Christine Blasey Ford and the ACLU: Now accusations count more than evidence.

By Rubashov

Once upon a time, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) could be relied upon to follow its core beliefs to their logical conclusions. Freedom of Speech was Freedom of Speech – even if it meant defending the right of American National Socialists to conduct a public demonstration in a town where a large community of Holocaust survivors resided.

While the ACLU’s defense of the Nazis was in poor taste, it was in keeping with their purist – admirably so, many would argue – view of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, that gift from all the Americans who have gone before us. That is who the ACLU was, with a stated mission "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".

But no longer. The ACLU has “jumped the shark” as is said. We cannot tell if this is due to a growing presence of a new generation, unhistorical, overloaded on so much information from today that no room remains for all that came before; or if it is due simply to the whims of those who underwrite the ACLU – its contributors and benefactors. We cannot tell. We can only observe what they have done.

Those funding an organization inevitably call its tune. Today, there are many more groups asking for money than there were back in 1920, when the ACLU was formed. And an annual budget of more than $230 million is a big nut. One can only imagine the arguments between the group’s purists and those whose concerns focus more on fundraising.

And then there is the ever present pressure of political correctness, illustrating that America has never really moved on from its puritan roots. The need to shun, to censure, to shame remains within our DNA. Only the subject changes. If a company like Chick-fil-A can be brought to heel from the outside, how much easier for an organization like the ACLU, from within?

And so, this past weekend, the ACLU presented an award to an accuser whose accusations could not be substantiated and whose own supporters later doubted her account. An accuser who made her accusation in 2018 – about something that she said happened in 1982 (Yes, wouldn’t we all wish to live under a tyranny in which government investigators could conjure an accusation from our long past that could be made fresh to destroy us? Wouldn’t we all wish to apply such to our own lives?) In presenting an award for “courage” to this accuser, the ACLU made clear that innocent until proven guilty no longer matters.

The accuser is Christine Blasey Ford. The accused, one Brett Kavanaugh. Of course they did. What else matters?

The accuser is painting herself as a victim of a crime and the ACLU is accepting this. And yet no crime had been adjudicated. So we say again, the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty no longer matters.

This is quite a turnabout for the ACLU. Most everyone has heard of the Miranda case and that the police, when arresting someone, must “Mirandize” them or read them their Miranda rights. This came out of a 1963 case in which the accused was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old girl. The accused admitted to the rape and confessed to police. The accused was convicted at trial of kidnapping and rape. Later, it was found that the police had neglected to inform the accused of his right to counsel, so the ACLU and others successfully argued for his release. It led to the famous decision by the United States Supreme Court, in favor of the accused – who had been convicted of kidnapping and rape.

Ernesto Miranda went to trial again in 1967. Witnesses testified that Miranda himself had bragged about the rape at the time of the offense. He was convicted in 1967 and sentenced to serve 20 to 30 years in prison. However, this was before the Reagan/Clinton era of tough-on-crime mandatory sentencing laws and such, so he was released in 1972. Miranda was stabbed to death in a bar fight in 1976.

(NOTE: America is now in the process of regressing to the past – of going back to those halcyon days when a man convicted of kidnapping and rape was back on the streets in five years. The victim, in this case, was just 27 years old when the man convicted of kidnapping and raping her was released. Hopefully, she moved so she didn’t have to look at him. Remember this well, because this is where we are going – here and to the great re-learning that will of necessity follow. Look forward to a new wave of mandatory sentencing laws in the 2030’s and 2040’s.)

This was who the ACLU was back when it believed that the accused was innocent until proven guilty – back when the ACLU would take on the case of a convicted rapist and kidnapper and insist that – no matter the public outcry, no matter how loud this mob or that howled – the rules had to be adhered to. How you played the game mattered to the ACLU. Then. Not now.

Now the howls of the mob are all that matters. And the money. Bet the fundraising is going great!

The Left in America (and throughout the West) has embraced a kind of Modernist justice that leaves it “free” from empirical evidence and facts. Going forward, they tell us, “justice” will be based on “imagination” and “feeling” – whether of the individual or of the mob (be it in body or on social media). Of course, even the most ardent Modernists had to later admit that the “oakness” of the truncheons did intrude on the mind’s abstractions. Then, when the darkness fell, and “justice” became whatever the government, with its men with guns, said it was.

Let us mourn the passing of the old ACLU. Too bad, it almost made a hundred.

Before sexualizing children. Why not have a debate?

By Rubashov

Is it the ACLU’s fault?  Or is it the people who fund them who have changed? 

We all remember how the ACLU stood up for Freedom of Speech – even when it meant protecting that freedom for people with whom they had absolutely no sympathy.   It was the ACLU who famously set the parameters of First Amendment protections in the 1970’s, when the organization defended the right of the American Nazi Party to march through Skokie, Illinois, a town chosen by the Nazis for its ethnic and religious make-up.  Placing their loathing of the Nazis aside, the ACLU stood with the American Bill of Rights to argue that the Nazis had the right to transgressive speech – the right to knowingly offend. 

Of course, transgressive speech is the very foundation of comedy, and there was some wisdom in the suggestion that we laugh at the Nazis, their silly uniforms, and that flag.  Better to laugh at them, to tolerate them, than to become them, so the wisdom went. 

But times have changed.

The ACLU is under pressure from the people who fund it, from its donor class, as are politicians from all parties and persuasions.  There is a new public religion and it is in the process of driving out its competition from the public square.

And just as transubstantiation demands that its believers accept that bread and wine is changed into flesh and blood, so in this new religion, a person with a penis can be made woman.  It is mystical, faith-based, beyond debate or reason.  It is religion.

Central to this new religion is a persecution myth.  Just as the early Christians had their martyrs and their festivals of remembrance, this new religion has its Stonewall, its AIDS epidemic, its accounts of martyrdom.  The carnality of it – the sex – is all scrubbed from the accounts.  The public face of this new religion is Neo-Victorian in its use of language – “No Sex, please” – this is all about “Love”.

Proselytizing to children is central to all religions, but especially so to groups who make the oppression of the faith central to their ideology.  This was so with Jim Jones, David Koresh, the “Children of God” cult, and many others.  Did they not all operate under the banner that children be sexualized at the earliest possible moment?  Did they not preach endlessly about “Love”?  That “Love is the Answer”, “Love is Love”? 

Sex is as addictive as tobacco and like the sellers of cigarettes (or narcotics) they like to get them while they’re young.  So they come for the children.  Public libraries host “drag queen story hours” for little children, with readings by folks with names like “Lil Miss Hot Mess”.  Isn’t “hot” an explicitly sexual term?  School curriculums now include such varied activities as “condom races” – in which 10 and 11 year-old girls compete to be the first to put a condom on a model of an erect adult male penis.  All watched by their male classmates.  Magazines like Teen Vogue – specifically marketed to children – argue that prostitution is just a job, work like any other, with no moral or psychological concerns whatsoever. 

This is all part of this new public religion.  So a new law, signed by Governor Phil Murphy, mandates the teaching of people from history based on how their alleged sexual practices conform to one of a series of letters (LGBTQ…).  It’s a rather shallow way to teach, for how can the endless ways in which human beings order their lives really be bound and categorized by a half dozen letters – or indeed, a thousand? 

Within the last few days, a School Trustee in Hackensack had the temerity to express an opinion on the new mandate that failed to conform to the new public religion.  In response, Garden State Equality (GSE) – the “LGBTQ” equivalent of Hezbollah – went all jihadist on the trustee, demanding that she be forced into submission or made to resign and shunned thereafter. 

An email from GSE made it clear that they weren’t stopping with her:  “It’s imperative that each and every education official across New Jersey understands that our curriculum law must be faithfully implemented.”  Each and every.  There is no place for religious dissent. 

A GSE supporter reached out and noted that the trustee in question used the term “repugnant” to describe “the LGBTQ lifestyle.”  The term is generally used when describing something that the user finds “distasteful” or that the user is “incompatible” with.  It must be noted that many of our fellow human beings do find such sexual practices as oral or anal sex “distasteful” and that they are “incompatible” with same. 

We are not speaking here for Phil and Tammy Murphy, or Valerie Vainieri Huttle, or Jim Tedesco, or Gordon Johnson, or Loretta Weinberg, or indeed for the other politicians who have condemned the use of the term “repugnant.”  What they find “tasteful”, what they are “compatible” with, what their appetites bend towards is entirely their business.  And we would defend their endorsement of oral or anal sex as much as we defend the right of others not to enjoy such things.  Whatever floats your boat, as they say. 

But expressing one’s sexual preferences, one’s choice, is not welcome by the new “public” religion.  Blank conformity is what is expected.  Every public statement, written or spoken must conform.  The new religion allows no public expression of older religions.  All must conform… or they will be made to conform. 

Having gained significant cadres amongst elites in government, the media, in education, and with One-Percenters who control the corporate world, the new religion is attempting a top-down takeover of the public square – bullying out older religions, forcing compliance and general conformity of expressed opinion.  They seem to forget that Americans are contrarian by nature.  Nonconformity is the way with us and we will continue to practice it, even while being oppressed and punished for doing so. 

Of course, this is another reason why they want our children.  But then they forget that generations of Soviet indoctrination did not extinguish the seed of traditional faith in Russia or in Eastern Europe. 

This is an interesting topic that should be debated openly and honestly.  Instead, jihadists like Garden State Equality are concerned only with bullying and banning public dissent.  They don’t care if people dishonestly mouth those allowed saccharine platitudes, so long as they mouth them.

Instead of punishing questioning minds, why not debate them?  Before we allow government – in service of the new public religion – to continue to sexualize children, why not have an open and honest debate on the subject? 

Maybe a group like the Center for Garden State Families or the New Jersey Family Policy Council will set up a series of open discussions on the Murphy administration’s sexualization of young children.  Then they can invite folks like Senator Loretta Weinberg and Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle to explain what they like and don’t like – and how they came to embrace the new religion (HINT: Check their campaign finance reports, and you will know why).

Before the Murphy Democrats force one more unfunded mandate on the property taxpayers of New Jersey… have an open and honest debate about their need to sexualize children.

On guns, Senator Weinberg's rhetoric doesn't match her actions

We can't quite figure out which came first.  Did Senator Loretta Weinberg emerge from the parchment white bunghole of Star-Ledger editorial boss Tom Moran, or is it the other way round?  Who came first? 

One thing is certain, if there is a threat to their safety, both Weinberg and Moran make sure that they are well protected by men with guns.  Both Weinberg and Moran erect borders that are extremely well protected.

It's too bad that they don't extend the same protections to other citizens that powerful politicians and corporate newspaper editors have.  Especially children. Apparently Weinberg and Moran don't think much about protecting children.  If they did, they wouldn't propose the watery measures they have.

Weinberg is a husk, the residue of her once activist self.  Moran is just an old-fashioned pussy.  If they really believed that the absence of legal firearms would end America's culture of violence, then Senator Weinberg would propose a Constitutional Amendment to abrogate the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and Editor Moran would advocate for it.    

Of course, Weinberg and Moran know that such an amendment would be for firearms what the 18th Amendment was for alcohol.  The 18th Amendment declared the production, transport, and sale of alcohol illegal (though curiously, not the consumption or private possession of it).  The amendment wasn't particularly effective, had a lot of bad side-effects, and was repealed a few years later.

We know they know because we are constantly being told by Weinberg and Moran that making laws are meaningless.  They tell us that America cannot possibly enforce its border controls.  They tell us that America cannot keep people out or find and deport those here illegally.  They tell us that abortions must be legal or they will simply be performed illegally.  They tell us that we must decriminalize certain drugs because we have no ability to enforce the laws that make drugs illegal.

So it stands to reason that they must know that outlawing firearms would be just as meaningless.  So why do they mislead us by acting otherwise?

A case in point is yesterday's quasi-religious orgasm on what goes for the editorial pages of the Star-Ledger these days.  Did you know that these editorials are largely written by ex-sports columnists?  Because they are.  And they have all the make believe and canned drama attendant with such columns. 

You can tell the depth of these so-called journalists by the fact that they fail to even research what their own newspaper said about the issue they are currently having hysterics over.  A case in point is what the Star-Ledger calls "no-fly, no-buy" bills "that would deny firearm purchases to known or suspected terrorists."

Now to show you just what kind of festered arseholes write this kind of garbage, the Star-Ledger itself has criticized the no-fly and terrorist watch lists that are the basis for this silly legislation.  That's right, the Star-Ledger has trashed this concept on its own editorial pages, pointing out that the list is too vague, that it lacks due process, noting the informal manner in which an individual can land on the list, and the difficulty an innocent person has in getting off the list he or she has been improperly placed on.  Oh, and currently the terrorist watch list has 1.8 million names on it.  That's more than the population of Essex and Bergen Counties put together.

Nelson Mandela was on the terrorist no-fly list.  So was Senator Ted Kennedy, as have other members of Congress.  As the ACLU pointed out, the "no-fly list policy rests on the idea that the government will never confirm or deny whether you're on the list.  They won't tell you whether you're on the list, they won't tell you why you're on the list if you are, and they won't tell you what they suspect."

The no-fly list is often equally frustrating to members of law enforcement, as a former FBI agent who now teaches at New York University noted:  "The FBI isn't the secret police, or at least it isn't supposed to be.  Such excessive secrecy demands, especially where an American is alleging a violation of his civil rights, undermines the rule of law the FBI and Justice Department are supposed to be defending."

Once upon a time, the editorial board of the Star-Ledger could write a well-reasoned piece that would capture the nuances of a debate and provide a well rounded review of both sides.  But that was called journalism.  They don't do that anymore.  Over at the sports-department (aka the editorial board) it is all loud-mouthed and spittle.  They should just write in all caps and exclamation marks, noting how many times they shit themselves in the production of the column and when. 

There was a time when the Star-Ledger cut its way through to the truth.  That time is gone.  Now they add to the fog of ideological warfare that covers everything from Sunday morning sermons to late night comedy.  The editorials are little more than advertising narratives, violently written.  There is no balance, no reason.  They tell you who to hate and how much.  They add to the culture of violence in America.  They do nothing to ameliorate the gnawing coarseness of our social discourse.

Fat Norman's take on InsiderNJ's election predictions

Fat Norman is a comedian who says whatever pops into his mind.  Here is his take on InsiderNJ's "insiders" and their predictions.

JOSHUA HENNE, progressive communications wiz. “Unfortunately for Kim Guadagno, it’s not her name on the ballot. It’s Chris Christie and Donald Trump.   

Needs his eyes examined.   Where does he see "Christie" and "Trump" on this ballot?

SCOTT RUDDER, chair NJ Cannabusiness Association/former GOP lawmaker, “No matter who wins today, we will see cannabis decriminalized and medical cannabis more accessible. This happens in either a Guadagno or Murphy Administration. And that’s a good thing.  That being said, if Murphy wins, we expect to see a more aggressive approach towards correcting unjust cannabis laws. The expansion into the adult-use cannabis market will create tens of thousands of new jobs and help accelerate our economic recovery.”

Pothead.  An economic recovery based on getting stoned.  What an asshole.

JIM McGREEVY, former NJ Governor. “New Jersey reasserts true blue status; NJ as an alternate policy laboratory to DC as to training and education, jobs and the economy.”

Ass.  He sees NJ becoming a laboratory for fuckedupedness. 

ARLENE QUINONES PEREZ , chair Hundedon County Democrats.  “Low voter turnout. Phil Murphy  between 9-12%. One LD39 D wins. In LD 16, two Assembly D wins but by small numbers may not be called until Wednesday.”

Hundedon County?  One LD39 win???  How are things in Hundedon?

JOEY NOVICK, ACLU NJ/Former Flemington Councilman... Jay Lassiter continues to write clever and entertaining columns for InsiderNJ after Election Day.”

A handjob in love with the Man from Ass.

LYNDA HINKLE, Camden County Democratic Committee. “A Phil Murphy win is a win for legalization of cannabis which means a new revenue stream for the state. But I think Kim Guadagno comes closer than originally expected despite many in her party working against her or at least not for her.

How come she gets why the GOP loses but the GOP doesn't?

ALEX LAW, former Congressional candidate/anti-machine liberal. “As a huge believer in good old fashioned grassroots door knocking, I’ve been thrilled to see the Murphy campaign send thousands of people out to talk to voters one on one all across the state. I think his resoundingly progressive platform and his grassroots execution will carry him to a convincing victory.”

Good Guy... but it's called paid for astroturf.  Shameful is nothing to be thrilled about.

LOU MAGAZZU, former Cumberland Freeholder. “Bob Andrzejczak and Robert Bruce Land will win by historic margins for anyone not named Van Drew. They have done a great job as Assemblyman and candidates and the voters will reward them today.”

The wanker speaks!  WTF?  Did someone shit in his brain and forget to flush it?

CHRISTIAN FUSCARINO, chair Garden State Equality. “We trust that Phil Murphy, Sheila Oliver, Vin Gopal, and all the candidates that stand for equality and justice will trump their opponents by a landslide, sending a resounding message of hope across the nation.”

Ass.  And why did Jennifer Beck think it so important to kiss up to these phonies?  Why does any Republican kiss up to GSE?  

JEANETTE HOFFMAN-HENNE, GOP TV pundit, 

Who are you?

KATHY O’LEARY, Longhill Residents for Responsible Development.

Why should we know you?

BRANDON MCKOY Deputy Chapter Director of New Leaders Council – NJ

Another person known only to the Hand of Lassiter.

BRIAN EVERETT, BlueJersey. 

Blue Balls in Jersey... or why liberal ass bandits don't get any.

A Democrat asks: "Where does free speech end?"

A Democrat activist wrote:  "Where does free speech end?  Certainly at the grill of a Dodge Challenger.  KKK and confederate flags have always been around in my lifetime, protected as free speech, but nazi (sic) flags?  With a war in living memory that killed millions and a movement that killed millions more, I thought swastikas were a red line.  Are nazi (sic) flags free speech?  I know/hope that republicans (sic) don't support this but will they speak up, or are they entirely spineless?"

Purposefully running down somebody with an automobile isn't free speech.  It is murder.  Because it happened in Virginia, with its Republican Legislature (the GOP controls the Senate 21 to 19 and the House of Delegates 66 to 34), if convicted the perpetrator will get the death penalty and will be executed for his crime. 

This wouldn't happen in New Jersey, with its Democrat-controlled Legislature.  Here the perpetrator would be coddled at taxpayer expense and would, perhaps, sue the state because he wasn't receiving enough benefits.  It wasn't long ago that a convicted rapist sued the state so that he could have a sex-change operation and serve the remainder of his sentence as a "woman".  Of course, James Randall Smith, who was convicted of kidnapping and raping a 17-year-old girl, expected the state's taxpayers to pay for his sex-change operation.

As for Nazi flags, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has argued that a Nazi flag is as much an element of free speech as is burning the American flag.  On its website, the ACLU explains why it defended Nazis:

"In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause."

The ACLU makes its arguments for all to read, on its website, and we encourage everyone to visit the website (www.aclu.org):

"Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition -- this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is 'the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.'

Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die. 

But in spite of its 'preferred position' in our constitutional hierarchy, the nation's commitment to freedom of expression has been tested over and over again. Especially during times of national stress, like war abroad or social upheaval at home, people exercising their First Amendment rights have been censored, fined, even jailed. Those with unpopular political ideas have always borne the brunt of government repression. It was during WWI -- hardly ancient history -- that a person could be jailed just for giving out anti-war leaflets. Out of those early cases, modern First Amendment law evolved. Many struggles and many cases later, ours is the most speech-protective country in the world.

The path to freedom was long and arduous. It took nearly 200 years to establish firm constitutional limits on the government's power to punish 'seditious'  and 'subversive' speech. Many people suffered along the way, such as labor leader Eugene V. Debs, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act just for telling a rally of peaceful workers to realize they were 'fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.'  Or Sidney Street, jailed in 1969 for burning an American flag on a Harlem street corner to protest the shooting of civil rights figure James Meredith...

Early Americans enjoyed great freedom compared to citizens of other nations. Nevertheless, once in power, even the Constitution's framers were guilty of overstepping the First Amendment they had so recently adopted. In 1798, during the French-Indian War, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act, which made it a crime for anyone to publish 'any false, scandalous and malicious writing' against the government. It was used by the then-dominant Federalist Party to prosecute prominent Republican newspaper editors during the late 18th century.

Throughout the 19th century, sedition, criminal anarchy and criminal conspiracy laws were used to suppress the speech of abolitionists, religious minorities, suffragists, labor organizers, and pacifists. In Virginia prior to the Civil War, for example, anyone who 'by speaking or writing maintains that owners have no right of property in slaves'  was subject to a one-year prison sentence.

The early 20th century was not much better. In 1912, feminist Margaret Sanger was arrested for giving a lecture on birth control. Trade union meetings were banned and courts routinely granted injunctions prohibiting strikes and other labor protests. Violators were sentenced to prison. Peaceful protesters opposing U. S. entry into World War I were jailed for expressing their opinions. In the early 1920s, many states outlawed the display of red or black flags, symbols of communism and anarchism. In 1923, author Upton Sinclair was arrested for trying to read the text of the First Amendment at a union rally. Many people were arrested merely for membership in groups regarded as 'radical' by the government. It was in response to the excesses of this period that the ACLU was founded in 1920.

...The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are 'indivisible.'

Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is 'the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country.'"

Everyone should ask themselves the question, "Where does free speech end?"  And then follow that question with another:  "When do you want it to end?"

Dem operative Devine continues attack on Phil Murphy

New Jersey Democrat operative Devine James has continued questioning Democrat gubernatorial candidate Phil Murphy's fitness to hold public office.  Last week, Devine posted this nasty tweet:  "We are in a war with selfish, foolish & narcissistic rich people."

Over the weekend, we found these insightful comments by Devine on a website he maintains as a panegyric to himself: 

"We need to take the power to sway elections away from the greedy rich billionaires and put it back in the hands of the people. We need to make life livable so impoverished families are not at the mercy of uncaring politicians and greedy corporations. We need to restore faith among people that government can be a force for good and the first step would be stopping the government from doing so much harm."

We agree.  Rich liberal billionaires suck.  Big government sucks.  Corporate welfare and its enablers suck.

Devine's website calls himself a "masterful Democratic Party campaign strategist, a crusading journalist and an accomplished leader..."  He is also regarded to be a very trusted Democrat Party hand-job with a penchant for tortured prose like this: 

"A total of 7,765 Occupy protesters have been arrested around the U.S. since Occupy Wall Street began on September 17, 2011. Bankers arrested for robbing $22 trillion from middle class families, greedy corporate executives charged for wrecking the American economy and sanctions imposed on those greedy corporations are outnumbered by the words in this sentence."

Although oddly worded, Devine does make the point that it was bankers -- like Phil Murphy -- who sucked the life out of the U.S. economy and got both a bail out and a bonus for their efforts.  It does pay to lobby... don't it?

Democrat nominee Murphy was a Democrat Party fundraiser and finance chair before President Obama rewarded him with a grace and favor position as an Ambassador.  Murphy bragged that he raised more than $300 million for Democrat Party candidates and himself spent at least $2 million greasing the palms of office holders and candidates for public office.

And for all of you who still want to think of the media as political noncombatants, get a load of what Devine writes about himself:

"In addition to his decade of experience publishing a chain of weekly newspapers, including the News Record, the Patriot, the Perth Amboy Gazette, the Atom Tabloid, the South Amboy-Sayreville Citizen, Devine was publisher of several monthly special interest magazines, including New Jersey Wreck Diver and Kid Zone, During that period, he served two years as secretary of the Rahway Chamber of Commerce.

Devine started his career in journalism as a reporter for WKNJ FM Radio, the Elizabeth Daily Journal, and the Bridgewater Courier News (a Gannett newspaper) and as managing editor of the Kean College Independent, a student-run campus weekly newspaper. He is a currently a contributing editor and consultant to New Jersey's oldest weekly newspaper and its website, WWW.NJTODAY.NET."

This is the same guy who, when he is not dumping on Phil Murphy, says he wants to hunt Republicans.  Why?  Do they taste better than Democrats?

"In addition to being elected six times as a member of the Union County Democratic Committee, Devine served as a council coordinator with MoveOn.org, member of the Sierra Club, ACLU, NOW (National Organization for Women), AARP and NAACP, president of the Elizabeth Democratic Association and chairman of the Coalition for Quality Education."

Phil Murphy is a Wall Streeter who made his money at the notoriously anti-worker firm of Goldman Sucks.  Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Mr. Murphy's career there:

From 1997 to 1999, Murphy served as the President of Goldman Sachs (Asia).[9] In that capacity, he was officed in Hong Kong.[19] During this time Goldman Sachs profited from its investment in Yue Yuen Industrial Holdings, a shoe manufacturer which became notorious for its harsh labor practices.[20]

... Then in 1999 Murphy secured a spot on the firm's Management Committee.[7] There his colleagues included Hank Paulson and Gary Cohn, both of whom later served at highest levels of the federal government.[17] This coincided with the Glass–Steagall: aftermath of repeal and made a profound change in how Murphy and his colleagues made their profits, with much greater use of leverage than before.[17]

In 2001 Murphy became global co-head of the Investment Management Division of the firm.[7][21][17] This unit oversaw the investments of foundations, pensions, hedge funds, and wealthy personages, and by 2003 it had amassed some $373 billion in holdings.[17] Hedge funds in particular received large lines of credit from Murphy's unit.[17] Another company initiative that Murphy helped to undertake was the unit that did major business in the emerging markets within the EMEA region.[19]

According to Wikipedia, Murphy thinks of himself as a member of an "elite" and actually bragged about this to the Wall Street Journal in 1998, comparing Goldman Sucks to the United States Marine Corps... but with a different pay scale... and you don't get shot at... and you get to rip-off child workers... and finance regimes that uphold the best traditions of slave labor and human trafficking.

Likewe said, Devine James makes some real strong points about Phil Murphy, and that's something, coming from the former political director of the New Jersey Democrat State Committee.  Here's a photo of Devine with the first Phil Murphy, another corporate Democrat billionaire who made his dough ripping off the folks.

"An ardent believer in lifelong learning, Devine studied Political Science, Journalism and Mass Communications at Kean University. He has been accredited by the New Jersey Press Association and as a member of the Academy of Political Science, as well as numerous other professional and civic associations.

Over the years, Devine has been employed by seven Democratic state lawmakers as a legislative aide or chief of staff."

That's a lot of smoke to blow up your own ass.  Little guy... big ego?  Let's ask an expert...

But the smoke from this hero's pipe just keeps blowing...

"Throughout his life, Devine maintained vast moral courage, often paying a high personal price for showing unequaled bravery by taking principled stands against fierce adversaries and standing up to his friends when he believed them to be wrong. The qualities his critics may never acknowledge have been documented from his earliest days in politics right through to the current time; by some of the very friends he suffered for opposing."

Yep, in this hero's mind, his shit is vast and unequaled.  So what does our expert think?

To close, here is the hero himself, caught short, in a candid pose, outside the corporate offices of a local pharmaceutical giant.

Oroho leads fight to end Human Trafficking of children

The commercial sexual exploitation of children is a global problem that is happening in communities across New Jersey.  The commercial sex industry targets children regardless of their gender.  Commercial sexual exploitation of children occurs when individuals buy, trade, or sell sexual acts with a child; and sex trafficking is "the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purposes of a commercial sex act... in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age."  

Children become victims through interaction with predators.  Traffickers target vulnerable children and lure them into prostitution and commercial pornography using psychological manipulation, drugs, and/or violence.  75% of all children who are trafficked were lured into sexual exploitation through Internet porn.  There is an inseparable link between pornography and human trafficking. Children have been kidnapped, abused, drugged, threatened and coerced into doing porn, which is by definition, sex trafficking.

On Monday, January 23rd, the Human Trafficking & Child Exploitation Prevention Act was proposed in both the New Jersey Senate and Assembly.  It was proposed in the Senate (S-2928) by Senator Steve Oroho, and in the Assembly (A-4503) sponsors include Assemblywoman Nancy F. Munoz, Assemblywoman Betty Lou DeCroce, Assemblyman Parker Space, and Assemblywoman Amy H. Handlin. 

This legislation requires Internet-connected devices to have digital blocking capability that can only be removed by an adult and would make it unlawful "to manufacture, sell, offer for sale, lease, or distribute a product" that makes pornographic content accessible "unless the product contains digital blocking capability that renders" certain obscene material "inaccessible" and ensures that "all child pornography and revenge pornography is inaccessible on the product... prohibits the product from accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution; and render websites that are known to facilitate human trafficking... inaccessible."

Any digital blocking capability could be disabled by an adult consumer by (1) requesting same in writing, (2) presenting identification to verify age, (3) acknowledges receiving a written warning regarding the potential danger of deactivating the digital blocking capability, and (4) paying a one-time $20 digital access fee.

The fee will be collected by the manufacturer or distributor and then forwarded to the New Jersey State Treasurer.  Proceeds will fund the operations of the Commission on Human Trafficking and the Attorney General's office.  The legislation allows the manufacturer or distributor to pay the $20 opt-out fee instead of the consumer.

The legislation also requires manufacturers and distributors to establish a reporting mechanism -- a website or a call center -- to allow consumers to report unblocked obscene material or blocked material that is not obscene.

The legislation was fashioned using directives from the United States Supreme Court regarding the use of digital blocking or filters.  Great attention was paid to the arguments of the ACLU and others when fashioning this legislation. 

The Human Trafficking Prevention Act is a nationwide, bipartisan effort to cut-off the grooming and trafficking of children into prostitution through commercial, for-profit pornography.  New Jersey Senator Steve Oroho gave the legislation the name it is known by and it is being proposed in each of the 50 states.  For a full list of the legislation and its sponsors in each state, go to this website:

http://humantraffickingpreventionact.com/

“Sexually exploiting children causes long term, if not lifelong damage and confusion,"  Said Rev. Greg Quinlan of the Center for Garden Sate Families.

For more information on how to organize to support the Human Trafficking & Child Exploitation Prevention Act in New Jersey, visit the Center for Garden State Families at http://www.gardenstatefamilies.org/.

Politicians fight in municipal court

It's a new-found perk to holding municipal office:  When you don't like something someone says about you, instead of hiring a lawyer and going to court using YOUR money, just file a criminal complaint, have it signed-off on by a municipal employee whose job YOU control, and then have the part-time prosecutor (a lawyer also in private practice) whose job YOU control prosecute the case for you.  Heck, YOU even control the job of the municipal court judge you will be appearing before. 

And even if they transfer it to another court, it is still the same law firms chasing the same municipal court appointments.  One year you are the prosecutor in this town, the next in that, or someone in your law firm is -- and it goes for municipal court judges too who are also lawyers in private practice (an unheard of practice across America).  Which one of these attorneys is going to stand up to a Mayor or Deputy Mayor who holds their living in his or her hands each January when they select the attorneys to fill the lawyer-only part-time municipal jobs the property taxpayers will be paying for?   

Yesterday, the Star-Ledger reported on such a case in Union County between Assemblyman Jamel Holley and Roselle Mayor Christine Danserau:

"Assemblyman Jamel Holley (D-Union) faces a petty disorderly person's charge of harassment that carries a $500 fine, but the money isn't the point, said Roselle Mayor Christine Danserau.

'This is about the fact that harassment is unacceptable,' said Dansereau, who claims she was the target of Holley's obscene tirades.

...The strained relationship between Holley and Dansereau stems from a dispute over the borough's proposed $56 million library and recreation center, called the Mind and Body project. Holley has been pushing for the project to move forward, and Dansereau has pushed for more details about how much it will add to homeowners' tax bills."

Guess what?  The taxpayers are paying for all of it because it's a perk of holding municipal office.

This systemic corruption is being examined right now by the media, legal organizations, and by the New Jersey Legislature.  The Gannett publishing organization -- the largest in America by circulation, reaching over 21 million people every day -- has been taking the lead with its watchdog investigative series on municipal court corruption in New Jersey.  The series has focused on the too cozy relationship between court employees and the local governments who pay their salaries. 

New Jersey's municipal courts have been described by the media as "a system that increasingly treats hundreds of thousands of residents each year as human ATMs." 

"Many cash-strapped municipalities have turned to the law for new revenue...

Towns have the power to pass new rules or increase fines on old ones. And just like the singular judge-jury-and-jailer of the old Western days, a town first enforces the higher fines through its police force, then sends the defendant to its local court — which is headed by a judge appointed by the town leaders who started the revenue quest in the first place.

While municipal judges are sworn to follow the rule of law and judicial ethics, the pressure to bring in the money is potent in New Jersey, lawyers and former judges told the Press. In Eatontown, email records between town officials showed that increasing revenue generation by the local court was the main reason the council replaced the municipal judge in 2013..."

The New Jersey Legislature is planning to address the corruption at municipal courts, with the Chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee  calling the "fairness of the system into question" and for the Legislature to "study municipal court reform."  Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon (Republican Budget Officer) is promising to make it happen this year and plans on holding hearings across the state to understand the full extent of this local corruption -- case by case.  He calls the current system a "municipal money grab" and promises to explore "legal remedies."

According to the state Administrative Office of Courts, over 75 percent of the more than 4.5 million cases handled by municipal courts statewide are adjudicated with a guilty plea or a plea deal and some kind of payment to the court.  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is currently studying how municipal court corruption impacts the state's residents, especially the poor.

The Gannett report notes that the New Jersey State Bar Association earlier this year assembled a panel to study the independence of municipal judges and whether the political pressure they face through their appointment impacts decision-making. The panel is still receiving testimony and hasn't yet disclosed its findings.

The Gannett report also notes that "the municipal court system can be altered or abolished by an act of the Legislature at any time."

It cites a former member of the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Municipal Courts, who said that "the first step in fixing the broken municipal court system is to professionalize staff."  Most prosecutors and judges are part-time employees who work in multiple towns. 

Blogs like More Monmouth Musings and Sussex County Watchdog have received tip-offs about local municipal corruption in the past.  If you have anything to pass along confidentially, please contact More Monmouth Musings at artvg@aol.com or Sussex County Watchdog at info@sussexcountywatchdog.com.

APP/Gannett: Reform money-grabbing municipal courts

With the ACLU and the NJ Bar Association conducting major studies of the corruption endemic to the New Jersey municipal courts system -- and the Legislature about to tackle the problem with hearings scheduled for early next year -- America's largest newspaper group has added its voice to the call for reform.  Over the weekend, the Asbury Park Press/ Gannett published the following editorial (printed in full because of its importance).

Once again, blogs like More Monmouth Musings and Sussex County Watchdog are asking for your assistance in uncovering and exposing local municipal court corruption.  If you have anything to pass along confidentially, please contact More Monmouth Musings at artvg@aol.com or Sussex County Watchdog at info@sussexcountywatchdog.com.

EDITORIAL: Reform money-grabbing municipal courts

New Jersey’s municipal courts have increasingly become more interested in cash than justice.

That’s what a Gannett New Jersey investigation has found, reinforcing long-held concerns that local officials view the courts primarily as revenue generators. That motivation influences the development of local ordinances and penalties and effectively pressures locally appointed prosecutors and judges to conduct court business with an eye toward maximizing fines.

The end result is a system that unfairly exploits residents to help balance local budgets. It’s a dirty business that needs to be cleaned up quickly, and to that end we’re encouraged by the reactions of some lawmakers, in particular Assemblyman John McKeon, D-Morris, chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, who is already calling for a legislative examination of the court system in the wake of our report.

There’s nothing terribly new about the realization that money rules the municipal courts. We’ve heard such complaints for years, and rare is the person who hasn’t at some point railed against what feels like selective enforcement of traffic laws by police officers filling ticket quotas.

Disenchantment with the court system is inherent; people don’t often appear before a judge to contentedly pay fines they believe they deserve.

But as local budget burdens have increased, so too has the abuse of the municipal courts. For instance, in the Jersey Shore counties of Ocean and Monmouth, court revenue jumped 14 percent between 2010 and 2015. But perhaps more significantly, among the individual towns where increases occurred, the average hike during that same period was 39 percent. That tells us that while not every community is abusing the system, many are doing so outrageously, especially in smaller towns where the court revenue can build up to a substantial portion of the overall budget.

MORE: Town profits spiked under municipal judge

Defenders of the current system fall back on some familiar tropes, none of which deserve much credence:

•If the fines bother you, don’t do anything wrong: Such expectation of perfection is egregiously self-righteous. We’re not talking about crimes here, but such heinous offenses as a lapsed dog license or an expired auto inspection sticker. People make mistakes, and while penalties are needed to assure compliance, that doesn’t explain the size of the fines and the frequency with which they are applied.

•This is about safety, not money: No it’s not. Safety may be the theoretical underpinning of most of these ordinances and traffic laws, but that’s not how the process plays out in practice. A prime example had been the automated red-light cameras calibrated to issue as many tickets as possible at designated intersections. Legislators mercifully scrapped that program, at least for the time being.

•Our judges and prosecutors are above reproach: While there are some bad apples, no doubt, this isn’t primarily about the court personnel. Even those with the best intentions understand that their marching orders from the local officials who appointed them are to squeeze residents for as much fine money as possible. That has to be in the backs of their minds, and their ability to continue in their posts may depend on that particular measure of success.

MORE: Judge Thompson suspended from nine Monmouth County jobs

Insulating the municipal judiciary in some fashion from those local pressures appears to be the most likely and most effective reform. Judges should not be forced to bow to local officials’ revenue grabbing just to keep their jobs; those who do the right thing and more definitively place justice first will merely be replaced, doing residents no good in the long run.

How best to achieve that independence, and overcoming what’s certain to be aggressive local resistance, remains the overriding question. The New Jersey State Bar Association has already been studying the problem, but has not yet released a report. Taking away local control of municipal judge and prosecutor appointments could be an option, as would a potential regionalization of the courts; under the current system, all fines from local ordinance violations go the municipality, while traffic fines are shared with the county. Spreading the fine proceeds more widely would reduce the local incentive.

Some locals who concede the value of the court revenue say it helps pay for services about which residents care, and that might otherwise have to be sacrificed — like trash pickup or snow plowing. That’s a convenient justification, but the perception would be different if the “sacrifice” was, for example, the trimming of some outrageous local salaries.

Regardless of the financial impact, however, a court system that emphasizes revenue collection to the degree of New Jersey’s municipal courts is failing residents. That has to change.

APP exposes corruption at NJ municipal courts

The Gannett publishing company is the largest in America by circulation -- reaching over 21 million people every day.  Its flagship in New Jersey is the Asbury Park Press (APP) -- the second most read newspaper in the state.

This week the Asbury Park Press has continued its watchdog investigations, this time focusing on the corruption in local municipal courts in New Jersey and the too cozy relationship between court employees and the local governments who pay their salaries.  Reporter Kala Kachmar is heading the APP's watchdog investigation.  She began her series...

"Somewhere in between burying her mother and taking care of her sick father in Maryland, Neptune resident Karen Marsh forgot to renew the licenses for her two rescue poodles.

Instead of paying the $17-per-dog renewal fee, she was compelled to spend a March day in municipal court and then pay $122 in fines and fees. The total would have been $178, but the judge suspended one of the fines in exchange for a guilty plea.

Marsh became prey to a system that increasingly treats hundreds of thousands of residents each year as human ATMs.

Many cash-strapped municipalities have turned to the law for new revenue...

Towns have the power to pass new rules or increase fines on old ones. And just like the singular judge-jury-and-jailer of the old Western days, a town first enforces the higher fines through its police force, then sends the defendant to its local court — which is headed by a judge appointed by the town leaders who started the revenue quest in the first place.

While municipal judges are sworn to follow the rule of law and judicial ethics, the pressure to bring in the money is potent in New Jersey, lawyers and former judges told the Press. In Eatontown, email records between town officials showed that increasing revenue generation by the local court was the main reason the council replaced the municipal judge in 2013..."

You can read the full report here:

http://www.app.com/story/news/investigations/watchdog/investigations/2016/11/27/exclusive-inside-municipal-court-cash-machine/91233216/

A follow-up report explains that the New Jersey Legislature is planning to address the corruption at municipal courts, with the Chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee  calling the "fairness of the system into question" and for the Legislature to "study municipal court reform."  Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon (Republican Budget Officer) is promising to make it happen this year and plans on holding hearings across the state to understand the full extent of this local corruption -- case by case.  He calls the current system a "municipal money grab" and promises to explore "legal remedies."

According to the state Administrative Office of Courts, over 75 percent of the more than 4.5 million cases handled by municipal courts statewide are adjudicated with a guilty plea or a plea deal and some kind of payment to the court.  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is currently studying how municipal court corruption impacts the state's residents, especially the poor.

The APP report notes that the New Jersey State Bar Association earlier this year assembled a panel to study the independence of municipal judges and whether the political pressure they face through their appointment impacts decision-making. The panel is still receiving testimony and hasn't yet disclosed its findings.

The APP report also notes that "the municipal court system can be altered or abolished by an act of the Legislature at any time."

It cites a former member of the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Municipal Courts, who said that "the first step in fixing the broken municipal court system is to professionalize staff."  Most prosecutors and judges are part-time employees who work in multiple towns. 

Blogs like More Monmouth Musings and Sussex County Watchdog have received tip-offs about local municipal corruption in the past.  If you have anything to pass along confidentially, please contact More Monmouth Musings at artvg@aol.com or Sussex County Watchdog at info@sussexcountywatchdog.com.

Gas-tax repealers pass Black-Lives Matter bill

Last week, the New Jersey Senate passed legislation that will throw EVERY police officer who has to make the decision to use deadly force in front of a state-appointed special prosecutor.  Under this legislation, a police officer who arrives at a school shooting incident in the nick of time and uses his firearm to stop a would-be mass murderer of children will be presumed to have done something wrong and then tossed in front of a persecutory special prosecutor. 

This legislation -- S2469 -- could not become law without the support of two Republicans, Jennifer Beck and Gerald Cardinale.  Without their votes, the bill would not have passed the Senate.

The premise behind this legislation is that county prosecutors -- just by existing within the borders of a particular county -- have too close a relationship with the police officers of that county and therefore cannot objectively investigate an incident when a police officer makes a mistake or oversteps his or her authority. 

While this might be argued for states that elect their prosecutors, such as Pennsylvania, where police unions are active in that political process; in New Jersey all prosecutors are appointed by the same person -- the Governor.  So whether you are a county prosecutor, appointed by the Governor, or the Attorney General, also appointed by the Governor, you do not run for election and there is no potential for that kind of conflict.

If a county prosecutor is too conflicted to investigate a matter within his jurisdiction simply because he or she lives and works there, then the whole idea of county prosecutors needs to be scrapped and replaced with something like the United Kingdom's Crown Prosecution Service, where attorneys are appointed to prosecute on a case-by-case basis.  But the idea of dragging a police officer in front of a special prosecutor, simply because that officer did precisely what he or she was supposed to do in a deadly situation, is preposterous. 

All this legislation will do is to create a species of state prosecutor whose worth will be determined by the number of police officers' scalps collected and careers destroyed.  It will deteriorate the quality of police organizations  and with that, the safety of every community in New Jersey.

The Assembly might consider a "sensitivity training" amendment for special prosecutor designees.  It would include eight weeks of putting on a police officer's uniform, strapping on a sidearm, and engaging in day-to-day police work like traffic stops and domestic calls.  Call it prosecutors' boot camp.   

Just why two Republican Senators -- Beck and Cardinale -- would cross party lines to vote for this misguided legislation is open to question.  We suggest that it is because they find the contemplation of labor unions and working people disagreeable.  Senator Beck is a career  politician and lobbyist, while Senator Cardinale is a politician with a profession, as well as the owner of a luxury property in the Caribbean. 

According to a press release put out by the ACLU, Beck and Cardinale casts their votes on behalf of that organization as well as Black Lives Matter Morristown, Black Lives Matter Paterson, Black Lives Matter New Jersey, the Drug Policy Alliance, Garden State Equality, New Jersey Citizen Action, and the New Jersey Policy Perspective.  Beck and Cardinale stood with the far-left to screw working police officers and their families.

Beware of ex-liberals like Jeffrey B. Steinfeld

Jeffrey B. Steinfeld is the president of the Pascack Valley Regional High School Board of Education.  Mr. Steinfeld is a well-known immigration and criminal defense attorney, who maintains a number of political relationships that allows him to practice municipal law as well.  According to his law practice's website, Mr. Steinfeld specializes in "sexual offense cases":

"When a person is arrested in New Jersey for a sex crime like lewd conduct, child pornography, child molestation, sexual assault, indecent exposure, sexual battery, pimping, prostitution or pandering, they will likely be treated as if they have already been found guilty... We cannot stress enough how important it is that you speak with your attorney before answering questions or making statements to police or prosecuting lawyers.  They can, and most likely will, use your words and actions against you, which will damage your case.  You will need aggressive and highly experienced representation.  We have extensive litigation experience and are well versed in all laws pertaining to New Jersey sex crimes... If you have been arrested or are under investigation for a sex crime, contact a New Jersey Sex Crimes Lawyer from our firm now for help."

Let's read that last part again.  Just so it is clear, Mr. Steinfeld identifies himself, on his website, as a "Sex Crimes Lawyer."

Mr. Steinfeld recently wrote a column in the Bergen Record (April 8, 2016), in which he took to some name-calling in defense of "transgender rights."  In this case, the "right" of a person with a penis to use the same facilities as girls aged 14 through 17.  Mr. Steinfeld admitted to being "angered" before writing the letter, and it this anger that may have got the better of him. 

In his column, Mr. Steinfeld accuses those who support "religious freedom" of "bigotry" and calls them "radical and extreme."  He goes on to cite a group that is steeped in its own controversies, The Southern Poverty Law Center, as evidence that those who disagree with him are guilty of "anti-LGBT hate."  Enough of the name-calling!

Mr. Steinfeld is a member of the ACLU.  We recall when people said organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU were "communist front" groups. According to some, these groups are "anti-Christian" and "anti-American."  And we remember how people like Mr. Steinfeld said that to name-call like that was unfair. 

Here at Jersey Conservative we respect the ACLU for its committed defense of the First Amendment, even as we disagree with them on what appears to be their war on religion.  We try notto name-call because people and organizations are seldom all-good or all-bad.  Name-calling nurtures a childish and simplistic view unworthy of adults whose business should be the process and furtherance of democracy.

If Mr. Steinfeld cannot understand why someone would be concerned about allowing people with penises into the toilet, showering, and changing facilities of underage girls, perhaps he should watch the video below:

And if Mr. Steinfeld still wants to engage in name-calling, perhaps he should consider how he might be characterized for choosing to make money as a Sex Crimes Lawyer and for representing the clients he has.  Clients like the man who pleaded guilty to the sexual assault of his daughter's 19-year-old boyfriend.  Or the man who beat his school teacher wife to death with a baseball bat.  Or the man convicted of killing his girlfriend's two-year old son.  Or the 39-year-old man convicted of giving alcohol and drugs to a 13-year-old girl and then raping her.  Need we go on?

Mr. Steinfeld may well argue that everyone -- even a violent sexual predator -- has the right to be heard and that judgment should be reserved until all the evidence is scrupulously examined.  We can't say that we disagree, but we would simply add that the same should apply to average people without criminal charges against them -- average people who are only concerned for the safety and welfare of a child or grandchild.  We question Mr. Steinfeld's temperament. 

Jeffrey B. Steinfeld calls himself a liberal when, in fact, he is nothing of the sort.  A liberal is tolerant of other opinions , generous of spirit, someone who is -- well -- liberal. Now Mr. Steinfeld might have been a liberal at some point in his life, but his recent letter indicates that he has left liberalism some way behind and is now more of an authoritarian -- demanding that everyone adhere to his way of thinking and name-calling when he doesn't get his way.  Now that's not liberal, which makes Mr. Steinfeld an ex-liberal.  We'll be watching him and the voters of the Pascack Valley Regional High School Board of Education should too.