A Party Without Shame: Silence the Opposition

PGA and politicians take note! And everyone else, consider taking out some insurance.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like Diogenes searching for an honest man, to search for a political party of Statesmen is search for a needle in a haystack. Statesmen are now obsolete. Instead “We the People” get lifetime establishment politicians. The Republican Party has morphed into something that our Founders would barely recognize and scarcely approve.

It’s time to tell my fellow Republicans the truth about their so-called moralistic Party that supposedly stands for values, morals, family, and the Constitution. Bull! In truth they are no better than the Democrat Marxist Party.

Both Parties act like private clubs run by party bosses that decide who the candidates will be, the voters be damned! The ghost of Boss Tweed rings loud and clear:

I don’t care who wins the election, as long as we choose the candidates.

Once their candidate, or should I say puppet, is in office they get their marching orders: “rubber-stamp” what we propose, accommodate our cronies. There’s no difference in parties. Bi-partisan “compromise” is a way of doing things, that is if they want to stay in office.

We the People are repeatedly manipulated. The establishment chooses the party candidate. If you’re not one of the establishment’s choices, they will silence your message!

Republican modus operandi

Two recent incidents provoked me to write this article. Allow me to digress to Monmouth County Republican’s “Abe Lincoln Dinner”. All those in attendance repeatedly heard from the establishment was Mitt Romney is our candidate for President, Joe Kyrillos for U.S. Senator, and Chris Smith for Congress.

Our phantom 30-0year RINO Congressman venturred far from his adopted State of Virginia to grace us with a rare appearance . He sacrificed a night in New Jersey since it’s an election year. If re-elected, he’ll visit us again two years from now.

All the fanfare behind the Republican candidates would have been fine apart from one very important fact. The New Jersey primary has not yet taken place! Other candidates are running for these same positions!

The current Republican leadership believed those others running were not worthy of mention. This although they are well qualified and are the choice of many in attendance. God forbid any of those speakers should tell the audience,

Whoever wins the primary we must join together and support that candidate.

Oh, no! It’s a foregone conclusion. They’ll pick the candidate and that’s who they expect you to support. Their action caused many of those in attendance to get up from their tables and leave in disgust.

What the establishment seems to be missing is this: Mitt Romney is in no way a conservative, as his record clearly demonstrates. Nor at the time had he garnered fifty percent of the delegates. In fact he was teetering with about 35%in the primaries. Even now with many of the field suspending their campaign, except for Dr. Ron Paul, Mitt Romney is still having problems.

Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Mr. 999 Cain bore no mention at all. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t like the establishment candidates this year and will cast my vote Dr. Ron Paul. I pray others will do the same and, by some miracle Dr. Paul carries New Jersey. It will teach the Republican establishment a lesson; and hopefully we will have a brokered convention. No longer must “We the People” let he Party Bosses control the ticket!

This does not mean I won’t vote for Governor Romney should he garner the delegates he needs. Anyone would be better than the Marxist buffoon now holding office. (Even some Democrats think so; Obama almost lost the West Virginia primary to someone sitting in a Texas jail!) But, just maybe the Republican leadership will get the picture.

And keep in mind the future statewide elections in 2013. Stop taking us for granted, expecting us to fall in line. That’s over! What took place in Indiana’s primary, namely the defeat of Dick Lugar, Obama’s favorite RINO, should be a wake-up call!

But clearly for me the straw that broke the camel’s back took place at the Republican Club in my Township. I asked them to invite Mr. Bader Qarmout, who is challenging Mr. Kyrillos for the Senate nomination, and Mr. Terrence McGowan, who is challenging Chris (the RINO) Smith in the Fourth District, so that the members could hear their platforms prior to the primary scheduled for June 5th. Their refusal was shocking to one’s sense of fairness to say the least. They thought it better to have a civilian speaker this coming May 22, on other topics, instead of a political speaker. Wow! Thirteen days prior to the primary, knowing about an alternative candidate wasn’t important! Once again, Republicans are in the dark about the alternative candidate’s platform. Maybe the word silenced is a better term!

Looking at the candidates

Bader Qarmout, Republican candidate for US Senate in NJ

Bader Qarmout, candidate for the US Senate from NJ, meets and greets well-wishers at the home of Nick Lally in Green Township, NJ. Photo: CNAV.

Joe Kyrillos didn’t even bother to speak to the Club. Nor did the members know that Mr. Qarmout has repeatedly challenged Mr. Kyrillos to debate the issues after Kyrillos, like a coward, refused to participate. I believe the reason is simple: Joe Kyrillos is an anti-Second Amendment Party yes-man with no specific platform. His only claim to fame is that he’s a friend of Governor Christie. He led Christie gubernatorial campaign and worked on the political campaign for Romney in 2008. So according to the Republican playbook, it’s his turn; he’s one of the boys.

Bader Qarmout’s platform should interest any voter:

  • A balanced budget
  • Term limits
  • Pro-life
  • Flat tax
  • Traditional family values
  • And last but not least: pro-2nd Amendment.

He certainly sounds like a Constitutional Republican to me. God forbid the rank and file of the party should know this. They might vote for him as their candidate in the primary. Yikes! A number of Tea Parties and religious organizations have endorsed him. Surely that disqualifies him by the Republican establishment standards.

Then there’s Terrence McGowan. He’s a strong Conservative. He has spent his life serving and protecting others, as a Navy SEAL, NJ Police Officer, NJ Firefighter, and civilian Iraqi War veteran. And, believe it or not a true believer in the 2nd Amendment. People like Terry, generally avoid the spotlight. But he has decided that our country needs him to step into the political arena. He is challenging 30-year incumbent Chris Smith. Smith is another of Obama’s Pelosi’s favorite RINO’s. He is nothing less than a counterfeit Republican who repeatedly voted with the Democrats. It’s time for Mr. Smith to leave Washington, not stay in Washington.

Back-door party politics

Anna Little, Republican primary candidate in the NJ 6th District

Anna Little, Republican primary candidate in NJ-6, during her 2010 campaign. Photo: Essex County Conservative Examiner, shared with CNAV.

The Republican double cross in the 6th Congressional District is the final shame. Anna Little, Former Mayor, Monmouth County Freeholder, is a well-known seasoned campaigner. Two years ago she beat the Republican Party’s big-money candidate Dianne Gooch. She came within ten points of beat Frank Pallone, Mr. I wrote the Health-care legislation himself, and she is the best Republican to beat him this time. Yet she was removed from the Republican Party Column 4 and placed on Column 5. Her replacement is a total unknown. He says he lives in Asbury Park, but his voting record shows he voted in Ocean County. Out of nowhere he became the party’s choice. Yet, he never attended a GOP Gala, affiliated meeting , local GOP dinner, or Tea party Meeting. For that matter ever raised a dime or supported and Republican candidate to anyone’s knowledge. Nor has ever been elected to any public office.

My guess is the Republican establishment would rather see Frank Pallone keep his seat in Congress than see Anna on the ticket. They still can’t get the egg that Anna put on their faces when she beat their candidate Dianne Gooch. So this is how they get even. Let’s pray they once again get egg on their face, and Anna wins the primary and goes on to beat Frank Pallone.

A Constitutional Party?

Many in the Tea Party movement would like to see a Constitutional Party – I say heck No! It’s time to take back our party from those that have stolen it! Restore the platform to what it was, not what the establishment want it to be. Again, the Republican establishment got a taste of the future in Indiana, New Jersey your next! Well there you have it, my chance to vent, that being said.

Maybe the establishment should wake up and follow the lead of the Monmouth County Freeholder’s all Republican’s that attentively listen to the citizens, and thereafter act in their behalf, and at times go against the tide of the establishment. I can assure you they will get the support of the Tea Party’s as well as many from both parties. To each of them I say thank you.

“We the “People” in the Republican Party will be heard; we will not let you continue with business as usual! I would remind the establishment; a true Republican believes in Constitutional principles. The “Tea Party” just demonstrated we are alive and well and growing daily, just ask Senator Dick Luger of Indiana. Will you be next?

The Eagle

ARVE Error: need id and provider

ARVE Error: need id and provider

31 Responses to A Party Without Shame: Silence the Opposition

  1. opcnup says:

    “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately” –Benjamin Franklin

    The purpose of a political party is to come together to get things done. The Tea party has been costing the Republican party a lot, the enthusiasm really helped, but many safe seats were lost (or nearly so) when a reckless tea party candidate like Joe Miller or Christine O’Donnel took the reins. If you’ve got something to say, then convince others tht what you have to say is important, if the leadership of the party doesn’t want to let you speak then vote someone new in. If you cannot vote someone new in, then perhaps you are in the wrong party. You can’t just show up and expect to be in charge, that’s not how the political system works.

  2. rpeh says:

    Okay, let’s skip through the cruft and address the so-called agenda:

    A balanced budget
    I assume that means you support President Obama’s budget over Rep Ryan’s, given that the latter adds several billion dollars to the deficit when compared to the former?
    Term limits
    I assume you mean (at least in part) Congressional Term Limits? You claim to support the constitution. Please indicate where the constitution gives anybody other than Congress the right to set term limits. If you want a constitutional amendment, please indicate how likely you think it is to pass.
    Pro-life
    Everybody is pro-life. To claim otherwise is to lie. If you mean that you wish to restrict the rights of women to control their own bodies, you run into that pesky Constitution again.
    Flat tax
    If you’re going to take your tax policies from Sim City and still claim to be a serious candidate, I’m not going to stop you.
    Traditional family values
    I’m not sure what you mean by this, but given that for the vast majority of its history the USA outlawed mixed-race marriage, I’ll assume you mean that. How would you deal with the many thousands of cases where blacks and whites are inter-married? What about their children? I’d like to hear more from you about this.
    And last but not least: pro-2nd Amendment.
    I agree that your militia should be well-regulated. Please tell me what laws you would enact to ensure that the people who bear arms are well-regulated members of a militia.

    I used HTML formatting, and it might all go wrong. There’s no Preview function, so please forgive me if this is all one mass of text.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Your formatting is excellent.

      But I cannot say the same for your arguments.

      I leave them up there for one reason only: only with your own words can I convict you of pathological mendacity.

  3. Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

    Oh delightful. What a great tone you’re setting by calling Rpeh a pathological liar for expressing opinions you disagree with. Can you please try to keep it civil? We can all call each other liars and get nowhere. You might as well have not posted a contentless smear. Take it easy!

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      He did more than express opinions. He stated versions of events at variance with known fact, and did so in full knowledge of the true state of events. That’s called lying.

      • rpeh says:

        Everything I posted is true. If you disagree, point out one example where you believe I’m wrong. If you can’t do that, it’s you who is the liar.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          Well, let’s take that matter of the budget. You said that Paul Ryan’s budget adds several billion dollars to the deficit compared to Obama’s. That’s a lie.

          “Everybody is pro-life.” That’s another lie. Abortion is infanticide, and falls at least in the category of voluntary manslaughter. I don’t need any legislature to tell me that; I go by my read of natural law. So when you call me a liar first for “claim[ing] otherwise,” you leave yourself wide-open.

          “A well-regulated militia.” You know perfectly well that the militia is every citizen or lawful resident who owns a firearm. The militia is not a creature of positive law; it follows from natural law.

          On the other points, you were not so much mendacious as just plain obstinate. And to take one example: maybe the authors of Sim City and the other Sim games had something there, when they developed a tax model that is simplicity itself.

          • rpeh says:

            I’m sure you’re just going to dispute the figures, but Obama’s budget decreases the deficit and Ryan’s increases it. In other words, Ryan’s budget adds billions more to the deficit than Obama’s. 1-0 to me.

            Regardless of what you call abortion, and regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, there is nobody who wants fetuses to be aborted. Nobody. Just nobody. If you are seriously claiming that women jump for joy and say “Oh goodie! An unwanted pregnancy! Now I get to have an abortion!” you are out of your mind. 2-0 to me.

            I would define a militia as citizens grouped together to serve with the military but as a separate part of it. The founding fathers certainly never envisaged the 2nd amendment to mean people turning up at political rallies with signs saying “We came unarmed (this time)”. Neither did they envisage it meaning that private citizens should have access to grenade launchers and automatic weapons. In their day it meant a musket and some ammo because that’s all there was. I don’t know how you can claim otherwise. 3-0 to me.

            In other words, no lies at all Terry.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            What I dispute are your assumptions. The key assumption is that, if you raise taxes, the taxed people will be good little taxpayers and go on and pay up.

            They will not.

            They will go on strike, as it were.

            As they are already doing.

            As regards abortion: when a woman falls pregnant and doesn’t “want the baby,” it’s not that she looks forward to the act of abortion. (Though some might actually “get off” on that, but that’s rare.) It’s that they just flat-out don’t care. They have no conscience. I wonder if you have a conscience, if you can allow abortions to continue for the trivial reasons that apply in ninety-nine and forty-four-one hundredths percent of cases. (Sorry, Procter and Gamble. Just had to get that in.)

            As to militia: It doesn’t matter how you define it. What matters is what a militia is. You are just plain wrong. The militia is all citizens/lawful residents that own firearms. But then again, you don’t want anyone to have a firearm, except an LEO or a military service member. Do you?

          • rpeh says:

            So you’ve gone from accusing me of “pathological mendacity” to disputing my assumptions. Fine, but can I have an apology now please?

            I’m not going to respond on the first two points except to note that it’s almost entirely the rich who don’t pay their taxes, and that I don’t understand the P&G reference.

            On the militia point, you know that’s not what I think about guns. I’ve told you that in detail on at least one previous occasion. I’ll admit that I don’t support the idea of private citizens holding automatic weaponry, grenade launchers and other serious kit, and I also believe people who want guns should be tested for suitability and responsibility – just as with a driving license – but I don’t see anything wrong with people owning a gun if they really want to.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            You’ll get my apology when the earth’s core cools down. Here’s your problem: you know, or you should know, that your assumptions are unsafe. This isn’t rocket science. It’s like disputing whether two plus two equals four or five.

          • rpeh says:

            Very Christian of you Terry. But then, you aren’t a real Christian, as I’ve already stated before.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            A real Christian defends his precepts, to the death if necessary. He does not yield to any pretended consideration of etiquette.

          • rpeh says:

            This isn’t about your precepts Terry. You broke one of your commandments by bearing false witness against me. An apology is the least you can do.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            I don’t think so.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “The militia is all citizens/lawful residents that own firearms.”

            Where does the “well regulated” part come in? Because that’s the type of milita the Second Amendment specifies.

            As a former professional soldier I’d say that for a militia to be “well regulated” the following requirements are a bare minimum:

            * All weapons to be a semi-automatic variant of the standard service rifle and chambered for the standard service calibre. That means AR-15s or clones in 5.56mm NATO; nothing else should be acceptable.

            * All militia members to be registered on a nominal roll held at their local military headquarters, to allow them to be rapidly called to the colours when required.

            * All militia members to undergo the standard service personal weapons test anually; all failures to be given remedial marksmanship training by military instructors until they pass.

            Anything that doesn’t meet those requirements isn’t a well-regulated militia; it’s an armed rabble, and it’s useless.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “On the militia point, you know that’s not what I think about guns.”

            rpeh, Terry always says that to me too. Never mind that I’m a private citizen who owns two guns; he’s convinced that I think firearms ownership should be restricted to the military and police.

            And no, I don’t think civilians need automatic weapons either. There is no legitimate civilian use whatsoever for a fully automatic firearm.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Well, let me put it this way: I see no warrant, in the philosophy of law, for forbidding any private citizen to own any sort of weapon.

            Ancient Rome, for centuries, had armies whose members, the first private soldiers, brought their own weapons and armor to the battle. Only with the six-times-successive consulship of Gaius Marius did Roman infantrymen use government-issue weapons or armor. Marius’ soldiers were the first GI’s after a long hiatus in ancient history.

            Two lessons from that:

            1. A free society does allow all its able-bodied adults, or at least adult males, to keep and bear weapons.
            2. The GI concept is an indirect threat to freedom. It leads people like you to assume that private citizens have no business keeping weapons that a private soldier would carry, merely because the government issues the weapons to said soldier.
          • Fergus Mason says:

            “I see no warrant, in the philosophy of law, for forbidding any private citizen to own any sort of weapon.”

            So you wouldn’t prevent anyone who wanted one from owning a heavy machine gun or an RPG? What about thermobaric rocket launchers, like the RPO-A? One of those can instantly turn a small apartment block into smoking rubble and rip all the occupants’ lungs out. It’s not much good for duck hunting though. What about artillery? Should private citizens be allowed to own that?

            “Ancient Rome… had armies whose members, the first private soldiers, brought their own weapons and armor to the battle.”

            Yes – shields, spears and swords.

            “Only with the six-times-successive consulship of Gaius Marius did Roman infantrymen use government-issue weapons or armor.”

            Correct. I note that the Marian Reforms turned the Imperial army into the superb instrument it was. The issue weapons were perfectly tailored for the emerging Roman tactics and gave them a huge tactical advantage. Government control of military weapons also allowed for the issue of large numbers of support weapons such as ballistae and catapults.

            “It leads people like you to assume that private citizens have no business keeping weapons that a private soldier would carry”

            Private citizens have no business owning support weapons such as fully automatic firearms, rocket launchers or mortars. That’s because the only possible use of such weapons is to kill people rapidly and in large numbers. No private citizen has any possible justification whatsoever for owning one, and in any case putting weapons like that in untrained hands is nothing but criminal stupidity.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            The general principle, which you have missed, is that if you have any sort of weapon, your neighbors might have similar weapons.

            You threw another complication into the mix: a landlord. Any landlord has the right to forbid his tenants to do anything that, in his judgment, could threaten damage to or destruction of his property, or injury to or death of his other tenants. I have not lived in a “flat” for a long time. I live in a single-family residence. I therefore am my own landlord. Neither have I any “Home Owners’ Association” to answer to. So naturally I think of myself as an autonomous actor. That is something you are clearly not used to.

            Now about those ancient weapons: the spiritual descendants of the short sword (gladius), the long sword, the spear, and the shield are the modern automatic pistol, automatic rifle, and RPG. Your arguments gain no validity merely with the improvement in the technology.

            But then again, you lack the fundamental, and uniquely American, concept of freedom. That is why you would no doubt recommend amending our Constitution to strike the Second Amendment therefrom.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “if you have any sort of weapon, your neighbors might have similar weapons.”

            How is that relevant? If my neighbour has a mortar – a hideously dangerous thing in untrained hands – I’m not going to feel any better about it if I have one too. You still haven’t given any possible reason for a civilian to have such a weapon, of course.

            “You threw another complication into the mix: a landlord.”

            Not really; I was just illustrating how destructive these weapons are. An RPO-A will destroy your house and kill everyone in it just as effectively as it’ll demolish a block of flats. And your Second Amendment rights will do you no good whatsoever. It’s one thing having a pistol at home to defend against an armed burglar (though statistically the people most likely to be killed with it are your own children) but you can’t defend yourself against military support weapons.

            “the spiritual descendants of the short sword (gladius), the long sword, the spear, and the shield are the modern automatic pistol, automatic rifle, and RPG.”

            I disagree. I’d say the descendants are the bayonet, the rifle and body armour. No Roman infantry weapon comes anywhere near matching the power of a military automatic firearm.

            “That is why you would no doubt recommend amending our Constitution to strike the Second Amendment therefrom.”

            When are you going to stop using that as a catch-all reply to anyone who doesn’t want to see Javelin anti-tank missiles in the hands of George Zimmerman or the Beverly Hillbillies? I have no problem at all with private gun ownership, what with being a private gun owner myself.

  4. Fergus Mason says:

    “The Republican Party has morphed into something that our Founders would barely recognize and scarcely approve.”

    Well, you definitely got that right.

    • Rob Pommer says:

      “The Republican Party has morphed into something that our Founders would barely recognize and scarcely approve.”

      “Well, you definitely got that right.

      Maybe I’ve gotten a revisionist learning of US history but…didn’t the Republican Party come into being long after the “Founders”? (If you were referring to the founders of the Republican Party one wonders why the upper-case “F”, which would surely denote the Founding Fathers not disaffected Whig Party members forming another political party?)

  5. […] A Party without shame […]

  6. rpeh says:

    I think this is worth adding as a coda to Nick and Terry’s discredited argument.

    Since Obama took office:

    1) Federal spending is down
    2) Taxes are down
    3) Annual budget deficit is down

    Curse that fiscally-efficient socialism!

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Wrong on all counts.

      • Fergus Mason says:

        It’s easy to simply dismiss rpeh by saying “Wrong on all counts,” but he provided a source to back up his claims. Can you provide one to actually refute them, or are you just going to say he’s wrong and leave it at that?

  7. […] Purpura, a Tea Party activist in Monmouth County, also endorsed McGowan and Little. Then there’s Terrence McGowan. He’s a strong Conservative. He has spent his […]

  8. […] my article “A Party Without Shame: Silence the Opposition” (May 11, 2012), I warned that Kyrillos lacked credibility.  He has just proved me right. If you […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.