Democrat Assembly candidates are members of group aligned with Linda Sarsour and CAIR

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

On February 10, 2018, Action Together New Jersey accepted an award from Linda Sarsour…

Pictured with radical Linda Sarsour (above, L-R) are Uyen “Winn” Khuong, ATNJ Executive Director; Scott Baron, ATNJ Activist; Johannah Hinksmon, ATNJ Sussex County Co-Chair; and Kim Baron, ATNJ Director of Operations.

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

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

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

Action Together New Jersey has endorsed the economically ruinous Green New Deal of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

A number of Democrats who are running for Assembly this year are clearly identified as members of Action Together on the group’s website and have helped in their organizing efforts.  For their loyalty to the far-Left “cause” these Democrat candidates have been formally endorsed by Action Together New Jersey:

District 21

Stacey Gunderman

Lisa Mandelblatt 

District 24

Deana Lykins 

District 25

Lisa Bhimani

Darcy Draeger 

District 26

Christine Clark

Laura Fortgang 

District 30

Steven Farkas 

Among all the Democrats running for the Assembly this year, Action Together New Jersey chose to endorse only these candidates.  They represent the very radical far-Left of the Democrat Party. 

The people behind the New Democrats are radical and anti-Jewish

A fresh survey just out from Rasmussen reports on voters’ perceptions of the growing anti-Jewish chorus within the Democrat Party:

“Voters rate anti-Semitism as an increasingly serious problem in America today and see it on the rise among Democrats. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters think anti-Semitism is a growing problem in the Democratic Party. Thirty-five percent (35%) disagree, but nearly one-out-of-four voters (23%) are not sure.”  

“Seventy-six percent (76%) consider anti-Semitism a serious problem in America today, with 36% who say it’s Very Serious. That’s a noticeable increase from 65% and 24% respectively two years ago. Just 18% consider anti-Semitism a not very or Not At All Serious problem. Among voters who consider anti-Semitism a Very Serious problem in this country, 52% say it is a growing problem in the Democratic Party.”

This video explains who is behind the NEW DEMOCRATS (aka Democrat Socialists) who are leading this new, anti-Jewish charge within the Democrat Party…

Wow… a fusion between National Socialism and Communism.  What more can you say?

Here in New Jersey, the Democrat Party continues to embrace anti-Jewish hate, as these photographs from rallies attended by Democrat office holders show…

isrealtrump.png
MurphyWomen.png
bookerpalestine.png

Will Democrats step back from going down the road of Anti-Semitism???

Yet another Labour Member of Parliament has walked away from the Labour Party over its embrace of Anti-Jewish hate.  That’s eight walk away Labour Members of Parliament in just two days.

Who would have thought that in Great Britain – the mother of democracies – that one of the two major parties would embrace open Anti-Semitism the way the left wing Labour Party has?  The Labour Party is Britain’s version of America’s Democrat Party – and when you look at the virulent Anti-Jewish talk coming out of the new Democrats – who is to say that America isn’t next?

Take a look at this new Democrat congresswoman…

PalestineCongress.png

That flag is the banner of a political movement… the Palestine Liberation Organization or PLO.  It is a terrorist movement responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jewish civilians – mainly women and children. 

The Anti-Semitism that is causing honest people on the Left to leave the Labour Party will soon confront Democrats here in the United States.  As politicians like Cory Booker and Phil Murphy mainstream the goals of the PLO and Hamas – to wipe out the Jewish state and its people – Democrats are going to face the same decisions being faced by Left-of-Center people in Europe today.  To walk away from their party… or follow the path that could lead to a second Holocaust. 

Womenmarch.png

Julie O’Connor: Stark raving ideologue

(originally published by CNJ in February 2013)

“It does take great maturity to understand that the opinion we are arguing for is merely the hypothesis we favor, necessarily imperfect, probably transitory, which only very limited minds can declare to be a certainty or a truth.” ― Milan Kundera

According a 2009 account given in the Star-Ledger, Julie O’Connor spent her formative years in that bastion of establishment liberalism, Montclair, New Jersey and now lives in one New Jersey’s Abbott Districts – Jersey City.  Like similar members of the establishment, Ms. O’Connor has had the benefit of most of the state’s income tax payers working hard to subsidize the property taxes paid by the affluent households in her community.  Isn’t it nice to live in one of the wealthy colonies dependent on the largesse of the state’s Democrat Party? 

Isn’t it nice to see your property tax bill subsidized by everyone else – including the 49 percent of the state’s economically deprived children living outside the Abbott Districts?  And this number comes from the state Supreme Court’s own Doin Report.  Even Governor Jim McGreevey’s Education Commissioner said that the state should stop subsidizing rich gentrified urban communities at the expense poor rural ones.

Before joining the Star-Ledger’s editorial board, Ms. O’Connor was active in the Peace Corps – in the vacation paradise known as Costa Rica.  The Ledger’s promotional piece on her notes:  “In her spare time, she enjoys running, drinking chai tea and watching reruns of ‘I Love Lucy.’”  Get the picture?

Somewhere along the way, this hothouse orchid developed quite a mouth on her and an intolerance to civil debate.  If she happens to disagree with your opinion, that makes you “nuts”, and she’ll call you that, in print.

And it doesn’t matter that her own newspaper, in editorial after editorial, once expressed the same concerns about the same issue – if you disagree with Julie O’Connor, you’re “nuts”.

In a February 14, 2013, editorial penned by Julie O’Connor on behalf of the entire Editorial Board and management of the Star-Ledger, Ms. O’Connor put forward the argument that anyone concerned about the unwieldy size, composition, or process that has gone into concocting the Bush-Obama “Terrorism Watch List” and the effects this might have on due process and the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights, was – in Ms. O’Connor’s word – “nuts”.

Apparently she hadn’t read the concerns put forward by the Star-Ledger itself, in earlier editorials:

“Terror list cries out for reform” screams one editorial.  Criticizing the million name list it notes:  “The number of names on the terror list, many as common as ‘Gary Smith’ or ‘Teddy Kennedy,’ guarantees thousands of innocent travelers regularly get pulled aside for questioning at airports and borders. Besides being a pain for ordinary people, it wastes valuable law enforcement time with no real security benefit.”

The Star-Ledger advises the FBI to “shelve” plans to use “profiling” to enhance its “terrorist” watch list.  The Ledger editorial warns:  “Comparing untold numbers of Americans to a terrorist profile would endanger civil liberties and wouldn't be a very effective way of ferreting out those who threaten the nation.”

In another editorial headline, the Star-Ledger concludes that “the watch list is dangerous”, and makes the following observations:  “The flaws in the FBI's handling of names on the nation's terrorist watch list are troubling enough. Inaccurate, outdated or incomplete data are passed along by agents without being reviewed for reliability. The result is a list with many names that shouldn't be there. Here's something more troubling: The FBI is probably doing the best job in government in processing names to be added to the list, according to a recent Justice Department inspector general's report. Other agencies don't share information reliably, don't all follow the same reporting protocols and don't even always define ‘terrorism’ the same way. Information isn't updated. Names aren't removed when people are cleared of any connection to terrorism.”

Those are from just three of the many editorials written before the management and editors of the Star-Ledger executed an about face on the question of due process and the Bill of Rights.  The list is flawed and should not be used as the basis of whether or not we are afforded our constitutionally protected civil rights.  In the following clip, Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert shreds the ridiculousness of the so-called “Terrorist Watch List”, noting that Nobel Prize winner Nelson Mandela was on the list for many years:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/167607/may-07-2008/terrorist-nelson-mandela

Look, we all know why this editorial was written like a piece of attack mail from the New Jersey Democrat State Committee.  The day before the editorial’s publication, PolitickerNJ.com reported that state Democrat Party leaders had held a strategy session by conference call that day and were “mobilizing” for a “public relations assault” against Republicans on exactly the issue on which Ms. O’Connor labeled Republicans as “nuts”.  Maybe she was on the call?

In the past, Star-Ledger editors and management, through their editorials, have lectured the newspaper’s readers on the importance of “civility” in public discourse.  They have lectured against name-calling and bullying and on the need for a greater understanding of mental health issues and a greater sensitivity to those who suffer from mental health problems.  The Ledger praised then Acting Governor, Senator Dick Codey, for his good service in this area and noted the difficulties braved by the state’s then First Lady.  It is a good thing Julie O’Connor wasn’t selecting the words for that editorial.

Of course, the management of the Star-Ledger is in hock to the state’s Democrat Party and there is little the editorial board can do about it.  Like Julie O’Connor, the Star-Ledger is located in one of the state’s Abbott Districts and the corporation’s property tax bill would rise astronomically if New Jersey were to adopt Fair School Funding.  And the Ledger is only a tiny part of a much larger corporate enterprise with significant holdings that benefit from the largesse of state Democrats. 

Remember how the state’s newspaper industry panicked when they thought they would lose their corporate welfare?  When there was a bill up that would have allowed county and local governments to post notices on-line instead of forcing them to spend the money from property taxes to publish newspaper notices that nobody reads.  That’s right, in the age of digital technology your property tax dollars are being used to prop up a failing business model that depends on deforestation and flushing effluence into waterways. 

But there is a larger question here and it is a really BIG and IMPORTANT question:  The management of New Jersey’s largest newspaper, through its editorial board, appear to believe that due process and the Bill of Rights have no place in our current situation.  That in the twelfth year of the “War on Terror”, with no formal Declaration of War and no end in sight, we as a nation must accept that ideas such as due process, the rule of law, and justice no longer have a place in our society.  They appear to want to convince us that “if we can save just one life. . . for the children” then we should shove the whole Bill of Rights into the shit bin.

Tom Moran, the man entrusted by the management to run the Star-Ledger’s editorial board, has labeled the Constitution as a “source of our woes” and as much as said that we need to scrap the American Constitution in favor of a strong-man executive style of government, similar to what they have in Egypt or Russia.  One idea that Moran floated was to allow newly elected presidents to appoint 10 senators and 50 congressmen to serve “at large”. 

Let’s put President Obama aside for the moment.  Here’s the question for Tommy Moran:  “Would you really want a President Nixon, George W. Bush or even a President Christie with this kind of power?”

What Tom Moran advocates is neo-Fascism disguised as an attempt to break the slow, deliberative process inherent in every democracy.  It is no wonder then that the management and editors of the Star-Ledger want to dump due process and the Bill of Rights in favor of a secret list, with a secret process, developed by an unaccountable bureaucracy answerable only to the executive.

What happened to Blackstone's formulation that it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"?  Too old-fashioned?  Not chai tea enough for our contemporary “lifestyle”?  With thousands of drones set to take to the skies and some in the government arguing that Americans can be killed extra-judicially – is neo-Fascism our future?

Maybe we will get some answers.  CNJ’s editor has been reaching out to people concerned about due process and the Bill of Rights, regardless of party or ideology, because that doesn’t matter.  Without due process and the Bill of Rights, all of us are susceptible to being terrorized by the government of the day.  Who gets terrorized will just depend on the regime.  And who “wins” in a game with no rules? 

In the next week or so, the editor will be contacting the management and editors of the Star-Ledger, to ask them to be part of a cross-party, cross-ideology, cross-community discussion about due process and the Bill of Rights in a time of endless, undeclared “war”.  We will all be watching to see if the Ledger’s apparatchiks have the courage to come out of their well-guarded building to sit down with other Americans to discuss the position put forward in their name, by Julie O’Connor.

McCann manager attacked McCann's Democrat boss

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.  The young fellow running candidate John McCann's effort this year, wrote a very potent attack against McCann's Democrat boss -- Bergen County Sheriff Mike Saudino -- last year, accusing him of siding with groups like Black Lives Matter.  The article appeared as commentary, under McCann's manager's own name, in the Save Jersey blog.

In the article, McCann manager Matthew Gilson, took Democrat Saudino (who was paying McCann, a patronage employee in his office, at the time) to task in a rather brutal fashion.  Here is an excerpt from what he wrote:

Saudino’s greatest betrayal?  Siding with the Democrats’ police-hating allies

Support for America’s local police used to be fairly universal or at least never a partisan issue.  Over the last year, however, Democrats have shown their true colors by siding against law enforcement at every turn. Whether it is supporting indictments for officers doing their job, or outright calling for violence against law enforcement officials, Democrats have been fairly vocal in their refrain: cops are the real criminals.

That’s what makes the betrayal of Mike Saudino all the more interesting...

One can’t help but marvel at his logic – or lack thereof – as Saudino cites the need to put good law enforcement over politics while siding with those who side with cop killers’ apologists. I can understand Saudino’s self-preservation instinct given the disarray within the Bergen GOP’s rank’s, but the larger message he is sending is one which frankly scares the hell out of me. That somehow Democrats are the party which supports law enforcement, or that campaigning for Bernie Sanders is something all those who support good police work should be doing? 

Give me a break, Mr. Sheriff.

Do what you want with your career but don’t insult our intelligence.

John McCann's manager makes the point that Sheriff Saudino's party -- the Democrats -- are "a party which thinks that Mumia al-Jamal should be freed from prison, and that Joanne Chesimard is a folk hero..."  which begs the question:  What was John McCann thinking when he agreed to take a pay check from these people?