Democrat legislator McKeon with Trump on due process

Assemblyman John McKeon is beginning to sound like British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  McKeon has lifted his latest missive from the former P.M.'s press office:

"Tragically, we have seen far too many 'what ifs' when it comes to these mass shootings, often centered around the question of why didn't somebody do something to take guns away from someone who is mentally unstable.

A-1217 makes it easier to accomplish that goal, and ultimately, protect our communities and our children. The status quo doesn't work. We need to take new approaches that allow authorities a real chance to remove guns from the hands of individuals who pose a threat to us all."

In other words, the Bill of Rights gets in the way of our "goal" -- which is a nice sounding "goal" -- like the Law for the Protection of the People and the State, or the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor.  So we will suspend the Bill of Rights in order to give authorities a real chance to achieve their "goal" and take those rights from individuals who pose a threat to "us all" ("us all" being a euphemism for the collective or "the state").  And as every individual poses a potential threat to the state, these rights must ultimately be taken from everyone. 

If you ask some inner city youth, that potential threat from a firearm includes the police.  And if you ask some college students, the threat includes Free Speech.  So it will be interesting to watch where this goes.  To accomplish it all, the state will send in men with guns... and let the carnage begin.

Sure, civil liberties are a pain in the butt.  It is a lot easier for government to accomplish its "goal" without them.  But where would we be -- as individuals and a society -- without them?

Under McKeon's proposal, you don't have to be accused of committing a crime to have the police knock at your door to search your home or business for legal firearms and seize them.  You just need to have someone pissed-off at you.

John McKeon's fellow Democrat, Joe Cryan, had a girlfriend who was practically part of the Cryan clan.  Now this gal was mightily pissed-off at him.  Should her word alone have been enough? 

Cryan later had his girlfriend busted for stalking, but not before she secured the release of more than 150 emails he had sent her that, according to the New York Post, "graphically spelled out his kinky proclivities."  The Post noted: "The emails were written when the pol (Cryan) presumably would have been at one of his government jobs — either his $49,000-a-year Assembly gig or his $111,000-a-year post as Union County undersheriff."

Well that was business-as-usual back before Harvey Weinstein made the front pages and the Democrats got consciousness.  And it still is.  Only now it's gone underground.  Nevertheless, should the bruised feelings and raw anger that arise out of such behavior -- abhorrent as it may be -- should it take the place of due process?

Curiously, Democrat John McKeon is lending support to Republican President Donald Trump.  Last week, Assembly Democrats in New Jersey formally adopted President Trump's position in respect of the Bill of Rights.  Donald Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second," and the Assembly Democrats agreed, passing A-1217 out of committee. 

Trump made his comments at a meeting with congressional leaders on school safety.  Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons. 

Pence was taking the Bill of Rights into consideration, when he said:  "Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons."  To which Trump responded:  "Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court."

About the same time as Trump was making his controversial statement, the Democrats on the Assembly Judiciary Committee were passing the "Extreme Risk Protection Order" (A-1217),  which suspends due process based on a simple accusation.  A no-knock warrant could be issued, the door of a home or place of business kicked-in, and the property of someone who hasn't been accused of breaking any law seized -- just because a "family member" or "member for law enforcement" believed he or she posed a risk.

Conservative Republican Steve Lonegan offered the following testimony on A-1217:

"In 1971, a group of possibly well-meaning but misguided politicians imposed the Civil Authorities Special Powers Act, which allowed government to take away peoples' rights without charging them with a crime.  It was meant to be a response to violence, but only made matters worse in Northern Ireland.

In considering Assembly Bill 1217, the New Jersey Legislature should recall the words of George Will, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and author, who reminded us of the dangers of 'overcriminalization.'  After the death of Eric Garner, which was the result of the New York Legislature sending in the police to enforce a state tax on cigarettes, Will warned legislators that there are potentially grave consequences every time they make a new law and then send in men with guns to enforce it.

Will said:  '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.'

Assembly Bill 1217 is open to abuse and has the potential to create many more situations with violent outcomes than those it seeks to prevent.  And, as written, there is no recourse or penalty if the law and its potentially violent outcome was triggered by a simple misunderstanding or a false or malicious report."

No president likes to give up power.  The last to do so, voluntarily, was Jimmy Carter -- and he did so under the shadow of the official criminality connected to Watergate scandal.  President George W. Bush, President Obama, and President Trump have all expanded the state's power over the individual citizen.  The action by the Assembly Democrats reeks of the British government's desperate move to bring the Irish Republican Army to heel in the 1970's.  Instead of achieving their aim, they made victims out of innocent people and destroyed the reputation of their country's criminal justice system.

Let's not create a new set of victims like the Guildford Four -- only this time with names like the Newton Eleven or the Metuchen six or the Cape May seven...

This is how Republics perish.  This is how democracy dies.

Assembly Democrats support Trump call to end due process

We release murderers and rapists if law enforcement fails to follow due process.  That's because we are a nation of laws.  Not a mob that demands action... any action... "let's hang the first one who comes along!"

On Wednesday, Assembly Democrats formally adopted the Trumpian position in respect of the Bill of Rights.  Donald Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second," and the Assembly Democrats said, "Yes, Sir."

Trump made his comments at a meeting with congressional leaders on school safety.  Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons. 

Pence was taking the Bill of Rights into consideration, when he said:  "Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons."  To which Trump responded:  "Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court."

And about the same time as Trump was playing the authoritarian card, the Democrats on the Assembly Judiciary Committee were passing Assemblyman John McKeon's "Extreme Risk Protection Order" (Assembly Bill 1217),  which suspends due process based on a simple accusation.  A no-knock warrant could be issued, the door of a home or place of business kicked-in, and the property of someone who hasn't been accused of breaking any law seized -- just because a "family member" or "member of law enforcement" believed he or she posed a risk.

Steve Lonegan offered the following testimony on Assembly Bill 1217:

"In 1971, a group of possibly well-meaning but misguided politicians imposed the Civil Authorities Special Powers Act, which allowed government to take away peoples' rights without charging them with a crime.  It was meant to be a response to violence, but only made matters worse in Northern Ireland.

In considering Assembly Bill 1217, the New Jersey Legislature should recall the words of George Will, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and author, who reminded us of the dangers of 'overcriminalization.'  After the death of Eric Garner, which was the result of the New York Legislature sending in the police to enforce a state tax on cigarettes, Will warned legislators that there are potentially grave consequences every time they make a new law and then send in men with guns to enforce it.

Will said:  '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.'

Assembly Bill 1217 is open to abuse and has the potential to create many more situations with violent outcomes than those it seeks to prevent.  And, as written, there is no recourse or penalty if the law and its potentially violent outcome was triggered by a simple misunderstanding or a false or malicious report."

No president likes to give up power.  The last to do so, voluntarily, was Jimmy Carter -- and he did so under the shadow of the official criminality connected to the Watergate scandal.  President George W. Bush, President Obama, and President Trump have all expanded the state's power over the individual citizen.  The action by the Assembly Democrats reeks of the British government's desperate move to bring the Irish Republican Army to heel in the 1970's.  Instead of achieving their aim, they made victims out of innocent people and destroyed the reputation of their country's criminal justice system.

As a former IRA supporter himself, Assemblyman McKeon should know what he's done.  Perhaps this will refresh his memory...

Let's not create victims like the Guildford Four or Paterson Eleven or Metuchen six or Cape May seven...

Democrats and Human Traffickers: The party of the old slavery is the party of the new.

How was your Thanksgiving?

For most members of the New Jersey Legislature -- and their staffs -- we bet is was pretty good, surrounded by family, nice food, drink, warmth, love, and friendship.  But for the victims of human trafficking -- our modern slavery epidemic -- it was just another day in hell, made more poignant by the fact that, for almost all of those trafficked, there are memories of when they enjoyed the holidays as much as the members of the New Jersey Legislature and their staff members do.

Human Trafficking is the fastest growing criminal industry in the world, second to drug dealing and tied with arms dealing.  Just last month, the FBI announced that it had uncovered and arrested 42 child sex traffickers in New Jersey.  The Star-Ledger reported that the 42 were arrested on charges that included sex trafficking, child exploitation and prostitution.  A total of 84 children were rescued during the operation.  Human Trafficking is modern day slavery and it is happening TODAY -- in the HERE and NOW! 

But many Democrats don't want to admit that it is happening, because too many are in hock to contributions from special interests who benefit from the massive profits generated by everything from goods made with indentured labor to Internet porn.  Instead of addressing this modern crime against humanity, many Democrats console themselves by virtue signaling about the slavery ended by the Civil War -- in 1865.  This allows them to (1) ignore modern slavery, (2) keep taking the money, and (3) feel good about themselves. 

Imagine if the British government had taken this line in 1807 and -- instead of abolishing the slave trade -- they had merely congratulated themselves on the end of their enslavement by the Romans, centuries before.  But no, they were focused on their modern times, and sent the Royal Navy out to blast every slave trader from the seven seas.

Modern technology is rapidly expanding the means by which human beings are ensnared and trapped into modern slavery and then trafficked as though they were meat.  The modern "slave ship" is embodied by certain websites and social media -- its "ocean" is the Internet.  In October, the media reported about the rescue by the FBI of a "3-month-old girl and her 5-year-old sister" who were being trafficked by a child predator "who was offering to sell the children for sex" using the Internet.  Isn't it time to adopt the technology to blast these scumbags from the Internet?

Child trafficking is a $32 billion-a-year industry and is on the rise in all 50 states, according to the U.S. government.  4.5 Million of trafficked persons have been sexually exploited and nearly 300,000 Americans under 18 have been lured into the commercial sex trade.  The National Human Trafficking Hotline reported that in 2016, human trafficking in the United States increased by 35.7% -- in one year!  But we have the technology to stop it.  So why aren't we adopting it?

We have the legislation.  It's called the Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act (S-2928).  And it offers a constitutional way to prevent predators from using the Internet to sexually exploit children.  It is supported by Thorn, an anti-human trafficking group that uses technology to defeat child sex traffickers.

So why is a staffer at Assemblyman John McKeon's office doing everything in his power to undermine and block this legislation -- and to kill the hope that it offers to the victims of human trafficking and their families?  That's right, John McKeon -- the same politician who wants to hold Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen accountable for everything President Trump does -- is allowing his staff (who are paid by the taxpayers on his say-so) to kill the hope of victims of human trafficking and their families.  And what a time to do it.

Merry Christmas, John McKeon and taxpayer-funded staff.  While you are exchanging presents and enjoying good food, in a nice house, all warm and cozy, and happy in the company of family and friends -- you are killing the hope of someone who is on the cold street, malnourished and in poor health, who is made to "service" as many as twenty scumbags a day (perhaps some of them politicians and their staff?).  And when they don't, they are physically beaten.  That is how they will spend their holiday.  And their families -- what do you think their Christmas will be like?

Why don't you take some responsibility for your staff, Assemblyman John McKeon?  After all, what did you think would happen when you recruit an emotionally volatile young man from a boy band and hand him power over vulnerable people?  He can't help but hurt people, can he?  But you can do something about it John McKeon.

So why don't you... and do it in time for Christmas.

It is time for flannel-mouthed politicians like John McKeon to step up and squarely oppose the slavery that we face TODAY.  How about it?

Will you join your bi-partisan colleagues who care enough to sponsor the Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act (S-2928)?  Instead of ignoring modern slavery, why not adopt the use of technology to end it?   We're waiting for your answer.

Ask Assembly Democrats where they stand on cop-killer

Along with many statewide Democrat Party leaders, Democrat Assembly candidates have been big supporters of the Women's March organization, which is co-chaired by Linda Sarsour a self-proclaimed advocate of "jihad" against the democratically elected American government.

Yes, the co-chair of the Women's March actually called for "jihad" against the government of the United States of America.  And Democrats have mostly remained politically-correct silent about it.  Even a party luminary like Assemblyman John McKeon -- the Chair of the Assembly's Judiciary Committee, a candidate for Congress in the 11th District, and a strong supporter of the Women's March -- has been afraid to comment on these threats of "jihad".

Earlier this month, Linda Sarsour -- a prominent Democrat Party activist and co-chair of the Women's March -- called for a "jihad" against the American government.  You can catch her act here:

This was first reported on by Real Clear Politics and The Associated Press:

During a speech to the Islamic Society of North America convention in Chicago last weekend, Sarsour, a delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention who is an anti-Israel and pro-Sharia activist, made the startling call and also urged against "assimilation." 

"I hope that we when we stand up to those who oppress our communities that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad," she said. "That we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or in the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House."

"Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community, it is not to assimilate and please any other people and authority," she said.

"Our obligation is to our young people, is to our women, to make sure our women are protected in our community. Our top priority and even higher than all those other priorities is to please Allah and only Allah," she said.

Sarsour started off her call for "jihad" by praising Siraj Wahaj, who she described as her "favorite person in the room."  Wahaj is a controversial New York imam who has attracted the attention of American authorities for years.  Federal prosecutors included him on a 3½-page list of people they said "may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though he was never charged, the Associated Press reported.

Since the election of Donald Trump as President, some Democrats appear to have gone completely loopy.  We believe that dissent is an American right, but "dissent" isn't "jihad".  When did the democratic concept of a "loyal opposition" morph into "jihad" -- a "holy war" to be waged by all means necessary?  And why is Assemblyman McKeon, the Chair of Assembly's Judiciary Committee, too afraid to talk about it?

And here is another thing that the Judiciary Committee Chair is afraid to comment on.   It was reported extensively in the media this week that the Women's March "honored" cop-killer Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur). 

Referring to the notorious cop-killer, who murdered a New Jersey State Trooper in cold blood, as a "revolutionary" whose words "inspire us to keep resisting", the far-left Women' March organization issued a statement "celebrating" Ms. Chesimard's birthday.

The Save Jersey blog reported on this:

Joanne Chesimard, the Black Liberation Army member hiding in Cuba after murdering New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1973, has long eluded American justice and vexed New Jersey public officials as well as the public at large.

Donald Trump made headlines in June by spiking the Obama-era Cuba deal and citing the case of Chesimard (a/k/a Assata Shakur) as one of the reasons.

Eyebrows were therefore raised on Sunday when the far-left Women’s March’s social media accounts CELEBRATED the notorious cop-killing fugitive’s birthday:

 “I think you guys accidentally left out the part where she shot a police officer in the face, escaped from prison, then fled to Cuba in this post,” responded one Facebook user.

We know where Republicans like Assemblymen Ron Dancer and Parker Space stand on cop-killer Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur).  They want her extradited back to the United States to face trial for the murder of a police officer.  They backed that up by sponsoring a legislative resolution (AR-111) to urge Congress and the Administration to make that happen.

We haven't heard from the Assembly Democrats.  We haven't heard from Judiciary Committee Chair McKeon.

Why don't Assemblyman McKeon and the other Assembly Democrats appear to mind associating with radicals calling for "jihad" and cop-killers?  Do they consider these legitimate forms of "dissent"?  We are very interested in hearing what McKeon and other Democrats have to say about a group, that they strongly support, honoring a cop-killer.

APP/Gannett: Reform money-grabbing municipal courts

With the ACLU and the NJ Bar Association conducting major studies of the corruption endemic to the New Jersey municipal courts system -- and the Legislature about to tackle the problem with hearings scheduled for early next year -- America's largest newspaper group has added its voice to the call for reform.  Over the weekend, the Asbury Park Press/ Gannett published the following editorial (printed in full because of its importance).

Once again, blogs like More Monmouth Musings and Sussex County Watchdog are asking for your assistance in uncovering and exposing local municipal court corruption.  If you have anything to pass along confidentially, please contact More Monmouth Musings at artvg@aol.com or Sussex County Watchdog at info@sussexcountywatchdog.com.

EDITORIAL: Reform money-grabbing municipal courts

New Jersey’s municipal courts have increasingly become more interested in cash than justice.

That’s what a Gannett New Jersey investigation has found, reinforcing long-held concerns that local officials view the courts primarily as revenue generators. That motivation influences the development of local ordinances and penalties and effectively pressures locally appointed prosecutors and judges to conduct court business with an eye toward maximizing fines.

The end result is a system that unfairly exploits residents to help balance local budgets. It’s a dirty business that needs to be cleaned up quickly, and to that end we’re encouraged by the reactions of some lawmakers, in particular Assemblyman John McKeon, D-Morris, chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, who is already calling for a legislative examination of the court system in the wake of our report.

There’s nothing terribly new about the realization that money rules the municipal courts. We’ve heard such complaints for years, and rare is the person who hasn’t at some point railed against what feels like selective enforcement of traffic laws by police officers filling ticket quotas.

Disenchantment with the court system is inherent; people don’t often appear before a judge to contentedly pay fines they believe they deserve.

But as local budget burdens have increased, so too has the abuse of the municipal courts. For instance, in the Jersey Shore counties of Ocean and Monmouth, court revenue jumped 14 percent between 2010 and 2015. But perhaps more significantly, among the individual towns where increases occurred, the average hike during that same period was 39 percent. That tells us that while not every community is abusing the system, many are doing so outrageously, especially in smaller towns where the court revenue can build up to a substantial portion of the overall budget.

MORE: Town profits spiked under municipal judge

Defenders of the current system fall back on some familiar tropes, none of which deserve much credence:

•If the fines bother you, don’t do anything wrong: Such expectation of perfection is egregiously self-righteous. We’re not talking about crimes here, but such heinous offenses as a lapsed dog license or an expired auto inspection sticker. People make mistakes, and while penalties are needed to assure compliance, that doesn’t explain the size of the fines and the frequency with which they are applied.

•This is about safety, not money: No it’s not. Safety may be the theoretical underpinning of most of these ordinances and traffic laws, but that’s not how the process plays out in practice. A prime example had been the automated red-light cameras calibrated to issue as many tickets as possible at designated intersections. Legislators mercifully scrapped that program, at least for the time being.

•Our judges and prosecutors are above reproach: While there are some bad apples, no doubt, this isn’t primarily about the court personnel. Even those with the best intentions understand that their marching orders from the local officials who appointed them are to squeeze residents for as much fine money as possible. That has to be in the backs of their minds, and their ability to continue in their posts may depend on that particular measure of success.

MORE: Judge Thompson suspended from nine Monmouth County jobs

Insulating the municipal judiciary in some fashion from those local pressures appears to be the most likely and most effective reform. Judges should not be forced to bow to local officials’ revenue grabbing just to keep their jobs; those who do the right thing and more definitively place justice first will merely be replaced, doing residents no good in the long run.

How best to achieve that independence, and overcoming what’s certain to be aggressive local resistance, remains the overriding question. The New Jersey State Bar Association has already been studying the problem, but has not yet released a report. Taking away local control of municipal judge and prosecutor appointments could be an option, as would a potential regionalization of the courts; under the current system, all fines from local ordinance violations go the municipality, while traffic fines are shared with the county. Spreading the fine proceeds more widely would reduce the local incentive.

Some locals who concede the value of the court revenue say it helps pay for services about which residents care, and that might otherwise have to be sacrificed — like trash pickup or snow plowing. That’s a convenient justification, but the perception would be different if the “sacrifice” was, for example, the trimming of some outrageous local salaries.

Regardless of the financial impact, however, a court system that emphasizes revenue collection to the degree of New Jersey’s municipal courts is failing residents. That has to change.

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.