In her most recent press release, one can almost see state Democratic Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo ticking off the “made in Washington” campaign talking points:
Boughton,
“war on women,” check.
Boughton,” anti-gay,”
check.
Boughton,
“Tea Party,” check.
Boughton,
“extremist,” check.
A busy
demagogue, Ms. DiNardo usually is able to mold her mud pies into brief media
bites at a moment’s notice. Here is the core of her media release:
“Mark
Boughton needs to let Connecticut know why he is so close to such a dangerous
extremist and if he agrees with Senator McLachlan’s agenda. Does Mark Boughton
want to force ultrasounds on pregnant women? Does
he support McLachlan’s anti-gay views and Tea Party agenda?”
The
“dangerous extremist” whom Mr. Boughton is “close to” would be State Senator
Mike McLachlan. Apparently, in Ms. DiNardo’s world, extremism is catchy, like
the flu. One has only to be “close to” a retrograde senator like Mr. McLachlan
to be infected with the affliction of extremism.
In current
Democratic demagoguery, “an extremist” is anyone whose positions on a narrow
range of “social issues” do not correspond with those of Ms. DiNardo and other
seeming “moderate” social engineers who want to change the nature of marriage,
economics, constitutional prescriptions, religious prescriptions and the always
delicate balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of
government in the United States.
The
Democratic Party in Connecticut has over the past couple of years abolished the
death penalty for multiple murderers shortly after two vicious murderers, Steven
Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, had slaughtered the Petit family in Cheshire,
and only a few months before Adam Lanza had murdered his mother, six faculty
members and twenty school children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Mr. Lanza
committed suicide upon the arrival at the school of first responders but, had he
been taken alive, Mr. Lanza could not have been executed for mass murder in
Connecticut, thanks to a bill produced in the General Assembly that ended
capital punishment for all future felony murders, however horrific.
Republicans
voted against abolition. Democrats, in voting for abolition, flouted their seeming
high minded courage by exempting from their abolition bill the ten convicted
murderers awaiting execution on death row. This exemption, a clear violation of
the “natural law” underpinning all jurisprudence – which holds that in the absence of a proscriptive law there can be no punishment – is likely to be found unconstitutional
by any appellate judge who has a nodding acquaintance with the Code of
Hammurabi, the Magna Carta or the U.S. Constitution. It would have been
politically inconvenient at the time for Democrats to reverse so many very
expensive court decisions relating to the “Death Row 10.” The abolition measure,
universally embraced by Democrats, we are to assume, is neither a “social
issue” nor is it dangerous to the public weal. But Mr. McLaughlin IS a
dangerous extremist and must be publicly shamed and demagogued by “non-extremist” Democrats who voted to
abolish the death penalty for cop killers, terrorists and mass murderers.
All laws
affect society, and there is not a piece of legislation created by any
legislative body in the United States in the last 238 years that has no social
repercussions. The term “social issue,” especially when employed in campaigns
by demagogic partisans, is a false category.
Really, one
wonders how many of Mr. McLachlan’s Democratic colleagues in the General
Assembly – law makers all, artificers of social legislation -- feel comfortable
with Ms. DiNardo’s estimation of him as a “dangerous extremist?” Has anyone
taken a poll?
Do Democrats
in the General Assembly who find themselves in agreement with Ms. DiNardo’s
demagogic assessment of Mr. McLaughlin believe that the Senator’s imperfections
have been transferred to Mr. Boughton through a process of osmosis? If Mr.
Boughton has been tainted by his proximity to Mr. McLaughlin, what of the
members of the General Assembly who were “close” to Mr. McLaughin as they toiled
together in the same body to hammer out various laws? Will the pox that has
spread so rapidly from Mr. McLaughlin to Mr. Boughton through mere association
also affect General Assembly Democrats who worked cheek by jowl with Mr.
McLaughlin? Have Governor Dannel Malloy and leading members of the General
Assembly been polluted by their close proximity to former Speaker of the House
Chris Donovan, some of whose political associates have been convicted of crimes
and sentenced to prison?
This is
mud-slinging of a high order. Why, if Mrs. DiNardo could order up capital
punishment for Tea Party members in her state, her rhetoric suggests she might
go for it. But her party has abolished capital punishment for mass murderers,
and it would be politically indelicate to send to the death chamber what one
Tea Party organizer called “Governor Dannel Malloy’s neighbors” after having
abolished capital punishment for Connecticut’s future Lanzas.
Comments
I'm Joe Visconti, I'm running for Governor, and I approve this message.
www.viscontiforgovernor.com
PAID FOR BY VISCONTI FOR GOVERNOR, SUSAN LAVELLI TREASURER, APPROVED BY JOE VISCONTI
---------
Share the frustration, but we have to be sensible. The current Gov. is not trustworthy, and is content to run the ship of state into the ground. If we can get a candidate good on guns and rule of law, so much the better, but I'll settle for an honest pragmatist if that's the choice opposed to Dannel Malloy.
Still, it's a hopeful sign that we have a candidate who not only hasn't yet caved to the open borders lobby, but tells it to go to Hell. I'm not endorsing him (something for which he may not be ungrateful), but I do commend him, as I do Mr. Visconti (above).
-----------
"I haven't changed my opinion one bit," said Boughton, a Republican gubernatorial candidate said, adding "I really wasn't interested in getting engaged in some kind of controversy where people are interested in suppressing my First Amendment right to freedom of speech."
The Latino Law Student Association at the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford released a statement Monday afternoon, calling Boughton an "anti-immigrant crusader" who "should not be given a platform to espouse his views."
"Mark Boughton's hate speech and discriminatory policies targeting immigrants should not be tolerated," said the e-mail, which was sent to the entire law school community.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Boughton-gives-up-seat-on-UConn-immigration-panel-419419.php
Right. Because the Democrats more or less own academia, the party can always cite university groups as non-partisan sources. They seem to perk up considerably during the campaign season. Try to imagine a UConn association that might be objectively critical of Governor Dannel Malloy, who has been very generous to UConn, and you will have some appreciation of the pious academic fraud. Most recently, the non-partisan WHATEVER at UConn cited a poor job recovery in the current recession as a reason for spending dollars already allocated in bonding on WHATEVER, probably more building activity at UConn. Most rational people just block out the White Noise.
That snippet was from 2010. A friend of mine who went to that Nutmeg Government School for Lawyering says that in the early eighties there were precisely 4 members of the fledgling Federalist Society. An auditorium was needed to hold the members of the National Lawyers Guild (which, according to Wikipedia was not a Commie front group, just a fellow traveling one).
Boughton is still under attack, and hasn't folded. If nothing else I admire his choice of enemies, but it also appears as if he may have common sense and the courage to defend it.
------------------
Having once taken a hard line on immigration, going so far as to ask then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell to deputize state troopers to enforce federal immigration law in the city, Boughton has tried to smooth over his stance on the issue in recent years.
Talking tough on immigration may have worked well a decade ago, but not in today's political environment.
Harris, of the state Democratic party, said Boughton still has a lot to answer for.
"He showed some intolerance on the immigration issue," Harris said.
Members of the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission have not forgotten.
When questioned by commission members about a recent "racial profiling" case in which a police officer was disciplined for making disparaging remarks to a Hispanic immigrant during a routine motor vehicle stop, Boughton tells of his hard disciplinary line on those involved.
He also denies it was racial profiling.
"I saw the video of the incident and you couldn't tell who was driving," he says.
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Powering-up-Danbury-Mayor-Mark-Boughton-4691288.php#page-3
I would appreciate it if the gun guys and their candidates, if there be any, would address the Connecticut Constitution's right to bear arms rendered a RINO (right in name only)by our Court (Justice Peters).
-------------
“Mayor Boughton is a coalition member of an active anti-2nd Amendment organization (MAIG) that claims to support sensible gun reforms.
In reality the group, ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ continually works to infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners.
The Mayor’s statements about the recently passed gun laws, are also very troubling to gun owners in Connecticut”.
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/01/connecticut-citizens-defense-league-says-no-on-mark-boughton/#ixzz2qZDjtVb6
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook