Police response time shouldn't determine life or death

The police work very hard to do a good job for the citizens who pay them.  But many people fail to understand that the police are crime orientated.  They stop it if they see it, respond when it is in progress, investigate it after the fact, and help prosecutors convict and punish the bad guys.  That's a lot to do-- in addition to maintaining a general level of public safety (on highways, at crosswalks, crowd control and the like).

The police are not personal security guards for each and every citizen.  They will certainly respond if called, but it is not their job to ensure your personal safety.  You cannot sue the police in civil court if they fail to arrive in time to prevent you from being harmed or worse.  As long as they reasonably attempted to respond to a 9-1-1 call they have done their job. 

In America, individual citizens are their own first line of defense.  That's been the idea since the founding of our nation.  We are responsible for protecting ourselves until the cavalry -- the men and women in blue -- get there to secure the situation, investigate what happened, and so on.

Those who wish to do away with legal firearm possession (because they will have as much success with illegal firearm possession as they have had with illegal drug possession) had better be prepared to formally change this concordat, placing the police firmly in charge of the personal protection of every resident, vastly increase budgets and taxation to pay for this, and allow individuals to bring civil actions against government when it fails to protect them.  This would be a reasonable starting position in any discussion about "swapping" government protection for the rights and duties under the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Unfortunately, this is not the starting position advanced by those who profess "gun control."  They are fixated on the bad that firearms can do and ignore their necessity as part of that first line of defense, possibly because they mistake what the police are there for.  As the number of lawsuits brought against government for "failing to protect" (all tossed by the courts) shows, many do not understand the role of the police and what the citizens' role is in his or her own self-protection.

Like the automobile, the firearm is a piece of technology -- a tool.  It should be used safely, but how it is used depends on the user.  Misuse either and you can lose your freedom.  But some in the so-called "gun control" movement would extend "misuse" to simple possession, ignoring the absolute need for firearms as the best means of self-protection, the duty of which falls to all of us as individuals.

Unfortunately, in New Jersey the state has thrown up regulatory and legal hurdles to self-protection -- while its courts have insisted that state, county, and local governments are not responsible for the lives of the people who live there.  There have been a number of well-publicized cases where vulnerable members of society have been denied the right to protect themselves or the implementation of that right was held up in red tape, and they ended up as victims of homicide.

That is why new federal legislation is so important.  Introduced in the US House of Representatives as HR38 and the US Senate as S446, these bills will allow people licensed to carry a concealed firearm in their own state to do so legally in all states.  Among New Jersey's congressmen, Tom MacArthur is taking the lead.

Legislation proposed in the New Jersey Legislature by Assemblyman Parker Space,  AR-221, memorializes Congress and the President of the United States to enact HR38.  Space and Assemblywoman BettyLou DeCroce are the prime sponsors of this legislation.  Joining them are Assemblymen Anthony Bucco and Ron Dancer.   Below is the text of the Space-DeCroce legislation:

An Assembly Resolution memorializing the Congress and the President of the United States to allow reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.

Whereas, There exists a public interest in individuals maintaining the ability to protect themselves and their families from violence; and

Whereas, The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States; and

Whereas, The ability of law-abiding citizens to legally carry concealed firearms to defend themselves is a fundamental right; and

Whereas, It is in the best interest of our nation that citizens be able to travel freely from state to state without sacrificing the right to protect themselves and their families; and

Whereas, States currently may decline to recognize permits to carry concealed firearms issued by other states, thereby causing our citizens to forego the ability to protect themselves and their families when traveling outside of their home states; and

Whereas, Requiring all states to recognize a concealed carry permit issued by another state would rectify this inequality; and

Whereas, H.R. 38 of 2017-2018, the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” has been introduced in the United States Congress in an effort to protect our citizens’ Second Amendment rights, allowing them to travel between states without sacrificing the ability to protect themselves and their families; and

Whereas, H.R. 38 permits a person carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person and a state concealed weapons permit to carry a concealed handgun in any state, so long as the individual is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law or from carrying a concealed firearm in the individual’s state of residence; and

Whereas, At present 22 states recognize other states’ permits to carry concealed firearms or allow law-abiding non-residents to carry a firearm without a license; and

Whereas, Enactment of the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017” will enhance citizens’ Second Amendment rights by permitting reciprocity among all the states for the carrying of concealed firearms; now, therefore,

     Be It Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

     1.    The Congress and the President of the United States are respectfully memorialized to enact H.R. 38, the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.”

     2.    Copies of this resolution, as filed with the Secretary of State shall be transmitted by the Clerk of the General Assembly, to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the United States Senate, the Speaker and Majority and Minority Leaders of the United States House of Representatives, and each member of the United States Congress elected from this State.

How indecision damaged the NJGOP

Somehow we ended up with four plans to fix the TTF.  Here is a brief review of those four plans and how they developed (courtesy of Sussex County Watchdog):

(1) The Democrat Plan.  This is the plan pushed by Democrats like Senator Ray Lesniak and Assemblyman John Wisniewski.  It recognizes that the TTF has not been funded properly for decades.  That since 1988, New Jersey has charged drivers just 14 1/2 cents a gallon of gasoline to maintain and repair our state's roads and bridges -- whereas states like Pennsylvania have had to charge their drivers over 50 cents a gallon.  Instead of pay as you go, New Jersey has been running up the state's credit card to pay for roads and bridges.  That's why the first dime (10 cents) of any tax increase will have to be used just to pay the interest on the debt.  The Democrat plan is to raise the Gas Tax to pay for the TTF.  Period.  No tax cuts.

What stands in the way of the Democrat Plan is Republican Governor Chris Christie.  Of course, after the Democrats take back the Governor's office in 2017, they and their overwhelming majorities in BOTH chambers of the Legislature will enable them to easily pass a gas tax of any amount they choose WITHOUT any tax cuts.  That is 18 months away and counting.

(2) The Oroho Plan.  Economists have long believed that one of the main reasons New Jersey ranks 49th out 50th for business environment is its high Estate Tax.  Where most states have got rid of the Estate Tax and few have an inheritance tax, New Jersey has both.  The Estate Tax kills job creation and results in the flight of capital and people from the state.  New Jersey's tax on retirement income is another major factor in driving away people from the state.

Knowing that the Democrats don't need the GOP to pass a gas tax after 2017, Republican leaders gave Senator Steve Oroho the nod to negotiate a compromise with the Democrats that would address TTF funding in 2016 in return for tax cuts.  Oroho did his job well and ended up with an economic recovery plan that not only phased out the Estate Tax and eliminated the tax on retirement income for over 90 percent of retirees, but cut four other taxes as well.  It was an incredible accomplishment that few expected to happen.  Unfortunately, the thinking within the GOP Senate leadership had changed by then.  Now they were looking for a political angle.

(3) The Beck Plan.  While Senator Oroho was negotiating in good faith, Republican leaders in the Senate decided to launch a political plan, on which they believed they could build a statewide campaign for the majority in 2017.  This plan was sponsored by a member of leadership, Senator Jennifer Beck, who claimed that it could fund the TTF without an increase in the gas tax by borrowing $4.4 billion and freezing aid to municipalities and school districts (K-12) at the current level for seven years.

In addition, property tax relief was to be frozen for seven years -- along with tuition aid grants, NJ Stars, student financial assistance, higher education funding, hospital funding, and the State Police -- all frozen at the current level for seven years.  The Beck plan also raided the state's Clean Energy Fund. 

The Beck plan's numbers were seriously flawed and entirely reliant on economic growth.  The plan would have bankrupted the TTF in the event of an economic downturn.  Beck's rosy estimate of 3.15 percent growth was more than double the current year revenue growth of 1.5 percent.  And her plan depended on the Democrats to enact $1.4 billion in health plan savings and on timely savings from the mergers of departments and agencies. 

While Beck's plan did look at spending, she undercut her own argument when she voted for over $7 million in new spending for Planned Parenthood, the operators of abortion centers across the country. 

There are no tax cuts in the Beck plan, no attempt is made to address the out-migration of income and capital.  But the real risk to taxpayers represented by the Beck plan was two-part.  First, that by freezing aid for seven years, it would force local governments and school boards to raise property taxes. Second, that the plan's flawed numbers would send the TTF into bankruptcy and result in a property tax explosion.

(4) The Christie Plan.  On Monday, June 27th, the Governor entered into negotiations with Assembly Democrats on his own compromise plan.  Throughout the day, the Governor's office ran the numbers in an attempt to reduce the amount of the tax increase on gasoline, but with the first 10 cents going to cover debt service, there was little he could do.  Just before midnight, Governor Chris Christie and Speaker Vincent Prieto emerged from the Governor's office to announce their compromise.

The gas tax would still be raised 23 cents a gallon, the Republican Governor said there was no way around it if we wanted to keep roads and bridges safe and maintained.  The Estate Tax phase out was gone, as were the other tax cuts negotiated by Senator Oroho -- with the exception of the elimination of the tax on retirement income.  Oroho had negotiated an elimination of the tax for over 90 percent of New Jersey retirees.  The Governor's plan lowered that to 80 percent.

The big change was the cut in the state sales tax to 6 percent.  A half-cent in January and another half-cent by the end of 2017.  The Governor's numbers show that whereas the gas tax increase will cost the average household $200 a year, the sales tax cut will save that household $400 a year.

* * *

Why did the leadership of the Senate Republican Caucus encourage one of their members to negotiate a tax cut/TTF-funding deal, while a member of GOP leadership itself was allowed to publicly make war on that deal?  Whatever the calculation, it has stirred-up a shitstorm and opened up the possibility of primaries against legislative Republicans across the state.  A column run in yesterday's SaveJersey blog called for open Republican-on-Republican warfare:

And who are these offending Republicans? Here’s the Rogue’s Gallery – read it and make them weep:

Jon Bramnick, LD 21 (Union, Somerset and Morris); Chris Brown, LD 2 (Atlantic):  Rob Clifton, LD 12 (Monmouth, Ocean, Burlington and Middlesex);  BettyLou DeCroce,  LD 26 (Morris, Essex and Passaic); Joe Howarth, LD 8 (Burlington, Atlantic and Camden);  Sean Kean,  LD 30 (Monmouth and Ocean); Nancy Munoz,  LD 21 (Union, Morris and Somerset); David Rible,  LD 30 (Monmouth); Maria Rodriguez-Gregg, LD 8 (Burlington, Atlantic and Camden) and Scott Rumana, LD 40 (Passaic, Bergen, Essex and Morris).

Note that many of this exceedingly motley crew are in the GOP leadership in the Assembly, including Assemblyman Bramnick, the putative leader of the caucus.

...For their support of the gas tax-hike abomination, the Gang of 10 need to be primaried, hounded, called out, denounced, condemned and run to ground as traitors to the state’s already oppressed taxpayers.

The writer also explicitly fingers the new GOP "Solutions NJ" super PAC as being "GOP up-and-comers who loathe the idea of a gas-tax hike."  Does anyone really believe that they are going to primary Assemblyman Jon Bramnick?  Should we really be spending down the slim resources we have in Republican on Republican battles?

Have the actions of the Senate Republican leadership attracted resources or driven them away?  And now we face independent expenditures against our candidates.  Why did Senator Jennifer Beck feel the need to be so militant and personal in her attacks on fellow Republicans?  She's never treated the pro-abortion crowd that way and continues to vote for more spending for Planned Parenthood.  Beck and Spadea stirred up an internecine mess that will be very difficult to rollback.

Are NJ Legislators sexualizing childhood?

Less than a week after Assembly Speaker Vinnie Prieto (D-Sacco) promised to make New Jersey's historically high child poverty his top concern, that appears to have been pushed aside in favor of the top issue of the swingers' lobby -- women with penises.  You know how it is, poor children can't afford a lobbyist.  Rich and influential sexual swingers can buy whatever strikes their fancy.

The swingers want to see legislation (S-283) passed so that a man, with a penis, can become a legal "woman", simply by saying that he is seeing a therapist and then re-submitting his birth certificate to reflect his "new sex".  No surgery required. 

And it won't be recorded as an "amended" birth certificate.  It will be filed as the original.  The government will pretend that it can go back in time to correct the "perception" of the doctors and nurses who saw a child with a penis and checked "male".  The government will, in fact, lie and pretend that the attending physician checked "female" when, of course, he did not.    

This has long been the goal of a branch of therapy that is well organized and represented by a number of professional associations who lobby extensively.  They are followers of the Kinsey model of human sexuality, which gained traction in the 1950's.  This model embraces the idea that there should be no sexual taboos or restrictions, since all behaviors lay within the spectrum of sexual diversity, and that spectrum includes sex between the powerful and their subordinates, sex for pay, adult-child sex, and even incest. 

These therapists and the educators and politicians they influence promote the theory -- remembering that in the field of therapy, everything is "theory" -- that there are a "range" of genders, not restricted to male and female, and that all types of erotic preferences and lifestyles are variations of healthy sexuality.  They reject the labels normal and abnormal.  Nothing is abnormal, it just is. 

In 1999, the leaders in this field of therapy condemned Congress for withdrawing public funding from a controversial study by Dr. Bruce Rind (Temple University), Dr. Robert Bauserman (State of Maryland), and Mr. Philip Tromovitch (University of Pennsylvania).   These three experts in human sexuality advanced the idea that not all sexual intercourse between adults and children is necessarily harmful.

In 1998, their findings were published in the Psychological Bulletin, an academic psychology journal published by the often-cited American Psychological Association.  These psychologists analyzed 59 studies of college students who said they were sexually abused in childhood, and concluded that the effects of such abuse ''were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women.''

The study found that adult predatory sexual behavior towards children ''may represent only a violation of social norms with no implication for personal harm.'' The psychologists suggested that the term ''adult-adolescent sex'' or ''adult-child sex'' be substituted, in some cases, for ''child sexual abuse.''   

The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) strongly endorsed the study.  The study also received support from organizations like the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex; the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists; the National Coalition Against Censorship; and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

We list them, along with the American Psychological Association, because  Senator Joseph Vitale (D-McGreevey), the chairman of the senate committee through which the "therapy + penis = woman" legislation must pass, is fond of citing "experts" who support his position and dissing those who don't.  To be fair, he should know fully on whose team he is playing in advance of the 2017 primary, when that "team" will be detailed within the houses of worship that serve his district.

The idea that a government can alter a human being's genetic makeup simply by passing a law is a shade of King Canute.  It is also antithetical to Science itself.

Every Senator who supports S-283 should be aware of the inevitable conflicts that will arise when the attempt is made to brainwash young children into believing that a man can become a woman merely by "believing" it, finding the odd therapist to support you in your belief, and finally to alter a government document.  Vulnerable children will inevitably be required to undergo a species of the notorious SAR program.

SAR or Sexuality Attitude Restructuring, is a tool developed to increase students’ comfort with a broad range of behaviors.  During the SAR, films, slides, and audio of explicit sexual behaviors -- heterosexual, homosexual, group, oral, child-adult -- are projected on multiple screens for hours at a time, followed by group discussions.  In the 1970’s, SAR got the moniker "F*ck-O-Rama."  SAR is required for certification by some therapy associations.

Children's advocate Dr. Judith Reisman describes SAR as “a critical tool to reshape views of human sexuality”.  It desensitizes and disinhibits the brain, she explains, “to allow a shift in pedagogical attitude and performance”. 

On Monday, January 25, 2016, the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee will be holding a hearing on S-283.  The public hearing will be held at 1 PM in Committee Room 1, on the First Floor of the State House Annex in Trenton, New Jersey.

Members of the swingers lobby will no doubt be present to propagate their world view.  Those of us who have not yet undergone SAR retraining should also attend to add our voices... while we are still permitted them.

---

Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee will be holding a public hearing on S-283

MONDAY, JANUARY 25 - 1:00 PM

COMMITTEE ROOM 1, FIRST FLOOR

STATE HOUSE ANNEX

TRENTON, NJ

Is Sweeney man-enough for real reform?

Will Senate President Steve Sweeney drop his pussy attempt to rig every legislative election that follows the next round of redistricting... or is he man-enough to put real reform on the ballot and take on all comers in a fair fight?

The odds don't look too good.  After all, he's an Ironworker Union boss and they are known for their bullying.  Members of his union -- of his own District Council when he was President -- are on trial for an arson attack against a house of worship that wouldn't play ball.  Yeah, a church!  What's next, mugging nuns?

Now Sweeney wants to use the same scumbag tactics to bully the Legislature into enshrining "one party democracy" in the state Constitution.  Hey, this aint "On the Waterfront" and you aint Johnny Friendly (no, that would be Georgie Norcross), though you try to play the part:

What with the all-powerful executive and the legislating courts, democracy in New Jersey is pretty thin already.  And now you want to kill it forever by making it a one-party state.

Come on Sweeney, fight fair.  Don't rig the ring.  If it's reform you are looking for, how about real reform?  Adopt redistricting the way they do it in Iowa.  Here's an overview:

Iowa conducts redistricting unlike any other state.  The Iowa system does not put the task in the hands of a commission, but rather non-partisan legislative staff develop maps for the Iowa House and Senate, as well as U.S. House districts, without any political or election data (including the addresses of incumbents).  A five-person advisory commission is also formed.  This is different from all other states.  The redistricting plans from the non-partisan legislative staff are then presented to the Iowa Legislature for a straight 'Up' or 'Down' vote; if the Legislature rejects the redistricting plans, the process starts over.  (Eventually, the Iowa Supreme Court will enter the process if the Legislature fails to adopt a plan three times.)

Here are some excerpts from a great Boston Globe story on Iowa's redistricting process: 

In a locked windowless chamber across the street from the Iowa State House, three bureaucrats sequester themselves for 45 days every decade after census data is released. Their top-secret task: the “redistricting” of the state’s legislative and congressional boundaries.

But here, unlike in most other states, every care is taken to ensure the process is not political.

The mapmakers are not allowed to consider previous election results, voter registration, or even the addresses of incumbent members of Congress. No politician — not the governor, the House speaker, or Senate majority leader — is allowed to weigh in, or get a sneak preview.

Instead of drawing lines that favor a single political party, the Iowa mapmakers abide by nonpartisan metrics that all sides agree are fair — a seemingly revolutionary concept in the high-stakes decennial rite of redistricting.

Most other states blatantly allow politics to be infused into the process, leaving the impression — and sometimes the reality — that the election system is being rigged.

...Iowa, with its impartial way of drawing congressional districts, the results are viewed as a model of equity — and a model for the nation...

Moreover, Iowa’s system has led to some of the nation’s most competitive races. In a country where the vast majority of members of Congress coast to reelection, Iowa’s races are perennial tossups.

“This puts the voter as the primary consideration,” said Ed Cook, the agency’s unassuming legal counsel who leads a mapmaking team that also includes two geographers. “The basic concept is if it’s a blind process, the result will be fair.”

...This is done by making population size the primary metric when determining a district’s boundaries, followed by the goal of compact, contiguous districts that respect county lines.

“Having a more competitive district encourages somebody to really try to represent not just the ideology of his or her party but to represent the people of the district,” said Iowa’s governor, Terry Branstad.

You can read the entire article here: 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/12/08/iowa-redistricting-takes-partisanship-out-mapmaking/efehCnJvNtLMIAFSQ8gp7I/story.html

Sweeney is hoping to push through his "vote rig" amendment tomorrow, during a "lame duck" session of the Legislature.  Lame duck is when they push through all the lame dick legislation that wouldn't get through any other time.  So if you want to comment on having representative democracy stripped out of the state constitution, tomorrow would be the time to do it.  There will be two hearings on "vote rig".

Thursday, January 7, 2016

10 AM

Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation

Committee Room 7, 2nd floor

State House Annex

SCR 188

Legislative Reapportionment Commission

Thursday, January 7, 2016

11 AM

Assembly Judiciary

Committee Room 12, 4th floor

State House Annex

ACR 4

Legislative Reapportionment Commission

Should NJGOP be "outsiders" in 2017?

The disastrous 2015 legislative elections are behind us.  Now the NJGOP, and especially those Republican members of the Legislature who expect to be candidates in 2017, are in the process of positioning themselves for the elections two years from now -- when both chambers will be up, as well as the Governor.

The first question to consider is whether or not to run as members of the party of government or to run against the Trenton establishment.  Republican legislators do have an option, for while a Republican Governor has held power for the last six years, the Democrats have controlled the Legislature for more than twice as long.  Since 2002, and under four Governors, the Democrats have run the legislative process in Trenton.

If polls are anything to go by, it might serve the GOP well if its legislators were to put away their "party of Governor Chris Christie" slogans and replace them with an up-to-date "outsider" populist perspective. 

Take these numbers for example:  In 1958, 77 percent of the American public "trusted government always or most of the time."  The Pew Center tests that question regularly, and when tested this year, that 77 percent had declined to 19 percent.  As late as the first term of President George W. Bush, that number had stood at 60 percent. So the decline has been as sharp as it's been rapid.  That decline just happens to mirror the period during which the Democrats have run the Legislature in Trenton.

Trust in government is greater among Democrats, but at 26 percent, still nothing to brag about.  For those with no party affiliation/independents it is 16 percent and for Republicans it is 11 percent.

In a study titled, Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government, released by the Pew Research Center for U.S. Politics & Policy on November 23, 2015, only 20 percent of the American public believes that government programs are well run.  74 percent believe that "most elected officials put their own interests before those of the country."  And 55 percent believe that "ordinary Americans would do a better job of solving national problems."

Only 25 percent of the American public views the federal government positively, with 33 percent viewing large corporations positively.  Just 25 percent view the news media favorably, and for the entertainment industry, that rises to 32 percent.

Labor unions are viewed positively by 45 percent, churches & religious institutions by 61 percent, and small businesses by 82 percent.

Back when Bill Clinton was President, Americans were evenly split on whether or not there was a great difference between the two major political parties.  Today, 45 percent believe there is a "great deal" of difference between the two parties, with 32 percent saying there is a 'fair amount" of difference, and 19 percent saying "hardly any" difference.

Only 18 percent of Americans report they are "basically content" with their government.  57 percent report they are "frustrated", with another 22 percent describing themselves as "angry".

On government competence to deliver, only 2 percent report that government programs are being run in an "excellent" fashion vs. 33 percent who say they are being run in a "poor" way. 18 percent report "good" vs. 44 percent who report "only fair". 

More Americans now describe their government as an "enemy" -- 9 percent -- than as a "friend" -- 8 percent.  On the government's management of key issues, it appears to let down both Republicans and Democrats, with just 28 percent saying that it manages the immigration system well, 36 percent saying that it helps people get out of poverty, and 48 percent saying that it ensures a basic income for seniors.

The choice for 2017 is being discussed now.  Will the NJGOP and its legislative candidates -- incumbents as well as prospects -- choose to position themselves as anti-establishment outsiders or the party of government?