Check out my organization's new website

Hi. Sorry for not posting anything for a while.

I have been busy writing articles for my new website: http://www.restoreamericaslegacy.com.It is a new political organization aimed at representing Young Americans as well as promoting the five core principles that have made this country the strongest and most prosperous country in the world. It is five core principles that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid flat out reject and are trying very hard to move the country away from.I will start posting again in the next couple days.

Thanks

Governor Christie: A true executive

New Jersey is an excellent case study of what happens under Democratic Party policies. Bloated government bureaucracies, ineffective public services, high taxes, and a growing number of people feeling entitled to public money for their livelihood and pensions. These are not the conditions of a successful and thriving state. This is an example of a polity on the decline.

Other states share in this fate: California, Illinois, and New York are facing massive deficits. It is no coincidence these states are dominated by State Democratic Parties and have consistently adopted liberal policies regardless of who was in charge. So how does a polity save itself from this decline?

The answer from history is clear, but more importantly what kind of leader or executive can get it done? Governor Chris Christie is an example of a true leader and executive who is dramatically shifting the direction of New Jersey away from failure. While bureaucrats and those reliant on the status quo are crying out, he refuses to let their attacks, public criticism, biased-media criticism, and lower approval ratings deter him from policies he knows will save the state from ruin. A lesser governor would begin to moderate their policies and approach, in other words compromise with the angry and mobilized opposition. They would fear the backlash and what it would mean for their re-election chances. In contrast, Christie has repeatedly says he is not concerned with re-election, and his approach and actions bare that out.

A typical politician will see the recent events as a sign the opposition is being energized, the moderates are becoming worried, and the ruling coalition is beginning to fall apart. All of this could be true, but in the end results are more influential to voters. A bad economy, higher taxes, massive government debt, and uncertainty have a greater impact than Christie's "confrontational" demeanor in the first year of his term.

Should Christie succeed, New Jerseyans will have three years to reap the benefits of his policies. By the time 2013 comes around, Christie's bad attitude will be far from the minds of voters. It is a question of timing. Christie is sacrificing public opinion now for the payoffs later that will result from his conservative policies.

Make no mistake, there is no other way to save New Jersey. Bailouts, government handouts, and socialism are not the answer. Europe does not have the answer. California, Illinois, and New York clearly don't have the answer. Christie has the right answer, and will push that answer even if so many scream at the top of their lungs that they deserve to be paid more, deserve a big retirement pension, and deserve more influence.

Busting Myths about Scott Sipprelle

He is not a Republican, just a RINO
Scott Sipprelle has been a registered Republican for over 20 years. He interned for Sen. Pete Wilson after college. His family has been deeply involved in the local Republican Party in Mercer County with both his parents currently holding leadership positions with the local party organization. His issue papers available on his website (http://www.supportscott2010.com/issues/) all strongly push for limited government, free markets, and strong preference to the private sector over the government solving our problems. His proposals on Healthcare are clearly closely aligned with the Republican Party platform. He is a Republican.

Okay fine, he is a Republican, but he is just a moderate that will compromise with liberal democrats rather than fight on principle
Anyone who has listened to Scott Sipprelle speak gets the clear impression he is not interested in making friends in Congress. His rhetoric is confrontational, grounded in principle, and fiercely independent. He likes to tout that he cannot be bought. He wants to work with people in Congress that are like-minded and principled, not negotiate with "all parties at the table". He has explained he wants to build a caucus or coalition in Congress to further his policies. These are not the words or strategies of a negotiator or pragmatist. Scott Sipprelle wants to be Congressmen that takes the initiative and leads a voting bloc that will push hard for major policy changes in Washington, not just give the Republican Party as a whole, one more seat in the House. He is a candidate of principle.

He is just a wealthy Wall Street fat cat that has been part of the problem over the past few years
There is absolutely no truth to this. Scott Sipprelle is in financial services, that is no secret. But he was never been part of the problem, he spoke out against the problem. He openly criticized Wall Street leaders, particularly those at Morgan Stanley, for reckless behavior, mismanagement, and cronyism. this was in 2004-2005, LONG before the financial meltdown. Sipprelle has never implemented any of the practices that were responsible for the catastrophe that occurred almost two years ago. He left Wall Street a while ago to start his own venture fund that invests in small businesses such as a microbrewery and a small bank in Princeton, which actually creates jobs. Sipprelle's career is one that is a polar opposite to the type of behavior and practices of the reckless Wall Street we are now all slamming today. He argued for a solution before we even noticed there was a problem.

He is just trying to buy a seat in Congress to further his power and influence
If that were true, he picked the absolute worst race to enter. If one wanted to "buy" a seat in Congress (silly concept but for argument sake lets follow this through), one would pick a race that was easy to win, not one with a firmly entrenched incumbent with a 2-to-1 party registration advantage and powerful committee appointments in the House (Rush Holt). If Scott Sipprelle just wanted to be a Congressman for the power and luxury of being a politician, he would've entered the race in the 3rd District, which is very competitive or challenged one of the incumbent Republicans in the primary, rather than taking on a very safe Democrat. If he were buying a seat in Congress, he picked the most expensive and most difficult to obtain in New Jersey. Does that sound like the decision-making of a savvy business man?

He has no experience in politics, no track record
We slam career politicians and the current Congress all the time. We want change, and yet we are hesitant to support individuals with no experience. If we want change in Washington DC, new leadership and new Congressmen are needed. We can't just keep recycling the same candidates, politicians, and party leaders. That is precisely why Washington is as defective as it is. New names, new faces, and new ideas need to be injected. That means finding quality candidates with NO EXPERIENCE or very little experience.

Scott Sipprelle is the right candidate for the 12th District and the right candidate for the Republican Party. He should win the primary in June, but he faces a big hill to climb in November. It is time for Republicans in New Jersey and in the 12th District to shed their apathy, pessimism, and cynicim about politics and elections. They need to show up in massive numbers in November to give Sipprelle the win and flip a district that everyone assumes is safe. In 2010, no district is safe and if we want to take back the House and Senate, we need to target districts that most would say are not competitive or are indeed "safe".

If we were to just focus on the "low lying fruit" of competitive swing districts, that number is much smaller and we are basically thinking small. Yes, we will win most of these races but it may not be enough to retake the House and definitely will not be enough to retake the Senate. We need to open up as many competitive districts as possible. That means uphill battles, and grassroots efforts in areas long thought politically dormant due to one party's dominance. It won't be easy, and some of the incumbents will win anyway, but some will not. It is that number of safe seats that surprisingly flip, that will give us the margin needed to retake the House and pad our majority.

I will be writing similar posts on Jon Runyan, Anna Little, and other candidates in the future. Hopefully they are just as high quality as Sipprelle is. I will have to learn that for myself.

More on the Tea Party: Not Radicals

I am frankly surprised at the misconceptions and total lack of knowledge that New Jerseyans have of the Tea Party. It is clear the media, journalists, and others have successfully written them off as radicals, racists, and revolutionaries. And you have bought it.

The Tea Party Platform
The Tea Party is a loose confederation of conservatives, libertarians, concerned citizens, unaffiliated voters, conservative democrats, and independents. These groups may have their own top issues or most important agenda items but there are three main common themes:

1. Limited Government (in both power and dollars)
2. Individual Freedom (protections for religion, speech, right to bare arms, states' rights)
3. Free markets (strong rejection of socialism)

Gallup surveys showed the Tea Party's demographics are fairly mainstream. In other words, they are not All-White, All-rich, All-Christian, All-Republican, or All anything.

So really what makes them tick? The massive growth in government spending, the national debt, the increase in government power in areas of the banking sector, finance, healthcare, student loans, and automobiles. This political event alone is what awakened them. And I say awakened for a reason.

Gallup has also consistently shown this is a center-right country, 40% identify themselves as conservatives and other polls show that 50% or more have fiscally conservative views. Only about 26-29% of people identify themselves as liberal. And yet the Democrats won 255 of 435 seats in the House, and 60 of the 100 seats of the Senate. Obama won with 53% of the vote. How is this possible? Why is it that the Republicans don't dominate American politics???

The Awakening of the Right Wing
Like I said, this conservative side has only recently awakened. There is a segment of conservatives that don't vote because they regard both parties as essentially the same (and have a good case for it). However, the political battles and divergence of policies between the two parties in the last year and a half has changed that sentiment and "awakened" this segment. In other words, Obama's left-wing agenda awakened them. Had he practiced some moderation in his policy proposals, this movement might've remained asleep.

Another segment of the Tea Partiers simply don't vote because they don't feel their vote really makes a difference. Most of this type are not politically active at all. They have these beliefs but would rather keep to themselves and keep their beliefs to themselves. They have been convinced by televisions, movies, and other media that their beliefs are radical fringe right-wing ideas and that they would be ridiculed if they got more vocal of them.

Another segment is the far-right wing. They are a very small group, probably about 5-8% of the total population. They are militias, Christian Fundamentalists, most of them probably racist, and are in many respects anarchists. They may align themselves with the Tea Party, but a vast majority of the other groups in the Tea Party regard these people as crazy, just like the rest of the country.

The final segment, the largest, are disenchanted Republicans and fiscal conservatives that felt their party failed them and did not vote in 2008. This group is the most politically active in general, vote often, but this changed due to Republican failures in 2005-2007. They stopped identifying themselves as Republicans and expressed utter frustration with their party and the country as a whole. this segment was likely to awaken regardless of how leftist Obama's agenda was. It is the combination of this group with the others that give the Tea Party tremendous potential. They are reaching into populations of non-voters and even unregistered voters. Not to mention the fact that Independents are steadily realizing that the Tea Party reflects their ideas in regards to the deficit and government spending.

So, are they racist? Maybe 1 in 20 has white supremacist beliefs, AT THE MOST.
Are they anarchists? No, not even close.
Do they advocate overthrow of the government? No
Are they Christian Evangelicals or Fundamentalists? Many of them are, but none of the issues they are demonstrating for are related to religious or social issues. Sometimes yes, but like I said government power and spending are at the top of the list.

And it is important to note, the Tea Party is steadily growing. Gallup and other surveys show that more Americans consider themselves part of the movement in comparison to three months ago.

So what is their objective?
The slogan most often heard at Tea Parties is "Remember in November". A political protest and demonstration that wants to increase energy AND VOTE. What a bunch of psychos right? They are supporting candidates, donating money, hell they are voting in record numbers! MY GOD, they are going to tear this country down!!! They are critical of a Black President! Surely they are racists!!! By that logic, a Black President is infallible.

A Cautionary Note for Northeasterners
Most Americans do not live within 100 miles of New York or Washington. Most Americans do not get their news from the Big 3, or CNN, or MSNBC. Most Americans are not afraid of guns. Most Americans are not afraid of God or Christians. Whatever sophistication or education level you have achieved, remember you are in the minority and if you fail to take movements like the Tea Party seriously, you will remain in the minority in a sort of hyper-urbanized bubble of the East Coast from DC up to Boston. You are a minority and I think its time you do a MUCH better job understanding the rest of the country and their beliefs because in my experience in New Jersey there is a poor level of understanding.

Self-identified Republicans and moderate conservatives in the Northeast seem to be somewhat elitist and arrogant similar to liberal democrats. That must change. Not only Republicans but Northeasterners in general because last I checked the Census projects Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be losing electoral votes to Texas, Utah, and Georgia.

Its time to make a better effort to understand the rest of the country. Because there are more of them than you, and in November, more of them will win election to the House and Senate while Democrats will likely still dominate the Northeast.

Interesting Week: Tea Party and Steve Forbes

It was an interesting week. Tea Party protests went on in every city and some in the media decided the story was that some of them were not as big as last year. Nevermind the fact that there were probably more protests than last year. I got to attend the Chicago Protest in Daley Plaza the epicenter of the Democratic Party Machine.

It was a group that likely exceeded one thousand, filling most, if not all of the plaza. All this in probably one of the five most liberal democratic cities in the country. There were tons of posters, flags, colonial hats, and of course a couple party crashers. An anti-war protest tried to butt in with a banner indicating war is the biggest wasteful spending. In another oddity, a professionally printed and distributed sign said war makes up 57% of the budget, something that is VERY off. Defense spending is roughly $600 billion (less than 20% of the budget). Just goes to show that liberal protestors feel that any and all strategms, including blatant lies, are morally justified as long as the ends are just. It includes infiltrating non-liberal protests with inflammatory and idiotic signs and chants. The ends justify the means. Truly sad.

Others said No to war, and there were a couple signs that were anti-semitic, blaming Israel for all the problems of the world. Tea Party organizers and fellow protestors confronted these people asking them why they were there and arguing that the protest had nothing to do with either issue. Instead of physical confrontation, which is a common result of battles with left wing protestors and "anti-war" activists, a couple of people made signs indicating "plant" or "liberal" or "NOT part of the Tea Party". They stood next to these infiltrators with their own signs so that any idiot CNN or MSNBC camera would catch both the silly sign and the sign indicating the Tea Party Movement has nothing to do with it.

Earlier, a man was walking around with a giant swastika on a poster. The sight disgusted many, Chicago Police asked him to leave, at least I believe that is what happened. I had to leave to meet friends at the train station and bring them back to the Plaza. Either way, that guy was not there when we returned.

The speakers included a former gubanatorial candidate, five candidates for Congress, a couple activists, a doctor, a health insurance salesman, and the two individuals that were accosted by a CNN reporter over a year ago at a similar protest. That incident probably did more for the Tea Party than any other of these major BS media stories.

There were posters responding "we are NOT racist" or "I don't give a ___ that Obama is Black, it scares me to death that he is RED". The speeches were about government spending, taxes, corruption, greed, and the various offenses to the Constitution that President Obama and other Democratic leaders are responsible for.

There were no Neo-Nazis, no Klan members, no one advocating that all illegals should be rounded up and kicked out, no one calling Obama a fascist but plenty calling him a socialist, this was a regular political protest with nothing radical to speak of. No one called for revolution or violent overthrow of the government, much to the disappointment of Bill Clinton. His "fear" of these anti-government protests is really just fear that Democrats will lose power in November.

One of the speakers had an interesting comment: When asked by a reporter what the Tea Party was, where is its website, and who is its' leader, this woman laughed answering "we are not some top-down movement with some sort of demi-god at its head. This is as grassroots as you can get, decentralized, spread out, and very large. No professionally made signs, no corporate or political money bringing us together. In fact, if any insurance companies were paying these protestors, she feinted anger that she didn't get a check."

Later in the week, I attended the Republican Association of Princeton's Lincoln Day Dinner, rescheduled due to a snow storm in early March. The lead speaker was Steve Forbes. Forbes, a former Presidential candidate, and CEO of Forbes Inc. and Forbes Magazine, spoke strongly against the constant painting of corporations, corporate leaders, and the free market as evil, fat, greedy, with hands rubbing-together trying to kill puppies and destroy the environment. Capitalism seems to get rewarded in some areas but blamed in others.

Forbes continued: No one seems to mind the development of laptop computers, the internet, iPods, the iPad, and cellular phones - even when prices are quite high. People pay ridiculous amounts of money for designer jeans as well. These products all exist because someone somewhere saw a need or a market and made something people wanted, then brought it to the marketplace where people bought it! MY GOD THOSE EVIL BASTARDS!

Yet, when it comes to electricity, gas, oil, or health insurance - we expect it to be almost free. When prices go up or some new treatment comes around, we expect to be available immediately at no additional cost. When rent goes up, the tenant is very angry, yet when a new computer or Ipod has a similar high cost, they gladly pay it.

Capitalism and free market principles is about turning scarcity into abundance, according to Forbes. Scarcity is not something to be feared or bring us to rationing, it is opportunity. In almost every other area of the economy, scarcity brings opportunity for innovators to find something that can fill the void, provide a product or service, and essentially create new wealth and jobs in the process. Yet, when it comes to healthcare, that same scarcity has pushed us to horde what little we have and ration it out, completely controlling the marketplace, discouraging innovation, and eliminating opportunity for anyone to make money by filling that void.

A smart man, a funny man, Forbes is truly a gem. When asked who were his heroes or exemplary public figures, he shamelessly listed his wife first. Being single myself, it seems like a cheap brown-nosing compliment, but what do I know. :)

Scott Sipprelle also gave a speech about Lincoln's role during a period of economic crisis, political division, and deep national debt (sound familiar?). Sipprelle is an excellent speaker, even if mechanical and dry at times, but clearly has energy and determination. After he is done, you begin to believe he can and will win in November against the heavily favored Rush Holt.

Overall, interesting week that makes me feel more hopeful about November and later 2012.

When the situation is dire, do not fear change

The situation in the United States is becoming apparent to all Americans. Polls and surveys show a growing fear and apprehension of the direction of this country and a dim view of the future. Well, the next logical step is to decide what to do about the situation. How do we change course? How do we get pointed in the right direction?

I have noticed a pattern among Northeasterners. Actually, this is something I have noticed in plenty of areas but seems to be prevalent among Northeastern media personalities, commentators, politicians, bloggers and regular people. In their minds, the political spectrum has two distinct fields, the reasonable/mainstream and the radical. There are radical left wingers and radical right wingers but it is in the center is where they always want to be. They may in fact not hold moderate or "centrist" beliefs, but they don't want to be identified as being on the fringe.

In conversation, many people feel they need to make clear their beliefs and positions are NOT extreme. They condition their discussions with "I don't think ____, but ______" and then follow it with a straw man explanation of what they think the radicals are pushing. When the discussion is over, they have effectively watered down their position or the explanation of their position to the point where it means nothing.

Why is there such a high premium on avoiding what is judged radical? It is as if many people want to be at the very top of the bell curve and are scratching and clawing their way to get to that point. But why? Are they so self-conscious about their politics? Are they really that afraid of being labeled a radical or tea bagger or a socialist/communist?

This dash to the top of the bell curve tends to halt or drawback reform in either direction. It becomes a manifestation of the fear of change. They don't want to go to far in either direction. It doesn't matter which direction, but going to far one way will be bad. Aggressive turns can cause the ship to ebb and flow, causing discomfort, even destabilization. But this makes it impossible to avoid the massive iceberg ahead. When there are serious systemic flaws in a system, when the State is on the verge of financial collapse, when the situation is dire, this fear of change can paralyze a society.

Governor Christie is one who is demanding radical reform and change in a State that is afraid of it. But the problems are real and they are large. Small, incremental steps can stave off disaster in most situations but not in this one. In the country as a whole, we are on an unsustainable path that could lead to the country's financial collapse in 8-12 years. Serious solutions implemented by serious people will be needed to stop it.

For those dying to stay within the mainstream, understand this, in a crisis such as today, prudence dictates that we introduce radical change and reform. We are way too close to the cliff to simply "slow down", "turn gently", or implement "consensus" solutions. It won't be long before the only consensus will be one of utter despair.

It has been said desperate times call for desperate measures. The mainstream believes these are desperate times but is unwilling to support desperate measures. We need to come to our senses and fast. It is time to abandon the self-conscious fear of being the "radical" in your social circle. In the end, it will be "radicals" that will save this country from ruin.

Withdraw Mr. Halfacre

Mr. Halfacre,

With your defeat with the Monmouth County Screening Committee, I think it is clear your campaign for the Republican nomination is a lost cause. You failed to secure the backing of a single county committee, you lack the grassroots support many have been touting, and its becoming more clear in panels, debates, and speeches that Sipprelle is simply the better candidate.

From what I can tell you have been a quality mayor, a solid conservative, and a decent guy. Your campaign manager is clearly a tool that gave you horrible advice concerning the constant barrage of attacks against Sipprelle and the outright lie regarding his party registration. I think you can go a long way by ending your bid for the Republican nomination and chalking the whole thing up to being overly competitive, or whatever. Besides, there are plenty of political positions you can still seek in the future. But U.S. Congress appears to be a bit over your head.

You don't need to endorse or back Sipprelle, in fact you can probably back out with a quick press release indicating you simply could not raise sufficient funds to continue the campaign, or compete, etc., etc.

Whatever path you choose, it must be abundantly clear you will NOT win the Republican primary. Drawing this out any longer exposes you to potential damage to your reputation, something that is extremely important to you I am sure. There is nothing to be gained by remaining in the race.

Defeating Rush Holt in the general election is a long shot at best. To do it will require a top-notch campaign and plenty of financial resources. It is going to take a ton of effort on the part of Sipprelle to build up name-recognition, meet Republicans and independents in the district, and convince them he is the man for the job. It will be difficult. The District is fairly liberal and Democrats outnumber Republicans here about 2-to-1.

However, it is possible. Christie defeated Corzine in this district just six months ago. The key is to drive down Holt's approval numbers to where Corzine's were. Democratic enthusiasm must also be pushed down which won't be too hard considering the horrible economy. You also need very high turnout from Republicans, in fact that is likely a necessary condition for victory.

So, in order to get high Republican turnout, the Party must be undivided, enthusiastic, and strongly behind the candidate. This is made very difficult if a primary challenger is still hanging around making all sorts of attacks. We all want Rush Holt out. Lets give it our best shot.

Withdraw Mr. Halfacre.