Tag Archives: New Jersey Republicans


Bookmark and Share     Just wondering.

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

mask20chinese20flagRecently 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 boycott2008, 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?

Bookmark and Share

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


Bookmark and Share   It is interesting to listen to the left grouse over objections to President Obama’s economic proposals. They are astonished by any dissent and they are offended by any lack of sensitivity offered to the messiah’s vision for us. They want us to give him a chance and give him some time. obamaicon2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bookmark and Share

How can you tell when a lawyer has gone bad?

When you call them senator.

1 Comment

Filed under politics



Bookmark and Share    President Obama delivered a powerful speech that focused on bipartisanship and counted on the hope that the poor performance of the private sector over the past two years has forced people to have more faith in government and want more government action.

Undeniably well received, the speech was also undeniably expected.

President Obama believes that government is the answer to all our problems and although he made a point of stating that he does not believe in bigger government, he never backed away from more government control . In fact three extraordinary government based goals were punctuated in President Obama’s speech. One was for a government run universal health care project that is akin to LBJ’s expansion of social economic welfare in the 60’s.

Another lofty target laid out was the President’s cap and trade regulations on carbon. That well intended environmental goal will revolutionize our economy and produce some economic winners and many losers and, at best negligible, environmental results.

The final foray into change offered by President Obama was his initiatives which would put education in the domain of government and under its control from the elementary level through the college level.

However, in the Republican response to the President, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal reminded us that the strength in America’s future lays not in government but our people.

Acknowledging the fact that Washington must lead, Jindal made it clear that more money and power in the hands of Washington is not leadership.

Despite the trappings of Washington power and the deserved traditional pomp and circumstances of the Presidency, Governor Jindal presented his case under less impressive circumstances than the President, but his message was as resounding as the Presidents.

Governor Jindal addressed the need to stabilize housing markets, increase energy efficiency and the use of alternative energy sources, and the need to grow our economy. But his approach to those efforts did not rely on the government bureaucracy which has proven itself unable to effectively deliver services, monitor itself or act with speed and efficiency.

Having to follow President Obama in a response, Bobby Jindal faced a daunting task. He needed to deliver a response that could appropriately counter the President and although the grandiosity of his oration may not have met the emotional height of President Obama’s, the content did.

One speech relied on the collective will, determination and stamina of the people. The other relied on government replacing individual will, determination and stamina with a bureaucracy.

Jindal’s response was not made an easier by the fact that President Obama is undeniably one of our greatest contemporary political orators Any message that the President delivers is likely to strike a chord in the hearts and minds of citizens. Much the same way that Ronald Reagan did when he ruled the bully pulpit.

Both Obama and Reagan used the bully pulpit quite effectively. The difference between the two though, existed in content.

President Obama uses the bully pulpit to promote government as the key to the success of our people.

President Reagan used the bully pulpit to promote our people as the key to the success of our government.

President Obama sees government as the tool which people are empowered by while President Reagan saw people are the source to any power that the government is given.

It is a point noted when we look at the content of President Obama’s speech.

In it , government is the source of our success. Through incremental moves to socializing medicine, education and industry, under the leadership of President Obama, things will improve. In his speech, the source to a sustainable success is the bureaucracy which has proven itself to be slow, cumbersome, unruly, ineffective and inefficient. We are to believe that a government which can’t control itself or monitor itself is suppose to be the source of our wealth.

This is the same government that operates a postal service that is in the red, and has to increase rates while cutting services.

Yet, according to President Obama, government is the answer.

Bobby Jindal’s response to President Obama stated the opposite and although he lacked the suspense and emotion of the President, the content of his speech spoke to the fact that government bureaucracy holds no candle to the power of a free people. He spoke to the principles that our nation was founded on. The principles that we will have to someday struggle to recapture as we slowly move away from a people driven government to a government driven people.

In his address, governor Jindal stated that where Republicans agree with the President, we “must be his most ardent supporters.” With that I agree. However; I fear that that the President’s incremental adoption of the socialist policies that America has long fought against will provide little opportunity to demonstrate any ardent support.

Bookmark and Share


Governor Bobby Jindal’s Republican response to President Obama




What did Soviet Socialists use before they had candles?
Answer: electricity.




Leave a comment

Filed under politics



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

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

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

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

Such is the case when it comes to our economy.

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

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

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a free Bill of Free Enterprise Rights.

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

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

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

The benefits would also be hared by government as well.

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

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

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

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


antspreadwealthBookmark and Share   With wide spread electoral support for “spreading the wealth” through big government, President Obama and liberal leaders Pelosi and Reid , are well on the way to advancing their socialist conversion of our democracy.
It needs to be mentioned that Republicans have also helped in this effort.
Of course only three Republican federal office holders supported the current American economic socialization package but the sudden unwillingness of many Republicans to allow what they have allowed in the past is to little too late.
In the past a healthy block of Republicans in the house and senate have opposed fascist economic policies but not enough to help save the party from defeat in the past two election cycles. An abandonment of our antiestablishment mentality, the acceptance of political largess and a lack of adherence to conservative policy has helped to undermine the G.O.P.’s purpose and our nations economic and social health.
The fact that only three Republicans jumped on board to the recent multi hundred billion dollar stimulus package is encouraging. It shows that the G.O.P. may have learned a lesson and is getting back on track and back on message.

That is yet to be seen though.

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

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

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

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

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

One example cited is additional funds for unemployment. According to the pork riddled, economic wealth socialization boondoggle, states accepting supplemental federal unemployment funds must extend their state unemployment eligibility to part-time workers.antmoney-strings1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bookmark and Share



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

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The contrast between the two was startling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Bookmark and Share
Remarks by Mayor Steve Lonegan
Remarks By Chris Christie
Remarks by Mayor Brian Levine

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

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


antdrinkThe term Northeast liberal has just taken on new meaning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But years later, New Hampshire is changing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

“Why not?”
“Because I’m drunk.”


Leave a comment

Filed under politics


Japanese Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa

Japanese Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa

Bookmark and Share     Proof that the United States is not alone in a struggle for economic leadership was made quite evident today in Japan.

The already unstable government of Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso just took another hit and it is one that does not add to any sense of economic security.

Aso’s Finance Minister, Shoichi Nakagawa resigned today after apologizing for attending a string of seven news conferences while drunk.

A series of scandals and accusations and a plummeting popularity rating ,due to Prime Minister Aso’s mismanagement of the Japanese economy, has brought him and his ruling “Liberal Democratic Party” under fire and to the point of no public confidence.

Oddly, the resignation of Aso’s drunk Finance Minister coincided with a press conference by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who has made Japan the first stop on her first foreign mission.

What a welcome that must have been.

According to some insiders, the resignation could be the straw that breaks the back of the LDP and cause it to crumble. That could also give need for Secretary Clinton to do this trip over again, when she can discuss things with Japanese leaders who will be sober and in control of the Japanese government.

In any event, the fate of disgraced Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa is still up in the air. Some have suggested that the drunken antics which have led to his resignation from the Japanese government, might make him a perfectly suitable replacement for ailing Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy when and if he ever retires.

Others have suggested that since he is now available, Nakagawa’s government experience and impeccably clean tax record could make him the perfect person to nominate for the hard to fill, vacant Commerce Secretary spot that still exists in the Obama administration. What a better way to demonstrate our free trade desires than by having an Asian commerce secretary oversee our markets?

However; sources close to WordPress.com believe that although Nakagawa’s future fortune does lie in the United States, it is not in government employment that he will find it.

Apparently, Nakegawa will be signed onto a two year contract with a new American reality television show that will be produced by and aired on C-Span. The show is called Political Rehab and it will feature an array of political leaders, each of which are trying to deal with their political afterlives while coping with various addictions and fetishes.

The show will take place in Washington, D.C.’s trendy Georgetown section where the political rehabilitants will live together for eight weeks in a three story brownstone. Producers of the program say the show will “take us through the lives of everyday politicians who have fallen from grace and out of power and are struggling to find their place in the world while also coping with the problems that brought them down and out of power”

The shows creators promise that Political Rehab will be an emotional journey, jam packed with the intensity and passion of politics along with twists born of the human frailties and addictions that all people bring to the table.

Currently, producers are still negotiating contracts with a list of stars that include former Congresswoman and Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney , impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich, former Senator Larry Craig as well as former Governors Elliot Spitzer of New York and Jim McGreevey of New Jersey. Word is that former President Bill Clinton has already been signed on but arrangements regarding where Cynthia McKinney can safely sleep without fear of Mr. Clinton are still being worked out.

The show’s producers stated that the addition of Nakagawa and his drinking problem is just what they were looking for in order to round out the other addictions being dealt with on the show such as sex and violence.

So it is nice to know that when one door closes another one can in fact open, and after Nakegawa’s resignation in Japan, it is nice to know that not everything applies to the phrase “only in America”.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


Bookmark and Share    In 2002, congress created legislation commonly called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It was designed to respond to the accounting scandals of Enron and other business interests of the time.antsoxdummyThe legislation established new and increased regulations for all American owned and operated public company boards.

At the time, the Sarbanes-Oxley sponsored Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 was considered to contain the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt.”

Sponsored by Paul Sarbanes, a Maryland Democrat Senator and Ohio Republican Congressman Michael Oxley, the bill passed with bipartisan support and was signed into effect by a Republican President, George W. Bush.  So credit and blame lies in the lap of both major parties but now, almost seven years later, the question is does Sarbanes-Oxley deserve more blame than credit.

The political purpose of the bill was achieved.  It helped to restore public confidence in the securities markets.

In the wake of the accounting scandal that brought down energy giant Enron, its stock prices plummeted from more than $90.00 a share to less than 50 cents a share and investors lost billions and Enron eventually went bankrupt. In response to the shocking demise of Enron, congress tried to act in a way that would restore investors confidence by trying to insure that the scandalous practices of Enron would not be repeated.

So congress responded to the problem which took care of the political objective. They did something about it. But what did they really do about it?

Regretfully, all they actually did was make themselves look good. They made themselves look like responsible legislators responding to our needs but looks are deceiving because seven years later, Sarbanes-Oxley is proving to be more of a hindrance than a help.

There is little evidence proving that the government entity created by Sarbanes-Oxley to oversee the accounting practices of businesses has been effective. In fact, after Democrats refused to pass legislation that would have changed their own accounting practices which led to the need to bailout FannieMac and FreddieMac, there is even more evidence which indicates that government should be the last entity to be counted on for effective oversight. It is government oversight which required banks and loaning entities such as FannieMae and FreddieMac to enter into high risk loans that could not be paid off. All of which helped to usher in the banking crisis that led the way to our current financial crunch.

It is all an example of government overreaching and innefficiency and innaccuracy.

Initially compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was projected to cost businesses, that want to go public, about $91 thousand dollars to do so but the actual figure is over $4 million dollars.

This typical government miscalculation has helped to push the start up time for businesses from five years to twelve years and it is adding to the stagnation of a much needed rate of growth for our economy.

At a time when the federal government has spent over $ 1 billion 200 million in the name of economic stimulus, does it really make sense to leave untouched, excessive legislation which is counterproductive to the goals of all that stimulus spending?

When you come down to it, enforcement of Sarbanes-Oxley costs more than it is worth.

That is not to suggest that Sarbanes-Oxley must be scrapped.   It must be amended.

Of the eleven sections in the bill, some have merit. Specifically, those sections which hold business executives and owners more accountable. However, no responsible legislative stimulus action can exist without addressing the many other detrimental sections of the bill which are having a debilitating effect on economic growth.

To allow the so-called Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 to remain as is, during the economic recovery attempts of 2009, is irresponsible and reckless.

In its current form the bill is destroying new job creation, stifling our entrepreneurial spirit and surrendering entrepreneurial innovation to foreign competitors. None of which adds any value to the hundreds of billions of dollars that are intended to grow our economy.

Without changes to the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, our government is allowing existing legislation to work against all of their current and future economic recovery measures. Without changes to this bill, we are prolonging the economic downturn we are in and putting our economic future on a course that will put us far behind the burgeoning markets and economies of Asia.



A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks “What do two plus two equal?” The mathematician replies “Four.” The interviewer asks “Four, exactly?” The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says “Yes, four, exactly.”

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The accountant says “On average, four – give or take ten percent, but on average, four.”

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, “What do you want it to equal”?

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


antreaganday1aBookmark and Share    Every February, the month of Ronald Reagan’s birth, citizens of  New Jersey  join together to celebrate New Jersey Reagan Day.  It is a heartfelt, “all-volunteer tribute to the life, leadership, and legacy of President Ronald Reagan“, that was founded by conservative New Jersey Assemblyman Jay Webber.

The event features speeches, displays of classic Reagan memorabilia, video tributes, and even a jelly bean guessing contest to recall Reagan’s favorite snack.

New Jersey Reagan Day has also become a standard stopping point for Republican statewide candidates. As such, this year’s event anticipates appearances by Republican gubernatorial candidates Steve Lonegan, Brian Levine  and Chris Christie.

The featured guest speaker and individual delivering this year’s keynote tribute speech will be President Reagan’s former assistant  for Political and Intergovernmental Affairs and deputy assistant to the President for Public Liaison at the White House, Frank Donatelli.antreaganday

According to the event’s web site, “New Jersey Reagan Day is not about mere nostalgia. What we celebrate most are President Reagan’s great intangible attributes — his forward-looking vision, his deep faith in the essential goodness and wisdom of the American people, and his firm commitment to great ideas and principles. Ronald Reagan saw and appreciated what is best about us. Like a lighthouse beacon reaching every corner of the world, President Reagan projected our nation’s greatness to the rest of the globe“.

Reagan Day creators add “across that globe, in places like Budapest and Warsaw, monuments literally are rising to pay homage to a great man. If former communists in Hungary and Poland can find ways to honor Reagan for his vision and strength in promoting human liberty, then certainly we in New Jersey can do the same”.

So this Wednesday, join us in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey at the Zeris Inn for a celebratory tribute to President Reagan and his accomplishments.

For your invitation click here

or call (201) 602-4468

Bookmark and Share

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are:

‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”   ~Ronald Reagan


Leave a comment

Filed under politics