Garden State Patriot

ABC is reporting that New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg could be tapped as Obama’s Commerce Secretary on Monday. If he takes the job it will open up his senate seat, which would be filled by Democratic Governor John Lynch. Lynch would most assuredly fill the position with another Democrat giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate unless Norm Coleman somehow wins in Minnesota.

Judd Gregg Could Be Picked for Commerce as Soon as Monday
January 31, 2009 11:48 AM

An Obama administration official tells ABC News that Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., is now the leading candidate for Commerce Secretary and could be announced as soon as Monday.

Gregg would be at least the third Republican to join the Obama administration, joining the ranks of Transportation Secretary and former GOP congressman Ray LaHood and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. (The political party of National Security Advisor and retired Army General Jim Jones is unclear, though he is a longtime friend of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and appeared at a McCain campaign event.)

Gregg’s announcement, while making the Obama administration more bipartisan, would likely have the opposite effect on the U.S. Senate. New Hampshire’s Democratic governor John Lynch could appoint a Democrat to replace Gregg, thus delivering to Democrats their elusive 60-vote majority, empowering them to stave off Republican filibusters.

Gregg, a former governor, is up for re-election in 2010 in a state that has been trending Democratic for the last few years.

This would be the ultimate backstabbing of his own party if Gregg takes the job. It’s time to get on the horn and start e-mailing Gregg’s office to tell him to stay put and not to sell out his own party!!

http://gregg.senate.gov/public/

Washington
393 Russell Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3324

Berlin
60 Pleasant Street
Berlin, NH 03570
(603) 752-2604

Concord
125 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 225-7115

Manchester
41 Hooksett Road
Manchester, NH 03104
(603) 622-7979

Portsmouth
16 Pease Boulevard
Portsmouth, NH 03801
(603) 431-2171

UPDATE: I tried calling Gregg’s Washington office. Mailbox is already full. Sent an e-mail through his web site.

Here’s some more info from freerepublic.com: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/juddgregg/index?tab=articles

Tis a new day for the Republican Party. Former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, after 6 rounds of voting, survived and emerged as the newest RNC Chairman.

Chairman Steele will have his work cut out for him, but I feel he is capable and that the party is in good hands. Interestingly, this means for the first time in the nation’s history both major political parties are led by black men. Now, if only the MSM would celebrate this ascension to leadership as much as The Messiah’s.

Here is Mr. Steele’s acceptance speech.

And here is his plan for the party entitled ‘Blueprint for Tomorow.’

Blueprint Chapter1

Watch our new President attack the profit motive. But don’t worry, he’s going to create jobs. Sure.

The key moments occur around the 3:00 mark and after.

“There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses — now is not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them.”

God help us.

Last night I had the opportunity to listen to Chris Christie speak in person at the BCYR meeting in Hackensack. For my review and commentary on the night’s events please check out my post at CWA! here.

In yet another outrageous decision by the reckless, runaway New Jersey Supreme Court, the 7 lawyers in black robes in Trenton have now ruled that striking workers are eligible for unemployment benefits. Via mycentrtaljersey.com:

Unemployment benefits are normally reserved for people who are forced from their jobs, not people who simply walk off their jobs — except in New Jersey, that is, where all common sense was toppled this week in an odd and strained ruling by the state’s Supreme Court, which determined that nurses who went on strike at a South Jersey hospital are entitled to receive jobless pay. As troubling, the decision upheld a backward state law that says strikers can receive unemployment benefits so long as their company remains open.

It is a “pro-labor decision,” said Fred Askin, a professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark. “It’s a progressive decision.”

No kidding.

And so the high court let political bias shape its thinking by rearranging long-established law.

The Social Security Act of 1935, which created the Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program, is clear and unambiguous in its intent and language. The program’s main objective is “to provide temporary and partial wage replacement to involuntarily unemployed workers who were recently employed,” with emphasis on “involuntary.”

The ruling was 6-1. The lone court member to get it right, Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, called the decision “perverse,” noting it “upends the common sense notion that striking employees have left their employment voluntarily and, hence, should be disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits.” His was a direct, succinct and accurate rendering of the flawed thinking of his fellow Supreme Court justices.

It’s bad enough that so many politicians in Trenton are beholden to Big Labor in New Jersey but for the highest court in our state to thumb their nose at the Rule of Law to support a liberal constituency is utterly unethical and shameful.

The Court has yet to come up much in the gubernatorial race but it ought to. The New Jersey Supreme Court, with its outrageous decisions on affordable housing (COAH), Abbot Districts and voting on state borrowing, has consistently overstepped its bounds and unleashed havoc on the people of New Jersey.

Electing Republicans to state goverment is just a first step towards fixing this state and addressing this particular problem. Once elected, Republicans will need to confront the Court head on by using the power of the elected branches to hold it to the authority it has constitutionally been given. Conservative justices will need to be appointed and those who consistently rule with no basis in law need to be held to account. To put it simply: Enough is enough!

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

With Chris Christie on the cusp of formally announcing his candidacy for Governor, and the first debate scheduled for this weekend, the Lonegan campaign is ready for the battle which will rage until June’s primary.

In a press release today Lonegan came out with guns blazing, taking dead aim at Christie on a couple of fronts. First and foremost, Lonegan challenged the heretofore silent Christie for specifics on the issues.

With just three days until the first campaign debate, Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan warned a potential opponent “vapid doubletalk will not beat Jon Corzine.”

Lonegan aimed his comments at former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, who Lonegan says has avoided comment on virtually every single issue of importance including most recently a question about COAH on Monday night…

…“I look forward to debating Mr. Christie.  So far, his alleged campaign has been one of intellectually insulting platitudes and statements so banal that even his strongest supporters are starting to ask questions,” Lonegan said.  “I know because every day more and more are coming over to our team.”

He also criticized Christie for running a ‘Dewey-like campaign’ — referencing the failed campaigns of the two-time Presiential candidated Thomas Dewey in 1944 and 1948 which were devoid of substance.

“Mr. Christie’s speech tonight to the New Jersey Chapter of the Society of Industrial and Office Realtors — ‘Looking forward to the future’ — bears an uncanny resemblance to Dewey’s 1948 campaign theme ‘Your future lies ahead of you’.”

“This kind of mindless drivel is the reason people don’t vote,” Lonegan said.  “Vapid platitudes and vague platforms won’t motivate fed up taxpayers to come to the polls this November,” Lonegan said.  “Taxpayers want a leader who will stand up and speak out, not someone who cowers in a corner, hiding from controversy.”

Moreover, Lonegan said his campaign would essentially model itself after Ronald Reagan who won the Presidency – and New Jersey – twice through being bold and true to conservative principles.

“Ronald Reagan won New Jersey twice because he took bold stands that sharpened his differences with Jimmy Carter and the liberals, just as I did by winning three times by double-digit margins in a town that voted 64% for Barack Obama,” Lonegan said.  “Chris Christie, on the other hand, couldn’t even win his own primary for renomination as Freeholder, finishing sixth out of six and losing by a 2-1 margin.”

“The only way we’re going to beat Jon Corzine is with a clear line between what we believe and what he has done,” Lonegan explained.  “We’re not going to beat Corzine by being Corzine.  We’re not going to beat Corzine by trying to run away from who we are.  “We’re going to beat Corzine by standing tall for working families and always putting taxpayers first.  That’s how we’re going to win the Governorship.  That’s how we’re going to take the State Assembly this November.  And that’s how we’re going to pick up downballot offices from Freeholder to Mayor to Township Committee and Council.”

“We’re going to stand tall, stand together and stand as one — fighting for taxpayers and in defense of our towns and our conservative values,” Lonegan explained.

The Lonegan campaign, with over a million dollars in the bank, has also begun to air ads throughout the state. To hear Steve’s ad click here.

And to hear Steve’s latest interview with NJ 101.5FM. This interview can be heard here.

We wish Steve the best as he forges ahead with his campaign. New Jersey desperately needs conservative change and we believe he is the man to do it.

Note: This weekend’s debate will take place at the Somerset County Federation of Republican Women at the Fox Hollow Golf Club, 50 Fox Chase Run, Branchburg, will run from 8:30-10 am

This is cross-posted at RedCounty.com.

In Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address he said:

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.

There is nothing disagreeable in Obama’s statement, but as this administration embarks on efforts to ‘engage’ one of the worst regimes on the planet – Iran – one wonders just what our convictions are.

• Are our convictions to help defend and protect the lone true democracy and American ally in the Middle East – Israel?
• Are our convictions to stop the spread of terrorism around the globe?
• Are our convictions to stand against the oppression of the Iranian people and for their freedom?

Even with Obama prepared to extend a hand to the Iranian regime their leaders continue to exhibit hostility towards America and unabated hatred towards Jews. Just yesterday, Mahmoud ‘Ahmadeni-jihad’ had these scornful words to say:

“The change will be to apologize to the Iranian nation and try to compensate for their dark records and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation,” he said.

The hardline president also called on Washington to withdraw its troops from around the world and stop supporting Israel.

“Change means giving up support for the rootless, uncivilized, fabricated, murdering… Zionists and let the Palestinian nation decide its own destiny,” he said. “Change means putting an end to US military presence in (different parts of) the world.”

And Iran’s government spokesman, Gholam Hossein Elham, continued to promulgate the vicious, ugly falsehood that the Holocaust never happened.

“The Holocaust is a concept coming from a big lie in order to settle a rootless regime in the heart of the Islamic world”

Herein lays the problem with Obama’s approach toward Iran. One can not engage in diplomacy – which entails negotiation, finding common ground and compromise – when the ‘partner’ at the table is an opponent of the convictions and values your nation stands for. To do so would be pacifism. And as history has taught us pacifying enemies of freedom only leads to more violence, war and tyranny, not less. One can only hope that history isn’t about to repeat itself.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

My latest from Conservatives with Attitude!

With threats of the (UN)Fairness Doctrine being reinstated by anti-free speech liberals like Chuck Schumer and others in Congress, conservative talk radio has been prepping for a battle for some time now. Well, it looks like the battle is already underway, if not at least indirectly.

Just a week into the Obama Administration, the nation’s top conservative talker Rush Limbaugh has found himself immediately in the sights of Obama himself and Congressional Democrats. Last week Obama said this during a meeting with GOP Congressional leaders:

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done”

The administration has defended the comment by saying it was an attempt to forge bi-partisanship, but make no mistake this was the first attempt to try to marginalize Limbaugh and make him a target.

Now, in a second salvo, the DCCC has actually launched a petition against Limbaugh for, as they frame it, having said on air that he wanted Obama to fail. Good to see the Democrats in Congress have listened to Obama’s words to ‘put aside childish things’ and focus on the people’s business.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition for readers to express their outrage at conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for saying last week that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail.
 
The petition includes a 19-second sound byte of Limbaugh, saying, “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to this guy, say ‘okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’”

Not surprisingly, the DCCC has completely taken Limbaugh’s comments out of context. Limbaugh was merely saying he wanted Obama’s policies to fail because he feels they are extreme and socialistic. (To see Limbaugh’s comments click here.)

Digressing for a moment, I find it funny how the same people in Congress are so quick to condemn a talk radio host for his opinions, but fail to reprimand people in their own ranks such as Rep. John Murtha for far worse comments. Murtha essentially called his own constituents racist during last year’s campaign. Worse yet, Murtha smeared several U.S. Marines for having killed innocents ‘in cold blood’ during the Haditha incident. Those troops have since been vindicated, yet Murtha never even apologized.

These actions on the part of Obama and the Democrats are an effort, in my opinion, to lay the groundwork for reinstating the (UN)Fairness Doctrine. By marginalizing Limbaugh and trying to make him seem extreme, they will use these incidents as examples to support their position and likely will search for more wherever they can.

To make matters worse, however, we have Republicans like Rep. Phil Gingrey taking offense to Limbaugh’s criticism of the GOP leadership’s weak-kneed approach to opposing Obama’s agenda.

Responding to President Obama’s recommendation to Republican congressional leaders last week that they not follow Limbaugh’s lead, the conservative talkmeister said on his show that Obama is “obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He’s more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn’t say much about our party.”

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., did not take kindly to this assessment in an interview with Politico Tuesday.

“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell.”

Rep. Gingrey might mean well, but Limbaugh’s comments regarding the Republican leadership are representative of the feelings of many conservatives and others in the party. We do expect our party’s leadership to stand up for its principles and steadfastly oppose the most left-wing agenda we have ever seen. If they don’t have the backbone for that then we might as well fold up the ‘big tent’ and all just go home.

My latest from Conservatives with Attitude!

Talk about a proposal that ought not to be rubber stamped.

In an unbelievable exchange yesterday on ABC’s This Week, the Speakerette made the, ahem, arousing comment that condoms – yes, condoms – are an imperative component of the Democrat’s proposed stimulus package. In a real stretch, the Speakerette contended that less babies means less costs for states. I guess if we just had more condoms and more abortions we’d be out of the recession in no time.

Honestly, I can’t believe this woman is one of the leaders of our country.

Here is my latest post from Conservatives with Attitude!

I’m sure I speak for many conservatives in saying that Barack Obama’s approach to national security and the War on Terror have us, at the least, very uneasy if not altogether scared to death.

In his first week, Obama has issued an executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Almost simultaneously we learned of what could happen – and likely will happen much more frequently - if we change our current policy toward these terrorists and illegal enemy combatants. If they go free, they will continue their jihadist ways against America.

Interestingly, it wasn’t long ago that liberals chided George W. Bush for starting the Iraq war ‘without a plan to win the peace.’ Obama’s executive order likewise is an action without a plan. The move might pacify his pacifist base, but Americans deserve answers as to what will happen with these detainees. And those answers most assuredly won’t come easy, nor will they make those of us who are rightfully worried feel as if our nation we will subsequently be safer. As succinctly put by the Ediors of National Review:

We’d love to close Guantanamo, but we can’t right now; we’d love to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo, but other countries don’t want them; we’d love to give every detainee a civilian trial, but we don’t have enough evidence; we’d love to release the detainees we can’t charge with crimes, but our intelligence tells us they’re dangerous, so doing so would be irresponsible; and we’d love to stick to the highly civilized, detainee-friendly interrogation practices approved by the Army Field Manual, but every now and then there may be an emergency when something more severe is warranted.

Lest we forget what this is all about, these prisoners are not at Guantanamo Bay unjustly or without cause. They are there because they have waged war on America. They are there as part of our effort to make sure that another 9/11 or worse does not occur on American soil ever again. And so that people like Michael Burke have some measure of justice.

Mr. Burke is lost his brother William, an FDNY fire fighter, on 9/11. And in an op-ed piece he had this to say about Obama’s decision regarding Guantanamo Bay. I couldn’t have said it better:

With his shameful order to close Guantanamo Bay, President Obama has perfectly filled the stereotype of the classic clueless ultra-Liberal – the one who can generate great passion for the rights of the guilty defendant and none for the innocent victim.

With a single stroke of the pen, Obama has delayed justice for the victims of 9/11, and in essence granted a reprieve for Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11.

America does not honor our “rule of law and the rights of man” as he put in his inauguration speech by such an action. Instead, this nation abdicated its duty to justice.

It seems the new President is too far removed from the victims of 9/11. Victims like 11-year-old Bernard Curtis Brown, a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. Everyone onboard was killed, as well as 66 people in the Pentagon. Curtis was on a trip with several of his classmates to California sponsored by National Geographic.

Obama and the Democrats have had a blind spot for 9/11 and have yet to show they have an ounce of understanding what happened that day.

Here is why we were attacked: Muslim extremists hate Americans and want us dead. Our policies in no way influenced the vitriol perpetuated on innocent Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.

It is asinine to believe that Guantanamo Bay, even with its scandalously biased coverage, has in any way inspired a single terrorist.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has offered unapologetic confessions for 9/11 and also brags that he was the assassin of journalist Daniel Pearl (”with this blessed right hand I beheaded the Jew”) sits in an air-conditioned cell, innocent until proven guilty, receiving three square meals a day, specially prepared to satisfy his religious prescriptions, free medical and dental (already meeting Obama’s specifications of health care as a constitutional right) and the free services of an army of court-appointed lawyers.

Welcome to the American way of life.

Obama could grant these men full constitutional rights in an American court. And when they are exonerated, we, the U.S. taxpayers, supply a luxury cruise ship trip back home. And they will still hate us and want us dead.

The only thing Obama has accomplished is convincing these mass murderers that we are too narcissistic, too foolish and too weak to protect and defend ourselves. Just as the terrorists believed prior to 9/11.

And we do not enhance our Constitution by applying it to those it was never meant to serve. Rather, the move diminishes and threatens the foundation on which our laws are built.

It is impossible to fight the war on terrorism, like every war, under the Constitution. Consequently, we cannot convict our enemies under it. They will get off. Once free, they will, despite having enjoyed the benevolence of our constitutional rights, strike us again. The Constitution then becomes a means of our destruction. If it cannot protect us, then what is to stop somebody from trying to replace it? Obama would lead us down the road to dictatorship.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were unprecedented. Everything we did in response was made up along the way. Despite that, and contrary to the echo chamber of criticism, America has managed, by pummeling Al Qaeda and liberating the peoples of two nations, to make the world a freer and safer place. We have successfully defended ourselves against any further attacks. And we have done it with a proper respect for the “rule of law and the rights of man.”

Justice delayed is justice denied. That goes for the American victims of foreign attacks, also.

With this order to close Guantanamo, the countdown to the next attack has begun.