Editor:

Instead of asking our leaders and neighbors if they believe in climate change, we need to start asking if they understand it. Real scientific evidence is not something that can be debated. Over the last century, the human race has completely transitioned the world into a more industrialized and technologically advanced society.

While these advancements created the luxuries we all enjoy today, it also sparked irreversible degradation of the planet. Burning fossil fuels, among other practices in the modern world, release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases create a metaphorical blanket around the earth and trap energy in the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise.

Over the last century, the average global climate has risen by 1.5 degrees Celsius. This may not seem like much, but it has already caused more extreme weather patterns. Just look at our last month in western New York. In the first week of February there were a few days with windchill warnings of negative double-digits, followed by two sunshine-filled 60 degree days, followed by a freezing ice storm. This is not business-as-usual.

In past decades, we as a society were not aware that our actions would cause so much destruction. We relied solely on fossil fuels for energy without knowing carbon dioxide was warming the atmosphere. We used harmful household chemicals that later were proven to burn a hole in the ozone layer. Now, we don’t have the same excuses that we did in the 70s and 80s.

Today, we know that our actions directly affect the fate of the planet. It is up to us to make conscious decisions about how to preserve the earth for our children and grandchildren. This may seem like a daunting task, but one way we can work together as a community to fight against climate change is right in our backyards.

On Feb. 5, Mother’s Out Front gave a presentation at the Hoag Library in Albion to express the need for Lighthouse and Heritage Wind to meet New York State’s energy goals. The goal is to have a 40% reduction in total greenhouse gases below 1990 levels and to obtain 50% of our electricity from renewables by 2030. By 2050, the goal is to obtain 75% of our energy from renewables.

In order to obtain this goal we need 10,000 megawatts of energy to come from wind power, even with the utilization of nuclear energy. Currently, there are 28 operational projects in the state, which produce 1,800 megawatts of clean energy. We are in desperate need of more wind power projects across the state.

Lighthouse and Heritage wind can potentially add another 360 megawatts to chip away at our goal. It is essential that we as a community, as parents, and as grandparents, support the development of these wind power projects. We now know the consequences of our actions on the planet and must act accordingly.

Linda Fisk

Lyndonville

Editor:

The chart attached to this letter is a screen shot from nyiso.com taken on Feb. 28, 2019 at 6:55 p.m.

The chart indicates the percentage of renewable energy being uploaded to the NYS electrical grid at that moment in time.

Please note that the hundreds of industrial wind turbines in this state were contributing 0.47 percent to the grid. And yet as taxpayers and ratepayers were are supposed to believe that somehow we can rely on wind power to fill this modern society’s need for steady electrical power. Sadly, wind is intermittent. Moreover, this chart indicates that at 6:55 p.m. on Feb. 28, it was almost nonexistent.

What this graphic also indicates is that the Niagara Power Plant, existing since 1961, and occupying a fraction of the footprint that will be required by Apex’s Lighthouse Wind, is a large part of our renewable energy success story. Hydropower is efficient, reliable, and already here. It does not require the industrialization of some beautiful rural areas with 600-foot wind turbines that may last 15 to 20 years, and then must be removed. In contrast, the Niagara Power Plant has been operating literally non-stop for 58 years.

This chart speaks for itself and for the residents of Somerset and Yates, the majority of whom can see clearly that there is no need Apex’s Lighthouse Wind.  If you want to save the planet, keep the bulldozers out, and point out eagles flying overhead to your grandkids, then promote hydropower.

Christine Bronson

Somerset

Editor:

As a long-time Assessor in this county I am offended by the implication that because the STAR program only resided with the assessors we allowed fraud. Words should be carefully chosen so as not to offend and imply wrongdoing.

We have provided this service to our public for free for many years. (How much is the new-and-improved program costing taxpayers?) The state used to pay the towns for each application. However like most of the aid to localities, this too has disappeared. However we continued to provide this service to our taxpayers because we are public servants first and foremost.

We do our very best to verify incomes to insure that no one is receiving anything that they are not entitled to. We are denied access to the state database which does limits us. Most of us assessing in our own town(s) know our people, know our properties and we do pay close attention, believe or not. Remember, government closest to the people serves the people best, can the government farthest from the people make a similar claim?

I called the STAR Assessor hotline yesterday for one of my taxpayers who after many years on Auto Renewal (IVP) is this year being questioned about their income despite fact that they continue to file income tax each year. The state rep (doing as instructed) would not answer my question, “Is their STAR okay for 2019?” We are being treated with suspicion when we try to assist our taxpayers, many of whom are elderly and really need our help. Is this what the state wants, everyone is guilty until proven innocent?

I happen to be one of the assessors who feels the penalty for fraud is much too low and would not deter anyone determined to cheat. I also feel that those caught cheating should be banned from receiving the exemption permanently.

I am also one of the assessors who believes that most people, including the assessment community, are law-abiding decent people who can be trusted. In a small town we know who the criminals are. I am sorry that there is corruption in certain segments of the political community which gives all of us a black eye when in reality most public servants are good people doing good things every day.

Thank you.

Cindi Davis

Assessor for Town of Clarendon

Editor:

Ms. Larkin, since when the does the Constitution allow the Executive Branch (law enforcement) to usurp the powers of the Judiciary? That is, the authority to interpret our laws as being constitutional or not constitutional? Or, as you so eloquently stated here, oppressive or unoppressive?

How did I miss the revolution that flushed the Legislative Branch consisting of my elected officials (along with the rest of “We the People”) down the toilet – enabling law enforcement to arbitrarily decide which laws best serve our interests and those that do not?

More importantly, how may I become deputized so that I too can pick and choose those laws I need obey or disrespect based on my own personal interpretation of the Constitution?

Even if you agree with the principles behind the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, as you said, the Sheriff remains the CLEO, or … “Chief Law ENFORCEMENT Officer” and is not a legislator, interpreter or amender of the law.

Any law-abiding, elected Sheriff (constitutional or otherwise) will tell you that “law enforcement” has just one job regardless of level of government. Any guess what that might be?

Finally, when does law enforcement start to look and sound like a police state? I’ll give you a hint Ms. Larkin, it’s when law enforcement has the power to say that you are bound by the law and that others (including themselves) are not.

Respectfully,

Tom Graham, AHS ‘78

Rochester

Editor:

I’m not sure what letter Al Capurso thought referenced Joe Arpaio, but if it was mine, he was mistaken. However if he needs to know who some of the Constitutional Sheriffs are, he might look up Richard Mack, the sheriffs in Washington and New Mexico who are refusing to enforce oppressive gun control laws, Darryl Wheeler of Bonner County, Marty Gleave of Piute County, and those on this list (click here).

Even though Joe Arpaio supports CSPOA (Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association) and claims to be Constitutional, it does not follow that every other member of the organization is like him. Nor does it follow that he actually is a Constitutional Sheriff.

This is a statement from CSPOA about vetting your sheriff: The Sheriff is identified as the CLEO, or chief law enforcement officer of his/her county. As an elected official he/she is the ultimate protector of the people providing a check and balance locally for any state or federal agency that may infringe the constitutional rights of the people.

The sheriff is a citizen first. Elected by citizens (the people). And answers only to the people.

Our goal is to educate citizens and elected officials, from sheriffs to commissioners to judges on their Constitutional rights and responsibilities. With this knowledge we become empowered to walk in our inalienable rights that have endowed upon us by our creator.

Perhaps Joe Arpaio was not such a Constitutional thinker and that is why he lost his race.

Judy Larkin

Ridgeway

Editor:

Over the past month, 212 responses to a canvass done by Know Your Facts USA have been posted to the Public Service Commission docket. In the cover letter, it is stated that “No board members or leaseholders have been included in these numbers.” In a video posted on the Know Your Facts USA Facebook page, it is stated that friends and family of leaseholders are also not included in the canvas.

Approximately 2,000 people live in the Town of Barre. Eliminating leaseholders and their friends and family leaves a large percentage of the residents and taxpayers unaccounted for. This exercise was not fair or unbiased and should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

In the summer of 2018 Labella Associates conducted a survey of the town’s opinion on Heritage Wind. Out of the respondents who are full-time Barre residents, 46% of them are in support of the project, 36% are opposed, and the remaining 12% are either neutral or need more information. The survey report from Labella states that “potential leaseholders are still members of the Barre community. Their expressed concerns, knowledge, and opinions need to be accounted for as part of a whole picture for the Town of Barre.”

Alice Mathes

Barre

Editor:

I’d like to introduce to you a despicable man named Joseph Arpaio, former sheriff from Arizona. He was a self-professed “constitutional sheriff” and a very dangerous man who thumbed his nose at state and federal laws in his pursuit of his extreme fascist/racist vision of America. And he was convicted for it.

In his years as sheriff, many of Arpaio’s policies were struck down by the US Supreme Court. According to Wikipedia, Arpaio has been accused of abuse of power, official misconduct, misuse of funds, failure to investigate sex crimes (when white males were accused), criminal negligence, torture, improper clearance of cases (when white males were accused), unlawful enforcement of immigration laws, election law violations and racial profiling.

He was found guilty of criminal contempt of court for violating the civil rights of US citizens. Donald Trump gave him a presidential pardon and called him a “patriot.” Arpaio investigated President Obama’s birth certificate and to this day believes it was a forgery. Fortunately, he was defeated in his sheriff race in 2016.

In a recent letter in the Hub, there was a thinly-veiled attempt to hold Arpaio up as someone our future Orleans County Sheriff should emulate; someone who ignores state and federal law when there is a question about its constitutionality.

Excuse me, but the duty of the sheriff is to enforce all laws through investigation and arrest. It is the duty of the Orleans County District Attorney to indict and prosecute. Therein lies the check and balance of our constitutional judicial system. We don’t need a rogue sheriff doing an end-run around laws enacted by our duly elected legislators. Stay vigilant.

Al Capurso

Gaines

Photo by Tom Rivers: A bird’s nest is high on the Orleans County Courthouse.

Editor:

Orleans County has been given a wonderful chance to put itself on the map in a positive light.  The news that a yet to be identified avian critter is considering nesting in the west corner of the County Courthouse should be welcomed for what it is—another opportunity for us to demonstrate to the thinking world that we can sometimes co-exist with other creatures without great inconvenience to ourselves.

Will permitting this creature and her mate to procreate and raise their young produce some mess? You bet it will. Would the resulting cost and trouble incurred give some folks a “bad hair day”? No doubt.

I say, let nature take her course. We will be better for it. Think about what it will convey to our youth.

And, by the way, volunteers trimmed the 175-year-old beech tree on Beaver Street some years ago. My guess is volunteers will take care of this potential situation as well—after the fact.

Sincerely yours,

Gary Kent

Albion

Editor:

One of my letters would not be complete without the brilliance of Mr. Darren Wilson’s expert analysis. Mr. Wilson says, “our benefit derives from the fact these energy sources are relatively cheap – not just that they merely exist.”

Is there other practical energy sources out there to run a massive economy we don’t know about? That they are cheap is your opinion. Then Mr. Wilson goes on to quote how the oil companies are all on board with this warming nonsense.

Mr. Wilson I know you have stated in letters that I am someone you would not care to know and that you’re not even interested in knowing how I would square a circle (your dry humor) yet you can’t help yourself. I understand. You have “Lauricella Envy.” You’re not the first.

So let me explain how it works in business. You start a business and you immediately have a target on your back. From the smallest to the giant corporation. The government at all levels. Every alphabet agency, the tax man, code man etc. is gunning for you, especially if you have deep pockets.

Let’s stick with the oil companies. Most everyone has been propagated from youth to hate the oil companies. Never mind the profits all receive by them being in business.

Mr. Wilson, I believe you to be an extreme leftist but are you that naive that such a hated business (oil companies) would not say that they believe in this unicorn? Do you think they want the full power and attention of the federal and state governments breathing down their back more than they already do? Do you think they want the indoctrinated young college students and old hippies protesting outside of their headquarters every day? Do you think they want the liberal media plastering their names all over the airwaves for weeks on end screaming polluters and deniers? No sir, these agencies and leftist media sources can put a real hurting on a business.

So they play the game, donate lots of money to the right causes and say the most politically correct things. Out of survival and necessity every big corporation plays the game. Every small business plays the game. They advertise and tell everyone how environmentally friendly they and their products are. How they are working to fight climate change. How their boxes are recycled material. How what they do is geared toward saving the planet.

That’s what people want to hear and the sheep buy their products thinking by buying them they are saving the planet, too. Sure some are sincere but most companies do it to ward off the regulatory werewolves, vampires and radicalized activists.

With all clarity,

Paul Lauricella

Lyndonville

Editor:

In response to Gary Kent: The sheriff is elected by the people and takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Even though the states should have sovereignty over their own matters, they may not put into effect any law or ordinance that is against the Constitution of the United States. In other words, NYS cannot have a law that infringes on its citizens’ natural rights, if that right is enumerated in the Constitution itself.

The Constitution is a simple written document, not an oral statement that changes with the times. Our rights do not change—they remain the same—freedom of speech, worship, assembly, the press, to petition the government; the right to bear arms; the right of property, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; due process–just to name a few. If any reader is not clear on what these mean, I refer you to KrisAnne Hall for deeper insight. Any law that is counter to any right that is enumerated in the Constitution is an unConstitutional law, and can be nullified. If that seems simple, it’s because it is.

Police officers are hired by the municipality, be it town, county, or state, and their job is to enforce codes and warrants. They do not have to consider the rightness or wrongness of those codes—they are mandated by paycheck, and answer to their superiors, who also answer to theirs. But in that system, none of them answer to the people.

The sheriff does answer directly to the people and his main duty is to make sure their Constitutional rights are not infringed upon. So yes, he must vet the local “laws” and codes, and if they do not conform to the Constitution, the law of the land, he absolutely must nullify them. If he does not, and allows the oppression to continue, he is to be blamed for running a lawless county.

Unfortunately, we have been programmed to believe that the sheriff is the “top cop” and nothing else. But as people wake up to what is happening to the “grand experiment” in liberty, they are beginning to understand how far they are from the original intent of those who established this country.

There is a growing movement among sheriff’s associations in understanding what their true function is and returning to it, resisting the overreach of state and federal government forces and protecting the rights of the people in their care. Most of that resistance is currently out west because of extreme federal intrusions, but it is also here. If you have been following Steve Felano on Facebook, he has been posting updates as the DA in each county in WNY has promised not to prosecute a certain portion of the SAFE Act (7-round limit). And quietly, many of the sheriffs in NYS have promised not to enforce this unConstitutional law.

That is why the public needs to put our sheriff candidates under extreme vetting before deciding: do we want just another police officer, or do we want someone who will look out for our inherent rights and see to it that those rights are not mangled by any institution, legal or otherwise?

Judy Larkin

Ridgeway

Editor:

According to the National Hurricane Center, a category 1 hurricane has sustained winds of 74-95 miles per hour. With wind gusts near 75 miles per hour for Western New York on Sunday, it wasn’t an actual hurricane, but was pretty darn bad.

With this in mind, I took the time to read the “Green New Deal” that is expected to be voted on in Congress soon. I’d heard that it will guarantee people who don’t work an income and turn America into a socialist society, so I wanted to find out for myself. Here is what I learned:

1) The Green New Deal is a resolution, not a law. That means even if it passes both houses of Congress and President Trump signs it, nothing will happen.

2) The Green New Deal proposes an ambitious set of goals to help our country survive on a planet where hurricane-force winds and other disasters will become common-place. Among these goals are to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas, grow manufacturing in the US, and support family farms.

3) The resolution doesn’t state that people who don’t work will have a guaranteed income. The last of its aspirational goals states:

4) “(O) providing all people of the United States with: high-quality health care; affordable, safe, and adequate housing; economic security; and clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.”

Can any of us say we don’t want these things? America has always been a country that seeks to be greater. Many of my friends who voted for President Trump voted for him in part because they were concerned about their own economic security, or their children’s. The Green New Deal points out that the November 2018 National Climate Assessment (prepared by American scientists using the same scientific methods that gave us things like aspirin and CAT scans) estimates that a rise of 2 degrees Celsius or more in global temperatures will cause an annual loss of $500 billion in economic output in the U.S. by 2100.

A resolution like this is designed to get us talking to each other, to help us think about what kind of legacy we want to leave our grandchildren. If you are concerned about the economic losses expected from climate change, contact President Trump and your elected officials to let them know. It is only when we let them know we want economic security for our grandchildren that they will act to protect us.

Meaghan Green

Medina

Editor:

As an individual and as a volunteer leader of Mothers Out Front on the local, state and national level, I heard with sadness that the Galloo Island Wind Project’s application (located at the eastern end of Lake Ontario in NY) was withdrawn.

Clean green energy is the only way we will be able to transition off fossil fuel and curb the climate change that is endangering every living thing on earth. The withdrawal of this application makes it even more important that the Lighthouse Project goes through. The project will produce at least enough clean power to power 50,000 homes.

I feel it is time for the involved town boards to stop opposing this project and start to negotiate a deal that will benefit our towns the most while allowing us to participate in transitioning to a cleaner, healthier earth for ourselves, our children and future generations.

Susan Campbell

Lyndonville

Local co-leader Mothers and Others Out Front

Member NY State Mothers Out Front Leader Team

Member Interim National  Mothers Out Front Leader Team

Editor:

Mr. Lauricella recently spoke, “I treasure the life I have had from the gift oil, coal and natural gas…” I concur, I do too. More specifically, however, our benefit derives from the fact these energy sources are relatively cheap – not just that they merely exist.

Lauricella states, “I am very grateful to the men and women who supply it. I do not work for them but it is an honorable profession that has made life better for all.”

I’m sure he is sincere. Although given his very clear opinions, I’m not sure he’d be equally grateful for the position the men and women in this honorable profession take because theirs is a position that entirely contradicts his own.

The following is from ExxonMobil’s corporate website: “We believe that climate change risks warrant action and it’s going to take all of us – business, government and consumers – to make meaningful progress. ExxonMobil scientists have been involved in the forefront of climate research for four decades, understanding and working with the world’s leading experts on climate.”

Likewise, ConocoPhillips states, “We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.”

Further, “As a leading global energy company, BP believes that climate change is an important long-term issue that requires action by governments, companies and consumers.”

Mr. Lauricella doesn’t realize he’s calling crazy the same people he praises. How does he square this circle? Beats me. I’m not even interested in knowing.

Incidentally, if I were a strategist, I’d do two things. First, target the media outlets to get them to report more on the “uncertainties” in climate science and position industry-backed contrarian scientists as expert sources for the media. Second, target hard conservatives with the message that climate change is a liberal hoax, and paint anyone who takes the issue seriously as “out of touch with reality.”

Would this strategy work? I leave it to anyone reading the recent opinions on this matter expressed in this forum to draw your own conclusions.

Respectfully,

Darren D. Wilson

Lyndonville

Editor:

I gladly accept the debate on climate change by Al Capurso for June 29 at 1 p.m. at the Hoag Library in Albion.

See you then.

Kimberly Kennedy

Medina

Editor:

President Trump says he is requesting  “the Wall”  “to control crime.” We believe the billions it will cost the American taxpayers (and our children and grandchildren, since we’re running at a deficit) would be better spent on supporting local law enforcement like we did with a Law Enforcement Assistant Act in the 1960’s, 70’s and early 80’s.

We believe “the Wall,” detaining most refugees, especially children and women, and deporting contributing immigrant workers is wasteful, cruel, unjust and destructive to families and children.

Are women, children, families and hard workers really a serious crime threat?

Immigrants? Conservative think tank, CATO Foundation found that “undocumented” immigrants” committed crime at less than half the rate of American citizens; documented immigrants one quarter. A recent Wall Street Journal headline:  “Mythical Connection Between of Immigrants and Crime.” Other researchers come to the same conclusion. Others, with obvious self-serving motivation, claim differently. But, when CATO and WSJ publish, against their expected bias, they are more believable.

Held indefinitely? The Wall? Better we spend our tax dollars restoring the 1968-1982 Law Enforcement Assistance Act funding to local law enforcement. We need to focus on arresting and firmly enforcing the laws against violence, domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse. According to a recent Reuters study of over 180 nations, the US is among the worst 10 in protecting women against violence and rape.

Despite our seeming current concern, US Justice’s own statistics reveal that arrest, conviction and sentences, that prevent continuation of domestic violence, remain at a very low level. The same is true with rape and sexual abuse. (Answering DV calls remains one of the most dangerous for police. Check the recent headlines.) Further, the majority of mass murderers have been too-leniently-treated assaulters of wives and women.

Are we truly concerned about children, women, police and other first responders?

Let’s invest our enforcement dollars on these anti-life crimes, rather than on private-for-profit child/women/family prisons and another “Berlin Wall” along our southern border.

Further, deporting hard-working “undocumented” (who’ve been here for many years because we wanted “cheap labor”) and now separating them, basically forever, from their American children and spouses, also is cruelly unjust.

Even President Trump said this last is impractical, but now he seems to be going in the other direction. Mass deportations will hurt the economy according to Alan Greenspan, the GW Bush Foundation and Senator Lindsey Graham(a year ago) and many other conservatives.

Further, it’s in direct contradiction to Pres. Ronald Reagan’s last speech, in which he extolled the contributions of immigrants (find it on-line).

The President is claiming that we’re under threat from drugs and gangs. The Wall will do little to stop drugs. We know how to deal with gangs: Build up local enforcement and programs. We’ve done it several times over the years. It’s not building a Wall.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert E. Golden

Chairman of Holy Family Social Justice Committee in Albion

(The committee unanimously approved this message)