Garden State Patriot

The Democratic legislature, along with dead man walking Jon Corzine, is about to try to pull a fast one during the lame duck session.

As has been feared, the Democrats are planning to put the controversial gay marriage issue to a vote before Chris Christie takes office. My colleagues over at Conservative Majority New Jersey (formerly Conservatives with Attitude!) Sharon Soon and Michael Illions have just posted on this.

Sharon’s post mentions the following:

The New Jersey Family Policy Council has just announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee will post and vote on a gay marriage bill. The bill has been introduced by recently defeated Lieutenant Governor candidate Loretta Weinberg and openly gay Assemblyman Reed Gusciora.

The NJFPC is calling all supporters to call their legislators, notify churches about this bill, and sign the marriage petition (it can be signed repeatedly).

While Michael’s post warns that 4 RINO Republicans are rumored to be in favor of this bill.

The names of the Gay Marriage enablers in the Republican Party should not surprise or shock anyone. They are Jennifer Beck, who once was on the short list to become Chris Christie’s LG pick until it rumored that they had discussed that possibility while he was still a US Attorney.

The next one is Sean Kean, one of the GOP Senator’s who voted to reappoint Liberal Judge Barry Albin, to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Kip Bateman makes three. Kip voted to repeal the Death Penalty as an Assemblyman 2 years ago and also joined the above mentioned weasel Sean Kean in voting to reappoint to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

And finally, the last of the 4 is Bill Baroni. Baroni was the lone “Republican” vote and the deciding vote that saddled this State with Paid Family Leave Act.

If you are a fellow New Jerseyan who opposes gay marriage, then it’s time to start getting on the phone and telling these legislators to vote ‘NO!’

Cross-posted at Red County.

Former Miss USA Carrie Prejean is seeking justice after being stripped of her crown. While ‘Miss California USA’ claimed she was in breach of her contract, Prejean’s suit contends that she was dropped because of her politically incorrect comments regarding gay marriage.

Here’s the story:

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA – Carrie Prejean’s attorney, Charles S. LiMandri announced today that the former Miss California USA is filing a complaint in the Superior Court of California against Miss California USA officials Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, and publicist Roger Neal.  The complaint cites damages to Miss Prejean including libel, public disclosure of private facts, religious discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

Miss Prejean was fired from her role as Miss California USA in June of this year, following several months of controversy over her answer at the Miss USA pageant regarding same-sex marriage. Lewis claimed Miss Prejean’s termination was due to a violation of contract.  Miss Prejean’s complaint will refute that allegation, and demonstrate that both the chronology and factual evidence clearly show she lived up to all her contractual obligations, but was fired, harassed and publicly attacked solely due to her religious beliefs.

Charles S. LiMandri, attorney for Miss Prejean, released the following statement regarding the complaint:
“Over the past two months we have worked hard to provide overwhelming evidence that Carrie Prejean did not violate her contract with Miss California USA and did not deserve to have her title revoked by Keith Lewis.  We will make the case that her title was taken from her solely because of her support of traditional marriage. Keith Lewis has refused to clear her good name or even to admit any wrongdoing.  Therefore, Carrie Prejean is left with no alternative but to take her case to court where she expects to be fully vindicated.” 

Here again is that famous moment when the detestable little worm Perez Hilton sandbagged her:

We’ll be following this one and hope the truth comes out. If my instincts are right, I think Miss Prejean will indeed be vindicated.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Senator, Laut…err…Lousenberg is the primary sponsor of legislation to close a so-called “gun show loophole.” The bill would do the following:

The Senators’ bill would close the loophole by requiring background checks on all sales at gun shows. The bill defines a gun show as any event where 50 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale. In addition, the bill would require:

• gun show promoters to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations; and

• federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to submit information, including the manufacturer/importer, model and serial number of firearms transferred at gun shows to the ATF’s National Tracing Center (NTC). No personal information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to the ATF. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain personal information in their files. The National Tracing Center would request personal information from an FFL only if a firearm becomes the subject of a law enforcement trace request.

In typical liberal style, Lousenberg used the events like the anniversary of the Columbine shootings and the Virginia Tech shootings to gin up emotion and support for his initiative.

With the anniversaries of the Virginia Tech massacre and Columbine shootings in the news, Sen. Frank Lautenberg will push again Tuesday to close the so-called gun show loophole that lets some gun sales go through without background checks of the buyers. In a statement to Whispers, Lautenberg said: “There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special-interest gun lobby in Washington. My legislation would require background checks for every gun purchased at every gun show across America and would keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Without this change in the law, anyone—from felons to fugitives—can buy a gun at a gun show, no questions asked. That needs to change.”

Interestingly, liberals like Lousenberg who push for anti-gun legislation don’t seem to be as interested in protecting us from criminals who cross our borders and commit violent crimes, let alone preventing terrorists from entering our country anywhere along our southern border (but I digress).

The Viriginia Tech killer, I might add, did not purchase his weapons at a gun show.

More to the point, however, the first thing to understand about this is exactly what is being referred to as a “loophole.” Wikipedia describes it as follows:

The “gun show loophole” is a term coined by gun control advocates to describe the legal sale of firearms between private individuals at gun shows in states where this is legal. When these sales take place at a gun show, some perceive a “loophole” in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), although these laws have never applied to individual-to-individual sales of personal firearms. United States federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or who are in the business of selling firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and to perform checks prior to transferring a firearm, but there is an exemption for private sales by individuals who are “not engaged in the business” of selling firearms, or who only make “occasional” sales. Unlicensed private sellers are permitted by law to sell privately-owned guns at gun shows, or at any other location, in 24 states (as of 1998).^[9]

Senator Lousenberg and his anti-gun partners would like to have us believe that dealers are somehow skirting the law, but this is simply not the case. The law just does not require private individuals to have a license. And any dealer who tried to sell a firearm without a license would immediately be arrested and prosecuted.

Furthermore, very few of these private transactions actually even occur at gun shows. In an article by David Kopel of the Cato Institute, David explains:

Conversely, people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who sell firearms from time to time (such as a man who sells a hunting rifle to his brother-in-law), are not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers or to call the FBI before completing the sale.

Similarly, if a gun collector dies and his widow wants to sell the guns, she does not need a federal firearms license because she is just selling off inherited property and is not “engaged in the business.” And if the widow doesn’t want to sell her deceased husband’s guns by taking out a classified ad in the newspaper, it is lawful for her to rent a table at a gun show and sell the entire collection.

If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the the weekend) are the distinct minority.

Yet HCI claims that “25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers.” That statistic is true only if one counts vendors who aren’t selling guns (e.g., vendors who are selling books, clothing or accessories) as “unlicensed dealers.”

David’s last point is likewise quite important. Lousenberg has used the 25-50 percent statistic in his efforts to sell this bill. But he is clearly being disingenuous in this respect because, as Mr. Kopel points out, many of the vendors at gun shows are not selling guns.

Last but not least, very few gun crimes – a mere 2% in fact – are committed using firearms purchased at gun shows. Again, via Wikipedia:

A 1997 Department of Justice survey of 3,959 prison inmates found that only 2% stated that they had bought a gun used in a crime from a gun show.^[10] The remaining 98% were obtained from other sources, in which the criminal had no direct connection with a gun show. The most common sources (35%) were family or friends.^[11]

Considering the facts I have outlined, it is difficult not to conclude that this is just another effort by the left-wing to infringe on the right to bear arms and an utterly misguided attempt prevent gun crimes. Even if enacted, this legislation would do little if anything in this respect. But what it would do is set the stage for the next incremental step to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

Americans deserve an honest and truthful debate about gun issues, not the kind of demagoguery being put forth by the likes of Senator Lousenberg.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude! and Red County.

The Democrats are getting ready to push the next of their extreme anti-life agenda – The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). This act would essentially do away with several key restrictions:

1. FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
2. FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
3. FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.

An article today in the St. Louis Post Dispatch speaks specifically to Point #3.

A proposed bill promising major changes in the U.S. abortion landscape has Roman Catholic bishops threatening to close Catholic hospitals if the Democratic Congress and White House make it law.

The Freedom of Choice Act failed to get out of subcommittee in 2004, but its sponsor is poised to refile it now that former Senate co-sponsor Barack Obama occupies the Oval Office.

A spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the legislation “is among the congressman’s priorities. We expect to reintroduce it sooner rather than later.”

FOCA, as the bill is known, would make federal law out of the abortion protections established in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade ruling.

The legislation has some Roman Catholic bishops threatening to shutter the country’s 624 Catholic hospitals — including 11 in the Archdiocese of St. Louis — rather than comply.

Speaking in Baltimore in November at the bishops’ fall meeting, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, a Chicago auxiliary bishop, took up the issue of what to do with Catholic hospitals if FOCA became law. “It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions,” he said. “That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil.”

The only other option for the Catholic hospitals would be to ignore the law.

If this doesn’t detail just how extreme the Left is with respect to the abortion issue nothing will. Abortion is contentious enough in our society. The least we can do is have some common sense, RESPECTFUL, laws and restrictions in place. Certainly one of those ought to be not forcing those who morally oppose abortion to be forced to pay for them, let alone pressuring or forcing those in the medical community to perform the procedure.

But, alas, Barack Obama and the Democrats are too beholden to abortion-on-demand zealots to allow for that. There’s a word for this. It’s called “sick.”

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Praise Pope Benedict!

You must remember this. Last summer, Nancy Pelosi (aka Pelousy) made this insane statement regarding the Catholic Church and abortion.

I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition … St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.

Pelosi immediately came under fire and didn’t even back off of her statement.

But on Wednesday, Pelosi met with Pope Benedict while on her little junket in Rome and, dare I say, she was (ahem) bitch-slapped.

ROME —Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday told Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Roman Catholic who supports abortion rights, that Catholic politicians must protect “human life at all stages of its development.”

Pelosi is the highest-ranking Democrat to meet with the pope since the election of President Obama, whose administration’s support of abortion rights worries many in the Vatican.

In a statement, the Vatican said Benedict “briefly greeted” Ms. Pelosi and her entourage after his weekly public audience and “took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.”

The pope added that all Catholics, “especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society,” should “work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”

Considering her outrageous statement, this little talking-to was much deserved. Pelosi can support abortion all she wants, but her comments about the Church were completely out of line. Honestly, I’m surprised she didn’t publicly apologize for, at the least, misleading people about what the Catholic Church stands for. Alas, that would take class, something the Speakerette doesn’t appear to have much of.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

This hope and change thing is just becoming more fun by the day. Hmmm…what else is buried deep in the Scheme-ulous Bill? Oh, here’s the latest little revelation…how about overturning Clinton era welfare reform?

Yes, according to the Heritage Foundation provisions in the Scheme-ulous aim to INCREASE welfare rolls. Here’s a teaser from the Heritage article. I strongly recommend you read the rest as it will rile you up as it did me.

Ending Welfare Reform

The welfare reform of 1996 replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program named Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The key to welfare reform’s reduction in dependency was the change in the funding structure of AFDC.[1]

Under the old AFDC program, states were given more federal funds if their welfare caseloads were increased, and funds were cut whenever the state caseload fell. This structure created a strong incentive for states to swell the welfare rolls. Prior to reform, one child in seven was receiving AFDC benefits.

When welfare reform replaced the old AFDC system with TANF, this perverse financial incentive to increase dependence was eliminated. Each state was given a flat funding level that did not vary whether the state increased or decreased its caseload. In addition, states were given the goal of reducing welfare dependence (or at least of requiring welfare recipients to prepare for employment).

The House and Senate stimulus bills will overturn the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.

It is clear that–in both the House and Senate stimulus bills–the original goal of helping families move to employment and self-sufficiency and off long-term dependence on government assistance has instead been replaced with the perverse incentive of adding more families to the welfare rolls. The House bill provides $4 billion per year to reward states to increase their TANF caseloads; the Senate bill follows the same policy but allocates less money.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!