Tag: connecticut

BEYOND PARODY: Connecticut Democrats Pass Bill Requiring Photo ID to RECYCLE CANS But Won’t Support the SAVE America Act

Democrats in the state of Connecticut oppose the SAVE America Act because they don’t support the idea of having to show a photo ID in order to vote, but they recently passed a law in the state that requires photo ID to recycle aluminum cans.

You could not make this up.

Like some other states, Connecticut gives a ten cent return on empty containers instead of five cents, so people have been crossing into the state to recycle there and cash in on the higher return. The fix for this was photo ID.

But they won’t do this for voting.

FOX News reports:

Connecticut Dems demand IDs to recycle cans but reject GOP efforts to verify citizenship at polls

Connecticut Democrats recently rushed through an emergency anti-fraud law requiring bottle redemption centers to collect a copy of a person’s driver’s license when they cash in more than 1,000 cans or bottles in a day — a document demand that Republicans say undercuts the party’s attacks on voter-ID rules.

Earlier this month, an emergency certification bill, SB 299, was introduced by top Democratic leaders in the state’s legislature. It was later passed in both chambers in late February and was signed by Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, on March 3.

It requires people wishing to recycle cans for money to present a copy of their driver’s license, put in place because the state has had issues with non-residents crossing its border to take advantage of its higher return rate of 10 cents a can instead of five cents. The issue was reportedly causing the state to lose significant revenue…

“In Connecticut, it seems that they are committed to securing recycling, but not to securing elections,” said Anna Pingel, America First Policy Institute’s Campaign Director for Secure Elections. “Requiring photo ID to collect cash from recycling but opposing photo ID to cast a vote tells you everything you need to know about the hypocrisy of politicians fighting against commonsense legislation like the SAVE Act. What is more important to safeguard—bottles or ballots?”

Both of Connecticut’s senators voted against the SAVE America Act.

Keep reading

Homeschooling Families Push Back on Proposed Regulations in Connecticut

When Gina Stewart began homeschooling her oldest child 30 years ago, there were no regulations requiring her to notify the state if, how, or what she was teaching her son in their house.

Stewart, in the years that followed, informed her local district annually, as a courtesy, that her boys wouldn’t be enrolled in public schools.

One son later became a plumber, one enrolled in community college before he was even old enough to drive, and one will attend a police academy after he turns 21.

The youngest, 15, is still completing his high school curriculum, including pre-calculus.

Stewart recently began homeschooling her grandchild, but she said she fears that the educational freedom her family enjoyed for decades is under threat.

A proposed Connecticut state law would require homeschooling parents to provide their local school districts with proof of “equivalent” instruction annually.

It also requires school districts to notify the Department of Children and Families if a child is removed from public schools.

“I don’t want their curriculum,” Stewart, who attended Connecticut public schools and previously taught at a Catholic school, told The Epoch Times.

“I never originally intended to homeschool my kids. But I don’t think the schools are preparing kids to become productive citizens.”

Stewart was among hundreds of concerned parents who attended a legislative committee hearing last week on the proposed legislation.

The hearing went for about 19 hours, during which more than 300 people testified and 3,000-plus provided written opinions, a vast majority against the bill.

“I’d say it’s about 99-to-one against the bill,” Ralph Rodriguez, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association, who also attended the hearing, told The Epoch Times.

“No regulation is acceptable. Today’s check-in can very easily encroach on other freedoms.”

The check-in and notification to the Department of Children and Families regulations are in response to the recent murder of an 11-year-old girl whose mother attempted to cover up the death by telling the local district that she was homeschooling her daughter.

Keep reading

Connecticut Citizens Break the State: Midnight Revolt on Guns, Vaccines, and Homeschooling Sends Public Health Committee Scrambling to Lawyers

In the early hours of Thursday, March 12, 2026, the Public Health Committee paused after midnight as members left their seats to consult with lawyers regarding the earlier rule requiring hearings to close at 12:15 a.m as more citizens lined up to testify. Despite the consultation, the attorneys could not seem to unwind the earlier vote that ended public testimony at that time. A point of order was called to request an extension, but the vote had already run out the clock for the public. Those who remained sat quietly to hear the final outcome, as the discussion turned back to the attorneys. In effect, the public broke them.  A public filibuster!

An electric revolt hit the Connecticut Capitol as 6,000+ parents, homeschoolers, and citizens packed the building and forced lawmakers to sit until midnight, unleashing hours of blistering testimony on guns, vaccines, homeschooling, and state overreach. At the center was the Public Health Committee, overwhelmed by citizens demanding informed consent, the right to refuse vaccines, and the right not to feed their children into a failed Department of Children and Families that has already shattered too many families.

Parents and homeschoolers warned that proposals tying homeschooling to DCF oversight presume guilt and hand more power to an agency with a long record of missed abuse and wrongful interference. They described homeschooling as a lifeline from failing schools, bullying, and ideological agendas, not an evasion of responsibility, and asked why families seeking to educate their children at home should be treated as suspects instead of partners. AbleChild submitted testimony highlighting the horrific murder of a child under DCF care and a mother who was herself a product of the same system—as a stark warning of what this failed agency is already producing.

Again and again, ordinary people invoked God and the Constitution, insisting that children belong first to their families, not the state, and that medical decisions and education are matters of conscience, not government coercion. Many tied gun rights into the same struggle, arguing that a government that cannot safeguard children in its own systems has no moral authority to disarm responsible citizens or force medical interventions on unwilling families.

By midnight it was clear this was no routine hearing but a public vote of no confidence in Connecticut’s Democrat‑run system. Whether the bills advance or not, lawmakers were put on notice: families are done being managed from above, and they are willing to show up, stay late, and speak out to defend their children and their God‑given rights. AbleChild was thrilled to see parents finally stand up to the Democrat supermajority and refuse to surrender their children, their conscience, or their God‑given rights. At the same time, Republican Party Chairman Ben Proto must be held accountable for failing to secure any real balance in Connecticut’s elections, helping entrench a political class now openly at war with the families it is supposed to serve.

Keep reading

Another Connecticut Climate Plan — Another Charge On Your Bill 

Connecticut lawmakers have a habit of raising taxes by calling them something else. 

The latest example is S.B. 453, a proposal that would impose a five-percent surcharge on certain insurance policies tied to fossil-fuel infrastructure in the state. 

The revenue would flow into a new “climate resilience account.” According to the bill, the fund would support projects such as flood-risk data collection, public awareness efforts in high-risk communities, and grants for infrastructure designed to mitigate flooding. 

On paper, the plan sounds straightforward: apply a surcharge to fossil-fuel infrastructure and use the proceeds for climate-related programs. 

In practice, costs introduced into complex systems rarely stay where they start. 

They move. 

How the Surcharge Works 

The bill applies to insurance policies covering infrastructure involved in the processing, export, or transportation of oil, natural gas, or coal. It specifically references pipelines, refineries, terminals, and utility-scale generation facilities. 

That last category is significant. 

New England continues to rely heavily on natural-gas for electricity generation. When the cost of operating those facilities rises — whether from fuel, regulations, or insurance — those increases do not simply vanish. They are incorporated into wholesale electricity markets, which influence the supply rates paid by customers of utilities like Eversource and United Illuminating. 

A surcharge introduced upstream can work its way, step by step, into ratepayer bills. 

It is also important to note that the surcharge is not imposed directly on fossil-fuel companies themselves. It is added to the insurance policies that cover them. Insurers collect the surcharge and remit it to the state, but the insured entities ultimately bear the cost — and costs in the energy sector tend to ripple outward. 

Keep reading

Of Course: Cannibal Axe Murderer Released Back Into Society Despite Sick Crimes

A Connecticut man who hacked a homeless victim to death with an axe and devoured parts of his brain and eyeball is now being unleashed back into the community, thanks to a psychiatric board’s twisted notion of “progress.” 

Tyree Smith’s release exposes the glaring failures in a criminal justice apparatus that’s more concerned with coddling the criminally insane than protecting everyday Americans from repeat horrors.

Smith was arrested in 2012 after murdering Angel Gonzalez in a vacant Bridgeport apartment. Prosecutors said he used an axe to mutilate the victim, then consumed portions of the body. 

Found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity due to schizophrenia and substance abuse issues, he was committed to a maximum-security psychiatric hospital for 60 years.

But now, after just over a decade, the Connecticut Psychiatric Security Review Board has granted him conditional release. Officials claim a “careful review of his clinical progress” shows stability through medication and treatment. He’s already been enjoying temporary leaves, including overnight passes into the community.

This move has sparked outrage, with state GOP leaders slamming it as “outrageous and mind-boggling.” They point out the victim’s family vehemently objected, arguing it endangers public safety and mocks victims of violent crime.

Keep reading

U.S. lawmakers propose legislation to allow citizens to sue ICE. A CT senator is leading the way

As U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations are spreading across the nation, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal is proposing legislation to allow people to sue ICE agents for violating their civil and constitutional rights.

The proposal comes amid the fatal shooting of a 37-year-old mother in Minneapolis and widespread protests against ICE operations under President Donald Trump’s administration. Under Blumenthal’s proposal, the legislation would allow cases to be heard in civil court.

Under current law, federal law enforcement officers have qualified immunity from civil cases, shielding them from lawsuits. But federal law enforcement are not shielded from prosecution for committing crimes, he said.

The Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act, co-introduced by Blumenthal and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-California) in December, would authorize states to bring civil actions against federal agencies whose violations of the law pose an imminent and substantial risk to public safety or constitutional rights. Blumenthal said he introduced the legislation before the controversial killing of Renee Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis.

“Individual victims of excessive force should have recourse also. They do against local and state law enforcement, but not against federal officers,” Blumenthal said at a press conference on Friday. “I’m introducing legislation that will give everyday Americans recourse. A remedy in court when their rights our violated. In amends the 1983 statute to provide rights in court for people when they are abused by violation of the law by federal officers. Just like they can sue local and state officers when they are abused.”

The Connecticut Democrat called the legislation “overdue” and said that there is precedent in a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case. In Webster Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the court held that some lawsuits against federal officers can be warranted. Since the case 50 years ago, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have narrowed that ruling, leaving many victims of federal misconduct without meaningful recourse.

“It has been narrowed and cut back by successive Supreme Court decisions. We need to make it real and provide recourse and remedies so that rights can be vindicated. When people are shot or dragged out of cars and injured or denied a lawyer when they are retained often result in trauma and injury. These violations must be addressed,” Blumenthal said.

The Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act is co-sponsored by U.S. Sens. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), Edward J. Markey (D-Massachusetts), Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon).

Blumenthal said that some Republicans may also support the legislation.

Keep reading

‘No one is above the law.’ Former New Haven police chief admitted to stealing at least $10,000, city officials say

The city of New Haven is freezing a police bank account used to fund its confidential informant program after former police chief Karl Jacobson admitted to stealing thousands of dollars from it.

City officials shared new details about the investigation Wednesday.

The scandal began on Monday, when a group of assistant chiefs questioned Jacobson about discrepancies in withdrawals from the city’s confidential informant fund.

Mayor Justin Elicker says the former police chief admitted to stealing $10,000 from the city, but the amount could actually be more.

“Everything I’ve heard from everyone is just how shocked they are,” Mayor Elicker says. “I want to make it clear: we do not know how much money was taken.”

Jacobsen oversaw the account as assistant chief.

Despite calls for him to relinquish control when he was promoted to chief, city officials say Jacobson continued to make authorized routine withdrawals of $5,000 each month from the account to pay confidential informants.

“What the chief had done was basically make it where he would be the sole holder of the money,” acting police chief David Zannelli says, “and what he would say to us commonly is that he was doing that to protect us from any kind of liability.”

The preliminary investigation uncovered two extra $5,000 withdrawals were made by Jacobson at the end of 2025: one in November, and another in December.

Mayor Elicker was originally going to place him on administrative leave, but Jacobson said he was retiring instead.

The confidential informant program has been paused as state investigators work to find out if any other city bank accounts were affected and if any other police officers were involved.

“No one is above the law, and we are all held accountable,” acting police chief David Zannelli says. “We will move forward as a police department.”

Keep reading

HORROR: Career Criminal with Over 50 Prior Arrests Brutally Murders Man with Machete in Connecticut

A career criminal with at least 50 prior arrests and 40 convictions murdered a man with a machete in Waterbury, Connecticut, on Saturday evening.

Kendren Barnes was charged with murder after ‘stabbing’ victim Ricardo Maldonado, 57.

According to reports, police were called to an apartment complex in Waterbury on Saturday evening and found the two men suffering from stab wounds.

Barnes and Maldonado were transported to a local hospital. Moldanado died from his injuries.

Barnes is being held on a $2.5 million bond.

The News-Times reported:

Police have identified the victim of a fatal stabbing on Grove Street over the weekend as a city resident.

Ricardo Maldonado, 57, of Waterbury died at the hospital after an incident on Grove Street Saturday, police Lt. Joseph Morais said in a news release Tuesday.

Morais said officers were called to an apartment building on the 100 block of the road at 7:17 p.m. Saturday for reports of a physical altercation involving a weapon inside. He said arriving officers located two male victims, later identified as Maldonado and 47-year-old Kendren Barnes, who had sustained wounds inflicted by edged weapons.

Both were transported to area hospitals, Morais said, where Maldonado later died from his injuries.

Barnes has an extensive criminal history. Police described him as a man who is “frequently arrested.”

Keep reading

Hunter Biden disbarred in Connecticut after complaints about gun, tax convictions

A judge on Monday disbarred Hunter Biden in Connecticut for violating the state’s attorney conduct rules, a decision that comes after complaints were made about the federal gun and tax charges Biden was convicted of before being pardoned last year by his father, former President Joe Biden.

In an agreement with the state office that disciplines lawyers, Hunter Biden consented to being disbarred and admitted to attorney misconduct, but he did not admit to any criminal wrongdoing. He was disbarred in Washington, D.C., in May.

Hunter Biden did not speak as he and his lawyer, Ross Garber, appeared via video at a virtual court hearing before Judge Trial Referee Patrick L. Carroll III in Waterbury.

Hunter Biden was convicted last year in Delaware federal court of three felonies for purchasing a gun in 2018 when, prosecutors said, he lied on a federal form by claiming he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.

He had been set to stand trial in September 2024 in a California case in which prosecutors accused him of failing to pay at least $1.4 million in federal taxes. He agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor and felony charges hours after jury selection was set to begin.

The Connecticut judge found that Hunter Biden violated several ethical rules for lawyers, including engaging in conduct “involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” In a court document, Hunter Biden admitted to some but not all of the misconduct allegations. The judge also cited the Washington disbarment.

Keep reading

Taxpayers Asked To Fund A Hospital Takeover They’re Not Allowed To See

When Connecticut lawmakers pushed the UConn Health hospital acquisition bill through the November special session — without a public hearing — it was clear transparency was not the priority.  

Now UConn Health, the state-run hospital system preparing to spend roughly half a billion taxpayer dollars acquiring Waterbury Hospital, has taken that secrecy a step further. Under the legislation rushed through the November special session — which authorizes UConn Health not just to purchase Waterbury Hospital but potentially to acquire additional struggling hospitals in the future — the financial stakes extend far beyond a single transaction. Yet in its Certificate of Need filing, UConn has asked state regulators to seal its cost and market impact review (CMIR) — the central analysis used to evaluate how the deal would affect prices, competition, access, and the financial risks taxpayers may ultimately assume.

The legislature avoided public scrutiny when passing the legislation. UConn Health is now avoiding scrutiny on the financials themselves. 

According to its filing, UConn Health plans to invest $195 million in Waterbury Hospital over the next two years, including $13 million paid directly to Prospect Medical Holdings, the California based, bankrupt for-profit chain that allowed the hospital to deteriorate. But the upfront investment represents only a small portion of the true cost. The bulk will come from $390 million in UConn 2000 bonds, state-backed debt. Once interest is included, taxpayers will ultimately shoulder roughly $500 million. 

The financial risk is not theoretical. It falls squarely on Connecticut residents. 

Keep reading