Posters? Dems allow weakest possible response to slavery

by Rubashov

Led by virtue-signaling poseurs like Senator Loretta Weinberg, Democrat legislative leaders have held up addressing the problem of modern slavery.In fact, they don’t even recognize it as a problem and consistently fail to call it by its name – slavery.

New Jersey Democrats openly diss the United Nations, and the work of people like UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina J. Mohammed, who recently reminded world leaders: “This is 2020. Centuries have passed since the end of the transatlantic slave trade. Yet more than 40.3 million people remain victims of modern slavery — 5 in every 1,000 people in the world… Modern slavery is a blight in our world that we must eradicate.”

Human trafficking is modern day slavery – and yet there are legislators in Trenton and their staffs who not only deny it but enable it by blocking legislation designed to stop human trafficking and the sexual exploitation of children. Lawyer-lobbyist firms are some of the biggest supporters of the primarily Democrat legislators who react to any common sense restrictions on sexual exploitation as wanting to “take away my porn”.

The Internet is used extensively by human traffickers to ensnare their victims and then to monetize their degradation and suffering. The New York Times recently outed Pornhub, for its role in monetizing crimes like child rape. Two Fridays ago, the New York Times reported:“Facebook removed 12.4 million images related to child exploitation in a three-month period this year. Twitter closed 264,000 accounts in six months last year for engaging in sexual exploitation of children.”

What is Pornhub? The New York Times points out details that would shock all but the most hardened Democrat legislators and their staffs:

“Its site is infested with rape videos. It monetizes child rapes, revenge pornography, spy cam videos of women showering, racist and misogynist content, and footage of women being asphyxiated in plastic bags. A search for ‘girls under18’ (no space) or ‘14yo’ leads in each case to more than 100,000 videos. Most aren’t of children being assaulted, but too many are.”

How does Pornhub monetize the rape of children? Again, from the New York Times:

“After a 15-year-old girl went missing in Florida, her mother found her on Pornhub — in 58 sex videos. Sexual assaults on a 14-year-old California girl were posted on Pornhub and were reported to the authorities not by the company but by a classmate who saw the videos. In each case, offenders were arrested for the assaults, but Pornhub escaped responsibility for sharing the videos and profiting from them.”

A 23-year-old university student says that “Pornhub became my trafficker.” She was trafficked when she was 9 years-old and is now studying to be an attorney. She told the New York Times: “I’m still getting sold… I may never be able to get away from this. I may be 40 with eight kids, and people are still masturbating to my photos.”

an inadequate response to the problem uncovered by the New York Times. In response to all this national publicity about modern slavery – human trafficking – and the sexual exploitation of vulnerable women and children, the Democrat-controlled Legislature did something… they passed a bill to require posters to be hung-up at locations like dressing rooms, restrooms, and restroom stalls at strip clubs, sexually oriented businesses, and massage parlors. This is not a bad thing and it does serve a purpose, but it is an inadequate response to the problem uncovered by the New York Times. A poster cannot stop what Pornhub is up to. The technology employed simply isn’t up to the job.

While blocking other legislation, the Democrats allowed this legislation (S-280) to get a hearing and a vote because now they can say they did something about “human trafficking” (they refuse to join the United Nations in calling it “modern slavery”). Now Democrats can go back to protecting the corporate establishment that is invested in platforms like Pornhub.

In a press statement, S-280's Republican sponsor, Senator Tom Kean Jr., noted: “Human trafficking occurs today across New Jersey in places where many of us would never suspect it, including our own communities. Victims are often lured with the prospect of a job, and then have their passports, money, and identification stolen by their handlers. They’re moved around and forced to work for the benefit of others. It’s imperative that victims and those who may have witnessed exploitation know that help is just a phone call away.

Senator Kean’s press statement specifically stated: “Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery that exploits victims for sex, labor, or both.”

His legislation, S-280, requires the New Jersey Commission on Human Trafficking to develop new signs and posters with directions for obtaining help and services to be displayed in places where the victims of human trafficking are most likely to see them. The new public awareness poster would include the toll-free phone number for the National Human Trafficking Hotline, a 24-hour service.

Posters will be placed in workplaces, bars, airports, train stations, welcome centers, truck stops, weigh stations, emergency rooms, urgent care centers, farm labor contractors, job recruitment centers, service areas, rest areas along interstate highways, public transportation, hotels, motels, campsites, and similar places of public accommodation. All of this is good and Senator Kean deserves great thanks for shaming the Democrats into passing this legislation, but the Democrats continue to oppose any measure to address the problems uncovered by the New York Times.

Legislation to shut down Internet-based sex trafficking and slavery does exist and has been waiting for a hearing and a vote. It is called the Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act. Senator Steve Oroho has championed this legislation for years. Democrats like Loretta Weinberg and Teresa Ruiz have blocked it from getting a hearing and a vote.

To make matters worse, the NJGOP has been AWOL in its support of the Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act. In advance of Tuesday’s vote for a new NJGOP Chairman, we suggested that Members of the State Committee ask the two candidates for Chairman – Bob Hugin and Mike Lavery – to take a position on the Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act. For Bob Hugin, it would have been a re-affirmation, because he supported the Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act at a bi-partisan event in 2018 to support its passage…

Unfortunately, we have not heard from Mike Lavery, the eventual winner and new NJGOP Chairman. Lavery held the Chairmanship in 2017, and we did not hear from him then on the Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act. This is something that Mike Lavery needs to correct. Every State Committee Member – and especially those who voted for him – needs to take personal responsibility to ensure that Chairman Lavery and the NJGOP take a clear stand against slavery, against human trafficking, against the sexual exploitation of vulnerable women and children.

Opposition to slavery is at the very core of who the Republican Party is. It is the very reason it was established. It is important that the New Jersey Republican Party take a stand and do the right thing. Activists can’t do it alone, the entire party should stand up for victims of slavery and sexual exploitation.

“If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Republican President of the United States of America

Is Sen. Weinberg empowering Trenton’s bad sexual habits towards women?

By Rubashov
 
On Sunday last, the Star-Ledger ran an expose on the bad sexual behaviors of those in Trenton who make and administer our laws.  On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg (D-37) put out a press release claiming shock, writing that she was “saddened and disheartened” to learn of the cases detailed by the Star-Ledger – concerning twenty women who were “groped, propositioned, harassed and even sexually assaulted.” 
 
As Senator Weinberg has held political office in New Jersey since 1975 – and has been a legislator since 1992 – we find it remarkable, indeed unbelievable, that Sunday is the first she’s heard of behavior that has long been openly practiced in Trenton and in other venues of power around the state.  Anyone who has observed Trenton for any length of time (and there are those of us who have watched at close quarters for some decades) knows about the sexual merry-go-round that operates there.
 
And it’s not just women who have been victimized.  After all, didn’t the revered and feted former Governor Jim McGreevey assign one of his male staffers the task of keeping his First Lady sated?  This is not meant in any way as a negative commentary on the obvious physical attractiveness of the then Mrs. McGreevey, a former reporter for the Record, but such an assignment is somewhat exotic and should constitute a form of harassment. 
 
And it’s not just men who have victimized women.  During the administration of Governor Christine Todd Whitman there were situations, one notable in which a senior female administration figure was accused of sexually harassing and propositioning a young female staffer.  That staffer received no thanks and less support for reporting said allegations, and the matter was quickly extinguished.
 
One could fill a book with the promiscuity and downright bizarre sexual practices displayed by, mainly men, who seem at times to be making up for some drought suffered during high school.  There is the story of the legislator who installed a family member as an intern at the State House, only to have her become the prey of a more senior legislator.  Now this legislator was old school, stormed into his colleague’s office, taking him by the throat, and threatening to – let us say – deball his colleague.  When his more senior colleague reminded him of the State Police officer on duty nearby, the legislator suggested that he call the officer in, and the media, for a press conference about why the senior legislator was being deballed.  There was no police, no press conference, just heartfelt apologies and accommodations.  Pity.  He needed deballing.
 
You want to talk about Weird New Jersey?  This state is home to elected officials who have got up to such things as accessing child porn on a legislative office computer, urinating on a crowd of his own supporters, stalking women while impersonating law enforcement, being drunk at a swingers convention, requiring a state house employee to accompany one to a New York City sex club, placing a daughter’s college roommate on the public payroll in order to make her a paramour, and conspiring to kidnap and eat his female victims.  These are just a handful of the dozens and dozens and dozens of such stories. 
 
We suppose it should come as no shock that now they’re trying to screw working moms out of employment and force children to comply against their will and that of their parents.  These politicians are beyond shame.  They are crazy.  Stone cold nuts.  And if their constituents knew even half of it, they would never stop throwing up.
 
Senator Weinberg has been around long enough to know all of this.  We found it particularly hypocritical of her to condemn the New Jersey State League of Municipalities and the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce for what she called their “see no evil responses.”  In fact, the same can be said of Senator Weinberg – and not just concerning what goes on at some annual event – but about what happens every day, day in, day out, in Trenton.
 
Senator Weinberg is part of the power structure in Trenton.  So how many of those in that power structure sleep with staff members who they have the power to fire at will?  How many of her colleagues have sexual dependents on their payrolls?  Would the taxpayers approve of paying for this?
 
The military doesn’t allow such fraternization.  Neither do enlightened corporations.  What message does it send?  What tone does it set – when powerful people are allowed to hire paramours or groom them at the workplace? 
 
This is where the rot begins.  Everyone knows what is going on, everyone sees it, people are rewarded, predators are lauded and further empowered – and nothing is said.  And Senator Weinberg is somehow surprised when it goes outside the Trenton workplace and occurs at the social gatherings of such people?  Don’t start at the fringes – clean it up at the source!      
 
If Senator Weinberg is serious about what she put out in her press release, she might wish to start with her Democrat colleague in the nearby 32nd District…
 

This has been out in the public domain since 2011 – nearly a decade – and it happened just down the road from where Senator Weinberg lives!  And she’s putting out press releases in 2019 suggesting that this kind of misogynistic behavior is news to her?  We have to ask… are you for real?
 
And why haven’t the members of Congress who represent Bergen and Hudson Counties spoken up about this State Senator?  Why haven’t we heard from Congressmen Josh Gottheimer (D-5), Albio Sires (D-8), Bill Pascrell (D-9), or Donald Payne (D-10)?  These men have all been quick to blame political opponents for indiscretions but are mute when it comes to their political allies.  Don’t they understand that nothing will ever change that way?    
 
There are many serious people in politics and public policy.  You have people like Sue Altman on the Left and Regina Egea on the Right.  But there are a lot more jumped-up, wannabe political celebrities.  And like all celebrities, they think they are special.  They think taxpayers’ money is their money.  They think the voters are their subjects – to be bossed, mandated, manipulated, and ordered about.  They think people are put on earth for them to consume.
 
The institutional misogyny that pervades the Trenton Establishment will never be adequately addressed by a pillar of that Establishment.  Senator Weinberg has too many deals in place and, as a member of the legislative  leadership, she’s part of the problem.  One need only be reminded of how she single-handedly prevented the bi-partisan Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act from even getting a hearing in committee – in spite of this legislation having enough co-sponsors of both parties to ensure its passage.
 
It’s time for ordinary voters – women and men – to insist that their elected officials practice some humility and recognize that they are servants of the public, not masters.

In defense of Sue Altman and the American right to protest

Policy by policy, there is not a great deal that we would agree on, but what happened to Sue Altman at the hands of the Trenton Establishment is disgraceful. Whatever her views and opinions and whatever you think of them, Sue Altman has the right to voice an opinion, to speak out and challenge the powerful, and to protest the conduct of a taxpayer-funded hearing, about taxpayer-funded programs, by taxpayer-funded elected officials, using taxpayer-funded resources.

Sue Altman didn’t “milkshake” anyone. Her band of leftists didn’t attempt to charge the panel and take over the microphone. At no point did they threaten violence. As part of an exposition of feeling on both sides, they booed – or some of them did – and this became sufficient “cause” for Committee Chairman Bob Smith to send men with guns to remove them. In doing this, Smith behaved like the very worst of the British government during the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland. He should be ashamed of himself.

And it was clear that they were targeting Sue Altman, the leader of the opposition in the room. A note of thanks to InsiderNJ – specifically to Max Pizarro and Fred Snowflack – who were on the scene to report the details of Smith’s outrageous behavior.

Jay Lassiter nailed it when he said this is all about “corporate welfare”. Yes, corporate welfare – crony capitalism – the economic engine of choice in nations like the formerly “Red” China, or National Socialist Germany, or Fascist Italy. It is not the Free Market. It has nothing to do with the American ideal so often preached, so rarely achieved. Corporate welfare, crony capitalism, is simply Establishment corruption, codified and enforced. It kills freedom and enslaves what remains.

From her left-wing perspective, Sue Altman understands this as well as any free-market libertarian. It is one of those issues that brings reformers of all political persuasions together, as noted by Ralph Nader in his memorable book, Unstoppable, written in 2015.

What happened yesterday is also one of those events that sorts out just who is who. We note with sadness that Senator Loretta Weinberg, someone who once at least tried to embrace reform, issued a craven statement to the media that praised Committee Chairman Smith and the crony capitalist Establishment. So now we know where she is.

Whatever her faults on this policy or that, Sue Altman is a brave woman who is doing the taxpayers of New Jersey a great service by demanding transparency and providing scrutiny to the operations of what are, after all, taxpayer-funded enterprises. Where most fear to go, she has gone. Now that she knows what they are capable of, now that she has suffered the rough attentions of their men with guns, we hope that she will continue undaunted.

Godspeed.

Before sexualizing children. Why not have a debate?

By Rubashov

Is it the ACLU’s fault?  Or is it the people who fund them who have changed? 

We all remember how the ACLU stood up for Freedom of Speech – even when it meant protecting that freedom for people with whom they had absolutely no sympathy.   It was the ACLU who famously set the parameters of First Amendment protections in the 1970’s, when the organization defended the right of the American Nazi Party to march through Skokie, Illinois, a town chosen by the Nazis for its ethnic and religious make-up.  Placing their loathing of the Nazis aside, the ACLU stood with the American Bill of Rights to argue that the Nazis had the right to transgressive speech – the right to knowingly offend. 

Of course, transgressive speech is the very foundation of comedy, and there was some wisdom in the suggestion that we laugh at the Nazis, their silly uniforms, and that flag.  Better to laugh at them, to tolerate them, than to become them, so the wisdom went. 

But times have changed.

The ACLU is under pressure from the people who fund it, from its donor class, as are politicians from all parties and persuasions.  There is a new public religion and it is in the process of driving out its competition from the public square.

And just as transubstantiation demands that its believers accept that bread and wine is changed into flesh and blood, so in this new religion, a person with a penis can be made woman.  It is mystical, faith-based, beyond debate or reason.  It is religion.

Central to this new religion is a persecution myth.  Just as the early Christians had their martyrs and their festivals of remembrance, this new religion has its Stonewall, its AIDS epidemic, its accounts of martyrdom.  The carnality of it – the sex – is all scrubbed from the accounts.  The public face of this new religion is Neo-Victorian in its use of language – “No Sex, please” – this is all about “Love”.

Proselytizing to children is central to all religions, but especially so to groups who make the oppression of the faith central to their ideology.  This was so with Jim Jones, David Koresh, the “Children of God” cult, and many others.  Did they not all operate under the banner that children be sexualized at the earliest possible moment?  Did they not preach endlessly about “Love”?  That “Love is the Answer”, “Love is Love”? 

Sex is as addictive as tobacco and like the sellers of cigarettes (or narcotics) they like to get them while they’re young.  So they come for the children.  Public libraries host “drag queen story hours” for little children, with readings by folks with names like “Lil Miss Hot Mess”.  Isn’t “hot” an explicitly sexual term?  School curriculums now include such varied activities as “condom races” – in which 10 and 11 year-old girls compete to be the first to put a condom on a model of an erect adult male penis.  All watched by their male classmates.  Magazines like Teen Vogue – specifically marketed to children – argue that prostitution is just a job, work like any other, with no moral or psychological concerns whatsoever. 

This is all part of this new public religion.  So a new law, signed by Governor Phil Murphy, mandates the teaching of people from history based on how their alleged sexual practices conform to one of a series of letters (LGBTQ…).  It’s a rather shallow way to teach, for how can the endless ways in which human beings order their lives really be bound and categorized by a half dozen letters – or indeed, a thousand? 

Within the last few days, a School Trustee in Hackensack had the temerity to express an opinion on the new mandate that failed to conform to the new public religion.  In response, Garden State Equality (GSE) – the “LGBTQ” equivalent of Hezbollah – went all jihadist on the trustee, demanding that she be forced into submission or made to resign and shunned thereafter. 

An email from GSE made it clear that they weren’t stopping with her:  “It’s imperative that each and every education official across New Jersey understands that our curriculum law must be faithfully implemented.”  Each and every.  There is no place for religious dissent. 

A GSE supporter reached out and noted that the trustee in question used the term “repugnant” to describe “the LGBTQ lifestyle.”  The term is generally used when describing something that the user finds “distasteful” or that the user is “incompatible” with.  It must be noted that many of our fellow human beings do find such sexual practices as oral or anal sex “distasteful” and that they are “incompatible” with same. 

We are not speaking here for Phil and Tammy Murphy, or Valerie Vainieri Huttle, or Jim Tedesco, or Gordon Johnson, or Loretta Weinberg, or indeed for the other politicians who have condemned the use of the term “repugnant.”  What they find “tasteful”, what they are “compatible” with, what their appetites bend towards is entirely their business.  And we would defend their endorsement of oral or anal sex as much as we defend the right of others not to enjoy such things.  Whatever floats your boat, as they say. 

But expressing one’s sexual preferences, one’s choice, is not welcome by the new “public” religion.  Blank conformity is what is expected.  Every public statement, written or spoken must conform.  The new religion allows no public expression of older religions.  All must conform… or they will be made to conform. 

Having gained significant cadres amongst elites in government, the media, in education, and with One-Percenters who control the corporate world, the new religion is attempting a top-down takeover of the public square – bullying out older religions, forcing compliance and general conformity of expressed opinion.  They seem to forget that Americans are contrarian by nature.  Nonconformity is the way with us and we will continue to practice it, even while being oppressed and punished for doing so. 

Of course, this is another reason why they want our children.  But then they forget that generations of Soviet indoctrination did not extinguish the seed of traditional faith in Russia or in Eastern Europe. 

This is an interesting topic that should be debated openly and honestly.  Instead, jihadists like Garden State Equality are concerned only with bullying and banning public dissent.  They don’t care if people dishonestly mouth those allowed saccharine platitudes, so long as they mouth them.

Instead of punishing questioning minds, why not debate them?  Before we allow government – in service of the new public religion – to continue to sexualize children, why not have an open and honest debate on the subject? 

Maybe a group like the Center for Garden State Families or the New Jersey Family Policy Council will set up a series of open discussions on the Murphy administration’s sexualization of young children.  Then they can invite folks like Senator Loretta Weinberg and Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle to explain what they like and don’t like – and how they came to embrace the new religion (HINT: Check their campaign finance reports, and you will know why).

Before the Murphy Democrats force one more unfunded mandate on the property taxpayers of New Jersey… have an open and honest debate about their need to sexualize children.

An Illegal Attempt to Bar Trump from NJ Ballot in 2020

This week in Trenton is a real doozy…

The New Jersey Senate will be meeting on Thursday, February 21st, to consider Senate Bill 119, which changes the qualifications for the Office of the President of the United States.  This purely state legislation attempts to hold a federal office to a higher standard than any state office.  

Senate Bill 119 exempts EVERY New Jersey Legislator from having to disclose his or her state or federal income tax returns in order to appear on a ballot, but it singles out candidates for certain federal offices – those of President and Vice President – and requires that they disclose their federal income tax returns in order to appear on the ballot in New Jersey.   This legislation also exempts all the other federal elected officials in New Jersey – including United States Senators Cory Booker and Bob Menendez – from having to disclose their federal income tax returns. 

Senate Bill 119 is so narrowly crafted in its purpose and design that it amounts to a transparent attempt to keep the incumbent Republican President, Donald Trump, off the ballot in 2020.  The sponsors of Senate Bill 119 – Senators Weinberg, Turner, Greenstein, and Singleton – know that if their legislation succeeds and they decapitate the top of the Republican Party ticket in New Jersey, they will succeed in suppressing Republican voter turnout in the 2020 Presidential election, disenfranchising voters on a massive scale, in what could arguably be called a criminal act of calculated and coordinated voter suppression.

These Democrats fear the electoral chances of Donald Trump so much that they are prepared to cheat – to rig the election by keeping an incumbent President off the ballot in New Jersey.  Never before in America’s history has this happened.  The intent of Senate Bill 119 would not pass muster in a United Nations administered election in a Third World Country. 

We believe that the disclosure of income tax returns are a good thing – for all candidates for public office to do.  Every federal candidate in New Jersey, every Legislator, the Governor and his cabinet should all be required to do so.  Once New Jersey requires this of their own politicians – then it can reach beyond its borders and require the same of people who do not live here.

The sponsors of Senate Bill 119 – Senators Weinberg, Turner, Greenstein, and Singleton – are trying to pretend that their voter suppression is an act of “good government” when they appear utterly content to ignore the fact that there are those amongst them – in the Democrat legislative caucus – who have been convicted of serious crimes, including federal crimes.  Why not make your own disclose their criminal activity??? 

The sponsors of Senate Bill 119 – Senators Weinberg, Turner, Greenstein, and Singleton – are trying to ignore the fact that there are those in the Democrat legislative caucus who collect money to lobby and who do so in open violation of standard norms on conflicts of interest and on the appearance of conflicts of interest.  Why not make your own disclose their conflicts of interest??? 

The sponsors of Senate Bill 119 – Senators Weinberg, Turner, Greenstein, and Singleton – know that the lawyers-legislators in their legislative caucus do not disclose who their clients are, which allows them to cover-up corruption and conflicts of interest for years, and often, forever.  Why not make these lawyer-legislators disclose who they get their money from, disclose their clients, their conflicts of interest, and their potential corruption???

The high standards that you propose for people living outside New Jersey should be lived by the politicians who represent New Jersey.  Scum cannot aspire to teach others how to be saints.  Scum must pull themselves out of their mire of corrupt filth, clean out their bunghole, bathe in the clear water of reform, and then – once purified – and only then… teach others. 

First things first.  You must lead by the example you make of yourselves. 

Democrats silent on locking child in cage with sex-offenders

Trenton Democrats have been curiously silent on liberal activist and Democrat campaign contributor Peter Fonda’s call to have the President’s child put “in a cage with pedophiles”.  Especially given their over-the-top behavior when it comes to band banners or photos of men in high heels or Facebook posts comparing Democrats to Fascists or mere humor of any kind (except Trump jokes, those – like the Bush jokes of yore – are permitted).

Where is Lorretta Weinberg (does grandma approve of Fonda’s plan?) or Tom Moran (would he want to climb into that cage too?) or Britnee Timberlake or Ben Silva or NJTV’s Michael Hill or Jersey City’s Michael Maddalena or Michael Billy or Green Party moe Kenneth Collins… Where is the outrage?  Where are the demands that he be fired or that his business enterprise be boycotted?

Can we assume that “silence equals consent”?  Isn’t that what the idiots above claim?  Silence = Consent… correct?  So YOUR silence means… what?

A couple Wednesdays ago, local Democrat Party officials, the National Organization for Women, and some LGBT activists – led by Democrat-turned Green Party-turned Republican-turned Green Party activist Kenneth Collins – showed up at a meeting of the Sussex County Board of Chosen Freeholders to demand that Freeholder Carl Lazzaro, an ordained Christian clergyman, apologize and resign for expressing the following opinion:

Yes, they wanted the man’s head for writing that.  Yep, that’s it.

But from their SILENCE can we gather that they approve of this…

Where is the outrage?  Where are the demands that something be done?

Do they approve?  Or are they just engaging in a sneaky bit of schadenfreude?

Where is the National Organization for Women on this???  Why isn’t the Green Party’s Kenneth Collins organizing a rally on Newton Green?

MEMO to Loretta, Tom, Britnee, et al… Don’t ever bring up “hate” again until you face this head on, openly discuss it, and state your opinions publicly.

General Majority PAC and NJ Democrats should give back Melgen money

Great work by the I-Team at NBC News 4 New York.  They are pushing politicians you took money from crook Salomon Melgen to give it to charity.  And they are getting results:

"New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez said his campaign has given away $19,700 in donations it received from convicted Medicare cheat Dr. Salomon Melgen. Melgen was sentenced last month to 17 years in prison after prosecutors said he stole nearly $100 million from Medicare over the years."

But two organizations that haven't given the money back are the New Jersey Democrat State Committee and the General Majority PAC run by Sue McCue.  You remember Sue, don't you?  She's the far-left Democrat whose SuperPAC gave Republican legislators so much trouble the last few cycles.

For screwing over and defeating Republican legislators, McCue was rewarded by Governor Christie with an appointment to the Rutgers Board of Governors.  That's right, the two-party paradigm is an illusion in New Jersey.  Christie made the appointment as a genuflection to Democrat party super-boss George Norcross.

According to sworn statements she made to the federal government, Rutgers Governor Sue McCue did political consulting work for such decidedly un-progressive corporations as Walmart and the American Gaming Association, a national lobby group for the casino gambling industry.  McCue provided "consulting services" for Walmart and "public relations and policy consulting" for the gambling industry.  Both are described as ongoing "clients" of "Message Global" which is, according to McCue sworn statement, a company formed in 2009 that she owns in its entirety.

McCue was also pocketed consulting fees from the notorious lobby group that advocates for continued and unrestrained violence in entertainment, the Motion Picture Association of America.  McCue provides "consulting services" to this ongoing client of Message Global.

McCue also runs the Rutgers SuperPAC (AKA General Majority PAC) that inflicted serious damage on Republican legislators in Monmouth, Somerset, and Cape May counties.  One attack leveled at these legislators was their position on the Second Amendment.  It is deeply dishonest to not address the issue of gun control in its context of violence in our culture.

Think about it.  France passed legislation a few years ago that bans overly thin models from the fashion industry because studies show that young women are influenced by the sight of these models to develop eating disorders.  Britain is banning the consumption of alcohol on broadcasts because government studies show that it leads to alcohol-related disorders.  Here in America, we have long banned tobacco commercials for the same reason.  But DC party gal McCue and her Rutgers SuperPAC would have us believe that subjecting an average child to 8,000 murders on TV before finishing elementary school and, by age eighteen, 200,000 acts of violence on TV, including 40,000 murders, has no effect on his or her development at all.

We've known that violent-content acts like a drug on childhood development since President Bill Clinton first highlighted the problem in the aftermath of the Columbine shootings.  He pointed to study after study and the marketing documents of the entertainment industry itself.  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 read.  Then September 11, 2001, occurred and concerns over media violence were ignored in the run-up to war.

We are sick of watching self-righteous drug and violence advocates like Senator Loretta "Mother Roach" Weinberg happily allowing grandchildren to watch a Tarantino bloodbath on TV, while they strip single moms of the right to defend themselves and their children.  "Rely on the police," they are told when -- because of the economy people like the Senator has bestowed on them -- they must live and work in dangerous areas and police response times are simply too long.  You and your children can not hide for that long a time and expect to survive. 

Of course, the Senator and her colleagues have money and live in low crime areas with good police protection.  And although they work in Trenton, they work in buildings protected by dozens and dozens of men with guns.  Thick, burly, well-trained men who know how to kill if the need arises.  Politicians value their lives, even as they devalue the lives of everyone else.  As do the rich "activists" like the billionaire Bloomberg and all those Hollywood people and New York celebrities from the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.

In 2019, Sue McCue and the Rutgers SuperPAC will again want to make a fashion statement that overturns the Bill of Rights and leaves the poor, working, and middle classes defenseless -- while she lobbies for an industry that makes wheelbarrows full of money feeding the culture of violence.  We need to be ready for her -- and make sure that she gags on her own attacks.

On guns, Senator Weinberg's rhetoric doesn't match her actions

We can't quite figure out which came first.  Did Senator Loretta Weinberg emerge from the parchment white bunghole of Star-Ledger editorial boss Tom Moran, or is it the other way round?  Who came first? 

One thing is certain, if there is a threat to their safety, both Weinberg and Moran make sure that they are well protected by men with guns.  Both Weinberg and Moran erect borders that are extremely well protected.

It's too bad that they don't extend the same protections to other citizens that powerful politicians and corporate newspaper editors have.  Especially children. Apparently Weinberg and Moran don't think much about protecting children.  If they did, they wouldn't propose the watery measures they have.

Weinberg is a husk, the residue of her once activist self.  Moran is just an old-fashioned pussy.  If they really believed that the absence of legal firearms would end America's culture of violence, then Senator Weinberg would propose a Constitutional Amendment to abrogate the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and Editor Moran would advocate for it.    

Of course, Weinberg and Moran know that such an amendment would be for firearms what the 18th Amendment was for alcohol.  The 18th Amendment declared the production, transport, and sale of alcohol illegal (though curiously, not the consumption or private possession of it).  The amendment wasn't particularly effective, had a lot of bad side-effects, and was repealed a few years later.

We know they know because we are constantly being told by Weinberg and Moran that making laws are meaningless.  They tell us that America cannot possibly enforce its border controls.  They tell us that America cannot keep people out or find and deport those here illegally.  They tell us that abortions must be legal or they will simply be performed illegally.  They tell us that we must decriminalize certain drugs because we have no ability to enforce the laws that make drugs illegal.

So it stands to reason that they must know that outlawing firearms would be just as meaningless.  So why do they mislead us by acting otherwise?

A case in point is yesterday's quasi-religious orgasm on what goes for the editorial pages of the Star-Ledger these days.  Did you know that these editorials are largely written by ex-sports columnists?  Because they are.  And they have all the make believe and canned drama attendant with such columns. 

You can tell the depth of these so-called journalists by the fact that they fail to even research what their own newspaper said about the issue they are currently having hysterics over.  A case in point is what the Star-Ledger calls "no-fly, no-buy" bills "that would deny firearm purchases to known or suspected terrorists."

Now to show you just what kind of festered arseholes write this kind of garbage, the Star-Ledger itself has criticized the no-fly and terrorist watch lists that are the basis for this silly legislation.  That's right, the Star-Ledger has trashed this concept on its own editorial pages, pointing out that the list is too vague, that it lacks due process, noting the informal manner in which an individual can land on the list, and the difficulty an innocent person has in getting off the list he or she has been improperly placed on.  Oh, and currently the terrorist watch list has 1.8 million names on it.  That's more than the population of Essex and Bergen Counties put together.

Nelson Mandela was on the terrorist no-fly list.  So was Senator Ted Kennedy, as have other members of Congress.  As the ACLU pointed out, the "no-fly list policy rests on the idea that the government will never confirm or deny whether you're on the list.  They won't tell you whether you're on the list, they won't tell you why you're on the list if you are, and they won't tell you what they suspect."

The no-fly list is often equally frustrating to members of law enforcement, as a former FBI agent who now teaches at New York University noted:  "The FBI isn't the secret police, or at least it isn't supposed to be.  Such excessive secrecy demands, especially where an American is alleging a violation of his civil rights, undermines the rule of law the FBI and Justice Department are supposed to be defending."

Once upon a time, the editorial board of the Star-Ledger could write a well-reasoned piece that would capture the nuances of a debate and provide a well rounded review of both sides.  But that was called journalism.  They don't do that anymore.  Over at the sports-department (aka the editorial board) it is all loud-mouthed and spittle.  They should just write in all caps and exclamation marks, noting how many times they shit themselves in the production of the column and when. 

There was a time when the Star-Ledger cut its way through to the truth.  That time is gone.  Now they add to the fog of ideological warfare that covers everything from Sunday morning sermons to late night comedy.  The editorials are little more than advertising narratives, violently written.  There is no balance, no reason.  They tell you who to hate and how much.  They add to the culture of violence in America.  They do nothing to ameliorate the gnawing coarseness of our social discourse.

Are liberal Dems trying to take over the Bergen GOP?

With InsiderNJ.com and other sources reporting that Bergen County Republican Chairman Paul DiGaetano will be stepping down soon "for the good of the party" an interesting battle for the soul of the once powerful and respected Bergen County Republican Organization (BCRO) is taking place.  The frontrunner to succeed DiGaetano is his loyalist Jack Zisa -- the notorious one-time mayor of Hackensack who blotted his copybook by endorsing corrupt liberal Democrat Bob Torricelli over his Republican opponent.

Zisa's brother is a former Democrat Assemblyman and crony of leftist Senator Loretta Weinberg, the darling of the Anti-Second Amendment, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Sanctuary State, Pro-Tax Increase, and Pro-Slavery Democrat establishment.  In December, Democrat Weinberg blocked passage of the Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act.  Because of this, the safeguards that could have been there to protect children from being lured into the sex trade and slavery will not be there this year.  Maybe next year?

Another Zisa family member runs All County Media, a political consulting & public relations firm that represents the South Hackensack Democrats and holds lucrative contracts throughout New Jersey with such Democrat-machine controlled entities as the Hoboken Housing Authority, Camden Housing Authority, and Secaucus Housing Authority.

All County Media is the consultant to John McCann's campaign for Congress and its principal serves as his campaign manager.  Many see McCann as a Democrat straw man.  The Bergen Record has identified McCann as the "right hand man" to Democrat Sheriff Michael Saudino.  It was Saudino's feud with the Republican County Executive that undermined and ultimately lost Republicans control of Bergen County.  The coup de grace came when Saudino, a one-time Republican, joined Hillary Clinton and Josh Gottheimer on a ticket that crushed Republicans in Bergen County.  McCann remained Saudino's consigliore through all of this and ran for Congress (as a Republican) with Saudino's blessing and while still being paid by him.

John McCann is just one of the phony Republican straw candidates managed by All County Media.  Another is Dana Wefer, a former Bernie Sanders Democrat who is now running in the Republican primary for the United States Senate, where she can bash the Republican frontrunner to the benefit of corrupt Democrat Senator Bob Menendez.  Wefer runs the Hoboken Housing Authority.  Yes, the same one listed as a client on All County Media's website.  Small world.

Incumbent Republican Leonard Lance is also facing a Leftist Democrat turned Republican in his bid for re-election.  And before he dropped out of the race, so was incumbent Republican Rodney Frelinghuysen.  The Left has even found a candidate to run in the GOP primary against incumbent Republican Tom MacArthur.  This appears to be a common strategy this year: Damage Republican prospects for November by playing in the Republican primary in June.

But in Bergen, the Democrats appear to want it all.  They want to permanently place the BCRO under their governance.  And John McCann and Jack Zisa are the way it can happen.

Will the Republicans in Bergen County fall for it?  Will they swallow the plug of shit being served up by Paulie DiGaetano, in the form of a compromised congressional candidate and a "replacement" for Chairman who is, incredibly, far worse than Whitman-era sellout DiGaetano himself?

Stay tuned...

Sen. Weinberg's son advocates gun violence

Hey, it is his right to postsomething in bad taste, but this does raise the question:  Just who is Momma Weinberg to lecture us?

Daniel J. Weinberg, the middle-aged son of New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, is clearly no fan of Republican front-runner and presumptive nominee Donald Trump.

The Violent May 5th post by Daniel J Weinberg was open to public view for 19 days, and though Weinberg is the son of a powerful New Jersey Democrat, no one in the media seemed to notice… or at least they, didn’t seem to care.

Shortly after Marcus Max commented on the post, noting that Weinberg was advocating for gun violence against those with whom he disagrees politically, an embarrassed Weinberg apparently made his Facebook profile private and/or deleted the violent image advocating that Republican front-runner Trump commit suicide.

Unfortunately for Weinberg, Max made screen captures first.

Daniel J. Weinberg’s mother, New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, is among the most radical gun control supporters in not just New Jersey, but the United States.

Courtesy of Bob Owens @ bearingarms.com

We are with Garden State Equality on Kelly

Garden State Equality (GSE) sent out an email today that opposes Ocean County politico Jack Kelly getting a $100,000 per year patronage appointment to the State Parole Board.  On Monday, Governor Christie re-nominated Kelly, a long-time Ocean County Freeholder and life-long patronage job holder, who ran for the Republican nomination for Congress in District 3 in 2008.  Kelly's appointment to the Parole Board must be approved by the full Senate.

GSE says they oppose Kelly's appointment for the very narrow reason that they "cannot allow him to be in a position of power to continue to do harm to the LGBT community again."  That's the problem when you see everything through the lens of sexual identity. 

Believe it or not, the term "LGBT" is already outdated.  Real "progressives" use "LGBTQIA" as their designation.  This includes "Queer," "Intersex" and "Asexual." 

Others take it much further and include designations like "Bear," described below:

Bear Community: a part of the queer community composed of queer men similar in looks and interests, most of them big, hairy, friendly and affectionate.  The community aims to provide spaces where one feels wanted, desired, and liked.  It nourishes and values an individual’s process of making friends, of learning self-care and self-love through the unity and support of the community.  Bears, Cubs, Otters, Wolves, Chasers, Admirers and other wildlife comprise what has come to be known as the Brotherhood of Bears and/or the Bear community.  See also: Ursula

(SOURCE:  University of California at Davis, LGBTQIA Resource Center)

These designations owe more to the commercial marketing of products or political marketing for donations that they do our shared human reality.  

Whether or not you are "big and hairy" doesn't change your human needs for food and shelter.  It doesn't mean you breathe differently, bleed a different color, or suffer disease and death differently.  We are all human beings and we share a lot more than groups like GSE want us to think about. 

A jobless economy, high property taxes, foreclosure, and homelessness doesn't give you a pass because you are a member of the "Bear Community."  Here's a news flash for GSE and its "allies" -- just as our common humanity transcends our sexual habits, there are human concerns that have nothing to do with how individuals do or don't achieve orgasms.

One of these human concerns is justice.  Human beings living here in America expect a certain fairness.  Regardless of what we do with our sexual equipment, we don't like the idea of someone getting a $100,000 taxpayer-funded job based on who he knows, not what he knows. 

And this isn't the first time for Jack Kelly, back in 2008, he was slammed by fellow Republicans for earlier patronage scams:

"(Kelly was criticized for his) former employment with the South Jersey Transportation Authority and the payments in lieu of health benefits he received through that job while also receiving tax-payer funded benefits as an Ocean County freeholder... both of the jobs Kelly held while working at Atlantic City International Airport -- airport analyst and airport business manager --were created on the day Kelly was hired and neither job was publicly advertised.  There was no need or justification for those positions, and Jack Kelly did not meet qualifications for either of them... the qualifications listed for the jobs include a college degree and at least five-years of experience in the aviation field. Kelly had neither." 

(SOURCE:  Atlantic City Press, May 2, 2008)

Just how is politician Jack Kelly now qualified to serve on the State Parole Board?  Has he written a book on the subject that we don't know about?

The arguments against Jack Kelly's appointment to the  State Parole Board are stronger because of the common morality that we share as human beings, our shared sense of right and wrong.  GSE screws that all to hell when they make it narrowly about THEM and THEM ALONE.

It makes us ask the question, would GSE be supporting Jack Kelly if he were a Democrat and a member of the LGBTQIA "Bear Community"?  And it certainly doesn't help when they point to the "moral" outrage of career political hacks like Senators Ray "Lord of Ass" Lesniak and Loretta "Mother Roach" Weinberg.  For years, Ray Lesniak (his Lordship to the rest of you) was the poster boy for the corrupt practice of pay-to-play -- while Mother Roach has sat quietly while some of the biggest turds on earth have been appointed to high office.

It is a pity that GSE threw our common shared morality out the window in its pursuit of a narrow-minded, juvenile, narcissistic grievance narrative.  It's like they are telling us that they don't give a crap about anybody not represented by a letter in the LGBTQIA... alphabet.  That's how they are with their so-called bathroom legislation when they say "shut up and do what we tell you to do" to girls and women who don't want to share a toilet with someone sporting a penis.  

GSE has lost its common morality.  It has become like so many others who have put their bullshit before their humanity.

808,676 sex offenders would agree with Sen. Lesniak

Senator Ray Lesniak (D-Azz) is a politician on the make.  Once upon a time he was the king of pay-to-play.  He even defended the practice and it was reported by the media.  But then they changed the law, made it stricter, and now he has to look for new ways to trouser campaign cash.

The LGBT lobby is flush with cash.  Remember how Steve Goldstein snorted and threatened the Democratic Party when Garden State Equality didn't get its way in 2009-10?  Old Ray was always good at minding other people's wallets.  The guy can smell money a long way off and knows how to pick a mark.  He wants some of that "gay" money.

And so he's going to put on a show this coming Thursday, May 5th, in front of the Senate State Government Committee.  He's pulling in favors from other Senators (of both parties) in order to get them to pass out of committee his legislation (S-2043) that is a response to a law passed by the Legislature in North Carolina that seeks to prevent anatomical males from using the private facilities (toilets and such) of women and girls.  According to Lesniak, S-2043 would "ban non-essential state funded travel to North Carolina to protest its law prohibiting municipalities from passing laws protecting the LGBT community from discrimination."

New Jersey is an economic sinkhole with record child poverty, foreclosure, homeless, joblessness, and hopelessness and this is what the "honorables" are focused on -- even though Lesniak himself admits publicly and in writing that "S-2043 faces a certain veto by Governor Christie."

So why are we wasting our time on crap like this?

Are rich gay people really so powerful that they can hold up everything to focus on b.s. fashion statements?  Is their money so important to fashionably-correct politicians like Ray Lesniak? Guess so.

This whole economic boycott thing is really juvenile.  It is an admission by politicians like Ray Lesniak, Loretta Weinberg, Reed Gusicora, and Tim Eustace that because they cannot do anything to fix New Jersey's failing economy they will focus on damaging the more successful economy of a state like North Carolina.

And it is being answered in kind.  Target is one of those corporations that Lesniak praises for joining in the boycott of North Carolina -- only now, Target is itself the target of an economic boycott by more than a million consumers that has already knocked $2.5 billion off the value of the company's stock.

Is this America now?  Is this who we are?  Trying to destroy the economy of a state because of how its elected Legislature voted?  Whatever happened to respect for democracy and democratic outcomes?

And what happens when states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania enact travel bans on New Jersey for its failure to uphold the Second Amendment?  One such bill is already in the works by a Pittsburgh-area legislator.  Another has a bill that whacks New Jersey companies like Johnson & Johnson for its failure to warn women of the threat by its products of ovarian cancer. 

Is this our future?  Is this going to be the focus of the legislative process from now on?  Unable to fix our own economies we will focus on destroying the economies of other states?  We suppose it is one way of improving New Jersey's dismal standing in all those rating charts, but it won't create any jobs or address homelessness or hunger.

The problem that the elected Legislature of the State of North Carolina sought to address is a real one.  There are 808,676 registered sex offenders in the United States and at least that many victims.  That's those we know about.  Heck, one of the LGBT leaders fighting the law in North Carolina -- a local Chamber of Commerce President -- was himself a registered sex offender.  Shouldn't reasonable people be able to get together and talk like human beings and find a way to protect women and girls from being sexually assaulted, while at the same time preventing any overt discrimination? 

Or are we really past the point of talking?  Is it really going to be a case of "you destroy ours and we'll destroy yours" from now on?  That's like the end of civilized human behavior.  How depressing.

Pandering politicians like Ray Lesniak don't help any.  This guy is so bad that he pulled down the American flag off his letterhead and put an LGBT "rainbow" flag there instead.  What's wrong with Lesniak?  Does he no longer represent all the people of his district or is it the case that only LGBT lives matter?

The problem is money.  Money drives the agenda.  Money moves some b.s. fashion statement to the front of the line.  We have to stop the undemocratic affect money has on policy.  Here's how we do it...

Weinberg and Greenwald: Keep women and the poor defenseless

By Alexander B. Roubian

At a recent press conference, Democrat Party Legislative "Leaders" Senator Loretta Weinberg and Assemblyman Lou Greenwald condemned Governor Chris Christie's recent gun law changes.  Leaders like Weinberg and Greenwald were condemned last month by Marc Cooper, a contributing editor to The Nation magazine and recently retired journalism professor at USC's Annenberg School:

"Most of the underpinnings of 'gun violence' reforms are based on skewed assumptions, mixed with a sometimes shocking dose of ignorance on the part of policymakers, re-enforced by a media class that cannot often tell one end of a gun from the other."

While being surrounded by dozens of armed guards and astroturf "activists" Senator Weinberg and Assemblyman Greenwald touted that more guns will not discourage crime or make you safer and that they will do everything in their power to reverse Governor Christies recent actions. Comical coming from two people who love being in a building with hundred of guns; the fact is they love guns--but only when they are being protected by them.

Ironically, Weinberg and Greenwald brand themselves as "champions" for women's rights, when they are knowingly advocating for women to be completely defenseless and become the victims of violent criminals. Let me be very clear: Weinberg and Greenwald's insane logic and policies are the only reason why Carol Bowne and countless other women throughout New Jersey are victims today. They are actually willing to let innocent women be murdered by violent criminals (who could care less about the law) so that they get to make a theatrical and solipsistic fashion statement.

Throughout (normal and free) America tens of millions of women carry a firearm for their protection for the same reason Carol Bowne wanted to; because at 5' tall and 90lbs she knew she had zero chance of physically defending herself against her psychotic ex-boyfriend who was 6'5" and 280lbs. If Carol lived in any other state we can assure she would be alive today.

Senator Weinberg also made the ridiculous statement that the new regulation changes will allow anyone "living or working in a high-crime neighborhood to qualify for a firearm permit." Let's be clear.  We all know what "high-crime neighborhood" is code for.  We all know who Senator Weinberg wants to deny the right of self-defense. 

While Senator Weinberg lives in a lavish gated community protected by armed guards, she once again advocates making the poor and working class even bigger victims by not allowing themselves the basic right to protection. They are quick to force their flawed and pro-criminal logic on every New Jerseyan by promising "safety" and making the choice for us on how we can protect ourselves, while giving themselves complete immunity in the event someone (i.e. criminals and violent felons) do not subscribe to their utopia. For those who do not know you cannot sue the State or public entities (i.e. police, etc) for lack of protection (N.J.S.A. 59:5-4).

Every year in New Jersey hundreds of innocent people living in "high-crime neighborhoods" are murdered because of one simple reason: Senator Weinberg. Does she hate guns or just blacks and Hispanics with guns? Just remember that in the late1960's, when the lion's share of New Jersey's draconian gun laws were adopted, who were they aimed at?  When the NJ Legislature said, "We have to keep guns out of the hands of those people." Who were "those people"? Here is a clue: it was during the Newark Riots. If you are not convinced these were the main reasons feel free to watch this short documentary featuring Senator Weinberg's brand of racism:

Weinberg's  statement was *VERY* personal to me because the very reason I became extremely active with the Second Amendment was because I personally witnessed a murder, while walking to my apartment, when I lived in Newark (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/three_teens_charged_in_newark.html).

If you live in a "high-crime neighborhood" that is more reason to carry a gun for self-defense, not less! To make matters worse those teenage criminals who murdered the father walking home 20 feet away from me did so for no other reason aside from being "bored." I lost several nights of sleep knowing if I had walked slightly slower that night, or read one more text message, those criminals would have crossed my path. Senator Weinberg has no clue the terror people live under, in "high-crime neighborhoods."

In conclusion, Senator Weinberg and her cronies have been pushing mandatory mental-health evaluations if you own or want to purchase a firearm; after this political stunt it is obvious who needs a mental-evaluation and who is responsible for the hundreds of senseless murders committed by violent criminals against defenseless victims.

Alexander P. Roubian is President of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society.  He is an entrepreneur and owner of several organic and health food related businesses.  For more information on the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, you can access their website at: NJ2AS.com

Missing victims: Why the Star-Ledger can't be trusted

On Friday, the Star-Ledger -- a newspaper owned by two billionaires -- ran an editorial that advocated taking firearms away from the poor and working class.  In support of their position, the usual politicians were quoted --  those who expect armed protection for themselves even as they deny it to their "subjects" -- as well as a hodgepodge of government statistics.  Oh, the statistics...

Most Americans would agree that the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and Washington, DC -- along with the hijacking and destruction of a passenger jet over Pennsylvania -- were crimes motivated by hate.  In the aftermath of the attack, no less than the President and the United States Attorney General agreed with this assessment. 

Now go to the U.S. Justice Department's Uniform Crime Report for 2001.  The report counts 12,020 victims of crimes that were the result of the "offender's bias."  7,768 of these were victims of "crimes against persons", with another 4,176 counted as victims of "crimes against property." 

Among the victims counted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Hate Crime Data Collection Program were 554 victims of "anti-Islamic" bias crimes. According to the official USDOJ/FBI figures for 2001, just 10 people died (murder/non-negligent manslaughter) in the United States as the result of crimes motivated by hate.  By our count, that is 3,037 victims short. 

The count of homicides in New York City for that year does not reflect the 2,823 victims of mass murder at the World Trade Center; or the 184 victims at the Pentagon; or even the 40 victims in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.  They were all left out of the murder count.    

If you read the official homicide figures for 2001, you will find that the deadliest month in 2001 was July -- and that September actually experienced a drop in homicides from August before rising again in October.  This is not the fault of the FBI, who do their best, but who are, after all, servants of a political class more interested in the preservation of power than in honest and transparent government.

Statistics are always being changed or adjusted to benefit the government of the day.  Remember when they "adjusted" the unemployment figures so that people out of work, but who could no longer collect unemployment, would magically disappear from the count of the unemployed ?  It was as if they simply dried up and blew away.  Did no longer being officially "unemployed" fill their bellies?

The same government that came up with these statistics packages and sells Wall Street's line that the U.S. economy is doing fine.  And they assure us that have the data to back that up.  Hey, are you doing fine? 

Government lies.  According to U.S. Justice Department figures, the United States is experiencing a spike in espionage.  Actually, those figures simply reflect the fact that whistleblowers like Jesselyn Radack and Thomas Drake are being charged with serious crimes in an attempt to silence them and keep America's citizens in the dark.  Most of the cases break down before they ever get to court. 

Law enforcement officials have a plethora of stories about how some urban police departments fail to report "incidents" in an effort show progress against crime, while some rural and suburban departments over-report to secure more funding.  When shown the Star-Ledger editorial on Friday, one long-time police chief explained how one county reduced its drugs crimes by doing away with its narcotics task force.  "Just don't catch them" is one way to reduce reportable "incidents."

The editorial used a very narrow statistic -- the Uniform Crime Report's figures on "justifiable homicide"-- to argue that the 300 or so people whose lives are saved each year are hardly worth allowing them to own a firearm.  They didn't acknowledge that the definition the FBI uses for "justifiable homicide" is "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen." 

That definition leaves out a great many "incidents" in which an attacker or intruder is driven away by the appearance of a firearm, the discharge of a firearm, or the non-fatal wounding by a firearm.  Then there's those words "felon" and "felony."  We all know stories about how prosecutors play games with that -- turning felonies into misdemeanors on a whim.   There was a prosecutor out west, this guy got elected governor, who used to change felony drug crimes into "agricultural trespass" misdemeanors just to impress his first deputy (who, it turned out, was also his mistress). 

But even using their own very narrow definition, what the statistics show is that the number of justifiable homicides have nearly doubled in recent years, so that even their own statistics reveal that more innocent lives are being saved by people protecting themselves instead of being lost by people waiting for the police to show up.  The fact is, over 40 percent of the violent felons stopped through the use of a firearm are stopped by average citizens. 

That's not a knock on the police.  The liberal courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect average citizens and when the families of murdered victims have tried to sue government for failing to prevent the death of a loved one, they have uniformly seen their cases tossed out of court. 

Politicians like Senator Loretta "Mother Roach" Weinberg are responsible for lengthening police response times and making service in law enforcement less attractive.  They are as pro-criminal as they are anti-police and against the right of self-defense.  That is different from being anti-gun.  They love guns... for their own protection, just not for ours. 

Until they fight to change the law and allow victims' survivors to sue government when it fails, what politicians like Weinberg and media outlets like the Star-Ledger are telling us to do is to shut up and die.  Excuse us if we don't take their advice.

Thursday: NJ Assembly votes on abortion

On Thursday, the New Jersey Assembly will vote to celebrate abortion in this country.  Yes, SCR-78 is a Loretta Weinberg special -- sponsored in the Assembly as ACR-119 by her ever faithful "me-too" Valerie Vainieri Huttle. 

Abortion is sad.  It is about emotional anguish and death.  Celebrating abortion is like celebrating war for its own sake.   How many ex-military pen testimonials about how much they liked killing?  Or how it was a great "life choice" to take an entrenching tool and shred another man's face until he was dead.

We may debate the ends, but the means of war and the means of abortion turn our stomachs.  It is a dark time informed by darker means. 

Nobody should lightly dismiss what a woman goes through when she finds herself unexpectedly pregnant.  Life is shockingly altered.  You are different, often ill and uncomfortable. Something is growing inside you that you cannot escape and if you don't take to it, find you cannot accept it, you want to claw it out of you and go back to how you were. 

Then the decision to terminate the pregnancy.  The knowledge that whatever that something is that you cannot accept inside you, it is real.  Those are human cells with a human potential. "It might have been a girl with hazel eyes like my mother."  "She might have loved music and walks at the shore and the cool touch of the wind."  But none of that will be.  This will remain a book unwritten. 

In the debate over humanity and viability, one thing is certain:  Abortion ends a human story.

We have recently seen a campaign to normalize the ending of these stories, by some, in what they self-describe as the "pro-choice" community.  Some actress gets up and talks about how great her abortion was.  Is she acting -- or just a psychopath?  How would we react to a military leader who stood up and told us how much he enjoyed roasting people with napalm?    

We need to be honest about abortion, as we do about war.  We should not "celebrate" either or defend it with chants -- whether they be "choice for women" or "USA, USA."  Like war, abortion is a terrible business.  A matter for adult contemplation -- not juvenile celebration.

The old Left knew a thing or two about educating people as to the truth of a thing.  A hundred  years ago, Europe was engaged in what became known as the Great War, and later, as World War One.  That war began with cheering crowds, celebrating.  After it was over, a triumphant parade was organized in Paris, with all the allies there to participate.  Soldiers from every winning nation were formed to march.  A wise soul suggested that a contingent of wounded soldiers be placed up front, which ended up being an enormous assemblage of many horribly wounded veterans -- les mutiles -- the mutilated.  It placed things into context and turned a juvenile celebration into an adult consideration.

As followers of the New Left's Herbert Marcuse, Weinberg and Huttle flit between "summer of love" rhetoric and an intolerant "tolerance" that they adopt when making laws.  And they are absolute ghouls on the subject of abortion.  Seeking to "celebrate" something that, like war, cannot really, with any sanity, be celebrated.

But then, there are the profits.  There is a business of abortion, like the business of war, and it is about market-share, and monopoly, and cashing in.  Oh all those New Lefties who grew up to be Wall Streeters. . . and members of the New Jersey Legislature!

The Nastiness of Senator Loretta Weinberg

Every day, thousands of fellow human beings suffer household accidents.  Most involve falls -- in the bathtub, shower, on the stairs, or when improperly using a step stool or ladder.  Others are injured while using appliances and tools -- electric saws, nail guns, and the like.  All of these are personal tragedies for the people involved, which often involve one family member injuring another, like when an 11-year-old daughter accidentally ran over her mother with the family SUV.  The two were in the car together, the mother got out to check on something, the car accelerated over her and the mother was pronounced dead at the scene.  Her daughter and her other children were deeply traumatized by the tragedy.

Yesterday, a mother was accidentally shot in the back by her 4-year-old.  It seems she was driving her car, her son strapped into a child seat, and she made the mistake of leaving a loaded firearm where the child could find it.  The firearm was legal and was being transported legally.  Nevertheless, it was a careless and stupid mistake and one for which the mother has grievously paid.  She survived and is in stable condition.

To avoid such tragedies, young children must be carefully monitored.  They must be prevented from touching hot surfaces in the kitchen, electric outlets, power tools, sharp implements, and firearms.  Parents must be very careful with children around plastic bags and water -- even an inch or two in a bathtub can cause a child to drown.

This is not how Senator Weinberg reacted to the news of this tragedy.  Instead, she "celebrated" it, posted it on her Facebook page as an "I told you so" -- because the accident involved a gun.  Senator Weinberg politicized a family's tragedy.  She allowed her ideology to get the better of her humanity.

Senator Weinberg says she hates guns.  She would limit the ability of people of a lower socio-economic class than her to have firearms for self-protection.  But as a member of the Legislature, she enjoys the protection of men with guns.  Lots and lots of them. 

In America, the only real crime is not to have money.  If you are a billionaire pedophile and convicted sex offender, like Jeffrey Epstein, you can expect to be forgiven by the rich and powerful.  The good times roll on like before and the likes of Bill Clinton, Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos, and Charlie Rose party with you as though nothing happened.  Men with guns guard your private island, your many yachts, your private jets, and your person.  Those guns are apparently okay by the likes of Senator Weinberg.  Epstein is rich, a celebrity, and, therefore, worthy of the protection afforded by the gun.

But if you happen to be a plain-living plebian, a working class nobody, you are not worthy.  You must rely on the response time of your local police.  Yes, those same police who have been demoralized and demonized by the very political class that seeks to take away your right to protect yourself.  "Don't worry," they say, "It's the job of the police to protect you -- and if they attempt to do so, we'll have them up on charges quick as a whistle."  It's a real Catch-22. 

America is the world's largest consumer of private military and security services.  It is a $350 billion market.  That's a lot of security for some.  It's also a lot of guns, but the political class approves of these guns because of who it protects. 

Face it, Senator Weinberg, Michael Bloomberg, Mayor Fulop. . . they don't care about you.  You have nothing they want.  You are not rich enough, powerful enough, influential enough, or cool enough to matter to them.  You don't merit protection or the means of self-protection.   Can't you hear them?  They're telling you to "Drop Dead"!

Phoebus: Democrats "celebrate" death

Whether it is an act of love or lust or a combination of both, when a woman has sexual congress with a man and the outcome is pregnancy, what is growing within her is a part of life. Some say it is an unborn child, others call it a fetus.  Whatever it is, when you abort it, you end a story.  You end the she or he who might have been.  That much is certain.

We all know women who have faced this crossroads.  Who had to choose.  It is not a light decision.  It is not a happy time. 

Now come the Democrats.  Senator Loretta "Mother Roach" Weinberg and Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, who should know better.  They proposed a resolution "celebrating" this unhappy time. 

We get it.  There are some who are so proud that they cannot admit to an unhappiness -- it might bring with it doubt.  And so they tell themselves that "this is a good thing" and that they are glad for it.  They place what they've done on an alter and worship it.  For them it becomes "the sacrament of abortion."  For them, doubt must be shouted away and dissenters heckled down.

The Democrats' resolution used the opportunity presented by the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade to "recognize and celebrate the importance of continued access to reproductive health care for women."  Ah, those euphemisms!  It reminds us of the time a groups of lawyers, bureaucrats, and politicians gathered on the outskirts of a capital to work out another "euphemism."  Can you guess which one?

Let's cut the euphemisms, Roe v. Wade isn't about "reproductive health care" -- as everyone knows, it is about abortion.  Roe v. Wade legalized abortion.

Addressing her colleagues, Assemblywoman Gail Phoebus (R-Sussex, Warren, Morris) nailed it:

“Let’s be real. Roe v. Wade isn’t about women’s health care issues. To sit here and have the Legislature celebrate 58 million abortions since 1973 is abhorrent. Apparently gone are the days of claiming that ‘no one is pro-abortion,’ but only pro-choice. If we looked, I think we would find far more women who regret having abortions and have a more difficult task finding women who regret choosing life.

The reality is the decision legalized the aborting of unborn children.  Roe v. Wade redefined what a person is in the same vein as another low-point for our Supreme Court and our nation, the Dred Scott Decision.

“Our nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, is clear:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“By serving in this legislative body, we are representatives of the people and we govern with their consent.  I take my duty seriously to protect the rights of all – born and unborn.”

Of course, the Democrats would rather ignore these words.  Too old-fashioned.  They have a new operating principle.  Or is it?  In many ways, what they are striving for, are a set of old 1930's sci-fi imaginings.  The total control, erotic nanny state as imagined by Aldous Huxley in 1931 is a very different totalitarian vision than the one conjured by George Orwell more than a decade later.  But both picked up the direction in which we -- with the help of Mother Roach and her sidekick, Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle -- are continuing down the path today.  So for your edification, we present this film adaptation of the novel, "Brave New World." 

Enjoy and remember, whether you are a Republican from Westfield or a Bergen County Democrat, you too can "be allowed to go back to your erotic training class and play 'hunt the zipper'."  Don't ask what it means, watch the movie.

Sen. Weinberg silent on rape threat

Senator Loretta Weinberg (D-Corzine) has a history of trying to shame New Jersey Republicans for not speaking out about the antics of some of their allies on the national scene.  Turnabout is fair play.

A story developed over the last week or so that illustrates how different the pro-choice (abortion, not schools) and feminist movements have become.  Much of the pro-choice (abortion, not schools) movement has devolved into a sort of grassroots lobby for the abortion industry's corporate monopoly, Planned Parenthood.   That Planned Parenthood has also attempted to corner the market on the delivery of women's reproductive health care and family planning services is a measure of both its corporate marketing and political lobbying prowess.  Ford Motor can only dream of having customers as devoted as those of Planned Parenthood.  And every independent provider forced out means more government income -- topped off by client fees -- for Planned Parenthood's nascent monopoly. 

When a male university staff member threatened to rape pro-life women in a public exchange on Twitter, we had expected to see people like Senator Weinberg call him out.  Not only was the staff member explicit as to the age of the women he was considering raping ("wife/daughter/great grandmother") he implied that he charges (clients?) to rape women.  The staff member, let's call him Mr. Yum Yum, makes it sound like he once worked for a Serbian paramilitary organization.

Below is a rather disturbing photo of Mr. Yum Yum, taken from social media and posted by several mainstream media sources.  You wouldn't want to appear in an ad with this guy, would you Senator?

We were surprised when we didn't hear anything from Senator Weinberg.  Is she down with the tactics of Mr. Yum Yum?  Well, let's ask her.

Dear Senator Weinberg, please let us know how you feel about the tactics of this university staff member and ideological fellow-traveler.  We will be happy to publish your response.

We will be following up on this, and we certainly urge the Senator to take our offer.  We understand that she already has a primary opponent in the wings who has begun working the 30 percent or so of her adult population who attend weekly religious services.  So get your response in to us asap.

Sen. Weinberg and euphemism

They are not exactly lies, but they do attempt to obscure the truth.

eu·phe·mism

ˈyo͞ofəˌmizəm/noun

noun: euphemism; plural noun: euphemisms

a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.

Commenting on yesterday's budget address by Governor Chris Christie, the always ideologically pedantic Weinberg had little to say of substance but did commend the Governor for his use of the term "reproductive services."  We don't know exactly what the Governor meant when he used the term, but the way it is used by groups like Planned Parenthood -- a group Senator Weinberg has championed -- is unambiguous.  To Planned Parenthood the term means the "right to choose safe, legal abortion at a reasonable cost, in a supportive and confidential setting."  To people who share the worldview of Loretta Weinberg, "reproductive services" is a euphemism for abortion.

Politicians and the governments they make employ euphemism when they seek to hide some or all of the truth.  "Reproductive services" sounds much nicer than "abortion" or "killing" or "terminating a pregnancy."  Because whatever abortion is, we can all agree that it ends something.  It ends a human story that, if allowed to go uninterrupted, would have become a story much like ours, with all our complexity.  Except that now it won't happen, so we won't get to know, and the he or she that could have been will not be.  And if you believe John Donne (or Ernest Hemingway) we will be the lesser for it.

Thinking about an ideology's use of euphemism reminded us of a sort of documentary film the BBC produced a few years back.  It should be required viewing for all high school students -- and again for all lawyers, bureaucrats, and academics in training.  It says something about the use of language and especially, about euphemism.

It takes place in a country that had recently been a western democracy -- with an elected president, legislative chamber, and independent judiciary.  But in this country the law was used to drive out opposition voices and piece by piece replace the institutions of representative democracy with one-party, one point-of-view authoritarianism.  This country had grand ideas about its destiny and, to that end, committed itself to a program of foreign meddling.  So the country was soon at war.

The setting is a beautiful house on a lake, in a suburb outside the capital.  The house had been seized from its owners, by the government for its use, through a form of eminent domain.  In the middle of winter, 15 bureaucrats and politicians met there.  Most were lawyers, others were prominent members of the civil service, many had impressive academic credentials.  Over fine wine they lunched (it calls to mind one of those Planned Parenthood videos) and for two hours twisted and contorted language and emerged with a euphemism -- "the final solution" -- that consigned millions to unimaginable horror and death.

In this scene from the film, we watch as the word "evacuation" is assigned a new meaning.

If you watch the entire film, pay close attention to how everything they planned had to be "based in law."  And by-the-way, the uniforms are not military uniforms.  They are political party uniforms.  These bastards were not soldiers, they were attorneys. 

Words matter.  Politically correct euphemism is the enemy of truth. 

Sen. Weinberg: Tell Obama "Cops Lives Matter" too

View fullsize

That picture on her Facebook page is curious.  Is that Senator Loretta Weinberg (D-Corzine) tickling the former confidant of the "Love Gov"?  It certainly looks like she is doing something to make Steve Goldstein smile. 

The "Lov Gov" is, of course, Eliot Spitzer of New York.  Goldstein was Spitzer's campaign mouthpiece when they were blazing their own version of the sexual revolution.  "Whatever floats your boat" is the mantra of the Kinsey-besotted "Swingers' Lobby."  Spitzer, whom Goldstein insisted was "an incredibly nice man in real life" -- even after the Lov Gov was caught hiring young women for sex, was recently in the news again.  This time he was accused in the New York media of losing it and then trying to strangle a young woman.  He was accused of this kind of "role playing" before, in a book authored by one of his young victims. Now the latest subject of his attentions has fled the country. 

View fullsize

The lifestyles of rich insiders never ceases to amaze:  Sex, power, money, and let's change the world to do whatever we want.  Average people and their talk of "democracy" doesn't matter.  "Only the rich, the powerful, the well-connected, count and we decide who and what matters.  We set the fashion."

Which brings us to the misdirected "Black Lives Matter" movement that works to pit some Americans, based on their skin color or ethnic origin, against other Americans, based on their employment as law enforcement officers.  Never mind that black police officers are as ubiquitous as Irish cops once were -- especially in the higher ranks.  Black employment in policing of all types is a growth industry.

While United States Justice Department figures indicate that the number of Hispanic and Asian police officers lag behind their proportional representation of America's population as a whole, that is not the case with black police officers, who more than match it.  In some urban police departments, black officers make up more than half the department.  63 percent of Detroit's police officers are "African-American." 

In spewing hatred towards working class police officers, many of whom are black, the "Black Lives Matter" movement is allowing itself to be used by the political establishment, which is now thoroughly anti-police.  Some dislike the police because it is fashionable to do so, just as it was fashionable to hug a first responder in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.  Fashion changes.  Blue is out this year.  Others want the best police protection, but they don't want to pay for it.  For them, undermining the police weakens their position at the bargaining table.  If they can get a police officer to risk his or her life at a cut rate, that leaves more money for the vendors who fund their campaigns or for their criminal friends on Wall Street.

The real target of the "Black Lives Matter" movement should be the very politicians who have duped them into attacking the police.  In a 2014 column titled, "Eric Garner:  Criminalized to death," conservative columnist George Will wrote:

Overcriminalization has become a national plague. And when more and more behaviors are criminalized, there are more and more occasions for police, who embody the state’s monopoly on legitimate violence, and who fully participate in humanity’s flaws, to make mistakes.

Harvey Silverglate, a civil liberties attorney, titled his 2009 book “Three Felonies a Day” to indicate how easily we can fall afoul of the United States’ metastasizing body of criminal laws. Professor Douglas Husak of Rutgers University says that approximately 70 percent of American adults have, usually unwittingly, committed a crime for which they could be imprisoned. In his 2008 book, “Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law,” Husak says that more than half of the 3,000 federal crimes — itself a dismaying number — are found not in the Federal Criminal Code but in numerous other statutes. And, by one estimate, at least 300,000 federal regulations can be enforced by agencies wielding criminal punishments. Citing Husak, professor Stephen L. Carter of the Yale Law School, like a hammer driving a nail head flush to a board, forcefully underscores the moral of this story:

Society needs laws; therefore it needs law enforcement. But “overcriminalization matters” because “making an offense criminal also means that the police will go armed to enforce it.” The job of the police “is to carry out the legislative will.” But today’s political system takes “bizarre delight in creating new crimes” for enforcement. And “every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence.”

Carter continues: “It’s unlikely that the New York Legislature, in creating the crime of selling untaxed cigarettes, imagined that anyone would die for violating it. But a wise legislator would give the matter some thought before creating a crime. Officials who fail to take into account the obvious fact that the laws they’re so eager to pass will be enforced at the point of a gun cannot fairly be described as public servants.”

Last year the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice issued its report on the Ferguson Police Department.  The report was the result of a lengthy investigation, commissioned as a response to the shooting death of a young black man by police.  The report's most notable finding -- placed front and center, although ignored by many in the mainstream media -- was that "(Ferguson's law enforcement) practices are shaped by revenue rather than by public safety needs."

That's right, the Legislature criminalizes behavior as a means of obtaining revenue for state and local governments.  The Legislature turns the police into privateers, pushing them to "earn" more for government.  Then, when something goes wrong, the very same politicians who pressured police into becoming revenue agents turn on them, setting their "movement" political allies on them to devalue police lives in order to make it easier to reduce their salaries, cut benefits, and hollow out pensions.

All you have to do is look at the way President Barack Obama has criminalized investigative journalism and whistleblowers to get a taste of how many new "offenses" have been added to the statute books.  New Jersey leads others states in adding regulations that will ultimately be enforced by men with guns.  If Weinberg and Goldstein have their way, the police will soon be used to issue citations and collect fines from people whose speech critters like the Love Gov (he of the Swingers' Lobby) finds insulting or bullying or "hateful." 

And as they add more and more for the police to enforce, they seek to make fashion statements and dupe black voters by engaging in irresponsible attacks on working class police officers.  Well, the seeds of their rhetoric has borne fruit and we are beginning to see the harvest their words have conjured.

Last week, the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), a police officer's union, reported that violence against police had escalated to the point where seven police officers had been killed in just six days.  This is the kind of headline we more often saw coming from a warzone like Iraq or Afghanistan -- not from within the borders of the United States.

National FOP @GLFOP

7 officers have been killed serving their communities in the last six days. Please pray for their families

11:11 AM - 11 Feb 2016

View fullsize

President Obama has been mute about the violence this rhetoric has unleashed against working police officers and their families. 

Big government legislators, like Senator Weinberg, and their lobbyist allies, like Steve Goldstein, have been mute as well.  Now is the time for them to step up and start to undo what they have done. 

First, take responsibility.  We challenge Senator Weinberg to propose a resolution that reminds legislators, Congress, and the President that police officers only enforce the laws that the political establishment makes them enforce; that there is an inherent danger in this transaction; and that police officers are often injured, wounded, or lose their lives in carrying out the directives of the political class. 

Second, tell the President to speak up.  We challenge Senator Weinberg to sign a letter to President Obama that urges him to acknowledge the costs involved in police work.  This cost is measured in lost or damaged lives and in the stress and trauma dealt with by families and loved ones.  Making the police into villains for enforcing the laws written and decided upon by the political class is outrageous hypocrisy.

Third, make the police "peace officers" not "privateers."  Make policing about public safety and not a source of revenue.  Create a Sunset Committee to review the thousands of laws and regulations that impact police conduct and place police officers on a collision course with the growing number of out-of-work or under-employed citizens who are having difficulty paying the economic sanctions imposed on them by legislative bodies at all levels of government.  Recognize that every time you send a man with a gun to collect money for government, you run the risk that someone will die. 

Because of the vote Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Norcross) made to end capital punishment, the lives of serial killers, those who rape and murder small children, those who torture to death young women, mass terrorists, and cop killers are all spared the death penalty in New Jersey.  Let's stop legislative action from inadvertently imposing the death penalty on people who can't pay a few traffic tickets or who are selling a couple cigarettes to someone who can't afford a full pack. 

It is insane for a legislative body to spare the life of a Jesse Timmendequas while causing the death of an Eric Garner.  It is monstrous for the political class to blame the police for following its orders.