Rasmussen: Half of all Likely Voters Approve decision to dump Roe

By Rubashov

A fresh poll out Tuesday reports that “even though more voters identify as pro-choice than pro-life, fully half of them approve of the recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.” That’s remarkable.

The poll – a Rasmussen national telephone and online survey – finds that 50 percent of likely voters in the United States approve of the Supreme Court abortion ruling, including 38 percent who strongly approve of the decision. 45 percent disapprove of the Supreme Court’s ruling, including 38 percent who strongly disapprove. The ruling allows each state to determine its own laws regarding abortion.

The poll asked three questions:

1) Generally speaking, on the issue of abortion, do you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life?

2) The Supreme Court recently overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, so that each state can now determine its own laws regarding abortion. Do you approve or disapprove of the court overturning Roe v. Wade?

3) How important will the issue of abortion rights be in this year's congressional elections?

Among Republican voters, 75 percent approve of the Supreme Court’s decision while just 20 percent disapprove. 71 percent of Democrats disapprove of the ruling, but 25 percent approve. Voters not affiliated with either major party are more closely divided, with 53 percent approving the court’s decision and 42 percent disapproving.

52 percent of voters self-identify as generally pro-choice on the issue of abortion, while 41 percent view themselves as pro-life. 78 percent of pro-choice voters disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision, while 88 percent of pro-life voters approve of the ruling.

Voters overwhelmingly believe the abortion issue will matter in November. 75 percent expect abortion to be an important issue in this year's congressional elections, including 54 percent who think it will be very important. Only 22 percent of voters don’t believe abortion will be important in the fall midterm elections.

72 percent of Democrats, 41 percent of Republicans, and 47 percent of unaffiliated voters say abortion will be a very important issue in this year's congressional elections. 74 percent of voters who self-identify as pro-choice, compared with 33 percent of those who say they are pro-life, expect abortion to be a very important issue.

More women voters (55 percent) than men (49 percent) self-identify as pro-choice, and more women voters (59 percent) than men (48 percent) believe the abortion issue will be very important in this year’s congressional elections.

With inflation at its highest for nearly 50 years and a recession looming, economic issues are the most important to American voters. And with nothing much to commend themselves, incumbent Democrats like Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05) have jumped on the abortion issue in an attempt to rally their base.

And this is where the lies begin.

In a fundraising appeal emailed on Monday, Gottheimer’s campaign wrote: “And after last week’s devastating SCOTUS opinion on Roe v. Wade – Pallotta DOUBLED DOWN in his extremism. Pallotta went as far as to call choice…manslaughter.”

Actually, Frank Pallotta was making an important point about the abortion debate: The reason why so many self-described “pro-choice” voters support the Supreme Court’s decision is because the leaders of the pro-choice movement have turned the moderate “safe and rare” mantra of the Clinton years into a quasi-religious cult that celebrates abortion up to and including the day of birth.

The pro-choice cause was more convincing back when it followed medical science and provided women with an escape hatch, while recognizing the medical facts regarding the viability of the fetus. Arguably, this was a balanced, rational approach that rejected faith-based assertions about the “sanctity of life”. When someone believes life begins is very different from when medical science maintains it is viable.

But then “pro-choice” radicals took control of the debate away from moderates like former President Bill Clinton. For folks like Chelsea Handler, abortion became a kind of holy sacrament, and it got nuts. Now it was the “pro-choice” folks who were advancing a faith-based mantra and rejecting medical science. Guys like Josh Gottheimer, trying to stay one-step ahead of a primary, got caught up in the wave and started voting that way.

Before labeling Frank Pallotta an “extremist” on abortion, the Gottheimer crew might want to remember the company he’s keeping. Like… go try and have a day-of-birth abortion in Israel and see what happens.

In Israel, a woman must go before a “termination committee” made up of two licensed physicians and a social worker to receive permission to get an abortion. No surprise then that the rate of abortion in Israel is much lower than in the United States. According to Wikipedia:

“There are 41 termination committees operating in public or private hospitals across Israel. These committees consist of three members, two of which are licensed physicians, and one a social worker. Of the two physicians, one must be a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology, and the other one either OB/GYN, internal medicine, psychiatry, family medicine, or public health. At least one member must be a woman. Six separate committees consider abortion requests when the fetus is beyond 24 weeks old.”

In France, abortion on demand is legal during the first 14 weeks from conception. Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are only allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done “to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.”

In Argentina abortion is legal on demand in the first 14 weeks of gestation. Wikipedia notes: “The abortion law was liberalized after the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Bill (Argentina) was passed by the National Congress in December 2020. According to the law, any woman can request the procedure at any public or private health facility. Doctors are legally bound to either perform it or, if they are conscientious objectors, refer the patient to another physician or health facility. Only four other Latin or South American countries have legalized abortion on request: Cuba in 1965, Guyana in 1995, Uruguay in 2012 and Colombia in 2022. According to polling in 2021, around 44% of Argentinians support the legalization of abortion on request; other polls showed 50–60% of Argentinians opposed the bill.”

Abortion in Australia mirrors what we might see here soon. Wikipedia writes: “It has been fully decriminalized in all jurisdictions, starting with Western Australia in 1998 and lastly in South Australia in 2021. Access to abortion varies between the states and territories: surgical abortions are readily available on request within the first 16 to 24 weeks of pregnancy, although with no limit on gestational term in the Australian Capital Territory. Later term abortions generally require the approval of two doctors, though are heavily restricted in Western Australia after 20 weeks.”

Abortion in South Africa is legal on request during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and under certain conditions afterwards. “A woman of any age can get an abortion on request with no reasons given if she is less than 12 weeks pregnant. If she is between 13 and 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion if (a) her own physical or mental health is at stake, (b) the baby will have severe mental or physical abnormalities, (c) she is pregnant because of incest, (d) she is pregnant because of rape, or (e) she is of the personal opinion that her economic or social situation is sufficient reason for the termination of pregnancy. If she is more than 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion only if her or the fetus' life is in danger or there are likely to be serious birth defects.”

In October 2021, new rules came into effect in India governing abortions. The gestation period for terminating a pregnancy with 1 doctor's opinion was extended from 12 weeks to 20 weeks, with the rule being expanded to include unmarried women. For termination of pregnancy with 2 doctors' opinions it was extended from 20 weeks to 24 weeks for the following special categories: survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest, minors, change of marital status during the pregnancy (widowhood and divorce), women with physical disabilities, mentally ill women, the fetal anomalies that have substantial risk of being incompatible with life or if the child is born it may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped, women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergency. A medical board determines requests for termination of a pregnancy longer than 24 weeks in the cases of fetal anomalies. The board examines the woman and her reports and approves or denies the request within 3 days.

In Ukraine, abortion is legal on request only during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Between 12 and 28 weeks, abortion is available on a variety of grounds, with the approval of a board of physicians. That’s up to 28 weeks – not 40 weeks!

About the only countries that would agree with the Gottheimer campaign’s assessment of Frank Pallotta are North Korea and Red China. Hey Josh, looks like you need to be more careful with the company you keep. You sound kind of, well, extremist.

NJ Republicans need to rethink the way they campaign

By “The Happy Warrior”

Not on a single issue, or in one direction or twain,
But conclusively, comprehensively, and several times and again,
Were all our most holy illusions knocked higher than Gilderoy’s kite.
We have had a jolly good lesson, and it serves us jolly well right!

(The Lesson, Rudyard Kipling)

Fellow Republicans:  Before jumping into the 2019 legislative cycle… doing the exact same things we’ve been doing and losing for the past decade – STOP!

We have just been crushed the worst we’ve been crushed in a century.  But it wasn’t unique. We’ve been getting our asses kicked now for a decade.  Not even a popular Governor prevented the usual and customary ass-whooping. We keep losing and the life blood of the party is draining away.

It doesn’t have to be.  It’s not this way in other states.  So STOP and THINK.

Question our old standbys, our comfort zones, that instinctive knee-jerk prescription that hasn’t won in a decade or more.

Because politics isn’t actual warfare, the participants of these slaughters get to live and repeat the performance.  It’s as if General Custer somehow survived the Battle of the Little Bighorn to lead a gallant new troop of cavalry. One would hope that he would think about avoiding the actions that lead to everyone being killed the first time… that he just wouldn’t take command because “he’s done it before” and – having received command – he wouldn’t simply proceed “the way it has always been done before.”

There is certainly no shame in losing.  The founding military and political leader of our nation, George Washington, suffered a string of defeats before and after the Battles of Trenton  and Princeton, before winning the conclusive Battle of Yorktown. The shame comes from not putting a defeat to good use by learning from it. To not ponder a loss and instead stubbornly go back to the exact same way as before.

Then let us develop this marvellous asset which we alone command,
And which, it may subsequently transpire, will be worth as much as the Rand.
Let us approach this pivotal fact in a humble yet hopeful mood—
We have had no end of a lesson, it will do us no end of good!

THE DEMOCRATS’ NEW WAY

The Democrats have developed a new way of conducting and winning political campaigns.  It is a loose, fluid, decentralized style of campaigning – and it never ends. The Democrats’ campaign is an endless campaign.

The Democrats have mastered the marshalling of superior resources through the procurement of contracts, the selection of vendors, and the creation of entities – for-profits, non-profits, political action committees, leadership PACS, party organizations, superPACS, and campaign committees – by which fundraised money flows around donor limits and every other rule.  Added to this is their ability to field an army of activists using established issues groups as well as the more generalized “anti” groups born after the election of Donald Trump.

The Democrat command and control structure is instructive – in that it requires only a broad agreement on targets and goals to effectively get the job done.  The Democrats do not micro-manage.  They point everyone in the right direction and then allow the folks on the ground to get the job done.

The Democrats’ method of campaigning is activist-based.  Republicans, on the other hand, insist on campaigns that are highly centralized, tethered, and top-down – echo-chamber campaigns that reinforce the established certainties.  

POLITICAL PARTIES:  3 IN 1

Both major parties are really each three separate parties all occupying the same space and seeking to speak for the same “brand”.  

(1) There is the broad “party” defined by formal “membership” (voter registration, etc.), self-identification, or electoral support.  These people have some idea of what the party brand means and they like candidates to adhere to it. They like to get what they think they are voting for.

(2) Next is the activist base.  These people are motivated by a particular issue or set of issues (or by a candidate who serves as the vessel for such).  Some organize themselves to great effectiveness. Many are organized permanently and have established themselves as genuine powers.  Others can be motivated in the right season, on a case by case basis. The most successful are able to create enough activity to earn a living from their activism (essentially, they are paid for their leadership).

(3) Finally we have the “professional” party – the regulars.  Broadly speaking, they are paid or make money from politics, whether as attorneys, vendors, lobbyists, elected officials, appointed officials, patronage employees, political consultants, legislative staff, and such.  They are transactional and make money through or directly from politics – that is the big difference between them and the broader party.

Of necessity, the concerns of each of these three groups can be very different.  On the whole, the first two want candidates who will represent their points of view (although, depending on the issue, some in the second might find themselves outside the mainstream of the first).  The concerns of the last can be quite complex depending on relationships (personal, professional, and financial), the political considerations of maintaining power, and monetary contracts or understandings.  Suffice to say that the maintenance of power for its own sake is a primary concern, so they see the world very differently than the almost black or white delineations of the greater party.

All three entities are very important.  Whether Democrat or Republican, a party needs its broad membership, its activist base, and its professional party regulars.  But it needs them working together… not hating each other.

In the election just completed, the Democrats successfully engaged and involved the second group and we saw literally thousands of people from the first group – average voters – flood into the second to become activists.  In contrast, the Republicans maintained rigid, centralized control… and they were nearly wiped out.

OODA LOOPS & NCO’s

In political campaigns, as in warfare, command and control is all about the time it takes to observe a threat or opportunity, orientate your forces to bear on it, decide what to do, and then do it.  In the aftermath of America’s failure in Vietnam, when the President of the United States was personally selecting which bridges to bomb, military theorists grappled with various ways to improve command and control.  After 241 military personnel, mainly United States Marines, were killed by a truck bomb driven into their barracks in Beirut, the need for a “quick action” method of command and control became an imperative. In Beirut, the forces on the ground had to get permission from the brass in Washington in order to react decisively.  Unfortunately, the terrorists didn’t wait.

An Air Force Colonel by the name of John Boyd studied warfare through the critical lens of time.  For Colonel Boyd, it was all about time… reaction time… the ability to get inside your opponent’s decision-making loop.  

Colonel Boyd came up with the concept of OODA loops or time cycles while studying air combat and then applied it more generally to warfare and to other forms of human conflict.  Boyd wrote that the key strategic advantage in any conflict was the ability to Observe a threat or opportunity, Orientate oneself to it, Decide what to do, and then Act… an OODA loop.  If you could complete your OODA loop quicker than your opponent could, you would probably win.

In New Jersey, the Democrats operate on a pretty brisk OODA time cycle.  The Republicans move like glue and are utterly disconnected from the ground.  The Democrats understand who their NCO’s are and largely trust them. This gives the Democrats the ability to communicate what needs to be done, with the view that if they point the field NCO’s in the right direction, they can be trusted to get the job done.

The Democrats would understand Marine Colonel Chesty Puller’s comments to his NCO’s at the start of WWII… it would make no sense to a regular Republican in New Jersey.  We have no NCO’s. (We need them… desperately!)

The reasons for this are historical.  Beginning with the nascent post-war (WWII) ascendancy of the conservative movement and the candidacy of Barry Goldwater, the New Jersey GOP establishment recoiled against the modern conservativism of Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan.  These sentiments were rooted in the class-based prejudices and religious bigotry of a Republican Party that had been crushed by FDR and the New Deal. Of a party that still expected the gratitude of African-Americans and was shocked when it was withheld.  

With the election of Ronald Reagan as President and the mainstreaming of his platform in 1980, New Jersey’s regular Republicans – the party’s “professionals” pursued a course at an odd variance with that of the national party.  The wider Republican party in New Jersey – and its activist base – kept step with the national Republican Party. The professionals became more and more a strange “hothouse” variety – a hybrid.

The GOP regulars tried to win “our way” but the losing only grew worse and worse, the excuses bolder and brazen.  Governor Chris Christie had the good sense to enlist the activist base, running as an economic and social conservative – a supporter of traditional values, Pro-Life, and Pro-Second Amendment – unfortunately, GOP legislative candidates too often have not.  In the end, with the loss of county and local governments, then the state government, many of the professionals found accommodation with the Democrats – some even becoming Democrats.  

Without jobs for the boys, NCO’s recruited from the professional regulars dried up.  Without an appeal to activist issues or at least the RNC platform… there was no compelling way to replace them.  People fight for money or they fight for cause. Both have been taken away.

Now, with the 2016 election of Donald Trump, the membership of the Republican Party, as well as its activist base, are now totally disjoint from the professional regulars of the NJGOP.  If most average Republicans knew who their “leaders” represented economically, they would find it revolting. Many would never vote again.

But there is hope.  The Democrats under Governor Phil Murphy are demonstrably whacky enough to recruit the support of the activist base as well as the wider party… to enlist and to activate many, many who have not been active before.

Party professionals can earn lucrative livings by wielding the collective power of the votes of many people.  These people willingly turn the power of their vote over to them because they believe the word “Republican” stands for certain things.  All they ask in return for turning their power over to a GOP “leader” is that they not be lied to in such an extreme way that they are made to feel like fools.  And the regular professionals make the wider party feel like fools… at their own peril.

In summary:  Stand for something.  Open the doors to the activist base and the wider party.  Tighten that OODA loop by loosening your grip. Recruit NCO’s, train them, point them in the right direction, and allow them to do their work.

It was our fault, and our very great fault—and now we must turn it to use.
We have forty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse.
So the more we work and the less we talk the better results we shall get—
We have had an Imperial lesson; it may make us an Empire yet!

John McCann admits to The Record that he’s pro-abortion/anti-gun rights.

From our very first interview with congressional candidate John McCann, we found him to be a very different kind of Republican candidate.  Here are some curious FACTS about McCann:

John McCann was recruited from a Democrat office to run in the Republican primary for Congress.  That’s right, McCann was a $151,000 a year (plus benefits) Bergen County patronage employee – working for a Democrat office holder in a Democrat-controlled county – when he was plucked from obscurity to challenge long time conservative Steve Lonegan. 

McCann, an attorney, had a deal with his Democrat employers that was so good that they allowed him to collect $498,000 in “fees” in one year – that’s in addition to his full-time salary (with benefits).  That’s right, he owed the Democrats a lot.

John McCann is the hand-picked candidate of a party boss who was convicted on public corruption charges and sent to prison.  Read more on that here:

https://www.jerseyconservative.org/blog/2018/5/24/murphy-endorsement-of-mccann-endangers-hugin

John McCann’s political consultant is a Democrat who ran the campaigns of some of the most far-left candidates in his state’s history.  McCann’s campaign chair is a liberal pro-abortion acolyte of former Governor Christie Whitman.  McCann’s campaign manager holds contracts from Democrat politicians. 

Now comes the latest…

Since his campaign began, John McCann has flipped back and forth on where he stands on abortion and guns.  A long time pro-choicer on abortion and advocate for gun-control, McCann started his campaign embracing those positions in order to give his candidacy clear blue water between him and Lonegan.  He even argued that a Pro-Lifer/ Pro-Gun guy like Lonegan couldn’t win.

Then they did a poll…  McCann’s team sat their candidate down and told him to lie.  To his credit, he showed some reluctance in public… but his campaign communications and especially his campaign mail hasn’t.  It’s been a full on lie and a remarkably disciplined lie so far as the campaign is concerned.

But then you have the candidate.  He gets caught in these interviews, where he reverts to form – to the positions on Life and the Second Amendment that McCann has held all his life and that are dear to him.  A case in point, was Friday’s Bergen Record.  Here, read it for yourself…

Lonegan is staunchly pro-life, and recently told an audience at the Knights of Columbus in Fair Lawn that he'd support every anti-abortion bill that came before him. He's tried to tag McCann as being pro-choice, but McCann says the label doesn't fit.  

"I believe that life begins at conception," McCann said.

But when asked whether he would support any future bill to further limit abortion, McCann indicated he would not. 

"The law is what is," he said. 

Hey, that’s NOT Pro-Life.  That is pro-status quo, which equals, pro-abortion.

Now on guns:

Both candidates wrap themselves in the Second Amendment right to bear arms. McCann favors requiring universal background checks on perspective [sic] gun buyers but Lonegan opposes them they would  just "add another layer of bureaucracy."

Ditto on the Second Amendment.

Here read the whole article for yourselves:

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/01/nj-election-2018-john-mccann-steve-lonegan-congress-candidates-play-trump-card-primary/659599002/

Too bad the New Jersey Family Policy Council chose the day after this Bergen Record article hit to do an attack on Steve Lonegan and an endorsement of John McCann as a pro-lifer that clearly fell outside the group’s non-profit guidelines.  It looks like John McCann, the candidate, couldn’t help himself and ended up screwing the reputation of the NJFPC and its leadership.  Who ever sweet-talked the NJFPC into doing this has a lot to answer for.

Pro-Abortion all his career, McCann has been frightened into claiming he's Pro-Life

It is a testament to the power of ideas.  A recognition that the voter base of the Republican Party -- those loyal souls who come out in primaries -- are solidly conservative on SOCIAL issues, solidly PRO-LIFE.

Despite all the nonsense spouted by the GOP establishment about big tents and new technology it is MESSAGE that decides who self-describe as members of a party and who show up on election day.  And so long as the NJGOP uses the word "Republican" in its title, that message is a NATIONAL one.  It does not flow from 150 West State Street in Trenton, but rather it exists in the national ether -- in the brain impulses of every sentient being with a reaction, one way or the other, to the word "Republican". 

The job of state and local leaders is to find a way to sell it.  You don't get to remake the brand.

A case in point:  John McCann.

The cabal of local operators who were part of the deal that resulted in the McCann  candidacy were out and about last summer telling anyone who would listen that Steve Lonegan was TOO CONSERVATIVE.  In particular, they targeted those pesky social issues, like abortion, which they claimed were "holding us (the NJGOP) back" and preventing them from winning.

Look, the only Republican candidate to win statewide in New Jersey since 1997 was both solidly Pro-Life and Pro-Second Amendment.  Now we're not saying that Chris Christie wanted to be.  We're not saying that he liked it.  What we're saying is that he knew better than to not to be anything but a social conservative.  That is what "Republican" means, dummy.  You can't wash it off.

Argue until you are blue in the face but you are stuck with it.  All a Republican gets when he or she sucks up to the opposition or its allies is their justifiable contempt and the anger of people who would otherwise turnout out for you because they have been, once again, betrayed.  Keep doing what you are doing and you are on a one way course to extinction. 

So the people who brought you John McCann have put their candidate out there for nine months -- since before McCann left the employ of that pro-Sanctuary State darling, the Democrat Sheriff of Bergen County, the hand of hands... Mikey Saudino.  And in all that time, John McCann has preached a message of how "moderate" he was on abortion. 

Oh, he'd tell some crowds that he was "Pro-Choice" but most of the time he'd say things like how he was "personally opposed" to abortion and a "moderate" on "abortion rights".  After all, this is the same guy who predicated his 2002 campaign for Congress against conservatives Scott Garrett and Gerry Cardinale on his view that they were both "too conservative" on social issues to win a General Election.  McCann is the same candidate who called himself an "Arlen Specter Republican" a few years before Specter ended his career as an Obama Democrat.

Now, over the last ten days, voters in the 5th congressional district have been receiving mailers claiming that John McCann is a Pro-Life conservative.  And not only that, McCann now claims to believe that "life begins at conception". 

Yep, it is late in the campaign.  McCann wants to have a shot at winning.  McCann did a poll and it became obvious that not even having the party "line" in over 70% of the district was going to save him.  Social conservatism trumps county party lines.  Needs must.

Sure enough... the light bulb went on and with it the recognition that you need to be a social conservative to have a chance at attracting a great many Republican voters -- whether you are running in the primary or the General Election.  Take a look at these mailers...

Of course, this is John McCann and being who he is, he's not going to play it straight.  In McCann's not-quite-right brain, he probably believes that avoiding the word "Pro-Life" provides him with an out if he should win the primary and face Democrat Josh Gottheimer in November.

No.  It's not going to work that way.

First, McCann is a Republican.  For most people, that makes him Pro-Life whether he is or he isn't.  All he does by squawking about it is to piss-off people who might have voted for him because they are Pro-Life.

If you believe in abortion, a pro-abortion Democrat is always better than a pro-abortion Republican, because a pro-abortion Democrat votes for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.  End of story.

Second, McCann is now on record as claiming that he believes a human life is ended if it is interfered with at any time from conception onwards.  For a start, he should check with his wife, an OB-GYN doctor in New York City, to see if any of the offices or hospitals she's been affiliated with hand-out the morning after pill.

How does he think he can walk that back? 

Will he tell voters that yes, he believes that human life begins at conception but that he also believes in women's rights to abortion?  That will make him a worse monster than any pro-abortion Democrat because at least they dispute that they are taking a life.  McCann will end up saying that it is human life but that he doesn't mind if it is being exterminated.  That's quite a place to be.

But these are the kinds of conundrums Republicans place themselves in when they refuse to live up to the values and principles of the political party to which they freely affiliate themselves.  Instead of honesty... you get people like John McCann.

McCann adopts liberal Mario Cuomo's position on abortion

Candidate John McCann recently sent out one of the most dishonest letters in the recent history of the GOP in New Jersey.  This is the same guy who said he was running for Congress because Senator Gerry Cardinale and Scott Garrett were too conservative. 

McCann is the same guy who throughout his political career claimed to follow the policies and politics of liberal U.S. Senator Arlen Specter.  The same guy whose boss -- Democrat Sheriff Michael Saudino -- campaigned for re-election on a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton. 

In McCann's undated, mass-produced letter, he appealed for support by using the cheap lawyer's device of parsing words so that they, on closer inspection, mean the opposite of what they appear to mean on first reading.  In other words, McCann tries to pull the wool over the eyes of the reader.

For instance, McCann writes:  "I am personally pro-life". 

This is the exact language used by liberal pro-abortionist Mario Cuomo, the former Democrat Governor of New York, and it's become known as  the "personally opposed, but" position on abortion.  As everyone who is Pro-Life knows, this is the pro-abortion position used by dishonest politicians trying to have it both ways.  Bill Clinton used it.  So did the Democrat running against Senator Steve Oroho last year in LD24.  It is total b.s.

And like Cuomo did in his famous speech at Notre Dame in 1984 -- "the Catholic Church is my spiritual home" -- John McCann references his Catholic faith in an attempt to appeal to those he will be voting against, should he ever hold elected office.  McCann is just a less eloquent version of Cuomo -- a less pretty veneer trying to cover over the same liberal crap.

When McCann attended a recent fundraiser hosted by the Skylands Victory PAC, he stunned those present with a weird talk about how his wife -- an ob-gyn doctor in New York City -- did not perform "late-term abortions."  What???

Why would a candidate running in a Republican primary in the Pro-Life 5th District even bring that up?  But there he was, assuring everyone present of that distinction.  Did McCann take temporary leave of his senses, or did someone coach him to say it? 

It's time for John McCann and his crew to just be honest about where they stand and stop playing bait-and-switch lawyer games. 

What's up with Gail Phoebus?

We've all seen these characters before -- shoulder angels or devils, depending on your point of view.  For Assemblyperson Gail Phoebus, her shoulder conservative was Bill Winkler, and her shoulder liberal -- Dan Perez.

It was Winkler, along with Ginnie Littell, who recruited Phoebus to run for Sussex County Freeholder -- her first countywide office -- in January 2012.  They met with the future Assemblyperson at her country club/golf course and convinced her to take the plunge.  And it was Winkler who charted Phoebus' early course as a conservative "reformer" -- word for word.

Meanwhile, Dan Perez was gaining notoriety in Sussex County as the wingman of then Skylands Victory SuperPAC founder Kevin Kelly.  The two lawyers were involved in the lawsuit that broke Republican Party hegemony in Vernon Township.  And Perez was instrumental in ending the careers of a couple Republican members of the Board of Sussex County Community College.

Both Perez and Winkler are outsiders to Sussex County, although Perez has taken up residence here in recent years.  Where they differ most is in their ideological perspective:  Winkler is a conservative and a 1980 delegate for Ronald Reagan for President, while Perez is a liberal who contributed to Barack Obama.

There they sat on Phoebus' shoulders, Winkler on the right and Perez on the left, each trying to sway the ever swayable Phoebus.  One issue in particular was a point of contention:  Abortion.  When Winkler pushed Phoebus to take a tough stand on funding for Planned Parenthood, Perez called Roe v. Wade a great legal decision. 

So it was no great surprise when Phoebus ally George Graham (Sussex County's Freeholder Director) and two Phoebus committeemen from Andover Township angrily approached Winkler at a recent GOP event where he was handing out information packets on the 20/20 Vision Project  -- an ecumenical Pro-Life effort organized by the Roman Catholic archdiocese.  The goal of the 20/20 Project is to pass legislation to address the scientific fact that unborn babies are pain-sensitive at 20 weeks.  Every other country on earth recognizes this fact except North Korea, China, Vietnam, Singapore, Canada, and the Netherlands.  Senator Steve Oroho is the prime sponsor of 20/20 legislation in the State Senate.  Similar legislation has been passed in 15 states and 2017 has been designated as the year of the big push to bring our laws into line with the rest of the civilized world.

With the patronage of Phoebus and Graham, Perez has been moving up the political ladder in Sussex County.  He recently landed a plum political appointment as a Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority (SCMUA) commissioner and he has made it known that he has his eyes set on an appointment as a Superior Court Judge. 

Of course, as a conservative, Winkler would oppose elevating such a liberal to a high court.  For that reason, Winkler had to go.  And it could also explain why Phoebus, after less than six months in office, began making moves to oust conservative incumbent State Senator Steve Oroho -- who had backed Phoebus when she ran for Freeholder and for Assembly.  Even by New Jersey standards, the short time between Phoebus' taking Oroho's support and then screwing her benefactor was remarkable.  It was real Hudson County Democrat stuff.

When Phoebus summarily fired longtime conservative staffer Lou Crescitelli as her chief of staff, the die was cast.  Crescitelli, a career civil servant and lifetime Pro-Life and Pro-Second Amendment activist, was popular across party and ideological divides for his kindness and gentlemanly behavior.  Unfortunately, he was just too conservative for the new Team Phoebus.  They only want people around them who think like them. 

Back in the Reagan Administration, they had a saying: "Personnel is policy."  What that means, of course, is that to advance a conservative agenda it is necessary to hire staff who supported conservative policies, and who work to achieve conservative objectives rather than to undermine them.  It is clear that Gail Phoebus has chosen a different course.

Tea Party candidate threatens GOP Assembly Leader

Mark Quick, who in 2011 ran with Sussex County Tea Party president Roseann Salanitri against conservative legislators Alison Littell McHose and Gary Chiusano, used social media to post what appeared to be a threat against GOP Assembly Leader Jon Bramnick and others.  Quick's post was in response to a plea for civility made by Assemblyman Bramnick:

"I am deeply concerned how partisanship has evolved into hatred and intolerance.  We must be very careful that our country does not continue down a path that can only be destructive for our nation."

Quick, who opposes the tax restructuring plan supported by Assemblyman Bramnick and others, responded derisively:

"As soon as the Traitors are in jail or swinging from a rope."

"Traitors... swinging from a rope?"  Was that violent image (lynching) really necessary?

But this is just what we have come to expect from Sussex County's tea partiers -- coarse, pornographic rants laced with threats of violence.  Posting mainly through social media, those responsible sound more like 15 year-olds than the 70 pluses they tend to be.

Here is one Sussex County tea party member musing on what should be done with the United States Congress:

"All 545 sitting in DC right now are guilty of treason. And all those living who have sat over the past 2 decades, since the signing of NAFTA are, too. That is our reality, they should all be indicted, dragged out in chains, the evidence a matter of congressional record and unimpeachable. And all should be subject to all the consequences the law provides up to the firing squad."

But not every Tea Party group is like this.  On the website of a Tea Party organization in a neighboring county, we found this admonishment to members:

Remember the quote attributed to Ronald Reagan “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.” 

Sussex County has New Jersey's most reliable conservative legislators -- year in, year out.  And yet, since the beginnings of the Tea Party movement in 2010, tea party members in Sussex County have consistently attacked them as "20 percent traitors" (actually, we'd be surprised if there was five percent disagreement on the issues between them).

The Tea Party has attacked Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose, Assemblyman Gary Chiusano, Assemblyman Parker Space, Senator Steve Oroho, and others.  It lay aside developing a door-to-door commitment for Congressman Scott Garrett, in order to focus its attentions on the apparently far more thrilling game of screw the conservative Republican.  Why go after Pro-abortion, anti-Second Amendment liberal Democrat Josh Gottheimer when you can screw Pro-Life, Pro-gun, Pro-hunting conservative Republican Steve Oroho?  It's priorities. 

It has never been about policy for the Tea Party in Sussex County, but rather about individual envy, jealousy, covetousness, and the hatred these sins produce.  Now, unfortunately, the ooze is making its way around the state, courtesy of Bill Spadea and others.

Update!  While writing this column we've heard from another Sussex County Tea Party member (Skylands Tea Party) and candidate for the state legislature.  He made this charming comment:

Now there's the kind of guy you want in the State Legislature, providing leadership, a role model for children.  Go Tea Party! 

Sen. Beck votes for Planned Parenthood

At the State House on Thursday, liberal Republican State Senator Jennifer Beck voted for every piece of legislation she could to help assist Planned Parenthood, the number one provider of abortions in America.  In its 2014 Annual Report, Planned Parenthood bragged that it had performed 324,000 abortions that year.  It's annual revenue is $1.3 billion -- with at least $530 million of that coming from government funding.

S-1017 expands Planned Parenthood's government subsidized services to a greater portion of the population -- in this case "individuals with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level." 

Led by Senator Steve Oroho (R-Sussex, Warren, Morris), most Republicans opposed the bill.  Senator Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) was the only Republican to support the bill.

S-2277 spends more of your tax dollars on a "FY 2016 supplemental appropriation to the Department of Health for $7,453,000 for family planning services."  That's $7.4 Million in extra spending. 

Again, led by Senator Oroho, every Republican opposed the bill -- except for Senator Jennifer Beck.  She voted for it.

One of those looking on while Senator Beck did this was Americans for Prosperity (AFP) Communications Director Mike Proto.  Mike himself is Pro-Life and must have been embarrassed by AFP's support of Senator Beck.

NJ 101.5 impresario Bill Spadea ran for Congress as a Pro-Life candidate.  We wonder if he will ask Senator Beck about her votes when he next has her on his talk radio show.

State Senator Mike Doherty is a Beck cheer-leader.  Doherty also claims to be Pro-Life.  Perhaps Doherty can convince Senator Beck to stop spending money to support the nation's number one abortion provider.  That is a cost savings that can definitely be made.

A challenge to AFP

Yesterday, AFP circulated an arrogant missive filled with lies about Senator Steve Oroho, one of the most consistently conservative legislators in New Jersey.  You know the Steve Oroho we're talking about  -- the guy who started attending Right to Life marches when he was a teen.  Oh, that's right, AFP doesn't support the Right to Life, we forgot.  On the Second Amendment, Steve Oroho rates an A+ for his leadership -- but that wouldn't impress AFP, because they couldn't care less about the Second Amendment. 

The people who fund AFP aren't much on Religious Freedom or traditional values, but they wouldn't mind legalizing prostitution and narcotics.  The thing they are really passionate about it not raising taxes on petroleum products -- like gasoline.  And that's because they make their billions in the petroleum industry.

The email was circulated by AFP's field director, a young man who doesn't need to worry about property taxes, because his mom and dad do.  There's nothing wrong with being young, but should he really be the one lecturing us on life choices?    

Steve Oroho has spent his life trying to squeeze the most out of a dollar.  As a young CPA, he worked for W. R. Grace when the leadership of that company was charged by President Ronald Reagan to find ways to cut spending and make the federal government run more efficiently.  Steve honed those skills as a senior financial officer of an S&P 500 company, as the Sussex County Freeholder who saved money and reformed the budget process, and as the conservative leader on the Senate Budget Committee.

The state is faced with a very difficult choice on how to fund roads and bridge repair -- raise property taxes or raise the gas tax.  Approximately one-third of gas tax revenues in New Jersey come from out-of-state drivers.  All property taxes come from the people of New Jersey.  So which do you think is the best way to pay for improvements to roads and bridges, an increase in the gas tax or an increase in property taxes?

Steve Oroho has worked very hard to fashion a plan so that raising property taxes will not be necessary to fund road and bridge repairs.  Instead, a modest increase in the gas tax to fund the TTF would be balanced with several tax cuts.  These would include the elimination of the tax on retirement income and a phase-out of the estate tax. 

So who at AFP instructed their young field director to tell us that a property tax increase is preferable to a gas tax increase, that the end of the tax on retirement income isn't worth fighting for, and ditto for the phase out of the estate tax?

How does AFP decide on which issues to fight for and  which to ignore?  Who decided that the tax on retirement income should remain and that property taxes should fund roads and bridges instead of a tax on petroleum products, and at what level was the decision made?

The paid staff at AFP have titles like "field director" and "executive director", but excuse us -- did anyone vote for you?  Did anyone elect your state chair or your leadership? Steve Oroho is a Senator because he won a contested election in 2007 and then three more elections after that.  Steve Oroho won an election in which every member of the Republican establishment in Trenton supported his opponent.  And this wasn't his first victory as an underdog, in 2004 he defeated an incumbent Freeholder Director who had the support of her county party.  What elections have you won?

AFP's executive director loves to brag that the group has over 100,000 "members."  Okay then -- do those members get a vote?  Are they really members or just consumers?  You know, consumers of the bullshit AFP dishes out to them when its real "members" -- its billionaire shareholders -- decide to turn it on to lobby to prevent at all costs a tax on one of their petroleum products?

We're just asking.  Now AFP can prove that their "members" are really members.  All it takes is a vote.  Here in America, we're big on votes.  So here's the challenge to AFP. Send a private mailing to each of your members and ask them to mark on a secret ballot which of these taxes they would most like to see eliminated:

-- the gas tax

-- the property tax

-- the tax on retirement income

-- the estate tax

Then, with the consent of your "members" and guided by their will, they can direct that young field director as to which issues to push and which to ignore.

AFP boss says Clinton would make better President than Trump.

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!