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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did Sussex Democrat candidate go bankrupt while making $23,000 a month?

lynkinsMurphy.jpg

Deana Lykins is a lawyer-lobbyist and member of the One Percent.  She has a big house, fancy automobiles, and a wealthy lifestyle… but that didn’t stop her from spending herself into bankruptcy court.  She recently announced her candidacy for Assembly, running as a Phil Murphy Democrat.

In August of 2014, the candidate filed for bankruptcy (case #14-26076) in federal court and reported a monthly household income of $23,576.00 (that’s every month).  That’s more than the yearly income (per capita) of the average resident in a town like Sussex Borough ($20,887). 

From the bankruptcy court filings,  the debt appears to be consumer or lifestyle based… with a number of credit card companies listed as creditors, as well as tax authorities.  Property listed included a large, well appointed house, as well as a BMW, Land Rover, and a Chrysler Sebring.

Candidate Lykins is well-known in Trenton, where she worked for the Democrats in the Legislature before turning into a lobbyist for the insurance industry.  What skills she has to offer are ominous – especially in the area of keeping spending in check and balancing budgets – but Lykins would be a safe vote in support of the spending and debt agenda of Democrat Governor Phil Murphy and the rest of the Trenton Democrats. 

We will be examining this candidate’s record further in the weeks and months ahead.  So stay tuned…

If the NJGOP is to survive then the “spinning” must stop

Putting the best face on a defeat is the oldest spin in politics.  The practice is ancient…

Rather than spend time trying to convince people that defeat is really victory, learn from history and discard what failed and embrace a new message.  After Watergate, Republicans embraced the message of Reagan conservatism and came roaring back at the 1980 elections – taking both the White House and the Senate.  After Democrat Bill Clinton defeated the “kinder-gentler” GOP brand of George H.W. Bush, Republicans adopted the conservative Contract with America – ending 40 years of uninterrupted Democratic control of the House of Representatives and capturing the Senate.  The populist “Tea Party” message of 2010 saw Republicans gain 63 seats to take back control of the House.  In 2014, that message completed the takeover of Congress, gaining 9 Senate seats and another 13 House seats.  And in 2016, a populist Republican took the White House in an upset that caught the professional political class of both parties by surprise. 

Nationally, and at the state and local levels, Republicans need to embrace the setbacks of 2018 and learn from them.  These lessons are clear: 

(1) Money doesn’t replace message. 

(2) Technology is a means to convey a message, not a replacement for having a message. 

(3) In the era of Trump, trying to out-liberal the Democrats is a fool’s errand. 

(4) Turnout is key and that means registering every person who would likely vote Republican and then motivating them to vote.

(5) Your message should maximize your vote without turning off your base.  Better still, find a message that excites your base while adding to it.

At present, the man with the ideas – the man leading the charge to put New Jersey back on the right economic footing – the man standing in the way of the more crazier notions of Governor Murphy’s Democratic Socialism, is in fact not a Republican at all, but a Democrat.  Senate President Steve Sweeney is calling out the Governor, challenging him to debate their contrasting ideas. 

Republicans should be challenging Governor Murphy to debates, leading with ideas and a clear message that contrasts with Murphy’s Wall Street-style social activism.  And if they can’t manage to come up with ideas of their own, then they should at least be prepared to add their united voice in support of the man who has taken on the task of challenging Murphy’s crazier instincts.

Politically, New Jersey Republicans need a message, with fully fleshed out ideas and solutions.  There are people already at work on this.  The Garden State Initiative – run by state government veteran Regina Egea – is producing a solid product of facts and stats that could back up a message… if the political will is there.  It’s up to the folks who run campaigns and the party’s leadership to take the next step.

Pushing for a $15 minimum wage, the Star-Ledger pays its drivers $10 an hour (are any undocumented?)

The Star-Ledger doesn’t report the news.  As Editor Tom Moran wrote (November 1, 2018):  “Our core mission is helping voters decide which lever to pull.” 

That’s right, the Star-Ledger is a advocacy organization.  First and foremost, you can always depend on the Star-Ledger to lobby for its own bottom line. 

For years, the newspaper was a strident supporter of the New Jersey State Supreme Court’s Abbott Decision – which forces working class families in suburban and rural New Jersey to subsidize the property taxes of wealthy corporations and professionals in urban areas.  Among those wealthy corporations was the parent corporation that owns the Star-Ledger, whose property holdings were so extensive in Newark that the city named a street… no, make that a plaza, after the Star-Ledger

Now comes this new hypocrisy.

A few days before Christmas, the New Jersey Globe reported that while editorializing for a $15 minimum wage, the Star-Ledger  was paying workers at $10 an hours, with no benefits.  The corporation that owns the Star-Ledger is itself owned by one of the richest families in America. 

Here’s an excerpt from the New Jersey Globe:

The state’s largest daily newspaper ran an advertisement in Wednesday’s print edition seeking drivers for newspaper deliveries willing to work 2-3 hours daily, “starting around 3 AM,” with a typical bi-weekly compensation that starts at $400.   That could mean less than $10-per-hour.

To get a job like that, applicants must have their own cars. Star-Ledger drivers – they call them Delivery Service Providers — receive no benefits; they “are independently contacted, meaning they are self-employed” and receive 1099s.   Minimum wage laws do not apply.

There is no paid vacation time, no workers compensation, and since drivers do not handle collections, there are no gratuities involved.

“The job, once the bastion of neighborhood kids looking to make a few extra bucks on their bikes, has evolved into a grueling nocturnal marathon for low-income workers who toil almost invisibly on the edge of the economy,” wrote Associated Press reporter Michael Levenson in 2016.

Today the Star-Ledger once again editorialized for drivers’ licenses for resident undocumented immigrants illegally in the United States.  Is this another self-serving position for the owners to take?  Will this help drive down the cost of newspaper distribution?  We wonder if there are any internal memos on this?

While the Star-Ledger and its owners are up on all the latest virtue-signaling, paying just enough lip-service to reassure the cocktail set that they are good and worthy people, their actions seek to drive down the wages of American workers, while creating an immigrant class of toiling wage slaves.  Raising the minimum wage is a farce until you can control the gray economy that doesn’t abide by such rules.  Normalizing the gray economy (by things like drivers licenses) will only solidify its position as an alternative workforce.

And while the Democrats talk about the minimum wage, Governor Murphy is doing his utmost to flood the state with illegal labor that every economist tells us will drive down wages.  When there is more of something, you pay less, we all know that.  Either the Democrats are well-meaning but stupid, or they are engaging in the very same hypocrisy that the Star-Ledger is engaging in.

Here is the original New Jersey Globe story:

https://newjerseyglobe.com/media/star-ledger-editorializes-in-support-of-15-hour-wage-but-pays-drivers-much-less/