All errors should be reported to

Saturday, April 04, 2015

Hypocrisy makes him a Democratic star

From The Hill: "Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy’s aggressive criticism of Indiana’s religious freedom law has propelled him to a leading role in the Democratic Party after years in the shadows."

But of course. Dannel is a hypocritical hack whose own state has the same law. I have yet to hear him call for the repeal of Connecticut's Religious Freedom Act. The press is giving him a pass on it.

Just as they gave President Obama a pass on gay marriage -- even after Vice President Dick Cheney came out for it in 2009.

From The Hill:
Malloy’s moment in the spotlight comes just as he is preparing to take over the powerful Democratic Governors Association (DGA) for the 2016 election cycle, when 12 governors' mansions, as well as the White House, will be up for grabs.
“To take a stance like he did is very smart politically,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist and former adviser to John Kerry’s presidential campaign. “It’s a big move for him and I think he’ll gain a lot of attention.”
Since Malloy announced his ban on state-funded travel, governors of Vermont, New York and Washington have taken similar stands, joined by companies like Yelp.
In response to the outcry, Indiana legislators hastily drafted a new bill specifying that businesses in the state cannot refuse service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
Connecticut's law remains unchanged.


  1. Every debate, every public appearance, should have a flock of signs asking him about the Connecticut RFRA.

  2. T says:


    "Dannel is a hypocritical hack whose own state has the same law. " An article I read pointed out that CT's law is even worse that Indiana's. Indiana's law makes it illegal to substantially interfere with a person's (or corporation's) practice of religion. CT's law does not use the word "substantially", thus making illegal ANY interference with a corporation's or person's right to practice religion.

  3. So now instead of having a law to prevent anyone from being discriminated against, they change it to were a VERY narrow set can discriminate against everyone else.

    Smooth move luser. Integrity obviously not a consideration. Just another tyrant.

  4. The Left calls for Indiana to make gays a protected class that cannot be discriminated against. After the events of the past week, I'd say it's religious people who need to be a protected class so they can ACT upon sincerely held religious beliefs, even in their capacity as the owners of small businesses. The Bill of Rights protects the right of a person to the "FREE EXERCISE" of religion, which is the right to ACT upon sincerely held beliefs. That right should not be trumped or watered down by judges or by well-intentioned laws that prohibit discrimination in commercial trade. In particular, the balancing of the rights of gays not to be discriminated against vs. those of religious people who run businesses should tip in favor of the latter. If people want to tip the balance in the other direction, then the proper way to do that is to amend the Constitution so as to alter the meaning and scope of the First Amendment. The fact that the amendment process is an arduous one is no excuse for taking shortcuts to bypass the process. It's a process that requires widespread popular support for change, which is opt course why activists with narrow support prefer to do an end-run by means of judicial order.

    1. I, gotta up WAY UP our game, and keep courts from invalidating these amendments.