Showing posts with label New Jersey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Jersey. Show all posts

Saturday, September 5, 2015

[OPINION] Booker: Why I will vote for Iran nuclear deal

Irannuclear deal images - Google Search
Despite its significant shortcomings, we have passed a point of no return. Accepting this deal and moving forward with vigilance and continued commitment to keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is preferable to a world in which a debilitated sanctions regime and fractured community of nations allows Iran to acquire many of the benefits of this deal without accepting its meaningful constraints.

Over the past several weeks I have studied the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action and exhaustively explored the possible ramifications of this agreement and its alternatives. I've consulted with an array of experts on both sides of the debate, sat in classified briefings, discussed it with former and current White House leadership, and benefited from the wise insights of both Republican and Democratic colleagues in the Senate. I also studied Iran and its history, its decades-long efforts to illicitly obtain a nuclear weapon and the evil nature and horrific extent of its support and sponsorship of terrorism, its destabilizing involvement in ongoing regional conflicts, and its destructive hatred and determination to destroy the United States and our ally Israel. 

I have come to recognize that on both sides of this debate there are people who want peace and share my fervent determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Both those who support this deal and those who oppose it have reasonable arguments as to why their chosen path is the right one or the better option for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran without the necessity for military conflict. 

After hours and hours of study, research, deliberation and consultation, I am more convinced than ever that eliminating the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is among the most important global security challenges of our time. Allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon would pose an unacceptable and grave threat to the safety of our allies, to Middle East stability, and to American security.

We began negotiations with Iran at a time when our sanctions regime was having its most significant impact on the Iranians. We were gaining maximum leverage on Iran through coordinated economic sanctions with our international partners. We joined with our partner nations at the outset of negotiations with the stated intention of preventing Iran from having the capability to get a nuclear weapon.

Unfortunately, it's clear we didn't achieve that objective and have only delayed – not blocked – Iran's potential nuclear breakout. 

But, with the JCPOA, we have now passed a point of no return that we should have never reached, leaving our nation to choose between two imperfect, dangerous and uncertain options. Left with these two choices, I nonetheless believe it is better to support a deeply flawed deal, for the alternative is worse. Thus, I will vote in support of the deal. But the United States must recognize that to make this deal work, we must be more vigilant than ever in fighting Iranian aggression.

Make no mistake, this deal, while falling short of permanently eliminating Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon, succeeds in either delaying it or giving us the credible ability to detect significant cheating on their part and respond accordingly. It establishes historically unprecedented mechanisms to block Iran's near-term pathway to a nuclear weapon. This deal will remove 98 percent of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile—taking the amount of fissile material from 12,000kg – enough to make multiple bombs – to 300kg, which isn't close to enough material for even one. None of their enrichment will be underground at the Fordow facility. The agreement will remove and fill with concrete the core of Iran's heavy water reactor at Arak. The deal will establish the most robust monitoring and inspections regime ever negotiated, covering Iran's entire nuclear supply chain for 15 years. Some of the most intrusive monitoring, including of its uranium mines and mills and centrifuge production facilities, will last well beyond that period. The agreement will also establish strict limits on Iran's research and development for the next 10 years.

Friday, August 14, 2015

If Hillary’s Server Was ‘Blank,’ Why Was It Kept At A Data Center In New Jersey?

If Hillary's Server Was 'Blank,' Why Did She Keep It? | The Daily Caller
The new revelation that Hillary Clinton’s private server was made “blank” in June 2013 — but nonetheless stored at a data center in New Jersey — raises a slew of new questions about the former secretary of state’s handling of her emails.
The attorney for Platte River Networks, the Denver-based cybersecurity company Clinton hired shortly after leaving office to handle the server, says that she does not know why the hardware would have been stored in a New Jersey data center if it was “blank.”
“The server that was turned over to the FBI voluntarily yesterday to our knowledge has no information on it,” the attorney, Barbara Wells, told The Daily Caller in a brief phone interview.
On Wednesday, after Platte River Networks gave the server to the FBI, Wells told The Washington Post that the information from it “had been migrated over to a different server for purposes of transition” in June 2013.
“To my knowledge the data on the old server is not available now on any servers or devices in Platte River Network’s control,” Wells told the paper.
That revelation is significant because until now, most observers have assumed that Clinton wiped her server clean sometime after October, when the State Department sent a letter requesting that she hand over all of her emails. Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, informed the House Select Committee on Benghazi in late March that the server had been wiped clean.
But the new claim that the server has been useless for more than two years indicates that when Clinton finally did produce her emails in December — 55,000 pages worth — they were drawn from a different device.
Kendall recently gave the FBI three thumb drives that held Clinton’s emails, but Wells said she had no information on whether the data from Clinton’s old server was transferred directly to lawyer’s thumb drives. Neither the Clinton campaign nor Kendall responded to questions from TheDC.
Asked why the server would have been stored in New Jersey if it did not have any useful information on it, Wells said, “I have no information on that.”
Asked if Clinton or anyone associated with her campaign is still paying Platte River Networks for its services, Wells said, “I can’t comment on that.”
Clinton hired Platte River Networks to handle her server shortly after she left the State Department in Feb. 2013. Prior to that, the server resided in the basement of Clinton’s Chappaqua, N.Y. home. When Hillary Clinton was tapped to head the State Department, she hired one of her presidential campaign’s IT department staffers to beef up the system so she could use it in an unprecedented manner at the agency.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Firefighters touched by waitress' generous act

A New Jersey waitress is making headlines for a small, kind gesture that turned into something big.

When Tim Young and Paul Hullings walked into a diner after putting out a fire during a long 12-hour shift, their waitress, Liz Woodward, decided to take care of their meal as a 'thank you' for their service.

One of the firefighters, Tim Young, told WPVI, "When it came time for the bill, we flipped it over and she decided to comp it on her own." 

"I started tearing up and it made me feel good - us firefighters are wanted, people care about us," firefighter Paul Hullings said.

The note reads, "Thank you for all that you do; for serving others & for running into the places everyone else runs away from. No matter your role, you are courageous, brave and strong."

             Tim Young

The men were so touched that they posted the bill on Facebook and it quickly went viral.

This is a good example of what goes around comes around.

The firefighters later learned that Liz was trying to raise enough money to buy a specialized van for her dad who has become paralyzed after a brain aneurysm five years ago -- so they spread the word.

Liz said, "The fact that it's reached, you know, different states, different cities...It was spread across the world. I'm at a loss for words. I'm at a loss for words."

Before the post, Liz hadn't raised half of the money she needed for the van. Now, she's received more than $60,000 in donations.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

[EDITORIAL] By any other name, it’s still Common Core

We know now that the state’s supposed dumping of Common Core educational standards is a politically motivated sham. Assistant Education Commissioner Kimberley Harrington told the state Board of Education last week that a review of the standards is designed more to tweak than reconstruct. The special committee conducting the review will have little choice; it must complete its work in less than six months, not nearly enough time for a more thorough overhaul.
There is nothing wrong with periodically refining the state’s education standards; Common Core has been in place since 2010, and New Jersey typically reviews its academic principles every five years anyway. But the premise in this case is Gov. Chris Christie’s explanation that Common Core isn’t working because there isn’t enough buy-in from parents and teachers who don’t believe the standards are sufficiently local. That’s why he’s talking as if he’s scrapping Common Core and replacing it with a New Jersey-developed model, but it won’t be close to that. There will be some nips and tucks and a rebranding, with the same related standardized testing that has been the focus of so much of the opposition.
That won’t generate more buy-in.
Christie is merely appeasing right-wingers who perceive federal intervention in the Common Core national standards that each state can choose to adopt (with incentives encouraging adoption). But Christie was a past supporter of Common Core, and he won’t entirely back away from an initiative that is promoted as raising the academic bar.
So Common Core will be refined and renamed. That’s not by itself anything to fear. The problem for critics of the standards is that this modest review process will likely be the last meaningful reconsideration for years to come in New Jersey. After this, we’ll be stuck with the rebranded Common Core, and the controversial PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) tests that administration officials continue to support.
We can also expect officials to declare any deficiencies largely fixed after the review, which raises the likelihood that the state will quickly and recklessly raise the stakes of the PARCC scores. Those stakes had been wisely curtailed by Christie himself, cutting the impact on teacher evaluations from 30 percent to 10 percent in the past school year. That percentage is set to grow to 20 percent in the coming year and back to 30 percent the year after that. Many individual school districts have also minimized the influence of PARCC scores, but so far the Legislature has yet to deliver on similar statewide action.
So watch carefully how the state discusses the first year’s worth of PARCC scores. If used strictly to help identify individual student weaknesses, those results can have value. But there will be no comparable data to draw any meaningful conclusions. Christie, however, has relentlessly attacked teachers and the quality of public education since he first campaigned for governor. He still has a point to “prove” and may use those PARCC scores to try to do it. If he or administration officials try to portray results as somehow exposing failing schools, it will be wildly irresponsible.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015


A new study from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center confirms what many of us already knew:

Liberal “blue states” are fiscally irresponsible.

In fact, 11 of the 14 least fiscally solvent states are also on the list of the “dirty dozen” most liberal blue states. In descending order of fiscal irresponsibility, from 50th to 37th, here’s the list of fiscal shame:
The 12th state in the “dirty dozen” list—Delaware—does not fare particularly well either, placing 30th out of the 50 states.
(In an article published at Breithbart on the 4th of July, I offered a definition of these “dirty dozen” to include those states that gave President Obama more than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 Presidential election.)
The Mercatus Center report ranked the 50 states “based on their fiscal solvency in five separate categories:”
(1) Cash solvency. Does a state have enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills?
(2) Budget solvency. Can a state cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues? Or does it have a budget shortfall?
(3) Long-run solvency. Can a state meet its long-term spending commitments? Will there be enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-term fiscal risks?
(4) Service-level solvency. How much fiscal “slack” does a state have to increase spending should citizens demand more services?
(5) Trust fund solvency. How much debt does a state have? How large are its unfunded pen­sion and health care liabilities?
The Mercatus Center report supports an assertion I made in that earlier article:
One hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are two Americas—one [consisting of the “Great 38 States” in flyover country which President Obama either lost or obtained less than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 Presidential election] where the principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty are still revered, the other [those “dirty dozen” liberal blue states] where statism and the trampling of individual rights are on the rise.
The “dirty dozen” liberal blue states are headed towards the sort of fiscal insolvency now unraveling the country of Greece, and their fiscal recklessness may well drag down the entire federal government as well. All the more reason for the rest of us in the “Great 38 States” to consider convening an Assembly of the States so that fiscally responsible states can assert their sovereign rights guaranteed by the 10th amendment. Those sovereign rights include the right not to be forced to pay for another state’s profligacy.

Monday, July 6, 2015


“Take this Supreme Court decision and shove it.”

new Rasmussen Poll indicates that a growing number of Americans want state governments to tell the Supreme Court to get out of the business of rewriting laws and telling American citizens how to live their lives.
In a new poll, Rasmussen reported the percentage of Americans who want states to tell the Supreme Court it does not have the power to rewrite the Affordable Care Act or force sovereign states to authorize gay marriages has increased from 24 percent to 33 percent after last week’s Constitution-defying decisions by the court.
A closer look at the poll results indicates that popular sentiment for state defiance of the federal government extends beyond just the Supreme Court’s latest decisions.
“Only 20% [of likely voters] now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty,” the Rasmussen Poll finds. “Sixty percent (60 %) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead,” it adds.
“Take this regulation and shove it,” and “take this grant and shove it,” are two additional battle cries which appear to resonate with a growing popular sentiment, especially in “flyover country,” those 38 states outside the dozen in which President Obama won more than 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012.
(In descending order of support for Obama, those twelve states are: Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and Maine. Arguably, three additional states where President Obama won between 54 percent and 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012 could be added to this list: Washington, Oregon, and Michigan.)
One hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are two Americas—one where the principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty are still revered, the other where statism and the trampling of individual rights are on the rise.
The Tea Party movement arose in 2009 to restore those principles of constitutionally-limited government. But despite electoral victories that placed Republicans in control of the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Senate in 2014, it is undeniable that the Republican establishment those elections empowered is instead aligned with the forces of statism.
The majority of the members of the Supreme Court itself are also clearly part of the “elitist” camp of anti-constitutionalists. As Breitbart’s Thomas Williams noted, and Justice Scalia himself pointed out in his scathing dissent in the gay marriage decision, not a single member of the nine member court is of the Protestant faith. Not a single member has graduated from a law school other than Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. Nor has a single member done anything other than practice some version of corporate law with “big law” firms, sit on a federal court, work for the federal government, or work in left-wing academia.
With the entire apparatus of the federal government now aligned against constitutionally limited government, some traditionalists have given themselves over to despair and defeatism. That negative view, however, fails to understand the solution provided to usurpations of power by the central government found within the Constitution itself, with origins in the Declaration of Independence, whose signing on July 4, 1776 we celebrate today.
As Rasmussen Reports noted, “The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document that Americans honor on the Fourth of July, says that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, but just 25% believe that to be true of the federal government today.”
Even more significantly, however, the recent Supreme Court decisions are a complete rejection of the concepts of state sovereignty articulated in the 10th amendment, the last element of the Bill of Rights, the promise of whose passage by the First Congress was key to the ratification of the Constitution.
The 10th amendment, ratified along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, reads as follows:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The concept of popular resistance to the unconstitutional encroachment of the federal government on the rights of individuals and states has been gaining momentum over the past several years.
Conservative radio host Mark Levin, for instance, has advocated on behalf of an Article V Convention of the States to propose new amendments to the Constitution for ratification by the states that would limit federal powers.
Conservative author and intellectual leader Charles Murray has also advocated for a type of civil disobedience to resist unlawful federal regulations through the use of well funded legal challenges to the most egregious of those regulations.
Both concepts have merit, but ultimately lack the power and effective counter-attack available through the simple mechanism offered by the 10th amendment—widespread resistance to federal overreaches by the state governments themselves.
Bolder, constitutionally based resistance at the state level, is a practical and viable remedy, one that already has broad popular support among conservatives.
As Rasmussen Reports noted:
[T]he voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives – are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers. During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.
Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.
Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.
Widespread resistance at the state level, however, will require two elements: strong governors and strong state legislatures willing to vigorously assert their 10th amendment rights.
At the local level, we’ve already seen the first indications that a movement may be afoot. In Tennessee, for example, the entire Decatur County Clerk’s Office resigned rather than enforce the recent gay marriage decision announced by the Supreme Court.
Isolated pockets of resistance are springing up around the country.
And yet, even among “The Great 38 States”—flyover country where President Obama either lost or won less than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 election—leadership at the executive level is lacking.
The next electoral battle for the preservation of the constitutional republic will be fought not only for the highest office of the executive branch in 2016—it will also be fought in the gubernatorial races of those “Great 38 States” where the vast majority of voters still believe in America, and still believe in constitutionally limited government.
Freedom of the individual states from the usurpations of the federal government does not mean secession from the constitutional republic. It is, instead, the surest realistic mechanism that remains to preserve the constitutional republic.
By limiting the role of the federal government to the exercise of that very narrow set of specifically “enumerated powers” ascribed to it in the Constitution, state governments can guarantee that our constitutional republic will continue to flourish for generations to come.
The alternative is a constitutional republic in name only, a dystopian oligarchy where words have no meaning, right is wrong, good is bad, truth is deception, and the rule of law is invented anew each day by the ruling class of federal royalty.
As for that dirty dozen of liberal blue states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts? Let them continue on their path of reckless spending and experience the fate of modern Greece.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue to choose liberty.

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Congressional Democrats Move to Institute New Jersey Style Gun Control

Woman with gun / AP
Woman with gun / AP
Congressional Democrats introduced a bill Thursday that would implement a more restrictive process for obtaining a handgun nation wide.
The bill, called the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act of 2015, comes less than a week after a New Jersey woman was killed while waiting for approval to buy a handgun under similar restrictions. If enacted, the bill would require Americans attempting to buy a handgun “provide proof they are at least 21 years old and a lawful resident of the United States; apply for the license at a law enforcement agency within the state; submit to a background investigation and criminal history check; submit fingerprints and photographs with their application and be eligible to purchase a handgun pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,” according to a fact sheet published by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md).
Despite support from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn), Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn), and Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D., Conn), the bill is unlikely to pass either the House of Representatives or the Senate.

Monday, June 8, 2015

Disgraced Firm Ensnared In New Jersey Sandy Recovery Flimflam

              FILE - In this Wednesday, Oct. 31, 2012 file photo, waves wash over a roller coaster from a Seaside Heights, N.J. amusement park that fell in the Atlantic Ocean during superstorm Sandy. Though it’s tricky to link a single weather event to climate change, Hurricane Sandy was “probably not a coincidence” but an example of extreme weather events that are likely to strike the US more often as the world gets warmer, the U.N. climate panel’s No. 2 scientist told the Associated Press Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2012.(AP Photo/Mike Groll, File)
            A federal watchdog is throwing a red flag on a $60.2 million Hurricane Sandy Recovery contract New Jersey officials awarded to the Canadian firm behind the disastrous Obamacare web site.
CGI Federal lost its $93 million contract for after it crashed within hours of going live in 2013 and contained so many design flaws the Obama administration had to assemble an emergency team to make the Obamacare website minimally operable.
Five months before that widely publicized digital disaster, CGI won the New Jersey contract in a procurement process that the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s inspector general now says was rife with serious flaws.
New Jersey officials were required to comply with federal procurement rules because the $60.2 million was awarded as part of Washington’s $1.5 billion disaster recovery assistance to the state in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.
The contract was to design and operate the Sandy Integrated Recovery Operations and Management System for administering the federal funds. New Jersey officials claimed they complied with all applicable federal requirements in their selection of CGI.
But state officials “did not procure services and products for its system in accordance with federal procurement standards or comply with all federal cost principle requirements for supporting salary and wage compensation,” the IG said in a report made public late Friday.
“Specifically, it did not prepare an independent cost estimate and analysis before awarding the system contract to the only responsive bidder. It also did not ensure that option years were awarded competitively and included provisions in its request for quotation that restricted competition,” the report said.
“Further, it did not ensure that software was purchased competitively and that the winning contractor had adequate documentation to support labor costs charged by its employees,” it said.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

NAACP Refuses to Help Young Black Man, Aspiring Cop Over Bogus Gun Charge

Steffon Josie-Davis is a responsible gun owner who wanted to be a police officer. He used to work as an armored guard for armed service company Loomis. When his little sister was playing in the garage where his gun was accessible, Josey-Davis put it inside the glove box of a locked vehicle. Josey-Davis then drove that car before accidentally failing to take the firearm out of the vehicle. His handgun is legally registered in the state of New Jersey.

Hello, My name is Steffon Josey-Davis I'm a 24 year old from New Jersey who became a convicted felon for a legally owned firearm. As an armored Guard for Loomis, As a Armed service company who transported U.S & foreign currency to banks and service ATM's. I was also on the road to a successful career with my township police department.

One Morning on September 20th 2013. I was preparing myself for work, grabbing my firearm out of my safe, bulletproof vest, Making my way to the garage. While in the process of disarming my firearm. My little sister came into the garage. To avoid any accidents, I put the firearm in the glove compartment moments after putting my bulletproof vest on the passenger seat. After securing my firearm, I took my sister upstairs to put her back in bed. Losing track of time, I noticed I was running late, grabbed my keys and continued to leave my house that morning for work. Not realizing my firearm was still in the glove compartment.

When I left out of the house that morning I was later pulled over in my vehicle. During my traffic stop, I notified the officers who I was, Who I worked for and I had my Legally owned firearm in my glove compartment.

The officers took my fire arm and let me go, When I went to claim my fire arm from the police department they arrested me and charged me with unlawful possession of a firearm I legally owned.

I was facing 10 years in prison for a simple technicality. I am now a convicted felon.  
Via: Townhall

Continue Reading..... 

Monday, May 18, 2015


Militarized police overreach: "Oh, God, I thought they were going to shoot me next”Enlarge
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nine months after police in riot gear dispelled racially charged protests, President Barack Obama is prohibiting the federal government from providing some military-style equipment to local departments and putting stricter controls on other weapons and gear distributed to law enforcement.

The surprise announcement comes after the White House suggested last year that Obama would maintain programs that provide the type of military-style equipment used to respond to demonstrators last summer in Ferguson, Missouri, because of their broader contribution to public safety. But an interagency group found "substantial risk of misusing or overusing" items like tracked armored vehicles, high-powered firearms and camouflage could undermine trust in police.

With scrutiny on police only increasing in the ensuing months after a series of highly publicized deaths of black suspects nationwide, Obama also is unveiling the final report of a task force he created to help build confidence between police and minority communities in particular. The announcements come as Obama is visiting Camden, New Jersey, one of the country's most violent and poorest cities.

Obama plans to visit Camden police headquarters before heading to a community center to meet with youth and law enforcement and give a speech. "I'll highlight steps all cities can take to maintain trust between the brave law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line, and the communities they're sworn to serve and protect," Obama said in his weekly address out Saturday.

Via: AP

Continue Reading....

Sunday, February 23, 2014


Scott Walker responds to attacks by cutting taxes, again
The establishment press first went for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s throat. The attacks may not be fatal, but they put Christie off his game and delayed and maybe ended his opportunity to become the prohibitive favorite for the 2016 Republican nomination.
Now they are coming for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
So how is Scott Walker responding to the establishment left’s coming attacks?
He is cutting taxes in Wisconsin. Again.
Walker announced a series of tax cuts totaling more than $800 million in this year’s budget: a $406 million cut in property taxes and $100 million in lower income taxes. The property tax cut will save the average homeowner $100 over last year. The personal income tax will be cut by reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 4.4 percent to 4.0 percent. Every family will receive a tax cut of about $58 per year.
In addition, the state will reduce its withholding tax for state income taxes saving taxpayers $322.6 million each year. This will save the average family of four about $58 each month.

Popular Posts