In reference to this article from politicernj.com about Kelly Hart running for the chairmanship of the Republican Party of Sussex County - what can I say?
First, I am not a paid advertisement. Second, she has in a few sentences from the article identified the significant problems within the county, and a clear direction that she would run the campaign if given the opportunity. Third, she has the gusto and moxie needed to make a difference in the electoral process - both in our county and beyond.
We need to kick Menendez out of office, we need that vote in the Senate. His defeat will need to be a state wide run, she can help do it.
I do believe she is conservative enough to meet the needs of the most conservative county in the state.
More power to her, and God Bless her for stepping forward as she has.
Blogging Sussex County and Beyond! Check back on Monday's, Wednesday's and Friday's for more content. As we expand our offerings you will hear and read more. Interesting ideas and great bits of information is coming your way - so be prepared. Class is in Session!
Friday, February 10, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
A 'Nice' President or How to NOT accomplish Change!
If I wanted to have a nice President - I would push to have one of the Wiggles or Mitt Romney. A 'Nice' President won't be able to get the reform and change done that we need in our Country, Congress and Court System. A 'Nice' President won't be able to stare down Congress, nor push to have the NEEDED Reform to renew our country and get it back on the right path.
A 'Nice' President makes sure that we are surrounded by more liberal government pork barrel projects and more 'OBAMACARE' like legislation that will quickly bleed our way of life to nothing.
Make no mistake, this election cycle is vital to our future. Assuming that the Mayans were wrong, and the world will NOT be destroyed this December. We need to make sure that the President and Congress we elect is able to make the needed change to save our country.
I know - Good comment - but what does that mean?
Simply put. The guy who wins office can not be someone who is weak in his conviction - true. But it needs someone who can be unwavering - even to the point where others may see him as offensive. This is exactly what Newt's critics are saying. So, they make my point more effectively.
One of the greatest fragmented memories I have of the story of Ronald Reagan is how during a crisis (I believe it was the Challenger Crisis) Reagan was sitting with his cabinet. The cabinet members were discussing the different possible strategies and what a speech should say. As they went about arguing, Reagan pulled out his yellow pad and wrote his speech. He then had it typed up and distributed as he walked out to the Rose Garden to make his speech.
POINT - He didn't waiver and he didn't need a committee to make his speech or decision on how to hand the crisis. He just did it.
Is this Newt, we can argue if it is or isn't. One thing for sure is that it is most definitely NOT Mitt, Rick or the good Doctor Ron.
A 'Nice' President makes sure that we are surrounded by more liberal government pork barrel projects and more 'OBAMACARE' like legislation that will quickly bleed our way of life to nothing.
Make no mistake, this election cycle is vital to our future. Assuming that the Mayans were wrong, and the world will NOT be destroyed this December. We need to make sure that the President and Congress we elect is able to make the needed change to save our country.
I know - Good comment - but what does that mean?
Simply put. The guy who wins office can not be someone who is weak in his conviction - true. But it needs someone who can be unwavering - even to the point where others may see him as offensive. This is exactly what Newt's critics are saying. So, they make my point more effectively.
One of the greatest fragmented memories I have of the story of Ronald Reagan is how during a crisis (I believe it was the Challenger Crisis) Reagan was sitting with his cabinet. The cabinet members were discussing the different possible strategies and what a speech should say. As they went about arguing, Reagan pulled out his yellow pad and wrote his speech. He then had it typed up and distributed as he walked out to the Rose Garden to make his speech.
POINT - He didn't waiver and he didn't need a committee to make his speech or decision on how to hand the crisis. He just did it.
Is this Newt, we can argue if it is or isn't. One thing for sure is that it is most definitely NOT Mitt, Rick or the good Doctor Ron.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
How the President increased his Paygrade - or God lowered his.
Remember in the last election - the trainwreck of '08. Remember during a conversation with Rick Warren during the last election. Warren asked Obama about Abortion and Obama said a decision like that was above his paygrade. The liberal media's defense at the time was that Obama was talking about God.
After all, the religious zealot that he was, going to church regularly and listening to the Reverend Wright tyrannical and often anti-american speechifying - which the Reverend Wright must never have done while Obama was not in the house, was the cornerstone of the President's strategy to get the Evangelical vote - at least in 08. Today, he must have decided he doesn't need or want that vote, because the number of times that he has been to church, I can count on one hand.
And today our religious zealot of a President decided that he has finally started to make enough to comment on if Abortion is right or wrong. No big surprise to this blogger - he thinks it's not only a constitutional Right - but that it's purpose was to allow women to achieve the same goals as men - so it's an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ENHANCER!
On this, the 39th Anniversary of Roe vs Wade, which as a Wesley Clarke Liberal told me once - It was bad law and bad science of the time for that law to be decided - even if he agreed with it. A principaled argument - certainly someone I can respect more than the someone who makes the comment - 'It's above my paygrade.' And then the President goes as far as to identify how beneficial the killing of babies has been for Women's Rights. Well, could we make the argument that killing innocents in a genocide made it easier for there not to be conflict? No, it's an absurd argument - as absurd as the statement that Abortion has helped Women's Rights.
But what do you expect from a Paycheck President. It's like the conversation Tom Cruise had with Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry Maguire Stop being a paycheck player.
The President shamelessly played to his base on this argument.
When we look at the conflict with the Republican Party, and who will be the nominee. We see to many pundits asking and answering the question of if the candidate is 'electable'. What does that mean? What they are really asking is - Is the candidate liberal enough for the media and elites to vote for or the moderates. I'm sorry - these people will NEVER vote for a conservative - even if the Anti-Christ is running for the Presidency for their party (this might even strengthen their base's voter turnout)
The person who is running for the Republican Party NEEDS to be in direct contrast to the President. The Candidate needs to be able to articulate this message and not back down when he is given hardball questions.
We want a candidate who will not dust himself off when the liberal pitcher of the debates throws a ball at him enough to give him some chin music. We need a candidate who will give back more than he got in the traditional debate and in the numerous interviews and other 'gotcha' situations. We need someone who doesn't need a teleprompter to make memorable lines. We need a candidate who after he takes a fall, will get back on that horse and ride it to victory.
This person is NOT Mitt, nor Rick or Paul. It's a NEWT!
After all, the religious zealot that he was, going to church regularly and listening to the Reverend Wright tyrannical and often anti-american speechifying - which the Reverend Wright must never have done while Obama was not in the house, was the cornerstone of the President's strategy to get the Evangelical vote - at least in 08. Today, he must have decided he doesn't need or want that vote, because the number of times that he has been to church, I can count on one hand.
And today our religious zealot of a President decided that he has finally started to make enough to comment on if Abortion is right or wrong. No big surprise to this blogger - he thinks it's not only a constitutional Right - but that it's purpose was to allow women to achieve the same goals as men - so it's an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ENHANCER!
On this, the 39th Anniversary of Roe vs Wade, which as a Wesley Clarke Liberal told me once - It was bad law and bad science of the time for that law to be decided - even if he agreed with it. A principaled argument - certainly someone I can respect more than the someone who makes the comment - 'It's above my paygrade.' And then the President goes as far as to identify how beneficial the killing of babies has been for Women's Rights. Well, could we make the argument that killing innocents in a genocide made it easier for there not to be conflict? No, it's an absurd argument - as absurd as the statement that Abortion has helped Women's Rights.
But what do you expect from a Paycheck President. It's like the conversation Tom Cruise had with Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry Maguire Stop being a paycheck player.
The President shamelessly played to his base on this argument.
When we look at the conflict with the Republican Party, and who will be the nominee. We see to many pundits asking and answering the question of if the candidate is 'electable'. What does that mean? What they are really asking is - Is the candidate liberal enough for the media and elites to vote for or the moderates. I'm sorry - these people will NEVER vote for a conservative - even if the Anti-Christ is running for the Presidency for their party (this might even strengthen their base's voter turnout)
The person who is running for the Republican Party NEEDS to be in direct contrast to the President. The Candidate needs to be able to articulate this message and not back down when he is given hardball questions.
We want a candidate who will not dust himself off when the liberal pitcher of the debates throws a ball at him enough to give him some chin music. We need a candidate who will give back more than he got in the traditional debate and in the numerous interviews and other 'gotcha' situations. We need someone who doesn't need a teleprompter to make memorable lines. We need a candidate who after he takes a fall, will get back on that horse and ride it to victory.
This person is NOT Mitt, nor Rick or Paul. It's a NEWT!
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
What's WRONG with the Supreme Court
Judgeship is not an Aristocracy style position. That is something that I have learned about what it should be. However, the opposite has seemed to become true, and the idea, while not expressed that way, is something believed by many people I know and respect. But to be blunt, they are wrong.
Here's the Breakdown:
The concept that the Supreme Court and Judges in general confirm or affirm the Supreme LAW OF THE LAND is a concept that is flawed. It allows no room for changing ideas and concepts of our society. The reason why we (and I mean the general concept of what is taught in our schools and believed by the mass of our society) believe this is based on the idea of the Constitution as a 'Living Document'. This is false hood based on the simple principle that it does not breath or have a mindset to adjust to the changing world. The Constitution was set as the BASIS of what we as a nation can guide our governing by. It's Principle's should be granite that help to guide us, generation after generation. Like Granite, it has been weathered away from the surface of what it was.
If you consider that the Supreme Court is the Law of the Land - then we would still have slavery and segregation within our society. The Supreme Court ruled on these as legitimate ideas and AGREED with them. Why can the Supreme Court make mistakes - because it is run by Human beings. Human beings by definition make mistakes.
The Constitution was developed to be difficult to change. It was meant to be resilient to the daily, weekly or even yearly winds of change. In fact, the Constitution was set to be able to withstand a decade long trend. With the increasing RISE OF THE SUPREME COURT in our society - we are expecting them to rule on everything. Both sides of the political spectrum are expecting the Supreme Court to be the great arbitrator. This is WRONG because they weren't meant to answer EVERY single aspect of society. They weren't meant to have EVERY answer. The Supreme Court was meant as the Arbitrator between the Congress and the President. Not as it's own legislative arm.
Yes, in my opinion there should be no Supreme Court Challenge to Obamacare - the should not have been a bunch of Supreme Court cases because they are based on the falsehood that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Law of the land - as if they trump the other two branches. That was NOT the intended purpose of the Supreme Court. It was not meant as a Supreme Law. It was meant as a check. The Legislature and Executive Branches are suppose to Check the Supreme Court. And ultimately - WE THE PEOPLE Check all Three with Amendments that we put into play through our states.
Here's the Breakdown:
The concept that the Supreme Court and Judges in general confirm or affirm the Supreme LAW OF THE LAND is a concept that is flawed. It allows no room for changing ideas and concepts of our society. The reason why we (and I mean the general concept of what is taught in our schools and believed by the mass of our society) believe this is based on the idea of the Constitution as a 'Living Document'. This is false hood based on the simple principle that it does not breath or have a mindset to adjust to the changing world. The Constitution was set as the BASIS of what we as a nation can guide our governing by. It's Principle's should be granite that help to guide us, generation after generation. Like Granite, it has been weathered away from the surface of what it was.
If you consider that the Supreme Court is the Law of the Land - then we would still have slavery and segregation within our society. The Supreme Court ruled on these as legitimate ideas and AGREED with them. Why can the Supreme Court make mistakes - because it is run by Human beings. Human beings by definition make mistakes.
The Constitution was developed to be difficult to change. It was meant to be resilient to the daily, weekly or even yearly winds of change. In fact, the Constitution was set to be able to withstand a decade long trend. With the increasing RISE OF THE SUPREME COURT in our society - we are expecting them to rule on everything. Both sides of the political spectrum are expecting the Supreme Court to be the great arbitrator. This is WRONG because they weren't meant to answer EVERY single aspect of society. They weren't meant to have EVERY answer. The Supreme Court was meant as the Arbitrator between the Congress and the President. Not as it's own legislative arm.
Yes, in my opinion there should be no Supreme Court Challenge to Obamacare - the should not have been a bunch of Supreme Court cases because they are based on the falsehood that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Law of the land - as if they trump the other two branches. That was NOT the intended purpose of the Supreme Court. It was not meant as a Supreme Law. It was meant as a check. The Legislature and Executive Branches are suppose to Check the Supreme Court. And ultimately - WE THE PEOPLE Check all Three with Amendments that we put into play through our states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)