Democrat Suleiman’s racialist comment about “GOP base”

Atlantic County Democrat Party Chairman Michael Suleiman today issued a press statement in which he made racialist comments about the “GOP base”.  Suleiman said:  “They (the GOP) never miss an opportunity to not stand up to their base.” 

What does Suleiman mean by the “GOP base”?

Does he mean “property taxpayers”?

Maybe he means “religious Christians and Jews”?

Or the “unionized working class” that his own party once represented?

Or is he making a snide reference to “white Christians”?

Suleiman needs to explain himself because he holds a taxpayer-funded patronage job and some of the people he might be disparaging pay his very generous salary, benefits, and perks.  In March 2018, the Democrats gave Suleiman a public job as the lobbyist for the South Jersey Transportation Authority.

While the Democrats cut school funding across New Jersey, guys like Suleiman get paid.  Of course, Suleiman supports Murphy’s illegal Sanctuary State scheme that bullies law enforcement into ignoring the findings of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission).

Suleiman is a made member of a corrupt political machine.  He would support a horseshoe crab for office if his party told him to.  Suleiman’s Twitter page is filled with selfies featuring the love-struck Suleiman with Hillary Clinton, Phil Murphy, and Cory Booker.  Talk about having some explaining to do – we’re surprised this moron didn’t feature panegyrics to Jeff Epstein and Al Alvarez. 

Oh, and we wonder what Suleiman thinks about this stunt by Cory Booker…

bookerpalestine.png

While attacking taxpayer advocate Seth Grossman, Suleiman ignored this anti-Jewish prank by Cory Booker.  What does Suleiman have against taxpayers like Grossman?

But wait… in his statement, Suleiman compounds his racialism by making ethnic (and racial) assumptions about who comes into the United States illegally. He makes the claim that it is “race-baiting” to oppose illegal immigration.  That is a horrible generalization.  The term “illegal” does not denote a racial or ethnic group.

For Suleiman’s information of the 707,265 LEGAL immigrants who became LEGAL naturalized American citizens in 2017, 17 percent were from Mexico (118,559), followed by 7 percent from India (50,802), 5 percent each from China (37,674) and the Philippines (36,828), and about 4 percent each from the Dominican Republic (29,734) and Cuba (25,961).  Nationals of these six countries accounted for 42 percent of all naturalizations.  Other leading countries of origin included Vietnam (19,323 or 3 percent), El Salvador (16,941, 2 percent), Colombia (16,184, 2 percent), and Jamaica (15,087, 2 percent).

In common with many Democrats, Michael Suleiman uses race as a measurement for every human interaction.  People who do this – who think in terms of “people of color” – are called racialistsWikipedia notes that “Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, that are ostensibly distinct biological categories.”

The philosopher W.E.B. DuBois argued that racialism was merely the philosophical position that races existed, and that collective differences existed among such categories.  DuBois held that racialism was a value-neutral term and differed from racism in that the latter required advancing the argument that one race is superior to other races of human beings.

But science has largely erased such arguments.  Aside from some genetic correlations in the incidence of diseases in this subset or that, the idea of “racial identity” that is forced down every American child’s throat, that haunts our society in everything from census forms to employment applications, is entirely a political construct.  The American idea of “race” is nonsense and calling people “racist” is a nonsense game.  The actor Morgan Freeman got it right…

The Democrats’ insistence on the primacy of race is an inverted return to their past.  Like then, Democrats today are obsessed with what measure of blood from this group or that flows through someone’s veins.  They seem to forget that our blood – the blood of our common humanity – is categorized, not in terms like Black or White or “of color” or “not of color” – but as O, A, B, and AB.

The Democrats need to end their obsession… and embrace humanity.

Herald lies about Sanctuary State ballot question. Cites attorney that they refused to interview.

Sussex County Clerk Jeff Parrott is hiding behind inadequate legal counsel in his contention that the taxpayers of Sussex County do not have a say in the function of the Sheriff’s office, which they pay for entirely from their property taxes.  As one activist put it, “The Clerk doesn’t understand the idea that he who pays the piper calls the tune.  In this case, we taxpayers are paying, so we want our vote.”

In a New Jersey Herald story today, Parrott agreed with the Administration of Democrat Governor Phil Murphy, “that only questions about issues over which a governing body has control can be submitted for a ballot referendum. In this case, the policy in question is set by the Attorney General's Office.”  Parrott used this argument to cancel a vote by the people on a public question on the November ballot.  The ballot question asks voters their opinion on whether Sussex County Sheriff Mike Strada should follow American law on illegal immigration – or the directives of the Murphy administration.  

However, just a few sentences later, Parrott raised the question of “Sussex County taxpayer funds” and stated “that only the freeholders control the budget.”  This is essentially the Freeholders’ argument that they – not the Murphy administration – have the authority to ask the taxpayers how they want the Sheriff’s office, which they pay for, to function.

The Herald story – written by reporter Bruce Scruton – contains one whopper of a lie.  Somehow Scruton got it into his head that the County Clerk has retained three attorneys.  This is not true.  The Clerk has only one attorney contracted to advise him in regards to this question, and according to news reports he is more of a specialist in criminal matters (sex crimes, homicides, and such) as opposed to election law.  Somehow the Herald was led to believe that County Clerk Parrott had a stable of three attorneys, reporting the following:

“County Counsel Kevin Kelly, the clerk's attorney Gary Kraemer and special counsel Douglas Steinhardt all advised Parrott that such a question could not be put on the ballot.”

Of course, it was County Counsel Kevin Kelly who conducted the legal review that cleared the Ballot Question to be placed on the Freeholder agenda in April.  Kelly signed-off that it was legally sound before allowing it on the agenda, so the Herald’s claim is nonsensical, unless the newspaper is alleging malpractice against an attorney who has often represented the corporation that owns the Herald itself.  

As for Special Counsel Douglas Steinhardt, he was hired by the Freeholder Board less than 48 hours before the County Clerk precipitously sent his “letter of surrender” to the Murphy administration.  He is a very good attorney, but even a legal savant would not be so reckless as to throw together a constitutional argument in so short a time, especially as he was travelling out of state the morning after he was hired.  It simply wasn’t possible for Steinhardt to provide the kind of legal argument the Herald claims the County Clerk based his opinion on. 

To add further injury to the Herald’s claims, when the newspaper was asked to interview Steinhardt for its story, they failed to do so.  If they had done so, they would have been provided with the following statement from Steinhardt released on July 13th:

“To be clear, Sussex County conceded nothing. On July 24th, its Freeholders will consider revisions to the public question that will strengthen it & make clearer the County’s resolve to stand firm & fight the Murphy Administration's gross overreach & attack on the safety of the residents of Sussex County.”  

Why did the Herald allege that Special Counsel Steinhardt supplied advice to County Clerk Parrott, but then fail to interview Steinhardt or even include a statement that has been in the public domain since Saturday?  Did the Herald deliberately mislead its readers and advertisers?  Did its reporter lie to provide a fig leaf by which the County Clerk could excuse himself?

And finally, why wasn’t a statement by Sussex County Sheriff Mike Strada part of the story?  The Herald article appears to be mainly written from the perspective of one politician – County Clerk Jeff Parrott – an apologia as opposed to a news story.  In contrast with the Clerk, the statement of the Sheriff could not have been clearer:

Sheriff Strada states that he will cooperate with ICE officials and does not plan on letting any immigration inmates that have a detainer out of our facility unless they are turned over to ICE officers. I will not jeopardize the safety of the citizens of our county.”

What is the upshot to all this?  Does the Herald support illegal immigration?  Does it wish to see its readers and advertisers less safe?  Is the reporter the problem?

One thing’s for certain… in the era of Trump, there are still some Christie Whitman Republicans out there.  Let the voter beware!

Sussex County Freeholders moving ahead with ballot question on Murphy lawlessness

According to a report in the Newark Star-Ledger this morning, County Clerk Jeff Parrott has taken sides with the administration of Democrat Governor Phil Murphy:

“Sussex County Clerk Jeffrey Parrott on Friday sided with (Murphy political appointee) Gurbir Grewal in disallowing a ballot question, approved by the all-Republican freeholder board in April and supported by County Sheriff Michael Strada, that would have directed the sheriff to ignore Grewal’s (pro-illegal alien ‘Sanctuary State’) directives…”

Governor Murphy is using Grewal, his appointed Attorney General, in an attempt to bully and intimidate the elected Freeholders of Sussex County into ending plans to allow the people the right to vote on a public question on the November ballot.  The Murphy administration is doing this concurrent with plans to allow illegal aliens to have drivers licenses and to give incarcerated violent criminals the right to vote and hire lobbyists. 

That is correct.  Not only do the Democrats want to take away the right of the people of Sussex County to have a democratic vote concerning a function of government they pay for out of their property taxes – the Democrats want to give violent felons the right to vote while in prison, after being convicted of violent crimes.  It is a simple case of good and evil.  It could not be much clearer as to who the “bad guys” are.  

This morning’s newspaper story goes on to note that County Clerk Parrott decided to side with the Murphy administration even after the Sussex County Freeholders had decided to hire a special counsel to fight Murphy and his political appointee.  The Star-Ledger reported that on Wednesday evening the Sussex County Freeholders hired State GOP Chairman Doug Steinhardt, a conservative stalwart, to do battle with Murphy.  Steinhardt is charged with creating an updated ballot question with language that defeats the legal objections raised by the Murphy administration, so that Murphy and his cronies cannot hold up its placement on the ballot through legal maneuverings.

County Clerk Parrott did not consult with fellow Republicans before deciding to join the Murphy administration in its opposition to the elected Sussex County Freeholder Board and to the people’s right to vote.  According to those close to the County Clerk, Parrott’s taxpayer-paid-for attorney does not believe that county taxpayers have the right to vote on issues that affect the performance of county functions that they pay for entirely out of their highest-in-the-nation property taxes.  Taxation without the right to vote sounds pretty un-American to us.   

The Freeholders are resolved to fight the Murphy administration, with or without the assistance of the County Clerk.  In the event that the County Clerk remains in the camp of the Democrat Governor, the Freeholders could bring a lawsuit to compel the Clerk to place the public question on the November ballot. 

Aside from raising property taxes, will LGBTQ mandates make children smarter?

The Murphy administration is requiring local school districts – paid for with the highest property taxes in America – to teach subjects based on the alleged sexual preferences of historical figures.  Of course, the Murphy administration doesn’t have the money to pay for this.  The state is dead broke.  The state can’t even pay for the pensions of its retired workers… so this new LGBTQ curriculum is going to be paid for in higher property taxes.  Feel better? 

Hey, making a fashion statement costs money.  And just as there are folks who go deeply into debt by failing to pay the bills while buying the latest fashions, so too has the Murphy administration chosen to pursue this path.

But are fashion statements like this making our children smarter?  Because there is only so much classroom time available.  It is finite.  Or is somebody proposing to add a week or so on to the school year to teach all this extra stuff?  And who would pay for that

One barometer of how smart we are is comedy.  For something to be funny, the widest possible audience needs to get the joke.  So comedy is a good gauge at how well people are being educated.

Okay, now let’s compare our comedy (which today is essentially an endless variation of Trump jokes and scatological humor) with what they laugh at in another English-speaking country…

The sketch above is based on a factual historical incident at the end of World War Two.  But how many people would know what this is about?  How many high school graduates in New Jersey can even provide the dates of when World War Two occurred?  And World War Two was kind of a big thing. 

Now here’s another popular television comedy sketch that requires some knowledge of basic history…

It is about the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War – a series of religious conflicts that resulted in the deaths of 8 million people in Europe.  The Treaty of Westphalia established the concepts of diplomatic negotiation and international law.  You can draw a direct line from it to the establishment of the United Nations and bodies like the International Criminal Court at the Hague.  Does the average New Jersey high school grad know any of this?

Why should he or she (Wow!  Can we even pose a question that way anymore?) know any of this when there are more important things to know about such historical figures – mandated things – like whether or not they were into anal sex?  And that raises other questions.  For instance, do we really want to have teachers engaging children in sexual discussions that could turn into exercises in grooming and add to what appears to be an epidemic of teacher-student sexual liaisons?

Finally, here’s one for all those young people who claim to be socialists (yet another fashion statement).  It is a lot older than the two videos above, but it still shows a necessary level of education that was once commonplace…

Now who would know those four socialist leaders today?  What New Jersey high school grad could identify them?  Does the average New Jersey high school student know enough history to understand an episode of English comedy on the BBC?

Not to worry… in the future, our children will know all about who these historical figures took to bed.  After all, what else do you need to know? 

Nothing more than that.  And your property taxes will be paying for it – courtesy of that mandate by Governor Phil Murphy.

Like in 1991, the NJGOP needs to hold a convention.

Take yourself back to September 1991.  The legislative midterm elections were less than two months away.  New Jersey was in the second year of a Democrat Governor, following eight Republican years.  The State Senate had not been in GOP hands for 18 years.  The Assembly was last Republican in 1989. 

1,032 delegates from across New Jersey attended the State Republican Convention that year.  They were exhorted by former Governor Tom Kean, who reminded them “that they must do more than criticize Florio and Democratic lawmakers” to wrest control of the Statehouse in the November elections: “People want to know what you're for, not just what you're against,” he said. “Attacking the present administration is not enough.”

The delegates discussed and debated issues… adopted a state party platform… and defined who they were.  In November, Republicans won a landslide victory and took control of both chambers of the Legislature.  Two years later, they took the Governor’s office too.

In contrast to last month’s gathering of the GOP in Atlantic City, the 1991 convention at Rutgers University was about policy, message, and people – it had a grassroots feel to it.  While the current state party operation is dominated by Trenton-centered professional operatives and consultants, in 1991 the party was still one of stakeholders – people with networks in their communities and districts.

New Jersey Republicans are suffering a crisis of identity.  And it’s not just the old controversies over social issues.  The current “favorite” for Governor in 2021 – former Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli – called Donald Trump a “charlatan” who is “out of step with the Party of Lincoln” and an “embarrassment to the nation.”

The NJGOP can’t seem to make up its mind on something as basic as the tax restructuring package – championed by former Governor Chris Christie – that ended the Estate Tax, cut a bevy of other taxes, prevented a huge property tax hike, and provided enough property tax relief to enable places like Warren County to actually cut property taxes.  Some Republicans seem determined to run against one of Governor Christie’s hallmark accomplishments.  Let’s hash this thing out once and for all.  

Legalizing the sale and use of recreational marijuana is another issue.  Although both Senate Republican Leader Tom Kean Jr. and Assembly Republican Leader Jon Bramnick have done admirable jobs of holding their delegations together on this – there are all these lobbyists occupying party office who are nibbling away at the resolve of individual legislators and there is no formal party position on this or any other issue of substance.

A convention could be just the thing to resolve these conflicts, to pull everyone together around what we agree on, our principles and objectives, to create a message, and build that message out with a platform of policies – which could then be fleshed out by people like Regina Egea and her Garden State Initiative.  Thus far, the only prescriptions offered by the NJGOP have been which consultant a candidate should hire or new “game changing” technology to employ.  These do not take the place of having an actual message to run on – as the past few election cycles have shown. 

Once upon a time, New Jersey Republicans knew how to tell their story.  Now it seems they’ve lost the art – or at least the plot.  Nothing like a gathering to bring everyone together to remember who they are, put it down on paper… and then go out and sell it.