Monday, June 30, 2008

Sullivan Applauds Columbia V. Heller Ruling

“Our Founding Fathers meant what they said
about our right to keep and bear arms.”

-- Sean Sullivan

News Release

GALES FERRY – Today Republican Congressional candidate Sean Sullivan said the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which struck down the handgun ban that has been in effect in the nation’s capital, was “a victory for the Constitution and the people of the United States.”

Sullivan said,
“The majority of the Court eloquently explained that the Constitution protects the right of the people ‘to posses a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home.’ The Second Amendment clearly protects the right of an individual to own a firearm, regardless of his or her relationship with the military. This is the first case to directly address that issue, which some have called an ambiguity. The Court got it right.”

Sullivan said,
“The wording of the Second Amendment makes it clear that the right to keep arms is a right that precedes the Constitution. The right is not granted by government; it is protected by government. Too often we look to Washington to grant us rights or deliver ‘the goods’ whatever they may be. The Declaration of Independence reminds us that we ‘are endowed by our Creator’ with certain rights and ‘governments are instituted’ to protect them. With the Fourth of July less than two weeks away, this case is a timely reminder of the proper role of government, and of the need for the people to ensure it does not overextend itself and overplay its role.”

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Quote Of The Day

"Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another."

-- Madonna

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Sunday Afternoon

Jon is a funny dude. Visit his website for more nonsense.

Sunday, June 08, 2008

Memo to Ray Hackett

You were right about only two things in Sundays op-ed.

Obama should not pick Mrs. Clinton as Vice President but for far different reasons than you think. In short because it will show him as weak as Kerry was in picking media-darling John Edwards. Also the big job of Veep is not to be President of the Senate but to be a great president should something happen to the person elected President. That is what President George W. Bush had in mind when he picked Richard Cheney. How secure would you feel if President John Kerry was shot and John Edwards was President?

Two, given Saturday's concession and unqualified endorsement of her opponent, this article is indeed out of date. How about showing some graciousness that Mrs. Clinton displayed yesterday?

-- or at least to her voters.

Many lifelong Democrats I know don't like him and will vote for McCain. Obama has his work cut out for him sewing up his own base.

I can accept the fact that you may not like -or respect- Hillary Clinton but you should at least respect the democratic, small d, process. Tellingly you have characterized the on-going Democrat primary to decide the leader of the free world as winter in your blog. All throughout the season you have agonized on how protracted the campaign has been. The Clintons have to get out now or.... what? We have to stop democracy because......?

Give Mrs. Clinton her due. She won a majority of the actual votes cast. That's not for nothing. Ann Coulter writes about this --

"Primaries are specifically designed by the parties to choose their strongest candidate for the general election. Hillary's argument that she won the popular vote is manifestly relevant to that determination. Our brave Hillary has every right to take her delegates to the Democratic National Convention and put her case to a vote. She is much closer to B. Hussein Obama than the sainted Teddy Kennedy was to Carter in 1980 when Teddy staged an obviously hopeless rules challenge at the convention. (I mean rules about choosing the candidate, not rules about crushed ice at after-parties.)"

Obama in a very real sense lost. He failed to win a majority of his own base. What does that say about November? Mrs. Clinton was a lot closer in the delegate count than the media liked to say. What's more she clearly is the better candidate for November and would -- by far -- be the tougher president. Terrorists would not be tempted to try what they will try if your man wins in November with Hillary Clinton commanding the military. Clinton would order Osama Bin Laden killed if the CIA told her where he was. Your man wants to sit down with him with tea and cake. Furthermore I may not agree with the Clintons on much but I have never had reason to question their patriotism.

Not so the Obamas. Your man only recently put a flag on his lapel to show solidarity with his countrymen (with some lack of sincerity I must add). His own wife and minister give strong hints of his tolerance for racism and appalling lack of gratitude for the blessings this country has afforded them.

I am not a Democrat and your party can pick who you please and according to the rules your man won. But as an American I am disturbed by the unfairness of the media.

You Mr. Hackett and your colleagues made the difference in this campaign. Had it not been for the meida-spin, Mrs. Clinton would be the Democrat nominee.

Did the media choose wisely? It is on to November. We shall see what the Indpendents think of the choice the Democrats and Republicans have presented them with. My guess is that 2008 will be alot like 1988 where the Democrats left the voters with no real choice at all.

John R. McCommas


Saturday, June 07, 2008

Mrs Clinton Was Right Then And Right Now.

McCain for President.

Memo to the Windham Board of Selectmen

I was reading about this so called "landlord ordinance" and I thought to myself 'this was actually a good idea', but then I figured out the real reason. The proponents of this want more money out of us. There isn't any real problem that needs fixing, the problem is we don't pay enough in taxes. This is nothing more than a backdoor tax increase at time when we are facing a big front door tax increase in addition to what we got shoved down our throats last year.

So let me see if I got this straight. Say I am in the business of supplying housing to people who rent vs own their own home in Windham. I am not, but suppose I am for sake of argument. I am business person who pays taxes, delivers a needed service and I am told the town fathers think that such people are a good thing.

So why then do I need to be punished?

The town wants me to give to them my street address, assuming that is different than where you send my bill, my phone number, and even my email address...
-- and then it wants to fine me 25 bucks for complying with the law?

Why does it cost 25 dollars per person for the town to keep a calling list? What the town wants done can be done with a pencil and a two dollar note book. Almost all of the info they already have.

Then we get to the really big fines. I am unsure what crime we have committed in order to deserve the really big fines other than perhaps being unaware that the town wants landlords to give it 25 dollars for keying stuff into a computer which, again, in 95 percent of the cases is the info it already have on file!

Windham's Code Enforcement Director Matthew Vertefeuille told the newspaper these service-fines are set in state statute. The town's hands are bound. The town must fine every landlord 25 dollars each because it's in the statutes. We have to obey the statutes after all.

BUT WAIT! When the whole idea went over like a lead balloon at the public hearing, Mr. Vertefeuille says he will find a way to waive to fines. Well, which is it? Are the town's hands bound or aren't they? This is why I increasingly don't believe what government officials tell me.

I don't like double talk.

I would like to know exactly which statutes, that is the numbers and pages, say the state mandates these fines on landlords. Where is the authority to waive the fines? If the town has that authority than why didn't Mr. Verefeuille say so in the first place? I must point out that if we don't pass this ordinance we won't have to fine anyone for not signing up for this list.

I assume we are not talking about the big fines of course. Those won't be waived. Those fines are a "surcharge" (whatever that is) of 90 dollars, 250 dollars and an even cool Grand.

With 800 to 900 renters in town who will be forced to pay in addition to the taxes they already pay, regardless if the apartments are occupied, regardless of whether the renters are paying, 25 dollars each. Some of them will be victim of the big fines so we actually are talking about a fairly princely sum. Of course these fines will go up year after year as government fees tend to do. -- And Mr Vertefeuille says this is not meant to provide town revenue?

Oh and then we got the ten dollar fine if someone moves. Then when the property is sold that's another 25 dollars. Cha-Ching! Cha-Ching.

As I have said, I am not a landlord. I did however rent two apartments in Danielson and one in Willimantic and I can tell you that 90% of the problems tenants have are their own fault. Many people who rent vandalize the property, throw trash on the ground and contribute more than anyone else to blight. When they move out the paint is ruined and the carpets need to be replaced and lots of things are broken. I sympathize with the owners because I have seen first hand how shabby many tenants treat their property.

I would never go into that line of business. To many problems, to much taxes and to many headaches. This proposal is unnecessary and I urge it be forgotten. Landlords should not be singled out to pay more taxes than they do already.
Web Counter
Free Counter