The Valley Viewpoint

History doesn’t usually announce itself.

It gives warnings first. Subtle ones. The kind people dismiss because they’re inconvenient.

Minnesota is ignoring them.

And folks here in the Hudson Valley shouldn’t pretend that makes it someone else’s problem.

What’s happening out there isn’t some distant policy fight or cable-news food fight. It’s about whether the rule of law still means what it’s supposed to mean — and whether local leaders get to decide which laws count.

Before Fort Sumter, nothing looked like a civil war. States pushed back against federal authority. Local officials reassured their neighbors that this was just politics, just posturing, just principle. Everyone thought they were in control.

Until nobody was.

When state and local leaders decide they won’t cooperate with federal law enforcement because they don’t like the law, that’s not activism — it’s defiance. When officials signal that federal agents are the problem, not criminals, they aren’t calming tensions. They’re daring them to grow.

And that matters here.

Because the same arguments being made in Minnesota get repeated in New York. In county legislatures. In press releases. In carefully worded statements about “standing in solidarity” — always vague, always safe, always avoiding the hard question: Do the laws still apply, even when they’re unpopular?

The Hudson Valley is not immune to this thinking. We’ve seen it in debates over cooperation with federal authorities, in elected officials choosing slogans over public safety, in silence when clarity is required. We like to tell ourselves we’re reasonable, practical, above the chaos.

History doesn’t care.

This isn’t about immigration as an abstract issue. Reasonable people disagree on immigration. This is about something more basic: either laws apply everywhere, or they apply nowhere. You don’t get to enforce the laws you like and ignore the ones that make you uncomfortable.

Once leaders start teaching people that federal authority is illegitimate, the damage is already done. Trust erodes. Lines harden. Every encounter feels like a test of wills instead of a routine act of governance.

That’s how systems crack — not all at once, but locally first.

Nobody in the Hudson Valley wants to be part of some grim chapter in a future history book. But pretending the warning signs are “somewhere else” doesn’t make us wiser. It just makes us later.

History doesn’t shout at first.

It clears its throat.

And that sound?

You can hear it — even from here.

There was a time when riding the subway came with a kind of certainty. Not about delays or crowds—those were always baked in—but about familiarity. I could almost guarantee that somewhere between the turnstile and my stop, I’d run into someone I knew. A classmate from high school. A coworker from a job I’d already half-forgotten. A neighbor I’d nodded to a thousand times without ever really knowing. The subway was a moving reunion hall, a place where lives intersected again by accident and routine.

Back then, recognition was effortless. Eye contact turned into smiles. Names were called out over the roar of the tracks. What are you doing here? was asked with genuine surprise, as if the city itself had momentarily bent to make the meeting happen. We compared stops, careers, kids, plans—then disappeared back into our separate tunnels, comforted by the sense that the world was smaller than it seemed.

Now, those connections are mostly gone.

The rides feel quieter, even when they’re loud. The faces are unfamiliar. The names don’t come to mind because there are none to recall. The subway still moves millions of people every day, but the sense of running into your people has thinned out, like an old neighborhood slowly emptying as the years pass.

And yet—every so often—it happens.

Not recognition, exactly. Something subtler.

A glance held just a second longer than necessary. A quick smile. A nod exchanged between people clearly of the same era. Same posture. Same eyes that have seen enough to know better than to expect too much from a weekday commute. There’s no conversation, no introductions. Just a shared, unspoken understanding.

What are we doing here?

Not in frustration—more in wonder.

We don’t ask because we already know the answer. Life moved fast. Time passed. Obligations accumulated. The subway kept running while everything else changed. We’re still here because we kept going. Because showing up became habit. Because this was the track we learned to ride.

Those nods don’t lead anywhere, but they linger. They’re small acknowledgments that we’re not alone in feeling the shift—that others remember when the ride felt different, when the city felt smaller, when familiarity rode alongside us.

The subway no longer reunites me with my past.

But every now and then, it reminds me that others are carrying the same quiet memories—standing on the same platform, waiting for the same train, fluent in the quiet language of a shared glance.

New Yorkers were clear.

They didn’t forgive.

They didn’t forget.

They didn’t vote him back.

And yet this week, Andrew Cuomo is back—armed not with a mandate, not with vindication, but with something arguably more powerful: a weekly radio microphone.

Cuomo, who resigned as governor under the weight of substantiated findings of sexual harassment, abuse of power, and retaliation, has landed a Sunday night show on 77 WABC. One hour. Call-in format. “Fact-based dialogue,” we’re told. No paycheck, supposedly, so everyone can pretend this is civic-minded rather than strategic.

Let’s dispense with the pretense.

Cuomo did not claw his way back through accountability. He didn’t confront the findings head-on. He didn’t repair the damage done to the women who spoke up, or to the public trust he shattered. He ran for mayor—and lost. Then ran again—and lost again. The voters spoke plainly.

That should have been the end of it.

Instead, the media stepped in where democracy stopped.

A radio microphone is not neutral. It is power. It allows narrative control without cross-examination, tone without scrutiny, and repetition without consequence. It is the perfect instrument for a political figure who wants relevance without responsibility.

On Sunday nights, there will be no sworn testimony.

No independent fact-finding.

No hard follow-ups about retaliation, intimidation, or the Attorney General’s report that forced Cuomo from office.

There will be anecdotes.

Friendly callers.

Carefully framed memories of “leadership” and “crisis management.”

This is not dialogue. It is revision.

The station’s owner, John Catsimatidis, says the goal is balance and thoughtful conversation. But balance without accountability is not journalism—it’s laundering. Political laundering.

Cuomo doesn’t need to refute the record if he can outlast it. He doesn’t need to answer the allegations if he can simply talk around them. Change the venue, soften the lighting, lower the volume—and eventually misconduct becomes “controversy,” controversy becomes “old news,” and old news becomes “misunderstood.”

That is how power evades consequences in New York.

Redemption requires acknowledgment, responsibility, and repair. Cuomo has offered none of those things. What he has been given instead is access—access to listeners, influence, and relevance—without consent from the public that already rendered its verdict.

New York rejected Andrew Cuomo.

The voters closed the door.

WABC opened a studio.

And once again, the message is unmistakable: in New York, accountability is optional—if the media decides you’re still worth hearing.

There’s a moment in public life when policy stops being about outcomes and becomes about signaling. New York City just crossed that line.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani is preparing to sign a bill that permanently bars U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from operating inside any city correctional facility, including Rikers Island. Not limited cooperation. Not oversight. Not reform. A total prohibition.

This is being sold as compassion. It isn’t.

No one is talking about dragnet raids or random stops. We’re talking about individuals who are already arrested, already detained, already inside secure city jails. We’re talking about situations where coordination between law enforcement agencies has long been routine, practical, and frankly obvious.

Instead, New York City has decided that even that level of cooperation is unacceptable—not because it endangers anyone, but because it conflicts with an ideological narrative.

Supporters call this a “Safer Sanctuary” law. But safety isn’t created by pretending federal law doesn’t exist. Safety isn’t enhanced by forcing agencies to work at cross-purposes. And safety certainly isn’t improved when elected officials refuse to distinguish between the innocent and those already charged with crimes.

Former Mayor Eric Adams tried to reintroduce a basic principle: that public safety requires cooperation across jurisdictions. That effort was blocked. Now the City Council has gone further, making sure no future mayor—regardless of circumstances, crime trends, or public concern—can even attempt it again.

At the state level, Governor Kathy Hochul is advancing similar restrictions, discouraging local police across New York from working with ICE at all. City and state leadership are now aligned in one clear message: immigration enforcement is not just unwelcome—it will be actively obstructed.

This is governance by symbolism. It feels good. It polls well. It generates applause. And it conveniently avoids responsibility for what happens next.

Because when cooperation is outlawed, accountability disappears. When something goes wrong—when a preventable crime occurs, when a known offender is released, when a victim asks why warnings were ignored—there will be no one to answer. Just press releases and moral language.

This isn’t about being anti-immigrant. That’s the cheap argument used to shut down debate. This is about whether leaders are willing to make distinctions, exercise judgment, and accept responsibility for consequences.

New York City has chosen ideology over judgment. It has chosen posture over practicality. And it has done so permanently.

The bill will be signed. The celebration will be loud. And the costs—quiet at first, then very real—will be paid not by policymakers, but by the communities they insist they are protecting.

There are days when gratitude arrives loudly—announcements, milestones, moments you know you’ll remember forever. And then there are days like this one, when gratitude slips in quietly, padded in on four small paws, curls up on the couch, and falls asleep under a blanket.

I look at Toby—tucked in, warm, safe—and I’m reminded that a good life is often built from the simplest things. A roof that holds. Heat that hums in the background without asking for attention. A couch worn just enough to feel familiar. A blanket that does exactly what it’s meant to do.

There was a time when I rushed past these details. When home was just where I landed at the end of long days, and warmth was something I assumed would always be there. Now, I notice it. I mind it. I understand how fragile comfort can be, and how much quiet work goes into keeping it steady.

Toby doesn’t know any of that, of course. He only knows that this is a place where he can rest. Where he’s welcome. Where the world outside—with its cold edges and noise—can be held at bay for a while. And in that, he teaches me something I should have learned sooner: safety is a gift, not a given.

I’m grateful that I have a warm home he can visit. Grateful that I can offer him shelter without thinking twice. Grateful that there is enough—enough space, enough calm, enough care—for both of us to exhale at the same time.

And if this small moment says anything beyond my own gratitude, it’s this: please take a little time today to make sure the folks you know are safe. A call. A text. A knock on a door. Warmth matters, and so does knowing that someone is looking out for you.

This isn’t a grand gratitude. It doesn’t need an audience. It lives in moments like this: a small dog asleep under a blanket, and the quiet realization that, for today at least, all is well.

And that is more than enough.

Federal Judge Margaret Garnett did not merely narrow an indictment when she dismissed the death-eligible murder counts against Luigi Mangione—she altered the balance of the entire case.

By striking the firearm-related murder charges tied to the killing of Brian Thompson, the court removed the most direct legal link between the defendant and the death itself. What remains are stalking charges—grave offenses, but ones that depend heavily on inference, intent, and causation rather than a single, concrete outcome.

That distinction matters.

Murder charges anchor a prosecution to a result. Stalking charges ask jurors to reconstruct motive, pattern, and legal causality. If even one juror hesitates—about intent, continuity, or whether the conduct legally caused the death—the case fractures. Reasonable doubt doesn’t need to shout. It only needs space.

This ruling created that space.

Evidence once central to a homicide prosecution now risks being viewed as contextual or prejudicial. The death, no longer the charge itself, becomes background. And when outcomes are pushed to the margins, juries often follow.

This is how defendants walk—not because the harm was unclear, but because the legal framework became easier to challenge and harder to unify. Narrower charges mean narrower narratives, and narrow narratives are easier to dismantle.

The decision may be doctrinally sound. But doctrine does not decide verdicts—jurors do. And in a system designed to protect against certainty, softening charges is often all doubt needs to win.

When the Ulster County Executive says she “stands with Minneapolis,” what she does not say matters just as much as what she does.

She does not say she stands with the law.

She does not say she stands with victims of crime.

And she does not say she stands with the families whose lives have been permanently changed by violent acts committed by individuals who were never supposed to be here in the first place.

That silence isn’t accidental — and it isn’t leadership.

Public officials swear an oath to uphold the law, not to selectively respect it when it becomes politically inconvenient. Immigration law is federal law. It was passed by Congress, upheld by the courts, and enforced by duly authorized federal agencies. Disagreement with enforcement tactics does not erase the law itself. Standing against enforcement without acknowledging that reality sends a dangerous message: that the rule of law is optional.

Even more troubling is what her statement ignores — the victims.

There are Americans, including New Yorkers, who have been raped, assaulted, robbed, and killed by individuals who entered or remained in this country illegally. Their families don’t get slogans or solidarity statements. They get funerals, courtrooms, and a lifetime of loss. When a public official speaks forcefully against enforcement but remains silent about those victims, it sounds less like compassion and more like indifference.

Standing with victims does not require cruelty.

Standing with the law does not require dehumanization.

But refusing to stand with either is a choice — and it is a political one.

If the concern is accountability, then say so clearly. Demand lawful enforcement and constitutional conduct. Support humane treatment and public safety. Condemn abuse and criminal violence. Leaders are capable of holding more than one truth at the same time.

But political signaling is not justice.

Silence about victims is not neutrality.

Leadership requires moral clarity.

Right now, that clarity is missing.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1Jo4aF4nKA/?mibextid=wwXIfr

While many if not most illegal aliens are decent people and are only illegally in the United States to provide for themselves or their families—an action that does not justify breaking the immigration laws of the United States—all of them are not decent and many are responsible for shocking crimes and incredible damage to families all across America.
Most everybody remembers the tragedy in New Jersey where illegal aliens wantonly killed three students and seriously injured another. A few people even remember that Jamiel Shaw was gunned down by an illegal alien gang member. However, very few people remember or even know that four year old Esmeralda Nava was kidnapped, molested, and strangled to death by an illegal alien child predator. The perpetrator that killed little Esmeralda told police that he carried the girl with one arm and muffled Esmeralda’s cries for her daddy with his other hand “until she stopped moving.’’
Almost nobody knows that the illegal alien sexual pervert that used and abused little Esmeralda Nava had been previously deported. Who remembers Min Soon Chang, an eighteen year old freshman at the University of North Carolina who was killed by a drunk driving illegal alien? In that case the perpetrator had at least three prior DWI convictions and had been previously deported 17 times. That is not a typo.
Who besides her family even know, let alone remember, that Danielle Gorectke, a vivacious 23 year old student at University of Wisconsin- Stevens Point was raped and beaten to death by an illegal alien?
Each one of these tragedies devastated an American family, and I could go on and on with more equally horrific stories. Each one of these tragedies was totally preventable if the perpetrator was not illegally residing in the United States.
Excluding breaking the immigration laws of the United States and committing ID theft and fraud, do illegal aliens commit more crime than legal immigrants? Probably, but nobody really knows. Do illegal aliens commit more crime than citizens? Most likely, but nobody really knows. What we do know is that the Justice Department does not report crimes committed by foreign nationals, illegal aliens, or even Hispanics (about 80% of illegal aliens are Hispanic). Interestingly, the DOJ does however, report crimes committed against Hispanics, including illegal alien Hispanics, but will not distinguish if the perpetrator was Hispanic themselves. (Crimes committed by Hispanics, including illegal alien Hispanics, go into the “Caucasian” category as “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race.)
While no crime is ever justified and racially motivated crimes are particularly onerous in a civilized society, the reporting is a one way street the Left’s incorrect perception that “illegal aliens are just good family-values people that are here to do the work Americans won’t.”
When the government does not report crimes committed by illegal aliens, who are mostly Hispanic, but does report “hate crimes” committed against Hispanics it further distorts perceptions.
It is unfortunate that the Left often resorts to an intimidation tactic by labeling my positions as having the ‘uncomfortable stink’ of racism. Why does the Left use this label when a review of any of my previous columns would show nothing but a desire to make certain that our borders are secured and the immigration system has real integrity? Yet, those of us who take this position and make these demands are labeled as racists and xenophobes.
I recognize that our strength as a nation is built on the immigrant experience in America. I welcome legal immigration to this country. However, we are also a nation of laws and government should not adopt policies that encourage illegal immigration. Moreover, our neighbors should not carelessly use the word ‘racism’ when all one is doing is standing for the rule of law.
Illegal immigration is an insult to every American citizen, naturalized or native born.

On Friday, Kathy Hochul didn’t just introduce an immigration bill — she planted a political flag.

Her proposal would prohibit local police departments across New York from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on civil immigration enforcement and would block ICE from using local jails for civil detention. Hochul presented it as a moral stand meant to protect communities and civil rights.

But to many New Yorkers, it sounded like something else entirely: politics first, governance second.

The governor paired the rollout with emotionally charged remarks aimed at Donald Trump, calling for federal authorities to “stand down” what she described as an assault on families and children. It was dramatic language — the kind designed for headlines and social media clips — but it left a glaring omission.

Absent from the governor’s framing was any acknowledgment of the New Yorkers who have been victims of serious crimes committed by people in the country illegally. Those cases are not theoretical. They are real to the families affected, and they shape how many residents view immigration enforcement. Ignoring that reality risks appearing dismissive of legitimate public-safety concerns.

No one serious argues that immigration status alone makes someone a criminal. But no one serious can deny that some horrific crimes have occurred — and when they do, the public reasonably asks whether better cooperation between agencies could have prevented them.

That’s where critics say Hochul’s approach feels disconnected from reality. Immigration law is federal law. A governor can refuse to help enforce it, but she cannot make it disappear. Drawing bright political lines may energize a base, but it also limits tools local officials might want available when safety is on the line.

And then there’s the issue of priorities.

New York faces crushing affordability problems, a housing crisis, strained social services, and mounting migrant-related costs for local governments. Against that backdrop, Hochul chose to spotlight a measure that is largely symbolic in day-to-day life for most residents. It doesn’t lower rent. It doesn’t reduce grocery bills. It doesn’t ease property taxes.

Supporters will call her stance compassionate. Critics call it selective compassion — one that speaks loudly about one group while saying little about victims or overwhelmed communities.

Hochul insists cooperation on violent crime will continue. But real life isn’t neatly divided between “civil” and “criminal.” Situations evolve. Jurisdictions overlap. Flexibility matters. And rigid political postures can carry real-world consequences.

In the end, this debate isn’t about cruelty versus kindness. It’s about whether leaders are willing to confront the full complexity of immigration — including the uncomfortable parts — or whether they prefer safer political ground.

For many watching, the question isn’t subtle anymore:

Is the governor solving problems — or sending messages?

There is a simpler explanation for the missing signature, one that requires no assumptions about motive or intent: perhaps the other legislator was never asked.

The Town of LaGrange, NY is represented in the Dutchess County Legislature by Emma Arnoff, a Democrat representing District 2, and Michael Polasek, a Republican representing District 3. The letter bears Arnoff’s signature. Polasek’s is absent.

That absence invites a narrower and more precise question than speculation about disagreement: was the District 3 legislator included in the effort at all?

In politics, omission is not always refusal. Sometimes it is choreography.

Letters like this are rarely drafted in open forums. They are written, circulated, and finalized within small and intentional circles. Decisions about who is included often occur before the first draft is shared, shaped by assumptions about responsiveness, alignment, or the likelihood of delay. Not being asked to sign can reflect anticipation—not of opposition, but of hesitation.

And hesitation, in local government, can be decisive.

If the District 3 legislator was not asked to join a request focused entirely on a major LaGrange development—its traffic impacts, emergency access, and SEQRA compliance—that fact alone is revealing. It suggests that unity was either assumed to be unattainable or deemed unnecessary. It implies parallel tracks of representation, where some officials engage directly with process while others are kept at a distance, intentionally or by habit.

Importantly, the letter itself does not oppose the project. It does not call for rejection or delay for delay’s sake. It asks for updated information—an updated traffic study reflective of current conditions and informed by the LaGrange Fire District. These are baseline governance requests, not ideological ones.

Which makes the absence more consequential.

If Polasek was asked and declined, constituents might reasonably want to understand why. If he was never asked, constituents are left with a different concern: that full representation was not even attempted at a moment when the town’s interests warranted a unified request.

Either way, the result is the same. One of LaGrange’s two county-level voices is missing from the official record.

In local government, transparency is not only about data and studies. It is also about inclusion—who is consulted, who is looped in, and who is invited to stand publicly behind the simple proposition that decisions should be based on current facts.

Sometimes the most telling detail is not conflict, but the quiet choice to avoid it.

One of the more eye-opening conversations I’ve had recently was with a 26-year-old employee who was about to age out of their parents’ health insurance. They came to me anxious and uncertain, saying, “I don’t know what to do.” What started as a routine benefits discussion quickly became a window into how broken and inaccessible the health insurance system feels to someone encountering it for the first time.

For many young professionals, health insurance has always existed in the background. Their parents handled it, doctors’ visits were straightforward, and the system felt invisible. Turning 26 changes that overnight. Suddenly, they are faced with premiums, deductibles, networks, co-insurance, and out-of-pocket maximums—terms that even experienced employees struggle to interpret. It’s not just confusing; it’s intimidating.

As I walked this employee through their options, I was struck by how unnecessarily complex the system is. Insurance companies present plan designs in dense, technical language that feels intentionally opaque. Claims support is often fragmented—call centers outsourced, representatives reading scripts, and no single person accountable for resolving issues. Even when employees do everything “right,” claims are denied, delayed, or misprocessed, forcing them to navigate a maze of appeals and explanations of benefits that rarely explain anything clearly.

Brokers, who are supposed to act as advocates, often fall short as well. Too many operate as intermediaries focused on renewals and plan placement rather than day-to-day employee advocacy. When employees have real claims problems, they’re often told to “call the carrier,” which defeats the purpose of having a broker in the first place. For someone new to insurance, this can feel like being bounced between institutions that all disclaim responsibility.

This employee’s anxiety wasn’t just about cost—it was about trust. They didn’t trust that the system would work when they needed it, and frankly, that skepticism is understandable. Healthcare coverage should provide security, but the administrative experience often feels adversarial rather than supportive.

Yet, once we broke down the basics—what premiums actually pay for, how deductibles work, and how to choose a plan based on personal risk tolerance—the process became more empowering. They started asking thoughtful questions and taking ownership of their choices. Knowledge helped, but it didn’t erase the systemic frustrations.

Helping this employee reinforced for me how critical it is for employers to bridge the gap between employees and the insurance ecosystem. Turning 26 shouldn’t feel like being dropped into a bureaucratic labyrinth. Insurance carriers, brokers, and benefits administrators all have a responsibility to simplify, advocate, and humanize the experience. Until they do, employees will continue to feel lost at exactly the moment they should feel supported.

The other day I found myself doing something I’m convinced only happens once every 25 years: shopping for a new mattress. This is not a casual errand. This is a life decision. Possibly an end-of-life decision.

The sales guy was ecstatic. Truly alive. He walked me through every modern miracle known to sleep science—cooling gel, memory foam, layers with names, and at least one feature that sounded like it required government approval. Apparently, today’s mattresses don’t just support your back; they understand it.

Eventually, he asked the big question:

“So… are you ready to buy today?”

I told him, very seriously, that I needed time to think.

He looked confused. “Think about what?”

I said, “Well, I’m trying to reconcile the fact that if I buy a mattress now, statistically speaking, this is probably the mattress I’ll die on.”

There was a long pause.

He blinked. Once. Maybe twice.

Then he nodded politely and backed away slowly—like I had just shared something deeply personal, profoundly unsettling, and possibly contagious.

I didn’t buy the mattress.

But I think I may have given him a minor existential crisis—and that, honestly, feels like a fair trade.