Fantasia, consultant, fell out over COVID pay for county workers.

By Sussex County Watchdog

Sussex County Commissioner Dawn Fantasia called a meeting of GOP county leaders last year. The meeting was held on March 18, 2022, at a private club in the county. A quorum of the Board of Commissioners was present, and the agenda revolved around one item: The Sussex County Watchdog blog and its editorializing in support of county workers. 

The Watchdog blog had long been critical of the Board and how it was managing county government. One point of contention was the Board’s poor treatment of frontline county workers – like road maintenance crews – and its lavish spending on, and expansion of, administrative staff. Fewer and fewer workers seemed to require more and more administration. And while these “insider-connected” administrators got raises and benefits – county workers qualified for food stamps, the food pantry, subsidized heating fuel, and other anti-poverty programs because they were paid so poorly for a fulltime work week. 

The Watchdog blog website and Facebook page are filled with these stories. You can read them for yourself. 

A particular point of contention was bonus pay for frontline county workers who continued to do their jobs while exposed to COVID hazards during the pandemic. These bonuses were covered under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and federal money would be used to pay them out. The county administration at the time opposed worker bonuses – and in a letter from the then county labor counsel, was quite frank about it. 

Commissioner Fantasia called the March 18th meeting to confront the Sussex County GOP’s consultant, Bill Winkler, because it was known that he wrote some of the critical stories about the Board. Fantasia and others – notably Jill and Parker Space – wanted the blog shut down or Winkler fired. 

Winkler explained that he did not own the blog – which is a fact beyond dispute – but was the author of some of the critical stories. He pointed out that he had voluntarily lobbied on behalf of better pay and ARPA bonuses for county workers, so his position was well-known. 

Given the number of County Commissioners at this meeting, a record should have been kept, but the meeting was called by Commissioner Fantasia and, if there is a transcript, she would have it. Other county officials were present, including the County Surrogate. 

At the March 18th meeting, Assemblyman Parker Space was asked about his road trip with actress Janeane Garofalo’s brother, in the aftermath of the terrorist mass murder of nine people (including Pastor and State Senator Clementa C. Pinckney). Space acknowledged that the purpose of the trip was a Confederate flag tattoo but refused to address it further. This incident factored into the deal made between him and Senator Steve Oroho, in which Space would announce that he wasn’t running for re-election in return for Oroho’s support for Jill Space for County Commissioner. Of course, much has changed since. 

There is a dearth of media platforms that stand in opposition to the establishment narrative or that present an alternative perspective. The situation is bad nationally – but even worse locally, where some counties and local governments have become transparency free zones with no external oversight. Local media simply doesn’t exist, and the situation is a great incubator of corruption. 

Think of the work done by New Jersey Herald reporters to uncover the Sussex Solar scandal that cost taxpayers $40 million. A similar scandal now would go unnoticed – except for blogs like Sussex County Watchdog and news websites, like Jennifer Dericks’ TAPinto. For better, or worse, this is all voters and taxpayers have left. There is nobody else to blow the whistle. 

Dawn Fantasia is an example of how politicians become when there is no local media to scrutinize them. They believe the First Amendment shouldn’t apply to politicians like them. They believe that they can suppress what remains of local media. 

Tucker Carlson reminds us, “Free speech is the main right that you have. Without it, you have no others.” 

Micah Rasmussen, Director of the Rebovich Institute of New Jersey Politics at Rider University, reminds us of what happens when there’s nobody watching the politicians: “Voters can't make informed decisions unless they're informed. If you asked any self-respecting constituent of George Santos, they'd tell you they wish they knew then what they know now.” 

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/

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.

If Twitter was around then, would Murphy have supported it blocking anti-opioid campaigners?

By Rubashov

Twitter was launched in July 2006. But if Twitter had been around a decade before, when the medical establishment was pushing millions of opioid doses on unsuspecting patients and Big Pharma was insisting “all is well” and that “the science” backed them up – would Twitter have blocked Senator Declan O’Scanlon for suggesting caution? The evidence suggests that they would have and, as a result, would have been culpable in a million deaths.

Now go back to late 2002, early 2003, when the Weapons of Mass Destruction debate was going on. If Senator O’Scanlon – or anybody else for that matter – had suggested caution or that the official position of the American security state was mistaken or that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 had got it wrong – would Twitter have blocked them? We are sorry to have to say that the evidence suggests Twitter would have… and so cheered on the start of the Second Gulf War and with it the millions of lives destroyed and trillions of dollars misspent.

As it was, there were very few voices back then arguing that prescription opioids would lead to an epidemic of abuse that is the most lethal drug epidemic in American history. There were only a scattering of voices raised in opposition to the Second Gulf War. But eventually, they got through. Opioids were eventually identified as a problem. The war was revealed to have been predicated on a lie.

It would be so much more difficult today to get through. That’s because guys like Governor Phil Murphy would be siding with Twitter, with statements (and this is a quote from Monday) like: “If they are speaking or allowing information which is absolutely false and at odds with the facts … they are putting people’s lives at risk. There is no other way to put that.”

That’s right. In 1996, Phil Murphy would have been on the side of the medical Establishment and Big Pharma, telling Twitter to shut down those people questioning the wisdom of prescribing millions of pills because it’s “at odds with the facts” as put out by the medical Establishment and Big Pharma and that questioning prescribing opioids might dissuade people from using them and end up “putting people’s lives at risk… there is no other way to put that.”

Yep. And in 2003, Phil Murphy would be telling Twitter to lock down all those anti-war nutjobs who kept falsely claiming there were no weapons of mass destruction when it was obvious there were, because the CIA, NSA, and Colin Powell had said so. Murphy would have screamed at Twitter to “stop allowing information which is absolutely false and at odds with the facts … they are putting people’s lives at risk. There is no other way to put that.”

Murphy told New Jersey Globe that he wants Twitter to be the gatekeeper of the First Amendment or, as he puts it, he wants Big Tech to “calls balls and strikes equally.” This is the same Big Tech that pocketed $9.53 billion in spending on digital advertising by the healthcare and pharma industry in 2020 (expected to grow by 18% this year). If platforms like Twitter are profiting from the medical Establishment and Big Pharma, how can they be expected to “call balls and strikes equally”?

Without the First Amendment, would the whistleblower who disclosed the opioid scam have ever been heard from? If platforms like Twitter – profiting off the medical Establishment and Big Pharma – had been allowed to, would they have blocked this whistleblower too? Ask yourself these questions while watching this shocking report from 60 Minutes...

The First Amendment SAVES LIVES. Phil Murphy favors putting Big Tech in charge of deciding what you hear about their Big Pharma advertising clients.

By any measure, New Jersey’s Governor is the most powerful State Executive in America. In other states, judges and prosecutors are elected. Not in New Jersey, they are all appointed by the Governor. Other states have an elected Attorney General, an elected State Treasurer, an elected Auditor General or Comptroller, and an elected Secretary of State. In New Jersey, all these jobs are appointed by the Governor.

Other states elect an Insurance Commissioner, Railroad Commissioner, Land Commissioner, Agriculture Commissioner, Industries Commissioner, Utilities Commissioner… Massachusetts even has an elected eight-member Governor’s Council to provide advice and consent as an additional check on the power of the Governor. Not in New Jersey. In New Jersey, even the Lt. Governor isn’t chosen directly by the people, but rather selected by the nominee and then locked into an all or nothing ticket with the nominee.

New Jersey is the least democratic state in America.

That’s probably why it is a bad thing to have both the Legislature and Executive controlled by the same party in New Jersey. It cements too much power with one man – and any American worthy of the name knows that spells trouble.

And that’s why it is so important to elect a Governor with the kind of humility that holds back a little, that respects traditions – and things like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Because in New Jersey, with its absence of robust checks and balances, it is easiest for a Governor to abuse his power. Easier than anywhere else in America.
 

“If you want to understand why something is happening in America just follow the money.”
Krystal Ball

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.

So-called “Equality Act” seeks criminalization of Faith

Look into the eyes of the young girl below.  See her fear.  What civilized nation would make her endure such a thing?

A male student claiming to be a female is shown wrestling a female student. Reality Check: There are distinct biological differences between the two sexes. If the so-called “Equality Act” passes, no female will ever have true equity in any physical activity. Gender specific activities will cease. No more boys or girls glee clubs, girls softball, only mixed gender activities will be allowed. It will be the death of female sports, the end of female athletes, all role models will be biologically male.  Total domination by patriarchy. Total.

Like the Law for the Protection of Blood and Honor, the so-called “Equality Act” is a monstrous violation of civil rights dressed up in some misleading frilly-sounding language. It is blatantly unconstitutional. It is a clear violation of the First Amendment. An even greater danger is posed by the presence on the Courts of  highly-polarized Leftist judges. Will they recognize this obvious attack on freedom of conscience and free speech or will they expand this barbarity and legislate from the bench?

Here is what the so-called Equality Act does:

• Churches would be forced to host same-sex ceremonies.  

• Churches will lose tax-exempt status for noncompliance. 

• Colleges will lose accreditation for noncompliance. 

• Noncompliant colleges will be ineligible to receive student loans, causing most religious schools to compromise their core mission or close. 

• If churches or religious organizations take overnight trips, including sports or mission trips, they cannot segregate rooms by biological gender.  

• Biological men will have access to bathrooms, showers, and nursing-mother rooms at any time, and stay as long as they please.  

• Churches would be forced to hire staff involved in LGBT conduct, even positions of authority in affiliated daycare classes and give them complete access to all children in the restrooms.  

• Cross-dressers could demand that they be greeters, ushers, Sunday School teachers, and more.  

• Even the smallest slight would give someone the legal right to sue the church. For example, if a person assumed they were turned down for a staff position because of a LGBT lifestyle, they could sue the church for damages, even if that was not the reason they were denied the job! 

Every single Democrat from New Jersey is a co-sponsor of this barbaric assault on Western values and religious freedom.  This should put to rest once and for all that there is more than a nickel’s worth of difference between a Murphy Democrat and a Norcross Democrat. 

Republicans like Mike Testa should take note.  Even so-called “conservative” Democrats like South Jersey’s Congressman Jeff Van Drew are enthusiastically participating in the gang rape of our constitutional freedoms – our personal right to a life of the soul and to live according to our own conscience. 

Let there be no doubt now.  The Democrat Party is the party of crony capitalist authoritarian pigs and the sooner they are all tossed onto the dung heap of history, the better. 

Call your Congressperson NOW!

Tell them to vote NO on HR5!

Capitol Hill Switchboard

202-224-3121

For more information, or to find out how you can help defeat the anti-freedom authoritarians, visit the website of the Center for Garden State Families…

https://www.gardenstatefamilies.org/

Will S-1500 force Sen. Singleton to resign from his job?

New Jersey Democrats are in the process of making a pig’s breakfast of efforts to reform the use of “dark money” to influence elections, as well as the operations and processes of government.  Legislation proposed by Senator Troy Singleton (D-07) seeks to require “disclosure by independent expenditure committees; raises certain campaign contribution limits; repeals ban on certain intraparty fund transfers.”  The Bill is S-1500.

We strongly support full disclosure and are great fans of groups like Common Cause and RepresentUS, which campaign for transparency and honest government.  That said, along with open government comes the need to enforce laws against those vigilantes who use the data from such to harass and harm those who chose to financially support a political candidate or committee. 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that making a political contribution to a candidate of your choice is a form of free speech – protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  Disclosure should not be a means by which thugs can target the homes, families, and employment of individuals who exercise that right.  From the NAACP seeking to protect its donors from southern KKK groups to Christian groups seeking the same protection from wealthy LGBT activists, disclosure will soon lose its popular support if it becomes a means to vengeance or violence. 

Particularly as some Democrats are seeking to recruit and politicize the actual criminal class (including violent criminals), S-1500 should include tough sanctions to protect the free expression of political choice.  And this is just as important for Democrat Party primaries as it is for General Elections, if you get our drift… so don’t cut your own nuts off just to spite someone else.

S-1500 amends existing law to increase campaign contribution limits, but neglects to address the glaring deficiencies in the rules enforced by the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJELEC).  Take this portion of the bill as a for instance:

“No individual, other than an individual who is a candidate, no corporation of any kind organized and incorporated under the laws of this State or any other state or any country other than the United States, no labor organization of any kind which exists or is constituted for the purpose, in whole or in part, of collective bargaining, or of dealing with employers concerning the grievances, terms or conditions of employment, or of other mutual aid or protection in connection with employment, or any group shall: (1) pay or make any contribution of money or other thing of value to a candidate who has established only a candidate committee, his campaign treasurer, deputy campaign treasurer or candidate committee which in the aggregate exceeds [$2,600] $3,000 per election… No candidate who has established only a candidate committee, his campaign treasurer, deputy campaign treasurer or candidate committee shall knowingly accept from an individual, other than an individual who is a candidate, a corporation of any kind organized and incorporated under the laws of this State or any other state or any country other than the United States, a labor organization of any kind which exists or is constituted for the purpose, in whole or in part, of collective bargaining, or of dealing with employers concerning the grievances, terms or conditions of employment, or of other mutual aid or protection in connection with employment, or any group any contribution of money or other thing of value which in the aggregate exceeds [$2,600] $3,000 per election…”

Why is it a bigger deal for a labor union to contribute $3,001 to a candidate or incumbent, but no big deal to throw a six-figure job, benefits, and a pension at him?  Because that’s what is being done.

Let’s look at the case of Senator Troy Singleton as an example.  On his personal financial disclosure statement covering 2017 (the latest available), the Senator lists that he was paid in excess of $50,000 by the Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters.  This was the largest portion of his income.  His personal financial disclosure statements (2011-2016) all list the same source of income.  

And it’s not like Singleton was a union carpenter who worked his way up through the ranks and was rewarded by his brothers and sisters.  Singleton was a political operative a lieutenant in the regime of south Jersey political boss George Norcross.  Singleton worked for Norcross captain Joe Roberts, a Camden County Assemblyman who was made Speaker of that chamber.  His hiring was a straight political act.

So let’s get serious.  If you want to take out the corruption, dry up the money, stop ignoring the elephant in the room. 

But hey, if you are looking to put out press releases that congratulates yourself on some bullshit tweak that will go the same way as all the other bullshit tweaks… well, this is the kind of legislation that will accomplish that.  Just like old Joe Roberts’ “Clean Elections” b.s. of more than a decade ago.  Yep, old Joe was so committed to the people of New Jersey, that the moment he retired he got out of the crap hole he helped to create and moved to a low tax Red State.  Joe Roberts might be a hypocrite, but he was no fool.

The Democrat Party vendor blog, InsiderNJ, recently reported that Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-03) was in support of S-1500.  This is curious, given his own sources of income.  In an ethics case from 2013, documents from the United States Labor Department were entered into the record, stating the following:

“As Senate President, Steve Sweeney is paid $49,000 per year, plus an “allowance equal to 1/3 his compensation” ($16,333) for a total of $65,333.

Steve Sweeney is also an official with the Iron Workers union.  As a general organizer paid through the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Sweeney received a base salary of $165,264 in 2012.  In addition to his base salary, Sweeney also received compensation in the form of allowances and disbursements for expenses. His total compensation through the International in 2012 was $206,092.

In addition, Sweeney received allowances of $21,351 as President of Iron Workers District Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity. In 2012, Sweeney's total compensation through the Iron Workers was $227,443.

The Department of Labor requires public disclosure by labor unions of how union dues are spent.  These disclosures list union employees, their salaries and allowances.  The disclosure also includes the allocation of time by union officers and employees estimating the amount of time spent on various activities such as organizing or administration.  One of the purposes of this disclosure is to show how much the union has spent on its core activities: collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.  Non-members working in a union environment are obligated to pay dues, but only to support these core activities.

According to disclosure filings by the International, Sweeney spends a considerable amount of his time as a union official on activities described as ‘Political Activities and Lobbying.’ (LM-2, Schedule 12, Disbursements to Employees, Line I, Schedule 16)

What political activities did he engage in and on behalf of which candidates and causes? The explanation offered as part of the disclosure describes political activity as ‘to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of anyone to a Federal, state, or local executive, legislative or judicial public office, or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential or Vice Presidential electors, and support for or opposition to ballot referenda.’ (Instructions for Form LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report, page 27)

Lobbying is described as ‘associated with dealing with the executive and legislative branches of the Federal, state, and local governments and with independent agencies and staffs to advance the passage or defeat of existing or potential laws or the promulgation or any other action with respect to rules or regulations (including litigation expenses).’ 

Senator Sweeney is not registered as a lobbyist with the United States Senate or House of Representatives.  He is not a registered lobbyist in Pennsylvania.  The union that pays Sweeney's salary does not use outside lobbyists.  Instead, it uses an employee as its primary lobbyist – registered with both the House and Senate.  It is interesting to note that the primary lobbyist in Washington allocates only 50% of his time to political activity and lobbying.

New Jersey state law does not appear to allow legislators to simultaneously serve as lobbyists. 

Questions concerning Senator Sweeney's political activity and lobbying for the Iron Workers union become a more serious matter when the amount of time allocated to these activities is noted.  Calculating the value of that allocation as a portion of Sweeney's compensation adds further emphasis. 

Sweeney spent 30% of his union effort in 2012 on political activity and lobbying.  In 2011 and 2010, the amount was 38%.  In 2009, the amount was 34%.  There is no indication of the actual amount of time Sweeney devoted to these activities, only the proportion of the whole.

Placing dollar amounts on Sweeney's activity helps put matters into an easily understandable form.  In 2012, Sweeney's gross pay was $165,264, and his total compensation was $227,443.  In simple terms, Sweeney was paid $49,579 of his gross, or $68,233 of his total compensation, to engage in political activity and lobbying for the union.  In 2011, Sweeney was paid $62,141 of his total compensation for political activity and lobbying.  In 2010, $58,377, and in 2009, $56,669.”

In Senator Sweeney’s defense, it must be said that he started his career as a blue collar man.  Sweeney was an actual ironworker, served his apprenticeship and earned his way.  He wasn’t a fake like Troy Singleton.

As for the ethics complaint.  It was brought before the New Jersey State Legislature’s Joint Committee on Ethical Standards, that august body where ethics goes to die.  They duly heard the complaint, killed a few chickens, and closely examined the entrails… before the Norcross lieutenant who chaired the committee delivered a lecture to the complainant about daring to bring such affronts before them.  Don’t you know man, this is New Jersey!

And it’s not just these guys.  Most of the Democrats in the New Jersey Legislature are in hock to some machine, serving some master, living off pay checks courtesy of some regime.  Do they recuse themselves when presented with a conflict of self-interest?  Of course not!  That’s why they are there.  People like Senator Nick Sacco (with three public jobs and collecting a public pension) and Teresa Ruiz (two public jobs, with a third for her spouse) routinely vote on legislation that directly benefits the political machines that pay them.  That’s why they are there.

David Goodman, a spokesperson for Represent New Jersey, recently had this to say about political reform in New Jersey:  “Partisan Gerrymandering serves to strengthen the forces and effectiveness of dark money.  What it really amounts to is rigging elections—politicians prioritizing big donors to get elected, and then redrawing their districts to stay in office. They are picking their voters, instead of the other way around.”

He noted that just a month ago, Represent New Jersey alongside coalition partners, like the League of Women Voters of New Jersey, organized the fight against the partisan gerrymandering bills with action alerts, countless calls to legislators, impromptu hallway lobbying and in-person advocacy at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Facing massive grassroots pressure, the Senate President and Assembly Speaker pulled the amendment.  RepresentUs members showed that this movement is ready to fight against corruption by those in power—regardless of party affiliation.

Goodman says he is excited that the state Senate is holding hearings on S-1500, on January 17th.   He should temper that excitement with realism and know that they are playing him and RepresentUS.  And that’s okay, so long as he knows, and then uses that knowledge to turn it around… and play them.

Once, we had open & honest conversations about important issues

When America Was Great Before, We Had Open & Honest Conversations on Important Issues.

For the last 40 years, I wrote and published thousands of articles and comments about important and controversial issues.  I did it to make people aware of important issues that affected their lives.  Not everyone agreed with me all the time.  However, I was trusted and respected by all segments of the community as a lawyer, elected official, radio talk-show host, guest columnist, adjunct college professor, and executive director of LibertyAndProsperity.com. 
 
All that changed five weeks ago.  That was when I won the Primary Election, and became the Republican candidate for Congress in South Jersey.   Now, Democrats all over the country are falsely calling me a hater, racist and bigot.

America's culture of free and open discussion on public issues started long before the First Amendment to our Constitution.  Back in 1731, Benjamin Franklin wrote:  “If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed”.  

Franklin also wrote:  “When men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public.   When Truth and Error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter”. 

When America was great, Americans freely and openly voiced their opinions on public issues.   They also respected others, even when they disagreed.  Back then, Americans got smarter by learning from each other.

Today, far too many Americans are afraid to openly express their opinions for fear of losing friends, customers, or their jobs.   Too many Americans use arguments to ridicule or bully those who disagree.  Too many Americans blame others for problems, while doing nothing to work with others to fix those problems. 

Two of our biggest problems today involve race and immigration.   Those are problems that few people dare to discuss openly.   These are problems that are getting worse every year.

I am running for Congress, because I think Democratic Party politics made problems in our cities worse during the past 50 years.   I think Republican President Donald Trump is taking a different approach, and making things better.   Record numbers of blacks and Hispanics are working again   I think we can make even more progress if we  honestly talk about what worked and didn't work in the past and what we should do and not do in the future. 
 
This week, I plan to discuss these topics at the following three forums:.

This evening, Tuesday, July 10, at 7pm:   Atlantic City Republican Club.  Choice Bar and Grill, 470 North Albany Ave. (Route 322), Atlantic City, NJ.

Thursday, July 12 at 7pm:   Civil Discourse Forum on Immigration.  Bethany Grace Community Church, 31 N. Pearl Street, Bridgeton, NJ   (The admission fee for the forum is a non-perishable food item to be distributed at the church’s food pantry program for the public. The forum is open to the public, but advance registration is required and seating is limited.  Register online at:  http://www.bethanyinbridgeton.com/perspectives-forums.html 

Saturday, July 14 at 7:15AM to 8:00AM.   Radio Interview with Seth Grossman.  WVLT 92.1FM Radio. Heard in most of South Jersey from 7:15AM to 8AM.  (I will be the first guest on the “Bob and Steve Show” which begins that day). 

For more information, visit GrossmanforCongress.com, GrossmanforCongress Facebook, and @Grossman4NJ on Twitter.   Please “like” and “share”.   Thanks!

Seth Grossman

GrossmanforCongress.com
453 Shore Road
Somers Point, NJ  08244
(609) 927-7333
info@grossmanforcongress.com

McCann doesn't do primaries but works for Democrats

Every Republican with a pulse knows what happens in a primary.  Two or more candidates duke it out -- sometimes it gets downright nasty -- but after the votes are counted and the dust clears, all sides get together behind the winner of the Republican primary and go and beat up the Democrat and win the election in November. 

That's how it was in 2016, when a lot of good conservatives worked for presidential candidates like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Chris Christie, among others.  They fought for their candidates and against Donald Trump, but then got behind Donald Trump once he became the Republican nominee at the convention. 

Some Republicans, like Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno, said that they couldn't support Donald Trump for President.  But at least they didn't support the Democrat ticket led by Hillary Clinton.   Later, Guadagno would be forgiven by many Republicans, including Mayor Carlos Rendo, who agreed to serve on her ticket in last year's gubernatorial race.

A very few Republicans, like candidate John McCann, continued to serve their Democrat paymasters (in McCann's case, Bergen Sheriff Michael Saudino) while Saudino was running for re-election as a Democrat on Hillary Clinton's ticket.  In our view, this is unconscionable.  Any Republican with a spine and worthy of the name should have campaigned against Michael Saudino in 2016.  He shouldn't have been taking a check from him.

But maybe John McCann doesn't understand the primary process too well because he doesn't vote in Republican primaries too often.  If his voting record is correct, McCann has showed up for one Republican primary in the last decade.  That's pretty darn lame.

For so many reasons, John McCann is a non-starter.  And this being America, we thought that we were free to express our opinion under the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.  Apparently, there are those who believe these rights should be suppressed by political power.  To this end, the first threats have arrived, from elected officials and those who are employed by elected officials.  We will be collecting them, so please, feel free to keep sending them.

Of course, those who wish to suppress us could send along their thoughts and ideas and join in the discussion that is democracy.  We would be happy to publish their thoughts and ideas if, indeed, they have any thoughts and ideas.

Have a good weekend.

Public shaming is bullying. Treat it the same.

The attempt by the powerful -- in the form of the corporate media and the dominant political class -- to force others to conform to their social values or face the loss of employment, economic security, and status is textbook bullying.  In the case of Assemblyman Parker Space, it is clear that the Republican holds tastes in music and is of a socio-economic class different from that of the dominant establishment class. 

Space is a country boy, a blue-collar farmer, a Trump supporter, and a believer in traditional values.  This makes him a target for establishment bullying.  As for the establishment's complaints that Space used a five-letter word in private conversation, this is simply a case of rank hypocrisy by individuals who use the same words and far-far-worse in private and in public, as evidenced below.

Again and again, we are told that in America, we are a nation of laws.  But this is being steadily eroded by corporate media and their puppets in the political class.  With the connivance of establishment political figures the corporate media are attempting to create an extra-judicial method of determining everything from whether or not you can hold a job or operate a business to serving in public office.

Under this informal, extra-judicial system, the accusers do not need to produce proof of their accusations, neither does the accused have the opportunity to refute the charges made in any legal setting.  In this bullying culture, corporate media whips up a frenzy of bullying -- mobbing -- in order to indict, convict, and punish someone. 

The accusers simply need to "feel" that someone has done something for reasons that they disapprove of.  Of course, these "feelings" must conform to the social norms of the establishment.  Conforming to establishment norms allows some people to believe that they have the right to fire someone from his or her job, or put someone out of business, or overturn the will of the voters.

This is a form of technological vigilantism -- a post-modern lynch mob -- with elements of religion to it.  For "apologize... apologize... apologize," read "repent... repent... repent."  And it was specifically warned against by prescient writers like George Orwell, with the neo-religious fervor whipped up in a shaming exercise very like the two-minutes hate he describes in his great work, 1984:

Think of it.  Political figures like Democrat Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg actually suggested that they could reach into another person's soul to determine evil there, adjudicate on said evil, and then demand that the will of the voters be overturned and said person be stripped of public office.  Mind you, the office-holder in question -- Assemblyman Parker Space -- is one of the most popular elected officials in New Jersey, as determined by the number of votes he receives, and gets more votes than any Republican legislator in the state.  So it does take a particular kind of philosophy, distinctly undemocratic, to suggest such a thing.

Also remember that no laws have been broken.  Unlike Senator Robert Menendez or Assemblyman Neil Cohen or Assemblyman Raj Mukerji or any one of a hundred New Jersey Democrats who actually broke the law, but who nevertheless enjoyed and enjoy the steadfast support of fellow Democrats, Assemblyman Parker Space did nothing even remotely illegal.  Fashion was breached perhaps -- the fashion held by some elites in a few, well-to-do enclaves -- but no laws were broken.  For the moment, our Bill of Rights and our First Amendment are holding firm -- but for how long?

If the media can use extra-judicial shaming to deny employment, ruin a business, or overturn an election, then they will have successfully undermined the Bill of Rights without recourse to a legal challenge before the United States Supreme Court.  It is a subversion of the law, and the imposition of punitive sanctions, through the use of fashion and media technology.  Through the use of it, America will no longer be a nation of laws, but rather a nation of fashions, manipulated by a corporate media controlled by the likes of Jared Kushner, the Newhouse brothers, and the corporate racists at Gannett News.  A bullying culture in which anyone who wishes to work, own a business, or hold office will have to conform to the establishment norms of the bullying class.

Public shaming is the road to Fascism

We are told that in America, we are a nation of laws.  But increasingly, we are not.  With the connivance of political figures like Senate Democrat Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg and Assembly Democrat Executive Director Mark Matzen, the corporate media are attempting to create an extra-judicial method of determining everything from whether or not you can hold a job or operate a business to serving in public office.

Under this informal, extra-judicial system, the accusers do not need any proof -- as we recognize that term in our legal process -- to indict, convict, and punish someone.  The accusers, who are generally the media and political figures like Weinberg, simply need to "feel" that someone has done something for reasons that they disapprove of.  It can even be as simple as saying that you are personally "tired" of someone, as was done in a recent Star-Ledger column.  Just being "tired" of someone makes some people believe that they have the right to fire someone from his or her job, or put someone out of business, or overturn the will of the voters.

This is a form of technological vigilantism -- a post-modern lynch mob -- with elements of religion to it.  For "apologize... apologize... apologize," read "repent... repent... repent."  And it was specifically warned against by prescient writers like George Orwell, with the neo-religious fervor whipped up in a shaming exercise very like the two-minutes hate he describes in his great work, 1984:

Think of it.  Political figures like Weinberg and Matzen actually suggested that they could reach into another person's soul to determine evil there, adjudicate on said evil, and then demand that the will of the voters be overturned and said person be stripped of public office.  Mind you, the office-holder in question -- Assemblyman Parker Space -- is one of the most popular elected officials in New Jersey, as determined by the number of votes he receives, and gets more votes than any Republican legislator in the state.  So it does take a particular kind of philosophy, distinctly undemocratic, to suggest such a thing.

Also remember that no laws have been broken.  Unlike Senator Robert Menendez or Assemblyman Neil Cohen or Assemblyman Raj Mukerji or any one of a hundred New Jersey Democrats who actually broke the law but who, nevertheless, the Weinbergs and the Matzens dutifully stood behind, Assemblyman Parker Space did nothing even remotely illegal.  Fashion was breached perhaps -- the fashion held by some elites in a few, well-to-do enclaves -- but no laws were broken.  For the moment, we still have our Bill of Rights and our First Amendment.  But they are working on it.

If the media can use extra-judicial shaming to deny employment, ruin a business, or overturn an election, then they will have successfully undermined the Bill of Rights without recourse to a legal challenge before the United States Supreme Court.  In their minds, that is the beauty of what they are trying to do.  It is a subversion of the law, and the imposition of punitive sanctions, through the use of fashion and media technology.  Through the use of it, America will no longer be a nation of laws, but rather a nation of fashions, manipulated by a corporate media controlled by the likes of Jared Kushner, the Newhouse brothers, and the corporate racists at Gannett News.  Pleasant thought?

Public shaming is the road to Fascism

We are told that in America, we are a nation of laws.  But increasingly, we are not.  With the connivance of political figures like Senate Democrat Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg and Assembly Democrat Executive Director Mark Matzen, the corporate media are attempting to create an extra-judicial method of determining everything from whether or not you can hold a job or operate a business to serving in public office.

Under this informal, extra-judicial system, the accusers do not need any proof -- as we recognize that term in our legal process -- to indict, convict, and punish someone.  The accusers, who are generally the media and political figures like Weinberg, simply need to "feel" that someone has done something for reasons that they disapprove of.  It can even be as simple as saying that you are personally "tired" of someone, as was done in a recent Star-Ledger column.  Just being "tired" of someone makes some people believe that they have the right to fire someone from his or her job, or put someone out of business, or overturn the will of the voters.

This is a form of technological vigilantism -- a post-modern lynch mob -- with elements of religion to it.  For "apologize... apologize... apologize," read "repent... repent... repent."  And it was specifically warned against by prescient writers like George Orwell, with the neo-religious fervor whipped up in a shaming exercise very like the two-minutes hate he describes in his great work, 1984:

Think of it.  Political figures like Weinberg and Matzen actually suggested that they could reach into another person's soul to determine evil there, adjudicate on said evil, and then demand that the will of the voters be overturned and said person be stripped of public office.  Mind you, the office-holder in question -- Assemblyman Parker Space -- is one of the most popular elected officials in New Jersey, as determined by the number of votes he receives, and gets more votes than any Republican legislator in the state.  So it does take a particular kind of philosophy, distinctly undemocratic, to suggest such a thing.

Also remember that no laws have been broken.  Unlike Senator Robert Menendez or Assemblyman Neil Cohen or Assemblyman Raj Mukerji or any one of a hundred New Jersey Democrats who actually broke the law but who, nevertheless, the Weinbergs and the Matzens dutifully stood behind, Assemblyman Parker Space did nothing even remotely illegal.  Fashion was breached perhaps -- the fashion held by some elites in a few, well-to-do enclaves -- but no laws were broken.  For the moment, we still have our Bill of Rights and our First Amendment.  But they are working on it.

If the media can use extra-judicial shaming to deny employment, ruin a business, or overturn an election, then they will have successfully undermined the Bill of Rights without recourse to a legal challenge before the United States Supreme Court.  In their minds, that is the beauty of what they are trying to do.  It is a subversion of the law, and the imposition of punitive sanctions, through the use of fashion and media technology.  Through the use of it, America will no longer be a nation of laws, but rather a nation of fashions, manipulated by a corporate media controlled by the likes of Jared Kushner, the Newhouse brothers, and the corporate racists at Gannett News.  Pleasant thought?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will legislator be sued for trying to silence blog?

What did Assemblyperson Gail Phoebus mean when she told her Assembly colleague that Andover Township was going to silence Bill Winkler?

Phoebus, a former Andover Township Committee member, has targeted Winkler claiming that he is the "founder" of the Sussex County Watchdog blog.  Phoebus knows better, as the blog was created at the time of her first run for countywide office in 2012.  In fact, Phoebus' campaign mail featured the Watchdog in it, so she should know that the blog was founded by the late Rob Eichmann and has been maintained by a group of his associates ever since. Phoebus herself has contributed numerous stories to Watchdog.

Sussex County Watchdog has a long history with Andover Township that of late has become contentious.  The Watchdog has complained about Andover Township's failure to follow OPRA (Open Public Records Act) rules and has written about its failure to abide by the Open Public Meetings Act.  The blog acted as a whistleblower when it uncovered the improper way in which a recent resolution was drafted and passed.  Now that the blog has criticized Phoebus and her former colleagues in the Andover Township government, Phoebus is angry with the Watchdog.

What has upset Andover Township's politicians the most is Sussex County Watchdog's coverage of the former headquarters of the notorious American National Socialist Bund -- Andover Township's own Camp Nordland.  According to Assemblyperson Phoebus, township officials became incensed when the Watchdog made the following recommendations:

That Andover Township place a plaque at the site of the American National Socialist Bund's Camp Nordland, to honor the victims of the ideology practiced there; and that Andover Township donate all proceeds from events held at the former Nazi Beer Hall to organizations representing the victims of the Holocaust and their families.

Phoebus told a fellow legislator that Andover Township was going to "get" the person they held responsible.  And now, it appears that an attempt is being made. 

On Monday, October 31st, the Sussex County Watchdog blog posted a report about how an old Quaker gentleman had been accosted by Sussex County Freeholder Director George Graham and two Andover Township Committeemen.  The blog report is posted here:

http://www.sussexcountywatchdog.com/blog/2016/10/31/graham-supporters-accost-pro-lifer-at-gop-event.html

The incident took place at a GOP event held at the former headquarters of the notorious American National Socialist Bund.  For some strange reason, instead of demolishing the former Camp Nordland, the town leaders of Andover Township have maintained the building that hosted numerous Nazi, Fascist, and Ku Klux Klan rallies in the 1930's. 

The day after the Watchdog blog posted its story, the Deputy Mayor of Andover Township filed a harassment complaint against the old Quaker who was accosted by the three Sussex County politicians.  According to witnesses, one of the Andover Committeemen had threatened to "punch someone in the face," while another Andover Committeeman had threatened a bystander earlier that evening by saying "you better not be his (the old Quaker) friend."   

Of course, the people who run Andover Township would have you believe that it happened the other way round.  They want you to believe that a 60 year old Quaker assaulted a 40 year old Marine and his two comrades.  They want you to believe that writing about their political corruption is "harassment".

As David Danzis of the New Jersey Herald reported today, the Andover Township Deputy Mayor has filed a complaint against the alleged blogger:

http://www.njherald.com/20161214/county-political-consultant-faces-assault-harassment-charges

Really?  In America?  Are they really playing the old brown-shirt trick of beating up the Jew and then claiming he started it, in order to have him arrested?  Shame on the elected and appointed officials of Andover Township and shame on the residents who elected them and then stood by and let it happen.

Filing a false report is a serious offense, as is the attempt to deprive American citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights -- both the right to report the news and opinion, and the right to read it.  Of course, the former Hudson County Democrats who have switched their party registration and now occupy positions of power on the Sussex County Freeholder Board (Graham) and in Andover Township are following the playbook of where they came from.

A few years ago there was a similar case in Hudson County when the mayor of a city there decided that he wanted to "take down" an anonymous website that was publishing news and opinions that he didn't want published.  The mayor and his son conspired to "take down the website and to identify, intimidate, and harass those who operated and were associated with the website."  The United States Department of Justice takes such civil rights violations very seriously and the feds arrested both the mayor and his son.  The son took the rap and was convicted in federal court.     

Is there a similar conspiracy in Sussex County?  Watchdog knows the names of a great many political figures in Sussex County who were aware of this matter well before the accused was and that Assemblyperson Phoebus herself was making calls about it, spreading false information, and that she has expressed her animosity towards the Watchdog website and the individuals she claims are associated with it.  Yes, this stinks to high heaven! 

Will this end up in federal court?  If it does, it will impact you greatly if you are a taxpayer in Andover Township.  Remember, you elected them.  And you are responsible when they behave like fascist thugs.  As they say, stay tuned...

Is the Tea Party anti-First Amendment?

Earlier this week the Skylands Tea Party ran a paid advertisement in the New Jersey Herald inviting members of the public to attend a rally on Saturday, October 22nd.  It was accompanied by a press release, which formed the basis of the following NJ Herald story:

Rally planned for Newton Green Saturday in wake of gas tax hike

New Jersey Herald: Oct. 17, 2016 12:01 am

NEWTON -- The Skylands Tea Party and New Jersey Taxpayers' Association will hold a rally on Saturday, Oct. 22, at the Newton Green to demand a forensic audit of NJ Transit, the Transportation Trust Fund and Port Authority in response to the approved 23-cent gas tax hike signed by Gov. Chris Christie on Friday and set to take effect Nov. 1.

"We, the people of New Jersey, have been overtaxed and poorly governed for far too long," states a joint news release submitted by Harvey Roseff, vice president of the NJTA.

"The increased gas tax, one of the largest tax increases to ever hit the family, was a bridge too far and is unconscionable. Tax policy can't fix management problems -- the problem festers and grows."

The public event is scheduled to run 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.

"We are inviting friends and families to stand tall and ask for low-cost, efficient government to become the governing priority," states the event announcement.

http://www.njherald.com/20161017/rally-planned-for-newton-green-saturday-in-wake-of-gas-tax-hike

This was followed by an email from the Skylands Tea Party on October 18, 2016:

"We the People of this Garden State are staging a protest on Saturday, October 22nd.  It will be held at the Newton Green on the corner of Route 94 and Spring Street, beginning at 11:00 AM and ending at 1:00 PM."

That's an open invitation to a public meeting on public property.

But when some of the organizers of the rally found out that folks who don't necessarily share their point of view were thinking of taking them up on the offer, they flipped.  Sources claim they went to the Newton mayor's office with their concerns. 

We don't know what action the Mayor, a political ally of Assemblyperson Gail Phoebus, took.  What we do know is that a Newton police officer called people and suggested that they do not belong at the rally.  We don't know why these people were targeted or who gave their names to the police.  What is clear is that these people do not share the Tea Party's point of view.

How is that for silencing the opposition?  How is that for bullying the First Amendment? 

Anyone who uses armed government officers to eliminate the presence of opposing viewpoints, inconvenient as they may be, is nothing more than an old-fashioned Fascist.  Speech should be met with speech, ideas with ideas, not by men with guns.

Of course, we can understand the concerns some in the Tea Party might have for what some of their members might do to anyone at the rally who holds a different opinion.  Tea Party members have been going overboard using violent and pornographic images and language on social media to describe anyone who disagrees with them -- like this charming Tea Party member from Sussex County:

"All 545 sitting in DC right now are guilty of treason. And all those living who have sat over the past 2 decades, since the signing of NAFTA are, too. That is our reality, they should all be indicted, dragged out in chains, the evidence a matter of congressional record and unimpeachable. And all should be subject to all the consequences the law provides up to the firing squad."

If the Tea Party allows its members to behave this way then they should take responsibility for them.  They should not seek to protect them from any alternative opinion that might result in them going off their meds.  And they certainly should not be involving armed government officers in what should be a civilized, human-to-human exchange of ideas.

Democrats Lesniak and Gill flip out at the mention of God

People of faith must look to Senator Sweeney for protection

Last week, the New Jersey Senate Commerce Committee held a public hearing on Bill S1398. This bill forces insurance companies to pay for fertility procedures for lesbian couples planning to bear children and increases the cost of health insurance for everyone to pay for it.  Remember always that EVERY mandate, be it ever so noble, increases the costs to those who can only marginally afford the insurance premiums they are already paying.

After taking testimony from those in support of the bill, fairness and basic democratic standards demanded that testimony be allowed from those who opposed the bill. You would think that people who run under the banner of the "Democrat" Party would behave democratically.  Unfortunately, this was not the case.

John Tomicki with the League of American Families, and Reverend Brad Winship with Evangelical Civic Outreach asked to testify in opposition.  The session ended with the committee reluctantly hearing Mr. Tomicki's explanation of the unintended consequences of the legislation.  When Reverend Winship was fewer than three sentences into his introduction, the Chairwoman, Senator Nia Gill silenced the pastor, saying, “We are not here to have a religious ––––– [pause], because there is a separation between church and state.” 

Wow!  Did the Senator miss the entire civil rights movement?  Has she forgotten that the civil rights movement in this country -- like the emancipation of women and the abolition of slavery before it -- were moral imperatives, informed by conscience and led by religious folk.

Reverend Winship had opened with a quotation from Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.: “The church is to be the conscience of the state.” Senator Ray Lesniak, responded saying, “The church is not my conscience in terms of a senator, and I don’t think it should be the conscience of any of us. We have a separation of Church and State in this country, and it should not be our conscience.”

Senator Gill agreed, “Because there is a separation between church and state. And I am here to make sure we have that State discussion, and your religious discussion you can have with the individual members, if you think it is necessary to inform their opinion.”

Senators, have you forgotten that Rev. King appealed to America's better nature through religion?

Does Senator Lesniak forget when he brought religious leaders into the State House to participate in the debate to abolish the death penalty?  Did he just use them as a convenient window dressing?

Senator Gerald Cardinale spoke up in defense of Reverend Winship by informing the committee,    “It is clear in our society that there are many centers of influence.   Because someone’s beliefs derive from a religious background does not make them any less valid concepts as to the individual who is testifying than if they came from a legal background, or from a constitutional background, or from some other background… – The First Amendment should give him a right to speak however he has derived the thoughts he wants to express.    Were he from the Communist Party, I believe he would still have a right to speak with respect to the beliefs he derives as a Communist.”

But Senators Lesniak and Gill would not be moved.  They are attorneys, and they argue that civil law alone determines what is moral and that individual conscience and how it is derived must be suppressed or at least denied a voice.  Their argument is not unlike those expressed by other attorneys back in 1933 when the Enabling Laws were being debated in the Reichstag.

We all remember the legal cynicism expressed by Senator Lesniak when he claimed -- so long as there was no law that expressly forbade it -- pay to play was quite fine and he would do it.  But that is like saying it is OK for the Senator to sleep with his best friend's 18-year-old kid, just because no law says he can't.  Just because something is legal, that doesn't make it ethical.

And isn't it this absence of ethics that has corrupted our political system?  Those legions of lawyers endlessly searching for a legal loophole that will allow people to do bad things under cover of law. 

Slavery was once THE LAW in America.  If a clergyman like Brad Winship would have addressed the honorables in the 1850's on the subject, he might have been similarly barred from testifying and been told by an "honorable" member:  "The church is not my conscience in terms of a senator, and I don’t think it should be the conscience of any of us. We have a separation of Church and State in this country, and it should not be our conscience."

Slavery was not undone by THE LAW in America.  In fact, it was coddled by THE LAW and upheld by the United States Supreme Court.  Slavery was defeated by an uprising of conscience led by people of faith and informed by Judeo-Christian values.  Religion defeated slavery.

It is monstrous for Senators Lesniak and Gill to argue that religious values have no place in democracy, and that the wording of our First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” must be interpreted to mean that the state is prohibited from hearing any testimony that involves a morality that is higher than civil law.  This is the atheistic interpretation of the Constitution warned about by liberals of faith, including Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges, the author of "America's New Fundamentalists:  When Atheism Becomes Religion."

After being denied the opportunity to freely express his views to those in power,  Pastor Winship explained: “I did not expect to be shut down in my introduction – even before explaining why evangelical pastors are opposed to the bill.  Every time I tried to speak, I was interrupted by the assumption that I was not, and would not, be addressing the bill. It was apparent that Chairwoman did not want discussed any ethical opposition to the bill."

He continued, “I had to stop speaking because I realized that whatever I said was a catch-22 situation.  If I answered her charge that I was not dealing with the bill, I was not dealing with the bill; if I went on to speak about the misplaced ethical foundation of the bill and the damage it would bring, I was not dealing with the bill. To remain silent was personally irksome.  However, in this situation, I felt the best approach was to keep quiet and let the chairwoman expose her intolerance.”

It is worth noting that both Senators Gill and Lesniak were very close to a fellow attorney/politician whose opinions they were happy to hear on issues that came before the Legislature.  The man in question was a pedophile.  Later, he was convicted of a sex crime, though not disbarred.  In the future, we hope that Senate President Steve Sweeney will ensure that Senators Lesniak and Gill extend the same courtesy to average citizens who come before them.

Why bully Clifton when you can celebrate with us?

In political fundraising, conflict generates cash.  And if you really want to raise money, find yourself a hate object and create something for which you can be offended.  Even so, we find the "offense" behind Garden State Equality's latest hate object -- the town of Clifton -- a bit of a stretch.  According to the whiney release from Chris Fuscarino, GSE's new executive director, Clifton hasn't flown the rainbow flag and so the sky is falling.  Wow, they haven't flown the German flag either, but that hasn't sent the town's German-American population into the streets screaming.

Screw Clifton if they don't want to party.  Last week, we invited you to come party with us this weekend at Lambertville-New Hope Pride and yes, they will have all the rainbow flags you could ever ask for.  They even have a super-duper rainbow flag that will be a big feature at Saturday's parade.  What more could you ask for?

So here's that invitation again (and we're sending it special to Tim and Reed):

May 11, 2016

Mr. Christian Fuscarino,

Executive Director

Garden State Equality

40 South Fullerton Ave.

Montclair, NJ 07042

Dear Christian,

In ten days, Saturday May 21st, Lambertville and New Hope will be holding their annual Pride Parade.  The event begins at 11:30am in Lambertville and crosses the Delaware River Peace Bridge into New Hope.  About 15,000 are expected to attend.

We would like you to join us in the festivities.  As the event is being held in Assemblyman Reed Gusciora's district, we suggest you invite him and Assemblyman Tim Eustace as well.  It would be a great opportunity to talk person-to-person, without the artifice of politics to obscure things.

Both Assemblymen -- Reed and Tim -- have suggested that they would be supportive of legislation to protect religious freedom, so long as a way can be found to prevent overt discrimination.  And we believe that together we can find a way to provide women and girls with a choice, so that they are not forced to use the same intimate facilities as anatomical males.

But don't worry.  We won't let this get heavy.  This is more about enjoying each other's company, having a few beers, and taking in the festivities.  So hopefully you can spend the time and enjoy the parade with us.

Yours for the First Amendment,

Jersey Conservative

info@jerseyconservative.org

Hey guys, we could have a sing-along!  Just picture it.  A concordat of souls putting aside their policy and political differences to enjoy each other's company, on the level, as human beings.  Maybe we could get our bartender to put on some classic sub-pop and we could do a little Jesse Bernstein.  Now here's a classic...

Beware of ex-liberals like Jeffrey B. Steinfeld

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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