Wednesday • November 27 • 2024
Vol.XVI • No.XLVIII
Manchester, N.H.
My last article highlighted the fact that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is only now beginning to contemplate how to write the rules regarding how Vermonters can retroactively “bank” so-called “Clean Heat Credits” back to January 1, 2023, and continue to bank them until the Clean Heat Standard goes fully into effect sometime in 2025.
To recap, the credits are earned by performing so-called “Clean Heat Measures” such as installing heat pumps, insulating building spaces, etc. The credits will ultimately be ownable and saleable financial instruments with a monetary value, so knowing how to claim them – and a system for doing so that reliably prevents fraudulent claims — is kind of a critical detail.
But there is an even more important detail that is still unresolved: Who actually owns the credit?
Does the customer who paid for the clean heat measure (individual, business, or in the case of subsidized measures the state) have primary claim to the credit, or does the vendor who did the work? During legislative committee discussions my impression was that the intent of the lawmakers, or at least most of them, was that the person/entity paying for the measure would have primary claim to the credit, but the law itself, as passed, doesn’t say this.
So, I reached out to two lawmakers, Senator Anne Watson (D-Washington) and Representative Laura Sibilia (I-Dover), who each sit on a committee of jurisdiction for S.5/Act 18, to see if they could tell me who owns a carbon credit. (Thanks to both for quick and helpful replies to my emails!) And, yes, the law doesn’t say. That’s a problem.
What the law does say, Sen. Watson reminded me, is, “Credit ownership. The [Public Utilities] Commission, in consultation with the Technical Advisory Group [emphasis added], shall establish a standard methodology for determining what party or parties shall be the owner of a clean heat credit upon its creation. The owner or owners may transfer those credits to a third party or to an obligated party.” And herein lies another problem: the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) doesn’t yet exist and won’t for a while.
Invitations to apply didn’t go out until September 22, and applications aren’t due until October 9th. (FYI, according to the S.5/Act 18 timeline, putting the TAG together should have commenced on or before August 31, so already fumbling the ball here….) In other words, the PUC can’t make a decision about what procedures are necessary to bank a carbon credit until it is established who exactly has an ownership claim to that credit, and the PUC can’t decide that until the TAG is fully set up and functioning to weigh in on the topic. Some day.
What is the TAG? “The Clean Heat Standard Technical Advisory Group shall consist of up to 15 members appointed by the Commission. The Commission shall establish the procedure for the TAG, including member term lengths and meeting procedures.” It’s basically another Climate Council, made up of volunteers receiving per diem compensation and a handful (3) of paid representatives from administrative agencies. Given the Climate Council’s demonstrated inability to reach any consensus decision of consequence, this does not bode well for a quick resolution to this question.
The legislature put the retroactive carbon credit allowance in S.5/Act 18 because they didn’t want Vermonters delaying projects for two years, holding off in order to get the credit benefit. But by abdicating their responsibility to put forward a workable plan at the outset, and handing over to a couple of unelected bureaucracies, our lawmakers have created a total clusterbleep. And to add even further uncertainty to this whole situation, Rep. Sibilia reminded me that the legislature will review whatever rules the PUC and the TAG come up with in 2025 and can change them – in this case retroactively.
When Senator Dick McCormack called S.5/Act 18 a Rube Goldberg contraption, he was underselling what a mess the whole thing is. (He voted for it anyway!) I’ll be curious to see how they untangle this web in the months to come, but I won’t be the only one watching.
Back on June 20th, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission put out the following press release, which I re-print here in full because it’s all really interesting.
CFTC Whistleblower Office Issues Alert Seeking Tips Relating to Carbon Markets Misconduct
Washington, D.C. — The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Whistleblower Office in the Division of Enforcement issued an alert today notifying the public on how to identify and report potential Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) violations connected to fraud or manipulation in the carbon markets. Voluntary carbon markets, among other measures, can support the transition to a low-carbon economy through market-based initiatives in which high-quality carbon credits, also known as carbon offsets, are purchased and sold bilaterally or on spot exchanges. As with any market, there exists the potential for fraud and manipulation.
“Alongside the continued growth of CFTC regulated carbon offset derivatives contracts, the agency is building upon its expertise to ensure the utility and reliability of these markets, as well as its ability to identify and pursue any potential fraud or abusive practices,” said Chairman Rostin Behnam. “Information from whistleblowers advances the Commission’s enforcement mission and, in turn, further builds integrity and trust in the carbon markets by rooting out fraud and manipulation.”
As described in the alert, the CFTC’s Whistleblower Office will work with market participants that report information related to potential fraud in the carbon markets including, but not limited to, manipulative and wash trading, “ghost” credits, double counting, fraudulent statements relating to material terms of the carbon credits, and potential manipulation of tokenized carbon markets. Individuals who submit such information through the CFTC’s Whistleblower Program may be eligible for certain confidentiality and anti-retaliation protections, as well as monetary awards if that information leads to the success of a CFTC enforcement action. [Emphasis added. Note: This could be more lucrative than collecting carbon credits!]
“As carbon credit markets continue to grow, we will act to foster the integrity of these markets by fighting fraud and manipulation,” said Ian McGinley, Director of the Division of Enforcement. “Whistleblowers are invaluable allies in these efforts. We will diligently investigate all credible tips and complaints from whistleblowers relating to carbon credit markets.”
Background:
The voluntary carbon credit market is currently estimated to be $2 billion and is forecasted to grow to $250 billion by 2050, according to the Morgan Stanley Research paper Carbon Offset Market Trends and Growth 2050. Carbon credits are the underlying commodity for futures contracts that are listed on CFTC designated contract markets (DCMs). The CFTC has enforcement authority and regulatory oversight over DCMs and any trading in those markets.
The CFTC also has anti-fraud and anti-manipulation enforcement authority over the related spot markets for carbon credits. The CFTC’s jurisdiction also applies to carbon allowances and other environmental commodities products that are linked to futures contracts.
About the CFTC’s Whistleblower Program
The CFTC’s Whistleblower Program was created under Section 748 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Since issuing its first award in 2014, the CFTC has granted whistleblower awards amounting to approximately $330 million. Those awards are associated with enforcement actions that have resulted in monetary sanctions totaling more than $3 billion. The CFTC issues awards related not only to the agency’s enforcement actions, but also in connection with actions brought by other domestic or foreign regulators if certain conditions are met.
Whistleblowers are eligible to receive between 10 and 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected. All whistleblower awards are paid from the CFTC Customer Protection Fund, which was established by Congress, and is financed entirely through monetary sanctions paid to the CFTC by violators of the CEA. No money is taken or withheld from injured customers to fund the program. The CEA also provides confidentiality and anti-retaliation protections for whistleblowers.
The CFTC’s Whistleblower Office issues Whistleblower Alerts as a way of communicating the priorities of the Division of Enforcement to the public, including potential whistleblowers and whistleblower attorneys.
Rob Roper 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. He is also a regular contributor to VermontGrok.
Anyone with information related to potential violations of the CEA or the CFTC’s rules and regulations can submit a tip electronically by filing a Form TCR (Tip, Complaint or Referral) online at https://whistleblower.gov/overview/submitatip.
Go to Whistleblower.gov for more information about CFTC’s Whistleblower Program.
The longer we persist with a carbon credit banking system with no rules in place to govern said system, the more open to fraud, abuse, and honest error that system becomes. So, friends at the PUC, the future TAG, and the future Default Delivery Agency, all I can say is you better be able to turn this Rube Goldberg mess in a secure, verifiable, rock solid carbon credit system. If not, the Feds are coming after you!
The post More Confusion/Delay Ahead for Carbon Credit Banking Scheme appeared first on Granite Grok.
They’re flying so thick and fast it is amazing.
Take heart – there will be both a Wednesday and Friday Edition. Last week’s Friday Edition.
Remember, ridicule and mockery are effective weapons:
Now, let the mockery and mayhem begin.
*** Warning, a few possibly off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***
>>>>>=====<<<<<
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Pick of the post:
The US government is LITERALLY flying them in.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA
If you have a police officer or National Guard family member / friend, start talking to them about the idea that they need to rehearse: I WILL NOT OBEY THAT ORDER. Whether explicitly by open refusal, or a “blue flu” response, or similar non-compliance aka Sargeant Schultz’s famous “I see no-thing”! cops and soldiers better understand that if they start obeying the Globalists, they’re signing on to treason and becoming the enemy.
“SIR, I WILL NOT OBEY THAT ORDER.”
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Palate Cleansers:
—
—
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Come back Wednesday for another edition. Same Meme Time. Same Meme channel.
The post MONDAY MEMES appeared first on Granite Grok.
This clip is a bit longer than what I typically share, but the subject and content are compelling. Worthy of our attention and, more importantly, vigorous debate. The matter at hand is the war in Ukraine, what we’ve heard or been told, and what may be a totally different truth.
Our government’s embellishments about COVID, the obfuscation, deliberate lying, and the major media commitment to selling those lies and others give this conversation a good deal of merit.
Tucker Carlson is speaking with retired U.S. Army colonel Douglas Macgregor. He is an author, consultant, and commentator. He shares a very different version of the events in Ukraine, the competence of the Diplomatic core, the state of the US Military, and the Russian Army.
He says our intervention (boots on the ground) seems inevitable, that we are ill-prepared, and that Russia is not just ready but able to put America in a corner the extraction from which will result in either nuclear war or surrender in Ukraine, under terms unfavorable to the West and its Allies.
Put simply, we should not be there, and we need to get out now, or the cost will be much greater than the human rights disaster we’ve helped precipitate to date.
The post Nothing We’ve Been Told About Ukraine is True and We Need to Get Out Now appeared first on Granite Grok.
When Silicon Valley Bank and other banks failed earlier this year, the debate over the sustainability of fractional reserve banking resurfaced. Under fractional reserve banking, banks keep only a fraction of customers’ deposits in reserve. The difference is bank credit, such as government debt, mortgages, business loans, and many other kinds of loans. This practice leaves the bank open to a run, in which panicky depositors attempt to withdraw their funds from the bank en masse, but the bank doesn’t have the cash on hand. The following FRED graph gives an idea of the extent of the mismatch between deposits and reserves.
But we shouldn’t worry about bank runs because the government is here to help. In the US, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insures checking accounts up to $250,000, and the banking system is regulated by a host of agencies, including the Federal Reserve, which also acts as a lender of last resort. These measures are intended to prevent and mitigate bank runs for the benefit of both the banks and their depositors. Though it should be obvious that they only conceal the fundamental problem and disperse the costs.
Murray Rothbard was a detractor of fractional reserve banking. He wrote on the changing legal definition of bank deposits—how they originated as warehousing relationships, or “bailments,” but over time came to represent debtor-creditor relationships. Ludwig von Mises also pointed to bank issues of fiduciary media (the proportion of deposits that cannot be redeemed), which artificially lower interest rates, as the cause of business cycles.
Nevertheless, a faction of Austrian and Austrian-adjacent scholars defends fractional reserve banking, saying that not only can it be sustainable, but it can also be beneficial in maintaining monetary equilibrium. I’m not convinced by this view, but it’s worth taking a closer look at one point that these scholars often make. They say that clear communication between the bank and its customers would solve the hairy problem of bank customers expecting the money at par on demand.
With such an agreement, “fractional reserve free banking” proponents say depositors would know that they are effectively creditors to the bank and that the bank is, therefore, a debtor to them. This means that the deposits are technically and legally owned by the bank and that what the depositor has is technically and legally a callable loan to the bank. Clear agreements would mean that depositors understand that there is a chance that they won’t be able to get their money (actually, the bank’s money, in this view) immediately in the event of a bank failure. Of course, central banking and government-backed deposit insurance diminish customers’ expectation of bank responsibility—how much should banks be expected to disclose about the deposit relationship if most of their customers’ deposits are guaranteed by the government anyway?
In line with other fractional reserve-free banking proponents, George Selgin argues that modern depositor agreements—the dense legalese most people skip—already establish this transparency.
And he is right. Bank of America does make that disclaimer in its deposit agreement. I decided to take a closer look at other big banks’ fine print to see how standard this language is. What I found is that it isn’t standard and that even when a bank (including Bank of America) does use that language, it is still ambiguous because of other language in the document, especially in regard to the availability of funds. One bank’s fine print doesn’t even mention the possibility of bank failure and FDIC receivership.
Here is what I found.
JPMorgan Chase does not have debtor-creditor language. In fact, in the first section of the agreement, in which common terms are defined, it says that the “available balance” is “the amount of money in your account that you can use right now.” This does not indicate that Chase “owes” its customers the money or that withdrawals could be delayed. Chase explicitly calls its deposit customers “account owners” and say they have “complete control over all of the funds in the account.”
Bank of America describes the deposit relationship as “that of debtor and creditor,” but this language does not appear in its online banking service agreement, which only says that the online “Services may also be affected by your Deposit Agreement.” Bank of America doesn’t say much about the availability of demand deposits but is very clear about time deposits: “When you open a time deposit account, you agree to leave your funds in the account until the maturity date of the account.”
Wells Fargo does not use the debtor-creditor language to describe its deposit relationship. Like Bank of America, Wells Fargo says that account owners have “complete control over all of the funds in the account.”
Citibank very clearly defines its relationship with customers: “Citibank’s relationship with you is debtor and creditor.” But Citi also refers to the customer’s balance as the “‘Available Now’ balance,” even though a critical mass of depositors could run to withdraw their funds and find that the money isn’t so available.
US Bank does not use the debtor-creditor language to describe the deposit relationship. In fact, early in the agreement it refers to the “Owner’s Authority” of depositors, which includes “the power to perform all the transactions available to the account.” US Bank also says that the customer’s funds are available immediately: “‘Available Balance’ means the amount of money that can be withdrawn at a point in time.”
PNC does not use the debtor-creditor language to describe the deposit relationship. It does not even have a section on the possibility of bank failure and the process of FDIC receivership, which is in all the above banks’ deposit agreements.
So, only two of these six major banks have the debtor-creditor language, and the two that do have it introduce ambiguity by promising at-par-on-demand availability of funds. We are still a long way from clear communication about the status of depositors’ money, if we can call it theirs at all.
Dr. Jonathan Newman is a Fellow at the Mises Institute. He earned his PhD at Auburn University while a Research Fellow at the Mises Institute. He was the recipient of the 2021 Gary G. Schlarbaum Award to a Promising Young Scholar for Excellence in Research and Teaching. Previously, he was Associate Professor of Economics and Finance at Bryan College. He has published in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics and in volumes edited by Matthew McCaffrey and Per Bylund. His research focuses on Austrian economics, inflation and business cycles, and the history of economic thought. He has taught courses on Macroeconomics and Quantitative Economics: Uses and Limitations in the Mises Graduate School. He is the author of two children’s books: The Broken Window and Ludwig the Builder. His commentary appears regularly in the Mises Wire and Power & Market.
Dr. Jonathan Newman | Mises Wire
Mises Wire We heartily encourage reprints and shares of Mises Wire articles. If you wish to reproduce an article in your blog, magazine, radio show, newspaper column, classroom material, textbook, discussion group, website, or any other venue, please do so. The original publication source must be included in an appropriate place.The post Is the Money in Your Checking Account Yours or the Bank’s? appeared first on Granite Grok.
There has been much speculation about what the next global psy-op will be. Is it a virus, another lab-generated pathogen, mRNA ground beef, or perhaps something more like Flint, Michigan, or the EPA’s Animus/Colorado River poisoning, but a bit more subtle?
To paraphrase Woody from Toy Story, someone’s going to poison the waterhole! Or, at least, that’s the latest buzz. They didn’t manage to vaccinate everyone, and while some people understand climate change, water is so fundamental that everyone gets it—even children.
It sounds like she’s saying that fearmongering the water supply is the next WEF psy-op to achieve global compliance…(while working on frog-marching us into line on everything else).
World Economic Forum signals the next global catastrophe they have planned for us… since they “failed to vaccinate the whole world” and since Climate Change isn’t exactly catching on. They’re going to do something to our water supply. They can’t help but brag about their plan to attack the water supply, and then they go on to explain why this one is going to work (because it effects everyone). When they tell you what they’re going to do, you need to believe them.
World Economic Forum signals the next global catastrophe they have planned for us… since they “failed to vaccinate the whole world” and since Climate Change isn’t exactly catching on.
They’re going to do something to our water supply. They can’t help but brag about their plan… pic.twitter.com/8nd2iXFiku
— Lauren Witzke (@LaurenWitzkeDE) September 30, 2023
Feel free to disagree.
The post Is The WEF Going to “Poison” The World’s Water Hole? appeared first on Granite Grok.
Great interview by Matt Gaetz. He explains how the UniParty prevents the normal appropriations process from taking place to create a scenario where the government is going to “shut down” unless there is a single up or down vote on a “continuing resolution” to fund the entire government. It’s a scam to give the UniParty a pretext, an excuse, a rationale for continuing the unsustainable, $2 billion in annual deficits, spending … I HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO VOTE FOR THE CR!!! THE ALTERNATIVE WAS A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN!!!
It’s rigged … like everything else. The UniParty refuses to take up single subject spending bills in order to create the specter of a shutdown and the need for a CR. Matt Gaetz is a real fiscal conservative. Kevin McCarthy is NOT … he is simply a hired gun for the donor/lobbyist class getting rich off the demise of our country.
House conservatives made @SpeakerMcCarthy agree to spending guardrails in January. He has blown through those guardrails, which is what brought us to this moment.
The only way to save America from financial ruin is to pass single-subject spending bills that are able to be… pic.twitter.com/cGlmqsbf9v
— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) September 29, 2023
The post Must See Matt Gaetz … How The UniParty Uses “Shutdowns” And “Continuing Resolutions” To Avoid Accountability And Spend, Spend, Spend appeared first on Granite Grok.
The Confucius Institute funded UNH. There is a contract through 2024 or at least a payment that has been made through 2024. Has anyone seen the contract? Why did UNH get chosen to introduce the unregulated “Dear Colleague” Title IX letter in 2011?
We want to thank Claire Best for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Why did Amy Guttman of UPENN meet with President Xi in 2009 to discuss building closer connections between US & Chinese universities? What was the quid pro quo?
Why did “Dear Colleague” set out to subversively get rid of due process without going through regulatory procedures?
Why did UNH develop “Bystander” and “Know Your Power” training?
Why did the White House/UNH/NHCADSV/Concord Police target Private Episcopal St. Paul’s School as opposed to any other school?
Was it for the same reason the White House-affiliated journalist Sabrina Erdeley targeted the University of Virginia for the fake Rolling Stone “A Rape on Campus” story? Because they had a stereotype in mind?
Why did they want to use St. Paul’s school to set an example to other schools around the nation, and why was the Government takeover/monitoring of it praised?
Why was Maxient.com behavior reporting software really introduced, and why is there an “analysis phase” – for whose benefit?
Why did they turn Chessy Prout, whose father was working in Hong Kong at Investco, into the chosen “survivor”?
Why was she given a Government Affairs PR representative (Dan Hill of hillimpact.com) whose specialty is special ops stealth media to help Department of Defense contractors get Government contracts?
Why did Chessy Prout get a speaker’s agency registered in Albany, NY, and Hong Kong?
Why did she go on a special trip to take #MeToo to China?
Why did Alexander Prout become Chair of Vital Voices Solidarity (Hillary Clinton’s non-profit)? Vital Voices is PR repped by SKDK, whose Anita Dunn was forced to step down as Director of Communications for the Obama White House for praising Chairman Mao.
Why was there a China-backed women’s non-profit mentioned in the Podesta Wikileaks files in correspondence regarding Lyn Forester de Rothschild and Hillary Clinton that dates to 2010?
Why did the State Department send a delegation to China in 2014 to discuss the women’s agenda and send Tania Tetlow JD, who is on YouTube saying that as a prosecutor, she would tell investigators and police that tainted and biased investigations in sexual misconduct didn’t matter?
What is UNH really up to? What is UNH Law really up to, and whose agenda are they and elected officials in New Hampshire really following?
Is Soteria Solutions (developed by UNH with NHCADSV’s Lyn Schollett on the board) tied to Soteria Mutual Holdings- owned by Black Stone, dealing in CCP Binance – or not?
The post How $1M From China-linked Groups Oiled New York Politics appeared first on Granite Grok.
The Department of Health and Human Services has proposed a series of changes to administrative rules governing the vaccine registry. The proposal can be viewed here.
Please Submit Group communications or Press Releases to editor@granitegrok.com.
Submission is not a guarantee of publication – Publication is not an endorsement.
RebuildNH objects to several of these proposed changes.
Tuesday, October 3rd, there is a public hearing on these rule changes. We are asking you to attend this meeting to object to these rule changes.
If you cannot attend, please email your objections to Allyson Raadmae and Lori Weaver.
Towards Liberty,
The post Public Hearing for Vaccine Registry appeared first on Granite Grok.
Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein recorded her last vote in the U.S. Senate less than 24 hours before dying Thursday at 90 years old. In the last years of her life, she clearly struggled mentally and physically to keep up with her day-to-day life. Still, when the Democrats needed her face, her voice, or her vote to push their agenda forward, her staff would dutifully wheel her out in service to the party.
Naturally, Democrats spent the morning following her death announcement praising Feinstein’s political career. “Sen. Dianne Feinstein was a friend, a hero, a leader who changed the Senate and America for the better[.] Mourning this tremendous loss—we’re comforted in knowing how many mountains she moved, lives she impacted, glass ceilings she shattered[.] America’s a better place because of her,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer posted on Twitter.
Dianne Feinstein returned to the Senate today.
In a wheelchair.
This is your Democrat Party.
Power at all costs.
ALL COSTS. pic.twitter.com/LNiOvBzyTD
— Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) May 11, 2023
“Heartbroken to learn of the passing of my dear friend Dianne Feinstein,” former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi posted. “Her indomitable, indefatigable leadership made a magnificent difference for our national security and personal safety, the health of our people and our planet, and the strength of our Democracy.”
Pelosi also wrote that it was a “great honor to serve alongside” her fellow Californian.
The way Democrats talk about Feinstein’s legacy, one would assume they cared about her deeply. But you don’t allow the people you love to be used for political gain. They claimed to care about her life and accomplishments but refused to let her end her life with dignity.
In July, Democratic Washington Sen. Patty Murray was caught on a hot microphone instructing Feinstein how to vote on a funding bill for the Department of Defense. (ROOKE: There’s A Way To Fix How Poorly Single Women Vote, And It Isn’t Repealing The 19th)
“For me to say I would like to support a yes vote on this. It provides 823 billion. That’s an increase of 26 billion for the Department of Defense. And it funds priorities submitted,” Feinstein says in a video of the incident before an aide whispers in her ear. The microphone then picks up Murray telling Feinstein, “Just say ‘aye.’”
Asked to vote on the defense appropriations bill, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) begins giving a speech: “I would like to support a ‘yes’ vote on this. It provides …”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA): “Just say aye.” pic.twitter.com/Gw2eZ9rEMv
— The Recount (@therecount) July 27, 2023
Two months earlier, in May, Feinstein was transported to the Senate in a wheelchair by aides, visibly frail and confused despite a statement from her office claiming she was “prepared to resume [her] duties in the Senate.” Schumer was there to greet her. She looked befuddling, asking him, “Where am I going?” followed by, “I’ve got something in my eye.”
It was obvious that she came back to work despite her condition to be the critical deciding vote on the Judiciary Committee.
Regardless of what you think about Feinstein’s record, there is an unmistakable hatred for the elderly in our society. Americans are so used to throwing their aging parents in nursing homes and overlooking their mistreatment for the sake of convenience that no one questioned whether or not Feinstein was the subject of elder abuse every time she was taken from the comfort of her home to attend the Senate.
Democrats have no remorse for how they treated the woman they call “inspirational” and a “trailblazer.” Feinstein should have been allowed to retire to one of the mansions she bought using the millions of dollars she “earned” from stock market trading. Instead, despite decades of loyalty to the Democrats, she was forced to end her life as a tool of the party.
Mary Rooke | Daily Caller News Service
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
The post Democrats Should Be Ashamed Of The Sad Tragedy Of Dianne Feinstein appeared first on Granite Grok.
Americans for Prosperity (AFP Action) does a lot of good stuff, but as I’ve noted previously, they’ve climbed on the anti-Trump train this season. The message they think they are sending is this. If Trump is the nominee, Democrats will be activated, and that will hurt everyone up and down the ticket.
The latest glossy mailer says Democrats will be energized, [and] Independents will be turned off.
This assumes that any of that actually matters, which, as I’ve also noted, silly rabbit, is absent election reforms (of which we’ve had little to none); every election is 2020. The votes keep coming until the Democrat wins, and that’s every race, everywhere, all the time. Objections will be branded as election denial, blah, blah, you know, the drill.
I’ve made this point before, you say, so why dig up this dead horse? So you can kick it again? Yes, but with a new pair of boots.
Inspiration or observation can be capricious, and today, as I smirked at the newest installment of anyone but Trump theater, I had a new thought. I get their message, but sometimes it says more than you mean, for example. Independents will be more turned off by the prospect of a combative commander and chief who, whatever else you may think or say, oversaw one of the best American economies in recent memory.
AFP is big on kitchen table issues. The Democrat/Biden economy is a stanky sh!t hole. If Republicans can’t use that to win office, they don’t deserve to win (putting aside previous observations about cheating Dems and their 24/7 homonculi media marketing team). Everything costs a lot more, and the border – an issue that got Trump elected in 2016, is exponentially worse under Biden /(Obama 3.0) than Obama/Obama 1.0/2.0.
Biden is a terrible candidate, and I agree with Grokster Rob Roper that Stumbin’ Joe will be escorted off the political stage (for “medical” reasons) after he is nominated at the DNC Klan Bake and replaced with a young Marxist stud-like Governor Gavin Newsom, whom no one but the left finds dreamy. California is a regulatory hellhole that will exacerbate Biden’s stanky economic Sh!t hole albatross.
Democrat victory will require cheating, and it hardly matters who the Republicans nominate, which brings me to my other observation. AFP is saying, without meaning to, that no one else running from the right is worth the Democrat’s time or attention. Disregarding the insult to every candidate but Trump, why would a Republican or an Independent, faced with the current state of America, want a guy in the Oval Office that Democrats don’t fear?
And given a few more years, the Left will have either collapsed the economy or gotten the civil war they are after, and there won’t be much left to worry about except where to find food and more ammunition (open-border Chinese and Islamic infiltrators will probably have some if you’re looking.)
It’s ugly out there. And I’d be willing to support any nominee to prevent Joe Biden’s replacement from winning because I can still get Republicans to at least listen without threatening to silence me, imprison me, or bankrupt me. I should note that a few did try to get me fired a decade or so back, but I’ve not heard from them since they failed, and here I am. The point is that APF Action makes me think that they think Americans are that stupid, and perhaps they do. They’ve been mailing these flyers out all summer, and Trump’s polling is better and his opponents worse.
Reminder: We encourage Op-Eds and Rebuttles from Everyone on Everything. Send them to Editor@granitegrok.com. You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines’ on the FAQ Page.
The post Making fun of AFP Action ‘cuz They Make it So Easy appeared first on Granite Grok.
As those who have ever served in the military know, the United States Armed Forces is one of the most culturally and socioeconomically diverse institutions in America. It is full of patriotic Americans from all walks of life who come together to serve their country, fight for it, and ultimately die for it if called to.
To have served in the military in any form is to be a member of an exclusive club in this country. Although there are some barriers to entry, race is not among them.
The Armed Forces have also provided countless opportunities for citizens in our nation who—through hard work, grit, and merit–rise through the ranks, provide a meaningful and fulfilling life for themselves and their families, and are justly proud of their calling. No matter their race, Americans have found comfort in the idea that if you are willing to work and serve your country with honor, the military will reward merit.
Since January 2021, the Biden administration has made a concerted effort to inject “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) into almost every facet of military life. This includes mandatory training, a DoD-wide “Equity Action Plan,” and an entire day dedicated to “Leadership Stand-Down to Address Extremism in the Force.” Recently, this radical DEI advocacy was taken to a new level.
On August 9, 2022, in his previous role as Chief of Staff of the Air Force, CQ Brown sent a memo to both the Headquarters Offices for the Air Force Academy and the Air Education and Training Command titled “Officer Source of Commission Applicant Pool Goals,” the memo directed officials at those institutions to “develop a diversity and inclusion outreach plan aimed at achieving these goals no later than 30 September 2022.” Among these “goals,” Brown directed the offices to implement specific racial quotas broken down by percentage for each race. For example, the goal for “White” officer candidates is 67.5%, and for “Black/African American” officer candidates is 13%.
This is disturbing for several reasons and could be potentially catastrophic for the reputation of the military at a time when recruitment and retention is at an all-time low. Just this week, the Navy reported that it will miss its recruiting goal by 7,000 sailors this year, and the Air Force reported that it will miss its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999.
First, the military is one of the last institutions that Americans revere. A July 2023 Gallup Poll found that 60% of Americans have a “high confidence” in the military. This is a good thing and is likely due to the military having a reputation for being a nonpolitical meritocracy where decisions are made in the best interest of protecting the country and not based on ideology.
Second, our military exists to protect the American people, our homeland, our interests, allies abroad, neutralize our enemies wherever they hide, and ensure a safe and prosperous future for our children. We will do this by finding, enlisting, training, and retaining the best and brightest men and women the country has to offer, regardless of their race. Straying from that principle in the name of filling racial quotas is a disservice to the American taxpayer and makes Americans less safe.
Third, this directive is potentially illegal on its face. The United States Equal Opportunity Commission states on its website, “It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against a job applicant because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.” With this memo, Brown is advocating for just that. Air Force Officer applicants would be literally discriminated against because of their race if this new directive is implemented. There is seemingly no way to meet the quotas outlined in the directive without engaging in discrimination against certain applicants because of their race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Most members of the Air Force and the military generally are honest, hard-working people who do not believe our future airmen should be reduced to racial statistics. Recently promoted, Brown will now leave behind this divisive policy and force those below him, who likely had nothing to do with the idea, to implement the policy. This is wrong.
We must do better. That is why my organization, the Center to Advance Security in America, has filed a series of FOIA requests to further investigate the implementation of these discriminatory policies.
The American military is the most powerful force for good the world has ever seen. If we want it to remain that way, we must shift our focus back to recruiting and retaining based on skill, merit, and future abilities – not race. It is not too late to shift course. If we do not, these out-of-control initiatives will continue, and military readiness will suffer.
James Fitzpatrick| Real Clear Wire
James Fitzpatrick is an Army Veteran and the Director of the Center to Advance Security in America (CASA), an organization dedicated to improving the safety and security of the American people.
The post U.S. Military-Sanctioned Diversity Initiatives are Out of Control appeared first on Granite Grok.
The SPLC’s Hate Map is a ridiculous partisan exercise with some real-world benefits. It shows observers whom the left fears or hates and which is reason enough to investigate them ourselves. Some will be awful, but most won’t. Gender Cultists in Oxford have embarked on something similar for churches.
“The Oxford Safe Churches project, run by a coalition of LGBTQ+ organisations and Churches in Oxford, have published their first faith report, titled ‘Attitudes to Queer Christians in Oxford Churches,’” reports the Oxford Student news website. “The report, published on Friday 22 September, uses a ‘traffic light’ system to rank the LGBTQ+ inclusivity of churches in Oxford.”
I think churches should be as open to members of the Gender Cult as any group of sinners (calm down, Lefties, we’re all sinners), but this grading system isn’t anything like that. The Church with the most favorable score,
“… is probably a church which has internalised a queer identity, it may be that a large number of LGBTQ+ people attend or even that they started or lead the church. Straight and cis people attend as part of the diversity of the church rather than the assumed norm. If someone were to speak against inclusivity, others would be very likely to defend it. LGBTQ+ relationships and milestones are publicly celebrated. Agencies and resources which offer LGBTQ+ people support and allyship are almost certainly linked to and promoted. Modelling of including behaviours and language is normative. Driving through a green light, you can be far more certain that the road will be clear and safe to drive.
Because faith is all about celebrating your sexuality? Note to the Gender Cult: it’s not, but as I’ve observed in the past, the gender cult is fixated on sexuality and sexual attraction with or without sex or marriage or the age of majority (yes, I said that).
Heterosexual adults are not fighting to discuss their sexuality with children unless they are pedophiles or members of the gender cult or both. It is otherwise frowned upon and likely to get you arrested and labeled for life. But gender cultists find any objection to their sexualizing children as bigotry, and you are welcome to your opinion, but schools produce exponentially more pedophilia arrests than churches and always have. But that’s not a concern becasue, with rare exceptions, the gender cult already controls schools.
And while the left has been infiltrating Christian churches for years, the gender-bending requirements are more recent but flourishing. An extension of a series of lies beginning with “We only want civil weddings,” to “We want church weddings,” to “We’re grading churches,” which leads to protesting, Gayjacking, blacklisting, and canceling.
And somewhere along the line, not long from now, the Church of Joseph of the Technicolor Genderless Dreamcoat will have a “pastor” who has sex with a minor, and if you don’t publicly celebrate that, you’re an evil bigot.
The post Can We Get the Gender Cult to Rate Churches in the US so It’s Easier To find The One’s That Aren’t Crazy? appeared first on Granite Grok.
In the recent decision of New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn v Bruen 142 S. CT. 2111, the Supreme Court very clearly held that the Second Amendment protects the rights of all citizens, even those in New Hampshire, to “armed self-defense.”
The right to armed self-defense applies anywhere and everywhere -unless the state can prove that the Historical record reflects a national tradition of gun restriction.
In announcing its decision, the Court explained: “We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects the conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
Analytically, there are three points:
1. The Second Amendment provides that anyone and everyone is entitled, as a matter of highest Constitutional rights, to “armed self-defense”; everyone has an unfettered right to “armed self-defense” anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
2.If the State wants to regulate this right of “armed self-defense, it can do so in very limited ways subject to the following: the burden of proof is on the state to prove that a regulation limiting “armed self-defense” is constitutionally approved.
3. Such regulation is only constitutionally approved if the state shows that there is a national tradition dating back to the time the Constitution was written consistent with the regulation the state seeks to approve.
With regard to item 3, the Supreme Court referred to “sensitive places” which have had long-standing regulations/limitations on the Second Amendment. “Sensitive places” are places where the USA has traditionally limited guns (for example, court houses and prisons). However, the Supreme Court emphasized- it is unconstitutional for a town or city to declare an area to be “sensitive” just because of some modern-day notion of gun safety. A sensitive area is only sensitive if it can be shown to be subject to a historical tradition of gun regulation. In addition, “Sensitive Area” must be reflected in how the Government treats the so-called “sensitive area.” Consider this commentary approved by the Supreme Court:
“Passing a statute declaring some place to be a “gun free zone” does nothing to deter criminals from entering with guns and attacking the people inside. In contrast, when a building such as a courthouse, is protected by metal detectors and guards, the government shows the seriousness of the government’s belief that the buildings sensitive…Conversely, when the government provides no security at all-such as in a post office or its parking lot-the government’s behavior shows that the location is probably not sensitive….”
Tell me: why isn’t the State of New Hampshire enforcing this law? Why are there so many towns and cities that have wholesale ignored this decision and routinely continue to ban guns in a variety of places despite the clear language in the Court’s decision?
I heard one town official state, “We are like a business. And, of course, any business can ban guns on its own property.”
How about NO AND HELL NO.
In Koons v Platkin, the Federal court in New Jersey answered this question:
“While it is certainly true that the government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor, to maintain possession and prosecute trespassers….the State is not exempt from recognizing the protections afforded to individuals by the Constitution simply because it acts on Government property…”
In a separate case, Wolford v Lopez, a Hawaii Federal court stated;
“Whether the Government acted as a proprietor …has no place…under BRUEN.
Applying the Supreme Court analysis, various Federal Courts have held unconstitutional “gun-free zones” in the following cases :
1. Hospitals
2. Public Transportation
3. Places that serve liquor
4. Parks and playgrounds
5. Libraries
6. Places of worship
7. Financial institutions
In New Hampshire, many, many “gun-free zones” have been declared without regard to the “Supreme Court’s analysis. One common “gun-free Zone” is “Town Property.”
Consider the following from the town of Hollis: Several years ago, well before Bruen, the town of Hollis held an election on a warrant article banning guns from all town property. Such property includes town hall, but it also includes very large tracts of raw land, including conservation land.
What Constitutional legal theory did they rely upon to ban Guns? Several residents complained that the noise of guns engaged in target practice was a bother to them, and they wanted all guns removed from huge tracts of land the town “owns.”
Under Bruen, the Gun ban is clearly unconstitutional. No place does the Second Amendment state that guns can be banned because local residents don’t want to hear the noise guns make when folks are target practicing. Moreover, in terms of “historical tradition,” the land in question has been open for gun use-including target practice, for over 200 years. Revolutionary War soldiers practiced their aim prior to going off to war. New Hampshire sharpshooters (a rather famous group whose heroism helped win the battle of Gettysburg) practiced on the townland during the Civil War.
Finally, in no universe I know is the raw, open land to be considered “sensitive,” as the Supreme Court defined that term. Everyone has access to it. There are no gates with metal detectors or armed guards. Simply put, the Town of Hollis is engaged in an illegal act, an Unconstitutional act, by designating Town land as being exempt from the Second Amendment.
Sadly, the town of Hollis does not seem to care. I checked—no hearing on the subject. No inquiry. No effort of any kind to follow the Supreme Court decision in Bruen. I did see one guy in town who wore a t-shirt that said, “Pack the Court. Until then, ignore them.”
Seems like he speaks for Hollis. And indeed, all the other towns and cities in New Hampshire that refuse to enforce the Bruen decision.
Good job, folks. Makes total sense.
Our society is folding like a $1.99 lawn chair, so why not just ignore the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and anything else you don’t like?
The post New Hampshire Refuses To Enforce the Right To Bear Arms appeared first on Granite Grok.
Vermont is serious about destroying its economy and residents via meaningless reductions in carbon emissions. They’ve got commissions, committees, targets, and standards, so they’ve also got reports about how all that’s not working out for them.
All that chin-stroking, finger-wagging, hand-winging, mandating, and regulating, and as of 2020, according to this report, VT is the second highest emitter per capita in New England. The report is all about Vermont, but one of the key findings, the number one key finding, is “Vermont has the second highest per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in all of New England, behind only New Hampshire” (emphasis in the original).
New Hampshire is number one again!
I’m excited to hear that, but it got me thinking. New Hampshire’s economy (GDP) is much more robust than Vermont’s. In 2022, Vermont’s total GDP was a paltry 38% of New Hampshire’s. 40,830.8 Million (VT) Compared to 105,024.6 Million (NH).
Note: All the data used in this article is readily available on the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Website, which I chose to provide consistency in reporting across both states.
New Hampshire’s GDP per capita is $75,666.13, while Vermont’s is $63,092.67, and NH has double Vermont’s state population. We have more people creating value from the emissions we … emit. The result is that our GDP per metric ton of emissions is higher than Vermont’s. New Hampshire generates 7.9 million dollars of GDP per metric ton of “emissions” compared to Vermont’s 7.3 million in GDP per Metric ton.
I bring it up becasue for years (before China went ballistic and surpassed everyone in emissions), the Left used to bitch endlessly about (a lot of things, and still does) how the US was responsible for 25% of the world’s emissions. We were also generating at least that much global GDP while others failed ot match emissions to productivity. But they left that part out and still do. And US emissions per GDP have shrunk while China’s has exploded.
If you want to get the most from your all-in, America is a better bet—the same applies to New England. We’ve got a lower tax burden, less welfare and poverty, a higher standard of living, low crime, and have had fewer of our natural rights infringed. And while I didn’t do the math for any other New England State state, I’m betting we fare well when it comes to the output we generate per capita compared to the emissions we allegedly emit, if emissions matter, which they don’t.
But if they did, does it make more sense to look for ways to handicap your people and their productivity or to optimize production from the energy used? I suppose both if you’re that keen on reducing a trace percentage of a trace substance that isn’t doing anything you claim, but that is not what the Left is doing. It is putting its crippling agenda before people, price, productivity, and prosperity, and it will continue to cost states like Vermont in ways that are a lot less invisible than CO2 and a lot more tangible, economically, than the voodoo political science of climate change.
And it is still New Hampshire’s problem. We share a grid with the rest of New England. When Vermont and Massachusetts signed on to California’s transportation emission goals, they tied us up, too, at least indirectly. Even if we never cut our wrists to bleed for on the alter of their environmentalism, the increased demand created by thousands of EVs, heat pumps, and whatever else they are planning will impact supply and drive up the price of electricity.
Unless the Governor and Legislature plan to make New Hampshire an energy-independent state willing to sell its excess into that grid, our advantage is at the mercy of their legislatures, and those bastards are crazy.
Someone should work out how we will sustain ourselves in the region faced with those complications before it’s too late. The Legislatures of Vermont and Massachusetts should not be enacting policies with that level of economic impact on New Hampshire’s citizens when we didn’t vote for them.
The post Vermont Emits Less “Carbon” than NH but Produces Less With it (So Is It Actually Emitting More?) appeared first on Granite Grok.
Many of us know and are experiencing an intense battle for TRUTH in the public forum of our National politics. The truth about the character of our leaders. The truth about the natural design of the human race. The truth about medical practices and health issues.
The truth about the atmosphere and climate change, and finally, the truth about the history of America’s founding.
The ongoing attempt by Academia to project a new version of our country’s founding and History through our education system is an attempt by the power of reinvention to change the idea of our country’s founding. Project 1619 is a collaboration of journalists trying to fit the narrative of negativity in regard to America being a great country, perhaps one of the greatest that has ever existed.
So let us approach the dilemma through the door of a quote from a famous author who is much on everyone’s mind today: George Orwell, you know him, the guy who wrote 1984. He said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
I would like to draw attention today to a particular area of American History that is most assuredly being denied and buried in public and private schools, as well as business settings and our courts, both State and Federal. Academia, particularly, has sought to suppress, rewrite, or conveniently ignore the vast information available about the role of Christianity as lived out in the entity we call the church in the founding of America.
In laying out a boundary to guide us, there were two settlements in early America, i.e., the 1600’s era. (There was a Spanish settlement in Florida by French Huguenots around 1565, now known as St. Augustine, but that is for another day.)
Jamestown, Virginia, and Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Jamestown (1607) was purely for economic reasons and was sponsored and paid for by the Virginia Company, and was a private venture that had been granted a royal charter by King James I, hence named in honor of His Majesty.
Plymouth (1620-1691) was founded by a group of Separatists initially known as the Brownist Emigration (named for their leader Robert Browne), who came later to be known as Pilgrims. Their desire was to be in a land where they were free to worship God as they saw best, not the established religion of the King of England.
The Pilgrims flourished after a few years of struggle, and we have often been told their story in history as a result of their thankfulness to God for preserving their lives. (One of our greatest holidays is in honor of their faith and thankfulness to God for preserving them, THANKSGIVING, and is still celebrated today.) Much can be said here, but this is a summation in its most basic format.
The Puritan influence, however, was a little different. The Puritans arrived in 1630, ten years after the Separatists, and had money and resources. They did not separate themselves from the Church of England completely. They thought they could create a true community of faith under the auspices of the Church, but they had to do it in another land. The Puritans overshadowed the Pilgrims in numbers and resources. As they gained ascendency, the American colonies, particularly in New England, became the wealth center of the New World. Fast forward 150 years….the colonies are now established and engaging in the IDEAS of freedom from England’s rule. These ideas resulted in what we call the American Revolution. Where did these ideas of independence, self-rule, self-government, freedom from government oppression, and equal justice for all come from?
The American Revolution was a direct result of people being educated on a mass scale. There were no public schools during the revolution period of the country. However, children were educated in numerous ways…parents, Pastors, tutors, philosophical societies, apprenticeships, and dame schools in which the children were taught to read and write by women in their own kitchens. The Old Deluder’s Law of 1642 was passed in the Massachusetts Colony and stated that “All youth are to be taught to read perfectly the English tongue, have knowledge in the laws, (civics) and be taught some orthodox catechism.” (religion)
No separation of government and God could be found anywhere.
The Pastor was the single most powerful voice to influence and inspire the thinking and reasoning of the colonists. For example, Over the span of the colonial era, American ministers delivered approximately eight million sermons. These messages were often one-and-a-half to two hours or more in length. Based upon this, the average 70-year-old churchgoer would have listened to 7,000 sermons in his or her lifetime, which consisted of over 10,000 hours of listening and learning. This is the equivalent of ten separate undergraduate degrees in a modern university.
The sermons provided families with a superb educational experience. Sunday morning was not only a time to gather for friendship and local town news but also to hear a message from an individual who was probably the most educated in the community. The sermon was based on Biblical knowledge first and foremost. However, due to the formal training of most ministers, the sermon often referenced the great historical thinkers of classical literature and leaders of the day in government, philosophy, and science. Pastors would read the laws recently passed in Congress and teach the congregation whether or not this law was in alignment with the Bible’s teaching on the subject.
Sermons were a part of the culture of the day. Many public occasions, such as Thanksgiving, election day sermons, local militia sermons, and, of course, weddings and funerals. Many sermons were published as political pamphlets.
George Bancroft, a 19th-century statesman and historian, wrote, “The Revolution of 1776, as far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons in the New World -the English Puritans, the Scottish Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster (Ireland). The American Revolution was but the application of the principles of the Reformation to civil government.”
I am looking forward to bringing you vital information on the role of the Clergy and the Bible in connection to the foundation of our country as a CITY ON A HILL, a direct quote from Puritan leader John Winthrop, who connected America to a divine destiny. This phrase was used by other founders and in our modern time, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Regan. The author of the quote, of course, is Jesus Christ. (Matthew 5:14)
Until next week….
Allen Cook, Senior Pastor
Grace Ministries International
Brentwood, NH
Editor Note: Pulpit Polity will be a regular Sunday morning feature on GraniteGrok.com.
The post Pulpit Polity – Faith, Education, and America’s Founding appeared first on Granite Grok.
Democrats love impeachment hearings and then they don’t but they are connected, the hearings. Democrats impeached Trump for trying to uncover the Biden-Ukraine money-laundering scheme and they rewarde Trump with a star chamber hearing devoid of facts or substance. Now Biden is on the hook for exactly that.
Among other questionable antics.
House Democrats will do or say anything, often with the aid and comfort of Republicans, so the current exercise may seem futile. The Senate will never sign off, so why bother? becasue that’s how things are done, and we’re stumbling like drunken fools into another election year.
Sharing the Biden Family secrets might be good for Republicans, and as we’ve reported for years, there is a lot of money moving around in exchange for what looked like access and favors. If it’s all on the up and up, sharing it with America should prove that.
Democrats appear reluctant to let Americans decide, and Rep. Nancy Mace has words for them. Adult words.
BREAKING – EXPLOSIVE: This is Bullshit! Democrats, please, spare me your hypocrisy, Joe Biden is corrupt, and here is the evidence, Congresswoman Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) EXPLODES at Joe Biden’s impeachment inquiry hearing. WATCH pic.twitter.com/ff8cVEAQ21
— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) September 28, 2023
HT | Breitbart
The post ICYMI – Rep. Nancy Mace Has Words for Democrats at Biden Impeachment Hearings appeared first on Granite Grok.
There is a truly remarkable … remarkable for its, at best, lack of substance and, at worst, casual disregard for facts … op-ed in the Union “Leader” (should be Misleader) regurgitating the same stale NeverTrump arguments against Trump that have failed to resonate for months. Here it is and then some comments:
First, how ironic that the very people claiming that Trump-voters are quasi-cultists begin their “op-ed” by sounding like cultists … “Governor Chris Sununu has been right about many things … “. Really? Like COVID? Oh, I’m sorry NH-NeverTrump … I forgot. It’s actually Trump’s fault that the mighty Sun-King locked down New Hampshire.
Next, there are NO facts presented to show that the Special Election turned on Trump. A far more likely explanation is that the NHGOP just SUCKS at electioneering. The NHGOP lost seats in the 2022 midterms. But that’s Trump’s fault, according to NH-NeverTrump. And if the NHGOP had won seats in the 2022 midterms, as the Party out-of-power (in terms of the Presidency) is supposed to? Well … that would have been explained by NH-NeverTrump as … DESPITE Trump we managed to blah, blah, blah. These people are conspiracy-theorists. Everything, according to them, proves “Orange-Man bad.”
Next, note how NH-NeverTrump legitimizes the Democrats’ law-fare against Trump … “Trump’s been found liable for fraud … It’s now documented that his financial empire is bogus and illegitimate.” Anyone with even cursory knowledge of this case knows that it is bullish*t … Mar a Lago worth only $18 million? Only a corrupt Democrat-judge could make such a finding. Indeed, NH-NeverTrump is essentially trafficking Democrat lies when it makes outrageous, demonstrably false claims like this.
Note, also, how insulting NH-NeverTrump is to the voters they have failed to persuade … “[t]he fealty that members of the Trump cult offer to the former president continues to perplex”, “[w]hen will the scales fall from the eyes of Trump’s Granite State supporters”. Does NH-NeverTrump even realize how condescending and obnoxious they sound?
And then there’s more Trump-deranged, at best fact-free claims … Trump lost the House in 2018 (had nothing to do with Paul Ryan and his ilk refusing to fund the border-wall) … Trump lost the Senate in 2020 (had nothing to do with the 2020 election being rigged) … the “Trumpsters” took out Kelly Ayotte in 2016 (had nothing to with with Ayotte spending most of her term as McCain’s sidekick pushing for endless wars and then spending the last year voting with Shaheen to … you know … appeal to the undeclared voters). Everything is Trump’s fault … EVERYTHING!!!
The truth, Melissa, is that you NeverTrump people are living in a parallel universe. GOP-voters do NOT want to return to the pre-2016 endless-war, got-to-get-the-wine-mom-vote, Bush/McCain/Romney GOP.
The post NH-NeverTrump … Wash, Rinse, Repeat appeared first on Granite Grok.
It’s easy to talk about the sexual revolution as if our country is past our fling with godless morality. Its proponents laugh at their hippie orgies in the middle of muddy fields like it was innocent fun instead of the quicksand that captured not only their generation but also the ones that followed.
It turns out that the children raised by drug-filled sex feigns are not alright. They took a beautiful country and turned it inside out to resemble the trauma they carry inside them. Men rightly recognize there are significant issues in our society that require immediate attention but are in denial of their role in the continued decline. As long as they are the number one consumers of sexual content, our societal shortcomings will persist.
Four times as many men as women (44 percent vs. 11 percent) admitted in a May 2022 Institute for Family Studies survey that they watched porn in the previous month. Sixty percent of men who admitted to watching porn in the past 24 hours reported higher rates of loneliness and isolation. Porn is a bastardized version of marital sex. The more you consume, the worse you feel because an imitation is never as good as the real thing.
A lot of the online vitriol spewed at women by men is a result of those guys’ ambivalence about watching so much porn.
Guys consume porn and part of them is aroused and part of them is disgusted.
He desires the women he sees, but also judges and despises them.
He comes away…
— Dean Abbott (@DeanAbbott) September 25, 2023
Sexual content is tailored explicitly for male appetites. This has always been true, but the internet exponentially expanded the demand to commodify female sexuality for men. (ROOKE: Blaming Feminism Is A Cope For Men Who Traded Masculinity For The Mirage Of Free Love)
It shouldn’t be shocking to say women crave attention from men. It’s how humanity survives. We search for a mate, get married, and have children. But men stopped protecting this societal structure after the sexual revolution, leaving women to navigate an emerging sexual dynamic where they are no longer prized for their virtue. Instead, the sluttier, the better.
Women quickly learned that men no longer wanted to protect their sensuality. If they hoped to be desirable to the opposite sex, it required they lose their morality and domestic purity. A great representation of this is the musical “Grease,” with Olivia Newton John as Sandy Olsson and John Travolta as Danny Zuko.
The movie came out in 1978, well after the effects of the sexual revolution started showing. Sandy felt she needed to change from an innocent All-American girl wearing beautiful feminine dresses to a cigarette-smoking wild woman with a skin-tight leather bodysuit to win Danny’s affection.
There is no difference between this and a woman creating an OnlyFans account to produce content she knows will help her gain male subscribers. Women will continue to degrade themselves until men prove to them that they are worth more than $7.99/month.
Porn has encouraged men to see femininity as something to consume, rather than something to cultivate.
— G.G. Geist | The Potter’s Philosophy (@gg_geist) September 27, 2023
A Founding Father and our nation’s second president, John Adams, warned what would happen if men did not safeguard female innocence in our country. While visiting France as an American diplomat in June 1778, Adams wrote in his diary that his international travels taught him that “the manners of women were the most infallible barometer, to ascertain the degree of morality and virtue in a nation.”
“The Manners of Women are the surest criterion by which to determine whether a Republican Government is practicable, in a Nation or not. The Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, the Swiss, the Dutch, all lost their public Spirit, their Republican Principles and habits, and their Republican Forms of Government, when they lost the Modesty and Domestic Virtues of their Women,” Adams continued.
When men allow their sexual desires to trump their responsibility to protect society, we get a nation like ours where cities are in chaos, children are mutilating themselves, and the government is rounding up political dissidents. America has undoubtedly lost our public spirit. If we want it back, men will have to choose purpose over porn.
Mary Rooke is a reporter at the Daily Caller.
Mary Rooke | Daily Caller News Service
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
The post If Men Are Serious About Saving America, They’ll Launch A War On Porn appeared first on Granite Grok.
Money from foreign players is not allowed in American politics. George Soros is probably the best-known foreign-born individual who spends millions of dollars annually influencing elections and policies. Soros was born in Hungary over ninety years ago and became a United States citizen very early. To say Soros is a Progressive is an understatement. He funds green initiatives, and the campaigns of many Progressive DAs considered responsible by the Right for the demise of civil order in some of our bigger cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.
As far Left as Soros is, his son and heir to the Soros fortune is further Left. Alex Soros is thirty-seven years old, and George has relegated much of the decision-making of the Soros Foundation to his young son. George Soros has a net worth of nearly $10 Billion, and Alex will have plenty of money to play with in the American political arena.
A new name has surfaced who is just as dangerous to America as George Soros, but this person has to be covert in how he spreads his money as he is not an American citizen. Hansjorg Wyss is a Swiss billionaire with a net worth of a paltry $5.1 Billion, and he enjoys spending some of that money each year to fund Progressive policies and candidates. Not being a citizen, Wyss had to set up a foundation or multiple foundations to spend his cash influencing American politics.
Through his $2.7 billion Wyss Foundation, his $232 million Berger Action Fund, the Democracy Alliance’s Democracy Fund, and the Arabella Advisors network of dark money, Wyss has joined other progressive billionaires like George Soros, S. Donald Sussman, and Pierre Omidyar in financing Democratic politicians and progressive activists. He has spent considerable money to buy five newspapers in Maine. Wyss has also attempted to buy newspapers in Baltimore, Chicago, and New York. Apparently, he plans to influence Americans by controlling their news source.
Wyss has to direct his “Dark Money” through a holding company or Fund; in his case, The Berger Action Fund is the primary funding source. Some of the recent donations are:
Nonprofits that have received millions in donations from Wyss funneled more than $3 million to Stacey Abrams, who won the gubernatorial Democratic primary in Georgia Tuesday, and another $3 million to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2020, according to the most recent tax filings for Fund for a Better Future Inc. This California-based nonprofit supports anti-Republican initiatives.
Fund for a Better Future received $14.7 million in donations in 2019 from the Washington-based Berger Action Fund, a nonprofit linked to Wyss, tax filings show. The Fund doled out $3,137,000 to Fair Fight Action Inc., a nonprofit connected to Abrams, in 2020 and $3 million to House Majority Forward, a nonprofit with ties to Pelosi.
This foreign money corrupts our already sad political system from the outside, which is supposed to be illegal. Of course, people with the means will always find a way around the rules, which is what is happening with Wyss. The laws must be tightened to eliminate the loopholes. We know this money is being funneled, and these funds must be shut down, not because the majority of money supports the Left, but because they are wrong.
The post Soros Is Not The Only Wallet We Need Fear appeared first on Granite Grok.
We are happy to announce that tickets for ‘Groktoberfest are officially on sale starting … Now! Food, Music, Beverages, speakers, and some Fun! I’d also like to welcome our newest newsletter subscribers to the list.
Get Tickets NowWe have had many generous donors support us, and we want to make sure they hear us say thank you (often) and have an opportunity to receive updates about GraniteGrok, our content, our fundraising, events, and how we are investing their support to grow the reach of independent media.
Part of that effort is Groktoberfest. We still need to raise funds for the first year. Thanks to all of you, we are over a third of the way. Groktoberfest will hopefully add to that by increasing interest and adding monthly subscribers. We are also building a list of Sponsors whom we hope can get us over the top for our first year’s goal.
Speaking of first, or should I say next! Tickets are on sale now!
Join us on October 28th, 2023, from 1-4 pm for Groktoberfest—a celebration in support of Independent media and GraniteGrok.com. We are planning live music, comedy, Local Groups and Vendors, food, beverages, and (hopefully beer), and a growing list of speakers featuring…
– Hal Shurtleff (on his 9-0 Free Speech Supreme Court Win)
– Dan Richards (Defend Our Kids)
– Jeff Chidester (Also serving as our MC)
– Steve MacDonald & Skip Murphy
With…
A Gun Raffle! – We are Raffling a Ruger 10-22: Tickets sold at the event!
– Video messages from local and national folks.
– For a vendor table, contact Diane Bitter at ddbitter@aol.com – (603) 498-4232 (We want your groups to join us!)
– Meet authors from GraniteGrok.com
– More planned, stay tuned!
Location: The Londonderry Fish and Game Club
5 Lund St, Litchfield, NH 03052
You can access the ticketing App via a QR code.
Use the embedded form below, or go to the ticketing page here.
DonorboxEventWidget.embed({container: 'donorboxEmbed',embedFormSlug: 'https://donorbox.org/embed_event/504084'});
Thanks for Reading, donating, and supporting GraniteGrok.com! And we look forward to seeing you at Groktoberfest!
The post Groktoberfest Tickets Are Available, Now! appeared first on Granite Grok.