Herald lies about Sanctuary State ballot question. Cites attorney that they refused to interview.

Sussex County Clerk Jeff Parrott is hiding behind inadequate legal counsel in his contention that the taxpayers of Sussex County do not have a say in the function of the Sheriff’s office, which they pay for entirely from their property taxes.  As one activist put it, “The Clerk doesn’t understand the idea that he who pays the piper calls the tune.  In this case, we taxpayers are paying, so we want our vote.”

In a New Jersey Herald story today, Parrott agreed with the Administration of Democrat Governor Phil Murphy, “that only questions about issues over which a governing body has control can be submitted for a ballot referendum. In this case, the policy in question is set by the Attorney General's Office.”  Parrott used this argument to cancel a vote by the people on a public question on the November ballot.  The ballot question asks voters their opinion on whether Sussex County Sheriff Mike Strada should follow American law on illegal immigration – or the directives of the Murphy administration.  

However, just a few sentences later, Parrott raised the question of “Sussex County taxpayer funds” and stated “that only the freeholders control the budget.”  This is essentially the Freeholders’ argument that they – not the Murphy administration – have the authority to ask the taxpayers how they want the Sheriff’s office, which they pay for, to function.

The Herald story – written by reporter Bruce Scruton – contains one whopper of a lie.  Somehow Scruton got it into his head that the County Clerk has retained three attorneys.  This is not true.  The Clerk has only one attorney contracted to advise him in regards to this question, and according to news reports he is more of a specialist in criminal matters (sex crimes, homicides, and such) as opposed to election law.  Somehow the Herald was led to believe that County Clerk Parrott had a stable of three attorneys, reporting the following:

“County Counsel Kevin Kelly, the clerk's attorney Gary Kraemer and special counsel Douglas Steinhardt all advised Parrott that such a question could not be put on the ballot.”

Of course, it was County Counsel Kevin Kelly who conducted the legal review that cleared the Ballot Question to be placed on the Freeholder agenda in April.  Kelly signed-off that it was legally sound before allowing it on the agenda, so the Herald’s claim is nonsensical, unless the newspaper is alleging malpractice against an attorney who has often represented the corporation that owns the Herald itself.  

As for Special Counsel Douglas Steinhardt, he was hired by the Freeholder Board less than 48 hours before the County Clerk precipitously sent his “letter of surrender” to the Murphy administration.  He is a very good attorney, but even a legal savant would not be so reckless as to throw together a constitutional argument in so short a time, especially as he was travelling out of state the morning after he was hired.  It simply wasn’t possible for Steinhardt to provide the kind of legal argument the Herald claims the County Clerk based his opinion on. 

To add further injury to the Herald’s claims, when the newspaper was asked to interview Steinhardt for its story, they failed to do so.  If they had done so, they would have been provided with the following statement from Steinhardt released on July 13th:

“To be clear, Sussex County conceded nothing. On July 24th, its Freeholders will consider revisions to the public question that will strengthen it & make clearer the County’s resolve to stand firm & fight the Murphy Administration's gross overreach & attack on the safety of the residents of Sussex County.”  

Why did the Herald allege that Special Counsel Steinhardt supplied advice to County Clerk Parrott, but then fail to interview Steinhardt or even include a statement that has been in the public domain since Saturday?  Did the Herald deliberately mislead its readers and advertisers?  Did its reporter lie to provide a fig leaf by which the County Clerk could excuse himself?

And finally, why wasn’t a statement by Sussex County Sheriff Mike Strada part of the story?  The Herald article appears to be mainly written from the perspective of one politician – County Clerk Jeff Parrott – an apologia as opposed to a news story.  In contrast with the Clerk, the statement of the Sheriff could not have been clearer:

“Sheriff Strada states that he will cooperate with ICE officials and does not plan on letting any immigration inmates that have a detainer out of our facility unless they are turned over to ICE officers. I will not jeopardize the safety of the citizens of our county.”

What is the upshot to all this?  Does the Herald support illegal immigration?  Does it wish to see its readers and advertisers less safe?  Is the reporter the problem?

One thing’s for certain… in the era of Trump, there are still some Christie Whitman Republicans out there.  Let the voter beware!

Sussex County Freeholders moving ahead with ballot question on Murphy lawlessness

According to a report in the Newark Star-Ledger this morning, County Clerk Jeff Parrott has taken sides with the administration of Democrat Governor Phil Murphy:

“Sussex County Clerk Jeffrey Parrott on Friday sided with (Murphy political appointee) Gurbir Grewal in disallowing a ballot question, approved by the all-Republican freeholder board in April and supported by County Sheriff Michael Strada, that would have directed the sheriff to ignore Grewal’s (pro-illegal alien ‘Sanctuary State’) directives…”

Governor Murphy is using Grewal, his appointed Attorney General, in an attempt to bully and intimidate the elected Freeholders of Sussex County into ending plans to allow the people the right to vote on a public question on the November ballot.  The Murphy administration is doing this concurrent with plans to allow illegal aliens to have drivers licenses and to give incarcerated violent criminals the right to vote and hire lobbyists. 

That is correct.  Not only do the Democrats want to take away the right of the people of Sussex County to have a democratic vote concerning a function of government they pay for out of their property taxes – the Democrats want to give violent felons the right to vote while in prison, after being convicted of violent crimes.  It is a simple case of good and evil.  It could not be much clearer as to who the “bad guys” are.  

This morning’s newspaper story goes on to note that County Clerk Parrott decided to side with the Murphy administration even after the Sussex County Freeholders had decided to hire a special counsel to fight Murphy and his political appointee.  The Star-Ledger reported that on Wednesday evening the Sussex County Freeholders hired State GOP Chairman Doug Steinhardt, a conservative stalwart, to do battle with Murphy.  Steinhardt is charged with creating an updated ballot question with language that defeats the legal objections raised by the Murphy administration, so that Murphy and his cronies cannot hold up its placement on the ballot through legal maneuverings.

County Clerk Parrott did not consult with fellow Republicans before deciding to join the Murphy administration in its opposition to the elected Sussex County Freeholder Board and to the people’s right to vote.  According to those close to the County Clerk, Parrott’s taxpayer-paid-for attorney does not believe that county taxpayers have the right to vote on issues that affect the performance of county functions that they pay for entirely out of their highest-in-the-nation property taxes.  Taxation without the right to vote sounds pretty un-American to us.   

The Freeholders are resolved to fight the Murphy administration, with or without the assistance of the County Clerk.  In the event that the County Clerk remains in the camp of the Democrat Governor, the Freeholders could bring a lawsuit to compel the Clerk to place the public question on the November ballot. 

Sanctuary State issue drives turnout in Sussex County

In April, the Sussex County Board of Chosen Freeholders voted to place an advisory question on the November ballot.  It asks county voters whether they want to direct their Sheriff (who is paid for by their property taxes) to (1) abide by the Murphy administration’s Sanctuary State directive or (2) respect the primacy of the Constitution of the United States of America and follow federal law on matters related to national borders, immigration, and citizenship.  

The Murphy administration has already acted to block this exercise in direct, advisory democracy.  They don’t want the people to have the opportunity to voice their opinion on this important issue – about an office for which they pay entirely from taxes imposed on them.  

Governor Phil Murphy is telling voters:  You pay, but you don’t have a say.  

In defense of his Governor, Murphy appointee Gurbir Grewal has embraced the woke practice of philosophical inversion.  It’s the same practice that eliminates free speech in the name of “freedom” and that eliminates a diversity of opinion in the name of “diversity”. We see it at work in government, academia, and – increasingly – in corporate and work environments.  It is George Orwell’s nightmare come true.

It is sad to see the state’s top law enforcement official – the Attorney General, no less – repeat the political lies he’s been taught by his master. Everyone knows that the very first victims of any immigrant community are the immigrants themselves.  If Gurbir Grewal had been Attorney General early in the last century, would he have used these same excuses to come to an accommodation with La Cosa Nostra rather than enforce the law?  And where would we be today if organized crime hadn’t been driven out of the labor unions, the ports, the trucking industry, the gaming industry, loan sharking, and such?  

Of course, all this will feature in any future confirmation process for a certain Gurbir Grewal, acting as his Governor’s hatchet man against democracy. The Senator from Nebraska will question Grewal closely about this at some future federal confirmation hearing… about this and his somewhat murky family business.  

The day will come when Gurbir Grewal faces a confirmation hearing made up of Senators very different from those on offer from the One Party State he currently serves. Grewal will come before America, and answer for the outrages perpetrated by the authoritarian he now unquestioningly serves.  Unless he retrieves his soul, he will surely answer for it.  We pray that Gurbir Singh Grewal obtain mukti– that he find his liberation from the undemocratic authoritarianism of his Governor.

As a measure of just how important this issue is – and how eagerly people want to have a say about it – you need only look at the jump in turnout in Sussex County, where the Murphy administration’s attempt to block the vote was served up just weeks before the primary election.  Responding to a June 7th deadline by Murphy to muzzle democracy, county Sheriff Mike Strada stood up to Murphy and rallied county Freeholders to do the same. They flipped Murphy the collective “bird” and – along with County Clerk Jeff Parrott – said they will allow his June 7th “deadline” to pass.

Sheriff Strada has written to United States Attorney General William Barr to request his advice and direction on the matter.  And he reserved the option to himself request a public question be placed on the ballot.  

While the Sheriff’s race was the only contested primary on the ballot in Sussex County, Tuesday's Republican turnout was higher in raw numbers than in 2017 with hotly contested primaries for Governor, State Senate, Assembly, and Freeholder.  It was higher than in 2018 with a contested primary for United States Senate, hotly contested primaries for both Congressional seats (CD05 and CD11), and hotly contested primaries for two Freeholder seats (two incumbents were ousted). And it was higher than in 2015 with primaries for Assembly (open seat) and Freeholder (one incumbent ousted).  Only the 2016 Presidential primary saw higher turnout for Republicans. 

Has Governor Murphy inadvertently pointed the way to driving up Republican turnout?  

Perhaps other Republican organizations in other counties should take note?