Is new Gottheimer campaign commercial a “hate crime”?

By Rubashov

Whenever he gets caught in some hypocrisy or in an outright lie, Congressman Josh Gottheimer tries to deflect criticism from average folks by accusing them of something terrible. It’s a trick Gottheimer picked-up from his former boss, Bill Clinton, who trashed the reputations of the women he forced himself upon.

Gottheimer calls his Right-of-Center critics “extremists” and accuses his Left-of-Center critics of “anti-Semitism”. It seems he has a pejorative for everyone.

Think back to January of this year, when he tried to pin the “anti-Semitism” label on the Left-of-Center Working Families Party. The New Jersey Globe reported it:

Assembly Speaker Pro-Tempore Gordon Johnson has asked the Bergen County Prosecutor to investigate a September 2021 incident where a protestor allegedly screamed “Jew” at Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-Wyckoff) as a possible hate crime.

In a speech at Rutgers University last month, Gottheimer claimed that a member of the Working Families Party hurled the anti-Semitic slur at him at a Glen Rock event with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. Raimundo is backing up Gottheimer’s allegation.

Working Families state director Sue Altman said last month that her group reviewed footage from the protest and interviewed several participants.

“To be absolutely clear, if that ever happened at a WFP event, the person would have been rebuked instantly and asked to leave,” Altman said. “However, we do not believe Gottheimer’s explosive allegation ever occurred.”

Johnson wants the organization to dig deeper.

Well, the Times of Israel published a piece that dug so deep it got to the bottom of this so-called “hate crime”. It is written by Dr. Russell Miller, a research psychologist at the Graduate Center, City University of New York and adjunct assistant professor of Children and Youth Studies at Brooklyn College.

Dr. Miller is also a journalist who has published in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone, New York, Ha'aretz, and Corriere della Sera. Dr. Miller’s column is titled: “I called Josh Gottheimer a Jew – it wasn’t a slur.” Dr. Miller’s column begins:

A couple of weeks ago, David-Seth Kirshner, the rabbi of Temple Emanu-El, in Closter, New Jersey published a commentary here on the indisputable truth that even among the most well-meaning, compassionate, and socially engaged, there can be people who hate. His impetus? The charge by US Congressman. Josh Gottheimer that a progressive adversary, the Working Families Party, is sheltering an antisemite.

The piece rehashed Rep. Gottheimer’s claim that at a rally in September in support of “Build Back Better,” President Biden’s social services bill, a WFP member attacked the “reputable and respected Congressman” with the Jew-hating epithet “Jew.”

There’s only one problem. The claim is patently false – and Gottheimer almost certainly has to know that. Anyone following this phony blood libel would know it’s false. And how am I so certain it’s false? I’m the “attacker.”

The first time Gottheimer mentioned the supposed antisemitic attack was on December 13 at Rutgers University, three months after the fact. Since then, he’s speechified, fundraised and called in chits around the WFP’s alleged antisemitism. The US Secretary of Commerce signed on. A New Jersey state senator demanded a hate-crime investigation. The ADL announced, “we take him at his word.” Rabbi Kirshner came forward as character witness.

Meanwhile, the WFP scoured its ranks to find the offender. I was late to hear of this; I’m not a member. But as soon as I did, I contacted a reporter and “confessed” on a national podcast. That was four days before Rabbi Kirshner’s indictment of the WFP.

As I told that reporter, like Josh Gottheimer, I’m a Democrat and, as my grandmother would say, oich a yid – also a Jew. Gottheimer has to have known this all along. Rabbi Kirshner may not have, because the Congressman conveniently neglects to report the full sentence I spoke last September — at precisely the place and time he’s vouched the slur was slung. The moment was heated, so my reconstruction of the syntax may be off, but it was something like, “Josh, as a Jew, it’s a shanda that you’re blocking Build Back Better.”

That’s right, “a shanda,” as generations of Ashkenazic Jews have cried in Yiddish: A disgrace. That’s not Jew hating. That’s Jewish shaming. That was one Jew addressing another in a time-honored voice.

If Gottheimer heard “Jew,” he would have almost certainly heard “shanda.” If he heard “shanda,” he would have certainly known his attacker was anything but antisemitic.

Now, the record does show Gottheimer has memory issues. At Rutgers, he claimed several of us were jeering “Jew!” Subsequently, he revised his recollection to one. As a research psychologist, I can understand how, hit where it hurts, his mind might have reframed the scene. I can only assume my podcast appearance jogged his memory since his office has since refused comment. Meanwhile, it appears he’s buying Facebook ads to keep Rabbi Kirshner’s condemnation afloat.

As for the rabbi, in the worrisome week after Colleyville, he might well have missed my interview and subsequent coverage in the Jewish press. Odds are Gottheimer’s team, busy fibbing on Facebook, failed to brief him on my clarification, which surely would have brought him relief.

But by the time his piece went public, no informed observer could believe the Working Families Party, or even a stray antisemite, was the source of the telltale monosyllable.

You can access the entire column at the Times of Israel:

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/i-called-josh-gottheimer-a-jew-it-wasnt-a-slur/

Note how Gottheimer’s team appears to willfully misrepresent what was actually said in an effort to label someone “anti-Semitic”. As we will see, it works the same when Gottheimer is trying to label someone an “extremist”.

Gottheimer calls his Right-of-Center critics “extremists” and accuses his Left-of-Center critics of “anti-Semitism”. It seems he has a pejorative for everyone.

In Gottheimer’s latest campaign commercial, his team tries to label Frank Pallotta an "extremist" by using a quote he made in August of 2020 about the Oath Keepers group and then applying it to the actions of that group on January 6, 2021. Using this same tactic, would it be okay to apply the positive things many elected officials said about Democrat consutant Sean Caddle, as if is was commentary on him after he admitted to having someone murdered? Using the Gottheimer rule, it would be okay. So, maybe they will.

The Gottheimer team then claimed that GOP challenger Frank Pallotta used the term “manslaughter” to describe all abortion – when, in fact, Pallotta was describing the late-term, day-of-birth abortion laws supported by Gottheimer and signed into law in New Jersey by Governor Phil Murphy. Here is the exact statement, made by Pallotta, that the Gottheimer team used for their commercial:

“Advances in modern medical science expanded fetal viability even as politicians like Josh Gottheimer ignored science and pushed for laws that went in the opposite direction and essentially legalized manslaughter.

Roe v. Wade was founded on language that was nowhere in the Constitution, and it featured the usurpation of the elected legislatures' role in determining public policy by the unelected judiciary. We now have the opportunity for real bipartisan reform on the laws that regulate abortion. An opportunity to follow medical science in drafting those reforms.

Instead of following medical science, Congressman Gottheimer and his allies have pursued a wholly ideological agenda of more and more extreme abortion laws - including partial-birth abortion and abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth.”

Of course, Gottheimer and his campaign team are lying because they know that “partial-birth abortion and abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth” are unpopular and do not poll very well.

But the real shocker in the commercial is the Gottheimer team’s use of anti-Italian stereotypes in an attempt to conjure up the image of a Mafia crime figure. Darkening Pallotta’s image and using a photograph in which he is wearing dark glasses? We would object just as sternly if somebody used a photograph of a Jewish candidate wearing a yarmulke.

Remember how the state’s Democrats complained and hurled accusations of “hate” when then congressional challenger Andy Kim was stereotyped using the image of fish and a font associated with Asian restaurants? Would these Democrats have us believe that Italian-Americans are less worthy of their support?

So, is this commercial – paid for by Josh Gottheimer’s campaign and approved by him – a "hate crime"? Or is it simply a matter of poor judgment and poor taste?

Extremist Josh Gottheimer

Frank Pallotta has exposed Congressman Josh Gottheimer for embracing international terrorist organizations such as CAIR and convicted cop-killers like Joanne Chesimard – as well as their domestic enablers like Action Together, Linda Sarsour, and the Women’s March. Gottheimer refuses to disavow their support.

This also means EVERYONE associated with Gottheimer falls into the same category -- including his hired flacks, Mikie “I’ll swallow anything” Schnagglepuss, Jacky the Conduit, James Santonastaso, the county Democrat Committee, Sussex Progressives, and assorted critters.

CAIR has been designated an international terrorist organization by one of America’s closest Islamic allies. Democrat Linda Sarsour has called for “Jihad” against the United States. Joanne Chesimard is a convicted cop-killer. They are among the worst the World has to offer.  And Gottheimer and his mob want a seat in the House, next to the Squad and some of the other psycho cases there.  No thanks.

https://sussexcountywatchdog.com/?offset=1657031928012

The Sussex County Informer

7h ·

Congressman Josh Gottheimer has exposed Frank (the Fraud) Pallotta for embracing domestic terrorist organizations such as the Oath Keepers--and Pallotta refuses to disavow their support.

This also means EVERYONE associated with Pallotta falls into the same category--including his hired flacks, Blue Falcon Joe Labarbera and Kelly Hart.

The Oath Keepers, among other things, are white supremacists, NRA sycophants, and are among the worst America has to offer. And Pallotta and his mob want a seat in the House, next to some of the other psycho cases already there. No thanks.

https://newjerseyglobe.com/.../new-gottheimer-ad-skewers.../

Rasmussen: Half of all Likely Voters Approve decision to dump Roe

By Rubashov

A fresh poll out Tuesday reports that “even though more voters identify as pro-choice than pro-life, fully half of them approve of the recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.” That’s remarkable.

The poll – a Rasmussen national telephone and online survey – finds that 50 percent of likely voters in the United States approve of the Supreme Court abortion ruling, including 38 percent who strongly approve of the decision. 45 percent disapprove of the Supreme Court’s ruling, including 38 percent who strongly disapprove. The ruling allows each state to determine its own laws regarding abortion.

The poll asked three questions:

1) Generally speaking, on the issue of abortion, do you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life?

2) The Supreme Court recently overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, so that each state can now determine its own laws regarding abortion. Do you approve or disapprove of the court overturning Roe v. Wade?

3) How important will the issue of abortion rights be in this year's congressional elections?

Among Republican voters, 75 percent approve of the Supreme Court’s decision while just 20 percent disapprove. 71 percent of Democrats disapprove of the ruling, but 25 percent approve. Voters not affiliated with either major party are more closely divided, with 53 percent approving the court’s decision and 42 percent disapproving.

52 percent of voters self-identify as generally pro-choice on the issue of abortion, while 41 percent view themselves as pro-life. 78 percent of pro-choice voters disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision, while 88 percent of pro-life voters approve of the ruling.

Voters overwhelmingly believe the abortion issue will matter in November. 75 percent expect abortion to be an important issue in this year's congressional elections, including 54 percent who think it will be very important. Only 22 percent of voters don’t believe abortion will be important in the fall midterm elections.

72 percent of Democrats, 41 percent of Republicans, and 47 percent of unaffiliated voters say abortion will be a very important issue in this year's congressional elections. 74 percent of voters who self-identify as pro-choice, compared with 33 percent of those who say they are pro-life, expect abortion to be a very important issue.

More women voters (55 percent) than men (49 percent) self-identify as pro-choice, and more women voters (59 percent) than men (48 percent) believe the abortion issue will be very important in this year’s congressional elections.

With inflation at its highest for nearly 50 years and a recession looming, economic issues are the most important to American voters. And with nothing much to commend themselves, incumbent Democrats like Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05) have jumped on the abortion issue in an attempt to rally their base.

And this is where the lies begin.

In a fundraising appeal emailed on Monday, Gottheimer’s campaign wrote: “And after last week’s devastating SCOTUS opinion on Roe v. Wade – Pallotta DOUBLED DOWN in his extremism. Pallotta went as far as to call choice…manslaughter.”

Actually, Frank Pallotta was making an important point about the abortion debate: The reason why so many self-described “pro-choice” voters support the Supreme Court’s decision is because the leaders of the pro-choice movement have turned the moderate “safe and rare” mantra of the Clinton years into a quasi-religious cult that celebrates abortion up to and including the day of birth.

The pro-choice cause was more convincing back when it followed medical science and provided women with an escape hatch, while recognizing the medical facts regarding the viability of the fetus. Arguably, this was a balanced, rational approach that rejected faith-based assertions about the “sanctity of life”. When someone believes life begins is very different from when medical science maintains it is viable.

But then “pro-choice” radicals took control of the debate away from moderates like former President Bill Clinton. For folks like Chelsea Handler, abortion became a kind of holy sacrament, and it got nuts. Now it was the “pro-choice” folks who were advancing a faith-based mantra and rejecting medical science. Guys like Josh Gottheimer, trying to stay one-step ahead of a primary, got caught up in the wave and started voting that way.

Before labeling Frank Pallotta an “extremist” on abortion, the Gottheimer crew might want to remember the company he’s keeping. Like… go try and have a day-of-birth abortion in Israel and see what happens.

In Israel, a woman must go before a “termination committee” made up of two licensed physicians and a social worker to receive permission to get an abortion. No surprise then that the rate of abortion in Israel is much lower than in the United States. According to Wikipedia:

“There are 41 termination committees operating in public or private hospitals across Israel. These committees consist of three members, two of which are licensed physicians, and one a social worker. Of the two physicians, one must be a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology, and the other one either OB/GYN, internal medicine, psychiatry, family medicine, or public health. At least one member must be a woman. Six separate committees consider abortion requests when the fetus is beyond 24 weeks old.”

In France, abortion on demand is legal during the first 14 weeks from conception. Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are only allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done “to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.”

In Argentina abortion is legal on demand in the first 14 weeks of gestation. Wikipedia notes: “The abortion law was liberalized after the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Bill (Argentina) was passed by the National Congress in December 2020. According to the law, any woman can request the procedure at any public or private health facility. Doctors are legally bound to either perform it or, if they are conscientious objectors, refer the patient to another physician or health facility. Only four other Latin or South American countries have legalized abortion on request: Cuba in 1965, Guyana in 1995, Uruguay in 2012 and Colombia in 2022. According to polling in 2021, around 44% of Argentinians support the legalization of abortion on request; other polls showed 50–60% of Argentinians opposed the bill.”

Abortion in Australia mirrors what we might see here soon. Wikipedia writes: “It has been fully decriminalized in all jurisdictions, starting with Western Australia in 1998 and lastly in South Australia in 2021. Access to abortion varies between the states and territories: surgical abortions are readily available on request within the first 16 to 24 weeks of pregnancy, although with no limit on gestational term in the Australian Capital Territory. Later term abortions generally require the approval of two doctors, though are heavily restricted in Western Australia after 20 weeks.”

Abortion in South Africa is legal on request during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and under certain conditions afterwards. “A woman of any age can get an abortion on request with no reasons given if she is less than 12 weeks pregnant. If she is between 13 and 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion if (a) her own physical or mental health is at stake, (b) the baby will have severe mental or physical abnormalities, (c) she is pregnant because of incest, (d) she is pregnant because of rape, or (e) she is of the personal opinion that her economic or social situation is sufficient reason for the termination of pregnancy. If she is more than 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion only if her or the fetus' life is in danger or there are likely to be serious birth defects.”

In October 2021, new rules came into effect in India governing abortions. The gestation period for terminating a pregnancy with 1 doctor's opinion was extended from 12 weeks to 20 weeks, with the rule being expanded to include unmarried women. For termination of pregnancy with 2 doctors' opinions it was extended from 20 weeks to 24 weeks for the following special categories: survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest, minors, change of marital status during the pregnancy (widowhood and divorce), women with physical disabilities, mentally ill women, the fetal anomalies that have substantial risk of being incompatible with life or if the child is born it may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped, women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergency. A medical board determines requests for termination of a pregnancy longer than 24 weeks in the cases of fetal anomalies. The board examines the woman and her reports and approves or denies the request within 3 days.

In Ukraine, abortion is legal on request only during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Between 12 and 28 weeks, abortion is available on a variety of grounds, with the approval of a board of physicians. That’s up to 28 weeks – not 40 weeks!

About the only countries that would agree with the Gottheimer campaign’s assessment of Frank Pallotta are North Korea and Red China. Hey Josh, looks like you need to be more careful with the company you keep. You sound kind of, well, extremist.

Pallotta wins in CD05. Sussex County’s Kelly Hart does it again!

By Rubashov

It’s hard to win when the establishment sets its face against you. After his upset victory in the 2020 primary and his narrow defeat to Democrat incumbent Josh Gottheimer in the November election, you would think the party grandees would rally around Frank Pallotta, clear a path for him, and start him on his way for a 2022 re-match. That would have made sense.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, some party leaders nursed the wounds they had received in the primary, when Pallotta beat the Bergen County “line” for his upset win. Others were unhappy that Pallotta hadn’t gone with an “insider” consultant and had Sussex County’s Kelly Hart run his campaign. Many thought Pallotta too conservative – too honest and open about it. And for others, the Jersey operatives at the NRCC included, Pallotta just wasn’t one of the boys.

So, the establishment went out and recruited a very plausible candidate in Nick DiGregorio and raised a lot of money – that they spent on internecine battle to defeat another Republican, namely Frank Pallotta. How this made sense to them, we cannot figure out, but it did serve as an emotional balm to some and an economic benefit to others. We don’t think it did the party any good.

Nick proved to be a formidable candidate and a strong campaigner. He had a wonderful back story, but his establishment handlers suppressed his policy positions, not allowing him to communicate with conservative voters. They believed they would prevail using the blunt force of money, the party “line” in Bergen County, the Jersey operatives at the NRCC, and establishment muscle in Trenton. Nick pulled away endorsements that Frank had previously enjoyed – with a final blow delivered by a legislator yesterday, the day of the election!

The establishment had failed to learn the lesson from last year’s result in LD03. It was there that Steve Kush pulled an upset win by fashioning a campaign that went around establishment filters and engaged directly with the electorate. Of course, this doesn’t always work. It doesn’t work when the electorate is asleep. But the electorate isn’t asleep, is it? It is very, very agitated.

Kelly Hart fashioned a similar win yesterday in CD05, using grassroots networks the Trenton establishment, and especially the Trenton blogs, continue to discount. Strong showings by outsider candidates across New Jersey are an indication of an electorate that is wide awake and open to hearing a conservative message. Even in the CD03 primary, Steve Kush was able to take a very wounded candidate to a respectable showing.

“It is very reassuring that the conservative base wields so much muscle,” said Steve Lonegan, the father of the modern conservative movement in New Jersey, “This should be a wake-up call for the NJGOP establishment.”

Hopefully, the establishment accepts Frank Pallotta’s win and rallies behind him. Nick DiGregorio already has. Let’s hope others follow his good example. We hope to be hearing more from him.

In contrast, Matt Rooney at Save Jersey penned a particularly dickish attack on the Republican nominee – the day after the election. Why is Rooney acting the sore loser when he wasn’t supposed to have a side? Didn’t he hold himself out as someone impartial enough to moderate a debate between Nick and Frank? Apparently not.

For all those Trenton bullies who got owned yesterday.

Pro-abortion Bob Hugin takes sides in CD05. NJGOP backs DeGregorio.

By Rubashov

The NJGOP of Chairman Bob Hugin stepped into the GOP congressional primary in CD05 today. NJGOP executive director Tom Szymanski used the venue of Fox News no less to throw the NJGOP’s weight behind unfounded allegations that 2020 Republican nominee Frank Pallotta is the beneficiary of mailings from the campaign of Democrat Congressman Josh Gottheimer that attack Pallotta.

In a statement to Fox News, the NJGOP executive director said:

“The fact that Josh Gottheimer feels the need to spend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, to try putting his thumb on the scale of the opposing party’s primary speaks volumes about how desperate he is given his track record of loyally supporting Joe Biden’s anti-energy and inflationary spending policies… No amount of meddling or money spent will save Gottheimer from the voters this November.”

Pallotta’s opponent in the GOP primary – newcomer Nick DeGregorio – has been pushing a line that suggests collusion between Republican Pallotta and Democrat Gottheimer but has offered no evidence.

Nick DeGregorio and NJGOP Chairman Bob Hugin share the same consultant, Checkmate Strategies’ Chris Russell. Tom Szymanski managed a congressional race in New York for Checkmate and Russell.

Both DeGregorio and Hugin come from the Pro-abortion wing of the Republican Party.

Hugin and DeGregorio share political consultants. The NJGOP's Szymanski worked for the same consultant.

Is Save Jersey’s Matt Rooney rewarding the candidate who pays him?

By Rubashov

In the 2021 Republican gubernatorial primary, Jack Ciattarelli’s campaign team did everything they could to make sure their candidate faced more than one traditional conservative in the primary. It was a good thing for Jack that they did, because Ciattarelli didn’t get a majority of the Republican votes in the primary. The majority was split between two traditional conservatives: Pastor Phil Rizzo and Hirsh Singh.

When they are able to, candidates always attempt to set the table in a way that best suits them and provides an advantage. It is usual and customary, as Congressional candidate Nick DeGregorio’s campaign team knows firsthand.

That hasn’t stopped said campaign from crying foul over a mailer sent out by the campaign of Congressman Josh Gottheimer (D-05). DeGregorio’s campaign has invested heavily in paid advertising on the Save Jersey news blog, so it was no surprise to anyone that the blog’s editor/owner – the guy cashing those checks – was open to doing a hit on behalf of DeGregorio.

We’re not kidding about those advertisements. DeGregorio ads are all over Save Jersey. You can’t read a page of Save Jersey without needing to make your eyes jump over intrusive campaign ads stuck in the middle of columns to break up the flow. And it’s not just Nick. Other ads are there, all strangely the same, only the candidates’ pictures change – all posed like people who think they’re pretty. Very pretty.

Now are you ready for that hit? Here it comes…

Is Gottheimer opening his war chest to select his own GOP opponent?
May 7, 2022 - Matt Rooney
The GOP’s 2020 NJ-05 nominee (Frank Pallotta) is taking another bite at the apple in 2022, but despite having already done this once before, his fundraising has been abysmal. At the end of Q1, he had a little more than $80,000 cash on hand.
Three-term Democrat incumbent Josh Gottheimer had $13 million.
So it hardly needs to be said that eyebrows were raised this weekend when Republican voters opened their rain-soaked mailboxes and found a Gottheimer campaign mailer (see below) attacking Pallotta, declaring that the under-funded Pallotta is “too much like Trump” and citing a no-longer-current 2020 endorsement from the former president. Why would a Democrat want to tell Republican primary voters (who generally like President Trump) that his opponent is too Trumpy?
Is Gottheimer really opening up his ample war chest to soften up a possible November rival who doesn’t have the cash to respond?
Or is the Democrat congressman trying to “help” Republicans pick the candidate he prefers to face in November?

Of course, candidate Nick DeGregorio has an idea about what’s going on, and what with all those ads his campaign is paying for, Save Jersey is more than happy to turn the floor over to Nick – unquestioned and unabated:

“It is clear who Josh Gottheimer wants to win this Republican primary – and it’s not the guy who served his country in four tours overseas and is now calling on him and others to sell off their stock portfolios to clean up Washington,” said De Gregorio in a statement shared with Save Jersey.

Hold on there! Nick, we’re all very grateful for your service, but do you really have to use it so much? Are you the sort of guy who will buy his wife a bouquet of flowers tomorrow and then remind her about it for the next year? We don’t think so. We think you are better than that.

Most veterans we know – especially those who have seen combat – don’t like to go on and on about it. Hey, everyone is different. Maybe you find it cathartic to talk about your experiences. You have certainly made it the centerpiece of your campaign. Then again… maybe it’s not you. Maybe it’s your campaign – and the folks running your campaign have not served – so maybe they are doing a disservice to you? Just a thought.

“For years, Democrats like Josh Gottheimer talked ad nauseam about Russian interference in our elections. Now Josh, who consistently presents himself as a bipartisan, common sense Democrat who’s above the fray, is using liberal special interest money to wage his own Putin-style disinformation campaign to confuse Republican primary voters about who the true conservative leader in this race is. It’s dead wrong — and if Josh is the statesman he claims to be, he will immediately stop any spending in the CD5 Republican primary.”

“A Putin-style disinformation campaign”? In exactly what way, Nick? And why didn’t you ask that question, Matt?

And as for labeling yourself, “the true conservative leader” – Nick buddy, you were a no-show and totally dissed the state’s conservative leaders – grassroots activists, Second Amendment leaders, people like Steve Lonegan and Right-to-Life’s Marie Tasy – and in contrast came running when Pro-abortion leaders wanted you at an event.

Nick, until you take on the simple challenge of filling out the New Jersey Right to Life and National Rifle Association questionnaires, can you really, in all seriousness call yourself a “conservative”? Right now, at this moment, you’re an unknown when it comes to your position on many important issues. And that is why we are skeptical of you. Sorry, buddy.

“I also call on my opponent, Frank Pallotta, to immediately disavow Gottheimer’s attempt to put his thumb on the scale in this race.”

Nick, to disavow something is to “deny any responsibility or support for it”. That’s the definition. Why would anyone need to disavow something unless responsible in the first place? Nick, do you go about disavowing every crime that takes place in your neighborhood? Nick, are you disavowing the allegations of anti-Asian nonsense by a candidate on your ticket? Or the alleged anti-Asian campaign mailers your consultants cooked-up? Of course not, why would you?

Nick, are you are accusing both Congressman Gottheimer and your fellow Republican of a crime – because if your fellow Republican needed to disavow something, it would be because a federal crime had been committed. Is that what you are doing Nick? And you, Mr. Attorney/ Editor/ Owner, are you riding that horse too?

Nick, the only “thumb on the scale” in this race is the county party lines that are illegal everywhere else in America. The idea that any party organization gets to corrupt the official taxpayer-paid-for ballot by structuring that ballot by presenting a list of party “approved” candidates is Soviet in nature and would not be allowed in any United Nations sponsored election anywhere in the world. Nick, that’s Soviet, as in there’s your Russian connection for you.

Heck Nick, your current supporters appear to have tried to sell the line to your opponent – before you eventually got it. And why didn’t Matt cover that? Not cool to speak ill of another attorney?

Why didn't Save Jersey cover this?

Will Save Jersey disavow this??? LOL

Some possible explanations that should be explored by Save Jersey...

(1) Polling. This was a three-way primary until recently. A poll commissioned by one of those three candidates provided results that might account for why this is now a two-way primary:

IF THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY ELECTION FOR CONGRESS WERE HELD TODAY, FOR WHOM WOULD YOU VOTE?

FRANK PALLOTTA
Definitely 19.0
Probably 7.0

NICK DEGREGORIO
Definitely 8.0
Probably 2.5

FRED SCHNEIDERMAN
Definitely 2.0
Probably 1.2

Would it be unheard of to attack the candidate leading in the polls?

(2) Historically, Frank Pallotta is a self-funder. Congressman Gottheimer is aware of this, as is Nick DeGregorio’s campaign team. DeGregorio’s lead campaign consultant was Frank Pallotta’s lead consultant – not in the primary – but in his loss to Congressman Gottheimer. Might this be an attempt by Gottheimer to give Pallotta a taste of what’s to come, thereby inducing him to forgo a substantial investment?

For while Nick has shown some prowess as a fundraiser. To date, his fundraising would be more impressive in the context of a legislative race – not a race against someone with the resources of a Josh Gottheimer.

Frank Pallotta has never been a good fundraiser. But he’s been a good check-writer. And he does have the potential to drop a million dollars or more into this race. Perhaps that is the point of Gottheimer’s mailer?

We don’t know. Neither does Matt Rooney. So shame on him for suggesting something illegal. Frank Pallotta has done nothing to deserve such a disservice (unless you view not hiring the “right” consultant a capital offense).

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
George Orwell

Weiner lawyer: The party “line” is for sale in Bergen County

By Rubashov

Does the Bergen County Republican Organization (BCRO) sell its party line in GOP primaries? Apparently, top Bergen County GOP operative Matthew Gilson thinks so. In a 2020 text exchange with congressional candidate Frank Pallotta, Gilson said as much. Here is what he wrote:

"Buy the line... Either give the money now or don't cry to me when u didn't get the line... I negotiated to give u the line if u gave money... All we can do is tell you how to get the line..."

Gilson, an advisor to the congressional campaign of Nick DeGregorio, was recently made a partner at the Weiner Law Group. Two weeks ago, the Weiner firm announced:

Weiner Law Group LLP is proud to announce that Matthew E. Gilson has been named a Partner of the firm.

While Matthew concentrates his practice primarily in redevelopment, land use and municipal law, he also serves as counsel in a variety of roles to municipalities and public entities. Additionally, he serves as the election law attorney handling disputed elections and ballot issues and has been recognized by several publications for his role in the political arena.

The Weiner law firm – formerly Weiner Lesniak – was prominently mentioned in a Sunday “Watchdog” exposé that appeared in Gannett publications throughout northern New Jersey, including the Bergen Record and New Jersey Herald. The article was investigated by an impressive line-up of New Jersey political writers – Ashley Balcerzak, Dustin Racioppi, and Charlie Stile – and titled, “FBI raided home of political operative for info on murder-for-hire and dark money, docs show.”

The article notes: “That federal investigators are being assisted by a veteran operative who has intimate knowledge of the below-the-radar world of political campaign financing has set the tightknit world of New Jersey politics on edge.

And details in the 2019 search warrant are likely to heighten the anxiety. The document indicates that investigators were not only looking into the murder-for-hire scheme, but also the flood of largely-unregulated political cash that flowed through a constellation of accounts linked to 44-year-old Caddle when he was working for influential Democratic state Sen. Ray Lesniak of Union County.”

The article contains this interesting tidbit…

In addition to murder-for-hire evidence, during the 2019 raid on Caddle’s home federal authorities wanted “documents, records, correspondence, memoranda, and notes” since 2013 related to Lesniak’s former law firm, Weiner Lesniak, his gubernatorial and campaign accounts, and a handful of independent political groups linked to Lesniak.

…Lesniak’s former law partner, Paul Weiner, declined to comment on authorities seeking information between the firm and Caddle.

Federal authorities also were looking for records tied to nearly two dozen campaign funds and political party accounts, two unions, a town department of finance, Caddle’s consulting firms and more. They demanded information from Caddle about a Harrison-based treasurer named Gianni Donates, who formed a majority of the super PACs and nonprofits linked to Caddle, and his tax preparation firm, ATG.

There are a lot of investigative journalists from a lot of media outlets working on this story so, as always, stay tuned…

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
George Orwell

Congressman Gottheimer tries to cancel journalist Matt Taibbi.

By Rubashov

Josh Gottheimer is equal parts bully and crybaby. Quick to apply labels, tropes, and nasty sobriquets but emotionally vulnerable to the same when applied to him – excruciatingly so.

His own employees accused Congressman Gottheimer of workplace bullying. In a Ryan Grim column – titled, “REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER IS A REALLY, REALLY TERRIBLE BOSS, FORMER STAFFERS SAY” – published in The Intercept (May 22, 2019), former aides to Gottheimer “painted a portrait of a man who pits staffers against each other, screams easily, and throws pens with abandon.”

As for tropes, this is the guy who was slammed just last year on allegations that his campaign darkened the skin coloring of his Italian-American opponent in order to make him look like a Sicilian mobster, while using language like “Fraudster Frank” on direct mail hit pieces. Josh Gottheimer can certainly dish it out.

But he can’t stand for long on the receiving end before crying foul – and looking for a referee of some kind to wipe his nose and smother him in a protective hug.

This happened again on Friday of last week, when one of the best investigative journalists on earth – Matt Taibbi – wrote a column titled, “Congressional Democrats heroic fight to save the rich”, which was published in the National Post on April 28th. Taibbi made the argument that the campaign by Gottheimer and other members of Congress to repeal the SALT cap is for the benefit of wealthier taxpayers rather than poorer ones.

Matt Taibbi is an intellectually curious man of the Left. He had the gig at Rolling Stone magazine once occupied by the great Hunter S. Thompson. Taibbi’s writing can be just as good but is more balanced, always fairer, with an always clear perspective. There is no bullshit about Matt Taibbi. It falls as it falls.

Josh Gottheimer appears to hate journalists like Matt Taibbi. So, when Taibbi re-messaged Gottheimer’s star issue, the powerful Congressman went to destroy him by accusing Taibbi of anti-Semitism. Gottheimer focused on this paragraph from Taibbi’s column:

“Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey, made an inspired plea recently. The Harvard man and Alpha Epsilon Pi brother is a member of the so-called ‘SALT caucus,’ a group of congressfolk threatening to hold up Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill if it doesn’t include a full repeal of a Donald Trump-imposed $10,000 cap on deductions of state and local taxes.

‘It is high time that Congress reinstates the state and local tax deduction, so we can get more dollars back into the pockets of so many struggling families,’ intoned Gottheimer, one of 32 members of the SALT caucus, which includes 8 Republicans.”

Ah yes, did we mention that bipartisanship was another of Josh Gottheimer’s star talking points? Bipartisan this, bipartisan that – in reality just a bunch of establishment insiders, regardless of party, scratching each other’s ass in the furtherance of permanent incumbency.

To smear Taibbi, Gottheimer turned to a group that profits off hate – the ADL or Anti-Defamation League. If there was no “hate” to piss and moan about, there would be no cause by which the ADL could pocket the $80 plus million they take in each year. Hate is a commodity. Hate sells. And there can never stop being hate. If that happened, it would need to be re-invented. It is worth billions to some people.

On top of that, it is partisan political. The ADL is so political, in fact, that other Jewish organizations have labeled it a “Democratic Party auxiliary”.

And so, the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted: “Mentioning a member of Congress was in a Jewish fraternity in college in an article about tax policy is wholly irrelevant and plays into classic anti-Semitic tropes about Jews and money. The National Post should edit this article ASAP.”

To which Matt Friedman, who writes for Politico and covers the New Jersey political scene, replied: “As someone of partial Semitic heritage, I had no idea that was a Jewish fraternity.”

So, Gottheimer turned to his old friend David Wildstein of the blog, New Jersey Globe. Yes, the same David Wildstein who was at the center of the scandal that ended the presidential ambitions of Governor Chris Christie – the self-styled “Mastermind of Bridgegate”. Wildstein obligingly wrote a hit piece on Friday, with the title: “Anti-Defamation League demands newspaper pull reference to Gottheimer’s Jewish fraternity. ADL leader says reference to congressman’s college fraternity ‘plays into classic anti-Semitic tropes about Jews and money’”.

Wildstein’s column notes: “Jason M. Shames, the CEO of the Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey, echoed the ADL’s criticism.

‘Say what you want about the SALT cap or tax policy, but Taibbi’s unnecessary mention of Gottheimer’s membership in this article for the National Post only serves to perpetuate anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews and money,’ Shames said.”

Warming to his hit job, Wildstein continued:

“Incidents of anti-Semitism are at a historic high nationally, with 295 recorded incidents in New Jersey last year, according to Alana Burman, the associate regional director of the ADL.

Burman said that New Jersey was the second highest in the nation in 2020.

The Rutgers University chapter of Gottheimer’s fraternity was vandalized earlier this month during a 24-hour Holocaust Remembrance Day reading.”

That headline alone accuses Matt Taibbi of the sin of anti-Semitism. But only if you discount the “classic anti-Semitic tropes about Jews and money” that David Wildstein has served up over the years. Beginning in 2018, David Wildstein has called Josh Gottheimer “the human fundraising machine”. Wait… a Jewish congressman being referred to as a “human fundraising machine”? You can’t get more tropey than that!

Of course, there is a difference. Josh Gottheimer likes that “classic anti-Semitic trope about Jews and money”. He doesn’t cry about that. Doesn’t mind it at all.

Of course, the real question is this: Did Matt Taibbi use the mention of a college fraternity to make a point about Josh Gottheimer’s religious affiliation, or did he do so to make a point about Gottheimer’s economic class affiliation?

Well, according to the United States Census Bureau, only 35 percent of Americans attend college. Pew has put together some interesting research on which religious groups have the greatest access to higher education. Here’s a hint – it isn’t Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists. Those thinking about playing the role of the oppressed should check it out.

Those who belong to fraternities are an even more select group. Just 2 percent of Americans have belonged to a fraternity or sorority. Journalist Cleo Chang wrote:

“Each year, 2 million university students prepare to enter the most prestigious enclave of what is already an exclusive set of American institutions. Think less along the lines of Harvard or Yale and more about the Greek letters that come to define them.

Selective colleges are merely the starting point for concentrated success. One only needs to browse the Greek life section of Cornell’s official website and see the slogan ‘The Power of 2%’ to recognize the perks that come with Ivy League admittance and Greek acceptance, especially when it comes to men.

As Cornell’s official website states, while only 2 percent of America’s population is involved in fraternities, 80 percent of Fortune 500 executives, 76 percent of U.S. senators and congressmen, 85 percent of Supreme Court justices, and all but two presidents since 1825 have been fraternity men, according to Cornell.”

So maybe, just maybe, Matt Taibbi wasn’t trying to make a point about Congressman Josh Gottheimer’s religion and all this pissing and moaning has just been an attempt to smear a good journalist for reporting the truth and messing with crybaby Josh’s message. In which case, the lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."
Hunter S. Thompson

Why is McCann paying for Jack Zisa to LIE to Republicans?

By Rubashov

Shame on John McCann.  He paid for a BCRO email last evening that linked President Donald Trump’s name to his without the permission of either the President or the Trump campaign.
 
If John McCann wants the President’s endorsement, he should ask for it, obtain it, and then publish the document.  Just putting the President’s name next to yours and calling it the “Trump-McCann Team” is dishonest, to say the least.  Don’t do that until you can produce a document showing the President’s support.
 
In March, BCRO Chairman Jack Zisa endorsed John McCann and handed him the county organization’s “line” without a vote of the elected members of the BCRO.  This was a shockingly corrupt and authoritarian act by Zisa.  It should have been addressed by the Chairman of the NJGOP, Doug Steinhardt.
 
Unfortunately, Steinhardt is an all-but-declared candidate for Governor, and Zisa is hosting an event for him in July.  Nevertheless, this latest act by Zisa – if left unaddressed – has broad implications for the presidential campaign.  Will other candidates, even more controversial than McCann, be permitted to link their names with that of the President, on the advice of some local GOP leader? 
 
What happens if a local GOP leader links the President’s name with a candidate and he turns out to be a KKK member?  Or on the sex offenders list?  Doesn’t the President’s campaign get to vet the candidate first?  Doesn’t a local candidate need permission before throwing Trump’s name around?
 
It all spells trouble to us.  Trouble for the President.  Trouble for the Party.  It’s up to the State NJGOP to do something about it.   
 
In yesterday’s BCRO email, paid for by John McCann, BCRO Chairman Jack Zisa makes statements indicating that he thinks his membership is either very stupid or has extremely short memories. 
 
Zisa writes that he has “worked tirelessly to unite our party, meeting early on with our candidates for U.S. Senate, CD5 and CD9, identifying common goals, imploring them to run their campaigns vigorously but professionally, and setting vital ground rules for all, the most important of which was there would be zero tolerance for any candidate who broke Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment ‘Thou shall not speak ill of thy fellow Republican.’”
 
Leaving aside the fact that Ronald Reagan didn’t follow his own “commandment”, pre-dating Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment were God’s Commandments and featuring rather prominently was the one about “bearing false witness”, about truthfulness, about not lying.  About not doing what Jack Zisa did in his statement above.
 
The Zisa family is a bi-partisan one.  Politics is the family business.  Political power is the source of much of the family’s income.  There is a long and sordid history of not only breaking Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, but of actually helping Democrats to win. 
 
Zisa writes that he “would not hesitate to publicly call out any one of them (candidates) for a violation” of the commandment – the Reagan one, not the God one.  Well, we really don’t like having to tell old Jack this, but he’s a rascal, with less moral authority to call out a candidate on a “violation” than a pimp has to lecture on chastity.
 
The elected members of the Republican State Committee – on the other hand – do have a duty to uphold some standards in their county party.  As representatives of the entire party and defenders of the Republican “brand” they should intervene when a local party leader is being dishonest – whether that dishonesty is canceling a vote of the elected members or coming up with some horseshit like the above. 
 
All any organization has is its reputation.  Reputation is a confluence of individual morality, transparent adherence to a set of rules, and successful outcomes.  The BCRO kind of sucks at all three.  You must do better. 
 
The elected State Committee members should work with Chairman Steinhardt to make it better.  Maybe put the BCRO into receivership.  You can’t have your Republican organization in your largest county suck forever.  Not if you hope to win statewide again.
 
Receivership is the way forward.

Just to refresh your memory, in 2018 John McCann lost by the biggest margin in the history of New Jersey's 5th congressional district.  So why are Jack Zisa and his crew looking to repeat that performance and ensure that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats keep the Congress? 

Maybe that's the point?

“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.”
(Karl Marx, author and philosopher)

Pallotta demands explanation from Murphy on Second Amendment shut-down

MAHWAH – Governor Phil Murphy’s Executive Order 107, issued on March 21st in response to the Coronavirus crisis, mandated the indefinite closure of all “non-essential” businesses.  The order applies to all businesses except those specifically exempted.  Gun stores and ranges were not listed as exempt.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) obtained a “clarification” from the Governor’s office that specified the following:

“Gun stores are not deemed essential and are therefore ordered closed; The National Instant Check System in NJ (NICS) for processing all firearms and ammunition transactions has been shut down completely; and All ranges (indoor and outdoor, public and private) are ordered closed under a restriction on recreational activities.”

The ANJRPC makes the point that “two major parts of the Second Amendment (means of firearms acquisition and means of developing firearms proficiency) have been shut down completely, without an end date, by a single government official, by executive order. Social distancing protocols, utilized elsewhere to justify keeping certain other supposedly essential businesses open, are not even part of the equation when it comes to firearms, ammunition, and ranges.”

Congressional candidate Frank Pallotta (R-CD05) asked: “Given the Governor’s statements and record regarding the Second Amendment, I have to ask if this is anything more than a crass attempt by Governor Murphy to use a health emergency to pursue a political agenda?”

Pallotta noted the abysmal level of testing in New Jersey – home to many of the world’s pharmaceutical giants: “In South Korea, they have tested one of every 150 citizens.  That is 30 times the capita we are doing.  Instead of aggressively testing, the Governor has opted to, in essence, “jail” most of the population by stripping them of their freedoms under the Bill of Rights.”  Pallotta added, “Who gave him the power to use a health crisis to specifically target the First and Second Amendments?”

Pallotta is formally asking the Governor to be transparent and to explain the decision-making processes that led to including Second Amendment-related businesses and activities in his office’s “clarification” of Executive Order 107.  Pallotta also asked for a full disclosure of the Attorney General’s legal advice in this matter.

“Everyone is suffering, the economy is being destroyed, and the Governor has no plan to preserve the financial wellbeing of the citizens of New Jersey.  If, in addition to this, he is using the emergency to advance his own partisan political agenda, I would ask him to think about it and reconsider his decision to exclude Gun stores from the exempt list and deem them essential businesses”.

For those of you who would like to thank Frank Pallotta for his stance on protecting the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights, you can contact him at Info@PallottaforCongress.com

NOTE: If any campaign would like to submit a press release on this subject or any other, please feel free to do so.  Thank you.