 |
In Opposition to…
A. 10083 Silver (On Housing Committee Agenda)
Purpose: The purpose of this bill is to stem the rising tide of foreclosures related to the subprime lending crisis by assisting homeowners with subprime mortgages facing foreclosure.
Party Position: Taxpayers in New York State are already paying the highest taxes in the nation. Currently they are facing an approximate $4 billion deficit and a budget that increases spending by almost 5%. Inflation is rearing its ugly head, government forcing ethanol is increasing the cost of food and house values are plummeting while the percentage people pay on credit cards is skyrocketing.
People who made poor decisions will be rewarded if this bill becomes law and the honest, struggling person will be forced to pay for their poor decisions.
Instead of “bailing-out” poor decision making with the “foreclosure prevention act of 2008” that allocates $180,000,000 of taxpayer monies, to keep people in housing they can not, nor could they afford, we must let the housing market correct itself.
It is morally wrong to saddle those who have purchased houses they can afford, who live within their means, to pay additional taxes to bailout companies and people who made very poor decisions.
It is morally wrong for government to penalize the hardworking people who are the backbone of this state while the poor decision makers rely on government handouts.
We strongly urge you to vote NO on this proposal.
A. 829 – Englebright -Calendar # 96
Proscribes persons, firms or corporations engaged in retail business of selling firearms from selling, delivering or transferring child operated firearms.
A. 1497 – O’Donnell - Calendar # 153 Same as S. 4416 – Flannigan Comm on Codes
Requires the judge in a criminal proceeding or in a family court proceeding, upon issuance of an order of protection to inquire as to the possession of a firearm by the defendant or respondent.
A. 2772-A – Eddington Calendar # 250 Same as S. 2411-A – Schneiderman Comm on Codes
Bans the sale, use or possession of 50-caliber weapons.
A 3447 – Koon Calendar # 293 Same as S.2002 - Padavan Comm on Codes
Includes possession of armor piercing, frangible or devastator ammunition as criminal possession of a weapon.
A. 6525 – Paulin – Comm on Codes Same as S. 2404 – Schneiderman Comm on Codes
Requires the creation and imposition of restrictive commercial practices and stringent recordkeeping and reporting to prevent gun sales to criminals.
A. 7331-A – Titone – Calendar # 506
Relates to banning the possession, sale or manufacture of assault weapons; repealer.
Party Position: The Conservative Party is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment and firmly believes that every citizen in good standing, being a person of sound mind, should be entitled to own and poses legal guns.
Responsible people do not commit crimes and they make certain that their guns and ammunition are properly stored.
New York State has the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation, yet illegal guns and criminals pay absolutely no attention to any of them.
The above bills will do nothing to stop criminals from committing crimes with illegal or for that fact legal guns. However, to place further restrictions on law abiding citizens, goes against everything our Nation stands for. Will somebody please show us a gun that commits a crime without a human pulling the trigger.
We urge you to vote No on all of the above bills.
S. 1342 – Winner A. 2856 Gottfried - Calendar 254
Purpose: Establishes an age-appropriate sex education grant program, to be referred to as the healthy teens act.
Party Position: As recently as 1998, the Governor’s Task Force on Out of Wedlock Pregnancies and Poverty stated the following: “Programs and services to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancy have increased dramatically since the mid-1970’s in concerted attempts to reduce the increasing number of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, particularly adolescent pregnancies. Yet, over the past two decades, these efforts have demonstrated only minimal success, and the problems have generally worsened.”
As recently as 2003, a Zogby International Poll indicates that parents oppose the messages sent to children and teenagers in these comprehensive sex education classes. Parents, by an overwhelming majority – 91%- want students taught that adolescents should be expected to abstain from sexual activity during high school years.
New York State still has a high rate of teen pregnancy and an alarming high rate of sexually transmitted diseases. All of the millions of dollars that has been poured into sex-education programs, has been unable to prevent teen pregnancy, in fact the number of teens with STD’s has dramatically risen, leading an overwhelming number of parents who want students taught that adolescents should be expected to abstain from sexual activity during high school years.
To create a new funding mechanism to direct taxpayers dollars to certain organizations to ensure “comprehensive” sex education to a undefined “age-appropriate” grade level, is a gross misuse of tax payer’s money. In our opinion, there is already far too much taxpayer money being used for sex education in this state.
We urge you to vote NO on this proposal.
Party Position: Activist judges in New York State continue to decide what they believe is best for New Yorkers despite what the constitution says or what New Yorkers want. In the past few weeks, Judges have decreed that Monroe Community College must recognize a gay couple’s marriage in Canada preformed in 2004, while a Supreme Court Justice in New York City has given permission to proceed for divorce proceedings to take place for a lesbian couple also married in Canada.
Judge Drager and the Forth Appellate Division have decreed that same-sex marriages must be considered valid in New York State – even when preformed outside of New York State – despite the Court of Appeals, 2006 decision, that ruled that there is no constitutional right for people of the same sex to marry.
The Court of Appeals specifically required that the New York State Legislature must enact legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry. After intense pressure in 2007, the Assembly did pass by a vote of 85-61, legislation to allow same sex couples to marry, thereby embolden activist judges to muddle the definition of marriage in New York.
A recent article in Salon.Com discusses the Gay Marriage Slump. Currently eight states allow same-sex marriage or marriage equivalents, with Massachusetts the only one calling it marriage. Massachusetts has some 30,000 gay couples living together, with less than 1 in 3 opting for marriage, as of April of this year. The reason most site for not opting for marriage...the financial burdens of getting divorced especially in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages. California has approximately 108,734 gay households, yet only 40,553 are registered as domestic partners; Connecticut has 9540 gay households with only 1750 civil unions; New Jersey has 21,405 gay couples yet only 2,069 have registered for civil unions.
We urge the Members of the Legislature to pass legislation that supports the absolute definition that marriage cannot be contracted between two persons of the same sex. Without this legislation, activist judges will continue to muddle the definition of marriage in New York State while those in other states who have the opportunity to take part in same-sex unions decline to do so. As Thomas Curtiss, Jr., a gay lawyer in California who represents numerous gay clients, few of whom choose to register as domestic partners, stated, “Beware of what you ask for.” With so many gay couples choosing not to take part in gay marriage or its equivalent, why should New York enact legislation so many in the community reject?.
Printer-friendly version