An Open Letter from Timothy to Peter by Tim Lenox

An Open Letter from Timothy to Peter

From guest blogger Tim Lenox.

Dearest Brother,

Hoping this letter finds you well, I am looking forward to your return from your international travels.

Unfortunately, our country is not the same as when you left.  Many changes have taken place in such a rapid pace that many of us have been overwhelmed, over-stressed and burnt out dealing with them.  In an effort to spare you the shock of finding these things out the hard way, allow me to give you a briefing so that you may be better prepared.  

I’ve tried to keep it to a single sheet and even that takes both sides of the page.  I recommend a glass of dark bourbon or a single malt scotch with a heavy smoky presence while reading this as the taste of smoke can be a good palate-cleanser and you may need a stiff drink.

At the end of June 2015, the Supreme Court made 3 rulings which have changed the Rule of Law and the relationship of the government & the governed.  The real damage done was in the statements by the Judges which set legal precedents of unprecedented proportions.

The 1st was not talked about (except by Mark Levin) but turns out to be the most onerous.  It was the Texas Ruling which validated the use of Disparate Impact to imply Unconscious Racism and give the Federal Government the power to correct perceived inequities in Planning & Zoning at the local level of government.

The 2nd was the Obamacare Ruling and it did far worse than keep the ACA in place.  The way the judges reached the decision completely nullified Statutory Law.  According to this ruling, the Letter of the Law matters less than the perceived Intent of the Law.  This sets the precedent for ANY Amendment in the Bill of Rights to be reinterpreted according to what those in Power believe it to be.

The 3rd ruling concerning Gay Marriage nullified Common Law and Tradition, but the rulings imply that any Law can be changed and every person held accountable for it retroactively.  They allowed for religious institutions to maintain religious beliefs but did not protect them from prosecution for discriminatory practices, setting precedent for what is to follow.

George Takei (Sulu from Star Trek, who is now a Gay Activist) immediately declared on national TV that Religious Liberty is the next target, claiming, “… you may have a right to your religious beliefs but that does not give you the right to force those beliefs on me.”  It seems he now plans to force his beliefs on everyone else as his Civil Rights are more important than the Civil Rights of others.

Back in 2008, as a State Senate Candidate, I explained my belief that marriage should not be the purview of the government because Marriage is a Sacrament and the Government should not be involved in defining it.  The 1st Amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”  

Back then, I warned there would be gay activist couples going into churches, demanding their marriage be performed and suing any church not willing to do so for violating their Civil Rights.  Nobody believed me and several actually laughed at the idea.

Up to now, activists have been practicing this very tactic against small business owners.  Many GoFundMe campaigns have been used to save some of these businesses from bankruptcy, desperately trying to thwart obvious efforts at religious suppression, which include boycotts & court rulings with outrageous fines & gag orders.  With the Supreme Court on their side, these activists are now gearing up to do exactly as I had predicted.  Various online articles discuss plans to attack the Catholic Church in order to remove its non-profit charity status, as a start.

Internationally, the Gay Lobbies have been targeting different nations to redefine marriage & we’ve been made aware that the nation of Italy is next.  Unfortunately, it seems the Cardinals decided to inoculate the Church by electing a Pope from a socialist country who is embracing Communism and attacking Individualism.  I’ve heard sermons from pastors doing the same & have to find a new church to attend.  He is promoting the Manmade Climate Change Hoax, speaking out against perceived evils of Capitalism, condemning “over-developed countries” and instructing Catholics to give to charity even until it hurts by making necessities unaffordable.  It has been revealed that two of the Pope’s closest advisors are a Pantheistic Atheist (Earth is a Living Being & we are a Virus) and a Founder of the US Occupy Movement.

Back in the USA, the Obama Administration has wasted no time taking advantage of the 1st major ruling of the Supreme Court.  

AFFH (Affirmatively Forwarding Fair Housing) is rapidly becoming the most powerful government agency in US history.  It uses demographics to assume racism using Disparate Impact as proof to target neighborhoods which do not have enough diversity and force them to have Low-Income Housing in order to combat any perceived discrimination.  Minor laws resulting in too many minority arrests are being stricken.

Oddly enough, I also warned in 2008 of plans I had heard about for State Government to seize all authority over land use & education from local government, but again, nobody believed me.  Now the Connecticut State Legislature is creating County-Level authority to do just that.  

The worst part of this is AFFH collecting data on everyone living in the United States to build a data base that does everything the NSA is accused of but not allowed to do.  ALL data on EVERY resident, legal citizen or not, is being collected so that the Federal Government can determine which neighborhoods may be guilty of Unconscious Racism.

Data being collected includes Race, Sex, Ethnicity, Age, ALL Financial History, Credit History, Student Loans, Banking Information, Mortgage information, Home Dimensions, Property Size, Property Values, Energy Use, Employment History, Military History, Medical History, Insurance Claims History, Marital History, Criminal Records, Driving Records, School Records, Voting Records, Donation Records, et cetera.

This is the kind of data collection which eliminates any resemblance of the Privacy Rights or Government Restraint mentioned in the US Constitution.  This database in the hands of ideologues can be used for attacks on political enemies worse than the past & current misuse of the IRS.  Republicans should be concerned about this, but right now are even more concerned about how their own party has sold them out.

When the voters gave the majority of both Houses of Congress to the Republicans, it was with the understanding that they would stop the blatant destruction of their rights, the country, the economy and national security. What they got was Republican Leadership in both the Senate and House of Representatives working with Democrats to give President Obama everything he wants.  President Obama has issued only 4 Vetoes (only 1 since Republicans took control of Congress) because the Republican Leadership doesn’t send him Bills he won’t sign.  

Often, they won’t even hold a vote, saying that it wouldn’t matter.  So the people who elected them do not even see them trying to do anything except get along with Democrats & congratulate themselves on their Bi-Partisanship.  They’ve formed a New Majority of Democrats & Establishment Republicans, making Conservatives a smaller Minority than any Party has ever been throughout history.

It started in 2010 when the Republicans were given control of the House of Representatives & whined for 4 years that they could do nothing without the Senate.  Then they got control of the Senate in 2014 and immediately passed President Obama’s massive budget BEFORE the newly elected Senators could be sworn in to vote against it.  The Federal Budget was thus locked in for 2 years.  Then they voted to fund both the ACA (the Obamacare they promised to defund) & the President’s Illegal Amnesty which IGNORES the Law while importing the most massive invasion of illegal aliens in US history.  Remember when I mentioned the AFFH?  That program is being used to place Illegal Immigrants in key battleground areas so their illegal votes can overwhelm those of legal citizens to guarantee Democrat victories.  

Recent votes in the Senate have demonstrated how Mitch McConnell has become Stalinist as Senate Majority Leader.  He tells Republicans that they either vote with Democrats to give the President what he wants or face Primary challenges in their re-election races with the NRSC (National Republican Senate Committee) helping their Democrat opponents if they win those Primaries.  This has resulted in bills being passed which have surrendered our National Sovereignty in ways only conspiracy theorists could have imagined.  For example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership gives a coalition of nations touching the Pacific Ocean the power to write our immigration laws.  Let me repeat that to be certain it is understood.  Other nations (such as Mexico) are going to WRITE our Immigration Laws!

The most egregious offense, however, was the May 7th vote on the Bill championed by Senator Bob Corker, which ignores the Treaty Provision in the US Constitution and reverses the way a treaty is ratified.  According to the Constitution, the President has the power to make a treaty with another nation but it has to be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.  According to the Corker Bill, the President can make an Agreement with all the powers of a treaty but it needs two-thirds of the Senate AND the House of Representatives to oppose it.  They have only 30 days with which to review it and assemble the votes needed to oppose it or else it is automatically considered ratified.

Read that last part over again very carefully until you realize just how much this violates the Constitution, then you will know how disappointed we are that Senator Tom Cotton was the ONLY Senator to vote against it.  It passed the Senate 98 to 1 (Barbara Boxer didn’t vote).  This means that ALL Senators currently running for the Presidential Nomination, including those who claim to defend the Constitution, voted to ignore the Constitution and surrender their Treaty Responsibilities assigned to them by the Constitution.  As if this wasn’t bad enough, President Obama had his “Executive Agreement” ratified by the UN Security Council before Congress could even review it, let alone vote on it.  Now we learn there are side agreements which the members of Congress are not allowed to read or even be told about before they vote.  If they don’t have a veto-proof majority in both Houses in 30 days, the Agreement becomes Law.

The groundwork for World War III has now been laid, Iran gets a Nuclear Weapon in a decade or less, they are developing ICBMs right now, the US will be required to defend Iran’s Nuclear Weapon Facilities from attack (a side agreement), US Sovereignty has been surrendered to the UN, Pacific Nations (Mexico) will be writing our Immigration Laws, the Supreme Court has nullified Statutory Law & Common Law, the President is building a massive database to be used in Federalizing Planning & Zoning Laws (& the police) and the Pope has declared war on Individualism.  

Meanwhile, Iraq & Syria are not what they once were because the Islamic State holds a third of each and we are told that all the atrocities they are committing is considered the fault of President Bush because he left too many people in the Middle East unemployed with nothing to do.  

So how was your year?                                                                                                                                                             --- Your Brother, Tim   7/31/15

Your Daily Spin: Eric Kuhn "Republican's hate Black People"

Eric Kuhn

The Middletown Press published a letter from resident Eric Kuhn in which he implies more or less all Connecticut Republicans are racist bigots by saying "the Connecticut GOP must choose between appealing to black or anti black voter." Kuhn, a local musician and Middletown Eye writer, writes letters to the Press on a regular basis the consistent theme of  persecuting conservatives.Perhaps he is angling for a regular column? His letter is linked below: 

http://www.middletownpress.com/opinion/20140729/letter-connecticut-gop-must-choose-between-appealing-to-black-or-anti-black-voters

 Kuhn writes:  "I think Republican politicians in this state know perfectly well that a part of their natural constituency is people who       hate black people."

Isn't it wonderful that we have Mr. Kuhn here to pontificate  what each and every Republican, not just in CT but the whole country, thinks about each and every issue? Why, we wouldn't know what we're supposed to believe if he weren't here to tell us. And, of course, he has the credentials and qualifications to do so (remind us - what are they again?). What do you think Mr. Kuhn's reaction would be if a Republican were to paint all Democrats with such a broad brush?

      Without intending to write an Apologia Pro Vita Republicana,we are confident enough to state that most Republicans believe that this country was founded on the belief that each and every individual has natural rights that cannot be taken away by governmental fiat, that all laws should apply to all of us the same way, that individual persons are better suited to determine their own destinies and to decide what is in their own best interests than the progressive-liberals down in Central Planning, that taking people's property from them and giving it to someone else is theft, that each person should be judged on his or her own merit, not by what group he or she belongs to, and that large concentrations of money and power, whether in corporate or governmental hands, represent a threat to individual liberty.

Now Mr. Kuhn, why don't you tell us what you stand for?

PS: "Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. "Source: The History Channel: http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan. Below Middletown Insider writer Billboy Baggins responds to Eric Kuhns letter to the Press:

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

Dear Editor,

Eric Kuhn's false and distasteful comments from 29 July are an act of desperation.  He and others of the far left ilk can read the writing on the wall; the Democrat party is about to fall.  And hard.

For years, the Democrat tactic has been to divide Americans along economic, social and racial lines.  Until recently, it has worked.  But no more.  Blacks, Hispanics and us whites too, have become acutely aware of the emptiness of Democrat promises.  Disillusioned by an increasing tax burden, declining employment opportunities, skyrocketing public debt, porous borders and the abuse of governmental power, Kuhn sees minorities being draw to the GOP.

Frantically reaching for straws, he again attempts to divide Americans by claiming Republicans want to prevent non-whites from voting. While he cannot find a single example of this anywhere, we have a Justice Dept. that refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers who stood outside polling places in Philly, dressed in berets,  jackboots and billy clubs; an obvious attempt to intimidate non-black voters.

It takes an empty soul, or at least an empty hat, for one to claim Republicans have a "natural constituency" of people who hate blacks.  I guess that makes black Republicans "Uncle Toms".  Regina Roundtree, founder of CT-BRAC, is a Republican and a personal friend. Theresa Tillett (black) is running for senate in the 2nd District and Angel Fernandez (Puerto Rican) is running for state rep in the 33rd and both are personal friends; and Republican.  We are friends because we share a common interest in a love of country, liberty, and the Constitution.  While Democrats engage in race baiting, this is a banner we can unite behind.

Billboy Baggins

(The writer is a member of the Middletown Republican Town Committee.)

CT Bar Association Supports Gun Control

An original Essay by Billboy Baggins

Today, the CT Law Tribune published an article stating that the CT Bar Assoc. is considering writing an amicus brief in support of U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello's dismissal of the lawsuit that had been filed by the Connecticut Citizen's Defense League and Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen in opposition to S.B 1160, the most recent assault against the Constitution to come out of the CT legislature.  Following is my response:  (let's see how long the Trib lets my remarks stand)

This is so wrong; I don't know where to begin . . .

Let's start with the term "assault weapon".  This is a term dreamed up by the anti-gun extremist to raise fear in the minds of the low information crowd, who have no knowledge or experience with the lawful possession and use of firearms.  (Think about it; if someone hits you over the head with a bat, does the bat become an "assault bat" or is it still just a bat?  Or maybe we could call aluminum bats “assault bats” since they are unbreakable?)

Scary looking semi-automatic firearms like the ones that were banned by S.B. 1160 have been in common use at least since the early 60's.  (Eugene Stoner invented the M-16 in 1958)  Semi-automatic firearms in general have been in common use since the late 1800's.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm

Who gets the privilege of deciding what a "large-capacity ammunition magazine" is?  I'll bet it ain't me.  S.B. 1160 bans magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 rounds.  Yet, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, including those used by civilians, police and military, are standard capacity magazines and have been in common use for a century.

When U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello dismissed the lawsuit filed by the CCDL and CCS, he said the ban on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines "does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves".  If that were the case, why aren't police limited in the same way as the citizens?  After all, cops don't carry guns to defend YOU, they carry guns to defend themselves.  If you and I are not "substantially affected in our ability to defend ourselves" by a restricted magazine capacity, then it stands to reason that police would not be "substantially affected", either.

How would the judge know such a thing, anyway?  Has he ever been in a firefight?  Has he ever fired a gun?  Has he ever had his home invaded in the middle of the night by multiple assailants?  A single assailant?  No.  Covello earns a hefty salary from the bench and lives in a home with a sophisticated security system and has armed guards to protect him at work, unlike most of us.  He is an elitist, out of touch with the general citizenry.

Covello "reasoned" that "a wide variety of non-assault weapons" are still available for protection and hunting under the law.  He needs to look at the plain language of the Second Amendment; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,*" and the plain language of Article 1 Section 15 of the Connecticut Constitution, which reads, "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."  You will notice, perhaps, that there is no mention in either of hunting or target shooting or limits to capacity or scarylookingness.

Covello admits 1160 burdens Second Amendment rights, but he claims it "is substantially related to the important government interest of public safety and crime control."  Gun control does not equate to crime control or public safety.  Last weekend in Chicago, where there are some of the most draconian gun laws in place, (remember McDonald?) there were ten people KILLED and forty-four wounded by criminals*** wielding firearms . . . in a single weekend!  http://gawker.com/5569299/chicagos-weekend-shooting-tally-10-dead-44-injured

Gun control laws do NOTHING to prevent crime and in fact it is evident that where gun control laws are most stringent, crime is highest.  Look at cities like Chicago, D.C., L.A., Philly, etc., all cities with draconian gun laws and controlled by Democrats, and you will see that crime rates (and poverty) are higher there than in places where gun laws are less restrictive.

Surely, we all understand the concept of "original intent"; let's step away and take a look at what our Founding Fathers wrote concerning the militia and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

On Feb. 20, 1788, Trench Coxe wrote in The Pennsylvania Gazette, "The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?  Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."

George Mason said, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."  16Jun1788, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3

James Madison said, “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..." 8Jun1789, at page 434, Vol. I Annals of Congress

Lastly, though there are countless references from the Founders, are the words of Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson said of the Second Amendment: ". . . what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned . . . that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?   . . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."  letter to William S. Smith in 1787,  (Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

Clearly, the authors intended the citizenry to be armed equally to, or nearly so, a standing army, including our own.  (See Scalia in Heller)  The right to bear arms has been referred to as our “liberty teeth”.

Let us now look at the unintended consequences of S.B. 1160.**  In a Hartford Courant column by Dan Haar, "Untold Thousands Flout Gun Registration Law", he writes, "No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000."

Think about that; 50,000 to 350,000 of our fellow citizens and neighbors, as much as 10%, became instant felons on January 1, 2014 based solely on the type of property they own, not upon any specific criminal behavior.  How does the state intend to enforce this law, when tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people flaunt it?  How do you think these gun owners, not to mention those who complied with the law and those who don’t even own guns, will react if and when the state begins wide spread enforcement?  How will the citizenry in general react if and when the blood of otherwise innocent people, their families and law enforcement personnel is spilled for no other reason than the type of property they own and a refusal to comply with an unconstitutional law?  Is that a wise and prudent use of the taxpayer resources; to incarcerate or kill our fellow citizens over property?

Based on what I have read from around the country and my personal relationships with law enforcement personnel, there are plenty of cops who will not enforce unconstitutional laws.  After all, they are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

In Wisconsin, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke called proposals to seize firearms unconstitutional and warns of dire consequences if such plans are enacted.  "The reason is I don’t want to get shot, because I believe that if somebody tried to enforce something of that magnitude, (confiscation) you would see the second coming of an American Revolution, the likes of which would make the first revolution pale by comparison.”

Have you thought about the consequences of what could well escalate into a civil war?  I have, and the thought terrifies me to the extent that I will do everything in my power to prevent it.  The CBA should think twice before submitting an amicus in defense of S.B. 1160.

Then there are the lies necessary to promote such legislation as S.B. 1160.  Early in January of this year, Dannel 88 publicly stated that 1160 was a success, noting a drop in gun related crime since its passage.  This is an absolute lie.  In the first place, 1160 didn't go into effect until after the first of the year, and in the second place, those statistics are generally not available until some months after the end of the period in question.  Malloy fails to make mention that prior to the enactment of S.B. 1160 on 1Jan14, gun sales in Connecticut went through the roof and pistol permit applications have overwhelmed state police!  Assuming there really was a reduction in crime during that period, it is clearly not because of a restrictive, unconstitutional law, but because there are far more of our friends and neighbors bearing arms in defense of themselves, than there were prior to 14Dec12 and the criminals know it.

But the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute.  There are no absolutes in the Constitution; or are there?  Liberal Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, stated, "There are 'absolutes' in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant and meant their prohibitions to be 'absolutes.'”  (http://criminology.fsu.edu/faculty/gertz/hugoblack.htm)

Justice Black also wrote, "Our business is not to write laws to fit the day. Our task is to interpret the Constitution,"   (U.S. News & World Report, volume 63 (1967), page 38) I submit to you that, as it is the job of the courts to interpret the Constitution; it is the duty of legislatures to follow the Constitution and not to twist it to fit the passions of the day.

So what should the CBA do?  If the CBA is not willing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, it should butt out.  I can think of a Shakespearean quote that is apropos to the circumstance, but I dare not use it, lest some ignorant, alarmist, elitist coward take offense and my comments here, be banned.

PARTING SHOT:  It is a fool’s endeavor to think that this will stop with S.B. 1160.  The ultimate goal is the disarming of the American People.  Make no mistake about it.  Late last year, I heard a rumor that a state senator said there was a confiscation bill sitting in the drawer waiting for the this upcoming legislative session.  I called the office of Senator Jason Welch, of Bristol and his aid, through him, confirmed this for me.  Keep your powder dry!

BillBoy Baggins

*In Heller, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment would have the same meaning if it read, "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

**Or are they REALLY unintended consequences?  Why would the post office or the National Park Service need to buy millions of rounds of hollow point ammo? (look it up)

***Criminals by nature, do not obey laws.

The author is a certified paralegal, one of the 16,000 members of CCDL, a life member of the NRA, a former USAF Combat Arms Instructor, a contributing writer in middletowninsider.com,  a member of the Middletown Republican Town Committee, chairman and founder of the Tea Party Caucus of the CT GOP Town Committees and according to Janet Reno, Eric Holder and the current administration, a potential terrorist.

Read more: http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202662677589/CBA-Considers-Amicus-in-Second-Amendment-Case#ixzz372C9Q2W6

George Romney: Civil Rights Activist

I know what you are saying, just because George Romney marched for Civil Rights doesn't mean that Republicans still aren't racists.  Hell, that Lincoln guy just freed the slaves right before the election in order to get a second term.. No passion at all!  Remember how the left disregarded Herman Cain and threw him to the wind because of sexual harassment charges?  It was okay when Bill Clinton and JFK had many different woman and allegations against them (Democrat), but when an African American non-Democrat candidate for President of the United States has unsubstantiated allegations him he is quickly labeled and eventually forced off the ticket.  Gee, what's racist now?