Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube
I went to the Capitol expecting to watch.
What I didn’t expect was to have a real conversation.
I approached Matt Lesser in the hallway—one of those in-between spaces where legislators move quickly, where most people don’t get more than a few seconds.
But he stopped. And we talked.
I asked him directly about the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing—why the Connecticut victims aren’t represented in the hallway alongside the Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan memorials.
It wasn’t a political question. It was a real one. And he gave a real answer.
He explained that not every conflict is represented, that decisions like that often fall under veterans’ affairs, and that there are other conflicts that also aren’t on those walls. He named a few. The logic was clear. It made sense.
I couldn’t argue with it—because it was solid.
The conversation flowed from there. It wasn’t tense. It wasn’t guarded. It felt like what people think these conversations are supposed to be—open, thoughtful, grounded in reality.
We even talked about timing. The Beirut bombing happened around the time he was born. For me—and for many people who lived through it—it’s lived history. But he didn’t speak about it like someone skimming a textbook. He understood it in a way that showed he had actually thought about it.
I remember being impressed by that.
For about five minutes, it was just a conversation. Then I brought up Iran. Not as a “gotcha,” not as an attack—but because everything right now is being filtered through a political lens, even history. I said as much. He agreed.
We were still on the same page. Until we weren’t. That’s when something shifted. He acknowledged we’re in a conflict—but then the conversation stopped sounding like a conversation. The phrasing changed. The tone changed.
Instead of the back-and-forth we had just been having, the language became broader, more familiar:
They weren’t wrong as opinions. That’s not the point. The point is how they came out. Because it no longer felt like he was responding to me. It felt like he was delivering something.
The conversation that had been precise and grounded suddenly sounded like something I’d heard before—not in that hallway, but on screens, in statements, in messaging.
And just as quickly as it shifted, it ended.
He walked away.
No argument. No escalation. Just a clear line where the conversation stopped being a conversation.
That’s what stayed with me.
Not what he said—but when it changed.
Because for a few minutes, it proved something important: these conversations can happen. They can be real. They can be thoughtful. They can even find common ground.
But there’s a point—somewhere—where that stops. Where thinking gives way to positioning. And once it hits that point, it’s over. That’s the disconnect people feel right now.
It’s not just about policy. It’s not even just about politics.
It’s that we can be having a completely normal, intelligent conversation—and the moment it touches something politically charged, especially anything tied to Trump or foreign policy, the tone changes, the language changes, and the conversation shuts down.
Not because people can’t talk.
But because at some point, they stop being allowed to.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
It is evident that you were goading.
The Beirut Bombing exchange was not innocent, it was a prelude. I submit
that you were leading him all along to exact a confession, his ‘position’
on the Islam vs. Judeo-Christianity (i.e. Israel) paradigm, and therefore demonstrate his and his party’s feckless motives and character.
A constituent of his, I am no supporter of Matt Lesser. I am also no apologist for either Islam or collectivism. I find both to be quite odious.
But you had an agenda.
You sought to shed light on your objectivity, your sincerity and your intellect as you midwifed the irrational perspective of your adversary to the fore.
Thereupon you asserted that something prevented Mr. Lesser from engaging further or engaging ‘candidly’ on Iran. You hint that that something is akin to a Party leash, an unspoken stigma/edict amongst peers. But to what do you attribute that?
Lack of standing in their ‘position’?
Ignorance of the ‘righteous’ truth?
Simple deceit for power’s sake?
Power that, per conservatism, is unsanctified, invalid?
Perhaps so. Perhaps you are on the right side of matters. But the virtue signaling you employed is unbecoming. And rather than the indignation over your presumptions of righteousness, some humility might be in order.
Incidentally, for some context, Judaism, by its own dogma and doctrine, is anti-Christian.