March 8, 2014

Molon Labe [Darleen Click]

While speaking at a town hall meeting in Milford, Conn., on Wednesday, Gov. Dannel Malloy was interrupted by a heckler who advised him to read the Constitution sometime.

The comment came when Gov. Malloy, a Democrat, was answering a question from a small business owner who said he is at a disadvantage to businesses in adjacent states that have a lower wage structure.

“I think that’s not only a state issue, but we’ve got this thing called the Constitution, so it makes it a little difficult to do some of the things you suggest,” Malloy replied with a smile.

Suddenly a woman’s voice is heard shouting: “Why don’t you read it sometime!”

Gov. Malloy has faced intense criticism over his support of Connecticut’s new gun registration bill, which many believe is unconstitutional.

The bill has technically turned gun owners who legally purchased semiautomatic rifles into felons overnight after many have refused to register their guns and high-capacity magazines.

The state has yet to announce how or if they plan on enforcing the new law with criminal charges and arrests. According to some estimates, as many as 100,000 gun owners are in violation of the new gun control law.
Call it a “cross-in.”

No sooner had a Lake Elsinore family removed a roadside memorial cross under pressure from a rights organization than six more appeared in its place.

Riverside resident Emily Johnson and her father, Doug Johnson, said they were so disturbed upon hearing that AnnMarie Devaney was being forced to take down the symbol honoring her late son, they crafted their own plywood crosses and planted them along Lake Street next to the site where the Devaney tribute once stood.

The Johnsons’ crosses were painted with statements such as “What if this was your child?” and “Ever heard the phrase, ‘To each his own?’”

“They said they have to take that one down,” said Doug Johnson. “But they didn’t say anything about putting another one up.”

Posted by Darleen @ 10:37am

Comments (13)

  1. Greetings:

    I have to admit that I’m not a fan of “Cemetaries without Borders”. I see them as another gift from the ghettos in which the deceased’s survivors are unable, in the depths of their grief perhaps, to see that they are impinging on the lives, thoughts, and often the property of their fellow citizens. I mean, what would our geography look like if everyone so indulged themselves.

    That being said, I would prefer that if a law was going to be passed, that there would be some serious thought be involved.

  2. 11B40

    Most of the times, these roadside memorials are fairly short-lived. There is a winding road near my home that has seen a couple of very nasty fatal accidents. One, a couple of years ago, brought about a 2-week period of lit-candles, flowers, etc. Then nothing. Across the street someone maintains a small wooden cross over the last couple of years. It doesn’t bother me and I don’t see why it bothers anyone expect the easily offended Mrs. Grundys.

  3. I have rather a long street frontage. If a crash-site memorial were to appear in the public right-of-way, it’s the county’s problem — until the maintainers replace the one the county removed by posting a new one a few feet farther from the road’s edge, on my property. Don’t think it never happens.

    In that event if I tolerate it being maintained, that can constitute an easement by adverse possession.

    Best case: once there is one on my property, I post a No Trespassing sign near it, and at the first sign someone’s maintaining the memorial I have it removed altogether. If the trespassers don’t take the hint, I would have no choice but to escalate.

  4. McGehee

    Private property rights are ruling. The issue comes under “public property” that, allegedly, is “owned by all”, yet some people want to make sure all public space cannot be used by those icky god-botherers and any of their symbols regardless of reason.

  5. While I really don’t see the point in the memorials [I think one’s grief is a very private matter, except for those who have given their lives in service to our country], if they are placed on public property, I see no reason for them to be taken down, as said kind of property is for common use.

    You do have to be very careful if you allow one on your property, as McGehee pointed out. Adverse Possession can be a real pain in the neck.

  6. – I keep wondering when someone will challenge the whole Lefturd premise that the Constitution says anything about “crosses on public property”. As far as I know it not only does not address such an imaginary thing, but it in fact states its against the law to make ANY laws involving religion.

    – The Left has turned the meaning of simple straightforward words on their heads.

  7. Sounds like an outbreak of Irish Democracy.

    Maybe they can replace the crosses with Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim symbols or the COEXIST thingy.

    Then dare ’em to take it down.

    After making the photos viral on Twitter, that is.

  8. I am not a fan of the roadside memorial. We have many of them on the county road that leads to my property and they are a driver distraction. The families have a gravesite to maintain and to honor the dead. Placing crude wooden crosses, plastic flowers, mylar balloons and soggy stuffed animals on public roads and as McGehee said on private easements are tacky, imho.

  9. I’d really like to know what the questioner to whom the Governor was responding said in full.

    Because it seems to me that Gov. Malloy is saying that if it wasn’t for that pesky Constitution, CT could punish the shit out of businesses that escape defect from their cost prohibitive regulatory regime socially just compassionate welfare safety net, and the <business friendly counter-revolutionary states to which they flee.

  10. connecticut lol