81% believe government is corrupt

Fresh polling today adds to the mounting data that voters are turned-off on government, politicians, and our post-democratic process in general.  Rasmussen reported today that a new survey shows that 81 percent of likely voters in the United States describe the federal government as "corrupt," with 33 percent describing it as "very corrupt."  Just 16 percent disagree, including the 2 percent (yes, only 2 percent) who describe government as "not at all corrupt."  Here is the survey question:

National Survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters

Conducted January 28 and 31, 2016
By Rasmussen Reports

Would you describe the federal government today as very corrupt, somewhat corrupt, not very corrupt or not at all corrupt?

33% Very corrupt
48% Somewhat corrupt
14% Not very corrupt
  2% Not at all corrupt
  3% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Now pay attention to these numbers:  Women view government as "corrupt" more than men (84 percent to 79 percent), as do young voters more than seniors (81 percent to 75 percent).

89 percent of Republicans, 85 percent of Independents, and 70 percent of Democrats view government as "corrupt."  75 percent of black voters view government as "corrupt."

69 percent of voters believe "most government contracts are awarded to the company with the most political connections" rather than one that can "provide the best service for the best price." 

Do most government contracts get awarded to the company that can provide the best service for the best price or to the company with the most political connections?

21% Awarded to the company that can provide the best service for the best price
69% Awarded to the company with the most political connections
11% Not sure

To understand why voters feel the way they do, you need only look at what is going to take place tomorrow in the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee. 

While Democrats like Assembly Speaker Vinnie Prieto (D-Sacco) are promising to make New Jersey's historically high child poverty the Legislature's top concern, critters like Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Norcross) have pushed poor children aside in favor of the top issue of the swingers' lobby -- women with penises.  You know how it is, poor children can't afford a lobbyist.  Rich and influential sexual swingers can buy whatever strikes their fancy.

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

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

On Thursday, February 4, 2016, the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee will be holding a hearing on S-283.   The public hearing will be held at 11AM in Committee Room 4, on the First Floor of the State House Annex in Trenton, New Jersey.

Senator Joseph Vitale (D-McGreevey), a man with no medical or psychological training and therefore totally unqualified to preside over this subject matter, is chairman of the committee.  Both he and Senator Sweeney, another of our elected "leaders" who managed to make it through the twelfth grade, will no doubt give excuses for why they support S-283.  But as they do, think of how much money the swingers' lobby has stuffed down their trousers.

No North Jersey Casinos if Redistrict Amend passed

We are witnessing an historic development in American politics, the demonstration project of which is happening right here in New Jersey.  A syndicate of urban political bosses from one party are trying to change a state constitution to rig the redistricting process so that the party of those bosses and their political machines control New Jersey politics in perpetuity.   

Yes, employing front men like Senate President Steve Sweeney, Assembly Speaker Vinnie Prieto, and idiot Assemblyman John McKeon, the bosses are attempting to establish a "thousand-year map" that will ensure their hegemony over a captive population who will pay ever higher taxes and face ever stricter regulation -- from the amount of water used to flush in the morning to the words exchanged with their spouses before they go to bed at night.    

And to do this they have set out -- with malice and evil intention -- to confuse voters in an election year when they know the least experienced and most easily manipulated voters will be turning out.  These are the same critters who argued that same-sex marriage was too complicated to allow the people a vote on it, and now they send a bizarre process like redistricting to the people?  Just read how the question is written and then ask yourself if it provides the necessary information to make an informed vote?

Do you approve requiring the commission to establish districts that are competitive and fairly represent voter preferences? This amendment would also require preserving communities of interest within the same district.

How?  What does that mean?  The above is an intention, not a law.  And the so-called "interpretive statement" isn't much help either:

This amendment would prohibit creating a plan in which more than half of the districts favor either major political party compared to the average district. It also would require at least 25 percent of the districts to be competitive. The amendment would also require communities of interest within districts to be preserved. 

This amendment would require districts to comply with federal law and be comprised of contiguous territory. This amendment requires the districts to follow the limit on dividing municipalities already set forth in the Constitution.

Again, how? What is the "average district" they are being compared to? What does "competitive" mean?  Define "communities of interest"?

These people actually use language that is LESS honest than what the Nazis used.  Compared to the convoluted bullshit above, this April 10, 1938 referendum offered voters by Adolf and company was a masterpiece of civic clarity:

"Do you agree with the reunification of Austria with the German Reich that was enacted on 13 March 1938, and do you vote for the party of our leader Adolf Hitler?"

That's pretty darn straightforward when compared with the swill Sweeney, Prieto, and McKeon are serving.  I guess that makes them LESS honest than Nazis. Ouch.

The good news is... Republicans can stop this!

Here is how.  Senate Democrats need all their votes to pass an expansion of casino gambling to North Jersey.  South Jersey Democrats cannot vote for it and survive.  Sweeney will need Republican votes.

No Republican should agree to vote to expand casino gambling to North Jersey if SCR-188 or ACR-4 is posted for a vote.  Sweeney cannot be trusted to keep his word (he's flipped on same-sex marriage, on guns, on unions, he'll lie to anyone) so Republicans will have to withhold their votes on the expansion of casino gambling until after August.  Then they can offer them.

The alternative will be to make Sweeney use the votes of Senators Whelan and VanDrew to pass the expansion of casino gambling and thereby turn them into meat.  That's cool too...  It's time to play hard, Republican legislators.  Because the Democrats want to make you an endangered species.