In this great season of giving, please give of yourself a little more and donate now, donors are greatly needed. Give the gift of life and hope! Donate blood today!

,

Editorial – A very important message

In CSA, North Country Patriots, The 9-12 Project on November 29, 2009 at 2:49 pm

(11-29-2009) In case anyone hasn’t noticed I changed the tagline of this blog to – The News, Published Writings, Cartoons, and Political Blog of a Constitutional Conservative Republican from Riverhead, New York

I did this because I feel this most accurately describes who I am and where I’m coming from.

My intentions with this blog have always been to stay focused on the local issues and to:

(1) Support the local Tea Party movement

(2) To promote the principals of limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.

(3) To promote local elected officials that support these principals and expose those that don’t, regardless of party affiliation.

Again, this is a local blog concerning local issues. And as often said, all politics is local.

While I cannot be an all seeing eye, I welcome any contributions that support my intentions.

Up until this point, in the name of free speech, I have allowed contributions that fall outside of these intentions. I will no longer do that. It simply becomes too distracting. I will therefore delete anything in the future that is not consistent with principals of this blog.

I alone reserve the right to drift from this mission whenever I feel like it.

Finally, I am a proud member of the Suffolk 9-12 Group, the Conservative Society for Action, and also the North Country Patriots. I will therefore defend them when I see fit.


Eminent Domain – Not here on Long Island!

In Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, Riverhead on November 27, 2009 at 6:05 pm

(11-27-2009) An often talked about idea to revitalize downtown Riverhead entailed the town seizing private property and then transferring that property to another private entity. At the time, a so called “master developer”, had grandiose development schemes to rebuild the riverfront. This “master developer” has since lost that designated status.

Regardless of that outcome, being that the Riverhead Town Republicans will soon have a unanimous majority, property rights in Riverhead should return to its constitutionally protected status. (5th Amendment)

Let’s still take a look at two very big eminent domain stories that are happening nearby.

Seized and Confused

From the National Review, Nov 7th issue

In the 2005 Kelo case, the Supreme Court let New London, Conn, use eminent domain to kick residents out of their homes and take their land – simply because the city thought it would collect more tax revenues if the area were developed for commercial use.

The chief lobbyist for the development was Pfizer, the pharmaceutical firm, which had a research facility nearby. But not only has ground never been broken on the site, Pfizer now says it’s leaving New London. The city’s grandiose scheme is nothing more than a group of demolished buildings on a vacant lot.

Also in ruins is the rationale for letting local governments seize private property and transfer it to other private owners, based on some bureaucrat’s guesstimate of how much cash it might possibly yield someday.

Still Think a Man’s Home Is His Castle?

From Fox News, Glen Beck, Nov 25th

Take this story out of Brooklyn, New York. It’s about families that want to keep their homes — they don’t have any desire to move — but there are ton of tax dollars to be made. This isn’t about the developer. This is about the government getting tax dollars and so they will crush anyone who stands in their way.

Beck even mentions the MTA tax as “the most egregious abuse of power.”

See story @ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577026,00.html

Summing it all up, and to get a better understanding of how destructive the Eminent Domain issue is to our founding principals, check out

Property Rights, Freedom, and the Constitution

It is simply impossible to understand the U.S. Constitution without first possessing a thorough understanding of property rights. If you traveled back in time to enter James Madison’s mind as he wrote and debated such weighty issues as free speech, the right of self-defense, freedom of the press, and freedom of conscience, but came away lacking knowledge of his and the other Framers’ views on property, you still would be woefully ignorant of the Constitution, and even of U.S. history; for it was a whole series of property disputes that gave rise to both the American Revolution and the Constitutional Convention itself. To understand the rights of property in a constitutional context you must know two things: just how important these rights were to the Framers and just what they meant by the term.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0811e.asp

We must do everything in our power to protect property rights in our home towns.

After all, all politics is local.

So let’s continue to turn town halls upside down. And on our great march back to Washington, how about turning Albany upside down as well.

,

Long Island Wine Country – The next rebellion?

In New York State on November 26, 2009 at 11:49 pm

(11-26-2009) The following article was submitted by Brian Mills

Brian moved to Wading River two years ago, where he established two businesses (The Mills Agency and The Mills Group), which specialize in providing insurance and financial services to middle income families.  Brian is also an active committeeman with the Riverhead Republican Committee as well as being the Vice-President of the Riverhead Republican Club.

Biggest Enemy of Wealth and Prosperity, The Liberal

Recently, in the November 26, 2009 issue of the Riverhead News-Review, an article appeared entitled “Wine and Albany Politics don’t mix” authored by Louisa Hargrave, who in the interest of disclosure, was the co-founder of the Long Island Wine Industry in 1973 and is currently a writer and consultant.  She paints an excellent picture of how the mismanagement of funds in Albany has led to a barrage of onerous taxes and regulation in the wine industry on Long Island.  She cites, for example, a piece of legislation passed by the liberals in Albany which imposes the burden of collecting tax ID numbers of wholesale customers, who purchase product at the wineries, on the winery itself.  The difficulty for the winery, however, is the cumbersome task of actually collecting these ID numbers.  Charles Massoud, the owner of Paumanok Vineyards, has stated that he may owe over $20,000 in penalties for failing to report tax ID numbers to the liberals in Albany.  Local wineries have also been slammed with the new, and most ridiculous, most absurd, MTA bailout tax, which our liberal friends in Albany have penned the MTA “Payroll Tax”.  This, the newest of the onerous taxes manufactured by the liberal politicians in Albany, places a tax on the Gross Income of a business for the sole purpose of bailing out the MTA, which has yet again managed to run out of money.  Though, we must not also overlook the Wine Excise Tax, which this year has been increased by forty percent as well.

The wineries, besides having talented wine makers that have produced some excellent vintages, have contributed greatly to a booming tourist industry on the east end.  Wineries, farms, outlet malls, villages such as Greenport, beaches, aquariums, and state parks have produced a budding of tiny Bed and Breakfasts as well as larger hotels such as The Best Western, Holiday Inn, and The East Wind.  It is also important to note that the east end has a fairly prosperous wedding business as well.  Just simply take a drive on Sound Avenue between the months of May through December and notice the caravan of Limousines and sea of people in tuxedos at the wineries.  This industry is vital to the local economy, and yet is under fire by the buffoons in Albany simply because our state legislature has managed to overextend themselves, and must now penalize small business for their shortcomings.    

The wine business, however, is not the only private sector operation these days that seems to have fallen victim to a bombardment of, not just current taxes and regulation, but “sweeping” new forms of taxes and regulation.  It seems that from the liberals on the Potomac, to the liberals on the Hudson, to the liberals on the Peconic Bay, that the current enemy is every private sector operation, and that the savior is, and inevitably will be more government.  The banks failed, the insurance companies failed, the automobile companies failed, hospitals charge too much, doctors make too much, health insurance companies make too much, and the list goes on and on to no avail.  The liberals in Washington have spent trillions since the start of the year and have grown the national government in leaps and bounds, which must result in new taxes in order to pay for this binge.  Therefore we have only seen the beginning of the power that our elected, professional politicians, can wield over business.

But, do we as New Yorkers, we as Americans, really believe that the solution to the state’s financial crisis along with the nation’s financial crisis, is to box in private industry through more onerous taxes and regulation, to the point where it cannot operate? 

Apparently State Senator Brian Foley believes that in order to prosper, the government must impose heavy taxes on both individuals and business. According to Sen. Foley on May 8th, while on WLNY-TV, he stated “Yes, it’s a bit of a payroll tax. Should it cause any business to leave Long Island, or should it cause any business to go under? No, it should not. If it does, then you have to question the business’s fragility to begin with.”  So, the Senator believes that business exists for the sole purpose of providing a revenue stream to the government to, in return, fund their pet projects.   

If we, on a local level (i.e. downtown riverhead), state level, and national level continue to constrain the growth of business, with the result being more growth in the public sector, our current lifestyle will slowly begin to vanish.  According to a recent study by the Heritage Foundation, as a result of the massive and rogue spending that is occurring, not just our children, but also their children, have been projected to experience a 30% decrease in standard of living.  While we always want the best for the next generation, it seems that as a result of the carelessness on the part of our elected officials, unfortunately the next few generations will be unable to experience life in that “shining city on the hill”.

The liberals on Capital Hill, in conjunction with the liberals in the State House, need to understand, that they can collect their tax revenue, bridge their deficits and debts, by simply putting more people back to work.  Rather than creating new taxes and new regulation through their “rope-a-dope” legislative process, thus strangling businesses around their necks and constricting their air supply, why not simply provide existing business with incentives to hire more workers, thus grow their business through more revenue, and inevitably paying more in taxes.  Liberals like Senator Foley, Governor Patterson, Senator Schumer, Senator Gillebrand, Congressman Bishop, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, and President Obama, need to understand that businesses large and small want to grow.  They desire to increase their profit margins and capture more market share, which results in increased wealth for all.  Businesses, however, will only do this if market conditions are favorable.  In other words, if government is friendly to them, which right now is clearly not the case.  If the environment which business desires to operate does not improve fast then we simply need to brace for a long and painful recession which may last for years.


A Thanksgiving message from Brookhaven Chairman Jesse Garcia

In Brookhaven Republican Committee, Suffolk County Republican Committee on November 25, 2009 at 11:30 pm

(11-25-2009) THANKSGIVING DAY MESSAGE – BROOKHAVEN TOWN REPUBLICAN PARTY

With Thanksgiving upon us, I wanted to take this moment to personally wish you and your families the very best of Thanksgiving Holidays. I also want to personally express my sincerest thanks to each and every one of you – the Members, Volunteers and Supporters of Brookhaven Town Republican Committee – for your great support and dedication this past Campaign Season.

This Election season we shared many victories and even more importantly, stronger friendships and even more camaraderie.  Like family, our Town Republican Party, thrives on togetherness, unity and energy.

As Thanksgiving rolls around, it brings with it facts. Our riches are not just at the ballot box each November, but in our homes and neighborhoods.

Our riches are in the friends and family we love; the Party and philosophy we hold so dear; and the guidance we get from our faith.  It’s also in the work we do without fanfare to make life easier for those in need. 

As we gather with our families this Thanksgiving Holiday, please keep in your prayers those members of the Armed Forces away from their own families as they place their lives in harm’s way so we remain safe here at home, and continue to enjoy our Great Nation’s freedoms.

This Thanksgiving Holiday, I also ask you to keep in your prayers the Romaine Family and the memory of Councilman Keith Romaine, who was taken from us far too soon.

I will close with this passage from President Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation of Thanksgiving:

“…It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Once again, Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family. Thank you for your support and commitment to the cause of the Brookhaven Town Republican Committee; and on a personal note, I am Thankful to call all of you my dear friend.

- Jesse Garcia, Chairman

 


A Thanksgiving message from Randy Altschuler

In Randy Altschuler for Congress, Suffolk County Republican Committee on November 25, 2009 at 10:21 pm

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Dear Friends and Neighbors:

Thanksgiving is a time when Americans everywhere remember the story of the Pilgrims who bravely ventured across an ocean seeking freedom and a better life for their families.

At Thanksgiving, we gather with our families and friends and express our gratitude for all that we have been blessed with, the freedoms we enjoy and the loved ones who mean so much to us.

We are grateful to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who protect our freedoms while setting aside their own safety and the comforts of home. We express our gratitude to our wounded and to the memory of our fallen heroes; our country remains safe because of their sacrifices. Especially during the holidays, we keep all of them and their families in our thoughts and prayers.

We are grateful to our border patrol agents, our firefighters, our law enforcement officers and our first responders, so many of whom are vigilantly serving at their posts on Thanksgiving Day and all year round.

We are grateful for our caring community here on Long Island that reaches out with a helping hand to those in need or those facing tough times, mindful of the importance of sharing with others.

We are grateful to be Americans, enjoying the freedoms and liberty that the Pilgrims sought so many years ago.

With best Thanksgiving wishes to you and your family,

Randy, Cheryl and Noah Altschuler


A Thanksgiving message from Islip GOP Chairman Frank Tantone

In Islip Town Republican Committee on November 25, 2009 at 9:50 pm
 
(11-25-2009) Dear Fellow Republicans

I felt it was appropriate to pause for a moment and reflect upon all the things we should be thankful for at this time of the year.  First and foremost, we should all be thankful for our families, friends and health; without these things nothing else makes sense.  These parts of our lives will always be the motivating forces for all the things we do for our communities as long as I chair this committee.

We should also be very thankful for the great strides we have made in restoring the Islip Town Republican Committee to its greatness.  Without the hard work and sacrifice of all of you, none of our recent success would have been possible.  I have recently been to many functions throughout the County.  At all of these functions many fellow Republicans congratulate me and tell me how they wish they were Islip Republicans.  I receive all these compliments because of all of you, and I am grateful to have such a devoted committee.  What a difference a year makes !!!

Enjoy your Thanksgiving, but pause for a moment to reflect upon our good fortunes.  I am proud to be your Chairman, and I look forward to even more success in 2010.

 


The Real Thanksgiving Story

In The 9-12 Project on November 25, 2009 at 8:20 pm

(11-25-2009) The following Thanksgiving story was contributed by Bob Meyer, leader of the Suffolk 9-12 Group.

The Real Thanksgiving Story

In the middle of December 1620 the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, leaving behind the sinfulness of the “old world” to make a “new Jerusalem” in America. Three years later, in November 1623, they had a great feast thanking God for getting them through an earlier famine, and now for a bountiful crop.

What had created the earlier famine and then the bountiful crops? The story is told in the diary of Governor Bradford, who was one of the elders of that early Puritan colony.

At first, they decided to turn their back on all the institutions of the England that had been their home. This included the institution of private property, which they declared to be the basis of greed, averse, and selfishness.  Instead, they were determined to live the “Platonic ideal” of collectivism, in which all work would be done in common, with the rewards of their collective efforts evenly divided among the colonists.  Farming was done in common, as well as housekeeping and child raising. This was supposed to lead to prosperity and brotherly love.

But their experiment in collectivism did not lead to prosperity or brotherly love.  Rather, it created poverty and envy and slothfulness among most of the members of this little society.  Here is Bradford’s description of what communism created among the Pilgrims:

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.  For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.  For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.  The strong… had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice.  The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors everything else, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them.

“And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them… Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.”

For two years the harvest time failed to bring forth enough to feed the people.  Indeed, many starved and many died of famine.  Faced with this disaster, the elders of the colony gathered, Governor Bradford tells us, and decided that another year, and they would surely all die and disappear in the wilderness.

Instead, they decided to divide the property and fields of the colony, and gave each family a piece as their own.  Whatever they did not use for their own consumption, they had the right to trade away to their neighbors for something they desired instead.

Now, instead of sloth, envy, resentment, and anger among the colonists, there was a great turnaround in their activities.  Industry, effort, and joy were now seen in practically all that the men, women and children did.  Bradford writes:

“They had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.  The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression…By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the faces of things were changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.”

Indeed, their bounty was so great, that they had enough to not only trade among themselves but also with the neighboring Indians in the forest. In November 1623, they had a great feast to which they also invited the Indians.  They prepared turkey and corn, and much more, and thanked God for bringing them a bountiful crop.  They, therefore, set aside a day of “Thanksgiving.”

So this Thursday, when we all sit down with our families and friends to enjoy the turkey and the trimmings, let us not forget that we are celebrating the establishment and triumph of capitalism and the spirit of enterprise in America!

Hope you enjoyed the story

Norman Rockwell's "Freedom from want"

From my family to yours

Happy Thanksgiving!

, ,

Town Council Districting would be bad for Huntington

In Huntington, Suffolk County Republican Committee on November 25, 2009 at 12:06 pm

(11-25-2009) The following opinion is written by Clifford Sondock, President of the Land Use Institute.

SEE STORY BELOW

The Land Use Institute is a land use oriented think tank that believes in a free market system – one that would allow the market to determine the type of development that should be placed in any given area. This would give the region a much better chance of adequately dealing with pressing issues such as affordable housing, high property taxes and the loss of young professionals to other regions.

The LIU mission is to formulate and present market-oriented solutions to problems as opposed to government-based initiatives.

Mr. Sondock asserts that the decision-making process is controlled by factions consisting of civic and environmental groups, which effectively determine the path of development on Long Island.

The basic tenet of LUI is that free-market solutions – which essentially eliminates levels of beaurocracy to allow the market to fix itself, aren’t even considered when trying to solve Long Island’s problems, noting that governments aren’t thinking about the unintended consequences of their actions as related to land use.

Mr. Sondock is a preeminent Libertarian mind here on Long Island.

Here’s his opinion.

Town Council Districting would be bad for Huntington

The Town of Huntington has called a special election for December 22 to create four (4) separate town Council districts to replace the current four (4) at-large town Council seats.  Town Council Districting would be bad for Huntington.

The Districting advocates group calling itself the Concerned Citizens for Huntington strategically submitted its petition in late October to avoid a vote during the regular November 3rd election.  The Districting advocates are betting that few residents come out to vote against their districting scheme.

Districting would increase town spending as Council members try to bring home the bacon for their individual districts.  Huntington’s budget would likely expand to accommodate the need to create enough appropriations for each district, so that each district receives its share. The only loser would be the taxpayer.

Residents would continue to pay property taxes town wide. Under the current at-large system, residents with strong opinions on issues can affect policymaking by casting their votes on all the Council members. Under a district system, residents would vote only for the Council member representing their district. This is taxation without representation.

Currently, all voters have the opportunity to change half of the Town Council every two years. Under a district system, a voter would only be able to oust an incumbent once every four years, and even then, can only affect one-fourth of the Council composition.  Thus, a voter would have less impact over Town government than under the current at-large system.

Districting may leave a specific area of Huntington unprotected.  The residents of the district opposing a particular project inserted in their district would have no recourse against the other three Council members, who may be in favor of the project.  Districting would allow projects to be imposed on individual areas, with Council members from the other districts ganging on the receiving district and who do not have to answer to those voters in the other districts. 

Conversely, chances are that a Council member would not agree to a project if there were no clear benefit for their area, even if the proposal would benefit Huntington as a whole.  The attitude of “what’s in it for me” would prevail, instead of what’s best for Huntington. The net effect is that these artificial divisions would split Huntington when our town should remain unified in looking for regional solutions to town problems.

Districting advocates claim that at-large council seats have resulted in unanimity of council voting.  The truth is that unanimity on the town board is caused by the fact that all the council members are from the same party, not that the council members are elected at-large.

Unlike the county, state and federal governments, town government has no clear executive branch, separate from the legislative branch, and thus lacks the checks and balances of a chief executive with veto power.  Horse-trading would be the inevitable result as each Council member seeks to get the most for their individual district.  Council members elected at-large must be concerned with the bigger picture, since their responsibility is to all Huntington taxpayers, not just to those in their district.

Districting would make it easier for special interests such as civic associations to influence elections and stall town government.  Under the at-large system, Council members must be familiar with issues important to all areas of Huntington and vote based on what is good for the entire Town.

Huntington needs to adhere to the Rule of Law as opposed to the influences of special interest groups and limit the expanse of burdensome and costly regulation and spending.  Huntington residents need to go to the polls on December 22nd and vote against Districting.

Clifford Sondock, President

Land Use Institute, 131 Jericho Turnpike, Jericho, NY

(516) 322-1199


Zeldin for Senate Office Opening and Announcement

In Suffolk County Republican Committee on November 25, 2009 at 10:52 am

(11-25-2009) Lee is a truly great American that was one of the inspirations of this movement. He’s one of us. Please do everything you can to support him.

A message from Lee Zeldin.

Dear Supporter,

Please join Lee and the rest of the Zeldin for Senate Team on Saturday, December 5th at 9:30am as Lee formally announces his candidacy for New York’s 3rd Senatorial District.

We would like to extend an invitation to you, your family and friends to join us as we also open our Brookhaven Campaign Headquarters, located at 120 East Main Street in Patchogue.

We are also excited to debut our newly updated website at zeldinforsenate.com on December 5th.

Please come and support Lee and our Team at this early but very important stage of the campaign.

We would like to see a great turnout of supporters so please help spread the word.

Additionally, if you are on Facebook, please forward our Facebook invite to your “Facebook Friends.” 

The event is free for everyone to attend.

We are also looking for people to sponsor our Islip and Brookhaven Campaign Headquarters.  All sponsors will have a plaque made for them which will be displayed at our office locations throughout the entire campaign.

Sponsorship Levels:

Sergeant    $100

Major         $250

Colonel       $500

General      $1,000

Please make checks payable to Zeldin for Senate.  Donations can be mailed to:

            Zeldin for Senate

            P.O. Box 628

            Shirley, NY 11967

Or you can donate online at zeldinforsenate.com.

Zeldin for Senate Office Opening and Announcement

Saturday, December 5, 2009 9:30am

            Zeldin for Senate Office
            120 E. Main Street, Patchogue, NY            
            Entrance and Parking located behind store front
            Parking Lot accessible from Terry Road
 
A special invite is also being extended to the dedicated patriots of the Conservative Society for Action (CSA), 9-12 Project of Suffolk County and Campaign for Liberty.

Here are some other upcoming events to tell you about:

-Join Lee tonight at the Jacob’s Light Foundation’s “Packing for our Troops” at 6:30PM at the Brentwood American Legion, 198 1st Street in Brentwood.  The Jacob’s Light Foundation sends care packages to our troops deployed overseas.

-Rick Lazio, candidate for Governor of New York, will be holding a fundraising event on Thursday, December 3rd at 7:00PM and Lee is a Host Committee Member.  The event will be held at the Islandia Marriot, 3635 Express Drive North in Islandia.  Tickets are $250 per person.  To RSVP or for more information please reply to this email.

-Immediately following our office opening and announcement on December 5th, many of us will be traveling to New York City to attend a rally against the NYC Terror Trials.  Please visit 911neverforget.us  for more information (The LIRR is just a few blocks from our office if you would like to take the train to Manhattan).

If you have any questions or need directions, please email us at info@zeldinforsenate.com.

And have a Great Thanksgiving!

The Zeldin for Senate Team

 P.S. Please forward this email to your friends and family.  Victory in 2010 will not be possible without your support.


We all have heard of “out-sourcing”, is this “in-sourcing”???

In Riverhead Republican Committee on November 24, 2009 at 10:39 pm

(11-24-2009) What will the congressional candidates have to say about this?

China State Construction nets $100m US subway deal (NY)

By Liu Yiyu (China Daily)

The company has signed more than $2 billion worth of contracts in the US this year. [China Daily]

China State Construction Engineering Corp, the largest contractor in China, has bagged a subway ventilation project worth about $100 million in New York’s Manhattan area, marking the construction giant’s third order in the United States’ infrastructure space this year.

The contract was given to China Construction American Co, a subsidiary, the Wall Street Journal quoted a source as saying.

“The new project, along with the $410-million Hamilton Bridge project and a $1.7-billion entertainment project it won earlier this year, signals China State Construction’s ambition to tap the American construction market,” said Li Zhirui, an industry analyst at First Capital Securities.

Li, however, said the order came as no surprise as the US government is spending massively on infrastructure projects.

The three orders only account for about 4 percent of the value of its total orders this year, Li added.

In the first three quarters of this year, the Chinese construction giant signed more than $2 billion worth of contracts in the US market. China State Construction was also the contractor for a high school, a railway station and the Chinese embassy in the US.

Despite the progress made in the US market, the Middle East, Asia and Africa remain the State builder’s key markets. The value of its contracts in Algeria this year increased 32 percent year-on-year, exceeding $800 million, and the value of its contracts in the Middle East surged 62 percent year on year, also exceeding $800 million.

The domestic market is still the largest contributor to China State Construction’s revenue, mainly due to strong property sales and infrastructure sector projects.

China State Construction said it reaped 41 billion yuan in revenue from the property sector in the first 10 months of this year, up 83.2 percent over the same period last year. Orders from the infrastructure construction business were boosted by 90 percent largely due to the fiscal stimulus allocated to China’s infrastructure sector.

Citing the company’s recent performance, Shenyin & Wanguo Securities has given China State Construction a “buy” rating for the first time.

According to statistics provided by the Ministry of Commerce, China’s overseas project contracts have increased 22.7 percent to $100.15 billion in the first 10 months of this year.


“Conservative” Republicans Seek to Impose Litmus Test for Candidates

In Suffolk County Republican Committee on November 24, 2009 at 9:22 pm

Written by Joe Wolverton, II – Tuesday, 24 November 2009

NEW AMERICAN

“Conservative” Republicans Seek to Impose Litmus Test for Candidates

In an effort to rid the GOP of what some of its members derisively call RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), self-styled conservative party leaders have developed a 10-point loyalty scorecard by which it intends to measure every Republican seeking elective office in the upcoming 2010 election cycle.

Many observers detect the influence of the “Tea Party” movement in the proposal as they reckon that the Republican Party is hemorrhaging right-wing adherents, as many of them perceive that the national party has drifted toward the center of the political spectrum in order to be more attractive to the moderate bloc of voters and thereby expand the vaunted “big tent” of Republican tolerance.

Regardless of motivation, authors of the petition are circulating it among Republican National Committee (RNC) members to gain their support in advance of the organization’s annual confab being held in January in Hawaii. Promoters of the resolution assert that while heading off any centrifugal splintering of their party caused by the exponential acceleration of the momentum of tea-party activists is certainly one of the reasons for the planned purge, the greater long-term purpose is to “make the party more consistently and reliably conservative by promoting lower taxes, keeping spending levels in check and focusing on national security.”

The practical application of such an agenda-based winnowing is to obviate electoral mishaps like that the GOP recently suffered in the special election held in New York’s 23rd Congressional District last month. In that contest, the moderate Republican candidate, Deirdre “Dede” Scozzafava, eventually bowed out and instead of endorsing the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, she threw her support behind the Democratic choice, Bill Owens, the man ultimately elected to represent the district.

The most irritating aspect of the electoral debacle in New York was not Scozzafava’s apparent defection, rather it was the fact that Michael Steele, chairman of the RNC, authorized the contribution of large sums of money to her campaign, and then upon learning of her intent to exit the contest, he made no attempt to convince her to withhold her support altogether or, as many in his party would have liked, to openly back the Conservative Party candidate. Steele’s stutter step and his history of often backing the wrong horse in intraparty races has repeatedly rankled the so-called conservative wing of the GOP. “The problem is that many conservatives have trust in the conservative credentials of the Republican Party. So the task is to restore our conservative bona fides,” declares James Bopp, Jr., RNC committee member from Indiana and chief architect of the checklist.

Specifically, the proposal being offered for ratification by the whole of the RNC requires that in order for a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives or the Senate to receive financial support from the National Republican Congressional Committee or the Republican Senatorial Committee (the two arms of the Party tasked with distributing RNC funds) he or she must not “disagree with 3 or more of the above stated public policy positions.” This threshold level of fidelity to these 10 Republican articles of faith is inspired by an aphorism attributed to Ronald Reagan that held that someone who agreed with him 80 percent of the time was his friend, not his enemy. Authors of the measure are such dyed-in-the-wool acolytes of the late President that they have styled their proposal the “Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” and they invoke his mighty name in the first clause.

The exact text of the resolution follows:

Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama’s socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and

WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefits all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

While the movement’s promoters, supporters, and allies attest that the resolution is not a litmus test, other Republicans oppose the erection of a few narrow planks of the Republican platform as a gate through which all Party hopefuls must pass before receiving the imprimatur of Party potentates. One Party strategist, for example, defended his resistance to adoption of the test by explaining, “We already have screen tests in place, and they are called Republican voters. If a candidate doesn’t support the principles of the party, Republican voters aren’t going to choose them as a candidate, which renders the whole coordinated-funds issue completely moot.” Notably, the strategist spoke only on condition of anonymity, perhaps an indication of the powerful sway already held by those seeking enshrinement of the proposal in the RNC’s operating by-laws.

Finally, while the strategist’s assessment of the situation is accurate, there are other tests already in place  —– the Constitution of the United States, specifically Articles I and II, enumerating the limited powers granted to Congress and the President respectively. And, curiously, were the proposed standard in place in 2000, then it is unlikely that George W. Bush would have merited RNC sanction.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2392-qconservativeq-republicans-seek-to-impose-litmus-test-for-candidates


Randy Altschuler continues to garner media attention

In Randy Altschuler for Congress, Suffolk County Republican Committee on November 23, 2009 at 12:04 pm

(11-23-2009) Interesting reports are popping up all over the internet regarding Tim Bishop’s lead challenger Randy Altschuler.

see attached story below

One interesting note is how the article fails to take into consideration the Suffolk 9-12 Group’s influence. The Suffolk 9-12 has stood shoulder to shoulder with the Conservative Society for Action in Long Island’s growing tea party movement.

The Suffolk 9-12’ers were a major factor in the recent GOP sweep in the Riverhead Town election. 9-12 leader Bob Meyer and the rest of his membership were all over Riverhead in the weeks leading up to that election. The Riverhead GOP success can be directly attributed to this groups hard word.

Moving forward to the upcoming 1st district election, nearly 100% of the 9-12 membership resides in Bishop’s Congressional District. That will make them a major influencing factor in this race.

Which makes it a bit of a surprise how potential Conservative candidate George Demos has failed to reach out to them.

Numerous attempts to reach out to Demos, by yours truly, have also been unsuccessful.

The biggest question on everyone’s mind in eastern Suffolk is, “if Demos is running, where is he?”

At least Blumenthal, Cantwell, Meyer, and Staudenraus have been all over the blogs.

GOP Knight Aims To Check Democrats’ Bishop

Conservative anger attracts national attention, financial backing to district, by Sal Gentile

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:12:00

Stephen Flanagan’s strategy worked.

The 55-year-old Suffolk businessman and conservative activist wanted to prove to the world that his congressman, four-term Rep. Tim Bishop, could be defeated, despite scant interest from national Republicans.

So Flanagan and his group, the Conservative Society for Action (CSA), whose 3,000 members meet monthly in a rented American Legion hall in West Islip, hatched a plan to attract national attention to the district and lure credible candidates to the race.

They swarmed Bishop’s first summer town hall meeting in June, mobbing him as he arrived and then chanting epithets inside. Police had to be called to escort the congressman from the event.

Footage of the protest spread like wildfire across the Internet and cable news. The National Republican Congressional Committee circulated the video among its donors. Conservative activists across the country mimicked the strategy, fanning a national phenomenon.

And suddenly Bishop, who won by healthy margins in each of the last four elections, became a target.

“We did target him for removal, and we felt that the first step was to create a vulnerability. That’s when we came up with the town hall protest concept,” Flanagan said. “The hope at that point was that, once it became clear that he was vulnerable in his position, it would attract a wider field of candidates and financial support going forward.”

Now, the unrest Flanagan’s group has stirred on the normally sleepy East End has attracted national attention from Republican and Democratic leaders, who see Bishop’s seat as one of a few dozen that could help shift the balance of power in Washington. The contest has also become a national bellwether for the relevance of the right-wing agitators and the ability of national Republicans to channel widespread frustration into electoral success.

“That put a spotlight on the district that had not been there before,” said David Wasserman, the House editor at the Cook Political Report, which has tagged Bishop’s district as a possible swing seat. “Republicans did some more prying into this district to try and gauge whether it was a sort of one-time-only thing, or whether skepticism toward Democrats is more widespread.”

Republicans in Washington and Suffolk say they found the latter, and as a result Flanagan and his allies have secured all of what they wanted and more: a credible Republican candidate, financial backing from wealthy GOP patrons and, at last, the interest of the national party.

Randy Altschuler, a Wall Street entrepreneur and Republican bundler, has emerged as the early favorite among local activists and GOP operatives in Washington, who believe he can meet the all-important benchmarks that determine a candidate’s credibility: endorsements, infrastructure and cash.

“With Randy, it changes the dynamic completely,” said Assembly Member Phil Boyle, who has managed several Republican congressional campaigns in Suffolk. “This is Tim Bishop’s worst nightmare.”

Altschuler has also demonstrated considerable progress toward a crucial benchmark many of his predecessors have promised to meet but failed: At least $2 million in cash-on-hand, the minimum the NRCC prefers to see before committing to a challenger. Altschuler’s campaign announced earlier this month that he has already collected a quarter of that, much of it from his own pocket.

“There’s been a lot of positive support from the national party,” Altschuler said.

An NRCC official confirmed that Altschuler had met with Republicans in D.C. and that, so far, his campaign had reached or exceeded each of the benchmarks national GOP operatives had laid out for him.

“He is impressing people in the first district and he’s generating significant momentum,” said the official. “He’s put up some impressive numbers and an impressive infrastructure.”

Altschuler’s campaign is being run by Chris Maloney, a veteran of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and a former aide to the NRCC, who has helped Altschuler build a sizeable ground operation and connections to party officials in Suffolk and D.C.

Altschuler has engendered valuable goodwill among local lawmakers and activists by loaning his 100 or so volunteers out to their campaigns. His team hopes that strategy will help him avoid the problems that have plagued upstate Republican congressional candidates Jim Tedisco and Dede Scozzafava, who have suffered from the perception that they were forced upon their districts by national Republicans.

“My team has gotten involved with a lot of local races,” Altschuler said. “You have to show that you’re invested in the local party.”

But some Republicans remain hesitant to embrace Altschuler because of his Wall Street background. During the presidential campaign, when Altschuler served as a bundler for John McCain, reports emerged that a company he founded, OfficeTiger, had helped outsource American jobs to India. Democrats have already promised to make that a central theme of their attack ads, which has given some local Republicans pause.

“There’s a lot of this coronation going on,” said one Suffolk Republican who has stayed out of the race. “I think he probably has a consensus of support, but there are people who are concerned.”

Those people are instead turning to an alternative candidate, George Demos, a former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer who worked on the investigation of Bernard Madoff. But Demos was late in announcing his candidacy, has raised only a paltry sum and has been outpaced by Altschuler in winning endorsements and assembling a campaign operation.

John LaValle, the Suffolk Republican chairman, said that would make catching up very difficult for Demos.

“Randy Altschuler has clearly established his ability to raise funds, and in addition to that he’s put together a very solid campaign team,” LaValle said. “We’ll see how George proceeds.”

What Demos lacks in money and infrastructure, he hopes to make up in grassroots energy. Demos is a member of Flanagan’s group, the CSA, and has already courted the organization’s members on several occasions for their endorsement.

But so has Altschuler, which Flanagan and his cohorts take as evidence of their growing influence.

“I think they know that we’re responsible for taking the first step,” Flanagan said of the candidates. “Our message is clear: If you don’t represent us, we’re going to come after you.”

,

Ronald Reagan on socialized medicine

In The 9-12 Project on November 20, 2009 at 8:44 pm

(11-20-2009) Couldn’t resist this copy & paste.

“And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

Here’s to Ronald Reagan,

and tonight…… Joe Vullo’s buying the beer.

, , ,

Riverhead Town Board holds line on taxes

In Riverhead on November 19, 2009 at 9:36 pm

(11-19-2009) Throughout the fall campaign season, the Riverhead Republicans promised a 4% cap on taxes. Today they kept their word.

After a 5-0 unanimous vote, the town board decided to tap into it’s reserve funds in order to plug the budget gap from what could have resulted in an 18% tax increase to residents.

It should be noted that keeping to their word was extraordinarily difficult. Getting the tax rate below that 4% number presented many challenges. And yet to increase taxes above that, during one of the worst economies seen since the Great Depression, would have been “obscene.”

The Town Board basically had two choices. Either layoff town employees thus ruining the holidays for many families, or tapping into the reserves which could affect interest rates and the town’s ability to borrow in the future.

It was a difficult but morally right decision.

What caused this huge budget gap? Well there are many reasons. And they are all being reported on.

But if anyone should be looking for a “main” reason, look no further then the failed landfill reclamation. That failed project is responsible for 12-14% of the town’s debt service.

That is also why it could not be more appropriate for the architects of that great failure, Supervisor Phil Cardinale and Councilwoman Barbara Blass, to be leaving town hall.

They are both responsible for that colossal mismanagement. Both responsible for that debt.

For years to come Riverhead taxpayers will be paying for the failures of Cardinale and Blass. And for years to come the taxpayers should remind them both of that.

,

Randy Altschuler emerging as potent Bishop challenger

In Congressmen Tim Bishop, Randy Altschuler for Congress, Riverhead Republican Committee, Suffolk County Republican Committee on November 19, 2009 at 3:43 pm

(11-19-2009) Wealthy businessman Randy Altschuler is in the news and emerging as the lead challenger to Liberal Democrat Tim Bishop in next years 1st Congressional District election.

While it is still a long way from anyone getting the Republican and/ or Conservative nod, Mr. Altschuler gained instant credibility by pumping $450,000 of his own money into his campaign. He has also been making the rounds introducing himself at local political events.

Mr. Altschuler was seen at last nights Riverhead Republican Committee victory celebration, where he was politely shaking many hands and listening to everything anyone had to say.

Clearly, next years 1st Congressional District campaign has already started.

See related news stories below:

POLITICO, Suburban districts see red, (11-19-2009), By Alexander Burns

Just a few miles outside Suozzi’s Nassau County, Rep. Tim Bishop has drawn a promising Republican challenger in businessman Randy Altschuler, who could give the Long Island Democrat his stiffest challenge since his first election in 2002.

See full story @ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29704.html

NEW YORK TIMES, G.O.P. Gearing Up for 2010 House Races, (10-23-2009), By Raymond Hernandez

On eastern Long Island, in a swing district, Republicans are hoping to unseat Timothy H. Bishop, a four-term Democrat, with a well-financed challenger. Randy Altschuler, an entrepreneur, has pumped $450,000 of his own money into the campaign; his latest disclosure reports show about $540,000 in the bank; Mr. Bishop has $710,000.

As they are doing elsewhere in the country, Republicans say they will seize on public concern about government spending under Democrats. Mr. Bishop was confronted on that issue this spring during a boisterous town-hall-style meeting in his district.

See full story @ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/nyregion/25congress.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=randy%20altschuler&st=cse

NEW YORK TIMES, Long Island: First District Tussle, (10-23-2009), By Alexander Burns

Republican leaders contend — and independent analysts agree — that Mr. Bishop is potentially vulnerable to defeat in next year’s election, especially since the emergence of Randy Altschuler, a businessman who not only has put $450,000 of his own money into the race but also has raised sizable chunks of money from others.

Mr. Altschuler, who lives in St. James, was a fund-raiser for Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign last year. He has founded and run Office Tiger, a business-support services company he later sold, and CloudBlue, which recycles electronic equipment.

 See full story @ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/nyregion/25bcongressli.html?scp=2&sq=randy%20altschuler&st=cse


Bishop’s “natural allies” stepping up big

In Congressmen Tim Bishop on November 19, 2009 at 12:19 am

(11-19-2009) Anyone thinking that Tim Bishop is going to roll over easy guess again. His “natural allies” have been pouring money into his campaign. 

From Jan. 2009 – Sep 2009

138 different political action committees (PACS) have contributed $211,331

369 private individuals have donated $306,911

He also has $710,928 cash on hand.

The sickening part is that the election is one year away. His plea to raise $3 million seems easily obtainable. His campaign can quite possibly raise $4 to $5 million.

Which brings us to realize that he is a formidable enemy.

Check out his fundraising network made up of the liberal cancerous dots across America.

The following is taken from the Federal Election Commission Website: Start digging!

Contributions made from Political Action Committees (PACS) = $211,331 http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/HSRefreshContributorList.do?cand_id=H2NY01067&contCategory=PAC&showType=all

Contributions made from private individuals = $306,911 http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/HSRefreshContributorList.do?election_yr=2010&cand_id=H2NY01067&detailType=cand&contComeFrom=candDetail&contCategory=INDIVIDUAL&category=disH&stateName=NY&congressId=01

Financial Summary: CASH ON HAND = $710,928 http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapHSCandDetail.do?election_yr=2010&detailType=cand&cand_id=H2NY01067&category=disH&stateName=NY&congressId=01


Riverhead Republican officials tested early.

In Riverhead, Riverhead Republican Committee on November 17, 2009 at 11:12 pm

(11-18-2009) So the Riverhead Republican super majority (5-0) doesn’t take effect until after January 1st.

But between now and the end of the year, the Town Board will consist of Supervisor Phil Cardinale (D) and council members Barbara Blass (I), John Dunleavy (R), Jim Wooten (R), and newly sworn in George Gabrielsen (R).

Those numbers still give Republicans a 3-2 majority. Which means one thing; from this point moving forward the Republicans need to get it right because there is no one else to blame.

Riverhead Republicans will be tested very soon. And there are two big issues heading straight towards town hall faster than a freight train.

First – 2010 Town Budget

Come Friday November 20th, the town board must adopt a 2010 town budget. That’s when it gets interesting.

Revenues are down. Expenditures are up. 12 to 14 percent of the debt service is due to costs associated with the failed landfill reclamation. Interest on town investments is lower than projected. It’s getting ugly.

The Town Board can not balance this budget without raising taxes.

Remember though that throughout the fall season, Republicans campaigned on a mandatory 4% cap on taxes. Problem is in order to balance this budget, taxes will need to be raised much more than that.

So what’s next?

No doubt there are going to be some very difficult and painful decisions ahead. But that’s what these council members signed on for. So the bottom line is this.

In regard to Taxes and Spending, the Riverhead Republican platform states:

“A. First and foremost, we promote and practice fiscal responsibility in budgeting the services and operations of our Town Government recognizing the severe economic challenges facing the taxpayers in our Town.

B. We strongly believe that Riverhead has a spending problem. We endorse cutting spending and thereby reducing taxes.

C. We strongly favor a review of all Town budget lines with the intent to eliminate most if not all discretionary spending thereby reducing our tax burden.

D. We strongly favor a mandatory cap (rate of inflation) on all town spending. By placing a cap on all budget spending we will achieve the goal in stabilizing spending—thereby stabilizing taxation.

E. Every Town Department will be held accountable and responsible to “Belt Tighten” just as our hardworking Riverhead taxpayers do around their kitchen tables. Town Board and Supervisor oversight will ensure that every department must learn to live within the approved budget.”

Riverhead Republicans need to adhere to the party platform.

So that leaves the Republican majority three choices in dealing with the 2010 budget.

  • Reduce expenditures with across the board spending cuts. Either through layoffs, cutting services, and/or eliminating departments.
  • Dip into the town’s reserve fund.
  • A combination of both.

Raising taxes above the 4% cap can not be an option. Raising taxes above a 0% cap shouldn’t be an option.

These are tough times. RIVERHEAD REPUBLICANS SHOULD NOT RAISE TAXES.

Second – The Great Grumman Giveaway 3

Coming soon, Riverhead Resorts may be looking for a reduction in their original sale price of $155 million down to $100 million. That’s right folks. The Great Grumman Giveaway 3 coming soon to a town hall near you.

If true, Riverhead Republicans need to tell Riverhead Resorts to stick that idea somewhere where the sun doesn’t shine.

With the recent 5-0 unanimous Republican clean sweep of Riverhead Town Hall, the voting public has given this Republican Town Board a mandate to clean house.

Anything less than that will be unacceptable.

,

Bishop – “Needs his natural allies to step up.”

In Congressmen Tim Bishop, Suffolk County Republican Committee on November 13, 2009 at 2:08 pm

(11-13-2009) Bishop commences major fundraising drive.

In yet another recently obtained letter to his supporters, Tim Bishop pleads for help declaring that the 2010 race will be the biggest challenge he’s faced.

Bishop begs, “I need a minimum of $3 million to run this race aggressively. I need my natural allies to step up the pace and the amount of their primary and general election campaign contributions this time. I know my district and I know what’s coming.”

Oh he knows its coming.

It wasn’t that long ago when the Conservative Society for Action and Suffolk 9-12 Group gave it to Tim Bishop at a town hall meeting in Setauket, Long Island.

Town Hall Meeting

And it’s gonna keep coming.

So Bishop is looking to rally support. Who are these “natural supporters” Bishop is calling for? Look no further then the liberal, progressive, and socialist movements. Progressives that are willing to shell out $1,000 to $5,000 to help end the United States as we know it.

We already know that Bishop fears the CSA and 9-12.

But we now learn, after the second fundraising appeal in a row, that he also fears Randy Altschuler.

Who is Randy Altschuler?

Last month, Republican Randy Altschuler officially announced his candidacy for New York’s 1st Congressional District. In 2006 Altschuler made $250 million from the sale of his business, Office Tiger. And with $500,000 already in his campaign coffers, Altschuler represents a formidable opponent that Tim Bishop has yet to see in his 6 years in office.

Whatever kind of personal, business, and political backgrounds Mr. Altschuler comes from, rest assure I will report. But having said that, I will confess that from the standpoint of Altschuer’s personal wealth, he already has the desperately needed resources that are so vital in any political fight. Let’s remain open-minded for now and see what else he has to offer. Look for more info in the near future.

 And we also will report on just who Tim Bishop’s “natural supporters” are.

2009-10-07 Fundraising Letter

2009-10-07 Fundraising Letter 2

,

Levy’s Yaphank housing project equals more liberal dots.

In Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy's Workforce Housing Plan on November 12, 2009 at 3:27 am

(11-11-2009) Socialized housing programs re-visited.

Nearly two years ago I began writing about why government is the problem. The following story is where it all started. A story that began with then Suffolk County Deputy County Executive Jim Morgo, (remember him?), and the idea of using county owned land for the purpose of providing workforce housing.  A plan that involved selling that land to insider developers at a below market price. This plan was and still is a government funded housing project.

In spite of massive community resistance, Levy’s Legacy Village, has made it all the way to a public hearing next week at the Suffolk County Legislature.

On 11-10-09 Newsday reports:

Levy seeks support for Yaphank development project, by Rick Brand

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/levy-seeks-support-for-yaphank-development-project-1.1579221

Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy on Tuesday launched his campaign to gain support for his 1,000-unit affordable “Legacy Village” project in Yaphank, trying to pre-empt critics with an impassioned defense of his plan.

“When it comes to creating more workforce housing for young people, everyone talks the good talk,” said Levy, testifying before the Long Island Regional Planning Council. “But you have to take action and you have to deal with the ‘Not in my backyard’ folks.”

Levy’s appearance comes only days before the County Legislature holds a public hearing Tuesday on a resolution to declare the 250-acre county tract surplus and authorize Levy to negotiate a contract with developers.

Levy touted the project as good for the environment because the complex would have sewers and because public works buildings, including a salt dome, would be relocated and upgraded. Levy also maintained the site is not a pristine pine barrens area, noting there is a town landfill and a Grucci fireworks factory nearby.

He said his proposal would create a “destination” downtown with indoor and outdoor 5,000-seat arenas, shops, restaurants, offices and apartments as well as an alternate agency industrial park powered by solar energy.

“Instead of a golf course or needless strip malls, let’s do something that leaves the legacy,” said Levy, adding it will increase property values and that foes’ environmental concerns are “not legitimate.”

However, critics – some wearing T-shirts saying, “What has Steve Levy got against Yaphank?” – said the Legislature should keep the land for future county needs. They worried that development could impact the nearby Carmans River and that the project will ruin the rural Yaphank.

“To tell me it will improve my quality of life is just laughable,” said one resident, John Palasek, adding that the legacy Levy wants to leave “is a monument to himself.”

Government can not be relied upon to solve affordable housing problems.

Educated taxpayers know that housing subsidized by the government is social housing. This could be in the form of government aid, supplements to the builder, or even using government owned land. Social housing is considered to be a socialist program.

The argument in favor of government sponsored housing is always noble. Actually it’s more utopian.

Quite often, critics of socialized housing are asked to look at examples of “aesthetically pleasing” workforce housing communities across Long Island and even the nation. 

That should be nothing more then an alarm bell.

Students of history remember that in the 1930’s, a famous French architect, named Le Corbusier, inspired ways to house large numbers of people in response to the urban housing crisis of that era. Le Corbusiers’ aesthetically pleasing modern architecture and his urban planning was NYC’s public housing inspiration. He believed that his solution would raise the quality of life of the lower classes. But by the 1960’s, this style of housing was predominantly of the poor. His “housing projects” were crime ridden.

Another attempt at affordable housing came in 1978. The Section 8 Housing Program, which encourages the private sector to construct affordable homes, and subsidizes public housing. Noses still cringe when people hear that dirty word, Section 8.

In spite of all the governmental efforts to clean up their own creations, these projects and programs continue to have a reputation for criminal activity. Because wide spread critics agree that concentrated pockets of poverty contribute to increased levels of crime.

What poverty, this is for the working class?

Noble, but it has been tried many times in history. Like Mr. Levy’s workforce housing plan, NYC’s public housing was also initially for the working class. And history clearly shows us the long term results of these projects and programs.  Workforce housing, social housing, public housing, housing projects, section 8 programs or whatever the politically correct name for the moment is, are simply poverty traps, zip code killers, and redistribution programs. Why would Mr. Levy’s plan be any different then Le Corbusiers?

It wouldn’t matter if it was state funds, county funds, or even county owned land. Using taxpayer dollars to aid any one particular social class over any other for the purpose of housing, amounts to an unfair immoral redistribution of wealth.

We are all in agreement that there is an affordable housing crisis on Long Island. However the answer does not lie in any socialist form of governmental funding. The answer does not lie in creating a need for new and more taxation. The answer does not lie in yet another subsidy.

The answers lie in up-zoning, increasing height and density, sewer expansion, stream lining the permit and approval process, reducing taxes, and decreasing the size of government.

If Steve Levy really wants to leave behind any legacy, he should look no further then school district reform. The average homeowner is paying nearly $1,000 per month in property taxes. You want to create affordable housing, figure out a way to cut that in half.

The liberal dots across America are vast. Some are more obvious then others. And some are hidden behind a veil of political correctness.

,

In honor of Veterans Day, please support this local charity!

In Charity begins at home on November 11, 2009 at 10:27 pm

(11-11-2009) Please do anything you can to help this local charity!

suffolk county homefront

“Suffolk County Homefront, Inc is a 501c3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to supporting military personnel or units from Suffolk County deployed to hostile zones.  Our primary mission is to purchase equipment and morale items for our resident service members. 

In addition to supporting deployed residents and units within Suffolk County, our organization is seeking to establish a means of welcoming our returning troops, aiding those who have been injured and honoring those who have died.

We also believe in, and are committed to, acknowledging and supporting the veterans within our community from all generations who have also proudly served our country.”

http://www.suffolkcountyhomefront.org/ 

Suffolk County Homefront
PO Box 1
Ridge, NY 11961
Phone Number 631-942-6070 


Tim Bishop calls Republican opposition to Obamacare — “Bizarro World”

In Congressmen Tim Bishop on November 11, 2009 at 2:48 am

(11-11-2009) In a recently obtained email solicitation to his supporters, Congressman Tim Bishop called Republican opposition to government run health care – “Bizarro World”. 

Here it is.

November 8, 2009

 Dear Friend,

Yesterday, I was proud to stand up and cast my vote for real health care reform. I was proud to support the public option, and I will fight for my beliefs.

Will you stand up alongside me? Support my re-election efforts

Listening to the other side of the aisle this week, I felt like I was in Bizarro World, where things are upside down. House Minority Leader John Boehner told a rally of Sean Hannity viewers, “This bill is the greatest threat to freedom that I’ve seen in the 19 years I’ve been in Washington.”

It is shocking that Mr. Boehner and the Republican Party, after months of criticizing the Democratic Party’s effort to present a strong health care reform bill, would put forward such a feeble counter-proposal that offers so little.  The Republican plan expands coverage to only three million Americans and reduces the deficit by only $68 billion over the next 10 years, compared to the Democratic plan which covers 36 million more Americans and reduces the deficit by $104 billion over ten years.  For the party of “No”, the Republican plan is certainly no better and does not come close to delivering reform or strengthening health care that American families need today.

If you don’t want our community to become Bizarro World, I need your help DONATE TO MY CAMPAIGN

The National Republican Congressional Committee has targeted my race because they have a multi-millionaire running against me, who has already committed nearly $500,000. They will spend millions to mislead our friends and neighbors about health care reform.

I will stand up for reform. We need a public option that creates real competition and lowers cost. We cannot allow insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and dropping people who get sick. We need to trust the American Medical Association which supports this legislation which will cover preventative care and make Americans healthier. We should listen to the AARP which supports this legislation because it will preserve Medicare and provide desperately need options to Americans age 55-64.

We need to stand up for the right of every one of our citizens to have affordable, quality health care. In my view, that is standing up for freedom.

Please stand with me now and in the months to come. Show your support by contributing to my campaign

 Sincerely,

Congressman Tim Bishop

This email was sent by Tim Bishop for Congress | (631) 451 – 1764 | PO Box 437 | Farmingville | NY | 11738

Here’s what two of his fellow Democratic colleagues from New York are saying.

The two New York State Democrats that voted against this budget busting package:

REP. ERIC MASSA (D-NY): “It is exceptionally painful to me to not be able to bring a common-sense bill on health care reform to my district, but I will not vote on something that I think will hurt the people who sent me to Washington, regardless of how popular it may be……This bill also, I believe, fails to address the fundamental question before the American people, and that is how do we control the costs of health care.  It does not address interstate portability, as Medicare does.  It does not address real medical malpractice insurance reform. It does not address the incredible waste and fraud that are currently in the system.” (Ray Finger, “Massa says he’ll vote against health care bill,” Elmira Star-Gazette, 11/06/09)

·         MASSA: “Since it doesn’t address those cost factors, I do not understand how it will help the American people.” (Patti Singer, “Massa says he can’t support health care bill,” Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, 11/06/09)

REP. MICHAEL MCAHON (D-NY): “I believe that the net negatives of this bill outweigh the positive effects…..The House bill being debated costs over $1 trillion. It includes a tax increase that is not indexed to inflation. Medicare Advantage, which serves approximately 40% of my seniors on Medicare, would be cut dramatically, leading to significant monthly average premium increases of $130 per person per month……The bill would penalize small businesses and could have unintended consequence of encouraging businesses to drop healthcare coverage and push people into the public option. I do not believe that the House bill goes far enough in containing the cost curve in which healthcare spending takes up a larger and larger share of our GDP.” (Michael McAuliff, “McMahon Saying ‘No’ to Health Care Bill,” New York Daily News, 11/06/09)

Here’s what REP. RON PAUL (R-TEX) has been saying:

Ron Paul on Obama Care

 Ron Paul further states:

“Forced nationalization is the worst possible answer. To get elected, many politicians promise “free” medical care for everyone. But health care nationalization in European countries resulted in longer waiting periods, severe lack of choice, deterioration of health care quality, prohibition of alternative health treatments, higher taxes, and sadly (for some) permanent illness or death because they could not get the care they needed.

Also, a nationalized system is not “free” at all because someone has to pay for it. And why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else’s medical care? Very few decent people would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a nationalized health care system?”

As House Minority Leader John Boehner recently said, “This bill is the greatest threat to freedom that I’ve seen in the 19 years I’ve been in Washington.”

Tim Bishop, one of the most liberal congressman in all of America, is the one living in Bizarro World.

 


Islip Republican Headquarters – Election Night Victory

In Islip Town Republican Committee, Suffolk County Republican Committee on November 10, 2009 at 10:25 pm

(11-10-2009) Must see video!

Islip Republican Headquarters in Bay Shore NY on election day night 11-03-09.

Speakers are Frank Tantone, Trish Bergin and Steve Flotteron. Topic of discussion defeating Christopher Bodkin and Jim Morgo!

 

Islip Town Victory

Video by Steve Kosin

, , ,

Will the Suffolk County Republican Committee get it right in 2010?

In Congressmen Tim Bishop, Suffolk County Republican Committee on November 9, 2009 at 2:21 am

(11-09-2009) So we just witnessed Doug Hoffman, a third-party candidate running for Congress in upstate New York’s  23rd Congressional District. He was a conservative with strong libertarian leanings.

The Republican candidate, selected by party leadership, was a liberal. She ended up withdrawing from the race and endorsed the Democrat who won.

Yet, this conservative/libertarian still got 45 percent of the vote.

With all this in mind,

what will the Suffolk County Republican Committee do in 2010? Who will they nominate to run against Congressmen Tim Bishop and Steve Israel?

Constitutional Conservatives

Will the Suffolk County Republican Committee continue with the same failed Upstate NY strategy of ignoring the Constitutional Conservatives?

If there are any lessons learned from the recent highly successful local town elections, it is this.

Constitutional Conservative candidates, or Tea Partiers, will save this party.

Will the Suffolk County Republican Committee get it right in 2010?


Press Release – Riverhead Town Republican Committee

In Riverhead Republican Committee on November 5, 2009 at 8:41 pm

Riverhead GOP

(11-0 4- 2009) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

RIVERHEAD REPUBLICANS SWEEP TO UNANIMOUS TOWN BOARD

Following in her father Gene’s footsteps, newly elected Riverhead Town Republican Committee Chairwoman, Nancy Reyer, led the party in retaking the supervisor’s office and winning all three council seats up for election. 

Sean Walter has been elected the new Riverhead Town Supervisor.  Joining him on the Town Board are incumbent Councilman John Dunleavy, Councilwoman-elect Jodi Giglio; and George Gabrielsen who was elected to fill the Town Board unexpired term of Tim Buckley, who resigned earlier this year.  Councilman-elect Gabrielsen will take office immediately after certification of the election results by the Board of Elections later this month.   Together with sitting Councilman James Wooten, this Town Board will put Riverhead back on track with sensible solutions for downtown and economic development for EPCAL.

In addition, Assessor Laverne Tennenberg ran unopposed and remains in the office she has held for 20 years.

“It is clear the people of Riverhead are no longer happy to put process over progress.  The voters expressed their desire to move Riverhead forward.  The county seat of Suffolk County will become the jewel of the East End under Republican stewardship,” said Reyer.

It became apparent, from the moment this slate was nominated, that this was a special group of candidates, who were destined to deliver for the people of Riverhead.  Their various backgrounds and life experiences give them the fundamental, conservative values that will guide them throughout their tenure on the Town Board. 

With the support of the Conservative Party for all candidates and Independence backing for most, we knew that our candidates would prove to the Riverhead voter that the time has come for real change – change that will be measured by common sense decisions, balancing our environment with the economy.   

In addition, the Suffolk 9-12 Group, an independent grass roots group of conservative minded citizens, also came to support our candidates – offering its valuable members as a workforce the candidates could rely upon. These individuals worked tirelessly with the candidates and provided encouragement and advice throughout the campaign.

The newly elected candidates are anxious to begin their terms of office.  They are eager to deliver on the campaign promises made.  The Town of Riverhead will be a place where people can work and play, where families can be raised and children do not have to move away after college.

“This is an exciting time for Riverhead,” Reyer stated. “These newly-elected officials see the big picture.  They know what needs to be done, and more importantly, they know how to get it done.”

Riverhead Town Republican Committee,  P.O. Box 615,  Wading River, New York 11792,  (631)727-1234


Press Release – Islip Town Republican Committee

In Islip Town Republican Committee on November 4, 2009 at 10:35 pm

Islip Republican Committee

Islip Town Republican Committee

39 Third Avenue, Bay Shore, NY 11706
(631) 665-5532

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 NOVEMBER 4, 2009

NEW ISLIP REPUBLICANS VICTORIOUS

After reenergizing and overhauling the Islip Town Republican Committee, new Chairman, Frank A. Tantone, and the new party leadership scored major victories last evening.  The winners in Islip included incumbent Councilman Steve Flotteron; Trish Bergin, also elected to the Town Board; Suffolk County Legislator, Tom Baragga in the 11th Legislative District; Suffolk County Legislator Tom Cilmi, in the 10th Legislative District; and incumbent District Court Judges, Steve Lotto, Steve Behar, and Patricia Filiberto.  “We are proud that the voters seemingly appreciate the changes we have made in the Islip Town Republican Committee.  As the Chairman, I pledge to continue to promote the values and ideas that have made this party great by choosing the best candidates possible,” said Tantone.

All of the successful Islip candidates look forward to representing the voters in promoting low taxes, reduced government spending, and leading our community back to economic prosperity.  The winning candidates will strive to promote open, transparent government, which serves the people.  Tantone further stated that the newly elected officials will, “…put people first, and politics last.  As the Chairman, I will see to it that government will always come before politics with our elected officials.  I will do my job, so they can do theirs.”

For more information please call (631) 665-5532 or visit us at IslipRepublicans.com

, , , , , , , ,

The great liberal massacre

In CSA, Congressmen Tim Bishop, Riverhead, Riverhead Republican Committee, Suffolk County Republican Committee, The 9-12 Project on November 4, 2009 at 2:34 am

(11-04-2009) “All politics is local”

The Town Election Results 2009:

Town of Islip

Councilmen Christopher Bodkin (D, WF, Incumbent) – Defeated!

Jim Morgo (D, WF, Liberal Lion) – Slaughtered!

Town of Riverhead

The entire Town Board now Republican!

Supervisor Phil Cardinale (D, WF, Incumbent) – Defeated!

Kathleen Berenzy (D,WF) – Defeated!

Shirley Coverdale (D,WF) – Defeated!

John Stefans (D) – Defeated!

Rose Sanders (WF) – Defeated!

History was made today. This was the shot heard around Long Island.

Conservative strongholds in Islip and Riverhead helped defeat Democrats and Liberals in these two towns. In six major races, all six were swept up in the growing Conservative movement.

And two of those six races were crushing defeats to the Democrats.

In Islip, the most devastating blow was delivered to the Liberal Lion of Long Island, Jim Morgo.

Jim Morgo

Jim Morgo - The Liberal Lion of Long Island

Morgo had risen to the highest levels of county political power by being a champion in the redistribution of wealth. As the former 17 year boss of the Long Island Housing Partnership, Mr. Morgo steered hundreds of millions of NYS tax dollars thru the LIHP to private individuals.

Mr. Morgo is to the Long Island Housing Partnership what President Obama is to ACORN. He is a champion in democratic circles, a liberal rock star. He was even cross endorsed by moderate Republicans. If Morgo can get slaughtered, no democrat or liberal on Long Island is safe.

The conservatives in Islip came out and voted for Republicans Trish Bergin and Steve Flotteron. The conservatives defeated the democrats and liberals of Islip.

The Conservative Society for Action is now a legitimate swing vote.

Conservative Society for Action 1

Now to Riverhead.

In Riverhead, the biggest ax fell on 6 year Town Supervisor Phil Cardinale.

With vacant stores, crumbling sidewalks, day time drug dealing, crack heads, prostitution, and violent street gangs, Riverhead is a classic text book example of urban decay. After 6 years of false hopes and empty promises, Cardinale never could deliver.

But there were also many other reasons why he was defeated. From the failed master developer, to the failed landfill reclamation, to the failed economic development at EPCAL, to the sex offender dumping ground, to the 911 dispatchers (by the way – voter referendum and they’re staying), to the illegal sand mining, to the still unreleased 2007 town audit.

Cardinale Failure

In spite of his incredible failed leadership, for some reason Cardinale had owned this town.

I had been personally told by my very own party elders that this is a moderate town. But I never once truly believed that. Because in the last 3 town supervisor elections all 3 moderate Republicans lost.

And this time Conservative Republican Sean Walters won. He won even when his own moderate town party cringed when he remained steadfast in his conservative principals.

But the conservatives never abandon their own, and they worked hard for Sean Walter and his conservative team. The conservatives came out and voted for Sean Walter and the rest of the Republican Conservative ticket.

Sean Walter won by a little over 200 votes.

The Suffolk 9-12’ers are now a legitimate swing vote.

Unite or die

Let it now be told that Liberalism, Czars, government run health care, bailouts, redistribution programs, illegal immigration, the Working Family Party, ACORN, voter fraud, deficit spending, obscene taxes and regulation, RINOS (Republican-In-Name-Only), and cross endorsements by any form of elected leadership any where on Long Island, this state, or the federal government will no longer be tolerated.

An epic war has begun. A war to defend the Constitution, and to defeat this liberal socialist cancer that has been spreading for far too long throughout this entire country.

We won the battle of 2009.

Look who’s up next for 2010.

 Next up!

Representative Tim Bishop  

 

Tim Bishop

Tim Bishop

 

and Representative Steve Israel

 

Steve Israel

Steve Israel

 

here we come.

 

We’re coming to getcha!

Angry mob

The next town hall meeting?

 


A message from Nancy Reyer, Chairman Riverhead Town Republican Committee

In Riverhead Republican Committee on November 2, 2009 at 4:29 pm

(11-02-2009)

Riverhead GOP

Dear Fellow Republicans,

Democrats control our government at all levels: federal, state, county and town.  Nationally, the Democrats have mortgaged our grandchildren’s futures with record amounts of bailouts leading to unheard of debt.  In addition, while 85% of us work hard to provide benefits for our families, we’re now being told to pay for benefits of the remaining 15% . 

In New York, the Democrats have saddled us with the MTA payroll tax – requiring the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars by our local schools, governments, hospitals, non-profits, and family owned businesses.  Governor Patterson is cutting our school aid midway through the school year which will mean more of our hard earned dollars being spent by goverment.  Suffolk County has seen fit to make Riverhead the permanent dumping ground for sex offenders.  We pay for police services that don’t benefit the east end.

In Riverhead, we’ve had 6 years of Phil Cardinale and Riverhead is in worse shape today because of it.  He told us the landfill reclamation was under budget and ahead of schedule.  Instead of costing $25 million, it’s costing us $70 million  or $10,000.00 a day.  EPCAL is still not developed, downtown is a ghost town and our kids are leaving.

As a single mom and hardworking taxpayer, I’ve had enough of government looking to me to pay for everyone else.  We can not afford the Democrats’ “solutions”.  It’s been said that “all politics are local” and I believe it.  The time is now for us to send a message to every level of government: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!  Stop spending and wasting our money!

Tomorrow is our opportunity, as registered Republicans, to be patriots and let Washington know we’re taking our government back.  We can start here by taking back Riverhead and push on to next year’s elections.

Your party has put forth a slate of solid candidates to revitalize our town – our home.  Supervisor candidate Sean Walter remains steadfast in his belief of our party’s ideals; he has the vision to rebuild Main St., to develop EPCAL and bring good paying jobs to enable our children to stay.  Council candates:  John Dunleavy is a proven asset.  During his first term, he has saved the town over $300,000.00 due to his hard work.  Jodi Giglio is a mom and business leader.  Two minutes with Jodi will be enough to know her passion for this town and know she has the ideas and abilities to make Riverhead the jewel it should be.  George Gabrielsen is the rock on which any foundation will be solid.  He is a successful businessman and local farmer.  George will use his God given common sense to work at solutions to the town’s problems.  This is a team of fiscal conservatives.  Their top priority is the protection of us, the taxpayers.

Do not forget Linda Hulse for Town Clerk, Joe Densieski for Highway Supt. and Laverne Tennenberg for Assessor.  Laverne has faithfully served us for 20 years and is again running without opposition.  Linda has run a successful business for 30 years.  She is ready to modernize the office and digitize our history.  Joe is tailor made for the Highway Dept.  He has the know how to restore our roads and will work all year, every year, not just during election year. 

VOTE ROW B tomorrow and support your candidates!!

Nancy Reyer

, , , ,

The Riverhead Cardinale Review “influencing the election”

In Riverhead on November 1, 2009 at 2:22 am

(11-01-2009) I reported to you recently of the Riverhead News Review media bias.

This newspaper has had a blatant agenda preventing certain stories from being reported. Stories that if properly reported would have been damaging to Supervisor Cardinale’s re-election.

When asked, The Riverhead News Review attempted to explain that they had to be careful because they did not want to report on anything that could “influence this election”, yet they simultaneously ran a front page story on a Republican candidates family member. A story that was so disgusting, not just because of its content, but because of its blatant attempt to “influence this election.” All while this story had nothing to do with the actual candidate.

Continuing with our belief that all politics is local, all media is local as well. The Riverhead News Review’s blatant political bias is no different then the main stream media’s blatant liberal bias. And it’s high time for all the liberal roots of this vast network of cancerous dots to be exposed.

Let’s continue.

Further evidence has surfaced of a Riverhead News Review attempt at “influencing an election.” Influencing an election by once again failing to report certain stories.

In a recent published Long Island Business News story, the following was reported:

Apollo losing Riverhead master developer status

by David Winzelberg
Published: October 22, 2009 Long Island Business News

http://libn.com/blog/2009/10/22/apollo-loses-riverhead-master-developer-status/

Most of a $500 million plan to revitalize downtown Riverhead has collapsed and town officials are looking for new thinking on the redevelopment of 3.4 acres on Main Street south to the Peconic River. Manhattan-based Apollo Real Estate Advisors, now called AREA Property Partners, is losing its designation as master developer.

Yet no where in the Riverhead Cardinale Review, I mean the Riverhead News Review, was anything regarding this ever mentioned.

Why wouldn’t the Riverhead News Review cover this obviously big local story?

Was it because Supervisor Phil Cardinale chose the Apollo Group to be the Master Developer of the downtown three years ago?

Was it because his cousin Michael Mannetta is the principal architect of that firm?

Was it because nothing was ever developed by Apollo?

Was it because the last three years of waiting for something to be developed in downtown Riverhead was a complete waste of taxpayer time?

Was it because this story highlighted the failed leadership of Supervisor Cardinale three weeks before the election?

Those questions need to be asked to the Riverhead News Review. And maybe they will honestly answer you with, “they didn’t want to influence this election.”

But whether they answer these questions or not the Long Island Business News couldn’t have reported this story with anymore journalistic integrity.

Editorial: Riverhead redux by the Editors
Published: October 30, 2009
http://libn.com/blog/2009/10/30/editorial-riverhead-redux/

For those who champion Riverhead, the latest news, that a $500 million plan to revitalize the town’s downtown has collapsed, has to be heartbreaking.

Three years ago, the town selected Apollo Real Estate Advisors to transform its run-down waterfront into a thriving downtown, complete with a 14-screen multiplex movie theater, specialty food market, a finished esplanade, plaza and a pond.

The plan was the linchpin in converting Riverhead into an extension of the East End, where quaint downtowns attract day-trippers and vacation seekers.

But Apollo, now called AREA Property Partners, was unable to buy the adjacent property. The company said it was sunk by a lack of financing. So now what?

There’s talk of putting a hotel downtown and creating parkland that uses the waterfront. But after years of dreaming, that doesn’t sound like much.

The town’s supervisor said Riverhead soon will send out requests for ideas on reinventing Main Street. He said the town needs a “solid proposal.”

What the town doesn’t need is to start all over again. But that’s exactly what’s happened here.

The losers? Riverhead, again.

Let me repeat the last sentence. The losers? Riverhead, again.

This is a huge story.

There is no excuse for the Riverhead News Review’s failure to cover this story. There is no excuse that could hide their true intentions. No excuse that could hide their blatant bias.

But let this sink in. The Riverhead News Review, our local family newspaper, decided to publish a 2 month old story on page 1 using graphic profane anatomical language about a candidate’s family member, YET failed to cover a current story about Supervisor Cardinale’s hand picked “Master Developer” losing that “Master Developer” status.

Where is their integrity?

And this is NOT the only example of their journalistic inconsistency.

How about their endorsement of Cardinale? They lament that at least he hasn’t “saddled” Riverhead with “onerous debt.” YET fails to mention anything regarding Cardinale’s failed leadership in the mismanagement of the town’s landfil reclamation. Isn’t that $10,000 per day saddled debt onerous?

In general, no one can illustrate the Riverhead News Review’s inconsistency or liberal bias any clearer then Gary P. Joyce, who recently commented on this message board;

“Ya gotta love that the NR (Riverhead News Review) endorses a man for the highest office in the land based on the sole credential that he’s for change, and endorses the only candidate for local supervisor who hasn’t changed anything since he’s been in office!”

Mr. Joyce, you are spot on.

Riverhead taxpayers deserve better. Deserve a better supervisor, and deserve better reporting from our local family newspaper.

But before that can ever happen, those cancerous connected liberal dots must all be exposed.

Remember all this on Election Day.