It is time to answer those non-believers and also those who are short of having any kind of backbone whatsoever, especially those who blog on the Internet and are gutless and afraid to give their right name when they criticize my family.
If you don't like my articles, be man enough to at least sign your right name. Right now, I only know you as a very gutless individual. Leave my family out of your remarks.
Now for the article in the OBSERVER (Jan. 8) titled "Many support the library," it is too bad the writer did not do any type of research on this matter instead of reading between the lines.
The facts are that the library employees did at one time receive paid benefits from the city of Dunkirk, including retirement benefits paid for by the city taxpayers.
The library also receives donations, contributions, along with city funding totaling $250,000. Can you tell me what other library receives such income from the taxpayer and contributors?
The people on the library committee have to wake up to reality. No other city agency receives that kind of money.
This writer goes on to contradict himself by agreeing that other city departments are far more important and in need of repairs, but not to use the library money to help the more essential facilities which are greatly in need of those repairs. These are the points that I was attempting to get across, but was misread in doing so.
In conclusion wasn't this same writer involved in the former multi-use facility and promoted same to the city of Dunkirk, the county and the state of New York receiving funding for that former facility from the above agencies.
This facility never happened, so where is the taxpayers money from those funders?
This same writer goes on to blame city employees for the budget problems in Dunkirk and not the library. What lunacy is this?
I hope he doesn't blame state employees for budget problems within this state.
Successes are not flops
There they go again. The OBSERVER is a newspaper with a clear message: we love Republicans and hate Obama. Just after the State of the Union speech Jan. 24, the OBSERVER in bold print and no known author headlines, "Obama pushes plans that flopped before."
The American auto industry has come back, there is health care for over 2 million young adults under 26 years old, manufacturing jobs and the economy are growing. Osama bin Laden and his leaders were destroyed, a nine-year war in Iraq ended with another one to follow, stricter regulations on Wall Street, and many more accomplishments during just three years in office.
If these are flops, what do you consider success? Using your criteria, success must mean; starting two unpaid wars costing lives and a trillion dollars, 50 million Americans with no insurance, the destruction of the manufacturing base of this country, unfunded prescription drug program, subsidizing big oil companies, etc.
A little food for thought. Under George W. Bush we had low taxes for the rich (job creators) and less regulations on corporations. Why did we lose so many jobs and wind up in the bad situation in 2008? Talk about a flop.