There are four Leftist candidates in LD21 Assembly race

It has now emerged that there are FOUR Leftist candidates in the District 21 Assembly race. Two are straight-forward members of the far-Left. They came from the ranks of Action Together New Jersey, a far-Left group that supports the socialist Green New Deal of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

If you are looking for a future of meat-free diets (soylent green, anyone?), the end of air travel (unless you are a member of whatever Politburo equivalent they adopt), the American Bill of Rights (“thought crime is a form of violence,” don’t you know?), and restrictive prohibitions on reproduction (think of Red China’s “One Child” policy on steroids)… then the Green New Deal embraced by Democrats Lisa Mandelblatt and Stacey Gunderman is for you!

The Democrat Party is embracing the death cult of Anti-Natalism. Senator Bernie Sanders, one of the top Democrats in the 2020 presidential race, recently argued against human procreation on the basis of its impact on the environment. At a CNN townhall earlier this month, Sanders said he would support making population control part of his climate-change agenda. It was extensively reported in the Washington Post, New York Times, and other national media. So what is Anti-Natalism? Well, we know that traditional conservatives don’t agree with it, so let’s look at it from the left-of-center point of view of an anti-tradition humanist…

Yep, even most anti-traditionalists can’t quite wrap their minds around this new cult that embraces human extermination (even as it makes an argument for the short-term extermination of certain strains of DNA… like Americans). But this is who the Democrats are. And now for their fellow-travelers…

Harry Pappas, the former party boss of the Union County Democrat machine, is running for Assembly in District 21 as a third-party candidate. Pappas claims to be a “conservative independent” but it is very clear what party he’s from. True to his roots, Pappas is a “Democrat”, plain and simple.

Martin Marks, the former Mayor of Scotch Plains, is a different matter. Marks recruited Pappas to run, which says a lot. Last week, New Jersey Globe ran a story that explained their motives and provided a background to their effort and why they have chosen to run as third-party candidates…

It’s possible that former Scotch Plains Mayor Martin Marks and former Springfield Township Committeeman Harry P. Pappas could serve as spoilers in a highly competitive race where Democrats think they can flip two Assembly seats. That might be their objective.

Semi-surreptitiously, Marks and Pappas say their goal is to force Bramnick, the Assembly Minority Leader, to cuddle a conservative agenda – like embracing his 100% NRA rating rather than run away from it.

But privately, the two (so-called) “conservatives” (note: our quotation marks) really want to take responsibility for Bramnick’s defeat.

The New Jersey Globe has learned that the (so-called) “conservatives” could spent more than $20,000 on their race, although that number won’t be verifiable for several weeks.

The independent campaign is targeting high-propensity Republican voters with a conservative bent in a low-turnout election through digital ads and direct mail…

Marks and Pappas are taking votes only from the incumbents. None of their support is likely to come at the expense of Democrats Lisa Mandelblatt and Stacey Gunderman.

The question will be – and there is no rocket science in this – just how many voters in the off-off-year midterm elections will actually come out and vote for two independent candidates who stand no real chance of winning?

That’s right. Pappas and Marks are fellow-travelers of the far-Left.

Fellow-traveler is defined as… a person who is not a member of a particular group or political party (especially the Communist Party), but who sympathizes with the group's aims and policies.

You can’t be a conservative anything and run a campaign to ensure the election of two far-Leftists who are members of an organization that is on record as embracing the Green New Deal. You can’t claim to be Pro-Life but then plot to elect two Democrats who are on record as being members of a group that endorsed the Green New Deal and the Anti-Natalism death cult it represents.

That isn’t Pro-Life. That is Pro-Death Cult. That is Anti-Natalism.

The New Jersey Globe has done a great service for conservatives in exposing the lie behind the candidacy of Pappas and Marks. That lie is clear: Their campaign is not about electing conservatives, it is about ensuring the election of the most virulent kind of left-wing extremists imaginable. Any conservatives who buy into it are not worthy of the name.

Democrat Jois ignores the epidemic of sexual violence in his party.

Memo to lawyer Goutam Jois:  In the midst of the hearings going on in Trenton, this is no time to try to change the subject and divert attention away from the topic of sexual violence against women.

The victims are Democrat women… campaign workers, volunteers, and activists in the Democrat Party – and whether through intimidation or direct violent assault they are victims of a politics that places boss-worship over the right of women to say “NO”.

Instead of trying to change the subject with a mincing attack on a Republican arguing for civil discourse and good conduct, lawyer Goutam Jois should be asking tough questions of the Democrat bosses he is instead trying to suck-up to.  Jois should be asking if it is even safe for a women to participate in a Democrat Party campaign anymore?  What guarantee does any woman have that she won’t be subjected to violent sexual assault and that when it happens and she speaks out, that she won’t become a pariah of the party?

Lawyer Jois is seeking to become a member of a legislative caucus with a long and disgraceful history of bad conduct towards women.  From accessing child porn from a taxpayer-funded, legislative office computer to allegations of stalking women and worse, past and present members of the Democrat caucus that Jois aspires to become a member of have a lot to answer for.  Jois should be asking those questions instead of trying to change the subject and divert attention away from the sexual violence against women.

Perhaps Jois should be calling on the NRA to provide gun safety courses for women campaign volunteers and workers as part of their orientation before becoming involved in the campaign of a Democrat running for office?  Maybe he can suggest the installation of “safe rooms” for women in Democrat Party headquarters?

Whatever Jois comes up with, that should be his campaign’s first order of business.  Tell us what you are going to do about the sexual violence and intimidation against women who simply want to exercise their right to be active in the Democrat Party?

Blue what? The only NJ Dem legislator elected to Congress was endorsed by the NRA!

There’s a lot to be said for not having a record. 

For a start, you can lie about who you are and what you will do when you get elected.  You can even target your lies to different audiences – like pretending you have a war record and appealing to suburban voters with your anti-tax broadcast advertising, while using your grassroots to find and target liberals with a message especially for them.  That’s how the Democrats did it. 

Republicans… they did it ass backwards.  They invested millions to tell their grassroots to go to hell and then broadcast an explicitly liberal message to those cultural leftists who hate the word “Republican” the most.  And they did it in the midst of the most divisive national election since 2010 – on par with 1994.  They invested even more millions in turning out the very people who loath them – all the while doing their utmost to convince their base that they think of them the same way they think of dog excrement.  See, in this way you lose everybody! 

New Jersey Republicans desperately needed a unified message to take to war in 2018.  After Donald Trump and the GOP leadership in Congress screwed them by passing a tax package that arguably raised property taxes in the state with the worst property tax problem in the nation – somebody should have got everyone in a room to figure out a message.  Hey, it’s a small state so if you don’t want to come off like a cacophony, you’d better all be singing the same tune.

Instead, half argued that screwing with the state’s property tax deduction was a net positive, half said it was a net negative – and the Democrats, they just loved it!  For once, they got to be the party defending the beleaguered property taxpayers of New Jersey.  What passes for the media in New Jersey backed them up on it.  And more importantly, so did the instincts of the average property taxpayer.  Donald Trump or no Donald Trump, when it comes to trusting the promises politicians make about property taxes, they don’t.  Period.  Somebody should have remembered that.

After handing the property tax issue to the Democrats – the issue that has consistently tested as the top concern of New Jersey voters for at least the last decade – it is amazing the NJGOP did as well as it did on November 6th.  A large part of the electorate already hated Donald Trump (and therefore, the Republican brand) and wanted to show it – but by miscalculation, the remainder were granted permission to hate the GOP too… over property taxes!  Gagged and gagged again.

But it wouldn’t have worked so well if the Democrats hadn’t been such clean slates.  Just think of it.  All those Democrats in the Legislature with all those perfect liberal voting records… and the only guy who is acceptable to the electorate to move up and go to Congress is the state’s most conservative Democrat legislator… the one who is endorsed by the NRA.  The one who voted against same-sex marriage.  Heck, Jeff Van Drew is more Pro-Life than many Republicans and has opposed both RGGI and increasing the minimum wage!  But he moved up, and all the rest stayed behind. 

Meanwhile, DC residents Andy Kim and Tom Malinowski simply move into the state, take out six month leases on rental properties, run and win.  And the silly fools who spent years as Democrat committee members, in local governments, running for Freeholder and then for Assembly… they just suck ass.  You can’t get elected because your liberal records won’t let you.

Where did Mikie Sherrill come from?  The “Navy pilot – Prosecutor – Mom” fell out of the sky and landed in Congress.  In the new politics of congressional elections, she’s one of the Houyhnhnm.  Back in the trenches, the time-serving yahoos can only snort and envy her advancement. 

Yesterday, Rutgers put out a new poll showing that – once again – taxes top the state’s issues grid (with a sizeable number volunteering “property” taxes as their big concern).  The Eagleton poll noted that people are generally happy with the state’s economy and, as it is part of a generally buoyant national economy, that shouldn’t surprise anyone, but it does appear Democrat Governor Murphy is taking more credit than the state Republican leaders.  One “research professor” drew attention to “a new phenomenon” of voters not having quite formed an opinion of Phil Murphy, after nearly a year in office.  It’s like they don’t know him and it’s taking some time. (Maybe they will now… after yesterday’s snow job?)

A phenomenon is it?  Why is anyone surprised, given the state of political news coverage in New Jersey?  Just ask anyone on press row… oh, that’s right, it’s not there anymore.  If it’s a national election like we just had, the coverage will be driven by national outlets.  If not… good luck.  And that is something our campaign gurus are going to need to consider when planning what used to be called “earned media” campaigns. 

Meanwhile, back at madness central, a couple of juvenile delinquent Democrat Assemblywomen invited “pro-death penalty for American military members” activist Jane Fonda to place a feather in her patouee and lead a conga line from the Speaker’s office to the Governor’s den.  Not a word yet from Navy pilot Mikie Sherrill about the appropriateness of Fonda’s appearance – or from Andy Kim or Tom Malinowski, for that matter.  But hey Assemblywomen, keep it up.  If that’s the fashion, keep it up and you’ll soon find yourself in… Congress?  NOT!

McCann lies again. No he's not pro-second amendment

John McCann tried sweet-talking a speaking spot out of the organizers of yesterday's Pro-Second Amendment rally in Trenton.  The rally, which was hosted by the NRA and its state affiliates, was well-attended and featured a number of prominent speakers with solid Pro-Second Amendment records, including Senator Steve Oroho, NRA National Board member Scott Bach, Assemblyman Parker Space, Assemblyman Hal Wirths, former Mayor Steve Lonegan, and former Assemblywoman Donna Simon.

John McCann did not end up speaking.  According to several sources familiar with the event, McCann was asked to fill out an NRA questionnaire to determine where he stood on the issues and McCann refused to do so.  Like another candidate associated with Passaic County machine boss Peter Murphy, he won't say.

But McCann is a resilient bullshit artist.  His campaign rolled out an often-repeated story claiming that his father had been the victim of a terrorist attack by the Weatherman organization, a radical group of 1960's leftists.  But McCann's story keeps on changing with regards to this incident.  And the official records of law enforcement and the judiciary do not match McCann's claims.  More on this later.

In any case, McCann uses this exaggerated tale to claim that he is Pro-Second Amendment when his actions indicate that he is simply spinning us.  Any man, worthy of the name, should have the balls to tell us where he stands on the issues. 

We suggest that candidate John McCann grow a pair and fill out the questionnaire.  The voters deserve to know who and what they are voting for.

Message from the Kids Rally: Tomorrow belongs to me

"We are the voices of the new generation... We want change, and those who try to stop us cannot stand in our way. We will outnumber you, we will outvote you, and we will outlive you." (High School student, March 24, 2018, Newton, NJ)

This has all happened before.  The same words were used by another generation of students who demanded security over freedom.  They ended up with neither.

What began as a modernist dream ended in retching sadness. 

"I have a message for all of those politicians... Your thoughts and prayers are not going to stop this from happening over and over again, like it has for the past 20 years." (Ibid)

Yes.  We are going to need to address our rotting culture.  A culture, by the way, that many of those young marchers have totally bought into. 

Twenty years ago... In the aftermath of the Columbine shootings, President Bill Clinton first highlighted the problem of violence in our culture and how it was being marketed for profit.  Psychologists had long noted how violent media content acts like a drug on childhood development, chemically altering a child's brain. 

It was President Clinton who pointed out that study after study, and the marketing documents of the entertainment industry itself, all pointed to the entertainment industry's premeditated marketing of violence to children and their undeveloped brains.  All the evidence was there.  Then he went further and ordered a study by the Federal Trade Commission.  The study, released on September 11, 2000, can be accessed below:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2000/09/ftc-releases-report-marketing-violent-entertainment-children

In response, the entertainment industry increased its campaign contributions by 1,000 percent and spent hundreds of millions on lobbying and soft money to convince Congress to forget every study it had ever read.  Then September 11, 2001, occurred and concerns over media violence were ignored in the run-up to war.  Some in the entertainment industry never forgot, and when another Clinton ran for President, they derailed her by supporting a first-term senator named Barack Obama. 

Does our young high school student really believe that government will be able to eliminate the illegal possession of firearms any better than it has eliminated the illegal possession of narcotics?  Is there any high school in America free from illegal drug use?

President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs in 1971.  That's before most parents of today's high schoolers were born.  Are we any closer to winning that war -- or have we started to surrender, making up reasoning for decriminalization of those things long warned against?

Gun-free school zones have been disastrous failures.  Will trying to make all of America "gun-free" fare any better?  Instead of carrying the agenda of pre-existing movements, like the anti-NRA Brady bunch, shouldn't students be separating themselves from the failed paradigms of the past?

Of course, that would take thinking in place of emotion and a "be-in" is always cooler than a think-in.  Rallies, like dance parties, stir the emotions.  And the emotions of the young have always been a target for hijacking and abuse by political authoritarians.

If you want to protect children in schools make that the priority.  In other nations, including those on the front line in the battle with terrorism, school shootings are rare.  Despite schools being a prime target for terror attacks, in Israel there have been just six attacks on schools since 1974. 

America doesn't have Hamas or the Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades or Palestinian Islamic Jihad operating on its borders -- so why does America do such a poor job protecting our schools when other nations, in active battle with terrorist groups, manage it so much better?  Is it simply the case that other nations face facts, while we prefer to bask in emotion and the idea that "it shouldn't happen here" in exceptionalist America? 

We are going to be looking very hard at this and passing along ideas for solutions.  We invite commentary and participation from all.

GOP Senators Pennacchio, Cardinale, Oroho, and Doherty all support Lonegan for Congress

The tsunami of conservative endorsements continues for Republican candidate for Congress Steve Lonegan, with today's endorsement by State Senator Joseph "Jersey Joe" Pennacchio.  That puts all but one of the Republican State Senators representing portions of CD05 in Lonegan's camp. 

"Steve Lonegan has been a tireless fighter for our conservative principles for years," Sen. Pennacchio said.  "New Jersey conservatives have been grateful for his leadership and West Milford voters have richly rewarded him."

Pennacchio, who represents one of the two Passaic County towns in the Fifth Congressional District, was referring to Lonegan's dominating performance in the 2013 U.S. Senate election when he defeated Cory Booker with 62% of the vote in West Milford.

"West Milford knows and trusts Steve Lonegan to fight for our conservative values," Pennacchio said.  "Better jobs, lower taxes, term limits for Congress, the right to life, religious liberty, and a firm commitment to the Second Amendment -- these are all hallmarks of Steve's unwavering vision."

Lonegan thanked Pennacchio for his support and pledged to fight for West Milford and for all of North Jersey.

"Senator Pennacchio is among the most dependable senators New Jersey conservatives can look to," Lonegan said.  "He is a leader in pushing for lower taxes, less government, and especially the right to life.  I'm proud to have earned his endorsement and will work closely with him to make North Jersey a better place to live, work, and raise a family."

Each one of the Senators supporting Steve Lonegan is strongly pro-life, as is Lonegan.  Pennacchio's endorsement comes on a day when Lonegan's likely opponent in the primary -- liberal RINO John McCann -- confirmed to Politico's Matt Friedman that he supports abortion and would "enforce the laws as they are constituted."  Of course he will.  No different than liberal Democrat incumbent Josh Gottheimer.

Lonegan has already been endorsed by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), Bergen County State Senator Gerry Cardinale, Mrs. Ann Kievit, President of the Northwest New Jersey Taxpayers' Association, Rev. Greg Quinlan, President of the Center for Garden State Families, on behalf of New Jersey for a Conservative Majority, Alexander Roubian, President of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS), United States Senator Ted Cruz, Warren County State Senator Mike Doherty, Sussex County Senator Steve Oroho, Assemblyman Parker Space, Assemblyman-elect Hal Wirths, and Sussex County State Committeewoman Jill Space.

Opinion: Assemblywoman DeCroce is a conservative

By Wm. Winkler

The other day, I read an opinion piece by a Mr. William Felegi which argued that Assemblywoman BettyLou DeCroce was not a conservative because Americans for Prosperity (AFP) had given her a "D" grade.  The writer seems to miss the fact that AFP is not a conservative organization, but rather a libertarian one.  Ideologically, there is a great difference.

When I was a Reagan delegate, back in 1980, the founder of AFP was the Vice Presidential candidate on a ticket opposed to Ronald Reagan, running on a platform of unrelieved social liberalism and international defeatism.  Thank God they were not successful and Reagan was.  President Reagan broke the Soviet Union and consigned Marxist Leninism to the dustbin of history.

The American Conservative Union is a conservative organization.  For the same period as that rated by AFP, it gave Mrs. DeCroce an 84% -- hardly a "D".  To show you just how ideologically different AFP is, here are a few comparisons:

Legislator                                                      AFP                 ACU

Jon Bramnick (R-21)                                  F                      95%

Joe Pennacchio (R-26)                              B                      95%

Nancy Munoz (R-21)                                 C                      91%

Mike Doherty (R-23)                                 A+                   89%

Michael Patrick Carroll (R-25)                A+                   89%

BettyLou DeCroce (R-26)                         D                     84%

Tom Kean, Jr. (R-21)                                 A                     75%

Dawn Marie Addiego (R-8)                     F                      75%

Jennifer Beck (R-11)                                  B                      70%

Ron Dancer (R-12)                                     B                      59%

Chris Brown (R-2)                                      B                      23%

Nia Gill (D-34)                                             D                        0%

Assemblywoman DeCroce received an Award for Conservative Achievement from the American Conservative Union (ACU).  Obviously, the libertarian AFP is pursuing a very different  agenda from that of the conservative ACU. 

Under the leadership of Steve Lonegan, New Jersey's AFP affiliate did take a more traditional conservative path.  That was all due to Lonegan.  I know, I worked for Lonegan.  Much to the chagrin of national AFP, Steve pursued a vigorous conservative agenda on social issues, the Second Amendment, and illegal immigration.  But Lonegan is long gone from AFP, and as its latest scorecard makes clear, AFP is back to being libertarian and not conservative.

Even so, AFP took credit for the work done by Assemblywoman DeCroce.  AFP State Director Erica Jedynak wrote that the tax reform legislation Mrs. DeCroce supported "saved state taxpayers $1.4 billion in tax cuts-once completely phased in-in the final omnibus bill, including a repeal of the estate tax which saved taxpayers $320 million alone and will protect families from the government raiding inheritances when a loved one dies."

The conservative taxpayer advocacy group, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), wrote that the tax reforms Assemblywoman DeCroce supported "abolished the state death tax, cut the state sales tax and reduces income taxes on retired New Jersey voters."  ATR called it "a victory for taxpayers."  Forbes magazine called her tax cuts one of the "5 best state and local tax policy changes of 2016" nationwide.  Further praise came from the Tax Foundation, the oldest such conservative organization in the nation.

Mr. Felegi goes so far as to call Mrs. DeCroce a "liar" for stating, quite truthfully, that she "ensured money for roads and bridges will be dedicated for their intended purpose rather than pet projects."  The Assemblywoman supported the ballot question that accomplished that in the face of stiff opposition led by radio talk show host Bill Spadea.

The Assemblywoman's voting record, her ratings by ideologically conservative groups, plus her 100% Pro-Life rating and her endorsement by the NRA, make her, on balance, a conservative in the humble opinion of this old winger.

The tea partiers who destroyed Scott Garrett

Most Tea Party members are good intentioned people who want to engage in political action to affect change.  Most hold generally conservative views.

Then there is the unacceptable face of the tea party.  These are the people who are there for the rage.  They show up to vent and to blame and they don't care about facts or ideology or consequences.

Republican Scott Garrett wasn't just the most conservative Congressman in New Jersey, he was the most conservative in the entire northeastern region of the country.  And he had a pretty safe seat too.  That is until he underwent the "death by a thousand cuts" treatment, courtesy of a few people who call themselves members of the tea party movement.

There are some people who will always find a reason to hate even the most consistently conservative elected official.  For them, if you have an A from the NRA or a 100 percent from AFP that simply means that the NRA or AFP is screwed up.  The reason for this is fairly straightforward:  These people want that elected official's job.  And it never occurs to them that they lack the qualifications or the skills or the support to achieve and hold it.  There are some people who look into a mirror and see, staring back at them, a congressman or a legislator.

There are some common elements.  Usually a recent financial or employment crisis has occurred -- a bankruptcy and loss of status -- as was the case with Mark Quick, when he began his jihad against Congressman Garrett seven years ago. 

Believe it or not, Mark Quick is a blue blood.  He claims his American ancestry goes back to the Mayflower.  But as Nathaniel Hawthorne observed, "Families are always rising and falling in America."  In Quick's case, they have been on a losing streak.  After serving a truncated stint with the Marine Corps, Quick went into business and farming.  Both ventures failed.  Then he tried his hand at politics.

Quick is a wildly optimistic opportunist of the "start at the top" variety.  His first attempt at public office was to run for Congress.  And it was not as a Republican, in a primary.  Quick went after Scott Garrett in a general election -- threatening the Congressman that he would "split his vote" and cause a Democrat to win.

Quick bad-mouthed and harassed anyone he thought connected with Garrett, including the women in his congressional staff.  Quick's behavior was so threatening that the police had to be brought into it.  His anger and frustration were evident too at a debate, where he appeared to be taking out his personal problems on the poor souls he was running against.

In that 2010 race, independent Mark Quick got 1,646 votes and came in behind the Green Party candidate with 2,347, the Democrat with 62,634, and Congressman Garrett with 124,030. 

The following year, Quick filed for bankruptcy and promptly announced his intention to run -- once again as an independent, not a Republican -- for the Assembly against Republicans John DiMaio and Erik Peterson of Legislative District 23.  Quick was deep into trashing these Republican incumbents with his usual rant, when the state redistricted Quick's hometown out of District 23 and into District 24. 

Quick didn't lose a beat.  He simply started saying the same things he was attacking DiMaio and Peterson about and applied it to Republicans Alison Littell McHose and Gary Chiusano of Legislative District 24.  It doesn't matter who holds the seat that Quick wants.  They all get the same trashing.  Quick came in last of six candidates, with 1,382 votes to top vote-getter Alison Littell McHose's 19,026. 

Others followed Quick's example, so that in the 2012 Republican primary, Congressman Garrett faced two minor candidates, each of which did their best to damage him.

Mark Quick ran in the general election that year -- once again as a third-party candidate -- but he dropped out to endorse a candidate in the Democrat Party primary.  The Democrat who Quick endorsed had the support of a special interest PAC run by Lyndon LaRouche, a notorious left winger and former head of the Marxist U.S. Labor Party.

In 2014, Quick was back at it again, proclaiming loudly that Scott Garrett wasn't conservative enough (even as Quick worked with Democrats to undermine him).  Running again as an independent, Quick siphoned a handful of votes away from Garrett, but not enough to throw the election to the Democrat.

Quick threatened runs for the Legislature, hinting strongly that he would hold off on running if he received a state job.  These threats were uniformly ignored, and an ever frustrated Quick became increasing violent in his language and actions.

In 2016, Congressman Garrett found himself facing his toughest challenge since winning the seat in 2002.  In the primary, two Quick-inspired candidates ripped at him and drove up the Congressman's negatives. 

Mark Quick drew distinctions between himself and Congressman Garrett, with Quick saying that he supported same-sex marriage while claiming to be the true conservative and Garrett an impostor.  The result was a terrible one for the Republican Party and for the conservative movement.  Quick greeted Garret's loss as a personal victory. 

During his career, Scott Garrett had a lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union of 99.38%.  The next highest Republican has a rating of 69% and the lowest Republican 46%.  The best Democrat was 10.42% and the worst has 0%.  Now there is a liberal Clinton Democrat were once there was Scott Garrett.  We will probably not look on Congressman Garrett's like again.

And what about Mark Quick?  He announced today that he is running for Assembly against Republicans Parker Space and Hal Wirths.  This time Quick is running in a GOP primary as part of a ticket with Gail Phoebus and Dave Scapicchio. 

Anti-Second Amendment bills pulled!

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, the NRA's voice in New Jersey, announced a big win for hunters and gun owners today.  In an email blast earlier today, the ANJRPC issued the following statement:

YOUR VOICE HEARD

A4179 & A4180 PULLED

FROM MONDAY COMMITTEE AGENDA!

After several days of gun owner outcry and subsequent dialogue with the bill sponsor, Assemblyman Ralph Caputo (D28) has graciously agreed to hold A4179/A4180 to allow for continued discussion to address gun owner concerns.

We also appreciate the assistance of Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee Chairman Daniel Benson (D14) in fostering an environment that will allow meaningful consideration of gun owner concerns.
 

And thank YOU for speaking out and making gun owner voices heard.
 

Please spread the word and make sure our fellow defenders of the Second Amendment know there will be no hearing on these bills on Monday, Dec 5.
 

Further updates will follow as the situation develops.

The New Jersey Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee had been scheduled to hear A4179 and A4180 -- "suicide prevention" bills which the ANJRPC noted "have little actual impact on suicide but represent a massive attack on every shooting range in the state and every person who uses them."  The ANJRPC went on...

"There isn't a single gun owner, shooting range, gun club, instructor, hunter education student, or person trying the shooting sports for the first time who would not be impacted by these bills as presently written. The legislation as written also impacts range work by active and retired law enforcement, military members, and various agency professionals.

The bills as presently written would require the owner or operator of every range and gun club to verify that every range user has an FID card, NJ carry permit, or pistol purchase permit, along with government-issued photo ID, every time that person uses the range. That is an impossible burden for most ranges to meet - most ranges are unstaffed or staffed sporadically by volunteers. Few ranges have staff during all operating hours. NO SHOOTING ACTIVITY COULD OCCUR ON ANY RANGE THAT IS NOT STAFFED TO VERIFY CREDENTIALS.

The bills as presently written would also prevent you from using your own firearms on a range unless the range first verifies your credentials, every time you use the range, and bans all temporary transfer on a range unless the range verifies the credentials of both the transferor and transferee. THIS IMPACTS A HUGE SWATH OF SECOND AMENDMENT ACTIVITY, INCLUDING TRAINING, COMPETITION, TARGET PRACTICE, OPEN HOUSES, RANGE GUESTS, HUNTER EDUCATION, WOMEN'S EVENTS, ETC. (see below for detailed examples).

The bills, sponsored by Assemblyman Ralph Caputo (D28), are extremely overbroad and wide-ranging in their effect. Instead of narrowly addressing a specific limited problem, the bills cast an enormous net over every range in the state and every person that uses them, and would dramatically disrupt traditional Second Amendment activity that has occurred for decades without incident. Many ranges would be forced to close, and those able to stay open would be severely burdened and disrupted...

Ultimately, A4179 and A4180 are based on a deeply flawed premise. Possession of a firearms ID card, pistol purchase permit, or carry permit is not an assurance that someone is not depressed or will not become depressed in the future. Nor would the legislation prevent those intent on committing suicide from doing so.

Possession of a firearms credential is merely an indication of prior history, not present mental state. Mental health professionals opine that the most effective way to reduce suicide risk is to recognize warning signs based on present mental state, yet the legislation does not in any way address present mental state, nor does it pose solutions targeted to the specific problem it seeks to address. As written, all the legislation does is harm ranges and gun clubs, and interfere with the exercise of Second Amendment rights in New Jersey.

Here are just a few examples of how this legislation, as currently written, would harm the entire Second Amendment community in New Jersey:

*"No papers, no target practice." Every gun owner would be required to present NJ firearms credentials to the owner or operator of a range before being allowed to use their own firearms on that range, every time they use the range. What if you're from out of state? Sorry. What if the club doesn't have staff to check credentials? Too bad.

* No shooting activities on unstaffed ranges (most gun clubs and ranges are not staffed). Shooting activity could only occur where staff exists to check credentials. Unstaffed ranges would lose members (because members wouldn't be allowed to shoot there), many clubs would be forced to close.

* Staffed ranges forced to become the "FID police." Of the few ranges with staff, most are non-profit clubs with occasional volunteer staff who cannot be conscripted into becoming full-time agents of the state to verify credentials. The few ranges that do have paid staff would be burdened into hiring additional personnel to meet the state's demands. Ranges that cannot afford to check credentials during all hours of operation would lose members and some would be forced to close.

* No more temporary transfer at ranges unless both parties have NJ credentials and display those credentials to the range owner / operator (regardless of whether the range is staffed or unstaffed - same concerns as above). New Jersey's longstanding law regarding temporary transfer of firearms on ranges has allowed hundreds of thousands of people to try many different shooting sports, without incident, before deciding whether to become a firearms owner. The legislation would shut down all of these lawful activities, including the ones discussed below.

* "You have to become a gun owner before you decide whether you want to become a gun owner." FIREARMS TRAINING, OPEN HOUSES, RANGE GUESTS, WOMENS' EVENTS, SPECIAL PROGRAMS, etc. would be shut down and unavailable to anyone without a firearms credential. Most people considering firearms ownership try it first, before obtaining credentials to purchase firearms. All of this activity would be stopped, and would negatively impact many ranges and clubs in the legislation as currently written. "Sorry, you can't even try target practice until the state has investigated you."

* Domestic Violence victims would be prevented from training with firearms while awaiting issuance of their firearm credentials, so they are proficient enough to protect themselves when their credentials are finally issued (in some jurisdictions, applicants wait over a year, in violation of state law). A domestic violence victim who does not yet have their firearms credentials should not be prevented from becoming trained and proficient in the meanwhile.

*Hunter education impeded. NJ hunter education firearms safety classes require live fire range exercises, and the State makes firearms available to participants who don't have their own firearms. The legislation would prevent this activity unless the student and teacher already have credentials, which is not always the case. Ironically, this legislation interferes with hunter safety training, and the revenue it generates for the state.

* Unsafe: Hunters prevented from sighting in or test-firing their firearms. Many out-of-state hunters sight-in their firearms or do test-firing at unstaffed wildlife management area ranges maintained by New Jersey. Those without NJ firearms credentials would be forbidden from doing so. But even hunters with NJ credentials (resident or not) would also be forbidden, since their credentials could not be displayed to the range owner / operator of an unstaffed wildlife management area range.

* Competitions impacted. Shooting is an Olympic sport, and NJ competitors have produced Olympic medals. Competitors coming into NJ would be forbidden from using their own firearms, or from using fellow competitors' firearms, unless they have NJ credentials (most do not). Competitions would be severely impacted.

* Prevents non-residents from participating in popular, lawful NJ shooting sports and activities unless they have NJ credentials (most do not). Cuts off significant revenue and commerce coming into NJ, from which the state benefits. Dramatically harms ranges throughout the state.

* Military, Police & Agency range activities. As presently written, the legislation prevents anyone without an FID card, pistol purchase permit, or handgun carry permit from using their own firearms, or temporary transfer of others' firearms, on ranges. Active law enforcement in New Jersey rarely have these credentials, and many retired members of law enforcement do not obtain these credentials. Additionally, a whole host of military, agency, and other personnel are specifically exempted under NJ law from needing firearms credentials in the first place, and those personnel would also be impacted.

* Overwhelms an already overburdened and dysfunctional permitting system. The legislation could result in a deluge of applications for FID cards or other credentials. ANJRPC's Permitting Strike Force has already painstakingly documented permitting abuses rampant throughout New Jersey's 565 municipalities. Many applicants have waited more than a year to receive permits that are required by law to be granted or denied within 30 days. The legislation could stimulate tens of thousands of new applications, which would overwhelm the existing dysfunctional system and slow it even further, significantly burdening Second Amendment rights.

* Toy guns included. Believe it or not, the use of BB guns and airguns would also be prohibited at shooting ranges in the absence of firearms credentials. That's because New Jersey law treats them as "firearms" even though they are considered toys everywhere else, and the legislation fails to exempt them from its overreach. Absurd!

* Youth exempted, but not adults??? Bizarrely, A4179 preserves specific exemptions for target practice, instruction and training by minors who don't have credentials, yet provides no similar exemptions for adults. Do legislators actually believe that adults pose a suicide risk, yet minors do not?"

Hats off to the ANJRPC, NRA, and 2AS for their great work in getting these bills pulled from consideration on Monday.  But we must remain vigilant, so stay tuned...

All this so Phoebus can sign-off on a liberal judge?

As a young married man, just starting a family, Steve Oroho got involved in public policy by going to March for Life walks and as a numbers-cruncher for W. R. Grace and Company -- who fed those numbers into something called the Grace Commission, set up President Ronald Reagan to find ways to make government run efficiently.  Steve's son was Senator Bob Littell's paper boy, and it was through him that he met Bob and became the Senator's campaign treasurer.

Alison Littell McHose urged Steve to get involved in local government in Franklin Borough.  He started with the economic development committee and then was elected to borough council.  He helped the town manage its debt and brought in new procedures to monitor spending.  Steve was elected to the freeholder board in 2004, where he worked with Hal Wirths and Gary Chiusano to overhaul Sussex County's budget process and establish fiscal restraint.

In 2007, he stood for State Senate after Senator Bob Littell became too ill to run for re-election.   Steve was the underdog.  Nobody in Trenton thought he could win and none of the usual sources of fundraising were open to him.  But Steve had been asked by leaders in the Sussex County community to run anyway, to try to keep the Senate seat in Sussex County.  His opponent was a Morris County resident and Morris County was crowded with Senate seats. Sussex County only had one. 

So Steve put his own money up.  It was a hardship for him and his growing family, but he did it anyway, because he listened and understood that Sussex County needed its own Senator.  That counties without proper representation become orphans in Trenton and got short shrift.  Running with an all-Sussex team of Alison Littell McHose, Gary Chiusano, Hal Wirths, and Jeff Parrott -- Steve and the whole team won. 

Since then, Steve has served Sussex County, Northwest New Jersey, and the 24th Legislative District.  Whenever a Republican candidate has needed resources, Steve has been there, putting his hand in his pocket or raising it.  Whenever the county GOP was broke and needed money, Steve has seen them through.  When the state party and Republican legislative candidates needed money, Steve has given it or raised it for them.  Conservative organizations have turned to Steve and he has never let them down.  Christian charities, places where young women can have their babies instead of being financially pressed into abortion, have turned to Steve -- and he has never turned them away. 

When Americans for Prosperity (AFP) put up a candidate for Governor, Steve Oroho incurred the wrath of Chris Christie but Steve would not go against AFP's candidate.  And when that man said that he would be a candidate for the United States Senate against Cory Booker, Steve was among the first to rally to his side.

As Senator, Steve has worked with conservative think tanks to fashion model conservative legislation.  Steve serves as chairman of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and he's carried legislation for the NRA and other Second Amendment groups.  He is the prime sponsor of the Pro-Life community's most important piece of legislation.  He has championed the cause of religious liberty and traditional values. 

The business community -- small and large -- has relied on Steve Oroho to protect them from big government and over-regulation.  And he has protected both the job creators and the taxpayers.  Against great odds and with both chambers controlled by the Democrats, Steve has the best record of passing tax cuts in Trenton.  In fact, the Star-Ledger tracked the legislative success of legislators and found that of the top ten, only one was a Republican -- Steve Oroho.

It's true that Steve Oroho doesn't sound like Donald Trump.  He doesn't talk trash about those he disagrees with.  Instead, Steve engages in a policy discussion with them.  He comes armed with facts not curse words.  He is patient, courteous, and kind to those with whom he disagrees.  And that's why he gets other legislators, even Democrats, to see his way.

In 2011, the Tea Party got mad at Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose because she wouldn't support a liberal for the Republican nomination for United States Senate.  That liberal was Dick LaRossa, a former State Senator who the NRA had walked away from in 1996.  The Tea Party had been sweet-talked by Dick.  They liked Dick and thought he was the next big thing.  That all came to nothing.  So, seeking revenge, the Tea Party ran two candidates in District 24 against McHose and Gary Chiusano.  One Tea Party candidate got 5 percent of the vote.  The other got 2 percent.

Now they want to do it again.  And it's all over the appointment of a liberal judge to the Superior Court.  Senator Steve Oroho won't do it.  But a Senator Gail Phoebus would. 

The Tea Party has chosen as its issue the gas tax portion of the tax restructuring package.  The one tax in a five-tax-cuts package.  They have been attacking Steve Oroho for weeks using the most graphic violent and pornographic language.  The vicious rumors have been spread by people who once turned to him in their need.  Why do some people feel the need to damage someone they called "friend" and spread filth just because they disagree over a single policy?  These are people who claim to believe in God -- but what Creator would license this type of behavior towards that which is His?

We don't believe that the Tea Party will be any more successful this time than it was in 2011.  But one day, Steve Oroho will leave the scene.  And who will fill his shoes?  Then the Tea Party will be singing a different tune:

Is Bob Jordan a Journalist or a Marketing Rep?

Writing about Governor Chris Christie's recent veto of two bills -- S816 (mandating distributors to sell so-called smart guns), and A3689 (codifying regulations on the justifiable need to carry) -- Asbury Park Press reporter Bob Jordan blamed the National Rifle Association (NRA).  Jordan wrote:

"The NRA pressured Christie to kill two bills including one that would have mandated distributors to sell so-called smart guns, which proponents say stem accidental shootings and 'child proof' weapons."

Sure, the NRA lobbied the Governor, but does mere lobbying make you responsible for the actions of an adult elected official?  When the LGBTQ movement lobbied President Obama and Hillary Clinton to change their position on same-sex marriage, were they "pressured" into adopting their new beliefs?

As Bob Jordan must know, "pressured" is a very charged word.  When Garden State Equality's Steve Goldstein issued a press release threatening to withhold "gay" money from the New Jersey Democratic State Committee unless Senate President Steve Sweeney and other Democratic Party leaders changed their position on same-sex marriage, were they being "pressured" into executing their eventual flip-flop?

"Pressured" conjures images of extortion and the NRA hasn't been particularly good at "pressuring" Governor Christie, who managed just a "C" rating with the NRA as Governor.  If a journalist is going to use words like "pressured," he or she should cite more than lobbying as evidence of that "pressure."

Reporter Jordan lamely tries with a quote from Assemblyman Gordon Johnson, a Democrat from Bergen County.  Assemblyman Johnson blames Christie's veto on, wait for it... the Governor's  "bid for the Republican presidential nomination and now his support of Donald Trump."  Wow, what a dickhead!  Maybe he hasn't heard that Christie's presidential campaign crashed and burned months ago.  As for Donald Trump, when did his campaign put out a position paper on S816 and A3689?

The Assemblyman goes on:  "The governor’s veto statement is alarmingly replete with right-wing political talking points and grandstanding."  Yes, and the Assemblyman's statement may be said to be "alarmingly replete with left-wing political talking points and grandstanding."  So what?  What do these cookie-cutter insults even mean that you and your brethren in the other party endlessly use? 

Assemblyman Johnson went on to say (and how he kept a straight face, we can't tell you):  “This bill was a start toward making our streets safer, particularly in our urban areas, but sadly, Gov. Christie has once again put his political ambitions above the public safety of New Jersey residents.  That’s shameful.” 

Listen, Assemblyman Dickful, why don't you try to enforce the laws against everything that is currently unlawful -- make those streets "safer" -- "particularly in our urban areas" by making illegal drugs unavailable, for a start.  Do that one thing, accomplish that, before making new laws to create new crimes that will be obeyed only by those who care to obey them, new laws that will force the police (government's men-with-guns) into greater confrontation with individuals in the community.

Assemblyman, unless you are prepared to post a police officer on every street in New Jersey, our citizens (urban, suburban, and rural) are pretty much their own first line of protection.  Leave them alone.  If you want to do something to make them safer, get the heroin that floods every community in this state off the streets.  There have been laws against that for nearly a century and you haven't got it done yet, have you?

As for Bob Jordan, decide whether you are reporting or selling. 

Recent Polling: Support for Gun Rights Surges

For better or worse, the New Jersey system of having three legislators from two different chambers is what we have to work with.  And because resources are scarce, legislators tend to run as teams each election cycle.  That can complicate candidates' chances especially when they don't match up with their team mates.

A case in point is Legislative District 16, where conservative Assemblywoman Donna Simon was defeated for re-election by 70 votes -- simply because Republican turnout was anemic. District 16 would be a dream district for Republicans in most states, where the GOP has captured and held solidly Democrat, union-dominated, and gritty urban districts by generating a high turnout among Pro-Second Amendment, Pro-Life, and Traditional Values conservatives.  A solo Donna Simon would have crushed a far-left candidate like Andrew Zwicker, who would be an anomaly in most of America.

This will be a problem again in 2017, when consultants and strategists get down to fashioning a campaign plan into which 3 different candidates can fit.  They often have to knock all the hard edges off some candidates to make them match the smoothest of their running mates -- but what they are often left with fails to motivate Republican issue voters.

That's a pity, because support for core Republican issues is hardening.  Take the gun issue as an example.  Fresh data from the Rasmussen Polling organization finds that 75% of likely voters in America now say the right to bear arms is important, with 54% who say it is "Very important."  That up from 68% who said it was important three years ago, including 49% who said it was "Very important."

And for those NJ GOP aficionados who still believe that they can get through a contested primary being on the wrong side of this issue, check this out:  76% of Republicans believe the "Right to Bear Arms" is "Very important" -- with another 18% thinking it "Somewhat important."  Independents break 63% (Very Important) to 19% (Somewhat important).  Even a majority of Democrats believe that the "Right to Bear Arms" is important -- 26% (Very important) and 25% (Somewhat important).

68% of voters say they would feel safer living in a neighborhood where they can own a gun rather than one where no one could have a gun for their own protection.  This breaks out for Republicans as 81% (own guns) to 16% (no guns), Independents 71% (own guns) to 14% (no guns), and Democrats 53% (own guns) to 37% (no guns).

A New York Daily News/Rasmussen poll released yesterday finds that 61% of American Adults agree with the statement, "The NRA supports gun policies that make all Americans safer." This includes 35% who Strongly Agree.  In  the same poll, by 51% to 38% Americans say that "more gun control is more likely to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase a gun rather than keep guns out of the hands of criminals, people with mental illness and suspected terrorists."

And despite the efforts of Democrat critters like Vinnie Prieto and Steve Sweeney, 69% of likely voters believe the shooting incident in California last week is a terrorism issue, vs. 20% who think it a gun issue.  GOP PRIMARY WARNING:  Among GOP voters those numbers are 86% to 7%.

Political Correctness goes down big too.  83% of Americans say it is more important for the United States to guarantee freedom of speech than it is to make sure nothing is done to offend other nations and cultures.  Similarly, 82% think it is more important to give people the right to free speech than it is to make sure no one is offended by what others say.  71% of Americans see political correctness as "a problem" -- for Republicans that rises to 85%, Independents are a strong 74%, and even Democrats post a healthy 58% who believe that P.C. is a problem.

Use the data and begin now to fashion bold campaigns for 2017.