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)

Editor:

First, I am not at all sure what the author of the “Constitutional Sheriff” letter was talking about. But, though one of my grandfathers was, I am not a lawyer.

Judy Larkin’s letter detailing the virtues of a “Constitutional Sheriff” was, to me, something out of left field, to borrow a baseball reference. I remain puzzled as to what constitutes a “Constitutional Sheriff” in Ms. Larkin’s thinking.

As I understand it, the Constitution provides a large part of the basis for statute law. Consider, for example, the rationale for laws limiting freedom of speech, defining what constitutes a lawful search, or defining the possible limits of a person’s Ninth Amendment rights.

Of course, the courts—and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court—determine whether, or not, practices and laws are consistent with the Constitution.

The notions that a sheriff can “nullify” actions he considers un-Constitutional and “interpose” him/herself between an oppressed citizenry and legally constituted state and federal law enforcement agencies is novel at best. Perhaps it is pure coincidence, but all this talk of interposition and nullification sounds reminiscent of John C. Calhoun.

It may well be that I missed a great deal, but I never got the impression that sheriffs get to decide what the Constitution means or how it should be applied. They rely on statute, precedent, and the judiciary to guide them and generally do not presume to interfere with enforcement of the law by the State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sincerely yours,

Gary Kent

Albion

Editor:

This is in response to Kimberly Kennedy’s spot on comments on the climate change hoax, social justice and the horrible indoctrinating education our children are getting. Child abuse comes to mind when I read  some of the stories of fear and anguish from these poor children over this climate lie.

Why is there is no room for debate or counter opinions? Science is not based on consensus. Science is based on fact and that fact can change when and if there are other theories and discoveries. The climate debate is hardly settled and that is a fact. Does anyone even know of the climate email scandal at the University of East Anglia in the UK where a whistle blower released thousands of emails of scientists trying to cover up the non-warming data and that the climate models were highly flawed?

Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick graph was based on false data from those flawed climate models. Is it taken into consideration that the climate models of today do not match with what is happening in the real world? The climate model’s 5-mile atmospheric measurements aren’t thought consistent therefore flawed to reality? That the climate models cannot go back in time to review past climate?

If climate and weather are not related why is every weather event blamed on climate change? That the oceans, ice sheets and glaciers have risen and receded before in the span of earth’s life. Where we are today was under a mile of ice at one time.

In 2000 IPPC predicted the temperature would rise by 1 degree by 2010. Not even close. The IPPC is a bunch of United Nations bought and paid for junk science alarmists pushing the globalists UN Agenda 21 on a mission to fleece the wealth from the United States and punish its citizenry.

Real scientists will tell you that climate change is really nothing to worry about. The politicians on the left of course are using it for power and control. The leftist media loves to lie and scare everyone for ratings and indoctrination. Academia which is made up of mostly leftists gets a lot of money to push the propaganda and politically correct thought into the young impressionable minds that can be molded anyway they want.

Hollywood and Madison Avenue use movies, sitcoms and advertising to socially engineer. How to think, how to act, how to dress, what to eat and mostly who to believe without question and who is never to be believed. Knowing that many adults are equally mindless and believe everything they are spoon fed by the liberal media’s talking points of the day.

Miss Kennedy’s truths are valid and yes we have wasted trillions of dollars chasing a boogeyman. The United States is not responsible for making the air and the oceans dirty. Quite the contrary.

The words social justice and all the other destructive justice categories that the left spews are viewed by many as socialist propaganda and reverse racism. When it is rich white liberals in power and influence that has enslaved and perpetuated many of the problems that minorities have. The truth to a leftist is seen backwards. The nation saw the faces of those socialists in Congress at the SOTU when the President was speaking truth.

Lastly do any of you really believe that the government tells us the truth about anything? We experience media lies daily. Imagine what it is like at the government level. Do you trust a scientific community that has been co-opted by politics? Do you really believe that we are running out of the life engine of the world, oil? Can you imagine a life without oil or coal?

The biggest fear that we should have is not the climate boogeyman but the reality of our power grid going down or being EMP attacked. We depend on that electricity being on 24 7. We panic over a few hours. Imagine how many millions will die in a prolonged grid outage.

I treasure the life I have had from the gift oil, coal and natural gas. 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. You will all rue the day when it legislated out of existence. Wind and solar will never give us that life. Climate always changes. Only the left has found a way to use it as control and steal your money.

Paul Lauricella

Lyndonville

Return to top

Editor:

This is in response to Kimberly Kennedy and her position on climate change. She requests data and evidence.

The topic is being studied by thousands of people. These people start their study by first spending years of their lives to get advanced degrees at universities – building their ability to comprehend the subject. They then obtain jobs at universities and research institutions, where they then spend their careers specializing in a very narrow slice of science.

They study the climate, take ice core samples in the artic, measure aspects of our oceans, and design satellites to record environmental data. Detailed information gets shared at talks at local universities, conferences throughout the world, and is published in tens of thousands of pages of scientific journals.

Anyone who wants direct access to the data and evidence can read the journals either at a major library or though places such as the American Physical Society (aps.org). However, this can be a very difficult and time-consuming task as the journals can be hard to understand without sufficient training. But if you have the time this option is there. I personally don’t have that much spare time available.

The manageable and trustworthy alternative is to read the reports that these scientists generate for the public. Yes, institutions such as NASA, NOAA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are places where knowledgeable scientists work on such reports.

I’ve seen no comparable diligence behind the arguments of those who feel a need to publicly express disbelief in climate change. Having any stretch of cold weather is not all the proof you need that things are just fine. Very little time and effort seems to be put into developing solid evidence to support their position, yet they often quickly dismiss the work of experts. And referencing experts is not being lazy.

Let’s step back and consider the topic of fossil fuels for a moment. Think of the word fossil. Fossil fuels have built up in the ground over a period of hundreds of thousands to a few million years. Over the last several decades we have been accessing more and more of these deposits and burning them. Doesn’t it seem to be common sense that releasing this material back into our environment so quickly might result in consequences?

If climate change does result in a bad future, there isn’t any easy alternative to the Earth for us to go to. It seems to me to be prudent to hedge our bets and pursue the reasonable and affordable options of renewable energy that we have available. We are just short-term occupants of our planet and we owe it to those who will follow us to preserve our planet as best we can.

Jason Dragon, Ph.D. – Physics, SUNY Buffalo, ‘97

Albion

Editor:

I would like to show my thanks and gratitude to the Holley Central School District, Kendall Central School District, administration and staff, Section 5 Wrestling, Genesee Region Wrestling, Chris Metcalf and the Batavia Daily News Staff, Mike and Cheryl Wertman and the Orleans Hub, James Johnson and the Democrat and Chronicle, Genesee Valley Pennysaver, Jeff DeVeronica, Holley-Kendall Coaching Staff, student athletes, parents, spectators, and anyone I may have neglected to mention.

Special thanks to my family and friends for all you did for me on my recent retirement from coaching wrestling after a 44-year career. Your love and support was evident over the years.

I am truly humbled and honored for all the support that you shown me and the Holley-Kendall Wrestling Program throughout the many great years.

Thank you as always.

Sincerely,

John J. Grillo

Holley-Kendall Wrestling

Editor:

In response to Kimberly Kennedy’s letter on The Hub, we are picking up the gauntlet you threw at Andrew Remley and we accept your challenge to a public debate on global warming. This debate will take place on Saturday, June 29, from 1 to 3 p.m. at The Hoag Library, moderated by one or two prominent community leaders.

You called for the evidence global warming is occurring. It is overwhelming; much too lengthy to list all of them, but here’s a few: The Antarctica is melting three times faster than it was 10 years ago.

Eighteen of the 19 warmest years in recorded history have occurred since 2001.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (the fossil fuel emission that causes global warming) has risen from 300 ppm in 1950 to 400 ppm today.

The rise in global temperatures, the warming of the oceans, the shrinking of the ice sheets, glacial retreat, sea level rise, and extreme weather events (more powerful hurricanes, record rainfall, devastating wildfires) etc., are the evidence of global warming you say you are seeking.

The agencies and scientists you glibly dismiss all come to these conclusions. You might remember NASA. Our government agency that landed on the moon six times. However, I don’t believe you will ever accept these scientific facts. You remind me of a meme I saw where Titanic victims up on the stern of the boat said, “We can’t be sinking! We’re 300 feet in the air!”

So our team won’t be there to change your beliefs. Through informed debate, our goal is to present the public with facts and truth, and to give them resources to act for a healthy environment.

I believe human beings were blessed with the ability to think, reason, and act on what’s best. It’s time we exercise that capability. Study up. See you this summer.

Al Capurso

Albion

Editor:

People living near wind turbines in the United States, Canada, and around the world are claiming to have medical conditions caused by the wind turbines.

Lawsuits are being filed against the wind turbine projects.

Lawsuits are being filed against the landowners with wind turbines.

Are the landowners sure that wind turbines do not cause medical problems? Are landowners in Yates and Somerset willing to “bet the farm”?

If the turbines are installed in Yates or Somerset, and children, adults, and the elderly get sick, they will file lawsuits against Apex and landowners. I “bet the farm” on that.

Amy Thompson

Port St. Lucie, Florida

(Thompson also owns property in Yates)

Editor:

This is in response to my neighbor, Andrew Remley, and in defense of my position on “climate change.”

Firstly, I challenge Andrew’s assertion that there is “overwhelming” scientific research. Can he elaborate? He says that the “planet is warming.” Can he please provide data on this?

Second, I don’t watch Fox News. Sorry, but I don’t subject myself to any cable news network, save for One America News, which is a subscription. Please don’t judge me based on your own opinion about where I get my news from.

Is Mr. Remley accusing me of anti-Semitism? Wow. I’m a practicing Traditional Catholic, and the Old Testament is a part of my Bible. And is Mr. Remley accusing me of “ranting” or thinking (and researching) for myself? Mr. Remley obviously doesn’t know a “rant” when he sees it.

Is it because I’m a female conservative, going after globalism and the new religion of “Climate”?

And does Mr. Remley think this was one “Google search”? I’m not that stupid, but you presume to understand where I’m coming from.

Is Mr. Remley a scientist? “Decades of Science Research”? By whom, exactly? And don’t lazily go to NOAA, NASA and the IPCC. That’s just deflection and truly unbecoming of someone who disagrees with what I’m talking about. Be specific. Where’s the evidence of “global warming”?

And we, as a species are going to die if we “do nothing”? Pride much, my friendly adversary?

I propose a challenge, a real debate, in public. If Mr. Remley is so confident, perhaps he can handle his arguments that we are in dire peril because we exist. Name the venue, and I’ll be there. And be prepared to truly defend your position. Because I am.

With respect,

Kimberly Kennedy

Medina

Editor:

I believe every candidate for office should have a challenger. Nobody should feel he has an easy victory. By having a challenger, the incumbent cannot get complacent—in fact, he finds himself having to woo the voter all over again. He might do a wonderful job during his term, but a challenger makes him accountable.

With that in mind, again we have a competition for the office of sheriff. But before you go to the polls, know what you’re voting for. A true sheriff, a Constitutional Sheriff, knows his role and his responsibility. To remind everyone, this is a list of the characteristics of a Constitutional Sheriff:

A Constitutional Sheriff is apolitical. What that means is there will be no political influence in the Sheriff’s Office because his “employers” are the people. So one of the first things you will see happen is a lot of screaming and fighting from the legislature, the politicians, the DA, because they don’t want to lose their influence and power. If you don’t see that, you know your new sheriff is bought and paid for. He will not answer to the people of the county.

A Constitutional Sheriff will vet the current laws through the prism of the Constitution. That means he will see how the laws measure up against it, and if the laws are unconstitutional, he can nullify them in this county.

A Constitutional Sheriff will set the tone for the behavior of his deputies and other workers in his department. If deputies abuse and oppress the people and are not corrected, you know that comes from the sheriff himself.

A Constitutional Sheriff will interpose himself between the state and federal agencies who oppress the people in the county. All outside agencies cannot enter the county with the intent to raid, arrest, incarcerate, confiscate without permission from the sheriff. That does not say he cannot work with those agencies. It says they cannot work outside of him. If the sheriff does not make that clear to those agencies from the start, you know he will not answer to the people.

A Constitutional Sheriff is a “people person.” His duties are administrative, which means he spends a lot of time coordinating the different services through his department. He has people to handle each division, but he must make sure all the activities flow smoothly. There will be endless paperwork, advisory and informational meetings, press conferences, public access meetings, and workshops on employee morale.

Even though he spends most of his time at a desk, he should be available to address serious public concerns in person. He should be willing to meet with the people to discuss issues that oppress them. He should be aware of outside influences and be willing to address them, directly if necessary. He should be accessible. He should care. If he cannot, or will not, do that, you know he will not answer to the people.

Remember this when you go to vote.

Judy Larkin

Ridgeway