In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, confusion surrounded many medical issues related to a scary, novel disease. Travel restraints, quarantines, mortality rates, treatment modalities, and a vortex of complex issues confronted an anxious American public told ubiquitous masks were a necessary prophylactic pending the arrival of a vaunted new vaccine to rescue humanity.

Children were force-masked in schools. Unmasked citizens were shamed in retail stores, legislators called for criminal sanctions for the noncompliant, and claims that masking caused harm or was ineffective were viciously attacked as misinformation. A recent South Korean study reported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), however, concluded that masking can indeed cause harm, especially for children.

In “Measuring the quantity of harmful volatile organic compounds inhaled through masks,” NIH posited what many concerned parents had wondered about in 2020:

“If harmful chemicals are released from these masks, there may be harmful effects on human health. In this study, the concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from some commonly used masks was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively under diverse conditions … As masks are worn close to the face, temperature may increase beyond the ambient temperature due to body heat. … When the temperature of the mask rises, the types and concentrations of the VOCs emitted from the mask can rise with it.”

Free Speech to Question Masks

Any drywaller or mason knows that the masks worn to prevent viral spread are insufficient to block visible particulate matter such as drywall dust or masonry cement, creating a false sense of security that would cause even greater disease spread. Yet government spokesmen and the medical community insisted that face diapers would block viruses that are infinitesimal in size compared to dust, and the drywallers, and masons, and other folk who knew better were not permitted alternative opinions on Facebook, YouTube, and other social media. Sensible voices claimed masks could cause respiratory or other illnesses, increase carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels, or inhibit herd immunity and natural immune system development in children. Their voices too were silenced: Their simple scientific observations were verboten.

The recent study is remarkable not because it challenges official nonsense scientifically (like real science!) but in that it breaks from the political tyranny that Fauci & Co inflicted on Americans. Is the NIH uncaptured by the cultish fear ladled out so copiously by Joe Biden and others? How did the federal government’s lock-stepping lies get challenged by another agency – didn’t NIH get the memo? Likely, it was impossible to simply ignore the South Korean study that should have been undertaken in America.

Seeking Credible Science

The US government has seen its credibility fall like the biblical Tower of Babel. The more “real science” intrudes into unscientific political narratives, the more government agencies will lose credibility. This extends to bunk science about climate change, gender identity and hormone blockers for children, and even statistical abuses in critical race “theory” that labels all white people as criminals and all black people as victims. These and more display grotesque departures from traditional scientific and statistical inquiry to foster a hideous cult of hate and falsehood.

The NIH presents a credible study openly affirming what private citizens and physicians were banned, or even attacked, for suggesting two years ago:

“Now that masks are all but required, the harmful chemicals that can be released from them must be evaluated. … This study demonstrated that disposable masks (KF94) released higher concentrations of TVOCs in comparison to cotton masks … It is clear that particular attention must be paid to the VOCs associated with the use of KF94 masks their effects on human health. Based on our findings, we suggest that prior to wearing a KF94 mask, each product should be opened and not worn for at least 30 min, thereby reducing TVOC concentrations to levels that will not impair human health.”

How comforting – let the chemical-infused masks air out a tad before wrapping your toddler’s face. Yet the Korean study “found that disposable masks, including medical-grade N95 masks, released eight times the recommended safety limit for toxic volatile organic compounds (TVOCs).” Maybe an hour would be a better air-out, especially for vulnerable children.

 

John Klar is an Attorney, farmer, and author. Mostly farmer… And Regular Contributor to GraniteGrok and VermontGrok.

 

The post Masking Creates Toxic Health Impacts … appeared first on Granite Grok.

It’s becoming harder and harder for high school and college girls to compete against other females without intrusion by transgender-identified males. To see just how far we have fallen in refusing to recognize the fundamental injustice of allowing these males to compete against biological females, consider some historic scandals in the Olympic Games.

Once, everyone from the organizers of the Olympics to every national athletic association to every high school gym teacher understood that the biological differences between men and women gave well-trained male athletes an inherent advantage over their similarly well-trained female athletes. These biological distinctions are not insignificant. (RELATED: DEROY MURDOCK: It’s Time For A Big, Fat Gay Divorce From The Alphabet People)

Males have greater lung capacity, larger hearts, more bone density, and more muscle mass—advantages that allow them to jump higher, throw further, run and accelerate faster, and punch harder than females. One recent study revealed that in sports where upper body strength dominates, males possess more than a 50% athletic advantage over their female counterparts. This athletic gap emerges around age 12 when males experience a 20-fold boost in testosterone.

That is why the rules governing sporting competitions—especially those considered to be at the pinnacle of athletic achievement, such as the Olympic Games—long maintained strict prohibitions on female athletes taking male hormones and other kinds of performance-enhancing drugs for both male and female athletes.

From the 1960s through the 1980s, East German Olympic athletes “swam their way to glory, winning Olympic gold medals, setting world records.” It was only after the fall of the Iron Curtain that the secret to their success was revealed: an elaborate, organized doping system that fed hormones and steroids to the athletes, including the female swimmers, intended to enhance their performance and give their female swimmers a distinct athletic advantage of the kind only found in their male counterparts.

The Russian government has been caught doing the same thing multiple times with the same hormone-doping system as the East Germans had. Last year, Kamila Valieva, a 15-year-old Russian figure skater who won a gold medal in the Beijing Olympic Games, tested positive for Trimetazidine, a drug classified by the World Anti-Doping Agency under “hormone and metabolic modulators.”

Today, liberal pundits seem to have forgotten history. They’re willing to turn a blind eye to the universal disapproval of hormone use at all levels of national and international athletic contests.

It’s not hypocrisy, apparently, when we normalize allowing male-bodied athletes with overwhelming athletic advantages to compete in women’s sports, but sanction female athletes like Marion Jones, a standout winner at the 2000 Sydney Games, for using performance-enhancing drugs. Jones admitted in 2007 to lying to federal agents about her use of those drugs, spent six months in jail, and was stripped of all five of her Olympic medals by the International Olympic Committee.

But now a new rule has emerged in sports: men that psychologically feel like women can compete with all the physiological advantages rendered them by accident of birth against real women. However, real women get the book thrown at them for taking performance-enhancing drugs that give them the same advantages that biological males develop naturally in contests against their own. (RELATED: SUZANNE DOWNING: They’re Coming For Your Children)

So much for equality.

The future of female athletics is on unstable ground. The inclusion of men competing as women is greeted with nods of approval from liberal elites, cultural Marxists, leftist politicos, and gender ideologues at home and abroad. The evisceration of spaces where the enduring differences between the sexes are most on display is, for trans-evangelists, their brass ring.

As goes sport, so goes the rest of the gender contagion. This generation’s greatest “doping” scandal seems to be just getting started, but it is already cheating high school and college girls out of medals, awards, and the athletic scholarships they use to pay for their educations.

Now is the time to divest fake females of their titles, and call an end to athletic fraud. It is a matter of common sense, fundamental justice, and the important principle of fair play in sports that – up until now – has been a hallmark of our culture.

Hans von Spakovsky and Sarah Parshall Perry are senior legal fellows in The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

 

Hans von Spakovsky and Sarah Parshall Perry | Daily Caller News Service

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Liberal Hypocrites Are Destroying Women’s Sports appeared first on Granite Grok.

It had been quite some time since the native-born Englishman had returned to the far-east end of Greater London. Nothing had changed. Dagenham was still a socialistic stronghold, a horror hole populated by the embittered and resentful members of Britain’s lower working class. The expatriate spotted an old acquaintance and started up a conversation.

We want to thank James Betti for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.

The acquaintance immediately noted his childhood buddy no longer spoke the barely decipherable cockney brogue. The acquaintance queried if the town was no longer good enough for him and wondered if the returnee was trying to get above his station in life. The Englishman artfully avoided the questions, but he knew the answers. It was not a question of being better than, it was simply a question of whether he wanted to elevate himself from a dead-end London borough, and the answer was a resounding yes.

Around the world there are (and always will be) powerless, educationally deprived pockets of poverty; stranded in caste and class systems with little hope of ever elevating themselves, exploited by elites, who push the politics of envy and victimhood.

The United States of America is a beacon for these people.

The great land of opportunity, where waves of legal immigrants {Irish, Italians, Polish, and more recently the Vietnamese/Asian Americans} all have come and used the same playbook to live a better life and assimilate into the melting pot of America. The nuclear family was the backbone, with each generation encouraging their children to work hard and do better than their parents. Most often, it was 2 to 3 generations before their offspring reached the brass ring, with a grandchild becoming a successful doctor, lawyer, or businessman, but it happened.

Except, this did not happen for African Americans and Native Americans (the Native American story is for another time).

The post-slavery African American population was subjected to horrible “Jim Crow” discrimination, but in the late 1950s/60s, things were improving, and MLK’s colorblind society seemed reachable. There was one cautionary note. In 1965, Patrick Monahan published the famous Monahan Report that highlighted the breaking down of the black nuclear family. The report has proved to be prophetic. Over 70% of black families are headed by a single parent, and that parent is most often a female.

MLK was assassinated, and the black culture moved away from assimilating into a color-blind, united American society. The LBJ Great Society ushered in the era of welfare, and affirmative action sent the message that the color of a person’s skin was more important than character, hard work, and merit. These realities, combined with an almost total breakdown of the nuclear African-American family, put into play all the variables required for a destructive culture to develop, and that is exactly what happened (think inner-city crime/drugs, vile rap music, failing public schools, high unemployment. and inability to achieve merit-based success). In other countries, African Americans would be left to their own self-destruction, but in America, the black culture has something the Democrats desperately need: their vote.

The Democratic Party receives over 90% of the black vote, and if this dropped to 80% the party would be nonviable. The Democrat power brokers know this and will do “anything” to make sure that it never happens.

Conniving Democrat imp operatives, figuratively perched on the shoulders of African Americans, whisper self-serving lies. The black economic situation had nothing to do with them because they were being held down by systemic white racism.  The developing black culture should be embraced and celebrated. Generations had this imbued into their psyche.

All the while, things worsened.

The black-on-black crime was epidemic, and future-destroying drugs were everywhere. Black children were failing in school, and unemployment {especially among black men} skyrocketed. In New York City, 50% of all black pregnancies ended in abortion. However, the conniving imp assured the minority population that progressive elites would fight for them and make sure the government supplied them with all their needs. The only thing the black community needed to do was every 2 years check the candidate’s box with a D next to their name.

Things continue pretty much the same until the Trump presidency. During this time, the economy was on fire, and black Americans were working. A significant portion, especially black men, began to question the imp on their shoulders.

Panic started to spread among Democratic power brokers.

If the trend continued, they would not survive. Then, George Floyd died while in the custody of a white policeman. Even though the actual rate of white policemen killing black suspects during felonies was extremely low, Black Lives Matter became the mantra (their manifesto even endorsed fatherless households). Progressive-fueled riots spread across America with no accountability for the violence or damage. Joe Biden was elected president, and progressive Democrat politicians pushed affirmative action on steroids. Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DEI) were put ahead of character, hard work, and merit. George Soros-backed prosecutors were elected in major progressive cities, and crime was no longer punished. And the black culture continued its downward spiral.

It may be too late for the progressive-run cities because many individuals who would have fought to turn the cities around have elected to leave, and the majority that remains still have conniving progressive imps whispering into their ears, telling them they are victims, telling them they are losers because of white supremacy.

In order to turn things around, the first thing that needs to happen is to brush off the conniving imps. Once this pernicious influence is gone, the minority communities’ minds could clear, and they would finally understand the need to start voting for individuals who can build up the minority communities instead of keeping them down. The streets need to be made safe and drug-free. It is not an impossible challenge. Rudy Giuliani did it, and once the streets are safe, children can be given school choices so they can escape the failed teacher union-controlled public schools. In this safe environment, black male role models could step up, and pastors/priests could work on the community’s spiritual needs.

Affirmative Action has been declared unconstitutional, and DEI will soon suffer the same fate.

That does not mean society cannot offer minority communities a helping hand. Affirmative Access {help based on economic status, not skin color} could open the door to state and community colleges. Appropriate funding based on need would make the opportunity real, and if minority students take advantage of the opportunity, the American Dream will follow.

Despite being born into the intellectually stultifying lower-class English caste system, the Englishman made it to the United States and lived the American Dream. He worked hard, married, and had a daughter, who he watched graduate from law school. Perhaps the biggest difference between the Englishman and the failed black minority community was that he brushed off Britain’s figurative version of a conniving elite imp. An imp who was always whispering, you are no good and you should stay in your place.

It is time for America’s black community to do the same, brush off the conniving progressive imp, clear its mind, and vote for its own self-interest. The American dream is through that door. All it would take is to walk over the threshold.

 

The post The Brit who Brushed Up his Accent and Brushed Off the Conniving Elite Imp appeared first on Granite Grok.

The media continues to provide air cover for the Left’s efforts to sexualize children in public schools, framing it as book banning by Christian fundamentalists. Is it to give them time to digest what they view as a traitorous rebellion? It’s not just Christian parents who object to the promulgation of the progressive lifestyle.

 

For months, hundreds of religious parents have regularly rallied outside a Maryland school board building, aghast at curriculum featuring books that portray LGBTQ+ families to elementary school kids.

Waving American flags, they have chanted against “indoctrination” of children. They’ve sued to pull their kids from lessons and argued their case on Fox News.

In battles against LGBTQ+ acceptance, it is often white evangelicals pushing for book bans or boycotts over beer brands or bathing suits. In this case, Muslims are leading the fight.

Democrats are beside themselves over it. After years of standing behind Muslims, dismissing the darker side of Islam, and supporting whatever they’ve brought to the table, this rebelliousness offends them. How dare they! But it was inevitable. CAIR is pushing back against the Left’s transgender agenda.

 

“The school system believes it is being inclusive toward LGBTQ parents and students,” said Zainab Chaudry, the Maryland director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a national civil rights group that put out calls for rallies over the Maryland books controversy. “But in doing that, it is not being inclusive toward another set of parents and students.”

 

The LA Times is generous in its coverage, quoting numerous progressive Arabs to pain opponents as… dare I use the word extremist? The reality, which will continue to cause them headaches and heartaches, is that Islam and the sexualization agenda are incompatible. The entire Progressive lifestyle will not comport with Islam in its traditional form.

Neither does the American Republic, but let’s not get distracted. The LA Times has done us a service. It says, “Religious parents… are aghast at curriculum featuring books that portray LGBTQ+ families.”

The LA Times, as with many claiming to protect these offerings, seems to have no clue what is in them. If they do, they claim that LGBTQ+ families promote Adult child sex (heterosexual and homosexual), drug abuse (including by minors), rape, incest, self-harm, and suicide.

There are books with rainbow unicorns, but no one cares about those. They are more concerned about the mental health issues arising from exposing children – unprepared mentally or physically – to grasp the subject matter. They object to civil servants undermining their religious liberty and rights as parents to frame their children’s spiritual, social, and cultural lives.

They object to this crap.

And no one is saying we should ban it. Access is an issue. Spending taxpayer dollars on it is an issue. Age appropriateness is an issue. And as noted above, the argument for including one group should not exclude another.

Public schools shouldn’t in any way be involved in this sort of “education,” and not just becasue they’ll likely screw it up as badly as they have the academics, which are much less complex than human sexuality and human nature. Per form, they could care less, but the rising opposition from Muslim families has the left confused, and I find that amusing.

It also demonstrates how much brighter we are than the average Liberal. We’ve been telling them this divorce was unavoidable for years, and here we are. Exactly how irreconcilable the differences remain to be seen, or more accurately, to what length will the Muslim parents objecting or the progressive gender-cultists advocating will go in support of their respective positions.

Will progressives resort to the level of name-calling so easily directed at other faiths, and does this cost them another victim-class voting base?

I’m intrigued by the conflict and can’t wait to see how things between them turn out and how effectively Islam, a faith that can brook no other, will use the First Amendment to get what they want until it no longer serves them.

 

 

HT | Don Surber

Scan the QR Code or Use the embedded form to get your tickets to Groktoberfest!

DonorboxEventWidget.embed({container: 'donorboxEmbed',embedFormSlug: 'https://donorbox.org/embed_event/504084'});

The post Left at a Loss as Muslims Protest “Porn” in Schools appeared first on Granite Grok.

Steve noted not long ago, (paraphrased): “Notice something missing? Yeah, content from Skip. He’s been missing.” Indeed I have been. In fact, this (I think) is the second time I am saying the same thing but with a modifier: I [think] I am back. And I am glad that I can, again, finally put keystrokes to GraniteGrok.

It’s been a long, LONG 5 months, and NOW I hope to be writing again on a more normal basis.

First and again, I apologize to everyone that I was helping that I ghosted. Certainly not a voluntary situation, but it is clear that I just disappeared and dropped out of sight with little or no communication.

Family priorities came to the fore along with DCYF and taking in our fictive granddaughter (whom we have known since birth) because *I* believe a certain school district decided to make true a rumor that I had heard from others. School districts, mostly in the more populated southern tier, were dropping faux dimes on parents who wouldn’t hew to THEIR narratives during the Zoom days and/or saw how education was being carried out by their children’s teachers (or the lack of education, as the case might be). They decided, like millions of other parents across the nation, to revive THEIR control concerning their children’s education.

The Government (because the most obvious touchpoint by the Government to parents is their Public Schools) decided, “WE are in charge – shut up.” When parents persisted, these school districts sicced DCYF on them in what appears to be retaliation.

I believe that this was true in my son and daughter-in-law’s case as they forced their school district to do things for their special needs children that they didn’t want to do. So, I started to annoy DCYF with RTKs -> RSA 91-A Right To Know demands, and I caught them dead to rights (heh!) doing the wrong things. Some of those RTKs made themselves onto the ‘Grok, but I admit that I fell way behind on reporting on some of the “best” of them. I will set those right because even if I didn’t write about them here, they did get great usage just when they were needed…

..I gave them, and the answers, to my son’s Lawyer for use in Family Court. As Flounder in Animal House said, “Oh Boy, This Is Gonna Be Great!” I also gave him, ahead of the hearing, a list of questions to ask me AND the answers to them. They really weren’t necessary. Why?

I went to his first hearing, and when the Judge wanted to know who was present, I introduced myself as the child’s fictive grandfather as well as the Placement Foster Parent (having already taken sufficient training to pass from a visit with Grammy and Grandpa to then Kinship Caregivers, we are now permitted Foster Parents (waiting on DCYF to finish their paperwork – we long ago did everything that we were supposed to do), I saw that the DCYF Lawyer and Investigative Specialist (whose names I think I can mention here as they’ve been the focus of some of my RTK before the hearing) whip their heads around when I announced myself and then put their heads together and whispered to each other.

Sidenote: one is NOT supposed to report on what happens in Family Court. No video or audio recording. The doors are locked, so no one can sneak in or write about it, so I am trying VERY hard not to report any specifics that would get me cited. Please bear with me.

Then, I became a “witness of opportunity,” and they announced that they would be calling me as their witness.

Can you IMAGINE the glee with which I received this news??? I was higher than if Elon had put me on a Falcon Heavy for lift-off. You see, I had/have done my homework just in case; I knew what I was going to say and wargamed out possible questions. They, on the other hand, even after being on the butt end of my RTKs, made it clear that they had done none.

Sidenote: since I was called to testify, I let it be known that a number of RTKs had already been made public on GraniteGrok. Priceless. Lack of homework again.

Not a thing. And made the stupid assumption that Big Bad DCYF was going to grill me and that I’d be shaking in my boots to be up on the stand and make myself look stupid in front of the Judge.

Can you see the smile on my face as I type this in remembrance of what actually happened?

Without getting into details but with the mental help of repeating that old lawyer’s maxim of “Never ask a witness a question to which you already don’t know the answer,” – and the DCYF lawyer forgot all about it. But I surely didn’t and took full opportunity of it. Let’s just say that I had the chance to talk for as long as I wanted/needed and to make my points that I had already wargamed and made them look stupid.

Let’s just say that while my son’s lawyer, in the beginning, wasn’t happy that DCYF called me (but lightened up after I started). It was also clear to me, in reading his poker face, that my son was having a hard time containing himself (except when I mixed him up with his brother as to which one served in Afghanistan and/or Iraq). As was said later, “they unlocked the door, you strode in, and then blew their roof off.” And yes, the Judge kept staring at both of them, from what I was told.

Yes, the Judge was some unhappy with some of the illegalities that had been done by DCYF and the lawyer got it all started by trying to challenge my Liar’s Log (the other District had claimed Julie never lied) and had no response when I said: “What, you didn’t ask her current school for theirs that they had to start?”.

Snicker – lack of homework AGAIN!

And those were the high points for the DCYF Dubious Duo. While I was not present in the courtroom either after I officially became a witness or after my testimony.

But I digress. Almost all of my time was spent with some GREAT DCYF workers, both her case manager and the Liaison for Foster Parents, in navigating the complexities of becoming Foster Parents (and now, being dubbed Specialized Care Foster Parents because of all of her special needs AND plowing through the required classes as fast as I could to earn the title de jure and not just de facto). Also, I spent a TON of time getting her registered for school here and then dealing with all the problems and issues she brought as well as dealing with the meltdowns here and at school, which I cannot/should not get into here.

Suffice it to say that almost all of my and TMEW’s free time disappeared completely; she dealt with the day-to-day behaviors all summer while I’ve been on the phone or doing emails or driving her to faraway appointments all day long for months.  This isn’t what we thought we were being handed, nor was it anything that we thought we’d ever have to face. We were caught unawares by everything and have had to walk through and nail down every single behavior and then create structures around them so as to try to head them off at the pass next time (with mixed results).

And the entire time, trying to ensure that the Grandson wasn’t left in the lurch (which, I am sad to say, happened a few times).

So thanks for reading it all and allowing me to shine, in a brief way, a single moment in which I could shine a quick Bright Light onto DCYF when folks only seem to worry about “their numbers” and not taking families for what they are – in the vast majority of times, just real humans trying to do the best they can.

And to again shine a light on the rumor of how some uppity school districts wanting to wreck the lives of parents who still believe that their children are theirs and that they have to right to advocate for what is best for them. It is clear that “retribution” happens and all the more with the philosophy of “Childism” (the bastard offspring of Critical Race Theory that holds that all Parents are evil and oppress their children, that children are oppressed are victims that must be saved, and the Saviors are the teachers and staffs are the ones to become the new Mommies and Daddies).

 

 

 

 

 

The post I Am Returning – Finally. It Has Been Too Long. appeared first on Granite Grok.

My last article highlighted the fact that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is only now beginning to contemplate how to write the rules regarding how Vermonters can retroactively “bank” so-called “Clean Heat Credits” back to January 1, 2023, and continue to bank them until the Clean Heat Standard goes fully into effect sometime in 2025.

To recap, the credits are earned by performing so-called “Clean Heat Measures” such as installing heat pumps, insulating building spaces, etc. The credits will ultimately be ownable and saleable financial instruments with a monetary value, so knowing how to claim them – and a system for doing so that reliably prevents fraudulent claims — is kind of a critical detail.

But there is an even more important detail that is still unresolved: Who actually owns the credit?

Does the customer who paid for the clean heat measure (individual, business, or in the case of subsidized measures the state) have primary claim to the credit, or does the vendor who did the work? During legislative committee discussions my impression was that the intent of the lawmakers, or at least most of them, was that the person/entity paying for the measure would have primary claim to the credit, but the law itself, as passed, doesn’t say this.

So, I reached out to two lawmakers, Senator Anne Watson (D-Washington) and Representative Laura Sibilia (I-Dover), who each sit on a committee of jurisdiction for S.5/Act 18, to see if they could tell me who owns a carbon credit. (Thanks to both for quick and helpful replies to my emails!) And, yes, the law doesn’t say. That’s a problem.

What the law does say, Sen. Watson reminded me, is, “Credit ownership. The [Public Utilities] Commission, in consultation with the Technical Advisory Group [emphasis added], shall establish a standard methodology for determining what party or parties shall be the owner of a clean heat credit upon its creation. The owner or owners may transfer those credits to a third party or to an obligated party.” And herein lies another problem: the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) doesn’t yet exist and won’t for a while.

Invitations to apply didn’t go out until September 22, and applications aren’t due until October 9th. (FYI, according to the S.5/Act 18 timeline, putting the TAG together should have commenced on or before August 31, so already fumbling the ball here….) In other words, the PUC can’t make a decision about what procedures are necessary to bank a carbon credit until it is established who exactly has an ownership claim to that credit, and the PUC can’t decide that until the TAG is fully set up and functioning to weigh in on the topic. Some day.

What is the TAG? “The Clean Heat Standard Technical Advisory Group shall consist of up to 15 members appointed by the Commission. The Commission shall establish the procedure for the TAG, including member term lengths and meeting procedures.” It’s basically another Climate Council, made up of volunteers receiving per diem compensation and a handful (3) of paid representatives from administrative agencies. Given the Climate Council’s demonstrated inability to reach any consensus decision of consequence, this does not bode well for a quick resolution to this question.

The legislature put the retroactive carbon credit allowance in S.5/Act 18 because they didn’t want Vermonters delaying projects for two years, holding off in order to get the credit benefit. But by abdicating their responsibility to put forward a workable plan at the outset, and handing over to a couple of unelected bureaucracies, our lawmakers have created a total clusterbleep. And to add even further uncertainty to this whole situation, Rep. Sibilia reminded me that the legislature will review whatever rules the PUC and the TAG come up with in 2025 and can change them – in this case retroactively.

When Senator Dick McCormack called S.5/Act 18 a Rube Goldberg contraption, he was underselling what a mess the whole thing is. (He voted for it anyway!) I’ll be curious to see how they untangle this web in the months to come, but I won’t be the only one watching.

Back on June 20th, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission put out the following press release, which I re-print here in full because it’s all really interesting.

CFTC Whistleblower Office Issues Alert Seeking Tips Relating to Carbon Markets Misconduct

Washington, D.C. — The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Whistleblower Office in the Division of Enforcement issued an alert today notifying the public on how to identify and report potential Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) violations connected to fraud or manipulation in the carbon markets. Voluntary carbon markets, among other measures, can support the transition to a low-carbon economy through market-based initiatives in which high-quality carbon credits, also known as carbon offsets, are purchased and sold bilaterally or on spot exchanges. As with any market, there exists the potential for fraud and manipulation.

“Alongside the continued growth of CFTC regulated carbon offset derivatives contracts, the agency is building upon its expertise to ensure the utility and reliability of these markets, as well as its ability to identify and pursue any potential fraud or abusive practices,” said Chairman Rostin Behnam. “Information from whistleblowers advances the Commission’s enforcement mission and, in turn, further builds integrity and trust in the carbon markets by rooting out fraud and manipulation.”

As described in the alert, the CFTC’s Whistleblower Office will work with market participants that report information related to potential fraud in the carbon markets including, but not limited to, manipulative and wash trading, “ghost” credits, double counting, fraudulent statements relating to material terms of the carbon credits, and potential manipulation of tokenized carbon markets. Individuals who submit such information through the CFTC’s Whistleblower Program may be eligible for certain confidentiality and anti-retaliation protections, as well as monetary awards if that information leads to the success of a CFTC enforcement action. [Emphasis added. Note: This could be more lucrative than collecting carbon credits!]

“As carbon credit markets continue to grow, we will act to foster the integrity of these markets by fighting fraud and manipulation,” said Ian McGinley, Director of the Division of Enforcement. “Whistleblowers are invaluable allies in these efforts.  We will diligently investigate all credible tips and complaints from whistleblowers relating to carbon credit markets.”

Background:

The voluntary carbon credit market is currently estimated to be $2 billion and is forecasted to grow to $250 billion by 2050, according to the Morgan Stanley Research paper Carbon Offset Market Trends and Growth 2050. Carbon credits are the underlying commodity for futures contracts that are listed on CFTC designated contract markets (DCMs). The CFTC has enforcement authority and regulatory oversight over DCMs and any trading in those markets.

The CFTC also has anti-fraud and anti-manipulation enforcement authority over the related spot markets for carbon credits. The CFTC’s jurisdiction also applies to carbon allowances and other environmental commodities products that are linked to futures contracts.

About the CFTC’s Whistleblower Program

The CFTC’s Whistleblower Program was created under Section 748 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Since issuing its first award in 2014, the CFTC has granted whistleblower awards amounting to approximately $330 million. Those awards are associated with enforcement actions that have resulted in monetary sanctions totaling more than $3 billion. The CFTC issues awards related not only to the agency’s enforcement actions, but also in connection with actions brought by other domestic or foreign regulators if certain conditions are met.

Whistleblowers are eligible to receive between 10 and 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected. All whistleblower awards are paid from the CFTC Customer Protection Fund, which was established by Congress, and is financed entirely through monetary sanctions paid to the CFTC by violators of the CEA. No money is taken or withheld from injured customers to fund the program. The CEA also provides confidentiality and anti-retaliation protections for whistleblowers.

The CFTC’s Whistleblower Office issues Whistleblower Alerts as a way of communicating the priorities of the Division of Enforcement to the public, including potential whistleblowers and whistleblower attorneys.

 

Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics, including three years of service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free-market think tank. He is also a regular contributor to VermontGrok.

 

Anyone with information related to potential violations of the CEA or the CFTC’s rules and regulations can submit a tip electronically by filing a Form TCR (Tip, Complaint or Referral) online at https://whistleblower.gov/overview/submitatip.

Go to Whistleblower.gov for more information about CFTC’s Whistleblower Program.

The longer we persist with a carbon credit banking system with no rules in place to govern said system, the more open to fraud, abuse, and honest error that system becomes. So, friends at the PUC, the future TAG, and the future Default Delivery Agency, all I can say is you better be able to turn this Rube Goldberg mess in a secure, verifiable, rock solid carbon credit system. If not, the Feds are coming after you!

The post More Confusion/Delay Ahead for Carbon Credit Banking Scheme appeared first on Granite Grok.

They’re flying so thick and fast it is amazing.

Take heart – there will be both a Wednesday and Friday Edition.  Last week’s Friday Edition.

Remember, ridicule and mockery are effective weapons:

1. Ridicule cannot easily be fought
2. Ridicule makes the enemy angry, and angry people make mistakes
3. For those in the “squishy middle” a Thought Splinter (and Part II and Part III and Part IV) can often be hidden inside humor.

 

Now, let the mockery and mayhem begin.

 

*** Warning, a few possibly off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

Pick of the post:

 

 

The US government is LITERALLY flying them in.

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA

 

 

If you have a police officer or National Guard family member / friend, start talking to them about the idea that they need to rehearse: I WILL NOT OBEY THAT ORDER.  Whether explicitly by open refusal, or a “blue flu” response, or similar non-compliance aka Sargeant Schultz’s famous “I see no-thing”! cops and soldiers better understand that if they start obeying the Globalists, they’re signing on to treason and becoming the enemy.

 

“SIR, I WILL NOT OBEY THAT ORDER.”

 

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

Palate Cleansers:

 

—

—

 

>>>>>=====<<<<<

 

Come back Wednesday for another edition.  Same Meme Time.  Same Meme channel.

 

The post MONDAY MEMES appeared first on Granite Grok.

This clip is a bit longer than what I typically share, but the subject and content are compelling. Worthy of our attention and, more importantly, vigorous debate. The matter at hand is the war in Ukraine, what we’ve heard or been told, and what may be a totally different truth.

Our government’s embellishments about COVID, the obfuscation, deliberate lying, and the major media commitment to selling those lies and others give this conversation a good deal of merit.

Tucker Carlson is speaking with retired U.S. Army colonel Douglas Macgregor. He is an author, consultant, and commentator. He shares a very different version of the events in Ukraine, the competence of the Diplomatic core, the state of the US Military, and the Russian Army.

He says our intervention (boots on the ground) seems inevitable, that we are ill-prepared, and that Russia is not just ready but able to put America in a corner the extraction from which will result in either nuclear war or surrender in Ukraine, under terms unfavorable to the West and its Allies.

Put simply, we should not be there, and we need to get out now, or the cost will be much greater than the human rights disaster we’ve helped precipitate to date.

 

 



The post Nothing We’ve Been Told About Ukraine is True and We Need to Get Out Now appeared first on Granite Grok.

When Silicon Valley Bank and other banks failed earlier this year, the debate over the sustainability of fractional reserve banking resurfaced. Under fractional reserve banking, banks keep only a fraction of customers’ deposits in reserve. The difference is bank credit, such as government debt, mortgages, business loans, and many other kinds of loans. This practice leaves the bank open to a run, in which panicky depositors attempt to withdraw their funds from the bank en masse, but the bank doesn’t have the cash on hand. The following FRED graph gives an idea of the extent of the mismatch between deposits and reserves.

 

 

But we shouldn’t worry about bank runs because the government is here to help. In the US, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insures checking accounts up to $250,000, and the banking system is regulated by a host of agencies, including the Federal Reserve, which also acts as a lender of last resort. These measures are intended to prevent and mitigate bank runs for the benefit of both the banks and their depositors. Though it should be obvious that they only conceal the fundamental problem and disperse the costs.

Murray Rothbard was a detractor of fractional reserve banking. He wrote on the changing legal definition of bank deposits—how they originated as warehousing relationships, or “bailments,” but over time came to represent debtor-creditor relationships. Ludwig von Mises also pointed to bank issues of fiduciary media (the proportion of deposits that cannot be redeemed), which artificially lower interest rates, as the cause of business cycles.

Nevertheless, a faction of Austrian and Austrian-adjacent scholars defends fractional reserve banking, saying that not only can it be sustainable, but it can also be beneficial in maintaining monetary equilibrium. I’m not convinced by this view, but it’s worth taking a closer look at one point that these scholars often make. They say that clear communication between the bank and its customers would solve the hairy problem of bank customers expecting the money at par on demand.

With such an agreement, “fractional reserve free banking” proponents say depositors would know that they are effectively creditors to the bank and that the bank is, therefore, a debtor to them. This means that the deposits are technically and legally owned by the bank and that what the depositor has is technically and legally a callable loan to the bank. Clear agreements would mean that depositors understand that there is a chance that they won’t be able to get their money (actually, the bank’s money, in this view) immediately in the event of a bank failure. Of course, central banking and government-backed deposit insurance diminish customers’ expectation of bank responsibility—how much should banks be expected to disclose about the deposit relationship if most of their customers’ deposits are guaranteed by the government anyway?

In line with other fractional reserve-free banking proponents, George Selgin argues that modern depositor agreements—the dense legalese most people skip—already establish this transparency.

 

And he is right. Bank of America does make that disclaimer in its deposit agreement. I decided to take a closer look at other big banks’ fine print to see how standard this language is. What I found is that it isn’t standard and that even when a bank (including Bank of America) does use that language, it is still ambiguous because of other language in the document, especially in regard to the availability of funds. One bank’s fine print doesn’t even mention the possibility of bank failure and FDIC receivership.

Here is what I found.

JPMorgan Chase does not have debtor-creditor language. In fact, in the first section of the agreement, in which common terms are defined, it says that the “available balance” is “the amount of money in your account that you can use right now.” This does not indicate that Chase “owes” its customers the money or that withdrawals could be delayed. Chase explicitly calls its deposit customers “account owners” and say they have “complete control over all of the funds in the account.”

Bank of America describes the deposit relationship as “that of debtor and creditor,” but this language does not appear in its online banking service agreement, which only says that the online “Services may also be affected by your Deposit Agreement.” Bank of America doesn’t say much about the availability of demand deposits but is very clear about time deposits: “When you open a time deposit account, you agree to leave your funds in the account until the maturity date of the account.”

Wells Fargo does not use the debtor-creditor language to describe its deposit relationship. Like Bank of America, Wells Fargo says that account owners have “complete control over all of the funds in the account.”

Citibank very clearly defines its relationship with customers: “Citibank’s relationship with you is debtor and creditor.” But Citi also refers to the customer’s balance as the “‘Available Now’ balance,” even though a critical mass of depositors could run to withdraw their funds and find that the money isn’t so available.

US Bank does not use the debtor-creditor language to describe the deposit relationship. In fact, early in the agreement it refers to the “Owner’s Authority” of depositors, which includes “the power to perform all the transactions available to the account.” US Bank also says that the customer’s funds are available immediately: “‘Available Balance’ means the amount of money that can be withdrawn at a point in time.”

PNC does not use the debtor-creditor language to describe the deposit relationship. It does not even have a section on the possibility of bank failure and the process of FDIC receivership, which is in all the above banks’ deposit agreements.

So, only two of these six major banks have the debtor-creditor language, and the two that do have it introduce ambiguity by promising at-par-on-demand availability of funds. We are still a long way from clear communication about the status of depositors’ money, if we can call it theirs at all.

 

Dr. Jonathan Newman is a Fellow at the Mises Institute. He earned his PhD at Auburn University while a Research Fellow at the Mises Institute. He was the recipient of the 2021 Gary G. Schlarbaum Award to a Promising Young Scholar for Excellence in Research and Teaching. Previously, he was Associate Professor of Economics and Finance at Bryan College. He has published in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics and in volumes edited by Matthew McCaffrey and Per Bylund. His research focuses on Austrian economics, inflation and business cycles, and the history of economic thought. He has taught courses on Macroeconomics and Quantitative Economics: Uses and Limitations in the Mises Graduate School. He is the author of two children’s books: The Broken Window and Ludwig the Builder. His commentary appears regularly in the Mises Wire and Power & Market.

 

Dr. Jonathan Newman | Mises Wire

Mises Wire We heartily encourage reprints and shares of Mises Wire articles. If you wish to reproduce an article in your blog, magazine, radio show, newspaper column, classroom material, textbook, discussion group, website, or any other venue, please do so. The original publication source must be included in an appropriate place.

The post Is the Money in Your Checking Account Yours or the Bank’s? appeared first on Granite Grok.

There has been much speculation about what the next global psy-op will be. Is it a virus, another lab-generated pathogen, mRNA ground beef, or perhaps something more like Flint, Michigan, or the EPA’s Animus/Colorado River poisoning, but a bit more subtle?

To paraphrase Woody from Toy Story, someone’s going to poison the waterhole! Or, at least, that’s the latest buzz. They didn’t manage to vaccinate everyone, and while some people understand climate change, water is so fundamental that everyone gets it—even children.

It sounds like she’s saying that fearmongering the water supply is the next WEF psy-op to achieve global compliance…(while working on frog-marching us into line on everything else).

 

World Economic Forum signals the next global catastrophe they have planned for us… since they “failed to vaccinate the whole world” and since Climate Change isn’t exactly catching on. They’re going to do something to our water supply. They can’t help but brag about their plan to attack the water supply, and then they go on to explain why this one is going to work (because it effects everyone). When they tell you what they’re going to do, you need to believe them.

 

World Economic Forum signals the next global catastrophe they have planned for us… since they “failed to vaccinate the whole world” and since Climate Change isn’t exactly catching on.

They’re going to do something to our water supply. They can’t help but brag about their plan… pic.twitter.com/8nd2iXFiku

— Lauren Witzke (@LaurenWitzkeDE) September 30, 2023

 

Feel free to disagree.

The post Is The WEF Going to “Poison” The World’s Water Hole? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Great interview by Matt Gaetz. He explains how the UniParty prevents the normal appropriations process from taking place to create a scenario where the government is going to “shut down” unless there is a single up or down vote on a “continuing resolution” to fund the entire government. It’s a scam to give the UniParty a pretext, an excuse, a rationale for continuing the unsustainable, $2 billion in annual deficits, spending … I HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO VOTE FOR THE CR!!! THE ALTERNATIVE WAS A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN!!!

It’s rigged … like everything else. The UniParty refuses to take up single subject spending bills in order to create the specter of a shutdown and the need for a CR. Matt Gaetz is a real fiscal conservative. Kevin McCarthy is NOT … he is simply a hired gun for the donor/lobbyist class getting rich off the demise of our country.

House conservatives made @SpeakerMcCarthy agree to spending guardrails in January. He has blown through those guardrails, which is what brought us to this moment.

The only way to save America from financial ruin is to pass single-subject spending bills that are able to be… pic.twitter.com/cGlmqsbf9v

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) September 29, 2023

The post Must See Matt Gaetz … How The UniParty Uses “Shutdowns” And “Continuing Resolutions” To Avoid Accountability And Spend, Spend, Spend appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Confucius Institute funded UNH. There is a contract through 2024 or at least a payment that has been made through 2024. Has anyone seen the contract? Why did UNH get chosen to introduce the unregulated “Dear Colleague” Title IX letter in 2011?

We want to thank Claire Best for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.

Why did Amy Guttman of UPENN meet with President Xi in 2009 to discuss building closer connections between US & Chinese universities? What was the quid pro quo?

Why did “Dear Colleague” set out to subversively get rid of due process without going through regulatory procedures?

Why did UNH develop “Bystander” and “Know Your Power” training?

Why did the White House/UNH/NHCADSV/Concord Police target Private Episcopal St. Paul’s School as opposed to any other school?

Was it for the same reason the White House-affiliated journalist Sabrina Erdeley targeted the University of Virginia for the fake Rolling Stone “A Rape on Campus” story? Because they had a stereotype in mind?

Why did they want to use St. Paul’s school to set an example to other schools around the nation, and why was the Government takeover/monitoring of it praised?

Why was Maxient.com behavior reporting software really introduced, and why is there an “analysis phase” – for whose benefit?

Why did they turn Chessy Prout, whose father was working in Hong Kong at Investco, into the chosen “survivor”?

Why was she given a Government Affairs PR representative (Dan Hill of hillimpact.com) whose specialty is special ops stealth media to help Department of Defense contractors get Government contracts?

Why did Chessy Prout get a speaker’s agency registered in Albany, NY, and Hong Kong?

Why did she go on a special trip to take #MeToo to China?

Why did Alexander Prout become Chair of Vital Voices Solidarity (Hillary Clinton’s non-profit)? Vital Voices is PR repped by SKDK, whose Anita Dunn was forced to step down as Director of Communications for the Obama White House for praising Chairman Mao.

Why was there a China-backed women’s non-profit mentioned in the Podesta Wikileaks files in correspondence regarding Lyn Forester de Rothschild and Hillary Clinton that dates to 2010?

Why did the State Department send a delegation to China in 2014 to discuss the women’s agenda and send Tania Tetlow JD, who is on YouTube saying that as a prosecutor, she would tell investigators and police that tainted and biased investigations in sexual misconduct didn’t matter?

What is UNH really up to? What is UNH Law really up to, and whose agenda are they and elected officials in New Hampshire really following?

Is Soteria Solutions (developed by UNH with NHCADSV’s Lyn Schollett on the board) tied to Soteria Mutual Holdings- owned by Black Stone, dealing in CCP Binance – or not?

 

The post How $1M From China-linked Groups Oiled New York Politics appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Department of Health and Human Services has proposed a series of changes to administrative rules governing the vaccine registry. The proposal can be viewed here.

Please Submit Group communications or Press Releases to editor@granitegrok.com.
Submission is not a guarantee of publication – Publication is not an endorsement.

RebuildNH objects to several of these proposed changes.

• They propose changing the word “vaccine” to “immunization”. Philosophically, we object to this change as it normalizes that the only way to be immunized is through vaccination, which is not true. This is not a registry of all immunizations, just vaccinations.
• It allows NH registry data to be shared with other states (He-P 307.06 (H)(7) and (He-P 307.11). Last year the legislature prohibited sharing NH vaccine data with the federal government. We believe this is a breach of that new law because there is no way to ensure another state wouldn’t share that data with the federal government.
• It defers to what the CDC document lists as data to be collected. (He-P 307.05 (b)) The state of NH should never arbitrarily defer to a federal government bureaucracy for anything.
• “The department or health care provider shall keep any record of the transaction, including the request itself, in a HIPAA-compliant system separate from the registry when subject to HIPAA record retention requirements.” This language would essentially create an opt-out list, which is a violation of the NH constitution, the right to privacy.

Action Item

Tuesday, October 3rd, there is a public hearing on these rule changes. We are asking you to attend this meeting to object to these rule changes.
If you cannot attend, please email your objections to Allyson Raadmae and Lori Weaver.

 

Towards Liberty,

The post Public Hearing for Vaccine Registry appeared first on Granite Grok.

Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein recorded her last vote in the U.S. Senate less than 24 hours before dying Thursday at 90 years old. In the last years of her life, she clearly struggled mentally and physically to keep up with her day-to-day life. Still, when the Democrats needed her face, her voice, or her vote to push their agenda forward, her staff would dutifully wheel her out in service to the party.

Naturally, Democrats spent the morning following her death announcement praising Feinstein’s political career. “Sen. Dianne Feinstein was a friend, a hero, a leader who changed the Senate and America for the better[.] Mourning this tremendous loss—we’re comforted in knowing how many mountains she moved, lives she impacted, glass ceilings she shattered[.] America’s a better place because of her,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer posted on Twitter.

Dianne Feinstein returned to the Senate today.

In a wheelchair.

This is your Democrat Party.

Power at all costs.

ALL COSTS. pic.twitter.com/LNiOvBzyTD

— Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) May 11, 2023

“Heartbroken to learn of the passing of my dear friend Dianne Feinstein,” former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi posted. “Her indomitable, indefatigable leadership made a magnificent difference for our national security and personal safety, the health of our people and our planet, and the strength of our Democracy.”

Pelosi also wrote that it was a “great honor to serve alongside” her fellow Californian.

The way Democrats talk about Feinstein’s legacy, one would assume they cared about her deeply. But you don’t allow the people you love to be used for political gain. They claimed to care about her life and accomplishments but refused to let her end her life with dignity.

In July, Democratic Washington Sen. Patty Murray was caught on a hot microphone instructing Feinstein how to vote on a funding bill for the Department of Defense. (ROOKE: There’s A Way To Fix How Poorly Single Women Vote, And It Isn’t Repealing The 19th)

“For me to say I would like to support a yes vote on this. It provides 823 billion. That’s an increase of 26 billion for the Department of Defense. And it funds priorities submitted,” Feinstein says in a video of the incident before an aide whispers in her ear. The microphone then picks up Murray telling Feinstein, “Just say ‘aye.’”

Asked to vote on the defense appropriations bill, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) begins giving a speech: “I would like to support a ‘yes’ vote on this. It provides …”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA): “Just say aye.” pic.twitter.com/Gw2eZ9rEMv

— The Recount (@therecount) July 27, 2023

Two months earlier, in May, Feinstein was transported to the Senate in a wheelchair by aides, visibly frail and confused despite a statement from her office claiming she was “prepared to resume [her] duties in the Senate.” Schumer was there to greet her. She looked befuddling, asking him, “Where am I going?” followed by, “I’ve got something in my eye.”

It was obvious that she came back to work despite her condition to be the critical deciding vote on the Judiciary Committee.

Regardless of what you think about Feinstein’s record, there is an unmistakable hatred for the elderly in our society. Americans are so used to throwing their aging parents in nursing homes and overlooking their mistreatment for the sake of convenience that no one questioned whether or not Feinstein was the subject of elder abuse every time she was taken from the comfort of her home to attend the Senate.

Democrats have no remorse for how they treated the woman they call “inspirational” and a “trailblazer.” Feinstein should have been allowed to retire to one of the mansions she bought using the millions of dollars she “earned” from stock market trading. Instead, despite decades of loyalty to the Democrats, she was forced to end her life as a tool of the party.

 

Mary Rooke | Daily Caller News Service

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Democrats Should Be Ashamed Of The Sad Tragedy Of Dianne Feinstein appeared first on Granite Grok.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP Action) does a lot of good stuff, but as I’ve noted previously, they’ve climbed on the anti-Trump train this season. The message they think they are sending is this. If Trump is the nominee, Democrats will be activated, and that will hurt everyone up and down the ticket.

The latest glossy mailer says Democrats will be energized, [and] Independents will be turned off.

This assumes that any of that actually matters, which, as I’ve also noted, silly rabbit, is absent election reforms (of which we’ve had little to none); every election is 2020. The votes keep coming until the Democrat wins, and that’s every race, everywhere, all the time. Objections will be branded as election denial, blah, blah, you know, the drill.

I’ve made this point before, you say, so why dig up this dead horse? So you can kick it again? Yes, but with a new pair of boots.

Inspiration or observation can be capricious, and today, as I smirked at the newest installment of anyone but Trump theater, I had a new thought. I get their message, but sometimes it says more than you mean, for example. Independents will be more turned off by the prospect of a combative commander and chief who, whatever else you may think or say, oversaw one of the best American economies in recent memory.

AFP is big on kitchen table issues. The Democrat/Biden economy is a stanky sh!t hole. If Republicans can’t use that to win office, they don’t deserve to win (putting aside previous observations about cheating Dems and their 24/7 homonculi media marketing team). Everything costs a lot more, and the border – an issue that got Trump elected in 2016, is exponentially worse under Biden /(Obama 3.0) than Obama/Obama 1.0/2.0.

Biden is a terrible candidate, and I agree with Grokster Rob Roper that Stumbin’ Joe will be escorted off the political stage (for “medical” reasons) after he is nominated at the DNC Klan Bake and replaced with a young Marxist stud-like Governor Gavin Newsom, whom no one but the left finds dreamy. California is a regulatory hellhole that will exacerbate Biden’s stanky economic Sh!t hole albatross.

Democrat victory will require cheating, and it hardly matters who the Republicans nominate, which brings me to my other observation. AFP is saying, without meaning to, that no one else running from the right is worth the Democrat’s time or attention. Disregarding the insult to every candidate but Trump, why would a Republican or an Independent, faced with the current state of America, want a guy in the Oval Office that Democrats don’t fear?

And given a few more years, the Left will have either collapsed the economy or gotten the civil war they are after, and there won’t be much left to worry about except where to find food and more ammunition (open-border Chinese and Islamic infiltrators will probably have some if you’re looking.)

It’s ugly out there. And I’d be willing to support any nominee to prevent Joe Biden’s replacement from winning because I can still get Republicans to at least listen without threatening to silence me, imprison me, or bankrupt me.  I should note that a few did try to get me fired a decade or so back, but I’ve not heard from them since they failed, and here I am. The point is that APF Action makes me think that they think Americans are that stupid, and perhaps they do. They’ve been mailing these flyers out all summer, and Trump’s polling is better and his opponents worse.

 

Reminder: We encourage Op-Eds and Rebuttles from Everyone on Everything. Send them to Editor@granitegrok.com. You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines’ on the FAQ Page.

The post Making fun of AFP Action ‘cuz They Make it So Easy appeared first on Granite Grok.

As those who have ever served in the military know, the United States Armed Forces is one of the most culturally and socioeconomically diverse institutions in America. It is full of patriotic Americans from all walks of life who come together to serve their country, fight for it, and ultimately die for it if called to.

To have served in the military in any form is to be a member of an exclusive club in this country. Although there are some barriers to entry, race is not among them.

The Armed Forces have also provided countless opportunities for citizens in our nation who—through hard work, grit, and merit–rise through the ranks, provide a meaningful and fulfilling life for themselves and their families, and are justly proud of their calling. No matter their race, Americans have found comfort in the idea that if you are willing to work and serve your country with honor, the military will reward merit.

Since January 2021, the Biden administration has made a concerted effort to inject “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) into almost every facet of military life. This includes mandatory training, a DoD-wide “Equity Action Plan,” and an entire day dedicated to “Leadership Stand-Down to Address Extremism in the Force.” Recently, this radical DEI advocacy was taken to a new level.

On August 9, 2022, in his previous role as Chief of Staff of the Air Force, CQ Brown sent a memo to both the Headquarters Offices for the Air Force Academy and the Air Education and Training Command titled “Officer Source of Commission Applicant Pool Goals,” the memo directed officials at those institutions to “develop a diversity and inclusion outreach plan aimed at achieving these goals no later than 30 September 2022.” Among these “goals,” Brown directed the offices to implement specific racial quotas broken down by percentage for each race. For example, the goal for “White” officer candidates is 67.5%, and for “Black/African American” officer candidates is 13%.

This is disturbing for several reasons and could be potentially catastrophic for the reputation of the military at a time when recruitment and retention is at an all-time low. Just this week, the Navy reported that it will miss its recruiting goal by 7,000 sailors this year, and the Air Force reported that it will miss its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999.

First, the military is one of the last institutions that Americans revere. A July 2023 Gallup Poll found that 60% of Americans have a “high confidence” in the military. This is a good thing and is likely due to the military having a reputation for being a nonpolitical meritocracy where decisions are made in the best interest of protecting the country and not based on ideology.

Second, our military exists to protect the American people, our homeland, our interests, allies abroad, neutralize our enemies wherever they hide, and ensure a safe and prosperous future for our children. We will do this by finding, enlisting, training, and retaining the best and brightest men and women the country has to offer, regardless of their race. Straying from that principle in the name of filling racial quotas is a disservice to the American taxpayer and makes Americans less safe.

Third, this directive is potentially illegal on its face. The United States Equal Opportunity Commission states on its website, “It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against a job applicant because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.” With this memo, Brown is advocating for just that. Air Force Officer applicants would be literally discriminated against because of their race if this new directive is implemented. There is seemingly no way to meet the quotas outlined in the directive without engaging in discrimination against certain applicants because of their race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Most members of the Air Force and the military generally are honest, hard-working people who do not believe our future airmen should be reduced to racial statistics. Recently promoted, Brown will now leave behind this divisive policy and force those below him, who likely had nothing to do with the idea, to implement the policy. This is wrong.

We must do better. That is why my organization, the Center to Advance Security in America, has filed a series of FOIA requests to further investigate the implementation of these discriminatory policies.

The American military is the most powerful force for good the world has ever seen. If we want it to remain that way, we must shift our focus back to recruiting and retaining based on skill, merit, and future abilities – not race. It is not too late to shift course. If we do not, these out-of-control initiatives will continue, and military readiness will suffer.

 

 James Fitzpatrick| Real Clear Wire

James Fitzpatrick is an Army Veteran and the Director of the Center to Advance Security in America (CASA), an organization dedicated to improving the safety and security of the American people.

The post U.S. Military-Sanctioned Diversity Initiatives are Out of Control appeared first on Granite Grok.

The SPLC’s Hate Map is a ridiculous partisan exercise with some real-world benefits. It shows observers whom the left fears or hates and which is reason enough to investigate them ourselves. Some will be awful, but most won’t. Gender Cultists in Oxford have embarked on something similar for churches.

 

“The Oxford Safe Churches project, run by a coalition of LGBTQ+ organisations and Churches in Oxford, have published their first faith report, titled ‘Attitudes to Queer Christians in Oxford Churches,’” reports the Oxford Student news website. “The report, published on Friday 22 September, uses a ‘traffic light’ system to rank the LGBTQ+ inclusivity of churches in Oxford.”

 

I think churches should be as open to members of the Gender Cult as any group of sinners (calm down, Lefties, we’re all sinners), but this grading system isn’t anything like that. The Church with the most favorable score,

 

“… is probably a church which has internalised a queer identity, it may be that a large number of LGBTQ+ people attend or even that they started or lead the church. Straight and cis people attend as part of the diversity of the church rather than the assumed norm. If someone were to speak against inclusivity, others would be very likely to defend it. LGBTQ+ relationships and milestones are publicly celebrated. Agencies and resources which offer LGBTQ+ people support and allyship are almost certainly linked to and promoted. Modelling of including behaviours and language is normative. Driving through a green light, you can be far more certain that the road will be clear and safe to drive.

 

Because faith is all about celebrating your sexuality? Note to the Gender Cult: it’s not, but as I’ve observed in the past, the gender cult is fixated on sexuality and sexual attraction with or without sex or marriage or the age of majority (yes, I said that).

Heterosexual adults are not fighting to discuss their sexuality with children unless they are pedophiles or members of the gender cult or both. It is otherwise frowned upon and likely to get you arrested and labeled for life. But gender cultists find any objection to their sexualizing children as bigotry, and you are welcome to your opinion, but schools produce exponentially more pedophilia arrests than churches and always have. But that’s not a concern becasue, with rare exceptions, the gender cult already controls schools.

And while the left has been infiltrating Christian churches for years, the gender-bending requirements are more recent but flourishing. An extension of a series of lies beginning with “We only want civil weddings,” to “We want church weddings,” to “We’re grading churches,” which leads to protesting, Gayjacking, blacklisting, and canceling.

And somewhere along the line, not long from now, the Church of Joseph of the Technicolor Genderless Dreamcoat will have a “pastor” who has sex with a minor, and if you don’t publicly celebrate that, you’re an evil bigot.

 

 

The post Can We Get the Gender Cult to Rate Churches in the US so It’s Easier To find The One’s That Aren’t Crazy? appeared first on Granite Grok.

In the recent decision of New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn v Bruen 142 S. CT. 2111, the Supreme Court very clearly held that the Second Amendment protects the rights of all citizens, even those in New Hampshire, to “armed self-defense.”

The right to armed self-defense applies anywhere and everywhere -unless the state can prove that the Historical record reflects a national tradition of gun restriction.

In announcing its decision, the Court explained: “We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects the conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Analytically, there are three points:
1. The Second Amendment provides that anyone and everyone is entitled, as a matter of highest Constitutional rights, to “armed self-defense”; everyone has an unfettered right to “armed self-defense” anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
2.If the State wants to regulate this right of “armed self-defense, it can do so in very limited ways subject to the following: the burden of proof is on the state to prove that a regulation limiting “armed self-defense” is constitutionally approved.
3. Such regulation is only constitutionally approved if the state shows that there is a national tradition dating back to the time the Constitution was written consistent with the regulation the state seeks to approve.

With regard to item 3, the Supreme Court referred to “sensitive places” which have had long-standing regulations/limitations on the Second Amendment. “Sensitive places” are places where the USA has traditionally limited guns (for example, court houses and prisons). However, the Supreme Court emphasized- it is unconstitutional for a town or city to declare an area to be “sensitive” just because of some modern-day notion of gun safety. A sensitive area is only sensitive if it can be shown to be subject to a historical tradition of gun regulation. In addition, “Sensitive Area” must be reflected in how the Government treats the so-called “sensitive area.” Consider this commentary approved by the Supreme Court:

“Passing a statute declaring some place to be a “gun free zone” does nothing to deter criminals from entering with guns and attacking the people inside. In contrast, when a building such as a courthouse, is protected by metal detectors and guards, the government shows the seriousness of the government’s belief that the buildings sensitive…Conversely, when the government provides no security at all-such as in a post office or its parking lot-the government’s behavior shows that the location is probably not sensitive….”

Tell me: why isn’t the State of New Hampshire enforcing this law? Why are there so many towns and cities that have wholesale ignored this decision and routinely continue to ban guns in a variety of places despite the clear language in the Court’s decision?

I heard one town official state, “We are like a business. And, of course, any business can ban guns on its own property.”

How about NO AND HELL NO.

In Koons v Platkin, the Federal court in New Jersey answered this question:

“While it is certainly true that the government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor, to maintain possession and prosecute trespassers….the State is not exempt from recognizing the protections afforded to individuals by the Constitution simply because it acts on Government property…”

In a separate case, Wolford v Lopez, a Hawaii Federal court stated;
“Whether the Government acted as a proprietor …has no place…under BRUEN.

Applying the Supreme Court analysis, various Federal Courts have held unconstitutional “gun-free zones” in the following cases :
1. Hospitals
2. Public Transportation
3. Places that serve liquor
4. Parks and playgrounds
5. Libraries
6. Places of worship
7. Financial institutions

In New Hampshire, many, many “gun-free zones” have been declared without regard to the “Supreme Court’s analysis. One common “gun-free Zone” is “Town Property.”

Consider the following from the town of Hollis: Several years ago, well before Bruen, the town of Hollis held an election on a warrant article banning guns from all town property. Such property includes town hall, but it also includes very large tracts of raw land, including conservation land.
What Constitutional legal theory did they rely upon to ban Guns? Several residents complained that the noise of guns engaged in target practice was a bother to them, and they wanted all guns removed from huge tracts of land the town “owns.”

Under Bruen, the Gun ban is clearly unconstitutional. No place does the Second Amendment state that guns can be banned because local residents don’t want to hear the noise guns make when folks are target practicing. Moreover, in terms of “historical tradition,” the land in question has been open for gun use-including target practice, for over 200 years. Revolutionary War soldiers practiced their aim prior to going off to war. New Hampshire sharpshooters (a rather famous group whose heroism helped win the battle of Gettysburg) practiced on the townland during the Civil War.

Finally, in no universe I know is the raw, open land to be considered “sensitive,” as the Supreme Court defined that term. Everyone has access to it. There are no gates with metal detectors or armed guards.  Simply put, the Town of Hollis is engaged in an illegal act, an Unconstitutional act, by designating Town land as being exempt from the Second Amendment.

Sadly, the town of Hollis does not seem to care. I checked—no hearing on the subject. No inquiry. No effort of any kind to follow the Supreme Court decision in Bruen. I did see one guy in town who wore a t-shirt that said, “Pack the Court. Until then, ignore them.”

Seems like he speaks for Hollis. And indeed, all the other towns and cities in New Hampshire that refuse to enforce the Bruen decision.

Good job, folks. Makes total sense.

Our society is folding like a $1.99 lawn chair, so why not just ignore the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and anything else you don’t like?

The post New Hampshire Refuses To Enforce the Right To Bear Arms appeared first on Granite Grok.

Vermont is serious about destroying its economy and residents via meaningless reductions in carbon emissions. They’ve got commissions, committees, targets, and standards, so they’ve also got reports about how all that’s not working out for them.

All that chin-stroking, finger-wagging, hand-winging, mandating, and regulating, and as of 2020, according to this report,  VT is the second highest emitter per capita in New England. The report is all about Vermont, but one of the key findings, the number one key finding, is “Vermont has the second highest per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in all of New England, behind only New Hampshire” (emphasis in the original).

New Hampshire is number one again!

I’m excited to hear that, but it got me thinking. New Hampshire’s economy (GDP) is much more robust than Vermont’s. In 2022, Vermont’s total GDP was a paltry 38% of New Hampshire’s. 40,830.8 Million (VT) Compared to 105,024.6 Million (NH).

Note: All the data used in this article is readily available on the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Website, which I chose to provide consistency in reporting across both states.

New Hampshire’s GDP per capita is $75,666.13, while Vermont’s is $63,092.67, and NH has double Vermont’s state population. We have more people creating value from the emissions we … emit. The result is that our GDP per metric ton of emissions is higher than Vermont’s. New Hampshire generates 7.9 million dollars of GDP per metric ton of “emissions” compared to Vermont’s 7.3 million in GDP per Metric ton.

I bring it up becasue for years (before China went ballistic and surpassed everyone in emissions), the Left used to bitch  endlessly about (a lot of things, and still does) how the US was responsible for 25% of the world’s emissions. We were also generating at least that much global GDP while others failed ot match emissions to productivity. But they left that part out and still do. And US emissions per GDP have shrunk while China’s has exploded.

If you want to get the most from your all-in, America is a better bet—the same applies to New England. We’ve got a lower tax burden, less welfare and poverty, a higher standard of living, low crime, and have had fewer of our natural rights infringed. And while I didn’t do the math for any other New England State state, I’m betting we fare well when it comes to the output we generate per capita compared to the emissions we allegedly emit, if emissions matter, which they don’t.

But if they did, does it make more sense to look for ways to handicap your people and their productivity or to optimize production from the energy used? I suppose both if you’re that keen on reducing a trace percentage of a trace substance that isn’t doing anything you claim, but that is not what the Left is doing. It is putting its crippling agenda before people, price, productivity, and prosperity, and it will continue to cost states like Vermont in ways that are a lot less invisible than CO2 and a lot more tangible, economically, than the voodoo political science of climate change.

And it is still New Hampshire’s problem. We share a grid with the rest of New England. When Vermont and Massachusetts signed on to California’s transportation emission goals, they tied us up, too, at least indirectly. Even if we never cut our wrists to bleed for on the alter of their environmentalism, the increased demand created by thousands of EVs, heat pumps, and whatever else they are planning will impact supply and drive up the price of electricity.

Unless the Governor and Legislature plan to make New Hampshire an energy-independent state willing to sell its excess into that grid, our advantage is at the mercy of their legislatures, and those bastards are crazy.

Someone should work out how we will sustain ourselves in the region faced with those complications before it’s too late. The Legislatures of Vermont and Massachusetts should not be enacting policies with that level of economic impact on New Hampshire’s citizens when we didn’t vote for them.

 

The post Vermont Emits Less “Carbon” than NH but Produces Less With it (So Is It Actually Emitting More?) appeared first on Granite Grok.

Many of us know and are experiencing an intense battle for TRUTH in the public forum of our National politics. The truth about the character of our leaders. The truth about the natural design of the human race. The truth about medical practices and health issues.

The truth about the atmosphere and climate change, and finally, the truth about the history of America’s founding.

The ongoing attempt by Academia to project a new version of our country’s founding and History through our education system is an attempt by the power of reinvention to change the idea of our country’s founding. Project 1619 is a collaboration of journalists trying to fit the narrative of negativity in regard to America being a great country, perhaps one of the greatest that has ever existed.

So let us approach the dilemma through the door of a quote from a famous author who is much on everyone’s mind today: George Orwell, you know him, the guy who wrote 1984. He said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

I would like to draw attention today to a particular area of American History that is most assuredly being denied and buried in public and private schools, as well as business settings and our courts, both State and Federal. Academia, particularly, has sought to suppress, rewrite, or conveniently ignore the vast information available about the role of Christianity as lived out in the entity we call the church in the founding of America.

In laying out a boundary to guide us, there were two settlements in early America, i.e., the 1600’s era. (There was a Spanish settlement in Florida by French Huguenots around 1565, now known as St. Augustine, but that is for another day.)

Jamestown, Virginia, and Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Jamestown (1607) was purely for economic reasons and was sponsored and paid for by the Virginia Company, and was a private venture that had been granted a royal charter by King James I, hence named in honor of His Majesty.

Plymouth (1620-1691) was founded by a group of Separatists initially known as the Brownist Emigration (named for their leader Robert Browne), who came later to be known as Pilgrims. Their desire was to be in a land where they were free to worship God as they saw best, not the established religion of the King of England.

The Pilgrims flourished after a few years of struggle, and we have often been told their story in history as a result of their thankfulness to God for preserving their lives. (One of our greatest holidays is in honor of their faith and thankfulness to God for preserving them, THANKSGIVING, and is still celebrated today.) Much can be said here, but this is a summation in its most basic format.

The Puritan influence, however, was a little different. The Puritans arrived in 1630, ten years after the Separatists, and had money and resources. They did not separate themselves from the Church of England completely. They thought they could create a true community of faith under the auspices of the Church, but they had to do it in another land. The Puritans overshadowed the Pilgrims in numbers and resources. As they gained ascendency, the American colonies, particularly in New England, became the wealth center of the New World. Fast forward 150 years….the colonies are now established and engaging in the IDEAS of freedom from England’s rule. These ideas resulted in what we call the American Revolution. Where did these ideas of independence, self-rule, self-government, freedom from government oppression, and equal justice for all come from?

The American Revolution was a direct result of people being educated on a mass scale. There were no public schools during the revolution period of the country. However, children were educated in numerous ways…parents, Pastors, tutors, philosophical societies, apprenticeships,  and dame schools in which the children were taught to read and write by women in their own kitchens. The Old Deluder’s Law of 1642 was passed in the Massachusetts Colony and stated that “All youth are to be taught to read perfectly the English tongue, have knowledge in the laws, (civics) and be taught some orthodox catechism.” (religion)

No separation of government and God could be found anywhere.

The Pastor was the single most powerful voice to influence and inspire the thinking and reasoning of the colonists. For example, Over the span of the colonial era, American ministers delivered approximately eight million sermons. These messages were often one-and-a-half to two hours or more in length. Based upon this, the average 70-year-old churchgoer would have listened to 7,000 sermons in his or her lifetime, which consisted of over 10,000 hours of listening and learning. This is the equivalent of ten separate undergraduate degrees in a modern university.

The sermons provided families with a superb educational experience. Sunday morning was not only a time to gather for friendship and local town news but also to hear a message from an individual who was probably the most educated in the community. The sermon was based on Biblical knowledge first and foremost.  However, due to the formal training of most ministers, the sermon often referenced the great historical thinkers of classical literature and leaders of the day in government, philosophy, and science. Pastors would read the laws recently passed in Congress and teach the congregation whether or not this law was in alignment with the Bible’s teaching on the subject.

Sermons were a part of the culture of the day. Many public occasions, such as Thanksgiving, election day sermons, local militia sermons, and, of course, weddings and funerals. Many sermons were published as political pamphlets.

George Bancroft, a 19th-century statesman and historian, wrote, “The Revolution of 1776, as far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons in the New World -the English Puritans, the Scottish Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster (Ireland). The American Revolution was but the application of the principles of the Reformation to civil government.”

I am looking forward to bringing you vital information on the role of the Clergy and the Bible in connection to the foundation of our country as a CITY ON A HILL, a direct quote from Puritan leader John Winthrop, who connected America to a divine destiny. This phrase was used by other founders and in our modern time, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Regan. The author of the quote, of course, is Jesus Christ. (Matthew 5:14)

Until next week….

Allen Cook, Senior Pastor
Grace Ministries International
Brentwood, NH

 

Editor Note: Pulpit Polity will be a regular Sunday morning feature on GraniteGrok.com.

The post Pulpit Polity – Faith, Education, and America’s Founding appeared first on Granite Grok.