Connecticut's Academic-Marxist Nexus
Making A Mockery of God's Promise With "PRIDE"
*AUDIO NARRATION IS A REAL HUMAN VOICE*
Connecticut’s Democrats have made a dangerous bet: that the voters will reward them for defying federal law so long as the defiance is dressed in moral virtue. But legal consistency and equal protection cannot coexist with ideological opportunism.
Nowhere is this slow-rolling insurrection more visible than in Connecticut, a state whose leaders have all but declared secession from federal immigration enforcement under the euphemistic banner of "sanctuary." The irony, of course, is not just that these policies fly in the face of federal law, but that they are championed by the very same officials who regularly cloak themselves in the garb of constitutional fidelity when politically expedient.
In May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security publicly identified Connecticut and several of its municipalities—including New Haven, Hartford, East Haven, and Windham—as sanctuary jurisdictions. Despite the clear language of 8 U.S. Code §1324, which prohibits the harboring or shielding of illegal aliens, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont balked at the designation, claiming the state "upholds the Constitution" and "respects the rule of law."
The statement is Orwellian in its inversion. The very laws passed by Congress and codified into the U.S. Code are the ones Lamont and his administration now ignore under the auspices of "community safety" and "constitutional values."
Attorney General William Tong, not to be outdone, described the term "sanctuary" as unhelpful, while simultaneously defending the state's refusal to comply with federal immigration detainer requests. Apparently, linguistic discomfort now trumps legal obligation.
This isn’t a policy debate; it’s a legal abdication. It is an affront to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which unambiguously states that federal law shall be the supreme law of the land. No state, no matter how blue or piously progressive, has the authority to override or nullify it. And yet, Connecticut’s Trust Act has effectively done just that.
The Legal Bedrock They Pretend Doesn't Exist
The constitutional hierarchy is not up for debate. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that states cannot obstruct federal authority. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Cooper v. Aaron (1958), and more recently, through reaffirmation of federal primacy in immigration enforcement, the message is consistent: the federal government does not need the permission of governors or mayors to execute its laws.
Even Connecticut’s own legal code affirms the necessity of compliance with federal mandates. Regulations such as §21a-244-8 and statutes like CGS §3-39q explicitly require the state to uphold federal law. That Governor Lamont and AG Tong ignore their own laws while criticizing federal enforcement smacks not merely of hypocrisy, but of constitutional illiteracy.
Trickle-Down Lawlessness: The Academic-Marxist Nexus
This legal relativism is no accident. It is the fruit of a long campaign that began in the universities, metastasized into teacher’s unions, and spilled into the public sphere under banners like Antifa and BLM. These groups do not hide their objectives: to train youth in the tactics of subversion, to radicalize them through activist pedagogy, and to distribute materials that explain how to disrupt civil society while avoiding legal consequences.
Far from being spontaneous uprisings, these are organized operations complete with protest guides, encrypted communications, and post-arrest legal funds. In some cases, they are aided and abetted by local governments who refuse to prosecute acts of political violence so long as the cause is deemed righteous by progressive standards.
In Connecticut, municipalities proudly declare June "Pride Month" while sheltering illegal aliens in defiance of federal law. These are not apolitical gestures; they are ideological markers in a broader culture war. The state has become a sanctuary not just for the undocumented, but for the unchecked ambitions of the progressive left.
Should Connecticut continue to openly defy federal immigration law, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security have several legal avenues at their disposal. The DOJ could initiate a federal lawsuit asserting that Connecticut's Trust Act and related sanctuary policies violate 8 U.S. Code §1324 and 1373, potentially seeking an injunction and even civil penalties.
The Trump administration has already begun moving aggressively to reestablish federal primacy in immigration enforcement. In a recent directive, the administration announced the revocation of thousands of student visas—particularly those held by Chinese nationals—amid national security concerns related to espionage and technology theft. Furthermore, plans are underway to ramp up deportations, with some reports indicating DHS is preparing to remove as many as 5,000 illegal Chinese nationals per week or month, depending on logistical capacity and diplomatic coordination.
The symbolism is rich and disturbing. The rainbow, a divine promise to never again destroy the Earth by flood, has been appropriated by secular ideologues to signal moral superiority and spiritual defiance. In the hands of Connecticut's academic-Marxist alliance, it is wielded not as a sign of peace, but as a weapon against traditional faith, order, and legal integrity.