The Valley Viewpoint

For years, many of us have been called intolerant simply for stating what generations of Americans understood without controversy: girls’ sports should be for girls.

Today, the United States Supreme Court affirmed that common sense.

In a landmark decision, the Court ruled that states may reserve girls’ and women’s athletic teams for biological females, holding that doing so is fully consistent with both Title IX and the Constitution.

This wasn’t a victory against anyone. It was a victory for the young women Title IX was designed to protect.

When Congress passed Title IX more than 50 years ago, it recognized that female athletes deserved equal opportunities—not just in theory, but in reality. That law transformed American sports, opening doors to scholarships, championships, and dreams that had previously been closed.

Those opportunities only exist if the playing field is fair.

The Court recognized what parents, coaches, and female athletes have been saying all along: biology matters in sports. Strength, speed, endurance, and size are real advantages. Ignoring those differences doesn’t create equality—it undermines it.

For too long, many elected officials, school administrators, and athletic organizations were afraid to say what they knew to be true. Instead, they chose ideology over common sense and expected female athletes to bear the consequences.

The Supreme Court refused to do that.

The justices made clear that protecting competitive fairness and athlete safety are not only legitimate goals—they are compelling ones. They also rejected the notion that schools must conduct impossible case-by-case evaluations to determine who should compete in girls’ sports.

Here in the Hudson Valley, where our communities rally around high school athletics, this decision provides long-overdue clarity. Parents, coaches, athletic directors, and school boards now have clear constitutional guidance.

Reasonable people can disagree on many aspects of the broader debate surrounding gender identity. But this case was about something much more specific: whether the opportunities created for women under Title IX should remain protected.

The Supreme Court answered with a resounding yes.

Sometimes leadership means standing firm when it’s unpopular. Sometimes it means defending reality even when doing so invites criticism.

Today, the highest court in the land reminded us that equal opportunity for women requires protecting the spaces created specifically for them.

That’s not discrimination.

That’s exactly what Title IX was intended to accomplish.

The U.S. Supreme Court today delivered one of the most significant constitutional rulings in decades, holding in a 6-3 decision that children born in the United States are citizens at birth—even if their parents are in the country illegally or only temporarily. In doing so, the Court struck down President Trump’s Executive Order that attempted to end birthright citizenship through executive action.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, didn’t mince words. He concluded that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has always meant exactly what it says. If you’re born in the United States and subject to our laws, you’re a citizen. The Court relied heavily on its 128-year-old precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, reaffirming that birthright citizenship is rooted not only in the Constitution but in more than a century of settled law.

But don’t make the mistake of thinking this was an easy case. The dissent raises arguments that deserve serious consideration.

Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority got the history wrong. His position is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was never intended to mean simply being physically present in the United States or being required to obey our laws. Instead, he argues it means owing complete political allegiance to the United States. If a child’s parents remain citizens of another nation—particularly if they are here illegally or only temporarily—that child, in his view, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement for automatic citizenship.

Justice Samuel Alito reached much the same conclusion. He argued that the majority expanded the Fourteenth Amendment beyond what Congress intended after the Civil War and effectively read language into the Constitution that simply isn’t there. In his view, whether birthright citizenship should extend to children of illegal immigrants is a question for the American people and Congress—not the courts.

Here’s what I find interesting.

Both sides relied on history. Both claimed the Framers were on their side. Both cited Reconstruction-era debates, English common law, and more than a century of precedent. That’s what makes constitutional interpretation so fascinating—and so difficult.

The majority says the Constitution settled this question in 1868 and that the Court settled it again in 1898. The dissent says we’ve been reading those decisions too broadly ever since.

Reasonable people can disagree on which interpretation is correct.

What cannot be disputed is this: the President cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen. Whether you supported President Trump’s Executive Order or opposed it, the Constitution establishes a process for changing constitutional rights. That process is called a constitutional amendment—not an executive order.

This decision will undoubtedly frustrate many Americans who believe our immigration system is broken. And frankly, they’re right about one thing: Congress has failed to fix it.

But immigration policy and constitutional citizenship are not the same issue.

If the American people want to change birthright citizenship, they’ll have to persuade Congress and ultimately the states to amend the Constitution. Until then, the Fourteenth Amendment remains the law of the land.

That’s not politics.

That’s constitutional government.

There are moments when government forgets that it serves the people—not the other way around. The Red Hook Boat Club controversy is one of those moments.

From the very beginning, I called this what it was: an abuse of power.

Supervisor Robert McKeon wasn’t interested in finding a lawful solution. He was determined to seize the Red Hook Boat Club, and everything that followed appeared designed to justify a decision that had already been made. The courts have now repeatedly rejected key parts of that process, reinforcing what many in this community believed all along: government cannot manipulate the rules simply because it wants a different outcome.

This wasn’t leadership. It was bullying.

Eminent domain is one of the most extraordinary powers government possesses. It exists for rare and compelling public purposes—not as a weapon to force citizens off their property because elected officials believe they know better.

Every court setback has come with another bill for taxpayers to pay. Every legal defeat has further eroded public confidence in Town Hall. And every appeal raises the same question: How much more taxpayer money will be spent defending a process the courts continue to reject?

Enough.

The rule of law applies to everyone—including those who hold public office. When government cuts corners, ignores legal safeguards, and dismisses the voices of its own citizens, the courts have both the authority and the responsibility to intervene. That is exactly what has happened here.

Supervisor McKeon should end this failed eminent domain crusade. Stop wasting taxpayer dollars. Respect private property rights. And apologize to the people of Red Hook for dragging their community through a costly, unnecessary fight that never should have happened.

Because when government becomes the bully, it is the courts—and ultimately the people—who must remind it that no one is above the law.

There are moments in life when you meet someone who quietly changes the way you see the world.

That’s what Lauren Shields did for me.

I first met Lauren after she addressed the audience at a naturalization ceremony. New citizens had gathered to celebrate becoming Americans, and Lauren stood before them and shared her remarkable story. She didn’t ask for sympathy. She didn’t dwell on her own suffering. She spoke about gratitude, resilience, and the precious gift of life.

I remember thinking, “This young woman is extraordinary.”

Not long afterward, Uncle Mike and I had the privilege of interviewing Lauren and her wonderful mother, Jeanne, on our radio show. We talked about her incredible journey—a heart transplant at just nine years old, a kidney transplant years later donated by her own mother, and her tireless mission to encourage others to become organ donors.

By the end of that interview, Lauren had accomplished something she had probably done thousands of times before.

She changed a mind.

Mine.

Because of Lauren, I became an organ donor.

That was Lauren’s gift. She never preached. She inspired. She took unimaginable hardship and transformed it into hope for complete strangers.

Her advocacy led to Lauren’s Law, legislation that dramatically increased New York’s organ donor registry by requiring every applicant for a driver’s license to make a conscious decision about organ donation. That simple change has helped save countless lives—and will continue to do so for generations.

Today, I am absolutely heartbroken to learn of Lauren’s passing.

My heart goes out to Jeanne and to everyone who loved this remarkable young woman. While her life was far too short, her legacy is immeasurable. Somewhere today, someone is alive because Lauren refused to let her own struggles define her and instead dedicated her life to helping others.

Every time I look at my driver’s license, I’ll think of Lauren.

And I suspect I’m not the only one.

Rest in peace, Lauren. Thank you for changing my life, for inspiring Uncle Mike and me, and for leaving behind a legacy that will endure every time someone checks “Yes” and gives another person the gift of life.

For years, a cottage industry of litigation has thrived on the idea that a courtroom can overrule the findings of the nation’s leading scientists. Last week, the United States Supreme Court reminded everyone that isn’t how our system is supposed to work.

In a decisive 7-2 ruling, the Court held that federal law preempts state-law claims seeking warning labels that conflict with federal regulatory determinations regarding Roundup. The decision is expected to significantly curb thousands of lawsuits built on the argument that manufacturers should have been forced to provide warnings the federal government never required.

This case was never just about Roundup.

It was about whether trial lawyers could persuade juries to substitute emotion for science and billion-dollar verdicts for federal law.

The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly reviewed glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, and has concluded that it does not require the cancer warning demanded in these lawsuits. Yet despite those findings, litigation continued, producing enormous verdicts and creating uncertainty for businesses, farmers, manufacturers, and consumers alike.

The Supreme Court drew a line.

Federal regulators exist for a reason. They review mountains of scientific evidence, not just the testimony presented by opposing experts during a trial. If every state—or every jury—could impose its own scientific standard, no business could know which rules actually apply.

Here in the Hudson Valley, that matters.

Our farmers, landscapers, municipalities, and businesses depend on consistent national standards. Whether it’s pesticides, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, or countless other federally regulated products, companies deserve one set of rules—not fifty different interpretations driven by litigation.

None of this means products should escape accountability when they cause harm. Companies that conceal evidence or violate federal law should absolutely be held responsible.

But there is an important distinction between holding companies accountable and allowing lawyers to rewrite science in pursuit of massive settlements.

The Supreme Court recognized that distinction.

The decision is a victory not just for one company, but for regulatory consistency, scientific integrity, and the principle that federal law still means something.

Sometimes the most important Supreme Court decisions aren’t the ones that dominate cable news.

Sometimes they’re the ones that quietly remind us that facts should matter more than fear—and that lawyers, no matter how persuasive, don’t get to rewrite science.

The Hudson Valley should be paying close attention to what is happening in New York City.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants, New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani responded by saying it was “not something we will ever accept.”

Think about that for a moment.

Not “we disagree.”

Not “we’ll challenge it through the courts.”

Not “Congress should change the law.”

“We will never accept it.”

That statement should concern every American, regardless of political party. Because if elected officials get to decide which Supreme Court rulings they will honor, then our constitutional system begins to unravel.

Here in the Hudson Valley, we don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing which laws apply to us. Our police officers can’t decide which court decisions they’ll enforce. Our judges can’t ignore rulings they dislike. Our taxpayers can’t decide which taxes they’ll pay because they disagree with Albany.

Why should politicians be any different?

This isn’t really about immigration.

It’s about whether we still believe in the rule of law.

Many of the same political leaders who insist that no one is above the law seem perfectly comfortable dismissing the nation’s highest court when its decisions conflict with their political agenda. That’s not constitutional government. That’s selective obedience.

And don’t think this mindset will stop at the borders of New York City.

The political ideas born in the five boroughs have a way of making their way north. We’ve seen it before. Policies that begin as “big city solutions” eventually arrive in communities throughout the Hudson Valley—from policing and criminal justice to housing, education, and immigration.

If leaders are willing to ignore Supreme Court rulings today, what happens tomorrow?

Will county executives decide which federal immigration laws they’ll recognize?

Will town supervisors ignore court rulings they find politically inconvenient?

Will school districts decide constitutional rights only apply when they agree with them?

Once respect for the rule of law becomes optional, there is no logical stopping point.

The genius of our constitutional republic has never been that everyone agrees with every decision. It’s that we accept the authority of the process, even when we don’t like the outcome. Elections have consequences. Court decisions have consequences. If we don’t like either, we have lawful ways to change them.

That’s called democracy.

The alternative is government by ideology, where laws mean whatever those in power want them to mean.

The Hudson Valley has enough challenges without importing that philosophy.

Whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or somewhere in between, this shouldn’t be a partisan issue. It should be an American one.

Because the day Supreme Court decisions become optional is the day the rule of law becomes negotiable.

And once the rule of law is negotiable, everyone’s rights—not just those we happen to agree with—are at risk.

Another day, another federal judge blocking another action of a sitting president.

This week, a Massachusetts federal judge permanently barred the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. The judge ruled that the requirement was unconstitutional and that the President lacked the authority to impose it unilaterally.

Whether you support proof of citizenship to vote isn’t the only issue here. A larger question continues to loom over our country: Have federal judges become the final policymakers on nearly every major issue facing America?

Immigration. Energy. Education. Healthcare. Environmental regulations. National security. Elections.

Increasingly, it seems that every significant policy decision is met with a lawsuit, followed by a single federal district judge issuing a nationwide injunction that effectively halts the agenda of an elected president. Americans don’t vote for district judges, yet their decisions often carry more immediate impact than those made by the officials voters actually elected.

The judiciary serves a vital constitutional purpose. Courts exist to interpret the law and protect constitutional rights. But many Americans are beginning to wonder whether some judges have moved beyond interpreting the law and into making public policy from the bench.

If Congress believes proof of citizenship should be required to vote, it should pass legislation. If it doesn’t, then the American people have every right to hold their elected representatives accountable at the ballot box.

But when virtually every major policy debate ends up being decided first in a federal courtroom rather than through the legislative process, confidence in both our government and our judiciary begins to erode.

Here in the Hudson Valley, voters may disagree about election laws, but they generally agree on one thing: they expect the people they elect—not unelected judges—to have the primary responsibility for shaping public policy within the limits of the Constitution.

Our constitutional system depends on checks and balances. It was never intended to become a system where one federal judge can repeatedly override the decisions of an elected administration before the democratic process has had a chance to play out.

That isn’t just a debate about election law.

It’s a debate about who governs America.

Tuesday’s primary elections in New York weren’t just another chapter in the state’s political calendar. They may have marked a turning point in the battle over who will define the future of the Democratic Party—and they should serve as a warning sign for Hudson Valley Democrats who have long tried to straddle the line between moderation and the party’s increasingly dominant progressive wing.

Across New York City, candidates aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America scored significant victories, defeating several establishment-backed Democrats. Even longtime party leaders found themselves watching as the political ground shifted beneath them. The results exposed a growing divide between traditional Democrats and an increasingly organized progressive movement that believes the party hasn’t gone far enough. (Reuters)

Whether you celebrate those victories or fear them, one thing is difficult to deny: the Democratic Party is undergoing a profound identity crisis—and Hudson Valley Democrats are increasingly caught in the middle, often unwilling or unable to clearly define where they stand.

For years, party leaders often attempted to satisfy both moderates and progressives. But history has a way of showing that movements rarely remain balanced forever. Eventually, one side gains momentum, and the center begins to disappear. In many cases, Hudson Valley Democrats have avoided taking firm positions, opting instead for political caution that now risks leaving them out of step with both sides.

That’s a development Hudson Valley voters should watch carefully.

Many of the policies now championed by New York City’s progressive wing rarely stay confined to the five boroughs. Albany has a long history of exporting ideas statewide, whether they involve criminal justice, energy policy, housing, environmental regulations, education, or taxes. What begins as a New York City debate often becomes a Hudson Valley reality—and too often, local Democratic leaders have gone along with these shifts without fully considering their impact on suburban and rural communities.

Our communities have already experienced the consequences of one-size-fits-all policymaking.

Families struggle with affordability. Businesses continue to wrestle with rising costs and regulations. Local governments face increasing mandates from Albany while taxpayers shoulder the bill. Many residents simply want practical government focused on public safety, economic growth, quality schools, and fiscal responsibility—not ideological battles. Yet Hudson Valley Democrats have frequently supported policies that critics argue contribute to these very challenges, raising questions about whether they are truly representing local priorities.

The larger question isn’t whether Democrats should be more progressive or more moderate. That’s for Democratic voters to decide.

The question for all New Yorkers is whether there remains room for political moderation at all—and whether Hudson Valley Democrats are willing to defend it, or if they will continue to follow the direction set by party leadership in New York City and Albany.

Healthy political parties need debate. They need competing ideas. They need leaders willing to challenge their own side when necessary. When any political movement begins rewarding ideological purity over practical problem-solving, governing becomes more difficult. The concern for many voters is that Hudson Valley Democrats have been reluctant to push back, even when policies may not align with the needs of their constituents.

The Hudson Valley has traditionally rewarded candidates who solve problems rather than generate headlines. Voters here tend to be pragmatic. They care less about political labels and more about whether their communities are becoming safer, more affordable, and better places to raise a family.

As New York Democrats redefine themselves, Hudson Valley voters should pay close attention—and Hudson Valley Democrats should be prepared to answer difficult questions about where they stand. Today’s primary battles in New York City may become tomorrow’s legislative agenda in Albany.

And whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, that conversation affects every one of us.

The news that WKIP has laid off Uncle Mike is disappointing—not just because another familiar voice has left local radio, but because people like Mike are becoming increasingly rare.

I had the chance to do some shows with Mike, and they were screamingly funny—full of the kind of genuine, unscripted humor that made listeners feel like they were part of the conversation.

You can tell everything about a person by how they treat those who can never pay them back.

That’s why I want to recognize someone who has lived that truth every single day.

Whether you know him from the radio or from the countless acts of kindness he performs quietly throughout the Hudson Valley, Uncle Mike has never measured success by ratings or recognition. He has measured it by service.

He has been a tireless advocate for our veterans. He has stood beside first responders. He has organized drives for families in need. He has answered phone calls from people looking for help, often without anyone ever knowing about it.

He didn’t do those things because they were part of his job description.

He did them because that’s who he is.

The measure of a broadcaster isn’t simply the number of listeners they reach. It’s the number of lives they touch.

In an era when syndicated programming is replacing local voices, stations aren’t just eliminating positions—they’re losing relationships. They’re losing decades of trust built one conversation, one fundraiser, one community event, and one act of kindness at a time.

Mike reminded us that radio, at its best, isn’t about transmitting a signal.

It’s about connecting people.

As the saying goes, “A person’s true character is revealed by how they treat those who can offer them nothing in return.”

That describes Uncle Mike perfectly.

Whatever comes next for him, the Hudson Valley will continue to benefit from his compassion, his generosity, and his unwavering commitment to helping others.

We see you, Mike.

And this community is better because of you.

If you want to understand why so many Americans have lost confidence in our institutions, look no further than the latest immigration ruling coming out of California.

A single federal district court judge has now blocked the Trump Administration’s policy allowing ICE agents to arrest illegal immigrants at immigration courthouses—not just in California, not just in the western states, but everywhere in America.

Think about that for a moment.

One unelected judge, sitting in one courtroom thousands of miles away from the Hudson Valley, has effectively imposed his interpretation of immigration policy on all 50 states and 330 million Americans.

U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts ruled that the Administration violated procedural requirements when it reversed prior guidance limiting courthouse arrests. In doing so, he issued a nationwide injunction preventing ICE from making civil immigration arrests of individuals appearing in immigration court.

The irony is difficult to ignore.

We are told repeatedly that our immigration system is overwhelmed. We are told there are millions of pending cases. We are told individuals must appear before immigration judges to determine whether they have a legal right to remain in the United States.

Yet when federal immigration authorities seek to enforce immigration laws at the very location where those cases are being heard, the courts step in and say no.

The ruling raises a question many Americans are asking: If immigration courts are off limits, schools are off limits, hospitals are off limits, and places of worship are off limits, where exactly is immigration enforcement supposed to occur?

But the bigger issue extends far beyond immigration.

It is the growing phenomenon of nationwide injunctions issued by individual district court judges. Regardless of whether the president is Republican or Democrat, these rulings increasingly allow a single judge to halt federal policy across the entire country before appellate courts or the Supreme Court have had an opportunity to weigh in.

That should concern everyone.

Here in the Hudson Valley, we know firsthand how judicial decisions can have far-reaching consequences. Residents have watched local disputes involving zoning, development, election procedures, and government transparency move from town halls into courtrooms. Increasingly, decisions that affect entire communities are being made by judges rather than elected representatives.

The immigration debate is simply the national version of the same trend.

Government by litigation has become the preferred strategy of both political parties. Unable to win policy battles through legislation, advocates rush to friendly courts seeking favorable rulings. The result is a cycle where major public policy decisions are increasingly made by judges rather than lawmakers accountable to voters.

Whether you support President Trump’s immigration policies or oppose them, Americans should be troubled by the idea that a single district court judge can effectively overrule a national policy with the stroke of a pen.

That’s not a criticism of Judge Pitts personally. It is a criticism of a system that increasingly relies on judicial intervention to resolve political disagreements.

The Department of Homeland Security has already announced its opposition to the ruling and an appeal is expected. Ultimately, the case may find its way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the justices will likely be forced to address not only immigration enforcement but the growing use of nationwide injunctions themselves.

For Hudson Valley residents, this case serves as another reminder that the most important battles in America today are often not taking place in Congress or state legislatures. They are taking place in courtrooms.

And whether that’s healthy for our democracy is a question worth asking.

Because when one judge can set policy for an entire nation, the issue is no longer immigration.

The issue is power.

Three years ago, relocating Town Hall to Boardman Road was one of the defining issues in the Town of Poughkeepsie Supervisor’s race.

Rebecca Edwards and her supporters argued that the proposal advanced by the Town Board at the time was too expensive and would result in higher taxes for residents. Campaign literature warned taxpayers about the cost of a new Town Hall and police facility and encouraged residents to oppose the project. The message was simple: moving Town Hall to Boardman Road represented unnecessary spending and an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.

The flyer circulated during that campaign stated that the proposed project would cost approximately $54.8 million and would result in a significant property tax increase. Residents were urged to sign petitions and help stop the project.

Fast forward three years.

Today, the Edwards administration is pursuing a proposal that includes relocating Town Hall to Boardman Road—the very concept that was so heavily criticized during the campaign.

The question isn’t whether Town Hall should move. Reasonable people can disagree on that issue.

The question is: what changed?

If relocating Town Hall to Boardman Road was fiscally irresponsible in 2023, why is it considered sound public policy in 2026? If taxpayers were told the concept would increase taxes then, why should they view it differently now?

Residents deserve a clear answer.

Government leaders are certainly entitled to change their positions when circumstances warrant it. New information becomes available. Needs evolve. Priorities shift. But when a candidate campaigns against a project and later embraces a similar approach after taking office, taxpayers have every right to ask for an explanation.

Adding to the discussion are questions surrounding the proposal to utilize the current Town Hall facility for police operations. Residents deserve to know whether the existing building can adequately accommodate the Police Department’s operational needs and whether sufficient parking and infrastructure exist to support such a move.

These are not partisan questions. They are taxpayer questions.

The Town of Poughkeepsie is making decisions that will impact residents for decades. Those decisions should be debated openly, honestly, and transparently.

Most importantly, elected officials should explain why a proposal once characterized as a costly mistake has now become part of the Town’s long-term vision.

Taxpayers have long memories.

And before they are asked to support any major capital project, they deserve to know exactly what changed.

For years, Americans were told that questioning the origins of COVID-19 was irresponsible, even dangerous.

The possibility that the virus escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan was dismissed by many in government, media, and public health as a fringe conspiracy theory. Social media companies restricted debate. Scientists who raised questions risked criticism. Ordinary citizens who asked uncomfortable questions were often labeled as spreading misinformation.

Now, newly declassified documents are reigniting the debate—not only over where COVID came from, but whether powerful institutions worked behind the scenes to shape what Americans were allowed to believe.

Whether these documents ultimately prove a cover-up remains to be seen. The facts must be investigated thoroughly and transparently.

But one thing is already beyond dispute.

The greatest casualty of the pandemic may have been trust.

And that matters here in the Hudson Valley.

Because we lived through it.

We watched our children struggle with remote learning while schools debated reopening. We saw small businesses in Poughkeepsie, Beacon, Newburgh, Kingston, and Middletown close their doors—some temporarily, some forever. We witnessed neighbors lose jobs, miss funerals, postpone cancer screenings, and become isolated from family and friends.

We were told to trust the experts.

Most of us did.

But trust is not a blank check.

It requires transparency, humility, and the willingness to admit mistakes.

And that’s where the conversation about COVID’s origins intersects with our own communities.

Hudson Valley residents are not strangers to being told, “Don’t ask questions.” We hear it when citizens challenge Albany over energy policy and the closure of Indian Point. We hear it when parents question decisions made by school districts. We hear it when residents ask why taxes keep rising while services seem to shrink.

The issue isn’t whether government officials, scientists, or intelligence agencies are perfect.

They’re not.

The issue is whether they are accountable.

Because once institutions begin deciding which questions are acceptable and which are not, skepticism becomes suspicion. And suspicion, left unanswered, becomes cynicism.

The lesson of COVID may ultimately have less to do with a virus that emerged thousands of miles away and more to do with the relationship between citizens and those who govern them.

Here in the Hudson Valley, we’re a region of commuters, farmers, teachers, first responders, small business owners, and retirees.

We may disagree on politics.

But we understand something fundamental:

The truth does not fear scrutiny.

And the people deserve answers—not because they are entitled to a particular conclusion, but because in a free society, no institution is entitled to unquestioning obedience.

Not in Washington.

Not in Albany.

And certainly not here at home.