Pro-Sanctuary State NBC “hit job” triggers calls for FCC investigation

We’ve received word that Republican leaders are planning to contact the chief counsel of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with evidence that NBC aired what amounted to a negative political ad against Republican Sheriff Mike Strada.  A Sussex County Republican, Strada is leading the fight against Democrat Governor Phil Murphy’s Sanctuary State scheme to block federal law enforcement and to allow illegal aliens to reside in New Jersey and access welfare, health, education, and legal benefits (many of which are not available to legal resident  taxpayers).

Screen Shot 2019-05-29 at 10.56.47 PM.png

Sarah Wallace is a Bergen County Democrat.  She is what’s called a “hard” Democrat – totally loyal to her party, never missing an election, always supporting whatever Clinton or Murphy that appears on the ballot.  And she is proud of it.

Given the public information available about her, we were surprised when we learned that NBC – the parent company of Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC – chose her to do a segment on the primary campaign between Sheriff Mike Strada and Jail Guard Andy Boden.  Especially as Boden had previously bragged to a member of the local, Sussex County media, that the interview was going to be a “hit job” on Sheriff Strada.

Further complicating matters is Sheriff Strada’s central role in opposing Democrat Governor Phil Murphy’s Sanctuary State scheme.  In the past, Sarah Wallace has done interviews that were very favorable to illegals and against members of law enforcement.  In fact, Sarah Wallace is currently being sued by a police officer for her conduct and behavior.

Last November, a New York judge accused someone championed by Sarah Wallace – named Manny Gomez – of “coercing a witness to a gang slaying not to testify.”  According to the New York Daily News (November 3, 2018), police have suggested that Sarah Wallace and Manny Gomez have “an apparent relationship” and that Wallace does stories that favor Gomez. 

Why did Boden go to Wallace, a Democrat, and why was he so sure she would do a “hit job” for him on Sheriff Strada?

And why are the NBC attacks being promoted by the Democrat Party – if this is supposedly a Republican primary?  In a departure from normal journalistic protocols, NBC has promoted their “hit job” on Sheriff Strada to left-wing blogs.  Was Bergen Democrat Sarah Wallace herself the source of promoting the “hit job” on those leftist blogs? 

Candidate Boden continues to claim that County Clerk Jeff Parrott triggered the psychological examination that resulted in a police psychiatrist finding him “unfit” for duty.   Boden claimed that it was the result of him picking up petitions to run for office.  The County Clerk disputes Boden’s contention that he came to his office to obtain the nominating petitions.

After months of being asked to produce evidence to support his claim, Boden finally “discovered” an email that he claims is from the County Clerk’s office, in which they instructed him to obtain the petitions on-line.  This is itself a departure from Boden’s original story, which was that he visited the County Clerk’s office.  But that embellishment aside, how are we to believe that this email isn’t doctored in the same way that the FAKE video was doctored that his campaign said was coming days before it was released?

In fact, Boden’s psychological evaluation came after a series of incidents including some that left female employees intimidated and fearful of having him over them.  After a police psychologist found him “unfit for duty” and he was placed on leave, Boden went to Sheriff Strada and asked him to restore him to duty – which meant giving him back his power over people, a firearm, handcuffs, and badge.  The Sheriff’s office told Boden that he needed to get well first and re-evaluated by a mental health professional, before he could be re-instated.

Boden’s claim that he was ruled “unfit for duty” because he was running for office, repeated again in the Wallace interview, is clearly a lie.The public testimony of the police psychologist who ruled Boden “unfit for duty” makes it very clear that Boden is not being honest:

 

A.     The whole point of the

fitness-for-duty evaluation in many cases is to

avoid things getting to that point.  We are --

you know, as the IACP, we're looking for

conditions that are going to impact someone's

ability to safely and effectively do their work.

We want to keep that environment safe.  We also

want to treat people compassionately.  And if we

see that someone is under duress, to try to

intervene and help them.

             Fitness-for-duty evaluations are

often seen as punitive in nature, but they don't

necessarily have to be or need to be.  The idea

is to intervene much in the same way as an EAP

and get someone help before there's an incident,

before someone does get injured or before

something becomes career ending.

      Q.     Based upon the information that

you had received and gathered during the course

of this assessment, could you rule out that

Lt. Bannon (sic) wouldn't hurt somebody

prospectively if allowed to work while getting

therapy?

      A.     I could not rule that out.

      Q.     At any point did you tell

Lt. Bannon (sic) that he had passed the

assessment?  Boden.  I'm sorry. 

      A.     No.  We don't give anyone results,

pass or fail, at the end of the evaluation.

      Q.     Does somebody pass?

      A.     They are found fit to return to

their duty.

      Q.     Right.  Or unfit.

      A.     Or unfit.  And then when unfit,

they are given conditions with the goal of

restoring fitness.

      Q.     And your case -- and in this case,

what were those conditions to restore fitness?

      A.     Lt. Boden was to engage in

individual treatment outside of the treatment

that he had already been receiving with his wife

with the sole purpose on managing his stress

level, identifying coping mechanisms that work

for him so that he could return to his position.

      Q.     And in the meantime, as an

individual who was unfit for duty, he should not

be working while receiving that initial

treatment, correct?

      A.     You cannot return to duty if you

are found unfit.

 

Boden’s case mirrors the current national debate concerning mental health and gun laws.  Should employers act when they observe traumatic stress in employees (in this case, confirmed by a mental health professional) or should they wait until after something actually happens?  It is a complex issue.

In the Wallace interview, Boden also claimed to have had no knowledge of the doctored video that was sent around in an attempt to damage Sheriff Mike Strada’s family.  The video also attempted to destroy the reputation of an innocent young firefighter.  NBC and Sarah Wallace made no attempt to protect the innocent woman whose image was used in the FAKE video doctored by Andy Boden’s campaign.  They did not receive her permission to use the video of her which was made against her will and then doctored to make her look bad.  Night after night NBC and Sarah Wallace ran the doctored image of this innocent woman, simply for salacious clickbait.  She is a private citizen and Andy Boden, his campaign, Sarah Wallace, and NBC have much to answer for. 

Andy Boden, his campaign, Sarah Wallace, and NBC used the video knowing that it was found to be a FAKE and totally false by the media and law enforcement.  Despite Boden’s lies in the Wallace interview, a statement from Sussex County Republican Chairman Jerry Scanlan makes it very clear that it was the Boden campaign behind the release of the doctored FAKE video:

Screen Shot 2019-05-29 at 9.35.50 AM.png

The above is the direct testimony of the Republican Party Chairman regarding the attempted shakedown that occurred before the FAKE doctored video was released.  Clearly Boden’s campaign knew all about the video that later nobody wanted to take credit for.  Why did NBC not require Sarah Wallace to contact this source before airing its “hit job”? 

Why did Andy Boden tell Sarah Wallace that he knew nothing?  Why did Sarah Wallace and NBC allow Boden to lie?

NBC lies in "hit job" by Bergen Democrat

Sarah Wallace is a Bergen County Democrat.  She is what’s called a “hard” Democrat – totally loyal to her party, never missing an election, always supporting whatever Clinton or Murphy that appears on the ballot.  And she is proud of it.

Given the public information available about her, we were surprised when we learned that NBC – the parent company of Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC – chose her to do a segment on the primary campaign between Sheriff Mike Strada and Jail Guard Andy Boden.  Especially as Boden had previously bragged to a member of the local, Sussex County media, that the interview was going to be a “hit job” on Sheriff Strada.

Further complicating matters is Sheriff Strada’s central role in opposing Democrat Governor Phil Murphy’s Sanctuary State scheme.  In the past, Sarah Wallace has done interviews that were very favorable to illegals and against members of law enforcement.  In fact, Sarah Wallace is currently being sued by a police officer for her conduct and behavior.  

Last November, a New York judge accused someone championed by Sarah Wallace – named Manny Gomez – of “coercing a witness to a gang slaying not to testify.” According to the New York Daily News (November 3, 2018), police have suggested that Sarah Wallace and Manny Gomez have “an apparent relationship” and that Wallace does stories that favor Gomez.  

Why did Boden go to Wallace, a Democrat, and why was he so sure she would do a “hit job” for him on Sheriff Strada?

In any case, the resulting story did more to harm Andy Boden than it did to help him.  On camera, Boden was induced by Wallace to lie about two important aspects of his story.

The first is that his psychological examination was the result of him picking up petitions to run for office.  The County Clerk, Jeff Parrott, disputes Boden’s contention that he came to his office to obtain the nominating petitions.  It appears that Andy Boden is lying about this and that he lied in testimony given at his fitness hearing.  As this statement by his attorney shows:

Screen Shot 2019-05-29 at 9.31.17 AM.png

According to the County Clerk and his office, Boden did not come into the office to pick up the nominating petitions – he accessed them on line, so that nobody could have known that he was running.

In fact, Boden’s psychological evaluation came after a series of incidents including some that left female employees intimidated and fearful of having him over them.  After a police psychologist found him “unfit for duty” and he was placed on leave, Boden went to Sheriff Strada and asked him to restore him to duty – which meant giving him back his power over people, a firearm, handcuffs, and badge.  The Sheriff’s office told Boden that he needed to get well first and re-evaluated by a mental health professional, before he could be re-instated. 

Boden’s claim that he was ruled “unfit for duty” because he was running for office, repeated again in the Wallace interview, is clearly a lie.  The public testimony of the police psychologist who ruled Boden “unfit for duty” makes it very clear that Boden is not being honest:

 

 A.     The whole point of the

fitness-for-duty evaluation in many cases is to

avoid things getting to that point.  We are --

you know, as the IACP, we're looking for

conditions that are going to impact someone's

ability to safely and effectively do their work.

We want to keep that environment safe.  We also

want to treat people compassionately.  And if we

see that someone is under duress, to try to

intervene and help them.

 

            Fitness-for-duty evaluations are

often seen as punitive in nature, but they don't

necessarily have to be or need to be.  The idea

is to intervene much in the same way as an EAP

and get someone help before there's an incident,

before someone does get injured or before

something becomes career ending.

 

      Q.     Based upon the information that

you had received and gathered during the course

of this assessment, could you rule out that

Lt. Bannon (sic) wouldn't hurt somebody

prospectively if allowed to work while getting

therapy?

      A.     I could not rule that out.

      Q.     At any point did you tell

Lt. Bannon (sic) that he had passed the

assessment?  Boden.  I'm sorry.

      A.     No. We don't give anyone results,

pass or fail, at the end of the evaluation.

      Q.     Does somebody pass?

      A.     They are found fit to return to

their duty.

      Q.     Right. Or unfit.

      A.     Or unfit. And then when unfit,

they are given conditions with the goal of

restoring fitness.

      Q.     And your case -- and in this case,

what were those conditions to restore fitness?

      A.     Lt. Boden was to engage in

individual treatment outside of the treatment

that he had already been receiving with his wife

with the sole purpose on managing his stress

level, identifying coping mechanisms that work

for him so that he could return to his position.

      Q.     And in the meantime, as an

individual who was unfit for duty, he should not

be working while receiving that initial

treatment, correct?

      A.     You cannot return to duty if you

are found unfit.

 

Boden’s case mirrors the current national debate concerning mental health and gun laws.  Should employers act when they observe traumatic stress in employees (in this case, confirmed by a mental health professional) or should they wait until after something actually happens?  It is a complex issue.

In the Wallace interview, Boden also claimed to have had no knowledge of the doctored video that was sent around in an attempt to damage Sheriff Mike Strada’s family.  The video also attempted to destroy the reputation of an innocent young firefighter. It was found to be a FAKE and totally false by the media and law enforcement.  Despite Boden’s lies in the Wallace interview, a statement from Sussex County Republican Chairman Jerry Scanlan makes it very clear that it was the Boden campaign behind the release of the doctored FAKE video:

Screen Shot 2019-05-29 at 9.35.50 AM.png

The above is the direct testimony of the Republican Party Chairman regarding the attempted shakedown that occurred before the FAKE doctored video was released.  Clearly Boden’s campaign knew all about the video that later nobody wanted to take credit for.

So why did Boden tell Sarah Wallace that he knew nothing?  Why did he lie?

The Hugin campaign would have done better in a Democrat primary.

Bob Hugin is a great guy.  Really.  He’s a good and decent man.  It was unfortunate that he found himself in a Republican primary… this year.  The fact that he persevered with such confidence and grace makes him a heroic, somewhat tragic, figure.  

Bob Hugin could have run in the Democrat primary.  $35 million… against Bob Menendez?  Hugin had the issues right for a Democrat primary… and the media wouldn’t have pounced on a Democrat Bob Hugin the way they did a Republican Bob Hugin.  The media love rich members of the One Percent when they are Democrats (it is a capital sin when you are a Republican)… they love woke, right-on pharma folk of the proper political affiliation.  They would have forgiven him everything.

But Bob ran as a Republican, and he ran this year.  A year when the media he wanted to appeal to was working to nationalize the election – to make it about Trump.  That media ended up vouching for Bob Menendez, despite having formerly called for his resignation. That media still cuts it with the people who Bob Hugin wanted to convince:  Democrats and liberal-leaners.   

Rather than shutting down Menendez, Hugin’s attacks were used by the media as evidence that he – Bob Hugin – was a “bad” man.  Of course, this only works with those who are open to receiving a message from the likes of Tom Moran and MSNBC.  Unfortunately, they were precisely the voters that the Hugin campaign was aimed at. 

Can we put aside the myth that Republican voters will come out no matter what, and dutifully vote Republican?  That myth should have finally, once and for all, been discarded after the low turnout Assembly races in 2015, when Republicans AGAIN lost seats in the Legislature and were AGAIN provided with irrelevant excuses for having done so. 

Oh the excuses!  One year it is Christie’s fault, the next it is Trump’s, and in between, the dog ate it!  New Jersey Republicans should set up their own public relations firm specializing in excuse-making.  Excuses aside, New Jersey’s GOP establishment should understand that the days of Republicans “holding their noses” and voting are over.

Republican voters are like anyone else.  Ignore them, say you are embarrassed to be with them, that you are “different” from them… and they will reward you in kind.  As an experiment, try some of that language next time you are in public with your wife and her family (or your husband and his).  Invite them out to a restaurant, then tell the host:  “I’m a different kind of member of this family, I’m not really one of them… They are a little, umm… backward.”  And say it so they hear it.  Say it loud, like ten million dollars’ worth of loud, and see how they like it.  Go ahead, try it.  Get back to us on it.

And that’s what the whole Hugin campaign was based on, wasn’t it?

“I’m a different kind of Republican.”  They are a little backward, a little off, but I’m with it.  I am a cool Republican.  Except that there are no “cool” Republicans.  Not in the minds of the media.  They only thought John McCain was cool when he was pissing on Bush.  The moment it became about him and Obama, John McCain became a troglodyte in the minds of the media.  After the dust settled, he became cool again, especially when pissing on other Republicans… especially when pissing on Trump.  But when he needed them, the media screwed John McCain.  So why even bother with them?

President Ronald Reagan understood the media (and they were a lot more condensed, more centralized, and a lot stronger back then).  That’s why he talked past them – to the people.  He didn’t give a damn about their approval.  He fed them the diet he wanted them to eat and even when they shit it out it contained the kernels of his message.  Reagan wasn’t afraid to be a Republican and to explain what that meant.  He had a message that he tested and honed by human contact – by speaking to people, engaging them, listening for the examples that would be used in his speeches, turning them on to his way of thinking, building a movement of ideas and about issues that mattered to people.

How many Republicans today, in New Jersey, can explain why they are Republicans or what Republicanism is?  At the big Republican show put on by the NJGOP last spring in Atlantic City, two professional Republican organizers up from Washington, DC, posed the same questions to attendees.  Not only was there no apparent theme or connectivity between the responses, even the organizers couldn’t adequately provide reasons or an explanation as to why they were there in the first place.  It was kind of sad.

What that confab did showcase, however, is the top-down meddling that has become the hallmark of the establishment in New Jersey, with a congressional candidate in a contested primary receiving top billing as the event’s featured speaker.  Yes, there was resource-draining meddling in districts 2, 5, and 11 – in an effort to promote candidates who would fit seamlessly with the statewide message being promoted by the campaign of Bob Hugin.

Instead of building a grassroots coalition of Republicans and reformers – of the kind Ralph Nader wrote about in his book, Unstoppable – the Hugin campaign  actually determined that their best chance lay in targeting “soft” Democrats and culturally “left-leaning” independents.  But these are the very same voters open to arguments from left-leaning media like CNN, MSNBC, NJ.com, and the Bergen Record.  So when the Hugin campaign pushed a relentlessly negative message about Menendez, those “independent arbiters” pushed back and were listened to. 

This allowed the Menendez campaign to focus on making the link between Hugin and Trump – which the media backed up.  The more the media pressed, the more Hugin denied Trump, the more he suppressed his own base.  Meanwhile, the Hugin campaign went right on churning out GOTV communications and efforts to turn out those “soft” Democrats and culturally “left-leaning” independents who had by now been convinced by the media that Hugin was a “bad” man who was lying about Menendez.  Gagged and gagged again.

In the days and weeks ahead we will be taking a proper, in depth, examination of the Republican operation in the Garden State.  It will be a necessary, warts and all, detailed review.  So stay tuned.

For now, we will leave you with this: 

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”  - Winston Churchill

The Kavanaugh show trial. Is this Booker’s “Darkness at Noon” moment?

By Rubashov

We have all seen how United States Senator Cory Booker has morphed from a rather lightweight celebrity whore into a novitiate Stalinist, with a particular dislike for Israel…

booker.png

All that remains to be determined is the kind of interrogator Booker will be.  A starched-assed Gletkin?  Perhaps.  Or a cynical Ivanov?  Whatever… just as in 1938, Booker’s position is already determined.

Ben Shapiro has written a great piece on the coming show trial…

On Monday evening, Wonkette founder Ana Marie Cox let the cat out of the bag regarding the Left’s perspective on the allegations of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh: it doesn’t matter whether he’s guilty or innocent. He’s guilty.

Cox was appearing on Lawrence O’Donnell’s The Last Word on MSNBC when she made this shocking claim:

“We need to judge Brett Kavanaugh, not just by what he may or may not have done, but how he treats a woman’s pain. And that is something I’m going to be paying attention to on Monday. How does he respond to what’s happening. Whether or not he agrees that this happened with her, does he take her pain seriously? Do the people interrogating her pain take her pain seriously? Now, I’ll give you a spoiler alert, I don’t think Brett Kavanaugh takes women’s pain very seriously, and I know that because of the decisions he’s made as a judge.”

This is a morally abhorrent statement. So if a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, we don’t judge him based on whether he actually raped her – we judge him based on whether he feels the pain of a person falsely accusing him of rape. The real question of the Duke lacrosse case, by this standard, wasn’t whether a stripper was actually raped – the question is whether the members of the Duke lacrosse team were sensitive to her feelings while she was falsely accusing them of rape.

That would be an insane statement enough. But Cox goes even further: she already knows that Kavanaugh won’t meet her standard of sympathy because he hasn’t decided cases how she likes on key “feminist” issues, presumably like abortion. Now, never mind that Kavanaugh hasn’t actually signaled that he’d be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade. Think about the underlying contention: we can tell whether you are a bad person by your level of sympathy for a rape accuser whom you believe is lying about you, and we can judge your level of sympathy by looking at your political decisions. The logic is simple: if you’re a person who disagrees with Ana Marie Cox, you can be slandered as a rapist, and any attempt to rebut such accusations will amount to a lack of sympathy.

This is Stalinist show trial stuff. It’s immoral and perverse. But presumably Cox knows that and doesn’t care. She knows, deep in her heart, that Kavanaugh is a bad man – and if he was just maligned as a rapist, that’s a merely secondary concern. It’s hard to come up with a more bad-faith approach to a serious allegation than that.

In honor of Comrade Booker of the Democratic Socialists, we advance this theme music to be played at the start of the show trial…