Blog

Khrushchev’s Message 61 years ago

THIS WAS HIS ENTIRE QUOTE:  A sobering reminder.  Almost exactly sixty years ago since Russia’s Khrushchev delivered his message to the UN; …  prediction for America.

TV coverage of him banging his shoe on the podium.  At that time, the word ‘communism’ was feared throughout our nation. Now here is some food for thought if it does not make us choke!  Do you remember September 29, 1959?  THIS WAS HIS ENTIRE QUOTE:

“Your children’s children will live under communism, You Americans are so gullible.  No, you won’t accept communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you will finally wake up and find you already have Communism.  We will not have to fight you; We will so weaken your economy, until you will fall like overripe

fruit into our hands.”  “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Remember, socialism leads to Communism. So, how do you create a Socialistic State?

There are 8 levels of control; read the following recipe:

1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.

2) Poverty – Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them.

3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect (food, housing, income) of their lives because that will make them fully dependent on the government.

6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to and take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion – Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools because the people need to believe in ONLY the government knowing what is best for the people.

8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor.  Eliminate the middle class This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with the support of the poor

A perfect parallel to the Democrat agenda!!!!!

HOPE YOU’LL PASS THIS ALONG 

Nancy Pelosi’s Dream Act 2.0 will grant “direct” citizenship to millions of illegals, and could add ten million illegals to the voting rosters which would change the face of politics and turn our country into a one-party state. It will tip the balance of power from the people and from the makers to the takers.

The majority of illegals receive some form of welfare, so we would add millions to the roster of those dependent upon government. This will result in the tyranny of the majority since those receiving welfare checks will exceed those receiving paychecks. To make matters worse, in a Democrat-controlled government they will certainly find a way to eliminate the electoral college granting the permanent reins of government to the Democrats, unchecked, unabated, unrestrained

Bernie Sanders recently said that the “Right to Vote is Inherent to our Democracy.” “Even for terrible people”

Now, I don’t think that Bernie Sanders is the sharpest knife in the drawer, but why would anyone place this right ahead of all others?

The Founders recognized at least three rights which we earned simply by being born with 26 human chromosomes – Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

We can take away a person’s freedom and lock them up (“Liberty”). We can take away someone’s right to follow their dreams by placing them in prisons and restricting their activities (“Pursuit of Happiness”), and yes, we can even take their lives (“Life”) for some terrible transgressions and for the defense of society.

However, they never lose their right to vote? Why? It doesn’t make sense, that is, not until you realize that votes are a politician’s lifeblood.

By trying to follow such logic we get a glimpse into the mind of the typical, life-long, professional politician. Twist any logic, disregard any fact, ignore any reality, but don’t do anything to lose one vote. And Senator Sanders who may project the persona of a doddering old fool proffering ultra-egalitarianism and altruism, is anything but, when it comes to the mechanics of getting elected. It is purely enlightened self-interest.

He knows that he and his party would have enormous support in the prison population. A large prison in a small county can change an area from deep red to bright blue and might even swing a state or two.

I wonder how Bernie would feel about criminals voting if they all entered prison carrying their own dogeared copy of “Atlas Shrugged” and wearing MAGA hats.

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

Chairman

Conservative Party of CT

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.