The tea partiers who destroyed Scott Garrett

Most Tea Party members are good intentioned people who want to engage in political action to affect change.  Most hold generally conservative views.

Then there is the unacceptable face of the tea party.  These are the people who are there for the rage.  They show up to vent and to blame and they don't care about facts or ideology or consequences.

Republican Scott Garrett wasn't just the most conservative Congressman in New Jersey, he was the most conservative in the entire northeastern region of the country.  And he had a pretty safe seat too.  That is until he underwent the "death by a thousand cuts" treatment, courtesy of a few people who call themselves members of the tea party movement.

There are some people who will always find a reason to hate even the most consistently conservative elected official.  For them, if you have an A from the NRA or a 100 percent from AFP that simply means that the NRA or AFP is screwed up.  The reason for this is fairly straightforward:  These people want that elected official's job.  And it never occurs to them that they lack the qualifications or the skills or the support to achieve and hold it.  There are some people who look into a mirror and see, staring back at them, a congressman or a legislator.

There are some common elements.  Usually a recent financial or employment crisis has occurred -- a bankruptcy and loss of status -- as was the case with Mark Quick, when he began his jihad against Congressman Garrett seven years ago. 

Believe it or not, Mark Quick is a blue blood.  He claims his American ancestry goes back to the Mayflower.  But as Nathaniel Hawthorne observed, "Families are always rising and falling in America."  In Quick's case, they have been on a losing streak.  After serving a truncated stint with the Marine Corps, Quick went into business and farming.  Both ventures failed.  Then he tried his hand at politics.

Quick is a wildly optimistic opportunist of the "start at the top" variety.  His first attempt at public office was to run for Congress.  And it was not as a Republican, in a primary.  Quick went after Scott Garrett in a general election -- threatening the Congressman that he would "split his vote" and cause a Democrat to win.

Quick bad-mouthed and harassed anyone he thought connected with Garrett, including the women in his congressional staff.  Quick's behavior was so threatening that the police had to be brought into it.  His anger and frustration were evident too at a debate, where he appeared to be taking out his personal problems on the poor souls he was running against.

In that 2010 race, independent Mark Quick got 1,646 votes and came in behind the Green Party candidate with 2,347, the Democrat with 62,634, and Congressman Garrett with 124,030. 

The following year, Quick filed for bankruptcy and promptly announced his intention to run -- once again as an independent, not a Republican -- for the Assembly against Republicans John DiMaio and Erik Peterson of Legislative District 23.  Quick was deep into trashing these Republican incumbents with his usual rant, when the state redistricted Quick's hometown out of District 23 and into District 24. 

Quick didn't lose a beat.  He simply started saying the same things he was attacking DiMaio and Peterson about and applied it to Republicans Alison Littell McHose and Gary Chiusano of Legislative District 24.  It doesn't matter who holds the seat that Quick wants.  They all get the same trashing.  Quick came in last of six candidates, with 1,382 votes to top vote-getter Alison Littell McHose's 19,026. 

Others followed Quick's example, so that in the 2012 Republican primary, Congressman Garrett faced two minor candidates, each of which did their best to damage him.

Mark Quick ran in the general election that year -- once again as a third-party candidate -- but he dropped out to endorse a candidate in the Democrat Party primary.  The Democrat who Quick endorsed had the support of a special interest PAC run by Lyndon LaRouche, a notorious left winger and former head of the Marxist U.S. Labor Party.

In 2014, Quick was back at it again, proclaiming loudly that Scott Garrett wasn't conservative enough (even as Quick worked with Democrats to undermine him).  Running again as an independent, Quick siphoned a handful of votes away from Garrett, but not enough to throw the election to the Democrat.

Quick threatened runs for the Legislature, hinting strongly that he would hold off on running if he received a state job.  These threats were uniformly ignored, and an ever frustrated Quick became increasing violent in his language and actions.

In 2016, Congressman Garrett found himself facing his toughest challenge since winning the seat in 2002.  In the primary, two Quick-inspired candidates ripped at him and drove up the Congressman's negatives. 

Mark Quick drew distinctions between himself and Congressman Garrett, with Quick saying that he supported same-sex marriage while claiming to be the true conservative and Garrett an impostor.  The result was a terrible one for the Republican Party and for the conservative movement.  Quick greeted Garret's loss as a personal victory. 

During his career, Scott Garrett had a lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union of 99.38%.  The next highest Republican has a rating of 69% and the lowest Republican 46%.  The best Democrat was 10.42% and the worst has 0%.  Now there is a liberal Clinton Democrat were once there was Scott Garrett.  We will probably not look on Congressman Garrett's like again.

And what about Mark Quick?  He announced today that he is running for Assembly against Republicans Parker Space and Hal Wirths.  This time Quick is running in a GOP primary as part of a ticket with Gail Phoebus and Dave Scapicchio. 

Phoebus votes to create Transgender Task Force

As President Ronald Reagan used to say:  "Personnel is Policy."

It didn't take long for Assemblyperson Gail Phoebus to go off the rails.  Since firing the conservatives on her staff just before Thanksgiving, her voting record clearly shows their absence. 

On Monday, Phoebus voted to establish a Transgender Equality Task Force.  The legislation, A-4567), is sponsored by liberal Democrats Valerie Huttle, Tim Eustace, and Nancy Pinkin.  Here's what it would do (taken directly from the official OLS Bill Statement):

This bill, as amended, establishes the Transgender Equality Task Force, which is charged with assessing the legal and societal barriers to equality for transgender individuals in the State, and providing recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor on how to ensure equality and improve the lives of transgender individuals, with particular attention to the following areas: healthcare, long term care, education, higher education, housing, employment, and criminal justice.

     The bill provides that the task force shall consist of 17 members as follows: a representative of the Department of Banking and Insurance whose duties or expertise includes insurance and banking services and policies as applied to transgender individuals; a representative of the Department of Human Services whose duties or expertise includes expanding access by minority populations to the department’s services or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of departmental programs, policies, or initiatives; a representative of the Department of Health whose duties or expertise includes expanding access by minority populations to clinically appropriate healthcare services or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of healthcare programs, policies, or initiatives; a representative of the Department of Education whose duties or expertise includes protecting the rights of minority students or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of educational programs, policies, or initiatives; a representative of the Office of the Secretary of Higher Education whose duties or expertise includes protecting the rights of minority students in the higher education system or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of higher educational programs, policies, or initiatives; a representative of the Division of Civil Rights in the Department of Law and Public Safety whose duties or expertise includes expanding access by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals to the department’s services or eliminating discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals in the delivery of the division’s programs, policies, or initiatives; and a representative of the Department of Children and Families whose duties or expertise includes expanding access by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth to the department’s services or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of departmental programs, policies, or initiatives with regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth; a representative of the Department of Corrections whose duties or expertise includes protecting the safety of minority populations or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of departmental programs, policies, or initiatives; a representative of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development whose duties or expertise includes expanding access by minority populations to the department’s services or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of departmental programs, policies, or initiatives; two public members to be appointed by the Speaker of the General Assembly, one of whom shall be a physician who specializes in transgender health issues, and one of whom shall be a transgender individual; two public members to be appointed by the President of the Senate, one of whom shall be aparent or guardian of a transgender individual, and one of whom shall be an attorney specializing in transgender rights; one public member to be appointed by the Governor, who shall be a representative of a social service agency that provides services and supports to transgender individuals; a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union; a representative ofGarden State Equality; and a representative of The Gender Rights Advocacy Association of New Jersey.

     The bill provides that the task force is to organize as soon as practicable following the appointment of its members, but not later than the 30th day following the appointment of its members, and that the task force is to select a chairperson from among its members.  The bill permits the task force to hold meetings at the times and places it may designate, and provides that a majority of the authorized members of the task force shall constitute a quorum. The bill also provides that the task force may conduct business without a quorum, but may only vote on a recommendation when a quorum is present. Pursuant to the bill, the task force is entitled to receive assistance and services from any State, county, or municipal department, board, commission, or agency, as it may require, and as may be available to it for its purposes, and The Division on Civil Rights in the Department of Law and Public Safety is to provide professional and clerical staff to the task force, as necessary to effectuate the purposes of the bill.   

     The bill requires that the task force prepare and submit a written report to the Governor and the Legislature, outlining its recommendations for advancing transgender equality in the State, not later than six months after its initial meeting. 

A-4567 ensures that the opinions of people with traditional or religious points of view are totally shut out -- along with the views of eminent researchers, medical professionals, scientists, psychiatrists, therapists, and experts in the field of child psychology.  This legislation is designed, in advance, to achieve an intended radical, far-left outcome. 

So get ready to pay more in health care costs after those transgender mandates are recommended and then voted into law by the Democrats who control both chambers of the Legislature.  Get ready to pay higher insurance premiums.

Here's Phoebus' vote (SOURCE:  New Jersey Legislature):

This is what happens when you get rid of conservatives who were Reagan-supporters from even before he was President and replace them with liberal lawyers who donate to Barack Obama.  What you get are votes worthy of Barack Obama.

Has Senator Gordon lost his mind? Or is it just fashion?

There was this silly headline run in the Star-Ledger ( last week.  It read:  To N.J. congressmen: If you're not battling travel ban, you're backing bigotry

Accompanying the silly headline were the faces of two Republican Congressmen who, if the author had taken just 5 minutes to study them, would understand that they are as far removed from bigotry as human beings can be.  Congressman Chris Smith and Congressman Tom MacArthur... bigots???  Then you know not a thing about them, their families, or their good works.

The opinion column underneath that headline was written by a young "progressive" political consultant.  A nice enough young man, recently married, who is starting on his journey in life.  We don't know his character or if it will ever match that of the men he has so casually maligned.  

Of course, "progressive" these days is defined as establishmentarian, globalist, corporate, and politically somewhere between Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair.  This is what the Democratic Party's incumbent class is made of and to it must bend the knees of people like our young writer.

If this headline had been written by a member of the Tea Party -- about a couple of Democrats -- it would have read something like this:  To NJ congressmen:  If you're not backing travel ban, you're backing terrorism.

The hysteria of it.  Both headlines.  We can already see the campaigns that will be run -- the terrorists vs. the bigots!

And it will be all such bullshit and so unedifying.  But that is how we communicate to each other now -- via twitter or Facebook or even face-to-face.  Whether snarky or roaring, nowadays we speak "asshole" to each other. 

We speak "asshole" to each other because our knowledge is limited and our emotions unchecked.  We are scared shitless of something, so shitless and so lost for solutions that we act like so many cats stuffed into a sack, suffocating, clawing at each other in our darkness.  And so we get headlines like the ones above.

And talk about limited knowledge.  The nations engaged in the so-called War on Terror can't even agree on what a terrorist organization is.  The military wing of Hezbollah is a terrorist organization according to the European Union and the United Kingdom but not the United States.  The Muslim Brotherhood is recognized as an Islamic terrorist group in such Islamic countries as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates -- but not in the United States. 

Our Department of Homeland Security understands so little that they processed the visa of a woman using the name of a male jihadist, with a false address, and a plethora of red flags concerning her social media.  She ended up participating in the 2015 massacre of 14 people (22 others were seriously wounded) in San Bernardino, California.  And this happened a decade and a half after student visa-holder Hani Hasan Hanjour flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 184 people, including everyone on the flight.

Our knowledge is flawed, our process faulty, but the deaths and injuries are very real.  If we don't want more and possibly a lot worse, we need to accept that we don't know, place the emotion and name-calling to one side, stop speaking in "asshole" and start communicating to each other so that we can -- together -- work the problem.

Fritz Kuhn, that old Nazi who led the German American Bund back in the 1930's clothed his organization in the red, white, and blue too.  Kuhn used accusations of "bigotry" towards those who attempted to close down his organization.  The ACLU defended him too.  A Democrat State Senator even spoke at one of his rallies, held at a Nazi camp in Andover Township, Sussex County. 

Now Senator Bob Gordon and others are attempting to interfere in the federal government's work to keep us safe from terrorist attack.  Legislation Gordon is sponsoring, S-3006, would prohibit personnel of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey from providing "any aid, resources, assistance, or support to any federal employee or representative in enforcing the provisions of a United States Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017 regarding Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, nor may any resources or facilities of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey be used for such purpose."

Wow, imagine if the State Legislature in Alabama had passed such a law affecting the Alabama National Guard in 1963.  Remember your history and remember well that it was the federalized Alabama Guard led by General Henry Graham that affected the end to Governor George Wallace's "schoolhouse door" blockade of African-American students attempting to register for classes at the University of Alabama. 

Senator Gordon should be careful of the precedent he is setting, for he might just be taking a major step in turning our federal Republic into something akin to the Wild West.  Has the Senator thought this through, or is he simply caught up in the "be-in" surrounding the opposition to all things Trump?  Is this helping or is it merely a fashion statement?

Last year, Gordon supported legislation that directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to take extra-measures, above and beyond those of the federal government, to prevent hunting trophies from coming through the transportation facilities (airports, etc.) controlled by the Port Authority.  This too was a reaction to something that had gone viral on Facebook.   

The language of last year's legislation couldn't be more direct:  "Any Port Authority agent or Port Authority police officer shall have authority to enforce the prohibition in subsection b. of this section and, where necessary, to apply for and execute any warrant to search for and seize..."

It is a question of language and of priorities.  Representing counties in a state that suffered so much death and misery at the hands of terrorists, why is there no similar language regarding the vigilance against terrorism in S-3006?  Where is the insistence that no more innocent victims suffer death or maiming?

It's not there, because it's not "trending" on Facebook.  Not at the moment, anyway.  But legislators like Senator Gordon must be keeping their fingers crossed.

Get active! Pro-Life rallies across NJ tomorrow

LIFENET - The time has come to defund America’s abortion giant!

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion chain, killing over 300,000 babies each year, and nearly half of their billion dollar budget comes from our tax dollars.

But now the new 115th Congress is moving to strip Planned Parenthood of that money! On February 11, pro-lifers like you will take to the streets to demand our government stops funding an organization that specializes in killing children.

Protest Planned Parenthood

Join in at the Planned Parenthood facility in your community to protest and pray for an end to Planned Parenthood’s massive government subsidy, and that God would provide us with the perseverance to attain equal rights for babies in the womb in society and in the law.



Planned Parenthood - Freehold Health Center
800 W. Main Street, Freehold, NJ 07728
Time: 9:00 to 10:30 a.m. on February 11


Planned Parenthood - Morristown Health Center
196 Speedwell Ave, Morristown, NJ 07960
Time: 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. on February 11


Newton Green
Spring Street and Main Street, Newton, NJ 07860
Time: 1:00 - 2:30 p.m. on February 11
Sponsored by Sussex County Right to Life


Planned Parenthood - Plainfield Health Center
123 Park Avenue, Plainfield, NJ 07060
Time: 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.on February 11


Planned Parenthood - Shrewsbury Health Center
69 E Newman Springs Road, Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
Time: 10:00 - 11:30 a.m. on February 11

Washington (Warren County)

Planned Parenthood - Washington Health Center
66 E. Washington Avenue, Washington, NJ 07882
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on February 11

Do NJ Senate Dems think America is worse than Iran?

Yesterday, Senate Democrats in New Jersey voted to "strongly condemn" President Donald Trump's executive orders on immigration.  Democrats made up every one of the 22 votes (they needed 21) to pass SCR-143 and Republican Jennifer Beck (who EVERY Tea Partier was calling a "conservative" last year) joined them in voting for SCR-134.  Taken together, the Senate resolutions served as "symbolic acts of resistance" to President Trump's efforts to secure the borders of the United States from terrorism. 

Some would call it a "fashion statement" or an act of "virtue signaling."  Wikipedia defines virtue signaling as "the conspicuous expression of moral values by an individual done primarily to enhance their standing within a social group.”  The term was first used in signaling theory "to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue – especially piety among the religious faithful" and has become more commonly used "as a pejorative characterization by commentators to criticize what they regard as the platitudinous, empty, or superficial support of socially progressive views on social media."

SCR-143 specifically condemns the federal government's efforts to secure America's porous southern border against terrorism, human trafficking, and heroin.  The Senators who voted for this must be keeping their fingers crossed that no act of terrorism gets through that border between now and November.

Yes, we understand that many liberals don't like the "feel" of a border wall and look on it as an "extreme" measure.  But in the fight against the modern misery of slavery -- which is what "human trafficking" is a polite phrase for --is it any less "extreme" than the Royal Navy's measure of blasting slave ships out of the water?  If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that for the abolition of slavery (which continues to elude us 152 years after the end of the civil war we fought to abolish it) in all its forms to be won, it will be done so piece by piece, and only through the application of "extreme" measures.

SCR-134 directs taxpayer-funded units of government (specifically school districts, along with colleges and universities) to violate federal law and refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities -- as if no terrorism suspect has ever held a student visa.  Actually, when you think about this little piece of anarchy it is kind of interesting -- especially for the precedent it sets for disobeying federal authority and federal law enforcement.  Perhaps years hence, when some latter day George Corley Wallace references it and a hundred other similar precedents for defying the federal government, we will know the harvest of what we are today sowing. 

These Democrats are trapped in the bubble of their own perspective.  A frequent situation these days that affects not just Democrats. 

A Rasmussen poll released today shows us that the more Democrat, liberal, and rich you are, the more likely you are to believe that America treats its Muslims worse than Christians living in Muslim nations are treated.  Yep, no kidding.

Everybody but the New Jersey Senate Democrats and their like understand that practicing a Christian faith in a Muslim dominated nation is an often daunting and frequently dangerous, even fatal vocation.  Many of these countries are theocratic states, which places various forms of Christian expression (not to mention Jewish) in direct conflict with the law.  And by "everybody" we are of course referring to the written work of such "far-right" sources as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Guardian newspaper.

As Rasmussen reports:  "Most voters agree that Christians living in Muslim-majority countries are mistreated for their religion.  But Democrats are more likely to think Muslims are mistreated in America than to think Christians are persecuted in the Islamic world."

Rasmussen finds that 62% of Likely U.S. Voters believe most Christians living in the Islamic world are treated unfairly because of their religion.   Just 17% disagree, while 21% more are undecided. The poll was conducted February 2-5, 2017.

And while 47% of Democrats think most Christians are mistreated in the Islamic world, 56% of Democrats believe most Muslims in America are mistreated.  For those who identify themselves as "liberal" those numbers are 45% and 60%, respectively.

And the richer you are, the more you believe this crap.  Only 12% of those earning between $30,000 and $50,000 say that Christians are not mistreated in the Islamic world, which rises with each income group, until we reach 23% among those earning more than $200,000.  As for Muslims being mistreated in America it rises from 39% to 49%, respectively.

The New Jersey Senate Democrats are very much captives of the perspective of their donor class.  Not their voters, their donors.