Game On!

On January 22nd lawyers representing The Committee to Recall Senator Robert Menendez filed their brief supporting the Recall initiative. The court requested that the same brief be served to Senator Menace--Menendez. In an article dated January 26th that was posted on NJ.com and Politico, Senator Menendez, on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that he heads, revealed his strategy to drive a wedge between moderate voters and tea-party-type conservatives. See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32003.html.

Since the recall effort was initiated by “tea-party-type conservatives” (myself included), it is probably logical to assume that we finally got the Senator’s attention-something we couldn’t do in a summer filled with faxes, petitions, rallies, phone calls, and letters. While his Democratic Party constituents may view his strategy as a way to preserve their party and their careers, others may see it as a transparent effort to preserve his own career by dividing the movement that seeks to unseat him. It’s the old “divide and conquer” philosophy that has worked well in historical battles, and it reveals the heart of a man who is more interested in political preservation than listening to the will of the people he represents. The question remains whether or not this strategy will work here in NJ.

One thing we can be certain of, an alliance between TEA Party patriots and the Republican Party would be a force that most likely would defeat Menendez at the ballot box. While many within the TEA Party movement are just as disappointed with the Republican Party as they are with the Democratic Party, I’ll refer to another old philosophy: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Whether Republican, Democrat, Independent, Constitutionalist, Conservative, Libertarian, or any other affiliation, we need to keep our focus on the challenge before us. We need to unite against a common enemy elitist who has undermined our prosperity and trampled over our Constitution. We can sort out our differences later.

On behalf of the Committee to Recall Senator Robert Menendez, I ask all NJ patriots to join forces to defeat our common enemy and restore the principles of government that prospered us and protected our liberties. Massachusetts (and America by extension) may have claimed a victory with the election of Senator Scott Brown – now it’s our turn to send the elitists packing – and victory is within our grasp!

Senator Menendez' Voting Record

Many have been asking why we elected to launch a recall movement against Senator Menendez. Besides his non-responsiveness to NJ citizens on a variety of issues brought before him (including Cap and Trade and Healthcare) and his partisan conduct in the Senate (including votes on cloture), his voting record tells us a lot about the man. We thought it would be a good idea for our viewers to read it for themselves and then they can decide if this is a man they would like to represent the good people of NJ. Therefore, I've listed it below (in its totality so as not to spin anything. Please note that we don't disagree with everything the Senator has done, but we probably disagree with about 95% of it.) So, if you consider yourself a conservative, read it an weep.

ON LIFE ISSUES http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Robert_Menendez.htm#Immigration
Judicial nominees must uphold Roe v. Wade. (Sep 2006)
• Kean voted against stem-cell research six times; I didn’t. (Sep 2006)
• I support stem cell research 100%. (Sep 2006)
• Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
• Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
• Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
• Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
• Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
• Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
• Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
• Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
• Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims. (Sep 2006)
• Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
• Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
• Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
• Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)
ON IMMIGRATION
•
• Enforcement-only means largest deportation in history. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities". (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
• Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
• Voted NO on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program. (May 2007)
• Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
• Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
• Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
• Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
• Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 0% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)
ON JOBS
•
• Voted YES on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill. (Jun 2008)
• Voted NO on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on limiting farm subsidies to people earning under $750,000. (Dec 2007)
• Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
• Voted NO on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)
• Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
• Voted NO on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
• Rated 93% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006)
• Extend unemployment compensation during recession. (Jan 2008)
• Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue. (Jan 2009)
• Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)
On PRINCIPLES & VALUES
• Voted with Democratic Party 95.7% of 325 votes. (Sep 2007)
• Chosen as Corzine’s successor after long political career. (Dec 2005)
• Appointed by governor-elect Jon Corzine to fill Senate seat. (Dec 2005)
• American Dream is about keeping promise to other generations. (Dec 2005)
• Priorities: affordable health care & college, and fair taxes. (Dec 2005)
• America needs unity to face challenges of globalization. (Dec 2005)
• Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
• Religious affiliation: Catholic. (Nov 2000)
• Member of Congressional Hispanic Caucus. (Jan 2001)
• Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation. (Dec 2006)
• At forefront of fighting privatizing our “sacred compact”. (Sep 2006)
On Social Security AND TAX REFORM
• At forefront of fighting privatizing our “sacred compact”. (Sep 2006)
• Opposes privatization and fought Bush’s privatization scheme. (Sep 2006)
• Against privatization; but says Kean has voted for it. (Sep 2006)
• Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
• Voted YES on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
• Reject proposals for private saving accounts. (May 2002)
• Rated 90% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Repealing the estate Tax only benefits the wealthiest 1%. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (Feb 2008)
• Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
• Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
• Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
• Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
• Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
• Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
• Voted NO on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
• Voted NO on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)
• Voted NO on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
• Voted NO on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
• Voted NO on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
• Voted NO on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
• Voted NO on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
• Rated 24% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)
ON TECHNOLOGY

• Voted YES on $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007. (Mar 2006)
• Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
• Voted NO on promoting commercial human space flight industry. (Nov 2004)
• Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
• Voted YES on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)
• Facilitate nationwide 2-1-1 phone line for human services. (Jan 2007)
• Overturn FCC approval of media consolidation. (Mar 2008)


Robert Menendez on War & Peace
Click here for 14 full quotes on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace.
• Biggest mistake in Iraq was going there in the first place. (Sep 2006)
• Iraq is a war of choice; based on misleading & false threats. (Sep 2006)
• Opposes the war in Iraq. (Dec 2005)
• Only votes for war that he’d send his own kids to fight. (Dec 2005)
• The administration manipulated justifications for Iraq war. (Dec 2005)
• Voted YES on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months. (Dec 2007)
• Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007)
• Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
• Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
• Voted NO on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
• Deploy UN multinational peacekeeping force in Darfur. (Jul 2007)
• Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program. (Apr 2009)
Robert Menendez on Welfare & Poverty
Click here for 5 full quotes on Welfare & Poverty OR background on Welfare & Poverty.
• Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
• Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
• Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
• Increase the earned income tax credit. (Jan 1993)
• Develop a strategy to eliminate extreme global poverty. (Dec 2007)
• Battle terror without sacrificing our ideals. (Oct 2006)
• Combat terrorism within court oversight to protect rights. (Sep 2006)
• Punish terrorists within Geneva Convention. (Sep 2006)
• Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
• Voted YES on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
• Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
• Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
• Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
• Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
• Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
• Voted YES on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004)
• Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
• Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
• Voted NO on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)
• Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
• Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
• Stopping Vieques bombing range good; sooner is better. (Jun 2001)
• Rated 89% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Sponsored bill giving higher priority to rail security. (Jul 2005)
• Apply habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees. (Jul 2007)
• Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror. (Jun 2007)
• Establish global strategy to defeat al Qaeda. (Feb 2008)

Reply to a Letter to the Editor,

(This is in response to a letter submitted to the Editor of The New Jersey Herald that was printed on January 13, 2010.)

In a recent letter to you dated January 13th, Daniel Palmer stated that I implied that the NJ Constitution trumps the US Constitution. I said no such thing. Mr. Palmer missed the point. The issue before the court concerns the Secretary of State Nina Well’s disregard of New Jersey law. As a member of the Executive branch and not the Judicial branch of government, she has taken it upon herself to declare the NJ Constitution unconstitutional. She is not a judge and does not have the right to make such a determination. Her authority in this regard is strictly clerical in nature.

Mrs. Wells, who is a close friend to Governor Corzine and a key democratic fundraiser, was appointed to her post in January 2006 by Corzine. The broader issue before the people of New Jersey is whether they will continue to permit those in Trenton to nullify the law when politically expedient. Whether or not one agrees with the reasons given to recall Menendez, hopefully all agree that NJ citizens should not be denied their constitutional rights – especially by administrative personnel.

The Committee to Recall Senator Menendez submitted the Notice of Intention to Recall at the end of September under the procedures set forth in New Jersey’s Uniform Recall Election Law. The law was passed to implement the 1993 Amendment to the NJ Constitution that provides for a recall of US Senators in NJ. The Secretary of State is to review the Notice to check to see if the form is properly filled out. After reviewing the paperwork for conformity, the Secretary of State is required to either approve or reject the Notice within three days. If she rejects the paperwork at that time, she must identify the problems and allow the committee to amend and resubmit the Notice. None of this has been done. In this case, Mrs. Wells has chosen not to obey the laws of NJ and on January 11th, issued a “final determination” stating that the US Constitution does not allow for a recall.

According to the NJ Constitution, once the Notice is approved the Committee circulates the petitions amongst registered voters in the State who support the Recall effort. Only if and when the Committee collects the necessary number of signatures 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 government suppression.

The Secretary of State, in this case, has set herself up as judge and jury and ruled on matters of constitutionality, which she is not qualified nor authorized to do. This is nothing less than an abuse of power and an attempt to stall the Recall initiative. The people of NJ should be outraged that the Secretary of State has attempted to deny its citizens due process and freedom of speech.

This matter is far from over and our lawyers are prepared to go the distance to ensure that the good people of NJ are not denied their rights. On January 13th, our lawyers filed an application to File Appeal on an Emergent Basis. The Appeal requested a reversal of the Secretary of State’s “final determination” and an order directing the Secretary of State to approve the Notice of Intention to permit the Committee to begin collection signatures. On January 14th, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division issued an order allowing a motion to accelerate the appeal. On January 15th, our lawyers filed a Notice of Appeal and Case Information Statement. The matter is currently waiting to be heard by the court.

RoseAnn Salanitri

America Rising - With Special Kudos to the States of Nebraska and Louisiana

If you have been following the Health Care debacle, you are well aware of the special negotiations and back door deals that have been stricken to impose the liberal ideologically driven health care bill upon the American people. Two state senators in particular exemplify the worst of what has befallen our great nation–elitism and career insurance. While elitism is easy to understand, being the attitude of “I’m superior to you and know better than you; therefore, my opinion should not be questioned”–career insurance is a more subtle character flaw. It pretends to do what’s good for those it represents, when all the while it is really only concerned with getting re-elected and furthering its own career.

Admittedly, I don’t know much about either Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska or Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, but I can tell you something about the patriots that live in their states. Both Senators fell victim to the temptations and pressures the White House and the democratic congress were imposing upon them-or were they merely more adept at making deals? The truth is that we simply don’t know their motivation (or their weakness, as the case may be). It is possible they gave in to pressure; it is also possible they struck a good deal for their state in hopes of bringing home the bacon and thereby securing their subsequent elections with their constituents. However, they didn’t count on the integrity, patriotism, and constitutional understanding of their citizens.

In the good state of Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson’s poll numbers have exponentially declined, rending a death blow to his chances for re-election; and in the good state of Louisiana, the Secretary of State has just approved the petitions to recall Senator Mary Landrieu. These states deserve the admiration of the rest of us, as they rose above personal gratification and special sweetheart deals to support the greater good of our country. In other words, they didn’t sell out! Let this be an example to all of us and to the elitists in Congress. We the People can reclaim and restore the principles of republicanism at its finest if we look beyond our own short term interests. We need good men and women in congress and in all branches of government. Men and women who aren’t afraid to make good decisions based on what is right- and not on what might ingratiate them with their base (like the bridge nowhere in Alaska). The New World Order and the socialistic liberals may have thought America was in their grasp-that we would be willing to surrender our autonomy and sell out our country and our ideals for free healthcare (like we believe that really exists), or any other pot of gold at the end of the illusionary rainbow, but they didn’t count on patriots-the likes of which live in Nebraska, and Louisiana, and I’m happy to say in my home state of New Jersey. The truth is America and our ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not dead–we are rediscovering and recommitting ourselves to the principles that made this country great in the past and will prosper it once again in the future – as long as we remain strong. Therefore I say – Long live America!

Questions the Constitutionality of Recalling a US Senator

On behalf of the Committee to Recall Senator Menendez, I would like to state that the Committee is aware of the Constitutional questions regarding the recall of a US Senator and we are prepared to address those questions at the appropriate time.

However, the Constitutional question is not to be confused with the problems we are facing with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is neither court nor jury and ruling on legal argument is not within their purview. State law requires that the Secretary of State either approve or deny the submitted petitions based on wether the petitions conform to the clearly defined state statute. At this point, this is not a Constitutional issue - it is a matter of the Secretary of State complying with NJ laws.