Town Square

Post a New Topic

Arizona decision

Original post made by Walter_E_Wallis, Midtown, on Jul 28, 2010

Let's see If I got it right -

This story contains 57 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (34)

Like this comment
Posted by Correct
a resident of Meadow Park
on Jul 28, 2010 at 6:28 pm

Not only that, to add to your confusion, States have the right to explicitly BREAK the Federal law, such as with Sanctuary Cities, and not be prosecuted by the Feds..but a State takes its chances of being berated and sued by our Feds if they try to UPHOLD Federal law. ( Some States, who just happen to be really blue, have the same laws as AZ, for example, but have never come under any scrutiny, let alone notice by the Feds)

Yes, I think you've got it, Walter.

Like this comment
Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 28, 2010 at 7:05 pm

Feds: "Immigration is *our* responsibility to shirk"

Like this comment
Posted by VoxPop
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 28, 2010 at 9:16 pm

Immigration has foreign policy implications, and only the Federal government is allowed to set foreign policy. This is not a new idea.

Successive administrations have worked to come up with a coherent immigration policy and all of their efforts have failed in the legislature. It is the cowardice of the Congress, and now the hyper-partisanship found in that body today, that prevents any rational solution...particularly in an election year.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 28, 2010 at 9:30 pm

It's called the Constitution, Walter. You know, Founding Fathers, Rule of Law, and all that civics stuff?

Besides, States' Rights died forever when Bush 43 intervened in the Terry Schiavo case. Remember? Could hardly wait, in fact, was still in his PJs when he signed the order.

Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 29, 2010 at 2:26 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Rule of law is consistent. I point out this is not.
I am amused by those whose response to my arguments is "Bush did it too" as if that makes any difference. Republican presidents, even RONALD, are wrong when they are wrong. And I am not a republican.

Like this comment
Posted by Correct
a resident of Meadow Park
on Jul 29, 2010 at 8:42 am

Oh, this is really, really rich ..Web Link

apparently the ONE judge who blocked the AZ enactment of its law actually believes that police don't have the legal authority to decide if someone should be checked out for legal who does this judge think IS the appropriate authority to haul in folks? Hire hundreds of thousands of FEDERAL "officials" to roam the States?

rich, very rich. Who has the authority to decide if my driver's license is valid since it is based on citizenship papers?

ANYONE who is stopped in the course of what is normal police work ( like all of us get stopped if we break laws in driving etc) has their legal documents checked. Regardless of color.

I was just stopped for speeding 2 months ago..I am hispanic but white...showed my driver's license to the police ( who was, btw, hispanic and brown and female) who checked it out, ticketed me and we all moved on.

If I did not have the proper docs with me, I would fully expect to be hauled off to jail until I could show them.

This is called following the law, and the police are supposed to catch those who are breaking the law.

Why is that so hard to understand for the leftists?

Vox Pop...foreign policy implications so that is only Feds place? You must be kidding me. Tell you what, leave your door open, advertise anyone can come stay with you, and if you try to close your door, I will say that your policy has city wide implications and only the City Council can monitor your door. No problem.I am sure someone else will find out that some of your uninvited guests are not the same gender as you, and call you sexist, and not the same color as you, and call you racist.

The leftist mentality continues to baffle me, no matter how long I try to understand it.

Like this comment
Posted by Green Card Holder
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jul 29, 2010 at 9:24 am

As part of the process of obtaining my green card, I was told that I must always carry it with me at all times and also my passport. I was told that at any time, I might be asked to show proof of residency even if I was just the innocent party in a fender bender or witnessing a crime. I have never been asked to show anything more than a drivers' licence, but I am prepared to show my green card whenever necessary. If the law applies to all, then why shouldn't it apply to all?

Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 29, 2010 at 9:55 am

I think people know full well what they are doing. Generally people do know right from wrong. However, the bennies of the US are so great, certain people will try any argument possible. Some people, even if technically legal themselves, have illegal relatives and so advocate on their behalf. It is disgusting. Crying 'racism' upfront is an inflammatory tactic. Acting like this country, like all other countries, does not have the right to have a known system of legal immigration, and border enforcement is ridiculous. Acting like one is entitled to enter the US and get all the bennies just because one originated from a poor country is ridiculous. A certain other close country is mismanaged, with an unjust society, perhaps, and that is not the problem or responsibility of the US. The president of another country cannot tell us how to run our immigration system.
We have a system in place to permit in those who are victims of human rights abuses and we are the most generous country in the world in regards to helping victims. However, to claim that - because of semi-slack law enforcement by the Feds in recent years, owing to being overwhelmed, perhaps - that now we "must" let everyone and anyone waltz into here, is outrageous. A very good idea is for us to start comparing practices here with those of other countries. My spouse went through a long process to enter the US legally and become an US citizen and it is outrageous that ANY form of amnesty is being contemplated by the Obama Administration - I totally oppose this.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 29, 2010 at 11:35 am

"Rule of law is consistent. I point out this is not."

Ah, yes. The Shakespearean School of Law - As You Like It.

"I am amused by those whose response to my arguments is "Bush did it too" as if that makes any difference. Republican presidents, even RONALD, are wrong when they are wrong."

Are you referring to the Reagan Amnesty of 1987, or to Bush 43's failed Bush Amnesty? But mind the narcissism - other people read this blog, and some are capital-R Republicans, with selective amnesia.

You, my friend, are a handy reliable foil for making such points, and I am sincerely and deeply grateful for your faithful services.

Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 29, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Equal justice under the law is hardly a theatrical artifice.
All presidents err at one time or another. All presidents since I started caring have made decisions with which I disagreed. I carried Truman's water because of my oath, but after Adlai, I became an observer. I am amused that you still fight Straw Dogs, just as the democrats are still running against Tina Fay.

Like this comment
Posted by Correct
a resident of Meadow Park
on Jul 29, 2010 at 3:15 pm

"still running against Tina Fey"...hee hee hee hee make me laugh almost every time with your pithy, dry humor.

was thinking about this today...gotta ask..if this Judge and this Admin and DOJ really believe that States don't have the right to follow-through with Federal law..then what happens with all kinds of Fed Laws that local police help with?

Kidnappings? ( Sorry, I see the kidnapper carrying the kid, but I am just a cop, not a FEDERAL enforcer..can't touch it)

Drugs? ( Sorry, watching the meth dealer cook up his meth, but can't go in and stop it, Fed law, you know)

The list is long. You get the point.

What a bunch of slime

Like this comment
Posted by Correct
a resident of Meadow Park
on Jul 29, 2010 at 3:25 pm

Wow, just out of curiosity, I searched for Police enforcement of Fed law, and came up with this, by La Raza in 2006. ( a pdf file on a 2006 "how to fight police enforcement of immigration laws" How-To booklet.

Web Link

I had thought that some of the rumors I heard about "La Raza" were just hypperbole, but I think not, now. They are, indeed, focused in, essentially, open borders, no enforcement of our border laws.

"This tool kit is designed to help you advocate against federal, state, and
local efforts to involve state and local police in the enforcement of federal
immigration laws and to speak with the media about this complex issue.
This tool kit provides you with the resources and tips you need to advocate
effectively on behalf of your community."

Wow..which "community" is that? What, exactly, does La Raza mean again, and which Raza does it refer to? Why, exactly, are La Raza and this current Admin so vehemently opposed to allowing the execution of federal law by local police in ONLY this one area?


Looking on the bright side, the more those on the La Raza/Democrat side reveal themselves, the more the American people see and learn.

Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 29, 2010 at 5:31 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

La Raza is, by definition, a racist organization. The first I heard that name it was Los Siete de la Raza, a group formed to advocate the release of seven guys who tossed a bucket of gasoline into a bar they had been thrown out of, barbecuing a few of the patrons. Softy Earl Warren saved them from the gas chamber because, since they had postponed their execution so long, they had "suffered enough".

Like this comment
Posted by baron parker
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 30, 2010 at 10:30 am

"This is called following the law, and the police are supposed to catch those who are breaking the law."

So which laws do you want your police to spend their time to enforcing? Immigration laws? Tax laws? Marriage laws? Medical laws? Intellectual Property Laws? Public Safety Laws?

Personally, I'd like the police to start enforcing tax laws, where everyone would be required to show proof of filing their taxes over the past few years if pulled over on a traffic stop.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 30, 2010 at 11:43 am

Let's cut to the core of this matter that every conservative can agree on. What the judge struck down was Arizona's blatantly socialist attempt to massively distort the free market. People cross the border to take available jobs. That is a private business transaction between the worker and the employer; a capitalist state should keep out of it. In its isolationist zeal, Arizona overstepped its proper authority and had to be reined in to stop creeping socialism.

Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 30, 2010 at 11:54 am

I haven't read (@ Paul) so much twisted baloney in such a long time. I'm still laughing at your crock of you know what.

Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 30, 2010 at 12:38 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Paul, I'd make you a deal were it in my power. Let anyone in who wants in, with the old law that, if they became a public charge within 5 years, back home they went.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 30, 2010 at 1:23 pm

"Paul, I'd make you a deal were it in my power. Let anyone in who wants in, with the old law that, if they became a public charge within 5 years, back home they went."

I'll see that and I'll raise ya: public charge is OK for everyone who pay/paid their taxes (income, sales, gasoline, property, etc.), regardless of "citizenship." I suspect most "illegals" would qualify.

Don't blame you, CPD. Most people find this collision with their supposed conservative principles quite disturbing.

Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 30, 2010 at 4:55 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I believe most nations have a minimum buy-in. In Canada, I believe it is or was a million bucks.
And Paul, whatcha gonna do with the underground economy? [No, that doesn't refer to those who want a tunnel for HSR]

Like this comment
Posted by Polly Wanacracker
a resident of Professorville
on Jul 31, 2010 at 5:12 pm

"I believe most nations have a minimum buy-in. In Canada, I believe it is or was a million bucks."

Or a Vientam-era draft card, or the certifiable ashes thereof.

Like this comment
Posted by Legal Immigrant
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 1, 2010 at 10:42 am

As a legal immigrant I jumped through all the hoops to get here. I always carried my green card with me and produced it when asked to do so. I just don't have too much sympathy for illegals without identification.

In fact I wonder sometimes why I bothered to fill out all those forms, attend interviews at the embassy, go on an endless waiting list. Why didn't I just walk in from Canada? O yes, I became a citizen after five years which many immigrants never bother to do because it's too much trouble!!

Since arriving here I've dutifully paid all my taxes and provided the country with two highly educated children, one engineer and one physicist who I hope are contributing to the future of the country.

Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 1, 2010 at 11:00 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Thank you and welcome aboard, Legal.

Like this comment
Posted by Correct
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 1, 2010 at 2:54 pm

Congrats and welcome! I have found that the BEST Americans, the ones who REALLY GET IT, are those who have become citizens here after leaving their home country.

Tell me, is it still true, can one be a dual citizen still? I had to choose between being a USA citizen and keeping my 2 national citizenships in Europe. It was no brainer for me, though sad..and I found that as soon as I signed that final paper, it was like I was married to the USA. Up till then, I was polygamous and hadn't realized how much less invested I was in the USA outcomes.

So, what happened with you? Dual or single citizenship, and what do you think?

Like this comment
Posted by Legal immigrant
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 1, 2010 at 3:48 pm

Once you become a U.S. citizen, so far as the U.S. is concerned you are only a U.S. citizen. The U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship. If you leave the U.S. and enter it again you better use only your U.S. passport.

However, the country of my birth recognizes that since I was born there I am a citizen for life unless I renounce it.

I only hold a U.S. passport because that's all I need to go anywhere in the world. It's not a problem.

Like this comment
Posted by Correct
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 1, 2010 at 7:26 pm

Ok, got it.

I had to actually renounce my original citizenships... but I see now you don't have to actually renounce your original citizenship.

How do you feel about that? Do you think that is good for America?

Thanks for putting up with my question. I have to admit, I have a bias since I had to "commit" to this country as my only one, and it made me feel more committed to making it work, but I wonder how much of that is just my personality.

Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 7:40 am

Web Link

Link to the Declaration of Independence. I give it to reference what follows, if anyone reading this has an open mind and wants to understand "Tea Party" thoughts.

Please check out the document which enumerates what led to the Revolution. Recall..this is the ORIGINAL "TEA PARTY". These sentiments and beliefs are still what the Tea Party is all about.

Stay with from beginning ( which relates to AZ defending itself against invasion) it until the end,( which relates to the Fed Govt/Dem/Obama trying to take away AZ legislature)

King George fought the ability of the people of the colonies to defend itself against "invasion".

"... the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within."

When a judge is dependent on political appointments and favor, it is BAD, and leads not to following law, but currying political favor ( a recent decision plays to this, and certainly the political appt without checks and balances of SCOTUS plays to this)

"He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

Increasing government at our expense without our permission ( no, because we were duped into electing Obama does NOT mean we wanted MORE GOVERNMENT..we just foolishly believed all that "centrist" talk)

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

Supporting the jurisdiction of laws outside our own land on our own people ( think of Kagan and Sotomayor, both of whom want to look to "international law" instead of our OWN Constitution and law)

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:"

70% of us oppose the "Health Care" (now-called) Tax

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"

We oppose the "Trial by UN" ideology of the Dems/Obama in this country

"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:"

For fighting AZ right to legislate itself

"For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."

We have tried, through Town Halls, through polling, through the very limited access to our Free Press we have, to bring forth our grievances, with arrogant dismissal and derision at every turn by Obama, Holder, Pelosi, and the rest of the leaders of the Dem party joined by a few Repubs ( the usual Snowe and Collins, Graham..and until this year when he changed his colors temporarily, McCain, but even then he was a hair's breadth away from calling us racist for wanting to control illegal immigration)

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

I recommend you read the rest of the Declaration of Independence and think about what led to the revolution and who risked their lives, their family's lives, their properties, their fortunes, their heads ( if they lost, they would be "traitors" and hanged as such) on bringing us the USA and its Constitution.

Then read the Federalist Papers and understand the immense thought that went into accepting human nature and the urge to tyrrany in our govt, and how to prevent it, how to set us on the path toward individual freedom and responsibility for our own actions.

Then ask yourself: How does stealing from citizens to support others ( citizen or not) square with any of this foundation? How does NOT defending our borders square with any of our foundation?

Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 7:44 am

Reading "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin might be a good way to start.

Or, if you prefer reading by "identity", then read "The Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce ( a lesbian who figured out what had happened to the former "liberal" Democrat Party and is now classified as "conservative" ..because she believes in individual freedom)

Like this comment
Posted by food for thought
a resident of another community
on Aug 5, 2010 at 6:38 pm

WW said:

"Let's see If I got it right -

The Federal Government has exclusive authority to enforce Immigration laws."

Total BS. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to make rules regarding "NATURALIZATION". That means they decide what it takes to become a CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY. IT DID NOT SAY THAT ARIZONA COULDN'T ENFORCE ITS LAWS OR THE LAWS OF THIS LAND IN ITS OWN STATE/JURISDICTION. Don't get all bent out of shape over this ruling. This judge was probably handpicked to hear this cases because OBAMA KNEW SHE WOULD RULE IN HIS FAVOR. Now, this case has been appealed. Just like a lot of the 9th Circuit Courts stupid opinions, this one will probably be overturned and will work its way up to the Supreme Court. That is when we see how many TRAITORS THEIR ARE ON THAT COURT.

"States cannot enforce them."

Total BS. When some fool claims this scam, ask them where it says that in the Constitution. Most of them, will have a brain fart right before your eyes, the others will something up, and then other will just flat out lie to your face. Arizona can enforce the laws of the land in its own jurisdiction, PERIOD.

"Cities cannot enforce them. In fact, in some cities cooperation with the ICE can get you fired."

Here we go again. WW, you are starting to sound stupid.

"BUT, an employer is tasked, by heavy penalties, to police the immigration status of his employees."

Ah, you have an interesting point here, but where did the police get the authority to regulate who an employer hires? Now, if the police were doing their job by catching the CRIMINAL ILLEGALS IN THE FIRST PLACE, the employee would need to waste his time on this stuff, would he?


That is what I said myself.


Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 7:16 pm

F for S: Please don't use bad language, or call Mr. Wallis names etc..he is a gentleman who puts his real name out there, and as such deserves our respect for having the courage that you and I DON'T have, which is to not be anonymous. I don't care how much I disagree with or think a person is silly or even plain old stupid, if they have put their own real name out there, I stick to just the facts as I know them. And believe me, I very strongly disagree with a couple folks who proudly put their names to posts regularly. But they deserve my respect simply for not being anonymous.

That said, you completely missed Mr. Wallis' point. He is being somewhat sarcastically ironical, trying to make a point about the inconsistency of our Fed Govt "logic" ( lack of) here. He, in fact, is agreeing with you ( and me)

The most important thing to remember is that the PEOPLE created the STATES which created the FEDERAL government, not the other way around.

We were framed and run as a "bottom up" Republic, not a "top down" tyranny, and the modern Democrat has completely lost sight of that ( though, the more I see them in action, the more I wonder if they are, in fact, decendents of the folks who wanted to keep King George in power!)

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 6, 2010 at 10:53 am


I would think that you, of all the people on this forum, would favor open borders as as essential element of a free and open labor market. Government immigration interventions artificially diminish the labor supply, driving up prices of goods beyond their natural free market equilibrium points, costing all of us more money. Also, enforcing immigration laws leads inexorably to growth of government size and power, and increased taxes to pay for it.

You need to rethink, or think, your position on this.

Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 6, 2010 at 11:37 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

In a libertarian society where no one had the right to compel others to feed or shelter him, Paul's argument might have value.

Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 6, 2010 at 8:37 pm

I favor my ability to prevent uninvited guests into my home, and uninvited guests into my country.

There is a reason why the more socialist/communist the country, the more shut the borders. In a country where I am forced to pay for uninvited guests, pay everything from social costs of imprisonment and innocents harmed, to paying for welfare, education, health care of kids AND anchored "parents" on MediCal..all while trying to take care of MY kids and MY parents, who AREN'T on the social welfare network..well, I get a little hot under the collar.

No more taking advantage of us workers. I have had enough. Fix the immigration hassles for valuable influx of citizens, slam the door shut to uninvited guests. The good side benefit would be that if we stopped enabling the corruption of Mexico's system by letting them export their poor and their criminal class to us, maybe it would right itself and stop cycling into a failed state.

Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 6, 2010 at 8:46 pm

BTW, speaking of failed government..why is that our Feds feel free to sue AZ for FOLLOWING Fed law, but NOT sue California now for failing to follow Fed 2 counts. One on illegal "sanctuary" cities, and now on trying to bypass the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996? Same words as the DOMA just got struck down as "unconstitutional" by a lone judge in CA, so back to gay marriage we go..but AZ has the same words as a 60 year old Fed statute, and it is sued..

'splain it to me, Lucy..Are we a law-abiding nation, or not? Or is it just one political party which likes to cherry pick which laws it will follow?

What is even more hilarious is that support for Obama amongst Hispanics has plummeted more than in any other group.....since the Obama/Holder response to AZ law. The racism inherent in "pandering" to illegal immigration is appalling.

When are you all going to realize that a lot of us are here who have ESCAPED lawless hispanic nations...and WANT our country to follow our Constitution and our laws, including our laws against illegal immigration! How racist is it to keep believing that "hispanics" want illegal immigration...when hispanic CITIZENS have the same concerns as every other law-abiding, tax paying USA citizen?

What a bunch of racist leftists who believe that "hispanics" want open borders..who are the ones who want open borders? Think about it.

A bunch of undocumented Democrats, that is who.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul M. Heller, Esq.
a resident of Stanford
on Aug 11, 2010 at 9:21 am

Hi Walter,

A little sarcastic, but nice...

As a practitioner of immigration law for almost 30 years now, most people look at immigration as if it is somehow rational; it isn't. The system itself is outdated, makes no sense, and is incomprehensible to only but a few insiders (who know it is broken). Of course, I'm speaking about legal immigration. With regard to employers, and their 'obligation', completing the I-9 for any new hire is the beginning/end of an employer's obligation. In fact, "the law" imposes stiff penalties for any employer who attempts to look past, and or into, the documents presented or discriminates in any way against existing employees. Just wanted to clear that up.

Solution in brief (but read my blog): I would do everything possible to control the border, issue a 'national identity/smart social security card' (to all those here, citizen and non citizen alike), document all that are here, provided they have behaved themselves, pay back taxes, learn English (so that those that do not, the 'criminal element', more easily find their way out of the country), create a workable guest worker program, and create a system whereby employers truly know who they can/can't hire, with strong penalties attached; once the above is in place, "attack", i.e., anyone who comes to the attention of authorities, for anything, local, state, federal, would be summarily expelled. Those that are documented would be given 5 or 10 years, under the new immigration system, to legalize themselves (they would not be ahead 'in line', or even be in line - no amnesty); if not, bye, bye....

Paul M. Heller, Esq. (Founder/Principal)
Heller Immigration Law Group – 25+ years

Mail to: 325 Sharon Park Dr. # 635, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: 1.800.863.4448; 1.650.424.1900/02; Fax: 1.650.433.5424
Email/Website:; Web Link

Blog: Web Link

Profile: Web Link
Follow me on Twitter: Web Link
Yahoo Messenger: paulhilg

Appointments: Web Link

Reminder: Anyone who is not a US citizen (unless in A or G status) must report address changes to the DHS/USCIS within 10 days or less using Form AR-11.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

You Dirty Little Thing
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 3,176 views

“Housewife” a Journey of Transgender Marriage
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 982 views

Holiday LEGO Show
By Cheryl Bac | 2 comments | 729 views

New traditions in an ancient land
By Sally Torbey | 2 comments | 400 views