Tag Archives: Vermont

What We Were Told vs. The Actual Truth

Posted on by

On Sunday, Townhall posted an article about a shooting in Vermont in November. The story we were told by the mainstream media does not line up with the facts.

The article reports:

In November 2023, Jason J. Eaton, 48, shot and wounded three students of Palestinian descent in Burlington, Vermont. The crime was investigated as “hate-motivated.” Nothing was confirmed, but Joe Biden commented on it, along with other Democrats, despite zero confirmation that Eaton was fueled by anti-Muslim rage…

…Meanwhile, Biden was mum about the death of a pro-Israeli protester in California, who got bashed in the head by a pro-Palestinian demonstrator. As it turns out, Mr. Eaton supports Hamas. Daniel Greenfield had a lengthy article debunking the Islamophobia narrative (via Front Page Mag)

Front Page Mag reported the following:

On December 6, Seven Days, a local news outlet known for breaking stories about local politics, revealed that Eaton had tweeted, “the notion that Hamas is ‘evil’ for defending their state from occupation is absurd. They are owed a state. Pay up.” 

Responding to an article about a proposed ceasefire, he wrote, “What if someone occupied your country? Wouldn’t you fight them?”

Local politicians were aware of this which is why in December a Burlington City Council resolution from Councilman Ali Dieng, an African Muslim immigrant currently running for mayor, trying to tie the shootings to an attack on Israel failed, and so did a resolution pushing the false claim that the students had been targeted because of their identity. 

The latest Islamophobia hoax had fallen apart in Vermont, but still lingered nationally. 

The article concludes:

Yikes. Many retractions are warranted, but you know that’ll never happen. The media has yet to fully repent for spreading lies about Russian collusion. This was a serious trip-up by the media, but the anti-Israel, pro-Hamas talking points were already baked into the cake. These rabid, antisemitic leftists were going to rally, call for Jewish genocide, and harass innocent Jews on the streets. This poured fuel on the fire, but the eruption of anti-Jewish hatred from the activist and professional Left was more grounded in Israel’s existence and the IDF’s invasion of the Gaza Strip after Hamas’ heinous terrorist attack on October 7.

We are being fed lies by the mainstream media. Those lies have worked to divide us and to impede the progress of the American dream. It’s time to ignore the lies and bring the American dream back.

Good News For Freedom

Posted on by

On Friday, The Daily Caller reported that a federal judge has ruled that the State of Vermont must reimburse parents who were denied state tuition benefits because they sent their children to religious schools.

The article reports:

Under the settlement, the state is prohibited from continuing to deny parents access to tuition based on a school’s “religious status, affiliation, beliefs, exercise, or activities,” and residents of districts that previously denied funds on this basis must be reimbursed. District Judge Christina Reiss cited the Supreme Court’s ruling last summer in Carson v. Makin, a case that similarly found Maine could not exclude religious schools from its tuition program without violating First Amendment religious liberty protections.

Vermont’s town tuitioning program, like Maine’s, exists to help educate children in rural areas where public schools may not exist or cover all grade levels. Where the district has no available option in a town, it pays to send students to a private or public school of the parent’s choice.

The Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the establishment of a ‘state’ religion. Refusing to reimburse parents in a state reimbursement program because they choose to send their children to a religious school has nothing to do with establishing a ‘state’ religion–it is discrimination against religious people and is not allowed in the Constitution.

The article notes:

“Carson v. Makin made clear that the government cannot deny or restrict benefits to people based on religion,” Institute for Justice Attorney David Hodges told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Now that the question of Vermont’s tuitioning program has been settled, I am unaware of any state that is unconstitutionally restricting educational benefits in the same manner as Vermont.”

On Sept. 13, 2022, the Vermont Secretary of Education sent a letter to district superintendents instructing them that they can no longer deny tuition to religious schools “that meet educational quality standards” in light of the Carson v. Makin decision.

Religious schools are free to teach consistent moral values. Some of our public schools are reluctant to teach moral values. This ruling is good news for children and parents in Vermont.

Retribution For Speaking Out

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Red State posted an article about a father who complained about a male in his high school daughter’s locker room.

The article reports:

Remember earlier this month when the news broke about a Vermont high school allowing a biologically male student to use the girl’s locker room? Well, there has been a new and disturbing development in this saga. A father who works at the school was suspended for speaking out against the policy after his daughter was made uncomfortable by the male student.

The situation began when the Daily Signal reported that two girls who are members of the Randolph High School’s volleyball team asked the boy, who identifies as a girl, to leave the locker room after he made an inappropriate comment. The school responded by essentially banning girls from the girl’s locker room to cater to the male student’s delusion about his gender identity as it launched an investigation into the matter.

But they were not investigating the conflict. Instead, they are “launching a harassment investigation” into the girls who complained rather than the 14-year-old boy who chose to use their locker room. The Daily Signal spoke with parents whose children attend the school. Predictably, they were outraged that the school would prioritize the biological male over their daughters.

“We allowed a child who is biologically the opposite sex, male, go in a locker room where biologically girls were getting fully changed,” one of the girls’ mothers said. “The biological child was not changing and sat in the back and watched girls getting changed. That made girls feel uncomfortable, made girls feel violated and not protected.”

“When parents and kids went to the school principals they were told it was a law—nothing they could do about it,” she continued. “The law gives them room to protect all and they did not.”

The article continues:

But now, the school is taking further action to defend this practice. The Daily Signal reported that Travis Allen, who coaches girl’s soccer at Randolph Union Middle School, was suspended for speaking out about the matter:

Travis Allen has been suspended without pay from his job as the Randolph Union Middle School girls soccer coach, Orange Southwest School District Superintendent Layne Millington said in a Tuesday letter. His suspension follows a Daily Signal report highlighting his daughter’s discomfort at a biological male using her locker room while she was changing.

The superintendent, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Signal, said that Allen was being punished because he “misgendered a transgender student in our district.”

Biological males do not belong in a high school girls’ locker room–particularly when they are just sitting there watching and not changing! Every parent of a daughter needs to speak up about this. Schools may have to create separate spaces for transgender students, but that is a small price to pay for protecting our daughters.

Is There Value In Being An American Citizen?

Posted on by

On Monday, Breitbart posted an article about new voting rlghts in Vermont. It seems as if some towns in the state has changed the rules.

The article reports:

A pair of Vermont towns are ready for their first local elections where foreign nationals will be allowed to vote, even offering ballots in foreign languages.

Montpelier, the state’s capital, and Winooski, located just outside of Burlington, are set to hold local elections where, for the first time, foreign nationals will be able to vote. In Montpelier, city officials said one foreign national has registered to vote while about eight foreign nationals have registered in Winooski.

…In June 2021, Democrats in the Vermont state legislature approved changes to the charters governing Montpelier and Winooski so that foreign nationals could vote in local elections.

Republican Gov. Phil Scott only vetoed the plan because it did not provide all foreign nationals across Vermont the right to vote. Legislators ultimately overrode his veto.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) is currently suing Montpelier and Winooski for allowing foreign nationals to vote, arguing that the policy violates Vermont’s constitution, which reserves voting rights for American citizens.

In November 2021, I posted an article reporting that New York City was going to let non-citizens vote in local elections. This is a really bad idea for two reasons–often non-citizens do not understand how our government works and maintaining two sets of voter rolls is an invitation to confusion. I hope that this idea loses in the courts. It is unconstitutional, but I am not sure all of our judges are familiar with the Constitution.

A New Level Of Selfishness

Posted on by

The New York Post posted an article today about a Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center staffer who recently returned from Italy and was asked to self-isolate until the results of his coronavirus test came back. Unfortunately he chose not to listen.

The article reports:

New Hampshire’s first coronavirus patient shrugged off his quarantine and went to an event in a different state — potentially exposing almost 200 people to the deadly illness, officials revealed.

The dimwit Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center staffer showed symptoms of the virus after returning from a trip to Italy, and was told to stay home while awaiting test results — which came back positive Monday, state health officials said.

But three days earlier, he had ignored the instructions and gone to a party over the border in Vermont, officials said.

“Despite having been directed to self-isolate, [he] attended an invitation-only private event on Friday,” the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement.

About 175 people were at the bash, organized by Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business and held at The Engine Room in White River Junction, right across the river from the New Hampshire hospital.

“It’s very disturbing to be honest,” Brandon Fox, the owner and manager of The Engine Room told The Post. “He made a really bad decision.”

If anyone who attended that event contracts the virus and dies, can he be charged with involuntary manslaughter? I don’t think that should be out of the question.

The article notes:

But the patient is believed to have already infected at least one other man — also a Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center employee, officials said. The hospital said both men had no contact with patients.

An order of isolation has now been issued to the egocentric first patient under a state public health law to make sure he doesn’t break the quarantine again.

If he leaves the lockdown now, officials will be able to send police after him to keep him put.

But New Hampshire health officials didn’t respond to questions about if or how they were monitoring his self-quarantine this time around.

Meanwhile, Fox’s event space has been sanitized — twice — and health officials said events could continue.

Not only did this man put other people at risk, he negatively impacted a business. There are consequences to bad behavior. He worked at a medical center, you would think that he would have had some respect for the damage basic germs can do.

I Guess There Just Isn’t Any Truth In Advertising These Days

Posted on by

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about a recent lawsuit against ice cream makers Ben & Jerry. Ben & Jerry’s owners are liberals who very openly support liberal causes. Their advertising claims that in harmony with their ideas about the humane treatment of animals ans the environment, their ice cream is made from milk from happy cows. I never really considered the emotional well being of the cows that supplied the milk for my ice cream, but I suppose it is a somewhat valid concern. Well, evidently all of the milk does not come from happy cows.

The article reports:

Since most of this week in Washington is already shaping up to be a festival of the ridiculous, we may as well toss a few more logs on the bonfire. Up in Vermont, Ben & Jerry’s, the famously liberal ice cream company, is being taken to court over fraudulent advertising, along with its parent company, Unilever. But this suit has nothing to do with the quality or safety of their product. An environmentalist is suing them because of their advertisements claiming that their creamy products are made from milk from “happy cows.” Not so, says the plaintiff! Apparently, many of the cows are simply miserable.

Ben & Jerry’s and parent company Unilever are being sued for false advertising by an environmental advocate who claims the milk and cream used to make flavors like Phish Food are deceptively marketed as coming from “happy cows.”

In a complaint filed Oct. 31 in federal court in Burlington, Vermont, where Ben & Jerry’s was founded, environmental advocate James Ehlers accuses the company and Unilever of deceiving consumers who buy the ice cream because of its pastoral and progessive image.

“During the past several years, Unilever has breached consumer trust by representing the Ben & Jerry’s Products as being made with milk and cream sourced exclusively from “happy cows” on Vermont dairies that participate in a special, humane “Caring Dairy” program,” the lawsuit claims.

The complaint alleges that less than half of the milk used is from the “Caring Dairy” program.

The article explains the program (and the problem):

USA Today looked into the question and found that the Caring Dairy program is indeed real. In order to qualify, farms have to follow certain regulations for how the cows are raised and what sort of environmental “carbon footprint” the operation has. But it’s not all that large, with only 65 farms in the Netherlands and the United States qualifying.

Even if Ben & Jerry’s had cornered the market on all of them, they probably wouldn’t produce enough milk to meet their needs. The company claims they “hope” to work with more farms like these going forward, but it certainly sounds as if they’re not using 100% “happy cow” milk. So maybe the plaintiff is correct.

I am strongly in favor of treating animals humanely. However, I also believe that animals are not people. What we need here is a sense of balance.

There Is A Third Democrat Candidate For President

Posted on by

There are three Democrat candidates who want to run for President in 2016–Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley. Bernie Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist. His voting record is generally in line with liberal ideas. Hillary is running on her accomplishments as Secretary of State, and Martin O’Malley is running on his record as governor of Maryland.

Bernie Sanders wants to make college tuition free, end income inequality, raise the minimum wage, and cut taxes for the middle class. There is no mention of how he is going to pay for any of this. He also says he stands for much higher taxes on businesses and rich people. The man is obviously unfamiliar with the Laffer Curve.

Hillary on March 11, 2014, described her accomplishments as Secretary of State as follows:

My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I’m glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know, the remnants of prior situations and mindsets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture and we didn’t do that and I’m proud of that. Very proud. I would say that’s a major accomplishment.   Hillary Clinton 11 March 2014

That makes my head hurt, but maybe someone can figure out what she said.

The Washington Examiner posted an article today on Martin O’Malley’s record as governor of Maryland. The headline of the article read, “From the ‘rain tax” to the ‘flush tax’: 40 times Martin OMalley raised taxes.”

Do we really want any one of these people running our country?

It’s Easier To Rewrite History If You Delete The Actual Records

Posted on by

I never thought I would agree with Patrick Leahy {Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)}, but in this case he is absolutely right. Eastman’s Online Geneology Newsletter posted an article yesterday about Senator Leahy’s fight to preserve court records that have recently been erased by the government due to a computer update.

The article reports:

“Wholesale removal of thousands of cases from PACER, particularly from four of our federal courts of appeals, will severely limit access to information not only for legal practitioners, but also for legal scholars, historians, journalists, and private litigants for whom PACER has become the go-to source for most court filings,” Leahy wrote Friday to US District Judge John D. Bates, the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AO).

A spokesperson for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said the removals were due to technical differences between the archives maintained by local courts and a new electronic case file system being adopted by the judiciary. The documents are still available on paper but were deleted from online access “without any warning to the public, and without prior notification or consultation with Congress,” according to Senator Leahy.

This may be a totally innocent event, but it is an example of how history can easily be rewritten because so much of our records are digital. When information was in printed books, revising that information was more complicated than it is today. The downside of record books is that there was a period in American history when courthouses would catch fire, burn quickly because of all the records in them, and those records would be lost. Now, in the electronic age, we face the challenge of losing electronic records because the electronic platforms change. When was the last time you watched a videotape rather than a DVD?

Thank you, Senator Leahy, for trying to save the deleted records. I am sure there will be many lawyers and genealogists who will be grateful for your efforts.

An Historic Passing

Posted on by

WCVB.com in Boston is reporting that Maria von Trapp, the last surviving member of the von Trapp family who fled Nazi-occupied of Austria in 1938, has died at age 99. The play and movie “The Sound of Music” were loosely based on a book written by Maria von Trapp’s stepmother, also Maria von Trapp.  After they escaped from Austria, the musical family performed concerts in Europe and America. In the early 1940’s the family settled in Vermont and opened a ski lodge in Stowe.

The death of Maria von Trapp is another reminder that the generation that fought and was impacted by World War II is rapidly disappearing. We need to remember their courage and hold on to the principles they stood for.  Maria’s father, Georg von Trapp, was a captain in the Austrian Navy. He had the wisdom to see where the country was going under the Nazis and the courage to get his family out of there.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does Anyone In Washington Actually Take Responsiblity For Their Actions?

Posted on by

The roll out of ObamaCare has been less than wonderful. The problems with the website are monumental, and very few people have actually enrolled in the exchanges.

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that that 202,586 individuals had successfully signed up for a journey to Mars and 51,000 have actually signed up for ObamaCare. So far, no one in Alaska has signed up and 712 people in Vermont have signed up.

Obviously, ObamaCare is going to fall somewhat short of its goal of signing up 500,000 individuals per month, starting with Oct. 1.

On Thursday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold hearings to find out why ObamaCare is such a miserable failure. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has stated that she has a scheduling conflict and will not be able to testify at those hearings.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The department is also refusing to make available lower-level officials who might detail the source or sources of this debacle. Ducking an investigation with spin is one thing. Responding with a wall of silence to the invitation of a duly elected congressional body probing the use of more than half a billion taxpayer dollars is another. This Obama crowd is something else.

…Eventually Mrs. Sebelius will have to make a real accounting of this government failure to someone other than the TV comic Jon Stewart, and perhaps she can also explain why the people who can’t build a working website also deserve the power to reorganize one-sixth of the U.S. economy. For now, the Administration that styles itself as the most transparent in history won’t reveal the truth—perhaps because it is afraid of what the public will find.

ObamaCare is a nightmare. It has cost Americans full-time jobs and caused their insurance rates to increase drastically. We need to remember who supported this debacle and vote accordingly next year.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Next Cultural Revolution

Posted on by

Wesley Smith at the National Review posted an article today about the next cultural fad–polyamory. The Scientific American posted an article on Valentine’s day entitled, “New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You.” The subtitle of the article was, “What swinging couples and committed polyamorists can teach monogamists about love.” Now in case you are wondering why I am posting this, there is a very simple reason. This is the type of article introduced at the beginning of a push to change a societal norm. I am sure if you go back a number of years, you will find the same sort of article about homosexuality. Unfortunately, I suspect we will soon begin to see articles of this sort of pedophilia.

The article in the Scientific American states:

“People in these relationships really communicate. They communicate to death,” said Bjarne Holmes, a psychologist at Champlain College in Vermont. All of that negotiation may hold a lesson for the monogamously inclined, Holmes told LiveScience.

“They are potentially doing quite a lot of things that could turn out to be things that if people who are practicing monogamy did more of, their relationships would actually be better off,” Holmes said. [6 Scientific Tips for a Successful Marriage]

Heterosexual monogamy is the foundation of our society. We need to be suspicious of anyone who tries to undermine that. Remember, when you take away the foundation, the building falls down.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leading The Way In Spite Of Washington

Posted on by

It doesn’t take a genius to predict that the Obama Administration will shut down fracking (hydraulic fracturing) on government land and attempt to shut down fracking on private land sometime in the next few months. However, in the meantime the increase in fracking in the United States has had unexpected consequences around the world.

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that other countries are attempting to copy the process of fracking to produce shale gas.

The article reports:

…More than 100 exploration concessions to more than two dozen companies have been awarded, and the Polish State Geological Institute estimates that the country’s shale gas deposits may secure domestic production for at least 25 years. Britain has lifted a moratorium on fracking that was imposed after a previous operation was blamed for sparking an earth tremor.

Argentina, the largest producer of natural gas in South America, is eyeing the practice on a significant scale to better exploit its supply.

Needless to say, the environmentalists do not approve. Think about that for a minute. Fracking provides a path to energy independence for a number of nations around the world. It reduces worldwide dependence on Arab oil and the funding of terrorism. There is no proof that fracking harms the environment; in fact, studies so far have shown that it does not. Cheaper energy provides prosperity for more people and freedom for more people. Why would the environmentalists object to that? Maybe it’s time to examine the agenda behind their agenda.

The article concludes:

Some already are warning that Europe may miss out on a global energy revolution if the green forces on the Continent prevail.

“Some European countries already made the decision not to go into shale gas, so naturally when they do that there will not be development,” Mohamed al-Mady, chief executive of Saudi petrochemical giant Sabic, told the Financial Times newspaper. “I think the trend you will see [is] more investors going to North America, China and the Middle East.”

As in the U.S., Mr. Medlock said, it comes down to “political geography” more than anything else. A ban on fracking in Vermont was relatively easy to achieve because the state is thought to have little in the way of recoverable natural gas.

The same holds true in a country such as France, Mr. Medlock said. For Poland and others, where fracking likely will lead to tangible energy benefits, critics will continue to have a tougher time mounting serious opposition.

This is going to be an interesting fight between those who want freedom and prosperity wherever possible and those who want only control of the population.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Latest News On The Vermont Euthanasia Law

Posted on by

The Republic (whose website lists its home as Columbus, Indiana) posted an article on Thursday saying that the Vermont state Senate has defeated an effort to add euthanasia to a tanning bed resolution that would have barred people under eighteen from using tanning beds.

The article reports:

The legislation was designed to set up a system allowing physicians to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to terminally ill patients in the last six months of life who repeatedly asked for it.

The bill had been bottled up in the Judiciary Committee. This week the Health and Welfare committee added it to a separate bill regulating tanning beds.

Lt. Gov. Phil Scott ruled the two measures not germane to one another, and a majority of senators concurred.

For the moment, euthanasia will not be legalized in Vermont, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this battle will continue.

Why do some legislators want to give doctors the right to kill people?

The Hippocratic Oath states:

I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

I realize that we have thrown out that oath in the area of abortion, but do we have to make it worse?

Enhanced by Zemanta

What’s Tanning Got To Do With This ?

Posted on by

A website called the Vermont Press Bureau is reporting today that a “Death with dignity” amendment has been added to a tanning bed regulation that would bar people under the age of eighteen from using tanning beds.

The article reports:

With no discussion and no testimony, the Senate Health and Welfare Committee voted 3-2 in favor of adding the death with dignity amendment to the tanning bed bill and then voted 3-2 to approve the overall tanning bed bill.

A battle will surely ensue in the Senate — which is closely divided  on death with dignity — over whether the physician-assisted suicide amendment is “germane” to the tanning bed legislation.

But Sen. Hinda Miller, a Chittenden County Democrat who sponsored the amendment, argued it is germane because both bills are related to cancer. The tanning bed bill is designed to prevent it, and physician-assisted suicide would be used by people dying from it, Miller said.

This is not a good direction to be moving in.

The article reports that the Vermont leadership is divided on the bill:

Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell is opposed to the physician-assisted suicide bill, but Gov. Peter Shumlin and House Speaker Shap Smith support it.

Stay tuned.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Protecting The Rights Of Dead Voters

Posted on by
Cover of "Stealing Elections: How Voter F...

Cover via Amazon

As I mentioned on March 14th at rightwinggranny.com, James O’Keefe was in Vermont filming people getting ballots to vote after claiming to be people who were dead. No member of his crew who asked for a ballot actually voted, but they could have–that is the point.

So what is the Vermont Secretary of State James Condos going to do about this problem? Investigate James O’Keefe of course!

The article at Big Government reports:

“Same day voter registration is a major incentive to commit fraud. It allows you to register and vote on election day,” explains journalist John Fund, author of Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, which is something of a Bible for election fraud analysts. “Once your ballot is put in with all the others, detecting the fraud is almost impossible. In Vermont, the possibilities of voter fraud are so real that it almost sends the invitations in the mail.”

Condos is threatening O’Keefe for doing his job. “My next phone call is to [Attorney General] Bill Sorrell’s office,” Condos told the Burlington Free Press after learning about O’Keefe’s video. 

Still, in the event that O’Keefe were to be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed in Vermont, he need not worry about casting a ballot to replace Condos. In Vermont and Maine, you can even vote from a jail cell.

It should not be news (based on the name of this website) that I am hoping for a new President to be sworn in next year. However, more than that, I am hoping for an honest election where each person’s vote is a legal vote and has equal value. I think voter identification laws are a part of that package.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta