Is State Rep Alissandra Murray afraid of  GraniteGrok? I think Ali probably HATES GraniteGrok. You could see the hate all over Ali’s X before Ali made it “protected,” i.e., not public … which happened shortly after GraniteGrok began exposing Ali’s EXTREMISM and HATE using Ali’s own Xs (formerly tweets), e.g.: Support Anti-White Racism … Vote For Rep Alissandra Murray.

But now the HATE is hidden:

It’s such a shame. I was about to do a post called Manchester’s MYSOGYNIST State Rep regarding the hate Ali spewed on her X toward Riley Gaines. But apparently, Ali was afraid that the voters might see the real Ali—that is, see beyond the camouflage and mask that the Manchester Democrat Party outfits Ali with during election season.

So, is Alissandra Murray afraid of GraniteGrok? Well, I believe that Ali is afraid that GraniteGrok might expose enough of the EXTREMISM on Ali’s X that the voters will know that candidate Alissandra is a FAKE.

ESTAMOS AQUI! WE ARE HERE! Except you can’t see Ali because Ali is hiding.

The post Who’s Afraid Of GraniteGrok? … Manchester State Rep Alissandra Murray, That’s Who appeared first on Granite Grok.

Iran’s Mullah Military (IRGC) has acknowledged sending scores of military drones in targeted attacks on Israel in response to Israel’s attack on Iranians in Syria. The game is on people, and escalation is the word that matters.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has issued a statement confirming its launch of an attack on Israel, saying it is in response to the IDF’s earlier strike on a consular compound in the Syrian capital of Damascus. The April 1 airstrike killed several high-ranking Iranian commanders, including Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, among several other IRGC members.

The IRGC said it will hit specific targets in Israel with dozens of drones and missiles, reported Iranian state media.

Iran is also alleged to have seized a container ship in the straight of Hormuz linked to Israel, and of course, we have some thoughts.

After years of doing whatever it could to help fund and encourage Iran to militarize nuclear capability, the Obama/Biden administration did an about-face in recent months and turned antagonistic. The saber-rattling leads us to believe they wanted an all-out conflict, which the targeting in Syria has escalated.

I would be shocked if Biden’s CIA isn’t deliberately making hay on both sides of this conflict.

With a ship seizure at Hormuz, we get the double-edged sword of international involvement. At least a few Gulf States object to Iran’s long-time pursuit of regional hegemony. Saudi Arabia, for example, prefers the title, while the emirates want to be able to move oil. If Hormuz is a battleground, is it in the interest of the Gulf States to pick a side and go to war if it comes to that?

Biden is heading for a beating in November if he is indeed at the top of the ticket, so distractions are to his advantage. Hormuz gives the US an excuse to escalate and respond, as do recent pronouncements of support for Israel (if for no other reason than to use them to advance other aims), but there are a lot of Democrats who don’t like Israel and won’t like that.

Iran and Russia are allies (Russia and China have expressed shared interests against the US). Russia will use that to its advantage in any conversation about Ukraine.

The Mullahs are unpopular in Iran, and this could be used as an excuse to pursue regime change. Still, Democrats have never expressed much interest in benefiting anyone but the Mullahs.

Democrats ranted about Trump starting WWIII, but Trump didn’t start any wars, while Biden has supported several military conflicts and is on the verge of a third (fourth?) that could find the entire region in turmoil if not – at least technically – the world (and several of the nations involved have nukes). Nice job, Joe.

Watch the corporate media. Whatever they do or say odds are good, it’s the opposite of the truth.

And yes, this just scratches the surface (one comment elsewhere noted that Iran and other anti-IS factions) have terrorists in our country (thanks to Joe!).

Update from a reader.

I personally think that Hamas and now Iran are lighting things up because of the prophesy associated with the Red Heifer. Hamas admitted as much.

This attack by Iran is intended to stop the Red Heifer sacrifice this weekend or next. This is when the appropriate prayer will be said on the Sabbath.

The Iranian’s are desperate to stop it!

Reference: Red Heifer, Amalek, and Reactions of Nations

The post Iran’s Mullahs Are Retaliating Against Israel – How Does Biden Benefit? appeared first on Granite Grok.

Controversial new SEC Rules compel corporations to report the climate impact of each step of the supply chain. It’s complex, convoluted, and confusing at best – but is it constitutional? That was the question asked during a powerful hearing on March 18, 2024, before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Regulations.

SEC Chair Gary Gensler is accused of overstepping constitutional bounds in his zeal to weaponize the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate greenhouse gases, a far stretch from the agency’s mission to protect investors and ensure financial integrity in markets. Burdensome new rules do the opposite, threatening to inflict net-zero business profits in a kamikaze effort to achieve impossible net-zero emissions of carbon dioxide.

In a divided 3-2 decision on March 2, 2024, the SEC issued the controversial new “climate disclosure” rule as an 886-page amendment to S-K, which governs required disclosures in Form 10-Ks and other public filings. The rules purport to improve investor awareness, instead feeding the fantasies of climate ideology over investor concerns and imposing billions of dollars of compliance costs on businesses for a hazy effort to track every aspect of climate impact in each step of businesses’ complex supply chains. An even more ambitious plan under proposed “Scope 3” disclosures was curtailed.

The US Constitution (Art. 1, § 1 and § 7, cls. 2) provides that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The SEC was given the power to oversee financial markets, including “material” investor disclosures. The question in dispute is whether this extends to high-cost compliance efforts that will increase consumer costs for products and even close many businesses – including down-chain farming operations – that are already struggling with weak margins. This rule change is just one of many so-called climate initiatives under the Biden administration that exceed traditional administrative authority as defined by the courts.

Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles expressed this at the hearing:

“[W]e’ve seen these regulatory regimes come in and essentially function as members of Congress, as the body of Congress, by creating legislation and burdens by rulemaking …[through] SEC’s climate rules, which play to the tune of the administration’s obsession with the climate change religion, and that’s what it’s become, is a religion. Simply put, this rule will bully publicly traded companies into reporting environmental information that has no relevance to the financial concerns that matter to investors.”

The POTUS defied SCOTUS when he bypassed Congress to erase student debt, signaling that he seeks to escape the surly bounds of the Constitution and representative democracy in favor of tyrannical edicts and executive orders. The list of such episodes grows daily, including stricter EPA rules for gas emissions and expanded rules for wildlife protection that undermine farmers. Another sneaky initiative would create an international building code applicable to the entire nation, drafted by an unelected organization governed by “industry stakeholders” rather than We the People.

The Scope 3 disclosures originally proposed by Chairman Gary Gensler would have dramatically impacted farmers economically downstream from publicly listed companies subject to its provisions. California now seeks to impose Scope 3 rules in the SEC’s stead, a back-door assault on states’ rights akin to its Proposal 12 governing pig farming.

The legal term for a government or corporation exceeding its authority is “ultra vires” – Latin for “beyond the powers.” It describes an act requiring legal authority but done without it. The Scope 3 disclosures – abandoned for the moment by the SEC but eagerly embraced by California – are precisely that. Their impact on farming operations was summarized at the hearing by third-generation Tennessee tomato farmer Renea Jones, of Jones and Church Farms:

“Scope 3 emissions – as proposed in the original rule – are emissions which are the result of activities not owned by the company but are in its supply chain. Naturally, this includes family farms as most farm products, including the tomatoes grown on my farm, end up in the value chains of these companies….

“To comply with Scope 3 reporting requirements, we would need to hire a legal consultant and a chemist to keep up with all that would be required of us. Looking across the entire tomato supply chain, there are approximately 6,000 inputs involved in the growing of one tomato. On average, my farm produces 38.5 million tomatoes every growing season. From a record-keeping standpoint, my small family farm operation would have to hire extra staff just to keep up with the data the SEC is asking for. A rule with requirements this extensive would cause us to consider closing our doors. Profit margins for farm operations are already tight due to inflated input costs, and hiring extra help to navigate these requirements would make those tight margins even tighter, if not nonexistent.”

Scope 3 requirements would ensure net-zero carbon emissions for Jones when tomato production hit net-zero. This is not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater; this is shoving its head underwater in the name of a rescue effort.

On the other side of the climate-nut food-attack spectrum, New York’s now-infamous Letitia James has sued JBS Foods (the world’s largest producer of beef) for fraud for claiming it is implementing GHG-reducing regenerative agriculture policies. This “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” insanity is insouciantly ignored by fearmongering alarmists who have their regulatory cake and eat it too. The complexity of the case against JBS displays the near-impossible reporting burden being foisted on companies by the SEC’s new 886-page rule.

Subcommittee testimony from Whitney Hermandorfer, an attorney and Director of Strategic Litigation with the Tennessee Office of the Attorney General & Reporter, laid the SEC out in legal lavender, invoking constitutional protections and extensive case law to aver that the new rule lacks statutory authority, distorts existing “materiality” principles, and imposes undue compliance and speech burdens, all accomplished through a flawed process of enactment. Hermandorfer claimed Congress never granted broad power to the SEC or unelected Gensler, especially in such clear derogation of reserved states’ rights, and that the rule’s “ambiguous statutory language” will harm consumers and the economy:

“Under the Supreme Court’s major-questions doctrine, an agency must come forward with ‘clear congressional authorization’ before using a rule to settle an issue of great ‘economic and political significance.’ This principle reflects the commonsense presumption that Congress ‘does not…hide elephants in mouseholes’ when delegating agency authority.

“The lack of clarity around what it means for climate risks to be material will no doubt subject companies to costly litigation that would detract from innovation and investor value—thus harming rather than helping consumers on balance.”

Climate policies have interfered with power grid maintenance, creating grid fragility even as the electric vehicles that will spike demand are touted as salvific. Corporations have been granted massive tax subsidies to “store” liquid carbon dioxide underground with little hope it will stay put, while billions of dollars are “invested” into other corporate winners who manufacture renewable energy darlings that are presented as inflation-reducing but are regressively pumping up the national debt. This corporate favoritism is unavailable to small and mid-sized farms compelled without subsidy to comply with a Kafka-esque panoply of vague or burdensome regulations. Americans cannot eat solar panels, heat pumps, or EVs, no matter how much they are subsidized.

The post New SEC Climate Rules Are Burdensome – But Are They Constitutional? appeared first on Granite Grok.

People who think that cannabis should not be legal in New Hampshire are fond of quoting the governor of Virginia’s statement justifying his veto of a legalization bill in his state.

But here’s the thing about that statement: Nowhere in it does he address the question of where the government supposedly gets the power to tell people what substances they can’t ingest. The whole American system, from top to bottom, is based on the idea that governments can only exercise powers that are delegated to them.

Do you know of any individual who could go to his neighbor as an individual and insist that he stop ingesting any plant, whether that’s marijuana, chamomile, or lettuce? I don’t.

If individuals don’t have a power, how can they delegate that power?

Suppose we change the topic of the governor’s statement from pot to guns:

The proposed legalization of retail firearms in the Commonwealth endangers Virginians’ health and safety. States following this path have seen adverse effects on children’s and adolescent’s health and safety, increased gang activity and violent crime, significant deterioration in mental health, … and significant costs associated with retail firearms that far exceed tax revenue. It also does not eliminate the illegal black-market sale of firearms, nor guarantee product safety. Addressing the inconsistencies in enforcement and regulation in Virginia’s current laws does not justify expanding access to firearms, following the failed paths of other states, and endangering Virginians’ health and safety.

If you oppose legal cannabis, are you still on board with that reasoning? Or do you just pretend it’s valid when you agree with his conclusions? Because if the reasoning is valid for restricting access to pot, then it’s also valid for restricting RKBA, speech, religion, privacy, property, and every other ‘right’ that you might think you have.

The argument he’s making boils down to this: If some people exercise a right in ways that cause harm, then we are justified in taking that right away from everyone.

Do you support that premise? Because if you think about it carefully, it’s equivalent to this: There are no rights, only permissions.

The post Rights, or Permissions? appeared first on Granite Grok.