A final note on Rob Simmons

Like most of you, I was sitting at work on Monday when I heard the news that Congressman Rob Simmons had quit the race for US Senate. I think it took me by surprise because it seemed only forty-eight hours prior, that Rob was telling a select few of us in his post-convention war room that he intended to fight on to the bitter end. The shenanigans in the convention hall seemed to reinvigorate him to the point where he said he would not allow (and I'm paraphrasing) the night's backroom deals and payoffs to stand; that he would take his case to the voters through a primary. Out of respect, I leave his private comments at only this, since it was a closed door discussion and what I've posted here he also pretty much said publicly.

I have to say I'm not necessarily bitter about it. And I'm not going to belly-ache about the state of his campaign in this essay (that's water under the bridge now). But I do believe that at that moment, Rob did want to take his case to the voters and not give up the race. But whatever happened between Friday at 10pm and Monday at 9 am, altered his viewpoint and he reluctantly withdrew. I do not know what the main rationale was behind the decision, and I'm not close enough to the man or his family to ask. It very well could have been the complexity of trying to overcome the millions of dollars that Linda McMahon was willing to invest in her own campaign (she had already blown $16 million on the primary), or maybe it was the anger at betrayal by party kingpins who were busy colluding with McMahon cronies, and pulling strings behind the curtain, or maybe he just didn't have the energy or fire to go the distance in what clearly would have been a blood-bath of a primary. Maybe it was all three plus a number of other things that haven't been disclosed. I don't know.

In a way, you have to appreciate that Rob Simmons took the initiative to stop. Just stop. We know he could have gone the distance with a lackluster campaign and in a half-hearted manner just to make a go of it - but for what? That would have been far worse for him, his family and for supporters. He did the noble thing and made a call to end his campaign. By this gesture, Rob put the public first.

Rob Simmons spent a majority of his life in public service. He served his country admirably for nineteen months in Vietnam, continued military service and rose through the ranks through merit and dedication, and worked for years keeping American safe as an Intelligence Officer in the CIA. He has served as council to Presidents and leaders on foreign policy and military affairs directly and indirectly for most of his life. As a Congressman, he fought tooth and nail for Veterans. And was a relentless advocate for Connecticut, and in particular worked night and day to keep the Groton Submarine base open, and by that - keeping thousands of Connecticut residents and companies like Electric Boat who rely on projects and contracts - on the job. Linda McMahon may have created 500 wrestling jobs (so she says), but Rob Simmons saved 500,000 Connecticut jobs which is a matter of fact that cannot be denied. And the people in the second district, and in Connecticut are grateful.

I hope this isn't the last we hear from Rob Simmons, or his family. (One day I'm looking forward to working on fiery Jane Simmons' campaign!). Rob has the potential to offer so much more, and it would be unrealistic to imagine that someone isn't going ask a man of his caliber and experience, cares and says what he thinks, who isn't afraid to buck the trend or party line, to take part in some future public service endeavor. He's a brilliant resource just waiting to be tapped.

Congressman Simmons - Rob, if I may - thanks for your service and patriotism. Thanks for making Connecticut strong. History will show that you were one of our best leaders during some tough times. Until that next time, I wish you and your family Godspeed!

Anglican Crisis deepens: Schori consecrates a Lesbian to Bishop of Los Angeles

The crisis in the Anglican communion deepened further this past week as Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori (Satan's representative on Earth) pushed forward the homosexual agenda by consecrating open lesbian Rev. Mary Glasspool as Bishop of Los Angeles which has led to a further distancing of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) from the World-Wide Anglican Communion.

This act led to an outpouring of criticism from within the Anglican Communion including Bishop of the The Anglican Church of Peru, the Rt. Rev. Dr. H. William Godfrey - who condemned the action as "against all the teaching of Scripture and the Church." according to Virtueonline.org. Further, VirtueOnline.org published the following:

"The decision of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America to consecrate as a bishop a woman in a sexually active lesbian relationship is gravely concerning and wrong," he wrote to VOL."The Bishops of the Anglican Communion have consistently made clear the moral teaching of the Church in this respect, that practising homosexual and lesbian relationships, and practising heterosexual relations outside marriage, are incompatible with Christian teaching. (See Bishops' Resolution 1.10 at Lambeth Conference 1998.) With this clear discernment they have implored the Episcopal Church NOT to go ahead with the consecration of a person in such a relationship."Godfrey said God's purpose is for the gift of sexuality to be enjoyed in a life-long married relationship between one man and one woman, husband and wife.

This is not the first time ECUSA has pushed forward their agenda which dates back to the appointment of Gene Robinson, a homosexual activist, as presiding Bishop. Robinson's appointment reached a boiling point which started the Anglican Schism that is presently underway.

There is a bit of silver lining to the story. The intentional activist decision of Bishop Schori confirming another homosexual Bishops sets the stage for Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) to perhaps finally be recognized as an authentic Anglican Church within the Communion. Previously, there was fear that recognizing ACNA would be seen as an antagonistic action on the part of the Communion, however ECUSA's actions after repeated warnings may leave it little alternative that the the recognition is now necessary, else credibility of the Anglican Communion to take any measure to ensure a traditional legacy in the USA would be greatly diminished.

It is most conservative or traditional Episcopalian's view that the Anglican Communion is several years overdue in recognizing a separate traditional Anglican Church in the United States. The endless delays and calls for tolerance and discussion have led to a very weakened conservative constituency within the ECUSA. Thus, most traditionalist have already left the ECUSA for "higher ground" which was always the hope for the liberals within the ECUSA, and moreover hundreds of rectors have left the church in favor of other denominations, and are unlikely to return. Given such little response to years on inroads against the foundations of the Church, the ECUSA is nearly lost. With very little time left, the Anglican Communion must now look to assist the new Anglican Church gain respectability and ground through its formal recognition.

Anything less is unacceptable at this point.

A full reading of the ongoing cultural deterioration of the ECUSA via its recent Lesbian Consecration published by David Virtue can be found here and here.

Connecticut Convention Hell - Republicans should hang their heads low

The Republican Party boasts of being the party of principle and open process. Yet on Friday night at the 2010 Connecticut Republican Party Convention, I and many others witnessed behavior that brought shame on the party, its officials, and its Chairman - Chris Healy. The Linda McMahon campaign along side of State Central officials worked endlessly to threaten, intimidate, and force delegates to switch sides and support Linda McMahon over Rob Simmons. Many of these delegates switched from Peter Schiff to Linda McMahon after it was clear that Schiff was unable to barely get to a quarter of the support needed for a win.


Moreover, the behavior of the hack convention security team under direction from State Central Operatives were hawks about throwing Simmons election team members off the floor or impeding their ability to talk to delegates, meanwhile Linda McMahon herself and her army crawled all over the convention floor as convention security simply looked the other way. I watched one of the Simmons team members being harassed by the Chris Healy, pro-McMahon forces, and out of frustration he turned to the hack, pointed to the three McMahon team members standing behind the hack, and said, "*uck You, you're letting those [McMahon] guys run the floor and sending the Simmons team off. Your showing your biased support for McMahon's team! What the hell is this?"


Watching it all up front and close, I watched several people upset about being threatened that they would lose their seat on their town committee, and I saw one guy being told that if he switched his vote to Simmons that "he'd never be involved in politics again, and he'd live to regret it." If I hadn't had my wits about me, I would probably exploded and would've grabbed the guy threatening the delegate by the neck and thrown him against the wall. The reek of Stalinism, the smell of corruption, and the image of Chicago-style bullying filled the convention air. It was nauseating. Simply putrid!


As I watched people turn their votes over to McMahon's team, I also couldn't help notice the clear support and shrill of excitment in the voice of the announcer at the microphone. One delegate turned and said, "My God, they are cheering Linda on from the Podium. I've never seen anything like it." Yeah, well me either. The bias was clear - the crack security team pushing Simmons team members off the floor, at the podium with the wild cheerleading of switches to Linda, and in the itimidation by State Central stormtroopers. This is Republicanism?


As most readers know, I'm not a fan of Linda McMahon, and do not intend to support her even if she were to ever win the Republican Primary. During most elections, I support candidates who's positions either mirrors my own views, or supports a particular hot button position that I think outweighs the rest of the issues that may be on the table. Party hacks (and these people are on both sides of the aisle) believe that regardless of the outcome, we are simply supposed to fall in line with the Republican candidate at the end of the cycle and blindly support them in order to make sure that the opposition party doesn't take the seat. But does such an act of blind loyalty mean anything if the manner in which the Republican candidate violated the basic principles of Republicanism or fair play?


Connecticut Republicans are most known for being referred to as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) by the majority of Republicans in other states. Today, most of Connecticut's Republicans arrogantly believe that Conservatism - even common sense Reagan Conservatism is reactionary or out of touch with modern American despite the fact that its principles are built on common sense positions. I raise this because its was clear at this year's convention that the Republican Machine supported moderate and liberal Republicans over their conservative counterparts (trying to push Janet Peckenpaugh over Daria Novak is a perfect example). Many of these candidates don't even have a Republican record, or have a clear record of funneling money and support to Democrats in the past. And some, like Janet Peckenpaugh, who made the claim to not even remember who she supported in 2008. These are people that CT State Central pushes in our faces - unprincipled, convictionless, money windbags. Ideology means nothing to these Healy-types.


Linda McMahon, for example, gave thousands to Democrats over the years to defeat Republicans, including giving money to Joe Courtney to successfully defeat Rob Simmons last time around. Given this paradox, how on Earth could a Republican delegate even consider giving Linda McMahon their support? It's said that people have short memories, but I think they just lack principle.


Getting back to the results - I suppose some of it was the big checks Linda wrote to RTCs in need, and some of it was just people getting caught up in the frenzy of wanting to put a unknown entity who runs a wrestling business and promises "something different" in play as their nominee. But its the threats and intimidation that I can't go for. Now how much of each element comprised the nomination, we don't know right now. But any of the latter is shameful, and I witnessed enough of it to make me want to either work for Rob Simmons in a primary setting, or vote third party in the General. (something I've actually never done before).

There is a reason only thirteen states use this rediculous forum for nominating their politicians. Last nights jury-riging event is the reason why this concept should be stopped. It's time to go to the primary system and leave all the decisions to the general public; not a handful of grimy people pulling strings in the back.

Lastly, I do want to discuss the Simmons campaign. I'm sure I might get a few angry messages after this posting but as they say - it is what it is. I have to say that I agree with many delegate's criticism of the Simmons camp for its lack of organization and overall lack of activity on the floor of the convention. My own personal experience left me with a bit of a sour taste. On the day of the convention, I called and volunteered to come down and help out. I was told they would be happy to have me help in a variety of ways, just to come down. After arriving in the afternoon, it took hours to finally connect with people who were running all over the place trying to get organized. I spoke with several campaign folks who weren't able to find me ANYTHING to do. Then I was told to come back at six o'clock to help with the "running". Even during the chaos of the convention, when Rob Simmons needed his staff doing their part, they didn't find any work to do for a large number of us to do. There we were, about seven of us wearing Simmons t-shirts, standing against the back wall, and given absolutely nothing to do.

On the basis of pure organization, it probably would have been more unbelieveable if Rob Simmons had actually won. That would have meant that the Simmons camp had done their homework in advance of the convention, and the delegates were locked up. Well, I guess that wasn't the case. My thinking is that they were as disorganized on Friday as they have been all along. How much Rob Simmons knows about this the lack of eptitude and the overall mess is unknown to me. But an honest Simmons campaign staff can only point inward at itself for creating such a mess, and allowing Linda McMahon to run a veteran candidate into the ground on a night that based on experience and ability, should have been his victory to savor.

As for where Rob was during all of this. I'm not sure. If he was on the convention floor (like Linda McMahon was) I sure didn't see him. Sort of disappointing.