Friday • January 10 • 2025
Vol.XVII • No.II
Manchester, N.H.
I’m voting for Kelly Ayotte!!! Know why??? Because Kelly went on Karoline Leavitt’s radio-show!!! Yup; that’s right; I’m a MAGA-voter, which means I’m essentially a cultist, who can’t think for myself and will follow my cult’s leaders off a cliff!!! This is how Mike Graham and the NHGOP elite see voters who supported Trump … that is, Trump’s policies had nothing … NOTHING … to do with their support. It was all a cult of personality. Hence, these voters will vote for Ayotte for Governor because one of their leaders made nice-nice with Ayotte:
So, in NH-NeverTrump world those “MAGA-voters” are going to give Ayotte a pass for turning into Jeannie-Shaheenie-lite in the futile hope that would get her reelected and her gratuitous anti-Trump virtue-signaling merely because Leavitt and Ayotte made nice-nice on the radio:
Kelly Ayotte kicked off her campaign for governor Monday morning with an impressive list of Republican backers, including former U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, former Gov. Craig Benson, and current House Majority Leader Jason Osborne.
But the most significant name for the Ayotte campaign may be one that wasn’t on the list: Karoline Leavitt.
A former Trump White House staffer and hardcore MAGA congressional candidate, Leavitt was guest hosting the Grace Curley radio show on Monday. Ayotte is best known in some pro-Trump circles as the Republican who withdrew her endorsement of the GOP nominee during the 2016 campaign.
But the conversation between Ayotte and Leavitt was positive and policy-focused, covering business taxes, bail reform, fentanyl, and the Second Amendment. The “T” word never came up.
Leavitt’s embrace of Ayotte says much more about Leavitt than it says about Ayotte. And I’ll just leave it at that.
The post NH-NeverTrump Journal Thinks MAGA-Voters Are Cultists Who Can’t Think For Themselves appeared first on Granite Grok.
Stephen Miller, writing on the Twitter Machine, wants to know if anyone at NPR reads or listens to NPR. Nancy Pelosi Radio published a piece titled “This Right Wing Conspiracy about Eating Bugs is about as Racist as it Gets.” Really? Cue the (not so) way back machine.
It looks like NPR was or is all-in on the bug-eating narrative—the joy of … Insect eating. Tempting, cuisine, next-gen, how-to, festivals, burgers for bugs, so what’s bugging me? How about NPR?
The post NPR’s Calls Bug Eating Stories a Racist Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory – Forgets to Read Left-Wing NPR First … appeared first on Granite Grok.
In case you are curious or would like to see the future of steel n election (har, har), the New Hampshire Secretary of State is hosting an Electronic Ballot Counting Device Demonstration at the beginning of August, and you are invited to attend.
New Hampshire legislators, election officials, and members of the public and media will have an opportunity to test electronic ballot counting devices produced by four vendors.
CONCORD, NH (July 19, 2023): New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan is inviting the public to take part in an interactive electronic ballot counting device demonstration on August 2nd from 9:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M., with an opportunity to attend either the morning session from 9:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. or the afternoon session from 1:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. The event will take place at the following location:
They are looking for replacements for the old Diebold/Dominion ballot stuffers counters and fold-misreaders, and they’ve got some “sample” equipment to try out.
The Secretary of State’s Office has been working closely with the Ballot Law Commission as it looks to replace the aging AccuVote ballot-counting devices used during New Hampshire elections. Currently, ballot-counting devices produced by the following vendors are under consideration: Clear Ballot, Dominion Voting Systems, Election Systems & Software, and VotingWorks. …
To register for the event and secure your spot, please use the following link, managed through our event management software, EventSquid: https://www.eventsquid.com/event/21055. Members of the media are welcome to stay for both sessions.
For reasons not yet clear, I still have my day job. They keep moving the drop-dead date for department dismissal out. I figured I’d have my days free by now, but it does not look like I will be available. We will try to get someone there to report on it. If you can go or feel compelled to, make sure you take notes and shoot a few pics or some video so we can share it with our audience.
Thanks!
Here’s the entire release from the SoS.
june-19-electronic-ballot-counting-device-demo-remediated_0
The post “New Hampshire Secretary of State to Host Public Electronic Ballot Counting Device Demonstration” appeared first on Granite Grok.
“If you’re reading this, you’re not normal.” That’s right; you’re not normal. Why? The vast majority of Americans don’t focus on politics. What can they tell us about 2024?
That’s the subtitle from the National Journal piece – its the bolding I did that’s the important bit. We here at GraniteGrok are NOT normal in that we live and breathe what the interaction of culture and politics is doing here in NH and in the US (and once in a while, internationally). The fact that you are here as a reader tells us that you, too, are paying attention. In fact, our Founding Fathers designed our political system to be DEPENDANT on an informed and moral electorate.
Are we?
At best, only one third of Americans pay close attention to politics. In a recent Marquette Law School poll, just 36 percent of respondents said they follow politics most of the time. Using different wording, a Grinnell College-Selzer poll from March found that 28 percent of Americans say they pay a lot of attention to political news.
There’s reason to think these numbers might be too high—that the actual proportion of Americans paying close attention to politics is lower. …
When it comes to paying attention to presidential campaigns, there is even more reason to think we dramatically overestimate how invested people are. Pew Research has asked respondents how much thought they have given to the candidates running for president in the lead-up to the last several presidential elections. In the summer of 2019, barely a quarter had given the candidates much thought. The figures were similar in mid-2015.
My take is that for MOST people, those percentages are way, WAY too high. For years I have told folks, when asked, that our target audience are the hardcore NH activists on the Right. In this small State of 1.4 million residents, I estimate it to be 2,000 – 4,000 which is just a number I’ve plucked out of the ether based on 17 years doing this stuff.
Sidenote: And a smaller number on the Left as we hear about their grousing about us. Especially those that say and do stupid stuff, get upset that we write about it, and then go berserk when we write about their reactions to what we wrote.
So while oOur total readership is much higher as we have national and international readership
Sidenote and Plug: All the more reason to help us to have Steve go full time here as his position at work is almost kaput – please, I ask, donate what you can as GraniteGrok would not be where we are without his wit, knowledge, humor, and snark/sarcasm!)
So let’s say 8,000 regular readers here in NH – that’s only 0.6% of NH that pays close attention. That’s sad.
Tuesday I was talking with a really active Activist and I heard the lament that it is so hard to get “regular folks” interested in politics because it directly affects them and their families. The Activists who are politicians and bureaucrats who are making decisions either for (or more likely, TO) you don’t care what it does because the regular folks are “apathetic” (yes, my word) on all this stuff. Like on school board budgets where costs are around $22,000/student and climbing even as enrollment is on a 10% downward trend AND the NEAP “Proficient” rating percentages show that the schools are doing miserable in teaching our kids. It’s HARD, in most communities, to get the “regular folks” to notice what is and isn’t going on and how much of their money isn’t getting the job done.
And they continue to “no show” to meetings and elections.
So, folks reading this, consider yourselves to be “not normal”.
Most folks would leave it at that. MY take is to inject the word “Exemplary” in describing y’all. You’re here because you care, you’re reading because you want to learn (and I hope that’s what we’re delivering!), and because you’re going out and DOING something about it. I thank you all.
Now, go out and get others “activated”!
(HT: National Journal via RedState)
The post If You Are Here You are Not Normal. appeared first on Granite Grok.
I went to Chunky’s last week. The chairs are comfortable and adjustable, but the food is lousy – cute movie-themed names for menu items but not the best. One of the “burgers” was named the To Infinity and Beyond burger, made with – you guessed it – Beyond Beef.
“Made from plants and packed with 100% plant protein, the Beyond Burger is juicy, meaty, and delicious.”
I don’t think it is, and I would never order that I don’t want to encourage them. But it got me thinking. No, not that the carbon footprint of agriculture and manufacturing for fake meat is larger and the total environmental impact greater (though it is). It occurred to me that you needed a factory to turn all that agriculture and chemistry into fake “meat” in the first place; not a new thought by any means. I’ve made my share of jokes about the greening wake of fake meat fraud at every level. What occurred to me was that since the right words are all it takes to move the needle and messing up the language is now a full-contact sport, why not rename cattle?
Don’t just make jokes about them being plant-based meat factories; call them that.
I guarantee that pound-for-pound cattle use less fertilizer, land, water, machinery to harvest, and factory emissions than the Beyond Burger plant per patty, steak, tip, or round.
What do y’all raise on your ranch?
This is a plant-based meat factory … factory. We’ve got a few thousand of them in “production.” They mow the “grass” for us (saving on more emissions), and -oh, by the way – all that shouting about methane is nonsense.
Fake meat also has fake nutrition, the same for cloned meat. None of it is as good or as good for you as the real thing, nor is it gentler on the planet than cattle. All things in moderation or as directed by a health professional you can trust if you can find one. You can’t beat real meat.
So, yes, the best plant-based meat factories in the world are cattle. And yeah, pigs, sheep, chickens, and whatever other animal you like to eat is as well, in my opinion. And if the fake-green lizards in the prog-pond would stop messing with the marketplace, real meat would be less expensive. But progs – they do like their meddling – so feel free to meddle back.
The post Isn’t This The Best Plant Based Meat “Factory” in the World? appeared first on Granite Grok.
Conservatives, Libertarians, Independents, Liberals, Leftists (Socialists, Communists, and Fascists); all are political labels. Unlike many folks, mostly on the Left, I think that “labels” are perfectly good and are rather accurate in “pre-describing” what values and thought processes a person would generally display.
No, they aren’t perfect, as there are always some things on the margins that may not apply, and there are times when there are major personal differences from that label’s heterodoxy that would otherwise hold sway. However…
I like Dennis Prager, and we’ve often put up his Prager U videos (note to self, need to go do one soon as it’s been too long). He has a post, “Can You Define Leftism?” that addresses that exact question. We on the Right know what Leftists DO politically, but can we give a succinct answer? He did, and I hadn’t thought about it in quite the same way, but his definition is rather plain-spoken and simple to understand.
If we are to successfully tell the Left why they are off base, we need to KNOW what their defining soul is in order to attack it vigorously.
The runup with an important point:
After a speech in Romania last week, I was asked a question by a young member of the audience that, remarkably, I don’t remember ever having been asked: What is leftism?… But the question is rarely posed, and few know how to answer it.
…If you ask people, “What is Leftism?” most will respond by listing left-wing positions, not by defining it. People confuse identifying left-wing positions with knowing what leftism is. But naming left-wing positions is not the same as defining leftism.
I can list the Left’s positions all day long and never finish. Long-term readers already know that. But he’s right – while positions and talking points start to tell the story, none of them are Leftism’s bedrock. That place where there is no deeper part of a man’s soul and belief system from which all expression is derived.
The definition:
Leftism is the attempt to destroy the past — every value and every institution, the good as well as what it regards as the bad. That is why leftists, by definition, hate conservatism. Conservatism seeks to conserve the best from the past. The Left seeks to destroy the past, including the best.
It’s true. His examples from the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution that codified Communism (re: the Soviet Union, are ya listenin’ Bernie?) prove his point:
The first of the modern left-wing revolutions, the French Revolution, quite consciously sought to destroy every major institution and value of French society — not just the monarchy but God, religion, the legal system, traditional notions of good and evil, the calendar, the old way of telling time, the old weights and measures, and even the names of the days of the week. In other words, the past. Just like the Left in contemporary America, the leftists of the French Revolution toppled statues — in their case, the statues of every king of France.
Now look at what the Democrats Leftists are replicating (Leftist history repeats itself – THAT they never “memory hole.” No, we don’t have monarchs, but we do have Founding Fathers – statues, anyone? The Left hates the Constitution. They hate God. They are rewriting what is good and evil (cloaking them, as Prager put it, “substituted class and racial categories for moral ones.” Marriage is the evil heteronormativity that must be destroyed – degeneracy is the new. Every norm is being turned inside out. And a constant theme with me lately is they are destroying the innocence of our children by not just advocating for pornography in schools; they are DEMANDING it and calling those of us fighting back “domestic terrorists” – implicitly stating we who reject this are Enemies of the State and are evil. They have spun up all kinds of narratives, twist things around, and are continuing the work started decades ago to redefine our common language not for better understanding but to serve their political agenda. They’ve ushered in 2+2=5 in all things – including “the Left is working to destroy the distinction between man and woman.” How much more basic can Science be than that – the very essence of who we are?
They wish to destroy us as individuals. And as families.
All for one and only one reason – believe us, and we will be your Saviors and usher you into our version of Heaven on Earth. Yeah, how has that worked out over the centuries – instead of just leaving people alone to find their own Happiness?
No. They can never leave others alone.
Tell’em “Up Yours!”.
(H/T: Hot Air)
And I’ll throw this in as well from Powerline (emphasis mine, reformatted)
Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism: everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin.
More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement. But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity.
That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him.
Leftists are nothing more than bullies. Instead of schoolyard bullies, however, that only want your lunch money, they demand you give up your Freedom to them and that you bow in fealty to them.
The post “What Is Leftism?”Good Question; It’s Not What You Think appeared first on Granite Grok.
I heard the line today that became the title of this article, and I choked on my drink. The topic for today is the new Black History Curriculum developed in Florida for Middle Schoolers. Governor DeSantis assembled a team of scholars, including two Black intellectuals, to write an accurate account of slavery in America.
This team nailed the project from most reports and published the most profound, honest history of slavery written for public schools. Many are saying it should be used in all 50 states. Those many do not include Kamala Harris.
Vice President Harris seized the opportunity to fly to Florida and shred the team that wrote the curriculum, and Governor Ron DeSantis for approving the project to publish the comprehensive history of slavery in America. This document is over 200 pages, and I doubt the Vice President or any talking liberal heads condemning it have read the work.
The fiasco created by these antagonists is fabricated and shows what happens when you take one section of a piece out of context. Not that she needs any help, but Kamala Harris has used this story to make a fool of herself. She obviously has little on her plate or could change her itinerary on the fly. Harris delivered one of her more dramatic oracles. Unfortunately for her, she was emphatically voicing her issue about a non-event.
The media jumped on this story with the usual vigor. Talking heads echoed the Vice President’s sentiments. Obviously, these folks, like the VP, had not read the entire document. FOX NEWS did their homework, dissected Kamala Harris’s words, and discussed the whole document. They had the Black intellectuals on their prime-time shows to explain their work. Only one reporter on CNN called out the Vice President. Harris keyed on the section detailing the skills the enslaved learned as part of their duties. These skills helped some of them when they were freed from their enslavement. She said this was insulting to every Black person. She neglected the rest of the curriculum that keyed on the horrific life that the enslaved Blacks were bought into.
The interesting argument used by some backers of Harris’s words was that Middle Schoolers are not ready for the factual account of slavery. When asked why Middle or elementary school students are mature enough for transgender talks but not slavery, the supporters went quiet. The hypocrisy is rich.
Harris traveling to Florida was more of an attack on DeSantis than this proposed curriculum. This trip was a campaign stop, and its purpose was clear. How sad that Harris has been praised for this one activity in nearly three years was debunked as a bogus premise. The only positive of Harris’ speech was that it was not a word salad, and she did not laugh her way through her presentation. That shows how low the bar has dropped with the Biden Administration. She has her staff prepare an enthusiastic, though erroneous, speech and the media laps it up and calls her a powerful leader ready for the challenge of her position. Maybe Kamala should have taken a later flight, and she and her staff could have used the time to research the reason for her trip. Had they done that, they would have done her well to shut down Air Force II or take her to the Border instead.
The post Middle Schoolers Cannot Handle Slavery appeared first on Granite Grok.
Bottom Line: “Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.” Now for the rest from the Health Physics journal (tracking radiation safety) and it gets deeper than my Physics for Biology majors back in college.
That line is from the actual study that has this as its Abstract (reformatted, emphasis mine):
After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.”
Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper.
14C is better known as C14 – now think carbon dating. Anthropogenic = manmade.
It continues.
Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere.
Note that? All the Left wails about is CARBON! CARBON! CARBON! This study studies WHICH carbon isotopes are found and what are the relationships between the varying isotope quantities. But look at that underlined bit above: it is telling us that it can be quantified if WE (burning fossil fuels) are responsible for the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. And as that “Bottom line” above states, the Left has a conundrum to try to explain away when compared to “natural occurring” CO2.
We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.
Ward Clark at RedState continues to pull things apart. Since the ‘Grok is more politicial than earth chemistry, I’m only going to abstract a couple more bits since the main point has been made already:
I.E., by examining the relative ratios over time, we can see how Man has changed the atmosphere leading, as the Eco-Socialists and Greenies wish us to believe, to Climate Armageddon (“CA”).
Sidenote: Even as they’ve said that with varying length of predictions, and continue to make MORE dire predictions, not a single one has come true over the last 50 years. But folks like Lurch (John Kerry) and AlGore and Erlich, and many others keep sounding like the Commies when they say “well NEXT time, we’ll get it right!”.
And while the post copy/pastes a comparison of the differing values of expected vs actual to show that humans are causing the increased CO2 versus natural means (if my decades-in-the-past studies still hold up), the conclusion shows “they put up and others have to shut up – we should shut them down”:
These results, especially those for D14C, negate the claims that all or most of the increase of CO2 since 1750 has been due to the burning of fossil fuel.
Which, I guess, brings us back to belching volcanoes and other natural rifts in landmass and undersea release points (spitballing here)? The study is behind a paywall but the RedState author got access and listed the last 3 of the 10 “zinger” conclusions. Summarizing (my words):
8. Others have played games with presentation of C13 & C14 ratios with the chart axis (“by a factor of 1,000”) to give the false nuance that WE are responsible when it isn’t the case. Yes, go read the scientific details at the post if you have such a background as I’m already long here.
9. We’re back to changes in the Earth’s orbit about the sun and “cyclic changes of solar radiation”: up and down for the non-fossil fuel component of the total CO2 atmosphere measure.
And the last I’m just going to quote verbatim:
10. The assumption that the increase in CO2 since 1800 is dominated by or equal to the increase in the anthropogenic component is not settled science. Unsupported conclusions of the dominance of the anthropogenic fossil component of CO2 and concerns of its effect on climate change and global warming have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary, and ineffective in curbing global warming.
Science is NEVER settled – after all, the “consensus” used to be that the Earth was flat and that everything in the Universe orbited the Earth. However, better data, instead of belief systems, alter that consensus as it should – and sometimes radically. Like Michael Mann’s hockey stick was discredited.
That last line is killer: stop doing stupid stuff by government that isn’t warranted by the science.
The problem here isn’t just about co-opting the science, it’s about co-opting Democracy into a neo-aristocracy of central planners and those addicted to obtaining Power over others as shown by my multiple Treehugger commentaries.
This is the kind of science you never see discussed much outside of the journals in which it’s presented, not only because it’s tedious and difficult for lay people to get through, but because it doesn’t fit the Left’s climate change narrative. But the conclusions are inescapable; anthropogenic CO2 was not found to be a significant driver of climate change, especially when compared to other influences.
(H/T: RedState via 12ft.io)
The post For Climate Change, Democrats Depend on Fear Mongering Instead of Actual Science. Like Actual Carbon Isotopes Analysis? appeared first on Granite Grok.
Not one to sit on their hands, the Dems – when in control – reach for everything and anything they can grasp, and with climate policy a priority, they’ve attempted to regulate everything they can’t ban outright, and now they are coming for your gas-powered generators.
It’s a bad idea for many reasons, not the least of which is the need for backup today. The current grid, ill-fitted for their future energy plans, has points of failure that require private use generators when the power goes out. But it’s not just homeowners. Businesses from small to large, hospitals, public service, and government, everyone who needs power when it fails runs gas-powered generators.
There is no wind or solar replacement for them, especially if wind and solar become the go-to point of failure in the grid and fail to deliver, they will. The Biden Admin and their Climate Cultist allies could care less. They are trying to burn the ships as it were standing us with only one choice. Their choice.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has proposed a policy (pdf) that would remove nearly all existing portable gas generators from the market. The new rule restricts the amount of carbon monoxide that generators can emit by forcing these generators to switch off when they reach a certain level of emissions.
Smaller gas generators would have to cut carbon monoxide emissions by 50 percent, and larger generators would have to cut emissions by up to 95 percent. Nearly all models currently available are expected to not be in compliance with the new standard.
Once the proposed rules come into effect, manufacturers would have to comply with them in just six months, a process that usually takes several years. The rules would also ban manufacturers from stockpiling noncompliant generators before the new standards are enacted.
These changes will, at first, make them much more expensive and sustainable as incremental overreach works to eliminate them as an asset. Does FEMA have a plan to adapt? Emergency management from local PDs to Federal agencies use generators. Mandates such as this will drive up those costs making the government more expensive and, again, as if Demcorats care. But they might care about this.
You’ve seen the memes or pics converted into memes. An EV runs out of juice for whatever reason, and the only way to field charge it is for rescue vehicles to roll up with a gas-powered generator. I you make them too expensive or ban them – which is likely the goal, how do you plan to rescue those EVs trapped out in the wild?
The answer is, with any luck, no one who lives out there will be able to afford an EV and will have to move into a 15-minute city where no one needs that.
The vast gap between that future and the current reality makes no difference to them, nor the damage required to drag us from one point to the other. They don’t care about the hardship. All they care about is policy goals.
HT | The Burning Platform
The post If Biden Bans Gas Powered Generators How Will they Rescue Stranded EVs? appeared first on Granite Grok.
A recent article called (Publius Hulda Warning) appeared in the Grok and, in my opinion, insults the wisdom and spirit of the republic and our founding fathers regarding WHY the US Constitution Article V must NOT be exercised.
We want to thank Al Brandano for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Article V directs state citizens thru their legislature the authority and duty to simply propose amendments to the US Constitution (To; reign in an out-of-control federal government – possibly leading to a Convention of the States – NOT a Constitutional Convention).
Common Sense is NOT so Common
NH State Legislators swear an oath as follows:
Do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.
Do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent on me as …………according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations of this constitution and laws of the state of New Hampshire. So help me, God.
DUTY, noun Webster 1787 1. That which a person owes to another; that which a person is bound, by any natural, moral or legal obligation, to pay, do or perform. Obedience to princes, magistrates and the laws is the duty of every citizen and subject; obedience, respect and kindness to parents are duties of children; fidelity to friends is a duty; reverence, obedience and prayer to God are indispensable duties; the government and religious instruction of children are duties of parents which they cannot neglect without guilt.
Parchment Barrier: Jefferson spoke of; The Constitution can’t exist solely as a parchment barrier. We swear an oath and defend it with at times the blood of Patriots and tyrants. If we don’t then we have dammed our children to slavery.
In closing, it is my opinion; Publius Hulda and her supporters in NH share failed logic and a lack of understanding of the obligations and duties of elected state legislators. They instead try to sell you on totalitarian tactics of sowing fear. How does this strategy support from one – we will become many?
So Publius Hulda, what other parts of the Constitution shall we instruct our legislators NOT TO FOLLOW?
Common sense is the basic human ability to think. Common sense has nothing to do with knowledge that a human being possesses. Common sense is actually a measure of one’s IQ level Common sense is an in-born trait in some cases, while it can be developed and harnessed with time too. People with a good common sense are sharper and quicker at solving puzzles, riddles, mind-boggling games and other related stuff which requires great mental sharpness and have nothing to do with your knowledge levels. Common sense is not something that everyone can claim to have; it is a rare quality of mind. It is something that people is really endowed with, being a special capability of your brain. In the words of Voltaire,” Common Sense is not so common.” The word “common” here is a misnomer since this particular capability is not that commonly seen in human beings. Mark Twain
The post Common Sense of Article V and the Fools that Deny It! appeared first on Granite Grok.
Pregnancy care centers have filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Vermont for injunctive relief, claiming a bill signed into law discriminates against them and violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. I agree, and I’ll do you one better.
Related: Everyone is Claiming Vermonters Voted to Protect Abortion, But That’s Not What the Amendment Says
But we’ll get to that in a moment. First,
On May 10, 2023, Governor Phil Scott signed Senate Bill No. 37 (“SB 37”), attached hereto as Exhibit A. That law impedes the ability of pro-life pregnancy centers to continue providing help and support to Vermont women and families in two ways: First, it censors the centers’ ability to advertise their free services (Advertising Prohibition). Second, it precludes centers from offering non-medical services, information, and counseling unless provided by a licensed health care provider (Provider Restriction).
Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the pregnancy care centers and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. This religious not-for-profit organization oversees crisis pregnancy facilities across the United States.
“Women who become unexpectedly pregnant should be empowered with life-affirming options, emotional support, and practical resources,” said ADF Legal Counsel Julia Payne. “Vermont’s law, however, does the opposite—it impedes women’s ability to receive critical services during a difficult time in their lives and suppresses the free-speech rights of faith-based pregnancy centers. Pregnancy centers should be free to serve women and offer the support they need without fear of unjust government punishment.”
…
The lawsuit explains that the Vermont law specifically targets pro-life pregnancy centers as “limited services” providers because they do not refer or perform abortions. Under the law, the state attorney general has the authority to fine pregnancy centers up to $10,000 if she believes its life-affirming messages are misleading.
The law applies only to pro-life pregnancy centers—an abortion clinic that provides identical information would not be subject to the law. Also, the law does not define “misleading,” so it is left up to the discretion of the attorney general.
SB 37 quite clearly targets pregnancy care centers. And I get that Gov. Scott is a social-progressive Republican, but I’m unclear why he would sign this into law. Even if he wanted it, he could make noise about it being unconstitutional and let the Legislature override the veto. Instead, we got this.
“Today, we reaffirm once again that Vermont stands on the side of privacy, personal autonomy and reproductive liberty, and that providers are free to practice without fear.”
Shouldn’t reproductive liberty include the option to reproduce? “Choice” in the ruling class Democrat dictionary is defined as what they want and nothing else. Still, even the average Democrat voter understands the true definition—1,726 (or however many) different options for how to get your coffee at Starbucks. Scott and the Dems running the Legislature deliberately kneecapped the competition of a campaign donor. Abortion providers heap money on progressive politicians across the spectrum.
Pregnancy care centers not only do not donate to them, but they don’t typically charge any fees for their services, and no one is forcing taxpayers to fund them as if it is some protected right.
As for “without fear,” based on the complaint, SB 37 places pregnancy care centers in constant fear of being fined $10,000.00 by the state if it decides any communication is misleading. Speaking of which, free speech and other concerns aside, the state passed, and voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive liberty. If they have not already, ADF might want to consider that SB37 may also violate this new addition to the Vermont Constitution.
Sec. 2. Article 22. [Personal reproductive liberty] That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.
What is the state’s compelling interest, and how is SB37 the least restrictive means?
HT | ADF Media.org
The post Shouldn’t Reproductive Liberty Include the Option to Reproduce? appeared first on Granite Grok.
Textualism is a prominent framework for interpreting the Constitution, particularly in conservative circles. Adherents of this school generally believe you can understand the Constitution simply by reading the words in the document and determining the “plain meaning” of the text. This differs from the “intent” of the framers or the “original meaning” as understood by ratifiers.
While textualism provides a good starting point, it often has some limitations. Reading the text alone can lead you astray if you don’t have some knowledge of the historical and legal framework within which the Constitution was drafted and ratified.
Following are three primary things you need to understand to have a good foundation for grasping the original meaning of the Constitution.
The Changing Meaning of Words
Words mean things and the meaning of words change over time. Words can also have different definitions in a legal context than they do in common use. That’s why it’s crucial to understand the meaning of words and phrases at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified.
James Madison made this point in a letter to Henry Lee.
“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense!” [Emphasis added]
Academic textualists concede this point and generally try to determine the plain meaning of the Constitution based on the vocabulary of the day. But Madison reveals a big problem average people will run into if they try to understand the Constitution based simply on “what it says.”
A good example of this problem is the change in the definition of the word “commerce” over time. It had a much narrower meaning in the 1700s than it does today, and if you read the commerce clause using the modern meaning of the word, it will allow the federal government to wield much more power than intended.
In the founding era, commerce almost always had an economic meaning and was associated almost exclusively with the sort of activities engaged in by merchants.
As Rob Natelson noted in his paper “The legal meaning of commerce in the Commerce Clause,” this included “buying and selling products made by others (and sometimes land), associated finance and financial instruments, navigation and other carriage, and intercourse across jurisdictional lines.” [Emphasis added]
Today, “commerce” generally means any economic activity.
The commerce clause was never meant to give the federal government power to regulate manufacturing, agriculture, labor laws, workplace safety, or the host of other activities now micromanaged by the feds today under the modern definition of the word.
This is just one example of how the changing meaning of a word can alter our understanding of the Constitution. Referring to founding-era dictionaries and other period sources can help avoid this pitfall.
Historical Context
Political systems evolve from ideas. In order to fully grasp the system, you need to the historical context that birthed the ideas and their evolution through time. So, to properly understand the Constitution, it’s important to know the history that led to its drafting and ratification.
The United States were born out of the American Revolution. But it wasn’t so much about the war. As John Adams explained, the real revolution was a revolution in thought.
“What do We mean by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775.”
He went on to say, that a “radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”
The most fundamental change was the shift from believing that government is sovereign (possessing supreme or ultimate power) to believing sovereignty was in the people. As James Wilson put it, “The truth is, that, in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power REMAINS in the people.”
As they began to recognize their own sovereignty, Americans started to question the traditional conception of political power. The colonists began to think of a constitution as something that exists above the government and to reject the idea that government formed the constitution. Instead, they conceived of a constitution as something that binds government.
We see this revolutionary conception of government taking form in the Massachusetts Circular Letter drafted by James Otis Jr. and Samuel Adams. They argued that when Parliament acts outside of its constitutional bounds, it destroys its own foundation.
The House have humbly represented to the ministry their own sentiments, that his Majesty’s high court of Parliament is the supreme legislative power over the whole empire; that in all free states the constitution is fixed, and as the supreme legislative derives its power and authority from the constitution, it cannot overleap the bounds of it without destroying its own foundation; that the constitution ascertains and limits both sovereignty and allegiance, and, therefore, his Majesty’s American subjects, who acknowledge themselves bound by the ties of allegiance, have an equitable claim to the full enjoyment of the fundamental rules of the British constitution.” [Emphasis added]
This led to the realization that constitutions need to be written in order to make the limits on government power absolutely clear.
Understanding this historical context will help you read the Constitution properly. When someone proposes an interpretation that runs counter to these founding-era ideas, or the interpretation sounds like something out of today’s British system, I can almost guarantee that it is a bad take.
Legal Framework
The Constitution is a legal document rooted in 18th-century contract law. To grasp some of the nuances of the Constitution, it’s important to have some knowledge of the legal framework of the day.
Think of it this way; you can’t work an algebra problem unless you understand the rules of algebra. In the same sense, it’s difficult to completely understand the Constitution without some knowledge legal rules of construction at that time.
For example, by enumerating the powers of Congress in Article 1 Sec. 8, the drafters excluded any powers not on the list.
Legal rules of construction dictate that when reading a legal document, the enumeration of certain powers logically excludes all other powers not listed. This is a legal maxim – Designato unius est exclusio alterius – meaning, “the designation of one is the exclusion of the other.”
Understanding this rule of construction clarifies the extent of the “general welfare” clause. If you don’t understand this legal maxim, you might think that Congress to do anything and everything to promote the “general welfare.” Alexander Hamilton explains why this isn’t the case in Federalist #83, and his argument is based on this rule of construction.
“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”
This isn’t to say that you need a law degree to understand the meaning of the Constitution. But it is important to grasp the basic legal framework it was written within.
Conclusion
Textualism provides a good starting point for understanding the meaning of the Constitution. But all text needs context. We’ve all seen what can happen when you pull a sentence out of its broader context. It can completely change the meaning of what was said. In the same sense, ripping a clause of the Constitution out of its historical and legal context can lead to misunderstandings. And these misunderstandings generally mean the federal government exercises more power than it legitimately should.
St. George Tucker wrote the first systematic commentary on the Constitution. He offers a good rule of thumb for reading the Constitution that is rooted in this legal and historical context.
“The powers delegated to the federal government, are, in all cases, to receive the most strict construction that the instrument will bear, where the rights of a state or of the people, either collectively or individually, may be drawn in question.”
Mike Maharrey | The Tenth Amendment Center
The post Three Essentials to Understand the Constitution appeared first on Granite Grok.
Mittens, like most Uniparty Republicans, has his dander up over the prospect of another Trump nomination. It’s cute in an elitist sort of way. Trump is the only guy we know will stand up for Americans (how dare he!), and Romeny happens to have a former campaign advisor who sits on the board of Burisma.
He voted twice to impeach him, so he might be interested in keeping Trump out of the Oval Office. Business. Uniparty Business. Burisma Business.
Nothing to see there, of course, and maybe that’s not in play. Trump, would likely get us out of funding Ukraine if re-elected, which Dems and Romney-esque Republicans will spin as support for Russia. Still, Burisma would probably be less of a priority beyond the Biden’s influence-peddling schemes. No, the issue is with Trump, the disruptor. He is not one of them and doesn’t need them, so it’s only natural for scions of the uniparty to (continue to) work against him.
Or, in this case, against all but perhaps one primary contender. And I just mentioned this a few days ago. If everyone is so concerned about Trump steamrolling the primary, do something to scrape these barnacles off Ron DeSantis’s struggling tug. Mittens thinks the donor class is the key and would not be wrong. No money, no campaign, at least nothing anyone will follow, especially if you can’t raise small-dollar donations in the volume needed to blanket early primary states with mailers and flyers and TV; oh my!
“Despite Donald Trump’s apparent inevitability, a baker’s dozen Republicans are hoping to become the party’s 2024 nominee for president,” he wrote. “That is possible for any of them if the field narrows to a two-person race before Mr. Trump has the nomination sewn up.”
“For that to happen, Republican megadonors and influencers—large and small—are going to have to do something they didn’t do in 2016: get candidates they support to agree to withdraw if and when their paths to the nomination are effectively closed,” he added.
Or is it enough? Breitbart also quotes Papa Smuf John Sununu (former NH governor and Elder Bush White House Pratorian).
‘It is fun running for president if you know you cannot win,’” he continued. “Left to their own inclinations, expect several of the contenders to stay in the race for a long time. They will split the non-Trump vote, giving him the prize. A plurality is all that is needed for winner-take-all primaries.”
Many run for book deals, higher speaking fees, west-wing offices, ambassadorship, other forms of resume plumping, or even a shot as the nominee’s VP. Lame Duck NH Guv Chris Sununu could be one of those things, but he’s not running for President, he said. He is going to Iowa for no reason but whatever.
And that all seems like a lot of work when, given the current culture, you could get away with saying, well, I identify as a presidential candidate (and Maybe socially Liberal Chris Sununu will try that cuz, according to Dad, it’s fun – but we think not. He’s got skeletons and that’ll keep him out of any high profile race).
Anyway – Romney again.
“Donors may think that party leaders can narrow the field. Not so. Candidates don’t listen to party officials, because voters don’t listen to them either,” he wrote. “And the last people who would ever encourage a candidate to withdraw are the campaign staff and consultants who want to keep their jobs for as long as possible.”
Donors would be stupid if they thought candidates listened to the party machine when it is supposed to be an unbiased and disinterested parade guide and little more. We know that is not true. Party machinists tinker with the wheels and gears constantly but not publicly. Nor can they allow themselves to be discovered pushing or pulling one candidate or another unless they are Demcorats – ask Bernie about that.
And Romney is just saying what they are all thinking. Americans, especially primary-voting Republicans, love this Trump guy. For better or worse, we know the GOP is in no position to steal elections, and that will hurt them come November 24, which I also speculated might be deliberate because of the likelihood of a Trump nomination.
And while I don’t put anything past the uniparty when it comes to Trump, which – you have to admit – is one of the best reasons to support the guy, they’ll try to do almost anything, but since they are Republicans, they’ll f— it up … and blame Trump who appears poised to roll over everyone if DeSantis doesn’t flip a switch his campaign can’t seem to find.
The post RINO Romney Says, Most of You Need to Get Out of the Primary Pool or Trump Walks Away with the Nomination appeared first on Granite Grok.
As promised in the last Monday Memes, I have an overflow. My meme cup runneth over. Fairly certain about a Friday Overflow-Overflow.
Note – for those waiting for Survival Sunday, that’s going to take me a couple of weeks to get back up to speed. But for now, let the mayhem, mockery, and ridicule resume:
*** Warning, a few possibly off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Thomas Sowell-The Truth About Colonization Never Taught In School
And worthy of a reprise, I think:
Unfortunately, thanks to traitors at every level, in many countries including America, we’re seeing the reverse these days. And in particular, my ire against my fellow Jews who are pro-migration, here.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
I was amazed at how much construction was going on “over there”. Everywhere we drove there were buildings and buildings and buildings going up – virtually all looking like apartments (which, in our parlance, would be condos; few people actually rent-rent, it’s rent-to-0wn or mortgages, etc. It’s clearly a city with a growing population – from what the wife and cousins said, a lot of people are moving to the city. Now, infrastructure and utilities were a concern. One of the cousins, who spoke English, said that the buildings were there but the water was not.
It was hot. Very hot. And while there was rain it was modest in volume, and it was clear the city was in a near-desert climate, at least when we were there.
But back to the point: these buildings were all IMHO modern industrial-hideous. There were artworks, and some classical – i.e., older buildings – that were beautiful scattered around town. The main public theater / opera house was magnificent… but it was clearly decades old and likely dated from the USSR times when, at least for public buildings, they tended to try to make things look nice. Even the apartment building complex we were in had a great statue of a man on a horse; all around, statues and other artwork was clearly present. But the new residential buildings were just people-warehousing; some attention to style if only to differentiate blocks of buildings from each other, but not a lot. Downtown, office buildings did have style. Aesthetics matter.
But the lead-in image reminds me of this video:
Why is Modern Art so Bad?
Now, as it happens, while away I saw this snippet of a discussion between Tucker Carlson and Russell Brand (who, at least on some topics, is growing on me):
Tucker & Russell Brand on Architecture: The design of a society is a reflection of its people
Very definitely, IMHO – modern architecture, at least residential, was driving towards a “warehouse” look. Imagine the psychological impact of that, even if only unconscious. You are a unit to be warehoused, not a person valuable as an individual. Right in line with the NWO and its megacity ambitions.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
>>>>>=====<<<<<
A little on that:
96% of U.S Climate Data Is Corrupted, Study Shows – Blazing Cat Fur
Record Breaking Heatwave in Europe? • Watts Up With That?
Scary Red Map | Real Climate Science
Climate Fakery Part 14 | Real Climate Science
The Heatwave of July 1808 – All Things Georgian (wordpress.com)
Remember, I used to be a “climate alarmist” and changed my mind. Even now, when I mention this, nobody – NOBODY – asks why I changed my mind. Instead, I get that I’m a climate denier hurled at me. So, now, I respond with “Oh, you mean a climate heretic because I’m questioning the priesthood”? Because that’s what this is: religion for people who think they’re too smart for religion.
Note the use of color to make the temperatures – utterly and completely in line with a prior snapshot-in-time – look scaaaaary:
It’s all fear, all the time. It comes in waves, like a constrictor snake relaxing and then re-squeezing. As the video, below, embedded here states:
MASS PSYCHOSIS – How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL
>>>>>=====<<<<<
PSA: For those who actually can’t see it, it says “The vaccine is killing people”.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Matt Le Tissier on the madness of the last few years
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Rand Paul: We Have Referred Fauci to DOJ for Prosecution for Lying to Congress (breitbart.com)
Show of hands. Who thinks this will have any traction whatsoever? Certainly not me. Similarly:
‘Ultimate white privilege guy’ Hunter Biden may be hit with 10 criminal referrals: Comer (nypost.com)
Hunter’s already escaped multiple felony charges. He won’t spend a minute in jail. And don’t even bring up Her Heinous the Crone of Chappaqua. Or others in a cast of thousands.
So in general it’s painfully obvious we have at least two – likely more – levels of law in this country. Never mind around the world. This is one of the reasons – I have contended for years and years – why Rome fell (link in the original):
This is how Rome fell. When the average Roman finally understood how corrupt-to-the-bone the Rome they knew, loved, and would have fought and died to protect had become, they turned inward towards their community and even closer to their families… no longer willing to fight or die for that greater entity now that they understood that greater entity no longer represented them or their values.
Say, how’s that military recruiting going?
>>>>>=====<<<<<
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Pick of the post:
So while my wife nattered away with her relatives in rapid-fire Russian I invested the time to listen to this interview of Andrew Tate by Tucker Carlson:
Andrew Tate Vs Tucker Carlson (Full Interview) (rumble.com)
Let me be clear: On some things I agreed fully with Tate. On others, not so much. In general, though, I came away more impressed with the man than I had been before, at least insofar as he comes across as far more intelligent than I initially thought. One very interesting point he made, somewhere just past two hours in, was that people on a survival footing don’t have the time to deal with woke BS. As Bill Whittle once opined in a conversation with Stephan Molineux, “It is success that kills a culture”.
But I am a firm believer in challenging my perceptions and thoughts. Either I come out understanding that what I believe is better supported having been so challenged… or I change my mind. One thing that Tate discussed was the idea of being uncomfortable is often a necessary thing to drive change. As one, personal, example: I know I need to get off my butt and exercise more. And as Tate spoke of this, among other examples of the need to be uncomfortable, it resonated with me. I am uncomfortable with my relative lack of physical fitness. Time to get moving on that.
But this thought relates to a problem we “conspiracy theorists” have: we on our side really want others to WAKE UP!. Making them uncomfortable with what they believe is one way to do this. At the same time, people resent being made uncomfortable, and that’s why they resist information that makes them so. Particularly when that information means they’ve been bamboozled.
(Link to AZQUOTES per their policy.)
Doubly-so when to acknowledge the bamboozle means they’re proven wrong while we – the “unwashed, unscientific, knuckle-dragging deplorables” whom they looked down upon were right.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
>>>>>=====<<<<<
I’d mentioned My Tree in Israel in the last post. They also have an adoption program for wine bottles – again, not cheap, but it comes with your own custom label (I did one grapevine last year, and would be renewing but their new distributor does not ship to New Hampshire). And I was intrigued by the fact that now they have a whiskey option. Not up and running yet, but… I’ve inquired. And I got an answer back. 100 bottle, minimum. Even for the 100 bottle option (!) not in my budget. Alas. Pushing eight large for 100 bottles (per bottle it’s not out of line with others I’ve seen, it’s the volume that’s the killer). But for a whiskey aficionado who wants his own name-labeled bottles?
Two of their recipes from the past, randomly-selected:
Note: In Israel, “hummus” = chick peas. “Hummus salad” is their name for the dip most of us in the US think of has just hummus.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Palate cleansers:
—
—
The post Meme Overflow appeared first on Granite Grok.
Keep people frightened, scare them with cherry-picked data, and don’t teach them Earth’s history. Then is it any wonder why Democrats are so worried about climate change? It builds groupthink and Otherizes the rest of us.
(click to enlarge)
Members of the Green Party? Not mentioned, but I bet the percentage change would be far lower as their base of concern would most like be almost 100% to start (why else be a Greenie unless you’re in stealth mode as an Eco-Socialist?)
Democrats? There’s a reason why the Democrat States and the Federal Government’s bureaucrats are going all out using the Administrative State to “regulate away Climate Change” – our own freedom to decide doesn’t matter. After all, WAR FOOTING! EVERYONE must be collectivized (and, of course, we’re in charge).
(H/T: Powerline)
The post Its Why They Also Preach “We HAVE To Be On A ‘War Footing’ For EVERYTHING!” appeared first on Granite Grok.
Mike Graham does NOT want the GOP to win the 2024 election. More precisely, Mike Graham does NOT want the GOP to win the 2024 election IF the nominee is Donald Trump AND, given that the Ron DeSantis campaign has crashed and burned, the nominee is going to be Donald Trump.
NeverTrump is growingly increasingly angry and reckless. The Fat Man, a/k/a Chris Christie, is now claiming FALSELY that Trump told his supporters to “attack Mike Pence.” And Mike Graham is amplifying that LIE. At the same time, Graham ignores all the recent evidence that the “Big Guy” was not only aware of, but participated in, Hunter’s influence peddling schemes.
If you still think Mike Graham is “one of us,” “on the same side,” blah, blah, blah … you are DELUSIONAL.
The post NH-NeverTrump Journal Amplifies Chris Christie’s J6 Lies … While Ignoring Biden’s Crimes appeared first on Granite Grok.
Vermont goes out of its way to steal from its citizens. They are one of the most taxed populations in the US. So an op-ed by EV advocates concerned that vehicle and charging taxes might impact economically vulnerable populations seemed worth my time.
I was not disappointed.
Deep inside Vermont’s transportation law lurks “a section that could impose a double tax on electric vehicle drivers in an attempt to replace gasoline tax revenue.” The authors explain that the state’s adding a mileage tax on top of a proposed “kilowatt-hour-based tax at public charging stations” is out of step with Vermont’s commitments to clean transportation.
The drivers who will feel the sting of a kWh tax the most aren’t out-of-state drivers. They’re Vermonters who live in multifamily buildings — often those in low-income communities. These drivers are more likely to rely on public charging, and with a kWh tax in place, they’ll pay the price for it.
The authors, one being the “deputy director of Vermont’s clean energy trade association” and a “senior manager of public policy for the world’s leading electric vehicle charging network,” oppose what they call double taxation. I’m no fan of their respective agendas, but I’m no fan of taxes, so I’m with them there. And while they make what may appear as persuasive arguments, their big picture ignores THE BIG PICTURE.
First, this is Vermont. Democrats run it with a popular RINO Republican Governor with no power (is that why he’s popular?). The Left has a veto-proof legislative majority. They can override anything at will, and – lest we forget – Democrats love taxes because they love spending, which leads to more and higher taxes. They also love the lie of green energy, and they hate fossil fuels, and in case I didn’t mention it, they love taxes. Any excuse to levy, raise, apportion, extract, or rob the people is always an option.
It has to be. They’ve already spent it in their minds, so the rest is timing and logistics. And Vermont already has a lot of energy taxes.
Vermont taxes solar (Uniform Capacity Tax) and wind farms (Electric Generating Facility Tax), costs that find their way down to consumers in the cost per kilowatt hour, which is 32% higher than the national average. That is, itself, a significant burden on the economically vulnerable. Electrifying everything will make that go up. Powering that spike with wind and solar will make it go up more. And no one seems to care about the impact.
Vermont taxes kerosene, propane, fuel oil, natural gas, coal, energy production, storage, gasoline, and diesel. It also taxes the revenues from companies that profit from the sale of those things, energy inflation that raises the cost of goods and services even taxes as providers and state and local government offset the increased cost of “doing business.” As a matter of policy, the economically vulnerable are paying more upfront in every commercial transaction and higher taxes (to cover governments’ increased energy costs), all to pretend that Vermont is the greenest state when mostly what it is doing is offshoring emissions to nations full of brown people.
Vermonters are also paying for carbon credits (RGGI), another tax built into their energy plan, and no “you know what’s” were given by so-called “green energy” advocates. So, let’s say I have doubts about any concern over double taxation on charging EVs in a state like Vermont. But we’ll ignore all that because I have yet another angle to consider.
Gasoline and Diesel taxes are levied to address wear and tear or other needs related to transportation infrastructure. I suspect it can also be argued that the taxes on electricity are collected to cover the state’s costs to oversee energy-related infrastructure, which – as we all know – is not even remotely ready to handle the goals of the promised electric future. Upgrades will not come cheap. There will be added expenses added on the backs of citizens. The government will get in the way, mismanage things, and it will need funds to force change in which only it believes: it and vested interests writing op-eds.
My point is this. Is it a double tax?
On one side, you are taxing EV charging “at the pump” to address increased transportation infrastructure wear and tear. Given the greater weight of EVs over combustion engine vehicles resurfacing and repair will become more common or frequent at greater expense. At the same time, EV charging will also create additional wear and tear on the grid and infrastructure required to keep them charged. Per kilowatt, taxes would be needed by our benevolent masters (at least on paper) to maintain or update that infrastructure if they’ve not raided it to teach gender studies at the local left-wing madrassas doing business as public schools.
I agree that these added costs might deter people of less ample means from buying into the EV lie, but they are already priced out of that market, so what exactly is your point? That ignoring the tax for infrastructure formula for the grid (not to mention all the other taxes and fees already in place) might discourage people Democrats don’t even want driving to buy a car they can’t afford?
Vermont has problems, but an EV tax double tap might be the least of them.
The post Is Vermont’s “Double Tax” on EVs Really the Problem? appeared first on Granite Grok.
“Woke” culture has become so prominent in the American education system that it would not be surprising to learn that schools were replacing the once popular rhyme “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” with “sticks and stones may break my bones but opinions I disagree with can make me feel unsafe so they must be silenced.”
Take the case of 12-year-old Liam Morrison, a student at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts. This March, Liam was told to change his shirt or be sent home. School staff are reported to have said his shirt targeted a “protected class.” Liam says he was told his shirt was making some students feel unsafe. Did Liam’s shirt advocate violence? No, Liam’s shirt simply stated that there are only two genders.
A free society cannot exist where a substantial portion of its population demands and receives protection from exposure to opposing ideas. If the history of authoritarianism teaches us anything it is that those in positions of power are often willing to provide a frightened people with “security” as long as the people are willing to sacrifice their and their fellow citizens’ liberty.
Fighting the woke agenda is therefore not, as some libertarians claim, a culture war distraction from the pursuit of liberty; instead, fighting the woke agenda is crucial to restoring a free society. Of course, this means working to roll back government power by, for example, shutting down the unconstitutional Department of Education and getting Congress to pass legislation forbidding government officials from telling social media companies to censor certain American citizens. We must also resist joining those misguided conservatives who are calling on the right to seek to use government power to impose a right-wing version of wokeness on the American people.
The backlash against wokeness in schools is leading more parents to either become involved in their local school boards or to look for alternatives such as homeschooling. Parents who are interested in a homeschooling program that provides children with a well-rounded education that will help their child awake but not become “woke” should consider my homeschool curriculum.
The Ron Paul Curriculum provides students with a well-rounded education that includes rigorous programs in history, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. The curriculum also provides instruction in personal finance. Students can develop superior written and oral communication skills via intensive writing and public speaking courses. Another feature of my curriculum is that it provides students the opportunity to create and run their own Internet businesses.
The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. However, unlike government schools, my curriculum never puts ideological indoctrination ahead of education. Interactive forums allow students to engage with and learn from each other. The forums ensure students are actively engaged in their education as well as give them an opportunity to interact with their peers outside of a formal setting.
I encourage all parents looking at alternatives to government schools —alternatives that provide children with a well-rounded education that will allow them to learn about the history and ideas of liberty instead of pushing on them “wokeness” and the lies of the cultural Marxists — to go to RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information about my homeschooling program.
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 Your Kid’s School Went ‘Woke’? Consider Homeschool. appeared first on Granite Grok.
Corruption, Bribery, Tax-Evasion, Money Laundering, Lying, and deception; are not sins of the mob but of our President, his family, and his administration. Over my seven decades, I have seen Presidents do questionable things while in power.
Kennedy was known for his womanizing, Nixon for his cover-up of the Watergate break-in, Carter for being incompetent, and Clinton for staining a blue dress. Still, no President or administration has been overtly corrupt and played on the American people like Joseph Biden.
I am not sure what is more insulting, Biden telling the American people he was going to restore dignity and decorum to the White House or his disregard for addressing the American people as more facts and evidence are disclosed about the crimes of the Biden Crime Family each day. Either way, it is clear that Biden needs to stay in office to protect himself and his family from the Republican-controlled House.
The House Ways and Means and the Oversight Committees had been promising block-buster and incriminating evidence for months to the point that conjured the antics of Adam Schiff for the four years of Trump’s Presidency. Finally, James Comer and Jim Jordan brought witnesses before their respective committees and delivered the promised evidence, but to what end? As enthusiastic as the Republicans were in presenting their case against the Bidens, the Democrats countered every punch with their claim of conspiracy theory and sham investigation.
The media played its part in the cover-up by not playing at all, as FOX News covered the hearings in their entirety while the networks, CNN, and MSNBC, gave zero minutes to the testimony. This cover-up by the Left’s Media is why 54% of Americans have little or no knowledge of the current affairs involving our government. Those who are aware of current events see some blood in the water. We need somebody to feel the pain of retribution, and a low-level staffer given up for sacrifice will not do.
There was no issue putting Roger Stone or General Flynn behind bars. The Biden Cartel will never see jail time, and only Hunter, who pled guilty to lesser crimes thinking he would avoid the heavy issues, will get probation. Joe’s approach since the campaign is to lie and get offensive with anyone who dares broach the subject. So far, this tactic has worked. Today, KJP had a different answer when asked about Biden’s contact with Hunter about Hunter’s business dealings. The proof is too deep. She cannot categorically deny the charges any longer. The sharks are circling, and even the mainstream media is in sync with their questions.
As for Kamala Harris, who has yet to visit the Border or East Palestine, she took the first flight available to Florida to speak out about a new Black History curriculum for middle school students. This curriculum is the most in-depth generated by any state, and two Black scholars were involved with the writing. The piece is over 200 pages, but Harris only focused on one sentence that she found offensive. The media jumped over the ledge with the VP. Everyone looked foolish because none read the work or understood the sentence presumed to be an issue. Ironically, Harris accused Republicans of gaslighting on the subject of slavery. For a Black woman, Harris showed she knows little about slavery. Then again, she knows little about any topic.
The post Will Anyone Pay For Their Sins appeared first on Granite Grok.
Putting aside that calling themselves “No Label” IS a label, it’s clear, after reading their Policy website, they have already labeled themselves. Calling their Policy website CommonSenseMajority.org is both a message and a label.
If the No Label folks really believed in what they say they are, why wouldn’t that website have the domain NoLabelsPolicies.org or some such thing? No, they didn’t. They can’t even be original with the “Common Sense” bit, and let me buttress that with this question: OK, Conservative activists, what OTHER group uses “common sense” and claims to be in the majority as well?
Yep – the Democrats and FUDDites that are all in for Gun Control. They of the every style and tactic to “infringe” ramped up and thrown against the wall after the SCOTUS Heller and Bruen decisions.
So if the No Labels folks, just on this ONE issue, are willing to void my Constitution Rights because “Common Sense” why should I or other folks concerned about both our Constitutions (US & NH) support them?
Look at “Idea 10,” and I’ll fisk just a couple of statements they make:
10 Americans have a constitutional right to own guns, but society also has a responsibility to keep dangerous weapons away from dangerous people.
That latter part is just regular private individuals at gun shows selling their own property. No different than if Mike said at a gun range, “Steve, I like your gun; ever consider selling it?” Steve tells Mike the same thing, and the transactions are completed. The only thing that is notorious” is that yet another political party is making use of that canard – and desiring highly to have you believe what they say is God’s honest truth.
So their credibility with me is shot. And no mention of Free Speech which is also contentious now even if Constitutionally protected. There’s a few other things I could pick on (amnesty, price controls but I’m not going to take the time. What I will finish with is their own words that reveal their mindset:
America can’t solve its biggest problems and deliver the results hardworking taxpayers want, need, and deserve unless Democrats and Republicans start working together side by side on bipartisan solutions.
I once made the statement while serving on the NH Senate Commission for Grandfamilies that NONE of the ideas that the other members put up had mine:
Why did no one bring up that Government is part of the problems and we should identify what it should STOP doing?
There is a phrase that makes the rounds that states that the difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties is that the former is ALWAYS for more and bigger Government to “solve problems” while Republicans are only for a bit lesser increases (e.g., Jeb Bradley and Chuck Morse bringing Obamacare into State Law) but that Rs can “manage it better.”
Nowhere on their Policy website did I see a single part that called for lesser Government – only more?
If you really examine their policies, I think you’d agree that this is “stealthy Democrat” speak.
Ignore them but hope that IF they put up a Presidential candidate, it’s a Democrat like Joe Manchin – he’d suck votes away from Biden. But that’s about all the good they are. No Labels means no attachments to Principles.
The post The “No Labels” Party Tricksters. They Call Themselves Problem Solvers. And Then Give Themselves a “Label”? appeared first on Granite Grok.