The Hugin campaign would have done better in a Democrat primary.

Bob Hugin is a great guy.  Really.  He’s a good and decent man.  It was unfortunate that he found himself in a Republican primary… this year.  The fact that he persevered with such confidence and grace makes him a heroic, somewhat tragic, figure.  

Bob Hugin could have run in the Democrat primary.  $35 million… against Bob Menendez?  Hugin had the issues right for a Democrat primary… and the media wouldn’t have pounced on a Democrat Bob Hugin the way they did a Republican Bob Hugin.  The media love rich members of the One Percent when they are Democrats (it is a capital sin when you are a Republican)… they love woke, right-on pharma folk of the proper political affiliation.  They would have forgiven him everything.

But Bob ran as a Republican, and he ran this year.  A year when the media he wanted to appeal to was working to nationalize the election – to make it about Trump.  That media ended up vouching for Bob Menendez, despite having formerly called for his resignation. That media still cuts it with the people who Bob Hugin wanted to convince:  Democrats and liberal-leaners.   

Rather than shutting down Menendez, Hugin’s attacks were used by the media as evidence that he – Bob Hugin – was a “bad” man.  Of course, this only works with those who are open to receiving a message from the likes of Tom Moran and MSNBC.  Unfortunately, they were precisely the voters that the Hugin campaign was aimed at. 

Can we put aside the myth that Republican voters will come out no matter what, and dutifully vote Republican?  That myth should have finally, once and for all, been discarded after the low turnout Assembly races in 2015, when Republicans AGAIN lost seats in the Legislature and were AGAIN provided with irrelevant excuses for having done so. 

Oh the excuses!  One year it is Christie’s fault, the next it is Trump’s, and in between, the dog ate it!  New Jersey Republicans should set up their own public relations firm specializing in excuse-making.  Excuses aside, New Jersey’s GOP establishment should understand that the days of Republicans “holding their noses” and voting are over.

Republican voters are like anyone else.  Ignore them, say you are embarrassed to be with them, that you are “different” from them… and they will reward you in kind.  As an experiment, try some of that language next time you are in public with your wife and her family (or your husband and his).  Invite them out to a restaurant, then tell the host:  “I’m a different kind of member of this family, I’m not really one of them… They are a little, umm… backward.”  And say it so they hear it.  Say it loud, like ten million dollars’ worth of loud, and see how they like it.  Go ahead, try it.  Get back to us on it.

And that’s what the whole Hugin campaign was based on, wasn’t it?

“I’m a different kind of Republican.”  They are a little backward, a little off, but I’m with it.  I am a cool Republican.  Except that there are no “cool” Republicans.  Not in the minds of the media.  They only thought John McCain was cool when he was pissing on Bush.  The moment it became about him and Obama, John McCain became a troglodyte in the minds of the media.  After the dust settled, he became cool again, especially when pissing on other Republicans… especially when pissing on Trump.  But when he needed them, the media screwed John McCain.  So why even bother with them?

President Ronald Reagan understood the media (and they were a lot more condensed, more centralized, and a lot stronger back then).  That’s why he talked past them – to the people.  He didn’t give a damn about their approval.  He fed them the diet he wanted them to eat and even when they shit it out it contained the kernels of his message.  Reagan wasn’t afraid to be a Republican and to explain what that meant.  He had a message that he tested and honed by human contact – by speaking to people, engaging them, listening for the examples that would be used in his speeches, turning them on to his way of thinking, building a movement of ideas and about issues that mattered to people.

How many Republicans today, in New Jersey, can explain why they are Republicans or what Republicanism is?  At the big Republican show put on by the NJGOP last spring in Atlantic City, two professional Republican organizers up from Washington, DC, posed the same questions to attendees.  Not only was there no apparent theme or connectivity between the responses, even the organizers couldn’t adequately provide reasons or an explanation as to why they were there in the first place.  It was kind of sad.

What that confab did showcase, however, is the top-down meddling that has become the hallmark of the establishment in New Jersey, with a congressional candidate in a contested primary receiving top billing as the event’s featured speaker.  Yes, there was resource-draining meddling in districts 2, 5, and 11 – in an effort to promote candidates who would fit seamlessly with the statewide message being promoted by the campaign of Bob Hugin.

Instead of building a grassroots coalition of Republicans and reformers – of the kind Ralph Nader wrote about in his book, Unstoppable – the Hugin campaign  actually determined that their best chance lay in targeting “soft” Democrats and culturally “left-leaning” independents.  But these are the very same voters open to arguments from left-leaning media like CNN, MSNBC, NJ.com, and the Bergen Record.  So when the Hugin campaign pushed a relentlessly negative message about Menendez, those “independent arbiters” pushed back and were listened to. 

This allowed the Menendez campaign to focus on making the link between Hugin and Trump – which the media backed up.  The more the media pressed, the more Hugin denied Trump, the more he suppressed his own base.  Meanwhile, the Hugin campaign went right on churning out GOTV communications and efforts to turn out those “soft” Democrats and culturally “left-leaning” independents who had by now been convinced by the media that Hugin was a “bad” man who was lying about Menendez.  Gagged and gagged again.

In the days and weeks ahead we will be taking a proper, in depth, examination of the Republican operation in the Garden State.  It will be a necessary, warts and all, detailed review.  So stay tuned.

For now, we will leave you with this: 

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”  - Winston Churchill

The same NJ media that covered up for Clinton, tries to do the same for Menendez

Remember how the newspapers tried to discredit the source for the claim that Bill Clinton had seduced Monica Lewinsky in the White House?  Remember how the media told us that Linda Tripp was a “liar” and that she used “right wing” media outlets to peddle her "meaningless" allegations?

All part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” Hillary Clinton assured us.  And NOW – the National Organization for Women – stood by their man, and so did legions of Democrat women politicians.  They all assured us that Bill Clinton would NEVER act so inappropriately.

Yep, the media was right on that!  We all know today that Bill Clinton DID NOT have sex with Monica Lewinsky, right???

And as more and more evidence piled up, the media just dismissed it.  When other women came forward and said they were raped.  The media trashed them, called them trailer park trash, said it was all a plot to damage the good name of William Jefferson Clinton.  They advised us to Move On…

One New Jersey newspaper published an editorial with the title:  "GOTCHA" POLITICS HIT A NEW LOW WITH STARR'S SEX INVESTIGATION. 

Another New Jersey newspaper did an editorial that simply said:  TIME TO END IT.

Well, it’s déjà vu all over again!

On Wednesday, there was United States Senator Bob Menendez and, like Bill Clinton once upon a time, he was surrounded by NOW and a bevy of female Democrat office holders whose political fortunes (for better or for worse) are tied to the Senator’s.  There was Bob Menendez himself, doing his best… “I did not have sex…” imitation of Bill Clinton.  And there was the media, once again failing to read what they wrote last time, talking about “gutter” politics and “right wing blogs” and trashing the women, and the prosecutors, and the GOP. 

Hey Tom Moran, Fred Snowflake, Hand of Hand, Moe of Moe, and all those media mavens who want to shake their tallywhackers at us to make it so…

Guys, you bullshit us once.  Then – along comes Brett Kavanaugh – and you went back on your bullshit and said the opposite of everything you said when it was Bill Clinton.  Now (and it’s just been a few weeks for Christ sake!) you want to go back on everything you just said about Brett Kavanaugh and tell us there’s a new set of rules – and why?  Because it’s about Bob Menendez???

Fellas, keep your bullshit.  You have the collective credibility and moral authority of an unwiped ass.  Nobody is buying it besides those phonies from NOW.

Liberal think-tank: NJ gets $9 Billion Fed Tax cut in 2019

While Democrat Congressman Josh Gottheimer has been engaging in histrionics of the most dubious kind, a liberal think-tank has been doing its research and calculations.  What it's come up with undermines the hysterics put out by Nancy Pelosi, Gottheimer, and his status-quo allies in the "problem keepers" caucus.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a liberal advocacy group, recently concluded that New Jersey would save nearly $9 billion in federal taxes in 2019, thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  Please review their findings yourself by clicking here for a spreadsheet with their analysis: https://t.co/GW6n37OXUn

Contrary to what Nancy Pelosi, Gottheimer, and the "problem keepers" have been saying, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy concludes that New Jersey will pay less in federal taxes under the new tax reform and job creation legislation passed by Congress.  The study includes these key findings:

- New Jersey residents will save nearly $9 billion in federal taxes in 2019;

- 81% of New Jersey residents will receive a tax cut and a further 8% would see no change in their taxes at all;

- The vast majority of taxpayers in every personal income bracket will see a tax cut, with most receiving a substantial tax cut;

- The average taxpayer in New Jersey will get a tax cut of more than $2,000.

Along with 81% of taxpayers getting a tax cut, small businesses are going to pay much less.  It will be the lowest tax rate since World War II -- drawing in new investment for the expansion of existing enterprises, allowing new start-ups, creating thousands upon thousands of new jobs and opportunities.  With billions less going from New Jersey to Washington, that money will be freed up to spend in our communities.

Even before the new tax reform and job creation legislation was passed, there was a sustained positive reaction from companies with local employees -- like OceanFirst Bank, AT&T, Comcast, Wells Fargo, Boeing, and Bank of America -- providing bonuses and pay-hikes to their employees.  These businesses are already using their anticipated savings to invest in their employees for the future, and it is clear that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is going to put more money in the pockets of hardworking taxpayers in New Jersey.

The doom and gloom coming from Nancy Pelosi, Gottheimer, and the "problem keepers" only works if you distort the figures.  The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy study makes clear that the doom and gloomers make sense only if you allow them to erroneously assume that Congress will allow the tax cuts to expire -- and even then this is only true for tax years beginning in 2027. 

Nancy Pelosi, Gottheimer, and the "problem keepers" are arguing in the face of history, which has taught us consistently that politicians who want to be re-elected -- even liberal Democrats like President Obama -- do not end tax cuts when faced with the option, but rather, extend them.  And with the broad consensus being that middle-class tax cuts must be made permanent (even Bernie Sanders says so) there is little chance that the scenario upon which Pelosi, Gottheimer, and the "problem keepers" base their doom and gloom will, in fact, ever materialize.

Instead of the drunken hysterics and all the mental illness being shopped around by the media about this (when they are not focused on a royal wedding or the latest installment of who touched who) interested citizens should be doing their own research and soberly studying the changes and benefits in the new tax reform and job creation package.  It will be well worth the time spent.

Black Lives Matter not supported by facts?

Here is a very interesting column by writer John Hinderaker, followed by links to two other related stories.  Is the violence that we are seeing being manufactured by the media or is the problem as disproportionate as some claim?  Read for yourself and decide.  We will provide more data as we find it or it becomes available.

ARE BLACKS DISPROPORTIONATELY INVOLVED IN POLICE SHOOTINGS?

Listening to liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, you would think that enormous numbers of black men are being gunned down by police officers. When the issue is debated, many take it for granted that a vastly disproportionate number of blacks are involved in police shootings–in fact, if you didn’t know better, you might think that only blacks are ever shot by policemen.

The numbers tell a different story. Like all statistics, they bounce around from year to year, but let’s go with the Washington Post’s study of police shootings in 2015. The Post found that 990 people, almost all of them men, were shot and killed by law enforcement last year. Before you start calling them victims, however, note that the Post also found that in three-quarters of these incidents, police were defending either themselves or someone else who was, at that moment, under attack. That leaves around 250 cases that were not obvious self-defense or defense of a third person. That doesn’t mean, of course, that those shootings were unjustified.

What was the racial breakdown of those who were shot by police in 2015? The largest number, 494, almost exactly half, were white. 258 were black, 172 were Hispanic, and the remaining 66 were either “other” or unknown. (Interestingly, Asians are rarely shot by police officers.)

The 258 blacks represent 26% of the total. That is about double the percentage of blacks in the American population. Is that prima facie evidence of racism on the part of law enforcement? Of course not. It is common knowledge that blacks have an unusually high rate of contact with the police, both as victims and as perpetrators. In 2012-2013, the Department of Justice found that blacks were the perpetrators of 24% of all violent crimes where the race of the perpetrator was known (in 7.8% of violent crimes, it was unknown).

So the percentage of blacks fatally shot by police officers (26%) is almost exactly equal to the percentage of blacks committing violent crimes (24%). Indeed, given that the black homicide rate is around eight times the white rate, it is surprising that the portion of blacks fatally shot by policemen is not higher.

Liberals might argue that blacks are disproportionately the victims of unjustified shootings by law enforcement, but I have not seen anyone try seriously to make that case. The Post took a pass at supporting the liberal narrative by arguing that “unarmed” blacks are shot at a higher rate than whites. But the Post failed to note that, according to its own data, blacks are much more likely to attack police officers while unarmed. I don’t know why this is, but in general, I think that unarmed people who assault police officers are likely to be high on drugs. The Post also failed to point out that blacks are much more likely to assault police officers with motor vehicles. That counts as “unarmed.” We had a case like that recently in Minnesota, where a black perpetrator tried to run down a police officer and the officer shot him in self-defense.

One can slice the Post’s 2015 data in various ways. One question is whether there is a racial disparity with regard to whether the policeman or someone else is under direct attack by a perpetrator–i.e., an obvious case of self-defense. I did the math, and it turns out that, for whatever reason, the percentages are a little different for each ethnic group. (You can measure anything by ethnic group, and in all likelihood the numbers won’t be exactly the same. If it is to your political advantage, you can call that difference a “disparity” or a “gap.”)

According to the Post’s numbers–and you should bear in mind that a subjective process of classification lies behind each instance–80% of whites who were fatally shot by police officers in 2015 were in the midst of an attack on the policeman or someone else. According to the Post, 71% of blacks were shot while attacking someone, while 66% of “others” and 62% of Hispanics were shot while attacking the policeman or someone else. If you take these differences seriously, which you probably shouldn’t since re-classifying a small number of instances would dramatically change the results, they might be an argument for discrimination against Hispanics and Asians. Blacks turn out to be a relatively favored group, by this measure.

In short, the data on police shootings show that blacks are involved in such incidents just about exactly as often as one would expect, given their violent crime rate. Slicing and dicing the numbers is interesting, but doesn’t generate any obviously relevant correlations that would change that finding. Which means that, unless someone can make a compelling argument based on the data, which we have not yet seen, the Black Lives Matter movement is founded on a lie

Two related articles: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

Is gay the new god?

Are some in the media its new high priests?

You can be forgiven for forming these opinions, especially if you've been watching the reaction to what Congressman Scott Garrett is supposed to have said at a private meeting.  Although no record exists of what the Congressman actually said, supposedly he told a meeting of Republican Congressmen that he didn't want to make a contribution to their campaign account because he didn't like the political ideology of the candidates they funded -- including gay candidates.

Now it has never been confirmed that Congressman Garrett actually said this, but what if he did?  Was he arguing that self-identified "gay" candidates are not by definition "conservative" and so, as a conservative himself, Garrett will not provide financial backing for their candidacies? 

We simply do not know the context of the words Congressman Garrett supposedly, according to sources, said.  But he did, supposedly, say the word "gay" in a negative context.  And that was enough.

You have to go back to the Dark Ages to find the kind of over-reaction that happened next.  Some in the media -- too many -- behaved as if it were a case of treasonous blasphemy and called on Garrett to publicly confess his sin and repent -- or go.  The editor of the Star-Ledger hoped for a savior, as he put it, a "gay John Wayne", to do violence against the Congressman.  This was kind of nuts, but other commentators went much further.

Trenton Democrats even launched a crusade led by an Ironworkers Union - trained LGBT operative, better known for sting operations against homeless shelters for women (what kind of people target and sue homeless shelters anyway?).  Remember the Ironworkers?  The FBI caught them burning a church in Philadelphia and the U.S. Justice Department has been winning conviction after conviction against them.

Looking at the Twitter accounts of some of these "journalists" you would think that what Congressman Garrett may or may not have said was the only important story in the last weeks of July.  When not enjoying their bobo (bourgeois - bohemian) lifestyle, it's all they want to talk about. 

But there are other stories out there.  Important stories that didn't get the attention Garrett's gay blasphemy (supposedly) story got.  And that's a shame, because journalism could have made the difference.

At the July 22nd meeting of the Sussex County Freeholder Board, Freeholder Director Phil Crabb read out the following letter from Freeholder Gail Phoebus to the Board.  It described an imminent concern:

July 22, 2015

The Honorable Phil Crabb

Freeholder Director

Sussex County Administration Building

1 Spring Street

Newton, New Jersey  07860

Dear Director Crabb and Fellow Freeholders:

The Sussex County Division of Social Services has reported that funding for the Emergency Assistance (EA) program has been terminated.  Currently, those making use of the program are all receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) from the Department of Social Security. As such, they have been determined disabled and not able to work.

The Housing Assistance Program (HAP) that helps people with a long term medical issues or disabilities with maintaining housing expired earlier this month.  Now there are 29 adults and 3 children (2 families) who face homelessness on August 1st unless the county can find the money to keep them housed.  One child is a 6-year-old girl who is undergoing treatment for cancer.  There is no way that we can stand by and see her made homeless. 

I suggest that the Freeholder Board hold off spending any money on filling administrative positions until we have worked out how to fund housing for these vulnerable people.  It is the prudent and humane thing to do given the circumstances we face.  Even if it means forgoing some of our salaries as Freeholders, I believe we should look at all options in finding the means for our neighbors to keep a roof over their heads.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gail Phoebus

Sussex County Freeholder

Freeholder Phoebus' letter was sent to the same media covering the Garrett gay blasphemy (supposedly) story.  They were too busy.  Because there was no media coverage, no public pressure, 29 adults and 3 children will have no place to live come August 1st.  A child who is undergoing cancer treatment will have to recuperate from the street.

The media's priorities have real consequences.