The Senate Education Committee approved the bill along a party line vote. Democrats Teresa Ruiz, Shirley Turner and James Beach voted yes. Republicans Diane Allen and Michael Doherty voted no.
Your children and grandchildren will be asked the following questions in surveys taken at public schools, without parental consent, if a bill, S454, is passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor:
Are you bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual, or not sure?
Have you had sex with males or females, or males and females?
Do you use contraception when you have sex?
How many people have you had sex with?
Die you drink or do drugs before having sex?
The survey explains that a child could become so depressed about the future that they may consider suicide, and goes on to query:
Have you seriously attempted suicide?
Do you plan to attempt suicide?
How many times have you attempted suicide in the past?
A similar bill was killed in the State Assembly after a huge public outcry last June. Now its back, this time in the Senate.
Call NJ Senate President Steve Sweeney:
(856) 251-9801 (West Deptford)
(856) 455-1011 (Bridgeton)
(856) 339-0808 (Salem)
Call the Members of the New Jersey Senate Education Committee:
Ruiz, M. Teresa – Chair (973) 484-1000
Turner, Shirley K. – Vice-Chair (609) 530-3277
Allen, Diane B. (609) 239-2800
Beach, James (856) 429-1572
Doherty, Michael J. (He will vote NO!; Thank him.) (908) 835-0552
We defeated this only last June – and it’s back again!
Will be discussed in the Senate Education Committee Today.
This morning The Asbury Park Press argues in an editorial that public labor contracts should be posted online. They argued that municipalites that don’t have websites that can handle such postings should post them on the Department of Community Affairs’ site.
We agree. While we’re at it, why not public notices that municipalities, school boards and private sector zoning and planning applicants now pay millions per year to advertise in newspapers where very few people see them?
During the last legislative session a bi-partisan bill that would have given jurisdictions the option of advertising legal notices in newspapers or online was passed in committee and scheduled for a vote in both houses of the legislature on the last day of the session. It met fierce resistance from the newspaper industry in committee and before that scheduled vote.
The corporate welfare recipients of the newspaper industry argued that politicians would use the choice to punish newspapers who didn’t give them favorable coverage, and that the savings wasn’t that much, if anything. In their final push to kill the bill, which worked, they argued that some towns don’t have websites that could handle the ads.
The legislature’s Democratic leadership, Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Shelia Oliver, killed the bill by not letting their chambers vote on it.
Well, thanks to the good nudniks of Neptune, The Asbury Presseditorial board, we now have a solution to the problem of a small number of towns not having websites that can handle posting legal notices. Notice publication could be a shared service hosting by the Department of Community Affairs or by the counties.
Sweeney has already announced that the legal notice bill will not be a priority in the legislative session that just started, signaling to the reformers that support they bill that they shouldn’t bother. Now that The Asbury Park Press has come up with a solution to the newspaper industry’s latest objection, maybe Sweeney will reconsider.
January 22 marks a contemptible day in American history. On this day in 1973 a divided Supreme Court issued a spurious decision that led to the deaths so far of 50 million innocent Americans, now claiming more lives than Chairman Mao Tse-Tung’s “Great Leap Forward.” The consequence of Harry Blackmun’s announcement of a new government policy outstrips all 20th century European dictators combined in death toll.
Current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg long ago made a statement about the “right” that was being protected and in so doing opened up the soft underbelly of the Roe decision. With the appropriate court case, an attack could be led to end the American holocaust. Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in 1974:
The emphasis must not be on the right to abortion, but on the right to privacy and reproductive control.
Justice Ginsburg thwarts the deceptive and preposterous argument that declares because women hold our children in their womb and only women can physically abort (kill) the child, abortion is therefore an issue saved for women alone. While “abortion” can’t be equalized, Ginsburg rightly points out that abortion was not the right being protected. “Reproductive control” is being protected, and that most certainly can be equalized between men and women under the law.
Look at the actual language Justice Blackmun penned in Roe wherein he described what exactly outweighed the Texas Law protecting the baby, and note it was NOT a right to an abortion procedure. It was this:
Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.
To solidify this point Justice Stewart in his concurring opinion described the right which outweighed the Texas statute which sought to protect the baby as follows:
That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. “Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of a far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy than the right to send a child to private school protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), or the right to teach a foreign language protected in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).” Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224, 227 (Conn. 1972).
Let us then summarize the rights actually protected by the Roe decision, noting again it was not a right to an abortion procedure (abortion is only the tool allowed to be used to further the following interests of the woman). Here are the eight [8] legally acceptable reasons for allowing a woman to relieve herself from parental obligation, any of which now outweigh the life of the baby under American law:
A woman may find parenting to presently cause her distress.
A woman my find parenting to potentially cause her distress in the future.
A woman may be caused psychological harm now by parenting.
A woman may find child care taxing mentally and physically.
A woman may suffer stress because she does not want a child.
A woman may find her and her family psychologically unable to care for the child.
A woman may find her and her family are “otherwise” unable to care for the child.
A woman my want to avoid the stigma of unwed motherhood.
These are the things being protected in American law, not abortion itself. They are, to say the least, homage to selfishness. But they are the law; the “rights” which outweigh a baby’s life.
Yet therein we find the best legal challenge. While a man can’t have an abortion procedure, he certainly can fit into any of the eight categories described above. If those are the rights being protected, then those rights can be equalized. Under equal protection jurisprudence, if they can be equalized, they must be.
Note that currently “reproductive rights” are not just imbalanced between men and women; rather for men they are nonexistent. In 2009 I wrote a column called “Roe v Wade and the Rights of the Father” wherein I describe the legal case needed to equalize reproductive rights between the sexes. I call it a “Father’s Abortion” (no – it does not require the women to abort their child). The challenge however will assert, based upon equal protection principles, the equalization under law of a man’s reproductive control currently afforded to women, using precisely the same arguments made in Roe v Wade as cited above.
The father will seek a ruling from the court, one that is routinely granted in courtrooms today, often against a man’s will, regarding his born children: The termination of his parental rights and obligations. This will leave the women to decide if she wishes to go it alone and have the child, or to have an abortion.
Please note that if the case were to prevail I personally would find the result abhorrent and inconsistent with morality concerning good fatherhood. However, the only way to finally awaken the pro-death adherents of abortion is to impose ourselves upon them, by asserting the same claim of rights that they have been imposing on the rest of us for the past 39 years. Only then will the obvious madness of it all be laid before them in such light to make any denial of it unbelievable.
Some may argue that the Courts will never let fathers unilaterally decide not to be fathers the way Roe has allowed it for mothers. What those people don’t know is that 49 states and Puerto Rico already allow new fathers to do so after the child is born, in what are known as Safe Haven Laws. Like it or not, the cultural shift away from parental responsibility is cemented now in both federal and state law.
The only difference between the result of the lawsuit I propose and the Safe Haven Laws is that the mother will be notified before the child is born that the father is foregoing all parental rights and responsibilities, thus the term “father’s abortion.”
When I first proposed this back in 2009, thanks to the editors at FoxNews.com who printed it, the column got enormous attention and was reprinted in a variety of online media (where is SOPA and PIPA when you need them?). I jest. I was happy it was getting attention.
Here is what I didn’t expect: I was overwhelmed with emails from men who suffered, and suffered greatly, from having their children killed by mothers who refused to carry their children to term. It was not my intention to bring their issue to the forefront, but it came.
I was emotionally moved to tears reading of their plight. They are so helpless. They are so lost in the conversation. The court focuses only on what harm might come to a women for being a mother, but won’t consider for a moment the harm that comes to a man when his child is killed. The media will not address him. Instead of programs that focus on his psychological devastation from his child being killed, media will only run stories claiming that the women behind abortions are somehow civil rights heroes.
These men tried everything: Court injunctions, offers to let the mother have no parental or financial responsibility, offers of ransom money in exchange for their child’s life and more. Yet they are powerless, held to the whims of a mother who, often for selfish reasons, wishes not to be one.
There is the story of one man I will never forget. I don’t even know his name. Someone reprinted my column on Free Republic, and in response he left this poem he wrote for his dead son. It was written in 1973, so this boy was one of the first victims of the American killing of innocents. It is the rawest, most real and chilling poem I’ve read. It is so compelling not because it is out of the ordinary, but because it is the common exemplar of what is happening to men and children since Roe v Wade:
I’ve got a son that never came.
One that flew kites and arrow-planes.
One that danced in the springtime rains.
Don’t know why or who’s to blame.
But I’ve got a son that never came.
Bullfrogs and butterflies he’ll never see.
He’ll stroll through an open field, but not with me.
There was a time his heartbeat strong.
It beat with rhythm as in a song.
And to me his love belonged.
Don’t know why or what went wrong.
But there was a time his heartbeat strong.
It’s left in my mind and my heart will tease.
There’s no love in my life for my son and me.
Before I had a chance to fight.
They took my son up a flight.
To a room to take his life
Don’t know why I had no rights.
Before I had a chance to fight.
Then five months early they stole him from his womb.
Laid him in a corner and watched him die in his tomb.
But for one split second I thought I heard him cry…
“I’m gonna have to leave you now. I love you Dad. Goodbye.”
Governor Chris Christie went on Meet the Press this morning and called Newt Gingrich an embarrassment to the Republican party.
“I think Newt Gingrich has embarrassed the party over time,” Christie said. “Whether he’ll do it again in the future I don’t know, but Gov. Romney never has.”
“We all know the record, I mean he was run out of the speakership by his own party, he was fined $300,000 for ethics violations. This is a guy that’s had a very difficult political career at times and has been an embarrassment to the party. I don’t need to regale the country with the entire list again … but sometimes, past is prologue.”
What do you think MMM readers? Is Newt Gingrich an embarrassment to the Republican party or will Governor Christie being singing a different tune come August?
I was curious about why Gingrich’s first wife’s name was omitted from many news reports about his marriages this week. I thought she died of cancer.
I always thought it was curious that Gingrich would ask his wife for a divorce while she was “in the hospital on her dealth bed,” as legend has it. Why wouldn’t he just wait for her to die? Then he could be a widower rather than a grossly insensitive cad.
Turns out that the first Mrs. Gingrich is still alive. Also turns out that the famous death bed request for a divorce never happened. Newt filed for divorce in July of 1980. The hospital conversation happened in September, 1980 when the Mrs. was recovering from surgery for a non-life threatening benign tumor. Mrs. Gingrich had been battling cancer since 1978. Source: FactCheck.org
The first Mrs. Gingrich is Jackie Battley. She was Newt’s high school geometry teacher. They dated secretly until they wed on June 19, 1962. The 19 year old Newt was at student at Emory University in Atlanta. Jackie was 26. Source: About.com
The other thing I didn’t know about Gingrich is that he had a different last name as a child. He was born Newton Leroy McPherson to his 16 year old mother, Kathleen, and his 19 year old father, Newton Searles McPherson. The McPherson’s marriage ended shortly after young Newton’s birth. Kathleen married Army officer Robert Gingrich a year later. Gingrich adopted Newt and gave him his name.
Robert rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel in the Army. He served in Korea and Viet Nam. He also served in Germany and France, where Newt lived with him. Source: Wikipedia
If Gingrich wins the GOP nomination, America will be choosing a president between two products of broken homes who had different names in their youth and spent significant portions of the childhoods overseas.
Overcoming an 18 point deficit in the polls, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich soundly defeated former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in the South Carolina GOP presidential primary by 12%.
The Speaker ended the night with 40% of the vote compared to Romney’s 28%.
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum earned 17% of the vote. Texas Congressman Ron Paul got 13% and Herman Cain, who dropped out of the race weeks ago got 1%.
The race for the GOP nomination moves on to Florida which holds its primary on January 31. Recent polls give Romney a 20%+ edge in the Sunshine State. As we saw tonight, there’s only one poll that counts.
U.S. Senator Robert Menendez reacted to State Senator Joe Kyrillos’ formal campaign announcement with a statement of his own, issued to Politickernj.
“New Jersey’s voters will have a very clear choice if Senator Kyrillos becomes the Republican nominee- Senator Bob Menendez who fights every day for middle class New Jersey families or long-time Trenton insider Joe Kyrillos- who sides with corporations and special interests over working families and seniors and panders to the most extreme elements of the Washington Republicans,” Menendez campaign strategist Brad Lawrence said in an emailed statement today.
Clearly, Menendez has read the polls and knows his job is at risk. Recent polls indicate that Kyrillos has low name recognition outside of Monmouth County. For an incumbent Senator to react like he did guarantees that Kyrillos’ announcement will get press conference. Menendez, knowing he is vulnerable, has decided to try to define Kyrillos at the risk of increasing his name ID.
Menendez’s recent reversal on Magistrate Patty’s Shwartz’s nomination to the Third Circut Court of Appeals and his back peddling on the Internet Censorship Bill he is a sponsor of, are other indications that he knows his support is soft at best with New Jersey voters.
Menendez’s use of senatorial courtesy to block Shwartz’s nomination to the Appeals Court was met with fierce opposition in the legal community and speculation in the media that he was acting punitively because Shwartz’s boyfriend was the prosecutor who investigated him during his first campaign for Senate. The senator latter reversed himself, saying that after a second interview Shwartz was satisfactory after all.
After the enormous outcry this week against the Protect IP Internet censorship bill sponsored by Menendez in the Senate, lead by Wikipedia, Google, Craigslist and other major web sites, he tweeted, ”
Our country is in trouble and Washington is failing us. Americans have seen their neighbors lose their jobs, their home values fall, their savings shrink, and their economic horizon darkened by a record $15 trillion national debt. Washington has responded with nothing but partisan squabbling and reckless spending, and now Bob Menendez is seeking reelection to deliver more of the same.
New Jersey needs a strong voice for change. As the father of two young children, I believe we can and must restore the limitless opportunities and freedom that made America great and inspired people like my own father to immigrate to this country. That’s why today I converted my exploratory effort into a campaign committee and will soon formally announce my candidacy for the United States Senate.
We have proven in New Jersey that strong leadership can change things for the better. Under Governor Christie’s leadership and with the support of fiscal conservatives like myself, we took a state that had been mismanaged to the brink of bankruptcy, and we turned it around. I intend to do the same in Washington. Voters have a clear contrast – Bob Menendez will offer more of the same: more debt, more spending and more joblessness. I will offer real solutions to renew America’s promise.
By Tommy DeSeno, cross posted at 
Governor Chris Christie will be interviewed by David Gregory Sunday morning on the NBC show, “Meet the Press.”