Vermont Libertarian Party Attorney General candidate, Karen Kerin, was included in the CCTV Attorney General debate. The following includes a video of the debate and Karen Kerin’s overview of the debate…
There are few opportunities for voters to look at what is perceived as the down ticket office of attorney general, resulting in the continuation in office of someone who does not serve as a servant of the people. A great deal of explanation is needed to understand that the only statewide office not in the Vermont Constitution is in reality, perhaps the most powerful elected office in the state because prosecutorial discretion allows political considerations to intervene in the dispensing of justice. But I digress owing to my desire for substantial justice without procedural justice allowing a soft on crime regime to flower.
The video of the debate is below…
But before you spend the time to watch the whole thing, let me set the stage for you. The invitees were Progressive Charlotte Dennette, Liberty Union (now revealed to be socialist) Rosemarie Jackowski, Libertarian Karen Kerin, Democrat William Sorrell, and Republican Aaron Toscano. Jackowski did not attend, but sent a garbled statement that moderator Eli Harrington, program director from the Vermont Council on World Affairs, read for the viewers. Toscano, who had promised to attend, did not show up. I learned the next morning that he instead attended a college republican event. That left me facing the two big statists, Sorrell and Dennette.
Although it was not apparent due to the format, it is easy to dispose of CLF shill Dennette as a serious candidate because she ignores the US Constitution. She rants about the clean water act and the clean air act, neither of which are within the powers the constitution provides in Article I, Clause 8. While we all want clean air and water, it is clearly a matter for the states and the people who may be aggrieved by the actions of a particular property owner; and they have recourse legally in the courts.
Dean appointee and soft on crime Sorrell is equally easy to dispose of. Before delving into our differences legally, I must address his response to getting more bangs for the buck from his office as ridiculous in these economic times because he indicated a need for more staffing, while I made him cringe by proposing bringing all the attorneys general under one roof so allocation of resources could be more efficiently utilized. This demonstrates the difference between someone with real world management experience and a political appointee who has been there too long. At a cited cost of over $50,000.00 per year per prison bed, the question of defining non-violent offenders was sought as a question. Both of the liberals spoke about court diversion and other wishy-washy programs, when the Vermont constitution very clearly calls for “hard labor”. I pointed out that there are many tasks not being performed by the state that these offenders could be providing, and then needing only a dormitory to house them and feed them for their sentences, freeing the prisons for the violent and dangerous criminals.
Asked to explain why we were running under our party affiliation, I was stunned to hear Sorrell launch into his mother’s role in democrat politics, almost as if he does not share that party’s views. It is curious indeed that he has no better understanding. I explained that I am a libertarian because that most clearly represents what our founders of the nation and state embraced, liberty as long as it resulted in no harm to others and the dispensing of justice if harm results. Shockingly, Sorrell launched into his ideations concerning prevention, causing me to cringe in horror at the notion of offending the first amendment by making thoughts, words and actions wrongful in his eyes. God save us from such thinking. Other questions that we never got to would have led these two drones ever deeper into the statist swamp so it was fortunate for them we did not get there.
The summary statements were of the same ilk by the other two, but mine was laser like pointing out that Sorrell had been there too long and pointedly stating that his ideation of prevention is not law. I also chastised Dennette regarding VY, as I was fortunate enough to be one of the engineers on the project and fully understand that the reactor and its turbines are good for 100 years, despite the cooling towers leaking river water that is used to cool the process water that is in stainless steel piping to maintain the de-ionized water that is a must for the reactor system to not carry radioactivity. So VY is really very safe. The nonsense about having more hydro dams completely ignores both conservation and environmental concerns as it prevents migratory fish from making it back to their spawning grounds. I cited the loss of Atlantic salmon, shad, and at least one other species of fish that used to be found in abundance, but in declining numbers in the White River in my lifetime. Finally, I hammered Sorrell for claiming to protect families, when he has done nothing to protect children and the elderly. Apparently, they do not count as a part of the family, but not surprising since he had no response to the cyber crime problem that is defrauding the elderly without even the FBI caring because it emanates from outside the US. Please do watch the video.
Contact Karen Kerin: