Thank you to those who use Gmail and participated in our recent research project. We asked Gmail users who signed up for the Daily Grok if they were getting their emailed newsletter every day. Those who responded were not. Gmail appears to be embargoing our content.

I checked the newsletter plugin send history for the emails provided in each instance. They were being sent every day, but the recipients were not getting them, and they were not in spam. Whitelisting did not help.

I am at a loss for how to proceed. Google doesn’t have to explain itself to me, so all I can do is share what we have found with the world and see if they have the same issue. If you are a center-right new media concern with a newsletter or content that gets emailed, are your Gmail users receiving it?

You’d best ask. I’m sure many are, but then some may not, and I lack the time or resources to pursue this past the following. For those willing to do it, I’d suggest opening a free proton mail account and signing up for the newsletter using that address.

Please.

We rely on increasing traffic to generate ad revenue, above donations, which are many and generous (and we appreciate every dollar) but not enough to cover every expense. Our 2024 budget is not yet fully funded. We can pick at that with increased traffic, which we might get if Google didn’t appear to block access to our newsletter.

We have more than a few folks who only come to the site because of that newsletter. To those folks, please visit the site at least once daily if you are not interested in setting up a separate email to bypass Google’s censorship. We’d appreciate it, and you’d get to read the content you wanted all along.

We will let you know if anything changes about Gmail and our newsletter. If you are a Gmail user getting the newsletter in Gmail, please let us know. Perhaps there’s a “secret handshake” we can share with readers to assist them in resolving the issue.

[Update] A reader has informed me that he used his Hotmail account to subscribe and is not receiving these either. I verified that our application has been sending him the newsletter daily. If I read it correctly, Microsoft owns Hotmail, which is the Windows Outlook mail service with the vestigial @Hotmail extensions for existing users (before 2012). We’ll test this against Outlook and see what happens. As for the reader, he says he is opening a free Protonmail account, and we appreciate that.

The post Is Gmail Blocking Your Email Newsletter, Too!!! [Update] appeared first on Granite Grok.

With all the devastating news about urban crime, drug overdoses, illegal immigration, rampant homelessness, out-of-control budgets, and educational failures, it is encouraging that President Donald Trump has committed his next administration to saving America’s cities.

As Just the News reported, “With the nation’s first primary state as a backdrop, former President Donald Trump took aim Saturday at Democrats’ urban strongholds, vowing to both secure and revitalize blue cities weary from years of violence and economic decay.”

As the outlet reported, President Trump told a crowd in Durham, New Hampshire, “We’re going to rebuild our cities into beacons of hope, safety, and beauty. It will be the greatest investment ever made.”

This is encouraging. All too often, Republicans have neglected our great cities – or been openly hostile toward them because of their Democratic leadership.

Perhaps the most famous example of this was an Oct. 29, 1975 speech in which then-President Gerald Ford explained why he would not help New York City with its fiscal crisis.

The following day, the New York Daily News had a huge page-one headline: “Ford to City: Drop Dead.”

President Ford was philosophically right as a fiscal conservative and federalist, but the political message was devastating for Republicans.

I served with Buffalo Congressman Jack Kemp, who was the most innovative pro-city Republican with whom I have ever worked. Kemp developed a program for enterprise zones to help encourage business development in the poorest parts of cities. Working with civil rights activist Bob Woodson, the two developed a program to allow people in public housing to put in sweat equity and eventually gain ownership of their units. Kemp and Woodson followed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in trying to create an ownership society.

One of the most striking moments in U.S. House debate history was when an outraged Democrat Congressman Barney Frank, who opposed Kemp’s proposal, argued that under the plan, a poor family in New York City might be able to acquire a property worth $1 million in the New York market. It did not seem to occur to Frank that helping poor people become wealthy was a good idea.

President Trump, a product of Queens and Manhattan, understands that we cannot be a great nation if our great cities decay and die. Consider his own words from a speech about saving America’s cities in Reno, Nevada:

“[W]e’re going to indemnify police officers and law enforcement officials throughout the United States from being destroyed by the radical left for taking strong actions on crime. They’re going to be indemnified… Policemen are forced not to do anything when they want to, and under the threat of losing their pension, their house, and their family, they lose everything, and they’re afraid to move. … We’re not going to let that happen anymore.

“In addition, we will take over our horribly-run Washington, DC – and clean up, renovate, and rebuild our Capitol so that it is no longer a nightmare of murder and crime. You see what’s happening. But rather, will become the most beautiful Capitol anywhere in the world. It’s a mess. It’s a filthy, disgusting mess. Our parks will be cleaned, the tents and graffiti, all of these tents and graffiti, right in the middle of the most beautiful parks in the world. Those tents and graffiti will be removed. Slum areas will be demolished and rebuilt to the highest level of architectural elegance. Washington, DC, will become a symbol of beauty, security, freedom, and strength…

“In addition to our Capitol, we are going to rebuild our cities into beacons of hope, safety, and beauty. Better than they have ever been before. We are going to focus on our cities… It will be the greatest investment ever made in these cities. And we will work closely with Democrat leaders. They are all run by Democrats if you can believe it. But we’ll work closely with the Democrat leaders of all these failing places to make sure that this rebuilding will be a lasting and compassionate one. It’ll be a great rebuilding. Safety will again be restored so that our children can go out with their parents, mother, and father and play in the park without being beat up, molested, or shot. Students will be able to walk to school in peace, criminal rates will plummet, and people will long, just long, to move back to the city again.”

The fact that President Trump explicitly included working closely with Democrat leaders is a good step toward making the second Trump administration more bipartisan – but still deeply committed to reform.

This was an encouraging speech for our future and a real commitment to save America’s citizens. It is a good step toward bringing Americans together and healing some of the partisan divisions.

Those who are committed to union incompetence, leftwing extremism, and keeping power will fight against a program to save America’s cities. Most Americans, however, will be excited by the vision of a safe, prosperous, and forward-looking urban future.

I expect the American people will win.

Newt Gingrich | RealClear Wire

The post President Trump’s Plan to Save America’s Cities appeared first on Granite Grok.

It’s now obvious, since our awakening to Fake News, that truth has been a stranger, an unknown that few recognize and few are willing to consider. This is the intended result of at least three generations of media preaching and academic lecturing against its ageless reliability.

This agenda has revised history and today’s events into their slanted versions, and it was a must since truth is inherently woven throughout our American Founding.

This coming election has the establishment doing flips in order to protect its authority and territory from Donald Trump’s publicly pledged threats, which in turn makes him a must target since he represents “the last man standing.”

This means he has the financial resources, love of country, personal knowledge, and stamina to challenge the status quo. Who is left that could cope with what Trump has dealt with? And this blends over into many of his former Presidential associates who are being legally harassed with the aim of incurring financial ruin. The message is clear, and it’s meant to be!

So, anything goes. Already, we’ve watched as lie after lie mounts without any public or judicial pushback. This is publicly insulting when the term “insurrection” is cast like confetti upon Trump and all those patriotic hostages from January 6th! As a result, America’s silence incriminates all of the silent, both citizens and public officials, but particularly the latter, who have sworn an oath to defend and uphold our Constitution.

Trump’s messaging is not only truthful but after his first four Presidential years, his campaign promises and word messaging have been both validated by action and with the public’s noticing of its truth. That last item, words of truth, reminds me of one of Mom’s sayings, “The truth hurts.” Trump’s bluntness originally offended, but in the end, he was only speaking the truth, what needed saying since it’s been absent for too long!

Once in office, the media ramped up accounts of his gruff and brutish style. Actually, it did seem gruff since again, the “brutal truth” had been buried for so long! It’s true; his talk is not of the career-minded and glib-talking politician, but that’s his appeal, which is reviving our American pulse.

Trump was more than successful in his prior years, so he need not follow the career politician’s urgency for voter appeal. Therefore, he was free to condemn America’s ongoing immigration issue, which sent alarms throughout the establishment. His 2016 republican opponents were shocked at the mere mention of this issue.

In reality, both political parties are content as cheap labor pleases one while building the voter base for the other. Not so with Trump’s 2016 messaging; his concern was for representing the “forgotten” American and for bettering the country that he loves! So yes, his bluntness was shocking, even gruff, but it had a beneficial purpose, and it was long overdue!

Remember when charges of “fake news” first started? Voters then began to notice and compare what was reported versus what they actually witnessed, especially when tuning into the latest Trump rally! As a result, his words again gained validation along with a positive recognition of their truth.

That “fake” moniker preceded another media truism: fake news is “the enemy of the people.” Immediately, the media grabbed onto it as the crazy rhetoric of a power-hungry dictator. However, as time passed, the stream of false reporting continued, which in itself validated his follow-up media blast.

His defiant march to “the Church of the Presidents” after its 2020 fire prompted the media’s ridicule when, in front of the church, he held the Bible up high. Contrary to press accounts, many were pleased and gratified with finally having a President who proudly exhibited his faith in public rather than referring to our Creator by saying, “You know, the thing.”

In his recent rally in Durham, New Hampshire, his words were blunt but necessary and well received. Trump’s messaging gruffly stated, in part, that Biden is the “worst, most incompetent, and most corrupt President in the history of our Country.” At this point of Biden’s term, who’s to argue?

It’s time that Americans shed their sensitive frailties for the preservation of our nation. Blunt and/or gruff language is often the most reliable and necessary backbone of leadership. Yes, truth is often hurtful, but it’s our most formidable and protective weapon against this evil, and thanks to a gruff-speaking leader, we are now fortunate to have this chance to welcome its return from those dark shadows!

The post Truth Can Be Hurtful But It Is Our Most Potent Weapon Against Evil appeared first on Granite Grok.

Tucker Carlson, who recently announced his own new media network, has been making the podcast rounds, talking to hosts of a variety of different ideological backgrounds.

An interview a few weeks ago with Dave Smith had a moment that went viral when both men proclaimed Bill Buckley as a great villain of the 20th Century. (Murray Rothbard would agree.) Recently a new clip with Glenn Greenwald made the social media rounds with Carlson claiming that “libertarian economics is a scam perpetrated by the beneficiaries of the economic system.”

Understandably, this quote made Carlson an immediate target for libertarians who frequently celebrate his takes on foreign policy but often cringe when he ventures into economic commentary. While the reaction to defend the label of “libertarian” is both understandable and important, particularly at a time where progressive-financed economic centers are seeking to launder economic interventionism as a “rightwing” cause, the reality is that Carlson’s critiques are not entirely invalid.

While the most prominent libertarian of our era, Ron Paul, and many accomplished libertarian economists, many of whom are affiliated with the Mises Institute, have stayed committed to a rigorous defense of free markets, the unfortunate reality is many of the organizations that are most active in political policy have often failed to do so. For those who have spent most of their time in Washington, most of their experience with self-proclaimed libertarian policymakers will be at cocktail parties at the Cato Institute, AEI, or one of the many Koch-funded outlets.

If one gives Carlson the grace to understand his underlying concern, his larger criticism of alleged defenders of “free markets” becomes more palatable.

Though libertarians rightfully scoff at the notion that libertarian values have ever held any strong grip on DC policymakers, it is true that “economic liberalism” has become the default label of almost all economic policy think tanks. Particularly in a post-Cold War world, the idea of any serious person in Washington describing themselves as anything but an advocate for “capitalism” was alien prior to the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in 2016. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both have proudly described themselves as “capitalists.”

While any definition of “capitalism” that can be claimed by any modern Democrat, or even the overwhelming majority of Republicans, could not at all be confused as “libertarian,” there has long been a class of “libertarian economist” who has maintained a general skepticism of direct government intervention while ignoring, or at sometimes cheering, one of the greatest drains on American prosperity: monetary policy.

The most obvious example is Milton Friedman. While numerous critiques of Friedman and his monetarist followers can be found by Austrian economists, one specific example of this blind spot is particularly worth noting: his advocacy of quantitative easing. Though Friedman passed in 2006, years before the Fed’s response to the financial crisis sparked by former Objectivist Alan Greenspan’s housing bubble, he explicitly advocated for Japan’s central bank to use money printing to buy government bonds as a way out of a financial crisis in the late 1990s. While Friedman would often voice skepticism of the wisdom of policymakers and central bankers, the unfortunate reality is that his economic views often helped provide useful intellectual cover to help justify new aggressive uses of their power. Ben Bernanke, a student of Friedman, brought this playbook to the Federal Reserve, making extensive use of Friedman’s recommendations.

It would be unfair to suggest that all Beltway “libertarian” economists actively advocate Bernanke’s moves. Given the gradual specialization of economics as a discipline, the reality is that many of the economists entrenched at various beltway organizations likely thought little about the larger consequences of the Fed. The problem, however, is that being blind to the broader economic distortions created by artificially-low interest rates, monetary inflation, and the ballooning of the Fed’s balance sheets makes it difficult to recognize the challenges they have created for Americans.

This has been on full display in recent years with the growing politicization of big business. Whether it is in the form of DEI and ESG requirements from large firms, the willingness to cooperate with the state for matters of censorship of Big Tech platforms, the weaponization of private employment as a means for policy enforcement over covid, the reflexive nature of “libertarians” to come to the defense of big business has created undeniable tension with a broader respect for individual liberty. As Carlson told Greenwald, “I think a smarter way to assess an economic system is by its results.”

Any libertarian economic thinking that results in a defense of the covid-regime, no matter how nuance is applied, is deserving of scorn by anyone who cares about the liberty for their families.

Similarly, the indifference of too many libertarian policy wonks towards monetary policies has led them to ignore many of the issues that concern individuals like Carlson. Reflexively defending the rights of increasingly activist big business ignores the role that Fed policy has played in corporate consolidation, effectively providing a subsidy to corporate America. While advocating tax cuts on those economic actors that have benefitted from the post-2008 Fed is certainly defensibly libertarian, the flip side is that their success has vastly outperformed the large percentage of Americans who have not benefited from this age of financialization.

One of Carlson’s go-to examples illustrating the failures of the modern American economy is the growth of dollar stores. While some libertarians may dismiss Carlson’s critiques of the “ugliness” of dollar stores, the reality is that the dollar store boom did coincide with the post-2008 economy. As wages for American workers stagnated while inflationary pressures continued, dollar stores came to “reign supreme” in retail. As Austrian economists have noted, one of the secondary consequences of the fiat money system has been the pressure it applies to middle and low-income consumers to make lower-quality substitutions in their spending habits. From 2008 to 2020, dollar stores saw an 89.7 percent increase in their grocery business.

It would, of course, be mistaken to place monetary policy as the sole reason for the success of Carlson’s hated dollar stores. From personal experience, their smaller nature can make them more convenient for simple purchases than larger outlets and perhaps for some they serve a purpose closer to a suburban convenience store rather than a dehumanizing symbol of neoliberal conquest. Still, Carlson’s concern about what their growth means for average Americans is not without merit as an illustration of how Washington policymakers are ripping Americans off.

The real problem with Carlson’s economic views is not his willingness to be overly broad with the label “libertarian,” but the trap of embracing a form of economic denialism due to his understandable disillusionment of our failed economic expert class. While Carlson may find attempts to clarify the best labels to apply to the modern economic system as “boring conversations,” valid critiques of what exists now should not result in dismissing capitalism’s virtues.

Further, it is noteworthy that modern economic nationalists who delight in cheering on Carlson’s attacks on libertarians as a way of promoting their own interventionist dreams are just as blind as the worst “libertarian economist” on the real cancer of our economic system. As I noted earlier this year, American Compass, one of the institutions that has benefited from progressive deep pockets, managed to create an entire policy document without any meaningful reference to the “Federal Reserve” or “monetary policy,” even though it has a chapter dedicated to “financialization.” Carlson, to his credit, has shown more interest in that topic.

This is precisely why Austrian economists have an important role in the current world. While the economic ideas of Milton Friedman have some culpability in the creation of the global economic mess in which we find ourselves, Austrian economic theories bear no responsibility. While too many libertarians cheered on alleged policy victories such as “Reaganomics” or NAFTA, libertarians like Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell joined with paleoconservatives in their concerns for the consequences these policies would have for the economy as a whole.

Tho Bishop is Editorial and Content Manager for the Mises Institute, and can assist with questions from the press. Prior to working for the Mises Institute, he served as Deputy Communications Director for the House Financial Services Committee. His articles have been featured in The Federalist, the Daily Caller, Business Insider, The Washington Times, and The Rush Limbaugh Show.

Tho Bishop | Mises Wire

The post Tucker Carlson is Not Entirely Wrong About “Libertarian Economics” appeared first on Granite Grok.