Where does Molly Clifford really live?

Good question.
To reiterate from an earlier blog, the notorious Molly Clifford established residence at 45 Stutson Street in January 2014 to run for the northwest city council seat being vacated by Carla Palumbo.
The house is listed as "owner occupied," and doesn't require a C of O.
Clifford is not the owner. The landlord would therefore have to change the status of the property to a rental and apply for a C of O.
This has not been done, which makes one wonder about the legality of Clifford's residence there, even if it is only on paper. If it isn't legal, how can she run for office based on her residence there?
Clifford is really only renting a mailbox. That is a common ploy used by welfare cheats and con artists to establish residence in places where they do not live in order to pull off a scam.
It means Clifford is interested in nothing more than wining elected office for that district. It is a means to the end of running for mayor in 2017.
Even more interesting is the history of Clifford's previous residences, courtesy of Monroe County's Board of Elections.
For the last decade, until now, they have listed the locations of her voter registration as being "unknown."
Unknown?
Are we to presume that Clifford was homeless or a gypsy?
That is doubtful.
How was she able to vote if she didn't have a legally registered address?
At least her Green Party opponent, Dorothy Paige, has lived at the same address for decades and can prove it.
There is way too much that is, and has been, fishy about Clifford.
To do her justice, she is no worse than Yversha Roman or LaShana Boose. They also have questionable recent residences.
They typify what is wrong with our political system. It explains why people are apathetic about it and refuse to come out to vote. Why vote when all politicians are seen as crooks?
Which is why the whole system needs to be razed and rebuilt from the foundations upwards.
But people are fearful of that, allowing corrupt politicians to continue to go merrily about their way.

Bolgen Vargas Resigns.

Bolgen Vargas, Rochester's school superintendent, resigned his position this afternoon.
It is really no big surprise. Vargas and the school board have been rubbing each other the wrong way for the last couple of years. It resulted in Vargas attempting to bring a lawsuit against the school board earlier this year. He dropped it, but acrimony remained on both sides.
Both he and they are unconcerned with the fact that their actions have continued to make the Rochester public school system the laughingstock of the state and the entire nation.
Neither side seems particularly embarrassed by this. They blame everyone else for their inability to lead or come up with innovative plans for improving the education offered in the city's public schools.
Both sides are only concerned with feathering their own nests, building their own systems of patronage and looking to move up the political food chain when the possibility presents itself.
Both sides are full of shit.
Even Mayor Warren herself didn't entrust the education of her child to them.
That says a lot about her opinion of them.
Vargas' position expires in June 2016, and the school board chose not to renew his contract.
His resignation might have had more impact had that fact not already been public knowledge. As it is, he seems merely to be bowing to the inevitable.
Rochester's school board will soon have a new acting superintendent to piss off: former Syracuse City School Superintendent Dan Lowengard will serve as an interim leader effective January 1.
I wish him good luck. He'll need it, especially if he wants to effect any sort of positive change in the school system in the wake of the cretins who comprise our school board.
As for Vargas, he's had a good, long and lucrative run in the field of what passes for education in Rochester these days. Hopefully he put a few bucks aside for a rainy day.
Affirmative action and political correctness have been berry, berry good to him.

Molly Clifford's rented house on Stutson Street doesn't have a C of O.

Rochester's weekly liberal newsrag, City  Newspaper, made much of the notorious Molly Clifford when they endorsed her for city council's northwest district seat.
I'll grant that she is connected to a lot of politically powerful people. I will also grant that she has had several different positions in the last few city administrations.
She had several because she wasn't good in any of them.
Clifford was kept on because ex mayor Doofus owed her something for getting him elected. He finally ended up creating a position in the fire department for her after she loused up her previous position with the city.
That position was as the head of NET, short for Neighborhood Empowerment Team.
NET was supposed to empower neighbors when dealing with crime, slumlords, zoning and code violations.
A rental property without a Certificate of Occupancy, or C of O, and renting out to tenants is just such a code violation.
It is usually punishable by a fine.
More information about C of O's can be gotten from the city's website. Single family, owner occupied homes are exempt. Rental units are not.
When Clifford established residence in Charlotte in 2014 to meet the requirement for this year's election, it was in a house that does not have a C of O. The property's owner could not have legally rented it to her, whether or not she and her boy toy really live there.
As the former head of NET, Clifford would be aware of the necessity of a C of O for a landlord to rent any property.
Perhaps Clifford will plead ignorance. That is not credible.
The bigger question is that if she established residence in a house that the landlord was not legally entitled to rent to her, is Clifford's candidacy based on that residence legal?

Banning firearms won't solve anything.

That's right.
In the wake of the recent uptick in gun violence across the United States, bleeding heart liberal assholes are calling for a ban on firearms. I'll bet that the mayor's office gets plenty of calls from concerned but misguided residents demanding that she do just that for the City of Rochester.
To underscore the point, Rochester's liberal newsrag, the D&C, chose to print the opinion of an equally liberal academic asshole from SUNY Brockport, Barbara LeSavoy. She is calling on the great black god Obama to ban firearms to cement his legacy of establishing a culture of peace and civility in the United States.
Clearly, this broad doesn't know what she is talking about.
How will banning guns do that?
The ban will merely piss off the vast majority of gun owners who are law abiding citizens. New gun control laws will have no effect on criminals who pay no attention to laws anyway. Nor are the state and federal governments willing or able to enforce what they have in place now.
Most firearms that criminals use to commit crimes were stolen from legitimate owners. People already prohibited by law from possessing firearms ( such as convicted criminals and people suffering from psychiatric problems ) seem to have no problem acquiring them because the current laws are not being enforced.
They will have no problem acquiring firearms, including assault weapons, if all guns are banned, because those weapons will still be out there, somewhere. Law abiding citizens won't seek them out. Criminals will.
That is the fact bleeding heart liberal assholes don't seem to understand. Nor do they understand that banning firearms will not make criminals more docile. It will not make criminals more respectful of the law. It will not change their twisted mental conditions. It will encourage them to find other ways to get around the law. It will not change a society that has been warped by fifty years of affirmative action.
What might work to dissuade these anti-social elements would be a mandatory, non-negotiable sentence of ten years or more for any criminal caught using a gun during the commission of his ( or her ) crime. That would come on top of whatever sentence a court of law bestowed on the criminal. It would be served consecutively, not concurrently. The criminal would be forced to serve every stinking minute of it.
Here's the rub. Bleeding heart liberal assholes wouldn't go for it because it has racial overtones. Conservatives would like the sound of it, but would refuse to pay for more prisons to separate these criminals from the law abiding society they prey upon. The parole boards wouldn't like it because it interferes with their god-priest-judge status, never mind the fact that most of recent murderers have been turned loose upon us by parole boards who felt that criminals had been punished enough.
The banning of firearms will only serve to give criminals yet another law to break. They will laugh at it. Breaking the law is their habit, hobby and pleasure.
And the great black god Obama won't be ushering in anything approaching a culture of peace and civility in the year he has left, despite LeSavoy's misplaced worship of him.

A boring county executive race.

It is only a month until the November elections.
There will be very few surprises.
Most incumbents will probably win their seats. Again. Not because they have accomplished anything of note. They have name recognition. The few people who vote are accustomed to them. And their competition is just as unworthy as they are.
The race for Monroe County Executive is different. Maggie Brooks is termed out and can't run again.
Her understudy, Republican Cheryl DiNolfo, currently chief clerk and bottle washer in county government, has been waiting for twelve years to step into Ms. Brooks' three-inch pumps.
Mrs. DiNolfo's opponent, Establishment Demagogue Sandra Frankel, ran for county executive before. And lost.
Mrs. Frankel never received the financial and moral support of her party four years ago. She still hasn't got it because the MCDC is in a state of chaos, with incompetent leadership as its fatal flaw.
Frankel does not have the open support of the Black Demagogues, who have no loyalty to the dictates of the MCDC. They see this contest as one between two white women, and will probably flip a coin to decide who they vote for. Or they will do as they are bidden by David Gantt.
Apart from that, this year's campaign has been a bore.
Both ladies have been too busy social butterflying it around the area to mount anything approaching a political campaign. They are counting on party loyalty alone to get elected.
Certainly, Frankel has been whining about Republican corruption and the county's fiscal stress from time to time. That card is worn out. She played it before and lost.
Nor has she expressed her solutions in anything but the most vague and general terms, leaving undecided voters bewildered and confused. Which leads one to believe that she doesn't have any solutions other than to increase taxation, liberalism's usual panacea for all of society's ills.
DiNolfo hasn't risen to the bait and sought to make an issue of Frankel's accusations. If she did, she would be forced to come up with answers of her own. That would stir up a kettle of fish DiNolfo and her handlers would rather avoid, especially in the city of Rochester.
DiNolfo knows she has the county, which is dominated by Republicans. She can afford to be less concerned about Rochester, which is split between black and white Demagogic factions. The fact that Rochester mayor Lovely Warren has refused to support Frankel is a feather in DiNolfo's cap.
As for the Green Party candidate, Rajeesh Barnabas, he has been remarkably silent as well. As the candidate of a third party, he won't count for much in the upcoming election.
They all seem to be waiting for public forums sponsored by WXXI, WROC and the League of Women Voters and the Rochester Rotary to get their word out.
Those events will probably not be well watched or well attended, because the voters won't be swayed so late in the game. They will probably vote for their own party's candidates, with Barnabas getting a few hundred votes that might have gone to Frankel.
That's what the political parties want. Not to elect the better candidate, merely their own.
Which is why they haven't wasted any time talking about issues.
And shame on the Rochester Rotary for involving itself in politics.