The people who teach our children are shilling for a human trafficker. Yes, the world is a bad place.

Throughout the confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh, we heard a lot from the Democrats and their allies – from newcomers like Antifa and the Women’s March to usual suspects like NOW and the NJEA.  We heard them shout in unison about “accusations” and “FBI investigations” – and how these things are enough to block someone from high office.  Well, there were enough allegations against Senator Bob Menendez, for President Obama’s Justice Department to indict him on federal corruption charges and to take him to trial.  It ended in a mistrial.  Out of that came a formal admonishment by the Senate Ethics Committee in April of this year.

What came out of the FBI investigation was that Senator Menendez was helping to bring young women into the United States for his friend and donor, Salomon Melgen to use as sexual objects.  It is our opinion that these women were being trafficked for sexual purposes and the FBI investigation appears to have led to the same conclusion. 

As was reported in the national and New York media, the FBI investigation came up with “corroborating evidence” concerning uncharged allegations of underage prostitution.  Specifically, prosecutors claim that the Senator and his donor friend traveled to the Dominican Republic to have sex with prostitutes, some of whom would have been underaged. 

If, in the era of #MeTooism, allegations are enough – as we were endlessly told by the Democrats and their Antifa allies – then why are Democrats and groups like the NJEA supporting Bob Menendez?  Why are they allowing RealPolitik to trump #MeTooism?

There is a lot more evidence of #MeTooism with Senator Menendez than ever existed in the case of Brett Kavanaugh.  And yet we still hear the self-serving dribble from the likes of Democrat congressional candidates Mikie Sherrill, Tom Malinowski, and Andy Kim.  Not to mention Senator Cory Booker – who wants to turn Israel, or what would remain of it after he removed their defensive wall, into a vast Yugoslav-style rape camp.  Does anyone doubt what would happen to the Israeli population – particularly its women and children – if they were ever turned over to the tender mercies of Hamas, Hezbollah, or even the garden variety governments of its “neighbors”?

In addition to their hypocritical support of Menendez and opposition to Kavanaugh, the indictments against these three candidates are as follows:

Mikie Sherrill worked with far-left radical elements allied with Antifa and the Jihadist Linda Sarsour (a racist allied with Louis Farrakhan) to drive out a moderate, bi-partisan member of Congress, who had served in-country during the Vietnam War.  They knew he was elderly and in failing health, but they worked on him until he had to give up.

Tom Malinowski turned a career as a human rights advocate on its head when he joined Obama’s Clinton-Kerry State Department and promptly became an apologist for those who use slave labor and who engage in human trafficking and the exploitation of women and children.  Far from standing up to dictators and authoritarian governments, he made excuses for them.

Andy Kim is one of the founders of “The Resistance.”  And he has lied about his record from the first – at one point even describing himself or allowing himself to be described as a “veteran” when he has never served in the military.  Now he’s running on a ticket that includes – not only Senator Menendez – but a Freeholder candidate who has been arrested for domestic violence and who had stalking complaints filed against him. 

These candidates are not pro-women or pro-anything, they are Democrat Party politicians looking for votes, and they will do anything or say anything to get them.  They are committed to getting power so that they can take away YOUR freedom.

So now we know how far they’ll go.  What are we going to do to stop them?  How determined are we?  Are we determined enough to tell our neighbors about their hypocrisy?  Are we determined enough to stand up after the church social and put it out there?  Are we determined enough to let everyone we know on Facebook where we stand and what the stakes are?  Or are we too pussy to do any of that?

Republicans who want to stay pussies are not going to make this fight any easier.

Don’t be pussies.  There’s too much at stake.  At the very least, think of those young women – the trafficked and the sexually exploited – those women the NJEA and Mikie Sherrill, Tom Malinowski, and Andy Kim conveniently forgot about.

Now go to it and motivate your friends, family, and neighbors to vote for reform.  Go to it like you really mean it… and don’t be afraid if the coddlers of human traffickers and sexual exploitation call you names.  Suck it up.  Embrace it.

Why are NJ property taxes the nation’s highest?

www.GardenStateFamilies.org

By William Eames

For many years, the Tax Foundation has listed New Jersey as having the nation’s highest property taxes. 

 [1]  Why are they so high?  And why do most folks believe they are powerless to do anything about it? 

      First, is it true?  NJ property taxes are higher, per capita, than others.  The Tax Foundation’s ratings[2] rank New Jersey #1 in the nation (highest property taxes per capita) for each of the past five years.

• 2018:  NJ ranks #1 (highest) in property taxes; #50 (worst) in overall tax climate. (data from 2016)  For reference, in property taxes, California ranks 34th!

• 2017:  NJ ranked #1 (data from 2015)[3]; In overall taxes, NJ Ranked 50th (worst).

• 2016:  NJ ranked #1 (highest property taxes per capita)(data from 2014)[4]

• 2015: NJ ranked #1 (highest property taxes per capita)(data from 2013)[5]

• 2014:  NJ ranked #1 (highest property taxes per capita)(data from 2012)[6]

Seven Key Reasons 

      Most folks tend to blame our high property taxes on schools or the “Mount Laurel” school funding decisions by the courts.  But there are other causes.  Susan Livio of NJ Advance Media, writing last year for NJ.com[7], listed these:

1. Our population density – of the states, NJ has the highest population density.[8]

2. High labor costs – in the Industrial Era, it was demand that produced high labor costs, but during the Progressive Era and beyond, labor rules and guaranteed benefits have put us near the top.

3. Generally high cost of living – The population density, proximity to both New York and Philadelphia, and demand for housing, utilities, high quality medical services … all boost costs.

4. Property taxes pay most of the costs – While New Jersey taxes just about everything imaginable, it has historically grouped municipal operations, county operations, the lower courts, jails, and schools under the “property tax” umbrella.  In other states, some of those costs are paid by sales taxes or local income taxes.

5. Home rule – This is a point of debate.  Some argue having 565 municipalities, 21 counties and 605 school districts increases costs; others argue that having decision makers close to the taxpayers (“we know where you live”) helps hold spending down. 

6. Public worker pensions & health care costs – This is not in dispute.  The public policy decisions in the 1930s and 1940s to allow governments to offer defined benefit pensions and lifetime health benefits to public employees … and often keep those costs off budget … are now wreaking financial havoc.  Those policies allowed governments to skip putting money into pensions and health funds paycheck by paycheck, and allowed them to pass costs forward, only paying once folks retired.  Kick the can down the road.  This is changing slowly, but the damage of under-funding these programs may result in fiscal insolvency in the next decade.

7. Education costs – New Jersey has good schools, based on the reports.  But it costs a lot to get those results, and decisions in the 1970s to significantly boost starting salaries boosted costs significantly.

A Deeper Look

      But if we take a deeper look, our position as one of the original colonies, as a center for the Industrial Revolution, and our dubious reputation for hosting several of the world’s most progressive liberals (think Woodrow Wilson) all play a role.  Consider:

• In 1875, the 1844 NJ Constitution was amended by adding the infamous “thorough and efficient” clause:  “The [NJ] Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in this State between the ages of five and eighteen years.”  This obligation was carried forward, verbatim, into the 1947 rewrite of the NJ Constitution.  The intent was an outgrowth of this colony’s Quaker origins, and a recognition of the importance (as observed by Alexis de Tocqueville) of enabling each citizen to read.  At the time, the verbalized intent was for the State to pay education costs.  But almost immediately, the State began pushing those costs to towns.

• New Jersey’s own Woodrow Wilson, - as president of Princeton University, then as governor of NJ, 1911-1913, then as President – brought us Progressive policies and liberal labor benefits.  (Including but not limited to labor agreements as policy, like project labor agreements and arbitration, creation of the NJEA and other ‘mandated fee’ associations.)

• In 1947, New Jersey’s Constitution was radically revised.[9]  The process was steered by self-admitted progressives within the legal and court system, who openly bragged of their desire for independence for the Courts and of their Progressive leadership and insight.  Chief among the revisions was a complete reorganization of the judicial branch, abolishing the state’s former judicial system and its replacement with an entirely new and independent judicial structure.  Heavily influenced by a well-known and politically powerful attorney named Arthur Vanderbilt, by 1950 the NJ Supreme Court had proclaimed itself as having the exclusive authority to control its own affairs, to interpret the NJ Constitution and to exercise unprecedented new rule-making powers “not subject to overriding legislation.”

  As Chief Justice, Vanderbilt wrote more than 200 opinions, always advocating for a living/breathing judicial system not bound by past precedent or “old” legal doctrines, but one that was responsive to society’s contemporary needs.  That legacy includes court rule-making such as the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and the Abbott school district funding issues.

• In 1972, a group of enterprising attorneys, urban school districts and cities sued the State and Gov. Cahill[10], alleging that the State’s system of funding free public schools was unconstitutional, namely, whether the equal protection and education clauses of the State Constitution were being violated by New Jersey's statutory financing scheme.[11]  According to the court, the argument was that the then-current system of financing public education in New Jersey relied heavily on local property taxes, producing wide disparities in educational expenditures.  The plaintiffs contended that public school education is a state function which must be afforded to all pupils on equal terms. But the state was funding districts on a formula basis that was not “full” funding – forcing each town to tax property to make up the difference (sometimes nearly 80% of the school budget). Thus, actual spending per pupil varied significantly, which they argued violated the “thorough and efficient” clause, as well as the “equal protection” clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The Court used statistics to document “a distinct pattern in every county in the State. In most cases, rich districts spend more money per pupil than poor districts,” and argued that “most of the poorer communities must serve people of greater need because they have large numbers of dependent minorities.” The Court ruled that “The Education Clause was intended to do what it says, that is, to make it a state legislative obligation to provide a thorough education for all pupils wherever located.” 

    In the 1975 Robinson v. Cahill decision, New Jersey’s Supreme Court began to exercise “the unprecedented new rule-making powers not subject to overriding legislation” that it had given itself through interpretation of the 1947 Constitution. The Court said, “each child in the State has the right to an educational program geared to the highest level he is capable of achieving, permitting him to realize his highest potential as a productive member of society.” It also said, “that pupils of low socio-economic status need compensatory education [greater funding than others] to offset the natural disadvantages of their environment.” … “Providing free education for all is a state function. It must be accorded to all on equal terms,” the Court said.

   The conclusion was, “The State must finance a "thorough and efficient" system of education out of state revenues raised by levies imposed uniformly on taxpayers of the same class.”  The Legislature and Governor were directed to come up with a new tax plan to equally fund the education of every student.  They didn’t.

• By 1985, the inequities had not been resolved, and a new lawsuit was filed, “Abbott v. Burke”.  This time, the Court named 28 specific school districts (commonly called “Abbott districts”[12]) “that were provided remedies [by the court] to ensure that their students receive public education in accordance with the state constitution.”

• In 1990, another lawsuit was filed which became known as “Abbott II”.  The Court ordered the state to fund the (then) 28 Abbott districts at the average level of the state's wealthiest districts.

A Wikipedia article[13] summarizes in this way:  

Abbott districts are school districts in New Jersey covered by a series of New Jersey Supreme Court rulings, begun in 1985, that found that the education provided to school children in poor communities was inadequate and unconstitutional and mandated that state funding for these districts be equal to that spent in the wealthiest districts in the state.

The Court, in Abbott II and in subsequent rulings, ordered the State to assure that these children receive an adequate education through implementation of certain reforms, including standards-based education supported by parity funding. It added various supplemental programs and school facilities improvements, including to Head Start and early education programs.

      In the time since these decisions, many structural changes have been made, and vast amounts of public money have been spent.  But property taxes remain the highest in the nation, most funding from schools is still from the property tax, and school funding is anything but “equal.”

      Finally, Federal tax policy that favored a few “high cost” states, allowing them to write off property taxes against federal income tax obligations, allowed a few states including New Jersey to skirt responsibility for their spending.  There are arguments on both sides of the recent tax changes that took this write-off away, but while it lasted, it gave New Jersey towns the ability to spend more while lessening the threat of taxpayer revolt.

Why do most folks believe they are powerless to do anything about high property taxes?

      Many citizens say they’re not actively engaging in policy issues because they’re too busy and stressed from all the obligations of living in such an intense part of the country.  While we’re all stressed, in my experience, it would be more accurate to say the obstacle is that they’ve never gotten involved.  That’s not a criticism, but an observation.  When we run orientations, or take “newbies” to a public meeting or to a legislative hearing, they often report that it wasn’t intimidating at all. 

      Many volunteer to go to another, or to several, because the “live action” beats television any day of the week … and there are no commercials.

      This, however, is very serious business, with very serious consequences for Christians, Jews, and ordinary citizens.  That’s because those who can gain from the favors of legislators work every day to assure their future economic benefit.  More often, these days, their efforts also restrict our freedoms.

      Want some fun?  Research the origin of this quote:  “If not us, who?; If not now, when?”  But it deserves some really serious consideration.  “Politics” is the civil side of policy.  You can be absolutely certain of another quote by Edmund Burke:  “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”  You can rest assured that evil men are active.

      The Center for Garden State Families is a starting point.  But a few active citizens isn’t enough.  Emails to legislators are good, but they’re not enough.  A check for $25 is good, but it isn’t enough.

      Get involved.  No experience necessary.

      God Bless.

# # # 

[1] The Tax Foundation, Tax Foundation

[2] The Tax Foundation, 2018 Facts & Figures

[3] The Tax Foundation, 2017 Facts & Figures 

[4] The Tax Foundation, 2016 Facts & Figures 

[5] The Tax Foundation, 2015 Facts & Figures 

[6] The Tax Foundation, 2014 Facts & Figures

[7]see http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/7_reasons_why_njs_property_taxes_are_highest_in_us.html

[8] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population_density 

[9] see https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/courts/supreme/vm/vanderbilt.html 

[10] Robinson v. Cahill litigation 

[11] see https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1972/118-n-j-super-223-0.html

[12] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district

[13] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district

*Mr. Eames has worked as an instructor for the Center for Self Governance and has been a candidate for NJ Senate, LD 27.  He has served as CEO of the New Jersey Tooling & Manufacturing Association and the Greater Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce.

Herald shows pro-Democrat bias in stories

Twice on Sunday the New Jersey Herald showed an extreme pro-Democrat Party bias in its coverage.  On Sunday, a Herald story by David Danzis about county school consolidation gave Republican Steve Oroho just 153 words of coverage, while lavishing 266 words on Democrat Jennifer Hamilton. 

For the Assembly candidates, the count was 244 for the Republicans and 329 for the Democrats.  329 words is more than most paid campaign mailers contain.

Danzis's pro-Democrat bias got a little ridiculous when he included a quote by Hamilton that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the story -- a purely gratuitous quote that should have included a "paid for by..." disclaimer:

"Often times the first question somebody asks me is ‘Are you a Democrat or a Republican?' like that's going to determine my position on every single issue," she said. "I find it interesting because it gives people an easy out. It makes it simple for them so they can say, ‘Well, I know if you're a Democrat that's not what I'm looking for.' But it also takes away from potentially electing some really good, qualified people into these positions just because of the letter they have next to their name."

Now that is a political advertisement and it plainly underscores the fact that the Herald is shilling for Democrats to a readership that is among the most conservative in the state.  In the long run, not a good move. 

Danzis could have pointed out that candidate Hamilton is endorsed by the NJEA, a left-of-center lobby group that has explicitly opposed school consolidation, which makes her statement rather silly.  On top of that, it is her party -- the Democrat Party -- that has steadfastly supported the education funding formula whereby the property taxes of wealthy professionals and corporations in Abbott school districts like Hoboken and Jersey City are subsidized by working class taxpayers in rural Sussex County.  Party does matter, because parties have policies and platforms that differ dramatically.  Danzis should be bright enough to understand that.

Also on Sunday, the Herald printed the press release of Democrat Party Freeholder candidate Dan Perez, word for word.  If the Herald is going to be a partisan campaign vehicle for Perez, it should fully disclose the relationship between the newspaper's attorney -- Kevin Kelly -- and candidate Perez.  Not only did Perez represent Kelly in his lawsuit against the Sparta Police Department, but he and Kelly together sued Vernon Township -- making the ridiculous allegation that a local grandmother was a "racketeer".   Lord, save us from the lawyers! 

"Dishonest Kate" Matteson attacks Sparta grandmom

Wealthy liberal Kate "Dishonest Kate" Matteson continued her malicious campaign of unadulterated horse manure yesterday, when she personally attacked senior citizen Ailish Hambel of Sparta.  Hambel, who emigrated from Ireland, raised a family in Sussex County, and built a well-regarded business in Sparta, has spent her life in service to the people of her home town.  Hambel has worked with charities throughout Sussex County.

After reading a false attack made by "Dishonest Kate" Matteson, Hambel responded with a letter sent to the same newspapers in which Matteson's attack appeared.  Matteson angrily responded with another attack -- only this time, she targeted Hambel personally.

In her response to Hambel, "Dishonest Kate" Matteson misleads the public by claiming that her Republican opponents "applied" for the endorsement of the NJEA.  In fact, they simply filled out a questionnaire -- a courtesy that they afford to groups, even when they disagree with them on the issues.  Unlike Matteson, a "faux revolutionary" and wannabe "social justice warrior," her Republican opponents don't hate people just because they disagree with them.  Take Parker Space, for example.  He doesn't show up to a fire asking if the burning building is owned by a Democrat or a Republican, he puts it out!  Same way when someone needs help.  Political ideology doesn't enter into it.  Human beings are more important than politics.

The fact is that the NJEA has never endorsed the Republican legislators in Sussex County.  They wouldn't even endorse them when nobody was running against them.  They would rather endorse dead air than the Sussex GOP. 

And that's because the Republican legislators in Sussex County oppose higher property taxes and know that the NJEA's position in favor of removing the 2 percent property tax cap on local government will cause a huge leap in property taxes.  The facts show this:  Under the administrations of Democrats Jim McGreevey and Jon Corzine, property taxes rose an average of 6.1 percent a year -- triple the rate of inflation.  Since the cap, property taxes have gone up an average of just 2.1 percent a year.

"Dishonest Kate" Matteson wants you to believe that the NJEA hands out its endorsement to people who oppose them.  Sure  they do... 

No, they don't.  The NJEA endorses those who line up and kiss its ring.  Period.  If you are endorsed by the NJEA, then you are on-board for their agenda -- and a big part of that agenda is getting rid of the 2-percent cap that has been keeping property tax increases to a barely tolerable minimal.  Removing it will be a very painful experience for Sussex County taxpayers.

"Dishonest Kate" Matteson has a decision to make:  Stand with the working people who pay property taxes... or stand with the NJEA.

Get back to us when you've made up your mind.

NJEA leaders fail to oppose all political violence

Over the weekend, we heard from a college-educated, professional woman, who resides in a new McMansion in an upscale suburban community, and drives a very expensive energy-efficient automobile.  From all outward signs perfectly sane.  The argument she put forward is this:  That Kim Jong-il is "only trying to protect his country" and that Donald Trump is "a far greater threat to the world's peace."

This is Trump Derangement Syndrome at its worse.  We run into egregious examples of it all the time.  For instance, there's a group of social warriors called Action Together Sussex County.  This group has been doing a lot of virtue-signaling lately, with calls for "peace & love" and the like.  They recently did an "education rally" with two NJEA-backed legislative candidates in which a lot of holier-than-thou language was employed.

Unfortunately... they have a past.  And it's a not-too-distant past. 

Take April 9, 2017... the Action Together Sussex County Facebook page.  Get a load of this "peace & love" routine:

"Got a friend who hates Trump"?  WTF!

"...Please email share this link with Democrats and progressives not on Facebook so that they can participate."  Participate in what?  Hating Trump, that's what.

How's that for spreading the hate?

On June 14, 2017, a United States Congressman was shot down while attending a baseball practice.  Action Together Sussex County makes no mention of this act of violent hate on its Facebook page... ever!  Why?  Is it because the victim is a Republican and the perpetrator a "leftwing activist" (per Wikipedia)?

Where were the vigils, the rallies, the calls for "peace & love" then?  Isn't the life of a Republican worth as much as that of a Democrat?  Apparently not.

Also shot were a female Capitol Police officer, a Congressional aide, and one other bystander.  They too did not earn a mention.

Then there is Action Together Sussex County's support of the Women's March and its silence when the media reported that the Women's March "honored" cop-killer Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur), a terrorist on the FBI's "most-wanted" list.

According to groups like the Women's March (which the NJEA supported, by the way) terrorists like Chesimard -- who murdered a New Jersey State Trooper in cold blood -- "inspire us to keep resisting."  Oh do they?

The Women' March organization issued a statement "celebrating" Ms. Chesimard's birthday, praising her as a "revolutionary."  Which brings us to the NJEA leadership's statement on the murder of a young protestor in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend.

To begin with, the purple prose is somewhat embarrassing, particularly as it comes from people claiming to be educators.  Remember, this is the organization that consistently uses restrained language when describing the September 11, 2001, attacks that killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others, and caused at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage.   While describing September 11th as a "tragic event" the NJEA uses the term "horror" to describe a young man driving his automobile into a crowd of protestors.  That is an odd formulation given the relative scales of the two incidents.

We believe that what James Alex Fields did was willful murder and that he should pay for it with his life.  On this point, we part company with the NJEA, who oppose the death penalty.  They employ hard words.  We prefer hard sentences.  In this case, the murderer's life.  Enough talk.

The NJEA has often been silent in the face of political acts of violence.  When they do rouse themselves, it is more often about the ideas expressed than the violence that has become a part of our general political discourse.  Often enough, the NJEA's reaction could be misconstrued as itself an incitement to violence.  Take its statement on Charlottesville as an example, with its calls to "act boldly" for the cause of "social justice" and to change society.  "Act boldly" means what?  "Social justice" includes which issues and solutions? 

Was James Hodgkinson -- a "leftwing activist," late of Belleville, Illinois -- acting boldly when he sought to shoot some Republican members of Congress in June?

The NJEA's statement is full of such unclear language, open to gross misinterpretation.  Again, shocking for educators who should know how to write clearly.  We suggest they pick up a copy of The Elements of Style, a classic by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White.

The statement by the NJEA's leadership never mentions the act of murder -- and instead conflates this act with a tragic aircraft accident that occurred.  The NJEA never acknowledges that America is rapidly devolving into a place that no longer understands the idea of a "loyal opposition"  -- a place where people can no longer peaceably hold contrary points of view.  The NJEA statement does not call for an end to political violence.  Instead, the NJEA focuses on the ideas expressed by "neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hatemongers" (Are the Women's March and Action Together included amongst those "hatemongers"?) and on the "symbols" displayed and by "rhetoric reminiscent of Nazi Germany" (As in the aftermath of the Reichstag fire, perhaps?).

Is the NJEA statement a call to fight violence with violence... to "act boldly"?  You must ask them.

We believe that this is the moment for the NJEA to place aside its inner Che Guevara and dust off and channel its inner Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.  We should not fear ideas -- especially the stupid ideas expressed by racists and neo-Nazis.  They are too easy to refute and make a mockery of.  We should not need to stoop to their level -- to call for censorship or speech bans or other forms of authoritarianism -- to undo their foolish propositions.

Speech must be met squarely with speech.  It does no good to force ideas underground.  It is far better to lure out foolish ideas, into the sunlight, where they can be tested, argued, and disposed of.  Those who do otherwise lack confidence -- or are simply propagandists and scam artists on the make who will use the same violence that they pose to condemn.  There is no idea, no argument, that an intelligent, civilized people need fear.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was right when he said, in a somewhat different context, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."  Instead of stoking fear, the NJEA's leadership should be pushing the debate forward into the "bright sunlit uplands" of clarity.