Why a Mandatory COVID Vaccine is Unconstitutional

A mandatory COVID-19 vaccine might save lives, but that doesn’t mean it would be constitutional.  Many say “we must do what the doctors say,” without any thought for Constitutional restrictions.  Neither medical nor constitutional factors may properly be analyzed in a vacuum: when brought together, there is no question that a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination law would conflict violently with the U.S. Constitution.

New York’s Bar Association recently called for the imposition of mandatory vaccinations, stating

The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) is recommending that the state consider mandating a COVID-19 vaccine once a scientific consensus emerges that it is safe, effective and necessary…. “The magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented over the last 100 years by any measure – the number of lives lost, the survivors who remain seriously ill, the risks faced by health care workers, the disproportionate impact on communities of color, the profound trauma and the disruption to our economy,” said NYSBA President Scott M. Karson.

The New York Bar has committed gross legal malpractice in this declaration: it has misrepresented both the law and the facts.  

The Constitutional law regarding states’ use of police powers to protect public health and safety is well established.  ANY infringement by government of a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny, which chiefly incorporates two concepts: that in such cases the government’s interest must be “compelling” (what the NY Bar refers to as “necessary”); and that it be accomplished by the “least restrictive means.” Under this standard, “… the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.”  Further, “[t]his test applies even when the government has a legitimate purpose in adopting the particular law.”

There is no question that restricting travel, assembly, or speech impacts a fundamental constitutional liberty: all of these have been compromised under COVID.  But America has never compelled vaccinations without exemptions (or the option to pay a criminal fine).  Is the dramatic intrusion of compulsory vaccinations “necessary”?  

Comparing Diseases

To evaluate just how grossly incorrect the New York Bar is in its position, let us compare diseases.  Surely the government would have constitutional difficulty mandating a human papillomavirus vaccine, or say, injected vitamin supplements.  Regardless of whether these were “safe and effective,” the intrusion on individual liberties would surely be “unnecessary.”  On the other end of this comparative spectrum might be ebola, an illness with a mortality rate of up to 90% that targets pregnant women and the very young — few would argue the government lacked constitutional “necessity” in the event of an ebola outbreak in the United States.

The legal question of the constitutionality of mandatory vaccinations is thus dependent on the medical evidence — how deadly is COVID-19?  COVID-19 occupies a relatively innocuous position on that spectrum of deadly scourges, and the rates of mortality are declining.  That is, the medical evidence falls far short of surmounting that legal standard of strict scrutiny required by the United States Constitution.

The seminal case on the constitutionality of forced government vaccinations is Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed Massachusetts’ authority to impose mandatory smallpox vaccinations.  Yet Jacobson does not answer today’s COVID-vaxx question: smallpox was unquestionably a much more deadly illness.

In reaching its decision in 1905, the Court was circumspect:

Smallpox being prevalent and increasing at Cambridge, the court would usurp the functions of another branch of government if it adjudged, as matter of law, that the mode adopted under the sanction of the State, to protect the people at large was arbitrary and not justified by the necessities of the case. We say necessities of the case because it might be that an acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all, might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons. (p.28)

The New York Bar’s proposal to mandate vaccinations for COVID goes “…far beyond what is reasonably required for the safety of the public….”  

The Jacobson Court specifically cited (p. 29) yellow fever and Asiatic cholera as comparable diseases warranting quarantine or other restrictions on personal liberty.  Yellow fever has a mortality rate of 15-50% of reported cases; Asiatic cholera kills in mere hours, with a mortality rate approaching 50%; smallpox killed 30% of those infected.  How would the Jacobson Court have evaluated COVID-19, especially if the law imposed a mandatory vaccination without the escape path of paying a fine?

COVID-19 does not rise to that level of medical “necessity” required by existing American law for a person’s rights (and body) to be violated by government in the name of “protection of health.”  Current studies reveal that it is primarily the very elderly who are at risk and should be protected:

…the infection fatality rate is lowest in people five to nine years of age (0.001%), increasing to 0.1% among those 25 to 29 years of age, almost 1% among those 60 to 64 years of age, and is highest among those 80 years and older (8.4%).

Will the New York Bar mandate vaccinations for children who face a .001% mortality rate, to protect the small minority of citizens who face an 8.4% risk of death?  That would seem to turn Jacobson on its head:

…in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand. (p.29)

The Constitutional (and Health) Balance

Does the risk of death to a minority elderly population legally justify imposing intrusive burdens on the majority?  This is the opposite of imposing a vaccination regimen on a minority to protect the majority, as occurred in Jacobson.

And remember, those rates of COVID death are dropping:

The standardized mortality ratio dropped from 1.26 (95% CI, 1.15-1.39) in March to 0.38 (95% CI, 0.12-0.88) in August, at which time the average probability of death (average marginal effect) was 18.2 percentage points lower than in March.

COVID is now rampant, increasing herd immunity well ahead of a government-imposed pharmaceutical rescue.   It is also less deadly, and a very far cry from the menaces of ebola, yellow fever, smallpox, or cholera that would justify government power to forcibly stick a needle in a child’s arm.  (Perhaps New York will simply prohibit the unvaccinated from being able to buy or sell goods….).

Citizens must learn these clear legal precedents for themselves.  As for the New York Bar, it should be disbarred: for evident legal malpractice.

Vermont “Tax Structure Commission” Proposes Sales Taxes for Groceries

A recent bureaucratic “Report” recommends expanding Vermont’s sales tax to include food, groceries, electricity and clothing to… help the poor!  The Vermont Tax Structure Commission (VTSC) argues “broadening the tax base” will be easier for government, and more equitable than current exemptions because sales tax revenues will be redistributed “equitably” to the poor.  Unsurprisingly, the method of “equitably” calculating and disbursing this massive revenue increase is unstated.

Sales taxes are inherently regressive.  VTSC acknowledges this quite openly (p.22):

Sales taxes are by their nature regressive…. This means that including groceries and other necessities, as we recommend, adds to regressivity. However, we do not make this recommendation in isolation. We note the vital importance of protecting low-income households from bearing any additional burden, and in Chapter 5 we recommend a comprehensive review of the income, transfers, and taxes for low-income Vermonters to ensure that… no one is bearing an undue burden of taxation relative to their resources….

But this monstrous report offers nearly zero policy ideas to “equitably” redistribute the money to the poor, blithely offering:

In particular, we believe there are more efficient ways to protect low-income Vermonters from the burden of a sales tax on necessities, and more effective ways to promote public goods than exemptions from the sales tax…. A significant portion of the new revenue resulting from the broadened sales tax would be deployed to strengthen and rationalize the distribution system to support lower-income Vermonters, and to make sure that no one is harmed by the tax changes…. [I]t is important to find a mechanism to distribute these payments on at least a monthly basis, and bi-weekly would be even better. (pp. 11, 12, 40)

But the “particulars” are unstated; the “mechanism to distribute” is unknown (though “important to find”); there is no “distribution system to support lower-income Vemonters,” let alone one that can be monetarily “rationalized.”  The tax-and-spend double-speak a-la-COVID translation is: “There are more efficient ways to protect poor people from taxes than exempting them from tax.”  It literally says that.

The Real Problems, Hidden

In contrast, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Reports:

Existing credits and rebates designed to offset the sales tax often fail to provide significant relief for many low-income families. To offset fully the sales tax on food for the low- and moderate-income families on which it imposes a significant burden, a credit or rebate should meet two tests. First, it should be available to all poor and near-poor individuals and families who are exposed to the tax. Second, it should be large enough to offset the sales tax on a family’s grocery purchases. None of the seven states now administering sales tax credits or rebates meet these two tests. (p. 30)

The report then lists numerous additional inefficiencies of credit programs.

Vermont’s latest tax restructuring proposal addresses neither of these concerns — it offers no substantive plans to fairly redistribute sales taxes on food.  But there is endless justification of how this plan will help the government:

By trying to use the sales tax as a tool to encourage community goods, and exemptions from the sales tax for necessities as a tool to protect low-income Vermonters, the legislature puts itself in the position of having to decide what’s necessary, and what’s good, and what’s not. Food is a necessity; is soda? Is candy? Does the legislature want to be in the business of making judgements about what’s necessary if it doesn’t have to? Clothing is necessary; is a $50 hat? ….The legislature is charged with making these difficult and important distinctions when necessary, but all other things being equal, it is probably better to reduce subjectivity in the tax code when possible. (p. 84)

But all things are most definitely not equal — these proposals would create inequities while increasing bureaucratic administration costs.  The VTSC Paper (packed with subjective “climate change tax policy”) also advises expanding Vermont’s sales tax to education and most services.  It draws distinctions between which classes of healthcare providers will be taxed (much like soda versus celery).  Frighteningly, it “puts the legislature in the business of making judgements [sic] about” who gets money, how much, and when.  

State Money-grab from the Poor

Vermonters tightened their belts under COVID; their state’s bureaucracy expanded its belly, and is hungry for “broadened revenue streams” to save Vermonters from their impoverishment.  The VTSC is optimistic about it’s amorphous plan:

In general, we conclude that exempting broad categories of necessities is not an efficient way to protect low-income Vermonters from the financial burden of paying a sales tax on necessities…. (p. 68).

(Get that, again? — government should tax food, because not taxing food is not an efficient way to protect people from… taxes on food. Go ahead — read it, that’s what it says.)

Vermont’s Progressive Majority consistently transfers money inefficiently from one group to another, always enlarging the government bite.  Now they wish to tax bread, to “feed the poor.”  

Let them tax cake!

Will the Federal Government Deprogram Subconscious Racism? (A Clockwork Black)

The fallacy that America is “systemically racist” is rooted in arguments that the white majority suffers from subconscious racism which contaminates the “system.”  Proponents of Critical Race Theory and government-created “Equity” insist they have yet-to-be-discovered solutions, including conditioning of those who suffer “white guilt” and white fragility.”  President Joe Biden has eagerly joined this crusade to…. eliminate subconscious racism!

White Americans are kept in the dark as to the details of this enlightened reprogramming, but are told that the Bill of Rights is an impediment to these lofty new goals to eradicate systemic biases.  The first step in eliminating subconscious racism is to stifle conscious thoughts: the liberties of Free Speech and Due Process are viewed as tools of oppression by the white majority.  

It is axiomatic that government cannot eliminate subconscious racism.  Yet, government can be very effective at fomenting racism, as numerous current and historical examples demonstrate.  America is about to try it’s hand at this folly.

Government conditioning to eradicate human evil is hardly novel.  But what happens when government seeks to do great good, by conquering the individual human will to do great evil?  How will the BLM Utopian Police State eradicate human racism?  Is this not the same old reconditioning Kool-aid of Pol Pot and Mao, poured into newly-manufactured George Floyd bottles?

A Clockwork Black?

Anthony Burgess famously delved into this subject, in 1963.  In his iconic novel “A Clockwork Orange,” a seemingly incorrigible criminal is redeemed using “science” — only, the experiment fails miserably.  Burgess was delving into exactly the issue America’s extremist progressives deliberately obfuscate: the horror of government reprogramming.  

In a 2012 essay, Burgess plainly explained what he had tried to express through fiction:

I had read somewhere that it would be a good idea to liquidate the criminal impulse through aversion therapy; I was appalled…. What I was trying to say was that it is better to be bad of one’s own free will than to be good through scientific brainwashing…. I have been derided and rebuked for expressing my fears of the power of the modern state—whether it be Russia, China, or what we may term Anglo-America—to reduce the freedom of the individual…. The behaviorist approach to man, of which Professor Skinner is a great exponent, sees him moved to various kinds of action by aversive and non-aversive inducements. Given the right positive inducements… we shall all become better citizens, submissive to a state that has the good of the community at heart. We must, so the argument goes, not fear conditioning. We need to be conditioned in order to save the environment and the race. But it must be conditioning of the right sort…. 

The goal of the “American Experiment” was to secure equal opportunity for all.   Efforts at “equity” aim for a sun that will melt the wings of such fairy-like dreams while depriving citizens of even an aspirational hope of equality of opportunity.  Today’s quixotic, counterproductive BLM movement is no different.  One does not abolish racism by decree, any more than lewd thoughts.  One conquers racism through love, not fear and hate.  

This transfer of a sort of “dark-church” authority to the secular state is reflected in the COVID panic, and how quickly many Americans wish to abandon the Constitution in trust of Big Brother — and Big Brother Pharma.  Orwell warned of the power of an omnipotent state to inflict unprecedented destruction upon the human condition.  It is ironic that ALL Americans are familiar with Orwell’s books, but so few absorb that his warnings applied to all government structures — not just the Soviet Union.

Burgess explained that his title “Clockwork Orange” derived from “…an old Cockney slang phrase, implying a queerness or madness so extreme as to subvert nature, since could any notion be more bizarre than that of a clockwork orange?”  Today’s world looks more akin to a “Clockwork Black,” in which the techno-state and modern alienation have pushed humanity far away from awareness of its own soul.  Far too many Americans are lining up to be absorbed willingly into that dead machine.

Said Burgess: 

[W]hen the social entity grows large, …the governing machine becomes remote, impersonal, even inhuman. It takes money from us for purposes we do not seem to sanction; it treats us as abstract statistics; it controls an army; it supports a police force whose function does not always appear to be protective…. The modern state, whether in a totalitarian or a democratic country, has far too much power, and we are probably right to fear it…. Pre-natal and infantile conditioning makes the slaves happy in their slavery, and stability is enforced not through whips but through a scientifically imposed contentment…. It would seem that enforced conditioning of a mind, however good the social intention, has to be evil.

Clearly, BLM activists (and Joe Biden) have not read Burgess.  Antifa is well-steeped in blackness. The Clockwork Black, ticks.

President Big Brother?

And so Joe Biden declared that “… he had a mandate to achieve racial justice and root out systemic racism in this country.”  As with other extremists, he defines neither what that term means, nor how he will eliminate subconscious bias.  Instead he confidently proclaimed:

“Again, I’m not promising we can end it tomorrow, but I promise you we’re going to continue to make progress to eliminate systemic racism, and every branch of the White House and the federal government is going to be part of that effort….” 

Exposing in practical terms the limitations posed by Anthony Burgess, Cal Thomas recently opined:

In addition to reinstating mandatory race theory training for federal employees, Biden proposes spending even more money we don’t have to fix a problem beyond the government’s reach. As with original sin, curing racism is best solved internally. It is a matter of the heart. If racism is systemic, meaning it is embedded in white people, how is it possible to eliminate it? Do those on the receiving end of discrimination have a role to play? This is a question Democrats never address. If spending money is the key to limiting racism, more progress should have been made by now.

Such common sense is shunned — soon it will be silenced as a typical gaslighting by a white person who must be silenced.  There are ominous harbingers from the Biden Administration:

President Biden signed four executive actions Tuesday aimed at increasing racial equity across the nation, a move the administration said was a big early step in his efforts to dismantle systemic racism, though civil rights groups made it clear they will press for more-sweeping change in the months ahead.

Time will tell how effective this government is at sweeping away subconscious hatreds, rather than inculcate new ones.  The ticking of the Clockwork Black grows audible….

How could such grand designs be anything but “good”? 

Legislation Vilifies Vermont Farmers as White Supremacists

Vermont House Bill H.273 calls for $10,000,000 to assist BIPOC people to purchase land in every Vermont town.  As justification, Vermont’s farming community, and generations of dirt-poor white farmers, are denigrated in a cascade of blatant falsehoods that allege their complicity in Indian genocide and sharecropping.  The bill could have been about helping poor black people; instead it is about condemning poor white ones.  

H.273 alleges

Prior to Vermont self-declaring its occupation of the land in 1777, it is estimated that at least 10,000 Indigenous persons were living in the region, specifically upwards of 4,000 Abenaki living in the Champlain Valley.

Thus begins an endless tirade against Vermont’s indigenous white dairymen, invoking  the Dawes Act, Jim Crow laws, “federal land policies,” “redlining,” the “Servicemen’s Readjustment Act,” and even sharecropping:

Sharecropping was the federal government prohibiting Black farmers from owning property and as a result they were forced to rent land from White landlords. Many Black farmers at this time experienced unfair terms and agreements.

The 1910 U.S. Census (Table 1, p. 577) identified 34 Indians residing in Vermont in 1890; 5 in 1900; 26 in 1910, and fewer than 1,000 “Negroes” in 1890 and 1900; 1,621 by 1910. The 1960 Census (Table 15) reflects 572 black residents in 1920, 568 in 1930, 584 in 1940, 443 in 1950, and 519 in 1960.  Hundreds of thousands of white Vermonters have endured a crushing poverty that “native” Vermonters well know, but which those who condemn them recast as “white privilege.”   H.273 claims that BIPOC people with no connection to Vermont, or farming, or the land, or Abenakis, or resources, must be given land because of a historic oppression that never occurred. 

For 100 years, Vermont’s dairy farms and communities have steadily declined.  White children starved, and were crippled or killed in farm accidents on white farms.  They rarely had healthcare, usually lacked decent clothing or shoes, often lacked teeth.  There was no Abenaki genocide — and no sharecropping oppression — on Vermont’s dairy farms.  

H.273 re-writes this suffering, as oppression:

During and since these early days of colonization and slavery, due to local, State, and federal policies that were intentionally developed to economically, socially, and racially discriminate against members of the BIPOC community, multi-generational poverty has created a disturbing disproportionate wealth gap for land and home ownership in what we now know as Vermont and the United States…. The foundation of our current economic system was built on land that was taken from Abenaki and other Indigenous persons, and the structures of our economic system were constructed with the labor of enslaved persons. The legacy of settler colonialism and chattel slavery has been systemic racism and discrimination embedded into many aspects of our modern way of life on this land.

There were 32,709 farms per the 1910 Census (Supplement Table 1): 28,968 “Native white;” 3,721 “Foreign-born white;” and 20 “Negro and other nonwhite.”  Today barely 600 of those 32,709 dairy farms remain.  Following the Spanish Flu, “…many rural Vermonters… left the grinding poverty of hill farms and moved to urban areas of southern New England and elsewhere to work in war production factories.”  Then the Great Depression descended, followed by continuing decline…. ever since!  The dairy industry is worse than ever — COVID hurt dairy farmers, and milk prices remain abysmal. 

H.273 legislate an alternate reality:

The laws and policies of our State and nation severed Indigenous persons from their land while denying them, Black persons, and other Persons of Color from having the opportunity to access and to own land. These actions of the State led to systemic racism that has impacted all Vermonters who have historically suffered from discrimination and who have not had equal access to public or private economic benefits due to race, ethnicity, sex, geography, language preference, immigrant or citizen status, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, or disability status…. In order to offer repair for the systemic discrimination faced by many persons throughout the State over the past four centuries, the State of Vermont must engage in a just transition to an economic system that systemically undoes racism instead of reinforcing it. 

H.273, like its upside-down perversion of Vermont history, does the opposite: it “transitions to an economic system that systemically reinforces racism that the Vermont and federal Constitutions have sought to undo.”  It justifies racism using racist labels, manipulates statistics and re-writes history, while ignoring constitutional law that prohibits such race-only legislation, in an open attack on an impoverished, long-suffering, decent culture and people.  

This is legislative exploitation, of long-marginalized rural white people.

Vermont Progressives Fabricate Racism to Justify Decriminalizing Prostitution

Ten Vermont legislators have sponsored a Bill (H.268) to creat a “Sex Work StudyCommittee” concerning the legalization of prostitution in Vermont.  But this bill strives to re-write Vermont history via an absurdly vacuous lie that Vermont prohibited prostitution because of “white supremacist” motives.  In fact the impetus for banning prostitution in Vermont and elsewhere was from feminists and suffragettes.  How then could ten elected Vermont representatives draft — and seek to establish as law — something so patently false? 

House Bill 268, referenced to the Judiciary Committee on February 17, states:

Sec. 1. FINDINGS AND INTENT 19 (a) The majority of Vermont’s laws on prostitution were adopted more than 100 years ago and have remained largely unchanged since that time…. Historically, these types of laws were used to prosecute men of color for having relationships with white women. 

It’s bad enough the world must contend with actual racism, without these partisan legislators fabricating nonexistent racist history to justify….  “developing a modern approach to State involvement in sexual activity for hire by consenting adults.”  Perhaps legalizing prostitution makes sense — but how can the subject be legitimately addressed, now that it has been tarnished with such a baldface lie as justification.  Since this assertion or “finding” is the foundation of this Bill, and since it is demonstrably false, why continue with the next section?  This farce has no legitimacy — it is a prostitution of legislative process to advance racist partisanship, yet again.

These legislators cannot point to a single case of such a thing ever happening in Vermont, the most BIPOC-friendly state of all America since its founding.  If they could prove a single incident, would they impute a racist motive to Vermont’s entire 1915 Legislature?  Damn right they would!  If elected officials slander their own people, surely they must possess and procure evidence other than an unsubstantiated “historically, these types of laws were used….”  After all, they have now made it an issue in a prostitution bill.

In truth, (and until these traitors re-write the Encyclopedia Britannica to accord with their toxic fictionalizations):

In the late 19th century….  With the rise of feminism, many came to regard male libertinism as a threat to women’s status and physical health…. Antiprostitution campaigns flourished from the 1860s, often in association with temperance and women’s suffrage movements. International cooperation to end the traffic in women for the purpose of prostitution began in 1899. In 1921 the League of Nations established the Committee on the Traffic in Women and Children, and in 1949 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a convention for the suppression of prostitution…. By 1915 nearly all states had passed laws that banned brothels or regulated the profits of prostitution…. Authorities also intervened to prevent girls from being coerced into prostitution (“white slavery”). 

Women initiated the prohibition of prostitution to prevent white slavery, and now a deluded clan of Progressive white Vermont legislators have introduced a law that claims these old laws were passed not to protect white women victims, but black male ones.  If ever there was a revealing example of utter lies and slander being used to advance a racist-driven ideology of contempt, H.268 is the petri dish.  These uneducated rubes have gone streaking in the Vermont snowdrifts for all to see, shivering in the frigid stillness of vapid stupidity.  

Perhaps the adroit Vermont media will inquire of these legislators for an example or two of Vermonters’ forebears halting black men at the borders to Canada and Massachusetts from leaving the state with white Vermont gals in tow (in between smuggling slaves to Vermont via the Underground Railroad).  Or perhaps, after electing the first BIPOC man to a state legislature (in 1836!), Vermont decided by 1915 to reverse course and (silently, perhaps subconsciously) abandon its well-established record of welcoming tolerance to persecute the 1,173 black men who lived here (per U.S. 1910 census, Table 2).  

Race activists assert (in the area of racial disparities in the criminal justice system) that “…the matter of reducing racial disparities must not – under any circumstances – be seen as a partisan issue.”  How could anything be more obviously partisan than fabricating race-baiting lies to “liberate” Vermont from the criminalization of sex for hire?  Vermont’s factually-deficient crew of virtue-signalling H.268 sponsors have pushed racist shaming to new pinnacles of Pinnochian proboscises and partisan ptooey.  

Is passing lies as laws the new social justice pattern for America, or just Vermont?  Accountability is past due.  Will Vermont’s Progressive Supermajority Legislature, bent on using any Alinskian means available, actually pass legislation this false in order to allow young women (of any color) to sell their bodies freely?  

Vermont will see, soon enough.

Facebook Blocks American Thinker Articles from Boosting

Facebook has consistently prevented factually accurate American Thinker (AT) articles from being boosted, while permitting the promotion of meanspirited liberal doggerel.
“Boosting” on Facebook is a paid service whereby businesses or individuals can pay to promote their posts more widely, including to target audiences. Over the last three weeks Facebook has refused boosting for seven articles that I wrote for AT, but has allowed me to boost a CNN article that was ideological.

My writing is my art, as well as my political speech and ultimate “free expression.” It is based on decades of study as an attorney, farmer, and intellectual. I am not paid anything to write for AT — my wage is a sense of meaningful contribution to important dialogues.

Facebook does not owe me a platform. But does it owe me honesty? Shall it parade as open and unbiased while censors one political view over another? This is neither journalism, nor “social media” — it is something sinister, restrictive of liberty, insidiously pernicious. If the platform is not equal, and quells facts and legal scholarship in favor of ranting tripe, it should advertise that, fairly. 

Articles Rejected

On February 1, AT published my commentary reporting the launch in Vermont of a new acronymical class of citizens granted special status: ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves). This group excludes Native Americans and Jews, classifying based on a presumed historical prejudice but excluding other marginalized groups. Too extreme for Facebook: boost denied.

On February 12 my piece on regressive taxation by those calling themselves progressive — an incontrovertibly well-established factual argument using links to public documents — was rejected for boosting by Facebook. Similarly, on February 15 my discussion of an overtly racist, incendiary Vermont BLM poet was deemed unworthy of paid dissemination. Not one media outlet in America (aside from AT) has reported these hateful railings against rural Vermonters. Facebook is ensuring it stays that way.

On February 17 AT published my revelations that Vermont (like many states) threw federal meals guidelines to the wind — and a great deal of CO2 and pollutants as well — when it used fleets of school buses to deliver meals to pretty much anybody who wanted one. This was never approved by voters, was gratuitously regressive (guidelines could easily have been preserved), and environmentally incompetent. But Facebook ensured fewer voters learned of these truths, rejecting the boost (in the name of stopping “false news”?). February 18th featured a commentary relating a horrible rant in the Vermont House by a representative who called his own constituency white supremacists — during a devotional! Too hot for Facebook: “Boost Rejected!

Liberal Post Boosted

But on February 19, I posted (and successfully boosted) a CNN opinion piece railing against Vermont because it didn’t pay $10,000 enticements to immigrants of color to relocate to Vermont as part of its (deservedly infamous) “pay-to-come-live-here” program. But to allocate money based solely on race is patently unconstitutional; this person is neither an attorney nor a Vermonter; the piece is slanderous and negative, lacking supportive evidence or law. Facebook will allow me (a conservative) to pay them money to promote something false, slanderous against my state, and that I did not pen, but denies me the ability to promote my own scholarly work.  

After wincing through a paid promotion of a patently toxic CNN commentary, I discovered a new hurdle when my February 20 AT piece was posted on Facebook: the message “Boost Unavailable.” Apparently my persistence had incurred an algorithmic rebuke, and now I was not even permitted to try to boost my AT writing. This article related an incident in Vermont where a newly-created “Race and Inclusion Committee” announced it would draft policies based on closed hearings at which white people were banned. This is flagrantly unconstitutional, and unreported in national news media.But Facebook says “verboten.” 

February 21 marked my seventh boost rejection of an AT article by Facebook in less than three weeks. This article considered the call by Vermont’s “Executive Director of Racial Equity” to pause regulatory initiatives to reduce Vermont’s CO2 footprint because “deadlines reinforce a white supremacist culture.” 

Free Exchange of Ideas Compromised

Almost all of my articles are commentaries built on facts which are then used for discussion. Is reporting facts — regressive tax policies, exclusive meetings based on melanin pigment, contents of a devotional, poetry that calls for jailing and killing white people, using school buses to deliver meals inequitably, a novel acronym, a “race official” calling to halt global warming solutions — the equivalent of political statements? As we see here, facebook blocked the dissemination of facts in the name of…  a mysterious process that remains in the dark. This is two-faced; Darkbook; Orwellian fascism.

Poland is well ahead of the United States in preserving liberties: it has legislated fines against companies that institute stealth filtration of speech:

“Freedom of speech is not something that anonymous moderators working for private companies should decide,” said [Deputy Minister of Justice Sebastian] Kaleta…. Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki announced… in a Facebook post, ironically enough, that ….“We are now increasingly faced with practices we believed were left in the past,” he added. “The censoring of free speech, once the domain of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, is now back, but in a new form, run by corporations who silence those who think differently.” “Discussion consists in the exchange of views, not in silencing people. We do not have to agree with what our opponents write, but we cannot forbid anyone from expressing views that do not contravene the law,” he added. 

America is the opposite — Democrats have openly, vulgarly, demanded that these same entities filter conservatives out and leave dumb lies in.  

Facebook will not likely permit boosting of this commentary. Therefore, please “post and share” it… freely.

Oh Xusana! Vermonters Told Racism Supersedes Climate Change!

Xusana Davis, Vermont’s newfangled “Executive Director of Racial Equity” has chosen to butt her head against an implacable wall: global warming.  The Executive Director invokes race as cause celebre for EVERY societal ill — she claims poor white Vermonters discriminated against (nonexistent) blacks when they transferred their (historically worthless) lands “intergenerationally.”  Now she claims Vermont’s acclaimed plan to save the planet through a Global Warming Solutions Council is white supremacist… because it sets a deadline!

Davis either doesn’t credit AOC’s ten-year life expectancy for the planet, or she just wants to rearrange the deck furniture on the Titanic for BIPOC people while hitting the climate-catastrophe iceberg full speed ahead.  Xusana appeared at a January hearing to demand that statutory mandatory carbon emission reduction timelines be extended to allow for racial tinkering:

Well, I’m going to say it, and you’re going to say, oh that’s not an option. But reconsider: Change the deadline. And I know what you’re thinking, this might require a long legislative process, or hey, but we set a date, and it’s what we wanted. 

But here’s the thing, though. If we really want to do something right and do it equitably, we’re not going to have to remain beholden to a timeline that we ourselves made up and can change. So I do urge you, if slowing down the process to perfect it will lead to equitable policies, then do that. Because that’s more important, I think, than the times we set for ourselves. 

It is unclear what policies Ms. Davis seeks delay to implement: perhaps she just wishes to hold Vermont hostage to climate annihilation long enough to “raise awareness” of the 4% of Vermont’s population that is BIPOC.  Though, with all the hoopla about systemic racism, and perverted statistics employed to slander Vermont’s entire law enforcement community as racist, Vermonters sure are woke and well aware of that 4% presence.  As with this incident, it has taken priority over all else (including sanity).

Vermont’s Global Warming Solutions Act is an unconstitutional, ineffectual  farce that grants huge powers to renewable energy interests at the expense of ALL taxpayers.  Using the race card to slow or stop the GWSA boondoggle is the best use of racism on behalf of Vermonters yet!  But, it creates a public friction within the social justice warrior camp — who shall they rescue first, the marginalized ecosystem, or marginalized BIPOC? 

Xusana sure doesn’t mince her volatile activist words when she’s laying out the white virtue-signalling climate warriors:

That’s the most polite way that I can put it. Because other folks will phrase it as follows: other folks will phrase it as, deadlines are a tool of white supremacy. I don’t usually refer to deadlines as the tools of white supremacy, but deadlines often do reinforce a white supremacy culture that prizes itself more on the process than equitable outcomes.” 

Xusana is always very polite when she says toxic things.  (Other folks would differently phrase how she talks as, like a racist opportunist on a power trip, but I don’t talk that way.  But such people do exist, or so I’m told….).

This revealing internecine conflict is a welcome exposé on the priorities that must be faced when diverting society’s resources en masse to conflicting “existential emergencies,” whether race, gender, or climate.  One can only hope that the intersectionality of these supposed causes forces more reality-checks. 

For instance, the racial justice warriors have already dissed the feminists (or, at least the non-intersectional white ones: lesbians, not so clear yet).  For a (white) woman to say “As a woman, I know what you go through as a racial minority,” is specifically labeled as an intolerable microaggression, because it is “a statement made when whites deny their racial biases.”  It’s just so comforting to be know that BIPOC people are not capable of racial bias, or accountable to anyone for any consciously racist thing they might unconsciously say….. Free at last!

While the black and white ladies work out their doublespeak (with lesbians, and don’t forget transgenders, and Indians, and Jews) over who claims the higher social justice authority, at least Xusana Davis will block the implementation of Vermont’s white supremacist process at the expense of equitable outcomes!  As a white (and Abenaki) Vermonter, I do not want Xusana Davis or anyone else to permit some looming planetary catastrophe to hinder the creation of a racial utopia in the Green Mountains for wronged BIPOC.

Oh Xusana, oh don’t comply for me!

(Published February 21, 2021 at American Thinker.)

Vermont “Inclusion and Belonging Department” Averts “White Gaze”

The racist power redistribution effort in Vermont is out in the open, but the discussions of its (BIPOC) strategists are not.  At one meeting in the ultra-progressive Vermont Mecca of Burlington, white people (including media and elected representatives) were dismissed from a “listening session for people of color.” 

Burlington’s “Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging Department” is not interested in whether white people feel like they belong — its Director, Tyeastia Green, has been imported to Vermont (like the George Floyd incident) from Minnesota.  Activist blacks who have suffered urban oppression are in short supply in Vermont, so they are bussed in — Green was in Vermont for less than a year before implementing this “BIPOCs only” insult.

Another transplant agitator is Skylar Nash, who moved to Vermont from Chicago and decided to shamelessly shame its denizens about how their crushing racism destroyed him.  He and Green justified why their overtly racist meeting was “only open to community members of color”:

“If you have media in there, listening, it wouldn’t have allowed to create a safe space for people to have confidence that what’s going to be shared in those breakout rooms, and in that listening session, would stay among BIPOC people,” Nash said after the meeting, referring to Black, Indigenous and people of color…. “I would just continue to hope that members of the media as well as white community members, city workers, would really not take something like this as an affront or effort to hide something,” Nash said, “but really to provide a space that on a day to day basis is not readily available to BIPOC people in the city.” Green later told VTDigger the meeting was not closed off to the media, only to white members of the media. “It’s very important to have spaces that are designated just for us,” Green said. “We need our own space so we can engage with each other without the white gaze.” 

What if white Vermonters held “whites-only” meetings in safe spaces in opposition to systemic racism imported to Vermont from Chicago, Minneapolis, and other urban quagmires?  They might attract BIPOC gazes, but not government power and funding, as this cloaked group does.  This is plainly illegal.

The “Inclusion Department” name rings Orwellian, as does the elitist argument.  George Orwell put it in children’s terms so even backwoods white farmers would see it clearly: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

Green wants to set a new standard for language (doublespeak?), as she doesn’t like the word “diversity.”  Her resource for these new initiatives?  She just made it up, and is developing it for the majority-white community by listening to BIPOC voices only:

She said the idea for a racial equity strategic plan came from her office when she entered the newly created position back in February. The plan will be developed from the information derived from the community listening sessions, Green said. There is no set timeline for completion of the plan.

These are carpetbagger plans.  They violate every sense of the words civil, Constitutional, equitable, representative, and American.  They are particularly noxious to Vermont, the first state to ban slavery, the first state to admit a black man to college, and the only state to elect a BIPOC American to a state legislature before the Civil War (to which it participated with extraordinary valor and sacrifice).  

In his prophetic The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies., Professor Ryszard Legutko observes that people like Green and Nash develop a certain type of mentality:

In one sense, this person may think that he performs something particularly valuable to humanity; in another, the situation helps him to develop a sense of power otherwise unavailable to him; and in a third, he often cannot resist the temptation to indulge in a low desire to harm others with impunity. (p. 103)

Hold on, we’ve seen this before — the pigs who move into the farmer’s house in Orwell’s Animal Farm!  Nash and Green are merely ideological elites, slurping at Vermont’s unguarded trough!  (Vermonters had best check whether the United States Constitution is still scrawled on their barns!)

BIPOC interlopers with ideological sledgehammers think they hit the Mother Lode in Vermont, where a very tolerant populace IS silent while they are sheared to the bone by insensitive, deaf-eared bigots.  But these new bigots — of any color: both white and BIPOC abound — may find that they attract a whole new kind of gaze, as they insult and malign the indigenous population of rural Vermonters, black and white.  (Many black Vermonters, too, object to race-based public meetings.)  

This conduct in the oxymoronic name of “Inclusion” is anathema to Vermont, and America.  It is “systemic” (institutionalized) racism, plain to see.  It will be “tolerated” no more than any other overtly racist government action.

Vermont Legislator Uses House “Devotional” to Lambast White Vermonters

Vermont’s House of Representatives opens each session with a “daily devotion.”  Tuesday morning’s presentation (February 16) by Representative Harold “Hal” Colston was an outrageous condemnation of Vermont’s history and culture as racist.  This abused the very concept of devotion, and Vermonters.

The Vermont House Clerk’s “Guidelines for Devotions” provide that 

A devotional is an inclusive homily, life lesson, song, poem, prayer, reading, or musical piece appropriate to the setting…. The devotional helps to set the tone and allows a few moments for reflection and contemplation. The person… offering the devotional shall….  refrain from discussing individual political positions….

Incendiary Insult

Referencing the 1619 Project, Representative “Hal” launched into an overtly anti-white tirade.  Quoting James Baldwin, who Colston “ regard[s] as one of Black America’s most prolific prophets,” Colston proclaimed (in a state where slavery was never legal, and very few blacks ever resided):

What if the Negro was not invented? How would our country have worked without chattel slavery, the exploitation of black and brown people who became the backbone of our capitalistic system? Who would you be? Who would we be?…. Structural racism is the normalization of many dynamics that are historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal and routinely advantages White people while producing chronic, adverse outcomes for people of color. 

Not all Vermont Legislators — let alone citizens — would view this rant to be “inclusive” of the Vermonters who died in the Civil War freeing blacks from slavery — this “historical and cultural omission” is suspicious.

What if a GOP Legislator took the floor, asking “Where would black people be without the white man?” He or she could then quote Thomas Sowell:

The people made worse off by slavery were those who were enslaved. Their descendants would have been worse off today if born in Africa instead of America. Put differently, the terrible fate of their ancestors benefitted them.

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state.

That would set a different (non-racist) tone for the Vermont House….

Perverse Comparisons

Importing Brown’s Depression-era suffering in New York City to 2021 Vermont is more than anachronistic — it is alien; dishonest.  If Colston is to so reverently employ Baldwin, a prophet of doom and hate, is he also calling for violence against white people as Baldwin did?  Is he endorsing Baldwin’s blatant racism and anti-semitism?

Rep Colston should relate Baldwin’s words for Vermont’s Jews at a future devotional.  In his 1967 New York Times editorial “Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They Are Anti-White,” Baldwin spews out a laundry list of those he hates that shows an intense devotion indeed:

In the American context, the most ironical thing about Negro anti-Semitism is that the Negro is really condemning the Jew for having become an American white man–for having become, in effect, a Christian. The Jew profits from his status in America, and he must expect Negroes to distrust him for it. 

In the course of this raging justification for his racism, Baldwin condemns Jews for using the slaughter of 6,000,000 “as proof they cannot be bigots,” while suggesting that his invocation of slavery exempts him from bigotry.  But the hate is seething — against Jewish landlords, storekeepers, butchers, pawnbrokers, and shoe salesmen; against welfare workers, postal workers, policemen, unions, teachers, “all his bosses in the Army” — the list is long….

Concludes Baldwin:

The crisis taking place in the world, and in the minds and hearts of black men everywhere, is not produced by the star of David, but by the old, rugged Roman cross on which Christendom’s most celebrated Jew was murdered. And not by Jews.

Vermont’s Constitution (Section 3) provides (in part):

….every sect or denomination of christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord’s day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

This language is quite at odds with Baldwin’s hateful rhetoric, just as Colston’s hateful shaming of his own constituents is completely at odds with the House Rules for Devotionals (and Vermont’s well-established Abolitionist history). 

Progressive Pattern

But Vermont’s Progressives run a tight, if oppressive, ship.  In February 3rd’s House devotional, a virtue-signalling Democrat perverted an MLK sermon into a hateful condemnation conveying the opposite of King’s message to inveigh against Vermonters:

So whether we agree or are aware or not, we are all, myself included, a part of a system of white supremacy that was fundamental to the birth of our constitutional government. If we were born in this country we were born into white supremacy. We have all been acculturated in it.

Two years ago, a Vermont pastor was banned from delivering devotionals in the Vermont Senate because he referenced a “right to life.”  Preaching hate and racist strife goes unchallenged; referencing the miracle of life is silenced. 

These Circus Devotionals are the ultimate bully pulpit on display.  Vermont’s thuggish Progressive supermajority religiously slanders its own constituents as white supremacist beneficiaries of “systemic racism.”  Is this the future of America?

Someone should take a knee….

And pray.

An Inequitable Effort at Equity: Vermont School Lunches Under COVID-19

When schools closed in Vermont, lunches were provided to students across the state — often by buses that delivered food instead of picking up children.  The rationale was that some students depended on school meals for nutritional needs: as the Department of Health and Agency of Education justified: “….the ongoing economic impacts of COVID-19 may mean that many more children are currently facing food insecurity at home.” (p. 31).  But this effort has been costly and inequitable — both financially and environmentally.

Overspending, inefficiencies, and unequal distribution of COVID funds are themselves “ongoing economic impacts” that will ensure food insecurity persists for our children. Part of the 35% COVID-fueled increase in the national debt has been caused by a floodgate of benefits created with borrowed funds.  “Normal” filters against fiscal abuse were set aside when COVID struck, using the “food insecurity” mantra.

Wasteful and Regressive…..

Huge waste has resulted, as seen in Vermont:

— School buses were used to deliver meals.  This was profoundly uneconomical, in both monetary and ecological terms.  Meals could have been delivered with light trucks or vans at about 17.5 MPG, instead of diesel-engined buses:

According to U.S. EPA, diesel exhaust from school buses contains pollutants that contribute to ozone formation, acid rain and global climate change. In addition, the fine particulate matter from diesel engines can cause lung damage, especially in children, and contributes to haze…. Buses are the safest way to get children to school, but they’re also fuel hogs that get only 4 to 6 miles per gallon.

— Eligibility requirements for meal assistance were abandoned. Meals have been provided at public expense to families with ample financial means to avert “food insecurity.  This is grossly inequitable, but not one word of criticism has been heard.

The emotional appeal of “feed the children” again eclipses critical thought.  The same government that seeks to mandate electric school buses to avert climate change, dispatched a fleet of diesel-fueled school buses to deliver lunches!  Was that in the best interests of children?  Employing the National Guard’s tanks would have been comparably efficient….

What’s Next?

Will Vermont deliver meals by school-bus on weekends?  (Why not? Some children may not have food security.)  Babysitters and therapists?  Vermont has moved to expand state subsidization of pre-school, and (last week) daycare.  The daycare bill provides for subsidies for those who earn 200% of the federal poverty guidelines: but there is no provision for funding: indeed, the laws are being proposed before anyone even knows what it will cost!

It is not heartless to ask how public services are to be efficiently and fairly provided — it is heartless not to — especially toward the children whose welfare is invoked to plunge their future economy into spiraling debt.  Regressive taxation hurts the poor, but Vermont’s progressive elites remain oblivious to math.

Vermont families with million-dollar incomes did not require free lunches during COVID.  Tracking eligibility would have been easy enough — tracking COVID was new, but income eligibility was already in place for federal meal programs.  Vermont’s busing guidelines said nothing of monitoring eligibility, though later the federal government created a nationwide waiver — there was never any effort to distribute these public services based on economic need.

Initially the feds said they were maintaining equity requirements:

USDA has clarified that students who do not live in area-eligible areas may only receive delivery of meals if they qualify for free and reduced meals. ….Some Vermont SFAs have planned to conduct delivery routes from area-eligible sites throughout their districts, to include either households or bus stops in non-area eligible locations. The new guidance from USDA is clear that when delivering to households in non-area eligible locations, only meals delivered to households who qualify for free and reduced meals may be claimed for reimbursement. 

Nevertheless, recommended procedures to collect names were not implemented. On March 29, a national waiver was implemented:

The waiver requires that the State agency must have a plan for ensuring that new meal sites are targeting benefits to children in need, for example, children who may be newly eligible for benefits due to the economic impacts of COVID-19…. The following is the state’s plan for ensuring that new meal sites utilizing the waiver are targeted to benefit children in need. 

(Though it is inscrutable how that is now achieved…. If at all).

This is not an issue of whether to feed children, but whether to feed them fairly.  Not about whether to use government to feed poor kids, but whether to use it to feed filthy rich ones.  Or perhaps about why citizens would entrust their financial future to any entity that used school buses to deliver meals — no business would even contemplate such absurd “policy.”

It would have been easy to continue managing meal distribution equitably.  Now part of each poor American child’s share of the national debt — and carbon footprint — is attributable to busing unneeded meals to the wealthy.  

No amount of good intentions can repave that road as fair… to the children.