‘The Last Supper’
Was It The Pivotal MomentIn A Criminal Conspiracy?
‘The Last Supper’ Five Practiced Conspirators And Sandy Annabi Meet Hours Before Her Vote Reversal
Does anyone seriously believe that any significant amount of money exchanged hands to lubricate the passage of approvals by Yonkers City Council for either the Ridge Hill development or Longfellow Senior Housing, and Phil Amicone and Nick Spano received nothing for their efforts? Of course not. Nick and Phil, between them, controlled the Republican patronage machine in Yonkers; and, as between them, Nick was clearly el Capo.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, it is well known that City Chair, now Chairman of the County Legislature, Ken Jenkins, had lined up agency of the rentals in Ridge Hill for his ERA Gem Real Estate Brokerage. Let no one suggest that corruption isn’t an equal opportunity enterprise in Yonkers, with Republicans and Democrats cooperating to each grab a share. And, let’s not lose sight of the fact that Mike Spano is licensed to Ken Jenkins’ office.
We are informed by an exceptionally reliable and knowledgeable source, from first-hand observation, that a certain Italian restaurant in New Rochelle was the scene of a supper meeting attended by Al Pirro, Nick Spano, Mike Spano, as well as Anthony Mangone, Zehy Jereis and Sandy Annabi on the evening before the Yonkers City Council meeting at which Annabi changed her position and voted to enable the Ridge Hill Development Project to go forward; in a sense, a Last Supper.
Does such a meeting, in and of itself, prove any wrongdoing, any bribery or extortion was occurring? No, of course not. It’s possible, just possible, that all of those Yonkers players were out to celebrate because Sandy had changed her position and advised all of them that she would be voting in favor of Ridge Hill after all, because the builder, Bruce Ratner, had agreed to contribute $10 million to the Yonkers School System.
Pasta and a hot antipasto, even with a little Chianti to wash it all down, does not a conspiracy make. Neither does the payment of a seriously attractive, somewhat seductive, young woman’s utility bills, mortgage payments, or car lease, by members of the opposite sex, no matter how shady their prior histories.
We do not take breaches of public trust lightly, by any means, and we are only too well aware of the atmosphere of corruption engendered by a District Attorney who occupied the Office for 12 years while married to the most outrageous white-collar criminal in the County. One United States Attorney, who should have known better, MaryJo White, in fact, perpetuated the corrupt environment when she failed to include Jeanine Pirro in the original 67-count indictment that named Al, despite the fact that the case involved a 10-year-long tax fraud, 1988-1997, in which nine of those 10 years Jeanine jointly signed the tax returns.
Despite having been convicted in White Plains Federal District Court on June 20, 2000, and sentenced to 29 months in federal prison, Al was out by clever canard, in only 11. Additionally, although convicted of all 38 remaining counts of a 67- count indictment, after Judge Barrington Parker redacted the 29 most egregious counts involving the rip-off of Peekskill’s Hudson Valley Hospital, together with Robert Boyle, another of George Pataki’s crooked buddies, the Appellate Division, Second Department, never disbarred Al. Instead, they waited three years to act and then merely suspended his license for three years, beginning May 12, 2003.
No matter, Mr. Fixit, Al Pirro, went right on practicing law, making appearances before town boards and city planning commissions such as White Plains, and wherever he would normally appear, in direct disobedience to the specific conditions of his ‘slap-on-the-wrist’ suspension. No one can say the federal courts or state courts treated Al Pirro ‘badly’. Not only did they spare him; they also enabled him; and, now he pops up right in the middle of the Yonkers real estate development scandal. What a surprise!
After all, way back in 2003, before leaving office, then-Mayor John Spencer had retained Al Pirro as Yonkers’ official lobbyist, specifically tasked with the assignment of bringing qualified real estate developers to the City to help the administration that would soon be headed by his deputy, Phil Amicone, fulfill their master plan of development. Even in a culture of corruption such as Westchester, somehow Yonkers remains a standout for sheer chutzpah.
If every allegation in all 13 counts of Sandy Annabi’s federal indictment were essentially accurate, and, in fact, she benefitted to the tune of $166,000, still she would be a minor player by comparison with the likes of Al Pirro, Nick Spano, and the others at that table in New Rochelle. More likely, most of, if not all of, that cash ended up in Anthony Mangone’s, and Zehy Jereis’, accounts, well-trained soldiers in the Nick Spano mob.
As for the developers, they understand from years of doing business, that in Westchester, and particularly in Yonkers, for many decades, you don’t get the job and you don’t get through the City’s zoning, planning, and environmental approvals in a timely fashion unless you grease several palms. They simply know and accept the network of corruption as the price of doing business.
We understand the difference between those developers who can legitimately be said to have been victims of extortion, and those who routinely distribute envelopes filled with cash as a vital protocol. In either case, a serious crime has been committed when a government official has been paid off and the public trust has been breached. We are reminded of the County Courthouse at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in White Plains, where, after only 20 years, the siding was falling off the building that had been constructed by a builder brought to the project by Al Pirro. The consequences of kickbacks are often inferior materials and/or workmanship.
Given the $600-$800 million price tag on Ridge Hill alone, the notion that a clique composed of the Spano brothers (Nick and Mike), Al Pirro, Anthony Mangone and Zehy Jereis, would content themselves with a few hundred thousand dollars in ‘consulting fees’ is ludicrous. If Sandy Annabi did, in fact, accept some personal enrichment to alter her vote with respect either to the Longfellow, or the Ridge Hill projects – and that will take some serious proving – she was clearly a tool in the hands of the five political operatives and felons seated at that table with her in New Rochelle less than 24 hours before she cast her vote.
Interestingly, both Nick and Mikey Spano have now been very quick to disown and deny any association with, or knowledge of, Jereis’ or Mangone’s activities with regard to either project. However, my source is holding steadfast to the account of who they saw, where, and when. Even 1/10th of one percent of a $600 million project would involve $600,000. The United States Attorney is talking about $166,000.
Finally, Mike Edelman has been unusually talkative and ‘blogative’, even for him, since the unsealing of the Annabi Indictment. It would seem he “protesteth a bit too much”, particularly with respect to Al Pirro and the Spano brothers, not to mention Phil Amicone, also very quick to disassociate himself with strong words of denouncement.
Showing posts with label Phil Amicone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phil Amicone. Show all posts
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Advocate/Phil Amicone.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Something’s Fundamentally Reckless And
Indifferent In Mayor Amicone’s Calculations
Sunday, December 21st, more than 100 Yonkers residents from the neighborhood surrounding Fire Station 12 on Fortfield Avenue, joined
firefighters to protest Mayor Philip Amicone’s wrongheaded decision to remove Tower Ladder 75 from their firehouse.
In a press release one day earlier, Union President Hugh Fox, Jr. had warned, “The removal of this lifesaving apparatus from the
Fortfield Avenue Firehouse will result in unacceptably increased Fire Department response times for a large section of the City.”
Fox stressed, “In the Fire service, increased response times mean an increase in the likelihood of death, injury and property damage.” In other words, Amicone is increasing the risk of death and/or serious injury to Yonkers families by the foolhardy removal of an essential ladder company supposedly to save money, while, at the same time, giving extraordinary pay raises to 180 of his cronies; raises as high as $20,000 and $30,000 to ‘buddies’ already earning six-figure salaries.
Those who came out Sunday, many carrying signs which read, “Fire Kills: Don’t Cut Yonkers Fire Department,” braved a cold rain and damp, icy conditions to voice their fears and concerns over the latest of the Mayor’s thoughtless miscalculations. Union head Fox told The Guardian, “A fire that burns for more than three minutes gets out of control and can cause loss of life and property.”
Sounding angry and frustrated, he said, “The Mayor says it’s a Union problem. We don’t think so. We believe it’s an administrative problem.” Fox explained, “We worked with him. We took split raises. We negotiated in good faith. Meantime, he gives out raises to 180. That speaks for itself.”
The Union has taken the official position, “The Mayor’s decision to remove Ladder 75 from the Fortfield Avenue Firehouse is a reckless
and ill-thought decision that will jeopardize public safety and result in the unnecessary loss of life.”
We believe that Hugh Fox and his Union members are so very right in their assessment of Amicone’s Draconian approach to the City’s
fire safety. Referring to the Mayor’s, “wildly swinging an axe at the Fire Department’s budget,” the Union asks, “How many lives will be put at risk as a result?”
Sad to say, Amicone’s willingness to risk the safety and well-being of Yonkers citizens with respect to fire emergency is all too consistent
with his approach to systemic Yonkers police brutality; his “public-be-damned” attitude.
The firefighters know only too well that their Union representatives, under President Fox, met with Amicone and members of his staff
over a five-week period in an effort to avoid any significant cuts which would severely limit their ability to fight fires and provide other emergency services. The Union, “provided Mayor Amicone with an alternative plan” which they say, “would have assisted the City of Yonkers in weathering the current economic crisis.” The Union offered to make, “significant financial sacrifices and outlined a number of cost-cutting steps” which could have been taken.
Apparently the Mayor and his advisors believe they know better than the professionals who fight fires every day. They are willing to
play Russian Roulette with the lives of Yonkers families. Clearly, there is something unprincipled and dangerous in the thought processes of a mayor who would remove essential fire protection from hundreds of thousands of City residents in order to give huge pay raises to his cronies. If even one life is lost because of increased response times, will Amicone & Co. be held accountable?
People from all over Yonkers must reject Philip Amicone’s analysis, must call the Mayor’s Office, and their City Council representative,
and make their safety, and their children’s safety, their #1 concern.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Something’s Fundamentally Reckless And
Indifferent In Mayor Amicone’s Calculations
Sunday, December 21st, more than 100 Yonkers residents from the neighborhood surrounding Fire Station 12 on Fortfield Avenue, joined
firefighters to protest Mayor Philip Amicone’s wrongheaded decision to remove Tower Ladder 75 from their firehouse.
In a press release one day earlier, Union President Hugh Fox, Jr. had warned, “The removal of this lifesaving apparatus from the
Fortfield Avenue Firehouse will result in unacceptably increased Fire Department response times for a large section of the City.”
Fox stressed, “In the Fire service, increased response times mean an increase in the likelihood of death, injury and property damage.” In other words, Amicone is increasing the risk of death and/or serious injury to Yonkers families by the foolhardy removal of an essential ladder company supposedly to save money, while, at the same time, giving extraordinary pay raises to 180 of his cronies; raises as high as $20,000 and $30,000 to ‘buddies’ already earning six-figure salaries.
Those who came out Sunday, many carrying signs which read, “Fire Kills: Don’t Cut Yonkers Fire Department,” braved a cold rain and damp, icy conditions to voice their fears and concerns over the latest of the Mayor’s thoughtless miscalculations. Union head Fox told The Guardian, “A fire that burns for more than three minutes gets out of control and can cause loss of life and property.”
Sounding angry and frustrated, he said, “The Mayor says it’s a Union problem. We don’t think so. We believe it’s an administrative problem.” Fox explained, “We worked with him. We took split raises. We negotiated in good faith. Meantime, he gives out raises to 180. That speaks for itself.”
The Union has taken the official position, “The Mayor’s decision to remove Ladder 75 from the Fortfield Avenue Firehouse is a reckless
and ill-thought decision that will jeopardize public safety and result in the unnecessary loss of life.”
We believe that Hugh Fox and his Union members are so very right in their assessment of Amicone’s Draconian approach to the City’s
fire safety. Referring to the Mayor’s, “wildly swinging an axe at the Fire Department’s budget,” the Union asks, “How many lives will be put at risk as a result?”
Sad to say, Amicone’s willingness to risk the safety and well-being of Yonkers citizens with respect to fire emergency is all too consistent
with his approach to systemic Yonkers police brutality; his “public-be-damned” attitude.
The firefighters know only too well that their Union representatives, under President Fox, met with Amicone and members of his staff
over a five-week period in an effort to avoid any significant cuts which would severely limit their ability to fight fires and provide other emergency services. The Union, “provided Mayor Amicone with an alternative plan” which they say, “would have assisted the City of Yonkers in weathering the current economic crisis.” The Union offered to make, “significant financial sacrifices and outlined a number of cost-cutting steps” which could have been taken.
Apparently the Mayor and his advisors believe they know better than the professionals who fight fires every day. They are willing to
play Russian Roulette with the lives of Yonkers families. Clearly, there is something unprincipled and dangerous in the thought processes of a mayor who would remove essential fire protection from hundreds of thousands of City residents in order to give huge pay raises to his cronies. If even one life is lost because of increased response times, will Amicone & Co. be held accountable?
People from all over Yonkers must reject Philip Amicone’s analysis, must call the Mayor’s Office, and their City Council representative,
and make their safety, and their children’s safety, their #1 concern.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Westchester Guardian/Phil Amicone/In Our Opinion/Our Reader Respond.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
In Our Opinion...
Phil Amicone’s Last Concern: Yonkers Families
Phil Amicone has made it abundantly clear that he could care less about the lives and well-being of working-class Yonkers families, the backbone of the City. He has revealed himself in many ways, perhaps most strikingly in the area of public safety. He simply refuses to acknowledge, and deal with, Yonkers Police brutality, an issue underscored 20 years ago in the Murphy-Mayo Investigation and Report, and a continuing issue serious enough to bring about an on-going, two-year FBI investigation.
This newspaper, in September 2006, within six weeks of its inception, published a shocking, front-page story entitled, Mother, 72, Daughter, 49, Charge Yonkers Police Brutality. Within days of that issue, Police Commissioner Taggart suddenly resigned, and the Yonkers chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. held a Speak-Out at the Riverfront Library to which more than 125 citizens came out. Twenty-five of the attendees gave accounts of appalling encounters involving men, women and children with violent, brutalizing Yonkers police officers. The incidents continue unabated despite ongoing coverage.
Within weeks of Taggart’s resignation, before Christmas, Mayor Amicone hired former NYPD 46th Precinct Commander Edmund Hartnett as the city’s new Police Commissioner. It quickly became apparent that Hartnett was as determined as the Mayor to deny the Department’s brutality problem, and maintain the status quo. In simple language, Amicone and his appointee continue to pursue a Public-Be-Damned strategy. And, what has made matters worse, is the fact that they continue to be aided in their clearly criminal conduct by District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who not only refuses to investigate and prosecute rogue Yonkers cops, but, instead, goes after the innocent victims of their brutality, as in the Marquez and Florim cases.
Given Amicone’s failure to respond on behalf of working families and their mistreatment at the hands of violent police, his most recent betrayal of his sworn duty comes as no real surprise; the decision to lay off 76 City employees, including 46 Department of Public Works employees, 11 police officers, and 6 fire-fighters while, at the same time, giving generous raises to some 180 of his closest assistants and cronies, some as much as $30,000, others $15- to $20,000, many more $9500, to the tune of $1.1 million.
Of those receiving the raises, many do little, if any, work at all. It must not be forgotten that Amicone publicly adopted nearly all of Nick Spano’s 30 employees when Spano lost his State Senate seat to Andrea Stewart-Cousins for the second time, in 2006, in exchange for Nicky’s endorsement. That mass adoption has been costing the City $1.2 million a year.
The impact of the present layoffs on the quality of life within the City is incalculable, and unhealthy, the lion’s share coming in sanitation and public health venues, garbage, bulk waste, and compostable material pickups to be severely cut back and/or totally eliminated.
For a Mayor to be putting the breadwinners of some 76 families out of work, especially at Christmas, is cruel enough but, to be putting all those individuals out in the cold while, at the same time, lavishing his cronies with huge pay raises, is totally unforgiveable.
Our Readers Respond....
Guardian Reader From Manhattan Airs Pet Peeves
Dear Editor:
Why should we, the citizens of New York City and New York State pay for the mistakes of our accidental incompetent Governor and the arrogant Mayor Bloomberg and the Leadership of the MTA as well as the lousy political hacks in the New York City Council and State Senate and New York State Assembly?
Governor Corzine, you who, like Mayor Bloomberg, bought your position for your ego and to enrich your friends and family and businesses, listen and listen well. Lower your taxes and eliminate others since I am telling all New York citizens to start doing business outside of New York and if you have to do business in New York refuse to pay the higher tolls/fares and additional new taxes so these folks who caused this mess can give more to their friends etc..
It amazes me that folks like Paterson will not cut back his staff and/or his salary and perks and will actually increase spending, but he is most outraged over a very funny Saturday Night Live piece on him! Paterson is more concerned about filling quotas than competence!
How is this for an idea: All the big shots in local and state government in New York State, including Andy Spano, the crooked County Executive of Westchester, and the Heads of the MTA, cut back on their benefits/ perks and take a lower salary before we are forced to endure higher taxes and new taxes and fees which are never spent wisely in any case!
To the federal government: No bailout of high-taxed, wasteful spending; New York and to the MTA: There is no way that the federal/state and local governments, and the taxpayers, should pay for your total and complete mismanagement of the transit system. In fact, all of the folks at the MTA, from the chairmen on down, should be forced out and we, the taxpayers, should refuse to pay any increases whatsoever, and do our shopping in New Jersey. If we can do that we can teach these crooks that they will not get any more money from us!
One last thing, where is Bloomberg’s, and Paterson’s, or even Obama’s outrage at Rep. Meeks and/or Rep. Rangel’s misuses and abuse of office? If they were white conservatives you would hear from them, I bet!
Leonard P. Daniels,
New York City
Faithful Reader Grapples With The New Rules of “Marriage”
Dear Editor:
How about people who, like me, oppose same-sex marriage coming up with a new name for, and distinctive ways of entering, the male-female union that marriage used to be? Ideally, the male-female union should be called “marriage”, and contracts that can include same-sex couples should be called other words. But I and those who share my view have lost. We can still refuse not to distinguish what “marriage”, “wedding”, “bride”, “groom”, “spouse”, “husband”, and “wife” used to mean from what they inevitably will mean. How? By devising new words for the old meanings.
The male-female union must be considered inferior to “marriage” in the eyes of both the law and “liberal” and “moderate” religions. Otherwise, same-sex couples will be allowed into it too. But it would be considered superior to “marriage” by me and those who share my views.
Possible ways of forming male-female unions include, with or without “wedding” clothes, “wedding” rituals, rings, and parties:
1. A man and a woman signing contracts and, if desired, last-name change applications in front of a witness;
2. A religious ceremony for “marriage” omitting the parts that give the union legal standing;
3. Both 1 and 2, simultaneously, or close in time.
Qualifications for 1’s witness and 2’s clergy-person should include refusal to of-ficiate same-sex “marriages”. Once same-sex “marriage” hits their state, they may refuse to officiate at any legal “marriage”.
Entering a male-female union should require a different certification than a legal “marriage” license. At least initially, each officiating individual
might have his/her own certification requirements.
But these requirements must not include “proof of heterosexuality”. In fact, the male-female union should allow couples who may soon be barred
from entering or, perhaps, even staying in legal inter-gender “marriage”. These include people whose appearance, movements, and/or biological features have been declared “gay”.
A different-gender couple may choose to be in both a male-female union and a “marriage” simultaneously. However, entering or leaving one
would not automatically mean entering or leaving the other. Entering each, at least after same-sex marriage hits their state, should require a separate process/ ceremony.
Will couples in only male-female unions not qualify for the tax, insurance, etc. benefits that come with “marriage”? If so, how about me and
like-minded people forming a fund to compensate such couples? Different-sex couples who already married before same-sex “marriage”
hit their state should be able to upgrade their marriage to a male-female union with a 1-3 minute free process. Whether they want to stay legally “married” would be up to them.
The one officiating a male-female union may state a personal intention to consider the couple “as good as married” and any resulting children “as
good as legitimate”.
What about this transition phase, where in some states marriage still is a male-female union? In those states, of-ficials who share my views could perform all three of the following: inter-gender marriages, male-female unions, and both simultaneously for the same couple. What about couples who want to marry legally in a state where marriage is still only for opposite genders? They should arrange for the ceremony in at least three states, lest same-sex “marriage” hit their first choices without well-publicized warning before the ceremony. With the legal portion’s location
uncertain, the reception/party may be held in a different location and scheduled for a day or so later. Most-guests would probably come to only either one or the other.
To people who, like me, believe marriage should be for only a man and a woman: We don’t love the traditional words’ new definition; let’s leave them. We can’t stand the new heat; let’s get out of the kitchen.
Jeanette Wolfberg
Mt. Kisco
In Our Opinion...
Phil Amicone’s Last Concern: Yonkers Families
Phil Amicone has made it abundantly clear that he could care less about the lives and well-being of working-class Yonkers families, the backbone of the City. He has revealed himself in many ways, perhaps most strikingly in the area of public safety. He simply refuses to acknowledge, and deal with, Yonkers Police brutality, an issue underscored 20 years ago in the Murphy-Mayo Investigation and Report, and a continuing issue serious enough to bring about an on-going, two-year FBI investigation.
This newspaper, in September 2006, within six weeks of its inception, published a shocking, front-page story entitled, Mother, 72, Daughter, 49, Charge Yonkers Police Brutality. Within days of that issue, Police Commissioner Taggart suddenly resigned, and the Yonkers chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. held a Speak-Out at the Riverfront Library to which more than 125 citizens came out. Twenty-five of the attendees gave accounts of appalling encounters involving men, women and children with violent, brutalizing Yonkers police officers. The incidents continue unabated despite ongoing coverage.
Within weeks of Taggart’s resignation, before Christmas, Mayor Amicone hired former NYPD 46th Precinct Commander Edmund Hartnett as the city’s new Police Commissioner. It quickly became apparent that Hartnett was as determined as the Mayor to deny the Department’s brutality problem, and maintain the status quo. In simple language, Amicone and his appointee continue to pursue a Public-Be-Damned strategy. And, what has made matters worse, is the fact that they continue to be aided in their clearly criminal conduct by District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who not only refuses to investigate and prosecute rogue Yonkers cops, but, instead, goes after the innocent victims of their brutality, as in the Marquez and Florim cases.
Given Amicone’s failure to respond on behalf of working families and their mistreatment at the hands of violent police, his most recent betrayal of his sworn duty comes as no real surprise; the decision to lay off 76 City employees, including 46 Department of Public Works employees, 11 police officers, and 6 fire-fighters while, at the same time, giving generous raises to some 180 of his closest assistants and cronies, some as much as $30,000, others $15- to $20,000, many more $9500, to the tune of $1.1 million.
Of those receiving the raises, many do little, if any, work at all. It must not be forgotten that Amicone publicly adopted nearly all of Nick Spano’s 30 employees when Spano lost his State Senate seat to Andrea Stewart-Cousins for the second time, in 2006, in exchange for Nicky’s endorsement. That mass adoption has been costing the City $1.2 million a year.
The impact of the present layoffs on the quality of life within the City is incalculable, and unhealthy, the lion’s share coming in sanitation and public health venues, garbage, bulk waste, and compostable material pickups to be severely cut back and/or totally eliminated.
For a Mayor to be putting the breadwinners of some 76 families out of work, especially at Christmas, is cruel enough but, to be putting all those individuals out in the cold while, at the same time, lavishing his cronies with huge pay raises, is totally unforgiveable.
Our Readers Respond....
Guardian Reader From Manhattan Airs Pet Peeves
Dear Editor:
Why should we, the citizens of New York City and New York State pay for the mistakes of our accidental incompetent Governor and the arrogant Mayor Bloomberg and the Leadership of the MTA as well as the lousy political hacks in the New York City Council and State Senate and New York State Assembly?
Governor Corzine, you who, like Mayor Bloomberg, bought your position for your ego and to enrich your friends and family and businesses, listen and listen well. Lower your taxes and eliminate others since I am telling all New York citizens to start doing business outside of New York and if you have to do business in New York refuse to pay the higher tolls/fares and additional new taxes so these folks who caused this mess can give more to their friends etc..
It amazes me that folks like Paterson will not cut back his staff and/or his salary and perks and will actually increase spending, but he is most outraged over a very funny Saturday Night Live piece on him! Paterson is more concerned about filling quotas than competence!
How is this for an idea: All the big shots in local and state government in New York State, including Andy Spano, the crooked County Executive of Westchester, and the Heads of the MTA, cut back on their benefits/ perks and take a lower salary before we are forced to endure higher taxes and new taxes and fees which are never spent wisely in any case!
To the federal government: No bailout of high-taxed, wasteful spending; New York and to the MTA: There is no way that the federal/state and local governments, and the taxpayers, should pay for your total and complete mismanagement of the transit system. In fact, all of the folks at the MTA, from the chairmen on down, should be forced out and we, the taxpayers, should refuse to pay any increases whatsoever, and do our shopping in New Jersey. If we can do that we can teach these crooks that they will not get any more money from us!
One last thing, where is Bloomberg’s, and Paterson’s, or even Obama’s outrage at Rep. Meeks and/or Rep. Rangel’s misuses and abuse of office? If they were white conservatives you would hear from them, I bet!
Leonard P. Daniels,
New York City
Faithful Reader Grapples With The New Rules of “Marriage”
Dear Editor:
How about people who, like me, oppose same-sex marriage coming up with a new name for, and distinctive ways of entering, the male-female union that marriage used to be? Ideally, the male-female union should be called “marriage”, and contracts that can include same-sex couples should be called other words. But I and those who share my view have lost. We can still refuse not to distinguish what “marriage”, “wedding”, “bride”, “groom”, “spouse”, “husband”, and “wife” used to mean from what they inevitably will mean. How? By devising new words for the old meanings.
The male-female union must be considered inferior to “marriage” in the eyes of both the law and “liberal” and “moderate” religions. Otherwise, same-sex couples will be allowed into it too. But it would be considered superior to “marriage” by me and those who share my views.
Possible ways of forming male-female unions include, with or without “wedding” clothes, “wedding” rituals, rings, and parties:
1. A man and a woman signing contracts and, if desired, last-name change applications in front of a witness;
2. A religious ceremony for “marriage” omitting the parts that give the union legal standing;
3. Both 1 and 2, simultaneously, or close in time.
Qualifications for 1’s witness and 2’s clergy-person should include refusal to of-ficiate same-sex “marriages”. Once same-sex “marriage” hits their state, they may refuse to officiate at any legal “marriage”.
Entering a male-female union should require a different certification than a legal “marriage” license. At least initially, each officiating individual
might have his/her own certification requirements.
But these requirements must not include “proof of heterosexuality”. In fact, the male-female union should allow couples who may soon be barred
from entering or, perhaps, even staying in legal inter-gender “marriage”. These include people whose appearance, movements, and/or biological features have been declared “gay”.
A different-gender couple may choose to be in both a male-female union and a “marriage” simultaneously. However, entering or leaving one
would not automatically mean entering or leaving the other. Entering each, at least after same-sex marriage hits their state, should require a separate process/ ceremony.
Will couples in only male-female unions not qualify for the tax, insurance, etc. benefits that come with “marriage”? If so, how about me and
like-minded people forming a fund to compensate such couples? Different-sex couples who already married before same-sex “marriage”
hit their state should be able to upgrade their marriage to a male-female union with a 1-3 minute free process. Whether they want to stay legally “married” would be up to them.
The one officiating a male-female union may state a personal intention to consider the couple “as good as married” and any resulting children “as
good as legitimate”.
What about this transition phase, where in some states marriage still is a male-female union? In those states, of-ficials who share my views could perform all three of the following: inter-gender marriages, male-female unions, and both simultaneously for the same couple. What about couples who want to marry legally in a state where marriage is still only for opposite genders? They should arrange for the ceremony in at least three states, lest same-sex “marriage” hit their first choices without well-publicized warning before the ceremony. With the legal portion’s location
uncertain, the reception/party may be held in a different location and scheduled for a day or so later. Most-guests would probably come to only either one or the other.
To people who, like me, believe marriage should be for only a man and a woman: We don’t love the traditional words’ new definition; let’s leave them. We can’t stand the new heat; let’s get out of the kitchen.
Jeanette Wolfberg
Mt. Kisco
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
