PARTY UNITY

Is party unity more important than the TRUTH?

Is the purpose of party unity to overlook FRAUD and CHEATING?

Is the purpose of party unity more than having the COURAGE of your CONVICTION?

Does party unity mean succumbing to an orchestrated VOTE based on ILLEGAL results?

Does party unity mean that one should submit to a doctored birth certificate, 20 year tie to a RACIST church, and just plain outright LIES?

Does party unity mean that it is more important to ignore the "Will of the People" and the ideas and foundations of our country in order to just PROTECT one's own Standing and Ambitions in the Democratic Party?

Freedom Of Speech would like to say:

Bottom line is this, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Obama and his staff, they think the end always justifies the means.

Most of us, we were taught better than that...

To quote a friend of ours "For the first time in my life, I am not proud to be a Democrat!"

SHOWDOWN AT THE DNC TODAY

This is how 18 million voters will view the Democratic Convention if the roll call vote is "symbolic".

"After a primary season where the leadership of the DNC proclaimed a winner when there was none, when neither candidate had the required 2/3 majority to win the nomination but one was called the winner anyway, when the first woman candidate for President who was also the popular vote winner, and who won more votes than any Democratic primary candidate in history had to "negotiate" to have her name placed in nomination even though it was her right, after seven months of media bias so egregious it was satirized on Saturday Night Life, anything less than a Democratic Convention conduct according to the highest standards of democracy and in strict accordance with Democratic Party rules will be, for more than 18 million voters, the last straw."

There can be no symbolic vote.

Whether Senator Obama hoped to reduce a democratic institution to a "symbolic gesture" as a matter of pride, we don't know.

Senator Obama's psyche is not our concern.

Democracy is!

Symbolic votes are what they do in China. It's what they do in Iran. It's what they did in the Soviet Union.

It's not what we do in America...

The roll call vote must reflect the highest standards of the Democratic Party. If there is even a hint that Senator Clinton is not being afforded an equal opportunity to win the nomination as Democratic Party rules provide, if there is even a suggestion that the vote is not being conducted in an honest and democratic way, it could not only be the last straw for more than 18 million voters, it could be the straw that breaks the Democratic Party's back.

"Keep the Democratic Party democratic!"

Contributor: Hiedi Li Feldman, J.D., Ph.D.
Denver Political Activist

Another "Gotcha" Moment

Unlike your candidate Joe Biden, some people utilize an email as a form of communication in obtaining permission to re-print an article.

Do your homework NAC...

We got balls "Roger" that's why we are in Denver fighting for democracy, and your back in New Albany bitching about Councilman Price...

footnote: Team Freedom Of Speech is having a great time in Denver. Hillary sends her best - to all of her supporters in New Albany!

HELLO FROM DENVER

The time has come for Hillary to say to Howard Dean, "this is your mess not mine, you did it, not me and it's not for me to clean up."

If you had played by the Democratic Party rules in the first place, if you hadn't been so politically stupid, you wouldn't have this brewing disaster on your hands.

Stop putting it on my shoulders.

"It's not my responsibility to make this clown an electable candidate when he isn't."

At the risk of being redundant, Clinton didn't make this mess, they did. She didn't try and slant the playing field in Obama's favor, they did. She didn't usurp and trash Democratic Party rules and procedures when they just should have been allowed to play out, they did.

And she didn't force Obama to display a phony Presidential seal, renege on every promise he made during the primary season, bribe people with food and a free concert to fake a big turnout at his speeches and prove himself to be a serial liar, he did all that on his own.

It is not her responsibility that Obama can't get out of a TIE with John McCain when almost any Democratic candidate would be up by double digits.

Any candidate but Barack Obama.

It's their mess and it's not Clinton's job to help clean it up.

And it's not up to her supporters to clean up the mess either!

Hillary should most certainly throw this party unity charade under her very own bus.

Think about it...

Here's Hillary, giving speeches at all these unity events in support of Obama and trying to do what the DNC asks of her, despite the way they all treat her.

It is truly frightening to see the last shred of our illusion of open convention, election and democratic principles torn asunder by the very party that most espoused these principles!

"FREEDOM OF SPEECH GOES TO DENVER!"

March On Denver 2008

We march because - we must!

We will be going to Denver as will many others - Why?

Because Hillary gave us a window into just how far we have not come in 88 years since we won the right to vote.

On August 26, 1920 Women Ended Their Suffrage & Won the Right to Vote.

They live to have their voices heard.

So many of us have gone from being simple "Democrats" to being political activists. Average American voters all over the country have been working hard to make sure that our voices are heard by a party that has lost it's way.

It is time for reform.

It is time for party members to take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves what being a Democrat means to them.

The Democratic Party has a long history of selecting nominees that do not represent the majority of Americans in this country, despite having core principles that tend to benefit those very Americans.

Once again, despite factors swinging to favor Democrats, our party seems destined to choose a losing candidate.

The fatally-flawed caucus system essentially throws the core values of "one person, one vote" under the bus, and it apparently has been manipulated to advantage Obama over Hillary Clinton.

The delegates know, all to well, that Barack Obama edged out Hillary Clinton in the pledged delegate count largely due to his victories in caucus states.

Obama won 13 out of 14 caucuses, but only 18 out of 39 primaries. 42% of Obama's wins were caucus states, 95% of Clinton's wins were primary states.

But it's no mystery why some of the caucus states, such as Texas and Washington, which also held primaries, saw mis-matched results.

Obama really needed those caucus wins, didn't he? And what was his effective caucus strategy?

FRAUD!

The caucus fraud reports are coming out now, and spreading like wildfire. There is no way for Obama to hide from them.

Dr. Lynette Long has conducted extensive research of nationwide caucus fraud by the Obama campaign, all of which can be viewed.

Dr. Long concludes:

"I've spent the past two months immersed in data from the 2008 Democratic caucuses. After studying the procedures and results from all fourteen caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process."

I hope it gives pause to those Democrats who believe that Barack Obama is the rightful nominee and that Hillary supporters should just "get over it."

With a Master's degree in math and fourteen math books under her belt, she felt well-armed to explore this problem further.

"She further conclude after systematically examining large PAC contributions to the campaigns of various members of congress that the Democratic hierarchy, including Dean, Pelosi, and Clyburn, selected Obama as the nominee and pressured superdelegates to endorse him."

"I have been a Democrat my entire life, but I will not support the Democratic Party at the cost of democracy!"

Democrats of good conscience must now know the truth. Check these video's out at:

http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm

Clinton Democrats have been sounding the alarm since Iowa about the manipulation of the process and where it would lead.

The super delegate system was created in order to avert disaster in case the nominating system produced a candidate with no chance of winning.
Of course, that system was created with the hope that integrity, principals and backbone would rule the day and delegates might vote their conscience.

Fat chance!

So...

We, men and women believe the time has come for a new movement towards true equality for all women in America, we will protest, and endeavor to change, the false image of women now prevalent in the mass media.

We will march for those who cannot march for themselves, for those who have been knocked down, told to go home, and told to shut up!

We march for those who have been suppressed, betrayed by the Democrat Party, bullied out of their life's work, for those who are fighting for the weaker who have no voice, for those whose voices need to be heard.

We march for all who have gone before us and who have fought the good fight so that we would be able to march this week.

The Denver protest this year falls, ironically, on Aug. 26, 2008. Eighty eight years almost to the day that women got the right to vote and just as ironically that we had the first viable women candidate.

The best and most qualified candidate America has ever had as evidenced by the audacity of the FRAUD who stole her platform shortly after having been selected by the party to unsurp her place at the head of the Democrat Party.

We, men and women will march to finish the fight begun 160 years ago in Seneca Falls NY. We march to finish the fight they placated us 88 years ago when they gave us the vote which proved in 2008 has not yet been settled.

We, men and women march to crash through those 18 million cracks that not yet broken through that glass ceiling!

So watch the balloons, confetti, and political rhetoric - sounds like a traditional political party convention, right?

Wrong...

We march and we raise our objection to debate the process, and protect the integrity of the true will of the people!

PUMA

FACTS ARE FACTS!

This has to make you think a little bit, if not keep your blinders on.

George Bush has been in office for 7.7 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over two years ago:

* Consumer confidence stood at a 2.5 year high

* Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon

* Unemployment rate was 4.5%

* Dow Jones hit a record high +14,000

* Americans were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacationing overseas, living large

But Americana's wanted "change".

So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress. yep--we got "change" all right.

In the past two years:

* Consumer confidence has plummeted

* Gasoline is now about $4.00 a gallon

* Unemployment is up to 5.5%

* Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 Trillion

* 1% of American homes are in foreclosure

* Dow Jones is probing another low -11,000

* 2.5 Trillion dollars has evaporated from your stocks, Bonds, and Mutual Funds Investment portfolios.

Yes, in 2006 America voted for change. We sure as hell got it!

Did you see how Pelosi refused to hold a vote on drilling for oil?

She cut off the power in the House chambers and the democrats ran off to start their 5 week vacation.Ten Democrats and Republicans stayed behind with no power to try to fight for a vote on drilling.

By the way, the President does have the authority to bring Congress back into session and he should. GW should hold a press conference and tell the American people to call their representative and demand they hold a vote on drilling for oil.

Our economy is hurting and our national security depends on oil.

These "jackass democrats" would rather you pay out the "ying yang" for oil and play their petty politics than help the American people.

O AND JOE...

So it's Joe Biden--HONEY HUSH! This is going to be interesting.

From the man who called Senator Obama"...the African American who is clean..." Senator Biden promises to be rich with verbal material as Senator Obama's running mate.

Christmas has come early for bloggers every where--It's time for the O-and-Joe Show!

Source: Democrats for John McCain

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES 1949 - 2008

If a public servant's value can be measured by strength of personality alone, then Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones was priceless.

She was smart, funny, energetic and committed to Cleveland, America and the world just lost one of the finest public servants of all times.

Some elected officials endure the political side of the job, Stephanie Tubbs Jones embraced it.

She loved the handshakes and hugs, the speeches and the cheers - perhaps because she knew how amazing it was that the daughter of a factory worker and skycap at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, was proud of achieving a number of "firsts" among black women to be a judge, a county prosecutor and a five-term member of Congress.

She was the first to serve as a member of Congress from Ohio, the first to join the House Ways and Means Committee, and the first to chair the Ethics Committee.

"I have no illusions about myself," Tubbs Jones told us. "It could all go up in a puff of smoke. I'll never lose sight of that."

The career and life of Stephanie Tubbs Jones came to a sudden end Wednesday, three weeks before her 59th birthday and just one week before the DNC Convention.

A wise woman once told Freedom Of Speech staff members, that the best way to generate a "can do attitude" was to always ask "Why not?"

That wise woman was Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

We had the pleasure of working with this great woman for a short period of time in Washington and we will never forget the experience.

She always remembered the little things about you, your name, where you were from, what your parents did and how you got there. She never forgot and we never will either.

Every time we see an American flag flying we will always think about her "can do attitude."

The Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones will forever live in our hearts and of all who cherished justice, peace, and equality.

She appeared at The Grand in New Albany in support of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

HOWARD DEAN ... DIVIDES VOTERS

"If your looking at folks of color, even women, they're more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh excuse me, in the Republican Party, " Dean said yesterday.

It's disappointing to see Howard Dean trying to use gender and race to divide voters.

WILL HILLARY BE ON THE DNC BALLOT?

So the big question on everyone's mind is, will Hillary be on the Democratic ballot at the convention?

Will there be a backlash to Obama Delegate letter?

We guess Obama was trying to appease Hillary's supporters when he wrote a letter to the DNC rules committee this week telling them to seat all Michigan and Florida delegates.

Obama's decision to return full voting status to delegates from Michigan and Florida does not make up for the fact that the RBC stole delegates from the uncommitted voters, as well as all write in votes, and 4 of Hillary's delegates.

So if the delegates are restored, as they should be anyway in a Democratic manner, Obama should not be the presumed candidate.

We do think more voters are becoming disenchanted with Obama-whether because of "Obama Fatigue," evidence of unrestrained and unbecoming arrogance, the rightward shifts, or the flagrantly disingenuous bullshit such as his new found willingness to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations [having once shoved them under the bus to derail Hillary].

The DNC should open up the the DNC convention in Denver to be an actual democratic process be allowing both Hillary and Obama's name in nomination, allowing both to speak and have speeches on their behalf, allowing both names on the ballots, allow all the votes to be counted, allow private voting, and Hillary will be the nominee.

Hillary has earned the right to be nominated, she already won the popular vote, winning MORE votes than ANY candidate of ANY party in history!

The African American community can handle the fall of Obama with dignity, to say "Denver will burn" or threats of violence is insulting to them and us.

They know they have been "played" by Obama.

He's being exposed for the fraud he's always been, he's just been the candidate of the 24/7 media driven illusion, nothing more.

The Dems are very foolish if they nominate an unqualified and unelectable candidate in Obama.

Obama should be ashamed of himself for disenfranchising voters until he thinks he's got the nomination locked up.

It's ironic that it's the black man who disenfranchising voters isn't it?

What would MLK, who fought "so hard for voters rights" think of the fraud Obama?

Not much we bet!

In 1932, FDR came into the Democratic convention 90 delegates short of the required number to secure the nomination outright, and FDR won the nomination on the FOURTH BALLOT!

THAT was real democracy in action...

As neither Hillary or Obama have earned the required number of delegates to secure the nomination outright, the super delegates should decide this nomination. The super delegates should vote for the candidate who can win in November.

That candidate is and shall remain Hillary Clinton, who is clearly the best candidate, more qualified and more electable.

Susan B. Anthony once said, "No self respected woman should wish for or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex".

Hillary should come out TOMORROW and give a speech restating her case for why she should be the nominee.

"We want the superdelegates to take a long hard look at the electoral map and the primary math," Not only has Senator Clinton won the popular vote, she won the key states that are crucial to any Democrat winning the White House in the fall.

After all of Obama's reprehensible antics over the past few months, she would be justified in doing so.

She should frame her argument as being what's best for the party - and the country.

Our votes for Hillary was a vote for experience, a women's perspective, a "stick to it" philosophy of working the problem and sheer intelligence, competence, a willingness to work hard and an attitude of "never give up" completed the package for us.

All of our reasons to vote for someone got shoved under the label of racism at one time or another during this campaign.

Experience was turned into "working for the man," a woman's prospective turned into "she periodically lashes out," "stick-to-it philosophy" got turned into "take her into the back room until only one comes out." Competence got turned into "likable enough" and "bitch" in campaign music, a willingness to work hard and a "never give up" attitude got turned into ungraciousness and unwillingness to, for-god-sake step-the hell-aside Hillary.

That's not just an attack against a rival, that's an attack against the very things we were looking for in a candidate.

And we believe a large majority of Democrats would support her, with only the dwindling number of hard-core Kool-Aid drinkers still sticking with Obama.

We are Democrats because we believe in universal health care, because we despice racism, race-baiting, and sexism, and because we believe in the democratic process.

On all these counts, our Party has failed us.

We must rid our Party of race-baiting, sexism, and vote stealing, and return our Party to it's glorious heritage of patriotism, equal opportunity, and care for the most vulnerable.

The Democratic party isn't even offering us "half a loaf."

McCain is by no means perfect, but he didn't shove us under the bus, were all there, courtesy of the "democrat" party.

Right now a half a loaf is better than none!

PUMA...

IS THERE SELECTIVE BILLING IN NEW ALBANY?

The City has an ordinance A-01-47 setting the rates to be charged for sanitation collections. We noted the following noncompliance:

1. Some commercial customers are being charged less than the approved commercial rates.

2. Some churches are being billed more than the approved rates established for churches.

3. Some customers that are required to be billed for sanitation charges are not being billed.

Each governmental unit is responsible for complying with the ordinances, resolutions, and policIes it adopts.

Source: 2007 State Board of Accounts Audit

Is there selective billing in New Albany?

Absolutely!

"YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID."

Why do we need to increase fees?

Building Permits: Single Family Dwellings

* New Construction - .15/square foot or $125.00 minimum

* Additions - .15/square foot or $125.00 minimum

* Remodeling - .15/square foot or $125.00 minimum

* Accessory structures - .15/square foot or $125.00 minimum

* Relocation - .15/square foot or $125.00 minimum

* Demolition - $100.00 flat fee

Permits: Commercial and Industrial

* New construction - .15/square foot or $300.00 minimum

* Additional - .15/square foot or $300.00 minimum

* Remodeling and repairs - .15/square foot or $300.00 minimum

* Accessory structures - .15/square foot or $300.00 minimum

* Relocation - .15/square foot or $300.00 minimum

* Demolition - $100.00 flat fee

Permits: Apartments

* New construction - .15/square foot or $125.00 minimum

* Additions - .15/square foot or $125.00 minimum

* Remodeling - .15/square foot or $125.00 minimum

* Accessory structure - .15/square foot or $125.00 minimum

* Relocation - .15/square foot or $125.00 minimum

* Demolition - $100.00 flat fee

Source: Shane Gibson

As stated in the 2007 City of New Albany Audit ~ Building Commission violations:

1. Instances were noted in which the "fees charged were less" than the amounts established under Ordinance G-02-09

2. Instances were noted in which "fees were being waived" without an ordinance or resolution authorizing the waiving of these fees.

* Each governmental unit is responsible for complying with the ordinances, resolutions and policies it adopts.

Source: State Board of Accounts 2007 Audit

Freedom Of Speech would like to know why they want to increase fees if our Building Commission doesn't even enforce or collect them to start with?

Are there selective fees for selective citizens and selective developers?

Is this a way to give the England administration more money to play with?

Who will be following up to see if these fees are charged correctly?

We have the same employees in the Building Commission in 2007 that are currently in there now.

Also noted in the 2007 Audit:

Receipts and fees collected by the department listed were remitted to the Controller less frequently than once a week.

Source: State Board of Accounts

Our final thoughts...

Maybe out city would have more money IF:

* Each department followed the laws

* Everyone paid the correct fees

* Employees did the job taxpayers are paying them to do

* We started taking politics out of all departmental decisions

"No wonder our city is on the verge of bankruptcy!"

PROPOSED 2009 BUDGET - PART 1

Freedom Of Speech is proud to bring to our readers an opportunity to actually read what has been discussed during two days of Budget hearings by our Department heads.

This Budget is what each department feels they need finances to do their job.

We don't agree!

We suggest you go through each department and see how your tax dollars will be spent.

We here at Freedom Of Speech do our homework. We want to educate you the taxpayers, and give you the information that our current administration doesn't want you to know.

When local government has something to hide they always end up on the front page of our local newspaper with some type of "feel good project" like a new water park, so that you will be distracted from hearing the real truth.

The first column is the 2008 Adopted Budget. Please remember these have not been certified. The second column shows the 2009 proposed budgets as department heads have turned them into the Controllers office on Form 1.

2008 Adopted Budget------2009 Proposed Budget

Departments:

Mayor's ....... $113,975............$137,960
[3% raise]

Controller.... $136,850...........$137,373
[ 3% raise]

City Clerk.....$77,008.............$99,062

City Council..$145,660...........$150,507

City Attorney...$114,110.........$125,630

Board of Public
Works & Safety..$893,125......$977,460

Animal Shelter..$66,050.......$69,750

Cap Outlay........$412,145.......$453,338

Weights And
Measures..........$36,265........$37,550

Plan
Commission.....$255,764.......$263,815

Building
Commission.....$210,173........$217,329

Police
Department.....$5,830,830....$6,738,320

Police Merit
Commission....$34,950..........$37,100

Fire
Department....$6,971,761.......$9,267,127

Communications
Department....$669,290........$715,900

Fairview.........$187,862.........$182,460

West Haven.. .$44,703..........$45,672

General Fund
Total Expense..$16,134,471...$19,586,603

Source: Controllers Office

Our opinion is that based on the numbers, the current adminstration is not looking out for the best interest of the taxpayers.

What we mean by this is:

1. Our 2008 Budget has not been approved by DLGF.

2. We need to look at the various violations listed in the 2007 Audit and take steps to correct them.

3. Review and decide the real needs of each citizen as far as city services.

4. Stop placing the blame on previous administrations and do the job we elect city officials to do.

5. Freeze hiring, freeze raises, make cuts, provide only necessities to keep our city going until solutions can be found.

6. Put all campaign promises and pet projects on hold until we can afford them.

7. Stop borrowing money we can not afford to pay back.

Gasoline prices are up, milk, bread, and eggs have gone up. Utilities have gone up. Rent is going up to cover increased fees. Our homeowner and car insurance is going up. We are paying more and getting less service.

We run our homes on a budget.

Our city does nothing but TAX and SPEND.

"It's time this administration stops sugar coating by pretending we have no financial problems when our city is on the verge of bankruptcy!"

So: City Council members we say this:

If the 2009 budget proposed is not to the liking of our council members, then, they should all VOTE NO.

Where is it written that the executive branch is immune from being told by the legislative branch that they won't pass into law ANYTHING that doesn't pass muster as truly representing the will of all the citizens of New Albany instead of a selective few?

If a city council majority were to simply say to the mayor, department heads and controller:

"Your proposed budget is shit!"

Get your happy asses back to work and try again.

Have all your rocket-scientists to figure out how to reduce the budget so that we can REDUCE TAXES by at least 10% across the board.

We don't care how you do it, we are not going to do it for you. You need to be able to prove you're not cutting ANY essential services. You should cut only the immense fat, and waste.

Further, you WILL provide every last bit of verifiable information to back up your claims of having reduced this city's budget by not cutting one single service that the citizens depend upon!

Until then, our opinion is NO on all your budget actions.

What could the mayor, controller and department heads do about it?

If these gutless wonders, our legislative representatives, want to treat our pocketbooks as blank checks, we suggest that they all take out THEIR checkbooks, sign every check, leaving everything else blank, and pass out their checks to random citizens.

No need to concern yourselves, councilmen and councilwomen, as to who those checks will be made out to, how much each check will be for, or what the money garnered from those checks will be used for.

All of you council members, mayor and controller don't care about the answers to the above questions when it comes to OUR money paid in taxes.

Why should any of you care about the answers to the above questions concerning your own money?

Haven't any of you council members ever heard the word accountability?

Are you all as clueless as the mayor and controller want you to be?

Taxpayers of New Albany, how did you like that big dose of TRUTH?

A SIMPLE OBSERVATION ~ MR. OMAMA....

This whole "plug-in car" idea of Obama's is just naive and ignorant.

Remember Bush Sr. going into the grocery store, and marveling about price scanners? The press had a field day, branding him as out of touch.

Fast forward to Obama, and the plug-in car lunacy.

Obama has promised over 150 million mythical Hybrid Plug-in cars to be on the road by 2015. The car does not exist today but is in development. The car is not expected to go into production until 2010-2011.

For one thing, much of the northeast's electricity is fueled by COAL!

Coal is one of the worst causes of pollution and greenhouse gases, and what he's naively proposing, is an increase in the use of it in order to power these "clean energy" vehicles.

All forms of energy affect something and we think the human race as the most valuable of all elements.

Secondly, it shows how out of touch he is with the ordinary citizen to think that most people in America are going to be ABLE to adopt these new vehicles in the $30-$50K range.

The facts are:

1. We need more oil found in America to reduce our independence on foreign oil. A simple observation

2. The more oil found here in America, and sold here in America, keeps American dollars in America's pockets. A simple observation

3. The more oil drilled for in America creates more jobs for America in America. A simple observation.

4. Alternative energy for transportation and other use is years away. I know of "no technology" that will replace fossil fuels for at least 20 yrs. A simple observation.

5. Oil and "plastics" go together. Where will we get all our "plastic" to provide feedstock for our chemical industries? Import it? A simple observation.

6. You can't just shut-down refining. Where will all the industry workers go to work? No Democrat plan for that. A simple observation.

Their are simply "No reason not to drill" in America. A simple observation.

This is 2008 not 1958.

Is he that out of touch that Obama does not realize that most cars today do not even require tune ups?

This man wants to be president and his energy policy is to put air in our tires, get tune ups, and well do not drive so much.

Oh wait, I forgot, now "limited" drilling is acceptable to him, NOW.

Now that 72% of the American Public is screaming, "DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, and DRILL OFTEN!

Our final thoughts on Obama:

It's offensive to us that Obama tries to imply that if you don't agree with him...if you don't vote for him...you are a racist.

That's BULL-SHIT!

We've all worked over, for, and under people of all colors, and have no problems with race. So don't try to convince us or any other clear thinking American that we are racist just because we don't believe that Barack is "the One."

What we predicted months ago has finally come to pass. The more voters learn about Obama, the less they are inclined to vote for him.

While he's a charming guy with great oratory skills, he's not the One.

Voters in middle-America are beginning to realize that Obama neither understands nor shares their values.

* If he did, he would not have joined Trinity Church or befriended a race-baiter like Rev. Wright.

* His first political fundraiser would not have been held at the home of domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn.

* He would have rejected political contributions and a special land deal from Tony Rezko, a man convicted of bribing politicians.

* He would not have told wealthy liberals in San Francisco that small town Americans are bigots who cling to religion and guns,

* He would not defend people who disparage our country.

* He would prefer a winning war strategy to surrender and defeat.

* Obama's recent racist remarks: "What they're going to try is make you scared of me. You know he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills you know. He's risky.

* Obama stated in 2007: He would never play the race card to win an election.

So who is the real racist..."Sweetie"?

Freedom Of Speech Staff
Supports John McCain

WANT OUR OPINION?

I don't smoke. But, I still don't get the big movement against a smoking ban.

Our foods and beverages are filled with chemicals we never heard of to preserve them. Our air is from time to time tainted with smog, exhaust and spraying pesticides.

But, exposure to cigarette smoke is gonna kill us?

Come on. This is just another smokescreen to cover up the real problems that plague our society.

Johnny might have driven his car through the window of the local grocery store, but that's okay.

Johnny apologized for being drunk and has Dr. Phil counseling him, at least Johnny DOES NOT SMOKE!

Our government might be bought and paid for by some outside interests, but hey our elected officials are not smoking, so relax.

Yell right!

What the hell is wrong with this city?

We need the tax money from cigarette sales for our road problems which are horrendous.

But, it can all be solved by keeping Joe Six -pack from smoking a Winston at a bar.

Folks it is called choice.

People have smoked tobacco in the United States since before the United States was the good ole United States of America we all love.

Like I said, I don't smoke.

But, I know people who do, and not a one of them is a worthless leech on society.

They are hardworking folks, who have a smoke and a cold one to get some relaxation in an otherwise hectic life.

We say, let them keep light em up.

Eisenhower smoked, FDR smoked, JFK enjoyed a good smoke and Obama enjoys smoking to calm his racist nerves.

Even Roger Baylor himself enjoys a good cigars.

Are they somehow to be now regarded as lesser in our eyes because they smoked tobacco?

I know some of you whiners out there will say, "but, we will have to pay those smokers medical bills, it ain't fair."

Well, we say, chances are that smoker you are "bitching about" has been paying your medical bills with his tax money, so you folks owe him a few puffs.

Why should the men and women who get things done in this city and then choose to stop and have a cold one, light one up to relax a bit be treated so unfairly?

Yes, lung cancer kills people.

But so does cars, drugs, tornadoes, fires, and about everything else in this world.

This is New Albany folks, if smoking offends you stay at home.

We feel it should be a business owners choice!

Not city government...

HEY MITCH...LET'S TALK PROPERTY TAXES

Governor Daniels should provide bold property tax relief leadership during the remainder of his reelection campaign.

He should tell Hoosier voters that he will work to get the constitutional property tax caps in Senate Joint Resolution 1 passed during the first week of the 2009 General Assembly session.

Passing SJR1 next year would allow we the people to vote in 2010 for a state constitution amendment that permanently caps property taxes at one percent of our home's value.

We would be protected from shocking property tax increases that force us to make terrible choices between three meals a day, necessary medicine, and property tax bills.

The property tax tax relief promised by this year's sales tax increase would not go away.

We would have a great starting point to eliminate some or all property taxes.

The cost to our governments would be cut because we would be able to keep the home we worked all our lives to buy.

SJR 1 would also protect other property taxpayers from abuse.

The property tax caps for all apartments and farm land would be lowered to two percent of their value. The existing business property tax cap of three percent would never be increased. Farmers and businesses would be able to safely predict their property taxes so they can stay in business.

The constitutional property tax caps that Governor Daniels originated in SJR 1 represent the best effort in more than twenty years to make the state and local burden of Hoosier working families more fair and affordable.

Hoosier working families win next year if our governor leads our General Assembly to pass the constitutional property tax caps.

We all want to protect our homes and jobs.

Candidates will have to tell voters whether they stand with the property tax payers or property tax spenders!

Mitch Daniels isn't a man who rests on laurels or is content to merely tread water and hold station.

He pushes forward...

Freedom Of Speech appreciates Governor Daniels leadership and enthusiastically and proudly endorses Governor Mitch Daniels!

COUNCILMAN PRICE ~ IS RIGHT AGAIN...

District 3's Councilman Price said he would rather see the officers keep a mileage log and be required to reimburse the city for the personal miles they put on their cars.

Source: Newspaper-June 30, 2007

Price has stated several times: the city offers one of the area's most generous take-home car policies, with taxpayers covering the gas cost of many city-issued cars used for commutes far outside city limits.

City leaders told Price they have no plans to change that!

Is Councilman Price right or wrong?

City owned vehicles were furnished to 11 employees to be used for City business and for driving to and from work. The vehicles used were not considered "qualified non-personal use vehicles" as defined by the Internal Revenue Service. The use of these vehicles to commute to and from work is considered personal use and is a taxable fringe benefit. During 2007, this fringe benefit was calculated using the Internal Revenue Service "commuter rule" and included as additional compensation on 10 of the employees' W-2's. The city did not calculate and report this taxable fringe benefit for 1 "control employee' as defined by the Internal Revenue Service.

Source: 2007 State Board of Accounts ~2007 Audit of the City of New Albany

Does anyone remember the $10,000 Parks Department cell phone bill in June of 2007?

Look what the 2007 Audit reports:

City owned cell phones were furnished to 68 employees to be used for City business.

The City does not have a written policy concerning the personal use of city-owned cell phones and records are not maintained that distinguishes between business use and personal use.

Personal use of City owned cell phones is considerate a taxable fringe benefit and is to be reported on the employee's W-2's.

Source: State Board of Accounts ~ 2007 Audit of the City of New Albany

Charlie Pride of Indiana State Board of Accounts stated to Freedom of Speech: whenever an item or other asset owned by the political subdivision is entrusted to an officer or employee, to be used at times outside the normal work time for business purposes, such as cellular phones, or vehicle, a log should be maintained which clearly shows the business use.

Pride also said: Each governmental unit is responsible for compliance with all rules, regulations, guidelines and directives of the Internal Revenue Service and the Indiana Department of Revenue. All questions concerning taxes should be address by the following agencies.

As gas prices continue to go up it's more important to keep our police cars inside city limits.

According to the 2007 Audit Report, records are still not being kept on take home cars and cell phones.

Councilman Price has been calling for a review of the cost of take home cars. Councilman Price has also been trying for two years to set up a city policy on take home cars.

Some cities in Indiana are now eliminating all employee take home cars and police cars.

Freedom Of Speech would like to say:

If we have to pay for gas to go to the mall and grocery, they should pay their own way like taxpayers.

If you work for the city you should live in the city. Let all employees pay for their own gas, cars and insurance.

Maybe Crabtree and England should look at less spending in the City and our Police Department such as the big salaries and perks.

We find it appalling and an absolute waste of taxpayers dollars for New Albany police officers and City employees to use cell phones and city owned vehicles for this purpose, especially considering the salary of some of these individuals.

Right...Deputy Mayor Malysz?

The chief of police and the Mayor should be ashamed and have a better excuse than " we don't need a policy."

After all it should be up to the taxpayers not the chief of police or Mayor to authorize such a waste of our money.

Take your own cell phone and car to work like all the rest of us hard working taxpayers have too.

The free ride has to end...we taxpayers can't afford it anymore.

"Councilman Price was RIGHT again!

Since Mayor England wants a walking city, let's park the cars and put all city employees on bicyles or golf carts. Think of the gas dollars you would be saving the taxpayers!

ROSENBARGER SHOULD RESIGN!

On December 21, 2006, the New Albany Redevelopment Commission awarded Mac Construction & Excavating a $259,447.80 contract for the "Elm Street and Other Spot Basis Curb and Sidewalk Improvement Project."

During 2007, change orders were approved in the amount of $82,007. Change orders totaling $74,436 were for additional work that actually exceeded the scope of the original project and increased the amount of the original project and increased the amount of the original contract by 28%.

Indiana Code 36-1-12-18 (d) states: "The total of all changes orders issued that increase the scope of the project may not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the amount of the original contract. A change order issued as a result of circumstances that could not have been reasonably foreseen does not increase the scope of the project."

Indiana Code 36-1-12-18 (e) states: "all change orders must be directly related to the original public work project."

Source: Charlie Pride - State Board of Accounts

Freedom Of Speech would like to say:

This is one small but significant skirmish in a much larger transaction.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Rosenbarger. Very ashamed.

Where is the accountability John?

IS THIS SMITHGATE OR WATERGATE?...PART 2

After attending the last council meeting Thursday July 17, 2008, we at Freedom Of Speech decided to have a wait and see approach and do some more research about the issue of the Redistricting of New Albany.

Several comments have been said by both Council members, elected officials, private citizens, plaintiffs and the Redistricting committee.

Our intentions are to put the pieces together and see what we come up with.

Maybe if your lucky Mr. Cassidy, your name might stay out of the Courier-Journal.

We seriously doubt it.

So Mr. Wimp, you just want it over with no matter what happens?

Mr. Smith did you really think you had control over the council?

Back on topic: Is this Smithgate or Watergate?

May 12, 2006:

"City Council District 2 contains thousands more residents and registered voters than any other districts, records show. But the council president says important issues on the agenda trump any redistricting, even with the threat of a lawsuit. Through the Council redistricted in 1992, it failed to do so in 2002. Two proposals lacked the support to pass, former Councilman Maury Goldberg said."

Plaintiffs spew their venom:

the new albanian aka: Roger Baylor plaintiff said: Councilman Coffey, have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

signed Roger A. Baylor, Jeff Gillenwater, Randy Smith

Source: blog

all4word aka: Randy Smith plaintiff said: City Council member's can only be removed by death or conviction for a felony, or conviction of a misdemeanor germane to the office and duties...or on May of 2007

Source: blog

the new albanian aka: Roger Baylor plaintiff said: Is it not your responsibility to speak out and expose the patent dishonesty of Dan Coffey, Bill Schmidt, Larry Kochert, and Steve Price?

Source: blog

all4word aka: Randy Smith plaintiff said: CM Price's parents and teachers failed to inculcate in him even the barest inkling of the word "counterintuitive."

Source: blog

all4words aka: Randy Smith plaintiff said: And how anyone can project how the districts will be reapportioned is beyond me. And don't be coy, KT. Who do you know is crossing his or her fingers to be reapportioned to a new council district?

Source: blog

bluegill aka: Jeff Gillenwater plaintiff said: Although I did not and will not vote for Price, I feel compelled to apologize for his presence on the Council, if for no other reason than to let the rest of the city know that his behavior and ignorance don't accurately reflect the current intelligence and hopefulness of his district at all.

Source: blog

the new albanian aka: Roger Baylor plaintiff said: First Jeff Gahan was in bed with Dan Coffey (sewers), and now Steve Price (redistricting). Do they sell full body condoms down at Cleopatra's adult book store?

Source: blog

You be the Judge!

July 12, 2006: Newspaper

"State code dictates that second-class cities such as New Albany must split into six council districts that, among other distinctions, must "contain as nearly, as nearly as is possible, equal population. "

August 12, 2007: Newspaper

"Beardsley wrote his plaintiffs asking for feedback, and Ulrich expects to discuss the proposal with the council in closed executive session if necessary. We've discussed some rough parameters said Ulrich. The prospect of the council - rather than a special panel appointed by a judge -drawing up the new districts boundaries did not appeal to Randy Smith. The proposal "would be less than a slap on the wrist...I doubt seriously that we're going to accept this," said Smith."

August 26, 2007: Newspaper

"Plaintiffs Jeff Gillenwater and Randy Smith accompanied attorney Stephen Beardsley; president Larry Kochert and attorney Jerry Ulrich represented the City Council. Beardsley's plaintiffs proposed weeks ago that the council redistrict by August 2008, after it hears advice from a five-member study group appointed by both sides. Those five people would be paid $50 a day and Beardsley paid a flat fee of $5,000, all out of city coffers. Friday afternoon, the council countered with a proposal reached at a closed meeting Tuesday. The council would draw the boundaries and vote on the issue, but by November of this year and without an advisory committee."

"Plaintiffs insisted that the negotiations take place in public meetings, and Ulrich and Kochert agreed."

"Hussman strode back and forth between two closed rooms containing the two parties as the clock crept toward 6 p.m. Finally, all six men convened in one room, than departed with news of the "agreement in principle." Smith called himself "very pleased...I think it's a great day for New Albany."

September 15, 2007: Newspaper

"The lawsuit is still in its pretrial phase and parties have an, "agreement in principle" in which the council will vote on new districts by November 22."

"However, plaintiffs say that if they don't like what the council approved, they would like to see a Dec. 3 trial commence. Those feelings were conveyed by resident Randy Smith during the hearing Friday. He complained that the districts proposed were not drawn by a residents' advisory group, but rather by council and behind closed doors."

"Floyd County Clerk Linda Moeller also spoke, urging the council not to approve a map in which political districts split precincts. Doing so would force the clerks office to have separate poll books, ballots and voting machines, she said, something that would cause unnecessary expense."

"Smith said that the law doesn't address trouble, confusion or expense. "it just says 'as equally as possible."

"In an interview after the meeting, Kochert said. Now that a hearing has taken place, the council will publicly discuss the map in upcoming council meetings before any vote is taken. Kochert said it was the charge of the City Council to draw the map, not a panel of residents. "They're wannabes," Kochert said. "They want to be leaders of the community. The law says that the council does the redistricting."

Calendar of Council Council Action on Redistricting Lawsuit 2007-2008:

October 9, 2007 - R07 -35A : pertains to Lawsuit about redistricting. Approved: 5 aye, 1 nay, 2 abstained

Source: Public record

December 20, 2007 - G07-19 an ordinance dividing the city into six Districts. Approved 5 to 3. G07-19 was approved by city council on December 27, 2007 and became Ordinance G07-59

Please note: According to our research of city council minutes, we did not find any council action that has rescinded G07-59 which divided the city into six districts.

1st DISTRICT which shall be composed of PRECINCTS 1, 2, 17, 21 and 23;

2nd DISTRICT which shall be composed of PRECINCTS 16, 18, 19, 22, and 29;

3rd DISTRICT which shall be composed of PRECINCTS 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10;

4th DISTRICT which shall be composed of PRECINCTS 11, 12, 13, 20, 24 and 25;

5th DISTRICT which shall be composed of PRECINCTS 9, 14, 15, 15(A), 26, and 28; and

6th DISTRICT which shall be composed of PRECINCTS 19(A), 19(B), 27, 27(A), 28(A) and 29(A).

So...We already have a Redistricting Ordinance on the books!

Footnote: Part 111 of: Is this Smithgate or Watergate?

IS THIS SMITHGATE OR WATERGATE?...PART 1

After attending the last council meeting Monday July 7, 2008, we at Freedom Of Speech decided to have a wait and see approach and do some more research about the issue of the Redistricting of New Albany.

Several comments have been said by both Council members, plaintiffs and the Redistricting committee.

Our intentions are to put the pieces together and see what we come up with.

Are these the key plaintiffs in lawsuit?

Randy Smith
Roger Baylor
John Gonder - Council member
Jeff Gillenwater
Lloyd Wimp
Ruthanne Wolfe - wife of Councilman John Gonder

Attorneys:

Stephen Beardsley - Attorney for Plaintiffs
Jerry Ulrich - Attorney for Defendants

Source: Federal Court document

Freedom Of Speech would like to point out:

for well over a year our previous City Council had been trying to resolve the redistricting problem before this committee was even formed.

We feel that when an elected officials take the oath of office they should be held liable and accountable for THEIR actions.

This underhanded way of doing the PEOPLE'S business in New Albany is unacceptable.

Freedom Of Speech can only present to you our readers the FACTS of the redistricting matter.

Federal and State laws have been broken, taxpayers have been billed for Plaintiff's Consent Decree, and illegal meetings and much more.

What we have been reading, hearing and seeing over the last 1 1/2 years, is nothing but purely a political movement "to influence an election or to take out certain elected council members" in our opinion.

You be the judge!

In 2007 the Elected Council members were as followed: Larry Kochert , Dan Coffey, Bill Schmidt, Steve Price, Beverly Crump, Jeff Gahan, Donnie Blevins, Kevin Zurschmiede and Jack Messer.

On or around September 2007 Plaintiff Jeff Gillenwater reply's to Council President Larry Kochert's remarks in Saturday's Tribune:

Kochert accused the plaintiff's in the case of being political "wannabes" Gillenwater stated in his response " But, allow me to be blunt, Council President Kochert's bad faith bargaining thus far has created a strong impression that the council has no intension of committing to a fair and legal redistricting process."

What the plaintiffs weren't telling were the entire facts. Deep throat told us: "every time they meet at the federal court house meetings the plaintiffs would change to a new or additional demands."

On September 20, 2007:

Lloyd Wimp [plaintiff] presented another proposal for the redistricting.

Let's look at the facts:

Attorney Fee date - October 4, 2007 - Description: Tele. conference w/Mr. Messer re: resolution

Attorney Fee date - October 5, 2007 - Description: Conference w/ Mr. Messer re: amended Consent Decree; Draft Amended Decree; revise original Decree; prepare Resolution; prepare Ordinance, forward to Mayor
Attorney Hours: 3.80
Attorney Amount: $570.00

Attorney Fee date: - October 9, 2007 - Description: Re-draft Resolution/Consent Degree, Conf. w/Mr. Messer, meetings (2)
Attorney Hours: 3.80
Attorney Amount: $570.00
Attorney: Ulrich & Vidra

Source: Bills submit to Controller Garry

Taxpayers, are you still with us?

Atty. Jerry L. Ulrich was defendant's attorney, not plaintiffs attorney and he was drawing up agreements for Councilman Messer for the plaintiffs. Was he doing work for plaintiffs and defendants and charging us taxpayers? Did Mr. Messer take it upon himself with out council approval to do this?

Question Mr. Smith: Why didn't Plaintiff's own attorney Bearsley draw these agreements up?

What authority did Councilman Messer have to negotiate and who gave him the approval to run taxpayer's tab up?

October 18, 2007: Mr. Kochert stated the way Mr. Messer got to be chairman of the redistricting committee was that he came up to him after the meeting and told him that he was going to be the chair.

Source: Council minutes

Check out the date of legal services and the date of Mr. Kochert's comments.

Is this not a case of Conflict of Interest on Council Attorney Ulrich's part?
Whose side was he on anyway?

Based on legal bills submitted to Controller Garry by Attorney Ulrich, we taxpayers carried the tab without approval by our council.

Hell fire, whose side was Messer on anyway?

Did Councilman Messer cut a deal with the plaintiffs before the November election?

Taxpayers, are you still with us?

Keep reading: this is starting to get interesting!

R07-35A states: IT IS SO ORDERED, Response: All discussions and deliberations on the issue of redistricting between members of the City Council shall take place only at regular or especially called meetings of the Council with notice to the public at least 48 hours in advance.

Source: Public record

On December 27, 2007 Mr. Messer stated that they did have a piece of paper that the plaintiff's signed and they could have been done with this lawsuit and the judge isn't happy with this ordinance and if they don't rule in favor then they will still be dealing with it next year and they had to push this through at the last hour makes no sense and that they option to take care of this and they chose not to take it.

Source: council minutes

What paper is Councilman Messer talking about?

Document B - Consent Decree

Reviewed, Signed and approved by the following:

Plaintiffs
Peter A. Vogt
Jeff Gillenwater
Roger Baylor
Randy Smith
Lloyd Wimp
Stephen Bearsley - Council for Plaintiffs

And...

Reviewed, Signed and approved Document B by the following:
Councilman Jack Messer
Councilman Kevin Zurschmiede
Council women Beverly Crump
James Garner, Sr. Mayor - City of New Albany

Again, go back to our legal fee list: for date of this Consent Decree.

Source: Public Record

We have a question for Councilman Messer: Why weren't the other Council members notified of this Consent Decree until after it had been drawn up and signed, then it was provided to the other council members?

On July 7, 2008 Mr. Messer stated: that there was NO POLITICS played in this committee except the politics for the people and not the politicians.

Source: July 7, 2008 Council minutes

Didn't you really mean to say: there was politics played on this committee the politics for the plaintiffs?

It is what it is...Councilman Messer ~ shame on you!

footnote: Part 11 of: Is this Smithgate or Watergate?