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.
Monday, January 9, 2012
An Election Morass
Which Presidential Candidate can overcome the power of the Media Bias? Which Candidate will not only expect to be attached, but can deflect the media bias?
Over the weekend, I was watching the morning news on ABC, which I admit has been the most critical of the Obama Administration. This has primarily been because ABC News is littered with former Clinton Insiders. They are critical of the Obama Administration not because the President is wrong in his political beliefs, but they are critical of him because they do not want to see him succeed. Because if he does, then their political icons (HRC and BJC will be the ones moving to the back burner even faster then they already are.)
But sitting there, enduring the morning news a thought occurred to me. Which Candidate can handle the onslaught when the Liberal Media Establishment goes after them. There is no way that with the baggage that Paul has - will he be acceptable, nor can you expect Romney (McCain Light) to have the wear with all to make the final run. Santorum looked like he was falling asleep on Greta the other night and I wonder if he has it in him to hold the line - let along fight back. Huntsman who? Rick Perry can't seem to find the script to make the whitty comeback - and let's be honest he's handicapped because he will get labeled another Bushie (even though the truth of the matter was in Texas he is the Anti-George W. Bush). Gingrich has the ability to refute this, if he can get the traction. He has the witty nature to strike back. And honestly, I am leaning his way right now. So keep that in mind as you reflect.
Ultimately, I think the best candidate will be the one that Karl Rove doesn't like. That should be the first distinction we look for. He is an insider and looking out for the establishment candidate - so there goes his boy Romney.
Over the weekend, I was watching the morning news on ABC, which I admit has been the most critical of the Obama Administration. This has primarily been because ABC News is littered with former Clinton Insiders. They are critical of the Obama Administration not because the President is wrong in his political beliefs, but they are critical of him because they do not want to see him succeed. Because if he does, then their political icons (HRC and BJC will be the ones moving to the back burner even faster then they already are.)
But sitting there, enduring the morning news a thought occurred to me. Which Candidate can handle the onslaught when the Liberal Media Establishment goes after them. There is no way that with the baggage that Paul has - will he be acceptable, nor can you expect Romney (McCain Light) to have the wear with all to make the final run. Santorum looked like he was falling asleep on Greta the other night and I wonder if he has it in him to hold the line - let along fight back. Huntsman who? Rick Perry can't seem to find the script to make the whitty comeback - and let's be honest he's handicapped because he will get labeled another Bushie (even though the truth of the matter was in Texas he is the Anti-George W. Bush). Gingrich has the ability to refute this, if he can get the traction. He has the witty nature to strike back. And honestly, I am leaning his way right now. So keep that in mind as you reflect.
Ultimately, I think the best candidate will be the one that Karl Rove doesn't like. That should be the first distinction we look for. He is an insider and looking out for the establishment candidate - so there goes his boy Romney.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
ROMNEY WEAKNESS or It's the Republican's too fail.
The case of the Iowa Caucus:
At first, let me disclose that currently I am struggling with my vote. A) Paul is completely out of the running for me - his foreign policy is just too extreme. B) I like Santorum, but I don't know enough about him to make a judgement of yes or no. C) I like Gingrich because I know he will hammer the President in the Debates and because he can deliver the Conservative Message - he has his bona fides D) I just don't know if Perry has it in him to finish the job of winning against Obama. He will have to overcome the 'Another Texan like George W' syndrome. I liked W, but I'm not the only person voting in this election. And E) Romney is not a consideration for me. Not looking for a used car salesman for President, and I just don't think he can win. So now you know where I am coming from, and my "BIAS". Here's WHY:
A win is still a win. If you win by limping over the finish line while your next closets competitor is running at full blast, and you just happen to have enough distance and time ahead of your opponent to get across the line first - well YOU WON! Just as Rocky Balboa in Rocky II or better yet Apollo Creed "Now, when you beat me, you beat me by one... ONE... second. Now do you know what something like that does to a man of my intelligence?" (He wrote sarcastically.)
We know that Santorum is certainly not feeling bad about his near win - at least he shouldn't. The person here who should feel bad is the anointed one - Romney. Because Iowa didn't show his strength - it showed his weakness. Yes, I said weakness.
Remember he's suppose to be the guy whose drawing in the moderates - because he's not extreme like some of the base want their candidate to be. Remember because of his ability to work with Liberals in Massachusetts - he's suppose to be the perfect candidate to pick off votes from the President.
My first reaction to this is - If you (and I mean all those out there that are interested in voting for Romney) truly believe that Democrats and Moderates will vote for Romney because he isn't extreme, I guess then during the 2008 election what we saw was a lot of people who thought that the policies projected by then Senator Obama was Moderate. If you truly believe this - I have a big piece of property that crosses the East River that you need to buy from me as soon as you can.
Seriously. Understand that the person that is our candidate needs to be a Conservative, someone who can draw a stark contrast between the Left and the Right. This is NOT Romney. To boot - he is vulnerable to the flip flop attacks that crushed Kerry and McCain.
Worse, he doesn't have an anchor. At no point in his past did he truly push a conservative agenda, that's the anchor that he is missing. Unlike Democrats we need our representative to have a solid background, someone who has demonstrated great leadership and or strong conservative values.
Democrats fawned over the empty suit of Barack Obama in 2008. Historically - Conservatives don't look for an empty suit - they look for a REAGAN, who was anything but an empty suit.
Below is an example of Romney Weakness. Review it for yourself. Hat tip to Eric Bolling and THE FIVE for having this piece on their show today.
At first, let me disclose that currently I am struggling with my vote. A) Paul is completely out of the running for me - his foreign policy is just too extreme. B) I like Santorum, but I don't know enough about him to make a judgement of yes or no. C) I like Gingrich because I know he will hammer the President in the Debates and because he can deliver the Conservative Message - he has his bona fides D) I just don't know if Perry has it in him to finish the job of winning against Obama. He will have to overcome the 'Another Texan like George W' syndrome. I liked W, but I'm not the only person voting in this election. And E) Romney is not a consideration for me. Not looking for a used car salesman for President, and I just don't think he can win. So now you know where I am coming from, and my "BIAS". Here's WHY:
A win is still a win. If you win by limping over the finish line while your next closets competitor is running at full blast, and you just happen to have enough distance and time ahead of your opponent to get across the line first - well YOU WON! Just as Rocky Balboa in Rocky II or better yet Apollo Creed "Now, when you beat me, you beat me by one... ONE... second. Now do you know what something like that does to a man of my intelligence?" (He wrote sarcastically.)
We know that Santorum is certainly not feeling bad about his near win - at least he shouldn't. The person here who should feel bad is the anointed one - Romney. Because Iowa didn't show his strength - it showed his weakness. Yes, I said weakness.
Remember he's suppose to be the guy whose drawing in the moderates - because he's not extreme like some of the base want their candidate to be. Remember because of his ability to work with Liberals in Massachusetts - he's suppose to be the perfect candidate to pick off votes from the President.
My first reaction to this is - If you (and I mean all those out there that are interested in voting for Romney) truly believe that Democrats and Moderates will vote for Romney because he isn't extreme, I guess then during the 2008 election what we saw was a lot of people who thought that the policies projected by then Senator Obama was Moderate. If you truly believe this - I have a big piece of property that crosses the East River that you need to buy from me as soon as you can.
Seriously. Understand that the person that is our candidate needs to be a Conservative, someone who can draw a stark contrast between the Left and the Right. This is NOT Romney. To boot - he is vulnerable to the flip flop attacks that crushed Kerry and McCain.
Worse, he doesn't have an anchor. At no point in his past did he truly push a conservative agenda, that's the anchor that he is missing. Unlike Democrats we need our representative to have a solid background, someone who has demonstrated great leadership and or strong conservative values.
Democrats fawned over the empty suit of Barack Obama in 2008. Historically - Conservatives don't look for an empty suit - they look for a REAGAN, who was anything but an empty suit.
Below is an example of Romney Weakness. Review it for yourself. Hat tip to Eric Bolling and THE FIVE for having this piece on their show today.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Company of COMA or HOW to NOT elect your President!
What kind of backwards third world company selects it's leader by a small percentage of it's stockholders?
What company picks the one that is 'liked' by the majority and not on the basis of their merit or accomplishments?
What company picks their leader based on the amount of money they draw into their coffers that convince their shareholders that they should pick that individual?
I'm sure you recognize, since you must be an intellectual giant, because you have chosen to read this blog, that I am in fact not talking about a company, but our country. And for the really astute of you I'm sure you have already figured out that I am talking about the Iowa Caucus - and who wants to try and figure that out anyway.
What I am trying to say here is that Iowa doesn't matter - not that our system is messed up. So Iowa doesn't matter - at least as much as people are making it out to sound and certainly not as much as one state in the Union can matter. There are forty nine other states and forty nine other chances for these candidates to get delegates for the convention.
There is an argument that Iowa is a smaller version of America. I think this is missing a larger point, there is NO smaller America. I don't know of anyone in Iowa who shares my same views exactly, or has the same thought processes of me. I am the only person like that, that's what makes us unique and makes us shine.
Keep that in mind this week as you see the pundits make their cases. For myself the only way that Iowa impacts me and helps me in MY decision process is simple. If any candidate is weak kneed enough to bail after this election, then they didn't deserve my vote and time to investigate them. I suggest you have the same thinking.
What company picks the one that is 'liked' by the majority and not on the basis of their merit or accomplishments?
What company picks their leader based on the amount of money they draw into their coffers that convince their shareholders that they should pick that individual?
I'm sure you recognize, since you must be an intellectual giant, because you have chosen to read this blog, that I am in fact not talking about a company, but our country. And for the really astute of you I'm sure you have already figured out that I am talking about the Iowa Caucus - and who wants to try and figure that out anyway.
What I am trying to say here is that Iowa doesn't matter - not that our system is messed up. So Iowa doesn't matter - at least as much as people are making it out to sound and certainly not as much as one state in the Union can matter. There are forty nine other states and forty nine other chances for these candidates to get delegates for the convention.
There is an argument that Iowa is a smaller version of America. I think this is missing a larger point, there is NO smaller America. I don't know of anyone in Iowa who shares my same views exactly, or has the same thought processes of me. I am the only person like that, that's what makes us unique and makes us shine.
Keep that in mind this week as you see the pundits make their cases. For myself the only way that Iowa impacts me and helps me in MY decision process is simple. If any candidate is weak kneed enough to bail after this election, then they didn't deserve my vote and time to investigate them. I suggest you have the same thinking.
Monday, January 2, 2012
The New Mafia?
First Blog of the NEW YEAR - HELLO 2012!
I was thinking (dangerous in many ways), and I came to realize that when you wanted to create your own business decades ago you needed to get permission from the Don (head of the Mob) as well as the Lieutenant who is in charge of the local area, you'd have to be of the right decent, know someone who was of the right decent and then you would have to pay that person off to sponsor you. Of course, let's not forget about the money you had to put out for protection. This in itself could be cost prohibitive, but you could still survive - possibly.
Today, in order to create a business you have to jump a series of hoops, including knowing someone who can help you get started (an accountant or lawyer) and you have to pay them off to get your business started. And of course you have to get permission from the Don or in this case the Don's (state and federal government) as well as the local Lieutenant (local government), and then possibly you could get permission to open your business - as long as you paid off the right 'fees' to make it happen, and got past the zoning and planning board, etc. And unlike the Mob, these guys are completely legit.
And of course, your nation of origin doesn't come into play, and it is much more difficult to start your business of choice today. Let's not even talk about if you plan on putting up a building and the myriad of hoops involved in that. And all in the name of - "FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD!"
Let me make this clear, I am NOT calling the government the new MOB. I am only drawing similarities between the process. Any conclusion reached is YOURS - not MINE!
-verba parum sunt
I was thinking (dangerous in many ways), and I came to realize that when you wanted to create your own business decades ago you needed to get permission from the Don (head of the Mob) as well as the Lieutenant who is in charge of the local area, you'd have to be of the right decent, know someone who was of the right decent and then you would have to pay that person off to sponsor you. Of course, let's not forget about the money you had to put out for protection. This in itself could be cost prohibitive, but you could still survive - possibly.
Today, in order to create a business you have to jump a series of hoops, including knowing someone who can help you get started (an accountant or lawyer) and you have to pay them off to get your business started. And of course you have to get permission from the Don or in this case the Don's (state and federal government) as well as the local Lieutenant (local government), and then possibly you could get permission to open your business - as long as you paid off the right 'fees' to make it happen, and got past the zoning and planning board, etc. And unlike the Mob, these guys are completely legit.
And of course, your nation of origin doesn't come into play, and it is much more difficult to start your business of choice today. Let's not even talk about if you plan on putting up a building and the myriad of hoops involved in that. And all in the name of - "FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD!"
Let me make this clear, I am NOT calling the government the new MOB. I am only drawing similarities between the process. Any conclusion reached is YOURS - not MINE!
-verba parum sunt
Monday, December 19, 2011
Why it takes so long to get the lights back on!
Last week we received our bill from JCP&L. In the comment section it noted that our meter couldn't be read because they were unable to get to our house because the paper claimed that our bridge was out. It was or I should say it still is.
Everyday my wife, daughter and myself have been able to get to our house - not through walking or some magical conveyance that transports us over this broken bridge. No instead we have just driven our vehicles down the other side of the road that has the bridge out. Which incidentally, connects directly to Rt. 206.
This has been going on for nearly two months. My wife called them up and began to explain to the lady the situation. My wife didn't get half way through her statement when the lady at JCP&L stopped her and said: "I know the problem." She didn't say this to be rude or in a rude manner. She said this because by this time everyone else on my road had already called and explained the situation, as my wife was doing.
We're coming up on four months since the bridge washed away, and it's disappointing that it hasn't been fixed yet. We figured that the Township must have put JCP&L in charge of the program, which is why it isn't fixed yet. Not because they're an electrical company and they have no idea on how to fix road, but because when you get letters like we did from this company it's easy to lampoon them for every idiotic thing that pops up. Especially when they're JCP&L and it takes days to a week plus to restore power.
Of course this is a cautionary tale, but of what you can decide. It could be how not to run a company or how public utilities have too much assurance that they will not loose customers and therefore don't care about quality control. You decide.
Everyday my wife, daughter and myself have been able to get to our house - not through walking or some magical conveyance that transports us over this broken bridge. No instead we have just driven our vehicles down the other side of the road that has the bridge out. Which incidentally, connects directly to Rt. 206.
This has been going on for nearly two months. My wife called them up and began to explain to the lady the situation. My wife didn't get half way through her statement when the lady at JCP&L stopped her and said: "I know the problem." She didn't say this to be rude or in a rude manner. She said this because by this time everyone else on my road had already called and explained the situation, as my wife was doing.
We're coming up on four months since the bridge washed away, and it's disappointing that it hasn't been fixed yet. We figured that the Township must have put JCP&L in charge of the program, which is why it isn't fixed yet. Not because they're an electrical company and they have no idea on how to fix road, but because when you get letters like we did from this company it's easy to lampoon them for every idiotic thing that pops up. Especially when they're JCP&L and it takes days to a week plus to restore power.
Of course this is a cautionary tale, but of what you can decide. It could be how not to run a company or how public utilities have too much assurance that they will not loose customers and therefore don't care about quality control. You decide.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Gingrich vs. Obama
GoAnimate.com: Gingrich vs Obama by jdgerpanzer
Like it? Create your own at GoAnimate.com. It's free and fun!
Like it? Create your own at GoAnimate.com. It's free and fun!
Friday, December 16, 2011
The Texas Liberal vs the Reagan Conservative or Acting more like Obama then Reagan
Good for her. Assemblywoman McHose should withhold her endorsement. I know I do, and so should you. Former Gov. Mitt Romney needs to defend his record of big government and lack of conservative values. Keep in mind that we expect his opinions to vary over time. But instead of fighting tooth and nail on keep government healthcare out of the people's way. He embraced it. There are other areas where he is weak. The key point here is simple:
Just because our Governor endorses him doesn't mean we should. Christie is a Texas Liberal, and a New Jersey Moderate - maybe. So let's keep it this in perspective. Our governor has a lot of qualities that may get him big lift with some of the voters, but ultimately, he's no conservative that I would count on. His size matters not, his attitude - well I've seen worse and better. But ultimately I don't care about either. Our governor is more middle of the road, and appeaser of big government ideas and still believes that the core value of government is that it can fix everything. Furthermore, our governor is more like Obama then he is like Reagan. This alone should give you pause in your choosing.
Pick your candidates wisely, and not because you want to fall in lockstep with the governor.
I am confident that our representatives of the 24th District made their decisions based on thoughtful decisions, not because they were in lockstep. Their decisions were wrong, but the beauty of living in a free country is that they can make that decision - even if they are mistaken. Having said that - it's time for you to pick. Pick wisely my friend.
McHose Hold's Out - NJ Herald
Just because our Governor endorses him doesn't mean we should. Christie is a Texas Liberal, and a New Jersey Moderate - maybe. So let's keep it this in perspective. Our governor has a lot of qualities that may get him big lift with some of the voters, but ultimately, he's no conservative that I would count on. His size matters not, his attitude - well I've seen worse and better. But ultimately I don't care about either. Our governor is more middle of the road, and appeaser of big government ideas and still believes that the core value of government is that it can fix everything. Furthermore, our governor is more like Obama then he is like Reagan. This alone should give you pause in your choosing.
Pick your candidates wisely, and not because you want to fall in lockstep with the governor.
I am confident that our representatives of the 24th District made their decisions based on thoughtful decisions, not because they were in lockstep. Their decisions were wrong, but the beauty of living in a free country is that they can make that decision - even if they are mistaken. Having said that - it's time for you to pick. Pick wisely my friend.
McHose Hold's Out - NJ Herald
Monday, December 12, 2011
How not to talk about Mitt Romney or Just Vote for a Conservative!
Mitt Romney, isn't he special. Who else can you expect to give you two candidates for the price of one liberal. He has taken on every position and then taken the opposition position. So, wait around long enough and you'll find him taking another position.
So let's not rip on Mitt just because he's indecisive or because he's trying to be a liberal while trying to be a moderate, while trying to be a conservative. After all, it's so hard to be something to everyone. We know that the establishment sees him as the best chance to beating the President. And because of that we should all just give in and say he's our guy.
But in reality, what's the comparison. Now, I don't mean between Mitt and say Gingrich, or Bachman, Santorum or any other candidate. What's the comparison between Mitt and the President. For that matter what's the comparison between the President and ANY of the Republican Candidates.
That's the Question we should really be answering. That's right - not asking but ANSWERING! We don't need to find someone who is close aligned in an ideological fashion with the President, it's our job in the primary to find someone who will offer us an opposing view, an alternative to the current method of doing business. That's called CHOICE - as I am sure many of my liberal friends would define it.
It's okay to pick a CONSERVATIVE candidate who believes in the exact opposite of the President - because that opposing viewpoint can be challenged - not just by the President but all those who wish to question it. So here are some of the rules - perhaps - that you can use to find your pick from the Republican Field. And please notice which is last.
- Who is the furthest opposite from the President's Ideological base and philosophy?
- Who can DEFEND their position the best, without the hesitations, the hiccups of being on the spot - the smoothest communicators of fact from fiction and the best orator of your choice?
- Who can identify the weaknesses of the President's position (not just ideologically, but who can bring home the FAILURES of the Administration)?
- Who will be able to bring in MORE Conservatives into the Congress and build the Conservative movement - now - not later?
- Who is the most electable?
We want a candidate who is not only going to save our country. That man or woman will NOT be the same as our President ideologically. That person has to be the opposite. Answer these questions truthfully and not with the idea of who you like, but who you would choose.
Mark Levin
Mark Levin
'nuff said!
Why Scrooge was a Liberal
I believe Ann Coulter had it right, Scrooge was a liberal (click here to read Ann's article from last year's Human Events Webpage). Here's why:
In the beginning, Scrooge sites several government institutions to provide for the poor, as Liberals do today. He finds this as the appropriate method of providing care for those in need, despite the identifier that they are failed institutions. Why else would he talk so highly of these failed institutions, just as Big Government Liberals do for programs like Welfare and other government entitlements.
Now, to be honest, Scrooge isn't a liberal throughout the story. But it should be noted that what brought Scrooge around wasn't some fact finding commission, nor was it some government program that incentivized him to give charitably. No, it was GOD! It had to be God, unless there's some other entity out there that is direct ghosts. I do not think it was anyone from the Hindu belief, they would not have been sent to walk the Earth, instead they would have been reincarnated to a lesser form. Nor Shintoism because ancestors are venerated, not forced to walk the Earth in chains. No, I'm convinced it had to be God.
So how can we identify that Scrooge became a conservative? Well of course, he became one when he started to give. Notice here, that he did NOT give to the government programs to make them better. No instead, he went on a mission of personal charity giving. He didn't toss the coin out of his bedroom window to give to some government institution to get some food for the family. No, instead he bought food to give to his employee. The big turkey that came to Cratchit's house was not from a government meat program, but from the local butcher - who by the way - didn't poison any of the children who ate it.
So, next time you Conservatives get called Scrooge by some Big Government Liberal feel free to throw this argument at them and watch them 'Wallow in their pudding' - As Scrooge would say.
'nuff said.
In the beginning, Scrooge sites several government institutions to provide for the poor, as Liberals do today. He finds this as the appropriate method of providing care for those in need, despite the identifier that they are failed institutions. Why else would he talk so highly of these failed institutions, just as Big Government Liberals do for programs like Welfare and other government entitlements.
Now, to be honest, Scrooge isn't a liberal throughout the story. But it should be noted that what brought Scrooge around wasn't some fact finding commission, nor was it some government program that incentivized him to give charitably. No, it was GOD! It had to be God, unless there's some other entity out there that is direct ghosts. I do not think it was anyone from the Hindu belief, they would not have been sent to walk the Earth, instead they would have been reincarnated to a lesser form. Nor Shintoism because ancestors are venerated, not forced to walk the Earth in chains. No, I'm convinced it had to be God.
So how can we identify that Scrooge became a conservative? Well of course, he became one when he started to give. Notice here, that he did NOT give to the government programs to make them better. No instead, he went on a mission of personal charity giving. He didn't toss the coin out of his bedroom window to give to some government institution to get some food for the family. No, instead he bought food to give to his employee. The big turkey that came to Cratchit's house was not from a government meat program, but from the local butcher - who by the way - didn't poison any of the children who ate it.
So, next time you Conservatives get called Scrooge by some Big Government Liberal feel free to throw this argument at them and watch them 'Wallow in their pudding' - As Scrooge would say.
'nuff said.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Bureaucratic Hubris
It wasn't so long ago that I lived in Newton. I can tell you that it is a delightful town in many ways. You feel the smallness of it in a good way, not in that grumpy unhappy crotchety way of other small towns 'down the line'. Or the haughty, high and mighty approach that some towns within Sussex County see themselves add - or at least the management of those towns. But I digress.
Herald Article discussing Farmer's Market
The immediate concept of this topic is that the town of Newton has lost it's mandate. This problem is a symptom of a larger disease which has run rampant throughout our country, but can be summed up in this simple example. Towns have turned into Bureaucratic Monarchies filled with Hubris of their righteousness. It was said that the greatest thing about America was that it didn't have one king it had millions because everyone was able to make their own decisions and had as many rights as the King of England.
Not true anymore. We are no longer a country of kings but a country of Kingdoms, with little fiefdoms, lords, ladies and counts, dukes and earls. These kingdoms are the towns which set their rules and govern by fiat. Holding up people's dreams over some bureaucratic device that allows them to question, and overrule the individual trying to cut their own way in the world.
I understand that there is simple regulations that are needed, governance of the road system, maintenance of the utilities to an extent and a general common sense principal of living safely. But please - those who wish to say I am off my rocker, identify to me how a farmers market on a Saturday is going to upset a community of residential homes in an area that allows 17 and 18 year old students to park and drive in the immediate vicinity.
In other words, a problem plaguing the surrounding area of Newton High School is the inordinate amount of traffic in the morning and afternoon, the high level of roadside parking during the school day - Monday through Friday. How is a community which tolerates this, going to be negatively impacted by a bunch of farmers set up in the back of the school?
Answer - It's NOT!
So where does the fault lay? The fault lays in the build up of ridiculous ordinances, agreements, rules and bylaws set up by all the communities who use the identifier 'for the public good' as a shield for this silliness. People are suppose to be the governors over their land - not the government over the people's land. If the Newton Board of Ed. agreed to this deal, then it should happen. We shouldn't have to deal with silly laws which do not make common sense and who damage the public good in the name of helping the public good.
'nuff said!
Herald Article discussing Farmer's Market
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
GOD BLESS THE FALLEN
TODAY IS A DAY WHICH WILL LIVE IN INFAMY! Today is Pearl Harbor Day. Let's observe the KISS PRINCIPLE.
GOD BLESS ALL THOSE WHO DIED THIS DAY 70 YEARS AGO! And may God bless all those who died before and after to protect our write to post this so that millions of others would have the opportunity to read it, accept or criticize it and live your life in happiness.
REMEMBER THE ARIZONA!
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
CHINA OR BUST
Be afraid, be very afraid. Lines we first hear in the 1986 version of THE FLY, but something that is very appropriate for a discussion on CHINA. The country is the largest population, and it's strengths are too many to list here. At any one moment it can pull the economic rug out from under the western powers because we have allowed ourselves to pull ourselves down at the hands of Chinese Bankers - i.e. Chinese State Officials.
China, it's government, financial institutions, military, and people are focused on growing and becoming greater than ANY OTHER COUNTRY. INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES! We should NOT fight them. Instead we should outgrow them. We should use our own economic engine to grow ourselves so big that we are unbeatable by them. We are strong, we are mighty and we will succeed where other superpowers of the world have failed. WE WILL NOT STUMBLE, WE WILL NOT FALL WE WILL RISE ABOVE AND CONTINUE TO BE THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!
Saturday, December 3, 2011
How to Humiliate those in Need or OBAMACARE on Steroids.
Below is an article on what we can expect from our President's healthcare program, better known as Obamacare. As you read and listen to your liberal friends tell you - NOTHING HERE TO LOOK AT! KEEP MOVING ON! Think to yourself, I'm glad their President is in charge, as you sip the lowfat unsweetened red bilge that passes for Kool-aide in the Obama Dopeyutopia of America.
Fear not, our feckless and fearful leader will not less us down. He will promise us billions in spending and trillions in taxes - and blame the rich for not being able to provide enough money to take care of THESE KIND of people. His class warfare and biased attacks on everyone from you to me will be par for the course.
Or, and this is more likely, he will blame BUSH for this heart wrenching situation. But I STRUGGLE. Universal healthcare is doomed to cost to much, provide too little care and ensure that the individuals subjected to it will either be forced to suck on their own viper bites, mend their own bones, operate on their own pustules or pump their own stomachs.
Whatever the home remedy would be, I can assure you that we will see a boosting of this market and a crashing of traditional healthcare. Because it will be safer then having to depend on the doctor who you will never get to see.
A good friend of the family who lives 'across the pond' in Kent, Great Britain, had an open wound several years ago. He is an elderly man in his 80's. Well, he went to the doctor's office - only saw a nurse, who put him through some bandages and sent him on his way. It didn't heal right and he had to return several times, never seeing a doctor and each time his wound became progressively worse. So much for stitching. So much for keeping him overnight. So much NONSENSE!
These two are prime examples of what are future will be under this OBAMACARE. GOD HELP US!
Thursday, December 1, 2011
How to Get from Newton to Sparta or The Flat Earther and the Christmas Tree
If anyone thinks that this is a coincidence, please let me know so that I can see if I can sell you some beachfront property in Nevada and that new bridge that went up connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan - I own several thousand shares in it. It has to be clear to anyone that the purpose of the letter was to shut down the project. Once again the no growth - flat earther's have figured out a way to harass and damage progress - in a very unprogressive fashion.
When are we going to take a common sense look at our wacky environmental packages?
1) Why is it possible for one letter to require any study - no matter who it's from? It escapes my low level of logic.
2) Anyone who has lived in Sussex County knows that the goal of any good Sparta Council person is to make sure that traffic doesn't flow anywhere through Sparta -except down the Route 15 corridor where everyone who drives it can be liberally ticketed to provide extra funds for Sparta Township.
That would be a gut reaction from a reactionary - but not me. In my mind this is all one big mess up. I mean why would a group of individuals wait until the final months of a deadline to drop a letter like this. I mean the intervening nine years of possible letters didn't come. I mean - let's be realistic - whoever pushed for this letter was just doing it from their moral ideals of collaborative agreement. I'm sure their progressive heart had remained dormant for the last decade, and was only suddenly awakened by the heart warming sounds and smells of winter. The chestnuts and the open fire, the hit of frost in the air or perhaps the wayward whiff of fumes from the diesel pick up pulling into the lot of some Christmas Tree farm so that some tree killers could do their worst on the ever dwindling supply of firs - and I don't mean the kind that come off the Coyote.
Good going oh senior moment man - who has decided to awaken from his slumber. Your journey is complete. Or is it, while you sit in traffic on Newton Sparta Road - you will be able to fill up at the Quick Chek and take a leak while you're filling your tank. You're gonna need it to get down the road - sitting in that traffic.
Your friendly neighborhood driver seat warmer.
Herald Article on Newton-Sparta Road Upgrade
When are we going to take a common sense look at our wacky environmental packages?
1) Why is it possible for one letter to require any study - no matter who it's from? It escapes my low level of logic.
2) Anyone who has lived in Sussex County knows that the goal of any good Sparta Council person is to make sure that traffic doesn't flow anywhere through Sparta -except down the Route 15 corridor where everyone who drives it can be liberally ticketed to provide extra funds for Sparta Township.
That would be a gut reaction from a reactionary - but not me. In my mind this is all one big mess up. I mean why would a group of individuals wait until the final months of a deadline to drop a letter like this. I mean the intervening nine years of possible letters didn't come. I mean - let's be realistic - whoever pushed for this letter was just doing it from their moral ideals of collaborative agreement. I'm sure their progressive heart had remained dormant for the last decade, and was only suddenly awakened by the heart warming sounds and smells of winter. The chestnuts and the open fire, the hit of frost in the air or perhaps the wayward whiff of fumes from the diesel pick up pulling into the lot of some Christmas Tree farm so that some tree killers could do their worst on the ever dwindling supply of firs - and I don't mean the kind that come off the Coyote.
Good going oh senior moment man - who has decided to awaken from his slumber. Your journey is complete. Or is it, while you sit in traffic on Newton Sparta Road - you will be able to fill up at the Quick Chek and take a leak while you're filling your tank. You're gonna need it to get down the road - sitting in that traffic.
Your friendly neighborhood driver seat warmer.
Herald Article on Newton-Sparta Road Upgrade
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)