Is Gottheimer-loving Shortway all in for McCann?

Harry Shortway is the Mayor of Vernon Township, in Sussex County.  Shortway, a Republican, in 2016 stabbed fellow-Republican Scott Garrett in the back and endorsed Democrat Josh Gottheimer for Congress.  Gottheimer was running on a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton.

Ever since, Harry Shortway has allowed Democrat Congressman Gottheimer to use Vernon as a foothold in Republican Sussex County and a source of endless media publicity.  The New Jersey Herald ran another photo of Gottheimer in Vernon less than a week ago.

Harry Shortway's father -- also named Harry Shortway -- is the Mayor of Midland Park, in Bergen County.  Harry was a retired police officer when he was hired by Michael Saudino to be a Bergen County Undersheriff.

Later this month, the Shortway family is hosting an event for candidate John McCann, at the family business -- Shortway's Barn, in Hawthorne. 

Many see McCann as a Democrat straw man.  The Bergen Record has identified McCann as the "right hand man" to Democrat Sheriff Michael Saudino.  It was Saudino's feud with the Republican County Executive that undermined and ultimately lost Republicans control of Bergen County.  The coup de grace came when Saudino, a one-time Republican, joined Hillary Clinton and Josh Gottheimer on a ticket that crushed Republicans in Bergen County.  McCann remained Saudino's consigliore through all of this and ran for Congress (as a Republican) with Saudino's blessing and while still on the Democrat's payroll.

Sheriff Saudino has formally endorsed fellow Democrat Josh Gottheimer for re-election this year.  All this meddling in the Republican primary has the Democrats resembling the Russians.

Gottheimer lies: Tries to take credit for a 2016 Grant

Democrat Congressman Josh Gottheimer put out a press release this week that announced a $102,000 Grant for the Wantage Fire Department.  Gottheimer's announcement, dated July 26, 2017, and released by his taxpayer-funded office, stated:

"Today, Congressman Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5) announced that the Wantage Fire Department will be receiving $102,000 in federal funds for safety and operations as a part of the Department of Homeland Security’s Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program. AFG awards allow fire departments to purchase or upgrade equipment, vehicles, workplace training, and other firefighting and fire prevention activities."

What Gottheimer doesn't say is that the grant is from 2016 -- when Republican Scott Garrett was the congressman.  In his press release, Gottheimer inadvertently points out that, under the Obama administration, money to towns like Wantage was typically held up -- in contrast with the Bush administration. 

And, once again, Congressman Gottheimer tip-toes around the source of the terrorism we face -- calling it "lone wolf" terrorism.  Willfully ignoring the threat of Islamic terrorism by calling it by another, politically-correct name, is weak-kneed snivelry.

It wasn't "lone wolf" terrorism that necessitated the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the billions spent since.  The Congressman should not ignore the fact that these have been coordinated attacks and that ISIS, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and such are all strains of the same anti-Western, Jihadist ideology.  They differ -- as Stalin and Mao did -- but remain focused on the destruction of America and Western civilization. 

Congressman Gottheimer still hasn't called out his party's leaders for their support of Linda Sarsour, the co-chair of the Women's March, and a self-proclaimed advocate of "jihad" against the democratically elected American government.

Yes, the co-chair of the Women's March actually called for "jihad" against the government of the United States of America.  And Democrats have mostly remained politically-correct silent about it.  Instead, state and local Democrat leaders have praised the Women's March and continue to do so -- lending their support to its leadership while American troops are in the field, engaged in a fight against jihadists.  Why have the Democrats and their candidates refused to comment on these threats of "jihad"?

Earlier this month, Linda Sarsour -- a prominent Democrat Party activist and co-chair of the Women's March -- called for a "jihad" against the American government.  You can catch her act here:

Here's what she said:

"During a speech to the Islamic Society of North America convention in Chicago last weekend, Sarsour, a delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention who is an anti-Israel and pro-Sharia activist, made the startling call and also urged against 'assimilation.'

'I hope that we when we stand up to those who oppress our communities that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad,' she said. 'That we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or in the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.'

'Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community, it is not to assimilate and please any other people and authority,' she said.

'Our obligation is to our young people, is to our women, to make sure our women are protected in our community. Our top priority and even higher than all those other priorities is to please Allah and only Allah,' she said."

Sarsour started off her call for "jihad" by praising Siraj Wahaj, who she described as her "favorite person in the room."  Wahaj is a controversial New York imam who has attracted the attention of American authorities for years.  Federal prosecutors included him on a 3½-page list of people they said "may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though he was never charged, the Associated Press reported.

Since the election of Donald Trump as President, some Democrats appear to have gone completely loopy.  We believe that dissent is an American right, but "dissent" isn't "jihad".  When did the democratic concept of a "loyal opposition" morph into "jihad" -- a "holy war" to be waged by all means necessary?  And why are Democrats and their candidates too afraid to talk about it?

And here is another thing that they are afraid to comment on.   It was reported extensively in the media last week that the Women's March "honored" cop-killer Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur). 

Referring to the notorious cop-killer, who murdered a New Jersey State Trooper in cold blood, as a "revolutionary" whose words "inspire us to keep resisting", the far-left Women' March organization issued a statement "celebrating" Ms. Chesimard's birthday.

The Star-Ledger reported on this:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/07/womens_march_wishes_nj_cop_killer_a_happy_birthday.html

So did the Save Jersey blog:

Joanne Chesimard, the Black Liberation Army member hiding in Cuba after murdering New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1973, has long eluded American justice and vexed New Jersey public officials as well as the public at large.

Donald Trump made headlines in June by spiking the Obama-era Cuba deal and citing the case of Chesimard (a/k/a Assata Shakur) as one of the reasons.

Eyebrows were therefore raised on Sunday when the far-left Women’s March’s social media accounts CELEBRATED the notorious cop-killing fugitive’s birthday:

 “I think you guys accidentally left out the part where she shot a police officer in the face, escaped from prison, then fled to Cuba in this post,” responded one Facebook user.

We know where Republicans like Assemblymen Ron Dancer and Parker Space stand on cop-killer Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur).  They want her extradited back to the United States to face trial for the murder of a police officer.  They backed that up by sponsoring a legislative resolution (AR-111) to urge Congress and the Administration to make that happen.

We haven't heard from Congressman Gottheimer and other Democrats.  Why have they remained silent?

Why don't some Democrats appear to mind associating with radicals calling for "jihad" and cop-killers?  Do they consider these legitimate forms of "dissent"?  We are very interested in hearing what Congressman Gottheimer and other Democrats have to say about a group, that Democrats strongly support, honoring a cop-killer.

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.