Chris Christie MIA In Fight Against Taxes and Big Government

   As more than a thousand New Jerseyans made their way to Washington, D.C. to demand for our freedoms and to combat the tyranny of an increasingly larger, more expensive and more controlling government, one could not wonder where Chris Christie was.

Chris Christie ran in a primary for the privilege of becoming the Republican nominee for Governor of New Jersey. He won and he did so by taking many conservative positions including , less and more limited government and fiscal responsibility.

Those were two hallmarks of yesterday’s Tea Party march, rally and protest in Washington, D.C. yet where was Chris Christie? As thousands of New Jersey residents got on busses, trains and in their cars to take a stand and be counted as foot soldiers in taking back government and making once again for the people, of the people and by the people, Chris Christie failed to join the people.

I have two perspectives by which to criticize the former U.S. Attorney and now wannabe Governor.

First is from the political and strategic standpoint of a political consultant. A Republican political consultant.

As a man who as recently as Wednesday issues a press release claiming that as Governor, Chris Christie will focus on maintaining an effective , efficient and appropriate government by cutting state taxes and spending, Christie should have stood in line with those who used their Saturday to employ farm worker hours as they braved the dark and rainy pre-dawn hours to board busses and hit the road to deliver our desire for just what Christie claims he wants to do in New Jersey. From a strategic perspective, the people who were willing to go to such lengths as spend their own money and endure 8 hours of travel and another 6 hours of marching and protesting were a natural constituency for Chris Christie. They were a group who deserved to be cheered on for their efforts by Chris Christie and that he needed to, if not join in with, at least claim solidarity with.

Instead Chris Christie was silent and MIA.

Had I been Chris Christie or managing the Christie campaign I would have either requested that he ride on a bus with the New Jersey freedom fighters who went to D.C. and spent the day with all of his fellow New Jerseyans or maybe even have gotten a bus and load of people to join the rest of the New Jersey contingency and caravan of busses.

If I did not do that, I would have at least insured that the campaign knew each time and location of the pick up and drop off point locations of all the various Tea Party groups in the state and had Christie at least at one of those locations with tea,  coffee and doughnuts, greeting and thanking them as they embarked upon their mission. I would have cheered them on and let them know that he stands for the same values that they were fighting for, values and beliefs that he will instill in Trenton.

Members of the Christie camp might claim that the Tea Party march was not a partisan political event and that he was not invited by any of the groups involved and so they did not want to step on or into their parade.

Such a claim would be nothing more than excuse.

If Christie believed in any of the things that these members of his natural constituency believed in, nothing should have kept him from joining them. Even if organizers rejected him, if he believed in the small government, anti-bureaucracy, liberty based principles that were the foundation of the cause, he should have fought for his right as a citizen to stand with them and fight with them for his shared opinions with them.

From the perspective of a Tea Party protestor I criticize the gubernatorial hopeful for not demonstrating that he shares the beliefs and values that we do. I criticize him for not believing so strongly in the message that Tea Party protestors were delivering that he to at least felt compelled to thank them for their efforts.

I offer both criticisms because I am both a Republican political consultant and a Tea Party protestor. I am also a registered New Jersey voter and I am not happy with my choices for Governor and on Saturday, September 12, 2009 Chris Christie failed to make me any happier or more inclined to vote for him than I was on September 11^th, 2009.

Chris Christie dropped the ball and in doing so, he creates more reasons for those who should be among any Republican candidates strongest supporters to question if they should be among any of those who vote for him in November.

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.

Is The Tide Already Turning?

    The latest Rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters gives Republicans a more favorable opinion than Democrats in 6 out of 10 crucial issues facing our nation. On one of those issues, abortion, Americans are just about as split on who they prefer to handle that issue as they are on the issue itself. 41% of the voters favor Democrat’s position on abortion while another 41% approve of the Republican’s approach to it.

On the issues of health care, education and social security Republicans poll a 37% approval rating in each of the three categories while Democrats poll a positive rating on those issues ranging from 43 to 47 %.

When it comes to national security though, Republicans receive the highest approval rating of either party on any of the ten issues presented to those polled.

51% approve of the GOP’s national security abilities while the party in power can only muster a meager 36%.

With smaller but still significant margins, Republicans also receive higher approval over Democrats on taxes, immigration, ethics and even the issue that many feel cost Republicans at the voting booths…………..Iraq.

These are all pretty good indications of an electorate that is beginning to realize that the Democrat messiah and his apostles really can’t walk on water or turn it into wine. Months into the one party rule of Democrats and the luster of their promise seems to be wearing off.

Perhaps the most telling evidence of that assessment comes from the results dealing with what is considered the most important issue of the moment, the issue du jour,………..the economy.

On the economy Democrats receive a 39% approval rating while Republicans have the confidence of 45% of the voters.

That is a margin of 6%. Pretty slim., yet pretty significant given the fact that the last campaign cycle largely blamed Republicans under President Bush for the economic stresses that we cycled into.

Such a reversal of opinion can only be due to the fact that after two years in control of Congress and a few months in control of the White House, Democrats are slowly beginning to own the economy that they are manipulating. That and the fact that there are no Republicans in charge of any federal policies help to give ownership of the situation to the Democrats in power. You can argue that Democrats inherited the problem but you would have to look hard to find anything that Democrats wanted to do differently than President Bush other than even more spending and raising taxes.

Now I will not attempt to defend Bush’s spending policies or weak Republican congressional leadership which went along to get along but one can not try to claim that Democrat hands are clean and now, 6 months into the new year, Americans are beginning to realize that when it comes to the economy Democrat hands have as much blood on them as anyone else, if not more.

The public has seen a Democrat push for spending, spending, spending and more spending. Today the federal government is paying for everything from cell phones to the poor to the takeover of the American auto industry. It may have taken a few months but people are beginning to realize that spending is not exactly the way to strengthen our economy, especially when we don’t have the money to spend.

Congressman Eric Cantor

Add to that the rising to the top of newer Republican leaders like Eric Cantor of Virginia and you have a swing in thinking that gives Republicans an edge on an issue that they were recently losing on.

As pessimistic as the American electorate may be about politicians, they are inherently an optimistic bunch that is looking for any excuse to believe that someone in Washington can act responsibly and apply logic to the bureaucracy and legislative process.

This 6% swing in opinion on who can handle the economy best is not a major development. It is after all one poll and we would need a few different polls of a few different pool of voters over a prolonged period of time to actually prove that this trend does exist. But the point is, if democrats continue passing their hail Mary spending policies and Republicans like Eric Cantor can pull the GOP back to their fiscal conservative roots, the electorate might just begin to feel that the grass is greener on the other side of the aisle come the mid term elections in 2010.

Have Some Respect This Memorial Day

  The barbecues are being prepared. Cars are being packed for road trips to spots of recreation and swimming pools and beaches are being prepared for the introduction of summer’s inaugural visitors to usher in the activities of the season.

Like birds flocking south for the winter, it is all a part of summertime rituals that begin at the sounding of a bell that is called Memorial Day.

In some respects it is a wholesome sort of tradition that seems to be quite pleasant, but in truth, the time has become a tragic example of lost sensibilities and respect.

Memorial Day is a national day of mourning. At least that is what it was intended to be. And in case you wondered, that is one reason why the phrase “Happy Memorial Day” is never really appropriate and has never really caught on. The day is a sad one. Yet when this holiday of sincere appreciation for our fallen defenders of freedom approaches, few people utilize it for its intended purpose.

Such disregard is shameful.

Memorial Day was originally honored on May 30th but it was changed to accommodate Americans with an extended weekend. That extra consecutive day off helped to fuel the focus on fun but it also helped dilute the purpose of the day. There were efforts by some, like Hawaii’s Senator Daniel Inouye, who proposed legislation to move the holiday from the last Monday of every May back to it’s original May 30th date.

The merit of that measure is debatable but what is not debatable is the fact that our tributes and heartfelt appreciation for the men and women who gave all in the defense of our nation and its values should not require legislative prompting.

Be it blood shed on the beaches of Normandy, limbs lost in Korea, kamikaze piloted planes crashing on the deck of a battleship in the Pacific, a roadside bomb in Baghdad, the lives lost in such events and under such circumstances, warrant your consideration and require your sincerest debt of gratitude.

The honorable men and women who sacrificed their lives in order for us to have a better life deserve more than a commemoration that is marked by your taking advantage of a summer sale or your eating a funnel cake while strolling down a favorite seaside boardwalk.

That is why this Monday, although I do not ask you to deny yourself the pleasure of a break from work or an enjoyable romp in the surf of a sunny beach, I do ask you to take some time to be thankful and grateful for those who gave their lives for ours.

Decorate the grave of a fallen soldier while reflecting on who that person was, what they did and how meaningful their actions were. Visit with a Gold Star family and offer words of warmth, solace, consolation and appreciation.

At the very least, offer a moment of personal prayer or reflection for those who have died so that you could live. Pay some kind of respect to those who gave their all so that you could have it all.

Oceans of tears have been shed by sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters and husbands and wives who have all lost loved ones that fought in valiant battles meant to preserve all that we take for granted in our nation. But on Memorial Day don’t take anything for granted. Don’t take our freedom or opportunities for granted. Don’t take the efforts of those who died for America and its cause for granted.

On Memorial Day you can make sure you have enough hot dogs for the grill. Make sure you have your swim trunks packed and your Frisbee on hand. Have some fun. That’s fine.

But also have some respect.

Don’t let Memorial Day go by without giving it the meaning it deserves and don’t let its meaning get by you.

Porth Authority of New York and New Jersey Rejects Freedom

    Being born and raised in New York, I am quite familiar with the area in America that after 9/11 became known as “ground zero”. The towers that stood on ground zero were a part of the everyday landscape of my life.

I worked in them and in their shadow. Having an office, for a time, across from the City Hall, just mere blocks away from the towers, a great deal of my activity and day was influenced by the towers. It was a hub of activity for me and many New Yorkers.

None of this makes my relationship to the World Trade Center any closer than anyone else, but it does account for some of my passion surrounding the events of 9/11. The fact is, that after the events of 9/11, many Americans feel a connection to the towers. They were once a symbol of America but now they have become a symbol for Americans. The collapse of those towers represents the most tragic act of terrorism ever committed against us. The recovery from their collapse represents our enduring spirit and inherent American vitality.

Part of our demonstrated resiliency and defiance in the face of threats is the reconstruction of a new World Trade Center.

For New Yorkers it is quite an important step. Not only does it have incredibly positive financial and economic ramifications, it has an intrinsic symbolic value with infinitesimal meaning.

The reconstruction of the new WTC is a symbol and tribute to emergency workers, paramedics, policemen, firemen, construction workers, doctors, nurses, and everyone else who ran toward the crumbling towers on that fateful day in an attempt to save lives.

It is a symbol to the tens of thousands who ran away from the towers as they were falling, in order to save their own lives. It is also a symbol for those who did not make it and to the loved ones they left behind.

The reconstructed World Trade Center will be a symbol for all Americans.

As such, the new center was to bear a name befitting of such an iconic creation.

It was going to be named The Freedom Tower.

The name threatened no sensitivities or faiths, It did not defy any bounds of decency or politically correct dictums.

The name reflected a concept truly important to Americans, one that was under attack when the original towers came crashing down.

It was a perfect name for a potential center of the free market in America and the world.

But nothing is perfect and as such, the controlling authority of the new tower, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, has determined that the name “Freedom Tower” will be dropped.

The Port Authority claims that their reason for scrapping that name is a business decision based on the fact that some potential foreign tenants of the tower are turned off by the name. Port Authority officials claim that changing the name from Freedom Tower back to World Trade Center will make it easier to market.

For me, the decision to turn their back on the symbolic importance of the towers name, is an offense to us all. Especially to those directly affected by the events of 9/11.

It also brings rise to what type of potential international tenants of the tower are offended by the name “Freedom Tower”. Is the Port Authority planning on renting office space in the new WTC to the Taliban?

The decision to back down from the name Freedom Tower, on a project that has so much symbolic value to our nation’s recovery from terrorism and our continued plight for freedom in the world, is a travesty of insurmountable proportions. The rejection of the name and the reasoning behind the rejection is repulsive.

It does not help to properly define a post 9/11 era . It does not help to honor the thousands who died when freedom was attacked on 9/11…….the thousands who will be memorialized where they died, right on the remaining foot print of both old towers.

By refusing to call the new tower, the Freedom Tower, we are not demonstrating our own commitment to the cause of freedom. What we are doing is demonstrating that we will compromise our freedoms to suit the desires of others.

Well I do not want to suit the needs of people who have a problem with freedom. Whether they are foreigners or domestic dolts, I do not want to promote or support their antithetical views regarding freedom.

Freedom is the foundation of our very nation. Or at least it is suppose to be.

Yet here we are. We have a committee of Americans appointed by the American governors of New York and New Jersey. They were entrusted with the responsibility of operating America’s Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and they refuse to stand by the name of the principle most important to America………freedom.

Is there any wonder why we are where we are today?

God bless America. Now more than ever!

With Hindsight, Armchair Generals Still Say Saddam Should Have Been Spared

    There are those who, till even this day, base their entire political being on the claim that the war in Iraq was wrong and had no legitimate foundation behind it . Some even join with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and claim that we lost the war.

These isolationists and leftists maintain, that there was absolutely no reason for the United States to focus any military attention on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the days, months and even years after 9/11.

With creative flair, they refer to 9/11 as a ploy and claim that supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom simply used 9/11 as an excuse. Others delve deeper and extrapolate that the true reason behind the overthrow of Hussein was a corporate conspiracy spearheaded by oil interests led by Haliburton. Others say it was a family matter that involved the revenge of one presidential son of another President who Saddam once tried to assassinate.

Putting aside theoretical liberal reasoning for Republican support of the Iraqi war and their tendency to believe that Republicans do not care about the lives of those who carry the war out, what these people fail to realize and comprehend are facts. They fail to accept the reality of the time.

Most basic to the reality that they deny is the fact that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the policy of the United States since 1991. Initially we urged the people of Iraq to do it. Unfortunately those we hoped to do so, such as the Kurds, are also the people we left hanging and they paid dearly for it.

In 1995, under President Clinton, the C.I.A. organized a covert coup to topple Saddam Hussein. It failed.

Three years later, still acknowledging the threat that Saddam Hussein posed, in 1998, President Clinton signed into law a congressionally approved bill called The Iraqi Liberation Act.

Through it all, Democrats and Republicans alike agreed on few things other than the fact that an Iraq led by Saddam Hussein was an Iraq that threatened American interests, Mid East peace and international security.

Other small factors included things like cease fire agreements and United Nations resolutions.

After the original Gulf War, Saddam signed treaties promising to stop the production and procurement of WMD‘s. He made a commitment to permit UN weapons inspectors to verify that he was not in breach of these treaties and he was also not allowed to oppose our enforcement of U.S. no-fly zones. Yet for the twelve years after the Gulf War, Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire agreement that he had with the U.S.. Additionally, he denied weapons inspectors proper access to establishing proper inspections. He also repeatedly shot our aircrafts in the no-fly zones and violated seventeen Security Council resolutions regarding weapons development and procurement.

I would contend, that if the American word is to mean something in the world, we should have removed Saddam immediately following the very first time he violated the cease fire agreement that we had with him. That would have eliminated his threat back in late 1991. But we didn’t.

I would contend that we had reason to topple Saddam after he defied the very first UN resolution regarding inspections. But we didn’t.

Instead we allowed him to skirt the terms that were established to contain him and render his ability to be a threat ineffectual.

It wasn’t until after 9/11 that America realized that the risks we faced were great and the threats that exist are serious.

Up until 9/11, aside from shooting back on an Iraqi jet that fired at us outside of an established no-fly zone in Iraq, a failed C.I.A. backed coup, a continuous string of disregard for UN violations and inability to enforce proper weapons inspections and a signed congressional act calling for the liberation of Iraq, we did little more than provide lip service to the agreed fact that Saddam Hussein was a danger and needed to be eliminated.

President Bill Clinton said on February 4, 1998, “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line”

On December 16, 1998 high liberal lord Al Gore said, “If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons”.

Around this same time, based on information collected by the Clinton administration, long before anyone could even accuse the Bush administration of falsifying facts, Nancy Pelosi said ” Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology which is a threat to countries in the region and has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process”.

According to liberal lion, Ted Kennedy in an interview on October 6, 2002…….”Saddam Hussein is a dangerous figure. He’s got dangerous weapons”.

Shortly after that, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd stated ”The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked upon on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities”

Before his campaign for the presidency of the United States was official, a previous liberal standard bearer of today’s liberal Democrat party, John Kerry said, ” Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime…..He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction….So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”

It was rather obvious that Saddam needed to go and that fact never changed. Years later, even after there being no weapons of mass destruction found, other evidence of sinister intentions does exist. The discovery of over 500 degraded missile casings designed to carry deadly chemicals actually supports such conclusions.

Then there exists the evidence of what Saddam was known to actually be doing.

Leading Iraqi inspectors and figures with the International Atomic Energy Agency stated “there was evidence that the Iraqis continued research and development “right up until the end” to improve their ability to produce ricin. “They were mostly researching better methods for weaponization,”

They add “Iraq did make an effort to restart its nuclear weapons program in 2000 and 2001, but that the evidence suggested that the program was rudimentary at best and would have taken years to rebuild, after being largely abandoned in the 1990’s….”

All of this points to the fact that there was little disagreement regarding Saddam Hussein between both Democrats and Republicans and there was little to distinguish any difference between the Bush administration or the Clinton administration when it came to Iraq.

All except for one.

After the devastating results of 9/11 materialized, the administration of President George W. Bush decided to take action. President Bush decided that lip service was no longer a good enough strategy when it came to eliminating threats.

That explanation produces a knee-jerk reply from the left and isolationists. To that, like Pavlov’s dog, they jump to their feet and scream “but Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorists”.

An oversimplification of events might make their stale reply seem rational but a scratch of the surface of that shallow argument reveals the truth, which those who make that claim, refuse to accept.

Although there has been no connection between the 19 terrorists who participated in the hijacking of the airplanes that produced 9/11, there is no denying that they were terrorists and as a result, on September 20th, 2001, President Bush declared a War On Terror and in a speech to the nation he said, “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.…”

Keeping that in mind, even though none of the 19, 9/11 hijackers came through Iraq, there is no doubt that, through Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists with a so-called “global reach”. The list of terrorists that fall into this category includes, but is not limited to:

Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993
Khala Khadr al-Salahat, who created the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland
Abu Abas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan before he reentered the insurgency that followed the post Saddam days of Iraq”.

Given those names alone, bringing the overthrow of Saddam Hussein into the War On Terror was, and still remains, a legitimate part of the greater battle.

After 9/11, to have ignored Iraq and allowed Saddam to continue to rule with impunity would have been an irresponsible continuation of doing nothing more than offering dire warnings about what could happen and presenting legislation symbolic of what we should do to prevent it from coming to fruition.

In its wake, armchair generals, with more hindsight than foresight, took to calling this front misguided and a diversion. Yet what diversion was created? A diversion which attracted other terrorists to take up arms and flee to Iraq like flies to flypaper.?

Some will falsely claim that our efforts in Iraq gave opportunity to a resurgence of Taliban forces in Afghanistan. They will falsely claim that our decision to fight in Iraq put us in the position of fighting two different failed wars.

Those who make such claims are not just wrong, they are lying.

First of all, neither war has been lost. The coming fulfillment of our goals in Iraq has enabled President Obama to continue the same policy set in motion by the previous administration. Secondly does anyone believe for a minute that our efforts in Afghanistan would be any further ahead than they are now, had Saddam Hussein still been an active protagonist in the region?

Given his history, his continued intentions, ever present risk and consistent defiance of the international community and agreements with the U.S., no effective attempts to combat terrorism beyond mere words, could have been undertaken without neutralizing and removing Saddam Hussein from the equation. After more than a year of trying to achieve that goal through diplomacy, force was resorted to. That was a decision Saddam Hussein made. The opportunity to avoid military action was always there for him and he was the one to reject it.

In the end the United States had two choices. Either finally do something about Saddam Hussein and eliminate the threat he posed and the proliferation of terrorism that he afforded opportunity to, or, once and for all put action behind our words and eliminate the threat and reduce the risks that we spoke so much about for over a decade.

In a post 9/11 government our government chose to act. Rather than risk having to react to another disastrous terrorist plot that claimed more innocent lives, we chose to prevent it.

The benefit of that decision is immeasurable, at least to us. We will never be able to count the lives spared by the removal of Saddam Hussein. We will not know how many future surprise attacks were prevented from occurring but what we do know is that there will be no more assisted or arranged terrorist or state sponsored attacks by Saddam.

We do know that a beachhead for democracy is developing in the heartland of intolerance in the Middle East. We do know that millions of Iraqi are now tasting freedom and for the first time in generations are living either in less fear or no fear. We do know that in addition to all the previous facts which gave reason to removing Saddam Hussein, others existed as well. Such as his support of Palestinian suicide bombers and his prompting of two regional wars. But in addition to that, Hussein’s oppression and extermination of his own people is justification in and of itself. Such humanitarian reasoning justified our actions in places like Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Haiti during the Clinton years. Why that alone is not enough cause for our actions in Iraq is an example of liberal hypocrisy.

Yet till this day, there are those who try to paint our actions as irresponsible, imperialistic forays of greedy, misguided political folly. They try to claim the Republican party who nominated a President that carried this action out is a party that has lost sight of its purpose.

Well to them I make it clear that the Republican party has not lost sight of our purpose, our beliefs or of what is important. The decision to include Iraq in the War on Terror is one that we stand by today as steadfast as we did on the day that Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched.

We are proud of the fact that Republicans finally achieved what, for too long, many only spoke about. We are proud to not excuse away the abuses of Saddam Hussein and ignore his treaty and cease fire violations. We are proud of the fact today, we are not having to add Saddam into an already complicated enough risk equation that involves Iran, North Korea, China, an erratic Russia and the still existing sources Islamic radicalism and terrorism.

Utopian romantics may try to argue how better off we would be had we ignored the facts and allowed Saddam Hussein to remain a player. They will calculate the immediate financial cost of the war and claim it to be the source of our great economic debt. In doing so, what they leave out of their equation is the long term cost that we would still be paying to continue countering Saddam Hussein. They also leave out the price we would be paying as it relates to the lives at risk or lost had Saddam continued with his ambitions.

What these deniers of truth fail to do is acknowledge the fact that America can no longer simply talk about what needs to be done to protect ourselves. We must do things to protect ourselves. What these liberal leaning, apologists for jihad refuse to do is admit that they would have been the first to crucify a Republican President had he not prevented Saddam Hussein from successfully enabling or carrying out any other terrorist related event. But we did, so now their need to point fingers of blame to anyone but themselves causes them to point blame, not at he who made such events possible, but at he who made them less likely.

Such people may continue to call opposition to their denial of facts extremists and they may try to evangelize their message by exploiting those whose lives were lost in the War On Terror but they do so at the risk of taking responsibility for the next terrorist attack that their ways fail to thwart.

TALIBAN TV GUIDE

6.00 G-Had TV. Morning prayers.
8.30 Talitubbies. Talitubbies say “Ah-ah”. Dipsy and Tinky-Winky repair a Stinger missile launcher.
9.00 Shouts of Praise. More prayers.
11.00 Jihad’s Army. The Kandahar-on-Sea battalion repulse another attack by evil, imperialist, Zionist backed infidels.
12.00 Ready, Steady, Jihad! Celebrities make lethal devices out of everyday objects.
12.30 Panoramadan. The programme reports on Americas attempts to take over the world.
13.30 Xena: Modestly dressed Housewife. Xena stays at home and does some cooking.
14.00 Only Fools and Camels. Dhal-Boy offloads some Chinese rocket launchers to Hamas.
14.30 Green Peter. The total of Kalashnikovs bought by the milk bottle top appeal is revealed.
15.00 Madrasah Challenge. Two more Islamic colleges meet. Bambah Kaskhain asks the questions.’Starter for ten, no praying.’
15.30 I Love 629. A look back at the events of the year, including the Prophet’s entry into Mecca, and the destruction of pagan idols.
16.00 Question Time. Members of the public face questions from political and religious leaders.
17.00 Koranation Street. Deirdrie faces execution by stoning for adultery.
17.30 Middle-East Enders. The entire cast is jailed for unislamic behaviour.
18.00 Holiday. The team go on pilgrimage to Mecca. Again.
18.30 Top of the Prophets. Will the Koran be No.1 for the 63,728th week running?
19.00 Who wants to be a Mujahadin? Mahmoud Tarran asks the questions.
Will contestants phone a mullah, go ‘inshallah’, or ask the Islamic council?
20.00 FILM: Shariah’s Angels. The three burkha-clad sleuths go undercover to expose an evil scheme to educate women.
21.30 Big Brother. Who will be taken out of the house and executed this week?
22.30 Shahs in their Eyes. More hopefuls imitate famous destroyers of the infidel.
23.30 They think it’s Allah over. Quiz culminating in the ‘don’t feel it the Mullah’ round.
0.00 When Imams attack. Amusing footage shot secretly in mosques. The filmers were also secretly shot.
00.30 a.m. The West Bank Show. Arts programme looking at anti-Israel graffiti art in the occupied territories.
01.30 Bhuffi the Infidel Slayer. 
02.00 A book at bedtime. The Koran. Again.

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

KENNEDY KNIGHTED. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

    What has her majesty’s kingdom come to?

Today British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came before a joint session of Congress and declared honorary knighthood to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.

Being a Kennedy has almost always been a magical thing. It is a get out of jail free card that exempts them from wrongdoing. Be it a Kennedy cousin who has killed a Connecticut neighbor, a Kennedy nephew who raped a Florida neighbor, a Kennedy relative in Congress caught driving drunk or Ted Kennedy’s swimming away from a date after plunging into icy cold waters in Hyannis port and then neglecting to tell anyone that he left her there, being a Kennedy is a great thing.

When it comes to Kennedy wrongdoing, cover-ups are expected and accepted. When it comes to Kennedy scandals it is again, both expected and accepted.

Now it is worthy of knighthood.

The sad fact is that the Kennedy clan has come along way since the days of President John F. Kennedy and New York Senator Robert Kennedy. But it has not progressed in quite such a good way. Kennedy’s have since then have done more harm than good.

We knew John and Robert had faults of their own, but we were able to respect John and Robert Kennedy, but Ted Kennedy is no John or Robert Kennedy.

John and Robert Kennedy had their lives taken. Ted Kennedy has taken lives.

Yet the monarchy of Great Britain has chosen to put more value in Ted Kennedy’s socialist agenda, than his crimes.

It is a shame but such is the world we live in.

God save the Queen.

A woman interviews for a job with Ted Kennedy.

Kennedy: “You realize that you’ll have to travel a lot.”

Woman: “That’s OK.”

Kennedy: “And that to save money we’ll have to share a hotel room.”

Woman: “OK.”

Kennedy: “And on some nights we will be having sex.”

Woman: “That’s all right.”

Kennedy: “Do you have any questions?”

Woman: “Well, if we are having sex, I might get pregnant and I wonder what arrangements you’ve made for obstetrics insurance, maternity leave, etc.”

Kennedy: “Don’t worry; we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”