The Hartford Times - Redux? Well, perhaps - but with a Twist!

Local Connecticut Conservatives are at again. 

This time the focus is the long overdue prospect of creating a viable option to Connecticut's main newspaper -  The Hartford Courant.  The brain child of this endeavor is none other than former West Hartford Town Council Member, and former First Congressional Republican Candidate Joseph Visconti.  Visconti, head of Visconti Media Group, is a popular activist who is well respected in Tea Party and main stream Republican circles.

Visconti's popularity stems from his willingness to stand up to Connecticut's tired Republican establishment.  He's been out front calling on current Chairman Chris Healy to step down after a disastrous trend of electoral failures under his leadership. Visconti will tell you openly: "this project is not about me. I'm just trying to create a forum so that Conservatives have a voice, and a chance to be heard in Connecticut."  A pretty accurate statement about a long time gap.


Irony and History 

The choice of the name of his new facebook group, called The Hartford Times, is as creative as it is ironic.  The Hartford Times (henceforth The Times) served as Hartford's afternoon newspaper operated between January 1, 1817 until its closure after purchase by its rival and new owner (The Hartford Courant) on October 20, 1976.  The irony is that The Times was a second headquarters for the Democrat Party propagating its positions and agenda for over a century. 



The Hartford Times Building
was the Democrat Party's base of
operations for over a century

The Times was created by wealthy Democrat Alfred E. Burr back in 1817 specifically for the purpose of advancing his Party's political agenda, largely pro-labor related issues. The first location was the Brownstone building at the intersection of Main and Grove Street. Alfred's son Willie Olcott Burr took over in 1899 continuing on with his father's vision until his death in 1921.  C. Everett Willson took over and owned the newspaper until he sold it to Gannett Publishing Company in 1928.  The newspaper was fairly successful until it was purchased by New Haven based, Register Publishing Company in 1973 which ultimately fast tracked its demise.  Former employees blame the newspaper's failure on rising costs, union demands, endless management turnover, and general staff incompetency. 

Notwithstanding the reasons cited above, my own view is that it's likely that successful circulation of an afternoon newspaper in the advent of popular televised evening news programs, both local and national, likely contributed to its doom.  By the time The Times published its stories, it was serving up old news to its readership better covered by moving images, and news anchors.  As demographics changed via the realities of changing culture, The Courant held its early morning readership, and The Times died on its dwindling vine. 

Regarding The Times long established tie to the Democrat Party - to be fair, while I don't have a complete list of Presidential endorsements The Times has made, the paper is rumored to have supported both Democrat and Republican candidates during its history.  Of course, given the well understood connection between the Democrat Party and The Times, its more than likely that Republican endorsements were far and few between - thus the Visconti initiative and his group's use of the name, The Hartford Times, is likely making Alfred Burr, et al turn over in their graves. In any case, the beautiful Hartford Times building, designed by architect Donn Barber in 1920, has been used as a backdrop for speeches by several U.S. Presidents including, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. (These pictures can be found in the Hartford Library archives).  A side note: The columns on the building were originally attached to a Presbyterian Church at 1905 Madison Square in NYC.  As the Church was undergoing demolition, its likely Burr picked them up for free!

Vision's Purpose: Fighting Bias

It's worth discussing why Visconti and his friends would want to seek an alternative to The Hartford Courant.  You don't have to dig very deep into the The Courant's ink filed pages to see the clear alignment between its reporting and the Connecticut Democrat Party. To begin with  The Courant's endorsement of nearly every Democrat Presidential, Congressional, and Gubernatorial candidate, and state office seeker since the mid-1980s (with a few minor exceptions) outlines its bias.  The bias is particularly evident when it comes to its endorsement of people like Denise Nappier, who's investments have cost Connecticut taxpayer millions. And the Courant refused to acknowledge the result of her investments in Magic Johnson's shifty schemes as costly, and unrecoverable.  Most people in the private sector lose jobs for making such damaging investment decisions; they don't find themselves reappointed, and encouraged to make the same mistakes.

Further, news coverage and editorials have long casted Democrat positions in a positive light - for example, cheerleading the union labor movement, supporting higher taxation, running stories about business which paint executives and basic business decisions unfairly, and championing poor court decisions such as Sheff v O'Neill, and nearly all of former Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's counter-productive decade long litigation quests against businesses -  which have resulted in lost job.

In stark contrast, Republican positions are painted in a dark, cynical light-everything from ignoring government mandated fees and regulation burdening business, to critical coverage of Tea Party rallies.  The Courant's editorial board has clearly become intentionally blind to the impacts of Gov. Dannel Malloy's budget proposals on the middle class, and attracting (or keeping) businesses in Connecticut.  Schemes like eliminating the middle class tax credit, instituting a 19% tax burden increase on struggling businesses, and increasing costs and fees on nearly everything is deemed as merely a shared sacrifice.  Can The Courant bring itself to explore the possible ramifications of these policies?  And yet when it comes to its investigative reporting on the urgent need to reduce spending, or assigning accountability for the budget crisis to Connecticut's Legislature - no words can be found; not even an inference. 

As for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, the biased Courant reporting writes off the Christie's proposal to reduce public sector expenditures as a "popularity stunt".  Pretty shameful.  The Courant does a huge disservice to its readership by selling the Malloy budget as "necessary".

When the average working taxpayer picks up The Hartford Courant and sees it propagating the Democrat plan - if not outright selling their "only one way to handle this is through higher taxes" scheme, many people are opening their eyes for the first time and questioning why their hometown newspaper is championing the liberal cause to lead Connecticut further down the road to perdition through higher spending, and higher taxes. It makes you wonder why those at the editorial desk still wonder why The Courant is losing subscriptions at a record pace.  This cheifly explains why Connecticut needs an alternative publication, whether electronic or print, to combat the stale antics of the only game in town.

Grassroots Media Movement and Market

For the longest time, this author has preached high and low about the need for an alternative to The Hartford Courant.  The Connecticut Republican Party has always had monumental task  getting its talking points out in the open for fair hearing in a blue state dominated by a monopoly  of liberal media outlets well-positioned to directly and indirectly promote the Democrat agenda.  However, the use of social media such as Twitter and Facebook has allowed activists (on both sides) to only partially endgame these media giants. Social media allows everyone to be a reporter, columnist, or photographer.  But the subtle difference is that social media works best as a tool for activists;  it does little to impact the debate in the general public.  Social media addicts tend to already live in one camp or the other.  Unless you are seeking information on a topic or policy, you're less likely to want to read political tweets, or political Facebook posts. 

Newspapers and news sites are more effective in their ability to influence the general public on policy since most people are comfortable with the format, and generally do not recognize the clever skill of written manipulation used by professional media experts.  Thousands of newspapers are delivered daily to the front steps of Americans who digest what is provided as mere fact. While  the average person seems quite willing to be cynical of their Government, the general media gets a free pass; sadly deemed objective by the majority who do not consider themselves political.

It's clear that the cost involved in starting a large scale newspaper company is likely cost prohibitive.  It would require millions to secure a building, printing materials, reporters and staff, a distribution service, and all the equipment required to carry out the business.  This is likely why newspapers are going out of business, or consolidating, rather than popping up around the country.  It's more likely that a conglomeration would purchase The Courant before a rival newspaper would suddenly appear across town - particularly in a dow- turned economy like this one.

But its not all doom and gloom. 

Some of the options currently being explored are a good compromise between starting a media empire, and messaging each other on Facebook.  And as for a market, you can look at the desire for alternative national news programming with the success story of Fox News Channel overtaking CNN and other media outlets.  And before you're too quick to claim that the country is more conservative as a whole than liberal Connecticut (a point which I would concede), I would also argue that the Fox News Channel was not an instant success, but rather grew in popularity AFTER years of being offered as an alternative.  Thus it would be so with a Connecticut based, more conservative alternative.

A reasonable suggestion on the table is to build a fully operational electronic news organization.  This would still require significant capital to employ reporters, writers, network equipment, marketing and advertising, and so forth.  There are plenty of examples of webpage such as Realclearpolitics.com, NationalReview.com, and others which are either fully electronic, or semi-electronic/semi-periodical and have strong followings among readers.

Connecticut based political websites have been somewhat successful in the past, but have never reached their full potential because most have been created for a limited audience by a small group of volunteers, or an individual without a budget trying to be a voice in a vast sea of repetitive liberalism.  Taking this idea a step further through serious financing, organization, and determination could result in the goal that has long evaded Republicans and Conservatives - a place to be seen and heard, and an opportunity to be a valid alternative for those seeking different views on Connecticut issues.

I urge those at this new Hartford Times - Redux, to continue forward on their mission undeterred by those who fear loss of their centralized power base.  Get yourselves organized with trusted resources fully vetted for ideology and competence.  With unyielding commitment and determination, the sky is the limit.  And with an audience as hungry as Connecticut's for an alternative to what the Hartford rag is pushing out each day, you might find yourselves with more subscribers than you know what to do with.  Just keep it manageable.

Good luck!  Don't give up the dream!

The King credits the book Images of Hartford Vol 3 by Wilson H Faude for background information on The Hartford Times.

This original blog post can be viewed at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

Coexist?

The other day, I was on my way to work taking my usual route when I happened upon a small red car driving 50 mph blocking the left lane of the highway bearing a bumper sticker depicting mostly religious symbols mixed with letters. Upon closer examination I saw that the letters spelled out the famed liberal keyword COEXIST.  I immediately laughed out loud at the thought that another mindless Connecticut liberal was in my way as I traveled onto my capitalist job in the City.

Speeding past this social-engineer, I couldn't help but think of the age-old, mesmerizing symbols and I began to wonder to which of these special interest groups the driver likely belonged.  I noted that the driver was a woman which wasn't necessarily revealing since lunatics from the far left tend to come from both sexes - either the famed masculine woman, or the feminine male, or freaks who might be a bit of both.  So was this woman a lesbian?  A Muslim?  A Jew?  Or just a crazy member of the United Church of Christ?  I guess I'll never know.



It's hard to coexist with suicide
bombers and jihadits

  But one thing that we do know is that the contradictions on this bumper sticker are more than any scholar of religious studies could possibly handle.  If you look at the world through rose-colored glasses, I guess its really hard to see the truth. It's so much easier to pretend to see a world filled with happy diverse people all holding hands together, singing Kumbaya.

Of course, we all know the fact that religious and ethic coexistence (or even tolerance) in the form liberals suggest is nothing short of fantasy.  Take for example an actual real world scenario of how well Jews, Christians and Islamic Jihadits get along in the Middle East.  Week after week, we hear stories of Christian minorities in Egypt and Syria being torchered and killed as infidels in the name of Islam.  Of course that's nothing when you consider how Muslims have treated Jews for thousands of years up to the current day - through suicide bombing at weddings, and in public workplaces; endless attempts at genocide of those Israelis clinging to life on a 15 mile peninsula.  It's got to be very hard to coexist with people who want to wipe you out as an ethnic group.

And admittedly, perhaps the Holy Roman Empire's Crusades during the Middle Ages weren't exactly the most peaceful and righteous days for Christianity, but its minor compared to the rhetoric of today's Islamic Clerics calling on Muslims to rise up and kill Westerners in their own lands,  preaching in favor of honor killings, and pushing for the installation of Sharia Law on every continent.  There are few Buddhist or Christian compounds which recruit children and woman for suicide attacks on innocent Muslim civilians.  And where is the condemnation of Islam by Liberals?  There isn't one, only bumper stickers demanding we all just Coexist.

You have to wonder how liberals live with themselves.  Liberals preach that Islam is a religion of peace, and Arabs are victim to American Imperialism, meanwhile Muslim women are force-dressed in Burkas, brutalized, and humiliated hundreds of ways as outlined by Sharia Law.  Where are liberals standing up for woman's rights, or even basic human rights when it comes to Islamic outrages?  I guess hypocrisy only goes so far.

To the average person, the idea of coexisting with others means to leave everyone around you alone - live and let live - they say.  But in the age of political correctness we've seen Wiccans work to ban little school children from dressing up at Halloween as ghosts, witches, and comic book heroes because trick or treat is deemed offensive.  We've seen corporations bow to liberal lunatics and remove reference Christmas from holiday parties, store ad campaigns, and even sponsored charity signs on town greens.  And we see liberals defend an atheist Chinese government which maligns and kills Buddhists because advancing state run communism is more important to them than freedom of any religion. 

What kills me is that even here at home we see the full court press by intolerant groups like the ACLU which fights to remove Christmas from our lexicon, God from our Pledge of Allegiance, and wages war against Christian's rights to preserve marriage as a union between a man and woman; instead launching lawsuits to advance the gay rights agenda to change the morally accepted principles as outlined in the Holy Bible; seeking to replace the Judeo-Christian values which this Nation was founded upon with a new secular free-for-all statism.  Coexist?

Funny how liberals wag their fingers and peddle their little social virtues around for all of us to follow.  But I guess from where I sit, I don't see where my friends and I are left alone to simply live and let live or - coexist.  So the next time you see a bumper sticker urging you to be tolerant or to coexist, feel free to give the driver the sign of tolerance they so rightfully deserve.

This  original blog post can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

A Primer: How to Respond to Teacher - Union Rhetoric

As we watch the criminal activity of the Wisconsin teacher's union, and the biased news coverage painting out of control teachers storming the Wisconsin legislature as a heroic, grassroots moment, I'm quickly reminded of how the Tea Party Patriots were covered last year by the same media outlets - as selfish villains, racists, homophobes, nuts, etc.  Similarly, just over a week ago when riots were taking place in Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt,  instigated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the media hailed the madness as a successful, peaceful, democratic revolution.  Funny, there aren't too many peaceful revolutions that end in 360 deaths (BBC report), and the country's military left in charge for 6 months or more.  I guess the point is that if there is one constant in the Universe - its that the media can be counted on to condemn that which is good, and cheerfully support that which is clearly wrong.  It goes along with the kind of bizarro-thinking that we've been accustomed too see everytime we tune in to our favorite talking heads.

Bad week for Unions:
Americans are beginning to see
what the Education Cartel is
really all about

I've never been a fan of Unions. Unions went out of necessity at about the same time that the horse-drawn carriage, and the steam locomotive were taken out of service; clearly - outdated, antiquated, and counterproductive.  In fact, there was nothing more wonderful than watching Ronald Reagan break the Air Traffic Controller's backs in the 1980s.  And I remember clearly that the public cheered Reagan's actions against those who put air navigation in harm's way and halted public travel - well, all except for the local AFL-CIO and all their Congressional con-artists who could do little but watch the Unions crumble as constituents cheered on the President.

Amid the hysteria in Wisconsin, we can see that its absolutely true that the Wisconsin's Teachers Union - a branch of what my friend, Joe Visconti adeptly calls The Education Cartel neither gets it, nor wants to get it.  Wisconsin is a lot like Connecticut, in that its incredibly broke.  The reasons are very similar to Connecticut's - run away spending, anti-business climate, and greedy public sector unions demanding even more and more where none can be found.

There is plenty of blame to go around, I'm sure.  Democrats spending, and Republicans showing little or no backbone to stand-up to the onslaught.  Yet, Republican Governor Scott Walker is doing exactly what the public expects him to do - standing up for what is right, and stopping the run-away train! For that, we are proud of Gov. Walker (at least so far), in that he is not bowing to angry mob rhetoric, or special interests, and is standing up for ALL taxpayers by just saying We've had enough, public sector unions are not going to take advantage of the public any longer.

What prompted me to write this essay was neither the televised madness of the last few weeks, or the comparisons being made between Wisconsin and Connecticut's budget crisises, but rather the talk by local teachers, who have opted to weigh in with their opinions on the matter, playing the martyr role as they often do on the part of the national teachers union (the NEA: National Education Association, and ATA: American Teachers Association aka NEA-ATA).  Frankly, I'm sick of unions.  And I'm sick of these so-called education professionals playing their union games, and using our children as human shields to advance their agenda.  This isn't a matter of life or death, its about public employees threatening the public with doom and gloom scenarios; claiming that lining their pockets with cold hard cash, pension money, and lopsided benefits (the likes that that none of us will ever see) is the MOST important thing in the world. Well its not.

I wanted to spend the rest of this entry exploring the commonly heard rhetoric used by teachers when they engage the public in building sympathy for their self-serving cause.  And provide you with a nice little retort for each line.  So here goes:

Teacher:  We are deserving of a equitable pay and benefits just like people in the private sector.
You:  Teachers work on average about 160 days out of a 365 day year.  Yet your salaries are comparable to those of us in the public sector who work 330 days a year.  Your starting wage without experience is usually much higher than would be found in the private sector, and would take a private sector employee a long as five years to reach.  Your benefits include summers off, generous health benefits with an outdated minute co-pay for office visits and drugs no longer available to 90% of private sector employees.  You always get the major holidays off without having to compete for them against co-workers as we do in the private sector.

Teacher: We take home work from school. Correcting papers, reading essays, grading reports, and preparing our daily plans. I make after school calls to parents and have conferences after hours.
You:  Hooray for you. I'm expected to put in a minimum of 50 hours a week and up to 70 hours during some weeks because there is simply no such thing as a 40 hour work week in the private sector.  I'm required to take home my laptop and stay connected to work.  I make conference calls at all hours, draft reports, emails, and work weekends too.  If I don't work, I may not get paid. I have no contract or union rep to hide behind. I'd love to trade correcting papers for drafting analysis reports.  Or sleeping in on a snow day like you do, in the private sector companies no longer close down when there are three inches of snow because employees are expected to work from home.

Teacher:  Our jobs are noble; we teach your children eight hours a day, five days a week. We mold them for their future - that is our calling.
You:  If you are a teacher because its a noble occupation; good for you.  Then do much and expect little. Its disappointing that based on the actions by your union masters that its quite clear that amassing wealth via the almighty dollar has replaced teaching as a noble occupation in the 21st century.  The idea of being noble is to do something not out of want for material compensation but because you feel its important for society.  Teachers used to expect to make less than private sector employees, yet today's education crowd has thrown the noble aspect out of the window. It's about getting what you can, and as much as you can at any cause.  The teaching and the kids are secondary.

Teacher: I teach your child to be creative and independent.  I teach your child to think, and make good, morale choices.  I teach your child to be conscious of the world around him.
You:  Excuse me.  You are employed to teach our children the subject matter as mandated by the local Board of Education in conjunction with State and Federal Standards.  These plans are often predetermined by these boards, with quarterly or monthly expectations.  It is not your place to set moral standards for my children. That is my job.  If anything, teachers have drifted from academics to installing their own cynical social values.  This is wrong.  It is the parents job to be parents and instill morals and values, not the school.

Teacher: Teaching is hard.  You don't understand.  We have to be socialists, psychologists, mentors, babysitters, and policeman.  We need to be compensated for this work.
You:  You are not paid to be any of these roles.  If you are having trouble with an individual student or set of students - dismiss them from the classroom and get back to teaching the majority.  If your principal doesn't support you, contact the Board of Education for support.  If something is happening in your classroom that is illegal, you have the obligation to call the police.  No one assigned you as a mediator, or to play Dr. Phil.  If you doing this, you probably should be fired for not doing the job you've been hired by your district to do.

Teacher:  You are cold hearted.  I care for my students.
You:  That's nice.  I care about my child's education.  If you are wasting my son/daughter's valuable learning time playing social engineering games, you should be terminated for not doing your job.  If a student has psychological problems send them to the office or to the guidance counselor and get back to teaching.

Teacher:  You hate teachers.
You:  No. I don't hate teachers.  I hate what teachers have become: Political operatives of the Democrat Party.  This is well documented by your labor union's (NEA-ATA) unyielding commitment to the Democrat National Committee, and its candidates; the NEA-ATA has endorsed only Democrats since its inception in 1912. The NEA-ATA has also fought for bilingual education, and same sex marriage and education. It also funds (or has funded) extreme left wing groups ACORN, Amnesty International, Media Matters, Gay and Lesbian Alliance, Jesse Jackson's rainbow Push, La Raza, and Center for American Progress. Why is your labor union involved in such UN-American organizations and their agendas?

Teacher: I put my students ahead of my own personal needs and desires.
You: On the whole that is not true of teachers. If it were, teachers would not put politics and personal gain over students. Why does 80% of your funds go toward the DNC? Why are you protesting and causing outrageous public disturbances (riots) demanding salary increases when you are fully capable of reading the newspapers, and budget documents of states and local governments which are suffering from financial crisis.  Why are teachers ignoring the common issue and demanding raises, no layoffs, and arguing against any form of benefit conciliation?   What is noble about putting  yourself above the public interest?

Teacher:  We deserve raises just like people in the private sector.
You:  I don't know what part of the world you live in but the private sector is cutting jobs, not giving merit increases or bonuses, and consolidating entire departments to keep from going under.  Of anything, you are less deserving of bonuses because you support organizations and politicians who create policies that are counterproductive to job creation and capitalistic pro-growth economic policies.  In essence, the dues you pay and the affiliations you fund are a part of the root cause for  recession, and ongoing budget crisis among states.  Maybe you should rethink the cause and effect of your own actions, instead of demanding more from the public or government which you undermine.

This original blog post can be found at www.thekingsview.blogspot.com

Malloy unveils his plan to "fix" Connecticut

$1.5 billion dollars in new taxes.  No State Job cuts.  No Spending Cuts.

That pretty much sums up the pain that Nutmeggers will be expected to endure at the expense of Dannel Malloy's first budget as Governor of the disintegrating State of Connecticut.  Funny, when I watched Dannel deliver the news, he didn't do it with the usual smile that a proctologist has when he grabs you from behind.  No, it was with an arrogance of sorts - an eerie confidence that one sees from a stubborn child who grabs a hammer to pound a square peg into a round hole.


Nancy Wyman and
Gov Dan Malloy plan
their next move

Well Connecticut, its a fine mess you've gotten us into.  Your votes have been counted as they have since 1972, where you've continued to put Democrats in charge of the til.  The problem is that the only way out of this mess will be the eventual rising tide that may take place somewhere around 2014, if we are lucky and National Republicans don't screw things up during the next Presidential Election.

With all due respect to my hardworking, diligent, business-friendly friends here in Connecticut, I don't see a turn around in political control over in Connecticut's legislature in the near future, so I think prospects are rather grim.  I don't think the people here have the brainpower to understand the dynamics of economics 101, or intelligence to draw honest conclusions based on facts.  Quite frankly, many are excited about the prospect of a giant size safety net for the thousands of state workers who only feed at the trough and take from the system. And many other people simply don't care.  Most here are born Democrats, drink the feel-good Democrat Cool-Aid, and buy into wealth distribution as a means of financing equity for all.  It's obviously a disease or a form genetic mutation that is generations old for which there is no cure.

Connecticut Republicans, particularly our leadership, must also blame themselves for their bland approach to politics.  The aloof, low energy, visionless campaigns, and refusal to battle openly and loudly in public has killed us.  That's not the way we do things, they always said.  Yeah, and the results show it.  Unions and liberal crowds chant in the streets, and Republicans hide in their living rooms sipping cocktails.  Well, its not worked one bit.  I heard Chris Healy on the Radio yesterday.  He was so boring, and monotone in his interview on TIC that I could barely make out what he was saying - I had to turn up the volume just to make out his ramblings.  Again, low energy, pointless, mild-mannered dribble.  Get out!

The Malloy budget will be more than an albatross around the neck of the hardworking people of Connecticut.  Those who are filthy rich down in Fairfield County and elsewhere will barely feel a small pinch to their wealthy accounts.  But those of us in the middle class will be handed the burden - those families with two working adults who make a modest income which is just enough to allow us to own a home and pay a mortgage - whom Dan Malloy thinks are apparently well to do.  We are the ones scraping by trying to live within our means and who are being told we need to sacrifice to bail out jackasses who should have been fired from their legislative jobs.

And as for the poor?  Sounds cold - but screw them! If you're poor, you've been poor, you come from generations of poor - then to hell with you! Why should we give anything to anyone who does nothing for themselves, and are a burden on our system at every level?  Compassion?  I have no compassion for the lazy.  I have compassion for the guy who's worked his whole life to only see Dan Malloy and Democrats siphon off his hard earnings to finance their phony wealth distribution schemes - which will have no long term impact whatsoever.  Yet those reading Malloy's budget will see that the so-called poor are getting whopping $1700 rebates to spend while hardworking homeowners are LOSING their tax deductions.  Simply Amazing, isn't it?  Yeah, F- the poor!

Dan Malloy punishes success.  Dan Malloy takes from those who have worked hard and gives to those who don't or won't - when you take something from someone and give to whom it doesn't belong - that used to be constituted as nothing more than theft.

Now its legalized theft, and its conducted by our own State Government.  And Malloy and his fraudulent policymakers have the audacity to re title it sacrifice.  What crapola.

Hey if you see a State Worker, or you know one - don't be afraid to let them know how you feel.  They worked hard to get Malloy in office. It's up to you to make sure you let them know how you feel.

As for businesses, sure a whole different story.  Malloy proclaims, Connecticut is open for business.  Yeah, 19% of the new taxes being imposed are headed to the business sector.  Maybe Malloy hasn't noticed but Government has been choking business to the point where they are neither hiring, and in fact are laying off hundreds of workers in order to remain afloat.  Sure, so pile on more taxes, and make it more difficult for them to survive.  Can you blame them for moving south?

One of the most arrogant approaches by Governor Malloy is to compare Connecticut's tax rates with Rhode Island and Massachusetts to try and make his tax increases seem just.  Are you kidding me?  They are dying in Rhode Island, and Massachussets' economy is also in the tank.  Just because our neighbors have higher taxes doesn't justify us raising our taxes too.  What an insane argument for raising taxes.  Oh, they must be geniuses over there.  How stupid.  And how stupid for people to swallow it.  Where are comparison's with states which have cut taxes and spending and appear to be on the rise, or doing far better than we are?

Today's entry was a bit of a rant.  But cripes people.  What a mess!  What a mess that will only worsen with every tax increase.  And every failure to cut spending.  

Yeah, Governor Malloy is going to fix things alright.  We are about to get fixed real good.

The original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

Reagan Remembered

When I think of heroes from my childhood, I can't think of anyone from a position of national prominence or stardom who was more influential on me than President Ronald Wilson Reagan.  I'm sure a lot of people are making the same claim now since we are celebrating his would-be 100th birthday; and its probably intensified with so many Republicans claiming to be the one to carry forth Reagan's true legacy of Conservatism. 

Nancy and Ronald Reagan
Happy 100th Mr. President

It's an understatement to say that President Ronald Reagan was an amazing American.  If you've read Ronald Reagan: An American Life you can glean a great deal about Reagan's upbringing, humanity, and his conversion from a union Democrat to a Conservative Republican.  His life story embodies the American spirit from start to finish.   

Reagan is lauded by conservatives because of his economic policies which included shrinking the size of Government, cutting excessive spending, reducing regulations, and cutting taxes to build individual wealth and prosperity. Reagan was also a hawk; his vision of a strong America defeating Soviet Communism, and serving as a beacon of light for those in foreign lands oppressed by tyrannical authoritarian regimes. Reagan was a President for the times.  He was a giant among men.

Much of Reagan's adoration was and still is due to his incredible personality - his endless optimism, and positive attitude even in the face of opposition or strife.  It's been 30 years since his Presidency, and his manner of governing is still considered the standard for building diverse coalitions to get things done.  Reagan mastered the ability to work with Democrats and Republicans, and sought compromise without compromising his own principles.  Reagan never wavered, and his opponents respected him for it.  Even the press melted in his presence - its hard to hate a man who never showed hate, and rarely showed anger (except on purpose).

But to be fair - Reagan's time was an eon ago.  You have to wonder whether Ronald Reagan with his broad smile and good nature would have been as successful in today's incredibly hostile political environment.   Back in the 80s, Republicans and Democrats, particularly the leaders of that era were capable of working together for the common good; politics seemed less personal than they do today. In our current climate, people like Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are vile, angry creatures who spew hatred, and thrive on dividing people.  They are 100% ideological; compromise is out of the question - they operate on a winner take all mentality. The HealthCare Reform Bill with its mandate to force Americans to purchase coverage is a prime example of this mentality in action.  Nancy Pelosi is so partisan, that it was reported this week that she refuses to meet or work with Blue Dog members of her own party. This is how bad things have become.  It's all or nothing.

Then if you throw in the vicious media which is more bias today than at anytime in our nation's history - publicly supporting Democrat candidates, and slanting news to be critical and derogatory of Republicans.  How would Ronald Reagan have looked under a constant attack by so-called journalists like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann?  Simply, no filter, and no ability to show respect for our American institutions. All that matters is
advancing the agenda at any cost, even if it means substituting facts with fiction.  Or worse, mischaracterizing situations and things such as resent attempts by Matthew's to mislead the public into believing the Muslim Brotherhood is on par with the Tea Party.  And you wonder why so many people distrust and resent the media.

Admittedly, there is also another factor to consider.  Perhaps when we celebrate Reagan, we also long for a bi gone era.  The 80s were a time of energy, optimism, American ingenuity, and American greatness.  Through his vision and policies, Reagan presided over a great economic recovery, and through his leadership renewed America's strong position in the world as a force for good, and for freedom and democracy.

When I opened this essay, I started by stating President Reagan most influenced me as a young man.   I can distinctly remember the terrible Carter years - waiting in long gas lines with my Father, position in line based on days of the week and license plate numbers and letters, and watching the daily update about Americans being held hostage by thugs in Iran (similar to the ones we are dealing with today), and I recall the news of our failed helicopter rescue of those very hostages.  Those days were not happy ones.

Then I recall the energy and optimism regarding the news that Ronald Reagan won the Presidential election.  Almost immediately upon hearing the news, the Iranians released the hostages. And it was if a vale of darkness was suddenly lifted from America.  And in the eight years of his Presidency, I saw new ideas, and new prosperity, and I remember seeing Americans actually being proud to be American. 

The new optimism spawned incredible waves of ingenuity - new products, new music, new ideas, and a sense that anything was possible.  I saw my own family see greater prosperity and happiness during Reagan's tenure.

I remember watching Ronald Reagan give speeches about American ideals and principles and speaking of inclusion of all people regardless of background or ethnic group.  Reagan emphasized Americans, not hyphenated this or that.  Reagan talked about freedom, and publicly challenged Communism.  He helped forge a relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev and opened up relations with Russia in a way never seen before.  And who can forget Ronald Reagan going to the Berlin Wall proclaiming, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." 

I remember that Ronald Reagan always led from the front, and formed his own principled positions.  He didn't run to pollsters, think tanks, or deal with focus groups.  And he didn't pander to special interest groups even if they were connected with his own party.  He did what he thought was right.

And of course, I remember watching television coverage of President Ronald Reagan getting shot by a coward.  I remember calling one of my junior high school teachers at school, and relating the story and the details of the loop which was being shown over and over again. I remember a unified grieving country, and I remember our school teachers organizing us to sign and send a huge get well card, with a jar of jellybeans to a man who was an inspiration to us all (President Reagan actually acknowledged the gesture).   I also remember, Ronald Reagan transcending the incident by asking people to pray for his shooter - while he recovered in a hospital perhaps having narrowly escaped death.  Few men would chose forgiveness over revenge in a similar situation.

I remember Reagan's appeal to most everyone, even his opponents.  And I remember his last days in office, and the fond genuine farewell from everyone around him, even his traditional foes.  And I remember reading his last communication to the American People, a somber good-bye as he struggled with Alzheimer's Disease through his final days.  And I recall his funeral - and all those who came to mourn the loss of a great President and a great man.

I remember a lot more about the Reagan years - stories, interviews, quips, and the results of Reagan's impact on America, and the world - than I couldn't ever write in this short entry. And none of these are manufactured, overinflated stories.  I'm writing about the REAL Ronald Reagan.  The man that inspired me to become a Republican, and a patriot.

Ronald Reagan is worth remembering and celebrating.  And unapologetically - worth emulating. Our own experiences of his tenure burned into our memories, reminds us of a much different America than the America we live in today.  We were more united, more agreeable, and largely optimistic about the future.  Reagan always saw the good in situations, and in people.  Reagan talked about solutions, and didn't place blame on others around him, or on past mistakes. 

Reagan didn't apologize for freedom, capitalism, Christianity, democracy, or America.  Instead, he served as an advocate for the principles on which America was forged; the very principles that make America strong.  Today's leaders are quite the opposite, and you can plainly see the failed results of negative rhetoric, and weak policies which placate and embolden our enemies. 

I recognize that its not likely that we will ever get back to the simple days of worrying about whether Coke is better than Pepsi.  But, once we get beyond the nightmare of the current administration, we can once again move in a Reaganesque direction.  But its going to take more than a charismatic, respected figure at the head of Government; its going to require wholesale demands from the public - through electing positive, qualified, constitutionally-responsible individuals to Congress.  And further by demanding that reporters, and news organizations drop their liberal agenda, or face ruin.  The public must reject biased newspapers and news agencies, and punish those who sponsor or advertise to keep these propaganda machine going.

If its to be Morning in America again, then it will be up to Americans to reclaim the Reagan legacy.  That House on a Shining Hill can still be us.  If we allow ourselves to make it so in  the same manner that Ronald Reagan did.

Good Bless you Ronald Reagan.  We miss you!  Happy 100th birthday, no doubt there is a grand celebration for you beyond the Heavenly Gates!

This original blog post can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

Egypt as a cautionary tale for the West

Speculation is running wild about the expected outcome for Hosni Mubarak and the State of Egypt.  Egypt, like Qatar, Lebanon, and a few other Arab states, has long been seen as a quasi-ally of the United States for some time.  The phrase the enemy of my enemy is my friend is most applicable here.  During the past 12 years of American led combat in the region, Egypt has been silently supportive of Western military action - if not for any other reason - its taken the burden off of the Egyptian Army of having to deal with incursions from opponents and extremists both inside and outside their boundaries, and allowed Egypt to have fairly peaceful relationships with their neighbors after years of war, and isolation.

Egypt in chaos

But the Middle East has always been a ticking time bomb, full of greedy dictators operating under the phony guise of representative government.  Egypt relies heavily on American and Western tourism and aid from Western Governments which the larger Arab World has objected to on the whole.  Extremist factions are working around the clock to break up the sweet-heart relationship between the West and States like Egypt, which are seen as collaborative puppets for western policies in the Middle East.

The truth is that the relationship between Egypt and the U.S. has been anything but perfect.  Egypt has been a particularly difficult nation to work with on global affairs because it straddles between its binding allegiance to its Arab neighbors and its reliance on Western support to help it maintain a degree of stability (and even some level of prosperity when compared with other Arab Nations).  Being of both camps has caused a headache for western diplomats as the Egyptian government has used its leverage, at times, to appear as an arbiter for Arab interests.  But notwithstanding these issues, Egypt, more specifically President Mubarak, has kept groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and one of its more infamous associations - Al Queda, in check through use of Egypt's military and security forces. Clearly, these too groups have always had an interest in capturing Egypt and pro-western states like it, to advance Islamic racialism and the mission of riding Arab lands of any Western influence.

Of course, one would be a fool not recognize the vital role that a peaceful Egypt plays in keeping the Suez Canal trouble free for purpose of efficiently transporting goods, oil and other commodities between regions (the alternative is sending ships on a long trip around the Cape of Good Hope).  Thus Egypt's control of the waterway has been a boon for its economy, and allowed it to play a key role in international affairs.  This is particularly productive for Egypt which suffered greatly after its humiliating defeat during its war with Israel.  Thus Hosni Mubarak has recognized the benefits of keeping extremists under control, and maintaining peaceful relations with its neighbors.

The problem with a quasi-dictator like Mubarak is that eventually they outlive their purpose.  Mubarak has been in power since the early 80s, and in some form of power long before that. He enjoyed the taste of power while he rose up through military ranks over time to his present position of President, which he inherited after the murder of Anwar Sadat.  His government is much like the rest of pro-Western Governments - extremely corrupt, and a step away from instability.  The truth is, the uprising in Egypt is long overdue, given Mubarak's 30 year tenure as its ruler.  Outside influences have been largely successful as positioning Mubarak as a token of the West thus the overall dissatisfaction of the multi-faceted population was already at a boiling point.  It probably doesn't help that human rights records show that he's dealt with his citizens in harsh terms, suspending most liberties such as freedom of the press, or right to a fair trial.  Many of those protesting on the streets of Cairo have a point.

The United States and its Western Allies for the most part have been largely successful in Iraq and Afghanistan in the overall mission, but its taken ongoing military occupation to hunt down, capture (and/or kill) insurrectionists, and disrupt their efforts to regroup and re-emerge.  Since its impossible to kill an idea, or impose our belief system on Arabs, its likely going to remain a long term investment in the region.  Having a few friends, whether they are tyrants or not, has been in the U.S. National interest.  Moreover, countries like Lebanon and Qatar need strong alliances between each other to halt fanatical Islam from expanding locally.

Our foes are not as dumb as they appear.  They've plenty of followers throughout the Middle East and Europe - planning, plotting and waiting for their opportunity to disrupt Western interests anywhere they can.  Egypt has been ripe for the picking given Mubarak's troubles with an already dissatisfied population.  And his own excesses have helped groups like the Muslim Brotherhood spread dissatisfaction and recruit from within Egypt's own borders.  And the same thing is happening in Yemen, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and likely in places like Turkey and Bosnia, and any place with an Islamic population suffering under the strain of a dying global economy.

While watching the hundreds of television reports, what interested me most was that officials were caught off guard by the rapid emergence of this crisis, and success of those instigating the demonstrations.  Moreover, there are clear concerns about the spread of protests throughout and beyond Egypt's borders in such short order.  It's also interesting to learn that the United States and Western Nations have no plan for Middle Eastern collapse.  This was apparent by the self-professed confusion uttered by western diplomats over the turmoil.

President Barack Obama didn't help matters when he began to make declarative statements about how he expected Egypt to respond - particularly suggesting that Hosni Mubarak step down and form a transitional government.  Without out a doubt, this added fuel to the fire on both sides - first, Obama alienated pro-Mubarak forces who want their President to remain in power,  and second, it emboldened anti-Mubarak forces to continue rioting and protesting.  It also gave fuel to anti-western groups eager to show that Egypt's government is being controlled by western influences.  Instead of keeping still, Obama's rhetoric likely escalated hostilities and riots within Cairo and in the Middle East.  It's another clear example of how this President's miscalculation and inexperience creates havoc here and abroad.

The question which remains on the table is if Mubarak does step down, who would take over?  What would be the outcome for Egyptians if the Muslim Brotherhood came to power?  There is nothing in their resume that suggests a peaceful path for Egypt or its neighbors.  Certainly, Israel would need to focus on a new threat on its border.  And the Suez Canal would be an ongoing warzone with a hostile Egypt under Islamists control.  Commerce would be jeopardized and with it, the flow of oil of which we so greatly depend.

So there is no easy answer to what is next.  The leader of the free world has not helped matters by throwing Mubarak under the bus.  The next President of Egypt could either be installed by the West, come from the Army, or would come through so-called free elections, likely the last you'd see for decades given the opportunity for Islamists to rig the outcome.  And a coalition government which includes groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, only buy fanatics time to plan and act on their quest for domination.

All of this follows the fanatics script to the letter.  Seizing control of all Muslim countries is the first step to forging regional solidarity against Israel and western countries.  Once this is completed, the next step is to infiltrate western countries themselves.  We already see this in happening in Britain and other parts of Europe where Muslims are demanding their own leaders, their own territories, and there own set of laws.  And western countries have been caving in to their demands in the hope of avoiding conflict in the street.

Sacrifices not made today, will end in full blown disaster in the future.  Perhaps we cannot save Egypt (although we should try), but we can still save ourselves from a liberal ideology that allows Islam to root and grown within our Democratic borders.  The Imams' plan is total Islamic domination of the world.  And our own people are helping them achieve their goals bit by bit, retreat by retreat.

The west aught to look at Israel's example for the courage need to fend off Islam and its its followers.  If we wait much longer, then we here in the United States will soon see rise to many of the same mindless liberal policies that have enabled fanatics to control entire neighborhoods in England and elsewhere.  The choice is still ours.