ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20100120

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!



"My Comments"

Scott Brown Soundly Defeats Martha Coakley In Massachusetts

Wow! One said, “Great Scott”. Whatever you choose for a description, Tuesday was a great day for Republican Scott Brown’s victory over Democrat Martha Coakley; all in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Additionally it was a great victory for the GOP, all true Conservatives, the people of Massachusetts, and for all within our great nation. We must say “Thank you” to the Republicans, a few Democrats, and the majority of registered Independents, as they vigorously supported a great candidate, and a great man, to become Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown.

Tuesday was a big loss to President Obama who had promised to “transform” America. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid and Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has led the way to their radical, left-wing Liberal “transformation” as Obama directed.

For that “change”, Massachusetts voters said “NO”. One US Senator’s “vote” from Massachusetts is “transforming” from radical left-wing Liberal to common sense Conservative.

Beginning immediately, I believe you will see many other “Democrats on Capitol Hill” reconsider their previous political activity and voting records, and begin voting more with the “Blue Dog” coalition.

Oscar Y. Harward



"Daily Motivations"

A friend is someone who knows the song in your heart, and can sing it back to you when you have forgotten the words. -- Donna Roberts

"Habits are at first cobwebs, then cables." -- Spanish Proverb

"One may walk over the highest mountain one step at a time." -- John Wanamaker



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

Make them pure and holy by teaching them Your words of truth. (John 17:17)

Most of us know at least one person we consider very honest. When we ask that person for his opinion, he tells us what he really thinks. If we ask him to take care of something important for us, he will be open about whether or not he can do it.

That is even more true of our holy God. We can trust Him and His Word - completely and implicitly. It would violate God's truthfulness, holiness, omniscience and love if His Word could not be trusted.

During the first centuries of the Church, false teachers tried to argue that the Bible was not completely truthful. Paul quickly defended the Bible. He proclaimed that all Scripture is God's truth! (See: 2 Timothy 3:16). That assurance is what gave Paul such incredible confidence as he traveled about the Roman Empire proclaiming the Good News of Jesus' death and resurrection. His life of service through incredible pressures and persecutions is proof that God's Truth has power to sustain us.

We can absolutely trust God and His Word - to the last period on the last page. After more than fifty years of studying the Bible, I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that it is the holy, inspired, and inerrant Word of God. During these years, I have anchored my life of service to Jesus on a God who is absolutely truthful and stands behind His Word.

God has never failed me nor misled me. God and His Word, the Bible, is absolute truth.

Your View of God Really Matters …

Read the following three Bible passages. What do they tell you about God's truthfulness? How does that differ from what society says about truth? Meditate on what God is telling you. Whose truth will you chose to embrace today - man's or God's?



"The Patriot Post"

"National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman." -- John Adams



Liberty

"Obama didn't undertake his radical agenda to turn America into a full-blown socialist state because of 'the size of the problems (he) inherited.' That was just a convenient excuse. He has been groomed, mentored and polished for this very task since he was a little boy. He is taking out his grudge against America, an America he views as fundamentally unfair, inequitable, imperialistic and exploitive, but as a powerful resource for change -- if only he can fundamentally transform it. ... Obama's agenda didn't significantly change with the unfolding of the financial crisis that led to TARP. He has had his sights on a single-payer health care system for years. He had plans to 'spread the wealth around' long before TARP became an acronym. He and his wife were trashing America as arrogant and dismissive long before this economic crisis fell into their laps just months before the 2008 election. So, yes, Obama's standing with the American people is related to 'the battles he chose to take on during his first year,' but not in a positive way. Those battles don't qualify as mitigating factors .... because they were undertaken not to improve the economy, but to consummate, in substance, a Cold War victory for the communists after they had otherwise been defeated. The fainthearted among us can blanch at the suggestion that Obama is a Marxist -- and accuse me of name-calling or incivility -- but my intention is not to inflame. It is to communicate the truth in accurate terms to help people understand the magnitude of the threat we face by this assault on our liberties. Obama didn't impose his Draconian stimulus bill or omnibus spending bills to jump-start the economy. He did it to transfer wealth and establish slush funds for re-election. He didn't push cap and trade to reduce 'global warming,' but to bring America down to size with the 'underdeveloped' nations of the world. He didn't obsessively promote Obamacare to improve the economy, 'bend the cost curve' (what a joke!), achieve universal coverage or improve the quality of health care. He did it to amplify the federal government's power over all aspects of our lives. ... Obama isn't even trying to 'get serious about the deficit and spending.' That's a cruel ruse. Look at his projected deficits in the out-years. He is planning on deficits in excess of a trillion dollars from here forward, even after the economy fully recovers. The country cannot sustain this. The public knows it and is outraged and horrified by it. Our children cannot live in freedom if this insane recklessness is not stopped." -- columnist David Limbaugh



The Gipper

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." -- Ronald Reagan



Government

"If Congress and the president are successful in making the Pre-existing Condition Patient Protection Act the law of the land, their treachery won't stop there. Insurance companies will attempt to charge people with pre-existing health conditions a higher price to compensate for their higher expected cost. Those people will complain to Congress. Then Congress will enact insurance premium price controls. Insurance companies might try to restrict just what treatments they will cover under such restrictions. That means Congress will play a greater role in managing what insurance companies can and cannot do. The dilemma Congress always faces, when it messes with the economy, was aptly described in a Negro spiritual play by Marcus Cook Connelly titled 'Green Pastures.' In it, G0d laments to the angel Gabriel, 'Every time Ah passes a miracle, Ah has to pass fo' or five mo' to ketch up wid it,' adding, 'Even bein G0d ain't no bed of roses.' When Congress creates a miracle for one American, it creates a non-miracle for another. After that, Congress has to create a compensatory miracle. Many years ago, I used to testify before Congress, something I refuse to do now. At several of the hearings, I urged Congress to get out of the miracle business and leave miracle making up to G0d. For a president and congressman to shamelessly propose something like the Pre-existing Condition Patient Protection Act demonstrates just how far we've gone down the road to perdition. The most tragic thing is that most Americans have no idea that such an act violates every principle of insurance and it's something that not even yesteryear's lunatics would have thought up." -- George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams



The Left

"The liberals keep telling us that, thanks to Obama's policy of speaking endlessly and carrying a very small stick, America has gained renewed respect around the world. But, as usual, they don't specify which countries respect us more these days now that they have good reason to fear us less. We know pretty darn well they're not referring to Russia, Iran, Somalia, North Korea, Syria or China. They're not even able to point to such erstwhile allies as Poland, Israel and the Czech Republic, all of whom are staggering around these days with American-made switchblades in their back. Liberals, as well as a great many conservatives, were upset with George W. Bush for his massive spending. But these days, when Obama is quadrupling the deficit, the Left is cheering him on. Can you imagine what liberals would be saying if a Republican president announced something as nutty as Obama's promise to spend his way to solvency? For that matter, what would a typical liberal say if, after he broke the news that they were on the brink of bankruptcy, his wife's response was to head out the front door, and when he asked her where she was going, she replied, 'I'll be back in a minute, honey, I'm just running out to pick up a few things at Tiffany's'? Is there a jury in America that would find him guilty if he busted a chair over her head? But when it's Obama going out the door to drop a few trillion on cap and trade and Obamacare, the liberals just shake their heads like besotted newlyweds and say, 'Isn't he just cute as a button?'" -- columnist Burt Prelutsky



For the Record

"On the last day of 2009, that awful year, I was listening to a report on National Public Radio (yes, I'm a listener). Reporter Tamara Keith presented a by-now-familiar recap of the worst financial and corporate scandals of the decade, from Enron and Martha Stewart to Tyco and Bernie Madoff. It was a depressing slog of greed, venality and theft. When the report was over, 'Morning Edition' host Steve Inskeep summarized the report with a tart: 'The decade in capitalism.' I don't want to single out Inskeep, since he was doing what pretty much the entire media establishment has done, particularly of late: reducing 'capitalism' to its alleged sins. And that's the point. There are few areas of life where a thing responsible for so much good gets so little credit for it. Imagine if I were to collect the most infamous deeds of African-Americans over the last decade -- say, Michael Vick's dog-fighting scandal and O.J. Simpson's most recent criminal exploit -- and then put a bow on it with the phrase 'the decade in black America.' What if I did the same thing with Jews? Bernie Madoff, the face of Jewish America! Do the scandals of Rod Blagojevich, Charlie Rangel and John Edwards define the Democratic Party from 2000 to 2010? Do Abu Ghraib and the balloon boy sum up America? ... Every good thing capitalism helps produce -- from singing careers to cures for diseases to staggering charity -- is credited to some other sphere of our lives. Every problem with capitalism, meanwhile, is laid at her feet. Except the problems with capitalism -- greed, theft, etc. -- aren't capitalism's fault, they're humanity's. Socialist countries have greedy thieves, too. Free markets are in disrepute these days, particularly by the people running Washington. For them, government is the solution and capitalism is the problem. If they have their way over the next decade, they won't cure what allegedly ails capitalism -- people will still steal and lie -- but they will impede everything that makes capitalism great. And that will be bad for everyone, even NPR." -- National Review editor Jonah Goldberg



"The Web"

WHY GOD MADE MOMS

Answers given by 2nd grade school children to the following questions:

Why did God make mothers?
1. She's the only one who knows where the scotch tape is.
2. Mostly to clean the house.
3. To help us out of there when we were getting born.

How did God make mothers?
1. He used dirt, just like for the rest of us.
2. Magic plus super powers and a lot of stirring.
3. God made my mom just the same like he made me. He just used bigger parts.

What ingredients are mothers made of?
1. God makes mothers out of clouds and angel hair and everything nice in the world and one dab of mean.
2. They had to get their start from men's bones. Then they mostly use string, I think.

Why did God give you your mother and not some other mom?
1. We're related.
2. God knew she likes me a lot more than other people's mom like me.

What kind of a little girl was your mom?
1. My mom has always been my mom and none of that other stuff.
2. I don't know because I wasn't there, but my guess would be pretty bossy..
3. They say she used to be nice.

What did mom need to know about dad before she married him?
1. His last name.
2. She had to know his background. Like is he a crook? Does he get drunk on beer?
3. Does he make at least $800 a year? Did he say NO to drugs and YES to chores?

Why did your mom marry your dad?
1. My dad makes the best spaghetti in the world. And my mom eats a lot..
2. She got too old to do anything else with him.
3.. My grandma says that mom didn't have her thinking cap on.

Who's the boss at your house?
1. Mom doesn't want to be boss, but she has to because dad's such a goof ball.
2. Mom. You can tell by room inspection. She sees the stuff under the bed.
3. I guess mom is, but only because she has a lot more to do than dad.

What's the difference between moms and dads?
1. Moms work at work and work at home and dads just go to work at work.
2. Moms know how to talk to teachers without scaring them.
3. Dads are taller and stronger, but moms have all the real power 'cause that's who you got to ask if you want to sleep over at your friends.
4.. Moms have magic, they make you feel better without medicine.

What does your mom do in her spare time?
1. Mothers don't do spare time.
2. To hear her tell it, she pays bills all day long.

What would it take to make your mom perfect?
1. On the inside she's already perfect. Outside, I think some kind of plastic surgery.
2. Diet. You know, her hair. I'd diet, maybe blue.

If you could change one thing about your mom, what would it be?
1. She has this weird thing about me keeping my room clean. I'd get rid of that.
2. I'd make my mom smarter. Then she would know it was my sister who did it not me.
3. I would like for her to get rid of those invisible eyes on the back of her head.



The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
December 17, 2009

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425

Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.



Obama’s EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals

By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59965

(CNSNews.com) - Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown University law professor nominated by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has written that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual “equality.”

Feldblum, whose nomination was advanced in a closed session of the Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on December 12, published an article entitled “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion” in the Brooklyn Law Review in 2006.

“Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people,” the Georgetown law professor argued.

Feldblum’s admittedly “radical” view is based on what she sees as a “zero-sum game” between religious freedom and the homosexual agenda, where “a gain for one side necessarily entails a corresponding loss for the other side.”

“For those who believe that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is not morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual orientation is acting in a sinful or harmful manner (to himself or herself and to others), it is problematic when the government passes a law that gives such individuals equal access to all societal institutions,” Feldblum wrote.

“Conversely, for those who believe that any sexual orientation, including a homosexual or bisexual orientation, is morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual or bisexual orientation acts in an honest and good manner, it is problematic when the government fails to pass laws providing equality to such individuals.”

Feldblum argues that in order for “gay rights” to triumph in this “zero-sum game,” the constitutional rights of all Americans should be placed on a “spectrum” so they can be balanced against legitimate government duties.

All beliefs should be equal, regardless of their source, Feldblum says. “A belief derived from a religious faith should be accorded no more weight—and no less weight—than a belief derived from a non-religious source.” According to Feldman, the source of a person’s belief – be it God, spiritual energy, or the five senses – “has no relevance.”

'Identity liberty' versus 'belief liberty'

Feldblum does recognize that elements of the homosexual agenda may infringe on Americans’ religious liberties. However, Feldblum argues that society should “come down on the side” of homosexual equality at the expense of religious liberty. Because the conflict between the two is “irreconcilable,” religious liberty -- which she also calls "belief liberty" -- must be placed second to the “identity liberty” of homosexuals.

“And, in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people,” she wrote.

“Protecting one group’s identity liberty may, at times, require that we burden others’ belief liberty. This is an inherent and irreconcilable reality of our complex society,” Feldblum wrote.

“But in dealing with this conflict, I believe it is essential that we not privilege moral beliefs that are religiously based over other sincerely held core, moral beliefs. Laws passed pursuant to public policies may burden the belief liberty of those who adhere to either religious or secular beliefs.”

The full Senate must now vote on Feldblum's nomination, but a date for that vote has not yet been set.

As an EEOC commissioner, Feldblum would rule on cases involving alleged violations of federal employment law, including gender, age, and race discrimination.



GAO Official: 'No One' at Indian Health Service 'Has Ever Been Held Accountable for Anything'

By Karen Schuberg

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=59932

(CNSNews.com) – The Indian Health Service, a government-run health agency for native Americans and Alaskan natives, has lost or had stolen millions of dollars worth of equipment over the last several years, but has yet to implement recommendations for improvement, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

A June 2008 GAO report concluded that mismanagement of the IHS allowed $15.8 million worth of equipment to be lost or stolen, and a June 2009 report said over a million dollars worth of IT equipment was lost, stolen, or unaccounted for.

But Gregory Kutz, managing director of forensic audits and special investigations for the GAO, said the “work culture” at the government health service continues to be one of a lack of individual accountability.

“No one (at IHS) has ever been held accountable for anything,” Kutz said.

In fact, Kutz told CNSNews.com that GAO’s 2009 audit of the Indian Health Service found that “certain people that were responsible for (missing) property the first time received bonuses.”

“The reward for poor performance was to give bonuses and awards, and that’s not really the right incentive, necessarily,” he told CNSNews.com.

The June 2008 GAO report -- titled “IHS Mismanagement Led to Millions of Dollars in Lost or Stolen Property” -- found that IHS had permitted $15.8 million in equipment to be lost or stolen between 2004 and 2007. The report also concludes that wasteful spending by IHS resulted in the service’s headquarters owning 10 pieces of IT equipment per employee working there.

A year later, GAO released a report titled “Indian Health Service -- Millions of Dollars in Property and Equipment Continue to be Lost or Stolen.” It noted that “from October 2007 through January 2009, IHS identified about 1,400 items with an acquisition value of about $3.5 million that were lost or stolen agencywide. These property losses are in addition to what we identified in our June 2008 report.”

Implementing better inventory control, stricter accounting standards, tracking property better, finding missing items quicker after they are identified as missing and performance ratings that “affect salaries and bonuses” in order to boost work quality, are just some of the GAO’s recommendations.

CNSNews.com, citing the GAO reports, asked Dr. Yvette Roubideaux, the director of the Indian Health Service, last week what measures have been taken to amend these problems and whether the agency has taken measures to ensure individual accountability.

Roubideaux’s response, which came during a telephone news conference on H1N1 flu: “We’ve done a lot to address the property issue, and I’d be happy to talk with you with an interview to address that issue. I want to keep the focus today on H1N1 which is the most important thing that we have to talk about today.”

However, subsequent requests to the Indian Health Service for an interview – and for information – yielded only copies of correspondence Roubidoux sent to Congress.

Kutz said he does believe top-level bureaucrats at the Indian Health Service – the “senior folks,” he said – are taking GAO’s recommendations seriously.

But the “basic inability” of the health service to manage government property and a work culture devoid of individual accountability drive the millions of taxpayer dollars lost in missing and stolen property.

Essentially, IHS’ culture is marked by the absence of “effective management oversight and control,” Kutz said.

“If management is not going to make it important to people that you know what property you have, you know where it’s located, you put it in the system, you do your inventories periodically, and when you’re done with the property you probably dispose of it and take it off the records – if no one’s held accountable for that and no one’s actually managing that effectively, you have what we found at the HIS, which was property that was not very well-controlled, and you find that items are walking out the door, you (find) compromise of data when certain computers and other things have been stolen.”

Kutz said the IHS has basic problems with inventory control.

“It was pretty basic property issues where you had items that never were bar-coded, and so they never made the system, so they really can’t be lost necessarily until you go do an inventory and then you find them. But some of those probably walked away based on what we saw,” Kutz said.

Another scenario of negligence in tracking property, Kutz noted, is in the case of items which were there but are not logged into the system.

“You had a combination of overstatements, understatements, items that were in different buildings or locations than they were thought to be,” Kutz said.

He gave an example: “Sometimes (GAO) would try to find something, and (HIS) would ultimately find it, but it could take a month or two, which means you really don’t know where it is, and you might actually be looking to buy more of it if you don’t really know what you’ve got.”

Kutz also said “excess property” is also an issue for the Indian Health Service.

“It appeared to us (they) bought more computers than they needed because they had new computers sitting in boxes for months and perhaps more than a year, Kutz said. “Well, if you buy a new computer and let it sit for long enough, it’s worthless.”

Kutz speculated as to what could explain IHS’ difficulty with tracking items “which gets into stuff more than ‘just can you find it.’”

For instance, he said, the government auditors discovered that the IHS had misplaced – and couldn’t find – “Jaws for Life” rescue equipment.

“I think it was there all along,” Kutz told CNSNews.com. “They just didn’t know where it was, and after we went back for a second or third visit, they finally were able to locate it.”

He added: “That’s not a small piece of equipment.”

Kutz said it is still too early to tell whether IHS will ultimately be successful in implementing the GAO’s recommendations.

“Whether they were able to make that stick throughout the organization and hold people accountable – that really will be the test in whether they’re successful in making the scenario whether they have good controls over property in the future,” Kutz said.

Kutz also said that it is unrealistic to expect immediate results in adopting GAO recommendations, explaining the problems described in the report “certainly” spanned back to the 1990s and “probably since the inception of the organization.”

“It isn’t like you can immediately change the culture,” Kutz said.

Given that IHS has cutting-edge technology, .Kutz said two years would be a reasonable amount of time to wait for improvements to kick in.

“It should be something they could be able to, because they had a new system put in. So, we didn’t necessarily believe that it was that they didn’t have proper automated systems. They have pretty much the newest software to track and record property,” Kutz said. “It’s really the people and are they diligent in following the processes they have in place to put stuff in the books with serial number, the barcode, when they buy it to make sure the records reflect (the status of items).”

The $787 billion stimulus bill President Obama signed in February granted IHS $500 million in new funding and tacked on $85 million specifically for health information technology activities.

According to IHS’ Web site, the funding break down for the first $500 million received is “$227 million for health facilities construction, $100 million for maintenance and improvements, $85 million for health information technology, $68 million for sanitation facilities construction, and $20 million for health equipment that will help improve health care in Indian Country.”

In addition, IHS received $90 million of stimulus money from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for more “Sanitation Facilities Construction projects.”

Transcript of Exchange with Dr. Yvette Roubideaux:

CNSNews.com: A June 2008 report concluded that mismanagement of the IHS allowed $15.8 million worth of equipment to be lost or stolen, and a June 2009 report says over a million dollars worth of IT equipment was lost, stolen, or unaccounted for. So I was wondering what measures have been taken to amend these problems and have you taken measures to ensure individual accountability?

Dr. Yvette Roubideaux (IHS Director): Well, we certainly want the focus of today’s call to be on the H1N1 vaccination and the – addressing the virus. We’ve done a lot to address the property issue, and I’d be happy to talk with you with an interview to address that issue. I want to keep the focus today on H1N1 which is the most important thing that we have to talk about today.



Is New Jersey’s State Constitution Unconstitutional? Campaign to Recall Senator Menendez Turns Into Battle of the Constitutions

by Liberty Chick

http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/17/is-new-jerseys-state-constitution-unconstitutional-campaign-to-recall-senator-menendez-turns-into-battle-of-the-constitutions/

New Jersey’s State Constitution is unconstitutional. That’s apparently what one New Jersey election official seems to think.

A committee seeking approval from the state to petition registered voters on whether to move forward with a special election to recall US Senator Robert Menendez was denied that request, in a letter on January 11th which stated that the US Constitution does not provide for such a proceeding.

But in 1993, the people of New Jersey overwhelmingly voted to reserve for themselves “the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress” (emphasis added), and in 1995 made this amendment to their state constitution under Article I, 2b.

This has left many New Jersey voters wondering why Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, a member of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch, would take it upon herself and her position to declare the NJ state Constitution unconstitutional. After reviewing the committee’s preliminary appeal statement, a judge in the Superior Court of NJ Appellate Division has just issued an order allowing a motion to accelerate the appeal.

Appointed to her post in January 2006 by outgoing Democratic Governor Jon Corzine, Wells was a key democratic fundraiser and close friend to Corzine. She has been called one of the Garden State’s 101 most influential people, and NJ Monthly profiled her and high-profile attorney husband Ted Wells in its Power Issue. Daughter Teresa worked on Senator John Edwards’ presidential campaign and as Corzine’s traveling press secretary, prior to accepting a position at the Rockefeller Foundation as chief media strategist. In her capacity as Secretary of State, Ms. Wells is perhaps best known for the Obama birth certificate case, Donofrio v. Wells. But Wells has faced more plausible scrutiny, such as fallout after a Princeton University professor’s successful hacking attempts on NJ voting machines, and a multitude of indictments of Vote-by-Mail voter fraud, including forgery of messenger ballots, on her watch (see here, here, here, here, and Dem. State Committee lawyer Josephson letter here). In 2008, Wells also overlooked a state law prohibiting candidates from running for President and US Senate in the same election, and improperly certified candidate Jeff Boss for both offices. (who on an unrelated note runs on a 9/11 truther platform).

On September 25, 2009, a Notice of Intention was filed in the Secretary of State’s office by a recall committee formed by members of the Sussex County Tea Party, a local grass-roots group and member of the statewide coalition, NJ Tea Parties United. The group seeks to initiate a special election in NJ to recall Senator Robert Menendez. In accordance with NJ election law, the first steps in that process are for the interested parties to form a committee to sponsor a recall petition, and file a Notice of Intent with the Secretary of State’s office. The Secretary of State is then required to determine whether the submitted notice and proposed petition conform to the statute’s requirements and either approve or deny the notice within three days. If denied, the reasons must be stated and the committee permitted to amend and resubmit the filing. Once approved, the committee then circulates the petition amongst registered voters in the state, collecting the signatures of those in support of calling for a recall election. Only if and when the committee collects the necessary number of signatures – 25% of the total registered voters in the general election that preceded the filing of the notice – can a recall election be scheduled.

All else up until and including the recall election itself could be considered political speech, which is entitled to the most strenuous protection against governmental suppression.

Yet, on January 11th, 2010, by her written response to the recall committee, Secretary of State Nina Wells seemingly violated the Constitutional rights of the Committee, its members, and those who want to sign the petition, when she wrote:

“It has been determined that the qualifications and election of a Member of the United States Senate is a matter of exclusive jurisdiction of federal authority and that neither the United States Constitution nor federal statute provide for a recall proceeding for a federally-elected official.

Therefore, in my capacity as the Chief Election Official of the State of New Jersey, I hereby determine that neither the Notice of Intention to Recall nor the proposed Petition can be accepted for filing or review.”

This statement presents quite a quandary, and a series of interesting questions that I discussed in detail with Dan Silberstein, co-counsel for the recall committee.

Does the Final Determination Violate The Committee’s Constitutional Rights?
Pursuant to the New Jersey Constitution (Article I, 2b) and statute 19:27A-2, it is undeniably clear that the people of NJ do have the power to recall any United States Senator or Representative.

“Pursuant to Article I, paragraph 2b. of the New Jersey Constitution, the people of this State shall have the power to recall, after at least one year of service in the person’s current term of office, any United States Senator or Representative elected from this State or any State or local elected official in the manner provided herein.”

The law further defines “elected official” as “any person holding the office of United States Senator or member of the United States House of Representatives elected from this State, or any person holding a State or local government office which, under the State Constitution or by law, is filled by the registered voters of a jurisdiction at an election, including a person appointed, selected or otherwise designated to fill a vacancy in such office, but does not mean an official of a political party.”

Not only does New Jersey’s state constitution include the provision, but what’s more interesting is that the language specific to federal officials is actually relatively recent. In a 1997 recall election case, The Committee to Recall Theresa Casagrande v Casagrande, which challenged the actions of a Borough Clerk, presiding Judge Alexander D. Lehrer happened to reference the very amendment that also encompasses federal officials. That portion of the opinion reads in part:

“On November 2, 1993, the citizens of the State of New Jersey overwhelmingly voted to amend Article I, Paragraph 2 of the New Jersey Constitution to establish the right to recall local, state and federal elected officials.

“The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress. The Legislature shall enact laws to provide for such recall elections. Any such laws shall include a provision that a recall election shall be held upon petition of at least 25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled.”

On May 17, 1995, the Legislature of the State of New Jersey enacted the “Uniform Recall Election Law”, N.J.S.A. 19:27A-1 et seq. implementing this amendment to the Constitution. See: N.J.S.A. 19:27A-2.” Read the remainder here.

The recall committee had not yet even begun collecting petition signatures before the Secretary of State sent its “final determination”. As the supporting documentation for the committee’s appeal points out:

“The U.S. Constitution clearly does not prevent the formation of a Recall Committee. It does not prevent the collection of signatures of those who demand the recall of an elected official. It does not prevent the citizens from expressing their will, individually or collectively, by demanding that the State roll out its election machines to take a vote on anything it wants to vote on, including a vote on whether Menendez should be recalled.”

By refusing to comply with the NJ State Constitution and the NJ Uniform Recall Election Law, rendering an opinion that these violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and declaring them as unconstitutional, have the Secretary of State and the Director of the Division of Elections violated the committee’s rights (and those of the people of NJ)?

Does the NJ Secretary of State even have the power to make such a declaration?
Further, as clearly outlined in detail in 19:27A-7, the duties of the Secretary of State are very limited and merely clerical in nature.

The Secretary of State and Director of Division of Elections are positions within the Executive branch of NJ state government, not the Judicial branch. As such, they would not have any authority to declare any part of the New Jersey Constitution or any Statute unconstitutional. Only a judge could make such a determination.

Also, as Mr. Silberstein noted, there is no discretion vested in the Secretary to delay this simple clerical task for “legal review”, nor does the statute ask the Secretary to render an opinion on the Constitutionality of the statute. This leaves one to wonder why such action was taken and why such an opinion rendered in the first place.

Timeline of Events:

September 25, 2009: Notice of Intent filed with the office of the Secretary of State and Division of Elections.

October 5, 2009: Robert F. Giles, Director of the Division of Elections, acknowledged in a letter receipt of Notice stating it was “under legal review.”

November 10, 2009: Second Notice is filed, indicating a change in committee chairperson for health reasons. Officials have still failed to respond within three days as is required by NJ law.

December 2, 2009: After months without a response, the committee files a legal motion for summary judgment against the New Jersey Division of Elections, asking a judge to order that defendants immediately issue a response to the Committee’s Notice of Intention.

January 11, 2010: Secretary of State sends a “final determination” indicating that neither the Notice of Intention to Recall nor the proposed Petition will be accepted for filing or review, declaring the current recall provisions in the NJ state Constitution and the NJ Uniform Recall Election Law to be in violation of the United States Constitution, rather than simply approving the Notices.

January 13, 2010: An application to File Appeal on an Emergent Basis is filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division; in Committee to Recall Robert Menendez v. Nina Wells, Secretary of State, et al., the appeal requests reversal of the “final determination” and an order directing the Secretary of State to approve the Notice of Intention to permit the Committee to begin the collections of signatures.

January 14, 2010: the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division issued an order allowing a motion to accelerate the appeal.

January 15, 2010: Notice of Appeal and Case Information Statement filed.
Currently waiting to be heard by the court
The Recall Committee, The Sussex County Tea Party, and the NJ Tea Parties United all view this recall election campaign as a critical tool in their pursuit to correct what some NJ citizens view as a deterioration of the democratic process on Capitol Hill, and a disconnect between the lawmakers and their constituents back home in NJ. With no Senatorial mid-term elections confirmed for NJ in 2010, and considering the fundamental significance of the legislation being considered, the group emphasizes the importance of having senators who will support open debate, offer transparency, and cease the abuse of cloture, all things the groups say Senator Robert Menendez has failed to do. Even if the recall itself is unsuccessful, or should the petition fall short of the required minimum of signatures, they are hoping that by obtaining any large number of signatures on the petition, it will send a clear message to Senator Menendez that he must engage with his constituents, and remind him that he represents all of the voters in NJ and not just special interests.

Regardless of one’s political views, and whether or not one agrees with the use of or the reasons given to support a recall election, the aspects of this particular case are undeniably paramount. NJ citizens should not be denied constitutional rights. The US Constitution and NJ Constitution both guarantee the rights of free speech, to petition for redress of grievances, and the right to peacefully assemble. Is the New Jersey state Constitution actually unconstitutional? And if so, where are the boundaries in declaring such as a reason for denying, or granting, state citizens certain rights? Is petitioning fellow citizens not considered political speech? And why not allow the recall election to move forward anyway, pursuant with the state Constitution?

As Mr. Silberstein and I discussed these very questions, he ended the conversation with a very interesting viewpoint, much of which is included in his and co-counsel Rich Luzzi’s appeal to the court:

Let the petition go forward. If enough signatures are collected, roll out the voting machines. Let the people vote. If the majority vote to recall the Senator, their voices should be heard and the Secretary of State should issue the recall order. If an official thinks it might be unconstitutional for the state to recall a US Senator, so what? Let the courts determine that, as they should. If the recall turns out to be unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause, then so be it. Even without legal effect under the law, the recall order would still have significant value as a political statement, amounting to a non-binding vote of no-confidence. The people’s voices will still be heard. And really, isn’t that the most important point?



"The e-mail Bag"

Did you hear /about the redneck who passed away and left his entire estate in trust for his beloved widow?

She can't touch it till she's fourteen.



Did you hear about the new 3 million dollar Tennessee State Lottery?

The winner gets 3 dollars a year for a million years.



Why do folks from Tennessee go to the movie theater in groups of 18 or more?

17 and under are not admitted.