An Open Letter to President Obama : The Problem With Accepting Syrian Refugees.

Dear Mr. President,

Don't you EVER call me bigoted or frightened or xenophobic because I will not support your half baked plan to admit Syrian refugees into America. Its not b/c of them that I object, its because of YOU!

You have proven yourself to either be the dumbest President since Harding, or the biggest liar since Clinton. You may be both, but I fear more the latter than the former.

You see, in order to engender trust in your work and that of those that work in your administration, you have to be RESPONSIBLE. You are not.  You never take responsibility. Any problem you encounter is always someone else's fault. You claim to never know anything when there is a MAJOR screwup in your administration. You find out when you read it in the newspapers. This does not engender trust.

You also say things you cannot prove or back up! You see Mr. President, ISIS was not the JV team; you do not have Isis contained; Your former Secretary of State knew a lot more than she allegedly told you, and she used private e-mails which she later destroyed without your approval, and  your staff (ie Ms. Jarrett) planned lies about most if not all of it.
By the way When the President of the United States of America draws a "line in the sand" and then has to let the Europeans pull your foot out of your mouth, that does not engender trust in you or your word.

You promised transparency, but yours has been the least transparent administration since Nixon. You promised to not spy on us, LOL! Nixon is in the clouds saying "Whoa, this guy is good". Hell even J Edgar Hoover would be impressed. You spied on our allies and lied to them about it. Your IRS targeted your "enemies" but you take NO responsibility for their actions. Instead your administration has covered its wrong doing up. Cover ups do not engender trust.

Personally,  I don't think you or anyone working for you, could spot an Islamic or for that matter ANY Terrorist if he was standing in front of them with a lit bomb screaming "JIIIIHADDDDD!" and wearing an Allahu Akbar!!! Pin. Hence I do not think your administration can be trusted to properly vet incoming refugees to determine which of them may be the one to blow something up in the USA.

No Mr. President, I am neither a bigot nor a xenophobe, I am just an ordinary American citizen who has lost faith in his government's, and more importantly his President's ability to preserve his freedom OR his safety. That is why so many Americans are against taking in Syrian Refugees right now. If you would step out of your Rose Garden for a few minutes and talk to the part of your constituency that you do not like, you might learn a thing or two. Who knows, you might even apologize correctly for your past behavior and that of your staff and start to get back the trust of the public that you had three short years ago but squandered since.

Yours truly
Anthony Colleluori

AKA That Lawyer Dude.

Not In The Best Interest Of The Child: Why Should a Custodial Parent Not Be Charged With Kidnapping

Up front I want to thank Lenny Sienko (http://lennyesq.wordpress.com/) for putting me onto the case of People v. Leonard (http://newyorkcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/06/01/people-v-leonard) wherein the NY Court of Appeals twists and contorts the law so that it can permit the Government to intrude unnecessarily in the most important relationship in the world, that between a parent and a child. It is not enough that for whatever reason, the state refuses to acknowledge a privilege between child and parent so that one can be forced to testify against the other, but now a custodial parent can be charged with kidnapping. Thats right the custodial parent can be charged with taking his own child illegally. The facts of the Leonard case are simple and sad. Father and Mother conceive child out of wedlock. Mom stays with dad until child is born and then takes child from Brooklyn to Ulster County. She never seeks an order of custody or sole custody. Dad goes to Ulster and visits with mom and child and possibly engages in an act of domestic violence against mom. Dad now has child and wants to keep him (as is his legal right at that point). Cops arrive, dad has child and a knife, cops chase dad into a bedroom dad allegedly holds knife to child's throat and tells cops he wants to leave with his son. They refuse and are rightly in fear for the child's safety. Ultimately the child is taken back and the cops arrest the Father for??? Endangering the welfare of a child??? NO Of Course not, the DA and Cops want to shred the law and want to bring as high a charge as they can so, they charge KIDNAPPING!!!! Judge Smith in the Ct of Appeals and the majority (it was a 4-3 divided opinion) goes into a convoluted twisting of the meaning of words when the real issue is, did the legislature ever in its wildest dreams think a court would allow the Kidnapping statute to be used against a parent who had custodial rights?? NO! In fact the legislature would say we have a law... THE ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD law. Smith and the others in the majority know it is a bad decision. They know it because in their opinion they use dicta to explain that this outcome should only be precedent in cases with similar fact patterns. SURE! RIGHT JUDGE! Like that is going to happen. Look it is a bad case but we know that when courts do not have the backbone to stand up to the bad case, it makes bad law. Why is this bad law, because: 1. It was not predictable to the Father that this would be the outcome of trying to take his own custodial child. 2. It further damages the relationship between the parent and child. We have no privilege with our children, CPS can interfere in that relationship in the name of protecting the child and the family courts do not consider the needs of parents at all but only what the court decides is in the best interest of the child. 3. Criminal court is not the place to decide cases like this and they are better handled in Family court. 4. It over criminalizes activities and gives parents another sword in which they can hold over each other's heads. Here is an example. Mother and father at odds, child with father, mother comes to father's house takes child in a raid with 3 other of mom's family members mom is in such a hurry to outrun father that she leaves child's asthma meds in house. Well, did she kidnap kid?? I think so. Especially under this ruling. What is kid dies of an asthma attack? Is it Murder? Since Kidnapping is an intentional crime, is this intentional murder? Forgetting bad consequences, any law that keeps parents and child apart without actual physical damage being done to the child, is not a good law. Parents need room to discipline children, teach them their religion, and give them education. A parent nurtures a child in ways that a community can't (Apologies to Madame Secretary of State Clinton), and mostly the law needs to stay as far away from our homes as it possible can. We do not need a cop or a lawyer or an appellate judge (especially not an appellate judge :) ) determining what should pass for reasonable behavior and what doesn't pass in the lives of our children. What say you??

Hillary Wants to Tax the Gasoline Industry... How about you just work to cut spending and stop taxing the gasoline???

Gosh it isn't hard to figure out why democrats rarely have a sound economic policy. They hate people who are successful...

Democrat Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton wants to put a windfall profit tax on petroleum companies because they have figured out how to make a profit no matter what the price of gasoline is...

Well so much for being rewarded to do your job.

Look Hillary a few facts. Corporations exist to make money for the people who own them. They are not here to loose money or to make life easier on Americans or especially American Politicians. It is a good thing that these companies make money for their owners. As a result of them making money, people want to INVEST in them so they can make money too. The companies then take the investments and put them toward new ideas some of which may turn out to be pretty good.

Instead of stripping profits from the companies, charge them with using the money they are making on higher fuel prices to explore new and better ways to end our addiction to oil. See Hill darlin' if you take the profits away, people won't fund the companies, then these companies will not have the money to figure out new ways to break us off of foreign oil. IF there is no growth in an industry it dies. WE can't afford that. We need these companies to be here to do the things they do that help us keep the oil companies in check and not profiteer on our misfortune.

Look I know oil companies are low hanging fruit, and when it comes to low hanging fruit, you and Bill are the best. Economic policy needs people who understand the concepts of supply and demand as well as other economic theories. With this idea, you show you are not up to that task.

So if you really want to help the American consumer both in the store and in the future,
CUT THE FEDERAL and State sales taxes on Fuel, and keep encouraging the oil companies to use the profits they are getting to continue to research alternate fuel sources.

My two cents.