Editor:

To me, the Democrat “His Highness” fears the most this November is Amy Klobuchar. She is also one of two, or three, people the Russians would least like to see running against “His Majesty.” Trump is clearly their favorite for reasons obvious to me.

The fact that she is moderate, has few weird mannerisms, and is female are part of what makes me think the way I do. The President would have to be careful how he made fun of – and tweeted – about her.

But there is way more.

The 100th anniversary of the adoption of the 19th Amendment granting the vote to women is the perfect time for our first woman President. I believe this year is also the 200th anniversary of suffragette Susan B. Anthony’s birth. And voter turnout among women—and men—would be greater with an intelligent, well-spoken, level-headed candidate such as Senator Klobuchar.

Believe me, I could go on and on. Those of you who know me know that only too well.

My efforts and contributions are going to the Senator from Minnesota.

Sincerely yours,

Gary F. Kent

Albion

Editor:

Photo by Tom Rivers – Ed Salvatore serves up a plate of spaghetti during a dinner at the Exempts on Jan. 9, 2014. Salvatore volunteered as a manager and cook at the site. Salvatore died on Feb. 21 at age 89.

Edward Salvatore personifies pride in Albion heritage. His personal, political and professional contributions have made an everlasting impression in Albion history. Community members will always praise Mr. Ed Salvatore as our best mayor.

Ed Salvatore’s dedicated service began in 1948 aboard the U.S.S. Edisto, in the Netherlands. At just 18 years of age, he served on a Navy ship that conquered 30-foot waves and sliced through ice that was up to 8 feet thick. No doubt his service in the Navy was quite cool.

As a descendent of Italian immigrants, Ed Salvatore has worked hard to abolish racism in our community. As Chief of the local fire departments, he systematically combined four departments into one. Then, he forever impacted Albion history when he desegregated the fire department. He also oversaw the development and installation of the very first Firefighters’ Rec. Hall in New York State! Of course it is definitely worth mentioning that he raised four kids with his wife, Carol, and served “a ton of overtime” as manager of several buildings and departments at Kodak, as he put his life on the line and braved blazing fires to save local residents.

He is still considered the best mayor and is notorious for his no-holds barred tactics. His first week in office as mayor, he fired many local officials and spearheaded an investigation which brought down village corruption. Then he systematically slashed taxes by eliminating un-authorized spending from the village budget. He concurrently dedicated much of his time addressing the personal needs of Albion residents.

He worked tirelessly to combat the zombie-home crisis. He created the LDC corp. which works with local authorities to force banks to keep homes occupied. His goal has always been to maintain tax revenues within the village of Albion.

From caring for community members to tending to shut-ins, Mr. Salvatore remained vigilant in his service to the community. He set the standard for honorable and dedicated service to our community. Edward Salvatore is Albion’s Hometown Hero.

Desiree Snyder

Albion

Editor:

One must wonder why the Town of Barre is so fond of wind turbines. Parts of Barre do not have public sewers, water and access to cable. Electricity is also inconsistent with lines bowing down to head height. Why isn’t the town trying to make available services that people require to make their lives better?

Why does this project only benefit land owners of farming acres? Is all this effort being expended for a company that is acquiring energy and none of it is for Barre?

People live in Barre for the beauty. Wind turbines certainly ruin that.

Kris Welles

Barre

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