Memo to Ray Hackett: Add Muyska To Your Blacklisted Conservatives

Still not asking the tough questions about the Obama Administration even AFTER the election?

What gives with the lack of tough questions Mr. Hackett? When is the honeymoon between the Norwich Bulletin and Congressman Joe Courtney going to be over long enough to ask him if he voted for Dirty Bird John Murtha for Majority Leader?

What does Courtney think of Murtha’s role as an unindicted co-conspirator in Abscam FBI sting? Is a good or a bad thing that such a crook has such a powerful position over the 2nd district’s economy?

When are you going to ask Courtney how our defense-based economy is going to make out with peaceniks having a stranglehold in Congress AND Pennsylvania Avenue? I have heard cuts as high as 25 percent on Defense spending from Representative Barney Frank.

How is Bulletin-Buddy Joe Courtney going to spin that into a good thing for his constituency?

Well I just stopped in to share my most recent find - D. Dowd Muska. You can put his name right between Connecticut conservative Don Noel's and Obama-critic Thomas Sowell’s on authors NEVER, NEVER, NEVER to be included in the editorial section.

I have some sharp disagreements (of course) with my local newspaper, the Chronicle, but I think we got a someone on our side over there. The reason I think that is because once in a while something is sneaked by that offers a different opinion instead of Left vs. Far-Left all the time.
Of particular relevance to you is this one:

The only other reason I can think of why this kind of good stuff gets in the Chronicle is that someone there still adheres to the concept of balance on the opinion pages.

I agree with Mr. Muska that the failure of some Connecticut newspapers (or their decline) can only result in increased competitiveness of elections.

I have noted that you and reporter Michael Gannon still seem to be spitting mad [ Example 1# Example 2# Example 3# Example 4# ] over Christopher Coutu reclaiming the seat formerly held by Republican Barry Kolar ( who is another Republican you set out to ruin).

Chris called me a few weeks ago and among the things we talked about was his NOT resigning his seat on the Norwich City Council until he is good and ready. I told him not to let you push him around. I am a happy to tell you that he agreed.

Misters Coutu and Muyska are two men that think for themselves. We need more like them.

Christopher Coutu Has it Right

I really like what this young guy says. State Rep-elect Coutu acknowledges he is not an "expert" in this, this and the other thing but so what?

Coutu right says that the incumbents have forgotten the values of the average man. We are overdue for a correction.

The incumbent Democrats have increased taxes beyond the ability to pay, temporary taxes have become permanent ones and funding not going where is supposed to go.

The supposed expertise in how the Capital works that Norwich Bulletin Editor Ray Hackett imagines is so important is in fact worthless. Hackett doesn’t understand that his friends have not been doing the job.

My Dad always told me that no one is indispensable. As good as you think you are, they can always muddle through without you. The Capital will do just fine without Jack Malone.

It would do even better if other liberal incumbents such as Don Williams and Denise Merrill were similarly replaced.

Connecticut can’t afford any more expertise from these liberals.

Christopher Coutu Does Not Take Orders From the Bulletin

The Bulletin’s editorial “Coutu’s best course is to quit council” is just plain illogical.

No case has been made (much less a compelling one) why State Rep. Elect Christopher Coutu should quit before he has to.

There is no great mystique how the legislature works. The Bulletin has brought up this shit twice now. Imagine a bunch of mean, snot-nosed kids fighting over a ball.

That pretty much sums up the legislature.

Considering what Coutu has already accomplished in his life, adapting to the circus in Hartford will be cake.

I suspect the Bulletin has some personal resentment toward Coutu unrelated to his credentials. Could it be simply that Coutu whooped Bulletin Buddy Jack Malone?

Even in a year such as this, the Bulletin is miffed that voters did not clip out their endorsement editorials and sneak them into the booth on election day.

Liberals are such sore losers.

Mona's #1 Reason to Vote McCain-Palin

"The financial crisis and looming recession, combined with President Bush's low approval ratings, have set the stage for this election to be a pivot point in American history. If Barack Obama is elected president and Democrats control large majorities in the House and Senate, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate will move the country decisively in the direction of dying Europe — low productivity, high joblessness, low birth rates, high taxes, and limp foreign policies. The triumvirate will do this at a time when a vibrant America is more necessary than ever — with Iran seeking nuclear weapons, Pakistan teetering, al-Qaida regrouping, China and Russia telegraphing hostility, and Iraq just barely emerging into the sunshine. This election has become about far more than John McCain versus Barack Obama; it has become about whether the United States will remain the champion of freedom — economic and political — or whether we will join the queue of formerly great nations now struggling to pay for all the social welfare "benefits" their aging and lazy populations demand".

Ballot Question 2

Shall the constitution of the state be amended to permit any person who will have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the day of a regular election to vote in the primary for such regular election?

Yeah, um....NO.

WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL: Obama a 'Liar' on Abortion

If you want to know Barack Obama's real views on abortion, you should meet registered nurse Jill Stanek.

Mrs. Stanek worked at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois from 1993 to 2001. When she worked in the hospital's Labor and Delivery Department she saw that babies who survived abortion attempts were left to die alone in supply rooms. They could linger for as long as eight hours, without medical care, without even the dignity of a warm blanket or a soft touch. Their tiny bodies were then dumped in the trash. Mr. Obama's spiritual mentor served on the board of the hospital. Mrs. Stanek went on a public crusade to protect these children.

At a 2001 Illinois legislature hearing, Mr. Obama questioned Mrs. Stanek. She insisted that children needed medical care if they were born alive. Mr. Obama said: "Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your dismay at the lack of regard for human life. I agreed with you last year and we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetus [es] are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them."

Mrs. Stanek replied: "What the hospital did was try to make things look better. What it really is, is that the baby is still dead."

In committee testimony, Mr. Obama said it was sufficient to give "comfort care" to a baby that is born despite all the efforts to kill it. "Comfort care" means giving the infant a warm blanket and permitting the baby to be held by someone as it dies. This is the most Mr. Obama could find in his heart to provide - a warm blanket for a child grasping for life. Mrs. Stanek told The Washington Times that Mr. Obama showed callousness when he questioned her in committee testimony: His inability to grasp that babies born alive need medical care was disturbing.

Despite all the details Mrs. Stanek provided in her testimony, Mr. Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act in the Illinois legislature in 2002 - a bill that would give legal protection and medical assistance to a baby born from a botched abortion. Mr. Obama stated that he feared the bill could undermine Roe v. Wade. When a similar bill was put to Congress, other lawmakers had better sense and bigger hearts: The Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98-0. It was signed into law by President Bush on Aug. 5, 2002. Infants born alive are now recognized as legal persons with full rights.

Mr. Obama even voted against banning partial-birth abortion - a radical procedure - in the Senate, in October, 2007. Since 2005, he has a 100 percent rating on pro-choice votes by NARAL, a leading, national pro-choice organization.

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama wants not only to uphold existing abortion laws, but a more radical view. At an address before Planned Parenthood on July 17, 2007, Mr. Obama said: "The first thing I will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." He received a standing ovation. FOCA was introduced in Congress in November 1989 by Rep. Don Edwards, California Democrat. The legislation has since been a focal point for staunch pro-choicers. The bill would codify the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, into law in all the states. This would overturn state laws that have been passed to limit or delay abortions. Contrary to Mr. Obama's pledges to reduce the number of abortions, he really wants to make them easier to get - while overriding state and federal laws.

Mr. Obama wants to uphold an abortion policy that has a disproportionate impact on blacks. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, finds that 13 percent of the U.S. population is black, but 37 percent of all abortions are performed on black women and teens: Blacks are 4.8 times as likely as whites to have an abortion. A vote for Mr. Obama is, in effect, a vote that permits the disproportionate elimination of blacks in America.

Mr. McCain believes unequivocally that life begins at conception. Mr. McCain even supports requiring parental notification for underage girls who want to abort the fetus. His 0 percent rating by NARAL is perhaps one of his greatest achievements as a senator. On one of the fundamental moral questions of our time, the choice is clear: One man favors life, the other prefers a society that permits the death of the most innocent and vulnerable of us.

Mrs. Stanek told The Times that Mr. Obama's talk of compassion for the weak and underprivileged rings hollow to her: "Frankly, I think he is a liar."

Selective Standards on First Amendment Principals.

Ever wonder what stories your hometown newspaper chose not to report? On October 13th the Willimantic Chronicle editorialized that those who ignore democracy and their neighbors First Amendment rights by stealing or vandalizing campaign signs “commit thievery and hamper the democratic process”.

Such a lofty ideal. What a pity those words weren’t sincere. The editorial was a follow-up of a front page story about the disappearance of some Obama signs in Ashford. It was suggested that it might be kids or it might be McCain supporters.

Well if the disappearance of some plastic signs is a big deal than what about vandalism to someone’s car? My 10” X3” “nobama” sticker has attracted a lot of attention both good and bad. One man followed me into a gas station to ask me where he could get one (I got it eBay). Most people think it’s funny.

But one ECSU student didn’t think it was funny. I was parked at the ECSU Library when I found a note on my windshield that said “at approx 6:15 on 10-3-08 someone in a greenish-blue Volvo (older model) key’d your car on the right rear side. The guy had dark hair, dark shirt with white T-Shirt (?) underneath”. Today as I was touching up the scars on my car today and I noticed the jerk even keyed the bumper sticker itself. By looks of the pealed corners of the sticker, he even tried to take it off in public parking lot!

I was actually expecting something like this based on the behavior I have witnessed from these overzealous Obama people. They are militant; tunnel visioned bunch that, for all their calls for diversity, are fairly intolerant themselves. They are stridently unpatriotic and resent the fact that some of us won’t ignore what we have seen with our own eyes.

We saw their unforgivably sexist behavior towards Hillary Clinton in the primary. The media even chimed in ridiculing Clinton’s choice of clothes and so on while important policy questions -- and questions about Obama himself -- went unanswered.
I reported the vandalism to the campus police and I thought that would be the end of it. Wrong. Not satisfied with his earlier work the Obama fanatic key’d my car again. This time he raked a huge gash down the side of my car from fender to fender. I once again reported this to the campus police.
Remembering that the Chronicle was so concerned about everyone’s First Amendment rights, I sent them a press release. I emailed them pictures. I reasoned that if some missing Obama signs were front-page news than my car being repeatedly attacked because of my choice of candidates must be even more so. Right?

-Wrong again. I got a call the next day from a gentleman and he told me the Chronicle was refusing to run the story. He told me to write a letter to the editor instead. I told him the story wasn’t opinion; it was news. My car being vandalized is news exactly in the same way as the missing Obama signs was a front page story.

I asked for equal time. I didn’t get it from the Chronicle.

The excuse the Chronicle gave me for not running the story was that I didn’t really know why my car was vandalized twice. My paintjob may have been ruined twice simply because I parked to close to his crappy old Volvo he rationalized.

Astonishingly in its endorsement of Obama this past Saturday the Chronicle once again raised the issue of the First Amendment. The Chronicle wants people to vote for Obama because in part he would restore it after 8 years of George W. Bush. The Chronicle didn’t elaborate what the President was supposed to have done to the First Amendment because that charge is groundless of course.

That charge was not only blatantly false but hypocritical as well given they swept the abuse of my rights under the carpet on their candidate’s behalf. Shame on the Chronicle for its selective standards on the First Amendment Principles.

I am asking anyone who knows anything about my case to please can call Officer Bruce Tyler at 465-5310 or me at 377-3134.