• Passaic County Weather Observations

Northern [Western] Passaic County
Click for West Milford, New Jersey Forecast

Southern [Eastern] Passaic County
Click for Paterson, New Jersey Forecast


< < <       * * *       Passaic County WEATHER ADVISORIES - ALERTS - WARNINGS - OR WATCHES ... Automatically Posted And Updated [As Weather Conditions Warrant] At The Top Portion Of The Lower [Light Yellow] Sidebar On The Right ⇒ ...       * * *       < < <

Road Construction / Traffic Alerts
< < <       * * *       New Feature! ... Metropolitan Passaic County Area ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND TRAFFIC ADVISORIES ... Automatically Posted And Updated [As Conditions Occur] ... Look Just Below The Weather Alerts At The Top Portion Of The Lower [Light Yellow] Sidebar On The Right ⇒ ...       * * *       < < <
-->

• CNS News Ticker





Saturday, October 28, 2006

Impeachment Is Answer To Judicial Tyranny In N.J.


NEW JERSEY / IMPEACHMENT IS THE ANSWER TO JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN N.J.



VDARE Mast Head



At root, what that 4-3 decision, ordering the legislature to enact a new law sanctioning civil unions or gay marriage, is about is: Who governs New Jersey? It is about who decides what law shall be -- elected legislators or judges appointed for life.

If Gov. Jon Corzine wished to make himself a hero to Middle America, the opportunity is at hand. All he need do is inform the New Jersey Supreme Court he will neither submit nor sign the law it has ordered enacted -- to put homosexual unions on a par with marriage.

"Who rules?" That is what is at issue in New Jersey.



Impeachment The Answer To Judicial Tyranny -- In NJ, In U.S.


~ By Patrick J. Buchanan
October 26, 2006


If Gov. Jon Corzine wished to make himself a hero to Middle America, the opportunity is at hand. All he need do is inform the New Jersey Supreme Court he will neither submit nor sign the law it has ordered enacted -- to put homosexual unions on a par with marriage.

At root, what that 4-3 decision, ordering the legislature to enact a new law sanctioning civil unions or gay marriage, is about is: Who governs New Jersey? It is about who decides what law shall be -- elected legislators or judges appointed for life.

In our War of Independence, in which New Jersey was overrun repeatedly by British troops, at issue was whether George III and a Parliament sitting in London, in which Americans had no voice, would govern us, or whether we would rule ourselves. From April 1775 to Yorktown in 1781, Americans fought and died to end that rule of kings -- only to have their meek and timid heirs submit to a rule of judges.

Let us go back to the era of Earl Warren that began in 1954, and consider what, in the span of a half-century, U.S. judges and Supreme Court justices, abetted by state jurists, have done to America.

God, Bible study, prayer and the Ten Commandments have been ordered out of all public schools and the public square of a nation that once proudly boasted of itself as God's country. Pornography has been declared protected by the First Amendment. Cities have been ripped apart, as judges have ordered students, based on color alone, bussed across crime-ridden cities to achieve an artificial racial balance. Abortion, homosexual sodomy and naked dancing in public bars have been declared to be new constitutional rights.

Of all these outrages and idiocies, one thing may be said: No legislature, no executive at the state or federal level would have survived imposing such measures upon us. They would have been hurled from office at the next election. When homosexual marriage was put on the ballot in 13 states in 2004, it was routed in every one by landslides as great as six to one. America rejects it.

Upon what ground, then, does the New Jersey Supreme Court stand to order an elected legislature to enact a law the people do not want? Answer: The court said that to deny homosexuals the same rights as married couples is to treat them unequally, and this violates the Constitution of New Jersey: "Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution." [ N.J. court opens door to gay marriage, by Geoff Mulvihill, Associated Press, October 25, 2006]

The operative words here are "no longer be tolerated." What the court is saying is that, though there is no right to same-sex marriage in New Jersey, and the state has never voted the rights and benefits to homosexuals it has for married couples, we, the judges in our wisdom, declare this to be intolerable.

Therefore, you, the legislators of New Jersey, and you, Gov. Corzine, are ordered to change the laws of New Jersey to conform to our idea of equality. A tiny minority of judges in America now dictates to the Great Silent Majority.

This is exactly what happened in Massachusetts in 2003. And had Gov. Romney told the Massachusetts Supreme Court that its 4-3 decision had no constitutional basis, and that he and the legislature had no intention of obeying its order, Mitt Romney would be the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2008.

When Shay's Rebellion of farmers broke out in Massachusetts in 1786, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." It is time for a little rebellion in New Jersey, and America. For what is taking place, what has taken place, is a bloodless coup by judges who have arrogated to themselves the powers of legislatures to make laws and remake society in their own image -- without recourse to referenda or free elections.

When judges in New Jersey can order legislators to write new laws that conform to their ideology, laws the people have not only not demanded, but viscerally and violently oppose, we have ceased to be a free country or a democratic republic.

"Who rules?" That is what is at issue in New Jersey.

For 50 years, this nation permitted the Warren Court, and its successors and imitators in the state courts, to create a body of judge-made law that has altered the character of our country, very much for the worse.

Again and again, the people have voted for candidates for president, Congress and governor who promised to ring down the curtain on this half-century of judicial tyranny. But still the judges persist in issuing orders that have no basis either in precedent or in the written constitutions they have sworn to defend.

Such judges need to be defied and they need to be impeached. Not obeyed.




Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from Amazon.com.


Patrick J. Buchanan Archive


Copyright © 1999 - 2006 VDARE.com




Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Friday, October 27, 2006

Kean Challenges Incumbents On Homeland Security


NEW JERSEY / KEAN CHALLENGES INCUMBENTS ON HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING



CNS News Mast Head



Kean argues that the risk of terrorist strikes in New Jersey is more acute than it is in other parts of the country because of the state's proximity to high-profile targets in neighboring cities like New York and Philadelphia. He also said his state's infrastructure makes it an enticing target in the eyes of terrorists.



Politics

New Jersey's Kean Challenges Incumbents On Homeland Security Funding



~ By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 27, 2006


(CNSNews.com) - New Jersey has been shortchanged on homeland security assistance from the federal government because its incumbent U.S. Senators "gave up" and yielded to a flawed funding formula, according to Republican state Sen. Tom Kean Jr.

A risk-based funding formula that accounts for the unique vulnerabilities of states like New Jersey would produce a sufficient level of financial assistance said Kean, who is challenging incumbent Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) in this year's election.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C., the federal government has awarded about $8 billion in assistance to states and localities so they can better equip themselves in the realm of counter-terrorism, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Most recently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the distribution of approximately $400 million in grants that would be used to bolster the security of ports, transit systems and intercity bus systems.

Kean argues that the risk of terrorist strikes in New Jersey is more acute than it is in other parts of the country because of the state's proximity to high-profile targets in neighboring cities like New York and Philadelphia. He also said his state's infrastructure makes it an enticing target in the eyes of terrorists.

Kean points out, for example, that the Port Newark/Elizabeth Marine Terminal is the largest on the East Coast, absorbing more than $110 billion in cargo in more than 2 million shipping containers.

This assessment of state's particular set of vulnerabilities is shared by the Menendez campaign. The senator's website quotes federal officials who describe the region between Newark Airport and Port Elizabeth as "the most dangerous two miles in America." The area is laced with chemical plants and open ports.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Menendez campaign, said the Democratic senator has been an ardent supporter of "risk-based funding" that takes into account those areas of the country that pose a particularly high risk of terror attacks.

But Kean claims his opponent actually allowed the "risk-based" formula to be removed, to the detriment of New Jersey.

"Bob Menendez sat on the [House-Senate] conference committee that allowed the risk-based funding formula to be stripped out of homeland security grants," Kean said. "This means the funding formula was instead based on a geographical spread so every state gets a minimal amount. But this approach hurts states like New Jersey that are high-risk targets."

Kean claims that both Menendez and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), the state's senior senator, are responsible for allowing the emergence of a funding formula that does not recognize the strategic position of New Jersey.

"New Jersey now gets less per capita spending for homeland security than Wyoming," Kean said. New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the union, while Wyoming, by contrast, is the least populous state. Nevertheless, the Kean campaign claims Wyoming receives nearly four times more per person in federal-to-state counterterrorism grants than New Jersey.

The purpose of the conference committee was to resolve divergent approaches to homeland security funding in the House and Senate. Kean faults both Menendez and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), the state's senior senator for failing to secure results that would benefit New Jersey.

"They [Menendez and Lautenberg] were sent in to resolve the differences and gave up," Kean said.

Jarrod Agen, a spokesman for DHS, said a "shift" in the funding formula for homeland security grants took place in 2006. The formula now measures critical infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels, chemical plants, office buildings and population.

"As the department has matured, we are getting more information," Argen said.

Repeated phone calls to the Menendez campaign seeking comment on Kean's specific allegations about the senator's role in the conference committee were not returned.

Menendez served in the House of Representatives prior to being appointed as U.S. Senator in January to fill the seat Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) vacated to become the state's governor.

While Menendez served in the House, he introduced legislation to implement all 41 recommendations of the 9/11 commission, but the measures stalled because of Republican opposition, according to his campaign.

Kean's father, Tom Kean Sr., was co-chairman of the 9/11 commission.

Fallon, the campaign spokesman for Menendez, said the incumbent senator, contrary to what has been said by his opponent, has placed a strong emphasis on counter-terrorism. For instance, Fallon points out that Menendez has been a long-time advocate for measures that would enable government officials to inspect 100 percent of cargo containers coming into the U.S.

"Right now, only 5 percent are inspected," Fallon said. "This means only 1 out of every 20 containers are inspected are inspected for security purposes."

Information made available through the office of Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) shows that the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was "hatched" in New Jersey by terrorists who taken up temporary residence there.

Furthermore, "Islamic radicals" who were planning attacks on the Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, Federal Plaza and the United Nations were all apprehended in New Jersey, Smith's office said.




Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article.

Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.

E-mail a comment or news tip to Kevin Mooney.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.


CNS News Footer

Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service




Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Republicans Seize On N.J. 'Marriage' Ruling


POLITICS / REPUBLICANS SEIZE ON N.J. HOMOSEXUAL 'MARRIAGE' RULING TO RALLY RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES



Boston.ComNational News

Boston Globe



"Yesterday, in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage," Bush said while fund-raising. Republicans, he said, "believe values are important, and we believe marriage is a fundamental institution of civilization."

Bush held up the decision as an example of what could happen nationwide if Democrats retake control of Congress in crucial midterm elections.

Democrats would "redefine marriage" if they become the majority party. Such an agenda "doesn't reflect the priorities or values that the majority of Americans expect."



GOP Seizes On N.J. Ruling To Rally Religious Conservatives

Presses Voters To Back Bans On Same-Sex Nuptials


WASHINGTON -- President Bush and Republican Party activists yesterday seized on the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples as motivation for religious conservatives to vote for their candidates on Nov. 7 -- and to back initiatives banning gay marriage, which are on ballots in eight states.

Bush, campaigning for a congressional candidate in Iowa, held up the decision as an example of what could happen nationwide if Democrats retake control of Congress in crucial midterm elections in 11 days. Public opinion polls indicate that the Democrats are close to that goal.

"Yesterday, in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage," Bush said while fund-raising. Republicans, he said, "believe values are important, and we believe marriage is a fundamental institution of civilization."

On Wednesday, New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, a decision that could pave the way for same-sex marriages in the state.

Some analysts contend that the decision could prompt a Republican backlash and push conservative voter turnout, which is critical to GOP prospects. While opinion polls have indicated that loyal Republican voters are disillusioned this year, most oppose same-sex marriage, and the issue might help motivate them.

But other analysts doubted that the heated gay marriage debate can trump other issues -- like the Iraq war, the economy, and political scandals -- that have turned public opinion against the GOP.

"I don't think it is on voters' minds as much as it was in 2004," when Massachusetts became the first in the nation to rule in favor of same-sex marriage, said Joe Solomese , president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group in Washington. "There are other things on voter's minds, such as Iraq."

Nevertheless, GOP officials and evangelical Christian groups used the New Jersey decision to try to energize their supporters.

In Indiana, one of the eight states with a same-sex marriage ban on the ballot this year, Republican lawmakers promised to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage if they maintain control of the state Legislature. Republicans running for the US House of Representatives in the Hoosier State could get a boost from any backlash to the New Jersey ruling, according to Nathan Gonzales, political editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report in Washington.

"Indiana has three of the most vulnerable House seats in the country," he said. "There is a need for the Republican incumbents to energize and consolidate the GOP base."

Representative Mike Pence , an Indiana Republican and a strong conservative, warned yesterday that Democrats would "redefine marriage" if they become the majority party. Such an agenda "doesn't reflect the priorities or values that the majority of Americans expect," Pence said in a statement.

One senior GOP official predicted that new political ads raising gay marriage as a campaign issue could influence some hotly-contested Senate races, convincing voters that Democrats want more left-leaning federal judges who agree with the New Jersey court. Polls suggest that most Americans do not favor same-sex marriage.

In Pennsylvania, where Rick Santorum , a conservative Republican, is struggling to keep his Senate seat, the Pennsylvania Family Institute mailed fliers to potential voters, warning that "homosexual legal activists in Pennsylvania and elsewhere will make good on their agenda to exploit rulings like New Jersey's to force homosexual marriages or marriage benefits on our commonwealth."

And the Cornerstone Institute, a conservative political interest group in Idaho, declared that "activist judges" on New Jersey's high court "have chosen to throw the Constitution out on its ear" with their ruling. Unless Idahoans approve a state ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage, the group warned, their state could be next.

"If you ever wonder if it really is necessary to secure the definition of natural marriage in Idaho's Constitution, just look to New Jersey," the group told its supporters.




Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.

This report included material from the Associated Press.



Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Leave Issue Of Homosexual 'Marriage' Up To Voters


NEW JERSEY / CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT DEFINING MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN WOULD GIVE VOTERS A VOICE ON THE ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUAL 'MARRIAGE'



CNS News Mast Head



"I urge the Legislature to consider the constitutional amendment I have sponsored that would define marriage in New Jersey as being only between a man and a woman," said Republican State Assemblyman Guy Gregg.

"Not only does this reflect the intent of the current law, but it also would give New Jersey voters a chance to have a voice in this matter when the issue comes to the ballot for a vote."



Politics

Battle Lines Drawn in NJ Over Same-Sex 'Marriage'


~ By Jeff McKay
CNSNews.com Correspondent
October 27, 2006


(CNSNews.com) - The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision to have the state Legislature tackle the issue of same-sex "marriage" has divided an already partisan state Senate and Assembly, and the repercussions may impact New Jersey's bitterly contested U.S. Senate race.

Already some Democrats are lining up to cosponsor a bill which would allow New Jersey to join Massachusetts in allowing same-sex marriages. State Assembly Democrats Reed Gusciora, Brian Stack, and Speaker Pro-Tem Wilfredo Caraballo have announced they would bring the bill into the Assembly as early as next week.

According to the ruling handed down by the court, the New Jersey Legislature has 180 days to decide if the state will legalize same-sex marriage. If not, the legislature must pass laws establishing civil unions that provide the same rights and benefits that married heterosexuals enjoy.

While some Democrats are rushing to bring same-sex marriage to New Jersey, others in the party are taking a more cautious approach.

"This issue comes at a time when the Assembly and state Senate has a lot on its plate," David Rebovich, managing director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics, told Cybercast News Service.

"The key issues of property taxes, high insurance rates, and ethics are important to voters," Rebovich said. "With statewide mid-term elections next year, now these key issues will be taking a back seat to this court decision. For many, this is the last thing they wanted."

The latest poll in New Jersey on same-sex marriage (conducted in June by the Eagleton Institute at Rutgers University) found that 50 percent of state residents supported same-sex marriage, while 44 percent opposed it.

Some divisions are starting to form within majority ranks.

Majority Assembly Leader Joseph Roberts and Senate Majority Leader and former acting Gov. Richard Codey issued a joint statement casting doubt on whether the measure by their Democratic colleagues could be approved before the 180-day deadline.

"Given the fact that it took the judicial system nearly four years to come up with a 4-3 split decision, we think the determination by only four justices that the entire Legislature is obligated to respond within 180 days is unreasonable," they said in a joint statement.

State Republicans are standing firm against same-sex marriage, and many believe this will distract the lawmakers from handling issues such as property taxes.

"I urge the Legislature to consider the constitutional amendment I have sponsored that would define marriage in New Jersey as being only between a man and a woman," said Republican State Assemblyman Guy Gregg.

"Not only does this reflect the intent of the current law, but it also would give New Jersey voters a chance to have a voice in this matter when the issue comes to the ballot for a vote."

Conservative State Assemblyman Richard Merkt believes the state Supreme Court judges violated their judicial oath due to the use of their personal preferences and should be charged with judicial misconduct.

Democrats control the New Jersey Assembly 49-31 and the Senate 22-18.

The candidates for New Jersey's hotly contested U.S. Senate race also spoke out on the issue. While Republican Tom Kean, Jr. took a stand, his challenger, Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez did not say whether he was for or against the court's decision.

"I still believe that marriage is and should be between one man and one woman, and I would support an amendment to the state Constitution reaffirming that definition. The eyes of the country are on New Jersey," said Kean.

"I have always believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have also always supported civil unions that allow couples with a lifetime commitment to each other to get full legal benefits, such as the right to visit each other in the hospital," said Menendez.

"The Supreme Court affirmed those rights today, and it is now up to the Legislature to decide how they are to be administered. I will not support any constitutional amendment that takes away people's legal rights," he said.

"Menendez is probably playing this the right way, supporting civil rights but not coming out and saying he is for it or against it," said Rebovich. "However, I suspect this is probably the last thing both candidates wanted to happen just two weeks before the election."

Since both houses are Democrat-controlled, the distinct possibility is that a bill either reaffirming civil unions or legalizing same-sex marriage may end up on the desk of Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, leaving the governor to face a serious dilemma.

"This would be a lose-lose situation [for Corzine]," said Rebovich.

"He would have a hard time vetoing a same-sex marriage decision against his own party. On the other hand, if same-sex marriage were to pass, it could impact a 2007 mid-term election where all Assembly and a number of key state Senate seats will be up for grabs."

Corzine is on record as being supportive of civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.




Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-brief.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

CNS News Footer

Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service




Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Political Ad Disrespects N.J.'s Italian-Americans


NEW JERSEY / ELECTION 2006: CONSERVATIVE PAC AD DISRESPECTS N.J.'S ITALIAN-AMERICANS



The 30-second spot, which is a bad "Sopranos" take off, was actually put out by a conservative political action committee taking a shot at incumbent U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.).

The goof ball spot has the fake mobster crying the blues about how the mob's friend Menendez is the subject of a federal investigation. As the bad actor paces the alley-way he says, "And worse, this guy Tom Kean wants to clean things up, even cut taxes. Hey, where's our take in that? We need to get the bosses to fix this."



Republican Ad Disrespects Italian-Americans

Just when you thought the US Senate campaign in New Jersey couldn't get any uglier or degrading, it exceeds our expectations.

When I first saw the TV ad with the cheesy looking guy in a fake alley-way in a leather jacket muttering, "We gotta problem . . . Bada bing, we're in it -- but deep." I was thinking it was some sort of cheap commercial for a product I was sure I didn't want to buy. But the 30-second spot, which is a bad "Sopranos" take off, was actually put out by a conservative political action committee taking a shot at incumbent U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), and apparently trying to help Republican state Senator Tom Kean Jr..

The goof ball spot has the fake mobster crying the blues about how the mob's friend Menendez is the subject of a federal investigation. As the bad actor paces the alley-way he says, "And worse, this guy Tom Kean wants to clean things up, even cut taxes. Hey, where's our take in that? We need to get the bosses to fix this."

Bob Torricelli's name is thrown in there, as a friend of the fake mobster who is clearly intended to be some sort of Italian-American who is "connected." To make matters worse, this idiot doesn't even sound remotely like the mob guys or "wanna-bes" I grew up around in Newark. I'm betting he's not even Italian. Of course, the ad finished with a professional announcer saying, "Tell Bob Menendez his high tax record is a crime."

The spot is disgusting, degrading, and disrespectful to Italian-Americans, to New Jerseyans and to the entire political process. I find it impossible to imagine people actually sitting in a room conjuring it up and then paying $200,000 to get it on the air!

That's exactly what happened with this spot in a state that has been maligned across the country as a haven for corruption and with an established history of organized crime, which thankfully isn't what it used to be. The ad was put out by a group called "The Free Enterprise Fund Committee." I'm hoping the Kean Campaign knew nothing about it before it hit the airwaves.

Unfortunately, all Tom Kean Jr. would say is that he has problems with the ad but refused to do anything to try to stop it. When pressed about going directly to "The Free Enterprise Fund Committee" to demand they stop running the ad, Kean's official spokesperson Jill Hazelbaker, said, "We have no control over what these groups do. We put out a statement. I'm sure they saw that."

That won't get it done. Not even close. Obviously the ad takes an ugly shot at the Italian-American community, an unbelievably dumb move given what a huge voting block they are. Further, there's no way such a spot would ever have been aired if it were a parody of someone who is Black, Jewish or Asian, etc.

Look, I'm not a big Italian-American "anti defamation guy." I love The Sopranos and The Godfather (except Godfather 3). But this is different. This is a campaign for the US Senate and Tom Kean Jr. should know better.

The Kean campaign says it has no influence over this group, which is why they won't press them to pull it. That may be true, but Kean also has no direct influence over whether Donald Rumsfeld stays as Defense Secretary, but that hasn't stopped him from boldly calling for his resignation. Tom Kean Jr. has no direct influence over House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), but he has said Hastert should immediately step down over the Mark Foley-Congressional Page e-mail scandal.

The Kean campaign wants its cake and wants to stuff its face, too. Kean wants to come across as clean-cut, above the fray; a fresh face who isn't ethically challenged, like his opponent. That's exactly the way I saw him when this race began. But he continually proves he is willing to do anything to destroy Bob Menendez, the Democratic incumbent who clearly has problems.

Ironically, before this ad hit, my sense was that Menendez had issues in the Italian-American community because of his opposition to Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Menendez voted against 'Alito's confirmation because of the abortion issue. (Alito is pro-life.) I thought it was a bad vote, because Sam Alito is imminently qualified to serve on the high court, regardless of his stance on abortion. Sam Alito is the finest the state has to offer and someone who makes many Italian-Americans proud -- including me.

But the Italian-American voting dynamic has changed because in the past few days virtually everyone I know whose name ends in a vowel and has seen the fake Sopranos TV spot is appalled. This visceral reaction is much more powerful than any anti-Menendez sentiment brought on by the Sam Alito vote.

It may not have been a Tom Kean ad, but he surely mishandled its aftermath. He too has insulted many Italian-Americans by refusing to demand that this off-the-wall, conservative political action committee pull the spot now and apologize immediately.

Somehow, my gut tells me Tom Kean Sr. would have known how to handle this, but this latest episode makes it clearer than ever Junior is not Senior. You blew it Tom Jr. I only hope you realize it and apologize immediately. My instinct is you won't. Maybe you just don't get it.





Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Homosexual 'Marriage' - The Seven Who Sued


NEW JERSEY -- PASSAIC COUNTY -- POMPTON LAKES -- WAYNE TOWNSHIP / BIOGRAPHIES OF THE SEVEN HOMOSEXUAL / LESBIAN COUPLES WHO SUED FOR LEGALIZED SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE"



Courier Post Online



Seven gay and lesbian couples sued the state in 2002 for the right to marry. Here's who they are:



Biographies Of The Seven N.J. Homosexual / Lesbian Couples Who Sued


Thursday, October 26, 2006


Seven gay and lesbian couples sued the state in 2002 for the right to marry. Here's who they are:

  • Cindy Meneghin and Maureen Kilian, both 48, met at De Paul Roman Catholic High School in Wayne in 1973 and became high school sweethearts. They have been together ever since. Meneghin is the director of Web services at Montclair State University; Kilian is a church administrator in Pompton Lakes. They live in Butler. Their son and daughter call Meneghin "Momma" and Kilian "Mommy."
  • Saundra Toby-Heath, 53, and Alicia Heath-Toby, 43, spend much of their time at the Liberation in Truth Unity Fellowship in Newark where Toby-Heath is an ordained minister. Heath-Toby, a Federal Express dispatcher, and Toby-Heath, an HIV educator, have been together since 1989.
  • Chris Lodewyks, 56, and Craig Hutchison, 55, met as college students in 1968 and have been a couple since 1971. Hutchison is an investment banker and Lodewyks is retired. They live in Pompton Lakes.
  • Karen Nicholson-McFadden, 40, and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, 42, have been together since 1990. Together, they own an executive search business. Karen Nicholson-McFadden is a stay-at-home mother to the couple's young son and daughter. The couple organize an annual Christmas caroling event in their Aberdeen neighborhood.
  • Mark Lewis, 46, and Dennis Winslow, 56, both Episcopal priests, have been together for about 15 years. On legal forms, the Union City couple is listed first among the plaintiffs, which is why New Jersey's gay marriage lawsuit is known as Lewis v. Harris. Harris is Gwendolyn L. Harris, who was New Jersey's Human Services commissioner when the lawsuit was filed.
  • Suyin Lael, 47, and Sarah Lael, 44, of South Brunswick, both legally changed their last names to Lael in 2002, just before the eldest of their three daughters entered kindergarten. Suyin Lael is a nonprofit administrator; Sarah Lael is a speech therapist.
  • Diane Marini, 53, a building contractor in Haddonfield, remained a plaintiff after her partner of 14 years, Marilyn Maneely, died at age 55 of Lou Gehrig's disease last year. Maneely became a symbol for gay rights advocates in New Jersey as Marini fought to be able to visit her in the hospital because they were not married.




-- Associated Press

Copyright 2006 CourierPostOnline.com. All rights reserved




Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Wednesday, October 25, 2006

N.J. Legislature Must Decide On Homosexual 'Marriage'


HOMOSEXUAL 'MARRIAGE' / N.J. SUPREME COURT: LEGISLATURE SHOULD DECIDE



NewsMax Mast Head



New Jersey's highest court ruled Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.



N.J. Court: Legislature Should Decide on 'Gay Marriage'


~ NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Oct. 26, 2006

TRENTON, N.J. -- New Jersey's highest court ruled Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.

Advocates on both sides of the issue believed the state posed best chance for gay marriage to win approval since Massachusetts became the only state to do so in 2003 because the New Jersey Supreme Court has a history of extending civil rights protections.

Instead, the high court stopped short of fully approving gay marriage and gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include gay couples or create new civil unions.





(C) 2006 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.




Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below