So a Rabbi, a Mayor, and a Real Estate Developer Walk Into a New Jersey Diner……..

   After that, all hell breaks loose as on the morning of July 23rd, over 200 federal agents swept across New York and New Jersey to round up 44 miscreants who were fire inspectors, city planning officials, utilities officials, real estate developers, political operatives, philanthropists, rabbi’s, assemblymen, mayor’s and gubernatorial cabinet officials.

Years of criminal investigation culminated in the discovery of a tangled web of corruption that included the laundering of tens of millions of dollars through Jewish charities controlled by rabbis in Brooklyn, N.Y. and Deal, N.J., the trafficking of kidneys and fake Gucci handbags and tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to public officials that were meant to get approvals for buildings and other projects in New Jersey.

The key to the arrests was Solomon Dwek, a 36-year-old religious-school head and philanthropist from Monmouth County, N.J., who became a cooperating witness after being charged with defrauding PNC Bank by writing a bad check for $25 million in 2006.

From that point on Dwek was wired, videotaped and followed by F.B.I. agents in a plot straight out of The Soprano’s. On those F.B.I. recordings are such gems as Mr. Dwek stating to one money-launderer that he had “at least $100,000 a month coming from money I ‘schnookied’ from banks for bad loans.” In another tape Dwek is seen giving another coconspirator a box of Apple Jacks cereal stuffed with $97,000 cash for a few political favors in return.

Some of the most high profile thugs rounded up were the New Jersey mayors of Ridgefield, Secaucus and Hoboken, Jersey City’s deputy mayor and two state assemblymen.

A former state senate leader and now member of New Jersey Governor Corzine’s cabinet was also implicated and forced to resign after F.B.I officials searched his home in connection to the still unfolding scandal.

All but one of the officeholders are Democrats. The lone Republican is Dan Van Pelt, a double dipping, dual office holder who serves as the mayor of Ocean Township, NJ. and an assemblyman in the state legislature. Republicans throughout the state called for his immediate resignation from both public offices. A call to his office for a reaction was answered by a woman who calmly said “Mr. Van Pelt was arrested today and is out of the office.”

Now that’s New Jersey!

The most conspicuous of all to have been rounded up so far is the Democrat mayor of Hoboken, Peter Cammarano.

Cammarano just took office on July 1st after winning a cantankerous runoff election and despite the efforts of those officials in Hoboken who have not been arrested, Cammarano refuses to resign. After all he just got the job.

On tape, Mr. Cammarano was caught accepting $25,000 in cash bribes from Solomon Dwek in exchange for expediting zoning changes and pushing through approval of building plans. After the money exchanges hands he tells Dwek “you can put your faith in me” and that “I promise you…you’re gonna be, you’re gonna be treated like a friend.” But along the way other embarrassing statements are overheard. At one point, while talking about his chances of winning what, at the time, was his upcoming mayoral race, Cammarano’s cocky bravado compelled him to declare “right now, the Italians, the Hispanics, the seniors are locked down. Nothing can change that now. . . . I could be, uh, indicted, and I’m still gonna win 85 to 95 percent of those populations”. In another very Mafioso-like moment, Cammarano is caught talking about payback for those who were not with him in the election.

None of this is helping Governor Corzine or the image of Democrats who lined up behind the new Hoboken mayor as he was sworn into office. There, U.S. Senators Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez as well as Governor Corzine proudly embraced the 32 year old rising Democrat star with warm embraces and glowing praise.

The whole situation has produced an incredibly embarrassing state of affairs for Corzine who ran New Jersey into the ground after taking office almost four years ago and, among other things, promised to quash corruption. After seeing more than 130 public officials plead guilty or get convicted of corruption since 2001, the arrest of 43 Democrats and 1 Republican, at one time, has proven that Corzine did little to achieve that goal.

Like everything else he promised, including getting the state budget under control, Corzine has been a disastrous failure and this monumental size corruption spectacle just hammers that point harder than ever.

But aside from the increased sour impressions that this newest saga creates, is has disabled a a good portion of the Hudson County Democratic political machine and severely handicapped Corzine‘s chances to win reelection with his major campaign theme which consists of repeating Barack Obama’s name and reminding people that he belongs to the same party that the President belongs to.

Hoboken is one of the largest cities in Hudson Country and Corzine’s home town . Hudson County is one of the most heavily Democrat counties in the state and is the crown jewel of the Governor’s base of support and source of the political engine that runs Corzine’s Get-Out-The-Vote operation.

In this recent historic corruption sweep, 19 of those rounded up were Hudson County officials and operatives. All of which were gearing up to pump out the vote for Corzine in November.

Now they are otherwise occupied in criminal court.

One of these 19 is Jack Shaw, a professional politician that has strong ties and influence with unions on Corzine‘s behalf. Another arrested member of the Corzine cabal is Joseph Cardwell, an operative famous for his coordination of African-American voters, a vote so crucial to Corzine‘s reelection that, without success, he begged the new rising political star, Cory Booker, an African-American mayor of New Jersey‘s largest city, to be his Lieutenant Governor.

All of this has placed the decapitated head of a horse on the pillow of Corzine’s deathbed reelection effort that signifies things to come.

The Governor is already running about ten percent behind his chief rival, Republican Chris Christie, and the prevalent political corruption that has been flourishing among Corzine’s political network is neatly countered by the fact that as the state’s former U.S. Attorney, Chris Christie is the most high profile and successful crime buster that New Jersey’s has ever seen. This naturally compensating aspect of Chris Christie’s candidacy is just another nail in Corzine’s political coffin. That and the fact that you have key Corzine campaigners handcuffed, record high unemployment, a decimated business environment and the highest tax burden in the nation, all adds up to his defeat in November.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that the 44 recent and dramatic malfeasances that were linked together and exposed on just one sunny, summer, New Jersey morning, have officially made New Jersey the most politically corrupt state in the nation. It has also made it very clear that New Jerseyans can not trust anyone in government who asks for their support or whom they seek assistance from or discuss issues with. And to make matters worse, this criminal investigation is still ongoing. I fully expect Governor Corzine to, at some point, be implicated himself, for tampering with the case and trying to have the arrests delayed until after the election when news of the scandal could not effect his chances for reelection.

The whole ugly, unfolding, situation is simply a travesty and cry for change. Not just in New Jersey but in politics and public service in general. It makes it quite obvious that something has to give here and it can’t be the voters. They have already given too much in freedom, taxes, patience and quality of life.

But that assessment begs the question, what must give? What must and can we do? It also leads one to wonder if the systemic corruption that exists in public service is simply a byproduct of politics or is it beyond politics and just a part of human nature?

Stars of The Reality TV Stage Take To The Political Stage

  As New Jersey enters the remaining months of it’s gubernatorial election, the last most intriguing question that remains is whom will the Republican and Democrat candidates choose to be their running mate for Lieutenant Governor.

It is the first time that New Jersey will ever have such a post, a post that over the last decade or more has proven to be quite a necessity. The need became aparent after a series of events rotated the office of Governor like a political carousel that went around and around and got us nowhere.

It started in the late 90’s when Governor Christine Todd Whitman failed to complete her second term in office after resigning to become Director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

In accordance with state law, the New Jersey State Senate President assumes the responsibilities of the Governor in the event of a vacancy or incapacity or even whenever the duly elected Governor leaves the state.

When Whitman resigned the Senate President, Donald DiFrancesco, took over. But his term as Senate President ended one week before his successor, Jim McGreevey, was to be sworn in as Governor. That created a unique set of circumstances. The Senate was evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. This gave the leaders of each party the right to claim the title and the job of acting governor. So they agreed to split the job for the week before the new Governor took office.

Republican leader John Bennett first took charge, then Democratic leader Richard Codey. A fifth governor was state Attorney General John J. Farmer, Jr. who got the job Tuesday afternoon for the hour or so that it took to swear in the new Senate president.

Following that tangled web, Governor Jim McGreevey resigned more than a year before his term was up due to the fact, that as he put it, he was “a gay American”. Being gay was not why he had to resign of course, but the shock value of the admission helped to cover up the real reasons which were a clandestine gay affair that he was conducting behind his wife’s back and the subsequent patronage scandal involving his gay lover and a host of other financial improprieties that the Governor was engaging in.

This yet again unique set of circumstances allowed Democrat Senate Presidentr Dick Codey to again become Governor. So for more than a year New Jersey had a Governor who was also the Senate President. Along the way many realized that by having one person in charge of two branches of the legislature kind of defeated the checks and balances of the state legislature. Was Dick Codey going to push for one set of crappy legislative initiatives as Governor and then rally the state senate together to vote against those initiatives as the Senate President? Obviously not and so this consolidation of power was a concern.

So after time New Jerseyans passed a referendum that created the office of Lieutenant Governor. But after filling the post of Governor when McGreevey resigned, Codey again had to step in when Jon Corzine was elected Governor.

As Corzine had his driver speed down the Garden State Parkway at 90 miles per hour, he cascaded off the road and EMS workers found the new Governors legs dangling out of the window of the state SUV that he used as it rested in the shrubbery along side of the highway.

Corzine was incapacitated for months as surgery after surgery repaired the many broken bones that he received for speeding and not wearing his seat belt.

The situation highlighted New Jersey’s exceptional need for a Lieutenant Governor.

So here we are today. Jon Corzine has been re-nominated for Governor and now he has the opportunity to select a Lieutenant Governor if once again he cannot fullfill his duties as Governor.

On his own, Corzine faces an uphill battle .

After first coming to Trenton, in just six short months he increased taxes in New Jersey by almost $2 billion dollars. This happened after he ran for Governor promising to “control spending”. Now as reelection approaches the state has a budget deficit slightly larger than the total amount of revenue he raised in tax increases when he first took office. This is just one dismal spot on a very spotty and tarnished record.

After questionable negotiations with state unions that were headed up by the Governors girlfriend, Carla Katz, state budget negotiations that closed state government for the fourth of July in his first term, a plan to increase tolls on roadways every year for decades to come and a push for putting tolls on roads that don’t have any tolls, Governor Corzine has accomplished little more than make life in New Jersey tougher and more expensive. In fact the most significant legislative achievement of his administration to date was the abolishment of the death penalty in New Jersey.

This dismal record puts Corzine’s reelection in a desperate position.

Polls have the Governor behind his Republican opponent by as much as 8 to 10 %. So what is a desperate candidate to do?

Well first thing the Governor is attempting to do is take the focus off of him and put it on President Barack Obama.

After winning the Democrat nomination in June, Corzine’s victory speech evoked the name of the still popular President dozens of times and in talking about his Republican opponent, Chris Christie, the former U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, he evoked the name of Georg Bush and even one of Christie’s former bosses, Attorney General John Ashcroft.

I guess with little to go on, the only hope Corzine has is to latch on to the popularity that Barack Obama has in New Jersey and try to paint a picture that makes him an Obama surrogate and Christie a Bush surrogate. But the problem is George Bush and Barack Obama are not on the ballot in November of ‘09. He and Chrsitie are.

So Corzine is now apparently considering using the newly created Lieutenant Governor spot on his ticket as a means to tag a name and face that might help his chances more than his own name.

It is said that Randall Pinkett may be Corzine’s running mate.

Who is Randall Pinkett?

He is an African-American reality TV star with degrees from MIT, Oxford University and Rutgers University and CEO of a successful technology consulting firm in Newark. He was the winner of Donald Trump’s hit reality television show The Apprentice.

Personally I cannot believe the speculation that has Corzine selecting Pinkett as his running mate. I can’t see how a sitting Governor would find a reality TV star to be the most qualified person to run the state in his place. But it is clear that Corzine needs lots of help to win in November. So Pinket might just be the choice he thinks he needs.

First of all we know that Governor Corzine has courted and desperately hoped that Newark Mayor Cory Booker would be his running mate.

Booker is a popular first term Mayor of New Jersey’s largest city. He is young, articulate, energetic and political savvy. He is also African-American and Corzine hopes to tap into an unusually heavy turnout of pro-Democrat, Obama supporting African-Americans.

But alas, Booker rejected latching his rising star to the falling meteor that is Corzine‘s.

Other prominent African-American mayors do exist and Corzine has toyed with the idea of naming one of them but none of them have the same statewide identification that Booker has.

There are some women he is considering but few of them have very significant regional appeal and none of them have any statewide appeal. So that leaves Corzine with an African-American who has been seen by millions on a reality TV show.

By this standard why not select the buxom beauty from MTV’s reality show, “I Love New York”. The so named “New York” of that show had extremely high ratings and tens of millions of young voters watched her bounce from room to room with prospective male partners as she determined who was her best looking and most compatible love interest. New York is both a woman and African-American so she is a twofer for Corzine, whereas Randal Pinket only adds color, not gender, to his appeal.

Apparently the name of the game for Corzine is simply winning reelection. I mean why choose a running mate based on experience, expertise, ability or public service accomplishments?

With little to run on Jon Corzine is hoping that snowballs don’t melt in hell. As such he has begun to run one of the most negative and shallow campaigns in history. Instead of pointing to any achievements, he tries to morph his Republican opponent into George Bush.

Without any ability to demonstrate how Corzine has improved life in New Jersey, he evokes the name of Barack Obama in the hopes of morphing himself into the popular President.

In the mean time New Jerseyans suffer from the highest tax burden in the nation and due to a business environment that Corzine has decimated with taxes, fees and regulations, the state has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.

Yet with no relief in sight, Corzine sticks to his reelection plan. Today he will appear at the PNC Arts Center in Holmdel, New Jersey with none other than the President and when the President flies off, it looks like Corzine is hoping to tap into victory by adding another African-American with little experience to his ticket.

PROPOSED NEW JERSEY BUDGET IS A PAGE FROM THE BERNIE MADOFF SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

    “Every day, across New Jersey, across America, millions of people are sitting down at their kitchen tables and sorting out their family budgets. On the backs of envelopes … with pencils and calculators in hand … surrounded by stacks of bills and receipts … families are figuring out how to balance their income and expenses …And they’re doing this amid alarming economic circumstances.

You pick up the newspaper and see the national unemployment rate rising above 8%. You see neighbors losing their jobs, their homes and their health care. People worry they might be next.

The economy may not be “in shambles” as Warren Buffet remarked last week, but it is clear that this is no ordinary recession. And the costs of this economic crisis are exacting a serious, human toll.

People from all walks of life are tightening their belts. Around the kitchen table, every family knows what it means to make tough choices in these tough times. But people also understand the importance of making the right choices. They identify their most important priorities, and they change their spending habits to live within their means.”

That is how New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine began his annual budget speech.

He then went on to say that state government is in the same position as its people and must make hard choices. But as is the case with most of Governor Corzine’s words, that is not exactly the case.

What Governor Corzine forgets is that our state government and all its largess exists on the backs of its residents. Every clandestine union contract he has negotiated, every state mandate he has supported and every state employee he has hired is paid for not by a needy government but by suffering taxpayers who flip the bill for government.

So it is not true that New Jersey state government is “in the same position” as New Jersey citizens. New Jersey state government ushered in an economic crisis years before the national economy realized its banking crisis and tightening up of the flow of money.

Governor Corzine tried to paint a picture of a state government that is suffering as much as its people. What he failed to make clear is that the people are suffering because of what his state government is costing them and doing to them. What he failed to do was spare the taxpayer from suffering even more in the name of government. What Corzine did do is demand more sacrifices from the taxpayer for the benefit of the state government bureaucracy.

In his budget address, despite his contention that he is not growing the size of government, he failed to make government smaller and he failed to make life better for the citizens of New Jersey. Instead he made things worse.

Rather than try to turn around New Jersey’s dismal, worst in the nation, business environment he increased the already high taxes that decimated business in New Jersey and instead of attracting new business to New Jersey he increased the state‘s payroll tax and made the state less attractive to conduct business in.

Rather than reduce the state’s, highest in the nation property tax burden, he increased it even more.

Instead of cutting government costs and eliminating programs or implementing a hiring freeze, the governor expanded programs.

In his budget address, Governor Corzine portrayed himself as a man having to make tough decisions, yet what he proved to us is that he lacks the courage to make those tough decisions.

He refuses to make needed decisions to reform his bureaucracy. He refuses to reform the state’s under funded, deficit riddled pension system and he refuses to stand up to costly government mandates that will ruin entire communities in New Jersey from High Point in the North to Cape May in the South.

As liberal philosophy dictates, Corzine’s budget speech made it clear that increased taxes are his answer. It is the same thinking that led Corzine to raise taxes by nearly 2 billion dollars when he first came into office. Yet, even though he raised those taxes, today we are in a deficit of almost 2 billion dollars.

What went wrong?

The answer is that his leadership offered policies that did not shrink the size and scope of the states bureaucratic jungle but did make it more expensive to operate. That increase was passed on to the taxpayers and that subsequently worked against the state. Instead of meeting state revenue projections, we fell short. Instead of growing our economy, Corzine’s tax increases helped to shrink our economy and that helped to further reduce state revenues.

And what is the Governor’s proposed solution?

He gives us more of the same that got us to where we are today.

He raises sin taxes, business taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes and more. He even has the gall to portray his elimination of property tax rebates to the taxpayer as a budget cut. He is not cutting the budget, he is simply costing the taxpayer more.

But such is the thinking of a liberal Governor. Such is the work of a self proclaimed Wall Street financial guru who exited Goldman-Sachs with a golden parachute of more than 400 million dollars. This is the best he can do even with billions of extra dollars that his state is getting from the recent stimulus package.

How would he have maintained his political bureaucracy had New Jersey not received federal assistance?

The answer is simple. Corzine’s liberal thought process would have led him to propose tax increases much higher than he just did.

Do New Jerseyans really want four more years of this thinking? Aside from his questionable ethical practices and secret union negotiations with his girlfriend, do they really want four more years of Corzine’s Bernie Madoff economic practices? Do they really want more of the same unaccountable conduct and endless tax increases?

New Jerseyans need to realize that government is not always the answer and that more government is not a solution. If Governor Corzine could grasp that fact, he would ask the political bureaucracy of state government to sacrifice more than he is asking the citizens of New Jersey to sacrifice.

Lacking that understanding, on top of questionable ethics that he seems to have learned at The Governor Jim McGreevey School of Ethics, Governor Corzine is simply implementing economic policies that were seemingly taught at the Bernie Madoff School of Economics and as a result, all New Jerseyans are getting ripped off.

When Albert Einstein died, he met three men in line outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what  their  IQs were.

The first replied 190. “Wonderful,” exclaimed Einstein. “We can discuss the contribution made to my mass-energy equivalence concept by Kenneth Bainbridge and his cyclotron research efforts “.

The second answered 150. “Good,” said Einstein. “I look forward to discussing the role of nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace“.

The third man mumbled 50.

Einstein paused, and then asked, “So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?”

ASSEMBLYMAN WEBBER TO DEBATE ASSEMBLY MAJORITY LEADER

                                    

This weekend will afford New Jerseyans the chance to see our political differences come together in a clash that will pit both sides of the ideological spectrum against each other.

On News 12’s Power & Politics Assemblyman Jay Webber will debate assembly Majority Leader Bonnie Watson Coleman as the two discuss the upcoming state budget and New Jersey’s race for Governor.

The program will air 4 times during the course of the weekend on

News 12:

Saturday at 10:00 a.m. & 3:00 p.m. and Sunday also at 10:00 a.m. & 3:00 p.m.

It is a program that you should definitely try to catch.

Both of these individuals are looked at as potential statewide candidates and both of them represent the ideological bases of their parties.

Our favorite is Assemblyman Jay Webber and after seeing him in action I am sure he will be yours too.

New Jersey is not known for being home to the most prominent conservative lawmakers and policy makers in the nation but that could soon change.

Right now New Jersey is witnessing a Republican primary for Governor that features probably one of the most conservative candidates to run for governor in any recent race, including the conservative safe havens of the southern United States. That of course is Steve Lonegan. But Lonegan is not alone. In fact he is not the only conservative running for Governor. Assemblyman Richard Merkt is also seeking the G.O.P. nod for governor and he too is pretty far right of center.

Aside from gubernatorial politics, there are some conservatives in New Jersey. In fact many of them flock to an annual event in New jersey called New Jersey Reagan Day. The event is organized by assemblyman and gubernatorial candidate Rich Merkt’s legislative partner in the Assembly, Jay Webber.

Assemblyman Webber is also a conservative. A young conservative who after his first term in the Assembly has shown himself to be a bright light that is leading the way for the conservative movement in New Jersey.

The fact that Merkt and Webber serve together, representing the same district in the state assembly says something in and of itself. It reminds us that there is hope in New Jersey and that there is hope for us to turn things around. If the people of Morris County can elect two conservatives to represent them, the state, as a whole, just might eventually be able to find one to represent and lead it.

That leader just might eventually wind up being Jay Webber.

As a freshman assemblyman, Jay Webber has let no grass grow under his feet.

In his first year in office he adhered to conservative doctrine and applied it to government. He knows that big government leads to big spending and he knows that big spending takes the money out of the pockets of the governed. That is why he has sponsored over a billion dollars worth of tax cuts and it is why he joined with others to find ways to reduce state spending by as much as he would reduce taxes.

However; Assemblyman Webber is not just a fiscal conservative. He understands that our conservative values and principles do not stop after fiscal concerns. That is why he has led the fight to reform Health Care. His legislation focuses on keeping choices available to the people and even increase their options by making it possible to buy insurance across state lines. Aside from making insurance more affordable through greater competition his bill mandates that pre-existing conditions would be covered. That measure would help protect the interests of those most vulnerable and in need of decent health care coverage.

With an eye not only what is happening now, Assemblyman Webber has legislated with an eye on the future as well. Rather than rubber stamping legislative solutions which might be seen as quick fixes, he has opposed such measures as the Highlands Act, forced consolidation, Abbot funding and other unruly state mandated measure that would break the backs of communities and taxpayers.

His legislative initiatives are quite varied and as a primary sponsor those initiative range from exempting military personnel receiving combat zone pay from the gross income tax to opening up the government process and making government more transparent. His legislation demonstrates a belief in people more than government and at 37 and just in his first term in office, Assemblyman Webber is proving himself to be a leader of the conservative cause and a true leader for New Jersey.

Don’t miss him this weekend!

For today’s regularly scheduled  POLITICS 24/7  post “BECAUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE ADOPTED SOCIALISM” and joke of the day visit click here

ARE DEMOCRATS REALLY CONCERNED WITH HUMAN RIGHTS?

     Just wondering.

Now that Democrats have gained full control of the federal government what happened to their wealth of human rights advocacy?

Recently Secretary of State Clinton went out of her way to let China know that the United States will not let human rights concerns hinder our cooperation with China.

Now, I contend that liberal thinking is hypocrisy based but this recent Democrat commitment confirms it.

But beyond their hypocrisy is their insincerity. Republicans can not make any moves without being accused of human rights abuses and even when Republicans lead efforts that advance human rights, liberals deny credit and the ensuing results.

The fact that millions were freed from oppression and torture in Iraq with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein meant nothing and liberals did nothing but accuse President Bush of waging a useless war. At the same time, they shunned him for not throwing us into civil war in Rwanda.

And what of Rwanda? Where is the liberal urgency to advance human rights there now that they are in charge.

Leadership certainly changes ones priorities, doesn’t it?

What caused Democrats to withdraw their concerns with human rights?

Could it be that achieving them through the political process is a lot harder to do than talking about them?

Or could it be that human rights are nothing more for liberals than a political tool to be used to pull at the heart strings of a compassionate electorate?

I am sure that the people of China are pleased with the new administration and our new Secretary of State. I am sure that the students who risked their lives to participate in protests at Tiananmen Square are glad to know that the worlds beacon of freedom is willing to sell them out for cheap sneakers.

Now I am not suggesting that the Bush administration advanced the cause of human rights in China with any great leaps or bounds but the liberal mentality of people in the Obama administration had them cursing George W. Bush for attending the Olympics in Beijing. Many of them wanted him to boycott the Olympics all together and prohibit our athletes from competing.

The uproar against our participation in the Beijing Olympics reached a fevered pitch during the summer of 2008, but now, in the winter of 2009, with the shoe of leadership on the other foot, the Obama administration came right out and said that human rights in China will have no bearing on our relationship and there is not a peep of protest offered by the left.

In the mean time the Chinese government continues to torture prisoners, deny citizens due process, suppress and torture women, limit speech, the media, independent organizing and freedom of association. All this is added to an undying commitment to suppressing religion which has led to the raping of Tibet that includes the actual raping of Tibetan women, the destruction of over 6,000 monasteries and restrictions prohibiting the practice of their religion.

In the face of all this, Democrat leaders have been able to say that it doesn’t matter. If such a statement came out of a Republican administration, liberals would be tying the knots in nooses made to fit the neck of every member of the President’s cabinet.

So which is it? Do human rights really matter to liberals? Do they mean what they say or do they just say what it takes to look concerned?

When Coca-Cola was first introduced to China, the company had some difficulty spelling the product’s name in Chinese, while keeping the same pronunciation (“ko-ka ko-la”) … the first attempt translated to “bite the wax tadpole.” Finally they arrived at something which translated to “may your mouth rejoice,” and now Coke is selling quite a bit better.

POOR PRESIDENT OBAMA

   It is interesting to listen to the left grouse over objections to President Obama’s economic proposals. They are astonished by any dissent and they are offended by any lack of sensitivity offered to the messiah’s vision for us. They want us to give him a chance and give him some time.

Perhaps they want us to treat President Obama the same way that they treated President Bush? 

From his first forays into the race for President in late 1999, Democrats demonized George W. Bush and since that time, they never once let up .

From day one, they called President Bush an illegitimate President and despite defeating them in a bid for reelection, many continued to make that claim.

From day one, the left never gave President Bush a chance. With unfounded grounds as their basis for accusations, Democrats spent much time even threatening impeachment.

Yet today, they have the nerve to suggest that opposing President Obama on certain issues, so early, is inappropriate.

The same people who once hoped for us to fail in Iraq are the same people crying foul when someone states that they hope President Obama’s socialist agenda fails.  It is not the right which is declaring that Obama has lost any chance at turning the economy around, yet liberals like Harry Reid went so far as to claim that we lost the war in Iraq.

The left used the difficulties of war as fodder for their campaigns and did everything in their power to make George Bush fail. From calling it a lost cause to voting to deny our troops the financial resources to properly fight, liberals have wished for the failure of the war in Iraq, every step of the way.

Yet today, they come before us complaining about opposition to President Obama.

I for one do not oppose President Obama. I oppose some of his positions.

I say, some, because many of his positions have yet to unfold. But of those he has revealed, I am not pleased. I am not pleased with the lurch to socialism that President Obama has promised. I am not happy with his breaking of promises to oppose legislation packed with pork and earmarks or his promotion of the largest budget proposal in history.

But despite my disagreements, unlike many on the left, I do at least refer to President Obama as my President. Many of them refused to acknowledge the same when President George W. Bush was our President.

In truth, the left is the very last side of the political spectrum to protest current of futire opposition to the President.

President Bush never justified opposition to him by being held in contempt of court or for lying under oath. President Bush never warranted disparaging remarks for calling our troops stupid like liberal icon John Kerry did.

The right is not advancing an anti-American socialist agenda. The right is not praying for our loss in a war. The right is not assassinating the character of the President anymore than his own past conduct already has.

The left, however, has to answer for such acts themselves. The left has no legitimate leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about opposition to President Obama. Doing so is simply another fine example of liberal hypocrisy.

Leftist sympathizers may try to claim that opposition to President Obama is Obama bashing, but given the amount of Bush bashing that they took part in, you would think they know better and would realize that current opposition to President Barack Obama is tame in comparison to their baseless allegations and mean spirited attempts to denigrate President Bush and his family.

But leave it to a liberal to demonstrate hypocrisy. Saying one thing and doing another is their modus operandi.

How can you tell when a lawyer has gone bad?

When you call them senator.

THE NEED FOR A FREE ENTERPRISE BILL OF RIGHTS

    It begins with “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America.”…but where does it end?

The preamble to our constitution creates quite a few questions. How do we insure domestic tranquility, what actions can we take to provide for a “common defense”? What issues are considered appropriate when determining government action that promotes beneficial general welfare?

Many of these questions do get addressed throughout the body of the constitution, as it gets into detail, but the creators of this document, for better or worse, have left a degree of ambiguity in all of its instruction.

It is a living document ever changing under the interpretations of its current contemporary custodians. And there in lies, not the problem, but the confusion with our republic. More often than not, constitutional rights are either wrongly denied or wrongfully stretched and applied to that which is unintended. The same is done in the area of constitutional responsibilities.

Such is the case when it comes to our economy.

As far as the economy goes, section 8 of our constitutional requirements are as follows:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

Those clauses have been broadly expanded as naturally as time, technology and our economy has expanded. Yet in many cases the rate of regulation based on those stipulations has far exceeded the rate of economic expansion and has often stymied the natural flow of economic cycles.

In the biggest display of hypocritical thinking regarding the natural order of our free market, liberals who would be the first to denounce any actions that would effect the natural habitat of something like Alabama’s endangered dusky gopher frog are, conversely, the first to call for altering the natural effects of our economy.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is a perfect example of that. Originally intended to insure proper business practices, the bill created a new industrial regulatory complex that grew the size and scope of government and more than doubled the time it takes for a business to start up and go public.

But Sarbanes-Oxley was not a liberal owned overreaching of government. It was supported by as many Republicans as Democrats. The bipartisanship of Sarbanes-Oxley is just a great example of the fact that government, more often than not, hurts more than helps.

Truth be told government has been the source to all of our current problems.

Using the constitutions eight basic economic references, government has in some cases underperformed their duties and in other cases over performed.

When it comes to the banking crisis that ushered in our current economic woes, government did both.

Late 1990’s Clinton era regulations mandated banks to enter in to sub-prime loans to high risk recipients. They forced banks to give housing loans to people who could not afford to pay these loans back. This helped create an over inflated housing bubble that was sure to burst. When it did, one of the most basic economic indicators, housing starts, stalled and slowly did the rest of the economy. Simultaneously, the bill for the millions of home loans that high risk recipients inevitably could not pay back, came due and yielded no return. So foreclosures ensued and banks tightened up loaning practices. In this chain of events, as the loaning of money tightened so did commerce in almost every area across the board.

The government’s mandating the implementation of their own public policy initiative into the private sector, as well as the federal government’s Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae institutions, helped create the problem.

In addition to that, the government’s failure to properly do something that they should have done added to the crisis.

In 2006 when Republicans saw a need to revise the recording policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, liberals refused to do so. Under the Chairmanship of banking committee chairs Barney Franks and Chris Dodd, the liberal majority refused to properly police itself and by the time the inadequacies of the governments recording practices were self evident, it was too late and the government needed to begin the habit bailouts in creating recovery packages that reached totals in the hundreds of billions.

Yet the very same government that could not regulate itself tries to over regulate others. Sarbanes-Oxley is just such an example.

It comes down to this. When government goes beyond its constitutional purpose it becomes the problem, not the solution, and when the constitution is stretched, government breaks the natural order of a free nation.

Just as wrong as the politically correct left is by stretching constitutional rights and trying to misapply them, It is wrong for our government to try to insure that all risks are created equal. Today, government policy is directed at eliminating consequences. Enter into a risk and no matter how good an idea it was or wasn’t, the government will insure that it is covered and rewarded. Run an industry into the ground and government will you bail it. Answer one of those emails asking you to secure millions for a Nigerian Prince’s inheritance by giving him your account number, then lose all the money in your account and the federal government is suppose to give you that money back because you were stupid.

Our modern government has slowly but surely eroded the very constitution that led to our preeminence. We have moved beyond the contradictory socialist programming that is the antithesis of our founding and surpass attempts to spread the wealth. Today, our government spreads the failure. Rather have a rising tide that lifts all boats, the government operates under the philosophy that if one ship is sinking, put holes in all the others. Instead of offering incentives for innovation and success we offer incentive for mediocrity and failure.

And it all stems from a government that has stretched its constitutional place in our free lives and our free enterprises. Instead of allowing the free market to evolve in a way that is best suited to the needs of the consumers, government steps in to make a commitment to a prolonged propping up of failed industries, products and policies. That hurts us all.

It weighs us down and allocates burdensome budgets of wasteful, unnecessary spending.

Government needs to focus on what it can and should do. Instead of creating new laws to over regulate industries, the government needs to make existing agencies effective. When the Federal Trade Commission or Securities and Exchange Commission can properly identify fraud before it is revealed then maybe we can have confidence in the creation or expansion of more government regulatory agencies and initiatives.

The thought of continuing in the direction we are going makes us think twice.

Instead of creating more government and instead of stretching the constitution to find more things that the government needs to control maybe we should begin a new trend.

Instead of proposing more and more things for government to do and more areas for government to intrude, let us start proposing things that government can not do and areas that they can not intrude on.

A start would be an idea that was originally proposed as an amendment to the recent stimulus package law but now that it has passed, I feel that a more expansive version can be offered as a bill in own right.

It is a free Bill of Free Enterprise Rights.

The bill would outline all the things that government is prohibited from doing when it comes to mandating policies in the private sector.

For starters, the bill could prohibit the federal government from forcing private banks to issue unqualified applicants and it could create limits to federal intervention and influence on the private sector.

A carefully crafted Bill Of Free Enterprise Rights could be as meaningful and effective as the human Bill of Rights was. Just as that bill benefited human beings and our nation so would a properly written Bill of Free Enterprise Rights. It could empower free enterprise as much as American citizens were empowered and much like our citizens, free enterprise could be protected from an abusive or tyrannical government.

The benefits would also be hared by government as well.

With an effective Bill of Free Enterprise Rights the government would not feel required to burden itself with the need to waste taxpayer dollars on free market ventures that have failed. Government could focus more on doing a good job with its own constitutional job requirements.

Perhaps by creating a trend of proposing legislation that limits government, we can reverse some of governments detrimental effects on our free markets and our free society.

Of course this is all very counter to the socialist agenda of the spread the wealth era but then again the socialist agenda is counter to the constitution and the reason for being American. So under a socialist agenda, a law that articulates the rights of free enterprise would be counterproductive. It would limit government control and it would expand opportunity. But wait,……… this is still America, right? So why should we be concerning ourselves with socialists and their agendas anyway.

UNTANGLING THE STRINGS ATTACHED TO WEALTH SPREADING

   With wide spread electoral support for “spreading the wealth” through big government, President Obama and liberal leaders Pelosi and Reid , are well on the way to advancing their socialist conversion of our democracy.

It needs to be mentioned that Republicans have also helped in this effort.

Of course only three Republican federal office holders supported the current American economic socialization package but the sudden unwillingness of many Republicans to allow what they have allowed in the past is to little too late.

In the past a healthy block of Republicans in the house and senate have opposed fascist economic policies but not enough to help save the party from defeat in the past two election cycles. An abandonment of our antiestablishment mentality, the acceptance of political largess and a lack of adherence to conservative policy has helped to undermine the G.O.P.’s purpose and our nations economic and social health.

The fact that only three Republicans jumped on board to the recent multi hundred billion dollar stimulus package is encouraging. It shows that the G.O.P. may have learned a lesson and is getting back on track and back on message.

That is yet to be seen though.

If it is in fact true, it still remains to be seen if they are willing to maintain their rediscovered principles if and when they get back control of government.

But what is heartening to know is that there definitely are leaders outside of congress who are willing to keep their conservative beliefs and principles intact.

Several Republican Governors have indicated that they would rather do the hard work it takes to build a strong, sustainable economy that is based on the principles of our free society and free markets as opposed to selling their political souls for federal dollars that will do little more than place a band aid on an economic gash that requires stitches.

Governors such as South Carolina’s Mark Sanford and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindahl have not exactly signed the mortgage papers for their states with the federal government. Joining them are also Alaska’s Governor Palin, Mississippi’s Haley Barbour and Idaho’s Butch Otter.

These Governors have not entirely looked the gift horse in the mouth. They have indicated a willingness to accept some of the money trickling down from the federal bureaucracy. But the monies they are willing to accept for their states are those which do not come along with strings that are attached to regressive policies that are damaging to their states in the long run.

One example cited is additional funds for unemployment. According to the pork riddled, economic wealth socialization boondoggle, states accepting supplemental federal unemployment funds must extend their state unemployment eligibility to part-time workers.

The move would force states to engage in an expansion of a governmental safety net that is meant to help full time employees stay afloat until they can be gainfully reemployed. It is not meant as a benefit to be exploited by teenagers who lose their part-time jobs because of the start of school or due to juvenile, irresponsible, insubordinate behavior and job performance.

The measure would in fact turn the unemployment insurance program into a system that would produce a long term need to drastically increase unemployment withholding taxes and still not be able to sustain the level of unemployment insurance benefits needed to effectively aid those who do find themselves unemployed.

The expansion of unemployment to include part-time workers is just one of many strings attached to the dangerous precedence created by the so-called recovery package.

Yet while liberals in congress attached strings that would expand the size of government and it’s socio-economic reach, they refused to exercise a scintilla of fiscally conservative policy.

They refuse to accept withholding stimulus money from businesses that did not participate in the -E-Verification system that would help insure that these businesses do not hire illegal immigrants and spend American economic dollars on illegal residents instead of American citizens.

Rather than withhold federal stimulus dollars from states that maintained sanctuary city policies, liberals insured that the spreading of the Americans taxpayers wealth was divvied up among illegal immigrants and invading hordes.

Governor’s were not a part of the Capitol Hill fight over the economic socialization bill that liberals passed with the help of three liberal Republican senators. But now that the bill has passed and been signed into law by the President, Governors are on the frontline of the fight.

They will be the ones either buying into the decline of our democratic republic or they will reject many of the federal bribes aimed at reforming our state governments from states where the opportunity to create wealth is endless or to ones where the government is the source of a wealth that they use to spread as they wish.

 

 

“The United States have developed a new weapon that destroys people but it leaves buildings standing. It’s called the stock market.” —Jay Leno

FLAT TAX FOR NEW JERSEY PROPOSED BY LONEGAN AT REAGAN DAY DINNER

Assemblyman Jay Webber, host and sponsor of New Jersey Reagan Day

   In a preview of what to expect , during a speech at the annual New Jersey Reagan Day Dinner, Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan announced that he will be proposing sweeping reform in the shape of a flat tax for New Jersey.

Lonegan is expected to reveal the details of his proposal at a press conference scheduled for Thursday.

The announcement came during his speech to a crowd of more than 200 people who attended Assemblyman Jay Webber’s 6th Annual New Jersey Reagan Day Dinner in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey on Wednesday.

Guests at the well attended event, did not hear only from Lonegan though.

Also in attendance and scheduled to speak were former federal prosecutor Chris Christie and Franklin Mayor Brian Levine. But Lonegan was the first to take to the podium and he quickly became a hard act to follow.

Invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, Steve Lonegan reminded guests that the current economic woes that we are in are a result of too much government and regarding the recent stimulus package, he stated that “we are witnessing an all out attack on the free market principles which have delivered more prosperity and more opportunity to more human beings than the world has ever seen”.

Lonegan’s brief speech, which accompanies this post, rekindled some of the Reagan era wisdom which showed us that it is big government which is “responsible for shackling taxpayers and stopping us from gaining prosperity”.

As such, Lonegan intends to make New Jersey the battleground for the nations economic recovery and promised to take on the challenge laid out in Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address when he asked if we have the courage to challenge the immorality of the progressive tax.

Demonstrating his courage, Lonegan announced that in the coming days he will issue detailed economic policies that include scrapping the current state tax code in favor of a fair, equitable flat tax.

Before ending his speech, Lonegan took a swipe at his most formidable rival for the nomination, Chris Christie.

While standing a mere six feet away from each other, Lonegan referred to Christie as his “primary opponent” and accused him of not understanding the Reagan philosophy. He said “my primary opponent, in his opening remarks, when he kicked off his campaign made the following profound statement. “The Wall Street philosophy is responsible for our state’s fiscal ruin” Lonegan continued, “ladies and gentlemen, the Wall Street philosophy is not responsible for our state’s fiscal ruin, that Wall Street philosophy has elevated this nation’s prosperity for two centuries. It is big government that is responsible for our state‘s fiscal ruin”.

After Lonegan made it clear that he believes government is the problem, not the answer, Christie took to the podium and ducked the swipe taken at him by saying, “I am not here tonight to talk about me. Not to talk about the problems with New Jersey. I am here tonight to talk about Ronald Reagan.”

And in an unintended demonstration of overconfidence Christie added, “over the next nine months there will be plenty of time to talk about the rest of the stuff”.

Problem is, if Christie doesn’t win the nomination , he will only have the four months leading up to the June primary to make his case and unlike Lonegan, Chris Chritie has not been making much of case for himself.  A fact not helped by his refusing to discuss any of the issues on this night.  In fact by not addressing any issues he lacked any presentation of the Reagan-like vision that many in the audience appreciate.

Instead, Chris Christie offered a glowing but unmoving tribute to Ronald Reagan that credited Reagan for his unique personality and leadership but left you wondering if Christie really understood the Reagan philosophy. Whereas, Lonegan spoke about Reagan and laid out a vision for New Jersey much like Reagan did for America.

The contrast between the two was startling.

Lonegan left you feeling hopeful and optimistic about change coming our way. Christie just left you wondering.

Last to speak before former assistant to President Reagan and the nights keynote speaker was Franklin Mayor, Brian Levine.

Levine painted a picture of a dreary economic situation and after calling his opponents for the nomination “a good group of colleagues” he headed the audience to understand that any one of the Republican candidates for governor could help bring us out of the economic malaise that the state is in.

Touching on his background as a C.P.A, and a mayor, Levine spoke to his ability to deal with the numbers and create an atmosphere in his township that is more conducive for citizens than the atmosphere Governor Corzine has created for the rest of the state. And in what was perhaps his best line, he quoted Nancy Reagan regarding C.O.A.H., the Council On Affordable Housing.

According to Levine “we need a political leader who will just say no to C.O.A.H.”

C.O.A.H is a state agency which has recently mandated every community in New Jersey to insure a certain percentage of low income housing. The measure will decimate many municipalities and will be a major cause for already skyrocketing property taxes to reach even greater heights.

The appearances and briefs statements from three of the four Republican candidates for Governor merely added to the already special occasion which was as well run as it was well attended.

Emcee and host, Assemblyman Jay Webber provided guests with another successful celebration of the life and legacy of Ronald Reagan and helped to cement the event as a surefire stop on the campaign trail for any and all statewide candidates.

Aside from the gubernatorial candidates, dozens of county leaders, freeholders, mayors and state legislators were also in attendance. Among some of the most prominent included, local conservative assemblyman Michael Patrick Carol, Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean, Jr. and former Jersey City mayor and 2001 Republican gubernatorial nominee Brett Schundler.

~~~

Below you will find videos of the NJ Reagan Day statements made by each of three potential Republican candidates for New Jersey governor who spoke at the event.

Remarks by Mayor Steve Lonegan

Remarks By Chris Christie

Remarks by Mayor Brian Levine

“Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”        ~Ronald Reagan

LIVE FREE OR DRY

The term Northeast liberal has just taken on new meaning.

New Hampshire, the once lone conservative oriented state in the Northeast’s storied New England region has just been introduced to a proposed legislative initative that would set new standards. It is not a speed limit or New York style ban on fatty food. It is a drinking limit that would be aimed at consumption in bars.

The measure would limit bar patrons to one alcoholic beverage an hour with a maximum of four drinks a sitting and it is a sad commentary of the times which signals an even sadder direction that we are headed in.

New Hampshire has always been a special place for me. It’s rustically quaint, New England elegance and country charm combined with its revolutionary era held beliefs in independence and freedom have always made New Hampshire stand out to me.

Unique in many ways, New Hampshire used to be one of the most distinctly political states in the Northeast. More often than not, the state legislature was controlled by Republicans, who were led by Republican Governors and aided by representatives in Washington who were also Republican. Few, if any states in the Northeast, saw as many prolonged periods of time where both of their United States senators were Republican.

New Hampshire was indeed very different from the rest of the Northeast.

Residents of the Granite State held a rock hard belief in conservative oriented leadership, that led to a government that was less intrusive and less restrictive than most.

I would come to appreciate all of this about New Hampshire ever since my first experience there. It was hallmark occasion for me. I had been hired to work on my first presidential campaign and after driving for hours through the night from Canarsie in Brooklyn, New York, I was just crossing into New Hampshire when the first rays of the new dawn’s sun sparkled and glimmered over a crystal like, ice coated, roadside sign that said “Welcome to New Hampshire. Live Free or Die.”

Despite the cold temperatures, I felt warm and at home.

In the days to follow, as the presidential primary unfolded, I was won over by the people of New Hampshire.

Between every Notch from Dixville to Zealand and the North White Mountains and Great North Woods to its southern sections of Portsmouth and Seabrook in the Seacoast region and Nashua, Concord and Manchester in between, I found the people of New Hampshire to be polite, gracious, fair-minded, open and independent. I also found that they took their politics seriously and they took their citizenship and all the rights that came with it even more serious.

But years later, New Hampshire is changing.

Many Northeast urban dwellers have sought a less congested and, less expensive way of life. Many of them have moved to New Hampshire where such an existence was once possible. With no state sales tax or income tax, New Hampshire lived up to their, “live free, or die” motto and it slowly captured the minds and imaginations of many disaffected regional residents. But with their move from out of state urban centers in to New Hampshire suburban centers, many of the new, New Hampshire residents brought their failed urban center political thinking with them and began to influence New Hampshire politics.

That influence has helped to jeopardize the very freedom that New Hampshire emphasizes. So much so that the state is beginning to change drastically.

Liberal bureaucrats appointed through the, new to New Hampshire, thinking of relatively new legislative leaders, are chipping away at the Granite State’s freedom. It is a fact made quite clear by this public consumption limit being discussed by New Hampshire’s chief liquor law enforcement officer, Eddie Edwards.

The Edwards’ discussions about legislative consumption limits are absolutely senseless and unrealistic and a perfect example of government overreaching and ineffectiveness. Yet the recent decade’s wave of new era liberal thinkers in New Hampshire government will provide some legs to the initiative.

Perhaps the only roadblock to its final passage is the enforcement angle.

How does such a measure get enforced? Does the state hire a new legion of bar watchers who take time stamped photos of each patron, every time they purchase a drink?

Whether the initiative passes or not , it is a sign of things to come and the liberal thinking which expands the size and scope, of government, makes it more unwieldy and expensive and ultimately more of a burden on freedom and obstacle to it.

On its current course, New Hampshire is becoming more and more like most states. It is slipping away from being the “live free or die” state and into the “live the way we tell you or else” mentality of liberal based policies.

 

A police officer pulls over a Kennedy who’s been weaving in and out of the lanes. He goes up to the guy’s window and says, “Sir, I need you to blow into this breathalyzer tube.

“The Kennedy says, “Sorry, officer, I can’t do that. I am an asthmatic. If I do that, I’ll have a really bad asthma attack.”

“Okay, fine. I need you to come down to the station to give a blood sample.”
“I can’t do that either. I am a hemophiliac. If I do that, I’ll bleed to death.”

“Well, then, we need a urine sample.”
“I’m sorry, officer, I can’t do that either. I am also a diabetic. If I do that, I’ll get really low blood sugar.”

“All right, then I need you to come out here and walk this white line.”
“I can’t do that, officer.”

“Why not?”
“Because I’m drunk.”