The devastation and loss of life from Hurricane Katrina is beyond comprehension. The people in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama are in for a long tough haul and our hearts go out to all those that have had their life forever altered.

The aftermath of Katrina is not a week-long event and then back to business as usual. It will be a major, long-term rebuilding effort requiring the support of the entire country. We are confident Americans will come together to help their fellow citizens desperately in need of emotional, physical and financial support.

To do our small part we went to the American Red Cross site to give a donation. The good news, the site was experiencing heavy traffic; the bad news, we couldn’t get onto the site. No problem we thought, we’ll make our donation through Amazon .com.

We remembered Amazon collected money for the Red Cross relief effort for the tsunami victims earlier this year and so we clicked on over to Amazon. Surprisingly we couldn’t find a link or a page on the Amazon site for the Katrina hurricane victims. This struck us as rather odd, especially because the tech savvy folks at Amazon must realize the Red Cross site is being swamped and a little help in collecting donations would be important at the stage of the relief effort.

Apparently the giant online retailer can’t be bothered as Amazon has no plans to help collect donations.

An Amazon spokesperson said that the online retailer had no plans to post a donation link on its site. "Each case is different," she said. "The Red Cross has essentially given over its entire site to donations. The tsunami came out of the blue, so it was an 'all hands on deck' situation, but the Red Cross has been getting ready for this and getting its message out there for several days."

Does this explanation make sense to you? What does the Red Cross getting their message out before the hurricane have to do with helping to collect donations after the disaster, especially now that we know the scope of the devastation? From all we’ve read, Katrina is the worse disaster in the history of the country.

As far as we are concerned, Amazon has shown its true colors and they aren’t red, white and blue. If Americans in desperate need don’t rate a bit of Amazon’s tech resources, than Amazon doesn’t rate our future business. In the mean time we’ll keep trying the overloaded Red Cross site.

Update: Amazon.com has added a hurricane relief link for American Red Cross donations to their main page. We are very pleased Amazon has reversed their earlier position and has agreed to help out.

Highest cost per public school student in the nation, SAT scores lower than the national average.

Seniors who finished high school last spring scored 520 out of a possible 800 on the math section, 2 points higher than the class of 2004. Average scores on the verbal section were unchanged at 508, according to results released Tuesday by the College Board, the nonprofit organization that owns the SAT.

New Jersey's graduates followed the same trend, though their scores were a bit lower than the national average. Seniors in the Garden State scored an average of 503 on the verbal section and 517 on math — both up from last year. In New Jersey, 86 percent of students take the SAT — a rate that trails only New York.

Let the excuses begin.

Update:
An overview of the 2005 SAT results from the College Board may be read here and the organization’s detailed New Jersey State Profile Report may be read here.

The excuses for New Jersey’s slightly below national average results on the SATs are coming in and the favorites are - more NJ students take the test than in other states and only the top students take the SATs in other states. No mention that New Jersey spends 35 percent more per student than the national average.

However, we would like to point out college-bound students took the SATs in all states and not just the top college-bound students. We haven’t found any evidence to suggest that non-college-bound students in New Jersey are taking the SATs.

This past year more students across the nation took the test than in previous years and yet the national average increased slightly. Over the past decade, the number of SAT takers increased by 408,000 students, or +38 percent—more than twice the growth rate for graduating seniors in the United States. During that period math scores have increased 14 points and verbal scores have increased 4 points. Based upon the more test takers equals lower scores theory, shouldn’t the nation’s average SAT scores have declined?

No doubt New Jersey’s top students are among the best and brightest in the country and have SAT scores reflecting their academic achievement. However, if we just confine our analysis to New Jersey’s SAT takers – apples to apples – we see no increase in SAT scores, while we see New Jersey’s average cost per student has increased by 33 percent over the past ten years.

It really doesn’t matter if you compare New Jersey’s student achievement to the nation as a whole or just within New Jersey - education spending is soaring, but results in the Garden State are not.

We’ve blogged before about the Iraq - al Qaeda connection to 1993 World Trade Center, the "warm up" to 9-11 and the terrorist’s attacks of 2001. The recently aired National Geographic documentary Inside 9-11 also highlighted the connection between the two attacks and described the Iraq connection.

Now Stephen Hayes writing for the Weekly Standard asks: "And why would the 9/11 Commission fail to mention the overlap between the two successful plots to attack the World Trade Center? The answer is simple: The Iraqi link didn't fit the commission's narrative. "

AHMED HIKMAT SHAKIR IS A shadowy figure who provided logistical assistance to one, maybe two, of the 9/11 hijackers. Years before, he had received a phone call from the Jersey City, New Jersey, safehouse of the plotters who would soon, in February 1993, park a truck bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center. The safehouse was the apartment of Musab Yasin, brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, who scorched his own leg while mixing the chemicals for the 1993 bomb.

When Shakir was arrested shortly after the 9/11 attacks, his "pocket litter," in the parlance of the investigators, included contact information for Musab Yasin and another 1993 plotter, a Kuwaiti native named Ibrahim Suleiman.

These facts alone, linking the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, would seem to cry out for additional scrutiny, no?

The Yasin brothers and Shakir have more in common. They are all Iraqis. And two of them--Abdul Rahman Yasin and Shakir--went free, despite their participation in attacks on the World Trade Center, at least partly because of efforts made on their behalf by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Both men returned to Iraq--Yasin fled there in 1993 with the active assistance of the Iraqi government. For ten years in Iraq, Abdul Rahman Yasin was provided safe haven and financing by the regime, support that ended only with the coalition intervention in March 2003.

Click the Graphic for More Information

If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawn-mower is hosting the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #15 today. Ryan identifies where each NJ blogger is "coming from" in this week's latest and greatest Carnival post.

If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawn-mower will host the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #15 this Sunday.

All New Jersey bloggers and blog readers are invited to participate. Please send links to njcarnival@gmail.com for posts you would like featured in this week's Carnival.

The last thing we need is to be lectured to by Carla Katz. Yes, that Carla Katz. The union leader is upset because “there has been an escalating attack on the pension and health benefits of public employees”.

Katz: “Public workers are public servants who have dedicated their lives to providing needed and critical public services to New Jersey.”

Leave it to Katz to characterize state and local government employees as people dedicating their lives to public service. The vast majority of people earning their paycheck from taxpayers are not “first responders” - police and firefighters. They are bureaucrats and other government workers who are no more special or important to society than private sector workers.

We believe police and firefighters deserve special consideration – they put their lives on the line for all of us – that is true public service. The other categories of public employees do not deserve salaries and benefits that far exceed those offered to employees in the private sector. There is no possible justification for the average government worker receiving compensation greater than the people footing the tab.

Katz: “Public workers have chosen public service — not personal gain — as their life's work”

Katz speaks of public workers as if they were Sisters of Charity. If public employees have chosen “public service” over “personal gain” why do they need unions to press for ever higher wages and benefits on their behalf? Public workers go to work for the same reason as people in the private sector - to earn a paycheck.

A recent Courier News article reported that New Jersey’s public employees not only have secure jobs, they receive salary and benefits that exceed those earned by private sector employees.

Salary: “In fact, a New Jersey government worker averaged $54,600 a year while a private sector worker averaged about $49,000 a year, according to figures compiled by the state Labor Department for the first quarter of 2004.”

Health Insurance: A recent study reported New Jersey public workers both active and retired have a health insurance plan that is among the best in the nation.

“For example, nearly half of the government workers provided with health insurance, or about 168,000, enrolled in a managed care plan known as NJ Plus in which they pay none of the premium, have no deductible and have a $5 co-payment for doctors' visits.”

Time off: New Jersey public employees typically enjoy up to five weeks of vacation per year along with 13 sick days, 13 holidays and three personal days.

Pension: While the private sector has moved to 401k employee retirement plans, New Jersey’s public employees receive a “defined-benefit" paying 50% to 70% of annual salary, plus annual cost-of-living increases. As retiree benefit costs pushed the state deeper into debt, New Jersey’s lawmakers sweetened the public employee retirement plan with a 9 % boost in benefits in 2001.

Katz: “The benefits of New Jersey's public workers are hard won and hard earned.”

Public employees need to be reminded that taxpayer income is “hard earned” and that it is employees in the private sector that make public workers’ jobs and paychecks possible.

Katz: “The Whitman administration income tax cuts cost the state $1.5 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2005 alone. In total, they have cost the state more than $14 billion in lost revenue.”

The “state” didn’t lose anything. Whitman saved taxpayers $14 billion which they in turn used to purchase homes, start businesses and invest in their families’ future. That $14 billion was earned by workers and used to create wealth and taxpaying jobs.

Katz' sense of entitlement to other people’s income is emblematic of Democrats who believe “the state” has a greater claim on your income than you do. As homeowners struggle under the burden of high property taxes, the inequitable distribution of state funding to local schools (derived 100% from income taxes) and tax revenue squandered through mismanagement, a lack of fiscal discipline and corruption - Katz complains “the state” (tax receivers) have been short-changed by $14 billion.

Acting Governor Codey’s blunt assessment of New Jersey’s finances – “The good news is, we're not bankrupt. The bad news is, we're close.” – apparently has no meaning to public employees. When Codey identifies a major cause of the state’ financial crisis - public employee pensions and benefits – Carla Katz gives taxpayers a lecture and displays an utter lack of concern for taxpayers.

While we are sure there are many hard working public employees, people that serve the public with a customer service attitude, there are others that have nothing but contempt for taxpayers. Need another example? Here is one more lecture from a guy that works in a municipal office in New Jersey:

We have always debated in the office as to what would lead a person to waste time and energy to come to the tax window rather than mailing their payment in. Lack of trust in the post office comes to mind. Lack of trust in government is mentioned, too. I choose a different answer; stupidity combined with stubbornness and a need to complain.

They are non-sensical, lost, confused, silly, hostile, and abusive people. Clearly, they come to the window with one goal in mind; to being ranting and raving lunatics.

Mail in your checks, folks, and chill out. Taxes suck. However, coming to the window to whine to a grunt employee is simply foolish, worthless and mean-spirited.

The public employee who wrote the comments above is backing Jon Corzine for Governor of New Jersey and so is Carla Katz. Corzine is in the hip pocket of the public employee unions and if elected, offers no hope for controlling the ever increasing number of employees paid by taxpayers or the out of control salaries and benefits demanded by public employees.

This November, taxpayers will have a choice - Doug Forrester who will represent all citizens of New Jersey or Jon Corzine, the champion of tax receivers and Carla Katz.

One major reason New Jersey receives only 57 cents for every tax dollar we send to Washington - the federal income tax code. High cost-of-living/ high income states pay more in taxes because of the progressive nature of the federal income tax code, the Alternate Minimum Tax and estate tax laws. (The chart below shows New Jersey’s federal taxes paid and received in return from 1981 to 2003.)

The second reason - the majority of government programs are designed to redistribute wealth – New Jersey is "wealthy" and so the state is merely paying its "fair share" by the standards of "progressive Democrats".

High and progressive tax rates, the Alternative Minimum Tax and the federal estate tax (death tax) - all policies that thrill "progressives" when applied to individuals - are now advanced as proof of a Republican conspiracy to punish “blue states”. What a shock to discover a collection of "wealthy" people – New Jersey taxpayers – pays more taxes per capita than a collection of people in lower cost-of-living/lower income states.

New Jersey's taxpayers should take note of how well New Jersey made out during the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" years (lower per capita taxes-higher per capita return) as opposed to the Clinton years.

You have to scratch your head and wonder why Jon Corzine and other "progressive Democrats", supposedly representing New Jersey's taxpayers, oppose income tax cuts in general and the Bush tax cuts in particular.

Thankfully, voters in the "red states" have a better sense of fairness as it applies to the federal tax code and understand the benefits of allowing people to keep more of the money they earn – everyone in the country benefits.

New Jersey
Federal Taxes Paid vs, Federal Spending Received
1981 - 2003

In an apparent Republican effort to penalize New Jersey, a so called “blue state”, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission has voted to close Fort Monmouth in central New Jersey. Under the guise of saving money and modernizing U.S. Armed forces, approximately 4,000 jobs will be moved from the New Jersey base to Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, a so called “red state.”

Editor: Please excuse our error – Maryland is a “blue state”. Please see 2004 election results below:

Maryland: Kerry – 56%-Bush 43% New Jersey: Kerry 53%-Bush 46%

Oh no, another government leak.

This guy has a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.

Now who would say something like this? - “There are a few among us who have deliberately and consciously closed their eyes [to foreign threats] because they were determined to be opposed to their government, its foreign policy, and every other policy, to be partisan, and to believe that anything that the government did was wholly wrong.."

Here’s a politician that learned his pessimism at the knee of his old man.

From Powerline: "We are trying to fight a war under the auspices of an establishment that is determined -- to put the most charitable face on it -- to emphasize American casualties over all other information about the war... The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq -- now, over 1,800 deaths -- is generally devoid of context. Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one. I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's hometown. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern -- any concern -- about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996"

“Open the newspaper or turn on the television, and you'll see and hear the same thing: The economy is growing and jobs are becoming increasingly plentiful as the nation continues its rebound from the economic downturn of 2000-2002.”

The same is not true for New Jersey’s rate of job growth. Our state is no longer one of the leaders in employment growth; instead, it lags the nation, according to a report published by Rutgers University.

The state’s leading job growth sector in 2004 was government. Government accounted for 32.4 percent of new jobs in 2004. This compares to only 6.7 percent for the nation as a whole. In the 2002–05 period, 43 percent of the state’s total growth in employment came through an increase in government jobs.

New Jersey is ranked 31st in the nation in the rate of growth of total employment and 41st in the rate of growth of private-sector employment. New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania all outranked New Jersey in private sector employment growth.

New Jersey’s economy appears to be improving “only because of unsustainable rapid public employment expansion at a time of deep statewide fiscal crisis and deficit financing.” “It's clear that corporate America is expanding, but not in New Jersey," said James W. Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers and a co-author of the report.

The Rutgers report concluded: “Certainly, the evidence strongly suggests that a renewed and innovative emphasis on state economic development strategy and polices is warranted. New Jersey’s recent intense focus on income redistribution issues and policies should be rebalanced toward policies that focus on income growth and economic expansion.”

Hughes also suggested that "property tax reform, an idea that is growing in popularity among homeowners and many in the state Legislature, could help grow the economy".

To say there has been an intense focus on income redistribution in New Jersey over the past four years is an understatement. To compound the problem, Jon Corzine is running on an agenda that lays out a blue print for economic disaster – more transferring of income from taxpayers to tax receivers, more state spending and no real property tax reform. It is not possible to tax and spend the state into prosperity.

The state can not afford Jon Corzine as Governor of New Jersey. Doug Forrester has proposed plans to control state spending and for meaningful property tax reform - a constitutionally guaranteed 30 % reduction in property taxes. Forrester has taken a new-new-taxes pledge, a pledge Jon Corzine refuses make.

Patrick Ruffini offers a unique analysis of New Jersey’s 2004 election results and invites readers to correct his analysis or add anything he may have missed. He’s eager to make his thread “sort of the official Wiki on this subject.”

To the right is a map Ruffin produced showing Bush vote gain in New Jersey by municipality.

"What does it mean for the Governor's race? That's an open question, but if Forrester can win by simply turning out the people who voted for Bush (47 percent of a presidential vote is well over 50 percent of a gubernatorial vote). His best targets in terms of holding newer members of the Republican coalition should be the blue-collar communities in Monmouth County and seniors in South Jersey who don't feel any particular attachment their jet-setting U.S. Senator. "

Michael Barone writes on the progress of the Global War on Terrorism:

George W. Bush has proclaimed that we are working to build democracy in Iraq not just for Iraqis but in order to advance freedom and defeat fanatical Islamist terrorism around the world.

We are not engaged in a popularity contest. We're trying to construct a safer world. We are in the long run better off if Muslims around the world turn away from terrorism and move toward democracy, even if we don't like some of the internal policies they choose and even if they don't have much affection for the United States. Two generations ago Americans, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of deaths, changed minds in Germany and Japan.

So how is the Bush strategy working so far:

The Pew Global Project Attitude's metrics give us reason to believe that today's Americans, at far lower cost, are once again changing minds in the Muslim world.
The Pew Global Attitudes Project's recent survey of opinion in six Muslim countries to tell us that progress is being made in achieving that goal. Minds are being changed and in the right direction.

Most important, support for terrorism in defense of Islam has "declined dramatically," in the Pew report's words, in Muslim countries, except in Jordan (which has a Palestinian majority) and Turkey, where support has remained a low 14 percent. It has fallen in Indonesia (from 27 to 15 percent since 2002), Pakistan (from 41 to 25 percent since 2004), Morocco (from 40 to 13 percent since 2004), and among Muslims in Lebanon (from 73 to 26 percent since 2002). Support for suicide bombings against Americans in Iraq has also declined. The percentage reporting some confidence in Osama bin Laden is now under 10 percent in Lebanon and Turkey and has fallen sharply in Indonesia.

Similarly, when asked whether democracy was a western way of doing things or could work well in their own country, between 77 and 83 percent in Lebanon, Morocco, Jordan, and Indonesia say it could work in their country--in each case a significant increase from earlier surveys. In Turkey, with its sharp political divisions, and Pakistan, with its checkered history, the percentages hover around 50 percent.

The AP reports the “progressive” state of New Jersey remains disproportionately underrepresented by women in politics. Some statistics to illustrate the gender gap:

There are no women in New Jersey's 15-member Congressional delegation.

New Jersey ranks 41st of the 50 states in the number of women in the state Legislature.

Just 15.8 percent of New Jersey's state lawmakers are women: 19 women out of 120 Legislators. That's about the same percentage as in 1927.

New Jersey has had only one female governor - Christine Todd Whitman - in its 218-year history.

Fifty-seven percent of the people who vote are women.

Click the Graphic for More Information

Sloppydawg is hosting the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #14 today. Danny will take you on an aerial tour of the Garden State and then bring you back to terra firma with the latest and greatest from NJ bloggers.

President Bush has been criticized for his strategy on the Global War on Terrorism from the beginning. The same people that opposed the President’s strategy for the GWOT in October 2001 oppose it now. The majority of the media have been negative from day one and now there is a growing chorus from Democrats to abandon military operations in Iraq.

Four days into Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the President was being asked if he had led the U.S. into a quagmire. Eight days into Operation Iraqi Freedom, the usual suspects said the military was bogged down and the Vietnam analogies began. Eighteen days later, the U.S. overthrew Saddam Hussein.

The media and the President’s political opponents have treated us to all the reasons the United States should not have taken the fight to Iraq – Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us on 9-11, Iraq posed no threat, Iraq is a diversion from the main task of defeating al-Qaeda, it’s blood for oil, no WMD, the war is going poorly, the war is unjust, more lives are being lost than saved and on and on.

It has been non-stop criticism of the President and of our military since October 2001. Every obstacle or set-back is treated as proof the President’s strategy for the GWOT is flawed and should be scrapped. These critics demand perfection and immediate gratification, something that rarely occurs in war.

To listen to the left-wing noise machine, you’d almost think the President woke up one day and without provocation, without a strategy and without the backing of the U.S. Congress decided to invade a peace loving country for partisan political advantage or financial gain.

President Bush has developed and implemented a global and long range strategy to defeat an enemy that declared war on the United States in 1998. We believe the islamofacists are the ones waging an unjust war and they are the ones killing people for no good reason. We also believe the actions by the United States and other countries to oppose the terrorist movement are logical and in the best interests of this country, as well as, the rest of the freedom loving countries around the world.

An article by Peter Schweizer, Strategies or diversions?, explains the parallels between the strategy President Bush has adopted to win the GWOT and the one pursued by FDR in World War II. Perhaps the President’s critics should look back at history and learn to grasp the big picture.

Excepts from the Schweizer article below. As they say, read the whole piece.

It is striking to note how Franklin D. Roosevelt faced very similar critics and how President Bush has adopted a grand strategy very much in the Roosevelt tradition.

With a logic that Bush would find familiar, FDR was lambasted by his critics for his WWII military strategy of defeating Germany first before focusing on Japan. They considered Germany a diversion. Wasn't it Japan and not Germany that had attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

Conspiracy theories abounded then as they do today. Jon Meacham, in his book Franklin and Winston, writes about how FDR's critics believed that his Germany-first strategy was a result of excessive British influence. It wasn't a conspiracy involving Israel-loving neocons back then, but Anglophiles, who were manipulating the White House to serve British ends.

In a fascinating parallel to Bush and Iraq, part of FDR's motivation for defeating Germany first was fear that the Nazis were working on atomic weapons. Alas, postwar intelligence revealed that Germany (like Saddam Hussein's Iraq) did not have much of a program. But military victory led most to ignore this massive intelligence failure.

FDR was not concerned with just the narrow military question of threats. Like Islamist extremists and secular Saddam, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were opportunistic allies. Though the Nazis considered the Japanese racially inferior, no better than mongrels, they were part of a worldwide movement. Using the same logic that Bush does today, FDR understood the need for a grand strategy that destroyed the movement, not just certain military aggressors that were part of it.

Grand strategy is not only about defeating enemies, but also defeating them in a sequence and a manner that leads to a favorable postwar situation. Can anyone seriously doubt that defeating al-Qaeda but leaving the political situation in the Middle East the same is at best a temporary victory? Bush, as FDR did, understands that only with political transformation will the postwar prospects for peace improve.

The threat we face today is more amorphous and less easy to define than it was during World War II. But the strategic principles remain the same. Bush's critics, like Roosevelt's, are flawed in their thinking because they lack a grand strategy. Concerned only (or so they say) with the military defeat of al-Qaeda, they have nothing to say about defeating a worldwide movement or how to build a foundation for a successful postwar world.

Bush is in many ways FDR's strategic soul mate. His war on terror is a total global war against a movement comprised of terrorist groups and their state sponsors. By ousting both Saddam and the Taliban, he has removed two important components of the worldwide terrorist movement. And his grand strategy is slowly achieving results.

The forces of reform in the Middle East have been strengthened; the terrorist movement has been psychologically shaken. By destroying Saddam's military machine overnight, he has completely changed the psychology of the war on terrorism. Bush's strategy is one that FDR would understand well.

Tillie is teaming up with Danny Klein over at SloppyDawg this Sunday to bring you this week's Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers.

All New Jersey bloggers and blog readers are invited to participate. Please send links to njcarnival@gmail.com for posts you would like featured in this week's Carnival.

Files that were to be surrendered to federal investigators examining the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey's political contributions were stolen during a break-in at the school, July 30 or 31.

"It looks like it may very well have been an inside job," Petillo told the newspaper, noting that it appears the thief used a university swipe card to enter the Newark building housing the university affairs and government affairs departments. Some locked doors were pried open, he said.

File cabinets were opened with a key or forced open, and records on political contributions were also taken from an employee's briefcase, school officials said. Afterward, FBI agents made pre-dawn visits to the homes of UMDNJ officials to ask about the break-in, school officials told the newspaper.

Investigators also are interested in millions of dollars in no-bid contracts the school awarded to politically connected firms. A similar probe has been started by the State Commission of Investigation, which is a bipartisan arm of the state Legislature.

SloppyDawg will host the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #14 this Sunday.

All New Jersey bloggers and blog readers are invited to participate. Please send links to njcarnival@gmail.com for posts you would like featured in this week's Carnival.

Well, poll watchers, it’s offical. The American people have spoken - Cindy Sheehan: 35% Favorable - 38% Unfavorable.

Just what we needed, a Rasmussen poll on Cindy Sheehan. Doesn’t it make you wonder who paid for such a thing?

No, wait - we know. It must have been Karl Rove. How else was President Bush to decide if he should meet with Sheehan again?

Rove and Bush are now off to study the polls conducted on the GWOT to decide what to do next. Oh wait, wrong President.

So, who did pay for the Sheehan poll?

Two public interest lawyers are preparing to file a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee accusing Senator Jon Corzine with falsifying a federal disclosure document. Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer believe Corzine committed a federal felony by failing to disclose a $470,000 loan he made to a state employee union boss, Carla Katz.

Afran and Mayer, frequent thorns in the sides of candidates from both parties, maintain that Corzine was obligated under Senate ethics rules to disclose the loan and subsequent gift and that his intentional omission constitutes a federal crime.

"There is no girlfriend loophole," Afran said. "One of the highest-ranking union officers in the state is given a half-million-dollar gift by a sitting U.S. Sen... That is precisely the type of transaction the Senate wants to know about."

Both Afran and Mayer ran unsuccessfully for statewide office under the Green Party banner in 2000; Afran sought a U.S. Senate seat and Mayer ran for Congress.

John Spencer, the head of the New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation, who watched $8.6 billion waste away during his tenure, has resigned. Unfortunately for our neighbors, he is taking a job in New York City.

He wrote, "I will leave the S.C.C. proud of what we have accomplished during my tenure," adding, "There is no doubt that the job has had its challenges, but the rewards of building state-of-the-art schools for the children of New Jersey have far outweighed them."

Yep, it was for the children.

Bob over at eCache has more

"You get that evil maniac out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who's blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."

Cindy’s Sheehan’s questions: "I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?" Sheehan told reporters. "He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is."

Cindy Sheehan knows the answers to her questions as she wrote: All of Casey’s commendations say that he was killed in the “GWOT” the Global War on Terrorism.

In our post, Not In My Name, we answered a reader's comment with this:

It's been nonstop Cindy Sheehan in the media. Name one person that represents the opposite point of view? You can’t and that’s our point. Cindy Sheehan speaks for disaffected, far left groups in the United States and not for the vast majority of Americans or military families. We are not listening to “all” the voices, we are being forced to listen to one kook as if she had some sort of special right to be heard.

A reader responded:

Kook? That's just disrespectful. You can disagree with her without resorting to name-calling.

Cindy Sheehan seems completely incapable of disagreeing without name-calling or being respectful of anyone that doesn’t agree with her. However, our referring to Sheehan as a kook was not name-calling; it was descriptive of her rhetoric and behavior. The word kook is defined as someone regarded as eccentric or crazy and standing out from a group. Sheehan fits that definition to a “T”.

Just a sampling of what we are referring to below, starting with a quote from Common Dreams, Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community.

Cindy Sheehan on the Clinton Administration:

During the Clinton regime the US-UN led sanctions against Iraq and the weekly bombing raids killed tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. Many of them were children, but since one of her children didn’t have to be sacrificed to the homicidal war machine, Madeline Albright, thinks the slaughter during the “halcyon” Clinton years was “worth it.” More lies.

We could stop with that outrageous statement, but some may need additional examples, so here you go:

Cindy Sheehan on President Bush:

"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"

Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger."

Cindy Sheehan on the United States:

Veterans for Peace Convention: When I was growing up, it was Communists'. Now it's Terrorists'. So you always have to have somebody to fight and be afraid of, so the war machine can build more bombs, guns, and bullets and everything.

Sheehan said at a peace rally in April: "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years".

Sheehan said “this country is not worth dying for “and called the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system."

"Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state," Sheehan said. "Our government is run by one party, every level, and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government."

Cindy Sheehan on Afghanistan:

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?

SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. ... But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country?

So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11.

Cindy Sheehan on Iraq:

And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for. And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy' I'm gonna say, bullshit.

You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East..

You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine.

Cindy Sheehan on Weapons of Mass Destruction:

Cindy Sheehan speaking at a Francisco State University rally in April for a lawyer convicted of aiding Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist connected with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.:

What they’re saying, too, is like, it’s okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the countries that we say it’s okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It’s okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can’t have them. It’s okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it’s – yeah – and it’s okay for Iraq to occupy – I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it’s not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon. They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites!

Cindy Sheehan also said:

I got an email the other day and it said, "Cindy, if you didn't use so much profanity there's people on the fence' that get offended"

And you know what I said? "You know what? You know what, god-damn-it? How, in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence'?"

"If you fall on the side that is pro-George, and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."

But whatever side you fall on, quit being on the fence. The opposite of good is not evil, it's apathy. And we have to get this country off their butts, and we have to get the choir singing.

On that we can agree. We’re off the fence and singing – you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about Cindy Sheehan. To quote Howard Dean: "You sit down! You had your say, and now I'm going to have my say."

Why is Jon Corzine running for Governor of New Jersey?

Corzine has never held a job in New Jersey.

Corzine does not own a home or any other real estate in New Jersey.

Corzine does not own a business in New Jersey, with all three Corzine firms located outside the Garden State.

Jon Corzine has shown little interest in working, creating jobs or investing in New Jersey, the state he “represents” in the U.S. Senate and now seeks to lead as Governor.

Jon Corzine has chosen to invest, prosper and grow everywhere but New Jersey. Corzine’s only investments in our state have been in political campaigns to further his personal agenda.

Ronald R. Griffin from his opinion Journal article She Does Not Speak for Me - My son died in Iraq--and it was not in vain:

I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.

The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number. Now Mrs. Sheehan, with adept public relations tactics, has succeeded in elevating herself above the rest of us. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida declared that Mrs. Sheehan is now the symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq. Sorry, senator. Not for me.

Mary from No Exit wants to make it quite clear:

Other than that, all I can say is that I've always been repulsed by those who presume to speak for the dead.

If I ever happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can protest for peace with fascists and appeasement and hearts and flowers, but DO NOT DO IT IN MY NAME!

The Lawhawk points us to another case of “not in my name”

The Uniformed Firefighters has decided to withdraw support for the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, citing two controversial museums proposed there.

Ever notice the similarity? To get the full story click on over to this intern’s blog.

Today Show’s Matt Lauer surpised his audience this morning by conducting a live, in person interview with a group of soldiers at Camp Liberty in Baghdad.

At one point in the interview Laurer asked about the state of morale of the troops. After two responses to the effect that morale was good, Laurer decided to demonstate the media’s unbiased reporting style: (emphasis ours)

LAUER: Don't get me wrong, I think you're probably telling the truth, but there might be a lot of people at home wondering how that might be possible with the conditions you're facing and with the insurgent attacks you're facing... What would you say to people who doubt that morale could be that high?

CAPTAIN SHERMAN POWELL: Well sir, I'd tell you, if I got my news from the newspapers I'd be pretty depressed as well.

Powell went on to add that, while acknowledging the difficulties the media face in getting out into the field in Iraq,

"For those of us who have actually had a chance to get out and meet the Iraqi Army and Iraqi police and go on patrols with them, we are very satisfied with the way things are going here and we are confident that if we are allowed to finish the job we started we'll be very proud of it and our country will be proud of us for doing it!"

(Video available: Windows Media and Real Media) Via: News Busters

Oh yea, That Was Then, This Is Now.

Lawhawk, author of a blog for all, reminds us of another McGreevey administration colossal waste.

…the boondoggle known as the Secaucus Junction, or Secaucus Transfer, a $450 million project that went over its budget by 100%. Well, alongside that project is a New Jersey Turnpike interchange project that weaves around the Transfer to create a new interchange - Exit 15X, [an exit to nowhere].

Bob over at eCache provides another example of taxpayer money being wasted by the Democrats in Trenton, this time by the New Jersey’s Schools Construction Corporation:

SCC was entrusted with $ 8.6 billion of the taxpayers' money and it did not have a CFO to oversee it. This is exactly the kind of inefficiency which cannot be tolerated any longer. SCC squandered that money with mismanagement and some are going to want to dip into your pocket again and grant SCC oversight of that money. Enough is enough. The SCC model is obviously not built for efficiency.

We are currently suffering from outrage overload and words fail us. Maybe we could sue all those responsible for our mental anguish. Perhaps we should all join together in a class action suit and stop the insanity.

Crime Pays

That Didn't Take Long

Funding New Jersey Education

I'm From the Government. I'm Here To Give You The Mother of All Hosings

Note to NJ Dems: Taxes are the Issue

"What would Clinton do?”

Oil-For-Food, the human comedy

The verboten subject

Cindy Sheehan

E Pluribus Unum?

oh well uh you might think I'm crazy to hang around with you or maybe you think I'm lucky to have somethin' to do

Question: How much coverage would the press have given a World War II-era Cindy Sheehan who camped outside Hyde Park or Warm Springs demanding to meet with President Roosevelt?

Answer: None

Question: Why is the Washington Post withdrawing its offer of free advertising for an organized event by the Defense Department to memorialize the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks?

Answer: The Post backed out of the agreement after critics said the event, scheduled to take place four years after the attacks that hit New York and Washington and resulted in the crash of a commercial airliner over western Pennsylvania, would have a pro-war slant and that support of the event by the newspaper would compromise the Post's journalistic integrity.

Question: What is the difference between then and now?

Answer:

A Right Thinking Girl

Some think we’re tough on liberals, here’s a Right Thinking Girl that doesn’t mince words:

The Greater Good

The phrase 'the greater good' has been popping up more frequently than in my recent memory, punctuated by Hillary Clinton's announcement in San Francisco last year that she was going to "take away from you for the greater good". Every time I hear it, first I cringe and then I ask: Who or what exactly is the greater good? It seems to me that when Socialists start discussing the "greater good", they are inevitably talking about a minority of people who expect special attention at the cost of the majority.

Anytime we start discussing sharing, which is required should the 'greater good' be serviced, wise conservatives should immediately ask: cui bono? Who benefits? Inevitably the answer is the person (or country or organization) with the most to lose is the one expected to share for the unearned benefit of the other.

Wrong On The Issues

Merely saying that you have "moral values" does not give you moral values and the Left's transparent attempt to seize on that term is just the latest in the trend to attempt to fool Americans into buying what they're selling using the rhetoric of the Right. This tactic is not new. The Left is afraid of their own agenda. Even the word "liberal" has become anathema to everything most Americans hold dear. A politician calling another politician "liberal" is considered an attack. Liberals themselves like to call themselves "moderates", "independents", "progressives" to create a little distance from the reality of the label. They believe calling something a new name changes it's fundamental properties, much like calling a prostitute a "sex worker" is supposed to imbue the term with some respectability. But that's not the worst of it.

The Left has been wrong on every single modern issue up for debate today. Their use of a cat and mouse vocabulary cannot hide the facts of their wrongness. Since they can not show us who they really are because we continue to reject them at the polls, they are forced to lie to us, then we dislike them because they're liars. They seem to think the problem is that they aren't lying to us effectively enough.