Meet and Greet: Mike Clark & Chairman Jerry Labriola, Jr.

Mike Clark is the only candidate
who can win in CT-5; the rest would be
mince-meat at the hand's of the CT Democratic Machine

I pass along as many of these as I can... but I have to say that this one is truly worth publicizing to the masses.

Meet and Greet for CT-05 Congressional Candidate

Mike Clark

Saturday March 24, 2012 7 -10 pm

Zulu Bar and Restaurant

901 Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut

(Corner of Pratt & Main Street)

Donation: $15-20



Here's an opportunity for you to meet one of the only serious Republican candidates currently running for Congress in the Nutmeg State, and that's none other than - Mike Clark. While many candidates have drawn up fictional accounts of their experience, or traveled around the state peddling half truths to one special interest group after another - you'll instead find that Mr. Clark is the real deal: consistent, honest, respected, and legitimate.

But don't take The King's word for it, I challenge you to go to http://www.mikeclarkcongress.com and navigate to the issues tab and look for yourself. No ambiguous language that leaves you guessing where he stands, no bait and switch shenanigans, instead - just a refreshing, direct, no-nonsense outline of where Mr. Clark stands on the issues. Unlike his competition, Mr. Clark doesn't come from the imaginary world of politics where votes are bought, and anything flies; no, he comes with a legitimate background - working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York City and elsewhere.

After working in NYC, he was transferred to Connecticut where he led investigations against municipal and statewide corruption. His work was so well-respected that he was awarded special recognition by the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2005 for his service to the residents of Connecticut.

Further, he now works in the private sector for Otis Internal Security Department, and he also served as Chairman for the Farmington Republican Town Council where he helped to maintain the third lowest mil rate in the region. Oh yeah, it's true that Mr. Clark didn't pawn away someone else's fortune to become a millionaire, and he hasn't wandered from campaign to campaign playing the favor-game - nope, he's earned his money the hard way - by actually working for it.

Even though this sounds like an endorsement, it's not. But you have to be excited about having at least one candidate in the Fifth Congressional District who is worth cheering for. The rest of the pack simply won't cut it.  If this campaign were were only about raising money as some would have you believe, than we wouldn't have to worry about issues to begin with, would we?  Well, the record shows that the public cares about principled positions after-all, and whether or not someone can blow $50 million dollars out of their own pockets, doesn't seem to matter one iota to the voting public.  The public wants somone they can actually believe in for a change.

Whether you're a Republican, a Conservative, a Tea Party Patriot, or an Independent Voter with a lot of questions - head down and meet with Mike Clark. You'll be glad you did!  And don't pass up the chance to chat with Chairman Jerry Labriola, Jr. too.  You can tell him it's nice to have a Chairman who puts the public ahead of his own personal interest!  and someone who wants to see the CTGOP win again!

I AM

THE KING

This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com
Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment. This article does not imply endorsement of the candidate mentioned above, nor has this article been solicited for publication by any political candidate, campaign, or PAC.

OP-ED: Roraback: A Poor Choice For the Right



Peter Wolfgang sets the Conservative
standard while others copituate and hide

The following Op-Ed written by Family Institute of Connecticut President Peter Wolfgang appeared in the March 5, 2012 edition of the Waterbury Republican-American.  Since not everyone has access to the Rep-Am Website, I'm producing this perfectly written Op-Ed for all to enjoy:

The state's Republican Party has made great strides in reaching out to social conservatives since Tom Foley's narrow loss in the 2010 gubernatorial race — a loss I attributed at the time to the state GOP's social liberalism. But the party establishment is about to blow it again, and the reason is Sen. Andrew W. Roraback, R-Goshen.

Party bigwigs believe Roraback's "moderate" positions make him the most electable of the Republicans running in the 5th House District. But Roraback is not a moderate.

If the Republican Party nominates its most socially liberal legislator to run in what is arguably Connecticut's most socially conservative House district, it is going out of its way to lose a race that can be won.

Most Connecticut Republicans who are "pro-choice" on abortion will at least support common-sense laws like banning partial-birth abortion or requiring underage girls to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion. But not Andrew Roraback.

As late as 2008, NARAL, the pro-abortion lobbying organization, endorsed Roraback for re-election. NARAL says its "endorsement is given only to those candidates who have requested endorsement and who are deemed by the PAC to be 100 percent pro-choice." In other words, you cannot support any exceptions to abortion-on-demand.

Roraback not only shared NARAL's pro-abortion extremism, he wished to be identified with it and actually sought out the group's endorsement. Indeed, the connection between Roraback's family and the pro-abortion movement runs deep. Since 1980, NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut has given out the Catherine Roraback Award, named after his cousin, to those who have made a contribution to the right to kill unborn human life.

Roraback also is the only Republican legislator in Connecticut ever to vote in favor of redefining marriage and imposing full same-sex "marriage" on our state.

Attempts to redefine marriage failed every year in the legislature, and same-sex "marriage" was only imposed on Connecticut in 2008 by judicial fiat. In 2009, the legislature, powerless to overturn the court, codified the ruling but added the strongest religious-liberty exemptions in the nation.

In 2005, the legislature passed a civil-union law with an amendment explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Roraback supported that amendment but flip-flopped in 2007, voting for full same-sex "marriage" in the Judiciary Committee. He was the only Connecticut Republican to vote in favor of full same-sex "marriage."

Connecticut's pro-family and pro-life voters have no illusions about our state's politics. At times, we will vote for candidates who are not 100 percent with us. A candidate who at least supports parental notification, the federal Defense of Marriage Act and other common sense laws can gain our support.

But in the case of Andrew Roraback, the Republican establishment is asking social conservatives to vote for a candidate who is 100 percent against us. We will not do it. And if the GOP thinks social conservatives will vote for Roraback in the general election because we have no choice, they have not learned the lesson of Tom Foley.

After the 2010 election, the Family Institute of Connecticut's PAC received emails from our members thanking us for not endorsing Foley. They vote pro-life and pro-family foremost, these members told us, but if both candidates are social liberals, they will vote for the candidate least likely to cut their job as a state worker or teacher.

Those are the Connecticut voters you never hear about. They are the urban, or union, yet socially conservative voters who can make the difference in a close race. Tom Foley lost the governor's race by ignoring them in 2010. Likewise, the Republican Party will lose the most winnable congressional seat in Connecticut in 2012 if its candidate is Andrew Roraback.

Peter Wolfgang is president of the Family Institute of Connecticut Action.

---------------------------------------

The King's Commentary:

Mr. Wolfgang gets the heart of the matter when he describes the CTGOP's intentional abandonment of Conservatism in favor of a watered-down liberal version of Republicanism rarely found across the Fifty States as  - a self-defeating strategy which has doomed Connecticut Republican candidates for the past 20 years.  The facts show that genuine Reagan-era Conservatism brought us many victories in past elections due in part to it's widespread appeal to not only those on the right, but in the middle, and in some traditionally-minded Democratic circles. 

Sadly, there are fewer Connecticut Republican candidates who are willing to accept the fact that social and economic policy is inevitably linked at the core.  This shortsighted perspective has led to landslide victory after victory for our Democratic opponents who chuckle at the me-too antics of their socially liberal Republican opponents.

Like it or not, Andrew Roraback is a even more dangerous version of a socially-absent Linda McMahon or a Tom Foley - both of which fell short in 2010 for running to the left on social issues; choosing instead to publicly worship the golden calf while Party insiders cheered them on.  Connecticut families hunger for men (and women) of good character who are willing to stand up on their behalf against the far left's anti-traditional family agenda. We want to see conservative opposition on important social issues, such as - homosexual marriage, gay adoption, legalizing drugs, NARAL extremism, and even permitting transvestites into our public bathrooms. Going a step further, Roraback opposes the Death Penalty - he would see our worst criminals spared from the justice they have earned through their horrific deeds.

Nominating anyone but an authentic Republican to represent the CTGOP on our slate in the upcoming election invites another guaranteed Democratic slaughter.  Andrew Roraback is a proven liberal who'd be crushed at the polls by a disgusted electorate.

Looking around, Republicans find a U.S. Senate Candidate who happily voted for Barack Obama, another who's entire career experience is based on Pro-Wrestling, and a bunch of others who have abandoned Republican principles for wishy-washy centralism.  One day, we'll get it through our heads that our failed strategy of mediocrity and emulating our opponents isn't the winning ticket.  I just don't have much faith that it will be today.

I AM

THE KING

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

Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment.

Will the Real Brian K. Hill Please Stand Up?

I've toyed on and off with how to write this piece without coming across offensive to Republican Senate Candidate Brian K. Hill, or his energetic supporters. I have to admit that at times I  find Mr. Hill's comments on many issues quite engaging. When Mr. Hill attends a Town Committee Meeting, or addresses a small gathering, he speaks without hesitation on the issues of the day, and fearlessly takes tough questions from the audience, no matter how hostile. I don't agree with everything he says, but at least he has the courage to stand up and speak his mind; it's refreshing considering that so many others spew canned rhetoric prepared by their staffs.

Brian K. Hill's patriotic service to our Country is first rate, no doubt.
But he's too sharp a guy to claim he was "hoodwinked" into voting
for Barack Hussein Obama.  If you believe that, then I have a bridge
in Healyville that I'd like to sell you at a reasonable price.

Also to his credit, Mr. Hill doesn't insult people's intelligence the way that Linda McMahon does when she repeats the same-old boring lies about being a "proven job creator" - fact is that she's made her money from an company, which she inherited, that neither manufactures products, or creates jobs readily available to the non-pro-wrestling public in Connecticut.  (How many WWE wrestling jobs go out on Monster.com?) 

And whether she realizes it or not, Linda McMahon's number one selling point about "not being an insider or career politician" is greatly diminished by the fact that she's worked long and hard to buy long-time veteran political insiders, career politicians, and State Central Members to add her list of endorsements. It's hard to be considered an outsider when you surround yourself with insiders. It's ironic that the mainstream media has ignored the trail of McMahon's donations to RTCs to the Endorsements she publishes on her website.  

Only a fool would ignore the obvious connection.

Moreover, her political director,  former Independent Candidate Tom Scott, has spent significant time on the phone whining to everyone who will listen about the Ethics Resolutions currently being considered by CT Republican State Central.  The Resolutions, by the way, have been modified by the appointed Sub-Committee and are scheduled to be placed before State Central for a vote next week (pending their placement on the agenda by Chairman Jerry Labriola, Jr.). And when it comes to the Resolutions, Linda McMahon has talked out of both sides of her mouth.  On the one hand, she's said she would support any changes to the rules that State Central Members would make, but then on the other hand, her surrogates have worked around-the-clock to squash the Ethics Resolutions, or poo-poo them, and have said they will embarrass people over their support for them.  It's believed that they have also gone so far as to coordinate activities between other candidate's campaigns who would be equally embarrassed by exposure of the extent of collusion and pay-offs associated with their campaigns. 

If Linda McMahon were truly interested in fair play, she would support the Resolutions in a direct public statement, regardless of who might be exposed by her generosity.  After the evening of March 13, the CTGOP will be sharply divided into two camps - those who are honest, and care about transparency, and ethics, and those who are corrupt and have been bought, and/or threatened through McMahon's intimidation machine.

Or we can all live peacefully, pass the Resolutions, wear the badges, come what may, and fight for our respective candidates through the Primary.  It's up to Linda (and also Lisa Wilson-Foley - who's Campaign Manager is apparently knee deep in everything these days).

Back to Mr. Hill...

So out of the gate, I'll state the fact... this is not a hit piece on Mr. Hill  In my view there is some unsettled business that, at present, would make me uncomfortable casting a vote for Mr. Hil in a Primary. 

We can start by Brian Hill's admission that he voted for Barack Obama in 2008.  This is a particularly troubling admission to behold.   When I read the Greenwich Time article I was stunned. And many conservatives and moderates wrote me wondering if this was a misprint or another false rumor started by a competing campaign.  If I hadn't heard Mr. Hill confirm it with his own voice, I would have taken it as just more political fodder.

What's more troubling is that Mr. Hill was further quoted as saying that he is a "life-long Republican."  I have to stop here.  There aren't too many life-long Republicans that I know who voted for Barack Obama.  And most of my friends who are serving or who have served were big advocates of Senator John McCain, for if nothing else - their steadfast loyalty to him as a fellow soldier, a heroic POW, and for his unwavering support for the Troops of this Nation, including his support of the Veterans Administration.

Moreover, being a life-long Republican would imply having a full comprehension of the issues - economic, geopolitical, domestic, judicial, and social.  Which position of Barack Obama's other than his anti-war policy did Mr. Hill find so appealing to get him to pull the lever for liberal Barack Obama.  Was Mr. Hill truly hoodwinked, as he claims?  From where The King stands Mr. Obama's hundreds of televised interviews, speeches, and his own political literature, background, and even the friends he kept time with spoke honestly about who he was as a person, his left-wing policies, and his plan to put his socialistic agenda into action. 

Now Mr. Hill did make a compelling argument about his perspective that Senator McCain might expand American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to win the war, but if one were to take the broad notion of expanding the U.S. Military's role into account outside of just the Middle East, you'd have to include all of the other non-military roles (nation building, humanitarian efforts, etc) that our military is engaged in across the world at the direction of Mr. Obama.  I was dismayed at Mr. Hill's use of the images of injured soldiers in medical hospitals as his primary rationale for voting "against McCain".  I thought that the use of these images was a rather shameful, and disingenuous; and it's a weak argument at best.

No one wants to see our fighting men or woman injured, maimed or killed.  But no one wants to see their sacrifices marginalized by a candidate seeking political office either. Let's not forget the real reason that we are engaged in military action in the Middle East and elsewhere - to destroy the terrorists, to wipe-out or contain our enemies who would do us harm, and to proactively ensure that another 9-11 does not occur, and I'll grant you - for other elements of our National Interest.  Of course, there are other geo-political strategies that are too complex to spell out here in this entry.

Mr. Hill knows it was not John McCain or George Bush who put our soldiers in hospital beds; it was Taliban fighters, al-Queda operatives, and others enemies of Democracy.  I can understand that Mr. Hill may not have liked his tour under "Bush W" as he's referred him, but it is what Mr. Hill signed up for, and it's also what helped put him through Law School and to be the man that he is today.  So, while I can recognize Mr. Hill for his outstanding service to our country, I really cannot forgive his vote for Barack Obama - particularly given where this country is today.  Mr. Hill gets no mulligan from The King.

Mr. Hill purports to run against the man, and the very policies which he supported when he cast his vote in 2008.  And just for the record - there is no such thing as voting against someone.  When you walk into a voting booth, you vote for the individual shown, period. Or you obstain. Any other rationale for supporting Barack Obama in 2008 is smoke and mirrors. 

Another concern that has been brought to The King's attention is that witnesses have claimed that Mr. Hill has on two separate occasions (Hartford Lincoln Dinner and Durham RTC) asked audiences to support whoever wins the State Convention.  If this is true, then it implies two things - first, Mr. Hill is not a serious candidate for U.S. Senate because a serious candidate would be planning to collect signatures in order to fight to be placed on the Primary ballot.  If Mr. Hill intends to endorse the winner of the State Convention, then we can be well-assured that he's already written a letter of Endorsement for Linda McMahon, and that a check is in the mail made out in his name. 

Second, the implication would be that Mr. Hill was in the race for the sole purpose of serving as a rouse or distraction to bring down Christopher Shays, or any other Republican who would dare oppose the Establishment's chosen candidate - Linda McMahon.  It's noteworthy that Mr. Hill's public criticism and damaging attacks have been directed at Mr. Shays and NOT Linda McMahon.  And when he does mention Mrs. McMahon he is quite reserved in his comments. Trust me - I read every story that is printed from legitimate news sources.  I'm still trying to find the one article where Mr. Hill takes Linda McMahon to task for anything tangible.  Next time, he speaks to your RTC - squeeze him on McMahon.

Now, I know I've created a bit of a conspiracy theory here. And I will quickly point out that I'm open to the idea that Mr. Hill had a mere slip of tongue (even if twice), and didn't actually mean what he said.  But you'd have to ask him whether he's in it to win it through the end, or if this is just another temporary campaign meant to clutter the field, nab a few delegates to offset the totals, and that he's banking on a big pay day at the end like a large number of other well-known politicos.

I don't expect a response from this.  I never do.  But I'd like Mr. Hill to take one lesson from Senator McCain, whom he seems to have despised enough to support liberal Barack Obama in '08, and that is - take a ride on the Straight-Talk Express.  You'll find when it comes to this issue - it may do you some good.  Because right now, people who considered supporting you are abandoning you like rats off a sinking ship.

Hey, does anyone know if Wayne Winsley voted for Obama in '08?  Just wondering. I bet NOT!

I AM

THE KING

This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com
Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment. 

Legislative Alert: HB5389: Renamed: CT Democrats pro-marijuana crusade

Governor Dan Malloy and his protege - "Puff" The Magic Dragon 

Last year, liberal Connecticut Democrats with help from a few off-the-wall Republicans supported a bill to decriminalize marijuana which eventually found its way to Governor Malloy's desk which he gleefully signed into law. The Senate version received a lot of publicity in Committee. You might recall the controversy over S.B. 1015: An Act Concerning the Palliative Use of Marijuana -  which by the way was another disgraceful "yea vote" by liberal Andrew Roraback.  You'll recall my piece on the matter entitled: Malloy: The Marijuana Governor? And you can imagine all of the angry emails I received from washed out, angry 60's nutcase who likely grow mounds of pot in the backyard for large-scale tie-dye smoke-ins.

"Stoned and being a fan of John Denver is no way to go through life, son."

And no offense to the many Ron Paul Libertarians who stop by to visit this blog, now and then.  I know you folks have a lot of passion, and are well-meaning, and you harbor extreme hatred for the Federal Reserve, but many of you are a little nutty when it comes to defining Liberty as the right to smoke a bowl where-ever, and whenever you please.  Some of you have gone so far as to express the view that "smoking pot is good for you." Sorry, not for me. And not for our children.  And let's face it, you'd have to be pretty baked to sell your crazy theories about a secret government 911 conspiracy, or to adhere to the idea that the lunatics within al-Qaeda are just a bunch of misunderstood folks who mean us no real harm (you guys have more in common with Obama than  you do with the GOP).  Love, Dope, Peace!

The pro-marijuana/drug users are back in full force with a new Bill in hand (as amended), and once again with Governor Malloy in their pocket:

HB 5389: AN ACT CONCERNING THE PALLIATIVE USE OF MARIJUANA

(please click the link above for the draft version)

This version is an extension of the original but with many additional components. Basically, you find a pro-marijuana doctor (Sect. 1, Sub 8) who can diagnosis you with an debilitating medical condition (as loosely defined under Sect. 1 Sub. 10), who then takes his nifty pad, and writes you a certified note (Sect. 1, Sub. 12) that you're marijuana-fit, and you're good to go! 

It's also nice to see the medical lobby is well represented in this bill by it's army of attorneys - HB5389 carefully outlines all the protections afforded to Doctors and "caregivers"; making then free from prosecution (and accountability) for anything their patients do, or they may have done to promote marijuana use, and or the results of that act as long as they've covered their rears with the right checklist (Sect. 5 and Section 6):

"(Sect 5): A qualifying patient or a primary caregiver may assert the palliative use of marijuana as an affirmative defense to any prosecution involving marijuana, or paraphernalia relating to marijuana, under chapter 420b of the general statutes or any other provision of the general statutes, provided such qualifying patient or such primary caregiver has strictly complied with the requirements of sections 1 to 15, inclusive, of this act."

and...

(Sect. 6): . (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2012) "A physician shall not be subject to arrest or prosecution, penalized in any manner, including, but not limited to, being subject to any civil penalty, or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, being subject to any disciplinary action by the Connecticut Medical Examining Board or other professional licensing board, for providing a written certification for the palliative use of marijuana..."

This bill is one that even Michael Jackson's Doctor would approve.  If only Conrad Murray had Jackson under his care in Connecticut, right?; he'd probably be onto his 30th cadaver by now, and able to afford to live large on an big estate next to Tom Foley in Old Greenwich.

I was happy to read to read that there are a few positives in the bill, including some restrictions outlined in Sect. 2, Sub (a)2, its nice to know that potheads won't be permitted to smoke their way onto a transit bus, or ... god forbid, a school bus. Boy, these legislators think of everything, don't they? I'm beginning to feel safer already. 

This bill is just another move in the direction to legalize all kinds of drugs, and activities (or at least decriminalize them).  Democrats are carefully inching step-by-step toward a world where drugs of all kinds are perfectly acceptable so long as they are administered by the State; nothing is beyond reproach if the State can simply get its cut of the action.

The victims of these bills are the generations of children who will grow up watching their parents smoking their brains away, and worse - they themselves becoming addicted to even more deadly alternatives which will put their lives in peril.  Democrats don't want to talk about the tie-in that drugs - even marijuana  - has to serious crimes like larceny and even murder.  Democrats will tell you that no-one dies over dime bag of weed, yet it seems that we read week after week about drug-related gang shootings across the Country. 

Making access to drugs easier is not the brightest move by our Government. And making those who should be accountable for perscribing them, like doctors, less accountable makes even less sense.  It makes the job of the policeman, drug councilor, addiction staff member, and even the teacher that much harder.  When hearings are held on March 7, the fact that the drug enthusiasts will drag out cancer victims and use the testimony of AIDS victims to use as props to advance their agenda is both unfortunate and disgraceful - because it masks the real intentions of pro-marijuana advocates, and disgards the real consequences for the rest of society.  

Buzz off, Copper! I've got a certification from Dr. Roraback!

And you wonder what this world is coming to?  Take a look around you.  It's pretty plain to see.  I'm sure CT Democrats will find a way to make smoking crack legal next!

I AM

THE KING

This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com
Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment.