Connect with us


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.

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.


  • New Jersey firearms hearings – eyewitness report


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

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

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.


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.


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.


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.


“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.


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?


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.


“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.


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.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x