Ryan Peters: Thumbs up to Mikie Sherrill. Thumbs down to Diane Allen.

By Rubashov

In a video paid for by Nick DeGregorio’s campaign for Congress, former Assemblyman Ryan Peters touts military experience as the preeminent qualification for public office. Peters, a former Navy SEAL, states: “There is simply no boardroom or classroom that tests you like a combat zone.”

Peters goes on to say, “You see things, and you’re put in situations… that test the core of who you are. Because ultimately… you will have to look into the eyes of our enemy and decide right then, right there, whether or not you have the strength to fight…”

The ancient Greeks might well agree with Peters. Military service and procreation were twin virtues revered by their civilization. Both were considered essential to the preservation of the city-state, and military service was compulsory. In Athens, for example, service was limited to a set period. In Sparta, it was for life.

But are Peters’ views relevant today? Is combat vet Tammy Duckworth more qualified to be President than was someone like Ronald Reagan? Peters appears to think so. Duckworth, an Army Lt. Colonel, lost both her legs to combat. She is currently the United States Senator from Illinois and a decidedly liberal Democrat. Is Peters suggesting that we ignore her positions on issues and vote for her based on her unquestionable military experience?

Should we have cast our votes for, say, John Kerry (Navy Lieutenant, winner of the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts) over George W. Bush? Peters seems to say “yes”.

The only Republican in the Legislature to vote for Democrat Governor Jim Florio's gun ban was a United States Marine (a Captain). Should Republicans have voted for him based on his military experience? Or should they have taken his anti-Second Amendment position into account?

The video features a clip of DeGregorio, a candidate for Congress in the 5th District, complaining that his Republican primary opponents have questioned his experience. Nick, who reached the rank of Major in the Marine Corps, is running a campaign largely based on his military service. On his campaign website, there are many paragraphs about what Nick did in the military, but there’s nothing about what he’d do in Congress. No issues page. No policies.

Nick compounded this by refusing to share his views with a panel of statewide conservative leaders that included Mayor Steve Lonegan; Marie Tasy (New Jersey Right to Life); Alex Roubian (2nd Amendment Society); Rev. Greg Quinlan (Center for Garden State Families); John Robert Carman (NJ Constitutional Republicans); and Josh Aikens (AriseNJ). Every other candidate for the GOP nomination in the 5th District participated, as did every candidate in the neighboring 7th District – including elected officials like Senator Tom Kean Jr. and Assemblyman Erik Peterson. Perhaps Nick hasn’t fully formed views on issues like taxation and abortion and the Second Amendment?

Whatever the reason for Nick’s reticence to share his ideas on issues, it does raise perfectly reasonable questions about what those ideas might be – or whether Nick has any ideas at all. In the video, Peters suggest anyone who questions a former combat veteran and candidate for public office should face cancellation for daring to do so. Peters states, “So, for any guy who puts on a suit, sits in an office, and says those who chose to put on a uniform and face down the barrel of a gun, that they don’t have experience – you sir, have no business representing anybody in Congress.”

This is quite an extreme statement and a species of that faux moral outrage one generally associates with the Left. Of course, all citizens – suit-wearing or not – have not only the right but the duty to question the experience of those who wish to represent them in Congress. To suggest that questioning certain people should result in the questioner being cancelled is irresponsible and absurd.

We wonder if Republicans will face the same admonishments from Democrats when Senator Duckworth runs for President in 2024? And we can’t help but wonder who Assemblyman Peters would have voted for last year, if Phil Murphy had run with Mikie Sherrill (retired Navy Lt. Commander and a combat helicopter pilot) against a Quaker pacifist like Diane Allen?

If we place the romance and emotional rhetoric to one side, it is clear to see there are many kinds of experiences that could be helpful in Congress. Having gone through a pandemic, perhaps a candidate with a medical background might be helpful? A career in medical research might even be more helpful. Would Peters suggest cancelling such a candidate if they dared ask Nick where he stood on the issues?

Experience should be the beginning of a candidate's story. It should not be a candidate's entire story.

This is not to place blame on Ryan and Nick alone, because they have not embraced this criterion on their own. They are victims of the political campaign industry’s consultant class. America might not manufacture anything anymore, but politics and government affairs and lobbying has never been bigger.

Today’s political consultants don’t think of a public servant or a statesman when they think of a candidate – they think of a Facebook celebrity. And that is what they seek to manufacture. A nice, plausible face with a good back story that produces the mandatory emotional “likes”. Candidates are admonished not to think or tell anybody where they stand on issues. In place of genuine thought, there is a script. Human concern is carefully choreographed. Image is all.

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

…

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

(Excerpts from “The Hollow Men”
by Thomas Stearns Eliot)

We disagree with these political consultants. We believe that issues matter to people. Issues motivate individual people to vote. Not categories designed by algorithms. Issues have meaning to people.

Take these folks in this video, for example. Are they “Soft Democrats” or “Swing” or any one of the other descriptors designed to make it easier to sell some technological shortcut to figuring out what is on people’s minds (short of having a discussion with them). To us, they appear unique, individual, and motivated by an issue that concerns them. Of course, we could be wrong. Watch the video. You describe them. Are they Republicans?

How would the sacred algorithms describe them?

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
George Orwell

Is Erik Peterson more neo-anarchist than conservative?

By Rubashov

We used to think there were two kinds of elected conservative leaders: the helmsmen and the engineer. Both are necessary. The first charts a course in broad language and is aspirational. Think of a ship’s captain, all turned-out and resplendent, steering a course.

The second kind, the engineer, gets it done and moves us forward. Their domain is the caucus room – the engine room of government – where the hard business of making the machine turn is done. In a different setting, a famous Marine described them as the people with “instinct in their guts and blood on their boots.”

Of late, we are beginning to see the rise of a third variety of conservative “leader” – the celebrity. He or she most certainly has followers, but there is an underlying purposelessness to this “leader”. Aside from poses and postures, it is all hot air, mere image and gesture, a kind of luftman.

Last week, Assemblyman Erik Peterson strolled into Sussex County to attend the local GOP county committee’s congressional candidates' night. Peterson says the right things and hits the right notes, but mostly he’s against things. His call to repeal the gas tax found its mark and got an oafish grin from fellow Assemblyman Parker Space. But neither Peterson (or Space, for that matter) ever ventured an opinion on what the aftermath of such a move would look like.

They remind us of those reckless conservative “leaders” of yore – the ones who would irresponsibly talk about “blowing up Russia”. We’d think, “Sure boys, launch those nukes… but what then?”

Repealing the gas tax wouldn’t place a break on the rise in gas prices – because that’s all about national politics (President Joe Biden’s war on pipelines and oil companies) and international politics (a war between Russia and Ukraine, with NATO as a silent partner). But it would, almost instantaneously, bankrupt the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) here in New Jersey – and that would throw every county and local budget in the state into the red, necessitating a rise in property taxes to make up for it. What kind of rise? Try $400 to $500 a home. Year after year. And that’s just to pay for the road and bridge maintenance the TTF pays for now.

With the TTF bankrupt, the TTF’s debt would – by law – need to be paid for by New Jersey taxpayers. And then there are all those TAX CUTS that the engineers who fashioned the cog that kept the machine going got in return for a gas tax hike that was half that originally proposed. The Estate Tax would come roaring back, with all it’s devastating consequences to small businesses and family farms. So would taxes on retirees, small businesses, veterans, working people, and consumers. Maybe you are one of them?

Screw it all, say some of these new “conservative” leaders. Let government die, allow the machine to spit and sputter and clunk to its death. So what if the roads become unpassable and if one must say a prayer before crossing a bridge. Too bad for property taxpayers when someone is seriously injured because of an unmaintained street. And too bad for that person, now stuck in a wheelchair, and for their family. Who needs civilization?

To our minds, this is not a conservative position. Dystopia was not what Ronald Reagan was thinking when he described his “shining city on a hill.” Ronald Reagan understood that freedom and liberty rested on maintaining civilization – not destroying it. Taxation is a necessary part of it, but conservatives insist on getting it right, not abolishing it to the point where we are back with open sewers in the streets.

People like Peterson seem to forget that the Dark Ages really did happen. There was Roman civilization and things like running water and baths… and then there was a thousand years of stink. We may have amnesia about a lot of things but let’s not forget that whiskey was once safer than water.

As Governor and President, Ronald Reagan taught us that “user taxes” are the fairest form of taxation. You pay for the roads and bridges you use. Period. That goes for all those out-of-staters too. The roads and bridges they use should not be paid for by the property taxpayers of New Jersey. That should be an easy thing to understand. It shouldn’t take an engineer to explain it to you, but apparently, it does.

President Reagan signed a gas tax increase.

In an upcoming installment, we will discuss Assemblyman Peterson’s role in installing the Highlands Act in its role as slave master to Northwest New Jersey property owners. Look for it soon.

Reagan’s 11th Commandment and the hypocrisy of the political class

By Steve Lonegan

A group of political grifters (such as Anthony Scaramucci and George Conway) and career liberals (including Bill Weld and Christine Todd Whitman) put out a letter condemning the RNC for censuring two GOP members of the congressional commission investigating the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. Two former New Jersey Congressmen (Rodney Frelinghuysen and Leonard Lance) signed that letter. Their letter ignores the fact that the January 6th riot capped off a year of political riots and violence, which kicked-off a wave of street crime that continues to this day.

Instead of looking at the totality of what happened in America and figuring out why it happened, the Democrat-controlled commission and its Republican cheerleaders want to narrow their focus for political purposes. They want to ignore the hundreds of incidents that happened, that killed and harmed many, and cost billions – to focus on just one. The reasons are transparently political and most fair-minded people know this.

The letter attacking the RNC contains this piece of vile hypocrisy: “There can be no justifying the horrific attack that day, and we condemn the Committee for excusing the actions of men and women who battered police officers, ransacked our nation’s capital…”

Didn’t we watch countless members of the media and the political class justify a year of politically inspired arson and violence visited on America’s cities during 2020? Didn’t we hear the excuses as the police were denounced, attacked, battered, and murdered? How many businesses, places of employment, were ransacked and burnt to the ground?

To top it off, didn’t a chamber of the New Jersey Legislature pass a resolution praising the organization behind those riots and the torching of America’s cities? What did Congressmen Frelinghuysen and Lance do then? Did they send a letter condemning the Legislature for being apologists for violence and anti-police hatred? No, they sat on their hands – in silent consent.

It’s so predictable but always amusing when a liberal Republican pulls out the mythological 11th commandment of Ronald Reagan. It’s the only time liberal Republicans reference the Great Communicator and conservative icon. New Jersey’s liberal NJGOP Chairman Bob Hugin pulled this maneuver out of mothballs to deflect from his vote against the National Republican Party’s resolution censuring of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for failing to investigate the year of political violence that struck America’s cities, and instead shilling for the Democrat Party in their abuse of prosecutorial power for political gain.

Hugin used the often-misplaced 11th commandment attribution as an excuse for initially dodging questions on how he voted on the censure. In fact, it was not Ronald Reagan’s at all. It was attributed by Reagan to California Republican State Chairman Gaylord Parkinson. A Wikipedia entry notes:

The goal was to prevent a repetition of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater, attacks which contributed to Goldwater's defeat in the 1964 presidential election. East Coast Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller labeled Goldwater an "extremist" for his conservative positions and declared him unfit to hold office. Fellow Republican candidate for Governor George Christopher and California's liberal Republicans were leveling similar attacks on Reagan. Hoping to prevent a split in the Republican Party, Parkinson used the phrase as common ground. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson's advice.

Christopher would lose to Reagan in the Republican primary, and Reagan would go on to defeat incumbent Governor Pat Brown, the father of future California Governor Jerry Brown.

Reagan followed this "commandment" during the first five primaries during the 1976 Republican primary against incumbent Gerald Ford, all of which he lost. He abandoned this approach in the North Carolina Primary and beat Ford 52–46, regaining momentum and winning a majority of delegates chosen after that date.

In 1976, after losing the New Hampshire primary and trailing Gerald Ford, the Reagan campaign moved to North Carolina. It was in NC that Reagan met with Senator Jesse Helms and my good friend and mentor Arthur Finkelstein, may they rest in peace. Reagan had been nice to Ford up to that point, but Helms and Arthur told him it was time to go on the attack. Ronald Reagan took this advice, abandoning any 11th Commandment nonsense and ripping apart Ford for the selling the Panama Canal. Reagan won North Carolina and would go on to win Texas (with 100 delegates), shocking the liberal Republican establishment. It was too late in the primary for Reagan to recover from his earlier losses but he became a force that would change the face of the Republican Party, despite the best efforts of the liberal wing of the party to stop him.

At the 1976 convention the nomination went to Gerald Ford who later that night invited Ronald Reagan to speak. Reagan delivered one of the greatest speeches in convention history. I believe that on that evening many delegates on the floor realized they had nominated the wrong guy.

Apparently, the youngsters who work for Bob Hugin are not aware of the history behind the so-called 11th Commandment. Since Reagan’s presidency the tables have turned, and the 11th Commandment has been more often used by liberal Republicans who don’t want to be held accountable for their actions.

The actions of the NJGOP over the last month should be a wake-up call for conservatives of all stripes to face the obvious fact: The liberal Rockefeller wing is back and Bob Hugin is its leader. Hugin is hostile to the views of the vast majority of registered Republican voters in this state. And if you don’t believe me, do a poll.

- Mayor Steve Lonegan is the Father of the Conservative Movement in New Jersey.

Ronald Reagan addresses the Republican National Convention in 1976. Talks platform and freedom and unity, outreach, & victory.

It is worth watching.

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

George Orwell

Is the NJGOP’s Bob Hugin a “Reagan Republican”?

By Rubashov

A few hours after a Jersey Conservative column by Steve Lonegan asked the question, NJGOP Chairman Bob Hugin confirmed he had opposed an effort by supporters of former President Donald Trump to pass a motion censuring the efforts of two GOP congress members serving on the commission investigating the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol. Hugin had dodged answering for several days, until Lonegan, the Father of the Conservative Movement in New Jersey, posed the question in these pages on Monday afternoon.

In explaining his opposition, Hugin issued a statement that was quoted yesterday in the New Jersey Globe: “As a Ronald Reagan Republican who believes in his 11th Commandment, I believe we should be laser focused on beating Democrats and holding Joe Biden accountable, and so I voted against the resolution.”

Hugin continued: “That being said, while I believe those who broke the law on January 6th should be held accountable, the Commission set up by Pelosi does no such thing because it is being weaponized as a partisan, political tool and a sham attempt to distract from the many abysmal failures of Joe Biden and the Democrats.”

In other words, Hugin opposes an effort by Pro-Trump Republicans to criticize Anti-Trump Republicans who are criticizing Pro-Trump Republicans. Hugin believes the vehicle for this criticism is a partisan “tool” and a Democrat “sham”, but he wants to refrain from criticizing the Republicans involved in it. Why? Hugin claims he is doing this because he doesn’t want to criticize other Republicans.

That is a rather convoluted statement dreamed up by the staff at the NJGOP. In contrast, National Committeeman Bill Palatucci was direct in his opposition to the motion to censure: “Terrible action by the RNC but too few of us in the room to object and stop it. The Resolution we should have considered would commend Mike Pence for standing up for the Constitution and saving the Republic.”

You might disagree with Bill Palatucci, but that kind of honesty is refreshing. You can’t ask for more from someone than an on-the-level statement like that.

What struck us odd was Chairman Hugin’s claim to being a “Ronald Reagan Republican”. Words have meaning when they are not being used as slogans to pacify and obscure. Behind words, there are policies that inform their meaning.

Ronald Reagan, the author of a book that takes a Pro-Life position on abortion, is well remembered for the Pro-Life plank he insisted be part of the RNC platform. Generations of New Jersey Republicans have opposed the Reagan abortion plank, and Bob Hugin’s position appears to be in that vein. As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2018, Hugin was clear about his anti-Reagan position. A Bergen Record/ NorthJersey.com story from October 22, 2018, reported Hugin’s position:

Abortion rights: "I am pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, and strongly support equal pay for equal work. Politicians would rather point fingers. I will be different." — campaign ad, nomination speech

The same article provided U.S. Senate candidate Bob Hugin’s position on the Second Amendment:

Gun rights: "I’m a big believer in the Constitution and the protection of our civil constitutional rights. But I think New Jersey has strong anti-gun laws, or strong gun-control laws, which I think I’m supportive of. I believe teachers and children should be our priority, and safety is our No. 1 issue ... I believe in sportsman’s rights, rights to own the gun. I think you have to look at the specifics of legislation to make sure it’s appropriate, but I’d always side with teachers and children as my first priority.” — interview with USA TODAY Network New Jersey

In contrast, here is Ronald Reagan speaking on the subject…

President Ronald Reagan discusses the Second Amendment and gun control with members of the NRA.

So as a candidate for the United States Senate, on at least those two big issues, Bob Hugin was decidedly not a “Ronald Reagan Republican”. In fairness, Hugin might have changed his positions since 2018. If so, he needs to make them clear.

What remains clear is that the staff at the NJGOP, under Hugin’s chairmanship, have allowed a hostile atmosphere to develop towards the new legislative leadership of the State Senate and Assembly. This is mainly due to them being sore over who was brought in to quarterback the effort to gain a legislative majority in 2023. Instead of going with the Hugin-Ciattarelli team of operatives, a team with roots in Governor Chris Christie’s statewide victories and with President Trump was brought in.

The fact that this new legislative leadership is strongly both Pro-Life and Pro-Second Amendment – genuine “Ronald Reagan Republicans” – should not be lost on Chairman Hugin and the staff at the NJGOP. If Ronald Reagan’s referenced “11th Commandment” means anything to the NJGOP, it demands their focused cooperation on serving the needs of the legislative leaders and their team who are charged with the task of scraping together a majority in 2023.

The Republican Party’s existential struggle in New Jersey shouldn’t come down to institutional jealousy over which political consultant is getting the buy. That would be too sad. Too ridiculous. With elements of both tragedy and farce.

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
George Orwell

NJGOP: A balanced approach or a cult of personality?

By Rubashov

There’s a reason why cults habitually target the young. The young look for easy answers and for heroes to lead them. Youth is most open to certainty.

Hard experience makes people into skeptics, cynics even, and leads to the understanding that even heroic figures are a mixed bag. That nobody should be worshipped. With experience we learn that principles, as opposed to personalities, are the standard by which we should measure the words and actions of men.

We’ve been observing an interesting phenomenon since gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli’s defeat last November. Despite Ciattarelli’s insistence that he wants to be the candidate in continuum through to 2025, the young people who administer the Republican Party in New Jersey appear to have found a new “rock star” upon which to focus their enthusiasms… NJGOP Chairman Bob Hugin.

Bob Hugin owes his job to Jack Ciattarelli. It was Ciattarelli who appointed the socially liberal Hugin in June 2021, after Ciattarelli captured the Republican nomination for Governor with a plurality of the vote. Hugin closely matched Ciattarelli’s social liberalism on issues like illegal immigration, the Second Amendment, and abortion.

Hugin ran a heavily self-funded campaign for the United States Senate in 2018, which he began by embracing socially liberal positions on issues like abortion. He lost that campaign but went on to create or help to create a number of funding platforms (PACs or SuperPACs and such) which are designed to or function to “remake” the New Jersey Republican Party into a more “woke” political institution.

For example, an independent expenditure committee controlled by Hugin called Women for a Stronger New Jersey spent around $30,000 on direct mail, text-messaging, robo-calls, and social media in an attempt to defeat a conservative State Committeewoman in Mercer County and replace her with what would have been the first transgender State Committeewoman to represent the GOP. The effort ultimately failed, but one can only ask why such resources – scarce in the best of times – would be wasted on such a silly primary, for such a silly cause. Surely, with so few legislators and counties in the GOP column, $30,000 would be better used to defeat Democrats.

Ideologically, Bob Hugin could not be more different from the last two men at the helm of the NJGOP. Chairman Mike Lavery – the man Hugin replaced and who defeated Hugin in a head-to-head vote by the State Committee just half-a-year earlier – was an unashamed conservative. Chairman Doug Steinhardt, who Lavery replaced, championed issues like the Right-to-Life, the Second Amendment, an end to rewarding illegal immigration, tax cuts, and traditional values.

The presence of someone with the “woke” prejudices of a Bob Hugin might be a problem for the Right-of-Center voters who dominate the New Jersey Republican Party, if the Chairman of the NJGOP was the only leadership figure in the party. Fortunately, that is not the case, and so the party should be able to avoid an open schism.

The way it works is this. In the absence of a Republican Governor, THREE figures constitute the leadership of the New Jersey Republican Party. They include the ELECTED Republican Leader of the State Senate and the ELECTED Republican Leader of the State Assembly – in addition to the appointed (and confirmed by 42 State Committee members) Chairman of the NJGOP.

The Republican Leaders who head their respective legislative caucuses are both solid conservatives – particularly social conservatives – whose records share the values of Republican voters on issues like Right-to-Life, the Second Amendment, illegal immigration, and Medical Freedom. So, there is balance in the leadership of the Republican Party in New Jersey.

But you wouldn’t know this from the NJGOP website. The young folks who run it appear to be in full cult-of-personality mode. Under “leadership” there is just one photograph, one godhead – Bob Hugin. The two other members of what should, properly, be a triumvirate, have been erased – Orwell style.

https://www.njgop.org/leadership/

In fact, when you click on the “State Senate” and “State Assembly”, there is no mention of either Legislative leader. In fact, the legislators listed reflect those from before the November 2021 election. It is a thorough, comprehensive dismissal of the NJGOP’s ELECTED leadership as irrelevant. Such is the thought processes of these young cult-makers.

https://www.njgop.org/leadership/state-senate/

https://www.njgop.org/leadership/state-assembly/

Going back to the “leadership” page – the one featuring Bob Hugin alone – there is displayed a revealing window into the minds of those who administer the NJGOP. Instead of placing the photos and offices of the ELECTED Republican leaders of the two legislative chambers, the logos of four Washington, DC-based organizations are listed: the RNC (Republican National Committee), the NRSC (Republican National Senatorial Committee), the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee), and the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC).

There are established Trenton-based GOP political consultants connected with each of these entities, from which they extract millions. So, are these young folks telling us how they see the world, who they intend to answer to? Or is it simply aspirational? Is this how they would like it to be? Is this what they are working towards – cutting out the conservatives, making a cult-figure out of the liberal, but really – in the end – it’s about the consultants who they have worked for in the past and who they will work for in the future?

The group that is particularly intriguing is the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC). Here is what they say their mission is, from the group’s website:

The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) is the largest organization of Republican state leaders in the country and only national committee whose mission is to recruit, train, and elect Republicans to multiple down-ballot, state-level offices. Thanks to our growing network of grassroots supporters in all 50 states, we help deliver wins for Republican state legislators, lieutenant governors, secretaries of state, agriculture officials, and state judges across the country.

It sounds like the RSLC is in direct competition with the Senate Republican Majority (SRM) and the Assembly Republican Victory (ARV) committees run by the two Republican legislative leaders for the benefit of their respective caucuses. And why aren’t SRM and ARV listed on that leadership page?

The RSLC logo on the NJGOP “leadership” page takes you directly to a page where you can donate. Why aren’t the SRM and ARV pages listed? Why is there no link to donate to them?

Well, maybe they don’t employ the right consultants? The RSLC certainly does.

What is needed here is a balanced approach. Nobody is suggesting that Bob Hugin’s photograph shouldn’t be there – just that, alongside the more liberal NJGOP Chairman, should go those of the more conservative legislative leaders. Sure, the GOP is a “big-tent” party, but it is a conservative party too, and the NGOP should reflect that.

Nobody is suggesting that the logo of the RSLC shouldn’t be there. But so should the logos of SRM and ARV – two NEW JERSEY based committees – and links so that people visiting the NJGOP page can donate to the important work that these committees do.

Finally, nobody is blaming Bob Hugin for the NJGOP website. He didn’t design it, he doesn’t administer it, we doubt if he wrote a word of its content. But personnel does equal policy, as Ronald Reagan said. In our opinion, he needs to be firm with the young crew he leads and let them know that it isn’t about him alone but about the entire party. Its entire leadership, working together.

The NJGOP should reflect the New Jersey Republican Party’s entire voting composition, both its conservative majority and “big tent” wings, working to elect more Republicans. That would be the balanced approach.

As there can be no recruitment or voter registration drives without a message -- an annunciation of principles -- here is a short video that expresses the oft forgotten, more often ignored, "first principles" of the Republican Party.

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

George Orwell

Why is McCann paying for Jack Zisa to LIE to Republicans?

By Rubashov

Shame on John McCann.  He paid for a BCRO email last evening that linked President Donald Trump’s name to his without the permission of either the President or the Trump campaign.
 
If John McCann wants the President’s endorsement, he should ask for it, obtain it, and then publish the document.  Just putting the President’s name next to yours and calling it the “Trump-McCann Team” is dishonest, to say the least.  Don’t do that until you can produce a document showing the President’s support.
 
In March, BCRO Chairman Jack Zisa endorsed John McCann and handed him the county organization’s “line” without a vote of the elected members of the BCRO.  This was a shockingly corrupt and authoritarian act by Zisa.  It should have been addressed by the Chairman of the NJGOP, Doug Steinhardt.
 
Unfortunately, Steinhardt is an all-but-declared candidate for Governor, and Zisa is hosting an event for him in July.  Nevertheless, this latest act by Zisa – if left unaddressed – has broad implications for the presidential campaign.  Will other candidates, even more controversial than McCann, be permitted to link their names with that of the President, on the advice of some local GOP leader? 
 
What happens if a local GOP leader links the President’s name with a candidate and he turns out to be a KKK member?  Or on the sex offenders list?  Doesn’t the President’s campaign get to vet the candidate first?  Doesn’t a local candidate need permission before throwing Trump’s name around?
 
It all spells trouble to us.  Trouble for the President.  Trouble for the Party.  It’s up to the State NJGOP to do something about it.   
 
In yesterday’s BCRO email, paid for by John McCann, BCRO Chairman Jack Zisa makes statements indicating that he thinks his membership is either very stupid or has extremely short memories. 
 
Zisa writes that he has “worked tirelessly to unite our party, meeting early on with our candidates for U.S. Senate, CD5 and CD9, identifying common goals, imploring them to run their campaigns vigorously but professionally, and setting vital ground rules for all, the most important of which was there would be zero tolerance for any candidate who broke Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment ‘Thou shall not speak ill of thy fellow Republican.’”
 
Leaving aside the fact that Ronald Reagan didn’t follow his own “commandment”, pre-dating Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment were God’s Commandments and featuring rather prominently was the one about “bearing false witness”, about truthfulness, about not lying.  About not doing what Jack Zisa did in his statement above.
 
The Zisa family is a bi-partisan one.  Politics is the family business.  Political power is the source of much of the family’s income.  There is a long and sordid history of not only breaking Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, but of actually helping Democrats to win. 
 
Zisa writes that he “would not hesitate to publicly call out any one of them (candidates) for a violation” of the commandment – the Reagan one, not the God one.  Well, we really don’t like having to tell old Jack this, but he’s a rascal, with less moral authority to call out a candidate on a “violation” than a pimp has to lecture on chastity.
 
The elected members of the Republican State Committee – on the other hand – do have a duty to uphold some standards in their county party.  As representatives of the entire party and defenders of the Republican “brand” they should intervene when a local party leader is being dishonest – whether that dishonesty is canceling a vote of the elected members or coming up with some horseshit like the above. 
 
All any organization has is its reputation.  Reputation is a confluence of individual morality, transparent adherence to a set of rules, and successful outcomes.  The BCRO kind of sucks at all three.  You must do better. 
 
The elected State Committee members should work with Chairman Steinhardt to make it better.  Maybe put the BCRO into receivership.  You can’t have your Republican organization in your largest county suck forever.  Not if you hope to win statewide again.
 
Receivership is the way forward.

Just to refresh your memory, in 2018 John McCann lost by the biggest margin in the history of New Jersey's 5th congressional district.  So why are Jack Zisa and his crew looking to repeat that performance and ensure that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats keep the Congress? 

Maybe that's the point?

“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.”
(Karl Marx, author and philosopher)

Why would Pappas & Marks choose a Liberal group to host a debate?

Harry Pappas is the former chairman of the Union County Democrat Party machine. Martin Marks is the former Mayor of Scotch Plains. They are candidates for two Assembly seats in a six-person race in District 21.

Some have said that Pappas and Marks are acting in concert with far-Left Democrat candidates Lisa Mandelblatt and Stacey Gunderman. They say that Pappas and Marks want to skim enough Republican votes away from incumbents Jon Bramnick and Nancy Munoz so that the Republicans lose.

The latest thing to raise an eyebrow or two is the debate that Pappas and Marks agreed to participate in with the Democrats. Pappas and Marks say they’re “conservative” – but why would anyone calling themselves “conservative” agree to a debate hosted by a Liberal group like the League of Women Voters?

The League of Women Voters (LWV) hasn’t hosted a Presidential debate since 1984, when Democrat Walter Mondale faced-off against incumbent Republican Ronald Reagan. That’s because the LWV isn’t only concerned about getting more people out to vote – it takes ideological positions on controversial issues.

The League of Women Voters is a pro-abortion, anti-Second Amendment, pro-illegal immigration, pro-ObamaCare organization. Here is just a sampling of what you will find on the group’s website:

League Joins Amicus Brief in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: The case involves a bakery in Colorado which refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple citing religious objections. The brief that the League joined argues that allowing the bakery to refuse service violates public accommodations laws and opens the door to discrimination of other groups.

League Urges U.S. House to Pass Clean Dream Act: Members of the League's Lobby Corps will be visiting with members of the U.S. House urging passage of the Dream Act of 2017. The legislation will ensure that the 800,000 "dreamers"--young immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. by their parents--can establish legal residency within the country.

We believe that the proliferation of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons in the United States is a major health and safety threat to its citizens… Strong federal measures to limit the accessibility and regulate the ownership of firearms by private citizens is necessary for consumer safety.

The League of Women Voters United States (LWVUS) and the League of Women Voters of Oregon (LWVOR) filed an Amicus Brief in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Juliana et al v. United States. The Leagues continue to support the 21 young people from across the United States who have filed a landmark constitutional climate change lawsuit against the federal government, via the Eugene, Oregon- based organization, Our Children's Trust.

“Besides Planned Parenthood, the bill has drawn opposition from groups such as the Pennsylvania Medical Society, the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters.”

To mark the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, the League of Women Voters of Texas guest blogged on the new abortion restrictions in their state.

So why are Pappas and Marks participating in a debate hosted by such a biased Left-wing organization? If they truly are conservatives, like they claim, they will demand a neutral host. But if they are shills for the Democrats… well, we will know soon enough.

Is AFP even a conservative organization anymore?

Can we get serious?

In America, there is a consensus, a generally accepted agreement as to what the word “conservative” means.  Take a poll.  Ask the average voter what the word means.  The four pillars of modern American conservatism are pretty easy to remember:

(1) The Right to Life.  Conservatives, real conservatives, Reagan conservatives, we oppose abortion.  Full stop.  

(2) The Second Amendment.  Hey, how many court rulings do you need before you finally get that the government has no duty to protect you?  In a Republic, that is on you.  Conservatives oppose the anarchy of crime.  We support gun rights, local police, and laws that are tough on crime – especially violent crime.

(3) Less Government/ Lower Taxes.  Conservatives know that smaller government and less government regulation leads to less spending and debt, which enables governments to cut taxes.  Conservatives also know that crony capitalism is a form of political corruption and as such is itself a tax on the goods and services used by ordinary citizens.

(4) Illegal Immigration.  Conservatives like America and American culture.  We welcome anyone from anywhere who wants to come here and join us and become an American.  We don’t want to be colonized by foreign cultures with authoritarian or anti-democratic traditions.  We don’t want to be told that we need to change to accommodate those who gate-crash the laws of our country. 

In order to call yourself a conservative in America, you pretty much need to be all four of the above.  Maybe you can get away with being a little mushy on one and still be considered a “soft” conservative.  But if you are bad on more than one, you need to think about why you are a Republican.  (Hey, haven’t these people ever read the PLATFORM of the party they claim membership of?)

That’s not to say that anybody is a “bad” person.  It’s just saying that you’re not a conservative.  See, the word “conservative” actually does mean something.  It’s not just a term of praise used in the proper setting to describe people we happen to like… or want to suck-up to. 

“Conservative” doesn’t mean “libertarian”.  It is per se a traditionalist point-of-view.  Conservatives want to C-O-N-S-E-R-V-E the traditions and values of our American Republic.  Unlike our libertarian brethren, we don’t want to replace Mom and Apple Pie with the Orgasmatron and the Orb.

That’s not to say that conservatives and libertarians (or anyone else for that matter) can’t agree on certain issues and work together.  But having a conservative point of view on this or that issue doesn’t make one a conservative.  Heck, Bill Clinton called himself a “fiscal conservative” – that didn’t make him a conservative.  It made him a liberal who saw the political advantages of conservative policy on issues like welfare reform.  He was still a liberal. 

And so we come to the especially Jersey-style, end of year crap that recently went spewing itself all over the Internet.  For years now, New  Jersey has been working very hard at being the place words go to lose their meaning.  Reading “The Right 40 Women to Watch in 2019” (written by AFP’s head honcho in New Jersey) it’s now clear that this trend has reached new depths of meaninglessness – with many of those mentioned being members of the “Right” only in the way that Hillary Clinton can be considered being to the “Right” of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

AFP – Americans for Prosperity – is the group formed by the super-rich Koch brothers as the political and lobbying arm of their business empire.  Anyone who knows anything about the Koch brothers knows that they come out of the Libertarian Party – in fact, one of the brothers actually ran against Republican Ronald Reagan on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980.  Yes… THAT Ronald Reagan. 

And what a ticket that was… it supported everything from the decriminalization of narcotics and prostitution to America’s standing down as a world power.  If that crew had been elected, we’d still have the Soviet Union (and maybe they would have won).  But happily, Reagan won and the Koch operation was forced to rebrand itself as fake “conservative” – a move that started the process of unwinding the meaning of the word. 

Over the last decade or more, the Koch operation has done much to corrupt the conservative movement in America – in an effort to remake it in their own crony capitalist image.  Now they’ve come full circle and are back to advocating a soft-on-crime approach while pushing to flood the open market with recreational marijuana… this, in the midst of an opioid epidemic that is killing upwards of 50,000 people each year.

In fact, AFP in New Jersey has become so crony capitalist, so establishment, so anti-conservative values, that it has taken to shilling for far-Left politicians like U.S. Senator Cory Booker.  Just before Christmas, AFP paid for a mailing that lauded Senator Gropicus (a great moniker, courtesy of SaveJersey’s Matt Rooney) for a soft-on-crime package of feel good “reforms” that miss the problem entirely, but make for good media ads for his 2020 run against President Donald Trump.  Why the heck would AFP do something like that?  The Democrats don’t need the resources – they already have George Soros – now they have the Koch operation’s millions too? 

Among those women on “the Right” we were asked to “celebrate” were a half dozen who made the list because of their service on the just completed campaign of Bob Hugin for United States Senate.  Now maybe the writer didn’t get the memo, but Bob Hugin didn’t run from “the Right” and his campaign did all it could to distance itself from said “Right” – starting with millions in advertising assuring the electorate that he was a “different kind of Republican” who explicitly rejected at least one of the four pillars of modern American conservatism.  So WTF?

And since when did the legalization and sale of marijuana become a conservative issue?  Hasn’t anyone read about the vaping problem in our schools?  And this is with nicotine… imagine what it will be with marijuana?  And edibles?  How will policing the use of chocolate bars, peanut butter cups, and cookies work?  Candy for children… So how the heck did the “co-founder and executive director of the New Jersey Cannabis Industry Association” make a list of “women on the Right”???

Get out of your offices and talk to average people sometime!  Ask them if they think legalizing and selling an entry level drug in the midst of an opioid epidemic is a conservative political position?  Average voters will think you have lost your mind.  But there she is, on the list for being “at the helm” in her quest to “unleash a new industry within the State.”  What’s next?  Narcotics?  The legalization of human trafficking?  Prostitution?  Body parts?   Wait… it will come.

Rosemary Becchi made the list too.  She’s the president of a “new grassroots advocacy organization” formed in 2018 “to fight Jersey’s high taxes and propose policy solutions to the state’s complex financial problems.”  Except that she hasn’t.  Ms. Becchi is a DC lobbyist who has donated to the Democrats.  Hey, we get that lobbyists do that kind of thing, but let’s not call it conservative. 

Nobody has seen Ms. Becchi testifying in Trenton, or providing information to legislators, or even returning telephone calls from those interested in finding out more about her “organization”.  Cynics would say that it is nothing more than a front – a cover for her personal ambition to run for Congress.  This is something she openly explored against incumbent Congressman Leonard Lance (R-07) a year ago, with her “grassroots” organization forming a kind of parentheses between that and her expected formal announcement for 2020.

But as far as labeling her a “conservative” – we don’t really know where she stands on big government and taxes, leaving aside her unknown positions on abortion, the Second Amendment, and illegal immigration.  So who is trying to fool who here?

Finally, AFP’s list is memorable because of the genuine conservatives – four pillar conservatives – that it leaves out.  Champions like Marie Tasy and Christine Flaherty and Rev. Mandy Leverett… they are fighting to maintain the value of human life, to recognize the threshold of fetal pain, to end the trafficking of human beings and the sexual exploitation of women and children.  Of course, in today’s cash register world of “new industries” like pot and such, none of that matters – except that it does matter to conservatives, and there are a great many of us.

Also dissed were Freeholder Deborah Smith of Morris County – a great advocate for the Second Amendment – and incoming Sussex County Freeholder Dawn Fantasia who took down an incumbent Freeholder by winning 63% of the vote!  Nobody who made AFP’s list ever beat an incumbent.  Why are conservative winners ignored and pot pushers lauded as “conservatives”?   And how about an operative like Kelly Hart, the executive director of the Sussex County Republican Committee.  A four pillar conservative who actually won for Bob Hugin by more than was expected – outperforming everywhere but receiving scant recognition for it.  Obviously, there is a “cool girls” table, just as in high school, and some are not part of it… no matter how much they actually WIN elections. 

So in future, be a bit more judicious in who you label “conservative.”  Be honest with voters.  Stop telling them that you are something you’re not. 

Yes, we expect to hear arguments from pro-abortion, mushy on illegal immigration, soft-on-the-Second Amendment types who claim that they “feel” they are conservative.  But isn’t that just the times we live in?  We’ve all heard of gender-fluidity… well, these people are ideologically fluid.  And just as our chromosomes determine whether we are male or female, how we stand on the four pillars make us conservative – or something else.

Hey, don’t worry.  Not being conservative doesn’t make you a “bad” person.  And it doesn’t mean that you don’t hold conservative points of view on this issue or that.  You can still work with conservatives.  It just means that you recognize that you don’t come from the same ideological place that conservatives do.  And in your heart, you already know that, so let’s cut the bull and get honest with the voters.  Restoring their faith in the labels politicians apply to themselves will perhaps restore some measure of trust… for when the very words people use to describe themselves have no integrity, what confidence can voters have in anything?

NJ Republicans need to rethink the way they campaign

By “The Happy Warrior”

Not on a single issue, or in one direction or twain,
But conclusively, comprehensively, and several times and again,
Were all our most holy illusions knocked higher than Gilderoy’s kite.
We have had a jolly good lesson, and it serves us jolly well right!

(The Lesson, Rudyard Kipling)

Fellow Republicans:  Before jumping into the 2019 legislative cycle… doing the exact same things we’ve been doing and losing for the past decade – STOP!

We have just been crushed the worst we’ve been crushed in a century.  But it wasn’t unique. We’ve been getting our asses kicked now for a decade.  Not even a popular Governor prevented the usual and customary ass-whooping. We keep losing and the life blood of the party is draining away.

It doesn’t have to be.  It’s not this way in other states.  So STOP and THINK.

Question our old standbys, our comfort zones, that instinctive knee-jerk prescription that hasn’t won in a decade or more.

Because politics isn’t actual warfare, the participants of these slaughters get to live and repeat the performance.  It’s as if General Custer somehow survived the Battle of the Little Bighorn to lead a gallant new troop of cavalry. One would hope that he would think about avoiding the actions that lead to everyone being killed the first time… that he just wouldn’t take command because “he’s done it before” and – having received command – he wouldn’t simply proceed “the way it has always been done before.”

There is certainly no shame in losing.  The founding military and political leader of our nation, George Washington, suffered a string of defeats before and after the Battles of Trenton  and Princeton, before winning the conclusive Battle of Yorktown. The shame comes from not putting a defeat to good use by learning from it. To not ponder a loss and instead stubbornly go back to the exact same way as before.

Then let us develop this marvellous asset which we alone command,
And which, it may subsequently transpire, will be worth as much as the Rand.
Let us approach this pivotal fact in a humble yet hopeful mood—
We have had no end of a lesson, it will do us no end of good!

THE DEMOCRATS’ NEW WAY

The Democrats have developed a new way of conducting and winning political campaigns.  It is a loose, fluid, decentralized style of campaigning – and it never ends. The Democrats’ campaign is an endless campaign.

The Democrats have mastered the marshalling of superior resources through the procurement of contracts, the selection of vendors, and the creation of entities – for-profits, non-profits, political action committees, leadership PACS, party organizations, superPACS, and campaign committees – by which fundraised money flows around donor limits and every other rule.  Added to this is their ability to field an army of activists using established issues groups as well as the more generalized “anti” groups born after the election of Donald Trump.

The Democrat command and control structure is instructive – in that it requires only a broad agreement on targets and goals to effectively get the job done.  The Democrats do not micro-manage.  They point everyone in the right direction and then allow the folks on the ground to get the job done.

The Democrats’ method of campaigning is activist-based.  Republicans, on the other hand, insist on campaigns that are highly centralized, tethered, and top-down – echo-chamber campaigns that reinforce the established certainties.  

POLITICAL PARTIES:  3 IN 1

Both major parties are really each three separate parties all occupying the same space and seeking to speak for the same “brand”.  

(1) There is the broad “party” defined by formal “membership” (voter registration, etc.), self-identification, or electoral support.  These people have some idea of what the party brand means and they like candidates to adhere to it. They like to get what they think they are voting for.

(2) Next is the activist base.  These people are motivated by a particular issue or set of issues (or by a candidate who serves as the vessel for such).  Some organize themselves to great effectiveness. Many are organized permanently and have established themselves as genuine powers.  Others can be motivated in the right season, on a case by case basis. The most successful are able to create enough activity to earn a living from their activism (essentially, they are paid for their leadership).

(3) Finally we have the “professional” party – the regulars.  Broadly speaking, they are paid or make money from politics, whether as attorneys, vendors, lobbyists, elected officials, appointed officials, patronage employees, political consultants, legislative staff, and such.  They are transactional and make money through or directly from politics – that is the big difference between them and the broader party.

Of necessity, the concerns of each of these three groups can be very different.  On the whole, the first two want candidates who will represent their points of view (although, depending on the issue, some in the second might find themselves outside the mainstream of the first).  The concerns of the last can be quite complex depending on relationships (personal, professional, and financial), the political considerations of maintaining power, and monetary contracts or understandings.  Suffice to say that the maintenance of power for its own sake is a primary concern, so they see the world very differently than the almost black or white delineations of the greater party.

All three entities are very important.  Whether Democrat or Republican, a party needs its broad membership, its activist base, and its professional party regulars.  But it needs them working together… not hating each other.

In the election just completed, the Democrats successfully engaged and involved the second group and we saw literally thousands of people from the first group – average voters – flood into the second to become activists.  In contrast, the Republicans maintained rigid, centralized control… and they were nearly wiped out.

OODA LOOPS & NCO’s

In political campaigns, as in warfare, command and control is all about the time it takes to observe a threat or opportunity, orientate your forces to bear on it, decide what to do, and then do it.  In the aftermath of America’s failure in Vietnam, when the President of the United States was personally selecting which bridges to bomb, military theorists grappled with various ways to improve command and control.  After 241 military personnel, mainly United States Marines, were killed by a truck bomb driven into their barracks in Beirut, the need for a “quick action” method of command and control became an imperative. In Beirut, the forces on the ground had to get permission from the brass in Washington in order to react decisively.  Unfortunately, the terrorists didn’t wait.

An Air Force Colonel by the name of John Boyd studied warfare through the critical lens of time.  For Colonel Boyd, it was all about time… reaction time… the ability to get inside your opponent’s decision-making loop.  

Colonel Boyd came up with the concept of OODA loops or time cycles while studying air combat and then applied it more generally to warfare and to other forms of human conflict.  Boyd wrote that the key strategic advantage in any conflict was the ability to Observe a threat or opportunity, Orientate oneself to it, Decide what to do, and then Act… an OODA loop.  If you could complete your OODA loop quicker than your opponent could, you would probably win.

In New Jersey, the Democrats operate on a pretty brisk OODA time cycle.  The Republicans move like glue and are utterly disconnected from the ground.  The Democrats understand who their NCO’s are and largely trust them. This gives the Democrats the ability to communicate what needs to be done, with the view that if they point the field NCO’s in the right direction, they can be trusted to get the job done.

The Democrats would understand Marine Colonel Chesty Puller’s comments to his NCO’s at the start of WWII… it would make no sense to a regular Republican in New Jersey.  We have no NCO’s. (We need them… desperately!)

The reasons for this are historical.  Beginning with the nascent post-war (WWII) ascendancy of the conservative movement and the candidacy of Barry Goldwater, the New Jersey GOP establishment recoiled against the modern conservativism of Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan.  These sentiments were rooted in the class-based prejudices and religious bigotry of a Republican Party that had been crushed by FDR and the New Deal. Of a party that still expected the gratitude of African-Americans and was shocked when it was withheld.  

With the election of Ronald Reagan as President and the mainstreaming of his platform in 1980, New Jersey’s regular Republicans – the party’s “professionals” pursued a course at an odd variance with that of the national party.  The wider Republican party in New Jersey – and its activist base – kept step with the national Republican Party. The professionals became more and more a strange “hothouse” variety – a hybrid.

The GOP regulars tried to win “our way” but the losing only grew worse and worse, the excuses bolder and brazen.  Governor Chris Christie had the good sense to enlist the activist base, running as an economic and social conservative – a supporter of traditional values, Pro-Life, and Pro-Second Amendment – unfortunately, GOP legislative candidates too often have not.  In the end, with the loss of county and local governments, then the state government, many of the professionals found accommodation with the Democrats – some even becoming Democrats.  

Without jobs for the boys, NCO’s recruited from the professional regulars dried up.  Without an appeal to activist issues or at least the RNC platform… there was no compelling way to replace them.  People fight for money or they fight for cause. Both have been taken away.

Now, with the 2016 election of Donald Trump, the membership of the Republican Party, as well as its activist base, are now totally disjoint from the professional regulars of the NJGOP.  If most average Republicans knew who their “leaders” represented economically, they would find it revolting. Many would never vote again.

But there is hope.  The Democrats under Governor Phil Murphy are demonstrably whacky enough to recruit the support of the activist base as well as the wider party… to enlist and to activate many, many who have not been active before.

Party professionals can earn lucrative livings by wielding the collective power of the votes of many people.  These people willingly turn the power of their vote over to them because they believe the word “Republican” stands for certain things.  All they ask in return for turning their power over to a GOP “leader” is that they not be lied to in such an extreme way that they are made to feel like fools.  And the regular professionals make the wider party feel like fools… at their own peril.

In summary:  Stand for something.  Open the doors to the activist base and the wider party.  Tighten that OODA loop by loosening your grip. Recruit NCO’s, train them, point them in the right direction, and allow them to do their work.

It was our fault, and our very great fault—and now we must turn it to use.
We have forty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse.
So the more we work and the less we talk the better results we shall get—
We have had an Imperial lesson; it may make us an Empire yet!

NJ.com strains its sphincter with Independence Day editorial

Someone should tell brother Tom Moran that babies don’t come out that end.

The day before yesterday the editorial board of what used to be the Newark Star Ledger gathered in the staff convenience to have a collective dump.  Yesterday they published their incitement to (riot?/ do someone bodily harm?) and titled it:  “On this Independence Day, striving for a new birth of freedom.” 

No, this isn’t the second coming of Thomas Paine.  What they offered up was a collection of selective complaints, some of which they have loudly supported when applied to those they don’t approve of.  For instance, the editorial board cheers on a global corporation like Facebook when it refuses service to those it disapproves of… but let some small-time baker do it and it becomes something to start a civil war over.  There’s no logic or balance to these guys.

For Tom Moran and his bunch, “freedom” is a subjective construct limited to people who they like.  If they don’t think you are a “good” person, as they define it, then they sincerely believe that you shouldn’t have “freedom”.  Heck, they don’t even believe you should have the right to speak or earn a living to sustain yourself.

They cry about ICE sending parents who break the law to one detention center and juveniles to another but ignore the fact that every jurisdiction in America does the same thing every day.  An ACLU study from 2017 shows that of the 219,000 women incarcerated in the United States – 80 percent are mothers.  And here is something even more shocking:  60 percent of the women behind bars in America have not been convicted of any crime but are simply awaiting trial.

Where is the outcry about separating them from their children?  Where are the rallies? 

The reason for their incarceration is the biggest threat to Freedom in America today:  Money.  Those women don’t have any or enough to count for anything in our judicial process… and so they rot in jail… separated from their children.

The NJ.com editorial board – part of a corporation owned by two of the richest billionaires in the world – conveniently left out how the accumulation of wealth and power serves to undermine and destroy democracy.  Sure, they quoted President Ronald Reagan (who they hated, by the way).  It was Reagan who reminded us that “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Well, a recent Princeton University study concluded that America has already passed from being a democracy and is now in the ranks of oligarchy.  What?  You didn’t read about it in the Star-Ledger or any other of the organs owned by the oligarchs who the NJ.com editorial board work for?  There is only one battle worth fighting but Moran and his buddies dare not speak its name...

If you want to resist something… resist this! 

Of course, it has nothing to do with President Trump or any of the issues being pushed on us by NJ.com.  We’ve been on this trajectory for 40 years.  The oligarchs who own NJ.com want us to ignore what they’re up to.  They want to keep us fighting each other.

Their campaign of illusion and distraction – to pit working Americans against each other – is designed to keep their wealth and power secure.  Now they want to abolish ICE!  Isn’t it time we abolish the power they use to shout down democracy?

President Reagan reminded us that we don’t pass freedom down to our children through our bloodstream.  “It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”  The oligarchs who own NJ.com, the power they represent, and their ability to pervert democracy is an existential threat to freedom in America today.  We should reject the attempts to distract and divide us put forward by the amanuenses who do their bidding.

How Steve Oroho finished what Jay Webber started

In the Legislature, you can be a conservative in one of two ways... broadly speaking.  One way is to be a conscience, sit above it all, and vote accordingly.  You could not find a more perfect example of this than Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll, who negotiates the prickly halls of Trenton with a Zen assuredness.  He always knows the right thing to do... and he always does it.  Instead of the wilting figure of John McCann, the YR's and CR's could do no better than to adopt Assemblyman Carroll as their Sensei.

The other way is to wade into the muck in an attempt to climb aboard the ship of state and steer it in a more desirable direction.  Sometimes the engine isn't even working and you might need to get down into the boiler room -- knee deep in waste -- and grapple with the machinery of government, just to get it sputtering in some direction.

Assemblyman Jay Webber takes this course... to a point.  He seems well enough suited to steer, but when it comes to the engine room, he doesn't want to get his hands dirty.  That's where he differs from Senator Steve Oroho.  Oroho accepts that he will have to endure the heat and muck in order to get the machine running -- and he doesn't mind busting a knuckle or two while grabbling with a boiler wrench.

A prime example are their differing approaches to preventing the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) from going bankrupt and ending the Estate Tax.  Two very conservative causes.  The TTF, funded by a gas tax, was right out of the Reagan mantra of using user taxes to fund public infrastructure.  Those who use the roads should pay for them, said Reagan, no free rides!  While the death tax -- which is what an Estate Tax is -- has been identified by conservatives for years as the destroyer of small businesses and the ruination of family farms.

Jay Webber waded into the issue assuredly enough.  On October 14, 2014, the Star-Ledger published a column by the Assemblyman.  It's title was "Fixing transportation and taxes together."  Webber was writing about how to raise the gas tax to re-fund the nearly bankrupt TTF, while offsetting that tax increase with cuts to other taxes.  He zeroed in on the Estate Tax:

"NEW JERSEY leaders are grappling with three major problems: First, New Jersey has the worst tax burden in the nation. Two, New Jersey's economy suffers from sluggish growth. And third, our state's Transportation Trust Fund is out of money. There is a potential principled compromise that can help solve all of them.

Of the three problems, the Transportation Trust Fund has been getting the most attention lately, and for good reason: It's broke. There is just no money in it to maintain and improve our vital infrastructure. Without finding a solution, we risk watching our roads and bridges grow unsafe and unusable and hinder movement of people and goods throughout the state. That, of course, will exacerbate our state's slow economic growth.

...we should insist that if any tax is raised to restore the TTF, it be coupled with the elimination of a tax that is one of our state's biggest obstacles to economic growth: the death tax. By any measure, New Jersey is the most extreme outlier on the death tax, with worst-in-the-nation status...

New Jersey's death tax is not a concern for the wealthy alone, as many misperceive. We are one of only two states with both an estate and inheritance tax. New Jersey's estate-tax threshold of $675,000, combined with a tax rate as high as 16 percent, means that middle-class families with average-sized homes and small retirement savings are hit hard by the tax.

It also means the tax affects small businesses or family farms of virtually any size, discouraging investment and growth among our private-sector job creators. Compounding the inequity is that government already has taxed the assets subject to the death tax when the money was earned. Because of our onerous estate and inheritance taxes, Forbes magazine lists New Jersey as a place "Not to Die" in 2014.

That's a problem, and it's one our sister states are trying hard not to duplicate. A recent study by Connecticut determined that states with no estate tax created twice as many jobs and saw their economies grow 50 percent more than states with estate taxes. That research prompted Connecticut and many states to reform their death taxes. New York just lowered its death tax, and several other states have eliminated theirs.

The good news is that New Jersey's leaders finally are realizing that our confiscatory death tax is a big deal. A bipartisan coalition of legislators has shown its support for reforming New Jersey's death tax..."

Taking Webber's lead, Senator Steve Oroho got to work and began the painstakingly long process of negotiation with the majority Democrats.  Oroho was animated by the basic unfairness that New Jersey taxpayers were under-writing out-of-state drivers to the tune of a half-billion dollars a year.  He understood that if the TTF went bankrupt, the cost would flip to county and local governments... resulting in an average $500 property tax increase.  Oroho went to battle to prevent this disaster and even had to stand up to Governor Chris Christie, who wanted to end negotiations too soon and accept a weaker deal from the Democrats.

Unfortunately, Assemblyman Webber didn't stick with it.  When the time came for Jay Webber to be counted as part of that bipartisan coalition, he couldn't be counted on.  Jay got scared off by the lobbyist arm of the petroleum industry and what's worse is that he started attacking those who did what he advocated doing only a short time before. 

Remember that it was Webber who wrote these words in that column more than three years ago:  "Any gas-tax increase should be accompanied by measures that will help alleviate, or at least not increase, the overall tax burden on New Jerseyans." Jay Webber wrote those words, setting the direction.  Steve Oroho was left on his own to get the job done -- to do the negotiating.  The helmsman had abandoned the engineer. 

Webber said at the time that he believed the bipartisan tax restructuring package worked out by the legislative leaders (minus Senator Tom Kean Jr.) and the Governor would result in a net tax increase.  Oroho and others disagreed with him.  Webber is by all accounts a good lawyer, but Oroho is the numbers man.  He's a certified financial planner and CPA.  Before beginning his career of public service, Steve Oroho was a senior financial officer for S&P 500 companies like W. R. Grace and  Young & Rubicam.  It was this knowledge that enabled him to fashion the compromise that he did -- one that turned out to be the largest tax cut in New Jersey's history.

In the end, the Democrats' 40-cent increase on the gas tax was paired down to 23-cents.  The gas tax, the proceeds from which funds the TTF, had not been adjusted for inflation in 28 years, had not provided enough funding to cover annual operations in 25 years, and wasn't even bringing in enough money to pay the interest on the borrowing that was done to keep operations going (in 2015, the state collected just $750 million from the gas tax while incurring an annual debt cost of $1.1 billion).  Even so, Senator Oroho knew exactly where to draw the line... at the minimalist 23 cents and not the 40 cents the Democrats plausibly argued for.

In the end, the engineer got the job done.  Senator Steve Oroho emerged from the boiler room triumphant.  He ended the Estate Tax and secured tax cuts for retirees, veterans, small businesses, farmers, consumers, and low-income workers.  He secured property tax relief by doubling the TTF's local financial aid to towns and counties -- and prevented a $500 per household property tax hike.  He made out-of-state drivers pay for using New Jersey's roads -- and ensured that New Jerseyans will continue to have safe roads and bridges to drive on.

Oroho's tax cuts were praised by conservative groups like Americans for Tax Reform and conservative publications like Forbes, which called his tax cuts "one of the 5 best state and local tax policy changes in 2016 nationwide." 

That's getting something done.   

The Rogers-Murphy alliance. Is Rogers off his rocker?

Maybe he really believes his own bullshit?  Maybe he thinks he really is the Steve Rogers?  The Captain America of the comic books!

Rogers reminds us a lot of Dick LaRossa.  They both ran non-campaign campaigns for statewide office.  LaRossa got 25,608 in the 1996 GOP primary for U.S. Senate and came in last place.  Rogers got 14,187 in last year's GOP primary for Governor and came in last place.

Otherwise, Rogers is a candidate from central casting.  He looks like a Governor.  He's an attractive man.  Something tells us that he knows it. 

But he came in last, and like every attractive person who is rebuffed and who cannot understand why, Steve Rogers now carries around with him the burden of having been offended by the world-at-large.  And so you get pronouncements like the one today:

"During the 2016 presidential election many of us worked very hard to elect Donald Trump to the presidency. Sadly, there were too many Trenton politicians who didn’t stand with us when they could have. I won’t be endorsing any of them,” said Rogers, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2017. “I am, however, willing to endorse candidates who will support President Trump’s efforts to Make America Great Again. To that end, I’m pleased to endorse Tony Ghee, a fellow military officer, an outsider from the swamp, and a man who will energize our party in 2018 and beyond. The GOP must begin to embrace and engage people from all walks of life. In my view, Tony Ghee is the face of a new dynamic GOP that will welcome the Republicans long forgotten by the establishment. I support Tony because I have full faith in him. He will help Make American and New Jersey Great Again."

Come again? 

You are endorsing someone who wouldn't tell a group of Republican Trump supporters who he voted for in the 2016 Presidential election, which means one of three things:  (1) He voted for Hillary Clinton, (2) he voted for Donald Trump but is ashamed of saying so, or (3) he skipped over that office or voted for a third party candidate.  In any case, Rogers should cut the Trump shit.

Hey, we LOVE Tony Ghee and think he will make a great candidate... one day.  But you can't get much "swampier" than being hand-picked by a corrupt convict of a party boss.  That doesn't make you an "outsider" -- it makes you a ward heeler.

Now Tony is young and new and idealistic, and isn't used to traveling in the low-life circles he now inhabits.  He's a good family man and an upstanding member of the community.  How is he to know what lurks behind the grin of that cherubic, whiskey drinking, boss?

Peter Murphy, the GOP party boss of Passaic County and the man who recruited young Tony Ghee, is the kind of guy who will cut the throat of his own candidate if there is a deal to be had.  He's done it before and he'll do it again.  Tony will learn.

As for the rest of Rogers' blather, may we remind him that the NJGOP is still in the process of getting over an eight-year cult of personality.  Let's not make our party about cult personalities or demographic groups.  We are a party of ideas.

Ronald Reagan wasn't a cult figure.  We didn't elect him and then learn what he was about.  Reagan was the culmination of a decades-long process of discussing and testing ideas.  The ideas carried Reagan.

Ideas matter -- and it is on his ideas that we should judge Tony Ghee.  Now he's new, and hasn't had time to consider much of what a candidate needs to consider, but he needs to start.  Because Tony, you are not running to be a celebrity, you are running for Congress -- to go there and vote on ideas that will have a profound impact on our economy and culture.

So don't let a convict do your thinking for you.  No good will come of that.

AFP supports Planned Parenthood

How does ANY organization worthy of the name CONSERVATIVE give someone an "A+" who voted to pass a formal state commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the abortionist Planned Parenthood?  Well, the New Jersey chapter of American for Prosperity did.  Whether this was because of AFP State Chair Frayda Levy's personal position on abortion or the time AFP Executive Director Erica Jedynak (nee Klemens) spent with W.A.N.D. (Women's Action for New Directions) we cannot tell. 

Jersey Conservative is unique among political blogs in New Jersey in that we never pick fights.  That cannot be said about other blogs.  And that goes for groups like Americans for Prosperity (AFP) too.  You know the way they operate.  Some innocent conservative is just minding his or her own business when one of these wind-bags just has to start slinging crap.  They start the crap because they want to be noticed (basic primate behavior) or because someone somewhere has some grand stupid plan to take us back to 1991 or something or other (advanced primate behavior). 

So now the innocent conservative is under attack -- the victim of a drive-by -- and so off we go, to place things in perspective, provide some balance, and set the record straight.  Of course, this is perceived as an attack by the handjob who started it in the first place, because handjobs firmly believe that they and only they should be permitted to talk crap about other people.  And under no circumstances should anyone be permitted to talk crap about them.  See, this is the lack of balance that we seek to correct.

A lot of smiling goes on in Trenton.  Smile, smile, smile. . . but don't let those smiles fool you.  There are lots of smiling Jacks and Jills who when you're not looking are eyeing up the back seat of your trousers.  They go around with these barbed-wire enemas and they'd like nothing more than to stick them where the sun doesn't shine.  So back away if someone is smiling too earnestly at you. 

AFP has long been purveyors of the barbed-wire enema.  But back when its guiding mind was Steve Lonegan, an economic and social conservative, its annual scorecard was a means of rewarding conservative friends while dissing members of the GOP establishment.  All that has changed now.

Whereas an event under Lonegan's tenure would have featured a renegade like New York's Lt. Governor Betsy McCaughey or someone like Michelle Malkin, now AFP rallies around that enduring figure of traditional values and conservative principles. . . Senator Tom Kean Jr.???   Really?  Back when AFP meant something in New Jersey, back when Steve Lonegan was running it, they knew who was and who wasn't a "movement" conservative and there were just three "movement" conservative legislators in all New Jersey. 

No, not Jay Webber.  He had the chance but ended up taking a dump on Ronald Reagan's platform. 

Under Lonegan, AFP used its scorecard to shepherd legislative efforts -- like repealing the RGGI energy tax -- and to help legislators articulate conservative principles.  Yes, it was built around those "movement" legislators who were so often shit on by the establishment -- and it often employed vote "searches" in order to find ways to reward a legislator who was "trying" to be a conservative. 

These are certainly corruptions of a kind, but under Steve Lonegan, AFP never turned its rating system over to the GOP establishment -- to bestow a "seal of approval" on their moderate economic mush and social issues assbanditry.   And Lonegan never participated in the mass screwing of Republicans that the two "handmaidens of the establishment" now running AFP just allowed to happen.

So when does a pig get to call itself a sheep?  When it grows a wooly covering.  When do liberal Republicans get to call themselves "conservatives"?  When they get AFP to grossly corrupt its process to provide that covering.

So this is where we come in.  A corruption has occurred.  There are victims of this corruption.  Republicans have been injured (and injured by other Republicans, on purpose, mind you).  We are the corrective.  We seek to bring things back into balance.

We would like to have seen AFP take responsibility for their craven sell-out, for the flip-flop on the "success" story they put out just a few weeks ago.  But these rich social liberals are so used to getting their way that we feel it would take too long to educate them that we are not the typical American working people that they are used to screwing.

So here is what we propose.  AFP assigned high grades to certain people.  We will make sure that they earn them -- every voting session.  We will report on EVERY bad vote, every voting session, every week, by every phony.  We will report on your bad votes in committee.  Every committee, every week, every phony.

You will be exposed for who you really are, week upon week, or you will become good conservatives -- at least on paper.  You may have found it easy to corrupt AFP and engineer a phony grade, but you will find that it is a much more difficult thing to live up to.

Stay tuned. . .

AFP opposes President Trump on illegal immigration

Last month Time magazine reported that the "powerful policy and politics network organized by the billionaire Koch brothers made official what many had expected: an opposition to President Trump’s ban on visitors from seven countries with Muslim majorities.  In a statement provided to reporters covering the Kochs’ twice-a-year retreat, top official Brian Hooks said Sunday that the groups under his umbrella would not support Trump’s move."

On February 21, 2017, the Washington Times reported on the attack by Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) on President Trump's attempt to build a wall between Mexico and the United States.  AFP calledTrump's efforts a "tax increase" on business . 

State AFP affiliates have threatened to give pro-Trump Republican members of Congress an "F" rating if they support construction of a border wall.

The Koch Political Network is a special interest lobby group funded by the brothers' extensive holdings in the petroleum industry.  According to figures provided by Koch Industries, they spend between $300 million and $400 million on political activity every election cycle.

The Koch network, officially known as Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, operates groups such as the grassroots focused Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the data-centered i360 and Latino-eyeing Libre Initiative.  Together, they spent roughly $250 million on last year’s elections—while sitting out the White House race.  Over the next two years, they plan to spend as much as $400 million.  

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is run by David H. Koch, a New York City billionaire ($43.3 billion and counting) who is an owner at Koch Industries and whose core business is the refining and distribution of petroleum. 

The Chairman of AFP -- yes, the same David H. Koch -- is a social liberal.  But don't take our word for it.  Here is what Wikipedia had to say about him:

(David) Koch considers himself a social liberal,[22] supporting women's right to choose,[23] gay rights, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research.[3][24] He opposes the war on drugs.

Ronald Reagan was a social as well as an economic conservative.  He believed in an America built on Judeo-Christian values and the Western tradition of free speech and free markets.  David Koch is no Reaganite.  In fact, he opposed Ronald Reagan in 1980 -- as the Libertarian Party's candidate for Vice President -- running on a platform  that included the following planks:

"We therefore call for the elimination of all restriction on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for those people who have entered the country illegally."

" We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children. We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or the right of the woman to make a personal moral choice regarding the termination of pregnancy."

"We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities which do not violate the rights of others. In order to defend religious freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and state."

"The repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at least, be accorded their full rights as individuals".

"We believe that 'children' are human beings and, as such, have the same rights as any other human beings. Any reference in the Platform to the rights of human beings includes children."

"The repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medical prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs and similar substances".

"The repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide as infringements of the ultimate right of an individual to his or her own life".

"We support recognition of the right to political secession. Exercise of this right, like the exercise of all other rights, does not remove legal and moral obligations not to violate the rights of others."

"We call for the withdrawal of all American troops from bases abroad. In particular, we call for the removal of the U.S. Air Force as well as ground troupes from the Korean peninsula."

"We favor immediate independence for all colonial dependencies, such as Samoa, Guam, Micronesia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico".

"Government interference in transportation is characterized by monopolistic restriction, corruption, and gross inefficiency. We therefore call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Maritime Commission, Conrail and Amtrak. We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system."

And that, as they say, is how David H. Koch rolls...

Happy Birthday President Reagan

Today is the 106th birthday of Ronald Reagan.  Enjoy...

Measuring voting records for 2017

2016 was a very strange year, in that you had Tea Party people running around calling Senator Jennifer Beck a "conservative."  That's funny, because not even Senator Beck calls herself "conservative."  In fact, it's a label she actively runs away from.

There are those who called Seth Grossman, an activist and former Atlantic County elected official,  a "conservative" -- even as he pushed a radical left social agenda that many liberals think goes too far.  His plan to repudiate the state's debt is a solution only if your town and county and state want to pay cash for everything -- up front -- from now on.  Try building a bridge without financing and see what that does to your property taxes.  It is the Argentina model.  Hardly what you would call "conservative."     

Then there are the raters -- groups like the American Conservative Union (ACU) take their cues from GOP legislative leaders who are not especially "conservative" when they choose the handful of votes by which they rate a legislator.  And so they miss big ones like welfare for drug dealers and liberal legislators suddenly become more "conservative" without changing their voting habits at all.

The truth is that what it means to be a "conservative" has changed a lot since Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980.  That year, one of the Koch brothers who have come to so dominate modern conservative politics ran against Reagan on a libertarian ticket with a platform that made many liberals blush.

Instead of swallowing a special interest group rating hook, line, and sinker -- we need to examine who is doing the rating, what is their history, their agenda as it pertains to the votes they selected, and what did they leave out.  Knowing these things will give the reader a better idea of who the rater is.

No one rating system is going to satisfy everyone calling themselves "conservative," so for 2017 Jersey Conservative is going to put together ratings based on a  broader range of conservative identities.   In this way, individuals can decide which legislator or candidate comes nearest to their selected "identity."

There are Reagan conservatives with issue interests different from libertarians, Tea Party conservatives, Evangelical conservatives, the Pro-Life movement, the Second Amendment movement, Trump conservatives, Chamber of Commerce Republicans, and "It's My Party Too" Republicans.  We also have the platform of the Republican National Committee as a benchmark. 

If you are a traditional Reagan conservative, it would be helpful to know not only how a legislator or candidate rates based on a "Reagan" issues grid, but on a "Trump" one as well, a "Koch" one, or a "Whitman" one.  It will broaden the perspective and provide more information than the simple "conservative" label does currently.  

This is going to be a collaborative effort, so we will be looking for your input on both issues and votes.  Write to us with your ideas.

Which one do you identify with?

More dirtball Tea Party posts on FaceBook

What is it about some Tea Partiers that they have to immediately go down the dirt path?  Skylands Tea Party member and self-proclaimed candidate for the New Jersey Legislature Kevin Mazzoti was once again writing about his favorite subjects:

"Suck a big fat one"

(November 2, 2016, 9:27PM)

"You are already sucking XXXXX off.  We know you are."

(November 2, 2016, 9:29PM)

"Pussy.  Yes, guess what I just said, pussy."

(November 2, 2016, 9:36PM)

"Tea Party patriots are not violent people.  We just tell it like it is."

(November 2, 2016, 9:38PM)

Now there is a walking, talking argument for therapy.  The strange thing is that people who one would think are relatively sane, people who claim to have religious values even, cheer on this imbecile and his pornographic, juvenile language. 

Meanwhile, another Tea Partier sent out an email blast opposing Question 2 on the November 8th ballot.  According to this man, Question 2 is really a conspiracy aimed at "people like him" and not -- as those of us on Planet Earth understand it -- simply a means to ensure that all the revenue from the gas tax is used for transportation projects. 

We got to thinking about the phrase, "people like him", so we looked him up and found this newspaper report concerning his wedding, where according to the Star-Ledger, the couple "consecrating the marriage by drinking wine which contained drops of their own blood in it."  Yes, they are into the whole vampire scene.  It just goes to show you that the mainstream media has it wrong when they describe Tea Partiers as "conservative" or "Christian."  All you have to be is angry.  And apparently the vampire community is well represented.

There is a small core of social media warriors who have been working as a team to stalk and harass legislators who supported the tax restructuring plan.  They work in the same manner that similar teams on the Left do.  Are they in the employ of NJ101.5 or its agent?

Finally, we noticed these charming posts by a prominent Tea Party leader, discussing the death, from cancer, of an elected Republican official:

"I'm praying hard you suffer even more than he does. You deserve it."

"Like me, she is eagerly anticipating your painful demise, Die ...and please, oh pretty please...do it painfully." 

"And do keep us apprised of the gory details...we so LOVE those."

So when they try to tell you that it is about principle, don't believe them.  This is raw hate. 

Of course, not every Tea Party group behaves like this.  On the website of a Tea Party organization in a neighboring county, we found this admonishment to members:

Remember the quote attributed to Ronald Reagan “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.” 

If only they all could be so balanced and rational.

Who are the Red-Shirts?

NJ 101.5 talk radio host Bill Spadea began using the term "Red-Shirt" in association with his campaigns for public office.  Later, he labeled members of his "Building a New Majority" movement as "Red Shirt volunteers."

It will be remembered that Spadea's ideology was on full display when -- in the 1990's, he ran the College Republican National Committee.  In 1995, numerous media outlets reported that the Republican National Committee cut off all funding to Spadea's group after it paid for advertisements that attacked Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and urged the formation of a far-right alternative to the Republican Party.

Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour has written a letter to College Republican National Committee Chairman Bill Spadea, stating that "because of the recent and continuing irresponsible conduct" of the CRNC, "under your leadership, the RNC will cease contributing to your efforts."

"The conduct referred to has been the subject of repeated discussions between our organizations," said Mr. Barbour, ". . . yet you have chosen to continue your irresponsible activities."  (The Washington Times, January 31, 1995) 

RNC Chairman Haley Barbour recently informed the college group that he was cutting off funds, including rent and salaries, and rerouting phone calls to the national party's office because an article in the magazine urged formation of a third party.  

Tense relations between the two groups stem from Spadea's extreme conservative views. RNC members feel he represents only a small, extreme faction, but Spadea says he has national support.  

''What I'm doing is publishing ideas that are raging throughout the party already,'' Spadea said in an interview from his new office in Vienna, Va.  The December issue of the magazine - in addition to advocating creation of a third party with political views to the right of the Republican Party - also contained an advertisement attacking Republican presidents Reagan and Bush.  

The RNC provided 60 percent of the group's $120,000 budget for 1994, but Spadea said he no longer wants that money. (Memphis Commercial Appeal, February 5, 1995)

So from where in American history does the term "Red Shirt" come?  Wikipedia provides this information:

The Red Shirts or Redshirts of the Southern United States were white supremacist[1][2] paramilitary groups that were active in the late 19th century after the end of the Reconstruction era of the United States. They first appeared in Mississippi in 1875, when Democratic Party private terror units adopted red shirts to make themselves more visible and threatening to Southern Republicans, both white and freedmen. Similar groups in the Carolinas also adopted red shirts.

Among the most prominent Red Shirts were the supporters of Democratic Party candidate Wade Hampton during the campaigns for the South Carolina gubernatorial elections of 1876 and 1878.[3] The Red Shirts were one of several paramilitary organizations, such as the White League in Louisiana, arising in the continuing efforts of white Democrats to regain political power in the South in the 1870s. These groups acted as "the military arm of the Democratic Party."[4]

While sometimes engaging in violence, the Red Shirts, the White League and similar groups in the late nineteenth century worked openly and were better organized than the secret vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. They had one goal: the restoration of the Democrats to power by getting rid of Republicans, which usually meant repressing civil rights and voting by freedmen.[5] During the 1876, 1898 and 1900 campaigns in North Carolina, the Red Shirts played prominent roles in intimidating non-Democratic voters.

According to E. Merton Coulter in The South During Reconstruction, the red shirt was adopted in Mississippi in 1875 by "southern brigadiers" opposed to black Republicans. The Red Shirts disrupted Republican rallies, intimidated or assassinated black leaders, and discouraged black voting at the polls.

The red shirt in South Carolina appeared in Charleston on August 25, 1876, during a Democratic torchlight parade. It was to mock the waving of the bloody shirt speech by Senator Oliver Morton in the Senate that was meant to bolster support for the Republicans' Reconstruction policies in South Carolina. The red shirt symbolism quickly spread. The accused in the Hamburg Massacre wore red shirts as they marched on September 5 to their arraignment in Aiken, South Carolina. Martin Gary, the organizer of the Democratic campaign in 1876, mandated that his supporters were to wear red shirts at all party rallies and functions.

Wearing a red shirt became a source of pride and resistance to Republican rule for white Democrats in South Carolina. Women sewed red flannel shirts and made other garments of red. It also became fashionable for women to wear red ribbons in their hair or about their waists. For young men, a red shirt was viewed as compensation for their inability to have contributed to the Southern cause because of their age.[6]

So now you know the rest of the story.

NJ GOP must fight Red-Shirt Fascism

On Friday night, a couple members of Bill Spadea's Red-Shirt movement held a "rally" at the former headquarters of the notorious American National Socialist Bund.  For some strange reason, instead of demolishing the former Camp Nordland, the town leaders of Andover Township have maintained the building that hosted numerous Nazi, Fascist, and Ku Klux Klan rallies in the 1930's.  Sussex County historian Wayne McCabe has written a book about the goings on at "the barn at Lake Iliff in Andover Township."

The Red-Shirts were voicing their opposition to Ballot Question 2, which simply states:

A "yes" vote supports this proposal to dedicate all revenue from gas taxes to transportation projects.

A "no" vote opposes this proposal, thus devoting the same levels of revenue to transportation projects.

The non-partisan organization ballotpedia.org provides the following details:

Amendment design

Question 2 would create a constitutional requirement that all revenue derived from taxes on motor fuels be deposited into the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF).[1] Currently, only 10.5 cents of the gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is required to be deposited into the TTF.

Transportation Trust Fund

Question 2 would require all revenue from tax revenues on motor fuels to be deposited into the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF). The TTF was designed to fund the Department of Transportation and NJ Transit, which then use the revenue for transportation-related projects.[2]

Question 2 and the gas tax

Question 2 was intended to complement a gas tax increase. The amendment itself does not increase the gas tax.[3][4] On September 30, 2016, Gov. Christie (R) and the Democratic-controlled state legislature agreed to increase the gas tax 23 cents per gallon. As part of the agreement, the estate tax was eliminated, the Earned Income Tax Credit was increased, a tax deduction for veterans was created, and the state sales tax will be reduced from 7 to 6.625 percent in 2018.[5] Question 2 would guarantee that revenue from the additional 23 cents gas tax and the existing 10.5 cents gas tax to the Transportation Trust Fund.[6] Gov. Christie signed the bill on October 14, 2016.[7]

Americans for Prosperity, a leader in its opposition to the gas tax increase, supports the passage of Ballot Question 2:

"Americans for Prosperity supports the ballot measure and constitutionally dedicating the remaining revenues collected from the tax on diesel and the petro tax to the transportation fund. At the same time, AFP wants voters to be clear that this referendum does not authorize a gas tax increase, nor does it in any way resolve the transportation challenges the state is facing. The remaining revenue from these two taxes amounts to less than $30 million, a mere fraction of the $1.2 billion collected for the TTF last year. Americans for Prosperity is steadfast in our opposition to a gas tax hike. We continue to urge lawmakers to pursue reforms to rein in wasteful spending and to ensure our transportation dollars are used solely for our roads and bridges."

Ballot Question 2 is the latest BIG LIE seized upon by Red-Shirt founder Bill Spadea for the purposes of (1) increasing his value to the Townsquare Media Corporation, owners of radio station NJ 101.5; and (2) stirring up mistrust, anger, and rage against government and existing political parties for the furtherance of the Fascist Red-Shirt Movement. 

Spadea's argument appears to be that the tax cuts in the Tax Restructuring program (eliminating the estate tax, the tax cut on retirement income for most New Jersey seniors, the sales tax cut, the $3,000 personal income tax exemption for veterans, and the earned income tax credit for low-paid workers) will take revenue that is needed for pension payments for public employee unions. Spadea speciously argues that a vote on Ballot Question 2 would leave "teachers without proper funding".

First of all, this is nonsense and based on some entirely false premise that the Red-Shirt leader cooked up in his head.  Second, it is essentially a left-wing argument, one made by Walter Mondale against Ronald Reagan, at odds with the political spectrum Spadea and the other Red-Shirts claim to represent. But then again, they didn't call it national socialism for nothing!

The anger is the thing.  Getting listeners to act out in an emotional rage is what Spadea's mission is and the level of sometimes violent rage he's built up is truly remarkable.  The foul and pornographic language, the threats of violence against legislators and their families posted on social media, have been breathtaking. 

Townsquare Media permits Spadea to spew hatred against people who use public transportation as though they were a lower form of human being -- and his Red-Shirt followers (and some elected officials) lap it up.  As a salesman, politician, and movement leader, Spadea appears to know more about transportation engineering than civil engineers and planners, who explain the common sense fact that public mass transportation removes millions of cars from the road that would otherwise be clogging said roads and adding to road wear and lengthening commuting time.

Spadea's latest argument against putting the money from the gas tax into a lock-box for road and bridge repair is that capital projects should be purchased up front instead of being financed over the life of the project.  That would be like buying a house or a car for cash.  Few can afford to do that and taxpayers cannot afford to see their property taxes go up to pay for a new bridge up front  Capital borrowing spreads the cost out over the life of the bridge. 

It's common sense but common sense is not what Bill Spadea and his Red-Shirters are about.  They want anger, they want rage, they want fear, they want hate... and increasingly, they are succeeding.

Spadea's rants have so frightened Assemblyman Erik Peterson, that last week his office put out a press release stating "Peterson has consistently opposed these measures" while apparently forgetting that he voted to put the Question on the ballot in January of this year:

ACR1 Amends State Constitution to dedicate all State revenues from motor fuels and petroleum products gross receipts tax to transportation system.

Session Voting:
Asm.  1/11/2016-  3RDG FINAL PASSAGE   -  Yes {75}  No {0}  Not Voting {4}  Abstains {0}

Peterson, Erik - Yes

What a knucklehead!

But that's how it is now.  Emotion trumps reason.  The Big Lie conquers factual truth.  Fear makes people forget their own voting records.  And anger, rage, and hate are the order of the day.  We have been here before, as this footage from a speech by an American Brown-Shirt leader in Madison Square Garden reminds us.  Yes, we have been here before and we have defeated the forces of rage and have survived. 

Bankrupting the TTF is a Pyrrhic victory

"A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way. However, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit.  The phrase Pyrrhic victory is named after king Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War."  Pyrrhus said of his victory at Heraclea, "one more such victory and I will be utterly undone."

It is beginning to look as if elements of the GOP, the talk radio wing of the populist movement, and the petroleum industry (including AFP) have got their way so that in 16 short months we will see an increase in the tax on gasoline without any accompanying tax cuts.  The phase out of the Estate Tax -- long a conservative dream, long a priority of groups like AFP -- which was so close, will be gone, perhaps for a decade or two or forever. 

Economists will continue to advise people to take their money and flee New Jersey upon reaching retirement age -- so the flight of wealth, which could have been checked by the elimination of the tax on retirement income, will continue unabated.  Instead of making their donations to New Jersey charities, those donations will go to charities in states like Florida and North Carolina.

Early in 2018, the Transportation Trust Fund will finally be funded -- but low income working people and commuters and seniors and military veterans will not get their tax cuts.  They will be off the table -- and if they find their way back into legislation, the Republicans will have nothing to do with it.  It will be a gift, in whole, from the Democrats.

The crisis brought by willfully bankrupting the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) is already causing county and local governments to consider raising property taxes to cover the shortfall in road and bridge repair funding that had been provided by the TTF.  The bill will come due next year -- when the whole Legislature and the Governor's office is up before the voters.  If a 23 cents per gallon increase in the tax on gasoline had been passed in June, the decline in the retail price per gallon since would have made up for that 23 cents and more.  The increase in property taxes brought on by the bankruptcy of the TTF will not be so painless. 

But still, there are some in the GOP who look on the "no gas tax" message as the gimmick they need to at least hang on to what they have in the Legislature.  It is easy to chant, so that even the very stupid can understand it.  It is to be the GOP version of "Black Lives Matter" -- and is meant to be just as angry and misdirected and violent.  For hatred of "the police", substitute "Trenton" and you have it in a nutshell (or case).

In fact, what the NJGOP needs are well-thought-out, adult, fully-fledged policies -- policies that are informed by principles.  Once you have these, any old advertising executive can figure out how to message it, package it, sell it.  The problem with the NJGOP is that they have nothing to sell.  So it ends up selling mistrust, anger, and even hate.  That's not a product to be proud of.

The conservative movement has found itself here before.  In the 1970's there were two competing brands -- the angry, emotional, populist "conservatism" of George Wallace (a Southern Democrat); and the optimistic, ideas-driven, ideological conservatism of Ronald Reagan (a California Republican).  Happily Reagan's ideas won out over Wallace's anger.  Today, it sometimes seems like it's anger on steroids.

The dearth of principle is such and the anger so keen that there are those out there who have turned a rather pedestrian decision about how to fund road and bridge maintenance (a users' tax on gasoline vs. property taxes vs. the general fund and so on) into a question as serious as "when does life begin"  or "does the state have the right to impose the death penalty"?  These are roads we are talking about -- there's nothing metaphysical about a road -- presumably we all agree that we need roads and we assume there's nobody out there who thinks they get built and maintained for free by the Keebler elves.

But the hatred -- both fringe and corporate -- has been astounding.  President Reagan himself believed in users' taxes as a fair form of taxation and raised the tax on gasoline as the fairest way to fund transportation projects.  But that hasn't stopped fringe folk like tea partier Mark Quick and NJ101.5's Bill Spadea from cranking up the hate.  They make it sound like a debate over transubstantiation. 

The world is going to hell and these people are making the means to fund road and bridge maintenance an article of faith.  How intellectually bankrupt must they be?

America is under an intense and sustained threat from abroad and elements of that threat are possibly slipping undetected through our borders.  Our economy has turned grey -- with unemployment and underemployment, foreclosure and poverty, as its major features.  Our culture is being frog-marched in a direction chosen, not at the ballot box, not by the people, but by elites in (of all things) the entertainment industry and their corporate and judicial fellow-travelers.  Nothing democratic about it.  In the history of this Republic, have people of faith ever been less fashionable and more under threat? 

Instead of standing up for freedom of conscience, what calls itself "Republican" now, what calls itself "conservative", the best they can muster is an appeal to a gimme.  The cost per gallon hasn't kept up with inflation, hasn't gone up in 28 years, states like Pennsylvania pay over 50 cents a gallon for their roads while we pay just 14 1/2 cents, but I don't care I want mine and I want it cheap, and I don't care if my daughter has to shower with a sex offender or if my church is closed down because its practice offends the ruling fashion.  I want cheap gas!

Well, for the next 16 months, you will.  While every other problem ignored gets worse.  This is what we are now.