Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Chris Russomanno
Chris Russomanno (Libertarian Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District. He lost in the general election on November 5, 2024.
Russomanno completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
Chris Russomanno was born in Trenton, New Jersey. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1990 to 1995. He earned an associate degree from Mercer County Community College in 1999 and a bachelor's degree from The College of New Jersey in 2001. His career experience includes working as a security professional and police officer.[1]
Elections
2024
See also: New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District election, 2024
New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District election, 2024 (June 4 Democratic primary)
New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District election, 2024 (June 4 Republican primary)
General election
General election for U.S. House New Jersey District 3
The following candidates ran in the general election for U.S. House New Jersey District 3 on November 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Herbert C. Conaway Jr. (D) | 53.2 | 202,034 |
 | Rajesh Mohan (R)  | 44.7 | 169,454 | |
 | Steven Welzer (G) | 0.9 | 3,478 | |
 | Chris Russomanno (L) | 0.5 | 1,951 | |
 | Douglas Wynn (Why Not Wynn Party) | 0.4 | 1,332 | |
 | Justin Barbera (Join The Revolution Party) | 0.3 | 1,235 | |
| Total votes: 379,484 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House New Jersey District 3
Herbert C. Conaway Jr. defeated Carol Murphy, Joseph Cohn, Sarah Schoengood, and Brian Schkeeper in the Democratic primary for U.S. House New Jersey District 3 on June 4, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Herbert C. Conaway Jr. | 49.6 | 27,528 |
 | Carol Murphy | 25.3 | 14,049 | |
 | Joseph Cohn | 11.7 | 6,517 | |
 | Sarah Schoengood | 10.0 | 5,524 | |
 | Brian Schkeeper | 3.4 | 1,862 | |
| Total votes: 55,480 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Andrew Kim (D)
- Alexander Hammerli (D)
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House New Jersey District 3
Rajesh Mohan defeated Shirley Maia-Cusick, Michael Francis Faccone, and Gregory Sobocinski in the Republican primary for U.S. House New Jersey District 3 on June 4, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Rajesh Mohan | 38.0 | 13,011 |
 | Shirley Maia-Cusick | 30.7 | 10,507 | |
 | Michael Francis Faccone | 17.0 | 5,812 | |
 | Gregory Sobocinski | 14.4 | 4,947 | |
| Total votes: 34,277 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Endorsements
Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for Russomanno in this election.
2022
See also: New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District election, 2022
General election
General election for U.S. House New Jersey District 3
Incumbent Andrew Kim defeated Bob Healey, Chris Russomanno, and Gregory Sobocinski in the general election for U.S. House New Jersey District 3 on November 8, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Andrew Kim (D) | 55.5 | 150,498 |
 | Bob Healey (R) | 43.6 | 118,415 | |
| Chris Russomanno (L) | 0.5 | 1,347 | |
| Gregory Sobocinski (God Save America) | 0.4 | 1,116 | |
| Total votes: 271,376 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Lawrence Hatez (Returning Your Rights!)
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House New Jersey District 3
Incumbent Andrew Kim defeated Reuven Hendler in the Democratic primary for U.S. House New Jersey District 3 on June 7, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Andrew Kim | 92.8 | 39,433 |
 | Reuven Hendler | 7.2 | 3,062 | |
| Total votes: 42,495 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House New Jersey District 3
Bob Healey defeated Ian Smith and Nicholas Ferrara in the Republican primary for U.S. House New Jersey District 3 on June 7, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Bob Healey | 52.9 | 17,560 |
 | Ian Smith | 38.3 | 12,709 | |
| Nicholas Ferrara | 8.9 | 2,956 | ||
| Total votes: 33,225 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Will Monk (R)
- Shawn Hyland (R)
Campaign themes
2024
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Chris Russomanno completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Russomanno's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
- We need to end our involvement in any of the wars or conflicts we are engaged in at this time. We need to close all our bases worldwide and bring our troops home. We need to wage peace aggressively, not war.
- We need our own government to stop violating our civil rights and do away with legislation like the Patriot Act. This act allows our own government to spy on us violating the first and fourth amendment.
- We need to end the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing (or out of debt) for the purposes of lending. The creation of this never-ending supply of money is what causes inflation as more money is chasing the same number of goods. Furthermore, it enables the politicians to finance never ending warfare and bail out failing banks and corporations which are well connected. All this is done at taxpayer expense.
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
Campaign website
Russomanno’s campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
The United States is headed in the wrong direction. The cost of living for the nation has skyrocketed and food, fuel and housing are becoming unaffordable. We need to end the federal reserve and stop the rising inflation as a result of printing money at will.
America is funding endless wars and foreign countries. Our resources are being spent on protecting other countries while our own is suffering needlessly.
Our freedoms are eroding, and voices are silenced. Constitutional rights are being trampled on. Censorship is widespread, our Second Amendment rights are constantly threatened, and our Fourth Amendment protections are shrinking.
It is time to end the fed, stop endless wars and take back our country and our rights.[2] |
” |
| —Chris Russomanno’s campaign website (2024)[3] | ||
2022
Chris Russomanno did not complete Ballotpedia's 2022 Candidate Connection survey.
Campaign website
Russomanno's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Although there are many important things going on today the three most important things facing our nation today are WAR, MONEY and our CIVIL RIGHTS. War is intimately tied to money and constant warfare leads to erosion of our civil rights. Constant warfare impoverishes our nation because in order to pay for the ever increasing expenditures the Federal Reserve must keep printing more money. When The Fed prints more money it causes inflation which decreases the value of the dollar and lowers its purchasing power. The more wars and foreign interventions we have the more it causes others to hate us. The more others hate us the more people clamor for increased security. The government gives us more security, and takes away our civil rights to do so thereby decreasing our freedoms. This occurs in an endless cycle until we end up where we are now. We are about ready to enter into another war, inflation is through the roof and our own government spies on us. When the government, or the corporate media, tells you that these things are not happening, that you should not “believe your lying eyes,” just take a look around and it is plain to see. You can see it as we place sanctions on Russia (effectively and act of war), as you put gas into your car at over four dollars a gallon, and as government agencies listen to our phone calls. Enough is enough. This has got to stop.
The second most important issue facing our nation is intimately intertwined with the first and that is money. As a child, I can remember my father telling me that when it came to politics you could have guns or butter but you could not have both. Guns were shorthand for war and foreign policy involving conflicts and butter meant social services,education and building projects here at home. In the past, a nation's coffers only had so much gold for it to spend on either guns or butter. You could only pay for one but only at the expense of the other. Tons of gold could be spent on a war or that same money could be used to build bridges and roads or promote education. The gold could only be spent in one place at a time. However, that was before the Federal Reserve (The Fed). It was once thought that the government had to choose between providing guns or butter, now, with the Fed, it is realized that no such choice is ultimately necessary. Politicians get together and agree to logroll so each special interest is able to get what it wants. Guns, butter, and everything else under the sun, including endless bailouts of failing businesses as well as foreign aid for the world, are all provided sources of the money machine … The Fed is what has made this … possible, for without the money machine … none of this would be possible. The American people would have to be taxed, and I doubt that they would stand for too many tax increases along these lines. Disguise this tax increase in the form of monetary expansion and you can provide government funding and spread the costs through society. (Paul, 2009: 69-70). War and money are intimately intertwined. One can not be had without the other. If war is the most important thing our nation faces, money is a close second. The entity which makes never ending warfare possible is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, or The Fed for short, is a banking cartel which was created in the earlier part of the last century. It is a private entity not beholden to the government or the citizens. None of its officials are democratically elected by the people yet it controls the nation's money. In the past people would have to do something in order for money to be created. Someone would have to mine gold. Someone else would have to labor to receive the gold as their pay. Someone else would have to save it before it could be loaned out to someone else. With The Fed, none of the above is even necessary. It creates money out of nothing or more precisely out of debt. It is backed by nothing valuable except the full faith and credit of the United States. Something I also never knew was that because the money is created out of debt, if there was no more debt, the whole system would collapse. If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have … If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture , the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible — but there it is. (Plummer, 2014:103). The federal government has made it impossible to use anything but dollars as a means of exchange by creating legal tender laws that say as much. Although there are many other things which are valuable and have, or can be used as currency (Bitcoin, gold and silver, even cigarettes), because of government fiat, legally one can not use anything other than dollars to pay for all debts public or private. This gives the government and The Fed, a monopoly on the use and creation of money. Using the guns of the government, people are forced to use this, increasingly worthless, commodity to use in an exchange for goods and services. Forcing people to use money created by The Fed is a boon to bankers and the government, however, it hurts the common man. “Bankers … were able to dominate both business and government. They could dominate businesses … because … they had the ability to supply, or refuse to supply, capital … they took seats on the boards of directors of industrial firms, as they had already done on commercial banks … they funneled capital to enterprises which yielded control, and away form those who resisted … The History of the last century shows … that the advice given to governments by bankers … was consistently good for bankers, but was often disastrous for governments … and the people generally.” (Plummer, 2014: pp. 70-71). Because The Fed can simply create money out of nothing, instead of having to choose guns or butter, the government can have both. The Fed has allowed our government to fund the longest war in America's history in Afghanistan. A war that lasted twenty years with the only thing to show for it is our service members coming home physically and mentally scarred, a national debt in the trillions of dollars and the animosity of other nations. In school I was never taught about The Federal Reserve. I remember reading a paragraph about it in a social studies class. It was a very short, very vague paragraph. It led one to believe that The Fed was a good thing that smoothed out the economy and that chaos would ensue if it was not around. When I talk to friends and family, they have no idea how it even works. This subterfuge is no accident. The Fed has an ingenious, insidious way of creating money out of nothing, then loaning that same nothing, or debt, to us for a huge fee as they collect interest on — nothing. Rather than spend money into our economy, they loan money into our economy. This enables the Network to steal purchasing power from us twice: once when they create new money and again as they collect interest on the entire money supply … by creating money when a loan is made, and then destroying that same money (removing it from circulation) when the loan is repaid, the Network has designed the perfect debt trap. Any meaningful attempt to escape this debt trap, by paying down the debt, will trigger an automatic “correction mechanism” that guarantees failure … as the nation repays its banking debts (and refuses to take out new loans), the economy’s debt-based money supply will shrink . This will cause disruptions in the economy; initially the disruptions will be minor, but they will inevitably become intolerable if new money isn’t injected via new loans. (Plummer, 2014: 102). In the past wars and conflicts went on only as long as there was gold to pay for them. Now with The Fed printing an inexhaustible supply of cash wars could go on forever. This idea is illustrated clearly when we look at World War I. Many thought that the war would be over in a matter of months because the countries involved would run out of money (gold) to pay for expenditures. However, they suspended the gold standard and were able to continue it indefinitely. All the Great Powers were on the gold standard under which … paper money could be converted into gold on demand. However, each country suspended the gold standard at the outbreak of war. This removed the automatic limitations on the supply of paper money … each country proceeded to pay for the war by borrowing from the banks. The banks created money which they lent by merely giving the government a deposit of any size against which the government could draw checks. The banks were no longer limited in the amount of credit they could create because they no longer had to pay out gold for checks on demand … the problem of public debt became steadily worse because governments were financing such a large part of their activities by bank credit. (Plummer, 2014: 87-88). The Federal Reserve actually encourages war because large corporations that manufacture weapons and munitions and the military-industrial complex profit from continual warfare. In 1970 , the Lockheed Corporation, the nation’s largest defense contractor, was facing bankruptcy…A bailout plan was quickly engineered by Treasury Secretary John B. Connolly that guaranteed payment on an additional $250 million in loans … The government now had a powerful motivation to make sure Lockheed would be awarded as many defense contracts as possible and that they would be as profitable as possible. This was an indirect method of paying off the banks with tax dollars, but doing so in such a way as not to arouse public indignation. Other defense contractors, which had operated more efficiently would lose business, but that could not be proven. Furthermore, a slight increase in defense expenditures would hardly be noticed. (Griffin, 2010: 44-45). In a bygone era when kings, emperors and warlords ran out of money oftentimes their military exploits ended as well. However, with The Fed, there is an inexhaustible supply of funding which made wars larger and prolonged. Following the creation of the Fed … It would prove useful in funding war. It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking. When governments had to fund their own wars without a paper money machine to rely upon, they economized on resources. They found diplomatic solutions to prevent war, and after they started a war they ended it as soon as possible. (Paul, 2009: 63). The Fed not only promotes warfare (guns) it also allowed the government to bail out failing banks and corporations in 2008 (butter). This sort of corporate welfare allows big banks and huge corporations to make risky investments and bad loans at taxpayer expense. And by taxpayers, I mean you and me. In October of 2008, Congress passed a $700 billion bailout bill to save the largest banks in the nation, all of which were tottering on the edge of bankruptcy. Congressman who voted for this had received 54% more in donations from banks than those who voted against it. The White House urged news services to stop using the word “bailout” and say “rescue” instead. They Complied. (Griffin, 2010: 56). You might think that after you and I bailed out failing banks and corporations that they would give something back to us as a “thank you.” Instead they took even more from us by moving their factories overseas and importing workers from other countries instead of keeping their business here in America and hiring American workers. As an example: All together the auto companies were given $17.4 billion. Two months later, Ford, which already had plants in Mexico, Germany, and Spain, began producing cars in China. GM soon followed suit and announced that it, also, would build more cars overseas. (Griffin, 2010: 57). Furthermore, as if to add insult to injury the Network, Corporatocracy and the bankers did all they could to make things even worse for the average American who footed the bill for the bailouts: Among bailout recipients, it is common to see the money used in ways that destroy jobs for the same American taxpayers who pay the bill. During the time when U.S. banks were receiving more that $150 billion from American workers, they were requesting special visas to import 21,800 personnel from other countries to replace Americans in upper echelon jobs, including corporate lawyers, investment analysts, programmers, and human-resource specialists. This disdain for the American workforce is partly because of corporate pursuit of maximum profit above all else and partly because decision makers consider themselves. To be internationalists, with no special interest in America except as a cash cow to be milked as regularly and thoroughly as possible. (Griffin, 2010: 57). While there is a close relationship with the military-industrial complex (with a revolving door between these corporations and government officials) there is a similar arrangement with the financial sector and government officials. As an example, Henry “Hank” Paulson is an American banker who served as the 74th United States secretary of the treasury from 2006 to 2009. Prior to this, he was the chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of Goldman Sachs. G. Edward Griffin shows this relationship in his book the Creature From Jekyll Island: Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson … was the epitome of the fusion between the banking cartel and government. As former CEO of Goldman Sachs, he was instrumental in using the power of his office to destroy three of his old rivals. He arranged the sale of Bear Sterns to JP Morgan Chase, allowed Lehman Brothers to collapse, and forced the absorption of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, all the while providing a generous bailout for his alma mater, Goldman Sachs. This left only Goldman and Morgan as major investment banks. Documents obtained by a citizen watchdog group, Judicial Watch, revealed that Paulson had told bankers they must accept bailout money even if their banks were in fair condition and didn’t need it. The reason was so as not to “stigmatize” the weaker banks by allowing a comparison to well run banks. (Griffin, 2010: pp. 58-59). When The Fed prints money it causes inflation and reduces the purchasing power of the dollar. In New Jersey alone the cost of a gallon of gasoline is over four dollars. A loaf of bread or a dozen eggs are getting close to the four dollar mark. And a gallon of milk is almost five dollars. I talk to my family and friends to see how they are doing and bar none we are starting to feel the pinch. With the country trillions of dollars in debt, it is going to get worse. …using enormous amounts of other people’s money … bankers essentially purchased their way into powerful business and government positions. With each new position, they gained control of more money. With control of more money, they gained access to more positions (so on and so forth). Through this process they secured enough monetary power to enforce their “advice” on both businesses and governments alike, expanding the reach of their hidden dynasties each step of the way. (Plummer, 2014: 71). There seems to be this disconnect with people. They see and hear the government bailing out banks and corporations, giving checks to everyone during the pandemic and ending a disastrous war only to start another one in its aftermath (Russia and Ukraine). Then prices start to rise dramatically with seemingly no end in sight. Is this what we want for our country? Is this what we want for New Jersey, our family and friends? The ease of financing spending by the Congress with the help of the Federal Reserve makes huge deficits a foregone conclusion. It’s cheaper in the short run to inflate than it is to borrow and much more palatable than immediate taxation to pay the bills. If a country could not borrow or inflate its currency, its government would be much smaller and the country more prosperous and safer. Needless wars would not and could not be fought. Paul, 2009: 189). If you are wondering why we have runaway inflation, why gasoline is over four dollars a gallon and food is so expensive the answer is The Fed. To more wars, bailouts, debt and inflation, I say a resounding — NO! End The Fed so the politicians can not fund any more wars which drive us deeper into debt. End The Fed so the big banks and corporations can not be bailed out on our dime. End The Fed so we can get America and New Jersey back on their feet and promote peace and prosperity.
War is the single most important issue that our country has to deal with today. War causes a huge drain on our finances which impoverishes our nation, while enriching special interests, and causes others to hate our country. There are those that say that war is good and stimulates the economy. Often these are modern economists who tout this notion. This idea makes it easier for the politicians to increase spending to keep the military-industrial complex fat and happy. When you have the political and economic scientists both saying that war is a good thing, it is no wonder that our country seems to be in perpetual conflict. The idea that war is good in any way, especially financially is a fiction generated by the special interests that benefit from it. I would quote an ancient source who I trust more than a modern economist or political scientist — the great general Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war … the expenditure at home and at the front … will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men … if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain … There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. (Tzu, 2006: 9). I would remind others that not only the ancients, from other places, spoke out against war and the special interests which benefit from it. One of our own great generals, and later a US President, spoke out against warfare and those in our country who espouse it. During President Eisenhower’s farewell address he gave us fair warning about the military-industrial complex when he said: In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence … by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. (Perkins, 2008: 186). The oligarchy which controls the levers of power behind the scenes has been called by many names. In his book Tragedy and Hope, Carroll Quigley calls it “The Network.” Author John Perkins, in his book The Secret History of The American Empire, calls it the “Corporatocracy.” Within the Network or Corporatocracy are the entities that control our businesses, government, and finances. Our nation just ended a twenty year war in Afghanistan with nothing to show for it and our government is embroiling the country in another foreign conflict. This time, however, instead of a bunch of poor tribesmen armed with only rifles and limited munitions, the politicians have decided to take on a country with nuclear capabilities. Why would anyone want to bring our nation, and possibly the world, so close to nuclear war? Because when our nation wages war, whether our forces win or lose, the Military-Industrial Complex, the Network, and the Corporatocracy profit from the conflict. The War Machine was a financial success even when it failed militarily; U.S. contractors reaped windfall profits in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, as well as in dozens of other places suffering from armed conflicts. For the families of those who died and for the United States as a whole, the cost of these wars was outrageously high. For the corporatocracy, the payoff was huge. (Perkins, 2008: 219). Our government and the large corporations that influence it are inextricably tied together. Today one is a politician, tomorrow that same person obtains a lucrative job in a corporation. In a situation resembling a never ending revolving door. When there is a war going on politicians receive high ratings and their popularity soars. The corporations that produce weapons and the bankers that finance the conflict make money hand over fist. These entities are financing both sides of the conflict so they make out no matter who wins or loses. For them it is a win-win situation. With this never ending warfare the oligarchy profits at our expense. Doctor Mary Ruwart succinctly described what occurs: The arms manufacturers could sell to both sides. Weapons could be bought with drug deals or with taxpayer-guaranteed loans. Eventually, sending U.S. troops in to “settle” the conflict would mean even more arms purchases. Eternal war means continual profits for the banks and the military-industrial complex. Our CIA, like most government agencies, works for special interest groups that can reward it with a share of the profits. Through frequent military conflicts, the wealth of the average American, through inflation or direct taxation, is transferred to the CIA, rogue agents, weapons contractors, and banks without much resistance. After the two Gulf Wars, Saudi and American interests control virtually all Middle Eastern oil. Protecting oil with our tax-supported military allows war to be made in our name for the benefit of special interests. (Ruwart, 2015: 323). The United States government kills people in foreign nations in our name, and with our taxes. The corporations, bankers and politicians all benefit from war. The only people who really lose are we — the little people. We who send the youth of our country to bleed and die in some far off place. We the people who suffer through high prices for the most basic of necessities. The things we need to survive: food, gasoline, electricity. We bear the brunt of our governments failed policies through inflation. Many Americans cannot understand why other nations or peoples do not like our country. Often they are unaware of how our government (whether through the Central Intelligence Agency, U.S. military or otherwise) interferes with other countries and their people. If they ever find out the horrible things our government has done, in our name, they are often left in shock and disbelief. Most Americans are unaware that many atrocities … have been committed in their name … Even when we do hear about civilian deaths caused by U.S. military intervention, our leaders justify destroying Third World lives and livelihoods in order to protect America. CBS reporter Leslie Stahl noted that the embargo to punish Saddam Hussein was blamed for the deaths of a half-million Iraqi children. “Is the price worth it?” She asked Madeline Albright, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Ms. Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.” (Ruwart, 2015: 319-320). In his manifesto, Osama Bin Laden listed multiple reasons why he was angry at what our government had done in the Middle East through its foreign policy. Some of the reasons Bin Laden listed for his actions were that our government had military bases on the Arabian peninsula, and our support of Israel. However, it was the killing of innocents all over the Middle East through bombings (either using drones or conventional methods), or through embargoes, which led to thousands being killed by starvation or disease, that enraged Bin Laden and his followers. This, more than anything else, led others to fight under his banner and led to the horrible incidents of 9/11. The devastation wrought by our intervention in Iraq, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Panama, and Afghanistan are not rare, isolated examples. When we follow the history of developing nations, it is difficult to find one where our CIA has not left its mark. The U.S. Senat’s Church Committee documented 900 major and thousands of smaller covert operations undertaken by the CIA between 1960 and 1975. Sometimes, as in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Angola, and Nicaragua, U.S. intervention instigated or prolonged civil war. Our intervention often creates trauma, heartbreak, and incredible loss of life in the Third World. None of those nations attacked or even threatened to attack us first… Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Pakistani demonstrators held up a sign saying, “Americans, think! Why are you hated all over the world.” In our name, atrocities are committed as our attempts to control our neighbors in domestic matters ripple out to intensify war and poverty in the rest of the world. (Ruwart, 2015: 323-324). Because of the CIA’s machinations in the affairs of other countries, we suffer “blowback” here in the United States. In the middle part of the last century Britain had an interest in oil production in the country of Iran. In their unequal dealings with the Iranian people Britain took the lion’s share of the benefits in the arrangement. Needless to say, the Iranians were not happy to have a foreign presence despoil their country and its natural resources. When the democratically elected president of Iran (Mohammed Mossadegh) decided that his people should share in the profits from their oil deposits by nationalizing petroleum companies, Britain and the U.S. decided to get involved. The U.S. sent CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt to the area. If the name sounds familiar it should. He was the grandson of Teddy Roosevelt. He was given a few million dollars to generate unrest and violent demonstrations which had the desired effect. Eventually Mossadegh was overthrown. …the CIA replaced this democratically elected leader with Mohammed Riza Pahlavi (the “Sha”), a despotic friend of Big Oil … The lessons of Iran were clear: An empire could be built without the risks of war and at far less expense. The CIA’s tactics could be applied wherever resources existed that the corporatocracy wanted. (Perkins, 2008: 166). Contrary to what our government and corporate controlled media tell us, those in other countries do not hate us because of our freedoms. They do not hate us because we are different or wealthy. They hate us because our government, at the behest of corporations, uses force and aggression for their own selfish purposes — at our expense. What do we the little people get in return for this endless warfare? We get mentally, and physically, broken men and women who return from foreign wars thereby causing a drain on our most precious resource — our young people. We also get soaring debt and high inflation. So high in fact that many Americans can barely afford to put gas in their car just so they can make it to work to pay for a home they can barely afford and eat food they have trouble paying for. All this so others will hate us and want to do us harm. Do not believe anyone who tells you that war is good or necessary or does anything but harm.
Our country was founded by men who had had their rights trampled by the most powerful empire on the face of the earth at the time — the British Empire. Although the colonists in early America were British citizens, they did not enjoy the same privileges as those who resided in England or the British Isles. Our forefathers became angry when an imperious Great Britain levied taxes on them without allowing them representation in the Parliament. In response to these taxes, our forefathers became smugglers so they could transport and sell their goods to avoid the onerous taxes. The British attempted to enforce their unpopular taxes and laws. The British troops, or redcoats, through British law, were able to search houses, ships and carriages at will. This invasion of privacy eventually led to the founding fathers breaking away from Britain and the creation of a new nation altogether. Indeed, opposition to government invasion of privacy was a major factor in the establishment of the United States itself, as American colonists protested laws that let British officials ransack at will any home they wished. It was legitimate … for the state to obtain specific, targeted warrants to search individuals when there was evidence to establish probable cause of their wrongdoing. But general warrants — the practice of making the entire citizenry subject to indiscriminate searches — were inherently illegitimate. (Greenwald, 2014: 2-3). After the Revolutionary War against Britain it seems like the colonists quickly forgot some of the nobler ideas that led to the war. Almost from the founding of our country politicians have been trying to infringe on our civil rights. During the presidency of the second President of the United States, John Adams enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts. A significant part of the acts was that it criminalized making false statements critical of the federal government. And this was enacted not long after the Bill of Rights and the first Amendment (protecting freedom of speech) were brought into being. It only gets worse from here. During the years preceding World War I Americans watched as the trench warfare in Europe killed thousands of young men on the battlefield. By and large, Americans did not want war. As a matter of fact, President Wilson ran on a slogan saying that he kept us out of war. This was for looks only. Behind the scenes he was actively trying to get America into the war. And at one point he and his administration actively discouraged people from criticizing him or the war. Regarding President Wilson and the Espionage Act: … a Constitutional abomination known as the Espionage Act was used to silence any remaining skeptics and dissenters. (Apparently making the world “safe for democracy” meant demonizing and jailing US citizens who continued to voice their opposition. (Plummer, 2014: p. 136). The government has been slowly taking away and infringing on our civil rights almost from the time the country was founded. In recent years, post 9/11, The Patriot Act was enacted. The act allows government agents to spy on us without a warrant. The agency that does much of the spying is The National Security agency (NSA). It has collected copio us amounts of data on ordinary Americans, unlawfully, and without their knowledge or consent. The USA Patriot Act (HR 3162), … essentially nullified the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures. Government agencies can search your home without a warrant. Software can Secretly be installed on your computer to monitor your e-mail and Internet activity without telling you … In 2013 Edward Snowden, a private contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), leaked thousands of documents showing that the NSA was spying in private e-mails, undermining attempts at encryption, and tapping into Yahoo and Google data centers to collect information from millions of account holders. Over 90% of those spied upon were ordinary Americans. (Ruwart, 2015: 330). The United States Constitution is supposed to be the foundation of our country, its laws and our liberties. The Amendments do not grant us our rights, they are supposed to recognize them and to protect them from being violated — especially by our government. Previously I stated that war and money are two of the most important things facing our nation. Civil Rights being the third is woven within the fabric of the first two. With each new war, bailout, or crisis our liberties and Civil Rights are eroded even further. On this matter the Great Doctor Ron Paul wrote: … liberty is compromised every time a new welfare program is established or a new war is entered into. When danger breaks out as a consequence of our policies, inevitably the authoritarians … use the problems they created to tighten their grip over the people and the economy. Terrorism is a serious problem, but if it’s not seen as blowback form our unwise foreign interventions, then the only solution offered will be more government control of out lives. We don’t change foreign policy; we merely regulate the innocent American people by abandoning the Fourth Amendment protection of their privacy. Those who wanted bigger government anyway conveniently used the problems — such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks — to build fear in the people so they practically beg the government to protect them from harm, (Paul 2009: 194). The Terrorist attacked of 9/11 were a tragic and horrible event. It is also one which the government used to pass the Patriot Act which allows government agencies to further violate our right to privacy. Glenn Greenwald wrote: … the Bush administration had secretly used the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on the electronic communications of Americans without obtaining the warrants required by relevant criminal law … this warrant less eavesdropping had been going on for … years and had targeted at least several thousand Americans … the notion that the threat of terrorism vested the president with virtually unlimited authority to do anything to “keep the nation safe,” including the authority to break the law. (Greenwald, 2014: 1-2). The terrorist attacks on 9/11 are not the only time the government has overstepped its bounds and violated our rights. Whenever there is someone who goes against the grain, or is considered radical or different (no matter how peaceful they are) the government has gotten involved in some of the worst ways imaginable. Regarding government agaicies spying on its own citizens, Glen Greenwald wrote: Frank Church’s mid-1970 investigation into the FBI’s spying shockingly found that the agency had labeled half a million US citizens as potential “subversives,” routinely spying on people based purely on their political beliefs. (The FBI’s list of targets ranged from Martin Luther King to John Lennon, from the women’s liberation movement to the anti-Communist John Birch Society.) … mass surveillance is a universal temptation for any unscrupulous power. And in every instance, the motive is the same: suppressing dissent and mandating compliance (Greenwald, 2014: 3-4). You will be told that it is for your safety and the good of society when the government breaks the law to spy on innocent Americans. You will have been told a lie. Martin Luther King Jr. protested the Vietnam War and he was a man of peace. He led non-violent protests to obtain freedoms for everyone. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) spied on King. Whenever agents of the government tell me that they do anything to “keep us safe,” I choose not to believe them. With government agencies, if there is no violence, no crime to be found among American citizens which they find different they have no problem creating the problem first. They then swoop in acting as a savior to keep everyone safe from a booth man who never existed. The FBI’s domestic counterintelligence program COINTELPRO … showed how the FBI had targeted political groups and individuals it deemed subversive and dangerous, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, black nationalist movements, socialist and Communist organizations, anti war protestors, and various right-wing groups. The bureau had infiltrated them with agents who, among other things, attempted to manipulate members into agreeing to commit criminal acts so that the FBI could arrest and prosecute them. The FBI succeeded in convincing the New York Times to suppress the documents and even return them. (Greenwald, 2014: 183-184). Furthermore: … the Washington Post published a series of articles … revelations led to the creation of the Senate church Committee, which concluded … the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence. Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that. The unexpressed major premise of the programs was that a law enforcement agency has the duty to do whatever is necessary to combat perceived threats to the existing social and political order. (Greenwald, 2014: 184). I wish I could write that it was only the FBI which violated the rights of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and other people considered “dangerous” or “subversive.” However, not to be outdone, the NSA has not only collected information on innocent Americans, they then had the unmitigated gall to lie about it. NSA officials had lied to Congress, directly and repeatedly, about the agency’s activities. For years, various senators had asked the NSA for a rough estimate of how many Americans were having their calls and emails intercepted. The officials insisted that they were unable to answer because they did not and could not maintain such data: the very data extensively reflected in the “BOUNDLESS INFORMANT” documents. Even more significant, the files — along with the Verizon document — proved that the Obama administration’s senior national security official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, lied to Congress when, on March 12, 2013, he was asked by Senator Ron Wyden: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper’s reply was as succinct as it was dishonest: “No Sir.” (Greenwald, 2014: 30). As in the past, the government never misses a chance to use a horrible incident to make a power grab when people are scared and vulnerable. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are no exception. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 the NSA was given spweeping powers to collect information on citizens: … the program allowed the NSA to obtain virtually anything it wanted from the internet companies that hundreds of millions of people around the world now use as their primary means to communicate. This move was made possible by the laws that the US government had implemented in the wake of 9/11 which vested the NSA with sweeping powers to surveil Americans and with virtually unlimited authority to carry out indiscriminate mass surveillance of entire foreign populations. (Greenwald, 2014: 73-74). As I wrote before, when I speak of the government I am not just talking about the politicians elected to office. Many people have been employed by huge corporations before they are in office and when they are out of office, they go back to whence they came. The revolving door of government and corporations not only exists in the areas of warfare and finance but in government spying and surveillance as well. The post - 9/11 era has seen a massive explosion of resources dedicated to surveillance. Most of those resources were transferred from the public coffers (i.e., the American taxpayer) into the pockets of private surveillance defense corporations. Companies like Booz Allen Hamilton and AT&T employ hordes of former top government officials, while hordes of current top defense officials are past (and likely future) employees of those same corporations. Constantly growing the surveillance state is a way to ensure that the government funds keep flowing , that the revolving door stays greased. That is also the best way to ensure the NSA and its related agencies retain institutional importance and influence inside Washington. (Greenwald, 2014: 168.) And why should the gravy train be limited to the politicians themselves. Their friends and family, people close to them, can get in on the action as well. The “fake reform” faction was led by Diane Feinstein, the very senator who is charged with exercising primary oversight over the NSA. Feinstein has long been a devoted loyalist of the US national security industry, from her vehement support for the war in Iraq to her steadfast backing of Bush-era NSA programs. (Her husband, meanwhile, has major stakes in various military contracts.) Clearly Feinstein was a natural choice to head a committee that claims to carry out oversight over the intelligence community but has for years performed the opposite function. (Greenwald, 2014: 131). When The Network, the oligarchy or Corporatocracy (through their agents in the government and media) say that invasive surveillance on innocent, non violent Americans is needed (like Dr. King), when they violate our freedoms and civil rights in the name of safety — I choose not to believe them.[2] |
” |
| —Christopher Russomanno's campaign website (2022)[4] | ||
Campaign finance summary
Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.
See also
2024 Elections
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on July 15, 2024
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Chris Russomanno’s campaign website, “Home,” accessed October 24, 2024
- ↑ Russomanno for Congress NJ CD 3, “Platform,” accessed August 25, 2022
