Glenn Greenwald: “Roe denied… the rights of citizens to decide democratically.”

By Rubashov

Glenn Greenwald is decidedly a man of the Left. He comes from that American strain of the democratic Left that once informed so much of the Democratic Party. Wikipedia’s entry on Greenwald notes that he is “an American journalist, author and lawyer.” It continues:

In 1996, he founded a law firm concentrating on First Amendment litigation. He began blogging on national security issues in October 2005, while he was becoming increasingly concerned with what he viewed to be attacks on civil liberties by the George W. Bush Administration in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. He became a vocal critic of the Iraq War and has maintained a critical position of American foreign policy.

Greenwald started contributing to Salon in 2007, and to The Guardian in 2012. In June 2013, while at The Guardian, he began publishing a series of reports detailing previously unknown information about American and British global surveillance programs based on classified documents provided by Edward Snowden. His work contributed to The Guardian's 2014 Pulitzer Prize win, and he won the 2013 George Polk Award along with three other reporters, including Laura Poitras.

Greenwald is married to David Miranda, a Member of Brazil’s Congress (affiliated with the left-wing PSOL party)... Greenwald is a vegan and an advocate for animal rights. He and Miranda have 24 rescue dogs. He is the author of seven books.

Glenn Greenwald has written a timely and balanced column on Roe v. Wade from the perspective of the democratic Left -- or what once was the democratic Left, before it embraced faith-based irrationality. We think Greenwald's column is worth reading and considering:

The Irrational, Misguided Discourse Surrounding Supreme Court Controversies Such as Roe v. Wade

The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy. Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically.


By Glenn Greenwald, Esq.

Politico on Monday night published what certainly appears to be a genuine draft decision by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Alito's draft ruling would decide the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which concerns the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy except in the case of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormalities. Given existing Supreme Court precedent that abortion can only be restricted after fetal viability, Mississippi's ban on abortions after the 15th week — at a point when the fetus is not yet deemed viable — is constitutionally dubious. To uphold Mississippi's law — as six of the nine Justices reportedly wish to do — the Court must either find that the law is consistent with existing abortion precedent, or acknowledge that it conflicts with existing precedent and then overrule that precedent on the ground that it was wrongly decided.

Alito's draft is written as a majority opinion, suggesting that at least five of the Court's justices — a majority — voted after oral argument in Dobbs to overrule Roe on the ground that it was “egregiously wrong from the start” and “deeply damaging.” In an extremely rare event for the Court, an unknown person with unknown motives leaked the draft opinion to Politico, which justifiably published it. A subsequent leak to CNN on Monday night claimed that the five justices in favor of overruling Roe were Bush 43 appointee Alito, Bush 41 appointee Clarence Thomas, and three Trump appointees (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett), while Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by Bush 43, is prepared to uphold the constitutionality of Mississippi's abortion law without overruling Roe.

Draft rulings and even justices’ votes sometimes change in the period between the initial vote after oral argument and the issuance of the final decision. Depending on whom you choose to believe, this leak is either the work of a liberal justice or clerk designed to engender political pressure on the justices so that at least one abandons their intention to overrule Roe, or it came from a conservative justice or clerk, designed to make it very difficult for one of the justices in the majority to switch sides. Whatever the leaker's motives, a decision to overrule this 49-year-old precedent, one of the most controversial in the Court's history, would be one of the most significant judicial decisions issued in decades. The reaction to this leak — like the reaction to the initial ruling in Roe back in 1973 — was intense and strident, and will likely only escalate once the ruling is formally issued.

Every time there is a controversy regarding a Supreme Court ruling, the same set of radical fallacies emerges regarding the role of the Court, the Constitution and how the American republic is designed to function. Each time the Court invalidates a democratically elected law on the ground that it violates a constitutional guarantee — as happened in Roe — those who favor the invalidated law proclaim that something “undemocratic” has transpired, that it is a form of “judicial tyranny” for “five unelected judges” to overturn the will of the majority. Conversely, when the Court refuses to invalidate a democratically elected law, those who regard that law as pernicious, as an attack on fundamental rights, accuse the Court of failing to protect vulnerable individuals.

This by-now-reflexive discourse about the Supreme Court ignores its core function. Like the U.S. Constitution itself, the Court is designed to be an anti-majoritarian check against the excesses of majoritarian sentiment. The Founders wanted to establish a democracy that empowered majorities of citizens to choose their leaders, but also feared that majorities would be inclined to coalesce around unjust laws that would deprive basic rights, and thus sought to impose limits on the power of majorities as well.

The Federalist Papers are full of discussions about the dangers of majoritarian excesses. The most famous of those is James Madison's Federalist 10, where he warns of "factions…who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” One of the primary concerns in designing the new American republic, if not the chief concern, was how to balance the need to establish rule by the majority (democracy) with the equally compelling need to restrain majorities from veering into impassioned, self-interested attacks on the rights of minorities (republican government). As Madison put it: “To secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our enquiries are directed.” Indeed, the key difference between a pure democracy and a republic is that the rights of the majority are unrestricted in the former, but are limited in the latter. The point of the Constitution, and ultimately the Supreme Court, was to establish a republic, not a pure democracy, that would place limits on the power of majorities.

Thus, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian. It bars majorities from enacting laws that infringe on the fundamental rights of minorities. Thus, in the U.S., it does not matter if 80% or 90% of Americans support a law to restrict free speech, or ban the free exercise of a particular religion, or imprison someone without due process, or subject a particularly despised criminal to cruel and unusual punishment. Such laws can never be validly enacted. The Constitution deprives the majority of the power to engage in such acts regardless of how popular they might be.

And at least since the 1803 ruling in Madison v. Marbury which established the Supreme Court's power of "judicial review” — i.e., to strike down laws supported by majorities and enacted democratically if such laws violate the rights guaranteed by the Constitution — the Supreme Court itself is intended to uphold similarly anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values.

When the Court strikes down a law that majorities support, it may be a form of judicial tyranny if the invalidated law does not violate any actual rights enshrined in the Constitution. But the mere judicial act of invalidating a law supported by a majority of citizens — though frequently condemned as “undemocratic" — is, in fact, a fulfillment of one of the Court's prime functions in a republic.

Unless one believes that the will of the majority should always prevail — that laws restricting or abolishing free speech, due process and the free exercise of religion should be permitted as long as enough citizens support it — then one must favor the Supreme Court's anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian powers. Rights can be violated by a small handful of tyrants, but they can also be violated by hateful and unhinged majorities. The Founders’ fear of majoritarian tyranny is why the U.S. was created as a republic rather than a pure democracy.

Whether the Court is acting properly or despotically when it strikes down a democratically elected law, or otherwise acts contrary to the will of the majority, depends upon only one question: whether the law in question violates a right guaranteed by the Constitution. A meaningful assessment of the Court's decisions is impossible without reference to that question. Yet each time the Court acts in a controversial case, judgments are applied without any consideration of that core question.

The reaction to Monday night's news that the Court intends to overrule Roe was immediately driven by all of these common fallacies. It was bizarre to watch liberals accuse the Court of acting “undemocratically" as they denounced the ability of "five unelected aristocrats” — in the words of Vox's Ian Millhiser — to decide the question of abortion rights. Who do they think decided Roe in the first place?

Indeed, Millhiser's argument here — unelected Supreme Court Justices have no business mucking around in abortion rights — is supremely ironic given that it was unelected judges who issued Roe back in 1972, in the process striking down numerous democratically elected laws. Worse, this rhetoric perfectly echoes the arguments which opponents of Roe have made for decades: namely, it is the democratic process, not unelected judges, which should determine what, if any, limits will be placed on the legal ability to provide or obtain an abortion. Indeed, Roe was the classic expression of the above-described anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values: seven unelected white men (for those who believe such demographic attributes matter) struck down laws that had been supported by majorities and enacted by many states which heavily restricted or outright banned abortion procedures. The sole purpose of Roe was to deny citizens the right to enact the anti-abortion laws, no matter how much popular support they commanded.

This extreme confusion embedded in heated debates over the Supreme Court was perhaps most vividly illustrated last night by Waleed Shahid, the popular left-wing activist, current spokesman for the left-wing group Justice Democrats, and previously a top aide and advisor to Squad members including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Shahid — who, needless to say, supports Roe — posted a quote from Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address, in 1861, which Shahid evidently believes supports his view that Roe must be upheld.

But the quote from Lincoln — warning that the Court must not become the primary institution that decides controversial political questions — does not support Roe at all; indeed, Lincoln's argument is the one most often cited in favor of overruling Roe. In fact, Lincoln's argument is the primary one on which Alito relied in the draft opinion to justify overruling Roe: namely, that democracy will be imperiled, and the people will cease to be their own rulers, if the Supreme Court, rather than the legislative branches, ends up deciding hot-button political questions such as abortion about which the Constitution is silent. Here's the version of the Lincoln pro-democracy quote, complete with bolded words, that Shahid posted, apparently in the belief that it somehow supports upholding Roe:

It is just inexplicable to cite this Lincoln quote as a defense of Roe. Just look at what Lincoln said: “if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, [then] the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.” That is exactly the argument that has been made by pro-life activists for years against Roe, and it perfectly tracks Alito's primary view as defended in his draft opinion.

Alito's decision, if it becomes the Court's ruling, would not itself ban abortions. It would instead lift the judicial prohibition on the ability of states to enact laws restricting or banning abortions. In other words, it would take this highly controversial question of abortion and remove it from the Court's purview and restore it to federal and state legislatures to decide it. One cannot defend Roe by invoking the values of democracy or majoritarian will. Roe was the classic case of a Supreme Court ruling that denied the right of majorities to decide what laws should govern their lives and their society.

One can defend Roe only by explicitly defending anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values: namely, that the abortion question should be decided by a panel of unelected judges, not by the people or their elected representatives. The defense of democracy invoked by Lincoln, and championed by Shahid, can be used only to advocate that this abortion debate should be returned to the democratic processes, which is precisely what Alito argued (emphasis added):

Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman's right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade….At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision Court represented the “exercise of raw judicial power,” 410 U. S., at 222….

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences…..It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 979 (Scalia, J, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what tho Constitution and the rule of law demand.

Rhetoric that heralds the values of democracy and warns of the tyranny of “unelected judges” and the like is not a rational or viable way to defend Roe. That abortion rights should be decided democratically rather than by a secret tribunal of "unelected men in robes" is and always has been the anti-Roe argument. The right of the people to decide, rather than judges, is the primary value which Alito repeatedly invokes in defending the overruling of Roe and once again empowering citizens, through their elected representatives, to make these decisions.

The only way Roe can be defended is through an explicit appeal to the virtues of the anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian principles enshrined in the Constitution: namely, that because the Constitution guarantees the right to have an abortion (though a more generalized right of privacy), then majorities are stripped of the power to enact laws restricting it. Few people like to admit that their preferred views depend upon a denial of the rights of the majority to decide, or that their position is steeped in anti-democratic values. But there is and always has been a crucial role for such values in the proper functioning of the United States and especially the protection of minority rights. If you want to rant about the supremacy and sanctity of democracy and the evils of "unelected judges,” then you will necessarily end up on the side of Justice Alito and the other four justices who appear ready to overrule Roe.

Anti-Roe judges are the ones who believe that abortion rights should be determined through majority will and the democratic process. Roe itself was the ultimate denial, the negation, of unrestrained democracy and majoritarian will. As in all cases, whether Roe's anti-democratic ruling was an affirmation of fundamental rights or a form of judicial tyranny depends solely on whether one believes that the Constitution bars the enactment of laws which restrict abortion or whether it is silent on that question. But as distasteful as it might be to some, the only way to defend Roe is to acknowledge that your view is that the will of the majority is irrelevant to this conflict, that elected representatives have no power to decide these questions, and that all debates about abortion must be entrusted solely to unelected judges to authoritatively decide them without regard to what majorities believe or want.

+++++


To access Glenn Greenwald’s full article – with links to what he references, and to the numerous speeches Greenwald has given over the years about the anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values embedded in the Constitution and the Court, including his 2011 lecture at the University of Maryland, his 2012 speech at the University of Indiana/Purdue University, and his 2013 lecture at Yale Law School – visit his page on Substack:

https://greenwald.substack.com/

Star-Ledger editorial finally admits that parents have the right to know

By Rubashov

It took a long time, but in a Sunday editorial the editorial board of the Star-Ledger finally admitted that “parents should give input on sex ed”. The editors of the state’s largest newspaper finally embraced the democratic principle that the governed – the taxed – should have the right to know what their children are being taught and that education bureaucracies should seek and receive their consent. Basic democracy, but it sure did take a long time for them to see it.
   
Of course, they had to sour the moment. Much in the way of an abusive, egotistical husband – the editorial board gave its mea culpa only after cataloging the faults of the injured spouse: “Sure, I’ve been wrong, but she’s a… bigot. I was wrong, but she had it coming.” Name-calling has never been a good look for you.
 
The editorial board went far afield in its invective, even noting their disdain for Tucker Carlson and his red light – which was funny coming from folks who had waxed so lyrically about the joys of Newark’s “Little Theatre”. Talk about red light!  
 
The Star-Ledger editorial board is just part of a long list of politicians, interest group lobbyists, and establishment media who have for years pushed their ideas on the indoctrination of school children without the involvement of parents. In fact, there are numerous laws designed to block parents from knowing – placing the education bureaucracy between parent and child – while requiring parents to pay the highest property taxes in America to fund that education bureaucracy.
 
In a summary of changes made in the updated education standards approved by the unelected State Board of Education in June 2020, the New Jersey School Boards Association noted all the instances when the word “parents” was cut out of the new standards. For example: “Parents and guardians impact the development of their children physically, socially and emotionally” was replaced with, “Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially and emotionally.”
 
For some education bureaucrats and interest group lobbyists, “parents” evidently don’t exist – or it’s a concept they’d like to consign to the scrap heap. What they don’t want them to stop doing – whatever they choose to rename them – is paying higher and higher property taxes to fund the education bureaucracy.
 
Yesterday’s editorial marks a sea-change however, with the Star-Ledger joining such former advocates as Governor Phil Murphy and Senator Vin Gopal in questioning what they had so recently pushed. Senator Gopal co-sponsored the law that created the curriculum problem. Governor Murphy signed it. The Star-Ledger praised it. But now there is a growing recognition that they’ve screwed up in a very big way and that they need to make a course correction before it is too late. This is from yesterday’s editorial:
 
Some of the sample materials posted online as a resource for teachers and distributed to parents in Westfield were too specific, as Sen. Holly Schepisi, a Republican, pointed out. For instance: Teachers are instructed to promote a website called Amaze and its YouTube channel to kids as young as 9 for additional information on sex ed, and while some of these videos are quite good, others, like one about how watching pornography is “normal,” just aren’t something most parents want to show their fifth grader.
 
This is a change from earlier in the week, when the Star-Ledger trotted out four of the interest group lobbyists who have been brought in by politicians and education bureaucrats. It has been these outside groups who have pushed the most controversial materials and stirred the greatest concern amongst parents. At the beginning of last week they were being brought in for a fightback – now everyone is distancing themselves from them.

This is who Politico selected to provide "unbiased" coverage of education issues in New Jersey.

Apparently, Politico didn’t get the memo. Late last week, they tapped LGBTQ+ advocate Carly Sitrin (who is also their education reporter), who attempted to make the debate over curriculum a partisan issue, when it plainly isn’t. The people paying the highest property taxes in America to fund their education bureaucracy have a right to know and a say in what that money is being used for. It's not blue or red – it’s just basic democracy.

Carly Sitrin’s Politico column highlighted the fact that some Republicans are part of the problem. Her column quoted a “New Jersey GOP strategist” who appeared to accuse some elected Republicans of using “extreme right-wing buzzwords” about the curriculum issue. According to Sitrin’s column, this GOP strategist said that this didn’t “resonate with the typical New Jersey Republican voter who leans more socially moderate”.

Well, that’s not what recent polling tells us. According to a fresh poll of GOP and Undeclared voters, conducted in a Democrat-controlled congressional district at about the same time Sitrin was writing her Politico piece, voters are very engaged:

DO YOU APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF MANDATING THAT CHILDREN IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BE TAUGHT LESSONS ABOUT GENDER IDENTITY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND LGBTQ ISSUES.

APPROVE 4.0
Strongly 1.2
Somewhat 2.8
DISAPPROVE 93.8
Somewhat 2.8
Strongly 91.0
DK/REFUSED 2.2

That’s pretty lopsided. Not much room for confusion. Which might explain why so many former supporters of these curriculum mandates are having second thoughts.

Carly Sitrin (She/Her) is POLITICO’s Education Reporter… and she is “woke”

By Rubashov

There are few giveaways as plain as this one.
 
Carly Sitrin, a reliably Establishment reporter with roots in Boston’s PBS network, wrote a work of apology on behalf of New Jersey’s political establishment. It was an attempt to publicly forgive them for the damage they’ve done to the curriculum the state’s school children are learning from. But Sitrin went further. She attempted to blame those who noticed.
 
The word “transgender” didn’t even exist until the 1960s. Before 2012, in fact, there was no scientific literature on girls ages 11 to 21 ever having developed gender dysphoria at all. Despite what Sitrin and others would have you believe, this isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue – so put away those blue and red pom-poms. But it has been a growing concern among parents and reformers within the medical establishment, who have observed a ceaseless rise in the use of pharmaceutical and surgical interventions to treat children who express “discomfort” with their gender identity. That is a major departure from the past, when clinicians used “talking therapies” to help children adjust. Of course, the medication of children in general has for some time been a cause for alarm to parents and forward-thinkers in the medical community.
 
Then there’s the religion thing. The transgender movement is a faith-based ideology akin to religion. And just as some believe in trans-substantiation (that bread can be made flesh and wine made blood) those who subscribe to transgenderism believe that DNA can be altered, chromosomes undone, simply by the action of the will. They believe that an individual, born male, can will himself into being female – and vice versa.
 
The outward sign of adherence to faith-based transgenderism is the use of pronouns after your last name. If you believe, you use “preferred” pronouns after your last name. Carly Sitrin (She/Her) is a believer. And she advertises her belief on her LinkedIn page and such. She tells who she is and what she believes in. It is her faith and it is natural enough for her to defend her faith – even if that means placing faith before journalism. We should expect nothing different from her.
 
Numerous people on the Left have suffered the wrath of this new, thrusting, proselytizing faith. The author of the Harry Potter novels had to go into hiding because she suggested that women were there own thing. The author Camille Paglia suffered similarly. Feminists like Kara Dansky have been leading a fightback from the Left. Her book, The Abolition of Sex: How the “Transgender” Agenda Harms Women and Girls, has been burnt in public.
 
In her Politico story, Carly Sitrin (She/Her), asks parents to forget what they saw when Governor Phil Murphy sent all those kids home from school over the threat from COVID. Distance learning, the children at home, learning side by side with their parents, is what ignited the current debate. Parents saw, they experienced it first-hand. They cannot be made to unsee – no matter the efforts of Carly Sitrin (She/Her) and a hundred like her.
 
Carly Sitrin (She/Her) attempts to argue that if something isn’t spelled out in law, it isn’t mandated. She knows better. She knows that laws are often written very loosely. Heck, we argue over that with the Second Amendment.
 
Laws are written loosely so that the establishment bureaucracy can interpret them as broadly (or as narrowly) as they wish. The law (An Act concerning diversity and inclusion instruction in school districts and supplementing chapter 35 of Title 18A of the New Jersey Statutes), sponsored by Senator Vin Gopal and signed by Governor Murphy in March of last year, at the root of the current curriculum uproar is an example of such loose and subjective language:
 
C.18A:35-4.36a Curriculum to include instruction on diversity and inclusion.
1. a. Beginning in the 2021-2022 school year, each school district shall incorporate instruction on diversity and inclusion in an appropriate place in the curriculum of students in grades kindergarten through 12 as part of the district’s implementation of the New Jersey Student Learning Standards.
b. The instruction shall:
(1) highlight and promote diversity, including economic diversity, equity, inclusion, tolerance, and belonging in connection with gender and sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, disabilities, and religious tolerance;
(2) examine the impact that unconscious bias and economic disparities have at both an individual level and on society as a whole; and
(3) encourage safe, welcoming, and inclusive environments for all students regardless of race or ethnicity, sexual and gender identities, mental and physical disabilities, and religious beliefs.
c. The Commissioner of Education shall provide school districts with sample learning activities and resources designed to promote diversity and inclusion.

To understand how all that aspirational language will take form, we need to look at an earlier piece of legislation, also supported by Vin Gopal. It is called “An Act establishing the Transgender Equality Task Force to assess legal and societal barriers to equality and provide recommendations to Legislature.”
 
2.    a.  There is hereby created a task force to be known as the “Transgender Equality Task Force.” The purpose of the task force shall be to assess the legal and societal barriers to equality for transgender individuals in the State, and provide recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on how to ensure equality and improve the lives of transgender individuals, with particular attention to the following areas:
     (1)   healthcare, including, but not limited to, access to healthcare providers that are trained in transgender medical issues, including sexual health;
     (2)   long term care for the chronically ill and senior citizens in the transgender population;
     (3)   education;
     (4)   higher education;
     (5)   housing, including, but not limited to, homelessness prevention and reduction for transgender youth and adults;
     (6)   employment; and
     (7)   criminal justice, including raising transgender awareness among law enforcement through training, and facilitating the appropriate placement of transgender individuals in correctional facilities based on an individual’s gender identity.
     b.    The Transgender Equality Task Force shall consist of 17 members as follows… a representative of the Department of Education whose duties or expertise includes protecting the rights of minority students or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of educational programs, policies, or initiatives
…one public member to be appointed by the Governor, who shall be a representative of a social service agency that provides services and supports to transgender individuals; a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union; a representative of Garden State Equality; and a representative of The Gender Rights Advocacy Association of New Jersey.
 
Note that the law is specific enough to include the special interest groups making the policy recommendations, but loose in its description of what those policies are. Fair enough, the latter might scare voters (like it has) and, as Ronald Reagan said, “Personnel is policy.” Government doesn’t write the textbooks or lesson guides. It just picks those involved that do. In this way, politicians like Phil Murphy and Vin Gopal can say, “Not my bad.” And writers like Carly Sitrin (She/Her) can try to cover for them.
 
Except that Murphy sent all those kids home and parents saw it with their own eyes. And they can’t unsee it.

Abigail Shrier is an award-winning journalist and best-selling author of Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters (2020). A graduate of Columbia College, University of Oxford, and Yale Law School, her work regularly appears in the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and other publications.

Finally, we must applaud Carly Sitrin (She/Her) for getting Senator Holly Schepisi’s own consultant – the company that administers the Facebook page on which the good Senator has posted so much good information – to essentially attack her:

“New Jersey GOP strategist Chris Russell said those kinds of extreme right-wing buzzwords aren’t effective in the state and don’t resonate with the typical New Jersey Republican voter who leans more socially moderate, but he said Republicans should still find a way to tap into that parental outrage.”

Hey, put away those pom-poms, this isn’t about party politics. This is something much larger. It brings people who think of themselves as “Left” together with people who say they are “Right”. This is about children. It's about the future.

Katie Brennan: Don’t make your cause political. It hurts victims.

By Rubashov

Katie Brennan is a long time Democrat Party political operative. She was a staffer with the campaign of Governor Phil Murphy when she made the claim that she was sexually assaulted by another staffer, allegedly a political favorite of the Governor’s spouse.

Katie Brennan tried to have her problem resolved internally. She went to politically appointed prosecutors and they declined to take her case. Finally, she went to the media and her story became front page news.

As Katherine Landergan of Politico notes:

Katie Brennan’s rape allegation against Al Alvarez and the way it was handled by the Murphy administration prompted hours of hearings, policy changes and a broader discussion about how women are treated in Trenton.

It also became a major scandal for the governor’s office.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli is now using the scandal as part of a website and digital ad campaign that was launched Wednesday. Brennan’s testimony in those hearings narrates the ad. And Brennan is not okay with it.

“Survivors are not your props. We are not your political pawns. To use me as such, without my consent, is disrespecting survivors. It is disrespecting women. Take note @Jack4NJ and Diane Allen,” Brennan said on Twitter, with a screenshot of the website.

Hey Katie, this isn’t the time to make this political. You made the allegation. You went public. When you do that, you lose control over who is allowed to comment. You don’t get to vet people who wish to take a position on the subject you raised. You can’t keep it a Democrat Party thing or a women thing or even a victims’ thing. It is now part of a national discussion. Sorry. Didn’t your lawyer tell you this?

Every entity that came forward to focus a light on what happened to you had a motive or could be accused of having a motive. The media uses scandal to put eyes on the page and increase revenue. Politicians, academics, bureaucrats, activists, and non-profits use it to their own advantage too. As in our adversarial legal system, two sides beat each other up to get to the truth. It is the way we move forward. Let it be.

Most of the women New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo sexually abused were politically active Democrats too. Like you, they came forward. And like you, they took crap from other Democrat Party operatives. But right and wrong came before party. The same with Nixon and Watergate. It always should.

Don’t make this about politics. Don’t turn yourself into a prop for the Murphy Democrats. For every woman like you who had the opportunity to exact some measure of justice for what happened to you, there are dozens – maybe hundreds – who worked in the Trenton cesspit (for both parties) whose stories never made the front page. Who were abused and exposed to the world and who had to shut up and take it.

Don’t become a shield to the same two-party establishment power structure that abused you. Don’t get in the way of it tearing itself apart. Forget that party shit because party doesn’t matter. Right and wrong does.

Katie... you are not the only one it happened to. And not only women are victims of sexual abuse.

Katie... you are not the only one it happened to. And not only women are victims of sexual abuse.

“The entire business model of the Democratic Party is to avoid dealing with its own populists’ concerns, so they’ve never seen the Sanders wing of the party as anything but a threat to what they do for a living, which is basically take corporate money and then sell themselves as socially progressive. That’s what they do for a living. That’s their business.”

Matt Taibbi
Journalist and author of Hate, Inc.: Why Today's Media Makes Us Despise One Another.

Did BCRO violate FEC rules?

By Rubashov


The Bergen County Republican Organization (BCRO) has sent out a number of potentially problematic election communications recently.  Several mass emails blasted out on behalf of the BCRO by members of its leadership failed to note who paid for them, in apparent violation of Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules.
 
The BCRO also sent out an expensive mass direct mail piece that appeared to suggest that the candidates on the BCRO “line” were part of a ticket sanctioned by President Donald Trump.  An operative with the President’s campaign denied this, stating that being on a local party ticket that is endorsing the President does not mean that the President is endorsing the other candidates on that ticket.  The endorsement goes up, not down, the ticket.
 
FEC rules on communications like this are very restrictive.  From the FEC website:
 
“A state or local party committee may prepare and distribute a slate card, sample ballot, palm card or other printed list naming candidates for any public office. The payments are not considered contributions or expenditures on behalf of any federal candidate listed, as long as the following conditions are met:
 
The list names at least three candidates running for election to any public office in the state in which the committee is organized.
 
The list is not distributed through broadcast stations, newspapers, magazines and similar types of public political advertising (for example billboards). Direct mail, however, is an acceptable method of distributing a slate card or sample ballot.
 
The content is limited to the identification of each candidate (pictures may be used), the office or position currently held, the office sought and party affiliation. Additional descriptions, designs, images and photographs must not provide supplemental biographical information, descriptions of candidates’ positions on the issues or statements of party philosophy. Certain voting information, however, may be given, such as time, place and instructions on voting a straight party ticket.”
 
Curiously, some of the BCRO email blasts contain appeals to Ronald Reagan’s so-called “11th Commandment” (“Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican”) and accusations that the candidates opposing the BCRO-endorsed John McCann for Congress were running “negative” campaigns.  Hypocritically, the authors of these emails failed to mention the BCRO’s own negative campaign on behalf of John McCann in 2018.
 
That was the year that Steve Lonegan, the father of the conservative movement in New Jersey, was on the receiving end of a campaign unprecedented in its level of sustained hatefulness.    That campaign caused many conservative donors to simply give up on New Jersey Republicans, to this day sending their money to candidates elsewhere.  This drain of conservative money to campaigns outside New Jersey affects the ability of state Republicans to secure and hold elected offices.  Bergen County has particularly suffered.
 
The political consultant brought in to run the campaign against Lonegan was a brilliant tactician named Kelley Rogers.  He came up with a series of fiercely negative campaign advertisements.  It is worth noting that John McCann’s consultant was not around to direct his 2020 primary campaign.  Last year, Kelley Rogers pleaded guilty in federal court.  Politico covered the story (09/18/19):
 
In one of the first Justice Department cases of its kind, Maryland political consultant Kelley Rogers pled guilty to wire fraud on Tuesday for operating multiple fraudulent political action committees that raised money from donors for conservative causes but kept much of the funds for Rogers and his associates.

Rogers’ arrest and indictment took place shortly after Politico and ProPublica investigated one of Rogers’ PACs, Conservative Majority Fund, which since 2012 has raised close to $10 million — mostly from small-dollar donors, many of them elderly -- while giving out just $48,400 to politicians.
 
The BCRO appears to have a love affair with John McCann, despite his history of campaign losses – including the biggest defeat in the history of CD05.  For his part, McCann exudes a quirky charm and a combativeness that often gets him into trouble…
 

THERE ARE NO STUPID QUESTIONS, ONLY STUPID POLITICIANS- Congressional candidate John McCann to a woman asking a question- that's a stupid question.

Nevertheless, the BCRO leadership’s faith in John McCann appears unshakeable.  Despite his historic loss in 2018, BCRO boss Jack Zisa awarded McCann the party “line” without a vote of his membership.  That is, of course, an entirely different discussion for another day.
 

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

Politico deleted anti-Semitic Tweet (is that in their playbook?)

Few blogs are as unrelentingly anti-religious as Politico.  In New Jersey, the blog has pursued an agenda clearly at odds with traditional religious beliefs, be they Judeo-Christian or Islamic.  Bloggers like Matt Friedman appear to think that their worldview – fashionable, secular, and centered on sexuality – is the measurement by which everyone else’s religious views are to be judged.  Friedman openly mocks what he doesn’t want to understand.  There are the ignorant and then there are the invincibly ignorant.  He is the latter.

But now the entire Politico enterprise is being called into question, and its anti-religious bias is even making it onto the pages of the benign Wikipedia…

In April 2017, Politico magazine published a wild conspiracy-theory article that tried to link President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin with a Jewish outreach organization Chabad-Lubavitch.  The article was  widely condemned.  Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the Anti-Defamation League said Politico was conjuring up anti-Semitic myths about Jews. 

And Wikipedia details Politico’s own anti-Semitic Twitter scandal:

Politico was accused again of anti-Semitism, when an article depicting imagery of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders next to money trees, was published. Sanders being the only Jewish presidential nominee was targeted for the amount of wealth he accumulated over his entire life time [60] Politico staff writer Michael Kruse wrote the article detailing the senator’s wealth, writing that Sanders “might still be cheap,” according to one of the senator’s friends, “but he’s sure not poor.” To share the story Politico’s official Twitter account used the quote, Sanders “might still be cheap, but he’s sure not poor,” managing to combine two anti-Semitic tropes (Jews are cheap; Jews are rich). The tweet was later deleted. [61]

Hypocrisy, thy name is POLITICO.  Before calling on others to resign over a re-tweet (as opposed to full length, original content, articles), maybe the staff at Politico should lead by example and cut-off their own heads first?  Just a thought.

Clergy calls out State Democrat Chairman’s attack on religion

In an open letter to State Democrats, a member of the New Jersey clergy questioned Democrat Chairman John Currie’s motives for encouraging the media to attack religious leaders…

Chairman John Currie

NJ Democratic State Committee

196 W State Street

Trenton, NJ 08608

Dear Chairman Currie:

I am writing to you because I am disgusted with the offensive way the state Democratic Party, of which you are Chairman has used Matt Friedman and the Politico website to smear, attack and denigrate people of faith.  You seem to think that you are above God, that in order to achieve salvation, we need only drink the Koolaid offered by the State Democratic Party and its allies in the media. 

To be a Christian is to follow The Christ. That means to order your life to the discipline of the Word of God – not the word of your political party.  We take our instruction from the Bible and not from the Star-Ledger or the Record or a political blog or a political party.  When we follow the tenants of our faith, you and your allies in the media should not try to label us as “haters”.  

My faith tells me that the “LGBT lifestyle” is wrong and that it is contrary to the Word of God.  That does not make me a “hater” like you and your friends like to call us.  It makes us Christians.  Please let me share this story with you, a story from my life, and then you can decide whether you and your party and the Matt Friedmans of the world should call me a “hater”.

I am a nurse. As the AIDS epidemic hit Dayton, Ohio, in the early 80’s I volunteered for the Dayton Area AIDS Task Force.  I personally cared for many men as they were dying of AIDS.

The only medicine available at the time was the toxic, previously banned for human consumption, AZT.  From the disease and medicine, these men could barely take care of themselves. As a nurse, I helped take care of their daily needs, including bathing, toileting, dressing, and feeding them.  I wiped their bottoms, gave them their medicine, took them to their doctors.  I also did their eulogies and officiated over the memorial services.

Many clergy and church people stepped up to take care of these men and minister to their families.  The accusation that the clergy is “hateful” towards LGBT people is false.  I remember when the late Cardinal O’Connor was alive, he would go to the AIDS wards in New York hospitals, not just to pray for these men, but he helped feed them. He would take off his clerical robes, roll up his sleeves, and help bathe them.  But your party and agenda driven reporters want to accuse all clergy of being haters bigots and homophobes. In so doing you show your hatred and bigotry to Biblical Christians, Torah Jews, and adherent Muslims. That’s a lot of people.

In New Jersey, LGBT identified persons have been given more rights, more protections, more attention than any other socioeconomic group in the state, with the possible exception of illegal aliens.  This has all been done at the expense of the 1st Amendment rights of people of faith. This is by design. The New Jersey legislature has passed a plethora of bills in the last several years that deal with alternative lifestyles. Including enabling children to change sexual identity, mental health services, without parental consent at the expense of the taxpayer. They are now forcing children and teachers to be indoctrinated about the contributions of LGBT identified persons in every subject beginning in eighth grade.  The contributions of other citizens perhaps even more qualified and more accomplished will not be taught because they’re not LGBT.

You and your media allies with your hate, will not rewrite Holy Scripture or destroy our faith.  Political parties will not be allowed to intrude into religion and make it bend to their political will. 

I am here to tell you today that your politics is intruding into our religion.  You cannot judge us by your political yardstick which is your faith.  When we don’t comply, you should not set your Matt Friedmans upon us to mock religion and call us names. 

If you don’t know the difference between theology and politics, then perhaps we can teach you.  We preach against adultery, but we encourage adulterers to attend our church.  We preach against substance abuse, but we minister to those who suffer from it.  We preach against sodomy, but all are welcome in our church. We stand with the Bible, but we do not treat any “sinner” different than another.  And rest assured, that begins with the sinner in the mirror every morning.  The ground is level at the foot of the cross. 

To this end, I would like to invite you to attend a public discussion on this subject.  We can work with your schedule. 

Please let us know what week works best for you. 

Thank you,

 Rev. Greg Quinlan

Why is the media shilling for “designated terrorist group” CAIR?

715 residents of New Jersey died on September 11, 2001.  For most, it was a horrific death.  Perhaps Politico’s Matt Friedman has forgotten, or the Bergen Record’s Hannan Adely is too young, or the Star-Ledger’s Rob Jennings just doesn’t care.  We all know Julie O’Connor’s problem… staring in the mirror too long making sure her tin halo is just so politically correct that she forgets all but her own self-image.

For much of the past two weeks, elements of the media have appeared obsessed by the fact that a local party chairman in Sussex County had “re-tweeted” some “tweeter trains” that contained images or language some “might” consider “offensive”.  Of course, the term “offensive” is very subjective. 

The Star-Ledger does not find the burning of the American flag to be offensive – at least to the point that they have never, to our knowledge, called for the resignation of any public or party official who supported the burning of the American flag.  It seems burning the American flag does not rise to the level of “re-tweeting” a “tweet” – such is the mindset of the Star-Ledger.

Apparently dipping a Christian cross into a jar of urine, and calling it art, also does not register as “offensive” in the subjective reasoning of the media.  But a “re-tweet” containing a negative comment about a Muslim congresswoman – who even fellow Democrats acknowledge is anti-Semitic – that apparently merits two weeks of continuous commentary.  It is a funny old world we live in.

As part of the “re-tweets” story, the media has approvingly published statements made by the New Jersey chapter of CAIR, which is short for Council on American-Islamic Relations.  CAIR put out a statement that labeled these “re-tweets” as “anti-Muslim” and “Islamophobic, racist, and xenophobic” and called for the resignation of the local party chairman.

It appears that the media deliberately suppressed something very important about CAIR.  Something most readers would want to know… 

CAIR has been designated a “terrorist organization” by one of America’s closest Islamic allies in the Middle East.  That’s right… a “terrorist organization”.  Don’t you deserve to know that?

It wouldn’t take much effort for a journalist to find out.  Even one of today’s journalists.  Wikipedia explains that CAIR is “a Muslim civil rights and advocacy group. It is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., with regional offices nationwide.”  Wikipedia goes on to note:

Critics of CAIR have accused it of pursuing an Islamist agenda[5][6][7] and have claimed that the group is connected to Hamas[8] and the Muslim Brotherhood,[9][7] claims which CAIR has rejected and described as an Islamophobic smear campaign.[10] Due to apparent ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the government of the United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR as a terrorist organization.[11]

A “terrorist organization”?  That is a very serious matter.

Hamas?  So much has been written about this group’s anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.  So much written about its violence and terrorism, attacks on civilians, on women and children, the murder of Islamic rivals, the use of civilians as human shields, and the conscription of children as soldiers… that you would think even people as thick as Matt Friedman and Rob Jennings would have it together enough to work up a line or two about it. 

Hamas, together with several charities it runs,[438] has been designated by several governments and some academics as a terrorist organization. Others regard Hamas as a complex organization with terrorism as only one component.[439][440] Israel outlawed Hamas in September 1989[441] The United States followed suit in 1995, as did Canada in November 2002.[442] The European Union outlawed Hamas's military wing in 2001 and included Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003,[443] …Egypt,[448] Saudi Arabia,[449] Japan,[450] New Zealand,[451] Australia and the United Kingdom[452] have designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization.[453] The organization is banned in Jordan.[454] (Wikipedia)

Imagine being connected to an organization where “terrorism” was a “component”?  And imagine the media ignoring it? 

The Muslim Brotherhood?  Quite a few nations have designated that a   “terrorist organization” as well, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Saudi Arabia… these are all Islamic nations and all strong American allies. 

We have offered CAIR the use of these pages to explain how it came to be designated a “terrorist organization” by one of America’s Islamic allies.   

What is most alarming about this story is the media’s apparent focus… on “re-tweets” while a designated “terrorist organization” feeds a willing media its statements, judging what is or isn’t “offensive”, calling on “offenders” to resign, and generally behaving as if it has the moral high ground.  Is the media lazy or culpable? 

If culpable. If the media really does believe in suppressing the truth about CAIR, then no sane person should ever cooperate in helping them do their job again. Walk away. Ignore their phone calls, texts, and emails. Don’t help them write if they won’t be honest about CAIR. Starve them of content. And let their advertisers know what they are up to. They’ll go away soon enough.

State Dems scrap direct attack, use Politico’s Friedman to attack Christian religion.

Sources from within the Democrat Party in Trenton now say there will not be a “direct attack” on traditional Christian religions (and, by implication, traditional Judaism and Islamic traditions as well).  We are informed that the Democrats had planned to issue a press release yesterday, which would have attacked the Baptist pastor who has been asked to review the Sussex County GOP’s Twitter page to remove objectionable content, in keeping with the party’s platform and its traditional values. 

Two sources within the Democrat Party informed us that this attack would focus on the fact that the Baptist faith in particular (and traditionalist Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in general) is not “pro-LGBTQ+ enough” to satisfy the Democrat Party and the media, as represented by Politico’s Matt Friedman.  We all remember Friedman as the “hatchet man” for the “mastermind of Bridgegate” when said “mastermind” ran the blog PoliticsNJ.

Apparently, Friedman got his assignment this morning.  Generally, his handler is Jay Lassiter, a pro-LGBTQ+ Democrat operative from South Jersey.  We understand that Friedman is pursuing his assignment as we write.  This will be interesting, so stay tuned…

Why is the NJ media so very anti-Roman Catholic?

An interesting case study is emerging in New Jersey political circles that could have national implications and might very well, in the long run, change the way people look at who the "Establishment" really is.  First, the setting...

This story takes place in the same week that a committee of the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill to discriminate against people who do not engage in homo-erotic carnality when handing out government business assistance.  How they determine that, they haven't quite figured out.  Does experimenting in college count?  Does one act count or a dozen?  Is there a time cut-off?  If somebody applied based on the sex partners one had in the 1990's -- would it count?  Do you need to go all the way -- oral, anal, and so on?  And who certifies it?  Does just thinking about it count?  Does someone who is sexually abstinent, but who considers themselves to be part of the LGBT community get the money?  And it is money we are talking about here... taxpayers' money.

Hey, we are all for helping members of the LGBT community -- or indeed, ANY community -- to get a leg up in starting a business.  But make it about NEED.  Base it on their ECONOMIC CLASS -- not on what someone does in his or her or whoever's bedroom (or indeed anywhere else one can think of).  Rich people, no matter what their sexual orientation, don't need any more help.  Money attracts money, and it's all green and all spends the same.  Make it about ECONOMIC CLASS, not about how someone gets off.

So that's the backdrop.  Now here's the story...

We all know that we live at a time when saying the wrong thing about the wrong people can earn someone a media-stoked one-way ticket to demands for your public shaming, loss of employment, and calls for your assisted suicide. Seemingly normal people will spit on your children or poison your dog and think that they are doing so for the greater good... that they are on the side of the angels.

Some have put it down to a state of madness brought on by environmental factors -- as in the Terror during the French Revolution (when apparently a bread mold made everyone take to beheading each other) -- and blame it on all the crazy dieting we do.  Does it never occur to anyone to just ignore the media and stop buying ever varying things to stuff down our gullets?

But we digress...

There are some groups that are sacrosanct.  This is true in every age.  For every time -- there are those who you dare not speak against.  It is a form of blasphemy.  Try saying something against them and there is an immediate backlash from all the forces of Establishment culture.  They are the agreed upon, "sacred" objects.

And everyone else is dreck. 

Well, Roman Catholics, it's official -- so far as the New Jersey media is concerned, so far as most of the political blogs in the state besides this one are concerned -- you are dreck.

Every week someone is calling on someone to resign because they said something or did something.  Go to the wrong concert and stand in front of the wrong band banner and it's... resign; call out some Democrats because they talk like 1930's Fascists and it's... resign; make a joke about the Women's March (which lauded a cop-killer) and it's... resign; and the madness just goes on and on.

The Star-Ledger's Tom Moran can write in introspective detail about how he loathes Catholics and he is praised by the Establishment... they even lay-off a few more workers in celebration!  A few weeks ago, some Democrat who ran for mayor in Bogota claimed that -- 12 years ago -- Steve Lonegan called him a "faggot".  Hey, gay people call each other that, not to mention students in junior high.  It is a rude word. But a hanging offense?

And it was just an accusation.  A dozen years old.  That the accused denied making.  And the accuser said that he wasn't gay.  Soooo.... a hanging offense?

Apparently, yes.  The Star-Ledger's lead moron -- Tommy Moran -- said to hang him high.  He played judge, jury, and executioner and said that Steve Lonegan had to resign from his campaign for public office over the allegation.

A few weeks later and there is Steve Lonegan again, holding a meeting of those who question the modern day sacrament of abortion.  The idea that in the passage from adolescence to adulthood, a woman's womb should first hold death before it holds life.  That's a heavy duty concept... Wiccan, even.

Steve Lonegan is a Roman Catholic.  Like many millions of Roman Catholics (as well as other religions and philosophies), Lonegan is Pro-Life regarding abortion.  He takes the exact position that his Church takes.

So someone from the campaign of Joshua S. Gottheimer -- a Member of the United States House of Representatives -- fires back at Lonegan and his gathering of mainly Roman Catholic Pro-Lifers.  The Gottheimer campaign calls them a "brand of extremism."

Come again?  The Roman Catholic church's teaching on abortion is very clear.  It believes the fetus to have a human soul and so, the body encompassing that soul is worthy of human protections.  It is a spiritual idea that one can respect even if you disagree with it from a pragmatic aspect.

But to dismiss it as a "brand of extremism"?  And from a Congressional office that wouldn't be caught dead saying the same thing about a tenant of the Muslim faith?  Or about a giveaway to rich members of the LGBT community?  Or about anyone or anything that the Establishment has said that we can't get away with criticizing?

Lots of media outlets covered the exchange and published the words of Gottheimer campaign spokesperson Andrew Edelson.  But a curious thing happened when the Lonegan campaign shot back a reply...

It wasn't covered.  It wasn't published.  In fact, so-called political blogs and websites that post EVERY press release from EVERY kind of critter imaginable would not post Lonegan's reply. 

So what was it that InsiderNJ and NJGLOBE and Politico and all the rest of the state's media didn't want you to read?  Well, here it is...

Screen Shot 2018-05-18 at 3.19.32 PM.png

Yes, that's it.

They didn't publish an attack on Josh Gottheimer because it accused him of being an anti-Catholic bigot. 

See, you can accuse Republican Steve Lonegan of being an anti-gay bigot, based on a 12-year old accusation by a straight guy, but you can't accuse Democrat Josh Gottheimer of being an anti-Catholic bigot, based on a days-old statement from his campaign spokesperson.

This isn't about Republicans and Democrats as much as it is about anti-Roman Catholic hatred.  The Establishment -- its politicians, its media, academia, and the PC corporate world -- hates the Roman Catholic church.  They don't recognize anti-Catholic bigotry because, in their collective view, you cannot be anti-Catholic enough.

They want to tax all non-conforming, politically-incorrect religions out of existence.  For them, spirituality is meaningless unless it can be monetized and a good profit made from it.  They have no time for our old-fashioned Gods who speak of selflessness and balance.

Most of the media outlets in New Jersey -- and especially its political blogs -- are the trained lapdogs of the Establishment.  They will not even consider that something can be anti-Roman Catholic.  In their collective view, all things should be... anti-Roman Catholic.  They -- as is much of the rest of the Establishment -- are already operating in a Post-Christian world.  Their attitudes are visceral and displayed thoughtlessly.  They are the enemies of Faith.

And the enemies of justice.

Because shilling for someone like Josh Gottheimer sets a very low bar.  The behavior of this kitten from the Clinton years has been as astonishing as it has been repulsive, to all persons of good-will. 

Hey, don't take our word for it.  Here's what MSNBC's Rachel Maddow had to say about the firm where Josh Gottheimer held the number two position as International Vice President (his buddy Mark Penn was International President):

Yep, Josh Gottheimer and his pal Mark Penn ran the "PR Firm from Hell"!  So now we know who it is that the NJ media is shilling for.

Liberal Democrats rally around McCann's candidacy

After losing the coveted "Column One" position in Bergen County and filing a campaign receipts and expenditures report with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) in April that showed his campaign was deep in debt and not raising enough money to sustain itself, candidate John McCann apparently sent out an SOS to his friends and colleagues.  They responded in a big way.

A former Democrat candidate for Mayor of Bogota (Bergen County) stepped forward to accuse McCann's opponent of saying some pithy things about him a decade or so ago.  McCann's campaign neglected to fully vet this Democrat (who they, oddly enough, describe as a "Christian conservative"), who recently attacked the policies of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. 

This too is odd, coming from the McCann camp, which claims to be pro-Trump even as it puts forward "spokespersons" who are decidedly anti-Trump.  We get "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing, but McCann can only take this so far.

Shambling forward came the "Ghost of losing the Legislature past" -- that impresario of the brylcreem set -- Paulie "the hand" DiGaetano.  He reached out to the "mastermind" behind the Bridgegate scandal with the story about how McCann's opponent had said mean things about the guy who ran for Mayor as a Democrat.  Mind you, this is the same DiGaetano who Senator Kevin O'Toole (R-Bergen, Passaic, Essex, Morris) claimed had threatened him.  It was widely reported on. 

O'Toole claims former assemblyman DiGaetano once threatened his life

https://www.politico.com/states/.../otoole-digaetano-once-threatened-my-life-102642

Jun 9, 2016 - Paul DiGaetano, a once powerful Republican assemblyman and former gubernatorial candidate, is on the cusp of returning to an active role in New Jersey politics for the first time in a decade.

O'Toole Claims DiGaetano Threatened His Life | Observer

observer.com/2016/06/otoole-claims-digaetano-threatened-his-life/

Jun 9, 2016 - Soon-to-retire state Senator Kevin O'Toole (R-40) has made claims that former Assemblyman and gubernatorial candidate Paul DiGaetano threatened his life during a one-on-one conversation the two men had over ten years ago as DiGaetano was mounting his gubernatorial run. O'Toole spoke with ...

'I'll f---ing kill you!' Senator's chilling account of closed-door N.J. ...

www.nj.com/.../ill_f_-_-_-_ing_kill_you_senators_chilling_account_of_closed-door_...

Jun 10, 2016 - A sitting state senator says a candidate for governor demanded his endorsement, and threatened to kill him if he refused. ... all the key parties. O'Toole (R-Essex) says the threat was made in 2005 by Paul DiGaetano, then a leading Republican assemblyman dreaming about a long-shot bid for governor.

DiGaetano was in the middle of a campaign to be Bergen County GOP Chairman, so his opponent seized upon this to demand that he withdraw from the race:

After O'Toole Threat Claims, Yudin Wants DiGaetano to Leave BCRO ...

observer.com/.../after-otoole-threat-claims-yudin-wants-digaetano-to-leave-bcro-race/

Jun 9, 2016 - Current Bergen County Republican Organization (BCRO) Chairman Bob Yudin is calling for his competitor, former Assemblyman Paul DiGaetano, to step out of the race for the position in the county organization. Yudin's call comes after allegations that DiGaetano once threatened the life of LD40 state ...

 Of course, DiGaetano disputed Senator O'Toole's claims and even threatened to sue him.

Bergen GOP chairman sues O'Toole over death-threat claims - Politico

https://www.politico.com/.../bergen-gop-chairman-sues-otoole-over-death-threat-clai...

Jun 15, 2017 - Republican Sen. Kevin O'Toole claimed DiGaetano, now the GOP chairman in Bergen County, delivered a “threat of great bodily harm” during a one-on-one conversation more than a decade ago.

We haven't heard any news about the lawsuit, but it appears as though Paulie "D" learned a new trick, because he is pulling the same thing on McCann's opponent that was pulled on him.  Now it is DiGaetano who is making phone calls on behalf of McCann, urging that their opponent be made to drop out of the race for the Republican nomination for Congress in the 5th District. 

You couldn't make this silly shit up.  As a county chairman DiGaetano has been a disaster.  Now he is calling GOP leaders asking them to join him in demanding someone drop out for being accused of saying actually far less than what he was accused of saying -- only the guy DiGaetano wants to drop out was accused by a Democrat and DiGaetano was accused by a Republican. 

"Stumbling John" McCann and his followers are real pieces of work. 

Did McCann pay for an endorsement? Aide says, "yes".

John McCann's campaign did themselves a mischief again. 

This time by shopping around a story to the Washington Examiner about McCann's recent fundraiser with Sebastian Gorka, a former foreign policy advisor at the White House who was fired by the Trump administration after a few months on the job.  The Examiner story leads with the following headline: 

"Sebastian Gorka wades into New Jersey primary for another $5,000."

The article ends with:

"Before supporting McCann in New Jersey, (Gorka) looked west, endorsed Republican Danny Tarkanian in Nevada — then a candidate for Senate — and collected another $5,000 in “speaking fees.” Asked in February whether he sold his endorsement to Tarkanian, Gorka said it was an “honorarium” and added that an endorsement sale “would be illegal.” 

When reached for comment for this story, Gorka answered: “Get a life you hack. You’re not a journalist so I have nothing to say to you and I’m blocking this email.”

Brutal stuff... which led to this morning's Politico story in which McCann claims to deny everything his campaign told the Examiner:

MCCANCEL PAYMENT -  The Washington Examiner, a conservative publication,  reports  via an anonymous campaign aide that 5th District Congressional candidate John McCann paid former Trump adviser Rick Gorka, who endorsed him and raised money for him, $5,000. McCann denies this on Twitter. "This not true. FEC filings will show my campaign did not pay Gorka a penny. The statement by my aide is simply not true." I've been waiting for McCann's FEC report because Gorka has a history of being paid not for his endorsement but, ahem,  a "speaking fee."  Of course, McCann or Gorka could have headed off that Washington Examiner story that McCann says is false if either had answered my question about whether Gorka was being paid when I asked it two weeks ago.

The conduct of the McCann campaign has raised eyebrows before.  Some key consultants on the campaign have bragged to some very reputable people about what they were being paid by McCann -- and yet their names never appeared on the McCann campaign's disclosures to the Federal Election Commission (FEC).  Now we have this Gorka affair.

Well, they don't call him "Stumbling John" McCann for nothing.  Shambolic. 

McCann dissing Jewish voters in CD05? What will NJGOP do?

Once again, "Stumbling John" McCann has pissed down his leg.  A liberal both by habit and instinct, McCann couldn't help but go overboard when trying to "improve" his conservative credentials.  So McCann brought in a controversial figure who has been linked in the media with some rather unsavory folks of the "blood and soil" variety.

This is what so-called GOP "moderates" do, like last year when they trashed a Sikh in race in Southern New Jersey.  Instead of winning on ideas -- and ideas are cross-cultural and colorblind -- they go with personalities, trying to turn a candidate into a celebrity, and when that fails, they go straight to what they think their party's base is really all about. And it isn't, but they don't know that.

Here is what was reported this morning in Politico, by Matt Freidman:

The former chairman of Bergen County‘s Republican Party is slamming a congressional candidate for raising money with Sebastian Gorka, a one-time adviser to President Donald Trump who wore a medal associated with a Hungarian group that collaborated with Nazi Germany.

“It’s absolutely despicable. It shows that I have to assume that John McCann approves of this man,” said Bob Yudin, who chaired the Bergen County GOP from 2008 to 2016 and backs McCann rival Steve Lonegan for the GOP nomination in the 5th Congressional District. “This man seems to have sympathy toward fascists and Nazis, and this act of accepting support from him disqualifies John McCann in all ways and manners from being my congressman.”

...The 5th District has approximately 67,000 Jewish residents, or just over 9 percent of its population, according to the Jewish Data Bank. That’s the second-largest Jewish population of New Jersey’s 12 congressional districts.

You can read the full column here:  https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2018/03/23/mccann-slammed-over-ties-to-former-trump-adviser-gorka-325596

Gorka has been accused of selling his endorsement to candidates looking for readymade "Trump" cred.  The Washington Examiner reported (February 22, 2018):

Sebastian Gorka doesn’t want to talk about his special friendship with Danny Tarkanian, the insurgent Republican challenging incumbent Sen. Dean Heller in the Nevada GOP primary.

Asked at CPAC whether he sold Tarkanian his endorsement, the former White House strategist bristles. “No, because that would be illegal,” Gorka tells me in his English accent, taking care to emphasize each word. “I was given an honorarium.”

As the Washington Examiner first reported, the timeline of payments and speeches and endorsements is as follows: Gorka endorsed Tarkanian on stage in Nevada on Dec. 20. Disclosures filed with the Federal Electoral Commission show that the candidate paid the speaker $5,000 the day before.

The campaign later confirmed the payment and claimed it’s not unusual for politicians to pay speaking fees to their endorsers. But a search through FEC records shows the opposite. In the last three election cycles, only two candidates ever made such payments.

Asked if it is normal for him to get paid for speaking gigs with politicians, Gorka guffaws: “Me getting speaking fees? Every week, yes.”

You can read the full column here: 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sebastian-gorka-denies-selling-danny-tarkanian-his-endorsement-for-5-000

McCann's event with Sabastian Gorka is March 28th.

Screen Shot 2018-03-23 at 10.47.53 AM.png

The NJGOP is trying to expand its base along the lines of demographics.  We don't know what demographic group they are shooting for with someone like Gorka, but we advise them to take the path of ideas.  Ideas are open to everyone. 

Friedman rides to the aid of PoliticsNJ pal Raj Mukherji

Earlier today, Matt Friedman, the writer/vendor/lobbyist (for Politico makes money doing all three) came to the defense of his old colleague from PoliticsNJ, Raj Mukherji.  Within hours he was joined by David Wildstein, the former editor of PoliticsNJ who wrote under the name "Wally Edge". 

Back at the old Publius Group -- the outfit that owned and operated PoliticsNJ --  Raj Mukherji was Wildstein's second in command, where he and Friedman hung out with such handjobs as Steve Kornacki and Tom Druce.  Remember him?  Druce killed a homeless guy.  Just ran him over on the street and when the cops came he told them he had hit a deer.  What a wonderful guy!  And at the head of them all was Wildstein, the so-called "mastermind" behind Bridgegate, followed by Raj Mukherji.  Yeah, this guy...

And now these moes are running interference on behalf of Democrat Senator Troy "the man" Singleton.  That's right, the same Troy Singleton who was Speaker Joe Roberts' bagman.  Yep, that Joe Roberts.  The Democrat who, after raising property taxes in New Jersey moved to Republican-controlled Florida to escape high property taxes.  Roberts has his state pension check forwarded there, so he's still screwing us.  Troy was with this guy and now he complains about another legislator's Dukes of Hazard tattoo?  That's some balls you have, Troy, some balls.

And Troy, admit it, as a red-blooded man you used to perk up when Daisy Duke came on the screen... come on Troy... admit it.

Democrat shill Friedman digs for dirt on Singh

Let us never forget on whose knee this critter was raised.  Matt Friedman learned his trade from the notorious Wally Edge (AKA David Wildstein of Bridgegate).  Like Wildstein, whose blog was an integral part of the Christie project, Friedman uses his position at Politico to push a specific political agenda.

Instead of reviewing public documents put out by the Office of Legislative Services and discovering that Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-01) is abandoning his conservative past now that he's a candidate for Congress, Friedman is trolling the college-era Facebook posts of Van Drew's Republican opponent, Hirsh Singh.  Is that a handjob move by Friedman or what?

Friedman ignores real policy switches like this:

Van Drew recently took his name off two very important bills, according to the New Jersey Legislative Digest, put out by the Office of Legislative Services:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/digest/012218.htm

Co-Prime Sponsors Withdrawn:

S539(Van Drew,J)Death penalty-reinstates certain

SCR35(Van Drew,J)Minor child med procedures-notify parent

S-539 would restore the death penalty for persons convicted of certain murders.  The bill's statements lists the following:  "(1) the victim was a law enforcement officer or correction officer and was murdered while performing his official duties or was murdered because of his status as a law enforcement officer or correction officer; (2) the victim was less than 18 years old and the act was committed in the course of the commission of a sex crime; (3) the murder occurred during the commission of the crime of terrorism; (4) the defendant was convicted, at any time, of another murder; or (5) the defendant murdered more than one person during the same criminal transaction or during different criminal transactions but the murders were committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct."

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S1000/539_I1.HTM

Yes, Jeff Van Drew took his name off this legislation.

SCR-35 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution stating that "the Legislature may provide that a parent or legal guardian shall receive notice before his or her unemancipated minor or incompetent child undergoes any medical or surgical procedure or treatment relating to pregnancy, irrespective of any right or interest otherwise provided in the State Constitution."

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/SCR/35_I1.HTM

This legislation simply applies the same parental notification standards to the evasive medical procedure of abortion, that exist for every other medical procedure.  It looks at abortion as a medical procedure... not as a sacrament or mystical rite of passage.

And Van Drew withdrew his name from this as well.

Instead of real reporting, on real issues, Freidman has turned Politico into a kind of "Mean Girls" online "burn book." Freidman has never met a policy debate he could understand, so for him it must be all about the shoes.  "Oh, that's so fetch... on Wednesdays we wear pink."

Friedman has done this before.  We all remember how he tried to personally destroy the reputation and future well-being of Synnove Bakke.  We also remember how he, and others, refused to take a polygraph to determine if they had made similar comments in unguarded moments. 

We remember too how another website had weirdly endorsed the Orwellian idea that there should be permanent corporate surveillance of Twitter and Facebook.  As well as a "news" blog, never forget that Politico is a vendor for corporate lobbyists and the political establishment.  As with all such ventures, Politico is the sum of its paymasters.

Matt Friedman has become the bully boy of Establishment Democrats in New Jersey.  He picks on weak candidates or those without the experience to defend themselves -- and he does so by invading their private space, trolling on Facebook to find something from long before they had entered public life.  Knowing what he got up to in his younger days, he uses that as a mirror to his victims.

Bullies like Matt Friedman need a take down, so let's turn it over to...

Exchange outs Politico reporter as anti-Catholic bigot

Read this exchange between a woman from Sussex County and Politico reporter Matt Friedman.  It perfectly illustrates what is wrong with so-called "journalism" today.  Politico's Matt Friedman behaves like an ideological combatant -- as if he were the media wing of ANTIFA. 

In this exchange, Friedman places our Judeo-Christian tradition alongside Wicca (the worship of Satan) and trashes Roman Catholicism.  Friedman defends Islam and its practices, including Sharia Law,  as "no worse" than what Christians and Jews get up to.  Friedman also trashes Buddhism. 

Friedman willfully ignores modern day slavery -- with its human trafficking and child exploitation.  He clearly shows that he would rather try to attach someone to the slavery that happened over 150 years ago than to address the slavery happening today.  He even stoops to trashing the Roman Catholic church in an attempt to deflect blame away from his ideological comrades. 

No Republican, conservative, decent Democrat, or traditional liberal should ever be foolish enough to place their trust in this shill again.

From: Sussex Gal
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:09 PM
To: Matthew Friedman <mfriedman@politico.com>
Subject: LD 24

Good afternoon Matt,

Take a look at this.  Can you believe our Democrat candidates are standing next to a flag with Wiccan symbols on it?  The purpose of this flag is to show that witchcraft is on equal footing with our Judeo-Christian tradition.  Please look into this and let me know what you are doing about it.

- - -

From: Matthew Friedman <mfriedman@politico.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:13 PM
To: Sussex Gal
Subject: Re: LD 24

Hey. I don’t think I’m interested. Unless Wiccans fought a war to preserve and spread slavery…

I’d need something more than the murder of Hansel and Gretel.

NOTE:  Who is Friedman accusing of fighting a war "to preserve and spread slavery"?   A Hank Williams Jr. flag, a Dukes of Hazard tattoo, is not the same as fighting a war "to preserve and spread slavery". 

Subject: FW: LD 24
From: Matthew Friedman < mfriedman@politico.com>
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 1:16 pm
To: Sussex Gal

*attempted murder. Gotta brush up on my fairy tales.

- - -

From: Sussex Gal
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:40 PM
To: Matthew Friedman < mfriedman@politico.com>
Subject: RE: FW: LD 24

So you are good with devil worship?  I guess you forget all those child-molestation trials a few years ago.  Short memory.  

Well, if slavery is your issue, then how about that Islamic crescent? 

Check out where the FIFA cup will be played:   https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/qatar-abuse-of-world-cup-workers-exposed/

This is happening today.  Now will you do something?

- - -

Subject: Re: LD 24
From: Matthew Friedman <mfriedman@politico.com>
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 1:45 pm
To: Sussex Gal

So in that case I guess you’re going to condemn the Catholic church, too?   

- - -

From: Sussex Gal
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:52 PM
To: Matthew Friedman <mfriedman@politico.com>
Subject: RE: LD 24

Why did you go there?  Condemn the Catholic church for what Matt?  Why would I condemn the Catholic Church?  Did a Bishop use slave labor to build the new FIFA stadium?

- - -

Subject: Re: LD 24
From: Matthew Friedman < mfriedman@politico.com>
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 1:54 pm
To: Sussex Gal

You are saying that Wiccans are somehow responsible for child molestation because some people who practice the religion went on trial for it. And you don’t see how that idea is turned around on Catholicism?

- - -

From: Sussex Gal

Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 2:21 PM
To: Matthew Friedman <mfriedman@politico.com>
Subject: RE: LD 24

Matt, are seriously trying to argue that the Roman Catholic religion is the same as the practice of Wicca witchcraft?  Are you saying that Church practice uses sex in the same way that Wiccans do?  What is wrong with you?  The Church calls what some clergy did by its proper name: evil.  Wicca rejects that.  There is no evil in Wicca.  

Why have you deflected on the issue of the slavery happening today?  Why won't you address that?

- - -

Subject: Re: LD 24
From: Matthew Friedman < mfriedman@politico.com>
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 2:27 pm
To: Sussex Gal

This is one of the dumbest exchanges I’ve ever had.

You’re painting an entire religion with the actions of a few. If Wicca is responsible for child molestation because a Wiccan priest committed the act, then by your logic Catholicism is responsible for the child molestation committed by some of its priests. That’s your logic, not mine.

And why do the abhorrent labor practices in Qatar represent the entirety of the world’s biggest religion? You’re not going to get an argument from me on how horrible Qatar and some other oil-rich middle-eastern countries treat migrant workers. But don’t you think you could find examples of horrible labor practices and atrocities in predominantly Christian countries? Hindu countries? Buddhist countries? And yet, you’re not holding those religions responsible for the sins committed by some of their practitioners. Why’s that?

- - -

From: Sussex Gal
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 2:58 PM
To: Matthew Friedman < mfriedman@politico.com>
Subject: RE: LD 24

Why the insults?  Matt, the Roman Catholic church recognizes evil.  Wicca witchcraft does not.  You put forward YOUR argument that Roman Catholicism and Wicca are on equal footing.  YOU attempted to paint the worship of God and the worship of Satan as one in the same.  It is not my logic, it is your logic.  You raised it.  You argued it.  You own it.  That makes you a bigot.

As for your deflection on behalf of Islam.  Name some religious states (Qatar is an Islamic state) that are doing the same as Qatar?  Name some Christian countries? Hindu countries? Buddhist countries? Name some.  

Now why don't you do your job as a journalist and report fairly on this?  I remember when it was BIG NEWS that a Republican Senate candidate in Delaware was involved in Wicca (but then became a Christian).  Her PAST was a BIG DEAL and got lots of ink.  This is the present.  Report on it.  

- - -

From: Sussex Gal
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 3:00 PM
To: Matthew Friedman <mfriedman@politico.com>
Subject: RE: LD 24

Let me add this.  At a time when slavery is happening right NOW.  When the United Nations says there are 48 million in slavery TODAY.  No candidates should be carrying around banners with symbols on it of nations or ideologies that are involved in the slave trade TODAY!

Instead of dredging in the muck of the past, try opening your eyes to what is going on TODAY.

- - -

Subject: Re: LD 24
From:
Matthew Friedman <mfriedman@politico.com>
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 3:16 pm
To: Sussex Gal

Kind of amazing that you don’t even recognize you threw the first insult. Look back at the exchange.

It’s also funny that you’re generalizing about entire religions and calling me a bigot. You can find atrocities committed by people in virtually every major country in the world, by people of virtually every major religion. Yet you only demonize a couple of those religions.

Here’s an example of religious oppression going on in a Buddhist country right now: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/05/rohingya-muslims-driven-myanmar-pictures/. What about ethnic cleansing in Serbia in the early 90s?  It goes on and on and on and on…  

Our constitution does not elevate any religion above any others. If you do, that’s your business. But it’s not my concern.

There is nothing newsworthy about some people holding a banner with the symbol for every religion they could think of. There is something newsworthy about an elected official standing in front of the symbol of the confederacy, which launched a war to separate from the United States so it could perpetuate slavery. That’s my news judgement. I really don’t care if you disagree.  

- - -

Subject: RE: LD 24
From: Sussex Gal
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 4:09 pm
To: "Matthew Friedman" <mfriedman@politico.com>

Did you forget Hansel and Gretel?  Yeah, it is amazing.  

I guess you never read up on Wahhabism.  Under some of the most wealthy, dominant sects of Islam, slavery is not only doctrine but it is practiced.  Nations like Qatar practice state slavery.  You don't care.  You called it in one of your emails a "migrant worker" problem and a "labor practices" problem.  No, not "migrant workers", they are slaves.  They have been trafficked.  No, not "labor practices", it is called slavery.

Am I "generalizing" about Sharia law and what it means to women who must live under it?  In your "news judgment" (whatever that is) I guess I am.

Then there is Wicca.  You call it a "religion" and place it on the same level as our Judeo-Christian tradition.  That's sick.  There is nothing religious about the worship of evil.  

Then you smear Buddhism by claiming that a "Buddhist country" is committing religious oppression.  You obviously don't understand Buddhism, because to do that is a rejection of Buddhism, not the practice of it.  That is not the way with Islam, which clearly instructs believers to wage jihad.  When Christians act un-Christian, you cannot blame the teachings of Christ.  But you do and that makes you a bigot.  You look for an excuse to hate and nurture your excuses.

It is much more important for you to play with symbols because you lack the balls to take on the real evil around you.  Wally Edge taught you well. 

- - -

Subject: Re: LD 24
From: Matthew Friedman < mfriedman@politico.com>
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 4:18 pm
To: Sussex Gal

Wait a second. Didn’t you write that Wicca rejects the concept of evil? Now you’re saying Wicca is “about the worship of evil.” That’s contradictory. But who am I to argue with you, an expert on religion?

- - -

Subject: RE: LD 24
From: Sussex Gal
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 5:00 pm
To: "Matthew Friedman" <mfriedman@politico.com>

No Matt, when you reject the Judeo-Christian concept of good and evil and embrace "evil" things for their own sake you do end up worshipping evil.  But why am I even trying with you?  You are obviously an apologist for Wiccan witchcraft and maybe you know more than you are letting on.  

Who would have ever thought that we'd get a member of the media to go on the record in defense of Wicca.

- - -

Subject: Re: LD 24
From: Matthew Friedman < mfriedman@politico.com>
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 3:19 pm
To: Sussex Gal

This is the Qatari flag. I don’t see it on the banner. Do you?

https://www.google.com/search?q=qatar+flag&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJwtbL4Y7WAhUJrFQKHdBSATMQ_AUICigB&biw=1242&bih=559#imgrc=608buoVMPNRIbM:

- - -

From: Sussex Gal

Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 3:44 PM
To: Matthew Friedman < mfriedman@politico.com>
Subject: RE: LD 24

It is all symbols with you isn't it?  Very childish.  Qatar is an absolute monarchy and its official religion is Islam.  Their particular kind of Islam is Wahhabism.

- - -

Subject: Re: LD 24
From: Matthew Friedman <mfriedman@politico.com>
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 3:44 pm
To: Sussex Gal

Your. Whole. Story. Pitch. Was. About. Symbols.

- - -

From: Sussex Gal
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:18 PM
To: Matthew Friedman <mfriedman@politico.com>
Subject: RE: LD 24

And no, it was about a political rally.  It was about a flag flown at a political rally, not a rock concert.  But you focus on the rock concert and ignore the political rally.  Some reporter!

You are looking at a long dead emblem of a dead country, with nobody alive today who ever carried it into battle, and you are desperately trying to connect people to it.  To apply meaning to it.  That is a punk move.  So that you can feel better than them "redneck" and go home and buy your cheap products made with slave labor and maybe take a look at something on the internet made with slave labor too. 

- - -

Subject: Re: LD 24
From: Matthew Friedman < mfriedman@politico.com>
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 4:29 pm
To: Sussex Gal

You are sad.

- - -

Subject: RE: LD 24
From: Sussex Gal
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 4:55 pm
To: "Matthew Friedman" <mfriedman@politico.com>

Not as sad as a political reporter who ignores campaign rallies but trolls rock concerts looking for a gotcha.  What a joke!

- - -

Subject: Re: LD 24
From: Matthew Friedman <mfriedman@politico.com>
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 4:57 pm
To: Sussex Gal

And Parker Space’s confederate flag tattoo?

- - -

Subject: RE: LD 24
From: Sussex Gal
Date: Tue, September 05, 2017 5:18 pm
To: "Matthew Friedman" <mfriedman@politico.com>

You obviously know his body a whole lot better than I do.

- - -

What is most shocking about this exchange is that Politico's Friedman refuses to call what is happening in Qatar by its real name -- slavery.  In Friedman's eyes it is an issue about how "Qatar and some other oil-rich middle-eastern countries treat migrant workers."  Friedman likens it to an immigration issue (the better to bash Trump?) when, in fact, the United Nations and groups like Amnesty International have clearly identified it as a case of human trafficking and slavery.   But Friedman dismisses it as merely an issue of "labor practices."  So on top of being a bigot, Politico's Matt Friedman is a slavery-denier too. 

Migrant workers in Qatar helping to construct offices for the 2022 World Cup reportedly haven't been paid after a year of toiling in the desert heat in slum like conditions. Sharan Burrow from the International Trade Union Confederation thinks Qatar should be boycotted until fundamental labor laws are in place.

Brindle op-ed "an October surprise" says Herald

Jeff Brindle, the executive director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, got his wish.  But we bet he didn't expect this line from Sunday's New Jersey Herald story on an opinion column he wrote for the Observer.  Writing about and in direct reference to Brindle's column, the Herald wrote:

"It's patently unfair that this Primary Election-style October Surprise landed just days before the election." 

That's it.  The executive director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJELEC) has now written a hit piece labeled an "October Surprise" by a major New Jersey newspaper.  How can this guy continue to do his job?

Brindle destroyed NJELEC's reputation.

Brindle waded into partisan political campaigns in two legislative districts when he posted a column on David Wildstein's old website, Observer.com (formerly PolitickerNJ.com, AKA PoliticsNJ.com) which was quickly picked-up by Wally Edge alumnus Matt Friedman over at Politico.

For the record, here is what Wally Edge wrote about Jeff Brindle at the time of his appointment:

Brindle was active in Republican politics before taking a post at ELEC. He worked as a political consultant in the 1970's, served as New Brunswick GOP Municipal Chairman, worked on the legislative staffs of State Sen. John Ewing and Assemblymen Walter Kavanaugh and Elliot Smith, and as Deputy Somerset County Clerk. He was the Republican candidate for State Assembly in the 17th district in 1977, but lost the general election to Democrats David Schwartz and Joseph Patero. He joined state government after Thomas Kean's election as Governor and was the Communications Director at the Department of Community Affairs from 1982 to 1985.

http://www.politickernj.com/wallye/30639/elec-picks-ex-gop-operative-executive-director

Old Wally knew his stuff.  By-the-way, did you catch the name of Brindle's political godfather? 

For someone who is supposed to be a fair-dealer in these matters, Brindle's tone and language in his Observer column is in marked contrast to what he employed in the past.  For instance, when commenting in 2015 on the more than $3 million raised by a SuperPAC named the General Majority PAC, Brindle was positively sanguine about it:  "Usually, an election with just Assembly candidates on the ballot is a low-key affair.  But the involvement of the independent committees is definitely adding some drama this year."

And where was Brindle's commentary when the General Majority PAC -- with the aid of Alex Baldwin -- raised over $5 million the same day his Observer column came out?

"Drama," is it?  Well compare that with Brindle's breathless -- and deeply subjective -- alarm in Thursday's Observer column:

"The active participation of Stronger Foundations Inc. in the Republican primaries in the 24th and 26th legislative districts is a fresh example of why legislation needs to be enacted to require registration and disclosure by independent groups.

The group has spent $275,100 on these primary races in North Jersey, but the public knows very little about where the money is going or what the group’s agenda is."

As opposed to what?  The General Majority PAC? 

We know that "this group" spent $275,000 on two primary races in New Jersey., which Brindle, using the group's disclosures with NJELEC, was able to break down.  From these disclosures, Brindle was able to discover that the money was being spent on advertising and polling, as well as who was behind the group and why it was organized:

"To its credit, Stronger Foundations Inc. filed independent expenditure reports with ELEC, showing it had spent $63,300 in the 24th district and $211,800 in the 26th district as of May 25.

Among the information the public can glean from Stronger Foundations expenditure reports is that that the group is working with MWW Group, a highly regarded public relations firm, and McLaughlin and Associates, a nationally respected polling firm.

...A Google search did indicate that the person who registered on behalf of the group is employed by International Union of Operating Engineers Local 825 in Springfield. The union helped spear-head last year’s successful efforts to raise the state gas tax and enact a new long-range transportation improvement plan. It’s political action committee also is a top contributor to New Jersey campaigns."

Brindle then writes this most curious sentence:

"A voter reading the independent expenditure reports filed by Stronger Foundation Inc. wouldn’t know any of this."

Well hell, has he seen what information is required by NJELEC to file a political action committee subject to full disclosure?  To find out anything really useful about the mission or policies or current political goals of any organization subject to full disclosure by NJELEC, you would have to use Google and find the group's website or news articles written about it.

At present, NJELEC requires only the vaguest information be disclosed by political action committees and those filing an A-3 are required to disclose practically nothing at all.  As weak as the NJELEC's D-4 PAC registration form is to start with, it soon becomes useless as an organization grows, adds or removes leadership, or changes its direction.  Why isn't the D-4 required yearly?  Without a yearly D-4, even for basic information, any voter would have to consult Google.

And yet, knowing this, Brindle bangs on and on about "the group" painting an ever-darkening picture of what is -- at the final accounting -- perfectly LEGAL behavior that has been codified as such by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Writing as one might about gay marriage, Brindle employs phrases to give the impression that something very bad is going on when, in fact, it is perfectly legal and has been ruled so by the highest Court in the land:

Let's start with the headline:  "Mystery Spender on NJ Races Again Shows Need for More Disclosure."

"...the public knows very little about where the money is going or what the group’s agenda is."  Under NJELEC's weak rules, they never do.

"These groups do have a First Amendment right to be engaged in the electoral process and spend unlimited sums. That much is clear. At the same time, the public has a right to know who is behind the group and what it stands for."  That is Brindle's opinion (and we agree) but unfortunately, neither NJELEC or, more importantly, the United States Supreme Court appear to agree with us.  And, as Brindle works for NJELEC (and it follows federal law, we assume), why is he painting this nefarious picture?

"Political parties, candidates and political action committees are subject to registration and disclosure requirements. Why shouldn’t the same guidelines apply to these groups?"  Brindle knows darn well why -- the Supreme Court said so.  Besides which, Brindle's NJELEC "registration and disclosure" requirements are a joke and are out-of-date.

"...If they finance advertisements that do not specifically call for the support or opposition to a candidate in their communications, there is no filing requirement at all. And anyone familiar with the process knows it is easy for high-powered operatives to finesse the language and avoid reporting."  Once again, Brindle full well knows that this is federal law.  As for finessing language, that is precisely what he is doing here.

"Disclosure is important because independent groups can become surrogates for candidates they support, undertake harsh attacks against the opponent, and do so with no accountability."  Yes, we agree, but -- once again -- no law made in New Jersey will overturn a U.S. Supreme Court decision.  So, why are you writing as though it would?  Simply to paint a nefarious picture?

"At the same time, the candidate who benefits from the independent spending can claim to have no association with the group, thereby not being accountable for its activities."  Now this shows Brindle to be something of an accomplished liar.  He darn well should know that it is illegal for a candidate to have an "association" with such a group.

"Because it is the mission of the Election Law Enforcement Commission to bring disclosure of campaign finance information to the public, the staff often will dig more deeply into these organizations to ascertain where its support comes from. When that information can be obtained, ELEC makes the information available to the public."  So NJELEC is doing opposition research on groups operating legally under the Constitution of the United States of America?  Why?  Because E.D. Brindle thinks the law is wrong and so a little spying is in order?  And you are using taxpayers' money for this?

"The public, however, does not have the time nor inclination to investigate these groups and therefore is often robbed of the opportunity to make informed opinions about a group’s motives or even the veracity of its message."  Maybe they don't care about it in precisely the way E.D. Brindle does -- or whoever put him up to writing this obvious hit piece.  In any case, it is NJELEC Brindle's "motives" that are at question here because, after all, they are taxpayer-funded.

"This is why it is important for the Legislature to pass legislation that would bring greater transparency to the process by requiring registration and disclosure by independent groups. Both parties have introduced bills to bring about more disclosure."  Yes, we agree, start with an annual D-4 for those who currently do disclose and then fashion legislation that will pass Constitutional muster.  Don't spend a lot of taxpayers' money and waste a lot of taxpayer-paid staff's time only to have your law chucked out by a federal court.  If your staff have so much free time on their hands, cut some and save the taxpayers some money.

"...If the primary figure is any guide, these largely anonymous groups will once again dominate the general election at the expense of more accountable political parties and candidates.  It is long past time for matters to be set right in New Jersey by bringing balance back to the electoral system, by strengthening the political parties, requiring registration and disclosure by independent groups, and offsetting the growing influence of organizations that would often operate anonymously."  This is coming from the man who, in 2015, dismissed this as little more than "drama"?  What's changed? 

What this is, is a hit piece, written by a political consultant turned career bureaucrat with a mentor named Tom Kean.  It was a disgraceful act for NJELEC's executive director to wade into partisan political campaigns the weekend before an election and offer his words in a way he knew or should have known would have an outcome on that election.

Jeff Brindle is himself an undisclosed independent expenditure.  We cannot be sure who put him up to this.  What we can be sure of is that he should go, for so long as he is at the head of NJELEC its veracity is in question and its trustworthiness is shit.

Jeff Brindle just destroyed NJELEC's reputation

Jeff Brindle is the NJELEC executive director who recently waded into partisan political campaigns in two legislative districts.  Brindle posted a column on David Wildstein's old website, Observer.com (formerly PolitickerNJ.com, AKA PoliticsNJ.com) which was quickly picked-up by Wally Edge alumnus Matt Friedman over at Politico.

For the record, here is what Wally Edge wrote about Jeff Brindle at the time of his appointment:

Brindle was active in Republican politics before taking a post at ELEC. He worked as a political consultant in the 1970's, served as New Brunswick GOP Municipal Chairman, worked on the legislative staffs of State Sen. John Ewing and Assemblymen Walter Kavanaugh and Elliot Smith, and as Deputy Somerset County Clerk. He was the Republican candidate for State Assembly in the 17th district in 1977, but lost the general election to Democrats David Schwartz and Joseph Patero. He joined state government after Thomas Kean's election as Governor and was the Communications Director at the Department of Community Affairs from 1982 to 1985.

http://www.politickernj.com/wallye/30639/elec-picks-ex-gop-operative-executive-director

Old Wally knew his stuff.  By-the-way, did you catch the name of Brindle's political godfather? 

For someone who is supposed to be a fair-dealer in these matters, Brindle's tone and language in his Observer column is in marked contrast to what he employed in the past.  For instance, when commenting in 2015 on the more than $3 million raised by a SuperPAC named the General Majority PAC, Brindle was positively sanguine about it:  "Usually, an election with just Assembly candidates on the ballot is a low-key affair.  But the involvement of the independent committees is definitely adding some drama this year."

"Drama," is it?  Well compare that with Brindle's breathless -- and deeply subjective -- alarm in Thursday's Observer column:

"The active participation of Stronger Foundations Inc. in the Republican primaries in the 24th and 26th legislative districts is a fresh example of why legislation needs to be enacted to require registration and disclosure by independent groups.

The group has spent $275,100 on these primary races in North Jersey, but the public knows very little about where the money is going or what the group’s agenda is."

As opposed to what?  The General Majority PAC?

We know that "this group" spent $275,000 on two primary races in New Jersey., which Brindle, using the group's disclosures with NJELEC, was able to break down.  From these disclosures, Brindle was able to discover that the money was being spent on advertising and polling, as well as who was behind the group and why it was organized:

"To its credit, Stronger Foundations Inc. filed independent expenditure reports with ELEC, showing it had spent $63,300 in the 24th district and $211,800 in the 26th district as of May 25.

Among the information the public can glean from Stronger Foundations expenditure reports is that that the group is working with MWW Group, a highly regarded public relations firm, and McLaughlin and Associates, a nationally respected polling firm.

...A Google search did indicate that the person who registered on behalf of the group is employed by International Union of Operating Engineers Local 825 in Springfield. The union helped spear-head last year’s successful efforts to raise the state gas tax and enact a new long-range transportation improvement plan. It’s political action committee also is a top contributor to New Jersey campaigns."

Brindle then writes this most curious sentence:

"A voter reading the independent expenditure reports filed by Stronger Foundation Inc. wouldn’t know any of this."

Well hell, has he seen what information is required by NJELEC to file a political action committee subject to full disclosure?  To find out anything really useful about the mission or policies or current political goals of any organization subject to full disclosure by NJELEC, you would have to use Google and find the group's website or news articles written about it.

At present, NJELEC requires only the vaguest information be disclosed by political action committees and those filing an A-3 are required to disclose practically nothing at all.  As weak as the NJELEC's D-4 PAC registration form is to start with, it soon becomes useless as an organization grows, adds or removes leadership, or changes its direction.  Why isn't the D-4 required yearly?  Without a yearly D-4, even for basic information, any voter would have to consult Google.

And yet, knowing this, Brindle bangs on and on about "the group" painting an ever-darkening picture of what is -- at the final accounting -- perfectly LEGAL behavior that has been codified as such by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Writing as one might about gay marriage, Brindle employs phrases to give the impression that something very bad is going on when, in fact, it is perfectly legal and has been ruled so by the highest Court in the land:

Let's start with the headline:  "Mystery Spender on NJ Races Again Shows Need for More Disclosure."

"...the public knows very little about where the money is going or what the group’s agenda is."  Under NJELEC's weak rules, they never do.

"These groups do have a First Amendment right to be engaged in the electoral process and spend unlimited sums. That much is clear. At the same time, the public has a right to know who is behind the group and what it stands for."  That is Brindle's opinion (and we agree) but unfortunately, neither NJELEC or, more importantly, the United States Supreme Court appear to agree with us.  And, as Brindle works for NJELEC (and it follows federal law, we assume), why is he painting this nefarious picture?

"Political parties, candidates and political action committees are subject to registration and disclosure requirements. Why shouldn’t the same guidelines apply to these groups?"  Brindle knows darn well why -- the Supreme Court said so.  Besides which, Brindle's NJELEC "registration and disclosure" requirements are a joke and are out-of-date.

"...If they finance advertisements that do not specifically call for the support or opposition to a candidate in their communications, there is no filing requirement at all. And anyone familiar with the process knows it is easy for high-powered operatives to finesse the language and avoid reporting."  Once again, Brindle full well knows that this is federal law.  As for finessing language, that is precisely what he is doing here.

"Disclosure is important because independent groups can become surrogates for candidates they support, undertake harsh attacks against the opponent, and do so with no accountability."  Yes, we agree, but -- once again -- no law made in New Jersey will overturn a U.S. Supreme Court decision.  So, why are you writing as though it would?  Simply to paint a nefarious picture?

"At the same time, the candidate who benefits from the independent spending can claim to have no association with the group, thereby not being accountable for its activities."  Now this shows Brindle to be something of an accomplished liar.  He darn well should know that it is illegal for a candidate to have an "association" with such a group.

"Because it is the mission of the Election Law Enforcement Commission to bring disclosure of campaign finance information to the public, the staff often will dig more deeply into these organizations to ascertain where its support comes from. When that information can be obtained, ELEC makes the information available to the public."  So NJELEC is doing opposition research on groups operating legally under the Constitution of the United States of America?  Why?  Because E.D. Brindle thinks the law is wrong and so a little spying is in order?  And you are using taxpayers' money for this?

"The public, however, does not have the time nor inclination to investigate these groups and therefore is often robbed of the opportunity to make informed opinions about a group’s motives or even the veracity of its message."  Maybe they don't care about it in precisely the way E.D. Brindle does -- or whoever put him up to writing this obvious hit piece.  In any case, it is NJELEC Brindle's "motives" that are at question here because, after all, they are taxpayer-funded.

"This is why it is important for the Legislature to pass legislation that would bring greater transparency to the process by requiring registration and disclosure by independent groups. Both parties have introduced bills to bring about more disclosure."  Yes, we agree, start with an annual D-4 for those who currently do disclose and then fashion legislation that will pass Constitutional muster.  Don't spend a lot of taxpayers' money and waste a lot of taxpayer-paid staff's time only to have your law chucked out by a federal court.  If your staff have so much free time on their hands, cut some and save the taxpayers some money.

"...If the primary figure is any guide, these largely anonymous groups will once again dominate the general election at the expense of more accountable political parties and candidates.  It is long past time for matters to be set right in New Jersey by bringing balance back to the electoral system, by strengthening the political parties, requiring registration and disclosure by independent groups, and offsetting the growing influence of organizations that would often operate anonymously."  This is coming from the man who, in 2015, dismissed this as little more than "drama"?  What's changed? 

What this is, is a hit piece, written by a political consultant turned career bureaucrat with a mentor named Tom Kean.  It was a disgraceful act for NJELEC's executive director to wade into partisan political campaigns the weekend before an election and offer his words in a way he knew or should have known would have an outcome on that election. 

 Jeff Brindle is himself an undisclosed independent expenditure.  We cannot be sure who put him up to this.  What we can be sure of is that he should go, for so long as he is at the head of NJELEC its veracity is in question and its trustworthiness is shit.

A must read for the NJGOP

The story is titled, "Inside Jeb Bush's $150 Million Failure".

The story appeared in Politico, as the once invincible Bush candidacy went up in smoke.

Jeb Bush, the Republican establishment’s last, best hope, began his 2016 campaign rationally enough, with a painstakingly collated operational blueprint his team called, with NFL swagger, “The Playbook.”

On page after page kept safe in a binder, the playbook laid out a strategy for a race his advisers were certain would be played on Bush’s terms — an updated, if familiar version of previous Bush family campaigns where cash, organization and a Republican electorate ultimately committed to an electable center-right candidate would prevail.

The playbook, hatched by Sally Bradshaw, Mike Murphy and a handful of other Bush confidants in dozens of meetings during the first half of 2015 and described to POLITICO by some of Bush’s closest and most influential supporters, appealed to the Bush family penchant for shock-and-awe strategy. The campaign would commence with six months of fundraising for the Right to Rise super PAC and enough muscle to push aside Mitt Romney. There would be a massive, broad-based organizational effort to plant roots in March states at a time when other campaigns were mired in Iowa and New Hampshire. The plan outlined Bush’s positive, future-focused message with an emphasis on his decade-old record of accomplishment as Florida governor.

Interviews with more than two dozen Bush insiders, donors and staff members illuminate the plight of an earnest and smart candidate who was tragicomically mismatched to the electorate of his own party...

The entire premise of Bush’s candidacy, these insiders tell POLITICO, was an epic misread of a GOP base...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/jeb-bush-dropping-out-set-up-to-fail-213662#ixzz40yDgcwdu


Remember these phrases, because they not only apply to the Bush candidacy in 2016 -- but also to the NJGOP's tragic loss of four incumbent legislators last year.  This is who you are too:

Earnest and smart candidates who are mismatched to the electorate of their own party.

An epic misread of the GOP base.

The Republican electorate has watched their economic security and cultural values destroyed while they have been lied to and pissed on by the leaders of their own party.  You can spend all you want on masterful media but people know in their guts that their party has screwed them.

The anger is live.  The indictment of the party and its leadership are their statements, their votes, their sources of funding -- which stand in black and white just waiting to have light cast upon them. 

Wake up.  Open your eyes.  Pay attention.  It is not too late but it will be soon.

They are vendors NOT journalists

As if it needed to be clearer, Matt Friedman's page on Politico included this salesman's pitch yesterday:

Want to make an impact? POLITICO New Jersey has a variety of multi-platform solutions available to reach and activate the most influential people in the Garden State. Have a petition you want signed? A cause you’re promoting? Share your message with our influential readers to increase awareness and drive action. Contact Chris Falls to find out how: cfalls@politico.com.

The message:  Hire us as your vendor.

This goes beyond blurring the line, it jumps it.  "Multi-platform solutions... to reach and activate... Have a petition you want signed?  A cause you are promoting?"  Wanna bet that "cause" will get better treatment than Synnove Bakke did?