Don’t they teach about the Scottsboro Boys case?

Is Jeff Van Drew a racist?  Does he not understand that every lynching in America involving a white woman started with an unquestioning belief in the accuser or, if he prefers, the “survivor”.   There was a lot of “solidarity” going around then.

Are these two young women so much different from the two who, in 1931, accused nine Black men of raping them?  They too were absolutely certain.

The case was investigated and brought to trial.  Based simply on the testimony of the women, all but one of the accused was convicted of rape and sentenced to death.  The last was spared simply because of his age (he was 12).  Medical evidence suggested that the nine had not raped the women, but that was dismissed in light of their testimony, which was considered very credible.

The case was appealed to the state Supreme Court, which affirmed seven of the eight convictions (in the eighth case, granting a 13 year-old a new trial).  The dissenting judge questioned the impartiality of the process.  The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which ordered a new trial and led to a landmark decision on the conduct of trials.

The case was returned for trial to a lower court, with a change of venue.  During the retrials, one of the alleged victims (who would today be called a “survivor”) admitted to fabricating the rape story and testified that none of the accused touched either woman.  The other woman continued to claim that she was 100% absolutely certain that she had been raped by the men. 

At the new trial, the jury found that second woman to be a compelling witness and adopting the motto “believe women” they found the Black men guilty of rape once again.  Fortunately, the trial judge set aside that verdict and ordered yet another trial.  After a public outcry, that judge was replaced by another judge who tended to be more favorable to the prosecution.  For a third time, the jury believed the now lone “survivor” – adopting the iron-clad assertion to “believe women” – and returned a guilty verdict against the Black men.

The case was sent back to the United States Supreme Court on appeal and the Court again ordered retrials.  The state finally dropped charges against four of the nine accused.  Sentences for those remaining ranged from 75 years imprisonment to death.  All but two served prison sentences.  One was shot while being escorted to prison by a Sheriff’s deputy.  Two escaped, were captured, and then sent back to prison.  Clarence Norris, the oldest of the accused (and the only one sentenced to death in the final trial) jumped parole in 1946 and went into hiding.  He was found in 1976 and given a pardon by the Governor.  At that point the case had been thoroughly examined and shown to be a farce.

The last of those accused died in 1989.  On November 21, 2013, after an exhaustive review process, the state parole board formally cleared their names.  They were innocent, but had spent their lives under the shadow of a gross accusation.

What this sad lesson in our history should teach us is that an unproven accusation should not be treated as “fact” and that an accusation alone should not be the basis of a criminal conviction.  It should also teach us that blanket assertions about truth or guilt based upon gender or race (or anything else), are the beginnings of a lynch mob and should be avoided.

Do you get that, Senator Van Drew?  Or are you down with a fashionable lynch mob?

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...

Is Sen. Jeff Van Drew moving Left on Pro-Life and the Death Penalty?

State Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-01) has played the conservative Democrat most of his public life.  But now that he's a candidate for Congress (NJ-CD02), in a deeply polarized environment, is that beginning to change?

Van Drew recently took his name off two very important bills of importance to conservatives.  According to the New Jersey Legislative Digest, put out by the Office of Legislative Services, Senator Van Drew recently withdrew as a prime sponsor from two bills:

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.

What is going on here?  And what do his Assembly mates Bob Andrzejczak and Bruce Land have to say about it?

Perhaps you should ask them...

District Office:  School House Office Park, 211 S. Main St., Suite 104, Cape May Court House, NJ 08210  (609) 465-0700

District Office:  219 High Street, Suite B, Millville, NJ 08332  (856) 765-0891

District Office:  1117 E. Landis Avenue, Vineland, NJ 08360  (856) 696-7109