Tag Archives: New York State

Why They Should Still Teach Geography In School

Posted on by

On April 1, The New York Post posted an article some changes in the population of Florida.

The headline reads:

Florida transplants fleeing in droves over relentless heat, damaging hurricanes

What did they expect? Come to North Carolina, we also have relentless heat and damaging hurricanes, but we don’t have blizzards or severe winters.

The article notes:

Thousands of Florida transplants who moved to the Sunshine State during the pandemic are packing up to move elsewhere, complaining of the relentless heat, damaging hurricanes and dangerous wildlife.

More than 700,000 people drawn by the promise of sunny weather, no income tax and lower costs moved to Florida in 2022 — including 90,000 from New York state, according to census data cited by NBC News.

But nearly 500,000 gave up on Florida and left in 2022, according to NBC News, which interviewed several disillusioned transplants who decided to head back north.

One of them was New Yorker Louis Rotkowitz, who lasted two years in the state.

“Like every good New Yorker, this is where you want to go,” the physician told NBC News by phone while driving to his new home in Charlotte, North Carolina. “It’s a complete fallacy.”

The article tells the story of a number of people who decided that Florida was too expensive, too hot, and too full of destructive and dangerous critters. Florida may be more expensive day to day than New York and other northern states, but how much do you pay in taxes in the northern states? The difference may well be the fact that you don’t really see the money taken away from your paycheck in taxes–you see the money you spend on housing and groceries. However, inflation has hit all fifty states–not just Florida. I wonder if the people leaving will be happy with what they find when they get back home.

The Continuing Lawfare

Posted on by

The Epoch Times reported yesterday that the lawfare against President Trump slowed slightly yesterday when the New York state Supreme Court’s First Judicial Department Appellate Division granted a stay of enforcement on the $464 million judgment on former President Donald Trump.

The article reports:

The New York state Supreme Court’s First Judicial Department Appellate Division has granted a stay of enforcement on the $464 million judgment on former President Donald Trump with conditions, allowing The Trump Organization to avert having assets imminently seized by the New York attorney general.

The order came after defense attorneys argued that a $464 million bond was impossible after having contracted four brokers to negotiate with more than 30 companies. Sureties don’t issue bonds that large for private individuals, and even if The Trump Organization were a public conglomerate they could issue such a bond to, it would require some $570 million in cash to cover additional premiums.

The court’s conditions for lowering the bond include President Trump posting $175 million within 10 days and the other orders on the judgment going into effect.

The judgment permanently bars former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg and former Comptroller Jeffrey McConney from serving in financial control of any New York business entity; permanently bars President Trump, Mr. Weisselberg, and Mr. McConney from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation for three years; bars President Trump from applying for loans from New York financial institutions for three years; and bars Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump from serving as an officer or director in New York for two years.

There was no stay requested for the continuance of an independent monitor overseeing financial matters in The Trump Organization or the installation of a compliance officer.

Just for the record, there is no Constitutional justification for a government entity placing a monitor or a compliance officer in a private business. This is an affront to the concept of free enterprise that  built America. I would like to see every major business leave New York State until they rescind whatever ‘law’ they are using to justify their actions against President Trump.

Does The New York Legal System Recognize The Eighth Amendment?

Posted on by

The Eighth Amendment states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

On February 27th, The American Thinker posted an article explaining how that amendment applies to the New York judgement against President Trump.

The article reports:

On February 16, 2024, a judge in New York State imposed fines totaling just over $360 million on former president Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization, and several related Trump companies and trusts in the civil case brought by the New York attorney general.  President Trump’s sons Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump were fined just over $4 million each.  The court imposed additional sanctions, including injunctions against former president Trump; Donald Trump, Jr.; and Eric Trump from serving as officers or directors in New York corporations for specified numbers of years, among other sanctions.

The media reporting on the court’s decision has been massive since the decision was rendered.  However, little or no reporting focused on the constitutionality of the fines under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  President Trump and his co-defendants all have substantial 8th Amendment “excessive fine” challenges to raise.  In fact, a review of the facts and applicable law reveal that this decision is simply more election interference.

The article concludes:

Applying these factors to the New York court’s decision reveals that the fines are clearly excessive.  There are no victims in the Trump case.  No one was harmed.  Each and every financial institution involved was fully repaid and made money on its loans.  Further, a review of case law in New York demonstrates that there simply are no cases ordering a defendant to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in disgorgement without any victim being deprived of anything.  Finally, just how “reprehensible” is it to obtain loans and credit facilities and then pay the lenders back, in full, on time, in compliance with the agreement?  The answer is, not very.

Once again, a court in New York issued yet another political decision masquerading as justice.  The fines imposed by this New York court on former President Trump and his sons and businesses are grossly and unconstitutionally excessive.  While President Trump and his co-defendants undoubtedly have many defenses to the claims to raise on appeal, chief among them should be a constitutional challenge to these grossly excessive fines.

The U.S. Constitution is an amazing document. It is impartial when followed. My hope is that it will be followed in this case.

Pot, Meet Kettle

Posted on by

On January 24th, The Guardian posted the following headline:

Tim Scott’s behaviour around Trump is ‘humiliating’, says the Rev Al Sharpton

Not only is the criticism undeserved, the fact that it comes from Al Sharpton is ridiculous.

Just to refresh your memory, here is part of an NPR article from August 2013:

It was 1987 when a black teenager, Tawana Brawley, said she had been raped and kidnapped by a group of white men in Dutchess County, N.Y.

Her story of being attacked, scrawled with racial slurs, smeared with feces and left beside a road wrapped in a plastic bag made front pages across the nation — especially after the Rev. Al Sharpton took up her case.

But, as The Associated Press reminds readers, “a special state grand jury later determined that Brawley had fabricated her claims, perhaps to avoid punishment for staying out late.”

In 1998, Steven Pagones, who was the county prosecutor at the time, won a defamation suit against Sharpton, Brawley and Brawley’s attorneys. They had accused Pagones of being among Brawley’s attackers.

“Sharpton has since paid off his [$65,000] debt with money raised by his supporters,” the Village Voice says. Brawley was ordered to pay $190,000.

It’s been 15 years. With interest, the judgment against the now 40-year-old Brawley has grown to more than $430,000. Finally, the Poughkeepsie Journal reports, Pagones is receiving some of the money: $3,700, or about 1 percent of what he’s now owed.

Snopes also notes:

Sharpton himself owes New York state $806,875 and has federal liens for unpaid personal income taxes against him totaling $2.6 million, records show.

The Harlem-based NAN owed $813,576 to the federal government at the end of 2012, according to the most recent filings for the group.

Sharpton’s company, Rev-Al Communications, owes $447,826 to the state. His Bo-Spanky Consulting firm has only $18.21 in outstanding debt, according to state records.

This is the person who is criticizing Tim Scott. This is also The Guardian giving credence to that criticism. Always consider the source when it comes to news.

 

The Consequences Of Bad Government

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The New York Post posted an article about the number of people who are leaving New York State. I personally can attest to that–I currently have one relative planning to leave this year and two who left last year. New York State is becoming a place that is very expensive to live in addition to rising crime and expanding restrictions put on law-abiding citizens rather than criminals.

The article reports:

It’s an Empire State of decline.

Beset by high taxes and quality of life woes, 545,498 New Yorkers left for other states in 2022, according to US Census data.

Top destinations included Florida — the most popular choice — followed by New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania as well as more distant states like Texas and California.

The exodus was partly offset by more people moving to the Empire State in 2022 than any year over the last decade, with 301,000 new residents making the transition.

Despite that uptick, New York still suffered a net population loss of 244,000.

The departures have yet to impact New York City housing costs, with median rents continuing to hover near all-time post COVID-19 highs.

It’s interesting to see that many New Yorkers are choosing to remain in the same general area–New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania, all of which are generally headed in the same direction as New York.

The article also notes:

The number of New Yorkers moving to Texas surpassed 30,000 for the first time in 2022 — up from 18,000 in 2019 for an increase of 67%, the data show.

North Carolina, Massachusetts, Virginia and Georgia rounded out the top ten destinations.

The least popular choices were Wyoming, Montana, Iowa, Mississippi and South Dakota which all saw less than 500 people move from New York in 2022.

South Dakota was the least preferred, with just 52 people scampering to the Mount Rushmore State last year.

…A Post analysis of the census bureau’s state-to-state migration figures shows a steady decline from New York each year since 2012, with departures vastly outpacing inbound moves and roughly 4.6 million people waving goodbye to New York over the past decade

Roughly 2,700,000 people relocated to New York over that span — resulting in a net population loss of 1.9 million residents.

It will be interesting to see if the New Yorkers that move to states with more conservative values adapt or try to recreate what they left.

Another Reason To Leave New York State

Posted on by

On Friday, The American Thinker posted an article about the Build Public Renewables Act (BPRA), now in the New York state budget.

The article reports:

Ever hear of the Build Public Renewables Act (BPRA)?  Sounds great, doesn’t it?  Yet, like “The Inflation Reduction Act” (the largest climate legislation in government history), its title has very little to do with its actual purpose.  Its true objective is to empower the state (in this case New York) “to provide clean energy if the private sector fails to.”

Still sounds great!  There is, however, one little catch: the private sector has until 2030 to provide clean energy.  We all know that, given today’s technology, the private sector isn’t going to meet this requirement — which means that the second little catch will kick in: the moving of power utilities out of private hands into publicly owned facilities.  In fact, BPRA, now in the New York state budget, is viewed as a massive challenge to fossil fuel hegemony and a major victory for public power.  The BPRA requires and empowers the New York Power Authority (NYPA) “to rapidly build renewable energy infrastructure to meet the goal of 100 percent clean energy by 2030.”

Except for the 100% clean energy part, still sounds pretty good.  But here’s where the act begins to cause concern.  The BPRA is laying the foundation for a socialized electrical grid.  This from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) themselves.   “A socialist strategy would put unions, industrial expertise, and clean energy writ large at the center of the bill,” begins this article.  “New York is moving closer to public ownership and operation of renewable power,” says this article.

The act requires that all state-owned properties that currently receive power from the NYPA utilize only renewable energy by 2030. It also requires municipally owned properties, including hospitals, schools, public housing, and public transit, to switch to renewable energy by 2035. The act calls for NYPA, which built six natural gas–fired “peaker plants” in 2001 to meet energy demands during peak times, such as the hottest days of summer and coldest days of winter, to phase them out.

The act further directs the NYPA (founded in 1931 by Franklin D. Roosevelt, it was designed to provide low-cost electricity across New York state) to plan, build, and operate renewable energy projects across the state to meet the ambitious timetable to decarbonize the grid mandated by the Climate Act of 2019.

Please follow the link to the article to read the details. The eventual outcome of this policy is the state telling you how much energy you are entitled to use. People who live alone will probably not get the energy allotment needed to heat a house and cook meals. They will have to make choices. Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

Following The Legal Trail

Posted on by

Recently, President Trump was found guilty of sexual misconduct and defamation. The interesting part of this case is that the woman bringing the charges couldn’t even remember what year the incident happened. She accused the President of rape in a department store dressing room. Her description of the event described her entering a dressing room with the President and locking the door. If that account is true, what did she expect to happen? At some point, women need to take responsibility for doing stupid things. However, that is not the most interesting part of the story. Until recently, the case could not have been brought because the statue of limitations for the ‘crime’ had expired. A law was passed in New York that allowed the suit to be brought.

On Thursday, PJ Media reported the following:

One of the more curious aspects of this case was that the only reason Carroll was even able to sue Donald Trump was because of a law passed in New York in 2022 called the Adult Survivors Act. This legislation, signed by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, introduced a “one-year lookback window for survivors of sexual assault” to legally pursue their alleged abusers, irrespective of when the abuse took place. Many argued it was passed specifically to let Carroll take her absurd allegations to court and punish Trump

It turns out those claims weren’t mere conspiracy theories. In a surprising revelation, E. Jean Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, acknowledged that Carroll played a role in advocating for the passage of the aforementioned law.

“The fact that New York passed this law, the Adult Survivors Act,” CNN’s Poppy Harlow said while interviewing both Carroll and Kaplan. “They passed it just a few years ago. Were it not for that law, you never would have been able to bring this case.”

“Exactly. This would never — I would never have this window, this year of having the ability to bring a lawsuit for rape,” Carroll responded, then pointed to her attorney and said. “Robbie can explain it better.”

“Well, E. Jean actually helped to get that law passed,” Kaplan admitted. “It passed last year. We filed – it was Thanksgiving Day, the first day you could sue. We filed it just after midnight on Thanksgiving. And there are a lot of other women throughout the state and, hopefully, throughout this country, that they will get other laws like this passed in other states. And New York women should use this law while it’s still around, which is until next Thanksgiving.”

The article concludes:

So not only was the civil suit a politically motivated attack, but it was also an attack that required an act of the Democrat-controlled New York State legislature and the Democrat governor of New York to make it possible. Does that sit well with you? Just how corrupt is this conspiracy to get Trump? Among other things, we’ve seen the Russian collusion hoax, two impeachments, the bogus Bragg case, and now this.

Wow.

A Sad Day In America

Posted on by

On Saturday, Legal Insurrection reported the following:

There have been reports swirgling the last couple of days that Donald Trump will be charged and arrested next week by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office on charges relating to payments to Stormy Daniels. The exact nature of the charges and the basis is not known yet, but based on prior leaks to the media, it appears that Bragg has come up with a novel theory that an otherwise lawful payment become criminal if it is accounted for incorrectly, a so-called falsifying business records offense. Even the NY Times noted this is highly unusual:

In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York State election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that because the money silenced Ms. Daniels, it benefited his candidacy.

Combining the criminal charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.

Alvin Bragg is a deeply destructive D.A elected with the help of a Soro-funded polical PAC:

The article concludes:

The charges, if not more substantial than described so far, are a fraudulent abuse of power aimed at manipulating the politicial process as we enter a presidential election cycle. Make no mistake, this has happened before and cost Republicans politically, including the fraudulent prosecution of then Senator Ted Stevens, which was overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct but not before Stevens resigned setting in motion events that gave Democrats the votes they needed to pass Obamacare.

The abuse of prosecutorial power by Democrats will, to paraphrase Chuch Schumer’s attack on the Supreme Court, unleash the whirlwind. We just don’t know in which direction it will hit. I think there are several things going on here, including Democrats hope for violence that will allow a J6 crackdown on Trump supporters more far reaching than the prosecution of people for “parading” because they peacefully attended a protest where other committed violence. I also think that keeping the Trump prosecution (with more to come) front and center as he (likely) leads the Republican primaries is a political strategy – it’s no wonder the charges are coming now.

Meanwhile there seem to be no consequences for the Biden crime family and their drug-addicted son.

Punished For Doing Your Job Well

Posted on by

On Saturday, The Daily Wire reported that the attorneys who argued the concealed carry case before the Supreme Court were forced to retire from their law firm.

The article reports:

The lawyers who won a major Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court this week got even less than a pat on the back from the white-shoe law firm they work for – they were forced to quit.

Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, the lawyers who successfully argued against New York’s law restricting conceal-carry gun permits, were told by Kirkland & Ellis they had to stop representing Second Amendment plaintiffs or find another firm. In a Wall Street Journal article, the duo explained how their celebration was cut short.

“Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm,” they wrote. “There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.”

The article concludes:

The decision has implications for at least eight other so-called “may issue” states, where bureaucrats have the final say in whether a citizen merits a permit. In New York, the law was used to render concealed carry handgun permits nearly impossible to obtain.

Clement, who served as the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, and Murphy, also an experienced appellate attorney, were partners in the firm. But they wrote that they were resigned to leaving after being told they can’t take on Second Amendment cases.

“This isn’t the first time we have left a firm to stick by a client,” they wrote. “What makes this circumstance different is that the firm approved our representation of these clients years ago, and dropping them would cost the clients years of institutional memory. More remarkable still, in one of the cases we were asked to drop, we prevailed in the Supreme Court on Thursday.”

We are in danger of losing our Republic.

As The Details Come Out

Posted on by

On Tuesday, NewsMax reported that Chris Cuomo has been indefinitely suspended by CNN after news of how he helped his brother with sexual assault accusations surfaced. The problem is not that he gave advice to his brother–the problem is that he used his resources as a newsman to gather dirt of his brother’s accusers.

The article reports:

The network said documents released by New York’s attorney general Monday indicated a greater level in his brother’s efforts than the network previously knew.

“As a result, we have suspended Chris indefinitely, pending further evaluation,” the network said.

The article concludes:

Chris Cuomo had previously acknowledged talking to his brother and offering advice when the governor faced the harassment charges that led to his resignation. But the information released Nov. 29 revealed far more details about what he did.

The anchor did his show Monday night without mentioning the topic. In the past, he’s said he’s never reported on his brother’s situation for the network and never tried to influence coverage. On-air in August, he said: “I tried to do the right thing,” adding he “wasn’t in control of anything.”

Cuomo interviewed his brother on the air a number of times during the first two months of the COVID-19 epidemic. It was a hit with viewers, although it violated CNN’s policy of not having Cuomo report on his brother, and was a programming choice that has grown worse with time and additional revelations.

The Democrat party in New York is changing. One indication of that is the waning power of the Cuomo family. One wonders who is going to come forward to fill the gap they have left. Unfortunately, I fear it will be the more radical elements of the party. It should be noted that Kathy Hochul, the current governor of New York, won her seat in the New York legislature in 2011 as a member of the Democratic Party and Working Families Party. Her biography lists her as a Democrat, but that is not her history. Please do your own research on the Working Families Party. They are not your father’s Democrat party.

When The Courts Defend Religious Rights

Posted on by

Yesterday The Post Millennial posted an article about the Covid vaccine mandates in New York State.

The article reports:

A federal judge’s ruling on Tuesday says employers in New York’s healthcare sector must allow religious exemptions for the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Presiding Judge Hurd said the state government of New York doesn’t have the authority to ban religious exemptions.

He issued an injunction that bars the Department of Health from reprimanding employers for granting religious exemptions to staff.

In addition: “The Department of Health is barred from taking any action, disciplinary or otherwise, against the licensure, certification, residency, admitting privileges or other professional status or qualification of any of the plaintiffs on account of their seeking or having obtained a religious exemption from mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.”

The New York Times describes a contrast between former Governor Andrew Cuomo and the current governor; Cuomo allowed religious exemptions but Kathy Hochul took them away, which in itself triggered the lawsuit.

In light of today’s decision, Hochul said the state would be appealing the ruling:

“My responsibility as governor is to protect the people of this state, and requiring health care workers to get vaccinated accomplishes that. I stand behind this mandate, and I will fight this decision in court to keep New Yorkers safe.”

For whatever reason we seem to have a lot of elected leaders who have forgotten the God-given rights the U.S. Constitution was written to protect. There is evidence that some of the Covid vaccines or the research to develop the vaccines involved embryonic stem cells. For some religious people, that is a problem. The Constitution protects the rights of those people. The Governor of New York needs to respect religious freedom. It will be a sad day for Americans if the State of New York wins this case.

There Are Probably A Number Of Reasons For This

Posted on by

Just the News reported yesterday that a federal judge has blocked the state of New York from enforcing a Covid-19 vaccine mandate for its healthcare workers.

The article reports:

Former Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the healthcare worker vaccine mandate on August 16 prompting more than a dozen healthcare professionals to request a court enjoinder. The mandate requires hospitals staff and employees of long-term care facilities to be vaccinated in order to remain employed.

The suit argues that medical professionals, including doctors, nurses, and medical technicians face losing their careers and livelihoods if they refuse to receive a vaccine that contradicts their religious beliefs. According to the suit, the religious beliefs of the 17 medical professionals compel them to “refuse vaccination with the available Covid-19 vaccines, all of which employ aborted fetus cell lines in their testing, development, or production.”

The legal argument takes its shape under the umbrella of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Christopher Ferrara, an attorney with the Thomas More Society said that New York is attempting to “slam shut an escape hatch from an unconstitutional vaccine mandate … They are doing this while knowing that many people have sincere religious objections to vaccines that were tested, developed, or produced with cell lines derived from aborted children.”

As of now the vaccine mandate is temporarily suspended in New York State.

It should be noted the because of the vaccine mandates, many healthcare workers are walking off their jobs. Because of that, many states are having difficulty staffing their hospitals.

People have different reasons for refusing the vaccine–some have religious reasons, some have health concerns, and some feel that because they have recovered from Covid, they don’t need the vaccine. At any rate, we used to be a free county where a person was entitled to make their own healthcare decisions. If this vaccine is as wonderful as we are being told, people will get it voluntarily. Vaccine mandates are not the way to go. All of us need to fight them.

Looking At Actions Rather Than Words

Posted on by

Most of us who live in middle class America are not overly concerned with the limit placed by the Trump administration on the state and local tax (SALT tax) deduction on our federal income tax. Generally that deduction impacts people who live in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California and one or two other states. Generally speaking, the people who are impacted by the limitations placed on that deduction are among the high earners among us who own large homes and live in states with high real estate taxes. Limiting that deduction was a way to end the practice of fiscally responsible states subsidizing fiscally irresponsible states. Limiting that deduction should have jarred the states impacted into being more fiscally responsible. Not only did that no happen, the Democrat Congress wants to end that limit–thus providing a tax break for the rich–something they continuously accused President Trump of doing.

On Tuesday Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line Blog about the move to end the limits on the SALT deduction.

The article notes:

If you need proof that Democrats are really on the side of the plutocracy, look no further than New York’s Democratic House members, who today wrote to Speaker Pelosi threatening to vote against any of (P)resident Biden’s tax increase proposals unless the bill includes full repeal of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction limitations that were part of Trump’s 2017 tax reform. The SALT limitation was the single most “progressive” tax increase on the rich in years, but chiefly in high tax states like California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey.

Read the letter for yourself and enjoy the casuistry: We need SALT repeal, the New York Dems day, so that our taxpayers won’t be “double-taxed,” but of course their citizens only face this problem because those states impose those extra high taxes. And most of the benefit of the SALT deductions go to high income people—the very people Dems are always telling us should pay their “fair share,” which they never define in any concrete way. “Fair share” just means “more.” Well, Trump delivered that, so what’s the problem?

I also like how the letter, in paragraph three, admits that cutting taxes on the rich will help spur job growth. I thought liberals didn’t believe in supply-side tax cuts?

This is the letter:

I guess the Democrats really do like tax cuts for the rich.

Hope For New York State

Posted on by

The Western Journal posted an article today describing what is happening in New York State as a result of the mismanagement and scandals surrounding Governor Cuomo.

The article reports:

Andrew Cuomo’s despicable rule in New York has never been seriously challenged. He won re-election to a third term by 23 points in 2018 — an election in which he arguably didn’t even try.

But, for the first time in his tenure at the helm of the Empire State, Cuomo appears to be facing a serious opponent — one that was, at least in part, of Cuomo’s own making.

After more than a half-dozen allegations of sexual misconduct, as well as accusations that his use (and subsequent cover-up) of nursing homes to house infectious COVID-19 patients last spring caused thousands of additional deaths, Cuomo is unusually vulnerable.

And Rep. Lee Zeldin, a Republican who represents New York’s 1st congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives, smells blood in the water.

As Fox News reported last week, Zeldin is running for governor of New York in next year’s election, when Cuomo could be running for a fourth term.

There is an indication that New York State may be ready for a change in leadership. There is also an indication based on actual facts vs. trends on Twitter that Twitter may again represent opinions that are not universally shared.

The article notes:

But, one of the most important political lessons of 2020 was that Twitter is in no way representative of reality. Fox News reported that on his very first day of campaigning, Zeldin raised over $1 million. Clearly, reality is once again diverging from Twitter.

This is something to keep an eye on. The media will do everything it can to discredit Lee Zeldin and his campaign. It will be interesting to see if the voters of New York will believe the media or ask for change.

 

This Is Not The America I Know

Posted on by

Yesterday The Blaze reported that Governor Cuomo in New York has limited indoor Thanksgiving gatherings to 10 people. When did any state government acquire the right to tell you how many people you can invite for Thanksgiving in your own house? People are very capable of evaluating the risk and making their own decisions. Remember, this is the same man who sent coronavirus patients into nursing homes. I don’t understand why he has any credibility on any policy dealing with the virus.

The article reports:

Just in time for the Thanksgiving holiday, the governor announced Wednesday that all indoor gatherings would be limited to 10 people.

These are not just indoor gatherings at facilities open to the public.

According to Gov. Cuomo’s tweeted announcement, the state is focused on limiting indoor gatherings at private homes to 10 people, a significant drop from the 50-person limit that has been in place, the Ithaca Voice reported.

The article concludes:

“These measures are appropriate at this point in time in anticipation of what we see as potential spread,” Cuomo told reporters, WCBS-AM said. “If these measures are not sufficient to slow the spread, we will … turn the valve more, and part of that would be reducing the number of people in indoor dining.”

“It’s tough on bars and restaurants, it’s tough on gyms, it’s tough on everyone. I would say we are within sight of the finish line, the vaccine has been discovered, it has to be perfected, it has to be operationalized, but we see the finish line,” Cuomo added, according to WCBS.

The New York Post said the governor did not indicate how the new order would be enforced, but he did say it would be up to local governments.

“You can make rules, rules are only as good as enforcement, period,” Cuomo said. “I need the local governments to enforce.”

Aren’t laws supposed to have some constitutional basis?

Rules For The Little People

Posted on by

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit reported the following:

Hollywood Stars Attending Video Music Awards From Out of State will Not be Subject to New York’s 14-Day Quarantine Mandate

This infuriates me. I live in North Carolina and can’t visit my grandchildren without a two-week quarantine, but Hollywood stars are not subject to quarantine. So the coronavirus only attacks people that don’t have a lot of influence?

The article notes:

Hollywood stars traveling to New York City from out of state for the MTV Video Music Awards will have the special privilege of skipping the state’s 14-day quarantine mandate.

Under Governor Andrew Cuomo’s mandate, anyone who travels to New York from any of the 34 ‘high risk’ states must quarantine for 14 days. Violators may be fined up to $10,000 or jailed for 15 days.

The article quotes The New York Post:

But unlike other travelers, the VMA musicians, singers and dancers won’t have to follow a state rule to quarantine for 14 days if they come to New York from any of 34 states, including California and Florida, with average COVID infection rates exceeding 10 percent.

Under an executive order by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, anyone who violates the quarantine order is subject to a fine up to $10,000 or up to 15 days in jail.

But the state Department of Health has granted the VMAs a semi-exemption to the quarantine rule.

To receive the exemption, the VMAs agreed to police itself with “rigorous safety protocols including testing and screening and compliance checks by a special compliance officer.”

The article also reminds us of another recent privileged class that was except from coronavirus rules:

Democrat Mayor of DC Muriel Bowser exempted Democrat lawmakers returning from Rep. John Lewis’s funeral from the mandatory 14-day quarantine.

I live in a section of North Carolina that has a low rate of the virus. Why am I not allowed to visit my grandchildren?

Hoisted On Your Own Petard

Posted on by

I love it when karma shows up. The New York Sun posted an editorial yesterday about a religious freedom case argued before the Second United States Circuit Court or Appeals. I have absolutely no background in law, so I am going to rely heavily on what was stated in the editorial.

The editorial states:

When a case called New Hope Family Services showed up on the docket of the Second United States Circuit Court or Appeals, we perked up. It’s not just that we keep a weather eye for religious freedom cases (this one involves New York state’s attempt to force a Christian ministry to choose between its doctrine and its ability to place children in foster homes). We also perked up because of the three judges on the appeals panel.

They included two Democrats and a Republican — Edward Korman, a senior district judge sitting on the circuit bench; the legendary José Cabranes, probably the most senior active judge in the Circuit; and Reena Raggi, about whom we last wrote when we suggested she’d be an ideal candidate for the Supreme Court. It would be, we suspected, like watching a judicial version of “Field of Dreams.”

The New Hope Family Services was warned that if it did not state a willingness to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried couples, it would have to go out of business. The New Hope Family Services is a Christian group that believes in the teachings of the Bible, so obviously to agree to this would have been against their Biblical beliefs.

The editorial continues:

It was, at least to us, a shocking threat. It put New Hope, which is not government funded and has been in business for decades, in an impossible position. The pettifogging was too sophisticated for us and we started nodding off — until we heard the lawyer for New York state say, “It’s not a question of a Jewish family coming to the agency and being turned away because they’re Jewish.”

“But,” Judge Cabranes pointed out, “there’s no question that you’re preventing consideration of whether the adoptive parents are a same-sex couple as a result of the religious views of the agency.” Replied New York’s lawyer: “Yes.” Which prompted Judge Cabranes to ask: “You don’t think that there’s a suggestion here that the regulation is targeting religious groups?” New York state’s lawyer proceeded to reply: “No.”

“Because,” the state’s lawyer, Laura Etlinger, continued, the Second Circuit itself had said “the fact that there may be a disparate impact on religious organizations because of factual matters, they are the ones more likely to be affected, is not evidence of discrimination.” This is when Judge Raggi pointed out that the entities in that earlier case were not mainly religious.

In contrast, she noted, New Hope was contending that discovery in its case would disclose that the “vast majority, if not all” of the foster care and adoption agencies that “have had to go out of existence” are religious organizations.

“Do you dispute that?” Judge Raggi demanded.

“Well, in — it’s not in the record,” Ms. Etlinger replied, seeming to sense, suddenly, that she had been drawn into a trap.

The reason it wasn’t in the record, after all, was that the district court had dismissed New Hope’s complaint out of hand. Ms. Etlinger suggested that “to the extent there is an impact, because religious organizations are the ones that have a view about placement with same-sex couples does not mean that the agency was targeting those —” Her words hung in the air.

“Well,” Judge Raggi said, “isn’t that what discovery might reveal?”

The principle in question here is disparate impact as proof of bias. It is a legal principle often used by the political left to twist the law to get what they want. Please follow the link to read the entire editorial. It is wonderful to see the tactics of the political left used against them.

The editorial concludes:

Disparate impact is by no means the only angle the Second Circuit considered in New Hope. Nor is it our intention here to suggest that same-sex or unmarried couples are unsuitable for adoption. It is our intention to savor the irony that such a liberal concept as disparate impact might yet illuminate the First Amendment violations of a state trying to force a religious ministry to choose between, on the one hand, its beliefs and, on the other, its religious mission in respect of foster parenting and adoption.

 

Elections Have Consequences

Posted on by

Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about the recent Democrat primary races in New York State.

The article reports:

A half-dozen insurgent candidates in Brooklyn and Queens — some backed by the Democratic Socialists of America — toppled veteran incumbents in Democratic primary races, including close allies of Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx).

With Heastie’s backing, the Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee poured more than $400,000 combined to prop up 46-year veteran Joe Lentol, Felix Ortiz and Walter Mosley in Brooklyn and Aravella Simotas, Michael Den Dekker and Michael Miller in Queens.

They all lost.

Insurgent Zohran Mamdani, who defeated four-term incumbent Simotas in the 36th Assembly District covering Astoria, said in a tweet: “Socialism won.”

He was endorsed by the DSA.

The DACC donated $125,000 to Simotas’ re-election campaign.

So what does this mean for the State of New York? Emily Gallagher, one of the socialists elected stated, “I’m ready to get to work.” She has already stated that she would push to raise income taxes on the “top one percent” to preserve services, adding, “We need the revenue to survive.” Someone needs to tell her about the Laffer Curve.

The article concludes:

Meanwhile, five other progressive Democrats backed by the WFP (Working Families Party) and other progressive groups are expected to win open Assembly seats.

The newcomers are expected to raise hell, but Albany watchers said the jury is out on how much impact they will have in a body with more than 100 Democrats — including many moderates representing suburban and upstate districts.

“Clearly the candidates who won have a more liberal, progressive agenda,” said University of Albany political science professor Bruce Gyory.

He said he believes Heastie’s position as speaker is secure.

Heastie personally called all the winning insurgents to congratulate them.

All the candidates are running in heavily Democratic districts and are expected to prevail in the general election.

There is actually some good news here. A group is arising out of the Democrat party that will eventually form a third party (to the left of traditional Democrats). As the results of their policies become obvious, they will lose votes. If any of the tax increases and other policies of these recently elected Democrats are put in place, I predict that New York State will lose its tax base.

According to a Forbes Magazine article in January 2020, New York was already leading the nation in the number of people leaving the state:

Actually, I am surprised that California did not make the top ten states losing population.

 

The Problem With Mail-In Voting

Posted on by

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the recent primary in New York State. The primary was held on June 23. All voters had until May 29 to register online, in person at a local board of elections, or by mailing in a voter registration form.

The article reports:

How badly has the state of New York handled its vote-by-mail primary? Only today did the Associated Press make the call on the race in NY-16, concluding three weeks after the election that Rep. Eliot Engel lost to his primary challenger, progressive insurgent Jamaal Bowman — by sixteen points. It took that long to get through enough of the mail-in ballots and navigate the opaque reporting on the count for the AP to reach a firm conclusion in a landslide for Bowman.

That race is no fluke, either. The New York Times reports that some races have only a handful of ballots counted, and that outcomes of many of the primary contests have yet to be determined, more than three weeks after the election day. This portends disaster in November, the Times warns:

More than three weeks after the New York primaries, election officials have not yet counted an untold number of mail-in absentee ballots, leaving numerous closely watched races unresolved, including three key Democratic congressional contests.

The absentee ballot count — greatly inflated this year because the state expanded the vote-by-mail option because of the coronavirus pandemic — has been painstakingly slow, and hard to track, with no running account of the vote totals available.

In some cases, the tiny number of ballots counted has bordered on the absurd: In the 12th Congressional District, where Representative Carolyn B. Maloney is fighting for her political life against her challenger, Suraj Patel, only 800 of some 65,000 absentee ballots had been tabulated as of Wednesday, according to Mr. Patel, though thousands had been disqualified. …

The delays in New York’s primaries raise huge concerns about how the state will handle the general election in November, and may offer a cautionary note for other states as they weigh whether to embrace, and how to implement, a vote-by-mail system because of the pandemic.

Most voter fraud occurs in absentee ballots or mail-in ballots. This is the place where ballot harvesting occurs–a person can go into a nursing home, get people with limited cognitive ability to sign a ballot, and fill out the ballot themselves and turn it in. Ballots can be stolen from mailboxes, filled out, and turned in. It is a nightmare to anyone who wants an honest election.

The article at Hot Air concludes:

The vote-by-mail system, however, truly is a disaster, and not just over security concerns. The timelines in our Constitution are too tight for the kinds of delays seen in this year’s primaries. We are at risk of being without a legitimate Congress as well as a legitimate president by the time the deadlines for both are reached. The only way to ensure that we can meet those deadlines is to vote in person by paper ballots utilizing optical-scan technology for fast and accurate counts. The delay from a relative small number of contests in that system where absentee ballots could make the difference will be easy to absorb, but we can’t wait several weeks to confirm outcomes in races with double-digit in-person vote gaps.

Stop pretending this is a Trump problem. This is an electoral legitimacy problem in more than one aspect, and it’s time we treated it as such. If we can go to Walmart in this pandemic, we certainly can figure out how to vote in person to choose this country’s leadership.

How Is This Legal?

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about new regulations put in place by Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York State. New York State had one of the highest death rates due to coronavirus because the Governor required nursing homes to admit coronavirus patients that had been discharged from the hospital. The Governor did not send those patients to the Javits Center, which had been refitted to handle coronavirus patients or to the hospital ship which had also been refitted. Instead he sent them into nursing homes where the population that was at the highest risk of dying from the disease lived. Now the Governor has chosen to overreact totally to the disease and issue a regulation that should be struck down immediately.

The article reports:

Comrade citizens, those who travel in the Northeast zone should beware, Minister Cuomo is going all-in with the COVID compliance mandates. All travelers into New York from “high-COVID” states, must provide their papers upon arrival or face a summons and $2,000 fine.

Is this even legal?

We Need To Learn From The Mistakes Made In New York

Posted on by

New York has had a very high percentage of deaths from the coronavirus compared to  other states in the nation. This is not by chance–it is the result of bad decisions made at the beginning of the pandemic and throughout the crisis. Yesterday The National Review posted an article detailing the decisions that exacerbated the outbreak.

The article reports:

Cuomo made three breathtakingly bad moves in March that in retrospect amounted to catastrophe. First, Cuomo failed to call for, and even actively discouraged, informal social-distancing measures in early March. Next was the delay in mid-March in ordering formal closures when the virus started rampaging through his state. Third was his March 25 edict to long-term care facilities that they must accept infected patients, which caused a mass deadly outbreak among helpless, trapped, elderly New Yorkers.

The article notes:

Like de Blasio, who as late as March 10 was on MSNBC telling New Yorkers that most of us were at little to no risk and that the coronavirus was much like seasonal flu, Cuomo persisted with his don’t-scare-away-the-tourists happy talk well into March, the critical month. On March 1, the day New York State logged its first confirmed case of the coronavirus (a health-care worker who had just returned from Iran), Cuomo assured everyone that, although one of his own daughters had called him in a state of panic, there was no need to be afraid. “The facts defeat fear. Because the reality is reassuring. It is deep breath time. . . . This is not our first rodeo with this type of situation in New York,” Cuomo boasted, adding, “Excuse our arrogance as New Yorkers,” but the state was fully prepared. “We don’t even think it’s going to be as bad as it was in other countries,” he said. “We’re going to have a special effort for our nursing homes, et cetera, congregate facilities where senior citizens are being treated.” He further boasted that the state had broken free of federal restraints about testing: “Now we are actually in control of the systems ourselves. And as New Yorkers we like control.”

Summing up, Cuomo said, “Once you know the facts, once you know the reality, it is reassuring and we should relax because that’s what’s dictated by the reality of the situation.”

On March 6 Cuomo insisted, “The overall risk level of the novel coronavirus in New York remains low” and said, “We have more people in this country dying from the flu than we have dying from coronavirus.” As late as March 8, Cuomo, instead of advising people to stay away from the subway, advised New Yorkers to seek out less-crowded subway cars, the mass-transit equivalent of saying, “Let them eat cake.”

The coronavirus was an unknown entity, and I don’t blame Governor Cuomo for his original missteps.  However, I do believe that Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio were slow to acknowledge and react to the danger. Contrast this with President Trump who had the foresight to stop air travel from China. Leadership matters.

Ungrateful Doesn’t Even Come Close To Describing This

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about a recent statement by Governor Cuomo of New York. On Tuesday The Governor reminded everyone who came to New York to help with the coronavirus crisis that they are required to pay New York State income tax for any wages they earned while working there.

The article reports:

Health care workers that traveled from across the country to volunteer to help fight New York’s coronavirus outbreak will have to pay state taxes, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced according to PIX 11.

In a Tuesday news conference, Cuomo said the state isn’t “in a position to provide any subsidies right now because we have a $13 billion deficit,” PIX 11 reported.

“So there’s a lot of good things I’d like to do, and if we get federal funding, we can do, but it would be irresponsible for me to sit here looking at a $13 billion deficit and say I’m gonna spend more money, when I can’t even pay the essential services,” he added.

The article notes:

Samaritan’s Purse, the Christian humanitarian aid organization that sent volunteers to New York to set up a temporary hospital, wasn’t aware that their organization would have to pay the state income tax.

“Our financial comptroller called me, and he said, ‘Do you know that all of you are going to be liable for New York state income tax?’ Ken Isaacs, the Vice President of the organization told PIX 11.

“I said, ‘What?’”

 According to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, nonresidents who work in the state for more than 14 days must pay state income taxes. New York has one of the highest state income taxes in the country, ranging from 4% to 8.82% according to Business Insider. 

“What we’re even more concerned about than the money is the bureaucracy and the paperwork, and I think that once that’s unleashed, once you start filing that, you have to do that for like a whole year or something,” Isaac continued. 

Wow. The Governor may want to think about how this might impact the state’s ability to get people to come help in a future crisis.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Posted on by

Breitbart is reporting today that Governor Cuomo of New York has ordered election officials to automatically mail New Yorkers a postage-paid absentee ballot application during the coronavirus pandemic. These ballots are for the June primary, but if the idea is carried over to the presidential election, I can now guarantee that Governor Cuomo will be re-elected, Joe Biden will win New York State in the presidential election, and all Democrat members of the state legislature will be reelected by overwhelming majorities.

The article reports:

“I am issuing an Executive Order to ensure every New York voter automatically receives a postage-paid application for an absentee ballot because no New Yorker should have to choose between their health and their right to vote,” the governor continued.

Recently, Cuomo also issued an executive order allowing residents to vote absentee in the June 23 primary election, the announcement noted.

However, the New York GOP called the move an “illegal and unconstitutional political power grab that will severely undermine the integrity of our elections,” according to Breitbart News.

“The ‘never let a crisis go to waste’ mentality has permeated the Governor’s office and Cuomo is using this pandemic as a reason to expand his powers and force his political agenda through,” said chairman Nick Langworthy.

The article concludes:

Nearly 30 million mail-in ballots sent to registered voters went missing in the last four election cycles dating back to 2012, Breitbart News reported.

“In 2012, for instance, more than 33 million mail-in ballots were sent to registered voters. Of those, nearly four million went missing, more than 425,000 were undeliverable, and almost 260,000 were rejected,” the article read.

In a statement, Public Legal Interest Foundation (PILF) President J. Christian Adams called vote-by-mail a “disaster.”

“People who think it works haven’t studied the failures. The facts show mail voting doesn’t work,” he concluded.

This is not the path to an honest election. This is a dry run. If the Governor is successful in doing this, he will push for a mail-in presidential election. If he is successful, New York State will never again have an honest election.

Some Good News From New York

Posted on by

The Epoch Times posted an article yesterday reporting some good news from New York.

The article reports:

Hospitals in New York state have discharged more COVID-19 patients than they have added for four days in a row, according to the latest data from the state hit hardest by the CCP virus pandemic.

Hospitals in the state discharged 1,709 COVID-19 patients on April 4, while admitting 574 patients. The number of daily discharges had also surpassed the daily admissions on the three prior days, state data shows.

…New York has been the U.S. epicenter for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus, also known as the novel coronavirus. While New York City has borne the brunt of the outbreak, there has been an increasing shift to Long Island, which now accounts for 22 percent of the state’s COVID-19 hospitalizations.

The number of daily deaths in New York state from COVID-19 dropped for the first time on April 4, when 594 people died, down from 630 deaths the day before, with a total of 4,159 people dying from the disease statewide.

“What is the significance of that? It’s too early to tell,” Cuomo said.

New York has been the epicenter of the virus, but reports indicate new epicenters in New Orleans and Detroit. However, it would be nice if New York has truly turned the corner in fighting the virus.

Rhode Island Has Discovered Border Security

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about a recent policy enacted by Governor Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island.

The article reports:

Governor Gina Raimondo announced. Starting immediately, anyone coming into the state from New York state will be mandated to self-quarantine for 14 days, the governor said.

“No matter how you come to Rhode Island – bus, car, train, plane – you are ordered to quarantine for 14 days,” Raimondo said. “In my judgement this is the most prudent form of action in light of the crisis.”

Members of the National Guard will be stationed at train and bus stations to gather the contact information of anyone coming in from New York. In addition, the Rhode Island State Police will station troopers at the state border to flag down vehicles with New York license plates. The information collected will be used only for contact tracing by the Rhode Island Department of Health, Raimondo said.

“This is different. This is unusual. This is radical,” Raimondo said. “I don’t want anyone to panic. If anything, Rhode Islanders should breathe a sigh of relief. We are doing things to keep ourselves safe.” 

This is unbelievable. How many illegal immigrants has Rhode Island let in that hadn’t been vaccinated for the diseases that Americans are routinely vaccinated for? Were they ever quarantined?

The article concludes:

Keeping tens-of-thousands of migrant travelers from central America and Mexico out of the United States is an abomination to the humanitarian interests of our nation.  However, allowing Americans to cross state borders during a national health emergency is apparently a bridge too far.

One of the under-appreciated benefits of this COVID-19 crisis, is exposing the hypocrisy of the limo-liberal elite.   Notice how quickly a Democrat can turn totalitarian? I digress….

Funny how it was only a few short months ago when Russia, Russia, Russia hype was declared to be influencing the national political conversation, while these same democrat governors were quoting the statue of Liberty.  Alas….

I wonder if anyone will question whether or not this is constitutional.