Friday • April 4 • 2025
Vol.XVII • No.XIV
Manchester, N.H.
Portsmouth is celebrating its 400th anniversary (1623-2023), and part of that was a tall-ships flotilla scheduled for Thursday, July 27th. But the mere threat of thunderstorms canceled it, as it turns out, for no good reason. I was there, on the water, and I saw the tall ships and the weather.
The storm clouds looked impressive, some “cool-looking” lightning off in the distance, but the seas were never rough, and it rained for all of ten minutes on the river. By the time 6 pm rolled around when the event was to start, there were even calmer waters, no rain, bleeding into a beautiful sunset (pics of that below as well).
In other words, there was no good reason to move the flotilla to the 29th.
Captain Jack Kimball invited me, my wife, and a few others, and we were on the water when the cancelation (delay) was announced. It was okay. We had a great day and took pictures.
There were to be four of five tall ships. We saw five, and I got decent pictures of a few; only one under sail, sadly, but all very cool.
And some different views…
And… the sunset. Lots of those – all taken from the Riverhouse Restaurant ‘Dock’ in Portsmouth.
Forgot this… (video of the wake … boat wake).
Note: The original version referenced Thursday, July 28th. It should be on the 27th. This was corrected after publication.
The post Portsmouth Tall Ships Flotilla Got Canceled/Re-Scheduled But Not for Me … And I Took Pics appeared first on Granite Grok.
June was a bust, and July is not helping if you NOAA what I mean. Hurricane activity so far – considering all the hyperbolic ranting about global warming and super-heated oceans, has been sparse. A handful of ‘disturbances,’ no hurricanes, and only two tropical storms, neither of which has amounted to anything.
Cindy barely managed to rise to a tropical storm (TS) before petering north of the Dominican. Don drifted in circles around the central Atlantic and then petered out (sorry, Peter). None of the four named “cells” have been name-worthy, but if you don’t name a few, you’ll never get to use the names. Someone went to a lot of trouble to make a list and check it twice, share it with the press, and make lousy predictions to go with it.
They need something to happen. We wouldn’t want to wade into September with Arlene, which I never saw (by the way), or Bret, who died before he escaped the West Coast of Africa.
Given all the uncontrollable chest pounding about how hot the globe is, the Carribean should look like a conga line of storms waiting to deliver Gaia’s revenge for all these decades of easy Western living. Cheap gas and affordable electricity, along with all the comfort and prosperity it can create. People lifted from poverty—global commerce. To borrow from Saint Greta of the broken planet, “How dare you?”.
Over in the Pacific, TS Clavin took a stroll across the south side of the Hawaiian Islands. You might not have noticed with all the Canadian wood smoke sent as revenge for the alleged acid rain in the 1990s, which suggests that it does rain in Canada, just not anymore. All the rain stops at the border, which is better than I can say for illegals coming the other way. Northern New England knows about rain, and global warming is to blame for some, too much and not enough. It is also responsible for AIDS, toenail fungus, myocarditis, COVID, ED, snow, no snow, and perhaps Joe Biden. All man-made disasters that have nothing at all to do with CO2 or the weather.
As for hurricanes, peak season doesn’t arrive until mid-August, so there is still time for the Left to cry wolf. And we do have a new disturbance with some promise.
It only takes one decent storm to set them off, as you know, even though the number and frequency have shown resistance to the hyperbolic ranting of grant-wielding climate whores swearing your emissions are making the weather more dangerous—a claim with a caveat with an addendum (emphasis in the original).
Alarmists admit there’s no upward trend in hurricane frequency but argue that greenhouse gases are causing more extreme category 4 and 5 hurricanes. However, any examination of the path where hurricanes intensify, begs the question: if a warming ocean drives more intense hurricanes, why are most hurricanes low intensity tropical storms while over warm tropical surface waters, but intensify as they migrate northward to cooler surface waters?
Researchers published in Nature – not known for its right-wing conspiracy theories or publishing anything people accused of being right-wing tend to think, disagree.
We find that recorded century-scale increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency, and associated decrease in USA hurricanes strike fraction, are consistent with changes in observing practices and not likely a true climate trend. After homogenization, increases in basin-wide hurricane and major hurricane activity since the 1970s are not part of a century-scale increase but a recovery from a deep minimum in the 1960s–1980s.
The Party of Science, its grant-wielding scientistas, and climate-cult-funded scientism aren’t interested in it if it does not advance their partisan economic and political agenda.
There has been a rise in troublesome storms, but they are not in the Atlantic. Look inside the DC beltway and far too many state capitals to find the cyclone of waste, fraud, and abuse doing business as climate mitigation. The process of robbing you to pay their allies to peddle questionable theories for which theirs are the only cure with a predictable outcome. All of their other “wars” (drugs, poverty, discrimination, racism) have made matters worse; this one is no different unless by different you mean the net worth of the pimps working them, in which case it’s the same.
The post It’s Almost August and The Hurricane Forecast is in Trouble appeared first on Granite Grok.
I know. You’re not supposed to ask questions. Especially awkward questions. But I live in the past, the America that celebrated rebels and rule-breakers … a long-gone and (by too many) forgotten America where Americans were NOT sheep who wore their useless masks like badges of honor and didn’t queue to be shot up with an at best unnecessary experimental drug.
So … I’ll ask. Would Gubernatorial nominee Kelly Ayotte support Presidential nominee Donald Trump, or would she bail on Trump like she did in 2016? According to WMUR:
This time around, Ayotte said she will support the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, no matter who it is.
But would she? There are going to be lots and lots of “October surprises” from the Biden Regime (or the Newsom Regime) and the Deep State. Can Ayotte really be counted on not to bail in 2024 in response to one or more of these “surprises” like she bailed in 2016? In other words, is her pledge to support the nominee just something one says to get past a primary dominated by Trump voters, or is she really going to be a team player this time? Acknowledging what she did in 2016 was wrong would provide a clue.
The post Does Gubernatorial Nominee Kelly Ayotte Support Presidential Nominee Donald Trump … Or Is She Writing In Mike Pence Again? appeared first on Granite Grok.
The last thing I would like to see come to fruition is the impeachment of President Joe Biden, not because I support the President, nothing could be further from the truth. Joe Biden is the most corrupt politician of my lifetime, but the thought of President Harris sitting behind the resolute desk laughing her way through the brief of the nuclear codes?
I’d never let me sleep soundly again.
The Democrats had the foresight to see the Biden Cartel crumble, and Vice President Kamala Harris is their insurance policy to prevent the removal of Joe Biden. Nobody, not even most Democrats, wants to see Harris become the first woman President. It would help if you looked no further than her approval ratings to see what the country thinks of our Vice President. Only 36% of Americans have a favorable outlook on our VP, while 53% are negative on Harris.
On the other hand, Impeachment inquiry hearings are essential at this time. The Oversight and Judiciary Committees are excellently laying out the case against Hunter and Joe Biden, but here is the hook. Less than half of American voters know what is happening in Washington, specifically the White House. Half the country is in the dark about the corruption at the core of our First Family. The mainstream media has worked tirelessly to shield the Bidens from the American people and vice versa. Except for the New York Post, Washington Examiner, and FOX NEWS, the American print, broadcast, and internet news media have called a blackout on any negative news on the Bidens. Our forefathers assured Freedom of the Press because they saw a need for a watchdog to protect America from its politicians and government. Today’s media has flipped that role and now protects the President and his Administration from the people. The media is as corrupt and complicit with the Biden Family’s sins.
Should Speaker Kevin McCarthy direct the House to begin Impeachment Inquiry Hearings, the mainstream media will have no choice but to cover the proceedings. The readers and viewers of the mainstream will be shocked to hear of an inquiry as they know nothing of the events that led us to this point. As they say, the msm has some explaining to do. The hearings will expose the sins of the Bidens but also the dereliction of duty by the media. The Impeachment process will be the light to bring most of America out of the darkness.
With a split Congress, this President will never be impeached, but an Inquiry will force the House and Senate to go on the record to show if their allegiance is to the people or a corrupt President and his crime family. The Inquiry could be the tool the Republicans have been searching for to out the Bidens, who we know have been building a corrupt empire for decades. Unlike the fabricated “crimes” used to impeach Donald Trump, the Biden crimes are real. And as hard as the family worked to hide the money trails, they are being uncovered, and the dirt is filled with Hunter and Joe Biden’s crimes.
May the light shine bright and enlighten all of America to the real man who has been using America for over five decades to enhance his family’s wealth. His tax issues are bad enough, but his bribery, extortion, and treasonous activities jeopardized the security of our country and need to be atoned for, sooner than later.
The post Is Impeachment The Light We Need appeared first on Granite Grok.
Very interesting…
It’s now on: the marathon-length sprint to the second stage finish line (Primaries). Candidates have weighed their options on “Can I? Should I?”, staffing, strategy, media coverage (earned and unearned/paid), travel teams, destinations & events, and their policies. And in the early States, endorsers and volunteers.
And EVERYTHING is turned into a race – the aforementioned endorsers and volunteers but also money. I can’t tell you how often I’m pitched for the “end of week | month | quarter” so-called “deadlines” by which my paltry amount would make or break the campaign. It’s DIRE time and I’m the magic key that unlocks the “win vault”. It’s all nonsense but staffers and candidates boast about their total hauls – and this number:
It’s one measure (of course, it can be gamed to a certain degree but that’s another post about how it’s counted) for grassroots engagement – while no candidate will turn away large donations (for the most part – some donors may be “toxic” for one reason or another for a given candidate) and large makes it “easy money” to spend, touting your small donor numbers is an expression of that support. As Sundance puts it “Main Street vs Wall Street”.
I’m not surprised about Donald Trump’s numbers. If he really wanted to, I’d bet he could do a lot of self-financing. That said, his entire career was built on using other people’s money. And you have to admit, a lot of ordinary people still adore him because his policies, when you really look at them, benefited them in the aggregate.
However, #2 is rather surprising. I picked Vivek Ramaswamy as my dark horse for this presidential cycle. Sundance all but ignores that data point and only concentrates on Trump vs DeSantis. I’m not understanding why but I’m beginning to wonder if we may be seeing a repeat of the 1978 campaign when a relatively unknown (at the national level) peanut farmer (yes, a former Georgia Governor starting 1970) beat a bunch of much better-known contenders.
Is Vivek the political reincarnation of Jimmah at least in this respect (CERTAINLY a conservative version of Progressive (for that era) Carter? He’s working his butt off, earning lots of media interviews, seemingly everywhere all the time, and doing the social media play much better than his rivals. He’s Wicked Smaht, driven, hitting all the right points (for me, anyway), eloquent, and there’s a lot of buzz that he’s created for himself around the blogosphere.
No, no one’s perfect and I have some issues that I’m wrestling with (lack of a voting record against which to evaluate, going for the Brass Ring right off the bat (although, see driven, above)). But who else is capturing all the attention in a way that ISN’T Trump-style?
No one. And that number above should be seen as a powerful signal.
(H/T: Conservative Treehouse)
The post Data Point: 2024 Presidential Campaign – the Small Donor Race appeared first on Granite Grok.
I recommend to the reader, all concerned citizens, and State Representatives to contact Joanna Martin, Publius Huldah, at publiushuldah@gmail.com. (I apologize for leaving the “h” off in my last week’s OP-ED headlined Publius Huldah Warning).
We want to thank Russ Payne for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
To get the complete picture of how the “tidal wave of truth” throughout our nation over the past year has finally turned the tide against the false claims and assurances of Convention of State COS lobbyists, attempting to convince State legislators to make State Applications for an Article V Constitutional Convention.
The scoreboard, according to Publius Huldah, is as follows:
“So far this year 20 States (Red States & Blue States): Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Minnesota, Utah, Texas, Virginia, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, Iowa, New Hampshire, Kentucky, New Mexico, Maryland, Vermont and Washington State have rejected the “COS” and/or “term limits” application for Congress to call an Article V Convention. No State has passed the “COS” application this year.”
Surely false claims and assurances have certainly contributed to their defeat. For these falsehoods have boomeranged back at COS are: “fake emails & petitions to claim the false image of wide support and smearing those who oppose them.” Here in NH in 2016, smears at the John Birch Society accused us of attempting to bribe a Committee Chairman. Again, I suggest concerned State Representatives and citizens who seek a 50-state perspective on the tactics and defeats of COS, to contact Joanna Martin at Publius Huldah at PubliusHuldah@gmail.com.
The post Convention of State Scoreboard of Defeat appeared first on Granite Grok.
You’ll have noticed – I hope – that Vermont is something of a train wreck and that the Demcorats here, as they do everywhere, want that for us in New Hampshire. VermontGrok is focused on documenting that ongoing partisan derailment.
But not everything published there will appear here. Most of it will not. VermontGrok is for Vermont. We want them to build the audience with news, issues, and opinion about Vermont, for Vermont. There will be exceptions, but we think you should visit it, if not daily, a few times a week.
Lessons can be learned. We can see how policy affects the state and the people in real time and work to prevent that here or wherever you live. Maybe even in Vermont!
Rob Roper is already contributing. If you missed his bio, he is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics, including three years of service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free-market think tank.
John Klar is about to join us any day. John is an attorney, author, and farmer residing in Brookfield and the former pastor of the First Congregational Church of Westfield. He has also run for public office, among other credits.
We are also expecting content beginning next month from Michael Bielawski, who has “written freelance stories for a wide range of newspapers, magazines, and websites while living in the New York City area, Seoul, South Korea, upstate New York, and here in Vermont where I’ve been since August 2014.”
Johnny Bananas frequently writes satire about Vermont and will continue to do that. Grok contributor Aaron Warner is a Vermont resident who will also be adding his voice on local issues there. And I’ve been known, from time to time, to write a word or two about the not-so-slow-motion trainwreck to our geographic and political left.
In time we hope to ad local Op-Eds as we have here and encourage a few more brave Vermonters to become regular contributors, almost all of which have a bearing on New Hampshire and New England; we share an energy grid, Vermont is a sanctuary state, and we get “migrants” and “refugees” crossing the Connecticut River – both citizen and non-citizen, alike.
What happens there matters here. Their influence can and does poison our well. So, please visit VermontGrok to catch the inside scoop from a few folks who still have enough sense to see where things are going and how badly they’ve turned out.
And no, the page isn’t finalized. We have to add the updated graphics and add an archive link so you can get to stories that have scrolled off the home page. It’s coming! Until then, click on the author’s name on any of their posts to see their content library.
Thanks for Reading; we hope to see more of you here and VermontGrok.
The post Observing a Poster Child For Democrat Decline in Real Time … appeared first on Granite Grok.
I’m voting for Kelly Ayotte!!! Know why??? Because Kelly went on Karoline Leavitt’s radio-show!!! Yup; that’s right; I’m a MAGA-voter, which means I’m essentially a cultist, who can’t think for myself and will follow my cult’s leaders off a cliff!!! This is how Mike Graham and the NHGOP elite see voters who supported Trump … that is, Trump’s policies had nothing … NOTHING … to do with their support. It was all a cult of personality. Hence, these voters will vote for Ayotte for Governor because one of their leaders made nice-nice with Ayotte:
So, in NH-NeverTrump world those “MAGA-voters” are going to give Ayotte a pass for turning into Jeannie-Shaheenie-lite in the futile hope that would get her reelected and her gratuitous anti-Trump virtue-signaling merely because Leavitt and Ayotte made nice-nice on the radio:
Kelly Ayotte kicked off her campaign for governor Monday morning with an impressive list of Republican backers, including former U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, former Gov. Craig Benson, and current House Majority Leader Jason Osborne.
But the most significant name for the Ayotte campaign may be one that wasn’t on the list: Karoline Leavitt.
A former Trump White House staffer and hardcore MAGA congressional candidate, Leavitt was guest hosting the Grace Curley radio show on Monday. Ayotte is best known in some pro-Trump circles as the Republican who withdrew her endorsement of the GOP nominee during the 2016 campaign.
But the conversation between Ayotte and Leavitt was positive and policy-focused, covering business taxes, bail reform, fentanyl, and the Second Amendment. The “T” word never came up.
Leavitt’s embrace of Ayotte says much more about Leavitt than it says about Ayotte. And I’ll just leave it at that.
The post NH-NeverTrump Journal Thinks MAGA-Voters Are Cultists Who Can’t Think For Themselves appeared first on Granite Grok.
Stephen Miller, writing on the Twitter Machine, wants to know if anyone at NPR reads or listens to NPR. Nancy Pelosi Radio published a piece titled “This Right Wing Conspiracy about Eating Bugs is about as Racist as it Gets.” Really? Cue the (not so) way back machine.
It looks like NPR was or is all-in on the bug-eating narrative—the joy of … Insect eating. Tempting, cuisine, next-gen, how-to, festivals, burgers for bugs, so what’s bugging me? How about NPR?
The post NPR’s Calls Bug Eating Stories a Racist Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory – Forgets to Read Left-Wing NPR First … appeared first on Granite Grok.
In case you are curious or would like to see the future of steel n election (har, har), the New Hampshire Secretary of State is hosting an Electronic Ballot Counting Device Demonstration at the beginning of August, and you are invited to attend.
New Hampshire legislators, election officials, and members of the public and media will have an opportunity to test electronic ballot counting devices produced by four vendors.
CONCORD, NH (July 19, 2023): New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan is inviting the public to take part in an interactive electronic ballot counting device demonstration on August 2nd from 9:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M., with an opportunity to attend either the morning session from 9:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. or the afternoon session from 1:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. The event will take place at the following location:
They are looking for replacements for the old Diebold/Dominion ballot stuffers counters and fold-misreaders, and they’ve got some “sample” equipment to try out.
The Secretary of State’s Office has been working closely with the Ballot Law Commission as it looks to replace the aging AccuVote ballot-counting devices used during New Hampshire elections. Currently, ballot-counting devices produced by the following vendors are under consideration: Clear Ballot, Dominion Voting Systems, Election Systems & Software, and VotingWorks. …
To register for the event and secure your spot, please use the following link, managed through our event management software, EventSquid: https://www.eventsquid.com/event/21055. Members of the media are welcome to stay for both sessions.
For reasons not yet clear, I still have my day job. They keep moving the drop-dead date for department dismissal out. I figured I’d have my days free by now, but it does not look like I will be available. We will try to get someone there to report on it. If you can go or feel compelled to, make sure you take notes and shoot a few pics or some video so we can share it with our audience.
Thanks!
Here’s the entire release from the SoS.
june-19-electronic-ballot-counting-device-demo-remediated_0
The post “New Hampshire Secretary of State to Host Public Electronic Ballot Counting Device Demonstration” appeared first on Granite Grok.
“If you’re reading this, you’re not normal.” That’s right; you’re not normal. Why? The vast majority of Americans don’t focus on politics. What can they tell us about 2024?
That’s the subtitle from the National Journal piece – its the bolding I did that’s the important bit. We here at GraniteGrok are NOT normal in that we live and breathe what the interaction of culture and politics is doing here in NH and in the US (and once in a while, internationally). The fact that you are here as a reader tells us that you, too, are paying attention. In fact, our Founding Fathers designed our political system to be DEPENDANT on an informed and moral electorate.
Are we?
At best, only one third of Americans pay close attention to politics. In a recent Marquette Law School poll, just 36 percent of respondents said they follow politics most of the time. Using different wording, a Grinnell College-Selzer poll from March found that 28 percent of Americans say they pay a lot of attention to political news.
There’s reason to think these numbers might be too high—that the actual proportion of Americans paying close attention to politics is lower. …
When it comes to paying attention to presidential campaigns, there is even more reason to think we dramatically overestimate how invested people are. Pew Research has asked respondents how much thought they have given to the candidates running for president in the lead-up to the last several presidential elections. In the summer of 2019, barely a quarter had given the candidates much thought. The figures were similar in mid-2015.
My take is that for MOST people, those percentages are way, WAY too high. For years I have told folks, when asked, that our target audience are the hardcore NH activists on the Right. In this small State of 1.4 million residents, I estimate it to be 2,000 – 4,000 which is just a number I’ve plucked out of the ether based on 17 years doing this stuff.
Sidenote: And a smaller number on the Left as we hear about their grousing about us. Especially those that say and do stupid stuff, get upset that we write about it, and then go berserk when we write about their reactions to what we wrote.
So while oOur total readership is much higher as we have national and international readership
Sidenote and Plug: All the more reason to help us to have Steve go full time here as his position at work is almost kaput – please, I ask, donate what you can as GraniteGrok would not be where we are without his wit, knowledge, humor, and snark/sarcasm!)
So let’s say 8,000 regular readers here in NH – that’s only 0.6% of NH that pays close attention. That’s sad.
Tuesday I was talking with a really active Activist and I heard the lament that it is so hard to get “regular folks” interested in politics because it directly affects them and their families. The Activists who are politicians and bureaucrats who are making decisions either for (or more likely, TO) you don’t care what it does because the regular folks are “apathetic” (yes, my word) on all this stuff. Like on school board budgets where costs are around $22,000/student and climbing even as enrollment is on a 10% downward trend AND the NEAP “Proficient” rating percentages show that the schools are doing miserable in teaching our kids. It’s HARD, in most communities, to get the “regular folks” to notice what is and isn’t going on and how much of their money isn’t getting the job done.
And they continue to “no show” to meetings and elections.
So, folks reading this, consider yourselves to be “not normal”.
Most folks would leave it at that. MY take is to inject the word “Exemplary” in describing y’all. You’re here because you care, you’re reading because you want to learn (and I hope that’s what we’re delivering!), and because you’re going out and DOING something about it. I thank you all.
Now, go out and get others “activated”!
(HT: National Journal via RedState)
The post If You Are Here You are Not Normal. appeared first on Granite Grok.
I went to Chunky’s last week. The chairs are comfortable and adjustable, but the food is lousy – cute movie-themed names for menu items but not the best. One of the “burgers” was named the To Infinity and Beyond burger, made with – you guessed it – Beyond Beef.
“Made from plants and packed with 100% plant protein, the Beyond Burger is juicy, meaty, and delicious.”
I don’t think it is, and I would never order that I don’t want to encourage them. But it got me thinking. No, not that the carbon footprint of agriculture and manufacturing for fake meat is larger and the total environmental impact greater (though it is). It occurred to me that you needed a factory to turn all that agriculture and chemistry into fake “meat” in the first place; not a new thought by any means. I’ve made my share of jokes about the greening wake of fake meat fraud at every level. What occurred to me was that since the right words are all it takes to move the needle and messing up the language is now a full-contact sport, why not rename cattle?
Don’t just make jokes about them being plant-based meat factories; call them that.
I guarantee that pound-for-pound cattle use less fertilizer, land, water, machinery to harvest, and factory emissions than the Beyond Burger plant per patty, steak, tip, or round.
What do y’all raise on your ranch?
This is a plant-based meat factory … factory. We’ve got a few thousand of them in “production.” They mow the “grass” for us (saving on more emissions), and -oh, by the way – all that shouting about methane is nonsense.
Fake meat also has fake nutrition, the same for cloned meat. None of it is as good or as good for you as the real thing, nor is it gentler on the planet than cattle. All things in moderation or as directed by a health professional you can trust if you can find one. You can’t beat real meat.
So, yes, the best plant-based meat factories in the world are cattle. And yeah, pigs, sheep, chickens, and whatever other animal you like to eat is as well, in my opinion. And if the fake-green lizards in the prog-pond would stop messing with the marketplace, real meat would be less expensive. But progs – they do like their meddling – so feel free to meddle back.
The post Isn’t This The Best Plant Based Meat “Factory” in the World? appeared first on Granite Grok.
Conservatives, Libertarians, Independents, Liberals, Leftists (Socialists, Communists, and Fascists); all are political labels. Unlike many folks, mostly on the Left, I think that “labels” are perfectly good and are rather accurate in “pre-describing” what values and thought processes a person would generally display.
No, they aren’t perfect, as there are always some things on the margins that may not apply, and there are times when there are major personal differences from that label’s heterodoxy that would otherwise hold sway. However…
I like Dennis Prager, and we’ve often put up his Prager U videos (note to self, need to go do one soon as it’s been too long). He has a post, “Can You Define Leftism?” that addresses that exact question. We on the Right know what Leftists DO politically, but can we give a succinct answer? He did, and I hadn’t thought about it in quite the same way, but his definition is rather plain-spoken and simple to understand.
If we are to successfully tell the Left why they are off base, we need to KNOW what their defining soul is in order to attack it vigorously.
The runup with an important point:
After a speech in Romania last week, I was asked a question by a young member of the audience that, remarkably, I don’t remember ever having been asked: What is leftism?… But the question is rarely posed, and few know how to answer it.
…If you ask people, “What is Leftism?” most will respond by listing left-wing positions, not by defining it. People confuse identifying left-wing positions with knowing what leftism is. But naming left-wing positions is not the same as defining leftism.
I can list the Left’s positions all day long and never finish. Long-term readers already know that. But he’s right – while positions and talking points start to tell the story, none of them are Leftism’s bedrock. That place where there is no deeper part of a man’s soul and belief system from which all expression is derived.
The definition:
Leftism is the attempt to destroy the past — every value and every institution, the good as well as what it regards as the bad. That is why leftists, by definition, hate conservatism. Conservatism seeks to conserve the best from the past. The Left seeks to destroy the past, including the best.
It’s true. His examples from the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution that codified Communism (re: the Soviet Union, are ya listenin’ Bernie?) prove his point:
The first of the modern left-wing revolutions, the French Revolution, quite consciously sought to destroy every major institution and value of French society — not just the monarchy but God, religion, the legal system, traditional notions of good and evil, the calendar, the old way of telling time, the old weights and measures, and even the names of the days of the week. In other words, the past. Just like the Left in contemporary America, the leftists of the French Revolution toppled statues — in their case, the statues of every king of France.
Now look at what the Democrats Leftists are replicating (Leftist history repeats itself – THAT they never “memory hole.” No, we don’t have monarchs, but we do have Founding Fathers – statues, anyone? The Left hates the Constitution. They hate God. They are rewriting what is good and evil (cloaking them, as Prager put it, “substituted class and racial categories for moral ones.” Marriage is the evil heteronormativity that must be destroyed – degeneracy is the new. Every norm is being turned inside out. And a constant theme with me lately is they are destroying the innocence of our children by not just advocating for pornography in schools; they are DEMANDING it and calling those of us fighting back “domestic terrorists” – implicitly stating we who reject this are Enemies of the State and are evil. They have spun up all kinds of narratives, twist things around, and are continuing the work started decades ago to redefine our common language not for better understanding but to serve their political agenda. They’ve ushered in 2+2=5 in all things – including “the Left is working to destroy the distinction between man and woman.” How much more basic can Science be than that – the very essence of who we are?
They wish to destroy us as individuals. And as families.
All for one and only one reason – believe us, and we will be your Saviors and usher you into our version of Heaven on Earth. Yeah, how has that worked out over the centuries – instead of just leaving people alone to find their own Happiness?
No. They can never leave others alone.
Tell’em “Up Yours!”.
(H/T: Hot Air)
And I’ll throw this in as well from Powerline (emphasis mine, reformatted)
Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism: everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin.
More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement. But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity.
That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him.
Leftists are nothing more than bullies. Instead of schoolyard bullies, however, that only want your lunch money, they demand you give up your Freedom to them and that you bow in fealty to them.
The post “What Is Leftism?”Good Question; It’s Not What You Think appeared first on Granite Grok.
I heard the line today that became the title of this article, and I choked on my drink. The topic for today is the new Black History Curriculum developed in Florida for Middle Schoolers. Governor DeSantis assembled a team of scholars, including two Black intellectuals, to write an accurate account of slavery in America.
This team nailed the project from most reports and published the most profound, honest history of slavery written for public schools. Many are saying it should be used in all 50 states. Those many do not include Kamala Harris.
Vice President Harris seized the opportunity to fly to Florida and shred the team that wrote the curriculum, and Governor Ron DeSantis for approving the project to publish the comprehensive history of slavery in America. This document is over 200 pages, and I doubt the Vice President or any talking liberal heads condemning it have read the work.
The fiasco created by these antagonists is fabricated and shows what happens when you take one section of a piece out of context. Not that she needs any help, but Kamala Harris has used this story to make a fool of herself. She obviously has little on her plate or could change her itinerary on the fly. Harris delivered one of her more dramatic oracles. Unfortunately for her, she was emphatically voicing her issue about a non-event.
The media jumped on this story with the usual vigor. Talking heads echoed the Vice President’s sentiments. Obviously, these folks, like the VP, had not read the entire document. FOX NEWS did their homework, dissected Kamala Harris’s words, and discussed the whole document. They had the Black intellectuals on their prime-time shows to explain their work. Only one reporter on CNN called out the Vice President. Harris keyed on the section detailing the skills the enslaved learned as part of their duties. These skills helped some of them when they were freed from their enslavement. She said this was insulting to every Black person. She neglected the rest of the curriculum that keyed on the horrific life that the enslaved Blacks were bought into.
The interesting argument used by some backers of Harris’s words was that Middle Schoolers are not ready for the factual account of slavery. When asked why Middle or elementary school students are mature enough for transgender talks but not slavery, the supporters went quiet. The hypocrisy is rich.
Harris traveling to Florida was more of an attack on DeSantis than this proposed curriculum. This trip was a campaign stop, and its purpose was clear. How sad that Harris has been praised for this one activity in nearly three years was debunked as a bogus premise. The only positive of Harris’ speech was that it was not a word salad, and she did not laugh her way through her presentation. That shows how low the bar has dropped with the Biden Administration. She has her staff prepare an enthusiastic, though erroneous, speech and the media laps it up and calls her a powerful leader ready for the challenge of her position. Maybe Kamala should have taken a later flight, and she and her staff could have used the time to research the reason for her trip. Had they done that, they would have done her well to shut down Air Force II or take her to the Border instead.
The post Middle Schoolers Cannot Handle Slavery appeared first on Granite Grok.
Bottom Line: “Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.” Now for the rest from the Health Physics journal (tracking radiation safety) and it gets deeper than my Physics for Biology majors back in college.
That line is from the actual study that has this as its Abstract (reformatted, emphasis mine):
After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.”
Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper.
14C is better known as C14 – now think carbon dating. Anthropogenic = manmade.
It continues.
Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere.
Note that? All the Left wails about is CARBON! CARBON! CARBON! This study studies WHICH carbon isotopes are found and what are the relationships between the varying isotope quantities. But look at that underlined bit above: it is telling us that it can be quantified if WE (burning fossil fuels) are responsible for the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. And as that “Bottom line” above states, the Left has a conundrum to try to explain away when compared to “natural occurring” CO2.
We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.
Ward Clark at RedState continues to pull things apart. Since the ‘Grok is more politicial than earth chemistry, I’m only going to abstract a couple more bits since the main point has been made already:
I.E., by examining the relative ratios over time, we can see how Man has changed the atmosphere leading, as the Eco-Socialists and Greenies wish us to believe, to Climate Armageddon (“CA”).
Sidenote: Even as they’ve said that with varying length of predictions, and continue to make MORE dire predictions, not a single one has come true over the last 50 years. But folks like Lurch (John Kerry) and AlGore and Erlich, and many others keep sounding like the Commies when they say “well NEXT time, we’ll get it right!”.
And while the post copy/pastes a comparison of the differing values of expected vs actual to show that humans are causing the increased CO2 versus natural means (if my decades-in-the-past studies still hold up), the conclusion shows “they put up and others have to shut up – we should shut them down”:
These results, especially those for D14C, negate the claims that all or most of the increase of CO2 since 1750 has been due to the burning of fossil fuel.
Which, I guess, brings us back to belching volcanoes and other natural rifts in landmass and undersea release points (spitballing here)? The study is behind a paywall but the RedState author got access and listed the last 3 of the 10 “zinger” conclusions. Summarizing (my words):
8. Others have played games with presentation of C13 & C14 ratios with the chart axis (“by a factor of 1,000”) to give the false nuance that WE are responsible when it isn’t the case. Yes, go read the scientific details at the post if you have such a background as I’m already long here.
9. We’re back to changes in the Earth’s orbit about the sun and “cyclic changes of solar radiation”: up and down for the non-fossil fuel component of the total CO2 atmosphere measure.
And the last I’m just going to quote verbatim:
10. The assumption that the increase in CO2 since 1800 is dominated by or equal to the increase in the anthropogenic component is not settled science. Unsupported conclusions of the dominance of the anthropogenic fossil component of CO2 and concerns of its effect on climate change and global warming have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary, and ineffective in curbing global warming.
Science is NEVER settled – after all, the “consensus” used to be that the Earth was flat and that everything in the Universe orbited the Earth. However, better data, instead of belief systems, alter that consensus as it should – and sometimes radically. Like Michael Mann’s hockey stick was discredited.
That last line is killer: stop doing stupid stuff by government that isn’t warranted by the science.
The problem here isn’t just about co-opting the science, it’s about co-opting Democracy into a neo-aristocracy of central planners and those addicted to obtaining Power over others as shown by my multiple Treehugger commentaries.
This is the kind of science you never see discussed much outside of the journals in which it’s presented, not only because it’s tedious and difficult for lay people to get through, but because it doesn’t fit the Left’s climate change narrative. But the conclusions are inescapable; anthropogenic CO2 was not found to be a significant driver of climate change, especially when compared to other influences.
(H/T: RedState via 12ft.io)
The post For Climate Change, Democrats Depend on Fear Mongering Instead of Actual Science. Like Actual Carbon Isotopes Analysis? appeared first on Granite Grok.
Not one to sit on their hands, the Dems – when in control – reach for everything and anything they can grasp, and with climate policy a priority, they’ve attempted to regulate everything they can’t ban outright, and now they are coming for your gas-powered generators.
It’s a bad idea for many reasons, not the least of which is the need for backup today. The current grid, ill-fitted for their future energy plans, has points of failure that require private use generators when the power goes out. But it’s not just homeowners. Businesses from small to large, hospitals, public service, and government, everyone who needs power when it fails runs gas-powered generators.
There is no wind or solar replacement for them, especially if wind and solar become the go-to point of failure in the grid and fail to deliver, they will. The Biden Admin and their Climate Cultist allies could care less. They are trying to burn the ships as it were standing us with only one choice. Their choice.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has proposed a policy (pdf) that would remove nearly all existing portable gas generators from the market. The new rule restricts the amount of carbon monoxide that generators can emit by forcing these generators to switch off when they reach a certain level of emissions.
Smaller gas generators would have to cut carbon monoxide emissions by 50 percent, and larger generators would have to cut emissions by up to 95 percent. Nearly all models currently available are expected to not be in compliance with the new standard.
Once the proposed rules come into effect, manufacturers would have to comply with them in just six months, a process that usually takes several years. The rules would also ban manufacturers from stockpiling noncompliant generators before the new standards are enacted.
These changes will, at first, make them much more expensive and sustainable as incremental overreach works to eliminate them as an asset. Does FEMA have a plan to adapt? Emergency management from local PDs to Federal agencies use generators. Mandates such as this will drive up those costs making the government more expensive and, again, as if Demcorats care. But they might care about this.
You’ve seen the memes or pics converted into memes. An EV runs out of juice for whatever reason, and the only way to field charge it is for rescue vehicles to roll up with a gas-powered generator. I you make them too expensive or ban them – which is likely the goal, how do you plan to rescue those EVs trapped out in the wild?
The answer is, with any luck, no one who lives out there will be able to afford an EV and will have to move into a 15-minute city where no one needs that.
The vast gap between that future and the current reality makes no difference to them, nor the damage required to drag us from one point to the other. They don’t care about the hardship. All they care about is policy goals.
HT | The Burning Platform
The post If Biden Bans Gas Powered Generators How Will they Rescue Stranded EVs? appeared first on Granite Grok.
A recent article called (Publius Hulda Warning) appeared in the Grok and, in my opinion, insults the wisdom and spirit of the republic and our founding fathers regarding WHY the US Constitution Article V must NOT be exercised.
We want to thank Al Brandano for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Article V directs state citizens thru their legislature the authority and duty to simply propose amendments to the US Constitution (To; reign in an out-of-control federal government – possibly leading to a Convention of the States – NOT a Constitutional Convention).
Common Sense is NOT so Common
NH State Legislators swear an oath as follows:
Do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.
Do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent on me as …………according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations of this constitution and laws of the state of New Hampshire. So help me, God.
DUTY, noun Webster 1787 1. That which a person owes to another; that which a person is bound, by any natural, moral or legal obligation, to pay, do or perform. Obedience to princes, magistrates and the laws is the duty of every citizen and subject; obedience, respect and kindness to parents are duties of children; fidelity to friends is a duty; reverence, obedience and prayer to God are indispensable duties; the government and religious instruction of children are duties of parents which they cannot neglect without guilt.
Parchment Barrier: Jefferson spoke of; The Constitution can’t exist solely as a parchment barrier. We swear an oath and defend it with at times the blood of Patriots and tyrants. If we don’t then we have dammed our children to slavery.
In closing, it is my opinion; Publius Hulda and her supporters in NH share failed logic and a lack of understanding of the obligations and duties of elected state legislators. They instead try to sell you on totalitarian tactics of sowing fear. How does this strategy support from one – we will become many?
So Publius Hulda, what other parts of the Constitution shall we instruct our legislators NOT TO FOLLOW?
Common sense is the basic human ability to think. Common sense has nothing to do with knowledge that a human being possesses. Common sense is actually a measure of one’s IQ level Common sense is an in-born trait in some cases, while it can be developed and harnessed with time too. People with a good common sense are sharper and quicker at solving puzzles, riddles, mind-boggling games and other related stuff which requires great mental sharpness and have nothing to do with your knowledge levels. Common sense is not something that everyone can claim to have; it is a rare quality of mind. It is something that people is really endowed with, being a special capability of your brain. In the words of Voltaire,” Common Sense is not so common.” The word “common” here is a misnomer since this particular capability is not that commonly seen in human beings. Mark Twain
The post Common Sense of Article V and the Fools that Deny It! appeared first on Granite Grok.
Pregnancy care centers have filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Vermont for injunctive relief, claiming a bill signed into law discriminates against them and violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. I agree, and I’ll do you one better.
Related: Everyone is Claiming Vermonters Voted to Protect Abortion, But That’s Not What the Amendment Says
But we’ll get to that in a moment. First,
On May 10, 2023, Governor Phil Scott signed Senate Bill No. 37 (“SB 37”), attached hereto as Exhibit A. That law impedes the ability of pro-life pregnancy centers to continue providing help and support to Vermont women and families in two ways: First, it censors the centers’ ability to advertise their free services (Advertising Prohibition). Second, it precludes centers from offering non-medical services, information, and counseling unless provided by a licensed health care provider (Provider Restriction).
Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the pregnancy care centers and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. This religious not-for-profit organization oversees crisis pregnancy facilities across the United States.
“Women who become unexpectedly pregnant should be empowered with life-affirming options, emotional support, and practical resources,” said ADF Legal Counsel Julia Payne. “Vermont’s law, however, does the opposite—it impedes women’s ability to receive critical services during a difficult time in their lives and suppresses the free-speech rights of faith-based pregnancy centers. Pregnancy centers should be free to serve women and offer the support they need without fear of unjust government punishment.”
…
The lawsuit explains that the Vermont law specifically targets pro-life pregnancy centers as “limited services” providers because they do not refer or perform abortions. Under the law, the state attorney general has the authority to fine pregnancy centers up to $10,000 if she believes its life-affirming messages are misleading.
The law applies only to pro-life pregnancy centers—an abortion clinic that provides identical information would not be subject to the law. Also, the law does not define “misleading,” so it is left up to the discretion of the attorney general.
SB 37 quite clearly targets pregnancy care centers. And I get that Gov. Scott is a social-progressive Republican, but I’m unclear why he would sign this into law. Even if he wanted it, he could make noise about it being unconstitutional and let the Legislature override the veto. Instead, we got this.
“Today, we reaffirm once again that Vermont stands on the side of privacy, personal autonomy and reproductive liberty, and that providers are free to practice without fear.”
Shouldn’t reproductive liberty include the option to reproduce? “Choice” in the ruling class Democrat dictionary is defined as what they want and nothing else. Still, even the average Democrat voter understands the true definition—1,726 (or however many) different options for how to get your coffee at Starbucks. Scott and the Dems running the Legislature deliberately kneecapped the competition of a campaign donor. Abortion providers heap money on progressive politicians across the spectrum.
Pregnancy care centers not only do not donate to them, but they don’t typically charge any fees for their services, and no one is forcing taxpayers to fund them as if it is some protected right.
As for “without fear,” based on the complaint, SB 37 places pregnancy care centers in constant fear of being fined $10,000.00 by the state if it decides any communication is misleading. Speaking of which, free speech and other concerns aside, the state passed, and voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive liberty. If they have not already, ADF might want to consider that SB37 may also violate this new addition to the Vermont Constitution.
Sec. 2. Article 22. [Personal reproductive liberty] That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.
What is the state’s compelling interest, and how is SB37 the least restrictive means?
HT | ADF Media.org
The post Shouldn’t Reproductive Liberty Include the Option to Reproduce? appeared first on Granite Grok.
Textualism is a prominent framework for interpreting the Constitution, particularly in conservative circles. Adherents of this school generally believe you can understand the Constitution simply by reading the words in the document and determining the “plain meaning” of the text. This differs from the “intent” of the framers or the “original meaning” as understood by ratifiers.
While textualism provides a good starting point, it often has some limitations. Reading the text alone can lead you astray if you don’t have some knowledge of the historical and legal framework within which the Constitution was drafted and ratified.
Following are three primary things you need to understand to have a good foundation for grasping the original meaning of the Constitution.
The Changing Meaning of Words
Words mean things and the meaning of words change over time. Words can also have different definitions in a legal context than they do in common use. That’s why it’s crucial to understand the meaning of words and phrases at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified.
James Madison made this point in a letter to Henry Lee.
“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense!” [Emphasis added]
Academic textualists concede this point and generally try to determine the plain meaning of the Constitution based on the vocabulary of the day. But Madison reveals a big problem average people will run into if they try to understand the Constitution based simply on “what it says.”
A good example of this problem is the change in the definition of the word “commerce” over time. It had a much narrower meaning in the 1700s than it does today, and if you read the commerce clause using the modern meaning of the word, it will allow the federal government to wield much more power than intended.
In the founding era, commerce almost always had an economic meaning and was associated almost exclusively with the sort of activities engaged in by merchants.
As Rob Natelson noted in his paper “The legal meaning of commerce in the Commerce Clause,” this included “buying and selling products made by others (and sometimes land), associated finance and financial instruments, navigation and other carriage, and intercourse across jurisdictional lines.” [Emphasis added]
Today, “commerce” generally means any economic activity.
The commerce clause was never meant to give the federal government power to regulate manufacturing, agriculture, labor laws, workplace safety, or the host of other activities now micromanaged by the feds today under the modern definition of the word.
This is just one example of how the changing meaning of a word can alter our understanding of the Constitution. Referring to founding-era dictionaries and other period sources can help avoid this pitfall.
Historical Context
Political systems evolve from ideas. In order to fully grasp the system, you need to the historical context that birthed the ideas and their evolution through time. So, to properly understand the Constitution, it’s important to know the history that led to its drafting and ratification.
The United States were born out of the American Revolution. But it wasn’t so much about the war. As John Adams explained, the real revolution was a revolution in thought.
“What do We mean by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775.”
He went on to say, that a “radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”
The most fundamental change was the shift from believing that government is sovereign (possessing supreme or ultimate power) to believing sovereignty was in the people. As James Wilson put it, “The truth is, that, in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power REMAINS in the people.”
As they began to recognize their own sovereignty, Americans started to question the traditional conception of political power. The colonists began to think of a constitution as something that exists above the government and to reject the idea that government formed the constitution. Instead, they conceived of a constitution as something that binds government.
We see this revolutionary conception of government taking form in the Massachusetts Circular Letter drafted by James Otis Jr. and Samuel Adams. They argued that when Parliament acts outside of its constitutional bounds, it destroys its own foundation.
The House have humbly represented to the ministry their own sentiments, that his Majesty’s high court of Parliament is the supreme legislative power over the whole empire; that in all free states the constitution is fixed, and as the supreme legislative derives its power and authority from the constitution, it cannot overleap the bounds of it without destroying its own foundation; that the constitution ascertains and limits both sovereignty and allegiance, and, therefore, his Majesty’s American subjects, who acknowledge themselves bound by the ties of allegiance, have an equitable claim to the full enjoyment of the fundamental rules of the British constitution.” [Emphasis added]
This led to the realization that constitutions need to be written in order to make the limits on government power absolutely clear.
Understanding this historical context will help you read the Constitution properly. When someone proposes an interpretation that runs counter to these founding-era ideas, or the interpretation sounds like something out of today’s British system, I can almost guarantee that it is a bad take.
Legal Framework
The Constitution is a legal document rooted in 18th-century contract law. To grasp some of the nuances of the Constitution, it’s important to have some knowledge of the legal framework of the day.
Think of it this way; you can’t work an algebra problem unless you understand the rules of algebra. In the same sense, it’s difficult to completely understand the Constitution without some knowledge legal rules of construction at that time.
For example, by enumerating the powers of Congress in Article 1 Sec. 8, the drafters excluded any powers not on the list.
Legal rules of construction dictate that when reading a legal document, the enumeration of certain powers logically excludes all other powers not listed. This is a legal maxim – Designato unius est exclusio alterius – meaning, “the designation of one is the exclusion of the other.”
Understanding this rule of construction clarifies the extent of the “general welfare” clause. If you don’t understand this legal maxim, you might think that Congress to do anything and everything to promote the “general welfare.” Alexander Hamilton explains why this isn’t the case in Federalist #83, and his argument is based on this rule of construction.
“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”
This isn’t to say that you need a law degree to understand the meaning of the Constitution. But it is important to grasp the basic legal framework it was written within.
Conclusion
Textualism provides a good starting point for understanding the meaning of the Constitution. But all text needs context. We’ve all seen what can happen when you pull a sentence out of its broader context. It can completely change the meaning of what was said. In the same sense, ripping a clause of the Constitution out of its historical and legal context can lead to misunderstandings. And these misunderstandings generally mean the federal government exercises more power than it legitimately should.
St. George Tucker wrote the first systematic commentary on the Constitution. He offers a good rule of thumb for reading the Constitution that is rooted in this legal and historical context.
“The powers delegated to the federal government, are, in all cases, to receive the most strict construction that the instrument will bear, where the rights of a state or of the people, either collectively or individually, may be drawn in question.”
Mike Maharrey | The Tenth Amendment Center
The post Three Essentials to Understand the Constitution appeared first on Granite Grok.
Mittens, like most Uniparty Republicans, has his dander up over the prospect of another Trump nomination. It’s cute in an elitist sort of way. Trump is the only guy we know will stand up for Americans (how dare he!), and Romeny happens to have a former campaign advisor who sits on the board of Burisma.
He voted twice to impeach him, so he might be interested in keeping Trump out of the Oval Office. Business. Uniparty Business. Burisma Business.
Nothing to see there, of course, and maybe that’s not in play. Trump, would likely get us out of funding Ukraine if re-elected, which Dems and Romney-esque Republicans will spin as support for Russia. Still, Burisma would probably be less of a priority beyond the Biden’s influence-peddling schemes. No, the issue is with Trump, the disruptor. He is not one of them and doesn’t need them, so it’s only natural for scions of the uniparty to (continue to) work against him.
Or, in this case, against all but perhaps one primary contender. And I just mentioned this a few days ago. If everyone is so concerned about Trump steamrolling the primary, do something to scrape these barnacles off Ron DeSantis’s struggling tug. Mittens thinks the donor class is the key and would not be wrong. No money, no campaign, at least nothing anyone will follow, especially if you can’t raise small-dollar donations in the volume needed to blanket early primary states with mailers and flyers and TV; oh my!
“Despite Donald Trump’s apparent inevitability, a baker’s dozen Republicans are hoping to become the party’s 2024 nominee for president,” he wrote. “That is possible for any of them if the field narrows to a two-person race before Mr. Trump has the nomination sewn up.”
“For that to happen, Republican megadonors and influencers—large and small—are going to have to do something they didn’t do in 2016: get candidates they support to agree to withdraw if and when their paths to the nomination are effectively closed,” he added.
Or is it enough? Breitbart also quotes Papa Smuf John Sununu (former NH governor and Elder Bush White House Pratorian).
‘It is fun running for president if you know you cannot win,’” he continued. “Left to their own inclinations, expect several of the contenders to stay in the race for a long time. They will split the non-Trump vote, giving him the prize. A plurality is all that is needed for winner-take-all primaries.”
Many run for book deals, higher speaking fees, west-wing offices, ambassadorship, other forms of resume plumping, or even a shot as the nominee’s VP. Lame Duck NH Guv Chris Sununu could be one of those things, but he’s not running for President, he said. He is going to Iowa for no reason but whatever.
And that all seems like a lot of work when, given the current culture, you could get away with saying, well, I identify as a presidential candidate (and Maybe socially Liberal Chris Sununu will try that cuz, according to Dad, it’s fun – but we think not. He’s got skeletons and that’ll keep him out of any high profile race).
Anyway – Romney again.
“Donors may think that party leaders can narrow the field. Not so. Candidates don’t listen to party officials, because voters don’t listen to them either,” he wrote. “And the last people who would ever encourage a candidate to withdraw are the campaign staff and consultants who want to keep their jobs for as long as possible.”
Donors would be stupid if they thought candidates listened to the party machine when it is supposed to be an unbiased and disinterested parade guide and little more. We know that is not true. Party machinists tinker with the wheels and gears constantly but not publicly. Nor can they allow themselves to be discovered pushing or pulling one candidate or another unless they are Demcorats – ask Bernie about that.
And Romney is just saying what they are all thinking. Americans, especially primary-voting Republicans, love this Trump guy. For better or worse, we know the GOP is in no position to steal elections, and that will hurt them come November 24, which I also speculated might be deliberate because of the likelihood of a Trump nomination.
And while I don’t put anything past the uniparty when it comes to Trump, which – you have to admit – is one of the best reasons to support the guy, they’ll try to do almost anything, but since they are Republicans, they’ll f— it up … and blame Trump who appears poised to roll over everyone if DeSantis doesn’t flip a switch his campaign can’t seem to find.
The post RINO Romney Says, Most of You Need to Get Out of the Primary Pool or Trump Walks Away with the Nomination appeared first on Granite Grok.