First the New Haven Register, now the Journal Inquirer had some choice words for Danbury's dishonest mayor's decision to put politics before people when it comes to gun control.
To those who remember the days of Camelot — that relatively contemporary one of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy rather than that of King Arthur — the modern version was launched when Kennedy wrote a book called “Profiles of Courage.” He told of political figures who were prepared to sacrifice immediate personal gain for principle — something rarely found in political wars today.
Recently Connecticut was treated to a perfect example of the opposite of a politician showing a profile of courage.
Mark Boughton, mayor of Danbury and a Republican candidate for governor, has renounced his former membership in Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization dedicated to a reasonable kind of gun control exactly as listed in our Second Amendment, which calls for a “well-regulated militia.”
But Boughton, who said all the proper things when the Newtown massacre took place, has decided that “well-regulated” gun control is something he cannot support. He probably is catering to gun addicts who oppose anyone who has the temerity to say that “well-regulated” means any regulation at all.
Boughton may think he has gained support from the pro-gun lobby but he may be surprised to learn that there are Connecticut voters who believe consistency is a virtue and expediency is not what they are looking for in an elected official.
Courage of one’s conviction is to be admired in an aspiring officeholder — if those convictions are sincere and not necessarily self-aggrandizing.
As an example, take Sen. Ted Cruz’s resistance to Obamacare, which might be called a consistent position because he is opposed to anything President Barack Obama proposes — although you can be sure he feels that position is one that will benefit him in the state of Texas, which is his home.
But courage is something that few politicians have if it means risking the loss of an election.
Boughton may find that his lack of courage — his refusal to stand up for his convictions after the Newtown massacre — may well redound to his detriment at the polls. Even his own party may look askance at someone whose retreat from principle is so apparent.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
