Tag Archives: new jersey

The New Jersey issue is bigger than the Duck Dynasty issue

The Duck Dynasty / Phil Robertson topic has received tons of attention, and deservedly so.  But the bigger issue is how the pro-LGBTQ groups aren’t satisfied with merely redefining marriage in an anti-biblical way, but how they won’t rest until they have completely stamped out religious freedom and forced churches to affirm their activities.  The A&E issue is a sad commentary on our society, but the New Jersey issue is about the power of Big Government to suppress religious freedom.

Via Duck Dynasty Star Fired Over Remarks on Homosexuality:

Earlier this week state Senate Democrats in New Jersey pulled from consideration a bill that would write gay marriage, already legal in New Jersey by court order, into the law books. The reason: the bill contained religious exemptions.  Loretta Weinberg, the Senate Majority Leader, said she pulled the bill after pressure from an LGBTQ legal group, Lambda Legal.

“They don’t want any kind of religious exemption, so out of respect for that, I will (pull the bill),” Weinberg said.

Re-read that carefully: They don’t want any kind of religious exemption.  None.  It isn’t about their freedom to do what they want.  They’ve had that for years.  No one is preventing their relationships and/or promiscuous sex, or even doing anything to stop 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive who have unprotected sex with men.  This is about silencing Christians and forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.

“There’s a disparate group of people and it’s hard to follow what they want, so I’m following Lambda Legal.”

The decision by New Jersey Democrats and A&E are similar. When pressured by LGBTQ groups, organizations and politicians will choose to silence Christians who oppose the normalization of homosexual behavior.

Many Christians have assumed that they would be allowed reasonable exemptions and accommodations based on religious liberty. But LGBTQ activists have made it clear (and have said so from the beginning) that unconditional acceptance of homosexuality is the only option. Normalization and public support, rather than mere legal recognition, is the end goal.

Religious believers who think they can avoid the issue are deluding themselves. While we may not have a hit reality show that we can get fired from, we will be pressured in numerous ways to make it clear that we will not speak or act publicly in a way that supports the biblical view of homosexuality. The objective of the activists is to marginalize Christian views on sexual norms until they can be outlawed in the public square. Many Christians have already and will continue to gleefully work to ensure this becomes a reality. But for faithful Christians, allowing our biblical witness to be silenced is not an option. Like Phil Robertson we must all say, “My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.”

Make no mistake: Satan won’t rest until he has silenced Christians.  That will never happen completely, of course, but there is a rocky road coming up.  Many of us have warned of these logical consequences for years, but too many Christians thought they could sit on the fence.  There is no fence.

But be encouraged!  God always wins in the end.  Don’t be afraid to stand up for the truth.

Ponzi schemes: Illegal for Bernie Madoff but not the government

As I noted in Repeat after me: There is no Social Security “trust fund”:

There is no trust fund.  No. Trust. Fund. Anyone claiming there is such a thing is ignorant and/or trying to deceive you.

The government does not have the capability to set aside funds in a bank account like we do.  When the Social Security funds come in they are spent on Social Security, or, as they have done for decades, on other spending projects they didn’t want to raise taxes to fund.  Decades of dishonesty and financial mismanagement by both parties are becoming more visible.

If Social Security taxes stopped today there wouldn’t be a penny saved to meet the commitments the government made.  It is the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.

If some of these Social Security funds went to private investments that you could control then that would limit how much the politicians could abuse.  But they don’t want to lose control, so they play on your fears that something bad will happen.

Yes, the market could crash and you could lose your investments.  It is a risky world.  But think about this: Whether your private account crashed or not it isn’t like the government is saving our taxes today to pay out tomorrow.  Either way the payouts they will make 10 years from now will come from taxes paid 10 years from now.

Simply put, we can’t lose by having at least part of current contributions devoted to private accounts.  The politicians will lose because they’ll have to find a way to fund current spending, or not spend the money at all.

Don’t let fear-mongering by politicians fool you.  The system has been broken for a long time.  Democrats didn’t want you to be informed and Republicans didn’t try hard enough to inform you.  But it isn’t that complicated.

Here are some great ideas from Time to Opt Out of the Social Security Ponzi Scheme.  I urge you to the whole thing.  Now is the time to educate people on how Social works, why it is doomed to fail, and what we can do about it now.  Those young people who swallowed Obama’s lies and are now unemployed and saddled with massive college debts may be willing to listen to some truth now.  Same thing for middle-aged people who will realize that they will spend their careers paying into a system that will be beyond bankrupt when they retire.

The Social Security Ponzi scheme is perhaps the most consequential government infringement upon our lives.  Conservatives are justifiably outraged that Obama egregiously mandated that we purchase health insurance.  However, the individual mandate is not nearly as meddlesome and tyrannical as the government’s complete control over our retirement security.  The only reason why these two programs are regarded differently by the public, is because Social Security has been around for 75 years.  Consequently, most Americans are conditioned to believe that a person’s retirement is indissolubly tied to government-run Social Security.

Now that Social Security is running a perennial deficit and is facing insolvency, conservatives have an opportunity to reverse one of the most flagrant violations of our property rights, by offering workers the option to opt out of the Madoff-style program.

As the unfunded liability for Social Security balloons to $21.4 trillion over the next 20 years, it is painfully obvious to young workers that they will not enjoy much retirement security, if any, from the government program.  Democrats are totally apathetic to their grim future; they will be long retired by then, enjoying the full array of government benefits that they secured for themselves.  Meanwhile, they would rather demagogue the issue, using fallacious scare tactics to stir up current retirees.  Accordingly, we should harness the Democrats’ Mediscare demagoguery towards seniors, and direct it towards younger Americans.  If Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan will push granny over the hill, the status quo of the Democrats’ Ponzi scheme will prevent the grandchild from making it up the hill.

With high unemployment and polls showing a precipitous drop in support for Obama among young voters, now is the time to reach out to those voters.  Congressman Pete Sessions is proposing the SAFE ACT (HR 2109), which would allow younger workers to control all of their retirement savings.  Here are some of the key details of the proposal:

  • Every American would be able to opt out of the current system and direct the full 6.2% of payroll taxes to a personal retirement account beginning January 1, 2012.  Conversely, anyone who wishes to remain in the current system would not be affected.  An employee who chooses to opt for the SAFE account can switch back to the current system during the first five years after opting out.
  • After 15 years of the bill’s enactment, employers would be able to contribute “their share” of payroll taxes to the employee’s SAFE account.
  • Self-employed individuals would be able to divert the full amount of their payroll taxes to a SAFE account.
  • The SAFE accounts would be tax free and any cash contributions would be tax deductible.   Also, all post-retirement distributions from the account would be tax free.  Any pre-retirement distributions would be taxed as income.
  • Upon the death of the account beneficiary, irrespective of his/her age, the inheritors of the estate will be able to assume full ownership of the account.

. . .

So, young Obama zombies with skulls full of mush; with whom do you trust your retirement security: your bank account or Obama’s defunct ATM?  How about Bernie Madoff?

Outrageous and unsustainable educational costs per pupil

I don’t know the precise figure for what the target per-pupil cost should be for public education, but I know what it isn’t: $17,800.  Yet that is what is costs in New Jersey today.  See New Jersey per-pupil cost is $17,800 « Wintery Knight.

Think about the average wage in America and how unsustainable that per-pupil cost is.  That is equal to the gross annual wages of a $9 / hour job.  Of course, that person would have to pay taxes, buy groceries, food, transportation, housing, etc. for themselves and the child, so the wages required to fund basic living costs and the student’s education would be much higher.

Something is horribly wrong when costs are that high.  Getting rid of teachers’ unions and dramatically cutting back administration costs would be a start.  Get the Feds out of education completely and you could significantly reduce education costs.

And of course, promote school choice.  You could give incentives to attend private school or home school and save many millions.  Or benchmark the private schools and see what they are doing right.

Compare that with the average tuition with higher-performing private or parochial schools.

Excerpt:

AVERAGE PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION: $8,549

Elementary: $6,733

Secondary: $10,549

Combined: $10,045

(Digest 2009, Chapter 2, Table 59)

AVERAGE CATHOLIC SCHOOL TUITION: $6,018

Elementary: $4,944

Secondary: $7,826

Combined: $9,066

(Digest 2009, Chapter 2, Table 59)

I’m updating this with a comment from Glenn, which is dead on.

If you want to educate the youth, it doesn’t cost much. If you want to indoctrinate them in liberal ideology, it cost’s big money. That’s the difference between private schools and government schools.

Dear California, Thanks for the jobs! Love, Texas

Via Growing jobs big in Texas « Hot Air.

A month ago, California legislators trekked to Texas to visit all the new jobs that didn’t land in their own state to figure out what went wrong.

I could have saved them a trip: Stop being a wildly liberal state!  Get real conservative, real fast, and businesses will come back.  Become a Right to Work state, reduce taxes and regulatory burdens, etc.  Pretty basic stuff.

But that will never happen.  Good for Texas, bad for California.  The differences are enormous, especially considering that Texas and California share some significant problems — such as vast numbers of  illegal aliens.

According to BizJournals, a few dozen other states might want to make the same trip.  Over the last ten years, Texas has added more than 732,000 jobs net as the state withstood the worst recession in decades.  The next best state, Arizona, didn’t even make it into six figures:

. . .

Of course, Washington DC ended up 7th on the job-growth list — thanks to the federal government’s expansion at the expense of the states.

Which state did worse?  Why, California, of course.  They even managed to outstrip Michigan, where the downturn in the auto industry and collapse of GM and Chrysler threw tens of thousands out of work.

. . .

What do Texas, Utah, and Arizona all have in common?  They are all right-to-work states.  Among the top five states, only Washington does not have right-to-work laws allowing employees free choice whether to join unions.  Seven of the top ten job-growth states are right-to-work.

. . .

A new report from South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint’s office shows that right-to-work states, or states which prohibit forced unionization and dues payments, are economically outperforming states without the worker protection.

According to DeMint’s study, right-to-work states enjoy more new residents, more new businesses, more new jobs, and faster income growth.

The study shows that more Americans are moving to right-to-work states, causing states that force unionization to lose seats in Congress.

Texas has also worked hard over the decade to lower regulatory burdens and taxes on job creators.  Rick Perry has made this one of his signature achievements, and he has repeatedly challenged other states to start competing with Texas on job creation.  They have a long way to go before they can dethrone the champion, it appears, and most of them haven’t yet started to take the Texas approach seriously — which is nowhere more true than in Washington DC and the Obama administration.

Good news from the House: “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” passes

Hopefully it can pass the Senate and get past Obama’s veto.  This will save lives and not force pro-lifers to fund abortions.  (I thought pro-legalized abortionists were pro-choice?  Why don’t they want pro-lifers to have the choice of whether to pay to kill the unborn?)

See House Republicans unanimously support No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act « Wintery Knight.

The White House strongly opposes the bill. In a policy statement, the administration wrote that the bill “intrudes on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care; increases the tax burden on many Americans; unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that consumers have today; and restricts the District of Columbia’s use of local funds, which undermines home rule.”

“Reproductive freedom” is one of those deadly inaccurate sound bites.  Here’s a scientific fact for the President: If someone wants an abortion, they have already reproduced.

How odd that he cares about the tax burdens, especially when this is the equation: More dead babies = less taxes.  I’m all for low taxes, but not by killing unwanted human beings.  His moral schizophrenia never fails to disappoint.

Life News reports that the public supports banning funding for abortions:

A majority of Americans object to the use of taxpayer money for funding abortion, according to numerous polls — including a survey CNN conducted in early April showing Americans oppose public funding of abortion by a margin of 61% to 35%.

That’s a pretty big majority.  Hopefully the Democratic Senators will realize they’ll be handing their opponents a gift if they vote against it.

And also notes that cutting off funding makes a big difference in the number of abortions:

Congressman Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who is the lead sponsor of the bill, informed the House that a study by the Guttmacher Institute, the pro-abortion former research apparatus of Planned Parenthood, released a study noting that one-quarter of women who otherwise would have had abortions chose to give birth when taxpayer dollars were not available to pay for abortions of their children.

And I think that some behaviors may change if they know the government won’t pay for abortions.

Another thing wrong with public sector unions: $65,000 to make change. Seriously.

See N.J. Turnpike Tells Union Toll Collectors ‘Take It Or Leave It’.  The good news is that it looks like they’ll accept the cuts being proposed to reduce to “only” make $50,000 per year on average.

And the $65k was the average, not the maximum.  And they offered sketchy customer service as well:

All in all, nearly $50k a year to make change isn’t a bad deal, considering the abuse some motorists have taken over the years, including:

…threats of violence, vulgarity, and racial slurs have allegedly been directed at drivers (but only on occasion, of course, since most toll takers are of a sunny disposition, as most motorists can attest). And then there are the booth inhabitants who woo female motorists with sexy talk about strip searches and flashing.

View complaints here.

How did we get to this state?!

Which is more racist?

A. Aborting blacks at a rate three times that of whites

B. Pointing out that the abortion rate for blacks is three times that of whites

See Mom sues pro-life group for using daughter’s photo in “racist, defamatory” NYC billboard – Jill Stanek

A pro-life group that erected a billboard to spotlight the documented genocide being committed against preborn black children is being sued as “racist.”

I’d say “A.” The racism lies with those Margaret Sanger-inspired Planned Parenthood types who target black communities.