One thing I learned in the campaign fore US Senate is that Linda McSteroids’ campaign will go to any lengths to control their message…and just as they attempted to do in Milford, when it comes to the size of crowds at her rallies, Linda’s camp isn’t being quite honest with the people.
On Saturday Linda’s 50 million dollar trainwreck made one of her last campaign stops in Danbury. With campaign manager David Cappiello and Lt. Gov candidate Mark Boughton both residents of Connecticut’s Hatcity, you would think there would be a good turnout for Linda’s rally at the Danbury High School right? Well, of you drank the Kool-Aid from Linda’s team, then the rally was a HUGH success.
Here’s what the McSteroids’ campaign tweeted regarding their rally at Danbury High School.
Lets take a look at the pics McSteroids’ campaign put out of the “amazing/great” rally.
Again, if you go by these images, you would think the rally was a huge hit…and why not? Announcement of the rally was posted on Linda’s Facebook page back on the 26th and two of her biggest fans (her campaign manager and the mayor of Danbury) both live a stone throw away from where the rally took place. Surely the success of this rally should be a no brainer right? (I mean come on, they even had Triple H as the “special” guest!)
Fresh from the Obama rally in Bridgeport, I decided to stop by the big festival and see how things were going…and lets just say that no one was really psyched to see me there. I knew once I parked my car that the rally was a complete bust.
I arrived at the “rally” around at the Danbury High School auditorium at aprox. 7:30 and the size of the crowd was almost embarrassing. Even after they sectioned off half of the gym, the size of Linda’s followers peaked at 120 people (including Linda’s staff and handlers who I recognized from the Milford rally).
By the time Linda finally showed her face (aprox 8:40), her handlers move the people into the middle in order to give the impression that the size of the crowd was large for the cameras. Heck, by the time Linda finally showed up, I saw some people actually leave…including the crew from WTNH (marked in red in the above photo).
…I’ll let the video tell the story.
As someone who attended one of Ned Lamont’s last campaign stops in Danbury back in November 2006, Linda’s people couldn’t have been happy with this turnout…hell, I had more people at my wedding. If Linda’s campaign manager and the Mark Boughton can’t draw people out to her rallying Danbury (population 75,000+), then what does that say about the enthusiasm for the McSteroids campaign?
On Tuesday night, anti-immigrant leader Elise Marciano made an appearance on local access TV with the well known racist pervert Tom Big(o)T Bennett and both, who are rabid supporters of Boughton, basically made an ass out of themselves.
Well, the two morons’ outrageous comments resulted in State Central releasing the following statement to the national media and public.
Connecticut State Central Press Release:
In September, Danbury Mayor and Republican Lieutenant Governor Candidate Mark Boughton was caught campaigning for himself and Tom Foley at a United State Citizens for Immigration Law Enforcement (USCFile) rally, at which his was warmly welcomed by USCFile leader, Elise Marciano. Marciano, the woman who publicly declared her belief that President Obama was a Muslim, had this to say on the topic: “He’s (Obama) not going to a Christian church. As President of the United States, he’s not going to a Christian church, even though he claims that the Reverend Wright’s church was Christian. How do you figure that? I’ll tell you why – because he was brought up as a Muslim, and he is a Muslim and they cannot go back on their religion.”
On Tuesday night, Boughton’s favorite anti-immigrant extremist and supporter Elise Marciano was at it again, this time claiming that President Obama has told “the whole damn world” to come into the country to “take over these damned Americans who are reading and writing and finding out what we are doing in Congress.” In particular, Marciano said she believes President Obama especially wants the “ones that are uneducated to come in and take over by sheer magnitude of numbers.”
But it gets worse.
Following Marciano’s tirade, her good friend, fellow anti-immigrant extremist Tom Bennett, put forward his own idea to form a “vigilante” group to “get busses and take these illegals…out on the ocean and put them in a boat with holes in it.” During the entirety of Bennett’s radical and scary rant, Marciano smiled and stayed silent, refusing to oppose Bennett’s call for vigilantism.
Earlier this month, Foley came under fire for appointing Reverend Barbara Sexton as his “Independents for Tom” chairwoman. Sexton wrote racist and hate-filled statements all over her blog, including her belief that “all blacks voted for Barack, period,” while arguing that Obama is a Muslim “masquerading as a Christian,” who is “not interested in protecting the interests of those of us who come from the Judeo-Christian tradition.” When confronted about Sexton’s involvement in the campaign, the best Foley’s campaign could do was lie, and cover up their first lie with another.
“This isn’t an isolated incident,” said Connecticut Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo. “This is part of a larger pattern where Tom Foley’s campaign has courted supporters who have known extremist views, regarding race, religion or country of origin. It’s disturbing, to say the least, that people like Barbara Sexton, Elise Marciano and Tom Bennett may have a seat at the table in a Foley/Boughton administration. Mr. Bennett’s call for vigilantism against immigrants must immediately be disavowed by both Tom Foley and Mark Boughton. In addition, they really need to take a closer look at the people they have installed in key leadership roles in their campaign, and the events at which they ask for support from people.”
ELISE MARCIANO: “He’s (President Obama) just telling the whole damn world, come into America, we’re going to let you do whatever you want. We just want you to take over these damned Americans who are reading and writing and finding out what we are doing here in Congress, and they don’t like it, so we gotta overwhelm them. That’s what they’re doing. That’s exactly what they’re doing. They want all these people, especially the ones that are uneducated, to come in here and take it over by sheer magnitude of numbers. They won’t know what they’re voting for, they won’t know what to do. It’ll be, you know, just anything they want.”
TOM BENNETT: “It’s time to do vigilantism, that’s what it’s time to do. We have to be organized and become vigilantes for our own protection. We have to protect our country, our citizens, because the police aren’t doing it. We have to protect our own borders. So I say, that we have to get together and have a very, very large vigilante group. Oh yeah. We need that. And then we can have club dues, have fundraisers and then we can get busses and take these illegals and we can get rid of them ourselves. We can take them out on the ocean and put them in a boat with holes in it. And that’s it, okay?”
As readers of this site know, this isn’t the first time Bennett has called for a vigilante/violent approach to the issue of illegal immigration in Danbury…and in future posts, you’ll see how Marciano and her ilk are not immune when it comes to implying a violent approach to addressing the issue of immigration in the city.
…more on the Boughton ties to Marciano later.
NOTE: If anyone recorded Tuesday’s show, contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
As I stated in an earlier post, it is a real shame that the Democratic nominee for the 24th district State Senate seat and the town committees that make up that particular district haven’t pointed out Mike McLachlan’s horribly offensive record at the Capitol.
Because of the lack of media coverage at the Capitol, most people don’t have a clue of what their state lawmakers are doing on their behalf. Fortunately, I’ve been able to cover the activities at the Capitol and in the opinion of state lawmakers on both side of the political spectrum, McLachlan is the most far right extreme politician in Hartford.
In order to give you a better understanding of what the State Senator for the 24th district has actually done at the Capitol, here’s a post originally posted back in 2009 that highlights one of McLachlan’s darkest moments…a moment where he was chastised by Democrats and Republicans for introducing a piece of legislation that can only be described as anti-gay and highly offensive.
During the CT General Assembly judiciary committee’s debate on the implementation of equal protection for same sex couples, State Senator Mike McBlockhead McLachlan offered one of the most offensive amendments ever drafted this session…an amendment which can only be described as homophobic.
To: Raised Bill 899
Offered by Sen. McLachlan (JUD)
AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE GUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE FOR SAME SEX COUPLES.
Strike section 17 and insert the following in lieu thereof:
Section 17: Section 46a-81r of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof: (Effective from passage)
Sec. 46a-81r. Sexual orientation discrimination: Construction of statutes.
Nothing in sections 4a-60a, 45a-726a, 46a-51, 46a-54, 46a-56, 46a-63, 46a-64b, 46a- 65, 46a-67, 46a-68b and 46a-81a to 46a-81q, inclusive, subsection (e) of section 46a-82, subsection (a) of section 46a-83, and sections 46a-86, 46a-89, 46a-90a, 46a- 98, 46a-98a and 46a-99 shall be deemed or construed (1) to mean the state of Connecticut condones homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle, (2) to authorize the promotion of homosexuality or bisexuality in educational institutions or require the teaching in educational institutions of homosexuality or bisexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, (3) to authorize or permit the use of numerical goals or quotas, or other types of affirmative action programs, with respect to homosexuality or bisexuality in the administration or enforcement of the provisions of sections 4a~60a, 45a-726a, 46a-51, 46a-54, 46a-56, 46a-63, 46a- 64b, 46a-65, 46a-67, 46a-68b and 46a-81a to 46a-81q, inclusive, subsection (e) of section 46a-82, subsection (a) of section 46a-83, and sections 46a-86, 46a-89, 46a- 90a, 46a-98, 46a-98a and 46a-99,[ (4) to authorize the recognition of or the right of marriage between persons of the same sex, or (5)] or (4) to establish sexual orientation as a specific and separate cultural classification in society.
In a nutshell, what McLachlan was attempting to do is re-introduce legislation that’s in direct conflict with the State Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Supreme Court’s decision in Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health…the landmark case that extended the same protections married heterosexual couples receive to same-sex couples.
And as in the case of my previous post, McLachlan’s decision in offering his ill-conceived amendment (as well as his eventual opposition to adhere to the court’s decision by codifying the state Supreme Court’s decision, was based exclusively on his religious beliefs (as opposed to representing the will of his constituents in the 24th district):
Hartford, CT – State Senator Michael McLachlan (R-Danbury) cast a vote last week in opposition to SB 899: An Act Implementing the Guarantee of Equal Protection Under the Constitution of the State for Same Sex Couples. The bill, which passed in the Senate by a vote of 28 to 7, extends the protections under law given to married heterosexual couples to same-sex couples by codifying the state Supreme Court’s decision in Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health. The bill does so by repealing current law which defines marriage as solely between a man and woman and declares that the public position of the State of Connecticut is no longer limited to marriage between a man and a woman. Prior to the Kerrigan decision, gay and lesbian couples in Connecticut were able to obtain civil union status. SB 899 repeals the civil union statutes effective October 1, 2010.
“While I fully recognize and respect the desire of those in same-sex relationships to express and celebrate their union, I do not believe their personal choices should be imposed by the courts on those with strongly-held religious beliefs to the contrary,” said Senator McLachlan. “The decision on this emotional issue made by the Supreme Court in October, 2008 allowing same-sex marriage was a decision that should instead have been placed in the hands of the residents of Connecticut and by extension the General Assembly, not the other way around.”
As you’ll read, McLachlan’s stance that the decision on same-sex marriage be “placed in the hands of the residents of Connecticut” is red herring and a dishonest attempt to provide cover to express his personal/religious viewpoint over the will of the people. Thankfully, this disgraceful and demeaning amendment from The Family Institute of Connecticut’s favorite elected official was slapped down…by Democrats and Republicans.
Watch and listen as members chastise McLachlan for offering such a bigoted and mean spirited amendment.
As for the public’s TAKE on the issue of same sex marriage that McLachlan brought up in his press release. Case in point, here’s a Q-poll from 12/17/08.
Connecticut voters support 52 – 39 percent, with 9 percent undecided, the State Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
Given three choices, 43 percent of voters say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, while 39 percent say they should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry and 12 percent say there should be no legal recognition of same-sex unions, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
Connecticut voters oppose 61 – 33 percent amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Republicans support such an amendment 49 – 46 percent, while Democrats oppose it 73 – 23 percent and independent voters oppose it 58 – 34 percent. Men oppose an amendment to ban same-sex marriage 56 – 38 percent while women oppose it 66 – 28 percent.
Although the poll (and the results of the 2008 election) CLEARLY showed that the majority of people in CT support same-sex marriage AND oppose amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, according to an interview Mr. Know-It-All did for the December 20 2008 Fairfield County Catholic newsletter, his anti-gay/homophobic viewpoint trumps everything…and he’ll lie about polls results (while stating that he doesn’t look at polls) to make his case.
Q: The State Supreme Court decision to legalize gay “marriage” was a devastating blow. Is there anything we can do?
McLachlan: I am opposed to gay marriage. The majority of the state legislature may have agreed with the decision of the Supreme Court, but the majority of the people in our state do not.
I don’t believe in the polls, and I don’t think we have lost the battle. I do believe that God Almighty has a plan that we don’t see. I don’t think gay marriage is the plan.
I believe that there are some technicalities in the Kerrigan decision that are yet to be discovered. There are some pretty good lawyers looking at all of this. And it is never too late to consider a constitutional amendment. There are being passed all over the country. Who would have ever believed in a million years that California would have passed one?
As you can see, when faced with the opinion of the people that he knows will be in opposition to his beliefs, McLachlan chooses himself over the people’s opinion and describes his attempts to amend the state’s constitution in his favor although the state’s highest court ruled on the matter in question a month before his interview.
…so much for McLachlan wanting the people’s voice to be heard.
Keeping an eye on elected officials that represent you in Hartford is hard work. Unless you have the time to watch CT-N, most times people are clueless to what’s happening at the State Capitol, which is why McLachlan is able to run his mouth under the radar of the public. Unfortunately, it seems like McLachlan hasn’t changed much from the days when he was walking the halls of City Hall “red-faced” when describing my site, commenting on yours truly, and/or lashing out against organizations that spoke up against Boughton’s anti-immigrant legislation such as 287g. McLachlan’s bad tempter and belittling comments are legendary in Danbury…now everyone in the state is getting a glimpse into what we in Danbury under Boughton’s rule.
NOTE: Here’s a sample of feedback from across the state regarding McLachlan’s anti-gay crusade.
McLachlan is a real pr*ck. Seriously, a homophobic, hate-pedaling d*ck. Does he really think that it is in the best interest of the citizens to try to codify hate?
Maybe LMF [Love Makes a Family] should reconsider and stay active as long as there are backwards, scared little boys and girls in the legislature.
His bill is disgusting…..Maclachlan ought to be confronted for his homophobia
Rand Paul’s goon squad tried to get this video banned from YouTube but failed.
The purpose of this video is to highlight what fear mongering will cause. This does not show gratuitous violence for the sake of showing violence. It shows what we are up against when we express our political ideas, and Lauren, in my opinion, reacted exactly correctly. She didn’t not resist. She did not fight back, she did not escalate the violence. But she will use the full scope of the law to make these thugs pay for their crimes.
More Video of Rand Paul Thugs Stomping Democratic Woman at October 25 debate with Jack Conway
Lauren Valle of MoveOn.org was stomped by a Rand Paul Supporter outside the Jack Conway/Rand Paul debate.
Lauren was there as part of Moveon.org’s latest campaign to present Rand Paul with the Employee of the Month Award from Republicorp™ and several people in the crowd surrounded her, stripped her of a blonde wig and wrestled her to the ground. One man is seen stomping on her head as she lays on the sidewalk.
The man who stomped on Lauren has been identified as Tim Proffitt, Bourbon County Coordinator of the Rand Paul Campaign, and the one doing the wrestling and holding down of Lauren has been identified as Mike Pezzano, Assistant Organizer of Kentucky Open Carry and member of Lexington Rand Paul Meetup.
Wingnuts trying to get this video deleted have failed. It was reviewed and reinstated. If it contains what you believe to be violence too graphic to be seen, what does that say about what your comrades have done?
Given his numerous outrageous statements at the Capitol, and the fact that he’s done NOTHING for his district in terms of economic development, for someone who’s not well liked among Democrats and several of his Republicans colleagues in Hartford, you would think that Democrats would be having a field day exposing Mike Mclachlan’s less than impressive State Senator record. Unfortunately, this is not the case as the Democratic candidate and town committees that make up the 24th district ran a disappointing campaign and has largely ignored McLachlan’s failures at the State Capitol.
While I plan to point out McLachlan’s failed record in future posts, for this purpose of this write-up, I want to focus on the incumbent State Senator’s ultra-conservative view of government and religion.
Here’s McLachlan in his own words regarding the separation of church and state (09.17.10):
I remember a lesson in Danbury schools talking about Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. We were taught Jefferson was the “father” of separation of church and state. In fact, the history is far more complicated and even includes a misguided decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1947.
The “misguided” decision McLachlan is referring to the landmark (and incredibly important) opinion by the courts in 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case that is the cornerstone of the country’s current interpretation of separation of church and state. If you’re not familiar with the particular Supreme Court decision, here a little background:
A New Jersey law authorized payment by local school boards of the costs of transportation to and from schools – including private schools. Of the private schools that benefited from this policy, 96% were parochial Catholic schools. Arch R. Everson, a taxpayer in Ewing Township, filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect aid to religion through the mechanism of reimbursing parents and students for costs incurred as a result of attending religious schools violated both the New Jersey State Constitution and the First Amendment. After a loss in the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, then the state’s highest court, Everson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on purely federal constitutional grounds. Arguments were heard on November 20, 1946.
The 5-4 decision was handed down on February 10, 1947. The Court, through Justice Hugo Black, ruled that the state bill was constitutionally permissible because the reimbursements were offered to all students regardless of religion and because the payments were made to parents and not any religious institution. Perhaps as important as the actual outcome, though, was the interpretation given by the entire Court to the Establishment Clause. It reflected a broad interpretation of the Clause that was to guide the Court’s decisions for decades to come. Black’s language was sweeping:
“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’” 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
Justice Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion in which he was joined by Justice Frankfurter. Justice Rutledge wrote another dissenting opinion in which he was joined by Justices Frankfurter, Jackson and Burton. The four dissenters agreed with Justice Black’s definition of the Establishment Clause, but protested that the principles he laid down ought logically to lead to the invalidation of the challenged law.
In his written dissent, Justice Wiley Rutledge argued that:
“The funds used here were raised by taxation. The Court does not dispute nor could it that their use does in fact give aid and encouragement to religious instruction. It only concludes that this aid is not ‘support’ in law. But Madison and Jefferson were concerned with aid and support in fact not as a legal conclusion ‘entangled in precedents.’ Here parents pay money to send their children to parochial schools and funds raised by taxation are used to reimburse them. This not only helps the children to get to school and the parents to send them. It aids them in a substantial way to get the very thing which they are sent to the particular school to secure, namely, religious training and teaching.” 330 U.S. 1, 45.
Here’s the impact of the opinion in the case that has McLachlan seeing red.
In its first hundred years, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution’s Bill of Rights as a limit on federal government, and considered the states bound only by those rights granted to its citizens by their own state constitutions. Because the federal laws during this period were remote influences at most on the personal affairs of its citizens, minimal attention was paid by the Court to how those provisions in the federal Bill of Rights were to be interpreted. Following the passage of the Thirteenth through Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution at the end of the Civil War, the Supreme Court would hear hundreds of cases involving conflicts over the constitutionality of laws passed by the states. The decisions in these cases were often criticized as resulting more from the biases of the individual Justices than the applicable rule of law or constitutional duty to protect individual rights. But by the 1930s the Court began consistently reasoning that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizens First Amendment protections from even state and local governments, a process known as incorporation. The 1940 decision in Cantwell v. Connecticut was the first Supreme Court decision to apply the First Amendment’s religious protections to the states, that case focusing on the so-called Free Exercise Clause. The decision Everson followed in 1947, the first incorporating the Establishment Clause. Numerous state cases followed disentangling the church from public schools, most notably the 1951 New Mexico case of Zellers v. Huff.
Similar First Amendment cases have flooded the courts in the decades following Everson. Having invoked Thomas Jefferson’s metaphor of the wall of separation in the Everson decision, the lawmakers and courts have struggled how to balance governments’ dual duty to satisfy both the nonestablishment clause and the free exercise clause contained in the language of the amendment. The majority and dissenting Justices in Everson split over this very question, with Rutledge in the minority insisting the Constitution forbid “every form of public aid or support for religion”.
Prior to this decision the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” imposed limits on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges. This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the so-called Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
What McLachlan wants to tear down the wall that separates religion and state and return to the period where state could give the green light to merging religion into government affairs (i.e., schools)…of course, we’re talking about McLachlan’s religion as opposed to other faiths such as Islam.
McLachlan’s later words on this topic are even more dangerous as he invoke the words of one of the most radical, dishonest, individuals in the far-right Christian heritage movement.
One of the best articles I’ve read on this topic is from David Barton:
The Separation of Church and State
In Barton’s closing comment he states, “In summary, the ‘separation’ phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. ‘Separation of church and state’ currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.“
When I read the Constitution of the United States today I see many areas our government appears to conflict with the Founding Fathers. This is a fascinating topic for me so I will keep studying.
Here’s some info on the highly offensive and wildly inaccurate book from Barton that McLachalan is praising:
David Barton makes a number of inaccurate statements in his anti-separationist book the Myth of Separation and its accompanying videos. Barton also relies heavily on half truths, often failing to tell the whole story behind selected historical incidents.
Two versions of Barton’s hour-long video “America’s Godly Heritage” are in circulation. Although the newer edition (1992) omits some of the more egregious errors of the earlier tape, both are similar overall and contain the same information. (A condensed, 12-minute version of the tape titled “Foundations of American Government” is also in circulation.)
Since Barton’s materials are being used increasingly by the Religious Right in their war against church-state separation, Church & State examined the book and videos carefully and prepared the following analysis of some of Barton’s key points.
Barton: The Supreme Court in 1947 lifted the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” from a speech Thomas Jefferson made in 1801.Later in the speech, Jefferson went on to say, “That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.”
Response: This inaccurate claim about Jefferson is undoubtedly Barton’s biggest mistake, and he omitted it in the updated version of his tape. But earlier copies remain in wide circulation, and the charge is being recycled repeatedly by the Religious Right.
Barton is wrong on three counts. In truth, Jefferson first used the “wall” metaphor in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. The letter says nothing about the wall being “one directional” and certainly does not assert that it was intended to keep Christian principles in government.
Barton: Fifty-two out of 55 of the founding fathers were “orthodox, evangelical Christians.”
Response: This is a good example of the half truths common in Barton’s materials. Most of the founders were members of the Church of England, which can hardly be described as an evangelical body. While it is true that many of the framers were devout Christians, that does not make them theological compatriots of today’s Religious Right. (Barton must have again realized his mistake. In the updated version of the tape, he says 52 of the framers were simply “orthodox” Christians and adds, “Many of them were evangelicals.”)
Richard V. Pierard, history professor at Indiana State University, calls Barton’s claim “ridiculous.” According to Pierard, the term “evangelical” did not come into wide use in America until the late 19th century and cannot properly be applied to any religious movement of the colonial period. “To try to take a later definition and impose it on these people is a historical anachronism,” Pierard said.
Barton: Early versions of the First Amendment considered by the Congress prove that all the framers meant to do was prohibit the establishment of a national church.
Response: This charge is an ironic one, because early versions of the First Amendment prove exactly the opposite. Before the language of the First Amendment we know today was settled on, drafts were submitted to Congress explicitly forbidding only the establishment of a national church or one denomination in preference to any other. These were all rejected. If Barton were correct, and all the framers wanted to do was bar an official Church of the United Slates, one of these early versions would have sufficed.
Barton: In 1844 the Supreme Court ruled that public schools must include Christian worship.
Response: This is an oversimplified interpretation of a complex Supreme Court decision in a case known as Vidal v. Girard’s Executors. The controversy centered around the request of Stephen Girard, a wealthy Pennsylvanian whose will instructed that his money be used to set up a school for orphans. Girard, a native of France who was wary of clericalism, stipulated in the will that no members of the clergy could hold office in the school or even visit the campus.
Girard’s heirs challenged the bequest, but the Supreme Court, In a unanimous opinion, refused to nullify the stipulation. The will, the justices noted, had barred only clergy, not religious instruction entirely. The court also noted that the religious freedom provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution were broad enough to provide “complete protection of every variety of religious opinion…and must have been intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they were Jews or infidels.”
Doing a post on Barton’s twisted views on the separation of church and state could take all day but I HIGHLY recommend that click here and learn more about the person McLachlan admires as it speaks volume about the state senator’s opinion regarding one of the most important elements of the First Amendment.
This is just one tiny example of McLachlan’s outlandish and highly troubling record and why voters should question whether or not they would want someone with this extreme mentality representing their interest in Hartford.
A TV station in Connecticut has agreed to stop running the right-wing ad I flagged yesterday that attacks Dem Rep. Chris Murphy with various false claims and distortions, including the assertion that health reform could land people in jail, the Murphy campaign confirms.
As I reported, the ad is bankrolled by the American Action Network, another one of those shadowy conservative groups that doesn’t disclose its donors. The group has sunk at least $445,000 into attacking Murphy, who is running for reelection in a tough district against Republican Sam Caligiuri.
The ad recycles several long-debunked claims: Health reform means $500 billion in Medicare cuts; it will require the hiring of thousands of IRS agents; and it could lead to “jail time for anyone without coverage.”
The Chris Murphy campaign released the following statement regarding Fox-CT’s move to do the right thing:
Within days of the American Action Network (AAN), a shadowy group running nearly $1 million worth of television ads against Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5), launching a new attack, FoxCT has pulled the spot from the airwaves, stating that it is “not accurate.”
“This ad destroys any credibility this shadowy group may have had. AAN has been dumping a million bucks on the air, in an attempt to steal this election from the people of the Fifth District. Their blatant misstatements of the truth didn’t pass the laugh test, and now have failed a legal challenge,” said Murphy.
In an email from FoxCT to the Murphy campaign’s lawyer, FoxCT stated: “We have verified that the ad in question is not accurate and will pull their (AAN) schedule going forward.”
FoxCT’s action comes on the heels of the Washington Post deeming the ad “riddled with falsehoods and distortions.” The Washington Post analysis of the AAN ad outlined a laundry list of factual inaccuracies in the ad regarding what the new health care law actually does regarding Medicare, the hiring of IRS agents, and punishment for those who go without health care. Read more
Senator Caligiuri has repeatedly stood by this false attack, most recently last night at a debate with Murphy in Danbury.
“The fact that Senator Caligiuri is unwilling to call a lie a lie says something about his judgment. Did he really think that people would go to jail if they didn’t get health insurance? Chris and Senator Caligiuri can disagree on the policy, but to support the wildly false accusations in this ad is just plain wrong,” said Kristen Bossi, Murphy’s spokeswoman.