Is Josh Gottheimer guilty of improperly using his office?

By Rubashov

So, it wasn't a real invitation to a real event? Just a political ploy?

Did InsiderNJ’s Fred Snowflack pull the curtain back on Congressman Josh Gottheimer – or did Gottheimer do it to himself?

On March 22nd Congressman Gottheimer sent a formal invitation – on his official stationery – to the Sussex County Board of Commissioners. The invitation was to join him for a “briefing” by the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (NJOHSP) on “the latest domestic terror threats in our State.”

The invitation, signed by Congressman Gottheimer, did not contain the date and time of said briefing or the location at which it was to be held. It did contain this paragraph:

“I will follow up with specific details on the briefing with NJOHSP and look forward to working together to stop hate, domestic terror, and extremism in all forms. In the meantime, please contact me directly at Josh.Gottheimer@mail.house.gov with any questions. Thank you for your service.”

But Congressman Gottheimer never did follow up with specific details. According to Snowflack, he instead used it as a political hit piece on the Commissioners and, more importantly, on his constituents who reside in Sussex County. On a March 25th post on InsiderNJ, Snowflack wrote:

“Today, Gottheimer, whose 5th District includes most of Sussex County, released a letter he sent to the county commissioners on March 22.
In case, the commissioners have any doubt about the specter of white supremacy, the Democratic congressman is ready to help. His letter invites the commissioners ‘to join me and the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness for a briefing on the latest domestic terror threats in our state.’
It then notes that for the first time the state’s Homeland Security Office has raised the threat level posed by white supremacists to ‘high,’ putting them in a class with ‘ISIS-inspired terrorists.’
Gottheimer adds that three far-right groups in particular – the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and Three Percenters – are active in Sussex County.
That’s an interesting point.
As the debate raged over the hate-related resolutions, some speakers said condemning extremism is needed, because of the presence in the county of those very groups. Commissioners, as is their apparent custom, didn’t respond to the speakers’ point.
When the issue of political violence from the right is raised – as it has been many times since Jan. 6 – some Republicans point out violence caused by the far left.
So, Gottheimer’s letter also mentions ‘individuals inspired by antifa ideology.’
But make no mistake. The congressman’s main point is about the dangers of right wing extremism. And in Sussex County.”

Well, let’s look at this for a moment. Let us examine the statement: “for the first time the state’s Homeland Security Office has raised the threat level posed by white supremacists to ‘high,’ putting them in a class with ‘ISIS-inspired terrorists.’”

Are the groups mentioned here – the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and Three Percenters – which are labeled by Gottheimer as “white supremacists”, actually in a “class with ISIS-inspired terrorists”?

ISIS is officially designated as a “terrorist organization” by the United Nations, the European Union, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Canada, China, Egypt, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Paraguay, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Syria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The Oathkeepers and Three Percenters don’t make the list.

The Proud Boys make the list in Canada, just as CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) made the list in the United Arab Emirates. Curiously, CAIR’s designation as a “terrorist organization” didn’t stop Congressman Gottheimer from praising and seeking electoral assistance from Action Together, a group that has coordinated activities with CAIR and has even accepted awards from them.

We can point to numerous activities in which CAIR has worked closely with Democrat Party activists throughout Congressman Gottheimer’s district – everything from voter registration drives to protest rallies. Why did it not earn a mention in Gottheimer’s missive?

In fact, CAIR is closely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a designated “terrorist organization” in Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Kazakhstan, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and the United Arab Emirates.

Given this, Congressman Gottheimer’s assertion about the “threat level posed” seems histrionic, hysterical even. In fact, everything in his “invitation” seems less about the work of government and simply a political hit – albeit one paid for by the taxpayers.

Then there is Congressman Gottheimer’s claim that “the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and Three Percenters are active in Sussex County.” Are they?

It has been polled you know. Recently.

Nobody heard of them. Nobody knows anyone who is a member. And, by-the-way, nobody thinks Sussex County is particularly racist. Or that their neighbors are racists. Or that “white supremacy” is prevalent.

Why would they? Sussex County is one of the least violent, safest places in America. People move from places like Bergen County and New York City to enjoy all that it offers. It has more incidents of agricultural trespassing than bias crimes.

Now we are all aware that the designation of what is or isn’t a “terrorist organization” is a highly political exercise. Joe Cryan’s beloved Irish Nationalists were all once labeled “terrorists”. Even Nelson Mandela was once designated a “terrorist”. So was Menachem Begin, who went on to become the Prime Minister of Israel. It was Begin who, as the leader of a militant paramilitary group, ordered the bombing attack on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. 91 people – British, Arabs, and Jews – died in that bombing.

Is Congressman Gottheimer suggesting that Sussex County is a hotbed for activity of the kind practiced by Menachem Begin? If so, where are the crime statistics? No, instead of crimes, we are told about “incidents”. These mainly involve people posting on-line or handing out reading material that other people find offensive – which, in America, is perfectly legal. Other “incidents” involve rude or anti-social behavior which, if it becomes criminal, should be dealt with as the law instructs.

In his rush to stamp out all such “incidents” Congressman Gottheimer runs the risk of creating a species of thought crime and of packing our already packed-out prison system with a new kind of prisoner – a political prisoner. This is not the way forward if you wish to continue to use that name, democracy.

Here to instruct Congressman Gottheimer on the difference between “crimes” and “incidents” is the great Ira Glasser, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from 1978 to 2001…

Now this isn’t the first time Congressman Gottheimer has used his office to play political tricks.  Earlier this year he held a press conference on “hate” at the Sussex County Community College and claimed to have had invited the County Commissioners and the state legislative delegation, which he had not.  And then there was the time he crashed the county vaccination center – had his staff members threat face with some sheriff’s officers and then dared them to arrest him – all over a photo op.  Weird.
 
Weirder still is the political angle to all this.  Does he have data showing that his constituents in Sussex County want to believe they live in a violent, racist hellhole and that they and their children are all bad, bad racists?  That’s not a very positive message. 
 
It appears that, in the wake of the January 6th Capitol Riot, a number of Democrats have seized upon it as their Reichstag Fire moment.  They want to use it to criminalize their political opponents to the point that they, once again, enjoy the “permanent majority” they held during the forty years before Newt Gingrich undid it in 1994.  It is a dangerous game that appears to have carried them along to this moment.
 
Of course, Josh Gottheimer is an old hand at playing with fear.  His former boss, President Bill Clinton, played on the fear of “Black” crime for votes and now he is trying to convince people that their real threat is their neighbor (as opposed to corrupt, rapacious politicians like himself).  But it’s a dodgy strategy, because their neighbor is likely to disprove what Gottheimer is selling.
 
Yes, the strategy is a little crazy.  Just like Katie Rotondi, the organizer the Congressman got to pull together the twenty or so Democrats (mostly failed candidates) to represent what Fred Snowflack takes to be “the people” of Sussex County.  Rejected county candidates, rejected municipal candidates, some even rejected by their own party… like Rotondi herself.  Their words will come back to haunt him (and they were all publicly recorded), because the intention in them was so plain:  To them Sussex County is an evil, bad place, full of “white supremacists” and “violent racists” who refused to vote for any of them.  And so, of course, the Democrats, the failed candidates, hate them for it.  This is the just the way some folks deal with the sting of rejection.
  
 

“One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.”
George W. Bush

Andy Kim GUILTY? Was it a case of Depraved Indifference to Human Life?

The other day we came across this political commercial put out by congressional candidate Andy Kim…

Hand on his heart, Andy Kim assures us that he “listened and worked together to save lives.”  But it’s not true.  And according to the New Yorker magazine, it’s some of the worst bullshit imaginable.

Nobody listened.  Lives were lost.  Some shot to death or butchered with knives, other burnt alive, some buried alive in the desert.  Thousands of women and girls raped… over and over again.  Women and children sold like cattle.  Modern day slavery – all while Andy Kim was safe… in that “situation room.”

According to his own statements made in November 2016 at William & Mary College, Andy Kim comfortably watched as a genocide unfolded on the TV screens and monitors in that “situation room.”  Andy Kim has tried to play that down – calling it a “potential genocide” – but the United Nations disagrees with him and so do the community of people who suffered that genocide.  Andy Kim has lied throughout his campaign about this:

“…when ISIS threatened genocide on the Yazidi people sheltering on Sinjar Mountain in Iraq, Andy worked with the U.S. military to coordinate a rescue mission.”

(Andy Kim for Congress Facebook, www.facebook.com/pg/AndyKimNJ/about/)

But there was no “rescue mission” by the Obama administration worthy of the name.  In the end, the Yazidi people were rescued by a Kurdish militia group labeled as “terrorists” by Vice President Joe Biden, in order to appease the Islamist regime in Turkey.   

We know that Yazidi expats resident in the United States pleaded with the Obama administration – and directly with Andy Kim – and that Kim’s response was weak and insufficient to prevent what President Obama himself has called “genocide” (Washington Post, August 8, 2014).

And it is very clear, from the Yazidis’ story, that they believed that genocide was about to happen and that, afterwards, it was allowed to happen.  If the administration had listened to these Yazidi expats – all of whom had formerly worked for the United States military – the Obama administration’s response could have been more precise and robust and lives could have been saved. 

This small immigrant community – a repressed religious minority in their homeland (and so genuine refugees from violence) – came up against an elitist administration that wouldn’t listen to them because they weren’t “experts” like Andy Kim thought he was.   The fact that Andy Kim is trying to now portray his weak response to this genocide in a “positive” way – as a recommendation for higher office – is sickening when the real record is examined… the killings, the rapes, and the slavery that did happen to the Yazidis’ community and to their family members because Andy Kim and others like him in the Obama administration were too “smart” to take the common sense advice from those who understood what was actually going on.

It’s all there, in the New Yorker magazine.  Not a right-wing anything but the jewel in the crown of literary liberalism.  Go read it for yourself and prepare to weep and feel the disgrace of it.  Of the failure that was Andy Kim and the Obama administration.  Of the genocide that candidate Andy Kim now tries to turn into a qualification for Congress.

The long article begins…

New Yorker

Annals of War

February 26, 2018 Issue

The Daring Plan to Save a Religious Minority from ISIS

When the terrorist group attacked the Yazidis, a small group of American immigrants knew they could do something.

By Jenna Krajeski

ISIS intended to wipe out the Yazidi religion in Iraq. Yazidis in America had a plan, so they started driving to Washington…

…After 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq, Pir and Ismael, like many Yazidi men, took jobs as interpreters for the U.S. military. Because they were a targeted religious minority, there was little opportunity outside the Army, and they were unlikely to join the Iraqi insurgency. In the military, they befriended another Yazidi, named Haider Elias, who, in spite of his poor background, spoke nearly perfect English, with a TV-made American accent.

The three men worked with the U.S. for years, often with the Special Forces…

In the course of a few days, the Yazidis met with organizations such as U.S.A.I.D. and the Institute for International Law and Human Rights. They went to the White House to meet with the deputy national-security adviser, Ben Rhodes, and the adviser on Iraq, Andy Kim, in the Roosevelt Room. “That was as emotional a meeting as I think I had,” Rhodes told me. “Given the role we played in invading and occupying and being present in Iraq for so many years, we had to care about what was happening to the Yazidis.”

To be continued…

The Liberal Media vs. President Trump

A study released today shows just how biased the Media is against Republicans:

As President Trump approaches the end of his first 100 days in office, he has received by far the most hostile press treatment of any incoming American president, with the broadcast networks punishing him with coverage that has been 89% negative. The networks largely ignored important national priorities such as jobs and the fight against ISIS, in favor of a news agenda that has been dominated by anti-Trump controversies and which closely matches what would be expected from an opposition party.

For example, President Trump’s push to invigorate the economy and bring back American jobs received a mere 18 minutes of coverage (less than one percent of all airtime devoted to the administration), while his moves to renegotiate various international trade deals resulted in less than 10 minutes of TV news airtime.

Eight years ago, in contrast, the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration.

For this study, MRC analysts reviewed all of ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening news coverage of Trump and his new administration from January 20 through April 9, including weekends. Coverage during those first 80 days was intense, as the networks churned out 869 stories about the new administration (737 full reports and 132 brief, anchor-read items), plus an additional 140 full reports focused on other topics but which also discussed the new administration.

The Media is attacking Republicans all across America, but especially in "blue" enclaves like New Jersey where the far-left New York City media sets the tune. 

The study's measure of "spin" was designed to isolate the networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of partisan politics. The study ignored sound bites which merely showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting Trump, Democrats criticizing him), and instead tallied evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or negative tone to the story, such as statements from experts presented as non-partisan, voters, or opinionated statements from the networks’ own reporters.  Here is one example from the study:

The MRC analysts tallied 1,687 evaluative statements about the Trump administration, of which 1,501 (89%) were negative vs. a mere 186 (11%) which were positive.

The networks spent 223 minutes on the battle over the President’s executive orders aimed at temporarily banning immigration from seven (later reduced to six) countries that are either failed states or otherwise safe havens for Islamic terrorism. All three networks showed their disdain by filling their newscasts with soundbites from those distressed by the order. “I feel ashamed to be living in this country now,” one traveler was shown saying on CBS’s January 28 broadcast, while ABC weekend anchor Cecilia Vega said the order had created “chaos, confusion, and fear.”

“It feels like a nightmare,” a Syrian resident of Pennsylvania told NBC two days later, after his relatives arrival was delayed by the order. There was no balance to this debate, with our analysts tallying 287 negative statements on this topic vs. a mere 21 positive, which computes to an astounding 93% negative spin.

The study was conducted by the Media Research Center, whose mission is "to create a media culture in America where truth and liberty flourish."  The MRC is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.