Sussex County's Obama Republicans

Many county insiders know the story of how George Graham, now the boss of the Sussex County Freeholder Board, when an elected local official switched from Republican to Democrat in order to vote in the 2008 Democrat presidential primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Graham had been a Democrat before switching to Republican but later switched back to Republican, his current party today (from D to R to D to R). 

Graham is not alone.  In February, Daniel Perez got a plum appointment to be a Commissioner at the Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority (SCMUA).  Those old-line GOPers probably had no idea that Perez was a donor to the presidential campaign of Barack H. Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr.  An attorney, Perez' liberal views on abortion and other issues are not well known outside legal circles.

According to the SCMUA website:  "The SCMUA Board of Commissioners are appointed by the Sussex County Board of Chosen Freeholders.  Commissioners are appointed to serve a five-year term as provided for under NJSA 40:14B.  The Board of Commissioners serves as the governing body to the SCMUA which oversees the Sussex County Solid Waste Facility and the various wastewater treatment facilities, including the Upper Wallkill Water Pollution Control Facility.  Meetings are conducted in accordance with the NJ Open Public Meetings Act NJSA 10:4-6 et. seq. also known as the Sunshine Law."

Borough of Franklin Mayor and Facebook warrior Nicholas Giordano is another one.  Nominally a Republican, Mayor Giordano bragged on Facebook to constituents that he had voted for both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  The Mayor, who is said to be seeking a political appointment at SCMUA, has been a somewhat controversial figure in Franklin since replacing longtime Mayor Paul Crowley last year.

What's up with the Sussex County GOP?  Who is doing the screening?

Obama voter: Mayor Nicholas Giordano

AFP/Koch screwing NJ taxpayers on jobs

AFP is at it again.  They are putting the corporate priorities of the Koch brothers over the economic well-being of the taxpayers of New Jersey.

The reason that BOTH wings of the corporate establishment party -- the Hillary Clinton Democrats and the Mitch McConnell Republicans -- have done nothing to secure our borders or to attempt to monitor those who come into this country legally and then overstay their visas, is because their corporate masters depend on illegal labor to suppress American wages.  For the past forty years, the American worker has lost ground and passing minimum wage laws mean nothing when there are millions of wage slaves in the gray economy to exploit.

The Koch brothers know this and that is why they have done their best to undercut the presidential campaign of Republican nominee Donald Trump.

The Kochs' lobbying wing, the so-called Americans for Prosperity (AFP), likes to portray itself as a "membership" organization, but unlike other membership organizations here in America, AFP's members don't get to vote on who leads its national and state organizations.  Those decisions are made for them by individuals closely connected with the owners of Koch Industries.   That means that AFP is essentially a lobby group, so we understand why it would disadvantage New Jersey taxpayers to advance the agenda of Koch Industries.

Earlier today, the New Jersey outpost of AFP issued yet another attack on legislation designed to protect skilled American workers from illegals looking to take their jobs. 

The bill under attack is Senate Bill 2173/Assembly Bill 2863.  This is EXACTLY how the bill description reads:

This bill requires every contract subject to State prevailing wage requirements to require each worker employed under the contract to be enrolled in, or have completed, a registered apprenticeship, unless the contractor or subcontractor certifies that the worker is paid not less than the journeyworker wage rate.

Under the bill, a “registered apprenticeship program” is an apprenticeship program which is registered with and approved by the United States Department of Labor and which provides each trainee with combined classroom and on-the-job training under the direct and close supervision of a highly skilled worker in an occupation recognized as an apprenticeable trade and meets the program performance standards of enrollment and graduation under 29 C.F.R. Part 29, section 29.6.

This is the LIE being promoted by AFP:

At the heart of the legislation is a requirement that " each worker employed under the contract to be enrolled in, or have completed, a registered apprenticeship" program. Since apprenticeship programs are offered primarily by labor unions, this bill would all but shut out competition from non-union shops and drive up project costs at the expense of New Jersey taxpayers.

The truth is this:  There are 676 active apprentice programs in New Jersey, only 15 of which are affiliated with a construction union.

Illegals cannot gain access to apprenticeship programs because they are in the United States illegally.  As it is now, unethical contractors hire a qualified worker (per the law) and then place a dozen or dozens of unqualified illegals under him (or her), pay them less, and increase profits.  Why should taxpayers pay for unqualified illegal labor?

SB 2173/A 2863 makes sure that the workers hired are qualified workers or worker trainees in an approved apprenticeship program, who have a legal right to be in the United States. 

And contrary to what AFP is telling you, if there is no apprenticeship program covering a particular job-description, a worker may be hired provided that the contractor sign a statement that he is legally permitted to work in America.  Now why would ANY group calling itself CONSERVATIVE oppose that!

What's up with AFP NJ?

Back when Steve Lonegan ran AFP in New Jersey, there was a level of competence that seems lacking now.  Lonegan communicated with other conservative and used AFP to support the conservative movement as a whole -- even when it went against the corporate interests of the Koch brothers. 

In contrast to the Koch brothers and the current regime running AFP NJ, Lonegan was solidly Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment, he opposed same-sex marriage, opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, and supported American cultural values.  The current leadership are culture warriors for the Left.  No less than conservative Senator Mike Doherty was stiffed by them when he asked the financial backers of AFP NJ for help. 

Whether due to incompetence or by design, AFP NJ has once again exhibited that they don't understand the legislation they are opposing.  Conveniently ignoring the purpose of the legislation to push the Koch agenda isn't helping the conservative movement in New Jersey.

Black Lives Matter not supported by facts?

Here is a very interesting column by writer John Hinderaker, followed by links to two other related stories.  Is the violence that we are seeing being manufactured by the media or is the problem as disproportionate as some claim?  Read for yourself and decide.  We will provide more data as we find it or it becomes available.

ARE BLACKS DISPROPORTIONATELY INVOLVED IN POLICE SHOOTINGS?

Listening to liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, you would think that enormous numbers of black men are being gunned down by police officers. When the issue is debated, many take it for granted that a vastly disproportionate number of blacks are involved in police shootings–in fact, if you didn’t know better, you might think that only blacks are ever shot by policemen.

The numbers tell a different story. Like all statistics, they bounce around from year to year, but let’s go with the Washington Post’s study of police shootings in 2015. The Post found that 990 people, almost all of them men, were shot and killed by law enforcement last year. Before you start calling them victims, however, note that the Post also found that in three-quarters of these incidents, police were defending either themselves or someone else who was, at that moment, under attack. That leaves around 250 cases that were not obvious self-defense or defense of a third person. That doesn’t mean, of course, that those shootings were unjustified.

What was the racial breakdown of those who were shot by police in 2015? The largest number, 494, almost exactly half, were white. 258 were black, 172 were Hispanic, and the remaining 66 were either “other” or unknown. (Interestingly, Asians are rarely shot by police officers.)

The 258 blacks represent 26% of the total. That is about double the percentage of blacks in the American population. Is that prima facie evidence of racism on the part of law enforcement? Of course not. It is common knowledge that blacks have an unusually high rate of contact with the police, both as victims and as perpetrators. In 2012-2013, the Department of Justice found that blacks were the perpetrators of 24% of all violent crimes where the race of the perpetrator was known (in 7.8% of violent crimes, it was unknown).

So the percentage of blacks fatally shot by police officers (26%) is almost exactly equal to the percentage of blacks committing violent crimes (24%). Indeed, given that the black homicide rate is around eight times the white rate, it is surprising that the portion of blacks fatally shot by policemen is not higher.

Liberals might argue that blacks are disproportionately the victims of unjustified shootings by law enforcement, but I have not seen anyone try seriously to make that case. The Post took a pass at supporting the liberal narrative by arguing that “unarmed” blacks are shot at a higher rate than whites. But the Post failed to note that, according to its own data, blacks are much more likely to attack police officers while unarmed. I don’t know why this is, but in general, I think that unarmed people who assault police officers are likely to be high on drugs. The Post also failed to point out that blacks are much more likely to assault police officers with motor vehicles. That counts as “unarmed.” We had a case like that recently in Minnesota, where a black perpetrator tried to run down a police officer and the officer shot him in self-defense.

One can slice the Post’s 2015 data in various ways. One question is whether there is a racial disparity with regard to whether the policeman or someone else is under direct attack by a perpetrator–i.e., an obvious case of self-defense. I did the math, and it turns out that, for whatever reason, the percentages are a little different for each ethnic group. (You can measure anything by ethnic group, and in all likelihood the numbers won’t be exactly the same. If it is to your political advantage, you can call that difference a “disparity” or a “gap.”)

According to the Post’s numbers–and you should bear in mind that a subjective process of classification lies behind each instance–80% of whites who were fatally shot by police officers in 2015 were in the midst of an attack on the policeman or someone else. According to the Post, 71% of blacks were shot while attacking someone, while 66% of “others” and 62% of Hispanics were shot while attacking the policeman or someone else. If you take these differences seriously, which you probably shouldn’t since re-classifying a small number of instances would dramatically change the results, they might be an argument for discrimination against Hispanics and Asians. Blacks turn out to be a relatively favored group, by this measure.

In short, the data on police shootings show that blacks are involved in such incidents just about exactly as often as one would expect, given their violent crime rate. Slicing and dicing the numbers is interesting, but doesn’t generate any obviously relevant correlations that would change that finding. Which means that, unless someone can make a compelling argument based on the data, which we have not yet seen, the Black Lives Matter movement is founded on a lie

Two related articles: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

The dishonest attacks on Congressman Garrett

Guest Columnist:  V. Rubashov

The reason America's politicians are so dishonest is because establishment opinion DEMANDS that they be dishonest.  Look at what happened to Congressman Scott Garrett when he raised the question as to why a party that opposes same-sex marriage actively recruits candidates who support same-sex marriage.  You can read for yourself here the official position of the Republican Party of the United States of America:

"Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration's open defiance of this constitutional principle--in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts--makes a mockery of the President's inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so."

2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012

As we can see, it wasn't really out of line for an inquiring mind to ask why a political party that adopted the position above would be activity recruiting candidates who opposed that position.  The Defense of Marriage Act, around which the Republican Party organized its position was passed in the United States House of Representatives with 342 members of congress -- 224 Republicans and 118 Democrats -- voting yes.  Only 65 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against it.  In the Senate it passed with the support of 84 Senators.  32 Democrats joined every Republican in voting for it.  Only 14 Democrats opposed it.  Bernie Sanders, then an Independent Socialist member of Congress voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.  President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, proudly signed it into law.

First Lady Hillary Clinton stood by her man.  A few years later, when she was an elected official herself, the beautifully coiffed United States Senator from New York took an unmistakably conservative position on same-sex marriage.

We wonder which Clinton speechwriter wrote those words?  Was it the one who is now running for Congress against Scott Garrett?  The one filling his campaign coffers with money from what Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders calls "corrupt Wall Street operators"?

If you are a supporter of this Clinton speechwriter or of Clinton for President don't think that you are going to get away with criticizing Congressman Scot Garrett for holding the same position you held until you collected millions in contributions from pro-LGBT corporations and lobbyists who commissioned  polling to show that you could safely execute a flip-flop on the issue.  That's not being a statesman. That's just allowing yourself to be bribed.  Think Steve Sweeney:  New Jersey's Senate President, south Jersey political machine apparatchik, sometime lobbyist for the Ironworkers Union (also known as "the church burners"), and flip-flopper extraordinaire -- when the price is right.

The ONLY people who have the intellectual honesty to criticize Congressman Garrett are those who support the United States Senator from the great State of Vermont, the former Mayor of Burlington and Chairman of the Liberty Union Party, Bernie Sanders.  THEY have the standing to criticize Congressman Garrett -- not the imperial Clintons or their paid mouthpiece.

The hypocrisy of those who support the imperial Clintons and their speechwriter is beginning to show signs of wear.  Supporters of the Clinton speechwriter recently went on line to criticize Congressman Garrett's attempt to make nice to the LGBT community.  One such creature claimed to be a college professor and advanced an argument both illogical and illiberal.  He says that because Garrett holds today the same view that Bill and Hillary and Barack and most elected Democrats held yesterday, he has no right to even hold office and should resign immediately and not run again.  Who would want to be in his class?  You know this so-called "educator" would likely fail you if you disagreed with him, even if he was disagreeing with the position he held only yesterday.

The imperial Clintons and their lackeys must not be allowed to advance their hypocritical line of attack against an honorable public servant like Congressman Scott Garrett.  Hold them to account.

Mr. Bean gives a lesson on Free Speech

Lots of people these days want to restrict free speech.  They call it words like "hate" when really it is only an alternative point of view.

Question one of their sacred cows --Planned Parenthood, for instance -- and they go apoplectic.  "My country right or wrong" has been replaced by "my abortion clinic right or wrong."  And they want to scratch your eyes out if you disagree.  

Once upon a time, liberals were more tolerant.  They understood that's it's easy to defend what you love but if you believe in free speech you have to be willing to  defend what you hate too.  But yesterday's liberals were adults who knew how to swim in the big pool of ideas.  Today's libs content themselves in the paddling pond.  Any thought too deep scares them. 

Ditto for what goes for our media today.  The corporate media -- Left and Right -- insists that we have but two choices:  Hillary or Jeb!  They get absolutely bonkers with anger when the voters don't agree with them, and opt for Bernie or Donald. 

Establishment folk with power are now big into policing speech and pruning any they disagree with.  Heck, the Soviets couldn't pull that off effectively.  Speech is like water, it finds a way to get out despite all your efforts to prevent it. 

Unlike many in the corporate media -- which, after all, must rely on government and corporate advertising to exist --  we, at the Watchdog, we believe in free speech.  We have the intellectual curiosity to consider viewpoints not our own and the courage to advocate for their right to be heard.  Take this recent exchange between a former news reporter in Northwest New Jersey and the Watchdog:

Reporter:  "Your a f*cking hack, and you should be ashamed of yourself for spewing this vomit you call journalism."  

Watchdog:  "What a crude, violent, and illiberal response.  It appears as though you are the one doing the spewing.  Instead of vomiting all over the page with your foul language, try formulating a response.  We would be happy to print it.  See, here in America, we can disagree and still be civil.  Although you disagree with us, we feel it our duty to defend your right to disagree and to print it if you so choose.  Of course, we cannot print words like "f*cking", for obviously reasons, email filters being one of them." 

A juvenile, unable to control his emotions.  Apparently he suffers from writer's block as well.

For those with minds open to re-learn the lost art of civility, we present Mr. Rowan Atkinson, that very liberal comedian who plays Mr. Bean.  Enjoy.