The North Haven Way

Small increase in Grand List

2012-02-27T08:55:00.000-05:00

The New Haven Register is reporting today that North Haven's Grand List has grown by about $15 Million. Mike downplayed the increase by saying that after the tax appeals process, it's grown by about $84,000. That's some tax appeal process!

Anyway, the way I look at it, is at least it's an increase. It's good to see that the development on Universal Dr is doing something good for the town in terms of tax revenue. Obviously the more development that occurs in this area, the more money coming into the town.

As Mike has stated before, he intends on holding the line on taxes. It looks like that might be a real possibility now.

What's Their Problem With Romney?

2012-02-26T17:37:00.000-05:00

by Ann Coulter

As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn't do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.

Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.)

Romney's approach to illegal immigration in Massachusetts resembled what Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is doing today, making her a right-wing heroine.

Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.

Unlike actual Establishment candidates, Romney has never worked in Washington, much less spent his entire life as a professional politician. He's had a Midas touch with every enterprise he has ever run, including Bain Capital, the Olympics and Massachusetts.

The chestnut about Mitt Romney being pushed on unsuspecting conservatives by "the Establishment" is the exact opposite of the truth. The Establishment, by any sensible definition, is virulently opposed to Romney -- and for completely contradictory reasons.

The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate Romney because he is the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama.

Meanwhile, many of the pillars of the conservative establishment also implacably oppose Romney. Fox News is neutral, but its second-highest-rated host, Sean Hannity, is unenthusiastic about Romney, as is prominent Fox News contributor Sarah Palin, who has told Fox viewers she'd vote for Gingrich -- who has also offered herself up as a possible presidential nominee at a contested convention. (Wouldn't a former candidate for vice president on a major party's ticket be part of the Establishment?)

The No. 1 conservative talk-radio host in America, Rush Limbaugh, is critical of Romney, and another top conservative talk-radio host, Mark Levin, is adamantly against Romney -- though both Limbaugh and Levin supported Romney as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, and Romney has only gotten better since then.

Purely to hurt Romney, the Iowa Republican Party fiddled with the vote tally to take Romney's victory away from him and give it to Rick Santorum -- even though the "official count" was missing eight precincts. Isn't the party apparatus of a state considered part of the Establishment?

I'm not sure what part of the Establishment supports Romney. Is it Romney supporter Christine O'Donnell, erstwhile tea party candidate for the U.S. Senate from Delaware? Am I the face of the Establishment? (If so, the country is going to be just fine.)

I would think that the pristine example of the Republican Establishment is Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor Bill Kristol. But he wants anybody but Romney, even proposing that we choose someone not running by means of a contested convention.

Who are we trying to get nominated in a contested convention, anyway?

Without having seen this mystery candidate in action, how do we know he won't be another Rick Perry? You'll recall that Perry was the dream candidate until we saw him talk.

In 2008, Romney was enthusiastically supported not only by Limbaugh and Levin, but also by Sean Hannity, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage and many others who now seem to view Romney as a closet liberal. This is especially baffling because there is no liberal candidate in the Republican primary this year.

Just four years ago, one Republican candidate for president was avowedly pro-abortion (Rudy Giuliani). One had opposed Clinton's impeachment and tort reform (Fred Thompson). One supported amnesty for illegals, restrictions on core First Amendment speech, federal laws to combat nonexistent global warming, and opposed Guantanamo and the Bush tax cuts ("tax cuts for the rich!") and called waterboarding "torture."

That last one was our nominee: John McCain.

This year, every Republican candidate for president opposes abortion, promises to repeal Obamacare, opposes raising taxes, and on and on. Only one candidate is strong on illegal immigration, which is second only to repealing Obamacare as the most important issue facing the nation.

That's the alleged liberal, Mitt Romney.

Conservatives scratch their heads wondering how the NFM can convince millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans paying $3.57 for a gallon of gas that the economy is improving simply by repeatedly saying so.

But then a large minority of those same conservatives are completely convinced that Romney is an Establishment candidate simply because they have heard that repeated so often.

As we say to dunderhead liberals: What we're looking for here is facts, not chants or epithets.

But instead of popping Champagne corks over our final triumph over Rockefeller Republicanism, some conservatives are still fighting old wars, rather like an old cold warrior prattling about the Soviet Union after the rest of us have moved onto the war on terrorism.

This strange new version of right-wing populism comes down to reveling in the feeling that you are being dissed, hoodwinked or manipulated by the Establishment (most of which happens to oppose Romney) the same way liberals want to believe that "the rich," the "right-wing media" and Wall Street Republicans (there are three) are victimizing them.

It's as if scoring points in intra-Republican squabbles is more important than beating Obama. Instead of talking about the candidates' positions -- which would be confusing inasmuch as Romney is the most conservative of the four remaining candidates -- the only issue seems to be whether "They" are showing respect for "Us."

Striking a pose as the only true fighter for real Americans may be fun, but this is no way to win elections. This is Sharron Angle on a national level.

The obsession with sticking it to the Establishment (which includes Christine O'Donnell, but excludes Bill Kristol) by voting for a loose cannon demagogue or a crusading Catholic who can't seem to move the conversation past contraception is as pie-in-the-sky delusional as anything dished by Democrats carrying on about "green jobs."

If saving the environment is the best way to create new jobs, then it could be true that being a hard-core environmentalist nutcase is the best way to appeal to the mass of independent voters.

Similarly, if reducing contraception use, lobbying for Freddie Mac and promoting huge government programs such as moon colonies and No Child Left Behind are the best ways to create jobs, then it could be true that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are our strongest candidates in a general election.

Of course, it might also be true that dousing yourself in fairy dust does not guarantee that you will find the perfect mate and get the perfect job.

We're being asked to hand Obama another four years in the White House in order to "send a message." To whom? And what message? That we're morons? Message received!

Meanwhile, Romney cheerfully campaigns on, the biggest outsider and most conservative candidate we've run for president since Reagan, while being denounced by the Establishment as "too Establishment."

And Now A Word from the Left...The Catholicization of the American Right

2012-02-24T09:37:00.000-05:00

by Howard Schweber

In the past two decades, the American religious Right has become increasingly Catholic. I mean that both literally and metaphorically. Literally, Catholic writers have emerged as intellectual leaders of the religious right in universities, the punditocracy, the press, and the courts, promoting an agenda that at its most theoretical involves a reclamation of the natural law tradition of Thomas Aquinas and at its most practical involves appeals to the kind of common-sense, "everybody knows," or "it just is" arguments that have characterized opposition to same-sex marriage. There is nothing new about Catholic conservative intellectuals -- think John Neuhaus, William F. Buckley, Jr. What is new is the prominence that these Catholic thinkers and leaders have come to have within the domains of American politics that are dominated by evangelical Protestants. Catholic intellectuals have become to the American Right what Jewish intellectuals once were to the American Left. In the academy, on the Court, Catholic intellectuals provide the theoretical discourse that shapes conservative arguments across a whole range of issues. Often these arguments have identifiable Thomistic or Jesuitical sources, but most of the time they enter the mainstream of political dialogue as simply "conservative."

Meanwhile, in the realm of actual politics, Catholic politicians have emerged as leading figures in the religious conservative movement. Again, there is nothing new about Catholic political leaders nor Catholic politicians, although from Al Smith through John Kennedy they were more often Democrats than Republicans (Pat Buchanan is an exception). What is new is the ability of self-identified Catholic politicians to attract broad support from the among the evangelical Protestant religious right.

Rick Santorum is a case in point. Santorum's is a specifically Catholic form of faith. The recent flap over contraception is only an example of a much deeper phenomenon. As observers have noted, he talks frequently about natural law, but rarely quotes the Bible directly -- his arguments draw on a theologically informed view of the nature of the world, not a personal relationship with the text.

Indeed, in the past Santorum has been quite forthright about the fact that he does not look to the Bible for guidance, he relies quite properly on the guidance of the Church. There is obviously nothing wrong with that ... but it sits very curiously with traditional Evangelical Protestant attitudes.

It is important not to overstate the significance of Santorum's success. For all Santorum's recent ascendancy, here is the breakdown of actual Republican votes cast thus far: Romney, 1,121,685; Gingrich, 838,825; Santorum, 431,926; Paul, 307,975. The count of awarded delegates produces a somewhat different result: Romney, 99; Santorum, 47; Gingrich, 32; Paul, 20 (The difference among those numbers reflects what political scientists call "malapportionment.") But two facts remain: one, with 1,144 delegates required for the nomination this thing is nowhere close to a resolution, and will not be even after Arizona, Michigan, and Super Tuesday; and, two, thus far in the Republican primary campaign, a majority of the votes cast have been for Catholic candidates. It's not just Santorum; before him it was Gingrich, after all. At the national level, Catholic politicians have emerged as leading figures in the GOP... and evangelical Protestants are flocking to follow their lead. Why?

The answer is not that evangelicals have become any less Protestant. In a 2011 American Values Survey, 93% of white evangelicals say it is important for a candidate to have strong religious beliefs, versus 69% for Catholics saying the same thing. And 36% of white evangelical voters said they would be uncomfortable voting for a candidate who had strong religious beliefs that were different from their own, up from 29% in 2010, a change that may reflect the effects of a prominent Mormon candidate in the mix. In other words, evangelical voters care a great deal that a candidate's religion accord with their own... and they are supporting Catholic candidates. So what is going on?

To understand what is going on, we need to move from the role of Catholic individuals to a broader, more metaphorical idea of a Catholic style of political reasoning. "Catholic" in this exercise means responding to leadership; focusing on outcomes (think "doctrine of works"); and a Manichean view of the world in which the Church -- as opposed to mere churches -- stands as a bulwark against equally great opposing forces, so that outside the Church there can be only chaos. In this sense a Catholic Republican voter would be someone looking for a commanding general to lead Christian soldiers on a crusade, would care about a candidate's policies rather than his soul, and respond to a call to view the Republican Party as the last bastion of civilisation in a howling wilderness. Extending the metaphor, a "Protestant" conservative should reject the idea of leaders in favour of grass roots communalism; local self-direction in the congregationalist model; care about character and personal values more than specific stances or doctrines; and see the world as a mass of sinners who are to be judged individually by the quality of their soul rather than by their enlistment in one party or the other.

In this metaphorical sense, the "Catholic" political style is strongest among evangelical Protestant voters, not actual Catholics. The eagerness of Catholic bishops to jump into a fight over contraception, for example, does not reflect that attitudes of their parishoners, but it gets strong support from evangelicals. Similarly, in one recent poll more than two-thirds of Catholic voterssupported some sort of legal recognition of gay couples' relationships, with 44% favoring same-sex marriage; in very sharp contrast, an outright majority of evangelical voters said there should be no legal recognition of a same-sex relationship.

In political terms, the evangelical Protestant Right has become Catholicized. They do not see Catholicism as a religion very different from their own because it leads to the same positions on the battlefield, call it Fortress GOP. It is a political worldview that is singularly well suited to negative politics. Who cares whether your guy is actually a bit of a nut-case or has some sleaze in his history if he will defeat the forces of darkness? Liberals tolerate venality in their candidates if they believe they will do good; "Catholic" conservatives tolerate venality if they believe their candidates will defeat evil. (Ironically, all of this has moved the American religious Right in the direction of becoming more and more like a traditional European right-wing political movement, rather than a populist movement in the American Jacksonian tradition.)

In this metaphorical sense, the one person who did the most to push the Catholicization of conservative politics was Newt Gingrich back in the 1990s, long before his personal religious conversion. The most obvious illustration was the infamous GOPAC memorandum entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" that instructed Republican candidates to describe their Democratic opponents using words like "destructive," "sick," "pathetic," "they/them," "betray" and " traitors" (relying on the research of the almost incomprehensibly amoral Frank Lutz). That kind of rhetoric and the scorched earth, anyone-who-is-not-with-must-be-destroyed tactics that go with it has been the defining style of Gingrich's brand of politics ever since. And who Gingrich's man in the Senate in those heady days of unabashed viciousness? Rick Santorum. And not just as an ally -- Santorum was Gingrich's hatchet man, the one who did the "dirty work" as one Republican congressman put it. Or in the words of a Republican staffer at the time, "[Santorum] is a Stepford wife to Gingrich... If you took the key out of his back, I'm not sure his lips would keep moving." (These quotations appear in a 1995 Philadelphia Magazine article -- you can find a link to the pdf file here

Can this carry Santorum to the nomination? Probably not. There are already signs that Santorum is slipping, as the extremity of his religious dogmatism becomes evident to voters, which may eventually force evangelicals to recognize the differences between the tenets of his faith and their own. The fit with Tea Party conservatives is even more tenuous, as that movement is an expression of a deeply "Protestant" brand of politics that sit uneasily with the rhetoric and worldview of "Catholic" conservatism. And Santorum has yet to be called out for his role in the 1990s; if people really want to vote for Gingrich's old pet attack dog, why not simply vote for the owner? With time, Romney's claim to be the only electable candidate (and adult) in the field may regain its traction. Meanwhile, Gingrich is looking ahead to the South, and possibly even as far as Texas and California. It has been a campaign of suddenly arising candidates who flamed out just as quickly, and Santorum shows signs of being the latest in that line -- as I said, even after Super Tuesday there is going to be a long way to go.

There is the potential for deep divisions appearing in the GOP along an axis of "Protestant" versus "Catholic" religious conservatism. But regardless of what happens next, the rise of first Gingrich and now Santorum as the candidate of choice for the Religious Right is a profound sign of how Catholic the American religious right has become.

The Freda Legacy: Already Written?

2012-02-23T17:02:00.000-05:00

Mike Freda's 2nd term is well on it's way. Freda has made it very clear that whatever mistakes in his first two years, will not be repeated during this one.

However has Mike's legacy as First Selectman already been written? So far we've seen three straight budgets with spending increases that results in tax increases. This is in contract to his predecessor who didn't raise taxes at all during her time in office.

But even with the increases in spending, you could argue that Town Hall is more professional and transparent then it ever has before and confidence has never been higher. We haven't seen any new litigation against the town, no grievances filed, so that's a plus as well.

So what is Mike's legacy right now? I'm going to say that his first term was clean up, not just for the McCarty Administration but also the lack of oversight and management from the Kopetz era as well. This term needs to be about growth and management. I think things are moving in the right direction but at some point Mike is going to need to control spending and hold the line of taxes. If he doesn't, the case against him in 2013 will only get better and better.

Arizona GOP Debate: Santorum Slips, Newt Rallies, Romney Benefits

2012-02-23T06:59:00.000-05:00

by Guy Benson

Newt Gingrich won the debate, vindicating his team's "let Newt be Newt" strategy. Gone was the angry, embittered former Speaker. Sneering Newt was repealed and replaced by supportive, "cheerful" Newt -- eager to agree with his opponents when they were right, politely pushing back only when necessary, and tenacious in his determination to steer most discussions into critiques of President Obama. His first crack at John King's contraception question was the best offering of anyone on the subject. On occasion, Gingrich exhibits a special capacity to make conservatives -- even those who may not support him -- stand up and cheer. One such moment came during that response, when he lambasted the media's propensity to ask questions designed to make Republicans look like social extremists. He noted that Barack Obama never once fielded a tough challenge on his shameful opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois (and his subsequent lies) during his litany of 2008 debates. A brilliant point. Newt also delivered the clearest and most forceful answer on the auto bailouts. Not every answer was perfect, of course. At the end of a fairly solid soliloquy on foreign policy, Gingrich said that America's enemies were "secure" under President Obama. The line drew applause, but if he'd made that claim in a general election debate, Obama would have offered a very efffective rejoinder along the lines of, "you'll have to ask Osama Bin Laden about that last statement." I'd also add that promising specific gas prices is a very risky endeavor for any political candidate. Overall, though, a strong night for Newt. Impressive.

Mitt Romney was, as ever, steady and serious throughout the evening; he didn't piece together his finest debate of the cycle, but he did just fine. As expected, he made many appeals to executive leadership, regularly listing his accomplishments in the private sector, his leadership in turning around the 2002 Olympics, and his tenure in the Massachusetts governorship. At times, his answers seemed rote and forced, but they delivered the messages he wanted to convey. His strongest moments came in the first round of responses to the "birth control" controversy, and during the foreign policy segment, when he came across as deeply prepared and presidential. Although he resorted to the lame debt ceiling attack against Rick Santorum, Romney managed to knock his top challenger off balance during the debate's opening round, a scrap from which Santorum never seemed to fully recover. The former governor also missed a big opportunity on the very first question of the night, which was about the national debt. Unlike some of the other candidates -- and certainly unlike Barack Obama -- Romney has a bona fide entitlement reform plan. He should have mentioned it. That being said, he did a decent job of incorporating hisnewly-released tax reform package into an answer or two, winning kudos from Gingrich. One answer that is still bothering me was Romney's response to the challenge that he'd implemented a similar conscience-violating mandate regarding the morning after pill for rape victims in Massachusetts. Romney flatly denied the whole thing, which wasn't entirely truthful (the complicated facts are laid out nicely in this NRO report). All in all, Romney did nothing to disturb his upward trajectory in the Michigan and Arizona polls.

Rick Santorum was tonight's clear loser. Although he offered a few flashes of excellence, Santorum's stumbling illustrated the perils of running for president with decades of Congressional votes hanging around your neck. The former Senator was forced to explain and defend his support for earmarks (Paul and Gingrich did a better job of this), his decision to endorse Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004 (his justification delved into a discussion of the intricacies of Senate Judicial Committee power structures -- which, while plausible, reeked of insiderdom), and most damagingly, No Child Left Behind. Regarding that vote, Santorum essentially shrugged and said he "took one for the team." For a guy who summed himself up with the word "courage," that was a startling weak moment. Rich Lowry summarized Santorum's core problem perfectly: "Rick Santorum’s night was defined by explaining why he voted for things he opposed." That's a very tough sell, and played directly into the Romney camp's "creature of Washington" narrative. Santorum's stall plus Newt's good night equals a happy Romney campaign.

Ron Paul was a devastatingly effective Romney surrogate tonight, pummelling Santorum on his go-along big-government conservatism during the Bush years. Although Romney landed a few big blows (pointing out that Arlen Specter was the 60th vote for Obama was one of them), Paul bloodied Santorum up more than anyone else. He was also less unhinged on foreign policy than usual, stressing that he opposes Iranian nukes -- that's been tough to tell at times -- making a less shrill economic argument against nation building that will appeal to a lot of voters, and underscoring the importance of gaining Congressional approval for war.

A Teachable Moment

2012-02-22T08:49:00.000-05:00

Anthony Federico, the ESPN online editor fired Sunday for a headline about New York Knicks sensation Jeremy Lin, is a 2006 graduate of Providence College.

Federico, who is from North Haven, Conn.,expressed remorse in an interview with the New York Daily News for writing the headline "A Chink in the Armor."

Click here to read rest of article

--------------------------------------------

I think it's unfortunate that Anthony lost his job over this. It was a dumb stupid mistake and Anthony just happened to be working at a place where you can't make dumb stupid mistakes. Some might say that this is an example of "PC Policing", but not for nothing, when you use a derogatory term for Asians in an article about an Asian athlete, it's inexcusable.

The High Priests of Eco-Destruction

2012-02-22T08:35:00.002-05:00

by Michelle Malkin

Rick Santorum is right. Pushing back against Democrats' attempts to frame him as a religious menace, the GOP presidential candidate forcefully turned the tables on the White House: "When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones."

Scrutiny of the White House anti-science brigade couldn't come at a better time (which is why Santorum's detractors prefer to froth at the mouth about comments he made four years ago on the existence of Satan). It's not just big-ticket scandals like the stimulus-subsidized Solyndra bankruptcy or the Keystone pipeline debacle bedeviling America. In every corner of the Obama administration, the radical green machinery is hard at work -- destroying jobs, shredding truth and sacrificing our economic well-being at the altar of environmentalism.

--Take Obama's head of the National Park Service, please. While serving as the Pacific West regional director of the NPS, Jon Jarvis was accused of at least 21 instances of scientific misconduct by Dr. Corey Goodman, a high-ranking member of the National Academy of Sciences. Extensive information about Jarvis' alleged role in cooking data about a California oyster farm's impact on harbor seals at Point Reyes was withheld during the 2009 nomination process. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has ignored complaints and follow-up from both Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sens. James Inhofe and David Vitter.

The National Research Council determined that the NPS had "selectively" slanted its report on the oyster farm. The federal Marine Mammal Commission found that "the data and analyses are not sufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship" between the farm's operations and harbor seal health. In a letter blasting the NPS for bullying the small oyster farm, Feinstein -- normally a reliable eco-ally -- concluded earlier this month that the "crux of the problem is that the Park Service manipulated science while building a case that the business should be shuttered."

Click here to read rest of article

Middle School Issues: How they could have been prevented

2012-02-21T11:01:00.001-05:00

Needless to say the news this week of what the NEASC committee saw when they visited the Middle School is shocking. However for some, it's not surprising.

We've been saying on this blog for year that the issues with the Middle School roof need to be addressed sooner than later. However these issues have been ignored by the Kopetz, McCarty and Freda administration. Sure minor patch ups have been done but they have been proven useless and possibly creating more issues than eliminating them.

This also brings to light the misappropriating of funds the BOE has been practicing for years. For too long the philiosophy of this BOE has been to pay high salaries to administrators than to facility repairs and upkeep. They have the nerve to not budget properly and then blame the town for lack of funding. Learn how to spend it first, then come to the taxpayer

I was concerned this past fall that funds from the capital project plan should be used to fix the middle school, however a new public works garage was more apparently important.

I can only hope that this now puts an improvement plan on the front burner and not wait 5 years for it to complete.

Why “Progressives” and not “Liberals”?

2012-02-19T12:26:00.002-05:00

by Derek Hunter

I’ve been contacted by many readers asking why I use the word “progressive” instead of “liberal.” I figured I’d write a little bit about why this week…

The Change

Remember when Democrats used to call themselves liberals? Then conservatives showed the world what liberals really were, and no one wanted to call themselves that anymore.

Now, they call themselves progressives again – as they did in the early 20th century until their racist/fascist agenda was rejected and they went into hiding under the word liberal. (To you progressives outraged by this truth, read Jonah Goldberg’s masterful book Liberal Fascism and open your eyes to your eugenics-loving, racist roots.)

Their name has changed, but their objectives have not. They want an all-powerful federal government with the individual subjected to its will and whims.

Naturally, they support such a thing only when there is a progressive in charge and will scream bloody murder when a non-progressive dare exercise power of any sort. For an example of this, see the Bush years.

Remember the Bush years … when the president went to Congress and got approval for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq? Ever wonder, then, where the anti-war movement went, and why, after Obama’s surge in Afghanistan and bombing of Libya, there wasn’t a massive rally on the National Mall?

Did those fervent anti-war protesters suddenly decided to “give war a chance”? And where is former MSNBC staple Cindy Sheehan now? Or Code Pink? When was the last time you saw them on TV? We’re still at war; only nobody is protesting it anymore.

That’s because it never was about war. It was about damaging a political opponent. Their guy is running things now. And he’s in trouble.

After failing miserably to have any positive impact on the economy – and spending trillions to do it – the 2010 election happened and Republicans swept the House. The Tea Party exists, and it is spreading the word about the virtues of smaller government and warning about overspending. The only things that terrify progressives more than those ideas are black conservatives and women carrying babies until they’re born.

How Far Will They Go?

One thing progressives won’t do is allow anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to stand in the way of their agenda.

Be it the grandmother who loved and raised President Barack Obama after his degenerate mother abandoned him only to be reduced to a racist, a “typical white person” when it became politically advantageous to distract from Jeremiah Wright … or the entire feminist movement when Bill Clinton was charged with sexual harassment (and assault … and rape), nothing is sacred beyond the agenda.

Add to that list the Occupy Wall Street rape victims.

On Monday’s Countdown on Current TV, former MSNBC talking head Keith Olbermann and Daily Kosfounder Markos Moulitsas joked about the numerous, documented charges of sexual assault and rape at various “Occupy Wall Street” encampments around the country, denying they’d happened. Twitter exploded with outrage.

There was a time when “the seriousness of the charge” was all that mattered when it came to sexual assault/harassment, but that was when conservatives (Clarence Thomas) were the ones being charged. Since progressives make their living through hypocrisy, that standard went out the window under President Clinton and was changed to “drag a $100 bill through a trailer park” and see what you get.

Soon after dismissing rape of “Occupiers” by other “Occupiers,” Olbermann replied to a tweet fromWashington Times columnist Henry D’Andrea’s tweet demanding a retraction and apology with, “No Occupy rapes, no cover-up, no apology, no retraction, and credibility for your Moonie-owned “newspaper.”

Setting aside the unprovoked religious bigotry from the “tolerant” Olbermann, that’s a flat-out denial that there were any rapes of Occupy women. That’s Keith saying the many, many women who filed rape and/or sexual assault charges with the police are lying. Here’s the bus, Occupy ladies, get ready to slide under it.

Probably realizing he’d stepped in it, Olbermann, who holds the Orwellian title of “Chief News Officer” at Current, then went on to accuse Andrew Breitbart of concocting the charges. When presented with a detailed list of criminal activity at “Occupy” camps, Olbermann changed his tune again to, “Looking at the (Breitbart) ‘Occupy Assault List’ I notice VICTIMS were in Occupy, not the assailants. Why are you blaming the victims?”

This, of course, is a flat-out lie. Olbermann knows it, but he doesn’t care. Those women and men who were raped and/or sexually assaulted at “Occupy” camps, those victimized by “Occupiers” and those now, stand in the way of the progressive agenda. As such, they were told by Keith to shut up and “take one for the team.”

Olbermann than went on several Twitter tirades against Breitbart in the hope of distracting from his own stupidity. He knows the rules. He knows there’s a bus out there with his name on it should enough progressives decide he hurts the cause more than he helps it.

Breitbart has the truth on his side, but truth is of little use to Olbermann and his fellow progressives. And neither are rape victims.

Keith continues to obsess over Andrew Breitbart like he was Rebecca Lobo, desperate to avoid that bus. He’s willing to do whatever he must to avoid the fate he willfully imposed on those women who did nothing beyond showing up to a protest progressives told them was good and pure. This is how progressives work.

You Are Being Lied To

I’d call progressives’ history of lies and distortions fascist tactics and remind everyone of how progressives in this country loved and were fascists in the 1930s. But there’s no need (again, see Jonah’s book). Not because they’re not, but because we all know the sun rises in the east.

That paragraph would not have been necessary at all if we had an honest media and education system. We don’t because that famous “liberal bias” everyone knows and loves is, at its core, a progressive bias. (For the most complete takedown of how the Progressive Industrial Complex works, please watch this video. Then share it on Facebook, Twitter and everywhere you can. People need to be shown how lies are spread so they can learn to spot them.)

Progressives in education, the media, unions and politics always will walk in lockstep with each other, destroying any and all who stand in their way (even their own), until they reach their desired goal. It’s not that they’re incapable of learning the mistakes of history, they’re counting on them. What else explains the president’s rush to spend this country into Greece? A desire to save the people who’ve always wanted to see Greece but couldn’t afford the trip?

The political Left destroyed the greatness of Europe and it wants to take down the United States next.

If liberals are allowed to rebrand themselves as progressives, shedding the baggage and animosity “liberal” has so rightly earned, liberty is more threatened. I still use the word liberal every now and then. I use them interchangeably. They are, after all, the same thing. But people need to be aware of that. Polls have shown “liberal” is unpopular, but people don’t feel the same way toward “progressive.” That has to be changed.

Every time leftists, regardless of what they call themselves, are exposed for what they really are, Americans reject them. Sometimes slower than others, but always. That’s why Barack Obama ran on “Hope and Change,” not “I’ll waste trillions and break us while slipping payoffs to my donors, raping your liberty…” etc., etc.

People are busy. They don’t have time to follow politics the way those of us who make our living doing it can. Nor should they. If we had an honest media, no one would have to. If we had an honest education system, no one would have to. If we had an honest government that adhered to the Constitution… You get the idea.

So that’s just a small snippet of why I use the word “progressive” instead of “liberal.” And why I think it’s important that you start too.

Also, don’t forget progressives are not just of one political party. You can’t pick them out by the stench of Zuccotti Park emanating off them like stink-lines in a comic strip. In 2008, John McCain couldn’t tell the world enough that he was a progressive. His idiot daughter likes to do the same thing. It’s a philosophy, not a party.

Answers to Steve Fontana questions....not answered by Steve Fontana

2012-02-17T16:41:00.002-05:00

Somebody asked me the other day about why I haven't gone after Steve as much as I said I would. The reason why I haven't unleashed the fury yet, is because Steve has yet to capture the nomination of his own party. So why would I unload everything I have when it will make little difference. No, I'm going to wait until Steve gets the nomination and when it can really make an impact. So just wait.

But in the meantime, even though Steve isn't man enough to respond to your questions, they still deserve to be answered. Many of you asked some great questions. So I decided to answer them as if you were asking me, not answering as if I was Steve. Now his campaign team, yes I know it was you, accused that this was a trap for Steve. So judging from the questions I was going to ask him, I'll leave that up to you.

Why are you running for State Senator and not State Representative? Do you feel that you can accomplish more as a State Senator rather than as a State Representative?

Steve is a career politician. He needs to be involved in politics. After he lost in 2010, he tried to position himself to be named Insurance Commissioner, but since he wasn't exactly Malloy's biggest fan, there was no shot of that happening. He then tried to continue as Vice Chair of the state party, didn't happen either. If Steve wants to continue in politics, and not have to move, this is his only option. There wasn't a realistic chance he could beat Dave so why not try to challenge Len? State Senators definitely have bigger bats to swing in Hartford, and Steve knows this. If elected, Steve will be able support liberal legislation and have more influence to support his own agenda.

The State is facing a growing deficit. What specific cuts would you make to the state budget to balance the budget?

Cut? That word isn't in Steve's vocabulary. At least not the one he used during his 14 years in office. So I don't expect him to do a 180 and want to become fiscally conservative. No, what Steve would probably suggest is that raising taxes on the rich and businesses in this state is the only way to balance the budget. Never mind the fact that CT is the most taxed state in the country and that Steve voted in favor of some of the largest tax increases in the states history. But Steve would also support the Governor's decision to cut commissions, you know, 25 out of the over 300 state has.

What is your response to those who criticize your support of and vote for deregulation of the electric companies in the 1990s?

This was one of Steve's champion causes and it will certainly come back to haunt him now. The deregulation of the electric companies was supposed to decrease rates for consumers. However by the time 2007 came around, CL&P had raised their rates by 22% and UI by 50%. Now I would expect that Steve might try to defend his vote by saying that unforseen events hurt deregulation, such as the war in oil-rich Iraq, the huge increase in energy demand from China and India and the devastation from Hurricane Katrina, which knocked out key refineries along the Gulf Coast. But what he should do is admit that it was a mistake and that they basically were conned by lobbyists for the bill.

What they should do is reopen the deregulation bill to create a true open system, encourage competition in the market place so consumers have choices of suppliers. But like I said, that would mean Steve would have to admit he made a mistake, which is doesn't do often.

As State Senator, do you think that you could work well with Dave Yaccarino?

I wouldn't expect that Steve would treat Dave as an enemy. I would expect that he would work with Dave on mutal projects for the town but that would be as far as their partnership would go.

You served as House Chair of the Insurance Committee and were a key backer of the SUSTINET health coverage that would have cost the taxpaying middle class alot in premiums. Governor Malloy shut Sustinet down immediately on taking office. Can you explain your rationale on SUSTINET?

This was Steve's Billion Dollar Baby. It had so many loopholes and issues that it didn't surprise me when Malloy shut it down.

Seeing as how both you AND Mr. Fasano were endorsed by the Working Families Party, which one of you do you suppose they will throw their support to in THIS race?

This group tends to lean Democrat so I would expect Steve to get their nomination. This group has given their nomination to Len without him ever publicly seeking it, so I don't think it's going to bother him one bit.

Who are politicians you admire on the local, State, and national levels?

I would be surprised if he named any Republicans on this list.

What plans/policies would you propose to bring economic improvements to North Haven?

Since Steve did very little to help in this area while he was in office, I don't expect much from him if he was elected again. Also keep in mind that he has other towns in his district, so don't expect North Haven to be his top priority.

A Message From Mike Freda

2012-02-17T14:29:00.002-05:00

An anonymous and uninformed commenter, left a post up and it apparently got Mike's attention. So Mike has decided to respond with facts which this anonymous poster doesn't have. Here is the post:

Anonymous said "Mike Freda: Yale Project up for a 2nd try"?

If it's up for a second try how could Freda claim they had already broken ground there over a month ago?

Could you have Freda explain this to us as there's lots of confusion with what's been said and accomplished with the Yale Medical project, so far.

We got the impression from Freda it was approved for the second time by the State with Freda breaking ground there and now we get the impression Yale Medical hasn't been approved by the State, yet? What has been done so far with the property, if it hasn't been approved? What could be done?

Here is Mikes response:

Chris,

It was pointed out to me today that there is a question on your blog about today's announcement regarding Yale New Haven Hospital. Apparently, there is some confusion over my announcement yesterday because we have previously stated that we have already broken ground there.

I wanted to send you this e-mail to explain this once again. I have stated on many occasions that there are TWO separate projects that we are working on at that site. One is Yale New Haven Hospital and the other major project is a total of 54,000 square feet of medical offices that will be built out over three new buildings off of State and Devine streets. We have been working on this project with another developer.

This is what we have broken ground on, the first phase of that development and that is a totally independent project from what we are working on with Yale New Haven Hospital. We have a group of cardiologists who are coming into the first building that we have broken ground on. My goal is to eventually ensure that these two separate projects, Yale New Haven Hospital and the 54,000 square foot medical building project, are interconnected from a patient and medical services standpoint.

The Yale New Haven Hospital initiative is taking shape and we are going to have something very exciting happening there that we will be announcing very soon in great detail.

Once again, these are two separate projects taking place and that is why announced that we have broken ground on one of the projects. I hope that this clears up any confusion. If any of your readers have any questions, they can certainly call me directly at town hall.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Freda
First Selectman

------------------------------------------

It doesn't get much clearer than this.

Mike Freda: Yale Project up for a 2nd try

2012-02-17T08:16:00.002-05:00

From The New Haven Register

The plan to make Devine Street a medical epicenter continues, according to First Selectman Michael J. Freda, who said that Yale-New Haven Hospital intends to revive its plan for a facility here.

Freda made the announcement Thursday during his state of the town address before 120 business people and town employees who attended the Quinnipiac Chamber of Commerce event at Fantasia banquet hall.

Freda categorized economic development projects as successes, challenges and works in progress, with the Yale proposal being in the latter category.

“We will be moving forward with the Yale-New Haven Hospital project. In the next two weeks, we’ll see more details,” said Freda.

The Yale project would join a medical office building that’s already being built and one that is being discussed, Freda said.

Click here to read rest of article

Obama's Anti-Constitutional Pattern

2012-02-15T14:31:00.002-05:00

by Laura Hollis

The firestorm of controversy over the January 20th HHS mandate requiring Catholic and other religious organizations to pay for contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs for their employees shows no sign of abating. This is notwithstanding the Obama administration's "accommodation," announced last Friday, that will permit insurance companies topass the cost of contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs along to Catholic and other religious employers - as long as they do so surreptitiously, of course.

Catholics bishops and countless others have characterized this regulation as direct government interference with the free exercise of religion and thus unconstitutional. In this, they are correct.

Where many critics and commentators lapse, however, is in viewing this recent power grab by Obama as an aberration, a surprise, or a betrayal. It is no such thing.

It is not merely that Obama is disdainful of religious faith - though he clearly is, save when he can appeal to it as a call for higher taxes. He is not singling out Catholics, or Christians generally, or even the First Amendment. It is that he has no respect for any of the rights in the U.S. Constitution. Or, to put it more specifically, he has no respect for the structure of the United States Constitution, nor any intention of acknowledging the limits to government deliberately drafted into it; limits that are a function of the rights the Constitution expressly identifies as inherent in human beings generally and vested (at least by virtue of this document) in American citizens in particular.

Obama has made this clear from his earliest forays into public office. I warned of this in 2008, before he won the presidential election, but perhaps with three-plus years’ worth of hindsight, it is worth reviewing. In a Chicago public radio interview in 2001, then-Illinois State Senator Obama expressed his discontent with the limits of the Constitution, complaining that is only “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” He went further, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren was not “that radical” because it “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…” and expressing his opinion that neither “redistribution of wealth” nor “major redistributive change” was likely to come through the court system; leaving only the option of legislation, or administrative fiat.

Thus it should come as no surprise that he treats the rights enshrined in the First Amendment as inconveniences to be dispensed with when they conflict with one of his deeply-desired policy objectives.

And if we were speculating in 2008, in 2012 we now know that that is, indeed, the way he views things. The New York Times reported last week that, with respect to the HHS mandate, "In the end, it was Mr. Obama himself who made the decision … calculating that at the end of the day, the issue of public health access outweighed the concerns of the religious institutions."

This is a statement that is both telling and breathtaking in its arrogance. The “free exercise” of religion is expressly written into the Constitution. "Public health" is not. No matter.

Freedom of speech is likewise dispensable. In what should be viewed as a chilling precursor of events to come, Catholic chaplains in the U.S. Army were forbidden to read the letter from the Catholic Church's military archbishop in which he criticized the HHS ruling.

These are not isolated instances, nor is the First Amendment the only impediment to the President’s personal objectives. The Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are under congressional investigation for the "Fast and Furious" covert operation whereby arms were deliberately sold to Mexican drug dealers. Memos obtained in late 2011 show ATF's intent to use those same gun sales to support erosion of Second Amendment rights and imposition of more gun control legislation.

On January 4th of this year, President Obama named Richard Cordray to head up his new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and three other individuals to vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board, without U.S. Senate confirmation, and without the Senate being in recess, in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. According to numerous news outlets and sources within the White House, the President declared that he, and not the United States Senate would decide when the Senate was, in fact, in recess.

During the 2009 bailouts of U.S. automakers GM and Chrysler, the President ran roughshod over contract and even bankruptcy law, subordinating the prior contract rights of senior bondholders to unionized employees, in a political payback for the millions of dollars unions had contributed to Obama's presidential campaign. (To make matters worse, and in what we now know is his typical fashion, Obamacastigated those attempting to assert their legal rights as "profiteers.")

And then there is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act itself. Critics raise at least two primary objections. The first is that nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the power to compel American citizens to engage in any commercial transaction, such as buying insurance. Second – and more insidiously – we argue that the Act by its very structure creates incentives and methods for impermissible overreach into what must be the most sacrosanct, private decisions in people’s lives; those which must be free from government coercion.

With the HHS mandate, Obama has handed the opponents of Obamacare one of the best weapons in favor of repeal. No longer are we speculating about what infringements of liberty Obamacare will produce. No longer are we hypothesizing about how Obama’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution will manifest itself. Now we know.

This conflict will not be resolved anytime soon. Many of the Catholics who voted for Obama did so in fidelity to a Catholic tradition of supporting civil rights. Indeed, the President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame, Father Theodore Hesburgh, is often featured in a famous photo, hand-in-hand with Martin Luther King, singing “We Shall Overcome.”

No wonder Catholics were proud, years later, to support America’s first African-American President.

No wonder they are shocked to discover that it is now his policies they must overcome.

Middle School Renovations Necessary, Report Says

2012-02-15T06:31:00.003-05:00

by Ben Lasman , North Haven Patch

Having just voted to approve a $14 million bonding package to renovate four firehouses, repave roadways, and build a new sanitation garage, town residents may balk at the thought of signing off on another major municipal construction project.

But according to the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), the North Haven Middle School is in dire need of repairs and upgrades to, in the words of a report filed by the accreditation agency late last year, "meet the needs of a 21st century middle school."

While commending NHMS in numerous areas, the NEASC identified a series of serious flaws in the building's physical plant.

From the "Community Resources for Student Learning" component of the study:

"The structure itself, beginning with the roof which requires trash buckets strategically placed throughout the building to catch the leaking water to the poorly maintained toilet facilities to the need to bring the wiring infrastructure up to code to accommodate technology, is in poor shape."

Elsewhere, the visiting committee saw instances of poor maintenance, writing

Click here to read rest of article

What Republicans in Congress wish they could say to liberals

2012-02-14T13:47:00.000-05:00

by Ellen Ratner

I recently talked with members of the House Republican Conference after the State of the Union. Being one of the few liberals in the room I asked several Republican members of Congress what they would say to a liberal.

The answers were in the following themes:

Energy:

Congressman Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) asked me how can the president call for energy independence and then turn down the XL Pipeline? He said he would say to the liberals where are they going to pipe the tar sands oil? Where are they going to refine it? If the friendly country of Canada can't pipe the oil through the United States it will be piped across Canada an loaded onto ships for China.

On that note he said that it was important that the Democrats stop make political calculations to do nothing.

Defense:

On Defense Congressman Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) said he wanted liberals to understand that we can't slash the Army by 80,000 troops, the Marine Corps by 20,000 and reduce the Navy to World War I levels.

He wants the liberals to know that we need the troops to fight the pirates in Somalia and that we need to work with the African Union to train their troops. He believes that liberals are naive about the numbers of the military that China has. China is a "challenge not a threat" he said.

However, since they are an authoritarian state they are not going to reveal their capabilities to us.

Debt:

Congressman Scott Tipton (R-Colo.) would like the liberals to know that the choices we make in the next two years will define what kind of country we are.

He said that we all want to feed the hungry but the question is how do we active that goal. He explained the debt crisis to me as follows: "we are 15.3 trillion in debt. If you won $40 million in Powerball, just one trillion of that would be like winning $40 million dollars a year for twenty five thousand years."

Taxes:

Congressman Joe Heck (R-Nev.), a physician is as concerned about taxes as he is about health care. He believes we need a flatter tax and he wants liberals to consider the possibility that everyone should pay into the system.

Congressman Heck want everyone to have some skin in the game and believes we can accomplish things if the rhetoric was toned down.

Congressman Tipton also weighed in on taxes. He would like to lower the tax rate and take away most deductions except for the home mortgage and the charitable deduction. He thinks that that would be fair to all Americans.

Economy:

The most outspoken member I spoke with was Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.). She believes that liberals don't understand economics and that you can't spend more than you take in because you will be bankrupt.

She says the liberals need to know that we have been paying for the wars with borrowed money and that we will not be "saving" money by not paying for the wars.

Her last words were:" Get the facts, and don't be fooled by the Wizard."

My Reactions to Mike's Q&A

2012-02-14T08:47:00.001-05:00

Mike said some things this month that I think deserve some attention. But first of all let me make a point clear. The fact that a First Selectman conducts a monthly Q&A sessions with a blog that criticizes local politics is a priviledge, not a right. There is nothing that says that Mike must do this and I am thankful that he understands the importance and voice that you the readers have. Not all local politicians understand this. With that said, I refuse to select questions that I feel are ridiculous, irrelevant or hurtful in any manner. If you want to ask those sorts of questions, you have every right to make a spectacle of yourself at BOS meetings...that is if Charles Wickline and Raymond Sonnazarro don't hog the mic.

So I'm not going to ask Mike a questions about if he's studied his family geneology, it's a waste of his time and mine. And since I know exactly who asked some of those questions, you know the same person who compared Mike to Hitler, you have little chance of having your questions asked. So in the future, if you want your questions to be selected to be answer by Mike on this blog, then ask thoughtful, insightful and relevant questions.

Anyway, getting to the Q&A session. Mike did reveal some interesting things here so let's take it question by question.

1. While Mike gives a 100% honest answer about how the budget came to be about, he doesn't address the special education issue at all. But from his answer, I can only assume that he endorses it. This is of course a complete turn around from what Mike said at that notorious town meeting last year. Mike called for the same things I did, implement the professional development and improvement steps the reports suggest and then reassign staff as a last measure if all else fails. Well Cronin and the BOE didn't do any of that yet Mike endorses their plan to go ahead and reassign/fire staff. I don't believe this will be the last time Mike will have to speak on this issue.

3. Mike admits fault in overstating progress with the old Qubecor building. As I pointed out earlier, this was a major flaw with his first term in office, big promises, little results. I felt Mike needed to address this and he has at previous BOS meetings. He has said that in the future, he will not report on certain projects until there is concrete progress or results. I do feel the public should know how projects are progressing but not to put too much hope on it until it is completed or at least guaranteed.

4. Mike had some very nice things to say about John Bimonte. We both agree that John's vision was the best for the RTC. I am also glad to hear that Mike will not put in his name for RTC chair. It would be too much on his plate and also might be viewed as having too much influence on the party. We've seen the consequences of that before. I also believe that the RTC Chair needs to be the pillar and textbook Republican which, let's face it, Mike is not.

5. I do feel that Mike needs to make this 5 year improvement plan with Cronin happen in the next year. The Middle School needs these improvements. I felt that they needed them rather then building another public works garage, but this should be on top of Mike's priority list in the next year. If he can lay the groundwork, secure funding and start work before this term is up, I'd call that an accomplishment.

First Selectman Q&A: February Edition

2012-02-13T10:57:00.000-05:00

1. Obviously you've seen what has been going on with Dr. Cronin's plan to reduce the special education staff in the school system. Last year we promised to implement professional development rather than reassign or fire people. It looks like that hasn't happened. Do you support Dr. Cronin's plan?

Because this is such an important issue, I am going to give a very detailed answer here that will cover more than just the asked question.

Dr. Cronin and the Board of Education officially presented this year"s budget to the Board of Finance on Saturday, February 11th. I had also been meeting regularly with Dr. Cronin and Pat Brozek as they were developing the budget. During the budget process, the Board of Education, along with Dr. Cronin and his staff, all have been analyzing the declining enrollment in our school system, they have been reviewing the loss of federal grant money that had funded positions and they also looked at the reallocation of resources before they asked for an increase in this year"s budget.

Part of this year"s budget does include an emphasis on professional development and also an implementation of a special education program at the middle school along with the addition of other new positions. Dr. Cronin and the Board of Education feel that professional development is very important.

The requested increase was originally 2.86 percent, which I accepted. The Board of Education then requested an increase to 3 percent which would bring back another position. I approved that also.

The 3 percent was then presented to the Board of Finance this past Saturday and the Board of Finance will approve that request also. The 3 percent increase, adds almost 1.4M dollars to next fiscal year"s education budget

As far as the detailed breakdown of how the money will be spent, we have accepted the Board of Education"s unanimous and bipartisan endorsement of the budget and have also accepted that Dr. Cronin and his staff feel strongly about the details within the requested increase of 3 percent. The town and the Board of Finance, by state statute, only can authorize the aggregate dollar amount and can not tell the Board of Education how to spend that amount.

We did ask many questions about the details of the budget and the entire board of education, along with the Superintendent and his staff, all feel that their proposed budget is the correct way to proceed.

I can also tell you that the school system, because of the flexibility they have by state law, can certainly make adjustments during the year if they feel that there should be some reallocation of resources that needs to be changed within the budget.

I have stated many times that I do not want the Superintendent and the Board of Education to think that we are automatically going to cut their requested increase and that they should always ask for a higher amount in anticipation of us cutting them back. This government wants a more professional and upfront approach.

They like my approach of being able to have open communication with me because my position has always been, "Tell me what you really need to effectively organize, fund and manage our education system and I will support you."

This administration has never cut back the Board of Education requested increases, and will not do so this year. We have also convinced the Board of Education that if they do not spend all of the money that we allocate, they can certainly give it back at the end of the fiscal year and we will put it in our general fund and will then designate it to be given back to the Education system in the following fiscal year for future needs.

The idea behind this concept is that if there is a Board of Education surplus, we will give it back to the school system next year in an effort to use previously funded tax payer dollars for future tax payers expenses for the education system.

Because of this, the Board of Education has given us money back in each of the last 2 years.

This is unheard of in towns and cities. We then honored our commitment and gave that money back to the board of education in the past two years to spend for capital needs and equipment.

We will support Dr. Cronin"s budget along with the Board of Education"s unanimous endorsement of the budget.

If, in the future, we find that there are areas that are falling behind, then I am sure that Dr. Cronin and the Board of Education will make adjustments within the authorized budget to reallocate dollars to shore up any deficiencies.

2. What are your thoughts on the situation in East Haven with Mayor Maturo's comments? Do you think there is any race issue in North Haven?

The situation is very unfortunate that occurred in East Haven. Mayor Maturo made a mistake that he regrets.

As far as North Haven, I do not think that there is any form of race discrimination here. That would be contrary to my goal of harmonizing our community instead of North Haven being polarized.If there ever is an issue here, then I want to know about it and I will address it in an effort to correct it

3. What is the latest update on the Qubecor property?

We found a buyer for the old Quebecor property and the building last year. The building has been renovated and looks very good. I have been in the building many times and the owner has been great to work with.

Unfortunately, I overestimated the success of putting tenants there during the time when we had many tenants looking at the building.

The owner has tried to negotiate the terms of leasing arrangements with a variety of tenants but the only tenant in there right now is the financial department of the company that owns the building.

I accept the responsibility for overstating the progress and will not make that mistake again.

Both Richard LoPresti our EDC Chairman and I are working very closely with the President of the company that owns the building. We still have many interested companies who are in active discussions about moving in but from this point forward, I will only report the successes and not the work in progress.

That is the valuable lesson that I have learned and I will not repeat that mistake again. I can tell you that there will be definitely be additional tenants in that building but I can not give you an exact time frame.

4. It appears that John Bimonte will not be looking to be the RTC chairman so that he can concentrate on recovering from his cancer treatments. Given the fact that no one else has really put their name forward, will you consider putting your name forward?

I think that John Bimonte is one of the finest young men that I know and I am a huge supporter of John. I would endorse John as the RTC Chairman because we work very well together. I also have the highest respect for John"s opinion and also respect his decision not to be considered for the Chair.

The thought did occur to me to step in as Chairman but the responsibilities of being First Selectman combined with the major projects that I am involved with are my first priority for our citizens.

The RTC also feels the same way that I do regarding the fact that my first responsibility should be in my role as First Selectman which is very time consuming.

I am very fortunate to have such unanimous support from the RTC and I will work with anyone who ends up the be the RTC Chairperson.

5. Other than the Middle School, do you see other town buildings that will need renovations in the future?

The Middle School by far represents the largest issue that we will be faced with in the coming years as a result of the just published report from the NEASC report.

Now that we have a 3 year plan in place to renovate Fire Houses, pave and mill roadways and a grant in place to install an elevator and make town hall ADA compliant, I do not see any other major projects other than what the future plan will be for the middle school.

With that being said, there will always be the general maintenance issues that any town will have to address every year as those issues arise.

Examples of this are the annual maintenance that we do on the pool and the recreation center, and the fact that we have to repair the roof guards on the library roof that were damaged during storm Alfred.

Also, as part of an any ongoing maintenance, any heating issues that may occur in our schools or municipal buildings will certainly need to be addressed as will other maintenance issues that occur during any given year.

I am also working with Dr. Cronin on a 5 year capital plan for the elementary schools that will address the maintenance issues that we see possibly occurring in the next 5 years.

My overall goal is to improve the town"s infrastructure, maintain and enhance our service model where needed, grow the grand list and hold the line on taxes. That is a very difficult model to achieve in government but it is my goal.

6. I had a conversation with a town resident recently who ask if I would support a Farm Market on the town Green in the Summer/Fall months. I think this would be great as it keeps up with the small town feel. So my question Mr. Freda is do you or would you support a Farm Market in North Haven? And if so, do you think this could be done this year? Thank you!

Yes, we will support the farm market concept. I have actually had Lynn Sadosky call our town resident who just recently emailed the concept to me to explain how it would work from a zoning and permit process from the town standpoint.

We also have another resident who was kind enough to present the concept to me last year with some great thoughts on why it would be good for North Haven.

If there are vendors who are interested, we will support the concept and we will certainly simplify the permitting process to have the farm market concept here in town.

Thank you for the opportunity to answer this months questions.

Obama Invites Backlash on Conscience Rule Betrayal

2012-02-11T08:23:00.002-05:00

by David Limbaugh

As God's instrument, Moses parted the Red Sea. Well, it appears President Obama has a different idea. With a wave of his hand, he's going to reunite our bitterly divided political waters on the hottest of hot-button issues.

Don't get me wrong; Obama's conscious effort to divide Americans on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion and wealth for political purposes is alive and thriving. That's a separate phenomenon.

What I'm talking about here is his apparent conviction that by sheer force of his presence, his charisma, his aura and his gift for supernatural nuance, he can utter magical words on any bitterly controversial matter and instantly reconcile opposing factions, even on matters that do not lend themselves to neat solutions.

This exaggerated sense of self-worth, not just his visceral liberal inclination toward appeasement, is what leads him to believe he can negotiate with terrorists and persuade them to renounce their jihad against America upon witnessing his world apology tour, his outreach to Muslims in Cairo, his witch hunt against CIA interrogators, and his shoutouts to the Muslim Brotherhood. (Don't tell him, but polls show he's even less popular than President George W. Bush was in the Muslim world.)

His stunning absence of any awareness of his own limitations (Socrates' wisdom yardstick) is obviously what convinced him he could deliver a speech at the University of Notre Dame that would induce a bilateral epiphany in which both sides of the abortion debate would finally realize that until he had deconstructed the issue so elegantly, they had been looking through the abortion glass darkly. Henceforth, they would see clearly and bask in the glow of harmonic convergence where pro-life advocates would appreciate the bizarre concept of a mother's sacred reproductive rights and the pro-aborts would come to understand, er, never mind. Only one side in these arguments needs to show movement -- the side that opposes Obama's beliefs.

This robust arrogance is what made Obama believe he could convince freedom-loving Americans that they would love socialized health care. You'd think he might have been discouraged when they still didn't embrace it after 54 speeches, but trapped in his own self-perpetuating personal echo chamber, he had no other options but to keep pummeling us with his propaganda until he decided to just bribe, cheat and steal in order to get the bill crammed through. Through it all, he never lost faith in his ability to place square pegs into round holes.

So it is that we read in The Washington Post that Obama thinks he can lull us into kumbaya over his death-culture assault on Americans' religious liberty with his rule requiring religious institutions to cover contraception as part of their employee health plans. This mandate would require all employers, including religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals that receive federal funds, to provide female employees the full breadth of health care coverage, including birth control, the "morning-after pill" and sterilization services. He deceitfully promised in that Notre Dame speech, by the way, that he would respect the conscience rights of religious institutions and that he would not invoke this abominable rule that he is now vigorously and defiantly embracing.

Once again, he must think he can placate opponents by patting them on the head and telling them they just need to settle down, see the superior wisdom and morality of his position, and understand that everything will be fine if they'll just believe in him. Yes, that's right; the Post reports that administration officials are telling liberal groups and lawmakers that Obama is not backing down from his hard-line position on the rule, but assuring "religious groups that a phase-in period will allow the two sides to agree on an approach to putting the rule into practice."

You see, in Obama's grandiose world -- in which rhetoric, sophism and endless speechifying reign supreme -- every impasse can be breached with his miraculously penetrating silver tongue.

But this time, as has been increasingly the case for the hapless, unreflective Obama, his obfuscation will not work. As Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, "so far, (the administration's promise to) 'work this thing through' is just the sugar-coated version of 'force you to comply.'"

Indeed, this authoritarian administration prohibited a Catholic Army chaplain from reading a letter by Timothy Broglio -- archbishop of the Military Services, USA -- criticizing the mandate because with it, "the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States" in a way that is "denying Catholics our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty."

One way or another -- either by backing down or by facing an electoral spanking -- Obama will not win this one. With the backlash he is inviting, he might finally learn the limits of his mythical magic.

A Letter from the Teacher's Union

2012-02-10T11:35:00.001-05:00

This is an open letter from the North Haven Education Association to the North Haven Board of Education, Board of Finance, and Board of Selectmen outlining our positions on the 2012-2013 budget recommendations that are currently under consideration by the Board Of Education.

The NHEA agrees with the new academic support positions Superintendent Dr. Robert Cronin has requested:

Math coaches, K-5 language arts program coordinator, intervention specialist, computer teacher, middle school autism teacher. These are positions to provide support for both staff and students to improve academic performance. We would even suggest increasing this support. Rather than eliminating special education positions, why not provide more intervention teachers and utilize these educator's skills to further support the academic needs of our struggling students?

Where we disagree with the proposed budget:

We believe that the elimination of pupil personnel service staff such as social workers and a psychologist removes the support our students need for their social and emotional wellbeing. This is a key element of learning. We must consider the impact this will have on the success of students in North Haven public schools. Without these two critical pieces, children will not be available to learn.

In past years, North Haven has prided itself on educating the "whole child." These staff cuts will directly impact and likely reverse this philosophy. It is important to recognize that significant changes have occurred in the responsibility that schools have to supplement the traditional support that families have provided.

Why is there a recommendation to cut back on the support our students need in one area of their lives in order to provide it in another? We feel that this is a false choice. Dr. Cronin must make this choice, unless the Board of Education is willing to seek more funding for next year's budget and allow the district to meet all of the needs of our students.

We believe the Board of Education has an obligation to advocate on behalf of the students of North Haven by asking for an increase in the education budget, which will begin to address the funding shortfalls that have been present for years. We ask that the board work to begin to close the gap in per pupil expenditure that has been increasing for quite sometime.

First Selectman Michael Freda once addressed the board and said, "If you have a need, I will support it."

The students of North Haven have educational needs. Now is the time for the Board of Education to advocate for the funds to support those needs. The NHEA will work with you to convince the selectmen, Board of Finance, and town's people to support your budget. However, if the board does not make the request, none of these groups are aware of the need.

In the past, boards would base their requests on the needs of the students and defend those budgets to the Board of Finance. Elected officials and the people of North Haven must be allowed to make decisions based on complete information. We believe that an increase of 2.86 percent in next year's budget will not fully meet the needs of the students of North Haven. Not recognizing (and listing) the many student needs that are not included in this budget will result in the town leaders and people of North Haven making decisions based on incomplete information.

We look to the Board of Education to provide true leadership and ask for an increase that meets the needs of our students, and work with us to convince everyone that we must to do more, even if supporting this position is uncomfortable.

Sincerely,

Tom Marak, President North Haven Education Association

Looks Like The BOE has Duped Us Again

2012-02-09T23:48:00.004-05:00

So as I see, last night's meeting certainly had some explanation and some fireworks. The room was jammed so people had to stand outside in the hallway since there was no other space available (I find that hard to believe). In the past, I have stood up for BOE candidates that I thought would drive discussion, vote against the majority and show up to every meeting. Looks like I was wrong once again.

Last night the BOE approved of Dr.Cronin's budget proposal which included a 3% increase and the elimination of positions within the special education and social work departments. There was no discussion amongst the board and the vote was unanimous. The board also approved the promotion of Chris McLaughlin from Administrative Intern to Assistant Principal at North Haven High School which is yet another six figure salary for a position that isn't needed.

I also feel that the BOE has failed in it's communication with parents in the community. This seems to be a trend with them. They also enacted the peanut ban at Clintonville School with very little notice to parents. So I'm just wondering how communicative this board is going to be in the future since it was a priority on more than one BOE candidate's platforms.

Look I work in education, I travel the tri-state area and see firsthand what proper funding in school systems looks like. I also see what amazing things school systems can do with very little funding. But it always comes back to the strength and quality of the staff. If you have good teachers, kids will succeed. Take away teachers and you put the child's ability to succeed at a high level at risk.

I do not like the plan that Dr. Cronin is pushing through. As this blog pointed out last year, there were two reports that were done on the Special Ed department. In one of them, it never suggested that reducing the staff was the solution. The other one did and Dr. Cronin hired the person who wrote that one as Director of the Special Ed program. Not to mention he made that position an administrator position which it has never been before, I wonder if that person also makes more than the First Selectman.

Where is the professional development that Dr. Cronin promised to do before taking this step? From what I've heard, nothing has been done on that front.

But getting back to the BOE, it's time to take some of them to task. And if they feel the need to respond, I will be more than happy to post their responses here.

Let's go with Jennie Caldwell today. So considering that there were people shut out of the meeting, due to the space and the BOE's unwillingness to find another space. Also looking at the lack of communication to parents and the controversial plan to reduce the special ed staff, which is a carbon copy of what Cronin tried to do last year, what did Ms. Caldwell say she would do if she was elected to the BOE? Well thanks to the Q&A we did with her, we know.

What are your top 3 priorities you would like to address if elected?

Currently my top three priorities include improving communication between the Board of Education(BOE) and the public, ensuring that finances are spent wisely and promoting policies and procedures which facilitate educational goals. I will push for a system that provides feedback to and from BOE members and the community. I will also advocate to ensure that financial resources are focused on improving student education, performance and teacher resources so that we are spending money to support our educational system. My third priority will be to evaluate current policies and procedures to guarantee that they are facilitating educational goals and student outcome and not impeding them. With those priorities said I want to be clear that if I am elected to the BOE, I feel that my responsibility will be to address the concerns of the community.

Per Chris's suggestion, will you work to abolish the public comment policy?

I have openly spoken against the current public comment policy. I think public comment should allow parents and members of the community to ask question, state concerns and have answers provided regarding the running of our schools. I will advocate for having BOE meetings held in a setting that encourages the public to attend. We have over 20,000 citizens in North Haven and approximately 30 chairs in the room where the meetings are held.

How would you go about fixing our colossal special ed problems, setting aside approaches already taken and bases already covered?

As a member of the BOE, I will concentrate on the delivery of special education and the continuum of services. I will consider the number of students who are helped through Response to Intervention (RTI) but are not actually identified as a student with special needs. I think it is very important to talk with school based staff to see what they believe we need to do to make sure that we are effective in delivering special education services and providing the most cost effective instruction.

So is Ms. Caldwell staying true to the promises she made to you? I'll leave that one up to you.

BOE Meeting Tonight: More Administrators?

2012-02-09T14:30:00.001-05:00

Tonight's BOE meeting should be pretty interesting. It has previously been announced that Dr. Cronin is planning on making cuts to the Social Work and Special Ed departments with the reassignment or laying off of staff. He is planning on doing this regardless if the budget is passed or not. Obviously that's creating quite a stir in the town.

Now here is something else the BOE is going to try to slip in. According to tonight's agenda, they will also vote on promoting Chris McLaughlin from Administrative Intern to Assistant Principal at North Haven High School. Intern to Assistant Principal? That's quite a leap. I do think that questions and discussion must occur before a vote can happen. I'd like to know what Mr.McLaughlin has done that qualifies such a promotion.

I won't lie, I don't like the feeling I'm getting that Dr. Cronin plans on making cuts in staff and resources in certain areas but increasing the already ghastly number of administrators. I expect that Mr. McLaughlin will be receiving a six figure salary as well.

Folks, at some point the BOE and Dr. Cronin will need to justify their spending. I see no benefit in adding administrators and cutting teachers and services. I also don't think the BOE is justified in making any more demands for more tax payer money either. They have yet to prove that they are spending the $40 Million responsibly. Throwing more money at them to spend unwisely is just like giving more money to the Federal Govt.

I encourage the BOE to have some sort of discussion about this before just blindly voting it through.

The President's Anti-Catholic Duck

2012-02-09T09:37:00.000-05:00

by Hugh Hewitt

When President Obama signed off on the new HHS regulations that demand every Catholic institution in the country not officially designated a "church" either shut down or offer its employees subsidized sterilization, "morning after" pills and all other forms of contraception, neither the president nor his political team recognized the enormity of the mistake they were making.

In attacking the Roman Catholic Church in America on the question of abortion rights absolutism, the president and his team had thought they were dividing women from Republicans when in fact they were uniting Catholics of all political persuasions in a single front instantly organized against this colossal and unconstitutional overreach.

Click here to read rest of article

Some good news for North Haven's School System

2012-02-08T13:59:00.035-05:00

Remember how I wrote about Dave needed to get some major achievements under his belt? Well from the news I read today, he's certainly on his way. I saw today that it has been proposed that North Haven is to get a raise in their ECS funding next year. And it's not just any increase, it's one of the largest in the state.

I saw today that North Haven is proposed to receive a 3.81% increase in it's ECS funding from the state. That happens to be the 16th largest percentage increase in the state.

I don't know about you, but I find this to be very good news. Considering the fact that in 5 years Steve was able to secure a total of 8% and Dave has done almost half of that in one year. I haven't seen the exact figures yet but I'm thinking it's probably only an increase of around $200,000 given what we currently get. And considering the financial position the state is in, I'll take what I can get at this point.

So I do think this is an achievement for Dave to use going into election season. We do know he's met with Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor about the funding of education and now we're getting the 16th largest increase in the state. In fact, Dave brought up doing this during his debates with Steve and Steve said this:

“My opponent doesn’t really understand how the process works. A person doesn’t go up and just change the formula."

Well Steve, Dave just did in his first year, what was your excuse for your 16 years?

Steve also said, “The larger grand list you have, the lesser grant you’ll get.” That's funny because grand list is getting bigger and we're getting more money. So Steve, do you think you're right on anything else? Anyway, this a good news for the school system and a good sign that we have people in Hartford actually delivering results.

The BOE & Dr. Cronin has some explaining to do

2012-02-07T18:52:00.000-05:00

This was an email I received from a reader. Apparently Dr. Cronin's plan to cut staff, if the budget is approved, isn't going over too well with parents. Especially those in the special education dept. Here is the email below.
-----------------------------------------

February 7, 2012

To Every Parent of Every Special Education Student and Every Vulnerable Child in the Town of North Haven:

For those of you who don’t know, our children are more at risk than ever before. Superintendent Dr. Robert Cronin has proposed to the Board of Education to cut deeply into the School Psychologist and Social Work Departments. Currently, each of the six North Haven schools has one School Psychologist and one Social Worker, with the exception of the high school, which has two Social Workers. Dr. Cronin has proposed to cut one School Psychologist and two Social Workers or 23% of North Haven school’s mental health staff.

In addition, Dr. Cronin has, once again, proposed to eliminate up to six special education teachers, compromising Special Education services as well. Remarkably, he has not proposed to eliminate any Special Education students. Therefore, if your child receives Special Education services, fewer teachers translate into less time, less instruction and fewer services for your child.

Currently, North Haven taxpayers spend an astronomical amount of money on students who are out-placed to specialized programs both in and out of state. It is the School Psychologists and Social Workers who intervene and work daily with students who have psychiatric, social, emotional and behavioral needs and crises. Without this mental health support, these students would likely join their peers in additional costly out-placements.

So, Dr. Cronin has proposed to 1) cut one School Psychologist and two Social Workers or 23% of North Haven school’s mental health staff and 2) return to the North Haven Public Schools, students who are currently out-placed in specialized programs due to psychiatric, social, emotional and behavioral needs. Get the picture. Reduce the staff that work with the most challenging students in our schools and then return even more challenging students to our schools. The impact of such an action on every student’s education and well-being is obvious.

For many students, the only trusting relationship they may have is with their School Psychologist or Social Worker. Nationally, most students in need of mental health services receive these services in school. By reducing the staff trained to provide these services to our most vulnerable students, where are these students to turn? The research speaks clearly about the prognosis for students who do not have access to the mental health support they desperately need when they need it.

Many eventually turn to drugs, alcohol, prescription drug abuse and other forms of self-medication, early exit from school before high school graduation, unemployment, criminal involvement and a host of other anti-social behaviors. It really boils down to “Pay me now or Pay me later.” Don’t we, as adults, parents and educators, have the moral and ethical obligation and responsibility to provide every one of our students with the mental health services and support they need now?

Dr. Cronin will say that other districts get by with fewer mental health staff. Maybe other districts are forced to get by with part time School Psychologists and part time Social Workers for their students, while our kids are fortunate to currently have full time mental health services. I ask you, is this something to be ashamed of and to conform to or rather something to be proud of, celebrate and be emulated for?

Get real folks! Nobody gets more for less! You get less for less! There are more struggling families than ever before, even in North Haven. Therefore, there are more struggling, vulnerable and needy students than ever before. If we won’t provide for the neediest children in our schools, then who will? If we don’t take care of our own, then who will?

I leave you Parents, the North Haven Board of Education and Dr. Cronin with this quote to consider:

“The school is the last expenditure upon which America should be willing to economize.”

~Franklin D. Roosevelt

Stand Up For Our Kids! Get Involved, Get Mad and Get Loud!! Get to The Board of Education Meeting February 9, 2012 at 6:30pm at 5 Linsley Street North Haven and Make Your Voice Heard!! Your Child and Mine Deserve Nothing Less!!

What Does Steve Fontana Know?

2012-02-07T12:43:00.000-05:00

I'm not going to unload all the items on Steve's record that I have compiled yet. I'm going to wait for his party to actually give him the State Senate nomination first. However I figured why not bring back some old favorites. So sit back and enjoy.