9/11, Five Years Later...

Today, we mark the five year anniversary of September 11, 2001. Five years later, the events of that fateful day still break my heart, bring tears to my eyes and a renewed sense of loving the greatest Country in the World, the USA. Of all of the emotions I experience when looking back, being an American, I can honestly say, fear was never one of them. Anger, yes, most definitely, fear never. Sounds strange to some, but in my heart of hearts, I know the men & women that protect this Country, from the first responders, to the best military in the world, are doing their jobs and will continue to do so. They all are to be commended, thanked and a prayer for their continued safety should be said.

Whatever side of the political fence you stand on, 9/11 is an American tragedy, from the ashes, many a hero has arisen. I guess that's why I find the GOP golf fundraiser being held today such a pathetic, skin crawling gesture. If this little outing where being held in honor of those that lost their lives or even in honor of those that fight today in Iraq & Afghanistan to protect their freedom to be so callous, maybe at least my skin wouldn't crawl. Mike Warner and the GOP must really be falling on hard times, tapping into their line of credit with Sterling Bank for campaigns and debts (ELEC report July 16/06) and using 9/11 as anything other than a day of remembrance, is just too much.

Col. Warner, as a respected and decorated military man, should donate today's proceeds to those from Burlington County that lost their lives on 9/11 and those that continue to fight for his and the GOP's right to hold a golf outing, on what I consider to be a sacred day in American history. The Burl. Co. GOP should give back to those that have lost their lives fighting for us all, that lived in Burlington County. Now that would be a true testament of what used to be, the Grand Old Party.

Things Americans & Others Needs to Hear from Our Government...

I truly wish I could here these words from G.W. himself and our Government.

THREE CHEERS FOR AUSTRALIA

I wish the leaders of our country, Canada, would take a stand like Australia.....

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament.
"If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country.

Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off".

"Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said. Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

USA and Canada..... ARE YOU LISTENING?

Quote:

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It ! I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.

However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia.

However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.

This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.

This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, then learn the language!

Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push but a fact because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, Because God is part of our culture.

We will accept your beliefs and will not question why, all we ask is that you accept ours and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.

If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means keep your culture but do not force it on others.

This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this, but once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian/Canadian/US/British et al freedom, "THE RIGHT TO LEAVE."

If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.

Pretty easy really, when you think about it. I figure if we all keep passing this to our friends (and enemies) it will also, sooner or later get back to the complainers, lets all try, please.

The Monster In The Closet

On Friday, June 30th, Evesham Twp. had their annual re-organization. This year, not being an election year, the newspapers assumed that nothing should go awry and chose not to attend the meeting. This is Evesham people, note the sham after Eve, that about sums it up. Cronyism is alive and well along with other nasty little monsters in the closet. Diversity is not first on the list of priorities here in Evesham; not on Council, on any of the boards, i.e. Planning, Zoning etc. or the Board of Education.


The Twp. advertises openings on boards that have members seats expiring or vacant in the "official Twp. papers" and residents are encouraged to put in a resume' by a certain deadline for the open seats. Applicants do submit resumes and may even be called by the Twp. to come in for an interview. Are you with me so far, fairly benign stuff. Now to the nitty gritty, I know of at least three people that where called for interviews, showed up and where never even considered due to cronyism. If the Mayor and Council already know whom they are choosing to re-appoint for the vacant seats, then why waste taxpayers & residents time with bogus interviews for a dog and pony show.

Now for the monster in the closet. Much worse than the above stated dog and pony show, the "Mayoral Appointments" takes the cake. An Evesham resident named Beverly Ingram did get a phone call from the Twp., went to her scheduled appointment and was seated in front of Mayor Tamburro and Deputy Mayor Sarcone. The appointment was scheduled for 5:00 pm and Ms. Ingram was finished by 5:25 pm. Twenty five minutes should be a decent amount of time to truly see if Ms. Ingram was qualified for the position she so desired; The Evesham Environmental Commission. Unfortunately for her, Ms. Ingram was told within minutes of being there that there were no openings on this board and if the Mayor didn't re-appoint one of his cronies, his wife would kill him. At re-organization, 3, three year terms where filled and one alternate for a two year term. That's four openings by my count and yes, the crony Mayor Tamburro spoke of was re-appointed. Why was Ms. Ingram never even considered, better yet, why was she lied to? Was it because she is a woman? Not likely. Maybe because she wasn't qualified; definitely not, her qualifications certainly lend to her being a very good choice, her background is working with MUA's and water treatment facilities. As a side note, Ms. Ingram has also in the past interviewed for the MUA. I guess we are to assume two Lenape Regional Board members are better qualified for the MUA. Let's see, what could possibly be the reason for Ms. Ingrams swift dismissal, could it be because she is a minority? No, I don't mean a Democrat, which she is, but a true minority, Ms. Ingram is a woman of color.

The following is the actual speech Beverly Ingram read aloud during the public comment portion of the re-organization meeting on June 30th. It has not been re-touched in any way and stands alone, leaving little or nothing to the imagination


GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.


MY NAME IS BEVERLY INGRAM AND I AM HERE THIS EVENING TO

EXPRESS PUBLICLY MY DISMAY AND CONCERN OVER THE RECENT

RE-ORGANIZATION PROCESS, WHICH I FEEL MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH

THE GOVERNING ORDINANCES, A PRETEXT FOR DISCRIMINATION

AND A DISSERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.


MY CONCERNS ARE ROOTED IN MY OWN OBSERVATIONS AND

EXPERIENCE WITH THE PROCESS. HAVING RESPONDED TWICE FOR

PUBLISHED ANNOUNCMENTS AND HAVING BEEN INTERVIEWED TWICE

FOR OPPORTUNITIES WHICH I FELT QUALIFIED TO CONTRIBUTE, ONLY TO

BE BY-PASSED FOR A PRE-ORDAINED CANDIDATE, AND THEN TO BE TOLD

THAT THERE ARE NO VACANCIES


SEVERAL ISSUES CONCERN ME INCLUDING:


WHY THE TOWNSHIP WOULD BE SO DISENGENUOUS BY SOLICITING

RESUMES AND LETTERS OF INTEREST FROM RESIDENTS FOR

OPORTUNITIES WHICH EITHER DID NOT EXIST OR FOR

WHICH THEY HAVE A PRE-DETERMINED CANDIDATE?


WHY WOULD THE TOWNSHIP SCHEDULE A CANDIDATE FOR AN

INTERVIEW FOR SUCH A POSITION, AND NOT CONDUCT AN

INTERVIEW, UNLESS SUCH A MEETING WAS MERELY TO SEE THE

INDIVIDUAL AND NOT TO DISCUSS, THE CREDENTIALS, ABILITIES

OR VALUE WHICH MAY BE ADDED TO A RESPECTIVE BOARD OR

COMMISSION?


HOW CAN THE TOWNSHIP BE PROGRESSIVE AND NEW IDEAS

BROUGHT FORTH IF MEMBERS OF THE EXISTING BOARDS ARE

CONSTANTLY RE-APPOINTED, AND THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE FOR

BEING INEFFECTIVE, NON-RESPONSIVE IN FULLFILLING THEIR

CHARGE?


I AM CONCERNED THAT THE PROCESS MAY BE PERCEIVED AS A

RUSE, TO REWARD POLITICAL FAVORITES, SPECIAL INTEREST,

FAMILY AND FRIENDS, THEREBY DEMINISHING THE CREDIBILITY OF

THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.


I AM CONCERNED THAT THE CURRENT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITIES IN WHICH THEY

SERVE.


HAVING SAID ALL OF THIS, LET ME CLOSE BY SAYING TO ALL OF

THE OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS HERE, BOTH ELECTED AND

APPOINTED, PUBLIC SERVICE IS A PRIVELEDGE NOT A RIGHT

PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND;


IF YOUR VISION IS BLINDED BY PARTISAN POLITICS YOU ARE DOING

YOUR CONSTITUENTS, AND THE VOTERS A DISSERVICE.


IF YOU ARE PROHIBITED BY INTIMIDATION FROM TAKING A STAND

ON WHAT IS JUST AND EQUITABLE, YOU ARE DOING YOUR

CONSTITUENTS,AND THE VOTERS A DISSERVICE.


IF YOUR JUDGEMENT IS CLOUDED BY CULTURE AND RACE YOU ARE

DOING YOURSELF A DISSERVICE.


IF YOU USE YOUR POSITION TO SATISFY PERSONAL VENDETTAS,

YOU ARE DOING A DISSERVICE.


IF YOU ONLY ANNOINT, APPOINT OR EMPLOY PEOPLE THAT LOOK

LIKE YOU, AND THINK LIKE YOU ARE DOING A DISSERVICE.


I WOULD SINCERELY HOPE THAT YOU CAN BE MORE

OBJECTIVE IN DISCHARGING YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS PUBLIC

SERVANTS IN YOUR REVIEW AND SELECTION OF FUTURE

CANDIDATES WHO ARE TRULY WILLING AND ABLE TO SERVE THE

COMMUNITY.

Puppets & Puppeteers

A puppet is commonly a wooden figure made to move by pulling on its strings. A puppeteer makes the puppet dance by manipulating the strings attached to the puppet via a wooden cross tee.
A truly good puppeteer makes the puppet move to do their bidding without jerky, spasmodic movements and of course without the puppets knowledge.
Puppets are led and can do wonderfully complicated tasks as long as the puppeteer is pulling the strings.
If puppets where left to their own devises, they would lay wherever left and never be seen or heard from again. Puppets are toys that are generally fun for a while and then boredom sets in or the puppeteer gets weary of the tangled strings and becomes angered by the simplicity of the puppet and the puppet is banished back to its box or worse, the garbage heap.
Moral of the story, it’s better to pull the strings and not be seen, than have the strings pulled for the use of someone else’s amusement.

The Dots Are Further Connected

Organizer defends PAC that pushed for Lenape school budget
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/28/06
BY LARRY HANOVER
GANNETT NEW JERSEY


Before the April school elections, an organizer of the political action committee that unsuccessfully worked for passage of the Lenape Regional School District budget described his group as broad-based and without apartisan tilt.

While bearing out organizer Stephen Madosky's description of the Coalition for Children's Education to an extent, the group's campaign contribution reports still have a flavor harkening back to the GOP-backed PAC that pushed for the 1997 Seneca High School referendum.

One large April contribution revealed the existence of a second Lenape PAC, dormant until recently but linked to its 1997 predecessor through acurrent school board member.

Its treasurer is the wife of board member John Jeffers, who has ties to J. Garfield DeMarco, the GOP power broker behind the successful PAC pushfor a $68.7 million referendum to build Seneca High in Tabernacle and expand Cherokee High in Evesham.

Also among the coalition's contributors are two key Burlington County GOP backers: the Haddonfield-based firm of Archer and Greiner, which has reaped massive fees as Lenape's attorneys, and Richard Alaimo Associates, a Mount Holly engineering firm.

Madosky, organizer of the Coalition for Children's Education, maintained last week that his PAC was exactly what he described, a broad-based group mainly from his hometown of Medford with the students' best interests in mind.

"They happen to be my friends," Madosky said of his contributors. "If I ask, they'd give it to me. You can try to make something out of it, but I assure you they're just friends.

"Through a spokesman, DeMarco said he has had no involvement with any Lenape PACs since the 1997 referendum. Madosky's PAC had 11 contributors as of its initial reports. They gave a total of $9,200 through April 15 and include some business owners livingin Medford, such as the owners of Cherry Hill's Coastline Restaurant and a Berlin construction company.

But then there's the $1,600 contribution from the here to fore unknown Committee for Lenape's Future, headed by Jill Jeffers, wife of the Lenape board member.

Although it's legal for a board member, let alone his wife, to push for passage of a bond referendum, the Republican couple from Mount Laurel did not publicly let on about their agenda.

John Jeffers is deputy executive director of the Burlington CountyBridge Commission, of which DeMarco is chairman.

John and Jill Jeffers did not return calls seeking comment.

The Burlington County GOP has denied any interest in the Lenape election.

Like DeMarco's 1997 PAC, the Jeffers' PAC was backed between 2000 and 2002 by firms that reaped contracts from the Seneca project, including Archer and Greiner.

The Committee for Lenape's Future, which contributed during that span to John Jeffers' board campaign and others, had been dormant for several years until recently giving money toward graduation parties for Lenape's four high schools.

Archer and Greiner anted up $1,000 for the Madosky PAC two months ago.

Archer and Greiner is Lenape's law firm and was paid at least $817,000 in fees related to the Seneca project from 1998 to 2001. It gave $8,875 to the Burlington County GOP in 2004.

Richard Alaimo Associates gave $500 to the Madosky PAC and is also a key Burlington GOP contributor, giving $25,000 in 2004.

John Maroccia, incoming Medford Democratic chairman, saw the firms'donations as confirmation of a GOP connection and efforts to bulk up their own bank accounts.

Officials from the two firms did not return calls seeking comment.

Understanding Low Income Housing

Low Income Housing does not necessarily mean "undesirables" are coming to Evesham. If the housing to be built is done via COAH (Council On Affordable Housing) & HUD guidelines the price line breaks down as such:

Income Guidelines 2006 (effective 3/8/2006)

LOW $25,500 MOD $40,400 one person

LOW $28,850 MOD $46,150 two people

LOW $32,450 MOD $51,950 three people

LOW $36,050 MOD $57,700 four people

MOD referring to moderate income

If we are talking about apartment rentals, the following is 2005's final for an efficiency to a 3 bedroom.

efficiency - $663.00 per month w/o utilities

1 bedroom - $761.00 per month w/o utilities

2 bedroom - $914.00 per month w/o utilities

3 bedroom - $1,095.00 per month w/o utilities

MISSION STATEMENT FROM COAH

To facilitate the production of sound, affordable housing for low and moderate income households by providing the most effective process to municipalities, housing providers, nonprofit and for profit developers to address a constitutional obligation within the framework of sound, comprehensive planning.

Interestingly enough, Mt. Laurel is in an uproar over Evesham putting low income on their border, yet it is because of Mt. Laurel these standards exist.

The Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) was created by the Fair Housing Act of 1985 as the State Legislature's response to a series of New Jersey Supreme Court cases known as the Mount Laurel decisions. The Supreme Court established a constitutional obligation for each of the 566 municipalities in the state to establish a realistic opportunity for the provision of fair share low and moderate income housing obligations, generally through land use and zoning powers. The legislature provided an administrative alternative to this constitutional obligation via the Fair Housing Act.

Evesham, as usual, never does the right thing, the Twp. Just came out of a judgment of Repose because they didn't do the lawful thing to begin with. Now we are stuck with building 233 units and purchasing land that supposedly will not exceed $2.5 million dollars. A very nice chunk of change to fulfill our obligation set by the court.

Make no mistake, the above figures are accurate, meaning that a working mother with a child could afford to live here, but if all units are not utilized, section 8 vouchers, by law must be accepted.

On a personal note, clustering low income housing is a very bad idea for all. The stigma attached to "projects" like what is proposed in Evesham will be very detrimental to the children living there and coming into our schools. Like it or not the reality of NIMBY (not in my back yard) is alive and well. While I abhor the government forcing this on us because of the impact to our schools in particular, the law is the law. We the tax payer will foot the bill for all of the children coming into our schools and because of the clustering and not spreading out the homes, the closest schools will feel the impact. Evesham has low income sites scattered throughout the Twp. Case in point, we have an elected official that lives in low income housing. The Mayor and Council need to do better and find more alternatives instead of pushing all the obligation on Mt. Laurel's border. The easy answer is not always the right answer.

I challenge the elected officials in this town to find alternatives rather than dumping their issues on Mt.Laurel's border, clogging our schools and generally pushing their problem where no one can see it. If the job is done right using scattered sites, which, by the way, is obviously more work at the drawing board (not an Evesham strong suit) the impact to all will be lessened and a neon sign will not be tattooed to the foreheads of the children who's parents are trying to provide a better life for them.

What Will They Do?

Tonight is the special council meeting for the defeated school budgets.

Will the Mayor and Council cut the school budget by more than $300,000? Will they cut at least a penny? Will they do the will of the voter or bow to the BOE?

Here's a bigger question, will the School Board threaten to cut school trips or activities if they don't get what they want. This wouldn't be the first time for these tactics.

Let's wait and see, just remember, it's for the children.