Flatten the Dems

Unfortunately, we need vote for a Party, Not a Candidate

As ridiculous as that sounds, the political parties have become so powerful that they control the candidates as well as the elected officials, and the Democrats are proudly embracing the character of their party as the Social Democrats.  Even if a candidate embraces some of the ideology of the opposite party, it is unlikely that that candidate will not vote or behave as directed by that Party that nominated him/her. 

I have talked to many people who have stated, “I vote for the wo/man. Not for the Party.”

While this sounds like to fair and reasonable position. I have to admit, that it no longer works. The candidates and the office holders are too intimately connected and reliant to the Parties.

Ask yourself, that if every Representative or Senator thought independently, why many Congressional members simply vote “along party lines”. Last year’s tax bill (the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017) had a lot of things that there some argued about, but if each elected official evaluated the bill based on his/her own ideology and the effect on their constituents one would expect a majority of one party being of one opinion and the majority of the other party being against it. But that’s not what happened.

Every Democrat was against it and every Republican was in favor of it. Statistically, it is highly improbably that each and every Democrat would be against it and each and every Republican be in favor of it if the bill were evaluated exclusively on its merits. A statistical analysis would indicate that there are outside forces acting on the lawmakers. Regardless, of their assessment of the impact of the Tax Cut Bill and its effect on their constituents the lawmakers voted as their Party told them. Not only are the candidates dependent upon the party, once elected the Senators and Representatives are similarly dependent upon the Party. Their access to cash and thus their reelection

To go against the party is career ending.

Therefore, we are urging to vote Republican, even thoseRepublicans who we have not endorsed because of their decision to remove thebenefit the Voters of the State of Connecticut were given by the U.S.Constitution.

Kevin D. Witkos  –  8th District Republican

George Logan  –  17th District Republican

Heather Somers  –  28th District Republican

If the Democrats retain control of the Governorship, the House, and the Senate we can anticipate the following:

  • Ned Lamont will raise our taxes. Now, I realize that he has made statements to the contrary, but he is running via embracing Republican principles (sort of). He says that he does not plan to increase income taxes while admitting that “everybody is going to have to be at the table (pay more)”
  • I am not sure if it is possible for Bob Stefanowski to eliminate the state income tax. In fact, I consider it unlikely. However, to have any chance to succeeding. It needs to be coupled with spending cuts. This will never happen if the Democrats retain control of CT.
  • CT has the second most generous welfare benefits in the country. The only state with more generous benefits is Hawai’i, Hawai’i is an island, and an island 2,464 miles from our mainland, everything costs more on an island. Democrats strive to make poverty more comfortable. We should be striving to eliminate poverty rather than making it more pleasant. Poor people need jobs, not Obamaphones.
  • CT has the most highly compensated state employees in the country. If we reduced the compensation of the members of the state employee unions to 5% above the average of comparable employees in the average of the New England States, we could save over $1 billion per year. If we reduced the compensation of the state employees to the average of comparable employees in the private sector we would save close to $2.5 billion per year. This would pretty much eliminate the deficit. The Democrats got us into this and it is safe to believe that they have no interest in getting us out of it. As George Will said, there is an “ironclad contract between the Democratic Party and the Unions”. The Democrats cannot make any of these necessary changes, they are too intimately tied to the unions.

If these issues are not addressed and if spending is not brought under control, we all lose.

Until we can change the tyranny of the two party system, we have no choice but to vote Republican.

Get out and do so.

Nick Malino


Conservative Party of CT

Journalists, We Need You. Don’t Fail Us.

Democracy Dies in Darkness, (“DDD”). Slogans that we have heard used to defend the free press and journalism from the attacks from the brutal regime of the current duly elected president of the United States of America.

DDD has been dragged out for a couple of decades and was frequently used by Bob Woodward whose newspaper has adopted it as their new, old slogan.

A free press is essential to a democracy. We have heard that over and over again and I have yet to meet anyone, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican who disagrees with that. So, I will be the first one to do so.

A free press can kill a democracy, if it is not honest.

A free press must be free. It doesn’t matter if the freedom is encumbered by Joseph Goebbels, Donald Trump, Tronc, Bezos, Soon-Shiong, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, or Andrew Brietbart. It is all bad, destructive, and contrary to the guiding principles of journalism.

A free press needs also to be a press that adheres to the guiding principles of journalism. The Society of Professional Journalists (“SPJ”) publishes their ethical standard here. Take a look and consider if any of these items ring true today. I think you will be disappointed. Very disappointed.

In their preamble to the Code of Ethics the SPJ, “Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough.” Read this and then read any story in just about any MSM publication.

Donald Trump is not the Grim reaper of the Free Press. Paul Krugman is. Paul Krugman once said that  

Conservatives take “positive glee in inflicting further suffering on the already miserable”

I certainly do not agree with the president when he says that the media is “the Enemy of the People”, but I kinda get what he is talking about. In usual Trump fashion he overdoes it and does so in a crude and roughshod fashion. I don’t get what Krugman is talking about, yet the former is inflammatory and outrageous while the latter is acceptable in a publication that claims to hold true to journalistic integrity. The SPJ has, as one of it 9 principles, the following:

“Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.”

This is probably the most frequent issue affecting journalism today. A good journalist must keep an open mind and avoid allowing her/his opinions affect their reporting. I realize that this is extremely difficult to do. Pick any political story in this publication or any publication and evaluate it for adherence to this guideline.

Journalism today is closer to activism than true journalism. Reporters seek out stories to support a position either theirs or their editors or their readers.

The primary reason for this is economic.

Judith Miller, a former reporter for the New York Times, is discouraged by the state of journalism today, and believes that there are several factors that have led to the demise of objective journalism.

Newspapers and news broadcasting revenues, she points out, have dramatically declined over the last decade. Revenue from print media has dropped more than 65 percent over the last eight years, resulting in dramatic cuts in staff and closings of news gathering locations in order to streamline the process in the name of efficiency. Certainly not good for this once noble “estate” but an understandable economic necessary. Objective journalism is simply no longer a sustainable venture. Not only are there free alternatives, but there is no demand.

In addition, says Ms. Miller, there is also competition from the estimated 26 million bloggers resulting in alternative news sources characterized by an incredibly wide range of journalistic competency and accuracy. Ms. Miller believes that these factors have resulted in a trend away from objectivity to a simple aggregation of “eyeballs.”

To keep viewers/readers it is necessary to tailor your reporting to stories that they want to read, that do not provoke sensory dissonance by contradicting their own worldview. If you want to maintain readers who hate Donald Trump, your reporting must be carefully engineered as to avoid any hint of positivity. This is why, if someone calls for the President’s assassination, it is not considered “hate speech”, but calling someone “horseface” is. It depends not on the speech, but the speaker.

So how does journalistic advocacy translate into something dangerous to democracy?

A good friend of mine recently made the statement, “President Obama was president for 8 years and during all that time, there was not one, (His finger wagging in my face at this point) NOT ONE! None! Not a single scandal!”. As outrageous as such a statement was, the more startling fact is that this individual is NOT an uninformed voter. He was not a snowflake, not a drug addict, not a social justice warrior. But he actually believed that the previous administration was involved in no scandals. And why not, all of President Obama’s “scandals” were downplayed by the media. Or rather the media which he consumed. These were not scandals, they were “nothing-burgers”. And, the fact that there were so many of them – that was a nothing-burger too.

Well, the WaPo reported Richard Cohen’s claim that President Obama was able to “come into and out of office with not a whiff of scandal.” Obama himself claimed that he had no scandal or issues and that even the infamous IRS targeting scandal resulted in “not even a smidgen of corruption.” How could he get away with saying this? Easy. He knew that the “free” press would never dare to call him to task on it, but rather, would rally to his defense.

Recently, the NYT and more recently the WaPo published the “Definitive List” of Trump lies, WaPo claims over 5,000, CNN reported that they found over 3,000. These included such whoppers of Trump’s claim that “Trump: ‘I was on the cover of Time (Magazine) 14 or 15 times’”. LIE! – It was only 11 times.

When I mentioned, Benghazi, Lois Lerner, the NSA revelations from Snowden, the illegal surveillance of journalists, the creepy harassment of Sharyl Attkisson, the murder via drone attack of an American citizen, “Wing Man” Eric Holder’s botched gun running operation to the Mexican cartels known as “Fast & Furious”, Uranium One, and the fudged-up VA waiting list scandal,  the bungled launch of the HealthCare.gov, they were shrugged off just like Obama’s timid admission that, “There were some bone-headed decisions.” 

These are only the major ones, and unlike many of Trump’s, “so-called” lie or scandals, these occurred while the president was in office, resulted in certain of the administration’s members enriching themselves by hundreds of millions of dollars, directly supplied our enemies with material to create nuclear weapons, and most importantly – people died.

So, when does a bone-headed decision become a scandal? That would seem to be entirely up to the “free press” and consequently it depends on the Speaker and not that which is Spoken. We are spoon-fed the story-line that is consistent with the world-view and ideology of the “free press”

As I said earlier, it makes little difference who controls the free press. Goebbels, Bezos, Breitbart, Tronc – It doesn’t matter, if the press is controlled or manipulated at all, it is bad.

Some may think that this is not a problem and believe that this is OK because they happen to agree with Paul Krugman. But remember! It can just as easily be the opposite.

We need to tell the press that they need to return to the journalistic standards of the Society of Professional Journalists and go back to being journalists instead of activists.

Democracy dies in darkness, but it also dies when the light of truth illuminates only part of the story, as Pew Research concluded, “Biased, frivolous and liberal”. In this respect, activism disguised as objectivity is even more dangerous.

Republican Rally

Please join me at this rally. We don’t wear black masks and break things like the other side, but it is about time that we showed just how many we are. I urge everyone in the Conservative Party of CT to attend. The Conservative Party of CT has endorsed Bob Stefanowski. I am not convinced that he will be able to phase out the income tax and reduce the corporate tax, but it will be a great economic boost to the state to know that we are not going to get tax increases, tolls and trouble.

Saturday at 11:00 AM

Also, we have to replace Chris Murphy, Rose DeLauro, Elizabeth Esty, John Lawson, Jim Courtney, and Jim Himes in Washington DC. If we don’t help the Republicans maintain and increase control of both Houses of Congress we are going to have two years of nothing getting done in DC since the Dems are going to be entirely focused on impeachment of Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh, which will be the biggest waste of time and will ensure that the country remains divided, If you cannot join us for this rally make sure that you get out to vote on November 6. Don’t vote against prosperity.

Let’s Change the Debate Formate

Watching the most recent debate between Bob Stefanowski and Ned Lamont the CTMirror reported that there were a “few zingers” but little substance. The audience, although frequently admonished, added to the casual atmosphere that we were attending an entertainment event rather than a political debate, by hooting, whistling, and applauding.

Let’s face it, debates are forums in which each candidate tried to get the best, as the CTMirror puts it, “zingers” and hammer home one point whether it is factual or impactful or not. Stefanowski’s mantra was “taxes” and the inevitability that Lamont, being a Democrat, would raise taxes. On the other hand, Lamont described how his opponent would rip the very textbooks from our children’s hands, take grandma’s life-saving medicine away, and resurrect the long-settled issue of pre-existing conditions. The only problem is that none of it is true. It is basically 90 minutes of what we common folk refer to as bullshit.

Who, “won” the debate? On my scorecard I had Steph by a “nose”. Not that his plan was any better, but he was more comfortable and more entertaining. WRT whose plan was better, neither man provided any useful information which would aid in a responsible voter’s evaluation.

As such, these debates fail to provide useful information, to the contrary, any information that they do provide is misleading or incorrect. In fact, that is a strategy that some pundits teach in debate preparation and which we saw both Stefanowski and Lamont employed.

To wit, if it is your question, you have two minutes. So, you answer the question and then end with a statement about your opponent that you know or should know is untrue. This forces the opponent to exhaust his/her rebuttal time to correct your statement. Check it yourself. (You can see Ned Lamont expertly wield this technique if you go to 37’00” of the debate replay on CT-N). It is done in every political debate.

In addition, as we saw from the 2016 primary and presidential debates. This format is subject to misuse and can be easily corrupted or exploited. We know that Donna Brazil and CNN shared questions with Hillary Clinton to the detriment of poor hapless Bernie Sanders, who still doesn’t know what hit him. Now, these two points should be enough for scrapping the whole idea. However, there is some value in having the opportunity of seeing and hearing the two candidates answering questions side by side,

So, with all that in mind. Here is my idea for a new debate format.

  • The debates are structured like Hoover Institute’s “Uncommon Knowledge” (check it out on YouTube) and issues are discussed in intimate detail with 2 or 3 interviewers and last 2-2½ hours each.
  • There may be two or three interviews focusing on biography and education, political values and why these are important, and specific plans and programs which they intend to implement. This will allow a deep dive into the candidate’s plan.
  • The interviews are done simultaneously, but separately, and without an audience.
  • The candidate’s writings, advertising, position papers, and resume should be examined in detail by the interviewers who are selected from the public with one left leaning and one right leaning. N.B. that the interviewers are citizens, people from business and industry and not pundits, not reporters, not editors. We want the interview to be as unbiased as possible, and for the questions to be substantive and informative, not “gotchas”.

Here is what I consider the clincher! The interviewers will ask the candidates to provide a metric by which we can evaluate success or failure for each of their initiatives. Something definite and objectively and accurately measurable. Lamont says that he will close the “achievement gap”. How then will that be measured and what is the goal? Steph is going to phase out the personal income tax which will reduce taxes and increase revenue. When and by how much?

The interviews should be edited very basically and uploaded for viewing on CT-N and YouTube as well as TV (Maybe the News12 or WTNH gets a first showing option to recoup some money).

What do you think? I believe that everybody will support except the candidates.

Constitution Day – 2018

September 17 is Constitution Day. The Constitution will be 231 years old.

“The Framers of the Constitution effectively protected us from having our rights taken away. But they never thought that we would give them away.”

As countries go, the United States is one of the relative youngsters, nevertheless, our constitution is the longest lasting constitution in human history. So, Happy Birthday to the most important document in the life of every American citizen, a document which represents and embodies the freedoms that we have been enjoying for the last 240 years.

Today, in our deeply divided country, we have both the left and the right announcing that our constitutional rights are in jeopardy. But with much different solutions. When the Founders wrote the constitution, they were very gun shy about tyranny. They fought against it for eight years. The last thing that they wanted was another king, so they carefully designed this document that many now refer to as “the law of the land” to make sure that was avoided. Three equal branches of government and check and balances all but assured that. Many of the delegation wanted to add, what we call now, the Bill of Rights. Some of the Federalists were opposed to incorporating a Bill of Rights into the U.S. Constitution. Not because they wanted to limit State’s and Individual’s rights, but to the contrary, because they thought that by enumerating them it may be interpreted as limiting those right to those which were thus enumerated.  So, they added the ninth and tenth amendments, which made it clear that the State’s and the Individual’s rights were not limited by that which was enumerated therein, but the government’s powers were strictly and absolutely limited to those enumerated therein. I am sometimes amazed by the intellect of these guys.

Ninth Amendment Tenth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

They, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, wanted to make absolutely certain that the federal government was limited and that its powers were limited to those which are specifically enumerated in the constitution, which are quite limited indeed. 

How have we moved from these very clear and quite limited roles of the government? We see Presidents “passing laws” in a ad hoc  fashion or refusing to enforce laws duly passed by Congress although they made an oath to do so. Executive orders are always been commonplace and have started to expand beyond the presidents designated powers within which the EO must be framed. 

​Republicans went justifiable crazy when Obama began issuing laws from the oval office while refusing to enforce law, but the Democrats hailed these actions. Now, the Democrats pronounce a constitutional crisis with every Trump EO while most of the Republicans let it slide. Both side change laws when it is convenient or favorable to their party only to experience the backlash when the balance of power changes, as evidenced via the “Biden Doctrine” preventing filibustering of justices, or the so-called “nuclear option” invoked by Harry Reid.

​The Supreme Court has ruled on healthcare, education, abortion, and marriage although these powers are not enumerated the Constitution and thus reserved for the states. 

​Why aren’t we throwing tea into the Potomac? We should be.

​Make no mistake, the Constitution is under attack and it is not by the Russians. It is from our legislators who have more loyalty to their party than to their constituents or the Constitution they swore to uphold. But mostly, it is from apathetic citizenry. Hillary Clinton was caught on a hot mic moment wishing for “docile and compliant” citizens. The danger is that she gets her wish.

For example, this past year we members in the state of Connecticut lost one of our greatest constitutional rights, or rather we passively sat upon our hands (with thumbs upright) while our legislature took a constitutionally guaranteed right away from us. This past year, our state joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (“NPVIC”) and provided a work-around to the annoying Article 2, Section 1 of the 12th Amendment called the Electoral College (“EC”). Our legislators, many upset that the 2016 election did not go their way, and that California overwhelmingly voted for their candidate, wanted a way to ensure that that would not happen again. I mention California because in the absence of California, Trump would have received most votes and would have dominated the EC by a nearly 2:1 margin. The NPVIC, as one may have guessed, started in, and is run out of California.

Consider this, if every voter, in the state of Connecticut voted for Hillary switched and voted for Trump. The power of just those CA HRC voters would overpower our little state twenty-seven times. We wouldn’t stand a chance. 

My point in bringing this up in a discussion of the U.S. Constitution is not to reargue the issue but to point out that the EC was not established by the framers in anticipation of helping one particular candidate 231 years into the future. It was done to protect the small states from being bullied by the large states, and it does, as this election clearly demonstrated. Our biggest state wanted one candidate and the 60% of the states and the majority of the voters wanted another.  The states have differing resources, different industries, different strengths, and, yes, different values. That is what makes the USA unique, and that is what the framers had in mind. We are 50 “united” states with each retaining some autonomy and identity. No other country is like that. It was and is a good idea.

But, apart from whether you think that the NPV is a good idea, there some certain indisputable logic

First, the EC benefits the citizens of the small states (that’s what was meant to do). Second, Connecticut is a small state, (and, a very wealthy small state). Therefore, the EC benefits the citizens of Connecticut.

So, why would our legislators, who we elected to act in our best interests, take an action that is clearly contrary to our best interests? Especially since these interests are clearly guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution? And especially since there is a specifically defined procedure for removing a constitutionally guaranteed right for which they concocted a “work-around”? And, why would they do so without asking us?

And why did we let them?

Happy Constitution Day. Celebrate it and protect it.

This is An Important Election – Don’t Miss It

There are about 60 days until election day. There is a lot at stake  –  For Connecticut and the Country

For CT we have a choice – Tolls, taxes, and “more of the same” or we roll the dice and hope for the best. The Conservative Party of CT endorsed Bob Stefanowski. Bob knows the priorities and realizes that the SEBAC agreement is the equivalent of a suicide pact between the State of Connecticut and the employee’s union. We do not blame the employees of the state and agreed with Bob that a deal must be worked out that is both fair and sustainable. We also agree with Bob that CT is faced with a crisis and we need to restore fiscal responsibility and the crisis can be solved without tax increases and without tolls.

But there is more, the legislature of the state has been controller by the Democrats for all but two years since 1991. The Democratic control has progressed to such an extent that the Speaker of the House, a Democrat, is actually a union boss. How can that not be a conflict?

We have an opportunity this year to do something that hasn’t been done since 1996 and that is give the Republicans control of the senate, there is also a chance that the Republicans and also take the House. If this were to happen, we can have some level of confidence that some level of fiscal responsibility can be restored.

As unbelievable as it sounds, the polls currently show that Ned Lamont, who seems to be the clone of Dannel Malloy. We had thought that the governor’s race was pretty much settle and that the Republican, whoever it was would be a shoo-in. Mr. Lamont’s lead is not encouraging, but if overcome it could lead to the first Republican trifecta in the history of the state.

At any rate. I don’t know if the Republicans of the state are different from the Republicans in Washington who fail to get anything done event with the Republican trifecta in D.C. It is embarrassing that we still don’t have a southern border wall and we still have Obamacare. But anyway, we only have two parties and we need to take the chance for change, because more of the same isn’t working.

This is an important election for CT. We have a chance for historic change and to begin the process of correction and fiscal responsibility. Don’t stay home, and make sure that all concerned taxpayers don’t spend that Tuesday night on the couch.

We have Just Been Cheated Out Of A Constitutional Right

Connecticut is Coming Closer to Joining the NPV Compact and Becoming Part of California

Here are the Republicans who voted with the Democrats and Progressives (and with California)

Kevin D. Witkos  –  8th District Republican

George Logan  –  17th District Republican

Heather Somers  –  28th District Republican

There was a very good article that appeared in CT Viewpoints written by John Stoehr. Although I agree with very few of the arguments nor his conclusions, it is one of the very few that I have read that presents a cogent and rational argument against National Popular Vote (“NPV”). Bravo.

I certainly do concur that we should just stick a fork in the National Popular Vote argument and let it go away.

Of all the arguments in favor of the NPV, these two are the ones that I most frequently hear. First, the very succinct argument is because “It is the right thing to do”, the next most popular argument points out that, “we are the only first-world democracy that does not use the NPC”. This first argument is one that we have heard many times and applied to myriad situations in which a “real” argument doesn’t exist. It seems to be one of our governor’s most frequently cited arguments. “We must take all the Syrian refugees we can”, because “it’s the right thing to do.” Or, “boys in North Carolina must be allowed to shower with the girls if they want to” because it is, “the right thing to do”. Needless to say, although this is rarely, if ever, challenged by the media, most of us regular folk will recognize that it is a simple restatement of the question. I have a 6-year old that wields this technique as expertly as Dannel Malloy.

“Why do you want me to buy you that?”

“Because I want it”

The second argument points out the fact that every other country that has free and fair elections determine the outcomes by NPV. While this is correct it, overlooks one important point. We live in the United STATES of America. It is a unique democracy, one comprised of 50 united states. These states are autonomous to some degree and this is important since they all have different resources, needs, capabilities, and values. The electoral college gives the little states a bit of an advantage against the tyranny of the majority. If we eliminate the electoral college we may as well change the name of the country simply to America, and we will be “just like everyone else”, but that hardly seems like an objective that we should be striving for.

Connecticut is a little state, what’s worse, it is a rich little state. To voluntarily surrender a tiny advantage the EC gives us to the NPV is like sticking a “kick me” on our collective butts.
I did really like Stoehr’s piece but there are two small nits with which I would like to take issue. It is incorrect to say that, the electoral winner is the winner even if, the “candidate loses the popular vote”. No one can “win” or “lose” the popular vote, there was no popular vote to win or lose. It is not part of the contest. It is irrelevant. If the rules were different the outcome would have been different. I don’t know who would have won, but it would have been different.

Baseball season starts this week, so I will insert a baseball analogy. Many times in the 171 year history of baseball, the winner of the world series was outhit and out pitched by the loser of that series. In 1960, the Yankees outhit the Pirates 91-60 (that’s huge), and outpitched the Pirates (7.11 ERA vs 3.54 ERA). No one said that the Yankees won the hitting or the pitching. It’s just a stat and quite irrelevant. If it were a hitting or a pitching contest, both teams would have played those 7 games much differently. There would be no sac-bunts or sac-flys, but lots of errors.

This fits nicely with my second nit. Stating that “The National Popular Vote Will Not Solve the Problem”, assumes that there is a problem. There is not. The EC worked just as it should. The majority of the states voted and somewhat overwhelmingly established their choice. Without the EC, one very large state would have plopped their oversized thumb on the scale and the winner would have been selected by that one big state along with a minority of others.

HRC received 2.8 million more votes than Trump (out of 129 million). She also won California’s 55 electoral votes by 4.2 million votes. To look at it another way, with the NPV, Cali calls the shots. Now, in this election that may have been fine with most of CT, but before we surrender the little advantage that we have, remember that it may not always be that way. CT is not CA. I’m not one for scare tactics but are you ready for all-organic-gluten-free-no-GMO-all-natural-all-vegan tofu-roni pizza baked under the mystical pyramid of the almighty Gaia? – Yeeeech.

Just to throw a little more fuel to the fire. I think it would be a better idea for California and some of the larger states adopt the electoral college system at the state-level.

Nevertheless, reject the compact. Keep the EC.

We Need to Let Them Know That We Are Here

Someone asked me recently, “What is a Conservative?”

Not all Conservatives are Trump supporters. Out of the original Republican field, Trump, was, for most of us, our 17th choice. I don’t like some of the crudeness of the man but most of us felt we had no choice. Hillary said that she wanted to use, “force of law to change people’s deep-seeded religious beliefs.” Even if I were not a religious person, that frightened me to death. With that said, I do like most of what Trump has done. I didn’t like Barack Obama. I still believe that he was the worst president in my lifetime. I will admit that I voted for him in 2008. I liked his message of unity, of “can do it”-ness and of hope. I didn’t vote for him in 2012, and would have voted for Mickey Mouse, if he was running against him. He was a divider not a unifier, and race relations were much worse in 2016 than they were in 2008, or perhaps even 1965.  And worst of all, he overreached his powers, like no other president before him. For him to the federal government to ignore laws duly passed by congress because he didn’t agree with those laws, was equally as frightening as Hillary’s threat to religion. As a Vietnam Vet, I felt bad, about Obama’s apology tour. I didn’t think that we were responsible for the war in Vietnam and I don’t believe that we were the origin of the, “great evil that was done here (Hiroshima)”.

Yes, there are conservatives in the state of Connecticut. This is a fact of which you would never be aware if you just read the Hartford Courant or the Connecticut Post, or listened to NPR and the likes of Colin McEnroe. These people don’t know it, but they do not speak for much of Connecticut. McEnroe told and interviewer that conservatives are people who post comments and they are “reading at the 4th grade level in Mississippi, you can’t spell anything, your minds are full of hate”, etc. etc. I thought of what Hillary Clinton said about conservatives being “deplorable”, and “irredeemable”. I watched Michelle Wolf belittle and berate Sarah Sanders sitting ten feet away from her, calling her “fat” and a “liar” while a roomful of liberal elitists laugh as if it is the funniest thing they have ever heard, and then go home to write about how stupid, and mean and full of hate the conservatives (or just about anyone who disagrees with them) are. I hear Governor Malloy tell us that we need to give them more money because “its the right thing to do”.  In a nearby school district, boys are girls are forced to write about “White Privilege” and they ingrain in the white kids that they are “oppressors”, and the other kids that they are the “victims”. How can that help anyone? And then they call us “uninformed” voters.

Well, I am sick of it.

Colin McEnroe, Hartford Courant, Governor Malloy this is what a conservative is:

Unlike Liberal, Conservatives have an ability and a preference for “thinking for themselves”. As such, there are a lot of different types of conservatives. In general, we believe in independence and free though and freedom, in the absence of the bonds of a repressive and overreaching federal government. We believe that we have ceded far too much of our liberty to government.

Unlike the other parties, we do not have a litmus test for our participants and, as such, we have people with differing beliefs. But, here are some of the things that conservatives are not:

We are for limited government. We support the 16 or 18 roles of the federal government enumerated in the constitution and as the 9th and 10th Amendment (See graphic below) and reserves ALL other roles are reserved to the states. – That does not make us Nationalists or Populists

We believe that all men and women, “are created equal”, regardless of the race, color or creed and don’t believe that one race should be granted privileges that put them higher on a hierarchy of victimization while presenting all white men as oppressors – That does not make us Racists. Yet, you will read some elitists who would claim otherwise

We believe that a baby is a baby, 24 weeks after conception or 24 weeks after birth, but we don’t consider a woman who has had an abortion as a murderer – That does not make us Anti-Women.

We are not climate change deniers. We understand quite well that climate change has been going on for 4.6 billion years and it will continue to change regardless of what we do. We do believe that there is sufficient good science to make a level of skepticism about the most dire predictions are quite sound. This does not mean that we are anti-environment.

We believe that there are millions of fellow Americans who need and rely of help from the rest of us and we are perfectly willing to provide such assistance, but we don’t believe welfare should be a way of life, we need to provide opportunity and all the accouterments necessary to enable someone to take advantage of those opportunities rather than “making poverty more comfortable.” – This does not make us haters of the poor.

We believe that the law should apply to everyone, including Hillary Clinton, Rice, Power, Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Obama, Bill Clinton, Lynch, Lerner, Strzok, and ALL elected officials  – This doesn’t make us Haters.

Michelle Wolf had a series of jokes about abortion at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, saying “don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.” Lisa Dunham said, I have not had an abortion but I wish I had.” Now, most of us think abortion is wrong but some say that, “Hey, I am against it but it needs to be safe, etc.” However, none of us make light, joke, or recommend such a difficult and sensitive topic –  This doesn’t make us Anti-Women.

We really have to get organized and let our local government know that we exist, that we are fed up, and that we are angry.

Yesterday, the State of Connecticut joined several other states in suing President Trump over changes in automobile emission regulations, prior to that, we sued Betsy DeVos over delaying regulation for for-profit colleges (which is actually all of them). Prior to that, we (Connecticut) joined the same states in suing President Trump over Congress’s cuts in the Affordable Care Act and for forcing Congress to codify DACA (If anyone should be angry about this it should be we Conservatives). Now, I am a citizen of the State of Connecticut, and I didn’t OK these lawsuits. They are useless, senseless, and expensive. Just more grandstanding and following the party lines.

We have given up too too much. It is time to take it back.

We are going to be focusing on the Governor’s race next week.



Debunking The Myth of Equal Pay Day (Again)

I didn’t think there were many who still believe that there is a sinister Gender Wage Gap in this country. Everyone has heard it. Most people are aware that it has been thoroughly debunked, and frankly, I find it hard to believe that there are actually some people still pitching this , but April 10 was Equal Pay Day and every April 10, we must once again debunk this myth – “For every dollar a man earns a woman earns only $0.77”.

Women have outnumbered men in college since the late 70s and the gap is still widening. However, women and men differ greatly in the choice of professions.

Even the extremely liberal Association of American University Women and the U.S. Dept of Labor (which reviewed a compilation of 50 studies) have stated that the wage can be explained by a very cursory analysis. As most are aware by now that this statistic was arrived at by taking the median earnings of all women working full-time by the median earnings of all men working full-time. If you do that the result will come out to be about 0.77. However, this stat does not take into account the position, education or hours worked per week, and doesn’t reveal any type of discrimination, preference, or bias against women of any race. Here’s why.

The gender wage gap is a lot like the continent of Atlantis. Most people know that it is a myth but there are a few die-hards that will insist otherwise. Such die-hards are usually running for public office and spreading the myth is an effective way of garners some votes from voters who are simply “not paying attention”. Oh yeah, the others who perpetuate this myth are those who make their livelihood from preaching such nonsense (the CWEALF comes to mind). To wit, there has been legislation proposed which supposedly would correct this gap. One of the most common is forcing employers to make public their wage gap. This has already been done in the U.K., and although it was not effective in closing that gap, it did have some unintended consequences that may create a bonanza for some women. I’ll come back to that later.

Most college degrees are conferred on women and this has been the case since the late 70s and has grown to over 57% and this trend is expected to continue. Women receive almost 3 million more college degrees than men. One might infer that this fact contradicts the nationwide discriminatory attitude that feminists firmly believe exists throughout the USA. So, for that reason it has been largely ignored except to incorrectly point out that if there are more college-educated women this further proves that the wage gap is a result of the prevalent cis-white-hetero-male- chauvinistic pigs who oppress women, minorities and, anyone who is not them. If there are so many more college educated women than men, then we should see the wage gap occurring in the other direction, right?

Georgetown University shed some light on this. 4 of the 5 most highly paid college degrees – Petroleum Engineer, Chemical Engineer, Aerospace Engineer, Computer Sciences are 87.5% male and 4 of the 5 lowest paying college degrees – Counseling and Psychology, Early Childhood Education, Human Services and Community Organization and Social Work – are 77.3% female. This difference makes a huge difference and explains most of the difference. The remainder of the difference is explained mostly by choices in life. In short. Women are a lot smarter in their life choices.

According to the extremely liberal Association of American University Women’s study cited above career paths and a more home/child oriented life choices explain all but 6.6% of the 22% gender wage gap. So let’s try to stick a fork and “Bust” this myth by cleaning up this last 6.6% as Jamies and Adam would do (the guys from Discovery Channel show Mythbusters).

In a Danish study. Denmark – Bernie Sander’s socialist egalitarian utopia, in a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found, the wage gap to be “poor proxy for either sexism or women’s well-being”

Even more revealing, in the Denmark study, it was found, between 1980 and 2013, that women and men were nearly parallel in their wage history up until the birth of the woman’s first child, after which, “women’s labor-force participation, work hours, and wages plummeted while men’s continued the same trajectory.” The difference – about 20%.

Kay Hymowicz the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the author of “Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age”, in a recent article cites a study from data supplied by Uber, the popular ride sharing service. She stated that Uber was an ideal source for such an analysis because “it Uber) uses an automatic pay formula based on the time and distance of a trip, with drivers assigned blindly to customers by an algorithm dependent entirely on their proximity. Among drivers—the corporate offices may be another matter—there is no old-boy network, no salary negotiation, and no possibility that sexual harassment affects trip assignments”, and no implicit white-hetero-cis-male-superiority-bias, or whatever class deserving of the outrage du jour.

Uber’s highly flexible scheduling attracts a high number of female workers. The study found that there was no evidence that riders preferred males drivers to females and both men and women got the same number of tip, cancellations, and ratings.

However, men still made 7% more than women, very close to the 6.6% unexplained difference by the AAUW. Well, some of those who still try desperately to tell us that there is a wage gap and that we need to hire, elect, support or employ those who will rectify this wrong would probably try to argue that men dominate technology, they write the code, design the algorithms and they have programmed an institutional- cyber-bias or if that sounds too silly then perhaps computers are inherently sexist. Notwithstanding such nonsense this is also explained by simply examining the data and perhaps this can explain the remaining 6.6%

As found in most of the studies that debunked the 77% myth, the Uber data showed that men log in more hours, and they accept more lucrative-paying assignments. The Uber algo pays a premium to drivers willing to drive in unpopular areas or at unattractive times (i.e. South Chicago on Christmas morning at 3:00 am), and men are more willing to take on these assignments. Also, men, for whatever reason, tended to drive a little (about 2%) faster. (Yup, they actually track that stuff). The seemingly small difference was sufficient to accumulate more rides and rack up more experience. In toto this explains the 7% difference.

I think we have, at this point explained all the 77% difference plus an additional 0.4%. So, I think we can say that this myth has been busted (again, I see this becoming an annual event).

What we have shown is that the Gender Wage Gap is a myth. The wage gap can be explained by difference in position, hours worked, and life and career choices. (Tuck that away for later)

I would like to conclude with a rather ironic story to place the final nail in this myth’s coffin. – In 2016 the Conservative newspaper, the Washington Free Beacon (“Beacon”) reported that “An analysis determined that Senator Elizabeth Warren pays her female staffers less than their male counterparts.” But unlike the mythical pay gap that I am arguing against here which is 77%, the Beacon said that Warren paid her female staffers even less, only 71% of what she paid her male workers. Yikes. The Beacon’s analysis was based on median salaries exactly like the mythical 77%

Warren, who has used the 77% wage gap figure to argue the oppression of the fairer sex for years, and quite loudly and passionately, angrily rebuffed the Beacon’s numbers and quoted the far-left fact-checking website, Snopes, saying that the Beacon’s 71% percent wage gap that could be easily explained away if you take into consideration, “variables such as experience and education levels, as well as staff turnover and the reality that people with different job titles earn different salaries.” And pointed out that “The methodology used in the (Beacon) analysis is flawed; they combined positions and people at different levels in the office.” (Remember the fact that I suggested you tuck away?)

Thank you, Senator Warren, for explaining and debunking the Wage Gap Myth for us. (Happy Equal Pay Day! Which is April 10, but may be better to move to April 1, to share and coincide with a more appropriate holiday).

And if I may conclude with an appeal to Senator Warren, the AAUW, the CWEALF and all those who still attempt to perpetuate this nonsense. If you are sincere about helping women overcome sexism (and yes, it does exist), address the issue with the facts not BS, and this Conservative will be there with you. However, if you simply want good sound bite to help you get elected, or get hired, then we are going to be going through this every year. Proposing ineffective legislation like H.B. 5387 or S.B. 15 will accomplish nothing, and the problem remains. (See addendum)


I promised to come back to a possible hidden bonanza for a select few as a result of legislation proposed to combat the Wage Gap craze. In a small UK airline, only 4% of its pilots are women, which is the highest paid job classification except for the exec staff. The UK law which forces companies to publish their “wage gap” currently does not mandate anything else, for now, its objective is to embarrass companies to narrow the mythical gap.

So this airline has a few options, they can greatly increase the salaries of their cabin crew and ground personnel, or they can reduce the salaries of their pilots. Since pilots are in shorter supply, the latter probably is not an option since to totally eliminate the wage gap, the pilots salaries would have to reduced to a level well under the median salary of the cabin crew and counter personnel. The former may also be impractical to implement. Since there are an average of 15 cabin crew, desk, and customer service personnel for each pilot the cost to eliminate  the wage gap would be prohibitively expensive.

In fact, since the population of the non-pilot employees are 38% male the salary increases would have to be increased 272% placing the bag handler’s new salary (about €123,000) within a couple thousand euros below the pilot’s salary (about €125,000). It would also result in a 210% increase in total salary expenses, which would certainly throw any airline, and most businesses, into bankruptcy.

The optimal, albeit equally unattractive, solution would be to increase the annual salaries of the 4 female pilots from €125,000 to €1,458,333, which demonstrates the  bonanza I referred to above. Like so many well-intentioned, but poorly thought-out, initiatives meant to help women or minorities, they usually wind up helping only an extremely small number of the subject group, and these benefits almost always go to those who need it least.

Conservative Party of CT Platform

Abstract word cloud for Party platform with related tags and terms

Pulling It Out of The Ditch

We have relinquished too much control to our elected officials. They have become arrogant and many look down upon us as the riff raff, the hoi polloi. It is time to rein them in. Initially, this can be done by providing more citizen oversight. The elected officials are public servants, employees.

As their bosses we need to start demanding more, and holding them accountability.

Connecticut, as a business would be an entity of about the size of Nordstrom. The Company called Connecticut is somewhat smaller that the Hartford Financial Group which has about 17,000 employees. Connecticut has well over 60,000, but there is another important distinction. The Hartford Financial group and Nordstrom need to produce their revenue. The great majority of the employees of The Hartford and Nordstrom need to produce something of value to sell to people to make money, they also need to spend money and hire people to sell whatever they have produced.

Connecticut does not even have to do that. The government of the state of Connecticut produces nothing, all the revenue that come into the state are taken from the earners. All the state must do is redistribute the money. And, for the most part, it has the capability to do this simple task pretty good. The problem is, the state does not limit its role to that of a redistributor of money. It is when the state gets into the process of providing the services that the system breaks down.

Consider this. Food stamps and housing assistance. Many people need help, from time to time. Most reasonable people will say, I would like to help and do so. So, the taxpayers, give the state some money. The state figures out who needs assistance and it gives them food stamps. The people take the stamps to the store buy stuff and for the most part. The system works fine.

But, what if the state of Connecticut decided to set up stores and not only be limited to just redistributing the money, but also providing the services. What happens then? Well, the DMV for one. It turns out your get one big fat megillah, complete with long lines, snail’s pace service, cost overruns, maximum errors and closed on Columbus Day, MLK Day, Washington’s B’Day and some other days on which the rest of us are at work.

So, the DMV is bad enough, but, in the worst case, people wait a few extra days or weeks for a driver’s license on which their picture looks more like their thumbprint. What about the Department of Children and Families? Here is a critical function which the state is neither qualified nor structured to fulfill. In these cases, kids die.

The solution is to utilize the state government for the function they were designed to provide, the redistribution of wealth. I have some libertarian ideas, but I don’t buy the radical objectivism a la Ayn Rand. There is a place for pure altruism and there is a place, with the consent of the governed, for limited, forced altruism.

And if there is someone who is well-off, fat, happy and comfortable and if another one is hurting, or hungry, or homeless, or sick it is ok to take some fruits of the labor of the former to relieve the latter. However, I am talking about food, and shelter and life-saving surgeries – not Obamaphones, or errand-running services.

I don’t agree with the Democrats who are saying that they are helping to poor by, making poverty more comfortable

Set the government up more like a corporation. The CEO is the governor, but the citizen oversight committee is the board or directors. We elect the directors and the director appoint the governor. The governor service at the pleasure of this board

  • Privatize everything that can be privatized. The government should do nothing except oversee the redistribution of wealth.
    • Example thousands of people are helped with food stamps, because the state determines the need and the private sector provides the service. What would you get if the state decided to own and operate their own supermarkets? The result would be the DMV or the DCF
  • Eliminate funding of political races but make it easier for people not connected to one of the two major parties to seek office (i.e. less signatures needed, less paperwork, submissions)
  • Scrap SEBAC even if we need to try to declare bankruptcy to do it (although states are prohibited from going bankrupt, there may be a workaround), and enter into fair contracts with the remaining employees (after extensive privatization) that emulate employees in the private sector. Enter into PPP for most assets that the state owns that are reasonably applicable (XL Center, municipal parking and buildings).
  • This should shrink government by a two-thirds.
  • Establish some accountability for elected employees and eliminate their pensions and perks if they don’t meet certain established goals and objectives.
  • Encourage third, fourth and fifth major parties to break the monopoly of the Dems/Reps (Dems and Reps only have loyalty to the party not to us, it is the party that gets them elected, and it is the party to whom they are loyal)
  • Establish a Citizen’s Review Panel for contracts and bills in which there would be an inherent conflict of interest, as well as travel (Malloy went to Afghanistan, Paris, Kuwait, Virginia, LA, DC, China, and Zurich) with nothing to show, useless expenditures.
  • Segregate all expenses related to State Employee’s Unions including unfunded pension liabilities and establish a separate tax apart from income tax for these expenses so that taxpayers can see directly how much this cost. Esp. effective if SALT is eliminated from fed income tax.
  • All finstats in accordance with GAAP (or as close as possible)
  • Outside accounting firm to maintain all financial books and records. It is just ridiculous that there is no consensus on the actual amount of the deficit. Every single CEO can tell you what the company earned or lost during the last period.
  • Review all non-constitutional departments (non-constitutional NOT unconstitutional), agencies, boards, councils and commissions for ROI, duplication, and necessity.
  • Eliminate Office of Policy and Management (OPM, otherwise known as Other People’s Money). No more hiding expenses. Real transparency. Just like the SEC requires for publicly traded companies.
  • Bring back CT-N, and a summary of expenditures and bills passed along with costs (privatized, of course).
  • Legalize marijuana and tax it.
  • Introduce and Pass the No-Sanctuary Bill