CT Collectivist Gun Grabber Ruthlessly Exposed By Sipsey Street Irregulars

And how. If you haven’t yet read Mike Vanderboegh’s superb expose and  take-down of Michael Lawlor, Connecticut Governor Dannell Malloy’s “hatchet man” on the State’s gun control efforts, you need to stop everything and read it, right now. Take it all in and know that there are many more such men and women peppered throughout the Democrat/Media Complex – right to the highest reaches of government. And I do mean highest.

“You can either surrender the weapon to us, destroy the weapon, or sell it to a federal firearms licensee. After that date (January 1) that hasn’t been declared or register is banned and if you get caught, you’re going to get arrested.” — Michael Lawlor.

An Open Letter to Michael Lawlor, the CT Governor’s Hatchet Man on Firearms Confiscation. “How’s your KGB file hangin’, Mike?”

You know it is quite ironic that on the morning I sit down to write this letter we discover that Adam Lanza (whose evil deeds were the supposed excuse for your Intolerable Act) was something of a twisted fellow traveler of collectivism being an apparently homosexual, environmentalist vegan who was anti-Christian enough to forbid his mother to put up a Christmas tree. “Gee,” I thought when I read that, “This kid could have grown up to be a Connecticut Democrat politician.” That he provided the bloody excuse for tyrant wannabes such as yourself is certainly the Devil’s own joke — send a collectivist killer to enable future collectivist power. Old Scratch must be laughing his ass off.

You know after just a cursory reading of your biography here and here, I realized that I owed you an apology. Previously I had described you as Malloy’s “Eichmann.” But Eichmann was a rather colorless bureaucrat, defining as Hannah Arendt spelled out, “the banality of evil.” But you, sir, are no bureaucratic handmaiden of evil. No, to call you an Eichmann would require an apology to both you and Eichmann. You, sir, are a true believer — more of a Heydrich than an Eichmann. Or, if you raise a Godwin’s objection, shall we say a Felix Dzerzhinsky? Yes. Dzerzhinsky is certainly more fitting.

I note that while you were at UConn in 1977 you “participated in language studies in Russia in 1977” at Moscow and Leningrad. You then earned a Master’s Degree in Soviet Area Studies from the University of London in 1981. You were, what, 20 when you first experienced the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War? It must have fascinated you early on in life. Yet after you got your Masters in Soviet Area Studies from the University of London at a time when that and other British universities were prime recruiting grounds for KGB “political warfare” assets, and you subsequently “received a Fulbright-Hays Scholarship to study economic reform in Hungary in 1982,” you decided to change course and become, in quick succession, a lawyer, a prosecutor and then a Democrat Party politician.

Why the change, Mike?

Your KGB file might provide some clues along those lines, of course. I had a long chat with a former CIA Cold Warrior who is intimately familiar with the KGB infiltration and subversion tactics of the time of your stay in the Soviet Union. He says that you certainly have a KGB file and had a KGB officer assigned to your case with the object of making an asset of you. No one from the United States got into the Soviet Union back then without the close inspection of the KGB. NO ONE.

And what would the KGB be looking for, I asked? “A lot of dewy-eyed kids were going to the Soviet Union back then with this fascination for the other side. They thought the Vietnam War proved the evil nature of American society and they wanted to see what the other side was like. So they (the KGB) would look for someone with those misconceptions and then look for other vulnerabilities. And their recruitment operations were vast. VAST.” What other vulnerabilities? I asked.

“For one, homosexuality or other sexual deviance,” he answered. He drew my attention to these passages regarding the Prime case from The New KGB: Engine of Soviet Power by William Corson and Robert Crowley:

Prime exhibited most of the disabilities on the KGB check list and more than qualified as a target for recruitment. A loner, a young man with sexual problems and someone who, by his own admission, believed that the downtrodden of the world would fare better under communism. Such symptoms and attitudes assured that, at an appropriate moment, he would fall into the Soviet bag. The case is not a tribute to the Soviets’ prescience but another instance of their readiness for an event such as Prime’s self-selection, their single-minded patience, clerical effort, and corps of competent case officers who were trained and fully aware of what their jobs entailed.

In Berlin the Soviet support nets are massive. In addition to surveillance, drivers, couriers, police, and postal employees, they include “swallows” who specialize in foreigners who enjoy mild or other forms of perversion. . . The KGB’s ‘girls’ . . . provide the organs with volumes of information about their clients. . . The girls are also alerted to spot the six “d’s” — discontent, disaffection, depression, drunkenness, desperation, and sexual dysfunction — nany one of which might provide a future lever. — pp. 390-361.

It is a matter of record that after being long in the closet, you “came out” only in 2006.

Of course Prime was not a homosexual but the KGB did not lack for male “swallows” if their target had those appetites.

Read the whole thing, here.

UPDATE:

And now there’s…

My Second Open Letter to Mike Lawlor — On “Nightcrawlers” and Treason Played for Laughs. We’ve already established that you are willing to sell out your country. Now we’re just haggling about the price.

 MBV Note to Readers: In my first letter to Connecticut’s own Felix Dzerzhinsky,Mike Lawlor, we explored the subject of that tyrannical collectivist’s KGB file. The response to that missive was very gratifying, as well as rewarding in terms of further clues and offers of assistance. I hope you like this letter as much as you liked the first.

***

You know, it’s the arrogance about you collectivist pricks that always strikes me as ironically misplaced. You’re always the smartest guy in the room, dispensing orders from on high as if to the purple born, yet when it comes to the important things you really aren’t all that bright.

Take that slip you made in the interview when you played the subject of treason for laughs. Of course you have long thought yourself safe from scrutiny of any questions about what you were up to back in the 70s and early 80s. But mentioning that a. you had tried to get a job with the CIA right out of law school and b. that they had turned you down, well, even to a guy like me who’s nothing particularly special other than an amateur student of history, why, that’s just plain stupid.

It raises so many questions and reinforces the ones I’ve already asked. Why would the CIA, at the height of the Cold War when it needed every trustworthy Russian speaker and analyst, turn you down? I guess the key word there is “trustworthy.” The CIA, and not because of the bad joke, must have found compelling reasons to find you untrustworthy. That must have stung, huh? Not that you weren’t accepted — you would play that for laughs, for you are the smartest guy in the room and that just proves their stupidity, right? As a homosexual you already were struggling with issues of identity, loyalty, societal trust, etc. And again, homosexuality is not the issue. It is not now, nor was it then, grounds (by itself) for exclusion from employment by the CIA. According to my sources, the Agency knowingly hired many homosexuals from its inception onward as long as it was convinced of their loyalty, their trustworthiness. And, my sources say, as long as that was understood up front there was no blackmail risk and the Agency only very rarely was proved wrong about their pick.

So why did they turn you down, Mike? What was it that they spotted about you? I am told by sources who were once in a position to know that you have not only a KGB file and a CIA file, but an FBI file as well. We’ll never get anything out of the CIA, but I wonder what a FOIA of the FBI might turn up? Have you got the juice to work your will upon the Fibbies as well?

And again, why apply to the CIA at all? Why did you change your career from Soviet Studies academic to zealous public prosecutor seeking the brass ring of political power? You are a public official. These are legitimate questions. Not that I expect an answer from you, at least not a written one.

Hat tip: Larwyn’s Links.

Linked by Maggie’s Farm, thanks!