Editor:

I recently spoke at a gun club. I’m a gun owner and Eagle Scout, from a working class background; but because I’m a Democrat, most of the people in the room looked at me with suspicion. There were probably 70 people there; some even wearing MAGA hats.

That suspicion only started to melt when we began talking about Social Security. I told them that for four years in a row Trump proposed cuts to Social Security in some manner, and that he also wanted cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, or what he called “entitlements.”

“That’s not true,” one man said.

Another said, “Those aren’t entitlements. We earned them.”

Indeed you did. But Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a reduction in outlays to the Social Security program of over $24 billion over the next decade. You can read it. See it for yourself. And you can listen to his words. Believe what he says.

Social Security started during the Great Depression. It was meant as a way for our country to look after those who, by no fault of their own, were unable to work. Over the years, many Americans, including my family, got by because of Social Security. It’s not a giveaway. It’s something you pay for, and it needs to be protected.

In any given year you pay into Social Security up to $137,000. It stops getting deducted after you hit that ceiling. So if you make more than that, you stop paying. For example, if you make $1,000,000 a year, you’ll stop paying around March. If you make $50,000 a year, you pay all year long; every single paycheck.

Because of this, our nation’s Social Security program will go bankrupt. There is simply not enough money being collected. My kids won’t have Social Security to rely on in their Golden Years. This cap, and recent tax giveaways to the wealthiest people in our country, are what has put our Social Security in jeopardy.

All budgets are a matter of priorities. For your home budget, you may include cable television and give up your newspaper subscription. You may have to eat hamburger helper a few nights a week in order to go out with your family and get ribeye once in awhile. Budgets depend on what we value most. What your priorities are. That’s no different at the national level.

Social Security must be our nation’s priority. We need to remove the cap on high incomes in order to fully fund this vital program. If one person pays all year, every person should pay all year. If anything, we should include a Social Security floor so the most vulnerable people are protected and everyone gets some level of break. We don’t have to raise the age or take some other extreme action. Removing the ceiling alone will create strong and lasting Social Security. In fact, our goal should be to expand your social security benefits. After working so hard your whole life to enjoy your retirement, you don’t deserve seven days of hamburger helper.

Don’t cut. Remove the cap. Expand it.

Nate McMurray

Candidate for Congress in New York’s 27th Congressional District

Editor:

As our governor unveils his priorities for the coming year, we should all be concerned about the effects his progressive ideology will have upon our communities and the values we embrace. In particular, Governor Cuomo’s paid (“contractual”) surrogacy legislation will make the womb of vulnerable women available for rent.

His upcoming campaign deems this a “right.” In fact, it is no right at all, but rather one’s preference. If this type of legislation passes, not only will it dangerously and offensively objectify women, it will also produce a legal path to rent a womb for the purpose of bearing children.

As a pastor for many years now, I have seen the damaging effects of social experimentation upon families, especially children. This type of legislation is not progress, it is problematic on many fronts.

May our citizenry rise with courage and protest this unwise legislation. We must insist upon moral clarity from our elected representatives. Renting wombs and murdering unborn children is not healthy for society, it is abhorrent.

Our children desperately need the elders of our community to speak with the “common sense” our governor so often mischaracterizes when promoting his agenda. Please join me in loudly protesting this kind of progress by contacting your elected officials today.

Pastor Steven Pawley

Shelby Center

Pawley is pastor of the Antioch Anabaptist Church in Shelby Center

Editor:

Two things are coming up and you have from the 25th of February till about March 30th.

One is the political committees are reorganizing this year. They are the ones that choose the candidates that are put up to represent you.

Most of the committees in each town are run by those that are in an elected position, friends or family members of them so the candidate selection is stacked against anyone trying to get an endorsement who is not the chosen one. Sad but true.

If you are not happy with the current crop of representatives that you have or just want to get involved politically so you can have an independent say then you can pick up a petition at the board of elections and carry it yourself. Remember this: The power to pick candidates is all in the committee. You won’t get another chance for two more years.

The other is the Conservative Party Committee members will be out circulating petitions and seeking signatures for candidates and committee people. So if you see a person at your door with a clipboard and papers, it’s not the bill collector. It’s a person trying to get signatures to keep the committee going and to get candidates on the ballot for you to vote for and represent you. Help them out.

We do this for no pay and we pay for our own gas. All we want is a quick signature and will be happy to answer any questions you may have about the candidates. We vet each candidate with a prior questionnaire and a personal interview.

We take our endorsements seriously to bring you the best qualified candidates to serve you. We are the party of term limits. Thank you for your time.

Paul Lauricella Jr.

Lyndonville

Orleans County Conservative Party Chairman

Editor:

Here are some facts that should be added to the report published in the Pennysaver and Orleans Hub relating to the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Luncheon on February 2, 2020. (Click here to “County officials see lots of progress in Orleans County”)

Pertaining to the new Administrative Building at a cost of 11 million, yes, 3 million did come from NYS, but all is still taxpayer money. Why is it OK to use money without public input or a survey or maybe even a vote?

Yes, Orleans County is a great place to live! Population growth occurs when economic developments are inspired with workable tax incentives, zoning requirements and local government encouragement. No just relying and waiting for tax monies to be given to us.  Thankfully there are some local county individuals with personal interest that fill a void and eagerly invest.

Instead of wasting money on unrealistic enhancements of parks, money should be spent on repairing bridges and certainly many of the roads that need to be repaved. Our lack of Broadband is shameful. Broadband was promised to us several years ago and many are still without or sketchy internet.

Town of Yates Park is a false projection of a community inspired project, most likely to satisfy the egos of the town officials. This park will not encourage an increase in the population. Enhancing parks does not make up for declining incoming families, declining area jobs and declining school registration. This 2.5 million dollars should be directed to other specified areas by the REDI Commission.

This article only addresses a few of the remarks made at the luncheon. Get involved, ask questions and become an active part in your community.

Jeanne Crane

Waterport

(Crane is the chairwoman of the Orleans County Democratic Party.)

Editor:

Budgets are a reflection of the vision, values and priorities of the preparer. Since Chris Jacobs says he supports President Trump it is worth a look at the budget Mr. Trump proposes and see what values that Mr. Jacobs supports.

Los Angeles Times’s Michael Hiltzik wrote (2/10/20): “Trump’s proposed $4.8-trillion budget for the 2021 fiscal year makes his intentions crystal clear: He means to shred the federal safety net for the poor and the sick. The budget proposed released Monday calls for drastic cuts in Social Security and Medicaid benefits, as well as in a program protecting defrauded student loan borrowers.”

From the New York Times (2/10/20) “The budget also assumes Mr. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts are extended for 10 years: It includes $1.4 trillion to extend the individual tax cuts to 2035.”

It is the poor and the middle class that are paying for Mr. Trump’s tax breaks for the wealthy. “For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate — spanning federal, state and local taxes — than any other income group, according to newly released data.” David Leonhardt stated in the NYT (10/6/19).

The L.A. Times writes, “Let’s make no mistake about the flow of federal funds in this budget proposal: It’s all about making the poor, sick, children and elderly pay for the tax cuts for the rich.”

These are the values Mr. Jacobs supports. Jerry Zremski, in The Buffalo News (8/2/19), reported that there are 57,000 food stamp recipients in metro Buffalo area alone. Cutting C.H.I.P. would put thousands of more children and family’s health in danger. The budget includes increases for Mr. Trump’s border wall but it decreases the health and safety and security of citizens living in Western New York.

This is what Chris Jacobs values; shafting the citizens of Western New York as long as Mr. Jacobs gets his tax break.

William Fine

Brockport

Editor:

In response to Seefeldt’s recent concerns, I’m rather baffled. Seefeldt believes the Constitution prohibits regulating or punishing morality. As the Constitution addresses slavery, alcohol consumption, age and sex discrimination (voting) – all moral issues if there ever were any – Seefeldt’s presumptions fall flat.

While we rightfully revere our Constitution, however the originators of that document were far less enamored with it. Some of the Constitution’s creators felt that document might be valid for perhaps 25 years at best. Thus, the Constitution was not a signed document.

On the other hand, the document most treasured and revered by our Founders was the Declaration of Independence. A document signed by 56 individuals pledging their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. Make no mistake, the Declaration is a moral document. So while Seefeldt suggests that “…true intent is virtually impossible to prove as a matter of fact…” I would point to our Declaration and confidently state that the “true intent” and “matter of fact” it presents are completely clear and unambiguous. Thus “true intent” is entirely possible to prove and is easily matter of fact.

Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence was a treasonous document and all involved with it were traitors. It’s signatories were fully cognizant that their moral position was against the law and, if caught, they would hang for it. One signatory looked over at Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry (whom the term Gerrymandering comes from) and stated, “You’re lucky. You’re fat. When you’re caught, and they hang you, you will die quickly. I on the other hand am small and thin, so I will swing for perhaps an hour.”  In other words – in their Declaration, our Founders believed to exist a level of morality in residence that over-rode all man-made laws. And they were right. Thomas Jefferson wrote that this morality – these truths – were “sacred.” Benjamin Franklin changed it to “self evident.”

At that time, England’s King George was the law of the land. Our Declaration addressed the immorality – and thus the validity –  of the those laws.  Seefeldt’s position suggest to me that in the late 18th century – we got it wrong –  by law, we should have sided with the King. If for moral reasons we didn’t side with the King then – we should not be expected to do so now.

Respectfully submitted,

Darren D. Wilson

Lyndonville

Editor:

A gentlemen from Medina wrote that President Trump should not have been impeached as the President had not committed a crime. I am not going to get into the weeds with him over the definitions of crimes and historical texts that indicate otherwise. (That includes the primary authority Dershowitz read to Congress which was the explanation of the “rouge view”  rather than the author’s actual conclusion.)

It’s not necessary to get into those weeds since the standard for removing Article 3 Federal Judges is exactly the same as for the President  – “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Looking at those matters is instructive enough to show that argument is specious.

Among other non-criminal matters judges have been impeached and ended up without jobs include:

1. being drunk on the bench;
2. wanton levy of fines without trial;
3. neglect of duty bypresiding over a lawsuit the judge had instigated;
4. imprisoningsomeone with intent to injure him; and
5. voiding a will by a person leaving some of his money to the Catholic Church because of the judge’s prejudice against Catholics.

We are a English “common law” county. In “civil law” countries most things are presumed to be illegal unless specifically allowed! Here we take the opposite view.

Our traditional view in new situations is to look at law, examine the fundamental human rights/ “natural law” on which the Country was founded in Declaration of Independence and then carefully find a way to balance the demonstrated needs of a properly functioning democracy.

Our case-by-case approach is why each impeachment is treated as unique and not like pulling out a cook book of federal crimes to determine the result. Each is a serious matter which needs to be judged on its own merits – crime or no crime.

In that light consider: Nixon had his “enemies list” for IRS harassment. He also had his “dirty tricks team” to gin up derogatory reporting and character assassination. What happens if a President wakes up and starts the day with his first of several fifths. Or, as Trump is doing now can keep starting and later reopening investigations his own people have investigated and closed.  Nixon at least knew the founders did not mean to permit any of this.

So it is one thing for the Senate to keep a President in office and quite another to think the presidency does not require the utmost integrity and fealty to our country’s best interests. It’s an important distinction that’s now going to have to be sorted out by the next administration.

Conrad F. Cropsey

Albion

Editor:

This is in response to a recent letter. Twelve people in a box works well unless those selected to decide the outcome are not truthful during the jury selection process.

A perfect storm would also include politically biased prosecutors and judge. The only saving grace in this case was the fact the witness list didn’t include Dr. Blasey Ford, Judy Munro-Leighton or Deborah Ramirez.

It seems to me the foreman of this jury would call for life in prison sentence for wearing a MAGA hat.

Ed Urbanik

Lyndonville

Editor:

The Green Light Law benefits farmworkers, farms, farm communities and society in general. Research shows that there are fewer hit-and-run accidents and fewer traffic fatalities after Green Light Laws have passed in other states.

Research also show that New York will reap $57 million per year from the Green Light Law. The claim that federal agencies will not have access to DMV records is just scare tactics used by Republicans. Federal agencies will have access if they have a court order, a judicial warrant or a subpoena.

This is in alignment with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which states that: “The rights of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.”

Congressman Tom Reed and the Republicans are using this issue to stir up votes by fear and prejudice against farmworkers and foreigners. If Congressman Tom Reed was interested in solving problems he would study the issue and understand the problems and be knowledgeable of available research on the topic instead of using fear-based disinformation propaganda.

William Fine

Brockport

Editor:

To those who hate President Trump, there is a difference between illegality and immorality.

Illegality is defined by codified, man-made law and it is based on fact. Immorality is defined by a belief system and it is based on faith. Laws are created by government and are enforced and punished by government. Morals are created and enforced by individuals and are punishable only by a power that is much greater than man or government.

The U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits government from regulating or punishing faith, belief or morality. The articles of impeachment passed by the House did not allege violation of codified law. In the absence of a violation of codified law, any perceived “wrong” that may have occurred was perhaps a sin, but not a crime.

Since no crimes were alleged in the articles of impeachment, the articles were unconstitutional. The Senate acted correctly by acquitting the President. The Constitution specifically prohibits our government from regulating or punishing faith, belief or morality. It is called the First Amendment.

The government only has authority over crimes, not sins. Neither the government, Democrats nor Romney have authority to judge or punish sin.

In America, under the rule of law, guilt can never ever be presumed. Guilt has to be proven based on facts showing violation of a law. Since no one can ever know the true intent of another, intent is virtually impossible to prove as a matter of fact. This is precisely why intent is seldom, if ever, proven in a court of law. It is also why in America all men are presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the rule of law. Impeachment doesn’t change these facts.

Although the government is prohibited from judging morality, the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote allows individual citizens to do so. If citizens believe a candidate is immoral, then citizens have the right not to vote for that candidate. Other than voicing their opposition to immorality via the right to vote, citizens have no authority to punish anyone for violation of faith, belief or morality.

When it comes to violations of morality, a very wise man once said, “Judge not lest you be judged.” That’s still good advice today.

Em Seefeldt

Medina

Editor:

I write with some questions, observations and a request.

Four career non-political federal prosecutors just resigned en masse from the Roger Stone case.  They had applied  Congress’s “Sentencing Guidelines” to his jury conviction for lying to Congress. Without following procedure those recommendations were thrown out and redone from the top.

The person who supervised that Division up to a few weeks before those recommendations were made was all set to testify in front of Congress at a confirmation hearing about her promotion to lead Treasury. The promotion was pulled the next day and Congress could not ask her questions about that and other pending matters involving, among other cases, similar perjury. Today she resigned in protest too.

Anything I write further about the facts may be given short shrift one way or another. But what is important here is the a old saying among judges and lawyers. It is “no matter what you personally think or the newspapers say, let the jury decide; the twelve people in the box always make the best and final decision!”

So I write to ask “Do we want to live in a country where the Justice Department and other Departments can be used to get back at critics and protect friends? I am, for example, no fan of H. Clinton but  “Lock her up” used to be a decision left to the Courts and not a crowd. Adhering  to the Rule of Law is the standard the world looks to when judging if a country is a democracy or strong man autocracy. We set that standard.

So I ask, where is that respect for the Rule of Law and the jury now? Have we lost it forever? And what happens now when a “connected” neighbor turns on you over, say, your dog barking or another political party is voted in? Should you live in fear you may lose your job or your freedom? Do losers at the ballot box go right to jail? Do winners get to release convicted criminals because they are a friend of a friend? In sum, is the “other” side trash to spit on and punish just because they disagree?

The Rule of Law and respecting juries were part and parcel of the country I grew up in. The country I cherish. I personally ask that we all be granted the right to be wrong.

Conrad F. Cropsey

Albion

Editor:

While my 33-year banking career here in Buffalo might paint a different picture to some, one of my passions is to serve people and my new role as president and CEO of Catholic Charities feels like a great fit, almost an extension or merging of both my years in finance and my desire to help others.

I am fortunate to have a reminder of my call to serve, as an ordained Deacon in the Catholic Church. The Greek word for Deacon, diakonos, means servant and that title provides me a constant reminder of my call. The opportunity to serve the people of Western New York in this new role is certainly yet another unexpected blessing from God. I feel blessed and privileged to be participating in my first Appeal. The Appeal and work of Catholic Charities are such an important ministry of our church and so vital to our community.

Since the recent launch of Appeal 2020, I have been meeting with both the people we serve through our programs and our supporters, hearing firsthand the impact that Catholic Charities has on our community’s most vulnerable populations.

This year’s $10 million goal recognizes the challenges associated with raising such a significant amount of money in today’s environment while also realizing the ongoing need for the critical programs and services that Catholic Charities provides. It’s why we chose “Think of Me” as the Appeal theme this year; think of our neighbors in need who rely daily on the support provided by Catholic Charities.

The annual Appeal helps fund 51 programs and services administered by Catholic Charities across dozens of sites in the eight counties of Western New York, along with a number of ministries that benefit parishes through the Fund for the Faith. Programs and services provided by Catholic Charities benefited more than 160,000 people in 2019, including more than 3,600 in Genesee, Orleans and Wyoming counties.

This year, donors will once again have the choice to designate their Appeal gift through three options: give to the Appeal as in previous years, which benefits Catholic Charities and the Fund for the Faith; give to Catholic Charities only; or, give to the Fund for the Faith only. Whatever choice our donors make, we want them to know that each gift is very much appreciated.

This is a new year and a new decade, and I feel a sense of anticipation – and hope! We hope our community in the coming weeks will think of the needs across Western New York and how supporting the Appeal can make such a valuable difference in so many lives. We have great faith that the community, and our supporters in our local parishes, will once again demonstrate their generosity. Appeal 2020 runs through June 30.

Deacon Steve Schumer

President & CEO of Catholic Charities

Editor:

As have so many others, Ambassador Gordon Sondland (once an avid supporter of our President) as well as Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman have learned that there is no room for truthfulness in “Trumpland.”

Congratulations to Senator Mitt Romney for examining his conscience and finding it intact.  Fellow Mormon, former Senator Jeff Flake, found it so disquieting to be around spineless people such as Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio that he decided not to run for the United States Senate again.

Is it possible that inheriting a vast estate, combined with not paying millions to contractors for work they completed on your casinos, and then hiring fellow con artists to help you avoid paying millions in federal and state taxes could make anyone wealthy?

We had all better pray that we come up with someone of real quality who is more committed to republican government than the current occupant of the White House in time for the 2020 presidential election.

Sincerely yours,

Gary F. Kent

Albion

Editor:

While the New York State Green Light Law provides undocumented aliens the opportunity to obtain New York State Driver Licenses, a less heralded – though perhaps more impactful – provision of the statute prevents the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) from sharing information with any agency that enforces immigration law. Unfortunately, this provision has a much broader adverse effect on law enforcement and public safety.

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for protecting us from terrorism, securing our borders while facilitating lawful travel and trade, and combating a host of crimes that threaten our safety and security.

The Green Light Law impedes Homeland Security’s ability to conduct active criminal investigations involving citizens and non-citizens who are lawfully present in the United States, not just those who are undocumented.

On a daily basis, Homeland Security agents and officers – including sworn law enforcement officers who work for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Border Patrol, and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) – use Department of Motor Vehicles information to assist them in stopping transnational criminal organizations, cybercrime, and offenses involving drug trafficking and money laundering; murder, sexual assault, and other crimes of violence; racketeering and extortion; the illegal use and possession of firearms; economic espionage, telemarketing fraud, and elder fraud; human trafficking; and child exploitation, as well as illegal immigration.

Like other federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, DHS agents seek New York State DMV information for a variety of purposes, including: (1) to obtain identification, address, and vehicle registration information for individuals committing crimes; (2) to identify and apprehend dangerous defendants and fugitives wanted by state or federal authorities; (3) to conduct surveillance of individuals suspected or known to be engaged in the commission of crimes; (4) to establish the probable cause necessary to secure search and arrest warrants; (5) to identify crime victims and potential crime victims; (6) to identify the proceeds of crime to increase the amount of restitution recoverable for crime victims; (7) to make informed determinations regarding whether, when, where, and how to stop a vehicle, to minimize the risk to occupants, officers, and others; and (8) to assist in determining whether to grant individuals presenting themselves at ports of entry admission into the United States.

The disturbing truth is that under the newly enacted statute, the Customs and Border Protection Officers working today at New York’s 13 ports of entry – which include both the busiest port on the entire northern border of the United States (the longest land border in the world), and the busiest international air passenger gateway into North America – are unable even to check the registration or the driver’s license status of individuals presenting themselves for admission into our country.

Border Patrol Agents, who secure the border between the ports of entry, likewise can no longer check vehicle or driver’s license information.  Forcing officers who serve as our nation’s frontline defense against dangerous criminals entering the country to make these important determinations in the dark dramatically diminishes the safety of all. Ensuring that HSI Agents and ERO officers must blindly interact with people who may be terrorists or other violent criminals, drug dealers, human traffickers, or child predators likewise poses a grave risk to the safety of the officer, the person, and the public. In most instances, there simply is no time to pause the situation to obtain a court order or judicial warrant.

Prohibiting basic information sharing between New York State and federal law enforcement agencies means that more criminals will enter and roam freely in our state and nation; undermines the cooperative relationships between federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement; thwarts and curtails investigations into serious crimes; and jeopardizes the safety of all of the inhabitants of our great country.

Our citizens, lawful permanent and temporary residents, visitors, and undocumented immigrants deserve better, and so do those who serve and protect them. Restoring collaboration and information sharing furthers our effort to secure justice for all, preserve public safety, protect individual rights, and promote due process, bringing us ever closer to a sanctuary built on the rule of law and fairness for everyone.

James P. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York

Geoffrey S. Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York

Richard P. Donoghue, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York

Grant C. Jaquith, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York

Editor:

In 2013 I retired and sold my farm and business because of New York State politics. I read the Hub on line and am wondering how you all can still drink the Kool-Aid these politicians are serving.

The infrastructure is crumbling and you have some of the highest taxes in the country. And you attack this president over nothing. Please examine the evidence from both sides of this argument in the transcripts in the House and Senate – no crime.

In reality the facts lead straight to the opposition’s door. Are you fake news like CNN …or do you get all your info from them?

And no I’m not a MAGA hat wearer but I do agree with most of what Trump has accomplished. There are criminal politicians on both sides of the aisle and Washington needs a severe cleaning! Schumer is at top of the list!

Ed Steuber

Former Albion resident now living in Erwin, Tennessee