New Jersey: foxes guard the hen house

Josef Stalin understood gun control better than many people today. He also understood voter fraud and how to use it. See his infamous distinction between vote casting and vote counting.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

While there are many states with many political factions throughout these United States, New Jersey has always had a diverse population, and therefore a diverse legislature. In days past all legislators, irrespective of party affiliation, honored their oaths of office and considered themselves to be servants of the people. The times – they are a changing.

The New Jersey firearms hearings were a farce

New Jersey’s demographics reflect the changes we are seeing throughout America, but with that change the stench of elitism has arrogantly filled the hallowed halls of the State’s capital. At no time was the stench more odiferous than at the State’s firearm hearings on February 13th. The objections of the multitudes that flooded the halls were barely tolerated – to the point of several bills being voted on before public comments were heard. The commonality once shared by all legislators to support the Constitutions of the USA and of New Jersey had little bearing on the ideologues eager to recreate New Jersey according to their own worldview. The fact that they were elected to protect our government and took an oath to support our Constitutions meant nothing to them. The Constitutions they swore to support have become an inconvenience, which they circumvent and disregard at whim. This has resulted in an effective coup d’état that has gone unnoticed. In New Jersey, as in other liberal-leaning states, the very people who are supposed to be protecting, preserving and supporting our state and national Constitutions are the very same people that are blatantly dismantling them piece by piece. In short, it is the foxes that are now guarding the hen house.

Eric Holder said that no crisis should go to waste. It is shameful that our legislators are now exploiting the Newtown tragedies to promote their own agendas. They have used the recent barrage of violence against the innocent to further their goals to disarm America. This time the innocent victims won’t be those in classrooms, they will be all the citizens and residents of these United States. The only opposition to these treasonous ideologues has been a well-informed contingent of citizens who understand that our right to bear arms was not only created to protect us from criminals and terrorists but also to protect us from tyranny.

What checks and balances?

RoseAnn Salanitri, a leading activist in New Jersey

RoseAnn Salanitri, founder of New Jersey Tea Party Caucus.

The problem is compounded by the now defunct check and balance system we all relied on to protect our constitutional rights. Nationwide our rights are disintegrating before our very eyes. And neither logic nor threats of impeachment faze these “servants of the people” who disrespect our rules of law but demand respect from our citizens in turn. It is reasonable to assume that although they may be ideologues, they surely must be able to read and understand our Second Amendment that states: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is not a request; it is a demand. It is an inalienable right protected in our Constitution. The right that should be in question is the right of our legislators to subvert our Constitution. This is the right that does not exist but has tyrannically been created by treasonous ideologues bent on dismantling America and all our liberties under the pretense of taking care of us. Most dictatorships made the same promises to gain power. All dictatorships broke those promises once they amassed their power base – as it was always their intention to do.

When will this stop?

When will this insanity stop? I believe only when We the People rise up and speak with one voice that we will not tolerate these treasonous acts that subvert our laws, overthrow our system of government, and strip us of our God-given rights. Storming the Bastille may not be possible in America but we do have statehouses. There is a time when civil disobedience becomes civic responsibility. As New Jersey strives to compete with New York and other liberal states in its illegal disregard for our Constitutions, liberty’s best hope is in We the People who understand their civic responsibility.

Related:

  • New Jersey firearms hearings – eyewitness report

[subscribe2]

Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

17 Responses to New Jersey: foxes guard the hen house

  1. CJFREEDOM says:

    RoseAnn….you are right on the money. Couldn’t be there myself..we were away….but many of our people were there and after reading and viewing the video’s….it s so obvious that it is now time for major revolt. Of course lawful revolt…as we will be the FIRST citizens they will want to throw in jail. It is beyond time to flip the House my friend and with God’s help….we CAN!! The good citizens of NJ need to stand up, speak up and join together. Thank you for all you do.

  2. DinsdaleP says:

    Justice Scalia’s opinion in the Heller case show that regulating who xan keep & bear arms, as well as what type of arms are permissible, is nit only constitutional, but completely in line with the intent of the Founders and the principles of Originalism. This is from one of the most consistently conservative justices of the past few decades.

    Is Scalia a sellout or traitor? For that matter, none of the editors here has addressed Ronald Reagan’s passage of the Mulford Act, or his support for gun control laws and an assault weapons ban as being compatible with maintaining Second Amendment rights.

  3. DinsdaleP says:

    As a constitutional scholar, Originalist and Supreme Court jurist, Scalia has made multiple, specific statements that back up his position with both solid legal reasoning and the historical context of the conditions the Second Amendment was envisioned under.

    Simply stating that “he is mistaken” without elaborating on why his different points are invalid doesn’t support your position. If anything, it makes it appear hard to defend against an alternate conservative viewpoint backed by evidence.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Legal precedents are like statistics. Sometimes they become another class of lie. Especially when they were decided in error.

      The fundamental error that men like Scalia make lies in overlooking the basic philosophical reason for declaring that a basic right of the people is off-limits to infringement. And imagining that a government can never become tyrannical just because it uses the phrase “United States of America” in its name.

  4. DinsdaleP says:

    On a related note, I’d like to restate my offer to attend any of the in-person meetings your Tea Party groups have, and discuss topics like this in a polite, open forum. I had a great breakfast meeting with a conservative congressional candidate last Fall, and would enjoy more conversations like that. You have my email if you or any of your colleagues would be interested.

  5. DinsdaleP says:

    “The fundamental error that men like Scalia make lies in overlooking the basic philosophical reason for declaring that a basic right of the people is off-limits to infringement.”

    Scalia is not using faulty logic at all. There are several ways in which the Constitution is a remarkable work, and one of the most notable is the way it incorporates difference forms of checks and balances. Not just between the three branches of the federal government, but between the interests of large states and small, between the federal government and the state governments, etc. Just as an architect wouldn’t build an unbalanced bridge, the Constitution was engineered to embrace balance over giving any party or interest group unchecked power to the point where the quality of life in the young nation would be at risk.

    You and your colleagues like to qoute-mine the 2nd Amendment, focusing on “shall not be infringed” while dismissing the “well-regulated” and “militia” parts. The men writing that bill knew exactly what they were doing, though, and used few words to do it because every single word carried meaning.

    It’s completely acceptable to have a right while also having that right be regulated in the interest of the common good. Your colleague Felicity Ross complained about the application process to get a gun permit, but she didn’t say it was denied. We have freedom of speech but it does not allow one to incite a riot, even for a just cause. We have freedom of religion, but not where the practice of one’s faith could cause harm to others, including minors brought up in that faith by devout parents.

    No reasonable person wants to deny law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms if they choose to do so, but it’s not infringing on overall right to possess deadly force to deny that right to felons or the mentally ill – failure to do so creates a clear and present danger to everyone. To argue that it is better to let the insane carry guns, and then expect everyone else to pack guns and defend ourselves from them in gunfights – all to avoid “infringement” – is antithetical to a culture that values life. That’s Somalia, not America.

    Reagan supported an assault weapons ban because he survived a lone, deranged gunman getting close enough to gravely wound innocents who were protected by highly trained security carrying guns of their own. Even if everyone in his Secret Service detail were carrying uzis, John Hinkley still shot first by surprise, and if he was shooting an assault rifle or uzi himself, many more people would have died that day before h’ed have been shot. Reagan believed in the 2nd Amendment, but he never believed that the right to keep and bear deadly force was an unlimited one.

    Scalia understands this too, and sees no contradiction between allowing a right to exist and regulating how that right is applied. The 2nd Amendment is unique in that it is the only right that empowers an American citizen with the ability to kill others at will. The ability to defend one’s self and family with deadly force is an essential one, and the Founders saw to that. They also established the context for this right (to enable local, well-regulated militas anywhere in the nation) and chose their words with care.

    The right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, but the nature of the arms one is allowed to bear can be regulated, and anyone unsuitable to the context of a militia (criminals, the mentally ill, and yes, back then slaves as well) would not be allowed to exercise this right. Society benefits from these balancing points, and none of this keeps law-abiding citizens like Ms. Ross, you or me from legally acquiring guns with considerable killing power if we wish to.

    Scalia understands this. Reagan understood this. The NRA understood this up until the 1970s. Believing that securing a safe, civil society for all requires all of us to walk around armed and ready to kill strangers in snap decisions is the truly dangerous mindset. I hope you never have cause to have to kill someone in self-defense, but your paranoid distrust of others and desire to walk around with deadly force in hand makes me glad I live in a state that makes it hard to do that.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Your entire argument is from emotion, not logic. And it ignores the hard reality that we face a tyranny as vicious as that of Adolf Hitler—or of Mohammed Farah Aidid, the baboon-like warlord of Somalia.

  6. DinsdaleP says:

    Oh, I thought I was being pretty logical in breaking it down, and providing factual counter-views to yours from two highly respected conservative icons.

    This isn’t about “I win, you lose”, it’s about being able to see what the other side of an issue is, and that other viewpoints can have valid elements to them even when they don’t line up 100% with yours.

    Reagan passed the Mulford Act to prevent California citizens from bearing arms in public. These citizens weren’t looking for trouble, but simply wanted to employ their constitutional 2nd Amendment right to self-defense against government brutality.

    That self-defense-against-abusive-government motivation goes to the very heart of why you and your colleagues believe the 2nd Amendment exists. And then a chief executive passes a law to remove the ability of lawful citizens to bear arms in self-defense against the state – the worst-case scenario you imagine Obama planning, but it actually happened in the 1960’s.

    And it was done by Ronald Reagan. And done with the support of the NRA.

    But there’s no analysis of that historical fact by CNAV. You stir up the faithful by talking of tyrants and what people “might” do if they aren’t stopped, but your own icons did much more and much worse than anything in Obama’s executive orders.

    If you’re going to condemn any and all forms of gun control as “infringement”, then you and your associates should at least be consistent and address the history of Reagan and gun control. There was no outcry then, and there’s no criticism now – why?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The most charitable thing I can say about your side of this issue, is simply this: you are far too trusting of government. I have seen such monumental abuses of power as I never thought I would live to see in the United States. And if no one cried out against Reagan, that was because he granted far greater freedom than he took away. Freedom to produce. To trade. To hire and fire.

      And never once did he boast that he would train up a civilian security force at least as powerful as the Army. Which Obama has done.

      Never once did Reagan buy two billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, and stockpile this ammunition God would only have known where. The Obama administration has done this.

      Your de facto President is a quintessential dictator. He laments that he does not carry the title of Emperor. He throws monkeywrenches into the most delicate of negotiations—because he does not want to solve problems, but only to have campaign issues.

      And don’t tell me that this is his second term and “no person shall be eligible to the office of President more than twice.” Representative José Serrano (Democrat – what else? – of New York – where else?) has introduced a Congressional Joint Resolution to repeal that Amendment to the Constitution, thereby permitting Obama to run for a third term. And a fourth. And a fifth. And a sixth.

      I know your side (maybe not you, personally; I’ve never really sounded you out on this), and their plans to take power permanently. They are working actively to invest Obama with, if not the exact title of Emperor, then with a title that will more than do: Party General Secretary and President for Life.

  7. DinsdaleP says:

    And please stop with the “we face a tyranny as vicious as that of Adolf Hitler” rhetoric. For someone who cares about Israel as much as you do, it’s sad that you’re equating conditions in America today to life under the Nazis.

    Try telling that line of yours to the face of any elderly Jewish survivor of WWII Germany, and be prepared to wipe their spit off your person afterward.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      I would do so without hesitation. In fact, I am confident that many of them would come to me to shout a warning, or even to wonder whether, at need, they could take refuge in my home. That is, if they haven’t already “made Aliyah,” i.e., emigrated to Israel. Which I now encourage them to do, for their own safety, while the emigrating is good.

      Obama asked for the specific Hitler comparison when he severely disrespected the Prime Minister of Israel and suggested they retreat behind the 1949 Armistice Line and consent to the re-division of Jerusalem. So don’t dare claim to speak for the Jews on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama.

      Those Jews whose feelings you dare say I just hurt, remember that first Hitler told them they didn’t need guns, and then told them to board the trains.

      Do you really think that Obama has the interests of the Jews at heart? Or that he can still convince them of that? Some of the younger generation, maybe. But not the generation you specifically identified as likely to take offense at what I said.

  8. DinsdaleP says:

    “And if no one cried out against Reagan, that was because he granted far greater freedom than he took away. Freedom to produce. To trade. To hire and fire.”

    Hmmm. So it’s okay to take away your Second Amendment rights if you throw some economic bones to the people being deprived of their rights. By that logic, Obama could take away everyone’s guns if he provided enough jobs and economic growth to “keep the sheep pacified”.

    Sorry, I’m not buying it.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Never said it was. You asked me to explain the people’s failure to cry out, and I explained it. Whether you accept my explanation or not, is entirely up to you.

  9. DinsdaleP says:

    Fair enough, but I was asking where the outrage was over this from the editors at CNAV. You attack Obama over what you think might happen because of what you believe his agenda is, but the available facts are that his executive orders do nothing to disarm anyone.

    However, there is a 1960’s precedent for one of the actions that you consider tyrannical, unconstitutional, and worthy of civil disobedience. And yet it was not found to be unconstitutional, the NRA supported it, and there was no civil disobedience over it.

    Considering that this took place in our lifetime (well, yours and mine at least), it’s hard to make an effective case for your position, you need to rationalize why it was acceptable for a conservative icon to have enforced more restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights than Obama has ever proposed. Anything less is just hypocrisy.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      I never said I found that acceptable, then or now. I said I understood why the voters still accepted Ronald Reagan as the best President they had known. Today we have in Barack Obama a de facto President who exhibits far more traits of tyranny than either Reagan or Kennedy.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.