Rich Kelsey -- Transcript (submitted 3-10-2004)

[richardkelsey]

Not published

Dear Editor:

The illegal occupation of Freehold Borough by foreign nationals continues.

The Borough Council, often criticized by me, has taken some very important steps to combat the problem. Closing the "muster zone" was the first important step actually to combat the influx of additional illegal aliens. Previously, the Borough enacted a quality of life ordinance to, inter alia, attack the current problem of illegal aliens already present in that municipality. The Borough has certainly learned that the federal authorities’ proposed policy of lax enforcement and acquiescence was and is a failure.

The illegal occupation in Freehold is the result of three forces working together. One national party sees illegal immigration as a means of political empire building, while the other party is happy to have the cheap labor. On the third front, misguided social justice advocates confuse a call for enforcement with anti-immigrant and racist attitudes. Thus, these advocates create political pressure to stop effective action under the completely bogus guise of civil, humanitarian, or immigrant rights – often playing the race card to intimidate. Their arguments fail, and their tactics are loathsome.

Most social justice advocates are pawns of outside agitators who care little about the immigrants for whom they advocate, and even less for the Borough of Freehold. The race-hustling, poverty pimps who have assaulted the Borough with lawsuits and epitaphs seek only to advance personal, national, political agendas related to open borders. I advise the Borough that in this legal struggle, it should not bring a water pistol to an artillery battle. The proponents of "illegal" immigration have sued the Borough, and called its lawful citizens racists. The battle is being fought on Freehold’s turf, but the Borough has not yet called for reserves. The Borough must open a second front on this war against illegal aliens and their morally suspect allies. The Borough needs an aggressive legal and public relations strategy.

Abandoned by federal authorities, forsaken by regional inertia, the Borough must employ a two-step counter-attack. First, it must use every available legal, procedural, political and humane mechanism to decrease the incentives for such illegal occupiers to come here. This means aggressive use of local ordinances that must be enforced, and that push illegals to challenge those ordinances. The Borough’s decision to re-open the muster zone in a settlement of a part of the lawsuit was a tactical mistake. Indeed, bowing to the hired guns of those who subvert our national borders and forum shop to subvert our Constitution only emboldens such agitators.

The second solution, unfortunately, involves a combination of public/political pressure and high-stakes, legal action. The Borough should consider a federal action against the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration Division, for failing to enforce the immigration laws. Legal experts can help build and file such a case. Such a suit, carefully crafted, would still face some legal hurdles, but together with a public relations campaign and the use of highly effective national political exposure, it would force the federal authorities to take action, if only in the Borough. (Sadly, there is no political will to address this problem nationally.)

As a candidate for political office in Virginia, my writings on this issue in Freehold were used by political opponents to paint me as anti-immigrant. The tactic is silly, and it does not pass serious examination. I remain undeterred, and so should the lawful citizens of Freehold, especially those immigrants who have been welcomed there legally. No one should tolerate hate, violence, or racism in dealing with illegal immigrants from any part of the world. Seeking a better life in America and trying to help one’s family are attributes this nation of immigrants understands quite well.

We, however, do not tolerate lawbreakers. We do not accept that some immigrants come here illegally, like toll-jumpers and line-cutters to the American dream – while other toil for years playing by the rules. And, we do not believe the title of citizenship can be acquired through eminent domain or squatters’ rights.

Deciding to come to America illegally is a crime, no matter the intent to do better for one’s family when one arrives. The punishment should be deportation with a future limitation on legal status here. Federal authorities have no legal basis to ignore the crime. More importantly, those state officials, town officials, and community advocates who aid illegals, even by ignoring their true legal status in "reckless disregard of the facts," are criminals under Federal statutes. In failing to enforce the law, immigration officials often cite immigration "policy," they never cite the law. The truth is, enforcement "policy" is in contravention of the law.

The Borough made the right choice in its first big step to combat the influx of additional illegal aliens. The Council’s convictions have already been tested, repeatedly, and now they may mistakenly reopen the muster zone – a move I would not permit absent a Court order from the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, in a small town where the Council is run substantially by citizen volunteers without much substantive policy or legal experience, nor the depth and breadth of staff to support them, the task of defending Freehold will be very difficult. Neither national or statewide party will help, and self-proclaimed social justice advocates will continue to pillory the Council. The cause, however, is just.

I believe that this Council should work to protect and insure the safe and humane treatment of illegal aliens. It should also work to prevent the growing discord that can lead to violence and hate. But, most importantly, it must act to depopulate the Borough of those individuals whose mere presence is illegal – irrespective of their race or country of origin.

The federal authorities will not act without legal and political pressure. I urge the Council and citizens take the next step. It is time to seek legal and political redress for Freehold Borough and its lawful citizens.

[richardkelsey]

This is worth a good re-read. Once again -- my positions have not changed. It is the positions of others that keep changing.

Like I said, when combating illegal aliens, don't bring a water pistol to an artillary battle. It is probably also wise not to arm the enemy or allow him to consult on your war policy.

[novillero]

It's that stupid quote froma movie of keeping your friends close, your enemies closer. The council actually repeats this line, no joke. If that's the case, and you Rich are considered persona non grata, you should check your mail for an appointment.

[richardkelsey]

It just occurred to me -- thinking about previous posts -- what is really going on here. Obviously, destroying dissent is one aim.

What has happened since August of this year?

MisterPR1981 accused this sight of being a GOP sight filled with propaganda and questioned its legitimacy as a forum.

Some posters with direct dem ties stopped posting.

The Council candidates refused to debate before the PTO saying it was not a legitimate forum.

Marc has now bowed out -- as did several other posters who felt the need to chime in and bow out -- again questioning the legitimacy of the forum and the quality of the dissent.

I believe we saw several posts over the last few months suggesting that people just need to show up at council meetings to be heard.

What seems clear -- and eerily similar -- is the concerted effort to make dissent illegitimate.

What is really happening here is that the only welcome dissent is that dissent which can be controlled as to time, place and manner of dissent.


The Council co-opted Marc from people. They are now tryng to Co-opt the LLA -- which is playing them like a fiddle.


Hey -- I already offered to take an appointment. I meet the criteria.

[bergsteiger]

When playing a game, some think if they quit before they lose, it a draw. In my book if you quit you lose.

[admin]

bergsteiger said:

When playing a game, some think if they quit before they lose, it a draw. In my book if you quit you lose.

I suppose that applies to me when I quit human relations

[Libyan Sibyl]

What was the reason you quit again Brian? Care to elaborate since this site is no longer being watched? hmmm....

As to Marc, he both praised and rebuked the site, depending on whether he personally liked the posts. He quit several times before, but he came back moments later for the last word. Like any other addict, I suspect he is going through some form of withdrawal, perhaps the sweats and reaching for his mouse as I write...

[admin]

libyansybil said:

What was the reason you quit again Brian? Care to elaborate since this site is no longer being watched? hmmm....

As to Marc, he both praised and rebuked the site, depending on whether he personally liked the posts. He quit several times before, but he came back moments later for the last word. Like any other addict, I suspect he is going through some form of withdrawal, perhaps the sweats and reaching for his mouse as I write...

I am not proud of having quit HRC. I am quite ashamed of it to be honest. I do not think I need to spell out why I quit. I also have no desire to rub more salt in the wounds.

We have seen several individuals work in a concerted effort to discredit this site because of certain issues. They failed and have all made it clear that they will not participate. Along the way, I have been insulted and spit in the face by people I consider friends, who I recently helped out a great deal. I received and angry email from the Mayor about my own words. Probably not one of my wisest decisions, I shot back at him without apology or remorse for my beliefs. I would never expect that from others.

Yes, there is an organized effort to discredit this site. I am going on regardless. Silly season is past.

Marc, Steve, and Calliope have all disappointed me a great deal. I do not care to burn bridges with any of them and they are welcome back if they choose. All three of them helped build this site and are good people. It is a shame they reacted they way they did.

One more thing I need to mention. Yesterday Rich offered to step down as Mod. I told him no and that he has helped me out a lot. Some people may not like his opinions but he is entitled to them and one thing I do know about leadership is to back up your own when under attack. Rich has been very good as a mod. I have no regrets about asking him to do it.

I only hope that Marc, the Mayor and others realize the same lesson. They might not like everything they see here, but people like Rich and I want to be on their side and help them. By doing so we help the town we care about. I wrote that back to the Mayor yesterday and I hope he is thick skinned enough and wise enough to understand that.

[Libyan Sibyl]

admin said:

bergsteiger said:

When playing a game, some think if they quit before they lose, it a draw. In my book if you quit you lose.

I suppose that applies to me when I quit human relations

You know that is another thing. If you brought up HR to Marc in the summer, he would have went on about how it has fixed some problems in town and was very constructive. Once you bring up the allegation of a questionable appointment, the HR committee had no power.

So, don't worry about it Brian. The latest word on this committee is that it is just a political plum, or perhaps meant to be a pacifier for pests.

[bergsteiger]

I wouldn’t question your decision to quit the committee. I would question your decision to join it.

Most likely that was an attempt to reel you in and you didn’t bite, good for you.

[admin]

bergsteiger said:

I wouldn’t question your decision to quit the committee. I would question your decision to join it.

Most likely that was an attempt to reel you in and you didn’t bite, good for you.

Whoa!! Lets back up on that one a bit. I have to make this clear. I asked to serve on a committee. Marc helped me out with this. When appointments were pending, I was given a choice of HRC or the Zoning board. I know a lot more about humans than I do zones, so I chose HRC.

To go back to LS's last post, I also want to make clear that I have not, nor will I, put down the HRC. I have written before and I will do so again, that they are mostly good people who do want to have a positive imact on this town.

That committee does not deserve to get slammed by anyone.

[Libyan Sibyl]

admin said:

bergsteiger said:

I wouldn’t question your decision to quit the committee. I would question your decision to join it.

Most likely that was an attempt to reel you in and you didn’t bite, good for you.

Whoa!! Lets back up on that one a bit. I have to make this clear. I asked to serve on a committee. Marc helped me out with this. When appointments were pending, I was given a choice of HRC or the Zoning board. I know a lot more about humans than I do zones, so I chose HRC.

To go back to LS's last post, I also want to make clear that I have not, nor will I, put down the HRC. I have written before and I will do so again, that they are mostly good people who do want to have a positive imact on this town.

That committee does not deserve to get slammed by anyone.

Part of my point is the mixed signals we got regarding the importance of the committee. I certainly am not slamming the people on the committee. I don't think I put down the committee either, I was reflecting on Marc's statements in the past, which I think are ambiguous. And assuming the truth of the sentiment that the HR committee is a toothless tiger, then IMO any appointment is probably political in nature.

Let's look: MaGuire and Pierce, Reyes (not him but Casa Freehold) and Reynolds have all been outspoken against the mayor. Brian has also spoken out against the mayor and runs a Freehold based website. That's 5 outspoken people being appointed to this committee... Coincidence or conspiracy?

[admin]

libyansybil said:

admin said:

Whoa!! Lets back up on that one a bit. I have to make this clear. I asked to serve on a committee. Marc helped me out with this. When appointments were pending, I was given a choice of HRC or the Zoning board. I know a lot more about humans than I do zones, so I chose HRC.

To go back to LS's last post, I also want to make clear that I have not, nor will I, put down the HRC. I have written before and I will do so again, that they are mostly good people who do want to have a positive impact on this town.

That committee does not deserve to get slammed by anyone.

Part of my point is the mixed signals we got regarding the importance of the committee. I certainly am not slamming the people on the committee. I don't think I put down the committee either, I was reflecting on Marc's statements in the past, which I think are ambiguous. And assuming the truth of the sentiment that the HR committee is a toothless tiger, then IMO any appointment is probably political in nature.

Let's look: MaGuire and Pierce, Reyes (not him but Casa Freehold) and Reynolds have all been outspoken against the mayor. Brian has also spoken out against the mayor and runs a Freehold based website. That's 5 outspoken people being appointed to this committee... Coincidence or conspiracy?

I got your point about mixed signals. IMO the committee is what ever the people on it want to make of it. It is an advisory committee that can do some good. It does not set policy to my knowledge. Anything recommended by that committee has to be approved by the governing body.

A far as people outspoken against the mayor, you forgot Frank. We were again reminded of him when his pal Angel Matos wrote a sweet little piece in the papers.

I do have to ask, when have I been an outspoken person against the Mayor? I disagreed with the decision to open the muster zone, for example, but I don't dwell on it. It's in the past and I look to move on.

Of course, recently I have written against the decision to appoint a Casa Freehold agitator to a committee, but aren't we all allowed to disagree at times?

Beyond those things, I have written in FAVOR of the Mayor. Look at most of my letters to the press and I usually am complimentary toward the governing body. I have been far from being his worst critic and certainly not anything like the others on HRC.

[fiberisgoodforyou]

Care to connect dots?

from..http://newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2006/0510/Front_Page/056.html

Frank Argote-Freyre, of Freehold Borough, the chairman of the Monmouth County Chapter of the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey, called the rally a success. He said between 500 and 600 people visited Saxton's office in Ocean County.

Argote-Freyre traveled by bus to Ferguson's office where he said approximately 150 people attended a rally. He presented the congressman with a letter stating their concerns.[/u][/color]

Saxton and Ferguson were presented with a letter written by the Coalition for the First of May of New Jersey, which stated the group's "dismay for your support for the anti-immigration legislation passed by the House of Representatives in December."

The letter stated that, "The House legislation ... would criminalize millions of undocumented workers and the charitable and religious organizations that work with them. We urge you to reconsider your vote."

The letter also stated that the Senate Judiciary Committee has a version of immigration legislation pending that, although the advocates do not believe is fully satisfactory, "offers a more comprehensive, fair and equitable solution."

According to the coalition's letter, the Senate version of the immigration proposal eliminates provisions that would criminalize immigrants and those providing humanitarian assistance to them.[/i]

** Coalition for the First of May of New Jersey
www.may1.info/
and (right click on the banner on the above web site, and look under properties)
www.leftshift.org/

Read the fill article
newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2006/0510/Front_Page/056.html

[richardkelsey]

admin said:

libyansybil said:

Part of my point is the mixed signals we got regarding the importance of the committee. I certainly am not slamming the people on the committee. I don't think I put down the committee either, I was reflecting on Marc's statements in the past, which I think are ambiguous. And assuming the truth of the sentiment that the HR committee is a toothless tiger, then IMO any appointment is probably political in nature.

Let's look: MaGuire and Pierce, Reyes (not him but Casa Freehold) and Reynolds have all been outspoken against the mayor. Brian has also spoken out against the mayor and runs a Freehold based website. That's 5 outspoken people being appointed to this committee... Coincidence or conspiracy?

I got your point about mixed signals. IMO the committee is what ever the people on it want to make of it. It is an advisory committee that can do some good. It does not set policy to my knowledge. Anything recommended by that committee has to be approved by the governing body.

A far as people outspoken against the mayor, you forgot Frank. We were again reminded of him when his pal Angel Matos wrote a sweet little piece in the papers.

I do have to ask, when have I been an outspoken person against the Mayor? I disagreed with the decision to open the muster zone, for example, but I don't dwell on it. It's in the past and I look to move on.

Of course, recently I have written against the decision to appoint a Casa Freehold agitator to a committee, but aren't we all allowed to disagree at times?

Beyond those things, I have written in FAVOR of the Mayor. Look at most of my letters to the press and I usually am complimentary toward the governing body. I have been far from being his worst critic and certainly not anything like the others on HRC.

This last post reminds me of the reason why I bumped all those old archive letters. (I wrote a much longer thread last night, but have not yet posted it.)

I bumped these letters to remind people that my positions HAVE NEVER changed.

When the Mayor and Council did well -- I said so. When they did not, I said so. I have not changed opinions, changed parties, or changed who I am since I began this fight against illegal immigration in 1994.

Some people are wondering why I keep hanging on with letters to Freehold because I don't live there. I don't live in many of the places of the world or this country where I have opinions about actions and activities -- guess what --- neither do a whole bunch of other people.

What happens in Freehold adversely affects not just my huge family. When towns provide sanctuary to illegals anywhere -- it hurts efforts to stop illegal immigration everywhere.

Also -- some people who have posted on this site -- and many others believe I am fixated on Freehold. No -- I am not. But I am guilty of being fixated on illegal immigration.

Some seem to think I only discuss this issue in Freehold. Wrong, wrong, and more wrong.

I have worked on this issue in multiple states, and spoken with and advised multiple jurisdictions on immigration issues. My familiarity with Freehold and my introduction to the issue stems from Freehold, but I have appeared on local TV, radio, numerous panels, and been published in innumerable papers related to this issue. I have advised as an attorney more than three separate towns. I have worked with numerous organizations, and I have been consulted by numerous legislators on issues related to illegal immigration. Most recently I was one of two invited guests to discuss local enforcement issues before a large Town Hall meeting here in Virginia.

One Virginia delegate is using my piece on sanctuary cities, published in the APP BEFORE the Newark murders to craft legislation on non-compliant Virginia Counties.

In short -- this is my issue. I work on it with passion and I am an expert in the subject matter. That I continue to press Freehold -- my hometown -- about these issues should be no surprise.

The Mayor and his small cadre of friends who are now wasting time trying to shut this site down and crush dissent seem to think that I am possessed by evil republican spirits and am on a partisan witch hunt. What?

I have been writing on these issues for years! I haven't changed my spots to get elected over and over again. I have been consistent.

Ask yourself this? Who has more credibility on this issue?

a) An expert in the subject matter whose positions have never changed, who receives no pecuniary benefit, who seeks no local business, wants no local appointment, and belongs to no local patronage or party or:

b) People who are running for election, keeping political appointments, involved in local partisan politics, and have everythign to gain eithe rpolitically or personally from decsions and actions they take.

And guess what, democrats have not been my only target of ire on this issue. Look at the piece I wrote a few years back calling for ultra conservative, pro-life, Republican Chris Smith to come home from Washington.

The truth is - the only people who have injected partisanship into this issue are the Mayor and his people.

My positions have never changed.

The Mayor opened the muster zone. He shut it.
Then he went to battle with illegals. Then he surrendered. Then he cut some deal with them when Marc stepped on his "positive spin" johnson. He appointed open borders lobbyists to Borough Committees. He called the influx of illegals positive. He appointed an LLA guy to the committee.

The only thing I am guilty of -- is pointing out the shifting positions.

Since then -- the biggest attacks I and this site have received is from the former founder of People -- who shockingly was then appointed to Council by the Mayor -- and now shockingly is defending him round the clock. Oh, and then there is the Councilman's son -- who broke every rule in the book spewing hate on this site before drawing multiple bans. Then we get the one of the Mayor's buddies who -- in a post too rich to truly appreciate, signs back on to say she is signing out -- and rips people for being inauthentic and not of high character. (Meanwhile, she exposes that she was down at the dem celebration with the Mayor waiting for Ted Miller to come and concede. No -- she is not partisan at all)

Look -- for reasons I don't know -- the dems in Freehold, at the lead of this Mayor who personally wrote to vilify the site, want to eliminate all political dissent. They introduced politics into the issue. Prior to their false assertions of partisanship -- my views have been an open book on this site and in public fora across the eastern seaboard.

Stop whining because someone asked you a tough question. It is 22 years now -- and it is time to do the job. It's yours. When you lose it, you will lose to the left, not the right. In the meantime, stop playing footsy with the illegals and stop playing the partisan game. I liked you as a democrat when you did the right thing, and I woud dislike your policies as a republican if they are wrong.

Don't confuse getting the job or keeping the job -- with doing the job.

[borolifer]

I have been viewing this site for a couple of months now and i have to say this to Mr. Kelsey: You chose to leave this town, leaving your right to complain about it behind. My children go to the schools, I pay taxes here, not you! stop whining & complaining about it! I understand that you have a right to free speech and to tell everyone your opinion but we all know what they say about opinions. So please worry about where you live now, and let the residents of freehold Borough worry about our town!

[admin]

borolifer said:

I have been viewing this site for a couple of months now and i have to say this to Mr. Kelsey: You chose to leave this town, leaving your right to complain about it behind. My children go to the schools, I pay taxes here, not you! stop whining & complaining about it! I understand that you have a right to free speech and to tell everyone your opinion but we all know what they say about opinions. So please worry about where you live now, and let the residents of freehold Borough worry about our town!

Borolifer,

Welcome to the site. It is good to finally hear from you. Something tells me that Rich will be hearing a bit more of what you have written. Your opinions and concerns are very welcome here. I do hope you continue writing.

Brian

[borolifer]

Holly- What makes you think I am in agreement with anyone? I make no mention of whom I support,agree or support. I simply stated my view on an individual that left FB. While I understand his rights to comment I feel that writing letters to the Transcript,sitting at his computer 500 miles away, complaining of events and individuals that have no direct effect on him is not appropriate. I feel that no one, whether they be a resident of Manalapan, Keyport or anywhere else but FB should post there opinions (good or bad) here. This board is after all called the "Freehold Voice" is it not.

[richardkelsey]

borolifer said:

Holly- What makes you think I am in agreement with anyone? I make no mention of whom I support,agree or support. I simply stated my view on an individual that left FB. While I understand his rights to comment I feel that writing letters to the Transcript,sitting at his computer 500 miles away, complaining of events and individuals that have no direct effect on him is not appropriate. I feel that no one, whether they be a resident of Manalapan, Keyport or anywhere else but FB should post there opinions (good or bad) here. This board is after all called the "Freehold Voice" is it not.

You have wowed me with your reasoning! LOL

Seriously -- please go back and read my post of the 9th. Let me know if you have any questions after reading it.

Also -- let me know if you believe no one is entitled to an opinion about anything outside of their own town. (Does that include, war, abortion, etc.)?

One need not be on the ground in Iraq to have an opinion about the War, its causes, its problems, its direction, etc.

The terrific thing about my letter is that it found you. So while you are a Borolifer -- perhaps now you will be motivated to do something -- even if only to criticize me.