Murphy wants to raise taxes. Pity there's not enough GOP legislators to stop him.

And whose fault is that?

The NJGOP Establishment's second blog (both appeared during the Christie Project, the New Jersey Globe being the latest incarnation of the project's first one) decided to prate a bit over Governor Phil Murphy's threat to undo part of the compromise reached in 2016 and raise the state sales tax to 7 percent.  The NJGOP Establishment's blog thinks this an "I told you so" moment when, as anyone with even a little gray matter should know, Governor Murphy was not part of the 2016 compromise, as he did not take office until January of 2018.

In fact, the compromise is working very well for New Jersey.  The state's infrastructure is being repaired, restored, and improved upon.  Out-of-state drivers who use our roads have assumed more of the responsibility for paying for them.  More infrastructure funding is flowing to counties and municipalities, with the result that property taxes are being held in check or -- in some cases -- actually reduced.  And revenues from state taxes -- in particular, the state income tax -- are increasing above projections.  Now the Democrats who control the Legislature (some of whom participated in the 2016 compromise) might wish to jeopardize this in order to fulfill the election promises made by candidate Murphy, or they might not.  Time will tell.

The Establishment blog makes an argument against legislative compromise, calling it "unadulterated BS."  Of course, the writer cannot be so stupid as to fail to see that the Founders of our Republic fashioned a system to ensure such compromise.  Indeed, compromise has been the working necessity of every representative democracy since the beginning of Western history. 

Now compromise is quite different than surrender.  Compromise is when you give something and get something back in return.  Like re-funding the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) through an increase in the gas tax for doing away with the Estate Tax, plus four other taxes, while doubling the flow of money to counties and municipalities for property tax relief. 

This is different from what the NJGOP normally does.  Because what the NJGOP normally does is to provide votes for far-left Democrat legislation for free -- for NOTHING in return.  Yes, they just give it away.  Like they did on legislation to end the death penalty, impose the Highlands Act, fund Planned Parenthood, give tax money to illegal immigrants, pass the original sales tax increase, and gut the Second Amendment.  Heck, the other day, legislators in the NJGOP leadership cast their votes to allow people to re-write their own birth certificates and pretend that they were born one way, when they (as a matter of genetic science) were born another.  It seems science only matters when we're talking climate change. 

They gave away all this for free... and got back NOTHING in return.  And our Establishment blog criticized it not a word.

The Establishment blog complains bitterly about the lack of leadership from the NJGOP.  We agree.  The Establishment blog claims that the "gas tax increase" could have been "weaponized" for the 2017 elections.  It could have been, but that would have meant NJGOP leadership -- up front.  Instead, the GOP Senate Leader gave encouragement to both Pro and Anti compromise leaders, never actually choosing a side until it didn't matter.  In the Assembly, it was no different, waiting for word from the Governor.  As for the state party, well only a fool would have looked to them for leadership.

You cannot blame people for not following, when you will not lead!

Having no principles or platform beyond that which bellowed from a single man (apart from those placed into his head by a small coterie of handlers) the NJGOP was NEVER going to "weaponize" the gas tax or indeed anything else.  Ha!  The NJGOP failed to "weaponize" the twenty-point election landslide of a sitting Republican Governor!!!

As for Kim Guadagno.  She did a dance all right.  She literally danced with the LGBT Left and the Pro-Aborts until realizing too late that they already had a perfectly fine candidate to vote for in Phil Murphy (and he's a DEMOCRAT too!)  When Guadagno's campaign team finally decided it was time to motivate the base, it was just weeks before Election Day and way too late.  The 2017 Guadagno campaign team (the same moes who managed to lose an incumbent Republican Congressman in 2016) have been rewarded by getting to run Bob Hugin's campaign for U.S. Senate this year.  Hey, it's the NJGOP, and nothing gets you promoted quicker than a crushing defeat -- the more, the better.

And that's the heart of the matter, isn't it?  The NJGOP are losers.  They are content to lose.  After eight years of having all resources directed at one entity and everyone else being told they had to lose rather than disrespect some scumbag deal with some disreputable Democrat, the NJGOP has adjusted to losing.  That's why so many of its "leaders" are "lobbyists" -- eels feeding off the bloated carcass that once held a majority in both Chambers and the Governor's office.  The NJGOP's leaders are literally in business with the Democrats.

Don't expect any of this to change any time soon.  There are still crumbs to be gathered, still bits of the carcass to eat off.  Only yesterday, the "mastermind" of Christie project visited a legislative caucus to bask in the praise of NJGOP leaders (reminiscent of the video below).  Under this "mastermind" the NJGOP lost ground in EVERY election cycle, even as "love" for the entity grew.  Christie was elected with legislative control a very real prospect... and left with a hollowed out party and legislative numbers so low that you have to go back to the period just after Watergate.

For his next act... the "mastermind" wants to de-conservative the NJGOP.  Get rid of all those folks who persist in having principles or who continue thinking in terms of the RNC platform.  They gotta go.  What needs to replace them are Republican candidates with the principles of... LOBBYISTS. 

Before the NJGOP Establishment thinks about providing us with another lecture, it should put these few things in place first:

(1) Get Republican leaders who aren't conflicted by having business dealings with Democrats.  Make sure they support the RNC platform.  Otherwise, it's like having a Roman Catholic leader who doesn't believe in Transubstantiation. 

(2) Sell Republican principles, ideas, solutions.  Lead.  Recruit candidates accordingly.  Build the party up by recruiting and sustaining believers. 

(3) Hire people who win elections.  Don't expect someone who has never tasted victory to find it.  That's like asking the wrong dog to sniff out a hamburger stand.  What you'll end up at is a truck stop shithouse.

Lesniak fails to take on real human rights abuses

What a bone head!  Senator Ray Lesniak's response to our call for responsible government was something a teenager would come up with:  "Well a rock star is doing it so we should too."

Really?  What does a rock star have to do with the average person in New Jersey?  If you are lucky enough to have a job and a roof over your head, your average household income is $53,482.  Your home is worth $175,700 -- and you pay the highest property taxes in America.

That rock star Ray Lesniak is intent on having us follow has trousered nearly $76 million so far this year.  That's for January through April and that's just for the American leg of his concert tour.  Now he's off to Europe and... well, Europe.  Ray Lesniak's hero only does white people.

Lesniak's rock star has a house in California worth $60 million.  Heck, that's house enough for more than 340 New Jersey families.  But wait, that's not Ray's buddy's only house.  He has another house and properties valued in excess of $200 million.  That doesn't sound like the average guy to us.

What is Ray Lesniak saying to us when he points to a rich celebrity and tells us to do what he tells us to do?  Money makes right? 

Well here's what George Carlin has to say to Senator Ray "Lord of Ass" Lesniak:

If Ray Lesniak was half the man of the Left he claims to be, he'd author a bill to seize his rock star buddy's extra home and turn it into a homeless shelter for those who can't find work because of the lousy job Ray has done as a legislator since 1978.  Yes, this creature has been around since 1978, and his long tenure in politics perfectly encompasses the destruction of the working class in New Jersey and the United States of America.  No, we're not saying that Ray did it all, but he did do his part.

Back in 1978, when Ray was a newborn legislative weasel going from trouser pocket to trouser pocket, getting his snout caught were it didn't belong, a student who worked a minimum-wage summer job could afford to pay a year's full tuition at the 4-year public university of his or her choice.

Thanks to legislators like Ray Lesniak, that doesn't happen anymore.

Since 1978 -- while Ray has grown richer and richer (though not as rich as his rich celebrity friends he wants us to obey) -- average working people have grown poorer and poorer.  The average worker today is over $20,000 poorer than he or she would have been if legislators like Ray Lesniak hadn't got their hands on power in the 1970's. 

And while Senator Ray Lesniak and his rich celebrity friends are fighting to allow people with penises into the girls' toilets in states like North Carolina, there are some battles that Ray is too pussy to fight.  Like the human trafficking and modern day slavery that goes on in Qatar.

On Thursday, when Ray Lesniak leads the members of the New Jersey Senate in taking the "momentous" step of banning travel to places within the United States of America, here is what the cowards won't be doing.  The Senate won't be banning travel to Qatar.  Why should New Jersey take a stand on Qatar?  Because Qatar is using slave labor to build projects related to the World Cup.

Don't believe us?  This is a headline from the Guardian(U.K.):  "Modern Day Slavery in Focus in Qatar" (March 30, 2016).  From Mother Jones:  "Qatar is treating its World Cup workers like slaves" (May 26, 2015).  From Reuters:  "Qatar complicit in modern slavery" (October 28, 2015).  Here is what Amnesty International had to say about Qatar: 

The authorities arbitrarily restricted the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. A prisoner of conscience was serving a lengthy sentence for writing and reciting poems.

Amnesty just issued a report (March 31, 2016) titled, "Qatar World Cup of Shame."  Here are a few excerpts:

Migrant workers building Khalifa International Stadium in Doha for the 2022 World Cup have suffered systematic abuses, in some cases forced labour... “The abuse of migrant workers is a stain on the conscience of world football. For players and fans, a World Cup stadium is a place of dreams. For some of the workers who spoke to us, it can feel like a living nightmare,” said Amnesty International Secretary General Salil Shetty.

“Despite five years of promises, FIFA has failed almost completely to stop the World Cup being built on human rights abuses.”

...Amnesty International uncovered evidence that the staff of one labour supply company used the threat of penalties to exact work from some migrants such as withholding pay, handing workers over to the police or stopping them from leaving Qatar. This amounts to forced labour under international law.

“Indebted, living in squalid camps in the desert, paid a pittance, the lot of migrant workers contrasts sharply to that of the top-flight footballers who will play in the stadium. All workers want are their rights: to be paid on time, leave the country if need be and be treated with dignity and respect,” said Salil Shetty...

Qatar’s kafala sponsorship system, under which migrant workers cannot change jobs or leave the country without their employer’s (or “sponsor’s”) permission, is at the heart of the threats to make people work... Some of the Nepali workers told Amnesty International they were not even allowed to visit their loved ones after the 2015 April earthquake that devastated their country leaving thousands dead and millions displaced.

My life here is like a prison... a metal worker from India who worked on the Khalifa stadium refurbishment, complained when he was not paid for several months but only received threats from his employer:  “He just shouted abuse at me and said that if I complained again I’d never leave the country. Ever since I have been careful not to complain about my salary or anything else. Of course, if I could I would change jobs or leave Qatar.”

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/03/qatar-world-cup-of-shame/

But Senator Ray Lesniak is not going to peep about Qatar.  You see, it is easy to pick on Americans living in North Carolina, but not so easy to stand up to the powerful people in New Jersey who represent the State of Qatar. 

We happen to have a copy of the signed contact between the Embassy of the State of Qatar and a powerful firm whose lobbyists include the former chiefs of staff for both Senators Menendez and Booker -- signed last December -- courtesy of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (enforced by the United States Justice Department).  Ray Lesniak's political allies pocket a retainer of $100,000 a month just for making sure the State of Qatar isn't embarrassed by anything like a resolution calling them out for their human rights abuses.  Last year, the firm pocketed as much as $155,000 a month just in consulting fees. 

So go ahead, Ray.  Tuck up your balls and make your fashion statement.  Punish your fellow Americans for wanting to keep sexual predators out of girls' toilets, while you and the New Jersey Senate kiss the tail of the State of Qatar and endorse its slavery and abuse of human rights by your silence.  We pity you.

Do politicians need more protection than vulnerable women?

If we are to avoid another performance like 2015, the Republican legislative caucuses of both chambers should use 2016 to prepare for 2017.  The most important thing is to do yourself no harm. 

We've detailed before how bills like S-283 have no base of support and how they could do enormous damage -- not only to the prospect of turning out our base -- but with any voters who believe in privacy between the sexes and with protecting vulnerable women and girls.  Polling shows large majorities in favor of traditional privacy no matter how the question is posed.

When educated as to the number of convicted male sex offenders who could use a law like S-283 to gain access to girls and women for their self-gratification, the response is off-the-charts. Republicans, Democrats, Independents doesn't matter.  Many in the LGBT community break ranks with their lobbyist class and oppose S-283 on the grounds that it leaves too many people vulnerable to sexual abuse, rape, and even murder.

Now comes this new threat to the fate of the GOP caucuses in 2017:  Legislation that puts politicians ahead of vulnerable women when it comes to the issuance of handgun carry permits. Here's what the sponsor said about his bill:

“I believe that if vulnerable public officials do not have to fear violent reprisals related to their duties, they will be able to better carry out their mission to serve the people of New Jersey. Our dedicated public servants are some of our greatest resources..."

And what about the vulnerable women who have suffered violence and sexual abuse?  What about women who have court orders against abusive individuals? 

The sponsor is a Republican member of the Senate, so we will refrain from naming names at this point, but a rethink is in order because some in the Second Amendment movement have caught wind of it and are pissed.  And if you think about it for more than ten seconds, you can see why. 

This proposed law lets the average New Jersey voter know that they have the standing of Medieval peasants -- that their lords and noblemen have the right of self-protection but nobody else's life is worth it. 

We exist at a moment when one major political party rigged its delegate-selection process to deny a populist (Senator Sanders) a shot at the nomination, while the other major political party is desperately looking for a way to deny another populist (Mr. Trump) its nomination.   When you consider the implications, laws like this one (and S-283) couldn't come at a worse time.  They ram home the point that average voters simply don't matter.  Their lives can be expended on ridiculous fashion-statement legislation.

How do legislators come up with stuff like this?  Who is advising them?  Do they exist in a bubble -- apart from the real world of everyday life, of voters and elections and consequences?

Ronald Reagan famously said that "personnel is policy."  He understood that it is no good having the best conservative intentions, if all you appoint around you to carry out those intentions is liberal wannabe Democrats and Republicans of convenience.  Sometimes we have to look behind the legislator and see who is whispering in his ear, gate-keeping, setting the agenda -- waiting on that pension to accrue and for the pay-day that comes when you can leave to become part of the lobbyist class.  How much good is trashed, how many legislators lose, because some staffer doesn't want to offend someone they expect to do business with as a lobbyist?

Isn't it time to examine those people of power who operate behind the scenes, out of sight -- like parasitic worms, eating away at the sinew and muscle of the party they don't care about? Isn't it time to examine them

We understand that the Center for Garden State Families will be conducting polling on issues like those above in key districts around the state.  No details yet as to which districts.  Stay tuned...

Gun-shy NJGOP candidates: Pay Attention!

Are the gun-shy candidates of the NJGOP paying attention to any of this?  As they continue to present themselves as versions of Democrat-lite, are they seeing what's happening in their own party?  Is it sinking in or are they going to wake up one day and it will be too late?

Your excuses for why you do what you do don't work anymore.  Fewer and fewer buy it.  Here is a great article from mainstream conservative Byron York, who looks ready to face the new reality:

SPARTANBURG, S.C. — For months, Donald Trump's antagonists in rival campaigns, in the GOP establishment and in the punditocracy have believed the time would come, someday, when Trump would say something so outrageous, so over-the-top, so out there that the scales would finally fall from his supporters' eyes and the Trump candidacy would collapse. The South Carolina campaign, some believed, would be that time. After all, in the course of a week, Trump had dumped all over popular former President George W. Bush, had said good things about Planned Parenthood, and had gotten into a weird tiff with the pope. Surely now…

But no. Despite it all, Trump surged to a ten-point victory here in South Carolina Saturday. And talks with Trump voters who came to the Spartanburg Marriott to celebrate suggest that the very statements that drive Trump's critics to distraction actually serve to strengthen his position with his supporters.

At the Marriott, I asked Trump voters the most basic question: Why did you pick Trump over the other guys?

"The big reason is honesty," said Lori Jagla, of Woodward, S.C. "The more I hear everyone else going, 'Isn't he going too far?' the more [I think], 'No, you just wait, you get into America, and it's not too far. It's what we're thinking.'"

"Because he's honest," said Nicki Cox, of Greer.

"Doesn't mince words," said Angela Griffin, of Spartanburg.

"I don't even care what his views are, I just care that there's a better chance that he's going to do what he says than the other guys," said Robert Daughenbaugh, of Mauldin. "I mean, you know they're all liars. End of story. They're all liars."

It's not that Trump's supporters agree with everything he has to say. They don't. It's that they see strong statements from Trump as proof of strong conviction on his part, and when he says something that causes his critics to go nuts, they see that as proof that Trump is saying not just something that needs to be said but something that he himself believes. So they view him more strongly than ever as an honest man who tells it like it is.

Trump didn't win across the board, but it was close. According to exit polls, he won men and women. He won voters who are evangelical Christians and those who are not. He won veterans and non-veterans. He cleaned up among the 46 percent of voters who do not have a college degree and nearly tied Marco Rubio, 25 percent to Rubio's 27 percent, among those who do. He won among voters who think terrorism is the top issue, and among voters who think the economy is the top issue, and among voters who think immigration is the top issue, and tied Rubio and Ted Cruz among voters who say government spending is the top issue.

In at least one area, Trump invented an issue and then dominated it. The exit polls show that 74 percent of South Carolina Republican voters support a policy of temporarily banning Muslims from entering the U.S. Trump won big among that group.

Trump also won against the opposition of pretty much the entire South Carolina political establishment. In the last couple of days of the campaign, popular Gov. Nikki Haley and popular Sen. Tim Scott and popular Rep. Trey Gowdy traveled the state together with Rubio, presenting themselves as a "new conservative movement" (Haley's words) that would sweep Rubio to victory. Gowdy and Scott developed a buddy comedy routine, and Scott at times seemed almost giddy introducing "Marco Rooooooooooooooobio!"

It didn't work. Just 25 percent of voters said they thought Haley's endorsement was important. And of the 75 percent who didn't, Trump won by a dozen points. Finally, another pillar of the state political establishment, Sen. Lindsey Graham, endorsed Jeb Bush. When the televisions at the Trump victory party mentioned Graham's name, there was loud and lusty booing. It was much louder than any catcalls directed at Bush's withdrawal speech.

The crowd at the Marriott Saturday night was deeply anti-establishment, but their hostility to entrenched power was of recent vintage. Many had supported mainstream Republican candidates for years and felt they had nothing to show for it. Trump is their opportunity to change course.

"I went into a couple of weeks' depression when Mitt Romney lost," said Doug Moore, of Greenville. "I'm just tired of the politicians. I'm tired of the establishment. I voted establishment for most of my life. I voted for both Bushes, I voted for Bob Dole, John McCain, Romney. I'm just ready for something different, somebody who'll actually get in there and make a change."

(Read More) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2583794

Note:  Trump creates issues and then dominates them.  He doesn't allow the mainstream media or the Democrats or the Legions of Ass or any other lobby group, to set the agenda.  He inverts the process by listening close, figuring out why people are pissed, where the emotion is, and then turning what is on their minds into a policy statement.  He doesn't get his policies from insider lobbyists at cocktail parties hosted by the coffee-enema crowd.  Learn from this.

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.

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.

Super PAC's connection with Rutgers questioned

Rutgers Super PAC party boss Susan McCue at a cocktail dinner party with Washington, DC insiders.

In a letter to the Rutgers President, Robert Barchi, and Chairman of the Board of Governors, Greg Brown, religious leader and family rights activist Greg Quinlan questioned how Susan McCue, as a member of the Board of Governors, can run a Super PAC whose sole purpose is to influence the election of legislators in New Jersey.  Those same legislators who are responsible for taxing and spending money on behalf of Rutgers.

Here is the letter:

Garden State Families

Rev. Greg Quinlan, President

October 21, 2015

Mr. Robert Barchi, President

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

83 Somerset Street
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1281 

Mr. Greg Brown, Chairman of the Board of Governors

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Chairman & CEO

Motorola Solutions, Inc.
1303 East Algonquin Road
Schaumburg, Illinois 60196 

Dear Messrs. Barchi and Brown: 

I would like to bring a serious conflict-of-interest to your attention 

Susan M. McCue -- of Alexandria, Virginia -- is currently serving as one of the 15 members of the Rutgers' Board of Governors responsible for policy and oversight of the University.  Ms. McCue is a political consultant who controls a business called Message Global LLC, where she serves as President.   

Susan McCue is also President of the General Majority PAC -- an organization that in the last two election cycles has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat or elect members of the New Jersey Legislature.  This is from her biography on the General Majority PAC webpage: 

Susan M. McCue is one of the nation’s top political strategists and President of Message Global, LLC, a firm she founded... Susan served as Chief of Staff for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for eight years, where she built and managed his leadership, policy and political operations.  

She also co-founded the much-praised Senate Majority SuperPAC to elect Democrats in 2012 to the U.S. Senate, and in 2013 she founded the Fund for Jobs, Growth and Security, now called General Majority PAC, to elect Democrats in state races. 

The taxpayers, through their elected representatives in the New Jersey Legislature, fund Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey.  Should a member of Rutgers' governing Board be engaged in the election or defeat of members of that Legislature?   

What effect will her presence on the Rutgers governing Board have on legislators who, when exercising their own statutory oversight, find themselves facing a quarter-million dollar cable buy advocating their defeat or re-election? Will legislators think twice before taking up the cause of a disgruntled Rutgers employee or student.  Legislators must already know that they take on Rutgers' powerful and incumbent at their peril.  McCue's presence has already had a chilling effect on free expression in and outside the Legislature.   

Lastly, the source of Susan McCue's power -- Citizens United and other decision by that fail-safe of the establishment, the national Supreme Court -- and her misuse of it to amplify the voice of rich corporations to drown out the voices of millions of American people makes a mockery of our democratic process and threatens democracy itself.  Is this the example you want Rutgers students to follow? 

Thank you for your time and consideration.  I look forward to your answers to my questions and to any ideas you might have on how to address this threat to legislative independence and democracy.

Sincerely,

Rev. Greg Quinlan

For Jersey Democrats (and the pundits) how low is the bar?

The Star-Ledger came to the defense of political pundit Matt Friedman today.  Friedman, for a time, worked at the Star-Ledger, but that's not how he became a member of New Jersey's political punditry.  Friedman started with David "Wally Edge" Wildstein, creator and editor of the political pundit website that became PolitickerNJ.com, and later the mastermind behind the Bridgegate scandal. 

Remember the cold indifference Wildstein exhibited towards school children caught in traffic on that bridge?  Something worthy of an Ernst Roehm, was it not?

As editor Wally Edge, Wildstein inculcated his apprentice pundits with his peculiar take on New Jersey politics.  He hated a lot of people, a lot of them were Republicans, and at every opportunity, he made them feel his hate.  This was the training that Friedman and other future pundits picked up from the notorious Wally Edge.

Pundits are different from journalists.  While journalists report the news, pundits try to mold the news to fit a particular agenda.  Wally is not around anymore -- but his acolytes are -- and they have bent the way political news is reported in New Jersey.

Take today's Star-Ledger editorial as an example.  The "crimes" it reports on are "crimes" of thought.  This candidate thought about something and wrote something that we disagree with.  Instead of debating it -- of addressing words with words -- we want to criminalize it.  We demand that these ideas, these words, be "denounced" and that the offenders be made to recant such thoughts and words or be denied their civil right to run for public office.

In the case of one candidate, he stands accused of the high crime of comedy.  This fellow wrote a book many years ago, marketed as "satire", that was nonetheless treated like a position paper freshly released from his campaign.  They even targeted his marriage, accusing him of being "anti-Asian" when they full-well knew that his wife is Korean, and he is not anti-her or anti-their children.  This is the madness of punditry as practiced by Wally's acolytes.

It's not like there isn't plenty to write about in New Jersey.  There's a seemingly never-ending saga of crime and corruption.  But pundits aren't equal opportunity writers.  They have an agenda and that agenda has targets.  Those targets get the business and everyone else gets a pass.  So you have to take everything one of these pundits writes with a healthy dose of skepticism. 

Unfortunately however, a lot of regular reporters get caught up in the crap spewed by pundits.  Go back and read the last month of political reporting in this state and you would be led to believe that the only candidates running for the Legislature who have anything remotely objectionable in their pasts are three or four Republicans who made the mistake of thinking the wrong thoughts or writing satirical prose. 

It's pretty darned sad -- and a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

Here's an example -- just one, of many, many, many.  Back around the time our Republican comedian was writing his book, a young up-and-coming Democrat lobbyist was being accused of stalking women, breaking into their home, and so on.  Accused, mind you, only accused.  He is rich, connected, and powerful.  Well, here's the headline: 

Lobbyist accused of stalking pleads guilty to trespassing

Additional charges dropped as part of deal  

A 22-year-old business whiz and lobbyist from Fanwood faces a probationary term after pleading guilty yesterday to a count of trespassing, admitting he was intoxicated when he entered a home where, police say, a young woman and her boyfriend were sleeping... avoided a trial on charges of stalking two women under a plea agreement reached as jury selection was about to begin in Middlesex County.  

Today this Democrat is an incumbent member of the Assembly and is on the ballot for re-election this November 3rd.  Now Matt Friedman should know all about this because, like him, the Assemblyman was an associate of Wally Edge and his operation.  But trespassing isn't the only thing this guy got up to.   

Around the time a certain Republican candidate for Assembly was committing the unforgivable crime of thought, aka "the tweet", the Democrat Assemblyman was, well, let's just say he was violating federal law.  Here is a copy of the federal indictment:

This guy had a masterful defense team and they played out the clock, seemingly waiting for United States Attorney Chris Christie to leave office.  In the end, he got a plea deal.  He pleaded guilty to one count and five others were dropped.  Among the terms of his probation were:  "...the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant's criminal record or personal history or characteristics..."

Like those Republicans targeted because of their thoughts and opinions, this Democrat is on the ballot on November 3rd.  The difference is, what is documented here is a bit more serious than expressing an opinion.  So why isn't it worthy of a mention?

Why does the "readers' right to know" begin with opinion and end with satire -- and leave out criminal case records?  

And this is by no means the worst incidence by the punditry.  A few years ago the arrest and conviction of a candidate was brought to a newspaper in this state.  It involved violent assault on the part of this candidate against a woman.  The editor of that newspaper so wanted to defeat the Republican that he shrugged his shoulders, claimed that it was not newsworthy, and ignored actual violence.  The Republican won but the defeated candidate might be a candidate again, only next time there will be no presentation of the evidence to the press.  Next time it will be on cable.

And that's because New Jersey's political pundits are only interested in pursuing candidates who commit thought crime, not real crime.