LetsChatNJ.com

Mocking AZ law critics

Maybe they should read the law before they criticize it, then they would not look quite so foolish.  This is great!  The Gov. of Arizona has more guts than any politician out there. 

Oh My! Presidential Humor

Good Heavens!


When Obama died, George Washington met him at the Pearly Gates. He slapped him across the face and yelled, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!


Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted,"You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."


James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"


Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Obama with a long cane, and snarled, "It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence .."


The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the radical, socialist, leader.


As Obama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Obama wept and said, "This is not what you promised me."


The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 VIRGINIANS waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said? You really need to listen when someone is trying to tell you something!"

Israel Security and America's interests

The Obama administration seems to blame everything on Israel.  Of course they (the Obama administration) have no foreign policy experience and fly around the world bowing to dictators.  The folllowing is an open letter to the country signed by men who have risked their lives to protect this country, not a bunch of intellectuals, who believe that they know better, but by real life, working people who have accomplished things with their lives.  

If you needed your car fixed would you want the mechanic with 30 years experience or the guy who has read 40 books but never even driven a car?

The Obama administration is full of the "book readers" who have never actually done anything with their pitiful little lives except tell others how smart they are.  We are NOT impressed.  

Israel as a Security Asset for the United States

We, the undersigned, have traveled to Israel over the years with The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). We brought with us our decades of military experience and, following unrestricted access to Israel's civilian and military leaders, came away with the unswerving belief that the security of the State of Israel is a matter of great importance to the United States and its policy in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. A strong, secure Israel is an asset upon which American military planners and political leaders can rely. Israel is a democracy - a rare and precious commodity in the region - and Israel shares our commitment to freedom, personal liberty and rule of law.

Throughout our travels and our talks, the determination of Israelis to protect their country and to pursue a fair and workable peace with their neighbors was clearly articulated. Thus we view the current tension between the United States and Israel with dismay and grave concern that political differences may be allowed to outweigh our larger mutual interests.

As American defense professionals, we view events in the Middle East through the prism of American security interests.

The United States and Israel established security cooperation during the Cold War, and today the two countries face the common threat of terrorism by those who fear freedom and liberty. Historically close cooperation between the United States. and Israel at all levels including the IDF, military research and development, shared intelligence and bilateral military training exercises enhances the security of both countries. American police and law enforcement officials have reaped the benefit of close cooperation with Israeli professionals in the areas of domestic counter-terrorism practices and first response to terrorist attacks.

Israel and the United States are drawn together by shared values and shared threats to our well-being.

The proliferation of weapons and nuclear technology across the Middle East and Asia, and the ballistic missile technology to deliver systems across wide areas require cooperation in intelligence, technology and security policy. Terrorism, as well as the origins of financing, training and executing terrorist acts, need to be addressed multilaterally when possible. The dissemination of hatred and support of terrorism by violent extremists in the name of Islam, whether state or non-state actors, must be addressed as a threat to global peace.

In the Middle East, a volatile region so vital to U.S. interests, it would be foolish to disengage - or denigrate - an ally such as Israel.

__________________________________________________________

Lieutenant General Mark Anderson, USAF (ret.)

Rear Admiral Charles Beers, USN (ret.)

General William Begert, USAF (ret.)

Rear Admiral Stanley W. Bryant, USN (ret.)

Lieutenant General Anthony Burshnick, USAF (ret.)

Lieutenant General Paul Cerjan, USA (ret.)

Admiral Leon Edney, USN (ret.)

Brigadier General William F. Engel, USA (ret.)

Major General Bobby Floyd, USAF (ret.)

General John Foss, USA (ret.)

Major General Paul Fratarangelo, USMC (ret.)

Major General David Grange, USA (ret.)

Lieutenant General Tom Griffin, USA (ret.)

Lieutenant General Earl Hailston, USMC (ret.)

Lieutenant General John Hall, USAF (ret.)

General Alfred Hansen, USAF (ret.)

Rear Admiral James Hinkle, USN (ret.)

General Hal Hornburg, USAF (ret.)

Major General James T. Jackson, USA (ret.)

Admiral Jerome Johnson, USN (ret.)

Rear Admiral Herb Kaler, USN (ret.)

Vice Admiral Bernard Kauderer, USN (ret.)

General William F. Kernan, USA (ret.)

Major General Homer Long, USA (ret.)

Major General Jarvis Lynch, USMC (ret.)

General Robert Magnus, USMC (ret.)

Lieutenant General Charles May, Jr., USAF (ret.)

Vice Admiral Martin Mayer, USN (ret.)

Major General James McCombs, USA (ret.)

Lieutenant General Fred McCorkle, USMC (ret.)

Rear Admiral W. F. Merlin, USCG (ret.)

Rear Admiral Mark Milliken, USN (ret.)

Rear Admiral Riley Mixson, USN (ret.)

Major General William Moore, USA (ret.)

Lieutenant General Carol Mutter, USMC (ret.)

Major General Larry T. Northington, USAF (ret.)

Lieutenant General Tad Oelstrom, USAF (ret.)

Major General James D. Parker, USA (ret.)

Vice Admiral J. T. Parker, USN (ret.)

Major General Robert Patterson, USAF (ret.)

Vice Admiral James Perkins, USN (ret.)

Rear Admiral Brian Peterman, USCG (ret.)

Lieutenant General Alan V. Rogers, USAF (ret.)

Rear Admiral Richard Rybacki, USCG (ret.)

General Crosbie Saint, USA (ret.)

Rear Admiral Norm Saunders, USCG (ret.)

General Lawrence Skantze, USAF (ret.)

Major General Sid Shachnow, USA (ret.)

Rear Admiral Jeremy Taylor, USN (ret.)

Major General Larry Taylor, USMCR (ret.)

Lieutenant General Lanny Trapp, USAF (ret.)

Vice Admiral Jerry O. Tuttle, USN (ret.)

General Louis Wagner, USA (ret.)

Rear Admiral Thomas Wilson, USN (ret.)

Lieutenant General Robert Winglass, USMC (ret.)

Rear Admiral Guy Zeller, USN (ret.)www.jinsa.org

- signatures as of April 7, 2010

Government Math!

Here's a quick easy lesson on government math. 

Why Low Mileage

Why is it that in 1985 you could buy a car that got over 50mpg on the highway and it wasn't a hybrid? If we had that technology back in the 1980's why is it that now we can't get 80mpg with hybrids? Why do we have to drive SUV's everywhere? Are we really so much fatter than we were 20 years ago that we can't fit in small cars? Watch this commercial from the 1980's look at the mileage that you could get with car back then and tell me why can't we do that now?

This is why people should homeschool their kids.

How stupid is THIS? Can you believe these people are allowed to make decisions that affect the lives of children? This kid did not threaten anyone, she was cutting her food with a knife and they arrested her. Why couldn't they just say, "Sorry, you're not supposed to bring knives from home, please put it away and next time use a plastic knife" or "have your mom cut the food at home"?

Why do we get the feeling the six year old children in this school have more common sense than the "adults? Are you as sick of this as I am?

Newark case is not about illegal immigration

Editors Note: We look for editorials and stories from publications all over the country and license them to reprint here. This editorial is from The San Diego Union Tribune. We welcome your input. Are they right or are the critics of our current immigration policies right?

The San Diego Union-Tribune
Copley News Service

It was a horrific crime, the sort that calls out for justice - three college students senselessly murdered, with a fourth left for dead after being shot in the head.
But now a case in Newark, N.J., has become a rallying cry in the battle against illegal immigration. And that can't be good.
It all happened on Aug. 4, when three African-Americans were gunned down in a schoolyard near their homes,

Is it right?

A lot has been written and debated recently about the monitoring of phone calls and emails to track terrorists. Critics of the policy claim it infringes on the Constitutional Rights of US citizens. Defenders say it is similar to monitoring radio transmissions during WWII and we have to keep up with the technology of those that want to kill us.

Our question is... What do you think? Should the US do all it can at any cost or is the cost too high?

Illegal doesn't make them criminals

The Indianapolis Star
Copley News Service

The arrest of 14 illegal immigrants for their alleged ties to two notorious gangs might provide interesting insights into how those groups operate. But the arrests should not strengthen stereotypes that paint immigrants as law-breaking desperados who came to the United States to expand their criminal activities.
Young male immigrants, including those who arrived in this country without proper documentation, are five times less likely to land in prison than their native-born counterparts, according to a 2005 study of U.S. Census Bureau data by Kristin Butcher, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and Rutgers University criminologist Anne Morrison Piehl.
Young male immigrants - who made up 17 percent of the total young male population in 2000 - accounted for just 4 percent of the prison population in 2000, the study showed.
These statistics offer further support of some sort of reforms that accurately reflect the economic and social realities created by and faced by immigrants. President George Bush recently made a strong move for reform, but it was rejected by the U.S. Senate. Though passionate debate over immigration reform has cooled since last year's round of rallies, the stereotype of undocumented immigrants as violent criminals remains one underlying reason against more liberalized immigration laws.
The gang-related arrests in Indianapolis, which has experienced an increase in crime as its immigrant population has grown, perpetuates the stereotype. So do other highly publicized incidents such as the 2004 scandal at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, in which four workers allegedly aided undocumented immigrants in obtaining licenses. In another case, a man was returned to his homeland after facing child molestation charges.
But the research done by Butcher and Piehl shows that criminal activity is more the exception than the rule among immigrants.
In their analysis of census and crime data, the researchers determined that urban areas with the greatest increases in immigrant populations have also seen the greatest decreases in crime. More importantly, those committing felonies are sent back to their former homelands; 31 percent of those deported were sent back because of criminal activity.
Entering the country without documentation is illegal, which is why that description is commonly used. The problem lies not with the immigrants, but with a dysfunctional immigration quota system originally created to ban certain racial and ethnic groups from the country.
The fact that some immigrants must wait more than 20 years to become permanent legal residents suggests weaknesses with the system. Stereotypes and generalizations shouldn't be allowed to further confuse this complex issue.
Most illegal immigrants quickly integrate into the nation's economic and social fabric. That reality, not the myth of violent crime, is what deserves notice in this debate.
Reprinted from The Indianapolis Star.

Children's rights should include life with both parents

Phyllis Schlafly

Debates about same-sex marriage and gay adoptions always include the argument that a child has the right to both a father and a mother. If that is true, why is a child usually deprived of that right when heterosexual couples divorce?
It would seem that maintaining the father's love and authority would be crucial when a child's life is turned upside down by divorce. Yet, family courts routinely deprive children of one parent, usually the father, restricting his time with his child to about six days a month.
The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of the child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them forfeit one parent?
We hear many pious comments about the need for fathers to be involved in the upbringing of their children. This need should be even more important in times of emotional stress, such as divorce, than the need for fathers to play ball with their kids in an intact family.
Some states are considering legislation that establishes a presumption of shared parenting whereby divorced parents divide equally both time and authority over the children. This enables children to maintain strong ties to both parents.
When primary or sole custody is given to the mother, the father becomes merely a visitor in the child's life (that's why it's called "visitation"), whose only value is to mail a paycheck and be an occasional baby sitter. The father loses his parental authority and fades out of his own child's life.
An argument is sometimes made that shuttling back and forth between two homes might be upsetting or a nuisance, but there is no more shuttling with equal custody (where parents, for example, get alternating weeks) than with the typical mother-custody/father-visitation schedule (where the father gets two weekends a month plus some Wednesday evenings). Do the math; both plans have about the same number of shuttles between homes.
An argument is also made that giving custody primarily to the mother promotes stability, but the need for stability is really a reason for shared custody. The stability of parental relationships is a great deal more important than contact with material things.
Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their own children. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville reaffirmed this principle and rejected the argument that a judge could supersede a fit parent's judgment about his child's "best interest."
Nevertheless, in what Stephen Baskerville calls a "silent revolution," millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental right to decide what is in the best interest of their own children taken away and given instead to a vast array of government officials and so-called "experts" such as judges, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, mediators, counselors, parenting classes, and feminist groups.
This shift began in the 1970s after the spread of unilateral divorce was followed by the creation of a giant federal child support-enforcement bureaucracy. The notion that this mix of government officials and government-appointed advisers can dictate what is the best interest of the child rather than a child's own parents is how liberals and feminists are fulfilling their goal that "it takes a village (i.e., the government) to raise a child."
An example of the bias against fathers can be seen in the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2007 recently introduced by Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind. The bill mentions "child support" 65 times, but not once does it mention parenting time, custody, visitation, or access denial.
Baskerville's new book, "Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family" (Cumberland House, $24.95), provides a copiously documented description of society's injustices to children who have been deprived of their fathers and of fathers who have been deprived of their children. This book is a tremendous and much-needed report on how family courts and government policies are harming children.
It is a breakthrough for shared parenting that a noncustodial father, Robert Pedersen, was recently named runner-up in the nationwide Best Life Magazine's "Hero Dad" Contest. Pedersen is only allowed 6 to 8 days a month with his two children from a previous marriage.
Pedersen has devised a novel way to demonstrate the importance of fathers to children of divorced parents. He is leading an "Equal Parenting Bike Ride" starting in Lansing, Mich., on Aug. 11 and culminating with an Aug. 18 rally in Washington, D.C.
- - -
Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists." She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org.