When my wife and decided to move to South Carolina, I felt it would be nice to see CNJ continue to offer a daily menu of conservative issues, reasoning, gatherings and a dose of humor when possible. Unfortunately, over the past four months I have noticed that the site had veered off from that path. Instead of articles that educated people so they could offer rational objections to liberal thinking, contributions were posted that were just attacks on individuals. Rather then offering viewpoints on specific problems and offering solutions that would cure them, challenges were issued for individuals to “clear their names”. The founders of CNJ had aimed to follow the high standard of excellence like that which can be found at the National Review Online and not that of the National Inquirer.

Because of what has happened, I have resumed control of Conservative New Jersey. The site will remain, but most likely with few if any new posts. Since there is still a vast amount of quality educational material on the site, I will keep it alive for the foreseeable future.

In closing I would like to apologize to all of those individuals who feel that they have been unjustly maligned by recent contributions to CNJ. I would also like to apologize to the followers of Conservative New Jersey; you deserved better.

New Jersey Towns, Cities Offer Local ID to Undocumented Immigrants

Carmen Barbosa says she has felt invisible since coming to the United States about eight years ago.

Speaking through an interpreter, the diminutive Costa Rican immigrant explained that she lacked identification, which has made it difficult to interact with the larger community.

“Everywhere you go you need an ID,” she said on a recent Saturday afternoon in the offices of the Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund in Trenton. “I get rejected a lot, even at the hospital. I went in for an emergency and I didn’t have an ID to show.”  Click here to continue reading this story.

Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage

This contribution is from Rich Miner. On Tuesday February 18^th, standing in front of several rows of police officers and other emergency responders, being used as props, Obama blamed the Republicans for a long list of terrible things that will happen if Obama’s own sequester plan goes through, including police, teachers, firefighters, TSA and air traffic controllers being laid off and criminals being set free. But there are several problems with Obama’s political theater. First, the sequester was his idea in the first place. Second, police, teachers, firefighters, and other first responders are on local municipal, county and state budgets, and are not part of the sequester. Furthermore, Mary Schiavo, a former Inspector General of the US Department of Transportation at the time of the Clinton government shutdowns, stated that air traffic controllers, TSA and other federal first responders are exempt from government shutdowns, and that maintenance and repairs are paid out of a prefunded Repair Trust Fund and will not be affected by the sequester either.

Many commentators have pointed out that the $85 billion sequester for this year is only 2.3% of total federal government spending out of a $3.6 trillion budget, and the ten-year $1.2 trillion in proposed cuts out of a projected ten-year spending budget of $47.2 trillion is less than 0.3%. These alleged “cuts” are actually reductions in the proposed rate of increase and are not actually cuts in the amount of spending. If the Obama administration cannot find such small amounts of low priority items to reduce or cut back on the rate of increase, they are incompetent. Furthermore, since the sequester is a reduction in the rate of increase of government spending, there should not be a need for anyone to be laid off. Clearly, Obama was just being a demagogue by telling people he would exact maximum pain by shutting down the most vital services, even ones he does not have control over, rather than cutting the lowest priority items and programs. Obama has used this political trick before, including during the debt ceiling debate, and everyone should be used to it and call him out on it.

In fact, many people have called Obama out on his now worn out ploy and political theater, including Speaker John Boehner; Senators Tom Coburn, Lindsey Graham, and Rand Paul; as well as former Senator Jim DeMint. In addition, Larry Kudlow, Karl Rove, Stan Druckenmiller, the hedge fund manager of Duquesne Capital, Mary Schiavo, former Inspector General of the US DOT, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Giuliani, Ford O’Connell, Chairman of the Civic Forum PAC, Robert Woodward, an Associate Editor of the Washington Post, Harvard Business Professor Michael Porter and many others also criticized the President’s histrionics and various aspects of his political grandstanding. But that didn’t stop Obama from repeating his lies on his Saturday radio address on February 23, 2013.

In an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal (”WSJ“), Speaker John Boehner made clear that the $1.2 trillion sequester, due to kick in March 1^st, is the result of Obama’s failed leadership and blamed Obama for getting us into this mess in the first place. Boehner wrote, “During the summer of 2011, as Washington worked toward a plan to reduce the deficit to allow for an increase in the federal debt limit, President Obama and I very nearly came to a historic agreement. Unfortunately, our deal fell apart at the last minute when the president demanded an extra $400 billion in new tax revenue -50% more than we had shaken hands on just days before.” “The President Is Raging Against a Budget Crisis He Created,” by John Boehner, WSJ, 2/20/13, p.A15.

In his op-ed article Boehner explained that, since the debt ceiling was looming, he immediately worked out an agreement with Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell that called for immediate caps on discretionary spending to save $917 billion and form a super committee to find an additional $1.2 trillion in savings, and if the super committee failed to meet its target, the debt would not be raised when the ceiling would be hit again in a few more months. But to insure his re-election, Obama scuttled this bipartisan, bicameral deal and, with the debt ceiling about to hit within hours, Obama forced his solution of the “sequester” on a reluctant Congress. Id. Boehner also pointed out that the House Republicans had passed two bills to replace the sequester with sensible alternative spending cuts, but Harry Reid has refused to even take them up in the Senate, and Obama has not made a sensible proposal.

Boehner also said that we should be cutting the budget by even more than the $1.2 trillion the sequester mandates. Boehner further stated that, because of the way Obama demanded that the sequester be structured, “the sequester is an ugly and dangerous way to do it. By law, the sequester focuses on the narrow portion of the budget that funds the operating accounts for federal agencies and departments, including the Department of Defense. Exempt is most entitlement spending-the large portion of the budget that is driving the nation’s looming debt crisis.” Id. “What Congress should do is replace it with other spending cuts that put America on the path to a balanced budget in 10 years, without threatening national security.” Id. Speaker Boehner went on to say that in the fiscal-cliff deal, “The president got his higher taxes– $600 billion from higher earners, with no spending cuts….He also got higher taxes via ObamaCare.” Id. Boehner flatly stated that the American people “understand that the tax debate is now closed.” Id. Boehner summed up by saying, “Mr. President, we agree that your sequester is bad policy. What spending are you willing to cut to replace it?” Id.

Bob Woodward, an Associate Editor of the Washington Post, in an op-ed article in the Washington Post, basically confirmed Boehner’s version of the sequester. Woodward wrote that the sequester was the idea of Jack Lew, now nominated for Secretary of the Treasury, and Obama approved the sequester. Woodward confirmed that the reason Obama proposed that sequester was to get the debt ceiling moved past the election. Bob Woodward, “Obama’s Sequester Deal-Changer,” The Washington Post.com, 2/22/13. Moreover, Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, confirmed that the sequester idea originated in the White House.

In an editorial, entitled “President Armageddon,” WSJ, 2/20/13,p.A14, The Wall Street Journal excoriated Obama for his “political tricks” and “his usual threat of Armageddon,” if Obama’s own sequester went through. The Journal also said that “Americans can expect more such melodrama in the coming days.” The Journal broke down Obama’s three biggest political tricks: (1) what it called “The Washington Monument ploy,” a parade of horribles that went on for several minutes, (2) the recession scare and (3) a tax increase disguised as “tax reform.” As for the recession scare, the Journal reviewed some of the history of government spending cuts:

After World War II federal spending fell from 42% of GDP to 14.8% in two years, yet the private economy and employment roared back to life. In the 1980s domestic [government] spending fell by about two percentage points of GDP and in the 1990s it fell by more than three. Those were decades of government austerity but rapid growth in private output and wealth. Mr. Obama has taken government spending from 21% to 24% of GDP, yet we’ve had the weakest economic recovery in three generations. Id.

The Journal could have continued the history by pointing out that in every one of the eight years of the Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge Presidencies, they reduced tax rates a step at a time from the Wilson era top rate of 74% down to a top rate of 24%, cut government spending each year, and reduced the national debt. The results were spectacular: the economy boomed, production of everything from cars to refrigerators to radios to airplanes expanded and unemployment was a low 3.6%. Furthermore, when John F. Kennedy cut taxes 26% across the board, the economy also boomed in the 1960’s. In addition, the Bush 2003 tax cuts kicked off a five-year boom. That boom only ended when the Carter/Clinton “Community Reinvestment Act” and Clinton’s levering up Fannie and Freddie, together with Clinton’s increased subprime lending requirements for Fannie and Freddie, caused the inevitable busting of the housing bubble and brought the economy down.

The Journal concluded by stating, if Obama “won’t drop his tax increase and negotiate in good faith, as he hasn’t during his Presidency, then the sequester is the only way that any spending is going to be cut. The economy will be better for it.” Id.

Senator Rand Paul summed up the President’s histrionics in front of the police and firemen this way:

I would say balderdash. It’s untrue, unfair, dishonest, disingenuous. The President is making stuff up. He put law enforcement–he put firemen and policemen, who, 98% of them, are being paid for with your local taxes, and says, you’re going to lose your local policemen, because of this. It’s not true. The sequester is a slowdown in the rate of growth of government. It’s the least we can do. Our country is drowning in a sea of debt, borrowing $50,000 a second. We have to slow down spending. And for the President to use this histrionics is really, I think, beneath the office of the Presidency. “Happening Now,” Fox News Channel, 2/22/13.

Whenever the progressive, Keynesian policies of tax and spend have been applied they have failed, and the economy, taxpayers and debt levels have suffered. These policies failed for (1) Wilson, who increased government agencies and spending dramatically, increased the income tax rate from zero to 74%, resulting in the depression of 1918-19; (2) Hoover, who, together with signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, increased taxes, spending and started new government agencies, leading to the depression of 1929-33; (3) Franklin Roosevelt, who put Hoover’s programs of increasing taxes, spending and starting new government agencies on steroids, turning the Hoover depression into the Great Depression with high unemployment continuing for years, often above 20%; and (4) Barrack Obama, who expanded government agencies, increased government spending by over a trillion dollars a year, increased the National debt by some $6 trillion in four years, producing the weakest recovery since FDR and has given us a 14+% unemployment rate by the Labor Department U-6 rate, which includes those who are underemployed and those who gave up looking for work.

We should learn from FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, who in April 1939 with unemployment at 20.7% said, “[W]e have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work…. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…. And an enormous debt to boot!”

You can follow Rob Eichmann on Twitter: Follow @RobEichmannNJ

Key news articles, opinion pieces, and reports to improve our understanding of the political landscape:

Attack of the Uppity Conservative Hispanics

There is nothing the liberal establishment hates more than members of the minority groups it considers its political chattel who step off the grounds of the progressive plantation. And right now, it is beginning a long-term de-legitimization campaign, with its media overseers fully engaged, because that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have dared to forget their place.

The liberal establishment is driven not just by anger. It’s driven by fear.

It’s easy to see why the media blew up the story of Marco Rubio’s radical decision to take a drink during his state of the union response – he gave a good speech, and we can’t have that. While Obama’s monologue was a nightmarish death march of progressive nonsense honed through countless focus groups to appeal to the low-info voters who make up the liberal base, Rubio’s talk was clear, concise and conservative. The media’s problem wasn’t that Rubio’s speech was bad; the problem was that it was good.  Click here to continue reading this story.

Obama Administration vs. the Law on Same-Sex Marriage

President Obama has so many flip-flops in his policy positions that it’s hard to keep track. After running for President supporting traditional marriage, he “evolved” to support same-sex marriage—and now his Justice Department has officially urged the Supreme Court to overthrow the law of the land.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law passed Congress with an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. It is the subject of a court challenge that the Supreme Court will hear on March 27. Last Friday, the Obama Justice Department filed a brief with the high court stating the Administration’s position that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Normally, it is the Justice Department’s job to enforce the nation’s laws. But as Heritage’s Hans von Spakovsky has noted, Obama’s Administration is different:  Click here to continue reading this story.

Messaging Ramps Up Before Key Voting Rights Case

A steady drumbeat of press briefings and messaging events is reaching a crescendo as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments Wednesday in a case that questions whether a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still needed.

Briefing breakfasts, afternoon seminars, information sessions on the Hill and a coordinated bus campaign that mimics the Freedom Rides of the 1960s all focus on influencing the outcome of Shelby County v. Holder.

“While the justices play a distinct role in our society and in our country, they’re not divorced from society at large. I can’t see how they couldn’t be influenced by what people think about their actions,” said Ellen Buchman, vice president of field operations for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which is planning a rally during Wednesday’s oral arguments.  Click here to continue reading this story.

Debunking Sequester Hysteria from the Big Spenders in Washington

I shared a couple of amusing sequester cartoons the other day, and I’ve previously written about the absurdity of anti-sequester hysteria in Washington when all it means is that the federal budget will grow by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion.

This Nate Beeler cartoon effectively captures the mindset of Washington’s big spenders.  Click here to continue reading this story.

It is not news that the Democrat Party has had a hard time making inroads in Sussex County. Gary Chiusano beat the last Democrat Freeholder a decade ago and the Democrats big break in 2007 was squashed by the “Real Conservative Team” of Steve Oroho, Alison McHose, Gary Chiusano, Hal Wirths, and Jeff Parrott.

2007 was the year the Democrats had everything going for them: The Republican Party “brand” was in the tank, “Clean Elections” gave them matching funds dollar for dollar with the Republicans, and two state legislative seats (Senate and Assembly) were open, along with a Freeholder seat. The result was a wipe out right down the ballot, with longtime local Democrats losing their elected positions due to a Republican surge in turnout.

Since then, the Democrats have used a different approach: Some of them become Republicans. Then, as Republicans, they champion liberal causes and positions that “normalize” those positions with Republican voters. In this way, what the Democrats’ campaigns offer does not differ from what the Republicans are doing. Personality will matter more than party and eventually, Democrats will start being elected again.

The Democrats’ play was acted out on Saturday at the convention called to fill the vacancy left when Gary Chiusano resigned from the Assembly. Chiusano had resigned earlier this the month after being nominated by Governor Chris Christie and confirmed by the State Senate to serve as Sussex County’s new Surrogate.

Under New Jersey law, the vacancy is filled by the members of the county committee of the party of the incumbent vacating the seat. Gary Chiusano is a Republican, so that meant the Republican county committee members of the 24^th District (all Sussex County, eleven towns in Warren County, and one in Morris County) got to select the new Assemblyman.

Notice of the meeting was given by the GOP Chairmen (one, Ailish Hambel of Sussex County, is a chairwoman) of the three counties that make up the 24^th District. Because the district had never had a convention to fill a vacancy since redistricting, the three chairmen met and adopted rules that would serve until the full convention could convene.

The rules they adopted were the same used in the 2009 convention for District 23, which included all of Warren County then. Those rules called for prospective candidates to collect the signatures of 20 county committee members out of the more than 400 eligible to vote. Only one candidate complied with the rules, Parker Space, the eventual winner.

Another candidate, Mark Quick, collected 14 signatures, while another, Bader Qarmout, told at least a half dozen party officials that he had collected 23 signatures, but when the time came to turn them in he failed to have any.

This is where the clever Democrats come in. A Democrat campaign operative from Hudson County attempted to create a firestorm against the rules in order to delegitimize whichever Republican won the convention. Of course, on the day of the convention, the chairman of the convention (Warren County GOP Chairman Doug Steinhardt) was quite happy to dispense with the “acting” rules and adopt the rules as amended by the whole convention. There was no fuss at all and, in fact, Parker Space made the motion to change them.

But everyone there could see that some at the convention were ready for a fight. One ally of the Hudson County operative had been seething over the “unfair” rules and left unfulfilled, having never achieved the anticipated climax. The Democrats’ plan, to dupe a few Republicans into creating a false “controversy” and divide the GOP, had failed.

Enter Bader Qarmout.

Qarmout had served notice with the county chairmen and other Republican officials that he had collected 23 signatures but, instead of turning them in, he sent out an email two days before the convention that complained about the process. Whether he was a dupe or whether he knew he was playing the Democrats’ game, nobody but Qarmout can say.

After the “controversy” of the rules turned out to be a myth, the liberal operatives used their back-up “controversy”: The appointment of Gary Chiusano as Surrogate.

Last December, when Sussex Surrogate Nancy Fitzgibbons retired, Assemblyman Gary Chiusano had made it plain that he wanted to run for the position. Chiusano’s background and his fiduciary accreditation in banking and finance make him superbly qualified for the job. But that did not stop liberals and their allies from claiming that only a lawyer could do the job (even though it has never been held by a lawyer).

As with their manufactured rules “controversy”, the left started banging on about how “the fix was in” and they predicted that Chiusano would never be confirmed by the Democrat-controlled State Senate. Of course, Gary Chiusano was nominated by Governor Christie and confirmed by the full Senate and that was that. Nevertheless, the liberals have found a candidate to run against Chiusano in the Republican primary and are set to announce a second candidate who will challenge him in the general election as a Democrat.

Chiusano is a big part of the Hometown Conservative Team, led by Senator Steve Oroho and Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose. At Saturday’s convention, McHose and Oroho had nominated and seconded the nomination of Parker Space. Why not give them a black eye, the liberals thought.

And so the left got to work trying to turn the anger they had generated about the rules into votes against Parker Space. This failed too, but not before those present were treated to a speech by Bader Qarmout in which he forgot that he wasn’t running against Joe Kyrillos anymore and promised that he would fight for them “in Washington“.

So the left was put out on Saturday but we must remain on guard because they will try again.

You can follow Rob Eichmann on Twitter: Follow @RobEichmannNJ

Here is an excerpt from  “Where is the Outrage“

Let’s quickly recap.  New Jersey Democrats want to make same-sex marriage their single most important legislative agenda item in this session.  Our unemployment rate continues to hover around 9%.   New Jersey citizens have a tax burden that is at or near the top in the country.  Our property taxes are the highest in the nation.  The regulatory environment for businesses is among the worst in the country.

Conservatives work hard during the week and want some time apart from business and politics on weekends to relax before taking a moment to see what’s happening at CNJ. For our faithful readers who are unable to check in every day, we decided to recap the major posts from the past week. If you missed out on earlier articles, here’s an easy way to get caught up without wading through the archives.

(Right-click on the article to open in a separate tab or window)

Monday, February 18

Tuesday, February 19

• JULIE O’CONNOR: STARK RAVING IDEOLOGUE
• HEY DEMOCRATS! POLL THIS!
• A GAME PLAN FOR THURSDAY
• A BRAMNICK-KEAN SHOWDOWN FOR U.S. SENATE?

Wednesday, February 20

• NEWSPAPER ADVERTISERS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME SCRUTINY
• THURSDAY MORNING’S AGENDA

Thursday, February 21

• NJ ASSEMBLY TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS: RIP

Friday, February 22

• ARE DEMS TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE SUSSEX GOP?