Changing the Liberal Mindset that Americans Have Unwittingly Come To Accept

I have spent a lot of time listening to Democrats and President Obama in particular, preach about fairness and making people pay their fair share. I have listened to an endless stream of liberals position themselves as federal cherubs who are trying to be little government sponsored guardian angels who just want to make sure that everyone is treated equally and that everyone gets what they deserve. Sometimes I swear I am listening to Tinkerbell talking to Peter freaking Pan, or listening to Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, tell me that if I click the heels of my ruby red slippers together, I will suddenly find a magical rainbow that will lead me to a government provided pot of gold.

What bothers me the most is not that these liberal leprechaun would try to convince people that their American version of socialism would make everything better, but that there are actually Americans who are really dumb enough to believe them.

But it is evidence of the fact that since the days of FDR, Democrats have come to believe not in strong economic policies for America, but rather in the kind of politics that can keep them in power by offering voters a choice between the truth of reality represented by the self determination which Republicans believe in, and the government fantasy version of reality that the left promotes. It is the kind of politics that is rooted in dependency and it is comprised of a formula which seeks to make people believe that things can be easier if they keep Democrats in power because Democrats will give the people a litany of wonderful things by declaring them rights.

They will give you government provided health care, education, food, salaries, and services, and all these gifts will make our lives easier, and better.

It is a vicious cycle which all began by exploiting dependency, a negative which Democrats now try to perpetuate. For Democrats, their formula for electoral success relies mainly upon making more people, more dependent on government goodies so that come Election Day, the voters will embrace rather than bite the liberals hands that the people have literally come to expect to feed them.

Pursuit of this political formula for electoral success has unfortunately had a big impact on many Americans. Without realizing it, many Americans have been brainwashed and come to embrace the liberal mindset which has successfully change the dynamics of American thinking.

Today, thanks to the left, the American constitutional paradigm which was a citizenry that granted limited powers to a federal government, has been forgotten and replaced with the thinking that starts from the premiss which has us now question how much power the government can give the people. It is really all quite insane.

Today we take taxes for granted so much that the debate is not how much the government should take. It is how much of what we earn can we keep. In this day an age we are grateful when a leader like Chris Christie comes along and proposes an across the board state income of 10%. Thanks to liberal propaganda and decades of liberal training, we actually believe that politicians are doing us a favor by lowering our taxes. But the truth is, that it is no favor! It is the only decent thing to do! Yet we have all fallen victim to a liberal agenda which has forced us to think backwards. Whether we realize it or not, liberal thinking has shifted our mindset and so today we thank a politician for allowing us to keep more of our own money, when what we should actually be doing is reprimanding them for not giving us back more of our own money.

It’s time for people to wake up and realize that in America, the people do not exist because of government, government exists because of the people. Americans need to realize that we should not be grateful for how much the government lets us keep, it is the government that should be grateful for what we the people are willing to give to it. Until we all realize that, we will all remain slaves to our government, and nothing more than the real servants to those who are suppose to be the government servants………the elected officials who we thank for allowing us to keep more of our money, and appreciate for giving us the permit and permission s to build a deck on our own private property or to go fishing or camping.

I recently listened to the elf-like liberal Congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis was discussing President Obama’s State of the Union address and he told the listening audience that he believed “the rich should pay more”. Other liberals phrase it differently. President Obama likes to say that “the rich should be forced to pay their fair share”. But what I need to know is what is fair and beyond that, who the hell has the right to tell us what is fair? Is Dennis Kucinich the Fairness Fairy?

Fairness is arbitrary and our Constitution did not address fairness. And as far as I known there is no twenty eighth amendment of the Constitution which defines fairness and articulates how government is suppose to legislate fairness. But the Constitution of the United States does address government’s place in our lives and in doing so, it clearly states that we are granted our rights from our creator. And just to make this clear, I need to tell you that the federal government did not create you or I. Barack Obama can not take credit for me. Nor can he legally take my rights away, even though several of his policies already have.

Another thing he should not be able to do is tell me how much I can earn, what I must do with my money, and who I must share it with.

Yet that is what the left has essentially lived for since the days of FDR.

They have lived for the opportunity to make me as good as the next guy by making sure that if the next guy is doing well, the government can redistribute his wealth to me. Is that a definition of fairness? Is it fair for me to profit from the work, ingenuity, work ethic, and committment of someone else?

These are the questions that President Obama and his Party have brought to the forefront in this election, more than any election we have seen in generations.

And while the economy is and should be one of the most important issues of the 2012 cycle, what America needs to really do is look at the dynamics behind the economy. Then they must decide if we want to fully invest ourselves in to reconstructing our national foundation in to one that is the world’s preeminent government sponsored welfare state, a state which is the key element to the survival of each individual American. Or do we want to strengthen the founding principles which were designed to get government and the federal bureaucracy out of the way so that we can practice the rights that we were endowed with by our creator and be free to dream well beyond the limits of the government bureaucracy?

That is the framework that this election must waged in. It is the question which the Republican nominee for President needs to condense every interpretation of each of their policies down to.

In 2012, the G.O.P. needs to remind people that dependency is not the American way and that our government was never meant to be the largest source of jobs in America. In fact the purpose of our government is not to create jobs, it was designed to make sure that American people could create jobs.

People must be made to once again learn how things really work in America.

They must be retrained to understand that government created jobs do not generate profits that sustain the costs of the salaries paid to each government employee. They need to understand that an employee of the EPA does not do create wealth, they consume wealth. The American people must be made to once again realize that when the government creates a job, the salary for that job comes not from any federal profit…..it comes from the taxpayers, and in order to keep raising the money required to pay that government salary, the government will need to continue taking taxpayers money.

However, in the free market, profits create salaries and the more profits there are, the more salaries there are.

But there is even more to it than that basic fact.

Voters need to be made aware of the fact that according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, civilian workers employed through the federal government have an average wage of $81,258. Yet at the same time, the average wage of the nation’s approximate 101 million private-sector workers is $50,462.

This means that taxpayers, the people who are making money through jobs that generate profits, are paying federal workers 25% more than they make. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is increasing federal spending through so-called economic stimulus dollars, that is creating an even larger federal workforce, one that for a while was outpacing private sector job growth. And that is a formula for further disaster.

Paying federal salaries, and more of them, that are higher than the salaries which provide the taxes that pay for those federal pay checks, is a formula that leads to paying out more than we take in. And that is just on government jobs. It has nothing to do with the other more traditional forms of federal deficit spending based on entitlements and federal dependency programs.

All of this presents the next Republican presidential nominee a with a multifaceted challenge.

They must not just provide solutions and frame them in a way that wins people over, they must also educate people. The next Republican presidential nominee must educate people on how America is suppose to work and they must teach them the reasons why the socialist model of contemporary liberal-progressivism does not work and how it is a system designed to keep the powerbrokers in power by making them the people we are dependent for our own survival.

In 2012 we make people understand that government is not a supernatural entity which can wave a magic wand over a problem and solve it without accountability and without there being future repercussions as Peter finally has to Paul.

Once people can be made to realize that, I mean really realize that, half the battle will be won.

Once that is achieved we then need to confront Democrats and tell them that if they want change the purpose of government, they, like President, should come right out and admit it.

When he was running for President in 2008, then Senator Obama declared that he wanted to “fundamentally change America”. But few took him at his word. And those that did, didn’t think he really meant he wanted to fundamentally change the constitutional responsibilities of government. But now it is quite obvious that that is exactly what he meant.

In 2012 we must challenge Democrats to be truthful to the American people and force them to come before voters and admit that they want the federal government to have more control over our lives. We must challenge them to be honest and admit that they do not like the fact that some people can be financially wealthier than others. We must make the left come before the American electorate and let them know the America that liberals envision, is one in which everyone is made equal by lowering the overall quality of life rather than providing the type of environment which creates more opportunities for people to improve their quality of life.

We know for certain that class warfare is the name of the liberal game in 2012. It’s nothing new. But what Republicans must do now is reeducate the American people and make them realize why it is class warfare. And we must then ask the American people to decide once for all, if they believe dependency on the federal bureaucracy is the best foundation for them to build their lives upon and for our nation to grow on, or is the independence behind our reason for being the more solid choice for the future of our nation and its people.

Related articles

• President Obama’s First Reelection Ad Raises a Question. How Dumb Does He Think We Are? (whitehouse12.com)
• Dennis Kucinich Wants Taxpayer-Funded Campaigns (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Allen West To Liberals, President Obama: ‘Get The Hell Out Of The United States Of America’ (thinkprogress.org)

Pelosi; The Gift To Republicans That Keeps On Giving

Minority Leader To Be?

With the decision of Nancy Pelosi to maintain her role as leader of House Democrats, the 2010 midterms elections continue to produce good news for Republicans.

The move is quite frankly a foolishly detrimental one for her Party, a political entity which the American electorate adamantly rejected and which resulted in a record number of Republican victories from the local and state level, to the federal level in the House and Senate. Many of these victories were won in campaigns that made Nancy Pelosi the main issue. Nearly every Republican running for the House, publicly and loudly pointed out to their audiences that the very first vote that their liberal opponent had cast during the last Congress, was for Nancy Pelosi to become their leader. In many debate’s Republican challengers asked “will you or will you not vote for Nancy Pelosi as your leader”? To this, in order to save their reelection chances, quite a few had to answer “no”. Unfortunately for them though, the fact that they once did vote for her, didn’t save many of these candidates. But with approval ratings in the 20’s, it is no surprise that Nancy Pelosi was of no help to any Democrat.

That is why her desire to continue being the face of House Democrats is a bit surprising.

Obviously, the soon to be former Speaker is thinking more about herself than her Party. If she was sincere about wanting what is best for Democrats and what will best help promote the liberal agenda, she would have stepped aside and allowed a new face to be placed on the Democrat Party, a face that was not as disliked and as much of a drag on her Party and its policies.

Of course it has yet to be seen if Nancy will be successful in her bid to be elected Minority Leader. Some Democrats that did squeak by in the 2010 elections, have promised their constituents that they would not vote for Pelosi. In order for that to happen, there must be an alternative candidate to support over her. So who may be so bold as to come forward and offer themselves as that alternative? Well Alabama’s Bobby Bright could be one. He was the first to officially come out in October and declare that he would not support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. But in August of 2010, after Bright publicly joked that Democrat’s chances in the midterm elections might be better if Pelosi would “get sick and die“, Democrats may not feel too confident in Bright’s ability to say the right things as their leader.

A more realistic challenger may be Heath Shuler, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House. On Thursday, Shuler stated that if Pelosi does actually move to run for Minority Leader, he will challenge her. This should not be news. All through ought Shuler’s very tough reelection effort, he campaigned among his constituents by promising that if Democrats held the House, he would challenge Pelosi for the job of Speaker.

While Shuler is to date, the House Democrat to be most dramatic in his opposition to Pelosi, many others such as Kentucky’s John Yarmuth and Oklahoma’s David Boren are just some of the remaining moderate and conservative Democrats, who still exist in Congress and are also registering their opposition to Pelosi.

But Nancy Pelosi would not have announced the decision to seek her place as Minority Leader unless she had gotten a sense of approval, done a head count of her caucus and concluded that a majority of her colleagues would support her for the job.

This would indicate that the new Democrat minority in the House, is most definitely out of synch with the American people. While most Americans vehemently disapprove of her, the liberal dominated Democrat caucus approves of her. This only demonstrates that the new House minority is going to be an even more radically liberal body than it was this past session. After losing many Blue Dogs and moderates, it is only natural for the liberal establishment to become even more dominant than it was. But this is not good. It is not what the people wanted when they registered their objections to the current ways of the Democrat Party by electing a record number of more conservative Republicans to office.

This is a point which Rep. Shuler consistently brings up when he sates “I can go recruit moderate members to run in swing districts,” and then points out; “In that situation, I could do it better than she could, and that’s what it’s going to take. It’s going to take moderate candidates to win back those seats.“

But if Pelosi does prevail, which is more than likely, the problem with her staying as one of the faces of the Party is the fact that Democrats will continue to be represented by another prominent member of their Party which is not too popular out of his home state.

The failure by Republicans to defeat Harry Reid in Nevada means that he will continue to be the face and voice of Democrats in the Senate.

This means that after a midterm elections which rejected the Obama, Reid, Pelosi agenda, Democrats are still going to be led by the architects of that agenda. This will not exactly help create the perception that Democrats have gotten the message that voters sent them on November 2^nd.

This situation provides Republicans with an invaluable advantage, an advantage that Democrats could deny them if Nancy Pelosi realized that for the sake of the issues that she believes in, she should pass the baton to a new Democrat leader, one who does not carry the baggage that she does and one that doesn’t symbolize the failed status quo policies that voters just rejected. But when it comes to Democrats, I guess the lesson to be learned here is that you really can’t teach old dogs new tricks. Thankfully though, the American people apparently won’t let themselves be tricked again.

The Winners & Losers In American Politics for the Week of 2/1/10 – 2/7/10

 

WINNERS

The Republican National Committee

The RNC has not exactly been on top of their game since 2006 and they have essentially been floundering since 2008. As a national organization it has been unable to create one unifying national message representing what the G.O.P. stands for and it has been unable to out-campaign Democrats. Well this week the Republican National Committee finally exhibited a hopeful sign of their getting back on track with some smarts. The day after Illinois voters nominated the candidates that will be running for President Obama’s old senate seat, the RNC was up and running with an ad that defined the Democrat nominee and friend of President Obama, Alexi Giannoulias. The ad compares Giannoulias, the son of a banking magnate, to the Soprano’s and discusses his connections to crime figures and his shady financial arrangements with politicians and slumlords. The episode demonstrates a positive sign for the GOP. They are apparently seeing that we must get out in front of the opposition and define them before they try to define us. Strategists are apparently reawakening to the need to have Democrats run on our playing field, not the other way around. It is a small step, but as someone who has not been very impressed by the job that Republican National Committee has been doing, this was a pleasant sign.  Keep this up and finally find a message that articulates what the G.O.P. stands for and that Republicans will unite behind and maybe we’ll be back on track again.

Judson Phillips

The founder of the Tea Party Nation pulled off an event billed as the first Tea party National Convention. The event was a success in the sense that it helped motivate those in attendance and even offered workshops that essentially offered some of the technical knowledge that would help Tea Partiers channel their new found civic interest and anger in a productive way. As for Philips, he was criticized for not using a non-profit model for his grassroots organization but he used a powerful argument to defend any profit made at or during the convention. He stated that sending out letters that tells people, “The world is ending, but for $50 we can put it off for a couple of weeks,” just did not strike him as sincere. He added “My vision for Tea Party Nation was to use the capitalist system to support our activities,” he said. “The whole idea of begging for bucks is absolutely repugnant to me. I’m not saying people who have nonprofits and seek donations are bad people or anything like that. I’m just saying, for our group, I don’t like it.” The argument is compelling and in the end, it worked for him. People who could afford the $500.00 a plate dinner which featured Sarah Palin and her keynote address, were satisfied and those who paid for the chotchkies, souvenirs and workshops at the convention were also content. In the mean time, Phillips’ organization raised a pretty penny and it received a great deal of exposure. So the bottom line is that he proved to be a winner this week.

 

LOSERS

 Democrats 

After the Senate Democrats passed legislation that raised the debt limit by another 1.9 trillion dollars, this week Democrats in the House also passed the same debt limit increase. As was the case in the Senate, not a single Republican supported the measure. The move adds a debt burden of $6,500 to every man, woman, child, transvestite, transgender and every other human life form that lives in the United States. But if that wasn’t bad enough, when the amendment raising the debt limit was passed, the partisan liberal majority cheered and applauded. Are Democrats jackasses or are they just, to quote Rham Emanuel…..f’ing retarded? When the Stock Market crashed, did stockbrokers and traders on the floor of the Exchange jump up and cheer and clapped? Not exactly. In the 1920’s, when some of them lost their life savings, they jumped up to their windowsills and jumped out of them. They did not jump to their feet in glee as did the Democrats who burdened one generation of Americans and sold out the next generation of Americans. All in one vote. AND THEY CHEERED! If that is their reaction to bad news, they must pee themselves when there is good news.

Global Warming

After it was proven that some disingenuous scientific data was exploited by liberals in an attempt to create hysteria over global warming, this week scientists discovered that European liberals had overstated the effects of global warming on the Netherlands. The environmental extremists claimed that the quickening pace of global warming has now placed 50% of the Netherlands below sea level. Well most people know that this dam clustered nation has always had more of its land below sea level than any other nation. Hence the reason for all the dams. But now scientists have come out and established that contrary to the extremists 50% calculation, only 20% of the Netherlands remains below sea level, about the same percentage that it is famous for having under sea level. And then this weekend I found myself in a blizzard at my New Jersey home, where almost two feet of snow fell. Now, two days later, I am told to brace myself for another snowstorm that will dump anywhere from a foot, to another two feet of snow. This just three days after the second storm this winter that dumped that same amount so far this season. Hey Al Gore………….you and your theory are a losers this week. Man certainly does have an effect our environment but not to the climatologically extremes that the business of global warming hysteria mongering suggests.

Why Did They Vote The Way They Did?

  As riveting as last night’s government healthcare takeover vote was, part of the mystique behind it involved hundreds of individual stories that involved political horse trading, private deals, favors, bribes and even extortion-like coercion. To actually pass this very unpopular and contentious bill took more arm twisting and bone bending than you would find in a chiropractors office. The President and Speaker Pelosi asked many Democrats to, what they commonly call—- “walk the plank”. Many of them did. They need the financial backing of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee and they need the support of the leadership to pass legislation that is key to their districts. But some Democrats were also told that if they reach at least 219 votes, they could go ahead and vote against HR3692.

Traditionally, party leaders will let some legislators in their own party “off the hook” on some of the most controversial votes. This only happens if party leaders knows the bill can pass without that members vote. Some of that happened in last night’s election results.

Of the 39 Democrats who did vote against HR.3962, most are in swing districts that will be hard for Democrats to win reelection in.

Twelve of these 39 are freshman. When it comes to keeping their seats in 2010, they are some of the most vulnerable of Democrats and they have some of the most angry voters opposed to the government takeover plan. Which is why they are also some of those who were let off the hook.

Many of them took the same position that Ohio’s freshman Democrat John Boccieri stated in a press release, “While I fully support quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone, I am disappointed the House bill sadly does not go far enough to reduce the costs of getting there”. That position will allow these Democrats to remain competitive in relatively fiscally conservative districts.

The only exceptions is Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich is safe no matter what he does in his liberal district. He likely opposed the bill because under the instructions of President Obama, House Education and Labor Committee Chair George Miller successfully shot down a his amendment that would have allowed states to choose to improve the healthcare system by creating state-level single-payer healthcare programs of their own.

Based upon the makeup and history of their districts, the other 38 nay votes were obviously concerned with voter backlash. Moderate Democrats in swing districts did not particularly like the message that last Tuesday’s election results delivered. For them it was a warning shot right across their bow.

That accounts for the who and why some Democrats opposed HR3692.  But what of the lone Republican who voted for it?

Even though Louisiana’s freshman Congressman, Joseph Cao, is a Republican from a typically red states in the red South, his particular district is heavily blue. The former long time occupant of that seat was William Jefferson, the Congressman who was forced to resign after hundreds of thousand of dollars were found in his freezer and he was convicted of illegal financial schemes. Cao simply came into office because he was not a  felon. That kind of approval does not exactly indicate a groundswell of support and a loyal following. It also means that Cao will have a hard time getting reelected if he finds himself running against a Democrat opponent without a criminal record. The district is clearly left of center, so voter backlash is also what forced Louisiana’s Joseph Cao to offer up the sole Republican “yea” vote for government micromanagement of our health care.

Congressman Cao’s vote was one of the last to be recorded and it was only cast after the Democrats exceeded the 218 votes needed for passage. It was probably one of the most astonishing profiles in cowardice we have seen in year’s. There was never even a  hint that  such a break was being contemplated, so his lone Republican vote for the HR 3962 came as a surprise to GOP leaders.

Cao’s last minute “yea” vote was just an attempt to give liberals in his district one less reason to vote against him. But you know what? It won’t work. Liberals will almost always choose a Democrat who is honest about their liberalism over a Republican pretending to be liberal.   At the same time, the minority of  Republicans who do live in Cao’s district will not necessarily vote for a Republican whose vote is no different than a Democrat’s vote.

Ultimately the 39 Democrats who opposed Pelosicare,  or were excused from having to support it, may end up in good standing come next November.  They will be able to stand up and say that they did not burden Amercans with a cumbersome government takeover that will micromanage our healthcare needs and choices while placing unelected and acountable czars, diectors, commissions, committees, bureaus, panels, advisors and political appointed hacks between us and our doctors.  All while raising costs, increasing taxes and sending jobs overseas at a time when we have double digit unemployment and need them now, more than ever.

It is, the economy, Stupid.   But since liberals don’t get it, those Democrats who were not among the 39 that were let off the hook, may have a helluva  tough reelection ahead of them.  They won’t be alone though.  After proving to be the most spinless Republican in the House, Louisiana’s freshman Representative  Joseph Cao is likely to  find himself on the losing end of a vote.  The one for him.

The following is a list of those who joined Kucinich and Boccieri in their opposition to the government health management takeover package were as follows:

John Adler, NJ-3, Freshman
Jason Altmire, PA-4
Brian Baird, WA-3
John Barrow, GA-12
Dan Boren, OK-2
Rick Boucher, VA-09
Allen Boyd, FL-02
Bobby Bright, AL-02 – Freshman
Ben Chandler, KY-06
Travis Childers, MS-01
Artur Davis, AL-07
Lincoln Davis, TX-04
Chet Edwards, TX-17
Bart Gordon, TN-6
Parker Griffith, AL-05 – Freshman
Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, SD
Tim Holden, PA-17
Larry Kissell, NC-8 – Freshman
Suzanne Kosmas, FL-24 –Freshman
Frank Kratovil, MD-1 – Freshman
Betsy Markey, CO-4 – Freshman
Jim Marshall, GA-8
Eric Massa, NY-8 – Freshman
Jim Matheson, UT-2
Mike McIntyre, NC-7
Michael McMahon, NY-13
Charlie Melancon, LA-3
Walt Minnick, ID-1 – Freshman
Scott Murphy, NY-20
Glenn Nye, VA-2, Freshman
Collin Peterson. MN-7
Mike Ross, AZ-4
Heath Shuler, NC-11
Ike Skelton, MO-4
John Tanner, TN-8
Gene Taylor, MS-4
Harry Teague, NM-02, Freshman

If any of these guys are in your state, you might want to call their office and thank them.  We are usually pretty quick to express or anger at legislators and our displeasure with them.  When one of them does something right, regardless of what their reason was, we should let them know, that their are many people who are paying attention and that their are some benefits when they do things right. 

Reform Bill Passes The House But It’s A Version That Will Not Fly In The Senate

    While last night’s rare Saturday session of the House of Representatives and their subsequent vote on the big government takeover of the American health care system was at times suspenseful, ultimately it won passage. The vote was quite close though. In the end 39 Democrats opposed the bill and in what was one of the most cowardly acts of the entire health care reform debate, one Republican, freshman Joseph Cao of Louisiana, waited till the last minute and only after the bill had one more vote than it needed for passage, did he cast his vote for it.

By five votes, the House of Representatives approved an over 1 trillion dollar government take over of health management and health insurance that, if it comes to fruition, will change just about every aspect of life in America. H.R.3962, the deceptively titled Affordable Health Care for America Act is one of the most transformative pieces of legislation ever passed and second only to the liberal Tax-and-Trade energy bill that Democrats in the House passed earlier this year.

Alone, each measure amounts to some of the greatest transfers of wealth in the history of mankind. Together they will be the greatest transfer of wealth and the most obnoxiously large consolidation of  federal power and control that any generation in America has ever known. Together, the Cap-and-Trade bill and the government health management measure will tax the health out of our economy and the life out of the middle class.

To be sure, the passage of HR. 3962 is a victory for President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  That is undeniable and it should not be downplayed. To have actually been able to whip enough votes together to pass this reform bill, while a majority of the American people oppose it, means that the President still has great influence over his conference and Nancy Pelosi has proven herself to be masterful at her job. But the type of influence and mastery they exhibited here may not exactly be the type that America needs. First of all, it only extends to their conference. They were unable to persuade, scare, or extort Republicans to support them. That means that the President and Pelosi’s appeal and sphere of influence is limited to those who are already on their side. They fail to expand their appeal or base in Congress or, more importantly, among the voters. Although it seems like it was months ago, the elections held throughout America this past Tuesday proved that.

It is also important to recognize the type of  influence that Speaker Pelosi and President Obama wielded in the health care takeover vote. To pass the bill, an endless amount of deal making went into the process. And all of those deals were conducted under the table and behind closed doors. The horse trading that took place among a group of politicians, limited exclusively to Democrats, is what helped to account for the extraordinary size of the bill—–1,900 pages. It is also something that we will pay for dearly in the next few coming year’s. This bill was passed by the creations of favors that will allow Democrat committee chairman to reward “yea” votes on HR. 3692 by approving more pork in future spending bills than all the pig farms in the Midwest. Democrats will be approving some of the most harebrained legislation you’ve ever seen and they will do so because of three words—– “you owe me”.

The same goes for the President too.

For every arm Pelosi and the President twisted, two favors were offered. So many favors were offered in order to pass government managed health reform and insurance that much of the legislative agenda for this and next year, will be based entirely on the need to payback the favors promised to Democrats running for reelection next year. If you think the legislative agenda of Congress will be based on the needs of the people, think again. Our needs will be secondary and even tertiary when it comes to the needs of Democrats facing tough reelection bids and saying to Nancy,——- “you owe me this”.

Add to that the likelihood that both Pelosi and the President may have blown their entire wad of influence on this one vote though. They may have exhausted any chance of passing any other controversial bills in the next legislative session because they may have had to call in too many favors on this one vote. That may be the only silver lining here. The liberal leadership had to pull so many strings, that they may not have the ability to try to ram through anymore of their radically, transformative agenda for quite some time to come.

What’s more is that all the favors, arm twisting, finger bending, deceit and depletion of legislative resources could be for naught. No matter what happens, the favors and deals for those placed their support for Pelosicare on the record and now face some stiff reelection bids, will still have be paid back. And the truth is, that what passed in the House is not likely to pass in Senate.

Typically, the House is much more radical, more extreme than the United States Senate. The House of Representatives is based upon extremists elected from gerrymandered districts within the population that are largely created by drawn based upon ideological preferences. Most districts are either predominantly liberal or predominantly conservative. This means that a member of the House can more afford to take an extreme position. Their districts are largely drawn based upon people with extreme positions leaning one way or the other. There are exceptions of course. There exist a few handfuls of “swing” districts which are moderate. But such seats are in the minority.

The Senate however has no members elected from districts that are carved out to match specifically match their political and ideological personality. These people are elected from entire states. So Senators try to placate everyone. That is not conducive to taking extreme positions. Between that and rules that govern the Senate which are quite different than those governing the House and you have a legislative that, unlike the House of Representatives, tends to water down legislation and moderate the final results. The Senate is also a bit more shrewd than the House. They often take a wait and see approach.

Remember that historic Cap-and-Trade energy bill that the lower chamber of Congress passed many moons ago? The Senate has yet to act on it? In the case of health care reform, the Senate which reached established a bill of their own has waited to see exactly what the House version was before they move ahead with their own. They will now carefully review what is in the House bill and monitor the public reaction to it. But Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn’t have a great deal of time to put his finger in the wind. He is going to have to call for a vote on a final government health care over right away. The more time that the public has to understand what is actually in the bill recently passed in the House, the more support and will and the more intense the objections will become.

The one thing you can rest assured on is that Pelosicare, as it was passed in its current form, will not be what the Senate approves. If a bill calling for the government takeover of health care is to be passed by the Senate, it will be watered down significantly. The public option is a major hurdle.  A final senate bill could include an opt out clause or maybe the “trigger” that liberal Republican Olympia Snowe likes. If compromise on that one issue can’t be reached, the so called public option, which is anything but an option, could be scrapped altogether.  In any event, passage of any health management and insurance reform bill that the President wants is far from done. If any version of reform is to actually make it to the President’s desk, it will modified to one degree or another in the Senate. If it isn’t, the big government takeover of health management and insurance won’t even have 50 votes, which is 10 less than they actually need to pass it. The message sent in the wake of this past Tuesday’s elections assures us that many Senator’s do not want to be saddled with the existing bill as they come up for reelection and are at the mercy of their statewide constituencies.

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.