Friday • January 10 • 2025
Vol.XVII • No.II
Manchester, N.H.
My name is Jessica Sternberg, and I am running for state representative in the Rockingham District 1 special election. I am a born and raised Granite Stater and am a proud resident of Nottingham.
We want to thank Jessica Sternberg for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
I am a graduate of the University of New Hampshire, where I earned a bachelor’s degree in history, and I am currently a graduate student pursuing a master’s degree in public policy from the Carsey School of Public Policy. At UNH, I currently serve as the vice-chairman of the UNH College Republicans, where I work to promote Conservative values and host notable Republican voices, such as Karoline Leavitt and Vivek Ramaswamy, on a very liberal campus. Additionally, I serve as treasurer of the New Hampshire Federation of College Republicans, which serves to unite and form a community of college Republicans across the Granite State.
During the 2022 Midterm Elections, I worked as a Field Organizer for the NH Victory Team, of which I knocked over 30,000 doors across Rockingham County for our Republican candidates. Although we came up shorthanded in November, I am very proud of the work done by myself, the entire Victory team, and the candidates that I got to work with along the way. It was an extraordinary experience that taught me how much hard work pays off and if you want change, you need to work hard for it.
I am running for state representative because the balance of power quite literally rests on this election. New Hampshire House Republicans currently hold the slimmest majority in the past 100 years, and we cannot afford to lose this seat to the Democrats. If we lose this seat, we will be looking at a tie with House Democrats, who want to work to undo the NH Advantage by implementing a sales and income tax and restrict parents from knowing what their children are being taught in public schools. If elected, I plan on working with my fellow Republicans to continue to cut taxes, defend our second amendment rights, advocate for our emergency responders and veterans, defend school choice, and support parental rights.
At only 22, I’ve already faced opposition in running for office. I’ve been told by less than a handful of people that I am too young, but if my recent interview with 2022 GOP nominee for Congress Karoline Leavitt has anything to say, it is that I am more than capable of running for office and she has full confidence that I would be a strong conservative voice for the Granite State. The majority of people I’ve talked to believe quite the opposite of the small few who have told me that I’m too young. Talking to voters at the doors, I have found that the residents of Northwood and Nottingham are eager to have a young conservative represent them in Concord. These voters are looking for change and new ideas, and I am willing to bring that with me to the State House.
In closing, I kindly ask for your vote in the Republican primary on August 1st. Our Republican majority is at stake, and now is not the time to be complacent. Please make sure to get out and VOTE!
ENDORSED BY:
Follow my Facebook page Sternberg for New Hampshire, and my Twitter for updates.
Reminder: Content about candidates or by candidates is not an endorsement by GraniteGrok.com or its authors.
The post Jessica Sternberg for State Representative – Rockingham District 1 appeared first on Granite Grok.
Nine experts took it upon themselves to engage in “A systematic review of autopsy findings in death after COVID-19 vaccination.” You didn’t hear about it anywhere in the corporate media, so you can likely guess the results. Sometimes, the vaccine kills people.
Not everyone, of course, or the Climate Cult survivors would be partying in their caves and tree houses or – more likely – starving, cold, and lonely but trying to be happy living in fear and squalor. We didn’t get there yet. Neither COVID nor the cure was a species-ending event. Heck, not even COIVOD-KAREN Republican water carriers have been made politically extinct. But we’ve got this new research to add to the pile of “I told you so.” Small comfort, but most days, you take what you can get.
We’ll start with the background.
The rapid development and widespread deployment of COVID-19 vaccines, combined with a high number of adverse event reports, have led to concerns over possible mechanisms of injury including systemic lipid nanoparticle (LNP) and mRNA distribution, spike protein-associated tissue damage, thrombogenicity, immune system dysfunction, and carcinogenicity. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate possible causal links between COVID-19 vaccine administration and death using autopsies and post-mortem analysis.
They scared everyone, promised a cure, rushed the thing out, slap-dashed a few (score) emergency authorizations together, and then there were a lot of side effects that the cabal dutifully ignored, denied, or hid. But they are real and have since been acknowledged – the side effects. Not out of any sense of integrity or principle, but because the documents proving they knew about them were pried into the public, and there is no escape. Denial, obfuscation, misdirection, but not escape.
Methods: We searched for all published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination up until May 18th, 2023. We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. Three physicians independently reviewed all deaths and determined whether COVID-19 vaccination was the direct cause or contributed significantly to death.
Next?
Findings: The most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system (53%), followed by the hematological system (17%), the respiratory system (8%), and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.
In other words, a clinical link exists between administering the “cure” and ending the disease … when it kills the host.
And now for my favorite part:
Interpretation: The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, their mechanisms, and related excess death, coupled with autopsy confirmation and physician-led death adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death in most cases. Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings.
This is why no one has reported it. We find for death, which, as noted above, will end your infection. Effective, sure, safe – nope. And no lessons learned unless harm and death are the goal. The annual COVID Flu vaccine has already been lined up alongside Influenza A and B as things that are always around from which we stab people with ineffective treatments.
C’mon, man, it creates jobs. Good paying health care and pharma jobs. Funeral director jobs. What’s wrong with you? Do you hate America?
And don’t listen to those conspiracy theorists using our data against us. It’s not right.
Here’s the paper.
(Zenodo) AUTOPSY REVIEW MANUSCRIPT
The post “There Is a High Likelihood of a Causal Link Between COVID-19 Vaccines and Death” appeared first on Granite Grok.
Edmund Randolph was born into a family with a tradition of public service. His maternal grandfather had been King’s Attorney (attorney general) in colonial Maryland. His paternal grandfather, father, and uncle all held the same position in colonial Virginia. His uncle, Peyton Randolph, served as president of the First and Second Continental Congresses.
Edmund Randolph rose to his family tradition—and exceeded it.
He was born on Aug. 10, 1753, in Williamsburg, Virginia. After attending William and Mary College, he clerked in his father’s law office and, in 1774, was admitted to the bar. When the Revolution began the following year, his parents, who were loyalists, emigrated to Britain. But Edmund stayed to join the Revolution. He enlisted in the Continental Army and became an aide-de-camp to Gen. George Washington.
When Uncle Peyton died leaving Edmund as his heir, the young man obtained a discharge and returned to Virginia to wrap up his uncle’s affairs.
Once back home, his rise was meteoric. In May 1776 he was elected to the Virginia convention tasked with creating a new government, free of British control. Although he was the youngest delegate to the convention, his colleagues placed him on the committee for drafting the new state constitution. Later that year, he was elected attorney general of Virginia, a post he held for a decade.
In September 1786, the Virginia legislature sent Randolph to the Annapolis Convention, along with his cousin James Madison and St. George Tucker. He and his fellow commissioners (delegates) recommended that another interstate convention be held in Philadelphia the following year. The purpose: to design a new political system for America.
Two months later, the Virginia legislature elected Randolph governor of the Commonwealth. As governor, he led his state’s delegation to the Constitutional Convention.
The Constitutional Convention
The convention was called to order on May 25, 1787. Four days later, Randolph rose and delivered a speech outlining the defects in the Articles of Confederation and offering a series of reforms. We know these proposals as the “Virginia Plan.” They became the primary basis for the convention’s discussions for the next eight weeks.
Some writers have assumed that the Virginia Plan was solely Madison’s creation. There is little evidence for this, and it seems unlikely. A delegation comprising such luminaries as Randolph, George Washington, George Mason (the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights), and George Wythe (America’s first law professor) would not rubberstamp the work of any one man.
Randolph participated vigorously, and usually successfully, in the convention deliberations—sometimes, but not always, in alliance with Madison. Randolph bore primary responsibility for constitutional clauses that:
One of Randolph’s greater moments was when he teamed up with John Dickinson of Delaware to ensure that only the directly elected House of Representatives—not the indirectly elected Senate—could propose new taxes (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1). There was significant resistance to this proposal. However, as noted in the previous installment in this series, Randolph and Dickinson accurately predicted that when the ratification debates began, opponents would try to tar the Constitution as too aristocratic. Ensuring that only the “people’s house” could propose taxes would blunt the attacks.
Another important moment for Randolph was when he moved for a day’s adjournment to allow heated tempers to cool. His motion passed and the commissioners came back later in a more tractable mood.
On July 26, they directed a new “committee of detail” to prepare an initial draft of a constitution. The delegates elected to the committee were Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, a former president of Congress who had served the convention as chairman of the committee of the whole; Oliver Ellsworth, Connecticut’s foremost lawyer; James Wilson, Pennsylvania’s foremost lawyer; John Rutledge, South Carolina’s foremost lawyer; and Edmund Randolph.
The convention went into recess, and the committee of detail went to work. Randolph’s colleagues entrusted him with preparing the initial outline. In other words, Randolph prepared the first draft of the first draft of the Constitution.
On Aug. 6, the convention re-assembled, and the committee presented its new draft. Its most striking feature was that, instead of federal powers being stated in general terms (as in the Virginia Plan), they were specifically itemized. Earlier in the summer, Randolph had thought it was premature to list specific federal powers, but the passage of time had clarified his thinking.
The committee’s “enumeration” scheme became a central feature of the finished Constitution.
Despite his success at the convention, Randolph balked at signing the finished document. He suggested changes that would enable him to sign, but his proposals were rejected.
Randolph concluded that the only way to obtain the alterations he wanted was to permit state conventions to propose amendments, to be reviewed by a second federal convention held before final ratification.
On Oct. 10, he wrote a lengthy letter explaining why the Articles of Confederation should be cashiered in favor of a new federal system. But the letter also insisted that state conventions be permitted to suggest pre-ratification amendments. He observed that the procedure he favored was similar to the procedure by which the Articles of Confederation were adopted. He expressed confidence that conventions in a majority of states would agree to such amendments.
‘I Am a Child of the Revolution’
His prediction about what other states would do proved wrong. When the Virginia ratifying convention met in Richmond on June 2, 1788, eight states had already approved the Constitution, and they had done so without insisting on any prior amendments. Massachusetts and South Carolina had proposed amendments, but to be adopted only after ratification.
Randolph realized that Virginia’s choices were reduced to this: Virginia could vote to ratify, resulting in union under the proposed Constitution, or Virginia could vote against ratification, likely resulting in no union at all.
Randolph passionately chose union.
However, the elections to the Virginia convention had not gone well for advocates of the Constitution. Not only were most of those elected skeptical about ratification, but the opponents included highly talented leaders: Mason, James Monroe (the future president), and Patrick Henry, truly one of history’s greatest orators.
Henry could send his listeners into a trance and hold them there for five hours. If a thunderstorm arose while he was speaking, his oratory danced with the thunder and lightning, bending the elements to his cause.
On the side of the Constitution were Madison (who, alas, was no orator); Wythe; Edmund Pendleton, then the Commonwealth’s top lawyer; and John Marshall, later Chief Justice of the United States.
Randolph was charged with the daunting responsibility of taking the lead in responding to Henry.
Henry specialized in attributing dark motives to his opponents. So Randolph needed to establish his patriotism at the very outset. “Mr. Chairman,” he said, “I am a child of the revolution. My country, very early indeed, took me under its protection, at a time when I most wanted it, and, by a succession of favors and honors, gratified even my most ardent wishes.”
With such a recital, no listener could believe that the young governor would betray America.
Throughout Richmond’s muggy June days, Randolph rose to his feet again and again. He delivered speeches of shimmering eloquence. He made his case, while still conceding his desire for amendments. Ultimately, he helped negotiate a bargain between supporters of the Constitution and moderate opponents: The convention proposed a long list of amendments, but to be adopted only after ratification.
Even so, the vote was close: 89 in favor and 79 against.
Subsequent Career
In 1789, President Washington chose Randolph to be the first U.S. attorney general and, in 1794, the second Secretary of State. Randolph did a competent job in both positions. However, a cabal within the cabinet eventually forced him to resign. The alleged reason was that Randolph had solicited bribes from the French ambassador.
Randolph furiously protested his innocence, writing two pamphlets defending himself against the charges. The verdict of history has been, “Not guilty.”
He re-entered law practice, where his success at the bar vied with his failure as a financial manager. He also composed a history of Virginia.
Randolph died on Sept. 12, 1813, in Millwood, Virginia.
Final Remarks
Like Dickinson, Randolph is persistently underestimated and under-appreciated. Some writers characterize him as a temporizing mediocrity. But if you re-read what you have just read, you can see that this judgment is perverse. And if any doubt remains, read his speeches to the Virginia ratifying convention, notes from which are available here.
If Randolph failed on any level, it was that he was too honorable for the jungle that federal politics had become. As E. Lee Shepard wrote in the “American Dictionary of National Biography”:
“[H]e struggled throughout his political life to rise above faction and to support positions and policies that he deemed worthy of his advocacy. Unfortunately, with the establishment of the federal government and the broadening of the new national political arena, his high-minded approach to public service became increasingly untenable.”
If not for Edmund Randolph, America’s most populous and most influential state would have rejected the Constitution. George Washington would have been ineligible for the presidency. The Union would have been smothered in its cradle.
Rob Natelson | The Tenth Amendment Center
The post The Founders and the Constitution: Edmund Randolph appeared first on Granite Grok.
Electric vehicles are not better for the environment, regardless of the electricity source. EVs do not solve any emissions problem, may make them worse, are also unreliable and ill-suited to a rural-urban climate, but Burlington, Vermont, is thinking, bribes!
Bribery. If we offer them someone else’s money to lower the purchase price, they’ll buy in. This from the hippie enclave where prostitution is legal, illegal aliens can vote, cops are the problem, and crime is rising. They want to do more to lower fossil fuel vehicle emissions by offshoring them to poor countries with no environmental controls.
No worries. No one in Burlington can see those emissions from there; as long as they can say they lowered their own, ta-da! So just take them at their word; convincing “high-consumption fuel users to switch to battery electric vehicles” is good for… something. Sure, the folks who sell the EVs but no one else.
Vermont has one of the highest electric rates in the country. EVs are cost-prohibitive even after piggybacking rebates at someone else’s expense. And unless you get a good one and a good charger, they take a while to “fill up.” The cold weather affects performance and battery life – and not in a good way. There’s no infrastructure in place to address increased demand or load. But if ya’ll buy and EV, maybe that’ll convince everyone else to let the city take even more o their money to address those issues after the face.
This is called leadership!
“We’re slowly getting people to understand that you can more cost-effectively reduce emissions from the transportation sector if your resources prioritize the highest mileage drivers,” said Rob Sargent, Coltura’s policy director.
And there is an added equity bonus, Sargent said, because a majority of these superusers (56%) are also below the median household income. Many of them are commuters forced to drive long distances because they can’t afford to live close to where they work, and end up spending a lot of their limited income on gas.
Did you get that? People least able to afford the unnecessary transition to EVs are the people they need in EVs. These are the folks hardest hit by Democrat-driven energy policy and inflation. People who need to drive farther and will need more time to charge so they don’t get stranded on snow-covered roads with no heat come winter.
The post Vermont Looks for a Way to Bribe People Into less Reliable Transportation appeared first on Granite Grok.
Defining a geographic information system can be complex because GIS entails so much more than any short description can possibly explain. Therefore, in this post, we’ll take a look at the concept of geographic information systems first, followed by a look through some of its most important real-life applications across multiple sectors.
Geographic Information System: DefinitionGIS is a very broad collection of multiple interconnected systems that comprises both hardware and software components. Each component within a geographic information system is dedicated to several specific tasks, including finding, acquiring, compiling, storing, verifying, analyzing, interpreting, organizing, predicting, and displaying geographical data with useful insights.
Everything from GPS satellites and handheld GNSS devices to the various software applications used in geomatics and geoinformatics are all parts of what we collectively call a geographic information system, aka GIS. Now that we have a basic understanding of what GIS is, it’s time to look at the real-life functions and services that are built around it.
Data CaptureField data collection and analysis for landscape design is a comprehensive GIS service that’s essential today for everything from land development, urban planning, and disaster management to agricultural planning and land conservation efforts. The processes involved can be broadly classified under two main, subsequent steps called data capture and data analysis.
Data capturing refers to all actions involved in collecting and entering pertinent geographic data into the GIS database. There are several methods to capture data for GIS systems, but which ones will actually be used depends on the particular project’s budget and specific requirements. Nevertheless, some of the most commonly used methods for capturing GIS data are photography, cartography, satellite imaging, sonar imaging, thermal imaging, historical data comparison, and direct measuring.
Data AnalysisAfter a GIS system has access to all the captured data, it begins to analyze it. Data analysis in this respect refers to the investigation of all captured data with the goal of finding information and producing insights that would benefit the concerned project. The processes are myriad as multiple geomatic applications within the main GIS system will now work in perfect synchronization to analyze, organize, interpret, visualize, and display the collected data with useful and relevant insights.
For example, photographs, thermal images, and cartographic data are frequently analyzed to:
Prediction is very much an integral part of what GIS systems are used for, and that can prove itself to be immensely beneficial for not just industrial and commercial purposes but also for nature conservation and disaster aversion efforts. For example, modern GIS systems are quite capable of predicting and warning against impending disasters such as earthquakes, landslides, avalanches, tornadoes, hurricanes, and blizzards, to name a few.
The post From Data Collection to Analysis: Understanding GIS Services and Applications appeared first on Granite Grok.
The Executive Council Agenda came out for the Wed, 8/2 meeting, and I have some points for you to check on.
Would you like to call BioReference to make sure they need 500,000 more dollars for their laboratory?
Who wants to call the Division of Travel and Tourism and ask them $500,000 for a joint promotional program?
I emailed my local library to ask them about why we need 2 million dollars for interlibrary loans.
What does this mean? 600,000,000 is a lot of money to disburse without any explanation. I will get back to you on this one.
Shared upon request | NH Freedom.org
Editors Note: working to get better screen grabs from the author for future installments.
The post Excerpts From Planned Gov & Exec. Council Meeting Agenda – Wed Aug 2nd. appeared first on Granite Grok.
Electric Vehicles and COVID cures have a lot in common. If the government endorses them, there is a long list of bad things they are not telling you or denying when anyone dares to tell the truth.
We’ve got hundreds of articles on Electric Vehicles and the Net Zero lie, and yet people continue to accept the plan as deployed by the State. Eliminate affordable options, replace them with incompatible solutions, and make using them more challenging (or impossible).
But you don’t have to believe me. Just look to states like California or, in today’s example, Australia. Queensland is proposing demand management schemes monitored and implemented by electricity providers.
Translation: when what we forced you to purchase stresses out the infrastructure that we did not first replace (or upgrade), we will turn your EV charger off to take the pressure off the system. Assuming you can even afford to charge it.
Federal Nationals MP Keith Pitt, himself an electrical engineer, says a proposal to use demand management on EV charging reveals that operators have little confidence the grid can handle the uptake of electric cars expected in the push towards net zero.
“EV take-up could increase peak demand by as much as 60 percent right across the National Electricity Market,” Mr. Pitt told The Epoch Times.
“That would mean you need a 60 percent increase in generating electricity capacity, transmission, and distribution. So that’s every substation, every cable, every supply point, every house—it will cost an absolute fortune.”
This entire exercise is quite literally the government telling you to jump into the deep end of a pool in which there is no water and then demanding the water that’s there. They want to encourage more EV uptake by redirecting revenue (needed to rebuild the grid, perhaps?) toward rebates for cars people still can’t afford and won’t be able to charge.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the same people pushing these ass-backward plans were also looking for ways to end the individual right to travel and personal transportation?
Oh, wait. They are.
And they’re not even better for the environment.
The post Queensland, Australia, Shows American EV Owners Their Future appeared first on Granite Grok.
The purchase of a home can be one of the largest and most exciting investments you will make during your lifetime. Securing a mortgage requires hard work, sacrifice, careful planning, and knowledge of mortgage basics in order to be successful at getting approved for a loan. From pre-approval applications to understanding different loan types available to you – the entire process can be both time-consuming and daunting! Luckily this ultimate guide on mortgages will help you find your dream home so you have everything needed for success!
Understand the different types of mortgage loans availableMortgage options can be daunting when searching for the ideal loan. From fixed-rate to adjustable-rate and government-backed to conventional, the variety can be dizzying. Each type offers its own set of benefits and drawbacks that should be carefully considered in making an informed decision. Your financial goals, income, credit score, and overall situation all play a role when determining which mortgage fits best with you. Doing your research with trusted mortgage professionals will allow you to find one that fulfills all your long-term financial goals while being tailored specifically to you personally!
Also, don’t forget to collect the necessary documents and get pre-approved for a mortgage by gathering all the required documents. Finding your new home can be both thrilling and stressful, with pre-approval being one of the key steps in this process. By gathering all of your documents – such as pay stubs, tax returns, and bank statements – upfront, you’ll save yourself the hassle later down the line and begin house hunting confidently.
Explore your optionsShop around to compare rates and fees from multiple lenders before making your financial decision, whether buying your dream home or refinancing. Don’t let the excitement of home buying or refinancing distract from this essential step – taking time to research potential lenders may save thousands over time, either online or by consulting a mortgage professional. Doing this early could save thousands over time! You can do your comparison shopping right here or even seek professional advice. keeping options open may save money in the long run – more cash to put towards other financial goals or goals!
Many individuals often struggle to determine when to get a 30 year mortgage rate. Although 30-year mortgages are more readily available due to lower monthly payments, 15-year loans could save thousands more in interest over their lifecycle. Furthermore, refinancing with lower interest rates may save even more money; so be sure to research all available mortgage options and rates so that you make an informed decision that will contribute positively financially in the future.
ConclusionHome purchasing can be an exhilarating and rewarding experience. Understanding the basics of a mortgage will be helpful as you make this investment while doing research on all available properties will ensure you make the best use of your funds. With these tips in mind, one step closer is taken to owning the dream home of your choice!
The post The Ultimate Guide to Getting a Mortgage appeared first on Granite Grok.
Last week’s revelation that Facebook took orders from the Biden Administration to censor even accurate information about Covid is the latest example of the US government’s disregard for our Constitution. Thanks to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, we now know the extent to which the Biden Administration went in its proxy war against the First Amendment.
Getting the information wasn’t easy. It was only after Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was threatened with being held in contempt of Congress that he relented and shared information with the Judiciary Committee about Biden Administration pressure to censor Americans on Facebook who disagreed with White House policy on Covid.
What we have discovered thus far is disgusting. For example, in April 2021, a Facebook employee sent a message to top executives in the company complaining that, “we are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the [Biden] White House” to remove posts. In another example, senior executive Nick Clegg complained that Andy Slavitt, a Senior Advisor to President Biden, was “outraged…that [Facebook] did not remove” a particular post, according to Rep. Jordan’s report.
Rep. Jordan revealed that the “offending post” that the Biden Administration wanted removed was simply a joke making fun of possible vaccine injury down the road. The Biden Administration even wanted to “protect” us from jokes that it didn’t like.
The Administration did not stop at targeting what it called “misinformation.” As Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley noted in a recent column, “the administration also demanded the removal of ‘malinformation’ that is ‘based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.’” So the Biden Administration wanted to “cancel” even truthful information counter to its own preferred narrative.
This level of contempt for our Constitution is shocking. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. – who was himself censored at the behest of the Biden Administration – testified recently before Congress: “A government that can censor its critics has license for every atrocity. It is the beginning of totalitarianism.”
Who knows how many thousands of Facebook accounts were banned or restricted at the behest of the Biden White House. Early last year I received notice that my own Facebook Page was “restricted” for 90 days because I pointed out that the CEO of Pfizer once claimed that his Covid shot was “100 effective” but later changed his story. The post was completely accurate but still my page was targeted.
Although some are using this information for partisan gain against the Democrats in power, Americans should not delude themselves: left unchecked, there is little reason to believe a Republican Administration would show any more respect for the Constitution than the Biden Administration. Both parties have shown themselves to be selective in their pledged oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution.
It is just as unconstitutional – and thus illegal – for the US Government to violate the First Amendment by proxy – through so-called private companies – as if the government directly attacked our free speech. We must remember that the unprecedented US government censorship of Americans during Covid was just the test run. Be assured that when the next “crisis” comes – and it will – the authoritarians in charge will again ramp up the censorship machine unless we do something about it.
Copyright © 2023 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.The post ‘Facebook Files’ Reveal Despicable Disregard for the Constitution appeared first on Granite Grok.
Lifelong learning is a concept that has been talked about in the workplace and in schools for a while. Once it was simply a buzzword confined to some corporations, but today it is a philosophy that millions of Americans are beginning to embrace fully. Put simply, a person who dedicates themselves to the concept of lifelong learning will be constantly looking for ways to improve their knowledge across a wide range of subjects and topics. This can be incredibly important in 2023, where people live in an age where news agencies have their own agendas and parts of the internet contain deliberately false information designed to mislead and alter the perception of political or environmental topics. Put simply, lifelong learning can help you to think more critically and balance different sources of information in a more considered manner. In this article, two distinct ways that you can make a firm commitment to the concept of lifelong learning will be explored.
Join a Debating TeamDebating teams used to be a pursuit that was solely available for school or college students. In these settings, classmates would discuss contentious issues and would use logic, facts, and reasoning to convince the listeners that their perspective on an issue was the most valid and reasonable. Today in America and around the world, there are a wide range of debating teams aimed at adults. Some take place exclusively online, and others are at physical locations where all are welcome to attend. In the modern world, the value of debating is vital as it allows different perspectives to be explored on a pressing issue in a safe environment. Today, there is a fractious element to society, where conflicting opinions become the basis for deep divides between people, even to the point where friendships end because of simple differences in opinion. Joining a debating team can be a key way to understand other viewpoints and learn more about the experiences and beliefs of other citizens. In short, it can give you a more well-rounded view of the world and society in general.
Use the Internet for KnowledgeOne of the most accessible ways to commit to the philosophy of lifelong learning is to use time productively online. Whilst the quality of online knowledge, news, and resources varies considerably, it can be a valuable way to find different perspectives on a topic and determine which sources are reliable. However, older internet connections can make it difficult to stream content and research information efficiently. If you live in Florida and need to improve your internet provider, search online to find fiber internet in your Florida neighborhood. Having fast and reliable internet access makes it easy to instantly search online on a wide range of topics and broaden your knowledge on many different subjects. With a fiber connection, you can stream content in 4K without buffering or delay to maximize the learning from your time spent online. Today, many sites on YouTube and other video streaming platforms feature high-quality educational content that inspires and encourages further learning. Key topics are discussed, and it is possible to build a broad knowledge on many different subjects simply by watching professionally researched documentaries and listening to high-quality podcasts online.
The post How Can Individuals Commit to Lifelong Learning? appeared first on Granite Grok.
“Death by Hospital “was a serious money maker for the Public Health Industrial Complex, who likely returned the favor by shoveling money ad politicians who aided and abetted in mass murder. Part of the protocol involved a miserable drug called Remdesivir.
I know you knew that or suspected it, but did you know there are support groups for survivors and family members who love loved ones to the Remdesivir or bust then vent protocol?
These support groups are a deeply somber business. Grieving faces fill the screen of people who lost a parent, spouse, sibling, or child. Some speak with icy anger; some choke back sobs as they tell of the deadly abuse inflicted on their loved ones, shattering their families forever.
I asked them what they thought of the FDA’s decision to approve Remdesivir for people with severe renal impairment, including dialysis. “Morally, how can you do that?” Joyce Wilson said. “It’s a death sentence. They didn’t care if people had kidney issues or not. My husband went into the hospital in kidney distress. They exacerbated it with Remdesivir. Then they ventilated him, and he died.”
Writing at American Thinker, Stella Paul shares a handful of stories she encountered after joining these support groups. Husbands, wives, parents, and friends all share a similar tale.
Denise Fritter said. “Jamie was 36 and looking forward to getting married. The hospital refused to consider any other modalities of treatment for her. They insisted on Remdesivir. Then they put her on a vent and murdered her. I think the FDA is using Remdesivir to fulfill their own agenda.”
Remdesivir has received the golden seal of approval from the FDA for treating COVID, meaning it is no longer burdened by the emergency use authorization under which it was deployed to euthanize thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Americans. Even for patients with kidney issues, which is an interesting point because, according to survivors, one of the things Remdisivr was good at was stopping kidney function.
I asked them what they thought of the FDA’s decision to approve Remdesivir for people with severe renal impairment, including dialysis. “Morally, how can you do that?” Joyce Wilson said. “It’s a death sentence. They didn’t care if people had kidney issues or not. My husband went into the hospital in kidney distress. They exacerbated it with Remdesivir. Then they ventilated him, and he died.”
It’s genuinely not that difficult to work out. The government is using it to depopulate the nation. Sick people are expensive and drain resources for more important things like foreign wars and funding gender studies awareness programs in Islamic nations.
You know, more money laundering. And we know that’s what it is. In December 2022, the World Health Organization advised doctors not to use Remdesivir for COVID patients.
WHO has issued a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients, regardless of disease severity, as there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients.
The FDA not only approves it for COVID patients but says it is acceptable for treating people with kidney failure. Sure, if by treating you mean killing them. Medically assisted suicide for folks who didn’t want to die.
The post The Remdesivir Protocol as Government Assisted Suicide appeared first on Granite Grok.
Last winter, no one was voting for Donald Trump. With varying levels of anger, disdain or sadness, all our friends made it clear they were “moving on.” “He’s a slob,” said one friend aggressively—with no explanation even when pressed. “I want to go back to ‘normal,’” said another, adding, “before all the division.”
I remember lots of division since I started voting, but I figured she meant “before Trump fought back.” There’s no division if we don’t complain when we’re called a “murderer and tax cheat” (Romney) or a “mentally unfit Nazi” (McCain)—not much winning either.
Most simply repeated the establishment “Trump can’t win,” forgetting we’d heard that in 2016. And some just said they wanted to “explore other options,” like changing a vacation destination. Only one friend said he was supporting Trump, though he said it quietly.
About a month ago, however, with no apparent reason and certainly no explanation, the very same people started to shift back to Donald Trump. “He’s the only one who can win,” said one; “he’s my guy,” said another. In less than two weeks, four separate people casually said they’d be voting for Trump as though they had never said otherwise. I say “voting” rather than “supporting,” as a couple of them were not overly enthusiastic, at least for now.
I’m not exactly sure what happened. Maybe the “other options” weren’t as promising as expected. Maybe the endless indictments brought back the need for a fighter. Maybe the very real possibility of war with Russia (and China) changed some minds. Maybe the media’s coordinated, vicious attacks on DeSantis reminded voters it wasn’t ever about Trump—they hate all of us, and they no longer care if we know it.
Whatever caused the shift, it has been stark and quick. Unless something entirely unexpected happens, it looks like Donald Trump is heading for a big primary victory in New Hampshire. Much bigger than I would have anticipated just a few months ago. Doubt I’ll even watch Ronna’s debates.
The post A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the 2024 Presidential Primary appeared first on Granite Grok.
The City that never sleeps has a new ordinance on the books. It encourages fellow New Yorkers to rat out local businesses that hand out extra napkins, condiments, containers, or utensils without customers asking for them.
That’s not what it says, but there’s no practical way to identify violators aside from inspections, but Mayor Adams and his city councilors are hoping for help from the COVID rat squad to locate potential targets.
COVID revealed the willingness of neighbors to out you, and Liberal NYC has tapped into it with what is being sold as a way to reduce waste, something contrary to the very existence of Democrats.
Effective July 31, 2023, New York City food service establishments* providing take-out and delivery service must comply with these restrictions:
*NOTE: These restrictions do not apply to self-serve stations inside a food service establishment.
The ordinance went into effect yesterday but will not result in citations or fines until July 2024, after which “Businesses should be prepared for visits from inspectors, at least annually as part of routine inspections or 311 investigations, …”
And now for reality.
Having spent some time in the food service industry, I can tell you that with thin margins, the desire to keep costs down is baked in. Anyone who has used a drive-thru will know that. You ask for extra napkins or condiments because they deliberately give you too few – with rare exceptions.
Now and again, you will encounter the slighted server who, when asked, seizes a fistful of packets and drops them into your paper sack. I suppose that is the waste they are after, but as an environmental impact policy, this ordinance is useless. Business owners need to cut waste; it’s the customers that work against that.
And the ordinance isn’t trying to stop you from asking or businesses from giving.
They will find a way to cite businesses. To justify the resources directed at the alleged problem, they must, which, if we are honest, is a more considerable waste.
Perhaps New Yorkers should audit the New York City Government if they think the planet needs saving. Office supply waste, office space, heating, cooling, transportation, staffing, you get the point. Every department, stuffed with left-wingers and everything your tax dollars pay for, is like a rental car.
Talk about the potential for reducing waste.
HT | GP
..
The post NYC Ordinance Looks to Cut Waste – Ignores City Government Completely appeared first on Granite Grok.
There was a story over the weekend that deserves your attention about a Chinese-owned laboratory in Reedley, California. Reedley, California, which is about 25 miles southeast of Stockton, and it had vials of deadly pathogens, things like HIV, covid, E.coli, herpes, and Malaria, among others.
It was owned by a Chinese national and had about a thousand mice, some living, some dead, to go along with lab equipment and the pathogens.
It was uncovered during the follow-up of a building inspector observation. A building inspector noticed something not to code at the warehouse building on a tour of the business area. It was a garden hose draining something out of the back of the building, which was illegal so a search warrant was obtained.
The warehouse lab equipment included about 30 refrigerators and freezers, animals, vials of human blood, and other substances. State and federal health officials, including the CDC, were called in. Over 20 viruses, bacteria, and parasites were identified at the facility.
The owner of the operation is a Nevada-based company called Prestige Biotech. A Chinese national named Xiuqin Yao is the listed owner. He has not been very cooperative, but he did say that the stuff in the warehouse belongs to Universal Meditech, a bankrupt company based in Fresno, California. Court documents show he has listed various addresses for himself and his company, all vacant buildings or enterprises in China.
State and Federal criminal investigations are underway.
Not that the FBI did not find the lab. The CIA did not find it. Homeland Security didn’t find it either. It wasn’t found by some hotdog state investigator. An alert building inspector spotted a hose draining where it should not have been draining.
The FBI opens a China investigation every 10 hours. There aren’t enough agents to do that work. Chinese nationals, wherever they are around the world, are required by Chinese law to work as directed for the CCP, the military, or the intelligence service. We know that…
This means Mr. Yao would unleash the pathogens in his lab onto the American people if China told him to do so. If he refuses, his family and friends in China end up hurt, jailed, or killed. This all adds up to a national security shortcoming. We know that…
Are you beginning to feel like it is early 2001? Back before the World Trade Center… before 9/11? Our federal government was not paying attention. America and Americans are not protected against Chinese threats. Our government is not taking the threat seriously. If they were… would we have an open southern border?
The post What Would You Do If You Were China and America’s Enemy? appeared first on Granite Grok.
I’m not shy about my objection to assisted suicide, by which I mean – in case you were not clear – state-legalized and managed euthanasia. It is, as most of my content on the subject begins, a slippery slope that gets slicker quicker, and we’ve been observing that in real-time.
Canada and Vermont border my home state of New Hampshire, and both have recently amped up or accelerated their ideas about regime-approved Medical Assistance in Dying, lead by progressive majorities. And it’s no coincidence that they get it from their ideological ancestors – eugenicists who sought to engineer better societies.
It is why I am so persistent in my warnings about stopping its, pardon the pun, progression. This a problem well articulated by Wesley J. Smith, a bioethicist to whom my headline owes its credit. Amanda Witt cites him in a recent piece in Salvo Mag titled “How Kindness Became Cruelty.” The topic is assisted suicide, euthanasia, and the evolution and – almost literally, explosion – of the public/political acceptance of government-sanctioned suicide.
Under the sub-head ‘A Culture of Death, Witt writes,
In the past few years “death on demand” laws have sprung up in Germany, Austria, Spain, Portugal, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Canada. A few weeks ago Britain’s Royal College of Surgeons declared themselves “neutral” on the issue of physician-assisted suicide.
In Canada, Smith points out, “8 percent of people who die in Quebec are now killed by doctors or nurses.” He goes on to say that, “as if that weren’t enough, Quebec loosened the ‘strict guidelines’ again to allow people to order themselves killed in advance if they become incompetent.”
Notice that last part. Medically assisted dying is available as a remedy for not only intractable pain, but as a remedy for what Smith calls “existential anxiety.”
Governments, especially ones that believe they should manage everything, tend to create the misery assisted suicide will inevitably relieve. They also overpromise and overspend, so finding reasons to lighten the load is increasingly a budget decision wrapped in a compassionate language whose roots are eugenic. This is increasingly true when the same government ranks depopulation as a priority to … save the planet.
You would be wise to reverse-think the logic as in, the crisis was imagined to justify eugenics later, because the shoe fits. But you need not even make that leap, true though it may be. As Smith also notes,
“.. Smith says, this is the primary reason why people seek assisted suicide now—not because of physical pain, but because of existential pain. People fear the future. “
A fear created and managed by the government via what is, more often than not, a complicit media. A government that “is characteristically glacial when processing disability benefit claims but Johnny-on-the-Spot when you want the government to kill you.”
Smith says there have “even been stories of case workers suggesting euthanasia to disabled people denied independent-living assistance, and to veterans with PTSD as an answer to their ‘suffering’ caused by a lack of social services.”
And then, of death there is no end.
“Once a society accepts the noxious notion that killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering,” Smith writes, “the definition of ‘suffering’ never stops expanding.”
Today in various countries people can be killed because they are mentally ill, disabled, anxious, afraid of the future, or lonely. They can be killed because bystanders—including medical professionals—are tired of caring for them, or deem them unfit to live, or want to save money, or want to harvest their organs.
Landing us squarely at the bottom of the slippery slope where the state justifies chemical execution to relieve its suffering. Sanctioned death becomes a resource, a problem solver, a means to political ends, no different than any other despotic regime who, for all their faults, never had the gall to say they were doing it to ease suffering.
The post “The Noxious Notion That Killing Is an Acceptable Answer to Human Suffering,” appeared first on Granite Grok.
One only needs to check the news occasionally to know that there is at least a half-trillion dollars of noncollectable student loan debt out there. Those loans, a huge percentage of them being owed to non-government entities, may never be fully repaid.
The original (first) “plan” was to transfer only federal student loan debt to the taxpayers by repaying those loans from tax revenue. When the multi-state backed lawsuit against this plan hit the SCOTUS, a majority of justices (because it only takes a majority) decided that the plan needed Congressional approval. It was just too much money and affected too many people for this to be a simple “rule change”. They decided that the original plan – to assist service members, veterans, and first responders – was being stretched to include those who were neither service members, veterans, nor first responders. SCOTUS said “sorry, you can’t do that without a specific law passed by Congress.”
The next (current) plan is to extend the delay to the time that repayments must begin – but only for a certain percentage of those who still have student loan debt. This plan is still under consideration, but there are already signs that another lawsuit will be filed against this plan as well.
Back when Joe Biden was a senator, the bankruptcy laws were changed to make it extremely difficult to discharge student loans during a bankruptcy proceeding. In fact, not only was it difficult, but for too many… it was impossible. The one debt that remained after other debts were negotiated was the student loan debt. And for some, the amount of debt was crushingly high.
The result of this law meant that universities knew that their loans would be backed by the US Government in case of default. And, without any brakes being applied on the loan process, they kept raising their tuition fees. Sometimes by 10% or more per semester. After all, they knew they’d eventually get their money – no matter what.
Late last year, the Biden administration released new “guidance” on student loan handling in bankruptcy. That “guidance” was released as a way to convince some people that The Government Is Here To Help. An overview of that “guidance” can be found on the National Consumer Law Center page https://library.nclc.org/article/new-process-discharge-student-loans-bankruptcy.
But until laws are changed to allow student debt to be fully considered in bankruptcy, that “guidance” is still optional to a bankruptcy court. That court can still decide that not one dime of the $70,000 debt for nursing college may be discharged, even if it is the sole reason that the nursing graduate cannot qualify for a home loan based on standard liquidity calculations.
Ok, so what’s the solution?
There’s a fairly easy way to open the relief valve on student loan debt: allow them to be fully discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. Pass a law that student loans must be the first expense considered in a bankruptcy hearing and cannot be put aside in favor of other debt.
This solves two problems: student borrowers who can barely make ends meet due to their (sometimes) $800-$1200/mo student loan debt repayment can now use that $800-$1200/mo for living expenses. The elimination of that $70,000 debt also means that their liquidity calculation might now be positive enough for them to possibly qualify for a home loan.
The second problem that gets solved is entirely related to higher education. By telling universities (and their lenders) that they might now have to “eat” loans that might never be repaid, they might actually begin to change their curricula toward programs that teach usable and employable skills. They might spend more time pushing STEM curricula – with graduates able to earn enough to repay the loans – and less time teaching mostly-useless “studies” curricula.
After all, being a part-time barista with a $100,00 degree in basket weaving studies — well, that’s just not a path to success. And any university that would lend $100,000 so a student can get a degree in basket weaving studies deserves to be stuck with the bill.
A graduate with a STEM degree has an excellent chance of being hired, well-paid, and able to pay off that loan while also being able to afford a home.
Don’t get me wrong: if a student wants to spend $100,000 and get a degree in basket weaving studies, they should be allowed to do so. But a university should know that they won’t be able to get federal or commercial backing for a degree program that doesn’t result in a usable skill (even if one of the courses is Barista 201).
The post How To Fix the “Student Loan” Problem appeared first on Granite Grok.
“Sammy Roth, LA Times staff writer, wrote: “What’s more important: Keeping the lights on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, or solving the climate crisis?”
The answer depends on whether you think you’ll be one of the folks in the dark or have to travel to centralized cooling centers because you don’t get to have AC in your living space (note I did not use the word home).
We can assume the LA Times staff writer, working at an essential business, expects to have full-time access to the comforts of modern living so that they can “report” the “news” to the people because this is not actually a question, it is an answer.
We know what is more important to the political elite and their water carriers. The sentence that follows is not hypothetical; it is a warning. The planned policy will result in brownouts and blackouts. There will be power shortages. You must make yourself ready to embrace sacrifices heaped upon you to satisfy their political urges. Things they will not suffer because, in any two-class system, there have to be haves who travel )often on) private planes, drive large vehicles, eat from diverse menus, and live in comfortable homes. We wouldn’t want those responsible for your misery to be distracted from their duties.
They took affordable, abundant energy away, so it is incumbent on them to prepare you for the consequences they will never suffer.
It is another psy-op and it tells you something. The question yous should be asking? Why doesn’t CO2 align with any of the alledged doom? How is it that none of your predictions ever come true?
And the big one; would getting rid of politicians and media peddling these lies improve my quality of life while making it more comfortable and affordable?
Yes. Yes it would
Plenty more here.
HT | WUWT
The post Preparing the BattleSpace: ‘Would an Occasional Blackout Help Solve Climate Change?’ appeared first on Granite Grok.
You’ve been lied to. America is not “one nation.” I know this feels shocking. You’ve proclaimed the United States of America is “one nation, under God, indivisible” your entire life. But you’ve been parroting a myth.
Over time, the one-nation myth became gospel. Historians, politicians and nationalists of every stripe wove the myth into the psyche of the American people. But if we start pulling at the treads, the myth unravels.
It is true that the U.S. system of government possesses some national characteristics. The United States face the world as a unified nation. They have a national defense and engage in trade with other countries as a nation. But at its core, the U.S. is something fundamentally different. That’s because the United States operate under a federal government, not a national government.
This may seem like semantics, but the two systems differ in important ways. Most significantly, national governments wield much more power than their federal counterparts.
Black’s Law Dictionary clarifies the legal distinction between a national and a federal system.
“A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the ‘social compact,’ and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact.”
In a nutshell, a nation operates as a single, unified political society. A federation is made up of multiple independent political societies united for specific purposes.
In a national system, the central government maintains complete control. While cities, counties, parishes, or other subdivisions may exist within a nation, their governments have no autonomy. They remain totally subservient to the central authority.
In a federal system, each member state maintains its sovereignty (ultimate authority). While it delegates some power to the general government, and in so doing voluntarily relinquishes control over certain objects, it never gives up its sovereignty. The central government can only exercise specifically delegated powers and cannot generally interfere with the internal policies of each member state unless it is in pursuance of those powers.
Although Alexander Hamilton held strong nationalist convictions, even he conceded the United States were not “one nation” in Federalist #32.
“An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.” [Emphasis added]
We see this in the ratification of the Constitution. The people ratified the Constitution through the existing sovereign political societies – the states. The Constitution itself makes this distinction in Article 7.
“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
It wasn’t the mass of Americans ratifying the Constitution as “one nation.” It was the people of each individual state adopting the Constitution. Their independent actions created a political union between those states choosing to ratify. James Madison and other founders referred to this as a “compact.” It was entirely possible for nine states to form the union with four remaining independent, sovereign nations. In other words, the ratification by those nine states would not have bound the people in the other four.
In fact, Rhode Island was the last of the original colonies to approve the Constitution, and it did not send representatives to Congress until after ratification. Clearly, by that point, a vast majority of the American population was represented by ratifying states, yet that fact did not bind the people of Rhode Island to the Union. The state didn’t join the union until the people of the state gave the go-ahead.
James Madison reiterated the distinction between a federal and national government in Federalist #39.
“It appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act.
“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.” [Emphasis added]
In Federalist #39, Madison alludes to a very important fundamental principle — sovereignty is in the people.
Mercy Otis Warren summed it up in the simplest way possible.
“The origin of all power is in the people.”
The British had a different idea. As Massachusetts royal governor Sir Francis Bernard explained, they believed in the “supreme superintendency of the government,” and that “in this plentitude of power, it is absolute, uncontrollable, and accountable to none; and therefore in a political sense, can do no wrong.”
The American revolutionaries fought a long bloody war to free themselves from this system and replace it with a system in which, as James Wilson described it, “the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power REMAINS in the people.”
So, when we talk about “state sovereignty,” it doesn’t imply that the state government is sovereign. We don’t mean the geographical area possesses some kind of mystical power. We are really talking about the sovereignty of the people organized into their most fundamental political societies – the states.
James Madison explained this distinction in the Virginia Report of 1800.
The Report served as an in-depth defense of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798. In the resolutions, Madison asserted that “in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact [Constitution], the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”
In his Report of 1800, Madison explained exactly what the term “states” means in relation to sovereignty in the American system.
“The other position involved in this branch of the resolution, namely, ‘that the states are parties to the Constitution or compact,’ is in the judgment of the committee, equally free from objection. It is indeed true that the term ‘States,’ is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments, established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and lastly, it means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity. Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconveniency is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance whatever different constructions of the term ‘States,’ in the resolution may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because in that sense, the Constitution was submitted to the “States”: In that sense the ‘States’ ratified it; and in that sense of the term ‘States,’ they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the Federal Government result.” [Emphasis added]
The people of the states are the fundamental building block of the American political system. The United States are not one nation made up of “one American people.” They are a union of sovereign political societies with the final authority residing in the people themselves.
We can see from this discussion that the “one nation” myth isn’t just harmless semantics. If we embrace this myth, we end up with a general government that is much more powerful than intended. It creates a centralized system. The founding generation called this “consolidation,” and they viewed it as detrimental to liberty. In fact, during the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry said, “Dangers are to be apprehended in whatever manner we proceed; but those of a consolidation are the most destructive,” and he warned that it would “end in the destruction of our liberties.”
Thomas Jefferson also warned us about consolidation, saying that a centralized, consolidated government would lead to “corruption, plunder, and waste.”
He was right. That’s exactly the legacy of the “one nation” myth.
Michael Maharrey | The Tenth Amendment Center
The post Unraveling the “One Nation” Myth appeared first on Granite Grok.
I’ve written many posts and pages on indigenous people and America. You could, and should when you have time, explore the catalog because there are things there that will make your lib “friends” snap like twigs. But sometimes, you need something more straightforward; easier to digest.
Here is an excellent short video on a related topic (below). A common statement made by the left or the ignorant on the rare occasion when they are not the same thing. The idea is that modern or current-day descendants – many of them indigenous to North America (as in, you were born here) – live on stolen land.
And why the left works this angle so hard.
It is a heck of an argument from a group that doesn’t think you own anything you worked for, eh? People who claim a preeminent right to steal from you for whatever they desire. And so it is with land stolen from people who stole it from someone else, just like all of history all around the world.
Enjoy.
The post Are We Living on Stolen Land? Nope! appeared first on Granite Grok.
We live in exciting times. Newfangled technologies and sustainable practices are reinventing energy consumption for the 21st century. Let’s take this journey right to our backyards. It’s time to be a part of this energy revolution.
Embracing Nature’s PowerThe sun’s power is no longer an untapped resource; it’s become a familiar sight on American rooftops. The beauty of solar power lies in its renewability, capable of not just powering homes but also contributing excess energy to the grid.
In smart home devices, touchscreen thermostats are a game-changer. They’re intuitive, easy to use, and, most importantly, allow homeowners to control their energy consumption. With a simple touch, homeowners can adjust the temperature even when they’re miles away, ensuring that no kilowatt-hour goes to waste.
The Rise of Energy-Efficient AppliancesEnergy-efficient appliances are stalwarts in the battle against wasteful consumption, delivering top-notch performance without guzzling power. Take the humble lightbulb. An energy-efficient LED bulb consumes 75% less energy and shines bright for 25 times longer. Each upgrade can stack up to significant energy savings over time.
Going Green with Building PracticesConstruction and design industries are actively participating in this energy revolution, championing the cause of green building practices. These are no longer niche strategies a few avant-garde architects and builders adopted. Instead, they’ve seeped into the mainstream and are changing how we construct our living spaces.
At the heart of these green building practices lies the commitment to the efficient use of resources. There’s a growing trend of insulating construction materials with excellent thermal properties, creating a barrier against energy leakage. The roof, walls, or floors – every part of the house can contribute to energy savings.
Energy Efficient WindowsThe story continues with windows about more than just letting in natural light or providing a good view. Energy-efficient windows are making their mark in modern homes. They reduce the demand for heating and cooling systems, reducing energy consumption without compromising indoor comfort.
Save Water, Help Save the PlanetWater is another critical resource that green building practices aim to conserve. By integrating water-saving fixtures in homes, there’s an apparent reduction in the amount of water used, resulting in lesser energy needed for water heating and treatment. Think about low-flow showerheads, dual-flush toilets, or aerated faucets – these fixtures save water and contribute to energy efficiency.
The beauty of adopting these green building practices is that it’s a win-win situation. Not only do these strategies reduce energy consumption significantly, but they also lead to more comfortable and healthier living spaces. The indoor temperature stays more constant, the air quality improves, and the environmental impact is minimized.
Walking the Tightrope: Sustainability and EconomyFinding the balance between sustainability and the economy is like hitting the bullseye. It’s the art of saving a few dollars while also saving the planet. Practical measures such as maximizing natural light, installing programmable thermostats, and planting trees around the house for a natural cooling effect can be tremendously effective.
Shaping Our Energy FutureReinventing energy consumption for the 21st century is a task that extends beyond fancy gadgets and avant-garde practices. It involves a paradigm shift, recognizing that each small step taken towards conservation matters. It calls for understanding our roles – as homeowners, consumers, and guardians of our planet.
As we look towards a future brimming with possibilities, it’s clear that the onus is on us to shape it. Will we rise to the occasion and usher in an age of energy efficiency, where modern comforts and sustainable practices coexist? The answer lies in the choices we make today. It’s high time we redefined our relationship with energy. After all, aren’t we all stakeholders in preserving this beautiful planet?
The post Reinventing Energy Consumption for the 21st Century appeared first on Granite Grok.