McCann thinks he's backed by the wrong Steve Rogers

We all know who Steve Rogers is.  He is the character behind the mask in those Captain America comic books.

Steve Rogers Captain America.jpg

So when someone named "Steve Rogers" endorsed John McCann for Congress, McCann responded by calling him "an American hero."  He must have been thinking it was Captain America.

But it wasn't.  This Steve Rogers, the one who endorsed McCann, ran for Governor in the GOP primary last year and came in... fifth place.  Fifth place out of five candidates running. 

Rogers picked up 14,187 votes to Rudy Rullo's 15,816 votes to Hirsh Singh's 23,728 votes to Jack Ciattarelli's 75,556 votes to Kim Guadagno's 113,846 votes.  Rogers picked up just 858 votes in Bergen County.

We don't know how he managed it, because Rogers has all the makings of a good candidate.  He is articulate, handsome, with a good resume... but somehow he didn't click with voters. 

steve rogers 1.jpg

We know that he put off many movement conservatives -- especially donors -- by assuming that he had become "the leader of the conservative movement in New Jersey" just because he offered himself as a candidate.  Rogers' support of career liberal McCann won't strengthen his image among movement conservatives,  who remember McCann when he ran for Congress in 2002 as a clone of liberal U.S. Senator Arlen Specter.  McCann said that he wanted to give voters "a choice" besides Pro-Life conservatives Scott Garrett and Gerry Cardinale.  He soon dropped out due to lack of money.

McCann went on to become  what the Bergen Record (November 18, 2017) called the "longtime right-hand man to Bergen County Sheriff Michael Saudino" -- a Democrat who ran on the same ticket as Hillary Clinton in 2016.  How Rogers squares this is a matter for his conscience and we wish him well.

Josh Gottheimer's Tea Party connections

From our friends at Sussex County Watchdog

Last night, Josh Gottheimer's political campaign sent out an email blast that attacked Scott Garrett and Steve Lonegan.  Gottheimer called Scott Garrett a "Tea Party incumbent" and Steve Lonegan a "Tea Partier" and a "Tea Party darling." 

Gottheimer should know.  He's been wooing the Tea Party since he got elected and a lot of people believe they've consummated their illicit relationship. 

Gottheimer is a public relations professional who worked for Bill "I did not have sex..." Clinton, Ford Motor Corporation (Gottheimer sold the sizzle after Ford screwed 44,000 working men and women out of their jobs) , and was a global spin doctor for some of the biggest scumbags on the planet.  Gottheimer is a "progressive" in the way that Bernie Madoff was a "philanthropist"  -- they put on a good show, but hold on to your wallet!

Josh Gottheimer has been at work schmoozing the GOP in full on straw-up-the-backside mode.  He has sucked up to Republican mayors and Republican activists, insisting that he ain't a "real Democrat" and that he shares their values.  Now that's a joke for a start because Josh ain't got much in the way of "values" to begin with (aside from making dough and getting power and celebrity and attention and being the guy with the cool shoes).  Hey, we get it, there are a lot of sociopaths in politics.

He even sent a nice Democrat lady -- lawyer Jennifer Hamilton -- to help schmooze the Tea Party for him.  And it looks like it worked.  Recently, Tea Partier Nathan Orr (who ran as a kind of alt-right primary candidate in June) posted on Facebook that he wants to vote for Josh Gottheimer. Now how is that for having it both ways?

In Washington, Josh Gottheimer hangs out with Nancy Pelosi and trash-talks the Tea Party and the GOP.  Calls them all Nazis and racists.  But when Gottheimer visits Sussex County (he's not from here, you know) he brings with him some extra heavy duty straws for the schmooze-fest. 

Hey "progressives" -- the joke is on you. 

Gottheimer caught taking blood money from J & J

We caught the culprits in action!  Thanks to the investigative reporting of Herb Jackson, the Washington Correspondent for the Bergen Record, we caught the Johnson & Johnson corporation's political action committee in the act of buying congressional candidate Josh Gottheimer.  From the Record (March 2, 2016): 

The political action committee of health products giant Johnson & Johnson hosted a Washington fund-raiser on Wednesday for Josh Gottheimer, the Democrat challenging Rep. Scott Garrett, according to an invitation obtained by The Record.

...It does not appear New Brunswick-based Johnson & Johnson’s PAC made any contributions to congressional challengers in the 2014 election, according data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. J&J’s committee did not give to Garrett in that election, either, and does not appear to have given to him so far in this cycle either, Federal Election Commission records show...

An aide confirmed Pallone, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which oversees a significant part of health insurance policy, was a featured guest at the J&J event for Gottheimer. According to the invitation, “suggested contribution levels” were $2,500 for PAC co-hosts, $1,000 for PAC supporters and $500 for individuals.

There was no immediate response to a message seeking comment from Johnson & Johnson. Amounts raised will be disclosed in quarterly reports due in April.

Gottheimer, a one-time speech writer for President Bill Clinton who recently stepped down from his job as a corporate strategist at Microsoft to focus on the campaign full-time, had $1.3 million in his campaign account on Dec. 31, the second-highest amount of any House challenger in the country.

The Johnson & Johnson money event for candidate Gottheimer comes just one week after the corporate giant lost a $72 million lawsuit to a woman who died from ovarian cancer after using Johnson & Johnson baby talc for feminine hygiene.  Time Magazine (March 2, 2016) takes up the story from here:

Many parents were shocked to learn that a Missouri jury recently ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million to the family of Jacqueline Fox, whose death by ovarian cancer was linked to her daily use of talcum-based Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products. You know the product—that sweet baby scent, the soft puff of powder.

For decades, Fox used these talc powders on her most sensitive body parts. And for decades, according to the case, Johnson & Johnson knew about the cancer link but failed to warn consumers.

Did we read that right?  Johnson & Johnson has known "for decades" that their BABY POWDER (yes, the stuff we put on infants) causes cancer "but failed to warn customers."  What corporate dirtball scumbags!

And Josh Dirtheimer, eh Gottheimer, is down with that? 

The same day Dirtheimer was trousering big sweaty wads of cash from the dirtball lobbyists for these corporate scumbags, a brave woman was on the front page of the New York Post(March 2, 2016) telling how she turned down a million dollar bribe from Johnson & Johnson to hush up her story:

I turned down $1M from Johnson & Johnson, and blew the whistle instead

Cosmetics giant Johnson & Johnson was last week ordered by a Missouri jury to pay $72 million in damages to the family of a woman whose death from ovarian cancer was linked to her decades-long use of the company’s talc-based Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products. Ovarian cancer survivor Deane Berg, 58, a physician’s assistant from Sioux Falls, SD, believes the judgment is a great victory. Here, Berg tells The Post’s Jane Ridley her story.

When I first noticed spotting between my periods in the fall of 2006 at the age of 49, I chalked it up to impending menopause. But my instinct as a physician’s assistant told me to get a second opinion from a gynecologist after my family practitioner told me I was fine.

So, that December, I went to Sanford Medical Center in Sioux Falls for an ultrasound. The technician was chatting away happily, but suddenly went quiet. “We’ll finish this up, and the nurse practitioner will come in to talk to you,” she said.

I got dressed, and the NP arrived. She put her hand on my knee. “Deane, I’m afraid something is wrong,” she said. “You’ve got a hemorrhagic ovary. We’re going to have one of the doctors review it.”

The next few days were a haze. I had both ovaries removed — the non-hemorrhagic one as a precaution. I was desperately upset but, after having two daughters, now ages 30 and 27, my child-bearing years were over.

But that was the least of my concerns. The results of the biopsy in January 2007 were devastating. As a health-care professional, I saw the words “bilateral carcinoma” on the pathology report, and my heart sank. I had stage 3 ovarian cancer, which had metastasized to some of my lymph nodes. The prognosis was not good, and I was facing a life expectancy of less than five years. I had a full hysterectomy within a week and prepared to undergo six months of painful chemotherapy.

Just a couple days after the surgery, I read some literature from my oncologist that included information from Gilda’s Club, the foundation created by friends of the late actress Gilda Radner. To my astonishment, it said that use of talcum powder has been implicated in the development of ovarian cancer.

There was no ovarian cancer in my family. I didn’t smoke. I wasn’t overweight. The one risk factor that stood out was my use of talcum powder...

Jurors found Johnson & Johnson liable for fraud, negligence and conspiracy after lawyers argued that the company knew about the dangers but did nothing to inform customers.

I’m so relieved that the issue is finally getting the attention it deserves. In 2013, I, too, sued Johnson & Johnson, and a federal jury found that its body powder products were a factor in my condition. Although I was surprised that the jury awarded me zero damages — South Dakota is a very conservative state, and there had to be a unanimous verdict on whether any compensation should be paid — it was never about the money. Earlier I had turned down a $1.3 million out-of-court settlement because I didn’t want to sign a confidentiality clause.

I believe that talc can cause ovarian cancer in women. Many apply it to their private parts, and talc particles travel to the ovaries through the cervix and line the uterus and fallopian tubes, resulting in toxic effects on the ovaries. In my opinion, talcum powder products should be withdrawn from the market and, until then, be clearly labeled indicating the risk.

No woman should have to go through what Mrs. Fox and I endured, along with thousands of other ovarian cancer sufferers. My life was consumed by chemotherapy and hospital visits. I had two ports put in my chest and abdomen for the IVs. Getting the chemo in my abdomen was the worst pain I’d ever experienced, even worse than childbirth. I suffered from hair loss, nausea, lack of appetite, and I would frequently throw up. I became anemic and could barely walk. Off work for sickness for six months, I couldn’t go out in public in case my immunity was compromised. Then my hearing started to go bad, a side effect of the chemotherapy. It was a living hell, but mercifully, about a year later, in 2008, I was told my cancer went into remission.

And my case paved the way for plaintiff lawyers to bring claims for hundreds of women who blame their ovarian cancer on exposure to talcum powder. As my lawyer said, I’m the equivalent of the first smokers who sued tobacco companies because of their lung cancer. The pioneers didn’t receive compensation, but the dangers and the conspiracy were finally exposed.

Now that Josh "lady-killer" Gottheimer has taken his (under current law) "legal" bribe from Johnson & Johnson, we have no doubt that he will try to use the money to attack his Republican opponent on "women's issues."  Well we have some news for you Dirtheimer, ovarian cancer IS a women's issue.  It's a big one. 

So give it back.  Return the "legal" bribe.  Don't take their money and you won't be indebted to the corporate pigs if you get to Congress.  Give it back.

The dishonest attacks on Congressman Garrett

Guest Columnist:  V. Rubashov

The reason America's politicians are so dishonest is because establishment opinion DEMANDS that they be dishonest.  Look at what happened to Congressman Scott Garrett when he raised the question as to why a party that opposes same-sex marriage actively recruits candidates who support same-sex marriage.  You can read for yourself here the official position of the Republican Party of the United States of America:

"Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration's open defiance of this constitutional principle--in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts--makes a mockery of the President's inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so."

2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012

As we can see, it wasn't really out of line for an inquiring mind to ask why a political party that adopted the position above would be activity recruiting candidates who opposed that position.  The Defense of Marriage Act, around which the Republican Party organized its position was passed in the United States House of Representatives with 342 members of congress -- 224 Republicans and 118 Democrats -- voting yes.  Only 65 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against it.  In the Senate it passed with the support of 84 Senators.  32 Democrats joined every Republican in voting for it.  Only 14 Democrats opposed it.  Bernie Sanders, then an Independent Socialist member of Congress voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.  President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, proudly signed it into law.

First Lady Hillary Clinton stood by her man.  A few years later, when she was an elected official herself, the beautifully coiffed United States Senator from New York took an unmistakably conservative position on same-sex marriage.

"I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage.

We wonder which Clinton speechwriter wrote those words?  Was it the one who is now running for Congress against Scott Garrett?  The one filling his campaign coffers with money from what Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders calls "corrupt Wall Street operators"?

If you are a supporter of this Clinton speechwriter or of Clinton for President don't think that you are going to get away with criticizing Congressman Scott Garrett for holding the same position you held until you collected millions in contributions from pro-LGBT corporations and lobbyists who commissioned  polling to show that you could safely execute a flip-flop on the issue.  That's not being a statesman.  That's just allowing yourself to be bribed.  Think Steve Sweeney:  New Jersey's Senate President, south Jersey political machine apparatchik, sometime lobbyist for the Ironworkers Union (also known as "the church burners"), and flip-flopper extraordinaire -- when the price is right.

The ONLY people who have the intellectual honesty to criticize Congressman Garrett are those who support the United States Senator from the great State of Vermont, the former Mayor of Burlington and Chairman of the Liberty Union Party, Bernie Sanders.  THEY have the standing to criticize Congressman Garrett -- not the imperial Clintons or their paid mouthpiece.

The hypocrisy of those who support the imperial Clintons and their speechwriter is beginning to show signs of wear.  Supporters of the Clinton speechwriter recently went on line to criticize Congressman Garrett's attempt to make nice to the LGBT community.  One such creature claimed to be a college professor and advanced an argument both illogical and illiberal.  He says that because Garrett holds today the same view that Bill and Hillary and Barack and most elected Democrats held yesterday, he has no right to even hold office and should resign immediately and not run again.  Who would want to be in his class?  You know this so-called "educator" would likely fail you if you disagreed with him, even if he was disagreeing with the position he held only yesterday.

The imperial Clintons and their lackeys must not be allowed to advance their hypocritical line of attack against an honorable public servant like Congressman Scott Garrett.  Hold them to account.