Sex Ed: Are public schools using the cult-technique of shunning?

By Rubashov

A blog called “Chaos and Control” ran a story about what happens to children whose parents opt-out of the Murphy administration’s sex-ed curriculum mandates. The blog carried several photos of the room in which a child is banished while his or her classmates receive instruction on the finer points of masturbation or the joys of hormone blockers. Here is an example:

You can see all the photos and read the full story by subscribing to Chaos and Control.
https://chaosandcontrol.substack.com/p/kids-shoved-in-closet-literally

According to the blog, “the image above is allegedly the Martin J Ryerson Middle School (Ringwood NJ) closet (off the main office) where they keep the 6-8 grade opt-out kids.” The blog suggests that “some schools want to purposely make it uncomfortable or down right dangerous for kids to opt-out.”

The blog notes: “This is their view, 5 days a week, for a 45 min period, since school started in September. Parents have been told that an adult checks on the secluded kids to make sure they are OK, but someone at that school needs to explain how this is appropriate or even humane to do to a child.”

“This room wouldn’t even be appropriate for a detention, let alone a kid who’s only crime is to be opted-out of the NJ state Sex Ed classes. Apparently we need a child bill of rights to make sure the administrators of the schools use good judgment when handling our children.”

By nightfall yesterday, the Superintendent of the Ringwood Schools had issued a letter raising more questions. In his letter, which was ostensibly designed to reassure parents, the Superintendent spent many words on the former use of the room in an attempt to describe its size. As everyone who has ever dealt with a realtor knows, floor space is best described in square feet. What are the dimensions and square footage of the room in the picture above?

Is it larger than a standard sized prison cell housing one inmate? The American Correctional Association standards require a minimum of 70 square feet for a single inmate cell. How many children are housed in the room pictured above at one time?

The Superintendent took a number of curious “steps” to address the publication of the story. These included calling the Ringwood police department and filing a report. Why? Was it to report possible criminal activity by the school or was it an attempt to intimidate a journalist exercising her rights under the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights?

The Superintendent notes: “Action will be taken to secure the network rack behind a wall or partition. While the wall or partition is being installed around the (computer) network rack, students will not be in the room.” Does this mean the room’s current configuration is a safety hazard? Does it create the possibility for child injury and open the district to legal issues? His statement seems to suggest so.

What concerns us most about this situation is the psychological effect such physical isolation will have on the children of dissenters. The threat of shunning is a practice often used by cults to achieve conformity. Cults use this technique of isolating dissenters as a punishment for expressing non-conformist ideas. In our opinion, such methods should not be turned on public school children.

Instead, schoolteachers and administrators should publicly support the decision of the parents and the children of those parents. They should explain how dissent is an American tradition and forms the basis of the laws that protect conscientious objection to a variety of government prerogatives – including war.

Who knows, such knowledge might lead some future generation to stand up to our nation’s endless infatuation with armed conflict. Its fixation with violence. One can only hope.

Glenn Greenwald: “Roe denied… the rights of citizens to decide democratically.”

By Rubashov

Glenn Greenwald is decidedly a man of the Left. He comes from that American strain of the democratic Left that once informed so much of the Democratic Party. Wikipedia’s entry on Greenwald notes that he is “an American journalist, author and lawyer.” It continues:

In 1996, he founded a law firm concentrating on First Amendment litigation. He began blogging on national security issues in October 2005, while he was becoming increasingly concerned with what he viewed to be attacks on civil liberties by the George W. Bush Administration in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. He became a vocal critic of the Iraq War and has maintained a critical position of American foreign policy.

Greenwald started contributing to Salon in 2007, and to The Guardian in 2012. In June 2013, while at The Guardian, he began publishing a series of reports detailing previously unknown information about American and British global surveillance programs based on classified documents provided by Edward Snowden. His work contributed to The Guardian's 2014 Pulitzer Prize win, and he won the 2013 George Polk Award along with three other reporters, including Laura Poitras.

Greenwald is married to David Miranda, a Member of Brazil’s Congress (affiliated with the left-wing PSOL party)... Greenwald is a vegan and an advocate for animal rights. He and Miranda have 24 rescue dogs. He is the author of seven books.

Glenn Greenwald has written a timely and balanced column on Roe v. Wade from the perspective of the democratic Left -- or what once was the democratic Left, before it embraced faith-based irrationality. We think Greenwald's column is worth reading and considering:

The Irrational, Misguided Discourse Surrounding Supreme Court Controversies Such as Roe v. Wade

The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy. Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically.

By Glenn Greenwald, Esq.

Politico on Monday night published what certainly appears to be a genuine draft decision by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Alito's draft ruling would decide the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which concerns the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy except in the case of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormalities. Given existing Supreme Court precedent that abortion can only be restricted after fetal viability, Mississippi's ban on abortions after the 15th week — at a point when the fetus is not yet deemed viable — is constitutionally dubious. To uphold Mississippi's law — as six of the nine Justices reportedly wish to do — the Court must either find that the law is consistent with existing abortion precedent, or acknowledge that it conflicts with existing precedent and then overrule that precedent on the ground that it was wrongly decided.

Alito's draft is written as a majority opinion, suggesting that at least five of the Court's justices — a majority — voted after oral argument in Dobbs to overrule Roe on the ground that it was “egregiously wrong from the start” and “deeply damaging.” In an extremely rare event for the Court, an unknown person with unknown motives leaked the draft opinion to Politico, which justifiably published it. A subsequent leak to CNN on Monday night claimed that the five justices in favor of overruling Roe were Bush 43 appointee Alito, Bush 41 appointee Clarence Thomas, and three Trump appointees (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett), while Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by Bush 43, is prepared to uphold the constitutionality of Mississippi's abortion law without overruling Roe.

Draft rulings and even justices’ votes sometimes change in the period between the initial vote after oral argument and the issuance of the final decision. Depending on whom you choose to believe, this leak is either the work of a liberal justice or clerk designed to engender political pressure on the justices so that at least one abandons their intention to overrule Roe, or it came from a conservative justice or clerk, designed to make it very difficult for one of the justices in the majority to switch sides. Whatever the leaker's motives, a decision to overrule this 49-year-old precedent, one of the most controversial in the Court's history, would be one of the most significant judicial decisions issued in decades. The reaction to this leak — like the reaction to the initial ruling in Roe back in 1973 — was intense and strident, and will likely only escalate once the ruling is formally issued.

Every time there is a controversy regarding a Supreme Court ruling, the same set of radical fallacies emerges regarding the role of the Court, the Constitution and how the American republic is designed to function. Each time the Court invalidates a democratically elected law on the ground that it violates a constitutional guarantee — as happened in Roe — those who favor the invalidated law proclaim that something “undemocratic” has transpired, that it is a form of “judicial tyranny” for “five unelected judges” to overturn the will of the majority. Conversely, when the Court refuses to invalidate a democratically elected law, those who regard that law as pernicious, as an attack on fundamental rights, accuse the Court of failing to protect vulnerable individuals.

This by-now-reflexive discourse about the Supreme Court ignores its core function. Like the U.S. Constitution itself, the Court is designed to be an anti-majoritarian check against the excesses of majoritarian sentiment. The Founders wanted to establish a democracy that empowered majorities of citizens to choose their leaders, but also feared that majorities would be inclined to coalesce around unjust laws that would deprive basic rights, and thus sought to impose limits on the power of majorities as well.

The Federalist Papers are full of discussions about the dangers of majoritarian excesses. The most famous of those is James Madison's Federalist 10, where he warns of "factions…who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” One of the primary concerns in designing the new American republic, if not the chief concern, was how to balance the need to establish rule by the majority (democracy) with the equally compelling need to restrain majorities from veering into impassioned, self-interested attacks on the rights of minorities (republican government). As Madison put it: “To secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our enquiries are directed.” Indeed, the key difference between a pure democracy and a republic is that the rights of the majority are unrestricted in the former, but are limited in the latter. The point of the Constitution, and ultimately the Supreme Court, was to establish a republic, not a pure democracy, that would place limits on the power of majorities.

Thus, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian. It bars majorities from enacting laws that infringe on the fundamental rights of minorities. Thus, in the U.S., it does not matter if 80% or 90% of Americans support a law to restrict free speech, or ban the free exercise of a particular religion, or imprison someone without due process, or subject a particularly despised criminal to cruel and unusual punishment. Such laws can never be validly enacted. The Constitution deprives the majority of the power to engage in such acts regardless of how popular they might be.

And at least since the 1803 ruling in Madison v. Marbury which established the Supreme Court's power of "judicial review” — i.e., to strike down laws supported by majorities and enacted democratically if such laws violate the rights guaranteed by the Constitution — the Supreme Court itself is intended to uphold similarly anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values.

When the Court strikes down a law that majorities support, it may be a form of judicial tyranny if the invalidated law does not violate any actual rights enshrined in the Constitution. But the mere judicial act of invalidating a law supported by a majority of citizens — though frequently condemned as “undemocratic" — is, in fact, a fulfillment of one of the Court's prime functions in a republic.

Unless one believes that the will of the majority should always prevail — that laws restricting or abolishing free speech, due process and the free exercise of religion should be permitted as long as enough citizens support it — then one must favor the Supreme Court's anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian powers. Rights can be violated by a small handful of tyrants, but they can also be violated by hateful and unhinged majorities. The Founders’ fear of majoritarian tyranny is why the U.S. was created as a republic rather than a pure democracy.

Whether the Court is acting properly or despotically when it strikes down a democratically elected law, or otherwise acts contrary to the will of the majority, depends upon only one question: whether the law in question violates a right guaranteed by the Constitution. A meaningful assessment of the Court's decisions is impossible without reference to that question. Yet each time the Court acts in a controversial case, judgments are applied without any consideration of that core question.

The reaction to Monday night's news that the Court intends to overrule Roe was immediately driven by all of these common fallacies. It was bizarre to watch liberals accuse the Court of acting “undemocratically" as they denounced the ability of "five unelected aristocrats” — in the words of Vox's Ian Millhiser — to decide the question of abortion rights. Who do they think decided Roe in the first place?

Indeed, Millhiser's argument here — unelected Supreme Court Justices have no business mucking around in abortion rights — is supremely ironic given that it was unelected judges who issued Roe back in 1972, in the process striking down numerous democratically elected laws. Worse, this rhetoric perfectly echoes the arguments which opponents of Roe have made for decades: namely, it is the democratic process, not unelected judges, which should determine what, if any, limits will be placed on the legal ability to provide or obtain an abortion. Indeed, Roe was the classic expression of the above-described anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values: seven unelected white men (for those who believe such demographic attributes matter) struck down laws that had been supported by majorities and enacted by many states which heavily restricted or outright banned abortion procedures. The sole purpose of Roe was to deny citizens the right to enact the anti-abortion laws, no matter how much popular support they commanded.

This extreme confusion embedded in heated debates over the Supreme Court was perhaps most vividly illustrated last night by Waleed Shahid, the popular left-wing activist, current spokesman for the left-wing group Justice Democrats, and previously a top aide and advisor to Squad members including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Shahid — who, needless to say, supports Roe — posted a quote from Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address, in 1861, which Shahid evidently believes supports his view that Roe must be upheld.

But the quote from Lincoln — warning that the Court must not become the primary institution that decides controversial political questions — does not support Roe at all; indeed, Lincoln's argument is the one most often cited in favor of overruling Roe. In fact, Lincoln's argument is the primary one on which Alito relied in the draft opinion to justify overruling Roe: namely, that democracy will be imperiled, and the people will cease to be their own rulers, if the Supreme Court, rather than the legislative branches, ends up deciding hot-button political questions such as abortion about which the Constitution is silent. Here's the version of the Lincoln pro-democracy quote, complete with bolded words, that Shahid posted, apparently in the belief that it somehow supports upholding Roe:

It is just inexplicable to cite this Lincoln quote as a defense of Roe. Just look at what Lincoln said: “if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, [then] the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.” That is exactly the argument that has been made by pro-life activists for years against Roe, and it perfectly tracks Alito's primary view as defended in his draft opinion.

Alito's decision, if it becomes the Court's ruling, would not itself ban abortions. It would instead lift the judicial prohibition on the ability of states to enact laws restricting or banning abortions. In other words, it would take this highly controversial question of abortion and remove it from the Court's purview and restore it to federal and state legislatures to decide it. One cannot defend Roe by invoking the values of democracy or majoritarian will. Roe was the classic case of a Supreme Court ruling that denied the right of majorities to decide what laws should govern their lives and their society.

One can defend Roe only by explicitly defending anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values: namely, that the abortion question should be decided by a panel of unelected judges, not by the people or their elected representatives. The defense of democracy invoked by Lincoln, and championed by Shahid, can be used only to advocate that this abortion debate should be returned to the democratic processes, which is precisely what Alito argued (emphasis added):

Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman's right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade….At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision Court represented the “exercise of raw judicial power,” 410 U. S., at 222….

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences…..It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 979 (Scalia, J, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what tho Constitution and the rule of law demand.

Rhetoric that heralds the values of democracy and warns of the tyranny of “unelected judges” and the like is not a rational or viable way to defend Roe. That abortion rights should be decided democratically rather than by a secret tribunal of "unelected men in robes" is and always has been the anti-Roe argument. The right of the people to decide, rather than judges, is the primary value which Alito repeatedly invokes in defending the overruling of Roe and once again empowering citizens, through their elected representatives, to make these decisions.

The only way Roe can be defended is through an explicit appeal to the virtues of the anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian principles enshrined in the Constitution: namely, that because the Constitution guarantees the right to have an abortion (though a more generalized right of privacy), then majorities are stripped of the power to enact laws restricting it. Few people like to admit that their preferred views depend upon a denial of the rights of the majority to decide, or that their position is steeped in anti-democratic values. But there is and always has been a crucial role for such values in the proper functioning of the United States and especially the protection of minority rights. If you want to rant about the supremacy and sanctity of democracy and the evils of "unelected judges,” then you will necessarily end up on the side of Justice Alito and the other four justices who appear ready to overrule Roe.

Anti-Roe judges are the ones who believe that abortion rights should be determined through majority will and the democratic process. Roe itself was the ultimate denial, the negation, of unrestrained democracy and majoritarian will. As in all cases, whether Roe's anti-democratic ruling was an affirmation of fundamental rights or a form of judicial tyranny depends solely on whether one believes that the Constitution bars the enactment of laws which restrict abortion or whether it is silent on that question. But as distasteful as it might be to some, the only way to defend Roe is to acknowledge that your view is that the will of the majority is irrelevant to this conflict, that elected representatives have no power to decide these questions, and that all debates about abortion must be entrusted solely to unelected judges to authoritatively decide them without regard to what majorities believe or want.

+++++

To access Glenn Greenwald’s full article – with links to what he references, and to the numerous speeches Greenwald has given over the years about the anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values embedded in the Constitution and the Court, including his 2011 lecture at the University of Maryland, his 2012 speech at the University of Indiana/Purdue University, and his 2013 lecture at Yale Law School – visit his page on Substack:

https://greenwald.substack.com/

Democrats keep public out of “open” meeting to make State House VAX only

By Rubashov

In the coming battles between authoritarianism and democracy, what the State Capitol Joint Management Commission pulled yesterday will be pointed to again and again – used as a cudgel to demonstrate the hypocrisy, lust for unchecked power, lack of rational balance, use of fear, and general bad faith that define the authoritarians. The culprits here are partisan authoritarian bureaucrats – paid by the taxpayer, with benefits superior to those of average taxpayers, and pensions that working people can only dream of.

On a 5 (D) to 2 (R) party-line vote, the Commission voted to block any citizen from entering the public legislative areas of the capital complex if they cannot show proof of vaccination or the negative results of a COVID test from the preceding 72 hours. This includes the public areas of the legislative chambers and the committee hearing rooms, where members of the public once had the right to testify for or against legislation under consideration. All citizens will be required to wear a mask inside the building.

New Jersey now has a vaccine-or-test mandate for entry into public political and policy forums. Citizens not in compliance will be blocked and confronted by men with guns. Any citizen wishing to speak his or her mind to power, whether individually or assembling as a group, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, is no longer free to do so. Their papers must first be in order. Journalists will likewise be unable to provide the scrutiny that the powerful require.

When it comes to exercising the freedoms contained within the Bill of Rights, five members of a Commission have unilaterally decided that a proof of vaccination card is now more important than a passport. Indeed, the primacy of the proof of vaccination card rises as the need for a passport is diminished.

If this was really about public health, the Murphy administration would not welcome, support, and promote undocumented immigrants residing in the United States in violation of federal law. Especially as so few come from nations that have had the opportunity to offer their people vaccination against COVID-19.

In this segment, anti-authoritarian Democrat Krystal Ball examines the collusion between the Biden administration and the pharmaceutical industry to keep most of the nations of the world unvaccinated and vulnerable – while pursuing a policy of open borders. If this was about public health, the members of the State Capitol Joint Management Commission would be demanding that the national borders be as tight as are the borders they police – the doors of the state capitol building.

Of course, they will not make such a demand because they are aiding and abetting an act of hypocrisy. Now watch this video and listen to a fellow Democrat, a woman of the Left, and a believer in democracy (true to her party’s name):

“The consequences for our own population – of this greed, cowardice, and corruption – will be deadly. We can get every last solitary soul in our own country vaccinated and it is not going to matter much in the end if new variants are constantly emerging from an unvaccinated global south. The pandemic will never end so long as billions of people remain vulnerable as a laboratory for COVID to mutate and jump the vaccines that we’ve already created.”

“Stop worrying about the anti-mask Karens and start worrying about the real COVID criminals, the CEOs and the politicians who would let millions die to protect their profits.”

If Black Lives Mattered as much to the five Democrats on the State Capitol Joint Management Commission as their political bosses say they do, they would issue a statement demanding that American pharmaceutical firms drop their patent protections and allow nations in Africa to produce the vaccine. This would save a lot more lives than any Assembly resolution or protest-turned-riot-turned-looting-turned-arson ever has.

The five Democrats on the State Capitol Joint Management Commission really don’t believe in mass vaccination. This is about power, about crushing the Bill of Rights and bringing a formerly democratic people to heel. They ignore the billions of unvaccinated waiting to come to the United States illegally but demand full compliance from every citizen who wishes to exercise the Bill of Rights.

But the actions of the Democrats who run the State Capitol Joint Management Commission were actually much worse than that described so far. Apparently, someone with the keys to the State Legislature’s website was concerned enough to block access to the Commission’s virtual/remote meeting yesterday morning. We heard from numerous people who looked for the usual link on the Legislature's website to sign-up and provide public input and it wasn’t there. It had been removed.

This went against both the policy of the State Capitol Joint Management Commission and the Open Public Meetings Act. In an October 22nd memorandum to Commission members that was not publicly posted on the Legislature’s website, the Commission Chairman wrote:

Due to the current public health emergency, the State Capitol Joint Management Commission meeting will be conducted remotely. The next meeting of the State Capitol Joint Management Commission will be held on Tuesday, October 26th at 10:00 a.m. in Committee Room 4. All Commissioners will receive instructions for remote access. For anyone who wishes to submit comments on any agenda item, or to participate in the meeting, please have them contact Roger Lai at rlai@njleg.org. For anyone who would like to view the proceedings, they will be live streamed at https://www.njleg.state.nj.us. Enclosed is an agenda and briefing material for this meeting.

In other words, an average citizen, wishing to comment or provide perspective, would need to be invited by one of the Commissioners to do so, as this notice was not made public on the Legislature’s website where members of the public generally go if they wish to testify or comment. The October 26th meeting of the State Capitol Joint Management Commission was posted on the legislative calendar in the usual place on the Legislative website, but all links to testify were removed and the Commission Chairman’s October 26th memo was not publicly posted there.

In effect, public comment was suppressed by the Commission’s actions and indeed, no member of the public was heard from despite dozens going to the legislative website to sign-up to be heard from. Remembering those large numbers of citizens who showed up to the State Capitol to protest attempts to do away with religious exemptions to vaccination, perhaps this is the purpose of the new rule and not “public health” after all?

“The people in charge are intent on replacing our free democratic system with an authoritarian system, where they don’t convince you of anything, they simply make you do things. And they benefit from that.”

Tucker Carlson

Murphy extremists are fighting to keep control of School Boards

By Rubashov

On Monday, Governor Phil Murphy’s state Democrat machine put out a press release attacking the concept of parents and property taxpayers having a voice in education by running for local school board. Calling it a “troubling trend among candidates running for school boards all over New Jersey” the Chairwoman of the NJ LGBTQ Democrats, Lauren Albrecht, issued the following statement:

“What we’re seeing is a very small but very loud group of individuals who are running for seats on Boards of Education all over New Jersey in a campaign coordinated by, and funded by an extremist and Evangelical agenda, with the singular goal of pushing animosity aimed at LGBTQ+ students and the LGBTQ+ community in general. These candidates, and their backers, have one goal: to fill school boards with fringe extremists whose sole aim is to destroy the progress that’s been made for the LGBTQ community in our state.”

“An extremist and Evangelical agenda”? Is Ms. Albrecht preaching hatred towards specific religious groups? And why does her organization not embrace the “+” in LGBTQ+? Her statement specifically accuses this “extremist and Evangelical agenda” of “the singular goal of pushing animosity aimed at LGBTQ+ students and the LGBTQ+ community in general.” But her group lacks the “+” so, why is that?

Could it be that part of that “+” is “K” for Kink? Is it that Ms. Albrecht understands sado-masochism as a life-style choice, at least for the moment, makes even politically fashionable suburbanites pause? Ms. Albrecht needs to explain just which part of “+” her organization is so uncomfortable with.

This attack by Governor Murphy’s NJ LGBTQ Democrats could be in response to the success of a group, formed by Pastor Phil Rizzo last year, which successfully fulfilled its mission under the leadership of Lafayette school board president Josh Aikens this year. The group, AriseNJ, has recruited more than 400 candidates statewide – representing both major parties, some belonging to no party or third parties – who are bracketed and running together in over 100 school districts.

AriseNJ helps people to run for school board who believe in parental and taxpayer control over education, who embrace the Bill of Rights, and who oppose Trenton authoritarianism in the form of unfunded mandates and curriculum diktats. That is not “extremist” but rather the very idea of democracy for which the Democratic Party is named.

As Ms. Albrecht knows, the Democrat Party has non-profit groups set-up to train and run candidates for school board. They understand the existential importance of this level of government. Unfortunately, the Republican Party does not.

Contrary to Ms. Albrecht and the NJ LGBTQ Democrats’ assertion that the parents and property taxpayers who now want a say in their children’s education are “well-funded” – the NJGOP is not helping them at all. Quite the opposite.

The Chairman of the NJGOP, Bob Hugin, appears to favor funding a very different agenda. The former Big Pharma executive has busied himself with changing the face of the GOP. Since his 2018 campaign, Hugin appears to have more deeply embraced identity politics.

For example, an independent expenditure committee controlled by Hugin called Women for a Stronger New Jersey spent around $30,000 on direct mail, text-messaging, robo-calls, and social media in an attempt to defeat a conservative State Committeewoman in Mercer County and replace her with what would have been the first transgender State Committeewoman to represent the GOP. The effort ultimately failed, but one can only ask why such resources – scarce in the best of times – would be wasted on such a silly primary, for such a silly cause. $30,000 would be better used to defeat Democrats – or to fund parents and property taxpayers who want a say in their children’s education.

Lauren Albrecht and the NJ LGBTQ Democrats are pushing for an agenda that interferes with the traditional role of parents – teaching their children how to negotiate their sexuality in the world – and with the traditional role of consumers – the right to choose which product they pay for. Property taxpayers are consumers. They pay for a product. They shouldn’t be forced to pay for a product they don’t like. Not without a way of exercising their right to petition the governing body. No consumer should. Democrats once understood that. Liberals – true liberals – still do.

But liberals are few and far between in the Democrat Party of today. Even Leftists – honest Leftists who don’t buy into the security state or the permanent war machine or bailouts that help Wall Street infinitely more than Main Street or executive orders that throw you out of a job but don’t make sure you have a means to pay for health care – Leftists like that don’t inhabit the Democrat Party. Instead you have Wall Street operators like Phil Murphy and government authoritarians like… also Phil Murphy. That’s your Democrat Party today, which is why they need Trump so much as a hate object to unite them.

Apparently without considering the institutions that founded education in America, Albrecht writes: “These candidates no more belong on Boards of Education than religion belongs in our public schools.”

So, is that the position of the New Jersey Democrats under Phil Murphy? If you believe in God or some form of higher consciousness or even possess a spiritually informed conscience of your own, you have no place on a school board? Do they really believe that education belongs only to those who make money from it? To greed alone? To the education establishment, the fat-paid administrators, the insider vendors (like Garden State Equality), and to all those politically-connected who trouser the green from the grease machine? Everybody else shut-up and just keep paying?

Even more disturbing, given recent moves by the National School Boards Association and the Biden administration to criminalize speech at school board meetings, is this weird threat from Lauren Albrecht and the NJ LGBTQ Democrats:

“It’s time for our community and allies to identify and expose these extremist candidates (and their backers) who are exploiting this fraught moment for their own brazen political gain with little regard for the support, safety, and academic achievement of New Jersey public school students. It’s time to send a clear message at the polls that again, hate has no home in New Jersey.”

Lauren Albrecht proves Hank Bukowski right again: “The best at hate are those who preach love.”

Here Tucker Carlson exposes the Biden agenda for restricting the right of parents and property taxpayers to petition the governing school boards that tax them:

Will the Biden administration criminalize speech at school board meetings and use the Patriot Act against those who petition a governing body?

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
George Orwell

Will Gottheimer blame “white supremacy” for attack in Kabul?

By Rubashov

Congressman Josh Gottheimer likes playing at being a “John Wayne” when it comes to smearing his fellow Americans – his own constituents even – as “terrorists”. He accuses them of criminal offensives, without evidence, based on something he heard… or pulled off social media. Gottheimer has a lot to say about “the threat to America” posed by people posting things on Facebook that he disagrees with.

Gottheimer lauded the leaders of our military establishment when they said that their new enemy was “white Americans”. But now reality has stepped in to slap them in the face. Now they have sobered up and put aside the hash pipe of Critical Race Theory.

Maybe now will Congressman Gottheimer take a moment to rethink his full-on push to dismantle the Bill of Rights – particularly the First Amendment. Maybe now will the good Congressman understand that disagreement between one’s fellow citizens requires forbearance and understanding – not authoritarian measures that criminalize thought and free expression.

Of course, we’ve been here before. Back then, those acting out against the Bill of Rights donned a different ideological face paint, were cosmetically different, from those doing so today. But an authoritarian is an authoritarian, whatever his or her politics. They lost then. Let us hope they do so again.

"Congress has no right to investigate how we vote or where we pray, what we think, say, or how we make movies. Hello, I'm Dalton Trumbo."

“The entire business model of the Democratic Party is to avoid dealing with its own populists’ concerns, so they’ve never seen the Sanders wing of the party as anything but a threat to what they do for a living, which is basically take corporate money and then sell themselves as socially progressive. That’s what they do for a living. That’s their business.”

Matt Taibbi
Journalist and author of Hate, Inc.: Why Today's Media Makes Us Despise One Another.

Assembly Dems propose 1950’s style Subversive Activities Control Board

By Rubashov

On behalf of her party and Governor Phil Murphy, Democrat Assemblywoman Angela McKnight (D-Hudson) has proposed bill number A-5790 which “requires the Attorney General to establish and maintain a domestic extremist organization database.” McKnight’s legislation could be used as a vehicle to suppress political activity – including voter suppression – and would severely compromise protected freedoms under the Bill of Rights.

Americans have very short memories. Perhaps it is because what is taught as history in our schools is such thin gruel, but we seem to have forgotten all those nasty things that have happened in the past, to the point that our leaders both in Washington and in Trenton appear determined to relearn them again.

Some have said we are in the early days of a Third Red Scare. If we are, are legislators like Angela McKnight the new Joe McCarthy?

Historically, a Red Scare occurred when the government, with the cooperation of the media and other establishment interests, promoted widespread fear of a potential rise of ideologies they found threatening. The term is most often used to refer to two periods in American history.

The First Red Scare occurred after World War I and was brought about by a perceived threat from the organized working class labor movement within the United States, political anarchism, and the Marxist defeat of various establishment regimes in Europe. The creation of the Soviet Union out of the former Russian Empire was a major focus of the fear stoked by the media during this period.

The Second Red Scare occurred after World War II and was preoccupied with the perception that the American establishment had been infiltrated by national or foreign communists and that communist ideas were subverting American society. This period coincided with a rise in global political tensions, with the United States and the western democracies (and their empires, dependencies, and allies) on one side, and the Soviet Union and various Communist-controlled nations on the other. The fear generated and the ostracization was so effective that even an established enterprise like the Cincinnati Reds baseball team, temporarily renamed themselves the “Cincinnati Redlegs” to avoid losing money.

The “red” in Red Scare referred to the red flag of the Communist Party. As late as the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the American media referred to conservative, generally Republican-dominated states as “blue states”. During the Reagan years, the media adopted the term “red states” for what were formerly “blue states” although this designation has not moved beyond the United States. In Great Britain, for example, red continues to be the color of the Labour Party and blue the Conservative Party. Likewise in Canada, red stands for the Liberals and blue the Conservatives. Today “Red” suggests the “fly-over” hinterlands of the non-metropolitan United States.

So, this Third “Red” Scare is occurring after the Great Pandemic and in the context of the loss of faith in global capitalism and its institutions by the working class since the Global Economic Crash of 2008. This has led to tensions throughout the Western world and to the rise of populist movements on both the left and right.

(N.B. Some have suggested that the failure by America’s Military-Security Establishment to win a lasting peaceful hegemony over Islam has made future accommodation paramount and that this would necessitate the end to a “purist” interpretation of the First Amendment. Anyone who remembers the Islamic backlash in 2005 to the publication of cartoons in a Danish newspaper understands the problem America’s First Amendment poses for Islamic “feelings”.)

Enter Democrat Assemblywoman Angela McKnight. Her bill, A-5790, is of a 1950’s vintage and mirrors key provisions of the federal Internal Security Act of 1950. Wikipedia explains:

“The Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987 (Public Law 81-831), also known as the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, the McCarran Act after its principal sponsor Sen. Pat McCarran (D-Nevada), or the Concentration Camp Law, is a United States federal law. Congress enacted it over President Harry Truman's veto.”

President Harry S. Truman, Democrat, called the Internal Security Act “the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798,” a “mockery of the Bill of Rights” and a “long step toward totalitarianism”. The House overrode his veto, 286 to 48 the same day. The Senate overrode it the next day by a vote of 57 to 10. Senator Hubert H. Humphrey led the fight to uphold President Truman’s veto. Yes, boys and girls, once upon a time, long, long ago, Democrats actually gave a damn about the Bill of Rights.

The Internal Security Act required the United States Attorney General to maintain a database of all organizations suspected of engaging in “subversive activities” or otherwise promoting the establishment of a “totalitarian dictatorship”, either fascist or communist. The Act specifically uses the term “insurrection” and poses this law as a necessary, preventative measure against “insurrection”.

The Act established the Subversive Activities Control Board to investigate persons suspected of engaging in subversive activities. Suspects could be prevented from entering or leaving the country. Legal immigrants found in violation of the Act within five years of being naturalized could have their citizenship revoked.

Under the Act, the Attorney General required all suspect organizations to provide a list of their members, as well as “reveal its financial details”. In turning over their lists, some organizations made their members subject to being barred from federal employment. Once registered, members were liable for prosecution solely based on membership under the Smith Act due to the expressed and alleged intent of the organization.

The Act also contained an emergency detention statute, giving the President the authority to apprehend and detain “each person as to whom there is a reasonable ground to believe that such person probably will engage in, or probably will conspire with others to engage in, acts of espionage or sabotage.”

The Act made picketing a federal courthouse a felony, if intended to obstruct the court system or influence jurors or other trial participants.

That’s right, under an Act passed by the United States Congress in 1950, you could be picked up by the police and placed in a camp if they thought that you might do something. Based on the language of the Act itself, the 1971 Peter Watkins film Punishment Park captured the possibilities of what the country might look like if acted upon by a chief executive.

Set in a detention camp in an America of the possible, Punishment Park's pseudo-documentary style places a British film crew among a group of minor dissidents in “Bear Mountain Punishment Park”. The detainees in Group 637 are pursued by a squad of heavily armed police and National Guardsmen, while those in Group 638 face a corrupt quasi-judicial tribunal. Here is the film’s official trailer:

Will a similar film be produced about the Assembly Democrats' bill?

The emergency detention provision of the Internal Security Act of 1950 was repealed when the Non-Detention Act of 1971 was signed into law by President Richard Nixon.  The Bill of Rights won.
 
Under Democrat Assemblywoman McKnight’s bill, A-5790, you don’t need to be convicted of a crime to become a target of her legislation.  Under McKnight’s bill, merely the accusation that you might “commit or plan” a crime “motivated by a political or ideological viewpoint” is enough.
 
And like the 1950 Subversive Activities Control Board, the McKnight bill creates a two-tier approach abolishing the Bill of Rights for some citizens.  A-5790 not only covers members of groups formed for a purpose that might be interpreted as “domestic extremism”, but it also includes individuals within other groups (political organizations, perhaps?) who have “associated” for a purpose that might be interpreted as “domestic extremism”.  The 1950 law also allowed the Attorney General to determine if individuals not included on membership lists were to be made to register.
 
Assemblywoman McKnight’s bill specifically targets two groups of individuals by employment – police officers and military service members/veterans.  The same Assembly Democrats who wrote legislation that blocked employers from requiring the details of a potential employee’s criminal record, now specifically target police and military/veterans as “suspects” for some unspecified future criminal activity.
 
A-5790 reads: “The database shall include, but not be limited to, the following information concerning each domestic extremist organization: any name or nickname associated with the organization; a description of the organization’s purpose and objectives; information concerning membership and recruiting tactics of the organization, including whether the organization is known to recruit current or former members of a law enforcement agency or the military”.
 
The message from the Assembly Democrats is clear: Convicted criminals are okay employees but you need to watch out for former police officers and military veterans.  Hire the Con, screw the Vet.  Real dirtbag behavior on the part of the Dems.  
 
Why is this happening?  Well, the first two Red Scares wiped out the honest Left in America, so that we were alone among the democracies in not having a true working class party – like the Labour Party once was in Great Britain.  Instead, we muddled along with two (and only two) parties of the corporate establishment.  In 2016, a most unlikely candidate harnessed the votes of enough of the politically dispossessed working class to win the White House and capture one of those two parties.   
 
Perhaps the old communist writer Murray B. Levin explained it best when he wrote that the (first) Red Scare was “a nationwide anti-radical hysteria provoked by a mounting fear and anxiety that a revolution in America was imminent -- a revolution that would change Church, home, marriage, civility, and the American way of Life”.  Except that in our case today, the revolution has already passed.  “Church, home, marriage, civility, and the American way of Life” have all been altered.  Only too many Americans, particularly among the politically dispossessed working class, are uncomfortable with the alterations.
 
Each Red Scare preached conformity of a kind.  A version of America was under threat and the cudgel was needed to ensure compliance.  Perhaps this Third Red Scare is about conformity as well.   

 

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

Noam Chomsky

IMMIGRATION

Professor Sabrin, Ph.D response

Regarding ”President’s immigration bill unveiled” (Page 1A, Feb. 19). 

I arrived in America with my older brother and parents, the only members of their respective families who survived the Holocaust, from war torn Germany in 1949, three years after they left their native Poland.  

As I recall my father told me he wrote his great aunt in New York City who responded quickly with the appropriate instructions to obtain sponsorship so we could immigrate to America.  My father was thoroughly vetted in West Germany inasmuch as he served as a partisan commander in his struggle against the Nazis.  We sailed for America in early August 1949 and settled in the lower East Side of Manhattan.

In America we did not receive any public assistance but the support of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), a nonprofit organization founded in 1881 to assist Jewish refugees, and is now known only as HIAS as its mission is to help as many refugees as possible.  

The solution to our intractable immigration problem is quite simple: anyone who wants to come to America needs to obtain sponsors who would be responsible for their well being until they become financially independent.

As far as the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in America are concerned, they should become permanent residents with no path to citizenship since they did not follow the rules as tens of millions of immigrants did before them. After all we are a nation of laws, or are we? The so-called dreamers could have a path to citizenship, which should be open to negotiations

For more readings on restoring civil liberties, go to murraysabrin.com

Despite resistance from some NJ Republicans, 2nd Amendment advocates score victories

By Sussex County Watchdog

What began in Virginia as an important demonstration of popular support for the Second Amendment has spread all across America with towns and counties formally passing resolutions declaring public support for the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights.  These resolutions have served as a rallying point for political action – bringing people together, educating voters, recruiting new activists – which has manifested itself in grassroots political action and lobbying.
 
What started out as a movement to pass pro-Second Amendment resolutions in Virginia became a grassroots effort that shaped a surprise win that successfully blocked passage of an “assault weapons” ban in the Democrat-controlled Virginia Legislature.  The resolution movement quickly turned into a wide-reaching and comprehensive grassroots movement that frightened 4 Democrat legislators into joining a solid block of Republicans to kill the “assault weapons” ban. 
 
Here in New Jersey, grassroots activists Bill Hayden and Mark Cheeseman have led a similar pro-Second Amendment resolution effort that has led to the passage of resolutions in towns and counties across the state.  This effort has aided the work of longtime Second Amendment advocates – like the 2nd Amendment Society’s Alex Roubian – who successfully stopped two anti-Second Amendment bills on Monday. 

(click on image for video)

The Second Amendment Society has taken legal action against 28 towns in New Jersey and won every battle.  They have sued the state 3 times and won every time – winning back legal fees of more than $200,000.
 
Imagine the grassroots movement that could be built if even just a portion of New Jersey’s Republican establishment would lend a hand?  There have been some notable heroes – the District 24 legislators, particularly Parker Space, as well as freeholders from half a dozen counties, particularly Sussex County’s Dawn Fantasia – but too many pretend not to notice as the Bill of Rights is assaulted. 
 
Worse still are those who actively talk down the work of Second Amendment advocates and the grassroots resolution movement.  This includes the campaign of Mayor Michael Ghassali of Montvale, a Republican candidate for Congress in CD05. 
 
Ghassali has resisted passing a pro-Second Amendment resolution in his town, which is controlled by the GOP.  But he had no hesitation in adopting a leftist “anti-hate” resolution authored by a Democrat “social justice” activist and elected official.  
 
And Ghassali’s campaign has gone even further, by publicly crapping on the pro-Second Amendment grassroots movement itself.  His campaign issued this statement in a two-part social media post yesterday:
 
“The 2nd Amendment on its face is the right to bear arms as such, why would a municipality need to pass a 2A resolution?”
 
“Exactly, it’s one of the dumbest things I’ve heard…”
 
While we don’t expect establishment GOPer’s to possess the imagination to energize the Republican base, they should at least have the intelligence to copy what conservatives in Virginia and many other states are successfully doing.  The grassroots resolution movement is producing victories, which is more than can be said of these establishment types.
 
Ghassali is a victim of one of those GOP confabs where a few insider consultants are presented as “experts” (while their actual win-loss record are, shall we say, glossed over if mentioned at all).  For some establishment GOPers, the idea of a grassroots movement mobilizing the Republican base and bringing in thousands of new pro-Second Amendment voters is a nightmare that disrupts all their calculations.  They don’t want that.  That doesn’t serve their interests.
 
But Mayor Michael Ghassali – who after all was mentored and urged to run by Steve Lonegan – should have better instincts than those he hired to run his campaign.  We expect better from anyone who is a Lonegan person and Michael is a Lonegan guy.  So what’s the deal?  Is Ghassali afraid to take a stand and help grassroots conservatives?
 
Steve Lonegan had no problem standing up for what was right.  Say what you will, the guy had balls.  Does that make Michael Ghassali a Steve Lonegan without the balls?
 
Michael Ghassali needs to get real and soon.  And stop taking the advice of GOP establishment wimps.    

Are we one generation away from scrapping the First Amendment?

Journalist Collin Anderson did some excellent work reporting on a recent poll conducted by The Campaign for Free Speech. According to the poll, a majority of Americans believe the First Amendment should be rewritten and are willing to restrict free speech, as well as the media. Anderson writes:

More than 60 percent of Americans agree on restricting speech in some way, while a slim majority, 51 percent, want to see the First Amendment rewritten to "reflect the cultural norms of today."

The Campaign for Free Speech said the results "indicate free speech is under more threat than previously believed." Bob Lystad, the group’s executive director added: "The findings are frankly extraordinary. Our free speech rights and our free press rights have evolved well over 200 years, and people now seem to be rethinking them." Anderson continued:

Of the 1,004 respondents, young people were the most likely to support curbing free expression and punishing those who engage in "hate speech." Nearly 60 percent of Millennials—respondents between the ages of 21 and 38—agreed that the Constitution "goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America" and should be rewritten, compared to 48 percent of Gen Xers and 47 percent of Baby Boomers. A majority of Millennials also supported laws that would make "hate speech" a crime—of those supporters, 54 percent said violators should face jail time.

Hostility towards the First Amendment did not stop at speech. Many would also like to see a crackdown on the free press. Nearly 60 percent of respondents agreed that the "government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations that publish content that is biased, inflammatory, or false." Of those respondents, 46 percent supported possible jail time.

Here is a five-minute explanation of the First Amendment by constitutional attorney Floyd Abrams…

In an era of politically-correct curricula – with laws like the one that Governor Phil Murphy and Democrat legislative leaders used to force a silly LGBTQ curriculum on New Jersey school districts – it is clear from the numbers above that we are forgetting to teach the basics of citizenship. The maintenance of our Bill of Rights and the preservation of American freedoms depends on electing the right people to the Legislature and to local school boards. School boards are a vital line of defense in the effort to curb the embrace of openly fascist, anti-freedom ideologies by future generations.

What we teach America’s children is now more important than ever.

Murphy Dems say taxpayers who want answers to school funding cuts “extremist”

The administration of Governor Phil Murphy and the Democrats who control both chambers of the Legislature cut funding to most Sussex County school districts – as well as to many other rural and suburban school districts across the state.  These cuts were made despite the fact that working class families in rural and suburban New Jersey continue to subsidize the property taxes of rich corporations and wealthy professionals in many of New Jersey’s gentrified urban districts.
 
To give just one example, in Vernon, the Murphy Democrats’ education funding cuts resulted in a 10 percent property tax increase.  And this is only year one of a proposed multi-year round of cuts by the Democrats.
 
Republican Assemblymen Parker Space and Hal Wirths have been trying to get the Democrats to agree to hold a special session on property taxes.  Space and Wirths want to address the unfairness of the New Jersey education funding formula – the most inequitable in the entire United States.  To date, the Democrats have tried to change the subject, making excuses on why they don’t have time to address property taxes but do have time to tackle such pressing concerns as transgender curriculum for schools and such.
 
Then there’s the Governor’s screwball Sanctuary State scam that has already released violent sex offenders back into the community.
 
Since July, Assemblymen Space and Wirths have been trying to get someone from the Murphy administration to show up in Sussex County and come before an open public meeting to discuss his Sanctuary State scheme, how he came up with the idea, and whether it was motivated by politics or genuine law enforcement concerns.  The New Jersey Herald covered this in a front page story on July 24th but to date, the Murphy administration has played hide-and-seek, dodging the issue and refusing to show up and talk to the people of Sussex County.
 

https://www.njherald.com/news/20190724/space-wirths-want-attorney-general-to-explain-sanctuary-state-directive

 
So it is a bit disconcerting that when the Governor finally shows up in Sussex county, it isn't at a public meeting, but at a location hidden from the general public; and it isn't to answer questions from the people who pay his salary, but to raise money from big donors for the Democrat Party.
 
Now, to add insult to injury, the Democrats trot out their Antifa-wannabe shill, Chairwoman Katie Rotondi, who labels as “haters” and “extremists” those seeking answers from the Governor whose salary they pay.  Since when is it extreme to ask questions of government? 
 
In fact, before sending out his shill again, we think Governor Murphy needs to take a remedial course in the Constitution of the United States of America – specifically the Bill of Rights.  Last time we checked, in the United States of America – in this country – the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits government or its party shills from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
 
Finally, we think it the height of hypocrisy for a party operative who is notorious for singing about sucking a “bag of d*cks” to be offended by the use of a phrase like “Murphy sucks”.  If you wish to be a puritan, by all means be a puritan, but please be consistent about it.  

Yes, that is her. The Democrat Party chairwoman in all her glory. Katie Rotondi is also notorious for mocking Disabled American Veterans and for comparing Christian belief to “Hitler” – something the Democrat Committee applauded her for – and something the trustees of the Sussex County Community College failed to examine when they caved into her demands to remove one of their own members. As Katie says… “F*ck you, I love you.”

Did you get that, Governor Murphy? Do you approve?

On Bramnick, Murphy Democrats put virtue-signaling before racial justice

In an attempt to distract attention away from the attempted cover-up of a rape within his own administration, Governor Phil Murphy and the Trenton Democrats have attacked Assembly Republican Leader Jon Bramnick, a trial attorney, for his firm’s pledge to zealously defend those accused of sex offenses. That is right, Jon Bramnick’s law firm believes in the Bill of Rights and the very American idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

Not long ago, so did every good liberal…

The Innocence Project is not a group that anyone would call right-of-center. They take up the cases of those they consider to have been wrongly convicted – and wrongful convictions happen when law firms don’t do what Jon Bramnick’s firm promises to do… to defend their accused clients zealously.

The Innocence Project reports that the first DNA exoneration happened in 1989. There have been 367 DNA exonerations to date. All people wrongly accused or let down by lawyers who didn’t do what Jon Bramnick’s firm is being attacked for doing.

These innocent people – mainly men – served a total of 5,907 ½ years in prison for crimes they did not commit. The average time served in prison before exoneration was 14 years.

The average age at the time of their wrongful conviction was 26 ½ years. The average age at exoneration was just under 43 years.

42 percent of these cases involved cross-racial misidentification. 225 of those falsely accused and convicted were African-American. That is 61 percent.

Most exonerations involved sex offenses that they were falsely accused of committing. After these innocent people were exonerated, 162 actual assailants were identified. Those actual perpetrators went on to be convicted of 152 additional violent crimes, including 82 sexual assaults, 35 murders, and 35 other violent crimes while the innocent sat behind bars for their earlier offenses.

Apparently, Governor Murphy and the Democrats only cry “racism” when it involves a be-in , a protest, a statue, or a flag… real racism – by white collar, professional, prosecutorial and judicial elites – they could not care less about. That kind of racism involves their people, rich people, and rich people are always right… Just ask Wall Streeters Phil and Tammy Murphy. They’ll tell you how good they are.

Murphy and the Trenton Democrats are phonies. B.S. marketing reps who sell a line of crap they don’t really believe in. They lack character.

Governor Murphy and the Democrats should be ashamed of what they tried to do here. Especially given the backdrop of sexual assault and rape within their own administration.

Don’t let Democrats Fortgang and Clarke bury America!

Are you seeing the ads run by Trenton Democrats for Laura Fortgang and Christine Clarke? 

They feature a headstone and threaten to “bury” American values like the Bill of Rights, Free Speech, Fiscal Responsibility, and the Free Market.

Fortgang and Clarke are members of the far-Left group Action Together New Jersey, which has officially embraced the insanely ruinous economic policies of  Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal.

Action Together New Jersey has no less than eight members running as the official legislative candidates of the Democrat Party…

District 21

Stacey Gunderman

Lisa Mandelblatt 

District 24

Deana Lykins

District 25

Lisa Bhimani

Darcy Draeger

District 26

Christine Clarke

Laura Fortgang 

District 30

Steven Farkas

On February 10, 2018, Action Together New Jersey accepted an award from Linda Sarsour. Accepting the award was Action Together New Jersey’s Executive Director, Uyen “Winn” Khuong; Action Together New Jersey’s Sussex County Co-Chair, Johannah Hinksmon; and Action Together New Jersey’s Director of Operations, Kim Baron.

Linda Sarsour is the controversial Democrat activist who has praised the notoriously anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan, cop-killer Joanne Chesimard, and the anti-Semitic BDS movement.  In 2017, Sarsour famously called for “Jihad” against the elected government of the United States of America…

The award was in recognition of voter registration drives and other political campaigning done by Action Together New Jersey in coordination with a group called CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  Presenting the award was CAIR National Chairwoman, Roula Allouch, and CAIR-NJ Founder, Ahmed Al Shehab. 

Due to its apparent ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, one of America’s most important Islamic allies – the United Arab Emirates – has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

Action Together New Jersey is in the forefront of the drive to push the Democrat Party in New Jersey to the far-Left.  They have joined CAIR in opposing the bi-partisan efforts of New Jersey Congressman Josh Gottheimer (D-5) to push back on members of the so-called “Jihad Squad” (far-Left Democrats Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib) in their attempt to promote the anti-Semitic BDS movement. 

The far-Left is on the march, taking over the Democrat Party, pushing out common sense and fiscal responsibility.  The Action Together New Jersey crew represents the very radical far-Left of the Democrat Party. 

Hey Fred… It is called getting “Frelinghuysened”

By Sussex County Watchdog

InsiderNJ’s Fred Snowflack can’t think of a single Republican who was targeted by the Left and then driven out of office?  Well, we can.

Was there a nicer gentleman than Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen?  The Antifa Democrats targeted him and upset the old guy so much that his doctor told him to give it up.  They tormented a man whose public service began in the jungles of Vietnam and drove him out of office.  And it didn’t end – even after he agreed not to run again.  Remember how the Antifa Democrats held a party and mocked him, even as he closed his office?   

Two of these Antifa Democrats are now running for the Assembly – Lisa Bhimani and Darcy Draeger.  They and their comrades showed up to the old gentleman’s office on its last day open – to “celebrate” by acting like dirtbags.  Well good for you.  You showed all the world what measure of class and grace you possess – obviously the kind of folks who get their jollies by pulling the wings off flies.  

Well, nobody is getting Frelinghuysened in Sussex County.  Antifa can hold its breath and kick and scream and all they are ever going to get in Sussex County is a sympathetic flip of the bird and the sincere advice to suck it. We give as good as we get and will keep on and on… until all the participants are dust.

God always saves a remnant.  Here, in Sussex County, we are that remnant.

We remember who we are.  We remember that America is a Republic.  That we are a nation of laws.  We have due process.  We have the Bill of Rights.  We do not succumb to the emotional howls of lynch mobs.  We do not honor vendettas or fatwas.  We don’t give in to terrorists.  We don’t let them have their way.  We are… Americans. 

Which brings us to Fred’s silly comparison between the NAACP’s Jeffrey Dye, who held a taxpayer-funded state Labor Department job, and the Sussex GOP’s Jerry Scanlan, who is a volunteer county college trustee.  Dye lost his taxpayer funded job for (as reported in InsiderNJ) having “authored some Facebook posts that were anti-Semitic and anti-Hispanic.”

In the dismissal of Jeffrey Dye, we hope that the Murphy administration followed the law and there were work rules that addressed Dye’s actions.  We hope that Dye was afforded the due process that is the right of every worker when facing the often arbitrary power of an employer.   

The two great protections of the working class are the Bill of Rights and the right of workers to collectively organize.  If it ever becomes routine that an employer can simply fire someone when any old mob of people claims that he or she did something that gave “offense” then employers will have a ready tool to sweep away every protection that the working class has. 

In the case of Jerry Scanlan, the Board of Trustees of the Sussex County Community College failed to create a written policy to address the private use of social media by trustees, faculty, administration, and staff.  Scanlan broke no SCCC rules and did not use SCCC property.  He has no charge to answer for.  The Board’s only real course was to ask him very politely.  This they failed to do (and ultimately they placed the college in legal jeopardy).

Nobody would wish to live in a country in which the opinions of any old screaming mob constitutes the law.  Or a country in which laws are made up to appease the mob and then applied retroactively.  That would be a vigilante nation, a lawless nation. 

That might happen in other places… but not here.

HATE: Left moves on from hunting people on social media to movies about killing them.

If you are someone like Jerry Scanlan, the Sussex County GOP Chairman, you already know what the movie “The Hunt” is all about.  After Sussex County legislators demanded that the state Attorney General come to Sussex County to explain to county taxpayers why their Sheriff was being asked to comply with the Murphy administration’s illegal Sanctuary scheme, the state Democrat Party assigned a local Democrat the task of stalking Scanlan’s social media, to find something to kill his political career.

As we know from the testimony of several Democrat insiders, the Murphy administration was desperate to change the topic from its illegal Sanctuary scheme to something else.  So Scanlan was stalked by Democrats who soon found that he had been sloppy in monitoring the content of a handful of MAGA re-tweets.  After hunting for something to be offended about, the stalkers found it, promptly exclaimed that they had been “offended” and then demanded that Scanlan be fired for the offense of “Free Speech”.

The Democrats appear to forget that here – in America – in this country, we have something called the Bill of Rights.  The same Bill of Rights that allows Democrats to do some of their favorite things… like burn the American flag, or wipe their feet on it, or disrespect Disabled American Veterans (something the Left has been up to since the end of the Vietnam War), or paint a portrait of the Virgin Mother using feces, or place a Christian cross in a vat of urine… The same Bill of Rights allows someone to re-tweet something that is disrespectful of Islam or of Left wing politicians or of Caucasian politicians who claim to be “of color”. 

And even though Scanlan said that the controversial re-tweets were not intentional, that they were mistakenly re-tweeted as part of long Twitter “trains”, and that he apologized for doing it… the stalkers are on the hunt and they want their trophy.  Rather like the new movie the Left is promoting…

Comcast’s board of directors is stone silent amid widespread controversy over the media conglomerate’s “The Hunt” movie that has ruffled feathers for reportedly depicting humans hunting people with different political views for sport as the country mourns a pair of mass shootings.

NBC’s Universal Pictures falls under the Comcast cooperate umbrella, along with liberal news network MSNBC.

A Deadline report confirming the screenplay had been picked for production described the movie as “politically charged,” and The Hollywood Reporter sets up the battle as between “elite liberals” hunting “MAGA types.”

The hypocrisy of some Democrats has jumped the bounds of decency. 

The Murphy administration places gag orders against whistleblowers in a rape case, as it sends stalkers to hunt for something to be “offended” about, so it can have someone fired. 

Murphy’s media allies published the “offensive” material – that nobody would have even known existed if not for the media publishing it – and then claim that so many people have been “offended” that someone must be fired. 

Of course, the media was never “offended” when someone burned the American flag, or wiped their feet on it, or trashed Disabled American Veterans, or placed a Christian cross in a vat of urine.  They never asked that someone be fired for offending millions of Americans.  The media called those offenders “heroes”, even called some of their offensive material “art” and said it should be supported with tax dollars.

The Democrats have long supported flag burning.  Have long voted to spend taxpayer money to support “transgressive” art – so long as it transgressed against America and traditional values.  Now, when such transgression applies to Islam or far-left politicians… they call it “hate”.

Just hypocrites and corrupt politicians on the make.

If only the Star-Ledger had the moral mettle of the Atlantic City Press.

Once upon a time in America… newspapers provided a safe space for the exchange of ideas.  They kept the drama in check, maintained a rational balance, and never let their emotions get the better of them.

You need only read an editorial written by the Star-Ledger’s Julie O’Connor to know that those days are long gone.  Today’s media is all wrapped up in the moment and very, very emotional about it.  There is no civil exchange of ideas, just the daily line that the Establishment media is right… and the average working man and woman is wrong.  And if you disagree with them, they call you a “racist”. 

Once upon a time in America… newspapers didn’t tip their hand as to whose side they were on.  You couldn’t tell if they were leaning Democrat or Republican – and they tried not to give it away until their endorsement a few days before an election.  Now there’s no hiding who they support and what they are.  As the Star-Ledger’s Tom Moran wrote last year:  “Voters will be standing in the booth Tuesday, and our core mission is helping them decide which lever to pull.”

With a “core mission” like that, it sounds like the Star-Ledger needs to register itself as a political action committee.

Of course, there are still a few – very few – old style newspapers.  About the same time the Star-Ledger was publishing its “core mission”, the Atlantic City Press wrote: “Telling readers how to vote, however, is contrary to the mission of newspapers and other media, which is to extend the public’s experience and perspectives.  Newsgathering organizations give the public eyes, ears and memory beyond the capability of an individual.  People want them to be reliable and credible.  When the media start making judgments, their audiences wonder if they’re altering their content to support that judgment too.”

Once upon a time in America… colleges and universities were safe spaces for the exchange of ideas.  Freedom of thought and of speech was respected – even when disagreed with. 

Now look at them.  They threaten those they disagree with and – if they show up anyway – they get violent.  Who would have believed that students would one day get violent over the idea of being exposed to a different point of view?  The parallel to another time, and other students, is an exact one.  And that ended in book burning.

Recently a Sussex County Democrat wrote:   "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."  He went on to explain that Fox News should be banned because, in his view, it was “propaganda”.  The idea that this Democrat is aligned with an institution of higher learning – in this case the Sussex County Community College – is chilling. 

The safe space for civil discourse, the safe space for the exchange of ideas, is fast disappearing.  And when society’s “betters” behave irresponsibly – equating words with violence – what do we expect from the “unhinged” elements of society?  Who is teaching society how to hold a civil, rational discussion with someone with whom they disagree?

Instead, by equating words with violence, the editors, reporters, faculty, and administrators are telling society that they engage in violence (with words) and so it is okay for others to engage in violence (on their terms).

The problem with writers like Julie O’Connor, Tom Moran, Matt Arco, and Matt Friedman is their lack of humility and lack of intellectual curiosity.  Their moral certainty has closed the book on considering any viewpoint but their own.  They are good… everybody else is evil.  That makes for a pretty darn predictable writing style.  Pretty darn boring. 

There has been a lot of social change in America.  O’Connor-Moran-Arco-Freidman and the like are in a rush to make everyone conform to those changes.  They believe it to be a moral imperative that any diversity of opinion be labeled and then stamped out.  But they are acting out at a very dangerous time in the world. 

Democracy defeated the older models of totalitarianism because it produced both freedom and prosperity.  Totalitarianism failed to produce either freedom or prosperity.  Now there is a new model of totalitarianism – Chinese fascism – that is quite good at lifting people out of poverty and making them prosperous.  Prosperous… but not free. 

If we lose our safe spaces for civil, rational discussion.  If we lose the ability to exchange ideas.  If we convince our people that they must be “protected” from the freedoms in Bill of Rights – from being exposed to speech they disagree with, from the right to self-defense.  What will we be left with?  Will we embrace the Chinese model if it ensures prosperity and protects us from the “threat” of freedom?

We have been warned before about the inorganic imposition of new cultural ideas on society.  We have been warned about what happens when you are not patient, by that old-fashioned liberal, Mrs. Lillian Smith.  A Southern writer, she was a pioneer in the battle to end segregation. We recommend her book, The Winner Names the Age.  In it, you will find this passage she wrote when she accepted the Charles S. Johnson Award for her work:

“It is his millions of relationships that will give man his humanity… It is not our ideological rights that are important but the quality of our relationships with each other, with all men, with knowledge and art and God that count.

The civil rights movement has done a magnificent job but it is now faced with the ancient choice between good and evil, between love for all men and lust for a group’s power.”

“Every group on earth that has put ideology before human relations has failed; always disaster and bitterness and bloodshed have come.  This movement, too, may fail.  If it does, it will be because it aroused in men more hate than love, more concern for their own group than for all people, more lust for power than compassion for human need.”

“We must avoid the trap of totalism which lures a man into thinking there is only one way, one answer, one option, and that others must be forced into this One Way, and forced into it Now.”

SCCC Trustees need to explain where they stand on the Bill of Rights

By Rubashov

Remember the attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo?  They published something that, in this case, militant Islamists found offensive.  The militants demanded they get their way and, when they didn’t, they killed 12 people.  The trustees at Charlie Hebdo stood up for free speech and against threats – and 12 people were martyred for it. 

At the very start of our American experiment, Benjamin Franklin said:  “You have a Republic, if you can keep it.”  The battles to preserve our Bill of Rights are fought in the pages of newspapers and on the Internet and on the lips of people, no less than on the battlefields of war.     

As in the case of Charlie Hebdo, some people have demanded that an image they deem “offensive” be removed and the “perpetrator” – in this case, it was merely “re-tweeted” – be punished.  Now they are equating what they call “hate speech” with acts of actual violence.

By the way, when is a crime of violence – any crime of violence – not hateful?

When is a sexual assault not hateful?  When is assault and battery a cheerful crime? When is murder done without malice?  When is the rape and murder of a child not hate?

Officially, the rape and the murder of a child is not an act of hate.  “It is about what was going on in your mind at the time of the crime,” they explain.  In other words, the crime is in the thought, not the act.  So now we have “thought crime”.  The actual rape and murder isn’t the bad part – what makes it really bad, what elevates it to a “hate crime,” is the thought.      

Go to the United States Justice Department’s compendium of “hate crimes” for 2001 and you will find that the attacks on September 11, 2001, are not counted as “hate crimes”.  Yeah, sure, those boys who flew those airliners into the Twin Towers did it out of benign affection for America.

The fact that the official compendium of “hate crimes” for 2001 is short 2,977 victims is a testament as to how deep the rot of political correctness has gone.

In politically correct parlance, hate is what they say it is. 

And who are “they”?  Anyone who sets themselves up as a “victim” or a “victims’ group” or a spokesperson for such.  In short… any old mob.

The Democrats asked Leslie Huhn, a supporter of Governor Phil Murphy and the former Chair of the Sussex County Democrat Committee, to dig up some dirt on Jerry Scanlan, the Chairman of the Sussex County Republicans and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Sussex County Community College (SCCC).  Murphy was concerned that his illegal Sanctuary scheme was getting bad press across the state – with a big part of the pushback coming from Sussex County.

On July 22, 2019, Leslie Huhn started “following” the Twitter page operated by Jerry Scanlan.  Huhn was looking for something to be offended by and she found it.  A mob was organized to storm the SCCC Board of Trustees meeting scheduled for later that same week.  Among its members was an outspoken, self-identified “anarchist”.  Sweet.

Initially, Scanlan drew attention to the timing of the Democrats’ carefully planned oppo-attack (which it clearly was).  Then the Sussex County GOP stepped in and took control of the Twitter account from Scanlan.  Scanlan issued an apology and said that the re-tweets were part of long twitter “trains” which he had not paid close attention to, but took responsibility for in his apology. 

In more “liberal” times, that would have been enough.  But this is not how today’s Left works. 

The way it works today is that a mob is formed, the mob calls for someone’s head, that person is taken out and publicly lynched by his colleagues, the head is ceremoniously removed and thrown to the mob, the mob beats it about and tattoos the forehead with words like the ubiquitous “racist” or the fast-becoming “Islamophobe,” and then, having been sexually satiated, the mob departs… until the next time.

There is no time allowed for rational discussion, legal due process, or civil deliberation.  The mob wants its head and there are always cowards who will give it someone’s head.  The cowards’ wish is only that it not be them.

Instead of succumbing to the mob.  Instead of participating in an act of extra-judicial punishment.  Perhaps this is a teachable moment?  

The mob fears rational discussion.  Maybe it is simply beyond people whose vocabulary is limited to a very few epithets?  But the Board of Trustees of the Sussex County Community College should not place itself at the disposal of a mob.  As an institution of higher learning, it should use this moment to broaden the discussion.  It should use this moment to teach the Bill of Rights, which are our greatest cultural, political, and legal inheritance. 

This is no longer about Jerry Scanlan.  He admitted he was in error and he apologized.  The calls for further punishment (and for physical violence against him) are superfluous.  They will not make him more in error or give further weight to his admission that he was in error. 

Curiously, these calls for further punishment (and violence against his person), come at a time when the Democrat Party is on record as supporting the decriminalization of actual criminal activity, the end of mandatory sentencing for actual crimes of violence, and the extension of rights (such a voting) to actual violent criminals.  The Democrats don’t wish to make anyone safer.  They just want to police your thoughts so that nobody is allowed to oppose what they say.

The Trustees of the SCCC have an opportunity to bring reason and knowledge to the table.  Let the Bill of Rights be their guide.  The SCCC can use this opportunity to teach.  And isn’t that what an institution of learning should do anyway?   

Yes Alan Steinberg, once upon a time America did send people “back to where they came from”

What is a “Congresswoman of color”?  How does she differ from a plain old “Congresswoman”?  Are the duties, rights, and responsibilities different?

Terms like “Congresswoman of color” are generally used by people who come from mono-chromatic worlds – whether that world is an all Somali-neighborhood in Minnesota or a Palestinian enclave in Michigan.  You can tell such places by the flags they fly.  If a neighborhood flies a flag other than the American flag it’s a good chance you have wandered into a mono-chromatic world.

See, Americans are a mixed people.  Ethnically and racially – as was often pointed out by the great Harlem Renaissance poet Jean Toomer.  A Quaker, Toomer knew that Americans were a “people of the word” – what sets us apart are the words in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  Our freedoms make us who we are.  After spending many years traveling, Toomer lived and mentored in Doylestown, Bucks County, where he died in 1967. 

Those who think in terms of “people of color” and who are obsessed by the tint of one’s skin are almost always themselves racialists.  Wikipedia notes that “Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, that are ostensibly distinct biological categories.”

The philosopher W.E.B. DuBois argued that racialism was merely the philosophical position that races existed, and that collective differences existed among such categories.  DuBois held that racialism was a value-neutral term and differed from racism in that the latter required advancing the argument that one race is superior to other races of human beings.

Of course, science has largely erased such arguments.  Aside from some genetic correlations in the incidence of diseases in this subset or that, the idea of “racial identity” that is forced down every American child’s throat, that haunts our society in everything from census forms to employment applications, is entirely a political construct.  The American idea of “race” is nonsense and calling people “racist” is a nonsense game.  The actor Morgan Freeman got it right…

Enter Alan Steinberg, house “Republican” for a far-Left insider blog financed by some rather unsavory government vendors.  Steinberg longs for the days when the NJGOP was run by rich, so called “blue-bloods” (a mixed caste that claimed it could trace some measure of its history back to America’s colonial masters).  Unfortunately for Steinberg, all the rich “blue-bloods” are today Democrats, which is why Steinberg is such a decidedly anti-Republican “Republican”.  Like the writer Stefan Zweig, he longs for a lost monarchy, his queen, in exile. 

Alan Steinberg is a racialist.  He embraces the concept of race as central to our political, academic, economic, and cultural discourse in America.  He wants to elevate it to the center of all things, a thing that does not exist.  In some ways, Steinberg is like Donald Trump, who is also a racialist, albeit a tongue-in-cheek one.  Who can take half of what he tweets seriously?  How much of it is designed to arouse – like the comedic entertainer – simply for the pleasure of it.  Steinberg however, is very serious.  He applies heavy meaning to his racialism.

So do his allies in the Democrat Party.  As do those radical Democrats he claims he doesn’t like – Ms. A.O.C. and her posse.  They are racialists all. 

Alan Steinberg is deeply troubled by President Trump’s most recent taunt to Congresswoman A.O.C. and her… wait for it… fellow congresswomen of color, that they “go back to where you came from”.  Of course, they all came from here, from the America of made-up racial and ethnic “identities”.  All from mono-chromatic worlds.  Fake worlds, with flags from other places that are meant to impart some sense of false nationality, irrelevant to the place in which they actually live.  But fly them they do, in these make-pretend “colonies” that unwind and break-up as those within them meet, fall-in-love with, and are absorbed by the real place, by the nation that is, by America.

But as Steinberg fumes and pouts, it is funny to remember that – once upon a time – America really did send people “back where you came from”.  And for the most part, they could in no way be described as “people of color”.  Most of these people where Nazis, war criminals, and America was more than happy to use the words “go back to where you came from”.  Wikipedia notes:   

“According to a February 2, 2011 release from the United States Department of Justice, since 1979, the federal government has stripped 107 people of citizenship for alleged involvement in war crimes committed during World War II through the efforts of the Office of Special Investigations (OSI).  An unabridged 600-page Justice Department report obtained by The New York Times in 2010 stated, ‘More than 300 Nazi persecutors have been deported, stripped of citizenship or blocked from entering the United States since the creation of the O.S.I.’ The Los Angeles Times reported in 2008 that five such denaturalized men could not be deported as no country would accept them, and that four others had died while in the same situation.”

One wonders:  With Governor Murphy’s Sanctuary State directives and the unwillingness by many Democrats to in any way question an asylum seeker’s claims, how many sometime war criminals (or just plain violent criminals) will we be holding similar proceedings on some decades from now?  Stay tuned…

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.

Garden State Equality tries to muzzle concerns about sexualizing children

By Rubashov

Two recent events offer a contrast in different religious outlooks.  On the one hand, we have the Mayor of Hoboken.  On the other, a School Board Trustee in Hackensack.  Both made comments about the beliefs of others.

In April, the Mayor of Hoboken used the phrase “hateful rhetoric” to describe the display of a bible verse at a peaceful demonstration to protest the efforts by self-described “drag queens” to introduce children as young as three to their belief system.  Not to be outdone, the Hudson County Democratic Organization LGBTQ Caucus attacked the Roman Catholic group that organized the protest, calling their beliefs “a hateful and discriminatory ideology.”

Now you can bet that neither the Mayor or the LGBTQ Caucus would have had the guts to attack the verses from a different religious book – say, the Koran – with quite the same viciousness.  And yet, the respective books of Christians, Jews, and Muslims all lay down the same prohibitions in these matters.  They are all “People of the Book”. 

A few years ago, a very few, there was a general consensus about all those marketing categories represented by all those letters.  Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama… they all opposed things like same-sex marriage.  That was until the day before yesterday, when our masters suddenly switched and embraced all that they once opposed.  We are experiencing something like the confusion Rome found itself in when, towards its end, the Emperor decided to ditch the old Roman gods and ordered his people to embrace Christianity.  The old ways were still practiced in private, but in public, it became more and more necessary to conform to the “new” religion.   

Some call this “progress” but others, with a longer historical perspective, can draw parallels that mark it a new paganism.  Whatever it is, it is certainly faith-based, resistant to science and debate. 

Whether this is our new “public” religion, or simply a pseudo-religious cult, all the elements are there.  Proselytizing to children is a part of all religious groups who make the oppression of the cult 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 our “new” public religion.  So a new law, signed by Democrat 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 in the marketing code of our “new” public religion.  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. 

This is the new “public” religion and it allows no public expression of older religions.  All must conform.  Such “conformity” rubs those of us, like your humble scribe Rubashov, the wrong way.  They can stick their conformity. 

If you are interested in standing up for the American Bill of Rights, Free Speech, Religious Liberty… or if you just want to tell our new masters to shove their conformity, you can do so TOMORROW.

GSE has called for an all-out jihad.  On Tuesday, June 25th, at 7:30pm, you can show up to the Hackensack City Council Meeting at Hackensack City Hall, 65 Central Avenue, on the 3rd floor.  Perhaps there will be an honest and open discussion on free speech and the new conformity?  Instead of dishonest conformity – the child of oppression – maybe GSE will embrace the diversity that is not confined by a mere handful of letters?  Will they embrace the common humanity that they share even with those who do not “celebrate” their beliefs?

Maybe… but it will be a snapshot of at what stage we are in the hegemony of our new public religion.  It should make for an interesting spectacle. 

If you want to contact the Hackensack City Council, you can do so by following the links on this page…

http://www.hackensack.org/content/6819/7221/7772/default.aspx

Ever hear of Rose Cleveland? You are about to.

By Rubashov

Billionaire Jeff Bezos is one of our new masters.  A global master.

Bezos owns Amazon.com, with its tentacles of business interests, and he owns mass media outlets like the Washington Post.  Jeff Bezos is an adherent of that modern preoccupation – the sex lives of other people. 

Of course, sex has always been an important tool for those trying to sell us something, but never has it been made so central to how we define ourselves.  As some borders go down, others go up, and the most ubiquitous border between us today is the one that tells us we are what we screw. 

Based on what you do to who, and how you do it, you will receive a marketing designation – in the form of a letter – and you will, from henceforth on, be defined by that letter primarily, and all the rest of you will be dragged along behind it.  

This is how marketers work.  This is how they sell you things and, more importantly, it is how they manipulate you into believing that you need to buy those things. 

But 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?  And that is not the end of it.  The marketers  demand that we embrace their designation that they assign to us, as something springing from within us, in our blood and inescapable.  We are who they say we are… forever. 

And death offers no escape.  Rather like the Mormons, with their fondness for converting the dead, the marketers are intent on assigning designations to those who are past caring.  It’s a marketing tool to be used on those who are. 

And then we have the middlemen.  Those self-described “leaders” who set themselves up to speak for this letter or that – or indeed, a collection of letters.  They act as a kind of herdsmen, whippers-in, to corral and then to assign interests and behaviors.  “We are your leaders,” they tell us, “We know what you want.” 

And who thinks to question them?  We are sent to our silo, designated by a letter, and then piled in like so many ears of corn.  We need do nothing more.  Others will speak in our name. 

Quiet, in our designated silos, we will know what to buy, how to think, what to feel.  We will be “targeted” by marketing and do what is expected of us.  Ideally, we will forget that we were once human and with endless meaning, a multitude of possibilities.  We will be a letter – for their convenience.

Cheap politicians are always looking for a short-cut.  They love middlemen.  Why deal with many when you can deal with one?  So the middlemen are thus confirmed to speak for who they say they speak for.  And if there is a certain emptiness in what is done in our name, who is to know it? 

There is a pseudo-religious aspect to all this – in that it is based on faith, resistant to science and debate.  You accept it or you do not.  You are either good or you are bad.  If good, you are always good, good in all things, one of the Elect.  And if bad, then there is no hope for you, we should have nothing to do with you.

As with many pseudo-religions, it becomes all about the children.  Jim Jones, David Koresh, the “Children of God” cult… Did they not all operate under the banner than children be sexualized at the earliest possible moment?  Did they not preach endlessly about “Love”?  That “Love is the Answer”, “Love is Love”? 

And so they come for the children.  The marketers, their middlemen, the herders and stockers of silos.  And the cheap politicians hand over the children to them.  Sex is as addictive as tobacco and like the sellers of cigarettes (or narcotics) they like to get them while they’re young.

And so we have Rose Cleveland, sister to President Grover Cleveland., who served as a kind of “First Lady” to her bachelor brother.  A footnote in history… until now.  With the school curriculum in states like New Jersey mandating the teaching of people from history based on their alleged sexual practices (because, being dead, we cannot ask them), we can expect Rose Cleveland to become a household word.  As Jeff Bezos’ house organ called her – this “gay first lady” – should easily surpass her brother in pride of place in the textbooks.  After all, he was just the twice elected President of the United States, the only holder of that office to get elected, defeated, and then re-elected.  But what is that compared to allegedly having been gay? 

A long-ago President, the once-upon-a-time affairs of state, those are the real footnotes.  Such past things have no utility to the marketers.  But a lesson to living children in the here-and-now, to embrace a category chosen for them, to adopt a silo and pliantly comply, now that has a practical utility for the marketers. 

And so we are on the threshold of a new great forgetting.  When marketing removes the need for personal experience and pseudo-religion takes the place of knowledge.  Who needs the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights… when we have Rose Cleveland’s love letters? 

Study hard, children.  Be sure to get an “A”.