Skip to main content

The Progressive’s Praetorian Guard And Connecticut’s Democrat Castle


Some Republicans with a sense of humor are questioning whether the Democrat leaders of the General Assembly, President Pro Tem of the Senate Martin Looney and Speaker of the House Joe Arsimowicz really need a Pretorian Guard to protect them from their constituents, the majority of whom have been bitten numerous times by tax fleas.


These two Democrat leaders would like to establish within the state police force a subsection devoted to protecting the state – and, in a one party system, the governing apparatus IS the state – from right wing ne'er-do-wells prepared to tear majority leftists in the General Assembly limb from limb.

It is a needless expense that easily may be turned to political purposes, among other reasons because the bill, tendentiously written, appears to target only disturbers of the peace on the right. Apparently, Arsimowicz, who is employed by a union, does not fear political thuggery from the unionized left or from the fascist antifascists in Antifa, certainly not a right wing organization. The bill offers protection only to Connecticut’s left leaning government. It goes without saying that the majority party in the state would be foolish to offer a bill that would protect the opposition party from thugs dedicated to defending their own bailiwicks from assaults by true democrats left unrepresented by the governing authority.

Some contrarians expect the bill may be deployed by progressives such as Looney and Aresimowicz who may use their new police powers to further consolidate their own unquestioned power by bringing a police lash down upon the backs of anyone who presumes to oppose them. These are the usual non-democratic methods of unitary states: first you build the castle, then you protect it from besiegers by disarming them, preferably though legal means, and this last is but the work of a day for a party in complete charge of all three branches of government – executive, legislative and judicial.

True democrats – note the lower case – may hope that in the not too distant future, Connecticut’s arrogant and ruthless ruling party may find it has become the victim of its own past successes.

In 1991, progressive Democrats, who had in the past struggled to convince moderate Democrats to bring forth a state income tax, were richly rewarded when former Senator Lowell Weicker, repudiated belatedly by moderate Republicans, won the governor’s office on an independent party ticket and, following an implied campaign promise not to saddle the state with an income tax, satisfied the progressive lust for just such a tax that, in the course of four succeeding governors, tripled spending and allowed progressives the luxury of serving – not the general public – but their own pampered special interests. Recessions that disappeared within a few years elsewhere in the country lingered in Connecticut for upwards of ten years; indebtedness grew; so called fixed costs, mostly benefiting the Connecticut’s clamorous state employee unions, continued to grow; Constitutional obligations on the part of the General Assembly to oversee getting and spending were rented out to special commissions; businesses and entrepreneurial capital fled the state;  appellate and Supreme Courts justices, the majority of whom had been appointed by left of center governors, took care that their rulings would not offend delicate progressive sensibilities; Republican members of the state’s once bipartisan U.S. Congressional Delegation were quickly replaced by progressive Democrats; and the state’s vanishing news media pronounced all these progressive steps forward a crashing success.

The Democrat’s Praetorian Guard Bill designed to protect leftists from a rabid right is a massively obvious piece of rhetorical campaign propaganda. Progressives in Connecticut are under no threat, political or otherwise, from men and women of the right who 1) have never as majorities occupied leading political positions in Connecticut, 2) have no presence in a media concerned only with the perpetuation of the present progressive power structure and 3) represent far less an assault on public order than a leftist government committed to the sanctuary state doctrine that allows a Connecticut progressive Democrat Governor and legislature to frustrate the arrest and deportation of non-American criminal elements in the state.

Jean Jacques, a Haitian border-buster who should have been deported after he had illegally entered the United States the first time, reentered the country a second time, was found guilty of attempted murder and served 15 years in a Connecticut prison. Upon release, he should have been picked up by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which had attached to him a deportation detainer. Haiti claimed it could not determine that Jacques was a Haitian citizen. Cut adrift, Jacques gruesomely murdered Casey Chadwick, stabbing her 15 times and stuffing her body in a closet. Sentenced by Judge Barbara Bailey Jongbloed to a 60 year term in prison, effectively a life term, Jacques is due to be retried sometime in the future.

Progressivism, which in Connecticut includes non-cooperation with Federal laws governing the repatriation of illegal aliens, has become the state Democrat Party’s castle. And the castle must be defended at all costs. These costs have become very costly indeed. The indifference of the ruling Democrat Party to the surrounding peasantry that daily supplies it with necessary commodities or opposes tax raids, as in the case with prospective tolling, is frigid and remote, and the state’s left of center media is the castle’s moat.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e...

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.