Skip to content

2018 Candidates for State-Wide Offices: New Jersey

So far I have written about the 2018 candidates for Massachusetts and Utah. Now it’s New Jersey’s turn.

Today is primary day in several states, including Utah, in which Willard Romney might win the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate against Mike Kennedy. If Romney does win, that means that the Republican voters of Utah will be telling us that they DON’T want to “drain the swamp”! But, whatever.

But maybe that will be different in New Jersey.

So while there are congressional races in New Jersey, I want to concentrate on the election for U.S. Senate. The incumbent is Democrat Bob Menendez, whose recent corruption trial ended in mistrial by a hung jury. (Hmm, since when are politicians corrupt?)

Menendez is bad on just about every issue, a typical statist bureaucrat against our liberty. For instance, according to Wikipedia, he voted for the post-9/11 hysteria bills, including Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the Constitution-eviscerating Patriot Act and its subsequent reauthorization.

As opposed to the hysterical, irrational response to 9/11, the correct and practical response to 9/11 would have been recognizing that the U.S. government shouldn’t have invaded and bombed Iraq in 1991 in the first place, including the destruction of civilian water and sewage treatment centers and imposing sanctions which prevented their rebuilding, shouldn’t have been continuing bombing Iraq throughout the 1990s along with continuing sanctions and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, shouldn’t have been invasively and illicitly occupying foreign lands including the Muslim Middle East, all of which occupations and bombings had been provoking those foreigners throughout all those years, that could have led to a possible retaliatory attack, which had been warned about by the prescient Ron Paul.

And the correct and moral policy would have been to make the U.S. government and military stop doing all those things! End the occupations, bombings and sanctions, close down all those foreign U.S. military bases and bring all the troops back to the U.S. where they belong (and preferably, putting them back into the private sector).

More recently, warmonger Menendez voted in 2013 to bomb Syria. Oh, well. He also supported President Clinton in the bombing and ethnic cleansing of Yugoslavia. So he’s a career-long warmongering militarist. Yech.

On social issues, Menendez sponsored the failed “Student Non-Discrimination Act,” which would have expanded Title IX to LGBT students. Thank goodness it failed.

In her book, Rape Culture Hysteria: Fixing the Damage Done to Men and Women, author Wendy McElroy called for the outright repeal of Title IX, and noted the courts’ expansion of the Title and the erosion of due process and denial of the rights of the accused. Statists and collectivists do not seem to understand the importance of due process.

And on gun rights, according to Wikipedia, Menendez received an F from the NRA and a F-minus from Gun Owners of America. Apparently, he doesn’t believe that people have a right to self defense. (F-minus? That’s pretty bad, Bob.)

So if the Democrat in this election is very bad, a corrupt warmongering ignorant SJW, then should the people vote for the Republican candidate? Nope.

Republican Bob Hugin is the retired CEO of Celgene, a Big Pharma company. I am not particularly fond of Big Pharma, as most of you know.

On policies, Hugin says he supports “equal pay for equal work,” even though there’s no such thing as “equal work.” And does he mean government-mandated “equal pay,” as determined by the commissars of the State’s labor bureaucracy? At the expense of an employer’s right to set salaries for employees?

Does the government own the businesses? I think Democrats think so. Oh wait, Hugin’s a Republican. Never mind, as Emily Litella would say.

Hugin is also “pro-marriage equality,” which I suppose means that every husband is equal to every wife, which is not possible. No, I think he means that gay marriage is “equal” to opposite-sex marriage. How about just marriage freedom? Keep marriage contracts as private, voluntary contracts and keep the government out of it. Unfortunately, I don’t expect someone who shows a lack of respect for contract rights to understand this.

On foreign policy, Hugin writes on his website, “Bob considers Israel a beacon of democracy and innovation in the Middle East and throughout the world, and as Senator he will seek to strengthen our commitment to Israel and the Israeli people.” (I know I’m committed to Israel.)

Another one for making Israel the 51st state.

“Bob will vigorously oppose any future Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) that targets New Jersey’s military installations, which are imperative to our national defense and a major source of jobs and economic investment throughout New Jersey.” (Ugh! See above.)

So Hugin seems to think that military bases exist so that the feds can redistribute your confiscated earnings over to the military industrial complex.

“In the Senate, (Bob Hugin) will be a proponent of increased defense spending to ensure a highly-prepared, trained, and effective armed forces.” But they’re already getting hundreds of billions, Bob.

When it comes to socialism, it’s never enough for parasites.

However, there actually is a viable alternative to the two Government Party statists. Besides the several Independents running for U.S. Senate in New Jersey, the Libertarian Party’s nominee is Dr. Murray Sabrin, a professor of finance at the Ramapo College business school.

On civil liberties, Sabrin writes on his website,

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to petition our government for redress of grievances, habeas corpus, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right not to be executed or have our liberty or property taken away from us without due process of law, the right to a speedy trial, the right of trial by jury, the right to effective assistance of counsel, the right to confront witnesses, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments – All this is what it means to be an American.

Unfortunately, however, the federal government, in the name of “keeping us safe” in its “war on terror,” has seen fit to infringe on many of these critically important rights. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have engaged in indefinite detention, torture, assassination, and secret surveillance without warrants. They have denied speedy trials, used military tribunals instead of federal courts, admitted hearsay evidence and evidence acquired by torture, and denied effective assistance of counsel. These are the hallmarks of totalitarian regimes. They have no place in a free society.

As a US Senator, I would be committed to upholding the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. I want to restore civil liberties to the American people.

I have no complaints there.

On foreign policy, Sabrin writes,

A noninterventionist foreign policy is not only the policy of our country’s founders, it is a sane, moral, and common-sense policy as well. It is not the job of the United States to be the policeman, fireman, mediator, or social worker of the world.

If any American feels that the authoritarian leader of some country should be removed from power, he is free to use his own resources and enlist others to help him undertake a regime change.

The same idea applies to taking sides in other countries’ civil wars, bolstering other countries’ armies, rendering earthquake or typhoon relief, helping to build infrastructure, etc.

Of course, no Americans who do any of those things could or should depend on U.S. military might to rescue them if they get into trouble. They would travel at their own risk, using their own money, with only the assistance of like-minded volunteers.

On the drug war: “My plan to win the War on Drugs is simple: End It.”

Duh.

On taxes: “Libertarians see things quite differently from Democrats and Republicans. From a Libertarian perspective, the optimal top marginal income tax rate is zero.”

On regulations, “…from the medical sector to the housing sector and everywhere in between, there are regulations that hurt consumers and small businessmen for the benefit of well-connected special interests…In Washington, I will focus on eliminating these onerous regulations that restrict personal choice and undermine our economy. I want more doctors, cheaper drugs and less government control over what we can buy and have in our own homes. I will never support a bill that makes regulations more burdensome and I will introduce bills to eliminate laws that unnecessarily burden our economy and lead to a lower standard of living for the average person.”

Dr. Sabrin does say he’s for immigration reform. I am not sure I totally agree with the specifics. I would repeal all laws pertaining to immigration, because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to get involved in immigration. Just leave people alone, as long as you don’t suspect someone of committing acts of aggression, theft or fraud. It doesn’t matter whether the individual is within the “borders” or on the outside and traveling in.

Freedom means that no one needs to ask a bureaucrat for permission to travel and go from one place to another. Just don’t trespass on private property. Unfortunately, some people seem to believe that public property is a form of collectively-owned private property.

Now, Libertarian Party activist and Platform Committee member Tom Knapp wrote in this recent update on the LP’s immigration plank:

When I sought appointment to the Libertarian Party’s 2018 platform committee, I made a few commitments (including):

To seek a committee recommendation that the Libertarian Party delete the final sentence of Plank 3.4, “Free Trade and Migration,” as follows: “We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.” Thanks to the committee for considering, and passing, this proposal!

I presume that Tom’s issues with that last sentence could include the problem of who is to decide who is a credible threat to security? The central planners in Washington? They have said that Iraq was a threat, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan. And Donald Trump thinks that free trade with China, Canada or the U.K. is a threat. So, why should we entrust those idiots in Washington to determine what and who “threats” are?

In my view, some people think the threat comes from those who are seeking a better life for themselves and their families, and are willing to work at “jobs Americans won’t do,” etc. Sadly, some people (or should I say, “sheeple”) prefer a police state rather than freedom.

So, all in all, regarding the New Jersey Senate race it appears that if people are looking for someone to get in the U.S. Senate to “drain the swamp,” they really ought to just go for the Libertarian Party, Dr. Murray Sabrin, this time. What do you have to lose? (You have a lot more to lose, such as your savings and your freedom, if you continue to vote for Democrats and Republicans, that’s for sure.)

Published inUncategorized